Religion and the public agenda
A polling organization called Public Agenda has placed a report on the web that suggests that people here in the US are less willing than previously to believe that elected officials are right to compromise.
“Compromise has a long and important history in American politics,” said Ruth A. Wooden, President of Public Agenda. “But in 2004, there were more Americans who wanted elected officials to keep their religious principles in mind when they vote on issues like abortion and gay rights. We found double-digit decreases in support for compromise on these issues among those who attend services weekly and among Catholics. The changes are really quite dramatic.”
The data itself was collected prior to the November election, and some of the questions are much more interesting — and less provocative — than that quote from the press release would suggest. The whole report is available for free download, if you’re willing to register at the site (it’s not clear to me whether such registration will bring you a barrage of mail).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
1 Comment
Michael Hayes commented on 23 March 2005:Subject: Christian theocracy, or minority rights?
(1) In 1960, candidate John Kennedy said that he would not expect church leaders to adhere to his beliefs about how the Catholic religion should operate, and that he, in turn, hoped that Catholic leaders would not attempt to influence his decisions, were he to be elected. In 1960, Catholic leaders did not tell Catholic voters not to vote for John Kennedy.
In 1973, the US Supreme Court determined that a woman could chose to have an abortion. I think that decision and other subsequent decisions allow female citizens to choose abortion, if they conclude it is the best decision, for them. Generally, abortion cannot be restricted by states, during the first trimester, but states are allowed to restrict abortions beyond the first trimester, based on then current case law.
In 2004, some Catholic leaders clearly implied that Catholic voters should not vote for John Kerry, in part because John Kerry insisted that he would respect case law, regarding abortion rights, in his appointments to the US Supreme Court.
I think Catholic leaders should have stuck to explaining their religious beliefs, without endorsing (or blackballing) any candidate.
Why? Because religious leaders should not be attempting to have their beliefs incorporated into law, in the US. The convenient fact is that the majority of citizens of the US are Christians, and so advocating that Christian beliefs be incorporated here might seem fine, for those who are Christians.
But not all citizens here are Christian. And US law prohibits enacting law which "establishes" religion. I think that prohibition applies to enactment or interpretation of law, requiring pregnant women to abide by the Christian belief about abortion, which regards human life to begin at conception.
(Also, why would any voter, who might otherwise vote for a Catholic candidate but who is concerned about restrictions placed upon a candidate by the Catholic religion, vote for a Catholic candidate who won't stand up for the rights of all citizens under the US constitution?)
(2) I don't think the US constitution envisions a theocracy, here. But, I do think some Christian leaders are advocating that laws respecting abortion, right to die, stem cell research, and gay marriage, ought to incorporate Christian religious beliefs, which is what a Christian theocracy would attempt to do.
In many countries the majority of citizens are Islamic, Hindu, or Buddist. Consistency with the position of Christian leaders in the US would allow Islamic, Hindu, or Buddist leaders to require elected officials who belong to one of those religions to incorporate Islamic, Hindu, or Buddist beliefs into the laws of those countries.
A majority of Iraqis are Muslim, some Sunni and some Sheite, but Christians are a very small minority. Most citizens of the US, including those who disagree with the preemptive war policies of George W Bush, want the Iraqi people to succeed in creating a government which affords its citizens rights similar to the rights we enjoy. But many knowledgeable persons are concerned that Iraq might become a Sheite theocracy.
If Catholic elected officials here in the US are expected by Catholic leaders to ignore beliefs of others in favor of Catholic beliefs, what then is to be expected of Sunni Muslims or Sheite Muslims in Iraq? Could Catholics (a small minority) in Iraq object if Sharia were to become the law of the land in Iraq?
Specifically, what if Iraqi law, under Sharia, were to regard blasphemous speech to be punishable by death, not just for Muslims (as in The Sudan), but for all citizens? How could Catholics in Iraq object, consistent with the view of Catholic leaders in the US that Catholic elected officials must try to incorporate a Catholic belief about abortion into the laws of the US? I think what Catholic leaders in the US are doing here, may not consider what that position implies for minority Catholics in a non-Christian country.
Thanks. Mike