"...if you are trying to understand religion's impact on society by how people see themselves from the inside, not by observations from outsiders," says John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
I think that this entire article is an interesting look at religion's role in politics. Everyone has an opinion of who God is. It's easy to say that all Christians, no matter the sect, worship the same God, but honestly stepping back, it's false. There are people out there who will admit to being Catholic, but don't believe that same sex marriage is wrong. These people, though the religion they affiliate themselves with is more conservative, are not going to elect someone into office who doesn't hold their beliefs. It's almost harder for the presidential nominees to target just the overall Christian vote, when there are so many different Christian people out there.
What a person believes religion is shows in the way they live their life. It shows in the books people buy, the movies people choose to watch, down to the presidential nominee they are going to elect.
Not everyone is a radical Christian. Not everyone believes every word of the Bible to be true. In order to win the Christian vote the nominees must understand that not everyone is the typical Christian.
The same can be said about the politicians, particularly Obama. While true he establishes himself to be a Christian he is also believes that gay and lesbian people do not choose to be gay and lesbians. It is in the bible that this practice is wrong. So does that make it wrong? Depends which Christian you're asking.
Religion is what makes the issues so controversial. People's beliefs are played out into action. In the past it was said that beliefs couldn't be controlled by law, but practice can. People who vote are putting their beliefs into action. So its almost like law is being controlled by religion. Who people identify themselves on the inside is shown by what issues matter to them on the outside.
So it's crucial for the candidates to see people as individuals, not just some group of people categorized according to their religion.
"Though 12.2% overall say abortion is wrong in all circumstances, the number nearly doubles to 23.4% for those who see an authoritarian God and slides to 1.5% for followers of a distant God."
These are all Christians. Yet, 98.5% of those who believe in a distant God think that abortion isn't wrong. If one just looks at just this group of Christians, 98.5% are pro-choice. 76.6% of those who believe that God is absolute and his word is true still believe that abortion may not be as wrong as the Bible says it is. Yet, the pro-life movement is more or less backed by Christian ideals. Religious values do not dictate all people who believe in the Christian religion. So I believe it's almost foolish to continue on the campaign trail trying to win the votes of religious conservatives. Instead, they should be trying to win the votes of just people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
The main takeaway from Grossman's article should be that the researchers' "Four Gods," Authoritarian, Benevolent, Critical or Distant, "tell more about people's social, moral and political views and personal piety than the familiar categories of Protestant/Catholic/Jew or even red state/blue state." She and the researchers would say that for campaigns to strategize around a Political Liberal/Religious Conservative dichotomy is to ignore the public at large. At the same time, the media seem to have an interest in polarizing politics—it sells. Parties should know better than to alienate the “middle,” but it’s difficult to pass on an opportunity to take a jab at the caricaturized other side.
While Liz suggests that “not everyone is the typical Christian,” I think that she means stereotypical; to me, the Baylor study suggests that there is no such thing as a typical Christian. Her example of Obama’s gay marriage and abortion views, especially in contrast with Rick Warren’s Saddleback congregation, is a striking example of the broad spectrum of policy views among Christians. I do think that Liz slightly misinterpreted the statistic about abortion, but it was not particularly well articulated by Grossman. It isn’t that 98.5% of all “distant God” followers are pro-choice or think that abortion “isn’t wrong,” but that they don’t oppose abortion in ALL circumstances (such as rape or incest). However, the statistic can still be useful in shedding light on where public opinion is concentrated or distributed, instead of leaving judgments in policy issues black and white.
We should be cautious in considering Baylor’s study “by far the most comprehensive national religion survey to date,” as Grossman does, because the sample size is only 1,721 Americans. In contrast, the Pew Forum’s U.S. Religious Landscape Study, released February 2008, surveyed 35,000 Americans with a comparable level of detail. Still, Baylor’s study is politically relevant in that it quantifies support on issues like stem cell research and gay marriage, as well as Christianity’s role in government, across and within all “God” types.
Unfortunately, categorizing voters into blocs seems to be the most efficient way to develop a successful party platform (one that most people will tolerate). And, as much as I would like my individual views to be reflected in a candidate’s platform, our electoral system is too inhospitable to third parties to make officeholders accountable to anyone other than larger voting blocs. The Baylor study may quantify what we already knew; that the relationship between religion and policy preference is more complicated than evangelical Republicans versus atheist Democrats. But we have to assume that the campaigns have done their polling homework; either religious conservatives form a sufficiently large voting bloc to warrant campaign attention, or the two-party system makes it so that the platform only has to be less unappealing than that of the other party.
I'm sorry Liz but I do not quite agree with you. I do not believe that religion is the only thing that makes a topic controversial. There are so many factor that count towards our views, yes religion is one, but something as simple as the demographic that a person was raised in plays into the thouht process that raises beliefs and views and makes them controversial. I agree with you that religious beliefs weigh in on our decisions when it comes to morals and in hindsight helps us decide who we want to vote for, but there truly are so many other factors. I will say that I am Catholic and I do not agree with a lot of what the Catholic Church says, but my faith alone will not guide me to vote with my religion. I will vote for the candidate that meshes with what I believe in as a whole, not what my faith believes in.
I agree with Drew on this. Grossman's article seems to assert some authority in an area I think he doesn't fully understand, either. He starts by sayint the survey he uses is the most comprehensive. We have no way of weighing that claim except to searc for other survey's. What struck me the most from Liz's post, though, was her claim that not all Christian's are "typical Christians." It's my hope that, as Drew suggests, she meant stereotypical. Lumping all with the typical label falls into the trap that she herself wants politicians to avoid. Moreover, I think that our contemporary political system does not allow for blocs not to be targeted.
I agree with Drew that we should be cautious when considering Baylor’s study to be “by far the most comprehensive national religion survey to date.” How can we say that’s really true when the poll size is a mere seventeen-hundred? In order to have an accurate poll, you must have a large polling size. I think Baylor’s study would be more relevant politically speaking if the poll size was much bigger than seventeen-hundred and more like “Pew Forum’s U.S. Religious Landscape Study, which polled 35,000 Americans.” I think that this study is relevant, but simply cannot be accurate due to the number of people polled.
Post a Comment