RE: Roman Catholics and Orthodox Jews: their "fundamentalist" beliefs??? What is your designation based on, if not their strict adherance to a text or set of teachings? But I ask that more as a rhetorical question.
My own personal experience of Catholicism is that many practitioners, including myself, take an *enormous* amount of leeway in following, or not following, certain church teachings. Moreover, one strand of Church doctrine, while not always emphasized, holds that *individual conscience* is primary in making these decisions. Debra mentioned this some time ago. My sense is that those who follow the church's substantive teachings on controversial matters such as abortion and gay rights in absolute lockstep tend overwhelmingly to vote Republican, not Democratic. Of course, there are areas that are difficult to categorize, such as the church's opposition to capital punishment, and the necessity for economic justice. But the former stance is relatively new, and the latter carries within it sizeable room for interpretation. When the day is done, I simply don't see picking and choosing, not to mention using one's conscience to vote against church teaching on a regular basis, as "fundamentalist," and I likely never will. Do some "fundamentalist" Protestants vote Democratic? It probably happens ocassionally, as I allowed for last week. I simply don't think it happens very often, and the election figures Jerry posted back that up. The voting pattern you speak of is the exception, not the rule. I can state confidently that I have NEVER heard a liberal Democratic candidate endorsed on a Christian radio station or similar TV show, or read this kind of endorsement in a letter to the editor by a self-identifying "fundamentalist" Christian, although I've seen and heard a fair amount of anti-Democratic jibes on these shows, and in these letters. Re: the power of politically conservative Protestant evangelicals in this country, and in the Republican party: you may wish to distance yourself from it, and you may wish that this faction hadn't virtually hijacked the party 25 years ago. So do I. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I think, in contrast, that the evidence is rather strong that it did. This group has had a tremendous, concentrated influence on both party policy and on elections at all levels, from local school boards to the Presidency itself. As Jerry pointed out last week, 11% is a huge number when usual margins of victory are between 3 and 5%, and accordingly, this group has been courted aggressively. I would suggest, if you don't like this state of affairs, that you work within your local Republican party and perhaps beyond to organize the systematic presentation of a different conservative belief system. Some Republicans (most notably, those who support abortion rights) have indeed been been doing just that for years, but obviously, they felt there was a need for their actions. In short, we "fundamentally" disagree, both about the designation of the two religions above, and the power of politically conservative Protestant evangelicals in this country. I will accept that, while continuing to hold to my own beliefs, based on my experience and information. I do not believe that I have anything further to add to this subject. Mary. P. ----- Original Message ----- From: "kakki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mary E. Pitassi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Gerald Notaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:30 AM Subject: Re: Re: Alliterative Joni, Also , Tax Free (WARNING: Political Content!!! NJC) > > > Mary wrote: > > > > If you mean Roman Catholics, they are explicitly contravening certain > > official teachings of their church in voting Democratic, at least in many > > instances. I imagine that the same could be said, to a lesser extent, of > > Orthodox Jews. They're going against the grain. That's not my definition > > of a "fundamentalist." > > There are huge numbers of people of these religions who vote Democratic. I > think they do hold to their fundamentalist beliefs privately even though > they may vote for some whose platform does not always coincide precisely > with those beliefs. > > > I believe that when most people speak of "fundamentalist Christians," they > > do indeed mean evangelical Protestants. If you'd like to broaden the > > definition of "fundamentalist" to include members of any religion who hew > to > > either a literal interpretation of a text or certain very basic (or > > "fundamental") teachings, fine. My guess, however, is that that's not > what > > most people think of when they use that term in the United States. > > That's interesting to me, because I know a number of people who indeed have > fundamentalist beliefs, i.e. funadamentalist protestants who believe in > strict biblical interpretation and are very devoted to the particular > teachings of their faith which are not at all "liberal", who continue to > vote Democratic. Just as the Republican party is made up of a myriad of > people, so is the Democratic. I guess my point is that people are complex > and often vote the way they do for any number of reasons outside any > procribed party line of the moment. It seems like the perception is that > the "hawk right wing Christian fundamentalists" have some major power. I > just don't perceive it that way. Again, I think that it depends on what > part of the country one if from. I always looked at the Robertson/Falwell > types as a small group out of small section of the South, who did gain some > vocality because they raised money for their TV empires and therefore had a > microphone, but who, in reality, are still a regional anomaly in the > overall demographic of the US. > > Kakki
