Various studies have shown that in the typical poll of church attendence people overstate their participation. Rather than being around 40% the number appears to be in the low 20's.

What this means is that the religious right consistently overstates the size of their followers in order to add weight to their movement.

The US is a secular society, with a core group of about 15-20% who are politically guided by religion. In addition there is another group who are "Sunday Christians". That is the belong to a religious organization, but give it only minimal attention. Then there are the majority whose religious character is completely nominal.

When polled people give the socially acceptable answer to contentious questions. Why should I tell a complete stranger over the phone what my beliefs are in various areas such as the existence of God or the validity of the Bible?

The Dems are correct in keeping the party secular. That means respecting people's rights to believe as they wish and to belong (or not belong) to the religious organization of their choice. This has always been the norm in the US ever since the dangers of a religiously based government were highlighted in the early colonial days in Salem and other places.

The religious right is misrepresenting the attitudes of the public in this area as they do in so many others.

-- Policies not Politics
by rdf on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 04:27:15 PM EST

Don't agree with Amy Sullivan, Wallis, et al. They are certainly entitled to their personal beliefs and to act on them but it would be a mistake to allow them to speak for the Democratic Party. The right has done more than enough pandering and I suspect that the electorate is catching on to the hypocrisy that accompanies it. Perhaps I'm naïve but it seems that the time has arrived for some integrity in politics. The right didn't gain votes by being `religious' or `Christian' but by pandering to a base that thought they had a lock on religion and Christianity and intimidated anyone who disagreed, charging them with `secularism.'. They were able to do this, in part, because moderates and liberals, who are less combative and tend not to wear their religion on their sleeves, were mute.

When all is said and done, the combination of liberal, moderate, and secular citizens accounts for about 70 to 75% of the population. If they act as a coalition to express shared values and address issues rather than religion, they are likely to be successful. It is also important for moderate and liberal clergy of all religions to be visible, speak out for their values, and be critical when necessary about the machinations of the religious right. This is starting to happen. One example is in Ohio where more than 30 moderate Christian and Jewish clergy in Ohio filed an IRS complaint against two fundamentalist churches who they said were exploiting their pulpits for political purposes. When the IRS had not responded within three months, they filed an additional complaint - this time with 54 clergy signing on. Whatever the outcome of any IRS investigation, the coverage of this filing by newspapers and TV - nationally as well as locally - serves the important goals of making voters aware of these problems and offers a model for actively confronting them. The filing may also helps to rein in some of the most egregious violators of church-state separation, in which case that will be a dividend.

Incidentally, don't always agree with Andrew Sulivan but in this case, I think he's right on - so conservatives and liberals can agree. As for fundamentalists - crunchy or otherwise - we should let them do their thing. Suspect we can't win over the vast majority of them.


by Psyche on Fri Apr 28, 2006 at 02:17:26 AM EST