Logo

Cry of the Poor
"How can it be that even today there are still people dying of hunger? Condemned to illiteracy? Lacking the most basic medical care? Without a roof over their heads? . . .


"Christians must learn to make their act of faith in Christ by discerning His voice in the cry for help that rises from this world of poverty."
-- Pope John Paul II
Novo Millennio Ineunte, no. 50

Upcoming events

Why register?
All Christians and people of all faiths are welcome here!
If you want to post in forums without moderator approval, or submit blog entries, you will need to CREATE AN ACCOUNT BELOW by simply entering a username and email address. Trouble registering? We'll help: info[at]catholicsfordemocracy.org

User login
· Create new account
· Request new password

Essential Links
USCCB Faithful Citizenship
NETWORK Catholic Lobby
Democrats for Life
Bread for the World
Catholic Charities USA
Pax Christi USA
Franciscans International -- a United Nations NGO



Democracy for America
Join Democracy for America!
Follow the Webby Award People's Choice: Blog for America

Government Websites
The White House
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Supreme Court

Catholic Political & News Sites
Catholics for Kerry 04
Kerry Catholics
Catholics for Kerry Yahoo!
In Today's News

The Nation Weblogs
· The Daily Outrage: Blocking the Buckeye Vote
· ActNow!: Help Stop Racial Profiling
· Editor's Cut: Scientists and Engineers For Change
· Capital Games: Up the River?
· The Online Beat: CBS: No News, Just Stenography
· Editor's Cut: United Progressives for Victory
· ActNow!: Voter Registration Day
· The Daily Outrage: C Stands for Coward
· The Online Beat: Debate Halliburton
· The Daily Outrage: Playing Down Pain

Prince of Peace

Have Mercy On Us
and on the
Whole World


 Re-Igniting the Religious Left  
Blog submitted by CfDnews on Mon 30 Aug 2004 - 08:21 h  
by Joe Feuerherd

published by Tom Paine, ProgressiveTrail.org


In the 2000 presidential election, 60 percent of the 42 million adult Americans who told pollsters they attend church weekly supported George W. Bush over Al Gore. Today, even higher numbers of weekly churchgoers say they’re likely to vote Republican in 2004.

By contrast, those who attend church less regularly tend to favor Democrats, with that party capturing nearly two-thirds of the relatively small number of voters who say they never enter a church. It wasn’t always the case. The correlation between church attendance and partisanship is a relatively new political phenomenon in the United States.

“We’re in a religion fad now,” said Alan Wolfe, director of Boston College’s Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life. “Nobody really remembers FDR’s religion, or George H.W. Bush’s for that matter, which is different from his son’s. The only time John Kennedy mentioned his religion was when he distanced himself from it.”

Today, said Wolfe, “People want to believe in the character of their leaders and they see faith as some clue to that person’s character.” As recently as 1988, according to Pew Research Center polling, “white evangelical Protestants were split fairly evenly along partisan lines.” Today, said Pew, “there is a nearly two-to-one Republican advantage among white evangelicals” while “the partisanship of non-evangelical white Protestants and black Protestants... has been relatively stable.”

The impact on politics, particularly at the presidential level, is profound. In 2000, Bush got 80 percent of the 15 million votes cast by “white evangelical Protestants.” And non-Hispanic Catholics, once a bulwark of any winning Democratic coalition, are now as likely to be Republicans as Democrats.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean’s awkward attempts to engage in religious rhetoric—he mistakenly placed the Old Testament’s Book of Job in the New Testament—are an indication that even the most secular Democrats realize the pull of religious values on the electorate.

How did Republicans build a political base of the devout?

Conservatives argue that an increasingly secular national Democratic Party, wary of undue entanglements between church and state and defensive on such hot button issues as abortion and school prayer, forfeited the religious playing field to the right. Some liberals agree. “Perhaps it’s somewhat our own fault,” said the Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson, executive director of the newly formed Clergy Leadership Network. “The religious voice has been too much turned over to conservative voices and we feel that most of America lies somewhere in the center. The radical right has taken over the religious microphone.” “For a long period of time in the liberal world,” said Wolfe, “there was a real fear of religion. There was a sense that religion was hostile to civil liberties, hostile to the interests of women and to other elements of the liberal coalition.”

In addition, liberals, both secular and religious, give credit to their counterparts on the political right for exploiting the technologies that rally and inform their faithful. Among those tools: talk radio, cable news (particularly the Fox network), the Internet, Washington-based think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, and interest groups (Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, the Traditional Values Coalition) that connect grassroots believers with policymakers.

Read Full Article

 
  CfDnews's blog · add new comment · 368 reads
CfD News

Comment viewing options:
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to submit your changes.

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John? 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 10 Sep 2004 - 05:57 h  
Townhall.com
Column written by Oliver North in response to John Kerry's
phrase, "Bring it on."
August 27, 2004 |

"Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never
question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a
Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to
have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it
on.'" -- Sen. John Kerry

Dear John,

As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President
George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your
military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who
served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not
the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

< I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your
medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star.
I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I
could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might
agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers
always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never
got as many medals as they deserved.

< This really isn't about how early you came home from that war,
either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home.
There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam,
who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots
of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to
return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks
ago, "the job isn't finished."

< Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve,
1968.

Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say
so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really
weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president
when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how
you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory --
especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear
trigger.

< But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having,
John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost --
or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home,
John.

< When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War
and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and
were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of
all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam
--
of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

< On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally
raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable
telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up
bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion
reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned
food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And
you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of
atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

< And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any
other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture
of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."

< Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us
carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And
for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who
suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of
American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them
endured because of you, John:

< Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody
when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says
that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be
punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.

< Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese
custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner
about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was
released March 4, 1973.

< Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as
solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He
remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

< John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about
your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities,"
instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your
words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or
does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways,
John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib,
much less commander in chief.

< One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say
something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I
caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to
help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was
thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt
them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

< Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John? 
reply to this comment

Post new comment
Your name:
Unregistered
Subject:
Comment:

Theodore Roosevelt

"To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people."


CfD News
· Re-Igniting the Religious Left
· Eroding Respect for America Seen as Major Problem
· Forbidden City
· Marchers Denounce Bush as They Pass G.O.P. Convention Hall
· RNC Displaces NYC's Homeless
· RNC Displace NYC's Homeless
· Pro-Life Democrats Are Not So Naive
· UN human rights expert urges Peru, US to protect health in trade deal
· UN human rights expert urges Peru, US to protect health trade deal
· John Kerry Picks Running Mate

Blogs
· Round 3: Abortion - Bush v. Kerry
· Why Americans Support the War
· Round 2: Health Care- Bush v. Kerry
· Catholics for Bush answers hugetim
· Voting Catholic website rocks non-partisanly!
· Catholics for Bush distortions
· I'm back too!
· A Quick Note
· Re-Igniting the Religious Left
· Eroding Respect for America Seen as Major Problem

Catholics for Bush
· Catholics for Bush answers hugetim
· Bush is not pro-life? What!?
· Catholics for Bush Respond

Most popular
Todays top:
· Top Ten Reasons to Vote Against Bush
· What is Catholics for Democracy?
· Still We Rise March & Rally for Justice
· America's Christian Foundation
· Marchers Denounce Bush as They Pass G.O.P. Convention Hall

CfD Books
CfD Bookstore
Book Reviews

Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 8 guests online.

Who's new
· graaandma
· faithfulfireman
· simon
· maxinemu
· sbossard

Comment Posting Rules
Statement about posting blog statements or responses at CfD.

Queen of Peace

Pray for Us

Syndicate