Newsflash!!!

[NeoConIV]

Poll: Catholics Favored Bush Over Kerry!!!!

Thu Feb 3, 6:18 PM ET U.S. National - AP

By RICHARD N. OSTLING, AP Religion Writer

John Kerry managed the best showing in decades for a Democratic presidential candidate among mainline Protestants, but his failure to capture a majority of Roman Catholics — people of his own faith — gave President Bush an important advantage in last November's election, according to a new survey.

Bush's showing also improved dramatically among Hispanic Protestants, 63 percent of whom supported him in 2004 — a 31 percent gain over 2000.

The postelection phone survey of 2,730 people, conducted by the University of Akron and sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, is a close study of voting behavior and religious faith.

Among non-Hispanic Catholics, Kerry won the support of 69 percent with those with liberal or "modernist" beliefs, while 72 percent of "traditionalists" favored Bush. But importantly, 55 percent of the key swing group of "centrists" picked Bush over Kerry, who was criticized by bishops for his support of abortion rights.

The upshot: A one-time Democratic mainstay, Catholics gave Bush an overall edge of 53 percent to Kerry's 47 percent.

Overall, the mainline Protestant vote split evenly, the poll found, with a Bush decline of 10 percent from 2000 and the best showing for a Democrat since the 1960s; results before then are unclear.

Divisions between religious liberals and conservatives were even more stark than they were four years ago.

"The American religious landscape was strongly polarized in the 2004 presidential vote and more so than in 2000," concluded the team of four political scientists, led by Akron's John C. Green.

The scholars said Bush's religious constituency included Christian traditionalists in all categories, Mormons, Hispanic Protestants and religious centrists among Catholics and mainline Protestants.

Kerry's support came from black Protestants and secular Americans, followed by "modernists" among Catholics and mainline Protestants. Jews and Latino Catholics remained loyally Democratic.

Other questions focused on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, which were thought to be crucial when Nov. 2 exit polls showed "moral values" were more important to voters than Iraq terrorism or the economy.

The study concluded that "social issues were quite important to the Bush vote, but a secondary factor for the electorate as a whole."

The quadrennial Akron surveys are notable for careful interviewing on respondents' precise religious affiliations and religious views and activities. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=3&u=/ap/20050203/ap_on_re_us/religion_poll


:rolleyes Duh!!

[home handle]

lame

[Nbadan]

But importantly, 55 percent of the key swing group of "centrists" picked Bush over Kerry, who was criticized by bishops for his support of abortion rights

Funny, I didn't hear Bush mention restricting abortion rights as one of his second term priorities in his SOTU speech last night? Did anyone else? Worse yet, what if W fails to deliver to this radical, minute constinuency with his majority in the House and Senate, then what? Will he be burned at the Stake? And what if he does deliver?

Ah, you see, for playing the religion card to help keep W in the W.H., the Republicans now find themselves in a operational quagmire and which ever way the Pres. goes, it ain't gonna be pretty for the Republican Party.

[NeoConIV]

I didn't hear Bush mention restricting abortion rights as one of his second term priorities in his SOTU speech last night?
Didn't have to. Everyone knows it's just a matter of time before roe v wade is overturned. Hear me now, believe me later.

[Nbadan]

The 'Pro-Life' Lie
People should be judged by the ideals they most loudly profess
by Daniel C. Maguire


OK, 'Pro-Lifers,' here goes.

Archbishop Tutu (would that we had even one bishop like him in the United States!) writes:

'Some 2 million children have died in dozens of wars during the past decade. This is more than three times the number of battlefield deaths of American soldiers in all their wars since 1776. Today, civilians account for more than 90 percent of war casualties.'
Children are the prime casualties of modern war. As Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University writes:

'Children in urban war zones die in vast numbers, not just due to violence, but also from diarrhea, respiratory infections and other causes, owing to unsafe drinking water, lack of refrigerated foods, and acute shortages of blood and basic medicines in clinics and hospitals.'

Pregnant women and their fetuses suffer from these same lethal deprivations and pregnant women and their fetuses are being bombed in their homes. If you who sanctimoniously wear the 'pro-life' banner were really pro-life-and pro-fetus, that would bother you and we would be hearing your voices raised powerfully in peace protests around the world. We don't. Therefore we must conclude that you are not 'pro-life' and that if you say you are, you are liars. American military leaders in Iraq have been quoted as saying 'we don't do body counts.' (Interesting, since even 'the mob' does body counts.)

The respected British journal The Lancet did a body-count of civilians killed in Iraq. They concluded that there are more than 100,000 civilians deaths, most due to U.S. Military action. President Bush is responsible for those murders because he entered this war without the Declaration of War that the constitution (Article one, Section 8) requires. A cowardly Congress in a week of infamy (October 3-10, 2002) limply handed over their war-declaring rights to him, giving the president open-ended authority to use unrestricted power, which could mean nuclear weapons whenever he alone deemed it appropriate. How did those who call them selves 'pro-life' respond to this appalling assault on the Constitution and on life. They voted en masse for George W. Bush, the slaughter-master of Iraq, the killer of civilian men, women and children, including pregnant women and their fetuses in a war that Pope John Paul called a 'defeat for humanity.' Mr. Bush said he saw their vote as an endorsement of his war. He was right. The election was a chance to vote against that war, but, overwhelmingly the so called 'pro-life' vote was for war.

Can you understand why we call you liars? Sister Joan Chittister writes of a front page, large four-color picture in The Irish Times of a small Iraqi girl. 'Her little body was a coil of steel. She sat knees up, cowering, screaming madly into the dark night. Her white clothes and spread hands and small tight face were blood-spattered. The blood was the blood of her father and mother, shot through the car window in Tal Afar by American soldiers while she sat beside her parents in the car, her four brothers and sisters in the back seat.' Indifference to this and to all those war crimes like it, on the part of anyone is criminal and sinful in the extreme. Indifference to it by those who canonize themselves with the 'pro-life' insignia shown by their recent vote for more of it, is even worse. Such hypocrisy should be called by its name. Its name is fraud. Its name is lying, lying under the very banner of 'life.'

Daniel C. Maguire is a Catholic Theologian and Professor
Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0202-20.htm)

[NeoConIV]

100,000, giving that number the benefit of the doubt is tragic. However, the Hussein regime is now out of power. No more mass graves. No more intentional murder for regime preservation and intimidation.

And besides, he wants to minimize pro-lifers to frauds? 1.5 million abortion murders ANNUALLY??

Please.

[desflood]

It's a stretch...

[JoeChalupa]

Didn't have to. Everyone knows it's just a matter of time before roe v wade is overturned. Hear me now, believe me later.

I don't think or know that and this Catholic supported Kerry.

Vaya con Dios.

[FromWayDowntown]

Didn't have to. Everyone knows it's just a matter of time before roe v wade is overturned. Hear me now, believe me later.

I'm sure that would be news to John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.

You have some direct line to potential Supreme Court justices. The current Court -- almost all of whom were nominated by Republican presidents (including the 4 named above) -- has had several opportunities to do exactly as you say and has refused to budge on the law. When they've taken cases on the abortion issue, they've pretty regularly come down 6-3 on the pro-choice side. What makes you think that that will change? Particularly since the most likely judges to leave the Court are ones that have voted for overturning Roe. You need to change two votes. At this point, you're just taking one anti-choice judge and replacing him with another; the voting on the issue shouldn't change appreciably.