yes, in britain we vote for parties rather than figureheads technically, although it often feels like the other way round. i don’t know of any electoral system that’s perfect, but hey, it’s the best we’ve currently got, so yeah you gotta work with it for now.

“Well, I find it unlikely that someone would have voted for Kerry if they were generally in agreement with the agenda of the Religious Right.”

i agree, however that doesn’t mean they were actively opposing that agenda either, which – back to the original point – is the criticism commonly seen asserted at this blog.

Well, personally I do view voting as an active thing – something that one can do to oppose policies that they disagree with. I don’t know how it is in Britain (you don’t actually get to vote directly for your PM, right?), but in America voting is still one important tool we have to take a stand against ideas and policies we oppose. (Though I’ll be the first to admit our electoral system is still in need of a drastic overhaul.)

Well, I find it unlikely that someone would have voted for Kerry if they were generally in agreement with the agenda of the Religious Right.

i agree, however that doesn’t mean they were actively opposing that agenda either, which – back to the original point – is the criticism commonly seen asserted at this blog.

This data also contradicts another assumption that I commonly find asserted here at this blog: that progressive Christians have not been active enough in opposing Bush and the Religious Right.

home example – i tacitly opposed Blair/labour/their policies by not voting for him; i actively opposed him/his party/their policies on issues i disagreed with by joining marches and petitions. not saying some progressive/liberal christians aren’t active about their opposition, but that just voting elsewhere is not what i’d call active opposition to Bush + the RR.

The force of real and pressing problems in the country will bury them and their “family values.”

For about eight years, while we have a Bill-Clinton-type fixing up all of the problems. Then they’ll start thinking about which candidate they’d like to have a beer with again and the cycle will repeat.

the point being that you implied that supporting a different candidate was the same as actively opposing the RR + Bush; i disagree with such an implication. my analogy was attempting to convey that one can belong to a group (food consumer/christian) and make wildly different decisions from another member of that group (omnivore/vegetarian, Bush/Kerry voter) without necessarily having to take a negative stance on the alternate decision.

Well, I find it unlikely that someone would have voted for Kerry if they were generally in agreement with the agenda of the Religious Right.

Compared to other groups, more likely to care about cultural issues (40% compared to 20% nationally); 84% are pro-life and 89% oppose marriage or civil unions for gays; very strong supporters of Israel (64% say the U.S. should back Israel over the Palestinians). Four-fifths claim that religion is important to their political thinking. This group strongly supports the political involvement of religious organizations.

Have a look at how the rest align themselves to the issues of the Religious Right, then come back and tell us how the Religious Right is almost the same size as the Religious Left. There doesn’t seem much difference between “Culture Warriors” and the Religious Right, Moderate Evangelicals support the same principles although put less importance on them, and there’s lots of agreement on these issues from the rest, whether Left or Right, with the Religious “Right”.

The Religious Left only seem to be able to get about half of other religious moderates, and they’re only real equivalents are the Secularists and Jews (which are probably of the Left, with both secular and religious views). Jews have very high support for Israel like the Religious Right.

I’m not sure that analogy works. Those seem like two rather different categories.

fairy nuff, i’ll readily admit i’m shit at analogies (but i have no intention of quitting their use!)…the point being that you implied that supporting a different candidate was the same as actively opposing the RR + Bush; i disagree with such an implication. my analogy was attempting to convey that one can belong to a group (food consumer/christian) and make wildly different decisions from another member of that group (omnivore/vegetarian, Bush/Kerry voter) without necessarily having to take a negative stance on the alternate decision.