also from the article:

"According to Pew, between 2009 and 2014, the number of white Catholics who said the Obama administration — and by inference the Democratic Party — was “unfriendly to religion” more than doubled from 17 percent to 36 percent."

My first thought is that if 36% feel the Democratic Party is unfriendly to religion is that:
1) 64% disagree. The position is therefor a minority one among Catholics.
2) That 36% could reflect the views of the least aware voters in that segment of the population.
3) Given the 2009-2014 time frame of the survey, and given the "white Catholic" identification, could this also reflect the success of the GOP at using racism to frame the President as "un-American" and anti-religious even as they implied that he was/is a radical Muslim?
Considering that Richard Nixon first played "the race card" as a GOP strategy in 1968, in my opinion it cannot be ignored.

Also from the article:

This suggests that the war on religion is resonating with Catholic voters who increasingly see themselves on the losing side of a culture war and feel the need to assert their religious identity in a more public and forceful manner that traditionally has been the territory of Evangelicals. And, as Posner notes, religious liberty looks to be a key theme in 2016:

My feeling:

If the GOP is to be successful in Presidential elections they must divide the voters. The GOP may be pathetic at actually governing but they are good at winning locally, whether town or state level. They need for people to be afraid. Afraid of Muslims, blacks, Mexicans, LGBT people, it does not matter who or what, fear and anger are the keys to get uninformed voters to turn out.

Interesting and timely article. Thanks for the post.

has doubled. That's a significant swing and could change an election pretty quickly.

What she is saying is that they seem to be using a pretty successful strategy of making catholics fearful of the democrat party by playing that card that their religious liberty is at risk.

I had hoped for a dwindling number of voters in the christian right base, but this article causes me concern that that is not the case at all.

with economic inequality, and would deal with it in a structural way, perhaps the fear could be addressed.

Surveys regularly show that people worry about the economy. Consumer spending is still depressed, except when tax season offers a tax refund stimulus, or holiday shopping provides a boost around Thanksgiving, but the real economy does not work for most people.

And people know the economy is bad, even if they are confused as to the cause. The GOP is very good at putting up groups that should be blamed for the bad economy, and it is never the rich.

It is:
blacks,
Mexicans,
Muslims,
union workers,
blacks,
women taking jobs from men,
teenagers taking jobs from older people,
Chinese, and whoever else you wish to add.

Unless and until the Democrats run on a populist economic platform that drastically reduces war spending and increases taxes on the rich as a way to finance a second WPA the economy will continue to limp along and people will continue to be angry.

that are being significantly left behind economically.

Hispanic catholics perhaps, but not whites.

While I don't disagree about what the democrat party should do in terms of a platform, I don't think it is necessarily going to appeal to this particular group.

If the rise in anti-Democrat sentiment among white Catholics coincides with the Obama Presidency is that a hint about racism?

I think it's about religious freedom and agree with the author. While they may personally support GLBT equality and funding for contraception, they fear an erosion or intrusion into the institution that they hold dear.

When their leaders are telling them that the democrats want to take all control away from the church, that is a powerful message.

but I would reframe it as religious freedom to engage in political action from the pulpit with no consequences. Also a problem with evangelical groups that insist on legislating from the pulpit.

Sermons are one thing but political speech from any pulpit should trigger an automatic revocation of tax-exempt status. A massive problem now with the huge rise in 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 organizations that are engaging I prohibited political activity.

Many religious leaders are framing this insistence on following the law with interference in the practice of religion.

forefront of the problems with supporting candidates from the pulpits.

Political speech is allowed. What is not allowed is the promotion of any specific candidates.

Every year, thousands of churches openly defy the IRS rules. This is a movement that is spearheaded by a RW conservative group composed primarily of fundamentalists.

The IRS takes no notice.

I agree with you that their tax-exempt status should be revoked and am at a loss to understand why the IRS is so obviously complicit.

Churches can't have it both ways. They are granted their specific tax status because they are non-profits. They have to abide by the rules that apply to all non-profits .

"* Evangelical ministers plan to endorse candidates

* Churches intentionally putting tax-exempt status at risk

* Catholic Church launches campaign against Obama"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/churches-religious-officials-political-speech_n_1616273.html

They may be objectively better off than non whites on average but middle class and lower class whites know what direction their finances are moving and for a great many of them it's not positive at all.

Fairly or unfairly the President and the party of the President will get a lot of the blame for that.

"In the United States,the socio-religious group with the highest earnings happens to be the Catholic Irish, followed by Catholic Germans".

http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-4-number-4/economics-catholic-world

While it may be a factor, I'm not sure it's a major factor.

It takes quite a large income to live the way a lot of us have been trained to believe we should live... I know people with six figure incomes who have gone bankrupt, a couple of them in my own family, because they have never learned how to live without all the bells and whistles.

Did I mention they are mostly hard core Republicans?

People were led to believe that they could live well beyond their means and amassed debt they could never repay.

I know you and I both live pretty simply, and I am fortunate to part of a community that prioritizes simple living.

But we are the exceptions.

I don't know if there is data to back it up, but I tend to think that republicans tend to feel more entitled to "stuff".

It doesn't surprise me at all that the people I know having financial problems despite a quite good income are also big TV and movie watchers.

Advertising is ubiquitous, insidious and designed to make you feel inadequate, it then fills that feeling of inadequacy with products or services that are absolutely critical to living the lifestyle shown as desirable on the telly.

There is a youngish couple I know who have had some hard times lately, they have a 15 month old boy and an 8 year old girl and can't find a place to stay since they had a bankruptcy a while back and no one will rent to them now. They just got a healthy refund check and I've been telling them they need to go and buy a used RV or camper so they have *something* to live in before all the money is gone spent on weekly motel rent but they aren't listening to me. I really like the little girl she is sweet, bright and well mannered and I hate to see what is happening to them. It wouldn't surprise me if they all end up completely homeless and there's not a damn thing I can do because they can't let themselves seriously think about what I'm suggesting since it will be such a fall from their previous lifestyle. Prices are still low right now but in another month they will be up to vacation season rates and the supply of reasonably priced units is going to plummet.

My life is pretty free of advertising, except what I see on the internet from time to time, but I know I was a victim to it at other points in my life.

You can not help those that reject help. You gave this couple your advice and they rejected it. I am sad for the children but pissed at the adults. There are almost always solutions, but some are really hard, and sometimes there really aren't any.

These folks, like fundamentalist Christians, are most likely to be more conservative by nature. The author of the article notes that the Catholic church has been hemorrhaging liberals who have almost been driven out of the faith by their opposition to the dictates of the U.Said. Council of Catholic bishops, and Pope Benedict. Many of those who remain would tend to be among the most faithful to church teaching on social issues, particularly homosexual behavior and abortion.

I'm probably mixing my interpretation of this with the writer's. If you haven't read the whole piece, I hope you will.

the general US population.

Their opinion on abortion is similar to the general population.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1961


I think you make a really good point about how the overall demographics of the catholic church may be changing.

The RCC was #2 behind the Mormon church in bankrolling California's Prop 8, for example.

And of course, you already know that, and know the church isn't a grassroots bottom-up org. So it doesn't fucking matter if ~60% support it, if the church is lobbying and otherwise rallying support to block it, and the 60% is paying for it.

Many of them would vote for progressive measures, imo, if they weren't discounted out of hand. Since the Prop 8 disaster, GLBT groups have been more proactive in making connections, strengthening ties and growing a broader base of support.

We learned a hard lesson. One that is making a difference.

But the RCC isn't a grassroots thing, and its reach is well beyond just the membership. They're in the courts. They're in the legislatures. They're bankrolling ads in print, radio, and tv.

There's only one sound the RCC will respond to, from its members; the sound of an empty collection plate. They need to vote with their dollars, not just their ballots. It's the only influence the body of membership has to control the leadership. And they will respond.

The IRS has been really lax in the church / state realm, whatever the church.

As far as the weekly collection plate at masses - miniscule in the overall RCC budget. Most go to local parish expenses. It's a misconception that a buck in the collection plate makes or breaks the Vatican.

Lack of attendance is more telling, imo. That gets noticed I assume.

But they do, and they get away with it all the time. The right wing loves to cry 'POLITICIZATION OF THE IRS' at every turn, and frankly, the agency is afraid of them.

As for the RCC's cash flow, Its not much, sure, the church has built enormous stockpiles of wealth and revenue streams they can't even hope to account for themselves. They don't know how rich they are. But what revenue streams the members have access to deny is all they have to send a message. They need to use it.

The RCC threatens excommunication to politicians who don't follow the church's teaching on those two items.

Death penalty? Bad economic policies for the poor? They'll mention it, but clearly the emphasis is on the policies that disagree with the Democratic agenda. NOT the Republican one. This migration is a direct result of the efforts of the church itself.

Where the fuck am I?

You know, English to English is tricky.

Or the T. Party, the Libertar Party, or those damned Independs.

You use a failed callout on accepted use of the word moot, and then come here and use a conservative slander for our party? You best be offering up an apolagy for this whole site, you know, the DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.

Or are you joining your husband "moving to the right"?

The horror! The shame!

On my knees, I beg the forgiveness of the entire site for all of my typos, but most assuredly for this one. I would offer an "apolagy" (sic), if I only knew what that meant.

I believe seppuku is the only possible solution.

But before I leave this cruel world, let me advise you the a starboard tack means moving to the left.

Yeah, we figured out Starboard Tack's name, that was my mistake.

He's still a misogynistic homophobe.

On Tue Mar 24, 2015, 10:35 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Typo huh? Twice?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=188175

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling another member a misogynistic homophobe is the epitome of a personal attack.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 24, 2015, 10:47 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Sorry- I did my due diligence background research, but I don't have time this morning to fully delve into the depths of this obviously personal vendetta between two members. This post by itself meets the standard of a personal attack/callout.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Vendre des canards à moitié
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Anyone who uses the phrase "democrat party" is straight out of the Limbaugh camp. Fuck 'em.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Appreciate the feedback.

I guess the truth hurts.

This was no typo (twice). If it were that easy to mistype, people here would be making that mistake all the time.

I mean, OK, the capitalization could be a phone issue. But autocorrect wouldn't leave off the "ic" unless you programmed it to do that. And I really don't see typing the word and just stopping at the "t". Twice.

Plus, you and okasha are so quick to jump on anyone that has a typo to obfuscate from the post being made--except when it is a friend of course like "distroy" because you leave those slide--that it is odd you haven't addressed this differently.

"Apolagy" is a typo, Democrat party is a known slander, and you used it twice. Then you get sarcastic about it which cements your intention using it and not caring. Maybe if you took things seriously you wouldn't make grievous mistakes like that, and certanly wouldn't repeat them.

It was clearly my intention to slur the Democratic party. It is indeed grievous and I will be most careful in the future.


As my penance and to make sure that I never commit this heinous crime again:

Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party
Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party
Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party
Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party
Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party
Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party
Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party
Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party
Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party
Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party
Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party
Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party
Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party
Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party
Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party
Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party Democratic Party

I believe a wise woman once said something like "If lots of people say you have a tail, you should turn around and check"

Mrs. Bayer, you should turn around.

I have also said, "when you seek revenge, dig two graves". Hope you have a shovel.

Thanks for playing, you silly democratic.

You've been on MIRT long enough to know what a dog-whistle the phrase "Democrat party" is. (or what the lack of capitalization of "Democrat" usually means)

Surely you can find something else to get me with.

BTW, I see JDDavis was banned. He really had you all fooled for awhile this time. You know, JDDavis, the troll that I quoted in the religion group. He was MarkCharles at that time, but quoting him was a mortal sin in the big book.

Hope you are doing well.

I mean, that hasn't slipped you memory, right? Because you were blocked for the stuff that YOU did. It had nothing to do with whom you were quote mining. It was about your attitude and your actions. Take some damn responsibility some time.

Democrativ Party
Democratuc Party
Democratix Party
Democratud Party

These are typos. Missed the key.

"Democrat Party"

This is invective. There is a reason Beck, Limbaugh, D'Souza, Cruz, Paul, Carlson, etc all use it. Every. Time.
It has meaning of its own.

She must be DELUSIONAL!

After the extended hissy fit over the correct use of the word "delusional" one might think such a fastidious person would know the connotations of using "democrat" as an adjective. That's all.

Or, conversely, I have finally dropped the veil and am the troll that you have suspected I am for so long.

I'm really not very fastidious at all and I do object to the colloquial use of the word delusional, but that is never done by accident and this was.

Holy crap. You will jump on anything, won't you?

And, we're done here.

It's a proper noun, and should be written correctly, using the proper adjective.

number of times that usage has been called out on DU. It's often seen as a slur on the party we all belong to, more or less.

It all started with Newt Gingrich, who lobbied to have Republicans always refer to the Democratic Party as the democrat party. That has caught on, and is used as a slur. He did the same to the word "liberal."

Perhaps it's an error worth trying not to make. Seems so to me, and apparently to others in this thread. It is always capitalized, too, and you do not skip capitalization in your posts, as a general rule. You capitalize the personal pronoun on a regular, frequent basis.

As for capitalization, look closer. I don't capitalize lots of things, including god, catholic, and many other terms that are generally capitalized.

I'm curious as to why you feel the need to judge me.

know anything more about other DUers than they say here.

I asked you a question, as did several others. You have answered it. I judge nobody, lest I also be judged. I let people reveal themselves in their own words.

or just not that phrase, just all the other words people use that reveal themselves?

Theses are private entities and are not restricted in terms of supporting specific candidates or issues.

In fact, they are using a first amendment argument to woo these catholics.

Consider the mean-spirited comments re Catholics and Catholic beliefs often posted
on Democratic sites and by Democrats on neutral sites.

That can be very off-putting, or worse.

Papists is the nicest thing I've heard out of some of them.

Catholic bashing on this site is often seen, with catholics sometimes being called apologists for pedophilia, misogyny and homophobia.

That's not very welcoming, to say the least.

OTOH, the republicans seem quite welcoming to catholics and have several major players who are catholic.

Consider the mean-spirited things lobbed at Catholics by the right wing (ever read a Chick Tract?), I think there's nothing to worry about.

Besides, if someone can be swayed from their political orientation by reading comments on the Internet, I doubt they were a very committed Democrat in the first place.

Atheists receive hatred and bile from Democrats too, yet most of them remain Democrats. Go figure.

progressive Catholics, they most likely agree anyways, if it bothers them enough to vote Republican, then they weren't liberal or progressive in the first place.

with Bishops and Cardinals, since at least 2004, being much more outspoken about what candidates should and should not be voted for on issues from abortion to same sex marriage.

Not to mention the Church has been increasing its evangalization of lapsed Catholics, trying to convince many to come back to the fold. What follows, from what I can gather in Catholic media, is that previously socially progressive lapsed Catholics become socially conservative Catholics whose beliefs become more in line with bigoted and intolerant church beliefs.

Granted, a lot of this sounds like conversion fantasy tales, but some of them may have a nugget of truth, and that is worrying.

Just like ubiquitous advertising, it has an effect on Catholic participation in their church, imo. As younger, moderate Catholics leave the church - largely pro GLBT equalities and pro women's rights to make their own health care and family planning choices - those who remain are a conservative segment of the church that resembles evangelicals in other denominations. And one key point - they vote.

Democrats would do well to reach out to that "silent majority" among Catholics or former Catholics. They support the Constitutional separation standard, equality in the law, economic opportunity, medicine and society at large. I don't favor escalating the sniping, the simplistic verbal street brawling, the fear mongering. Yet, I think our case could be made to that voting block on political grounds, not some religious litmus test.

I'd enlist Joe Biden to help make that case. I think he could parse that minefield, make a definitely clear point without the vindictiveness that permeates the (R) approach.

There is a changing demographic among those that continue to identify as catholic, and it's not a trend that is positive.

I have always seen catholics as primarily democrats with strong feelings about social justice and civil rights.

Joe Biden would be a great person to spear head such an effort.

Catholic membership is not static. Members come and members go. It is possible that many of the more Democratically inclined have left the church to join the growing number of Nones, or to find a more progressive denomination. The cited statistics may be more a result of self-segregation rather than the Republican party making huge voter inroads.

It's a fact that some issues that are important to me as a Democratic voter alienate me from Catholic doctrine, reproductive choice and women's rights among them. I don't know how those issues translate for Catholic Democrats, so I certainly can't make broad generalizations. These are just my own musings.

It would be interesting to drill down more on this question.

I do think that the "religious liberty" issue is speaking to some catholics and wouldn't dismiss the author's premise.

You are not alone in being alienated form catholic doctrine as a democratic voter. So are a lot of catholics. Catholic democrats support reproductive choice and women's rights at levels that match the general population.

There is definitely a significant movement from catholicism to both protestantism and unaffiliated.

Interesting, you will find people here that describe themselves as "cultural catholics", similar to the way many Jews do.

They are highly invested in the traditions and rituals and observances, even if they don't embrace the faith part.

OTOH, those that are moving to highly evangelical denominations are much more disturbing than the general catholics. They look a lot like the US religious right.

because we were all baptized. I can assure you the number of Catholics in my household is zero.

The only way for us not to be counted is to go through a pretty silly and likely very time consuming process.

Your comment helps, anecdotally, to explain these other statistics I ran across while I was considering the assertion that our party is bleeding Catholic voters.

When being polled, I indicate atheist (or whatever is closest). But when the RCC puts our their numbers, I'm still counted because the parish where I grew up still has my baptismal certificate.

Just as a public record (of marriage, divorce, death, etc) is forever, in most cases. The action recorded did indeed happen. Some of the actions can be and are frequently undone, but another public record is made to indicate that. Rarely is a record removed.

Church membership, or at least individual parish membership, on the other hand, is usually counted yearly. The various parish memberships are then added together to form the number in the diocese. As is obvious, people move out of the area in which they were baptized and become members of churches in the area into which they have moved. Some join other churches, some cease church-going.

If attrition is not accounted for, growth, where it is caused by an influx of population, as in the South or the West, would not be recognized with any kind of accuracy. Similarly, when an area loses population, that has to be accounted for, in the distribution of clergy and supporting funds.