Faithful church attenders vote overwhelmingly for Bush

[William Thornton]

[Bruce Gourley]

[mlovell]

[KeithE]

[Norm]

[Keith]

[William Thornton]

[William Thornton]

[Keith]

[William Thornton]

[Sandy]

And it could be that the source of the information William provided for us is a bit slanted as well.

Does it include Catholics, who, according to both secular and religiously based polls, are about 3 to 1 for Kerry? In such a poll, with the way the question is worded, would a faithful Catholic, who probably attends one mass per week, answer a question about regular church attendance the same way an evangelical, who has a different church attendance schedule, would answer the same question?

And does it really matter?

The basic core beliefs of the Bush administration go to the support and promotion of policies and legislation which benefit corporations and big businesses at the expense of the middle and working classes. They've sold most of their supporters a bill of goods with their accountability talk, yet in just one instance, have allowed one company, Kellogg, Brown and Root, to overcharge the taxpayers $1.6 billion in Iraq alone in just over a year. They keep harping about tax cuts, and yet the price of gasoline alone has risen more in six months than all of Bush's tax cuts would cover for the average middle class family combined, not to mention an almost doubling of the cost of prescription drugs on average in just one year.

As to Bush's war on terror, even that has been nothing more than an incompetent bungling and a mismanaged and misdirected effort for which over a thousand American military personnel and who knows how many innocent Iraqis have paid with their lives. It has been factually proven that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, yet we've sacrificed the lives and spent billions (far more than the $75 million original Bush administration estimate) invading and occupying that country. The correct question to ask is, "Who benefitted from that?" The answer is, Halliburton, Kellogg Brown and Root, and a short list of major American oil and energy companies who were also big Bush supporters. No bids have yet been accepted, the companies were hired under legislation the Bush administration pushed through to avoid the process put in place by Congress and protected by the Justice Department under Ashcroft.

That's why I, a regular church attender, who is at church at least three times a week, and more importantly a Christian by faith, am casting a ballot for John Kerry. Four more years of a Bush presidency may result in the loss of too many constitutionally protected freedoms and too much of my money lining the pockets of the already fabulously wealthy.

[Norm]

Norm: Interesting. Faithful meaning evangelical? Whereas evangelicals may actually attend church each week more often than mainstream Christianity (but within evangelicals what percentage would that be, 5, 10%?), 1) mainstream members are more active with their faith through community/social ministries than evangelicals, given the research I have seen reported by such institutions as Pew, Hartford, etc. Faithful thus means more than once a week rather than one who attends faithfully weekly? The ones that I am acquainted personally faithfully attend church but are not voting for Bush (not that it makes any difference in my state). 2) Are they then not to be counted among the faithful, and is this just another attempt by William to make the point that evangelicals are God-respecting but others are less so? Loose use of language, William.

Keith--- 1) But that would, of course, depend on what one means by faith. Some see the mainstream as being active with the so-called social gospel which is no gospel at all [...]

Norm: First of all, Keith, when you insert something inside my words, use [] not 1), 2) etc. It is sloppy conversation to not properly indicate something is being added to another's words. The opinion of others is noted and rejected, and I prefer data generated on the topic, that is data revealing mainstream Christians being more active in relieving the sufferings and effects of being disadvantaged than do evangelicals toward said individuals. If social gospel activities are not gospel, please explain to me why evangelicals engage in such activities, too (however, even if to a lesser extent than more progressive Christians). Do they make the same mistake as others that take Matthew 25 seriously?

Keith [...] 2) I doubt that William meant that, but it is an interesting topic that you bring up. Remember that the Pharisees were quite faithful in what they did, but not so faithful to Christ. I guess that means that you are using rather loose language, Norm.

Norm: Is once a week, faithfully, less faithful than more than once a week? Does Sunday and, say, Wednesday evening constitute being faithful and Sunday only not so considered? Is it remember the Sabbath or remember the Sabbath and midweek? Is not the Sabbath enough to be considered faithful? What of those that remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy, and the homeless on Friday, as is their responsibility in, say, an ecumenical community/social ministry? Does that count as being faithful, yeah, even to Christ? Seems to me William was a bit loose with his language and you a bit confusing in yours.

[Norm]

[Keith]

[Norm]

[Bruce Gourley]

[William Thornton]

[Norm]

[William Thornton]

link to Atlanta journal constitution sunday story below:

pertinent quote from story:

"In a spring survey, John Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, found that people who said they attend church more frequently than once a week favored Bush 67 percent to 33 percent, while those who said they never attend worship supported Kerry at the same rate — a pattern similar to that in the 2000 Bush-Gore election. Likewise, 69 percent of people who said they believe the Bible is literally true supported Bush, whereas a majority of those who said they believe it it "true with errors" supported Kerry."

[William Thornton]

[William Thornton]

[Bruce Gourley]

[Norm]

[Keith]

[Norm]