Poll shows Catholics side with bishops on religious liberty, but warm to Obama

[rug]

By Lauren Markoe| Religion News Service, Updated: Thursday, August 2, 5:35 PM

WASHINGTON — A new poll shows that American Catholics tend to agree with their bishops’ concerns that religious liberties are at risk in the U.S.

Nevertheless, Catholics seem to be warming to President Obama, even as the bishops lambaste his administration in their fight to roll back a federal mandate that requires employers — with some exceptions — to cover birth control in their health plans.

The poll, released Wednesday (Aug. 1) by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life as the contraception mandate took effect, found that among Catholics who are aware of the bishops’ protests, 56 percent say they agree with the bishops’ concerns, as opposed to 36 percent who disagree.

That’s stronger than among Americans at large who have heard of the bishops’ concerns, where 41 percent agree with the bishops and 47 percent disagree.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/poll-shows-catholics-side-with-bishops-on-religious-liberty-but-warm-to-obama/2012/08/02/gJQA9vJeSX_story.html

[Dawson Leery]

1. Again, I will not be stepping foot inside a Catholic Church

or Orthodox as well as Evangelical.

Do these Catholics have any problem with their Bishops and Cardinals hiding child molesters?
Do they have any problem with their leadership stepping on the freedom of others? i.e women and gays?

[rug]

2. OK

[Dawson Leery]

4. Google: "manhattan declaration"

The above stated churches are signatories to this theocratic document.

[rug]

7. Thanks, I never heard of them.

But it's still a three year old rogues' gallery of conservatives, started by the late Watergate burglar, Colson.

The signatories, as far as I can tell, are individuals, not institutions.

Some religious leaders and apologists have criticized and protested the Manhattan Declaration, calling its principles in general, and its opposition to same-sex marriage in particular, contrary to the teachings of Jesus.[14][15][16] Catholic scholar Anthony Stevens-Arroyo wrote, "While two wars are being waged, with unemployment in double digits, the financial system of the world in suspense, these religious leaders declare that abortion, stem-cell use and same sex marriage override any other Gospel value. (You won't find Jesus saying anything about abortion or stem cells in the Gospel, but the Savior said a great deal about the homeless, the sick, and the hungry.) It's cheating to speak pious platitudes about Christianity and ignore Jesus' words."[17]

Some discussed the document as a political strategy, regarding it as the religious right's effort to re-establish its relevance in the public square,[18][19] but others noted that younger generations of evangelicals and Catholics were less likely to oppose same-sex marriage and more likely to prioritize economic issues over social, and that the document was thus unlikely to win them over.[20][19] Stevens-Arroyo criticized fellow Catholics who signed the declaration for aligning themselves with evangelicals in what he described as opposition to the separation of church and state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Declaration:_A_Call_of_Christian_Conscience

[LeftishBrit]

18. And this was copycatted by a British group in 2010 as the 'Westminster Declaration'

http://www.westminster2010.org.uk/


Not specifically Catholic, however; seems to be more dominated by Evangelicals and especially by Anglican rebels against the relatively liberal Anglican leadership in the UK.

[rug]

25. Wow, that's nearly identical.

I expect the remnants of the Falange to join in on this.

[ButterflyBlood]

16. Even evangelicals shouldn't be broad-brushed

There are some liberal evangelical churches believe it or not. I go to one. Had I known it was an evangelical church beforehand I probably never would've went in the first place (which was basically on a whim one Sunday), and that would've been a real shame.

I don't blame you for the other ones since they can't really be separated from the reactionary hierarchy in charge.

[cbayer]

3. Hmmm.... that's a mixed message.

As long as they vote for Obama, which I think most will.

It's got to be hard to be a Catholic right now, particularly a liberal or progressive person.

[MineralMan]

6. Yeah, but it's easy to be a non-catholic right now,

as always. What you do is go to another church on Sunday, fill out the little visitor form in the pew in front of you, and see how you like it.

Personally, I recommend that Catholics who are unhappy with the RCC try an ELCA Lutheran church to see what they think. The liturgy is not dissimilar to the RCC liturgy, but the church, itself, doesn't have all that ugly baggage to deal with. Nice friendly folks, too, in most congregations. Confession is a little hard to arrange, although the Lutheran Church still has that available, but it's not much used. Some Lutheran ministers are more amenable to people wanting confession than others.

What's not there is bigotry against LGBT equality, the concept that women are not equal to men, and a prohibition against contraception. Catholics looking for a change won't find any of those things. In fact, they could encounter gay or lesbian clergy, women in the pulpit, and a doctrine that accepts the idea of planning a family, rather than having families happen without any control. They will find the same deity, the same Jesus, and the same scripture, more or less, that they're used to.

Just sayin...

[cbayer]

9. Religion is a highly personal choice. Not you, not I, not anyone gets to

tell somebody what religion they should be. It's supremely arrogant to do so.

The Catholic church does some good things, some bad things, some excellent things, some appalling things.

Those of you who take this position sometimes sound like anti-choice people telling young women that they have options to abortion and why they should abandon their wish to terminate a pregnancy. Frankly, it's frightening.

Object to and criticize the Catholic Church all you want, but preaching about what others should do is just not consistent with the ideology I adhere to. Particularly when it comes from people who describe themselves as non-believers.

[MineralMan]

10. I tell nobody anything about their religious choices.

If someone tells me that they're thinking of leaving the Catholic church, I recommend that they try an ELCA Lutheran church. A recommendation is not preaching. It is a recommendation.

Are you seriously telling me that I should not offer such a recommendation? Truly? I believe you have misread my post. This is what I said:

"Personally, I recommend that Catholics who are unhappy with the RCC try an ELCA Lutheran church to see what they think."

That is quite different than preaching or telling someone what to do. For goodness' sake!

[cbayer]

11. If someone is thinking of leaving their church and asks your advice, that's one thing.

These blanket statements to Catholics (or any other group) that they should leave, where they should go and why is what I find objectionable. Being unhappy with the institution that you feel a part of is not the same thing as wanting to leave it. To the contrary, it's reason to stay in and fight for many (see Nuns on the Bus).

How are your efforts to convert any different than any missionary who goes out to proselytize?

[MineralMan]

12. You are confusing me with someone else.

My post was very clear. I did not say that anyone should do anything. I said that if they are dissatisfied with their church, they have options.

I suggested one that many people I know have found to be a good choice. My suggestion is based on my own knowledge, as well, of liturgy and beliefs.

Please do not put words in my mouth that I did not say. Please read carefully. Please do not think you understand anything about me other than what I write here. You do not. I do not evangelize for atheism at any time. If someone has religious beliefs, that is their choice or belief. It doesn't bother me at all, and I have no interest in converting them to non-belief. I do not even believe that to be possible.

If they are looking for a change, I have a fairly complete knowledge of doctrine and practices of all major denominations of Christianity. It's a hobby of mine to learn those things. I will give recommendations if asked.

In discussion forums like this one, where religion and theology are discussed, I will state my non-belief and criticize anything I wish. In my personal life, I almost never discuss religion with anyone, unless they introduce the topic, and then I discuss it based on their background and beliefs. This is not my personal life. It is a discussion group with the topic of religion and theology. I will speak my mind here, and I will do so freely and without rancor.

I will not, however, accept distortions of what I have plainly written. If you misstate something I have said, I will tell you so, bluntly, if necessary, but politely. I will use polite language to do so. If you would rather not read what I think, you have an option you can use to avoid doing so. But, please do not restate anything I have said to change its meaning.

[Dawson Leery]

13. Certainly it is different.

You are making a suggestion to disgruntled Catholics to try something else.

[trotsky]

19. Wow, that's some incredible distortion in order to gin up outrage.

People who post in here suggesting Catholics should leave their church aren't telling them what religion they should be. They can still call themselves Catholic for all the fuck I care. Just stop going to the church, giving them your time and money. No one is telling someone they have to change their religion, FFS, and for you to suggest otherwise is dishonest at best, and highly detrimental to discussion in a group that you regularly bemoan for its lack of respect/civility/etc.

[Fix The Stupid]

20. One question....

Hi,

This statement stuck out for me...

"Religion is a highly personal choice. Not you, not I, not anyone gets to

tell somebody what religion they should be. It's supremely arrogant to do so"

Aren't parents regularly making this choice for their kids?

How can a child/pre-teen, etc. make a "highly personal choice" when it is foisted upon them by their parents at such an early age?

[trotsky]

21. Uh oh.

What a damn fine question. Wish I'd thought of it! Can't wait to see what kind of response you'll get - if any.

[cbayer]

23. Of course parents are making choices for their kids,

just like they make choices about what schools they will attend, what they will eat for dinner, where they will live, what kind of vehicle they will travel around with, what doctor they will see, etc. etc. etc.

So what? As kids reach a maturity level where they can make these decisions on their own, they will.

[trotsky]

24. So it's just coincidence that far and away most adults "freely choose"...

to practice the same religion they were indoctrinated into as a child?

[atreides1]

27. Not this parent

My wife and I were both raised in the Catholic church we didn't have a choice...so we agreed to allow our children to decide what if any religion they wanted to be a part of!

All three made their choices...my wife passed away and never saw it...me I left the Catholic church because of some of its policies that I disagreed with.

[demosincebirth]

29. That's why in some states you have to be a certain age to drive, to drink, to join the military and

many other things. Gee, just think if you let you child/pre-teen, if you had one, make his own decisions about life. I read about this family once that allowed their kids to do, basically, what they pleased most of their lives -- two are crack addicts and the other one is doing ten to twenty in Quentin. The parents still don't take much of the blame. Gee, I wonder what went wrong?
Get real.

[Fix The Stupid]

30. Hmmm. Lots of straw in that reply.

Why so angry?

Where did I mention "age to drive, to drink, to join the military" anywhere in my post?

So, are you equating picking a religion with all those examples you provided? Really?

Ok.. let's go down that road for a minute...

1) Why are there age restrictions on "age to drive, to drink, to join the military"?

Maybe because these actions have serious consequences, not just on the subject, but the general population - correct? You wouldn't want a 4 yr. old out on the highway driving with the rest of us right? Or a 4 yr. old soldier? Or a drunk 3 yr old? Is this correct? Is that why you made that statement?

Since you equated all these actions to picking a religion, it stands by your reasoning that religion should also have some kind of qualifications/age restrictions, just like all your equivalencies require? If not, why make the comparison???

Isn't that like saying Religion is just as dangerous as a 4 yr. old driving, shooting and drinking?

I cannot understand why you gave the examples you did. All your options require the CONSENT of the participant correct? Tell me again how this equates to a parent forcing their child to church/sunday school etc, when they are too young to make this decision themselves?

[demosincebirth]

37. You know, if I answer you, I think it will start a process like banging my head against the wall.

So I 'll just leave it at that.

[Fix The Stupid]

38. Well, educate me then...

Please, share your wisdom. I am all for hearing your arguments...

Don't you think you kind of look a little childish right now?

Can't answer the questions, so you insult and run away?

If your argument is so strong you can dismiss me with those comments, then let's hear your argument.

Thanks

[rug]

14. That's a rather patronizing post.

That shirt doesn't suit you. Here, try one with stripes, they both have buttons.

[Freddie]

15. Thank you!

From this ELCA Lutheran!
We're just like the Catholic Church, minus the Pope, the misogyny and the homophobia.

[rug]

8. Not really. It's all in the framing of the message.

To the extent they think about it at all, who, especially regular church attendees, is against "religious liberty"? Except that's not what this is really about. A poll framed otherwise would have, I think, significantly different results.

[FarPoint]

5. They are political business and behave like a lobbyists

So I say ...TAX The Church.

[Humanist_Activist]

17. Since when did "religious liberty" get redefined to include forcing others to live by your beliefs?

If that's the church's stance on what religious liberty is, I want that liberty revoked.

[cleanhippie]

22. Religious bigotry is being relabeled as "religious liberty"?

Considering the organization that is pushing this, I am not surprised.


...And adherents will continue to fund and support this organization, even while protesting against its actions.

[Arugula Latte]

26. Oh FFS.

Their rights aren't being trampled. They are the tramplers.

Fuck the Catholic bishops and the Pope they rode in on.

[HockeyMom]

28. Divide among even religous Catholics and Bishops

My niece and her husband are very religious; Mass on Sundays, children to Catholic schools, lock step and barrel with teachings of the church, EXCEPT when it comes to comes to contraception, and limiting their family size.

They have 3 daughters. At the last family gathering, someone asked her husband when they were going to try again for a BOY and he said enough was enough. "Three children in our 40s is more than enough CHILDREN".

Yet, this couple SUPPORTS the Bishops on their lawsuits on contraceptives. Does not apply to THEM only OTHER people?????

I agrue all the time with my niece-in-law on the social issues of the Catholic Church. When I told her I am no longer a Catholic, she was shocked, but not as much as when my son-in-law annouced, they do not plan to even baptize any "future" children.

Stop forcing your church's anti-women views on others, especially when you yourself aren't following them.

[Angry Dragon]

31. Would you care to make a list of religious liberties and/or that are at risk??

[edhopper]

32. What a fake canard

this "religious liberty" bullshit is. Right up there with the Sharia Law scare.
If you are in business in this country, you abide by the employment laws. Even if that includes your employees getting birth control if needed.
This country kowtows to religion unlike any other industrial nation.
It is a giant load of steaming crap the RCC is using to get their sheep to vote in the Repukes so they can ban abortion.
It is another loathsome act of this corrupt Church.

[cbayer]

33. Agree, but I don't think the general membership is going to fall for it.

There may be some, but many Catholics see their faith and it's leadership in very different ways.

[edhopper]

34. Hope not

It is why many of us question why so many still support their leadership with money and toil.

[cbayer]

35. There has been some discussion of that lately.

Some catholic members have talked about how they are judicious about how they give their money and time. They give to catholic charitable groups that are pursuing goals they share.

One could say that leaving an institution with which you disagree is the cowards way out. In the end, it's a personal decision and I remain supportive of those that choose to stay.

[edhopper]

36. If it were a democratic institution

I could see that.
But the Church does not even consider the congregation as part of the Church, they are the flock. it is only the Clergy that is really the Church and they do what ever they need to protect themselves. What the churchgoers want or think is immaterial to them. THEY are the ones to decide on all things pertaining to God.
I think it has long past been of any value in the modern world, and their pattern of crimes and corruption just make them less worth remaining a viable entity.