|
Edited on Tue Sep-02-08 07:15 AM by Mimosa
I'm a non-practicing but believing Catholic. My SO is Buddhist. I'm spiritually inclined so over many years I've known many people who practice many faiths. I've even been initiated as a voudoun mambo.
I do not believe in intolerantly mocking any religious people. I'd object to a Sikh being called a towelhead, for example.
The term fundies on DU is generally used to refer to evangelical Christians. Yes, I've known a few in both NOLA and ATL and generally have little in common with them culturally or religiously. I think there are far less evangelical christians who stay in the enthusiastic doctrinal born again mode than many imagine. In their quest for power and influence, preachers such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robinson and Rick Warren have been very successful in convincing politicians that the evangelicals numbers are larger than they are.
I think many conservatives who aren't particularly religious aren't single issue voters. (I'm a classic Jeffersonian liberal and I am not a single issue voter.) Anyhow what happens is that some issues tend to group together. I may be a liberal but I also support 2nd amendment rights as well as charter schools. So do social conservatives. But the not particularly religious might vote for a candidate whose cluster happens to include being adamantly pro-life because of other issues. That's how people such as Louisiana's Senator David Vitter got into office.
Personally I like Louisiana's Governor Bobby Jindal a lot. He was my congressman. He's a genius and he's an effective leader and governor. He is also a pro-life Catholic (btw, Hindu doctrine is also pro-life). But because of other factors that one issue would not stop me from quite happily voting for him.
Obama's acceptance speech was remarkably adept in his outreach to the cluster voters. Many conservative voters have voted against their own interests for fear of big government.
|