>2/3 Mormons & <1/2 Catholics Republican?

[LongJourney]

most Mormons are not American, and that is becoming more so all the time.

Number one-- they are still American, as being inhabitants of these two continents. And your stats are inaccurate, from my readings. most are inactive, and some would even be surprised to know their names are on the rolls. Ever heard of baseball baptisms? I understand the kids thought they had to take a bath in order to join a baseball team. Those stats your church publishes are way out of line with reality.

And LDS communities in some areas can get pretty heterodox.

 

[Pahoran]

Number one-- they are still American, as being inhabitants of these two continents. And your stats are inaccurate, from my readings. most are inactive, and some would even be surprised to know their names are on the rolls.

I don’t believe we’re the only church that has more members than actually show up. Can you tell us, please, how many Catholics of record would meet the LDS standard for being counted as active members?

Ever heard of baseball baptisms?

Yes; that did happen, once. Ever heard of convert baptisms? We have hundreds of thousands of those every year.

I understand the kids thought they had to take a bath in order to join a baseball team. Those stats your church publishes are way out of line with reality.

They represent actual numbers of actual people being baptised and confirmed. They don’t represent any effort to read people’s minds.

And LDS communities in some areas can get pretty heterodox.

Whew! Thank you for admitting that. For a moment, I was starting to wonder if there were any LDS communities in any areas except Utah.

(This would not be a really useful line of argument for you, LJ. Really it would not.)

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[tpw]

If you reduce Catholic teaching on the wide spectrum of teachings far enough you could probably find common ground with anyone.

 

[SalesianSDB]

The Kennedys?

I think that’s how some people rationalize it.

I know a priest who is a strong Democrat. He has an Obama bumper sticker and baseball cap on his car. It’s very sad. My very conservative friend and I laugh and discuss how sad it is that he bought into it. Though he would most likely “justify” it by saying that it’s because his main issue is immigration. He’s devoted his life to serving migrant workers. He’s a wonderful man, and I love him, but he is just very confused about Church teaching and voting.

 

[LongJourney]

I don’t believe we’re the only church that has more members than actually show up. Can you tell us, please, how many Catholics of record would meet the LDS standard for being counted as active members?

We do not count our membership like you count yours. We do not have a list of members in Rome. LOL. That would be unmanageable. Since our church is not organized like a quasi-governmental entity, your argument is moot. For example, we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which is confidential, based on forgiveness, and voluntary. You have the temple recommend interview, which is subject to gossip, based on worthiness, and mandatory for those who want to participate in temple activities. There is no way to compare figures.

I would surmise that a study of members of record, broken down into under 18, jacks, minimals, chapel-goers, and recommend-holders would be very revealing. Not to mention the proportion of those in leadership positions who are of “royal” lineage.

 

[tomarin]

You are mistaken. Less than one-third of American Mormons live in Utah.

BTW Today, most Mormons are not American, and that is becoming more so all the time.

Interesting. I knew a convert in Taiwan once who was of course Chinese.

 

[Todd520]

We do not count our membership like you count yours. We do not have a list of members in Rome. LOL. That would be unmanageable. Since our church is not organized like a quasi-governmental entity, your argument is moot. For example, we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which is confidential, based on forgiveness, and voluntary. You have the temple recommend interview, which is subject to gossip, based on worthiness, and mandatory for those who want to participate in temple activities. There is no way to compare figures.

I would surmise that a study of members of record, broken down into under 18, jacks, minimals, chapel-goers, and recommend-holders would be very revealing. Not to mention the proportion of those in leadership positions who are of “royal” lineage.

Long Journey why are you throwing out red herrings instead of answering a simple question?

In my own research, I’ve seen that about 22% of Catholics attend Mass weekly, in the US.
(source: CARA research)

 

[LongJourney]

I’ve seen that about 22% of Catholics attend Mass weekly, in the US.

So? We are not perfect.

It is not a red herring. It is apples and oranges. Based on an inherent difference in philosophy.

 

[Pahoran]

We do not count our membership like you count yours. We do not have a list of members in Rome. LOL. That would be unmanageable.

Not with modern methods of information management; but that’s up to you. I’m not saying your method is wrong just because it’s different from ours.

I’m not like that.

Since our church is not organized like a quasi-governmental entity, your argument is moot.

Pardon me, but it is; just an older form of government. Think of a medieval kingdom along feudal lines.

For example, we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which is confidential, based on forgiveness, and voluntary. You have the temple recommend interview, which is subject to gossip, based on worthiness, and mandatory for those who want to participate in temple activities. There is no way to compare figures.

I don’t see that those two things relate to figures.

And, contra your uncharitable insinuation, Temple Recommend interviews are indeed confidential.

You could probably manage to do better than that, if you were only willing to try.

The point is that we, like you, have more baptised members than weekly behinds in the pews. The only real difference in view is that I’m not throwing any stones in your direction.

Watch out for the stained-glass windows!

I would surmise that a study of members of record, broken down into under 18, jacks, minimals, chapel-goers, and recommend-holders would be very revealing. Not to mention the proportion of those in leadership positions who are of “royal” lineage.

Ho hum. How many Pacellis worked for Vatican-owned entities through the mid-twentieth century and beyond? And how many were given the title of “Prince” because they were related to the Pope? There’s a real “royal lineage” for you.

Glass houses. Stones.

Try to avoid the temptation.

I am being charitable, patient and forbearing with you, LJ. Please don’t resent it too much.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[LongJourney]

I am being charitable, patient and forbearing with you, LJ. Please don’t resent it too much.

Your charity is just overwhelming!! Don’t worry, Mote and beam and all, your favorite strategy.

 

[Vixit]

Back more to the OP point… I have a question. Let’s say that, in the future, we have an election in which one candidate is a conservative, heck, let’s say a Republican Christian, no make that a Republican Catholic, loyal to the Church, but who totally supports abortion, though he is in agreement with the Church on every other issue. His opponent, however, is a liberal, heck, let’s say a Democratic Muslim, no make that a Democratic Muslim Mason, who is openly against the Catholic Church and all Christianity, but is totally against abortion, too.

At which point do I cease to vote for a candidate based on a single issue, and start using my brains and/or heart? Or do I blindly vote for President Hussein because he opposes abortion while the other candidate doesn’t??

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Remain on topic please

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Much of what you say here is dead-on. But I think it’s even more complicated. And I think many in here draw a direct correlation between REPUBLICAN and CATHOLIC. Like they’re birds of a feather? Republicans are more pro-life and against gay marriage and stem cell nonsense (thank God to all!) but they’re also very hostile to labor, very much “hey buddy, you’re on your own!” when it comes to unemployment or health care and quality of life issues as well as the environment as well as VERY pro-war.

A “good” Catholic cannot really totally fit into either of these disgusting parties, in my humble opinion. I happen to be a union worker and, in fact, a union rep at my school site. And I’m proud of that. I also happen to care that my father and mother, who lost around $350,000 in their retirement stocks on September 11th, have their social security and medicare (that THEY paid into!) to survive. I also care that people have health insurance and that we take care of people (not permanently as Obama seems to want) for a while when they lose their jobs.

Republicans are extremists in their own right. They are strictly for management and the business owner and the corporate CEO and the workers, not so much. Hence their hatred for unions and labor in general. They hate pensions, hate to see people in labor get to negotiate so much and have rights. Republicans are hawkish and since the neo-cons hijacked the party they’ve become nation-building adventurers. They love to wave the flag and tell us all we’re either patriotic or not patriotic enough, etc. YET they outsource jobs to the Philippines and India and China. Outsourcing is not patriotic. NAFTA was not patriotic either. So the GOP has a credibility gap with patriotism and sending American jobs to the developing world. They’re hypocrites.

Then the Democrats patronize sinful lifestyles and try to “normalize” them. They are great about taking care of labor and pensiona and unions BUT they punish small businesses with unreasonable taxation and regulations go off the deep end. They’re a one-trick pony party whose only solution is “have the government run it!” They, in the end, lean toward socialism and an order in which they define what is P.C., inappropriate and appropriate. They create their own rules that they themselves break on a whim and yet when the GOP does it, it’s racist. They want open borders and chaos, abortion, and they’re naive about our Muslim enemies.

I hate 'em both actually and think they’re both evil in their own right. I hear few people in here denounce both their negatives. I usually hear patronization of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush, Hannity, and trashing of Dems. I say trash 'em BOTH because neither of them cares about this country. One is out for $$$ at all costs, the other is out for power and social domination. Both are diabolical. A plague on both their houses I say

I say there is no reason for someone to be a member of EITHER of these parties to repond to your last statement!

I have been posed this question before. Why are a lot of Catholics Democrats or liberals?

The answer of course comes from American history. During the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, many immigrants to the United States were coming from predominantly Catholic countries such as Ireland, Italy, Croatia, and other eastern European Countries. When they came to the USA they faced moderate to severe persecution by the nativist elements in American society. They were generally poor and had to work working class jobs in industry. Because of their working conditions they formed and joined Labor Unions. The Democratic Party was the primary party that supported the labor unions, and the labor movement, hence in the early to middle 1900’s, the Democratic Party enjoyed strong Catholic support. A turning point came in 1973 when the Democratic Party championed and supported the Roe V Wade decision of the Supreme Court. Now Catholics had to choose between their religion and their political party. Should they choose the party that has always supported the rights of workers and labor unions, or should they choose the religion that remained a permanent aspect of their lives. Of course many Catholics ended up choosing their party, thereby alienating themselves from their Church, and many choose their Church, thereby alienating themselves from their Party. It has only been in the last 30 or so years that the Democratic Party has been at odds with the teachings of the Church, gay marriage being a rather new political issue. I suspect that the faithful Catholics who are true to the Church will outlast the compromising Catholics who have abandoned apostolic teaching for political convenience. And now since the Labor movement is not as big an issue as it was 60 years ago, there really is no reason for a Catholic to support or be a member of the Democratic Party.

 

[PaulDupre]

BTW Today, most Mormons are not American, and that is becoming more so all the time.

Murdock

But the vast majority of those are inactive, so they don’t make much difference in the overall scheme of Mormonism.

 

[zerinus]

Why do the Mormons seem to be unified politically much more than Catholics (cf. this)? A higher percentage of them are Republican, a party more in-line with Catholic teaching on numerous issues, i.e., Republicans as a party are more against homosexual “marriages,” abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, contraception, big government, etc., than Democrats, whose party platform includes, inter alia, the “right” to abort one’s child. How do the Mormons unify themselves better in this regard and turn out to the polls in proportionately greater numbers than Catholics when they do not have a strong episcopal hierarchy like we Catholics do? How do the Mormons unify themselves politically? Whatever their key, we must learn from them in this way, not that the true Church Church is flawed but because all of us have original sin. Thanks

It is not true that Mormons actively “unify” themselves politically. The Church itself is apolitical, and does not take a stance on party political political lines. The Church does, however, advise its members to take an active part in politics, and vote for the party and candidate of their choice. The reasons why most of the (American) Mormons tend to vote Republican rather than Democrat probably has as much to do with history, sociology, and culture as with religion.

Yes, this is very true, but why? What about Mormons makes it seemingly less present among them than among us?

Mormonism is a kind of religion that requires you to believe in it strongly before you decide to accept it; and once you have achieved that lever conviction about it, you tend to be less “relativistic” in your attitude towards other things. The line of demarcation between good and evil and right and wrong tends to be sharper (as a general rule) for a Mormon than it is likely to be for members of traditional or established churches.

I thought Mormons had a similar history, too. To avoid persecution is why they moved out west. Why did the Mormons, who admire Catholic teaching on life and moral issues, especially Humanæ Vitæ, not feel forced to choose between party and religion?

Because the LDS Church maintains a strict neutrality in politics.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Much of what you say here is dead-on. But I think it’s even more complicated. And I think many in here draw a direct correlation between REPUBLICAN and CATHOLIC. Like they’re birds of a feather? Republicans are more pro-life and against gay marriage and stem cell nonsense (thank God to all!) but they’re also very hostile to labor, very much “hey buddy, you’re on your own!” when it comes to unemployment or health care and quality of life issues as well as the environment as well as VERY pro-war.

A “good” Catholic cannot really totally fit into either of these disgusting parties, in my humble opinion. I happen to be a union worker and, in fact, a union rep at my school site. And I’m proud of that. I also happen to care that my father and mother, who lost around $350,000 in their retirement stocks on September 11th, have their social security and medicare (that THEY paid into!) to survive. I also care that people have health insurance and that we take care of people (not permanently as Obama seems to want) for a while when they lose their jobs.

Republicans are extremists in their own right. They are strictly for management and the business owner and the corporate CEO and the workers, not so much. Hence their hatred for unions and labor in general. They hate pensions, hate to see people in labor get to negotiate so much and have rights. Republicans are hawkish and since the neo-cons hijacked the party they’ve become nation-building adventurers. They love to wave the flag and tell us all we’re either patriotic or not patriotic enough, etc. YET they outsource jobs to the Philippines and India and China. Outsourcing is not patriotic. NAFTA was not patriotic either. So the GOP has a credibility gap with patriotism and sending American jobs to the developing world. They’re hypocrites.

Then the Democrats patronize sinful lifestyles and try to “normalize” them. They are great about taking care of labor and pensiona and unions BUT they punish small businesses with unreasonable taxation and regulations go off the deep end. They’re a one-trick pony party whose only solution is “have the government run it!” They, in the end, lean toward socialism and an order in which they define what is P.C., inappropriate and appropriate. They create their own rules that they themselves break on a whim and yet when the GOP does it, it’s racist. They want open borders and chaos, abortion, and they’re naive about our Muslim enemies.

I hate 'em both actually and think they’re both evil in their own right. I hear few people in here denounce both their negatives. I usually hear patronization of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush, Hannity, and trashing of Dems. I say trash 'em BOTH because neither of them cares about this country. One is out for $$$ at all costs, the other is out for power and social domination. Both are diabolical. A plague on both their houses I say

I say there is no reason for someone to be a member of EITHER of these parties to repond to your last statement!

Awesome Post. If this site had reputation points, I would give you several.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks, Johnny. That means a lot, mate. I appreciate it. I am more accustomed to getting blasted for not jumping on one bandwagon or another . Apparently you and I feel similarly about these things. It’s sad to think that we handed Obama the reigns of power and he has thrown us into massive, unthinkable debt, has supported a mosque by the Trade Center, wanted to try 911 terrorists in NY in public court trials, has had the government expand Medicaid to sickening levels, cap and trade, and now he’s going to let the Bush tax cuts expire.

So for me he’s a real failure.

Then the GOP is poised to take things back. I plan on voting for several of them (pinching my nose mind you because I hate the GOP almost as much as the Dems) because Reid and Pelosi really need to GO and we need to stop the bleeding with the debt. But at a gubernatorial level Meg Whitman here in California has made it loud and clear that she hates our pensions (I happen to pay into one! CALSTRS), doesn’t trust us teachers (loves to blame us if it’s raining), doesn’t like unions, and has a real attitude problem, and is all for illegal immigrants. Yippee!

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could line item veto the actual candidates? Where are all the pro-life, low taxes, pro-pension, anti-gay marriage, anti-illegal immigration, pro environment, anti nation building, pro business, pro teacher, mix and match candidates when ya need 'em?

When Obama lets the Bush tax cuts expire, my wife and I will lose our $1,000 per child tax deduction. My wife is in the nursing RN program. She won’t be working for a couple of years. I’m the breadwinner and Bush’s tax cuts have truly been what saved our skins. I actually voted twice for Bush.

When I saw Sarah Palin on the ticket, I couldn’t vote for McCain. I voted Obama. And my God I have felt the fool and guilty and lousy about that vote! Won’t make the same mistake again. But I am a moderate and more independent than most, especially in here! I’m not a one-issue voter or a drone for either camp. I’m me.

I appreciate your kind words, friend.

Awesome Post. If this site had reputation points, I would give you several.

 

[OKAstro]

Just as there are RINO’s, there are certainly CINO’s - mostly in the NE and other liberal areas.

The Kennedy’s, Kerry, Biden - to name a few. Just like we know how Snow/Collins can never be depended on to vote wioth Republicans.

And let’s not forget Madame Speaker, that stalwart Catholic and defender of the unborn

 

[campeador]

Very true. The hard part is balancing that evil intention against the Democrats’ good intentions on welfare and immigration and medical care, and that combination (however it works out) against the Scrooge Republicans who oppose abortion.

It’s a tricky calculus.
I solved the problem by voting Libertarian, except that in this last election the Libertarian platform had abortion on it. They didn’t have that on their platform in prior years. Argh – hard question to solve!

Mormons are anti-abortion. Republicans are anti-abortion. Simple.

No need for calculus…

 

[Catherine_D]

The KEY position is about abortion. If you believe it is OK to murder the unborn, you are on one side, if you are AGAINST that, you are on another side. The Catholic church does not quibble on this subject.