 |
| Albert Menendez has been counting the religious affiliation of members of Congress since 1972. (Photo by Tyrone Turner) |
New Congress brings with it religious firsts
BY Jonathan Tilove
Posted on 12/12/2006 8:00:51 AM PST by Incorrigible
|
|
WASHINGTON -- The new Congress will, for the first time, include a Muslim, two Buddhists, more Jews than Episcopalians, and the highest-ranking Mormon in congressional history.
Roman Catholics remain the largest single faith group in Congress, accounting for 29 percent of all members of the House and Senate, followed by Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Jews and Episcopalians.
While Catholics in Congress are nearly 2-to-1 Democrats, the most lopsidedly Democratic groups are Jews and those not affiliated with any religion. Of the 43 Jewish members of Congress, there is only one Jewish Republican in the House and two in the Senate. The six religiously unaffiliated members of the House are all Democrats.
The most Republican groups are the small band of Christian Scientists in the House (all five are Republican), and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (12 Republicans and three Democrats) -- though the top-ranking Mormon in the history of Congress will be Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the incoming Democratic majority leader.
Baptists divide along partisan lines defined by race. Black Baptists, like all black members of Congress, are Democrats, while most white Baptists are Republicans, though there are such notable exceptions as incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. Byrd, first elected in 1958 when white Baptist Democrats were commonplace, will serve as president pro tem in the new Senate, making him third in succession to the presidency after the vice president and speaker of the House.
Because 2006 was such a good year for Democrats, they have regained their commanding advantage among Catholics, which had slipped during an era of GOP dominance. In Pennsylvania alone, five new Democrats, all Catholics, were elected to Congress in November, including Bob Casey, who defeated Sen. Rick Santorum, a far more conservative Catholic.
In the new Congress, two-thirds of all Catholic members will be Democrats. By contrast, after big Republican gains in 1994, 44 percent of Catholic members of Congress were Republican, according to Albert Menendez, a writer and researcher who has been counting the religious affiliation of members of Congress since 1972.
"It's a thankless task, but somebody's got to do it," said Menendez, 64, who lives in nearby North Potomac, Md., and has published his counts and analysis first with Americans United for Separation of Church and State and more recently in Voice of Reason, the newsletter of Americans for Religious Liberty. He is also the author of several books, including "Religion at the Polls" (1977), "John F. Kennedy: Catholic and Humanist" (1979) and "Evangelicals at the Ballot Box" (1996).
Menendez bases his count on how members of Congress identify themselves. When he did his first tally after the 1972 election, Congress was still much in the sway of a few mainline Christian faiths. At the time, just three Protestant denominations -- Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians -- accounted for 43 percent of all members of Congress, including 51 senators. Come January, those three will account for just a fifth of Congress, including 32 senators. Still, all three -- and especially Episcopalians and Presbyterians -- continue to be better represented on Capitol Hill than among the general population.
Other historically important Christian denominations have suffered steep declines in Congress. Menendez said the Lyndon Johnson landslide of 1964 brought 14 Unitarians to Washington. In the next Congress there will be two -- Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., and Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. In the late 1960s there were 29 members of the United Church of Christ in Congress. In the new Congress, there will be only six, including Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who joined the church as an adult. (Obama's Kenyan father was from a Muslim background and his American mother's parents were non-practicing Baptist and Methodist.)
Through it all, Lutherans have maintained. Menendez said they were underrepresented relative to their population in 1972, with 16 members of Congress, and remain underrepresented today with 17. (While their total numbers have held steady, their political allegiance has flipped from 2-to-1 Republican to 2-to-1 Democrat.)
Evangelical Christians -- a category that cuts across denominational lines -- are even more underrepresented, according to Furman University political scientist James Guth, all the more so after this year's defeat of Republican incumbents like Reps. John Hostettler of Indiana and Jim Ryun of Kansas.
But perhaps the most underrepresented group in Congress is the 14 percent of all American adults who, according to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, conducted by scholars at the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, claim no religion at all. Only six members of Congress, all Democrats, identify themselves as religiously unaffiliated: Reps. John Tierney and John Olver of Massachusetts, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Mark Udall of Colorado.
Meanwhile, Jews have continued to gain representation in Congress (8 percent in the new Congress) even as their share of the national population has waned (1.3 percent in 2001). But Jewish numbers in Congress also tend to fluctuate with Democratic fortunes. In a year in which Democrats did well in unexpected places, new Jewish members of Congress were elected this fall from Tennessee, Kentucky, Arizona and New Hampshire, as well as more familiar terrain like Florida and Wisconsin.
For Buddhists and Muslims, the 110th Congress represents their baptism in congressional representation.
The two Buddhist Democrats -- Reps. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Hank Johnson of Georgia -- both have avoided talking about their religion, saying it is an entirely private matter.
A spokesman for Hirono, who came to Hawaii with her mother from Japan when she was 8, would only confirm that Hirono was raised in the tradition of her mother's Jodo Shu Buddhism. Jodo Shu is a mainstream sect, according to Richard Seager, a professor of religious studies at Hamilton College and the author of "Buddhism in America."
Johnson's Buddhism was scarcely noted in his successful campaign to unseat incumbent Democrat Cynthia McKinney in a majority black district. Both Johnson and McKinney are black. The ever-controversial McKinney is Catholic.
A spokesman for Johnson would only confirm that he became a Buddhist some 30 years ago and is affiliated with Soka Gakkai International, the American Buddhist association that Seager said has had the most success attracting African-Americans.
Like Johnson, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first Muslim elected to Congress, is a convert and African-American. Raised Catholic, he converted to Islam at age 19 while attending Wayne State University.
"The election of this first Muslim is quite important symbolically," said John Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. "It may very well be the harbinger of greater acceptance of Muslims in the future."
Unlike the sotto voce experience of the two Buddhist candidates, Ellison's religion was a source of controversy throughout his campaign, and ever since. Most recently, when Ellison said that he would take the oath of office on the Quran, radio talk show host Dennis Prager wrote on Townhall.com, "He should not be allowed to do so ... because the act undermines American civilization." A media firestorm ensued.
Menendez first became fascinated by the intersection of religion and politics watching the Kennedy-Nixon campaign as a college freshman in his native Jacksonville, Fla. "I observed how people were shifting their allegiances either for or against Kennedy because of his religion," said Menendez. "I wanted to see how often that happened through American history."
The coming presidential race may provide more data. With Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a devout Mormon, a likely candidate for the Republican nomination, a recent Rasmussen Reports survey found that 43 percent of Americans would not consider voting for a Mormon for president.
CHARTING THE RELIGIONS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Religion ............ House . Senate . Total . Percent.... Percent
Sources: Count of religious affiliations of members of Congress compiled from self-identification in Congressional Quarterly profiles of each member. Totals do not include results of runoff elections in Louisiana's 2nd (Dec. 9) and Texas' 23rd (Dec. 12) congressional districts.
.............................................. Congress ..... Pop.
AME (v) ............... 2 ...... 0 ..... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... (u)
Anglican .............. 1 ...... 0...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... (w)
Assembly of God ....... 4 ...... 0...... 4 ..... 0.7 ......... 0.5
Baptist .............. 59 ...... 7..... 66 .... 12.3 ........ 16.3
Buddhist .............. 2 ...... 0...... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... 0.5
Christian (x) .........16 ...... 2..... 18 ..... 3.4 ......... 6.8
Christian Reformed .... 2 ...... 0...... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... (y)
Christian Scientist ... 5 ...... 0...... 5 ..... 0.9 ......... 0.1
Church of Christ ...... 1 ...... 1...... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... 1.2
Church of God ......... 0 ...... 1...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... 0.5
Congregationalist ..... 0 ...... 1...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... (z)
Congregation.-Baptist . 1 ...... 0...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... (u)
Disciples of Christ ... 2 ...... 0...... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... 0.2
Eastern Orthodox ...... 4 ...... 1...... 5 ..... 0.9 ......... 0.3
Episcopalian ......... 27 ..... 10..... 37 ..... 6.9 ......... 1.7
Evangelical ........... 2 ...... 0...... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... 0.5
Evangelical Lutheran .. 1 ...... 0...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... (u)
Evangelical Methodist . 1 ...... 0...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... (u)
Hindu ................. 0 ...... 0...... 0 ..... 0.0 ......... 0.4
Jewish ............... 30 ..... 13..... 43 ..... 8.0 ......... 1.3
LDS (Mormon) ......... 10 ...... 5..... 15 ..... 2.8 ......... 1.3
Reorganized LDS ....... 1 ...... 0...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... (u)
Lutheran ............. 14 ...... 3..... 17 ..... 3.2 ......... 4.6
Methodist ............ 48 ..... 13..... 61 .... 11.4 ......... 6.8
Muslim ................ 1 ...... 0...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... 0.5
(Church of) Nazarene .. 1 ...... 0...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... 0.3
Presbyterian ......... 35 ...... 9..... 44 ..... 8.2 ......... 2.7
Protestant (x) ....... 22 ...... 4..... 26 ..... 4.9 ......... 2.2
Quaker ................ 1 ...... 0...... 1 ..... 0.2 ......... 0.1
Roman Catholic ...... 129 ..... 25.... 154 .... 28.7 ........ 24.5
Seventh-day Adventist . 2 ...... 0...... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... 0.3
Unitarian ............. 1 ...... 1...... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... 0.3
United Church of Christ 2 ...... 4...... 6 ..... 1.1 ......... 0.7
unaffiliated .......... 6 ...... 0...... 6 ..... 1.1 ........ 14.1
(u) no discrete category exists in the American Religious Identification Survey
(v) African Methodist Episcopal
(w) included with Episcopalians
(x) no denomination stated
(y) less than 0.05 percent
(z) included with United Church of Christ
Percent of population by religion comes from American Religious Identification Survey, Self-Described Religious Identification of U.S. Adult Population, 2001.
Dec. 8, 2006(Jonathan Tilove can be contacted at jonathan.tilove@newhouse.com)
Not for commercial use. For educational and discussion purposes only.
The problem for Catholics is that religiously they are fiscally liberal and socially conservative.
Followers of the Catholic faith oppose abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. The most obedient oppose the death penalty and are not hardliners on immigration.
They support Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, good public education, a robust safety net, and redistributive justice.
This set of values sits 50% in both political parties, and so do Catholics.
Republican social policies are generally good, from a Catholic perspective, except for the death penalty and the bitter opposition to amnesty for illegals. But Republicans stink on economic and welfare issues.
Democrat economic policies are generally good, from a Catholic perspective, but the Democrats stink on social issues except for their opposition to the death penalty and milder view towards amnesty for illegal immigrants.
What America really needs is a Catholic Party, like the European Christian Democrats. It would hold the balance of power on many issues, and would also double as a veteran's party, because Catholics are way over-represented in the military.
But, Catholics don't like to organize politically on religious lines. It's not in the tradition of the Church.
So that split between the parties is lilkly to remain for Catholics, depending on which of the issues - social or economic - any particular Catholic thinks is most important.
I don't think the country can stand more "Christians" after the pattern of traitorous, globalist, clueless, arrogant, thieving-plagerist peanut brain.
I keep hearing how America won't accept a Mormon president (there are many leftist callers into talk radio, notably Michael Medved's show, who say "those guys are crazy"). It never was an issue in the national campaign for the highest-ranking Mormon in congressional history, Harry Reid (D). And Congressional leadership IS a national issue.
I guess the left is afraid of religious kooks unless they are their own kooks.
Yes, those 'social conservatives' like Ted Kennedy and Cynthia McKinney.
Free Market Fundamentalism is not conservative:
The debates with my relatives at holiday dinners reflect this divide as well.
However, I point out to them that real Catholic concern for the poor is reflected in the outcome, not by simply pouring more money into failed social programs. And I use the welfare reform act as a primary example. I ask them why they take deductions on their taxes if the government is doing such a good job. I haven't quite won them over but I'm making some progress in causing cognitive dissonance among my fair weather Catholic relatives and friends.
And how many of them worship themselves?
"and would also double as a veteran's party, because Catholics are way over-represented in the military."
I know there are a lot of Latinos in the military, but where can I find those numbers?
"The problem for Catholics is that religiously they are fiscally liberal and socially conservative."
And many have more allegiance to their union hall than to their God.
Catholics have allowed the Democrat party to survive. They are the core of the party's strength in the big cities.
Jews are apparently suicidal since they are so overwhelmingly Democrat.
I disagree that Catholics who support Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, strong public education, reasonable welfare protections, oppose the death penalty, insist upon fair trade and a living wage are "CINOs".
They are faithful Catholics.
The papal encyclicals in the post right above yours on the thread spells out the economic terms, which is much more communitarian than morally unacceptable laissez-faire capitalism.
Abortion is the greatest of the issues which faces us, but, of course, elected officials do not determine abortion rights except in the narrowest circumstances; the Supreme Court has, and does. The Catholics on the Supreme Court: Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia are the bulwarks of conservatism, but even they are not willing to actually use their judicial power to find a positive defense for babies. For their Catholicism teaches that they are human from the moment of conception and THEREFORE persons, and THEREFORE protected by the full Bill of Rights from the moment of conception. Catholics in American politics, even conservatives, have allowed subordinate political philosophies to cloud the clear moral imperatives of their God, even the good guys!
The Democrat social view is not always compatible with Catholicism, of course, but it is closer economically.
A corrective to the myth that Catholics are or ought to be against the free market is Michael Novak's works, including "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism". Novak is a Catholic seminarian who left the calling to become a journalist and who gradually changed from a leftist to a believer in market capitalism. Along the way, he has explained and expounded on how Catholic doctrine and free market economics are more than compatible, they are essential twins.
There is nothing morally unacceptable about free market economics, especially since free market capitalism is responsible for erasing much of the abject poverty in the industrialized world, the kind of poverty the priests in the pulpits tell us is a scourge.
The papal encyclicals make clear our moral responsibilities to eachother, but they also make clear the need for property rights, the family as an economic unit, and human rights and other aspects of economic reality that are incompatible with socialism. Since the essense of good entrepreneurship is service to others, why not think of a well-functioning market economy as a model of what catholic doctrine would like to see?
We ought not confuse bishops for economic advisors, as if they would or ought have a position on tariffs or minimum wage or tax rates or airline regulation. And we ought not fall in the trap of agreeing to the socialists' phony premises (that only socialists 'care' for people and that capitalism is too cruel simply because it has market-based risk as opposed to Govt-created risk/oppression in it).
Since free market economics is a BETTER model for organizing the economy in a prosperous and sound way, we express our care and concern for other people by supporting an economic system that is best for people.
"However, I point out to them that real Catholic concern for the poor is reflected in the outcome, not by simply pouring more money into failed social programs."
That is very true.
" And I use the welfare reform act as a primary example. I ask them why they take deductions on their taxes if the government is doing such a good job. I haven't quite won them over but I'm making some progress in causing cognitive dissonance among my fair weather Catholic relatives and friends."
See my previous post. I wonder if they would be won over by the essay and books of Michael Novak. If you want to shock them, tell them that Michael Milken did more to help the poor than Mother Theresa. Shocking but there is truth in it.
The regulated free market has worked far better than the unregulated free market ever did.
Catholicism calls for a living wage, whereby a wage-earner can support a family, and the caregiving mother can raise the family.
However one gets to universal care for the sick, Catholicism demands it, and there is no "waiting period" to get there. In other words, we don't get to break (human) eggs to make a better omelette later.
We could go to fully free-market medicine...that would not be contrary to Catholic teaching in and of itself - BUT on the way to free market medicine we would still have to provide full care to anybody who fell between the cracks, and once we were there, it would have to continue to provide care to everybody.
Since the 1930s, when all of this regulation, and Social Security and other protections were first put into place, we have become vastly more wealthy and comfortable than we ever were before. Great crying injustices in our society have been alleviated, and all the while we have grown and grown, in spite of (or rather, BECAUSE OF) the social protections which set the middle class freer than ever before, and put a floor under poverty.
It's not such a bad thing, you know, to look at American economic history since the New Deal, and realize that it has been an overwhelming success.
The same is true in post-World War II Europe. Only then did Europe adopt social protections. And since then, every European country is wealthier and more prosperous, healthier and longer-lived than it was before social protection.
Social protection, as a fundamental role of the state, is a good thing. It is good for individuals, and has proven good for the economy as a whole. It has also allowed for great social stability: gone are the desperate crowds of proletarians who might literally starve in a downturn, and who would rebel and sew anarchy first. Thanks to Social Security and Medicare and universal public schooling, we live in a more prosperous, tamer and better world.
Republicans keep wanting to pull apart that social structure. They don't know what they are doing, and nobody is ever going to let them do it. It's unfortunate, because it would be great if Republicans made peace with the New Deal AND retained their strong concern with social morality and family values. THEN we would really get someplace, and probably get a real swing of Catholics. But as it is, given that the predominant view about economics in the GOP is yours, WOSG, and not mine, Catholics must remain divided. Republican economics are not good for people. If fully implemented, they will return us back to the pre-Social Security, pre-Unemployment insurance, pre-Medicare days, when people literally starved, and old folks had to camp out in their kids houses for sustenance. Republicans think that won't happen, but it will, and that's why nobody's going to trust them with the keys to the car on the economy.
Catholic parochial schools were started because of the overt Protestant bias in the public school system. I'll bet most "Catholics" today are blissfully unaware of that history.
Bump that idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.