Posted on 05/11/2012 1:40:26 PM PDT by Gillibrand
Hardly anyone knew Henk Heithuis when he was killed in a car accident on 28 October 1958 when only 23 years old. Today, fifty years after his untimely death, the sad fate of the Dutchman is extensively covered in the international press – from the "Spiegel" to the FAZ to the "Telegraph".
The media interest has a reason: The name of the young man at the centre of a scandal brings shame on the Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands and also reaction in politics. This is because Heithuis, who spent nearly his entire life in Catholic homes and boarding schools, was there not only sexually abused but the church prompted his castration, supposedly to cure his homosexuality.
From the confessional to the surgeon
Worse still, the unfortunate Heithuis was perhaps just one of several victims who were castrated.
(Excerpt) Read more at cathcon.blogspot.co.uk ...
What is silly is this ridiculous fantasy about the Catholic vote in America, not existing, not being real.
A single denomination is just that, and the Catholic denomination is killing conservatives and the pro-life movement in the voting booth.
Southern Baptist voting and Catholic voting is different because of something to do with their teachings in their churches.
We see that with Hispanics, Catholic Hispanics and Protestant Hispanics are two different votes, Catholic Hispanics vote democrat as Catholics always have, and Protestant Hispanics, while approaching closer to a 50/50 vote, at least reflect some of the natural Protestant republican voting that the Protestant vote always has.
Liberal churches produce liberal voters.
“What is silly is this ridiculous fantasy about the Catholic vote in America, not existing, not being real.”
It’s not a fantasy. Catholics no longer vote in anything approaching a monolithic bloc. A group that votes 50% for Party A in one election, 54% for the same party in the previous election, 51% or so for Party B in the election before that, etc., giving smallish majorities to Party A in some years and Party B in others is no longer a single voting bloc.
The last time Catholics gave anywhere near 60% of their votes to one presidential candidate or another was in 1968 when Hubert Humphrey got 59% of the Catholic vote, according to Gallup. That's 44 years ago.
Oh, wait. That's not quite accurate. By Gallup's numbers, Catholics voted 61% for RONALD REAGAN in 1984. Oh, well. We DID sorta vote as a little bit of a bloc in 1984. For the Republican. LOL.
Examples of voting blocs would be blacks (over 80%, often over 90% Dem, consistently) or Hispanics (never below 60% Dem, often quite a bit higher for the Dems) or Jews (in recent decades, nearly never below 70% Dem, as much as nearly 80% Dem).
Whites are not quite a voting bloc. They typically give the Republicans in the high 50s or near to 60%. But that leaves a whole lot of white folks voting Dem.
But since 1972, Catholics increasingly do not vote as a bloc. Their votes have continued to trend away from any particular preference for the Dems to the point now where usually the Catholic vote is within a point or two of the national vote of the entire electorate. In fact, the Catholic vote was apparently a little bit more Republican this year than the rest of the electorate.
Catholics no longer represent anything approaching a single bloc of voters that predominantly votes for a particular party.
But only anti-Catholic bigotry blinds some to trying to fit the square peg into the round hole of trying to re-imagine the modern Catholic vote as a single bloc, when the larger truth is kicking them in the pants: Similar to the rest of the US voting population, different ethnic and racial groups of Catholics do vote as blocs, or nearly so. And those blocs are broadly similar to those that exist in the rest of the population.
BLACK Catholics do. HISPANIC Catholics do. WHITE Catholics do, a little. Just like blacks, generally, Hispanics generally, and whites generally.
But in the Church this year, out of 100 folks, 48 voted for Gov. Romney and about 50 voted for the anti-Christ.
That is at odds with this piece of tripe: “Catholics and liberal is not two different things,...”
That doesn't even take into account the fact that more religious Catholics - those that take more seriously the actual teachings of the Church - are more likely to vote Republican and less religious Catholics - those that often ignore even the most basic teachings and disciplines of the Church - are more likely to vote Democrat. In other words, those who take seriously the teachings of the Catholic Church are, as a population, less liberal.
That kinda makes a hash of this: “Catholics and liberal is not two different things,...”
Of course, it’s apparent that your misinterpretation goes much deeper than merely mis-identifying “Catholics and liberal” as the same.
In comparing a single American denomination to the Universal Church, you don’t evince any realization that the American political categories of “liberal” and “conservative” may fit narrow American denominations, but not the Universal Church.
However, let me address directly your logical fallacy of deciding that because Catholic Hispanics vote more heavily than Protestant Hispanics, it must be because the Catholic Church is liberal. A bare assertion unsupported by any actual argument or citation of facts.
Hispanics usually come from societies that don’t embrace many of the concepts that are central to conservatism, especially that of a preference of smaller government. Hispanics who don’t assimilate well (and unfortunately, large numbers don’t) are unlikely to let go of their ways of thinking about most things, including the proper scope, size and role of government. They are also unlikely to change their religion.
But those Hispanics that better assimilate are more likely to embrace more mainstream American social and political thinking such as the idea of smaller and limited government. Folks who more readily assimilate and change in these ways are also more open to changing their religion.
sitetest
Yes, Catholics are a democrat voting block, and always have been with the exception of 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 2004, and possibly 1956.
Only one of those votes was against an incumbent democrat, the rest were reelections, and Reagan’s third term.
That is as good as it has ever gotten for us in regards to the Catholic vote, but that little period is over, and Catholics are back where they have always been supporting Obama both times, and we have no guarantee that they will ever vote republican again.
The Catholic denomination has traditionally been a dependable democrat voting block, and with a little burp during the last 40 years to help elect republicans who were already in office, it is returning to it’s home.
Catholic immigration equals to importing democrat voters, which it always has.
Your posts are hallucinatory, no longer correspond to reality, and no longer even use specific words properly.
Going back to 1952, which is 60 years, Catholics have voted for the winner of the popular vote 13 out of 16 presidential elections.
If Catholics are a Democrat voting bloc, then, well,... so is the rest of the country, LOL.
But a deeper problem with your analysis is that you seem to think that a group that gives roughly half its votes each year to each of the two major parties is somehow voting as a “bloc.” From wiki:
==========
A voting bloc is a group of voters that are strongly motivated by a specific common concern or group of concerns to the point that such specific concerns tend to dominate their voting patterns, causing them [to] vote together in elections.[1] For example, Beliefnet identifies 12 main religious blocs in American politics, including e.g. the “Religious Right”, whose concerns are dominated by religious and sociocultural issues and “White Bread Protestants”, who, while also conservative, tend to care more about economic issues.[2] The result is that each of these groups votes en bloc in elections.
==========
By definition, a group that roughly evenly divides its votes between two major parties is not a bloc.
“...but that little period is over, and Catholics are back where they have always been supporting Obama both times, and we have no guarantee that they will ever vote republican again.”
LOL! That's even funnier, as the Catholic vote appears to have UNDERVOTED for Obama in 2012, by a little bit.
sitetest
Catholics have only voted republican 5 or 6 times in history, it doesn’t really please me that voting for Obama twice, ups their score of being on the winner’s side.
As an historically loyal democrat voting bloc, the Catholic vote has pretty much run it’s course of flirting with the GOP and has returned to it’s dependable place in the democrat column.
It amazes me that such a pro-abortion, liberal voting group is so protected and defended by some people, who are supposed to be conservatives, but we see it on thread after thread.
Get back to me when you have a coherent argument.
And learn the meaning of the word “bloc.”
LOL.
sitetest
I made my coherent statement of fact.
“Catholics and liberal is not two different things, the majority of Catholics are part of the liberal coalition.”
Actually, you made two different assertions there.
The first assertion is that “Catholics and liberal is not two different things [sic]...”
You equate Catholics with liberals (Or, perhaps, liberalism. Your syntax is fractured; the precise meaning thus is not quite obvious. But the gist is.). Your statement makes an identity between them. You say that they are not two different things. That assertion is false. Catholics are not so readily labeled. Some Catholics are liberals, some aren't.
“... the majority of Catholics are part of the liberal coalition.”
This is a different statement from the first. The first posits and identity between Catholics and liberal, which, as we've already seen, is false.
The second part doesn't mean the same as, “Catholics and liberal is not two different things...[sic]”
Thus, your statement is incoherent.
If you'd have stuck to those two somewhat incoherently juxtaposed clauses, one could chalk it up to poor writing skills, and just say, “What he meant was that a majority of Catholics are liberal - the first part was just poorly-written hyperbole.”
But then you talk about the “Catholic vote,” meaning that there is a relatively-unified, single bloc of voters. You even say:
“The Catholic denomination has traditionally been a dependable democrat voting block [sic],...”
As demonstrated, Catholics don't vote as a bloc. You don't show any understanding of the word “bloc.”
sitetest
In the meantime, democrats can keep counting on the members of the catholic church to support their pro-abortion, liberal agenda.
The Catholic vote, it’s a democrat thing.
Your facts and logic are impeccable, but don't expect that to influence the four legs good, two legs bad dialog on this subject from ansel12. The real story is that the largest "bloc" of Catholic voters are those who fail to cast a ballot. That number is consistently more than half of all self-identified Catholics. Of those that do vote it is indeed true that slightly more than half vote consistently Democrat, but it is disingenuous to continue to insist that the voting behavior of the 25% or so of the Catholics that vote vote Democrat is anything other that representative of that minority of Catholics.
Pax et Bonum.
In the meantime, democrats can keep counting on the members of the catholic church to support their pro-abortion, liberal agenda.
The Catholic vote, it’s a democrat thing.
Thanks. I have no expectations in that regard. Just trying to make plain what's what for those with an interest.
sitetest
A more accurate statement would say; "In the meantime, democrats can keep counting on a minority of members of the catholic church to support their pro-abortion, liberal agenda." That is just like whatever church it is you belong to.
However, if you are not interested in the truth none of that will matter to you. The ironic thing would be that any such disdain for the truth in pursuit of a political agenda would be indicative of the Democrats you rail against.
Peace be with you
“In the meantime, democrats can keep counting on a majority of members of the catholic church to support their pro-abortion, liberal agenda.”
Choosing not to vote does not express disagreement with the members who do vote, in fact, the lower the Catholic turnout, the better for the pro-life movement.
This pretense that democrats don’t win the Catholic vote, is bizarre.
Surely that's debateable.
With that many exceptions, I'd have to say they're a swing group -- and that ethnicity enters into it, with Hispanics tilting the Catholic vote to the Democrats.
A 50-47 or 50-48 percent split is too narrow to serve as a basis for sweeping judgments about large groups of people.
But you obviously wouldn't see it that way. You'd have to be more open to reason and evidence than you are to be able to look at the details and judge accordingly.
Comparing and contrasting one horror with another is an exercise in futility when it comes to Netherlands and Belgium.
I don't know why anyone would want to be associated with a lie like that, let alone make it the the crux of their posting history, but we all have moral choices to make. A marginalized personal credibility is the least of the damage.
Five or six times over 150 years isn’t much, the few exceptions are recent, but too little, too late, and they were almost all merely voting for an incumbent.
The democrats have only ever won the overall Protestant vote, 3 times, 1932, 1936, and 1964.
The Catholic vote is back to where it has been historically and things are back to normal.
It is strange to see such a liberal group get so much approval and defense here for their voting pro-abortion.
“LOL! That’s even funnier, as the Catholic vote appears to have UNDERVOTED for Obama in 2012, by a little bit.”
Obama winning the Catholic vote with 50% is a great scandal. But I don’t think that is how he got elected, as we vote by state and the electoral college. The biggest swing of the Catholic vote by state I have found was in 2008, where 70% of polled Catholics in NM said they voted for Obama and 70% of Catholics in Louisiana said they voted for McCain.
According to what I have seen so far, Obama lost the Catholic vote in CT, Fla, IL, IA, MI, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, VA and WI. The states where Obama won the Catholic vote according to what I have found are CA, ME, NV, and NM. Arizona is a wash as far as I can tell. The rest of the states I don’t think exit polled for religion, or asked questions that didn’t include Catholics. In any case I can’t find anything for Catholics with the missing states, would love to see that info.
As far as I know, Obama didn’t win the Catholic vote in any red state, but he lost the Catholic vote in many states that went blue. By the Catholic vote for the states In have found, the electoral breakdown is:
Romney 181
Obama 70
Freegards
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.