I understand your argument probably better than you do. I've seen it attempted to be made by far better scholars; four legs good, two legs bad. Fallacious conclusions based upon poorly acquired polling information collected by agenda driven organizations and subsequently argued by an individual with a long record of anti-Catholic activities is cause for apprehension and distrust.
The facts are clear that Obama got only two million more "Catholic" votes than McCain, with most of those coming from Catholics who do not attend Mass regularly or are otherwise in Communion with the Church. When you use the numbers for Catholics who regularly attend Mass you find the numbers tell a completely different story. So, if you are so adamant about counting lapsed and failed Catholics among the vote totals, why don't you count the votes of all of those former Catholics who have become Protestant and Evangelical in the totals as well, or would that diminish from the hateful message you are pushing. While you are at it why don't you disclose your specific denomination for us so that we can verify among other things the comparative conservative voting records and the history of child abuse.
"A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another." - John 13: 34-35
Well, I suppose that would give different numbers for the Catholic vote if your suggestion was followed.
Don’t count the Catholics that vote democrat, and do count people that have left the Catholic church and become Evangelical Protestants.
I think the real purpose of studying how people vote, is to do it as it is done today, people want to know how Catholics vote, and how Evangelicals vote, how Jews vote, women, and so on.
Another interesting thing is to see how the Hispanic vote moves right when they leave the Catholic church and become Protestants.
Bush won 56% of their vote in 2004, Obama won 52% of their vote, and 54% of the total Catholic vote.
"Despite your misapprehension on what my argument was...
I understand your argument probably better than you do.
Then that renders you more accountable for your vain attempts to escape my well-substantiated conclusions, that Catholics are more liberal than evangelicals, and among other things, voted more for Obama than Mcain.
I've seen it attempted to be made by far better scholars; four legs good, two legs bad. Fallacious conclusions based upon poorly acquired polling information collected by agenda driven organizations and subsequently argued by an individual with a long record of anti-Catholic activities is cause for apprehension and distrust.
This is a classic Catholic recourse when faced with overwhelming evidence, that of rejecting the overall reliability of survey results which all show Catholics as more liberal than evangelicals, based upon the premise that they must have it in for Catholicism, while favoring evangelicals! Must be the fault of those media darlings George Bush or Sarah Palin, or those Good Christian Belles.
As for my credibility, once again, i am the one who references things for all to see, from multiple sources, and also provides details on polling criteria, and (again) am not the reactionary Roman who charged others with posting a “falsified version” and guilty of “sloppy or dishonest scholarship” only to be proven wrong and impenitent, while i am still waiting for the source for your interesting 54% Obama, 45% Mcain, and 33% “none of the above” Catholic vote.
The facts are clear that Obama got only two million more "Catholic" votes than McCain, with most of those coming from Catholics who do not attend Mass regularly or are otherwise in Communion with the Church.
This is a polemic which has already been exposed in 209, as the problem is that Rome counts and treats such as members in life and in their funeral, as long as they die identifying as Catholics, like as they do in response to polls.
While you may exclude them based upon your interpretation, until Rome publicly excommunicates men like Ted Kennedy or otherwise treats known offenders as as such, and effectually requires repentance (so they become the small minority which TCs are, instead of being the majority), rather than counting and treating them as members in life (and in stats) and in death, then we must also count them as members, and as representing the faith that Rome most effectually conveys, and what mostly constitutes her OTC.
Indeed, as these make up the vast majority of Catholics, then the (so-called) one true Church© of Rome is mostly full of damned souls, few of which see any real discipline. (Ted had Masses said at his own house!)
When you use the numbers for Catholics who regularly attend Mass you find the numbers tell a completely different story.
Irrelevant as per above, while (contrary to what you would expect from such a “biased” person) i also provide stats that make that distinction (search “weekly” and “traditional”). But such are a small minority of Catholics, and even these overall are not more conservative than their Traditional Evangelical counterparts.
So, if you are so adamant about counting lapsed and failed Catholics among the vote totals, why don't you count the votes of all of those former Catholics who have become Protestant and Evangelical in the totals as well, or would that diminish from the hateful message you are pushing.
We do count the votes of converts, as part of the denomination or faith which they identify with, but you want us to count them (Catholics who are nonpracticing because they converted) as part of the Catholic vote, which is patently as absurd as counting evangelical converts to Rome as part of the evangelical vote! Talk about contrivances.
Besides this is your tactical liberal recourse to calling those who expose your exaltation of Roman Catholicism, “hateful,” with self-promoting Rome being the victim. Right out of Hunter and Madsens playbook.
While you are at it why don't you disclose your specific denomination for us so that we can verify among other things the comparative conservative voting records and the history of child abuse.
Irrelevant as unlike Catholics, i am not preaching one particular supreme church to whom all must submit, but a faith that holds Scripture as supreme and defend it from there, but as for what denomination i theologically identify most with, then that would be Southern Baptists, and believe the gifts are for today (which they allow) - apparently unlike the SSPX schism - and that saving faith is one that bears fruit (which reformers preached) and endures. (Heb. 10:39)
"A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another." - John 13: 34-35
I agree with that, except love for God (which determines how to love according to the 2nd command, can can result in division), but come short in both.