Salon has an
article about the effect that Catholics might have on the election. I find it interesting, because I had an intriguing discussion last night about religion and self-identity over dinner at
The Blackthorn Pub, which is quickly becoming one of my favorite hangouts. Mind you, the conversation consisted of myself, Michael, his crazy co-worker, Mary (who is a Seattle native), and Kate, a visitor from Australia. So, there was quite a varied group of point-of-views.
The conversation came about because of a WU co-worker who apparently is very religious, but doesn't speak her opinions. Mary was horrified to find this out, as she's said comments such as, "Those damned fundamentalists!" and the like. We pondered why said co-worker was silent when Mary said such comments, as we assumed that people are shaped by their world views, and by their experiences. I think that despite what your adult views are on religion, there's still a small part of everyone who was raised in some religion, no matter how strongly your family practiced, and how your current views are similar or different.
I mentioned that in Saint Louis, at least among Catholics, there's a leaning towards having strong association with your parish. Not only in a spiritual sense, but in a geographical sense.
Think about it. There's a sterotypical joke that St. Louisians continually ask upon meeting a native, "So, where'd you go to high school?" For the most part, it's to get an idea of geography (what school district you were in), socioeconomic status (natch, what school district you were in), and then finally a possible common ground (people you knew who attended that school, etc.). But students of Catholic high schools don't have that same geographical recognition. Among Catholic kids, high schools are conglomerated of many different parishes and backgrounds. (For the most part. I'd say that most Catholic schools are still predominately white.) So, the questioning turns to "What parish are you from?" From their response, all of the geographical and socioeconomic cues are in place, and there's a likelihood that if you went to a Catholic school you either knew someone who went to a school, played them in sports, etc.
Anyway, back to my current commentary. Because of the idea that exposure to religion (or lack thereof) shapes a person, I think that there's a likelihood that on some level, people may vote based on religion. I think that certainly, the gay-marriage debate is counting on that idea. If that weren't the case, the Moral Majority wouldn't keep spouting how homosexuality is an abmination of God's law, God's Plan, etc. I think that morality is (and should be) a strong basis of our legal and political system, otherwise it would be legal to do harm to others, physically, mentally, fiscally. However, the idea of religion should
not be a part of any system, especially not ours. I think it's ironic that Michael and Kate mentioned how religion doesn't play a large part at all in politics in New Zealand and Australia, respectively, yet plays such a large part in ours. It may be a subterraneous part, but it's there, and is there in many areas of our culture. It's part of our history, and part of our future. I think that the ideal of separation of church and state is an ideal goal of our political and legal system, but I think that, like other parts of our society, theory and practice of those theory will, more often than not, lead to different results.
The article mentions that despite the conservative, pro-life, anti-homosexual mandates of Catholic leaders, Catholics tend to be more left-of-center than the same Protestant voter. I think that Kerry's pro-choice (and possible pro-homosexual) views will likely appeal to those non-practicing Catholics, similar to myself, who have strayed from the Church because of these conflicting views. It's possible that despite his differing views from traditional Catholic politics, there will be Catholics who will vote for him because of a shared belief system, a shared moral ground.
Of course, the article makes what would seem an obvious comparision to JFK. But nearly 50 years ago, I'm not sure there was the visible division between the two major political parties on such social issues. I think that it was underlying, but not necessarily as much of a definitive part of party identification. I think that there was a much stronger leaning towards labeling people as "progressive," or "liberal," without using party identification as a four-letter word. I know people who are amazed that there are democratic-voting people who are pro-war, pro-guns, pro-life, etc., or that there is an actual need/demand for a group like the
Log Cabin Republicans.
This wouldn't even be an issue, if there wasn't party divisiveness, as a general rule. I'd like to think that without party politics, the general public would make an informed decision on candidates based on issues, and that representation would be much more of an equal representation, without the fear of offending that party powers-that-be.
Rereading this post, I'm not sure if I made a point at all. Of course, my ramblings tend to do that, eh? *shrug* As always, feel free to comment or email me if you think I'm right, or a blubbering idiot.