Surprise! White Evangelicals are the only religious group that agrees with Kim Davis

In case you were wondering if Kim Davis’s holy struggle to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples was actually about religious freedom, take this data point from this new Washington Post/ABC News poll, which found that nearly two thirds of Americans think Kim Davis should be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples:

Screen Shot 2015-09-15 at 1.40.28 PM

 

White Evangelical Protestants were also the only religious subgrouping that had a plurality indicate that when religious beliefs and the need to treat everyone equally under the law come into conflict, religion should take precedence. And it wasn’t even close, with the percentage giving priority to religion nearly tripling the figure from the next-highest sub-group, and three quarters of all respondents siding with equal protection:

Screen Shot 2015-09-15 at 1.49.31 PM

While the poll’s religion section only broke out a handful of religious sub-groupings, the results are clear: When Kim Davis says her refusal to do her job as a public official and issue marriage licenses to same sex couples is grounded in a concern for her religious freedom, the only group of people who think those words mean what she says they mean are white Evangelical Protestants. Everyone else — those who don’t share her beliefs — are well aware that she isn’t talking about them when she waxes Jeffersonian about religious liberty.

As I’ve written before, these claims of LGBT equality somehow coming at the cost of religious freedom only make sense if you torture the concept of religious freedom until it becomes synonymous with Christian privilege. Members of the non-Evangelical religious sub-groupings listed in the poll — along with the ones not listed —  know perfectly well that if they are allowed to use their religious beliefs to deny others rights, it opens the door for others to use their religious beliefs to deny them rights. That isn’t religious freedom; it’s a religious free-for-all.

If white Evangelical Protestants were really concerned with religious freedom, then they wouldn’t be trying to prevent Muslims from building cemeteries (or community centers). And they’d speak up a little louder when Muslim flight attendants refuse to serve alcohol. And they’d be a little more accommodating to members of non-traditional faiths who want to take advantage of the same privileges Christians have won for themselves.

But no, this isn’t about that. It’s just about a particular brand of Christianity maintaining what grip it can on American government and culture. And the rest of us — religious and irreligious — know it.


Jon Green graduated from Kenyon College with a B.A. in Political Science and high honors in Political Cognition. He worked as a field organizer for Congressman Tom Perriello in 2010 and a Regional Field Director for President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012. Jon writes on a number of topics, but pays especially close attention to elections, religion and political cognition. Follow him on Twitter at @_Jon_Green, and on Google+. .

Share This Post

35 Responses to “Surprise! White Evangelicals are the only religious group that agrees with Kim Davis”

  1. John B. says:

    And all that is fine. Except that Kim Davis wears her religion on her sleeve. She publicly talks about following God-Jesus, swears an oath in God-Jesus’ name that she will uphold the laws of the US while placing her hand on the book she/they claim is directly handed down by their God, and then she totally ignores that supposedly sacred oath and ignores judicial decisions and laws because they don’t correspond to her religious beliefs. Most truly sincere Christians, if faced by the issue of being faithful to their religious beliefs or following laws they think are immoral would simply resign. But Ms. Davis instead ignores that sacred oath she took and ignores the laws she doesn’t like. And from what came out on Friday, it appears she illegally changed the wording of government documents in ways that may possibly invalidate the licenses that were issued using these altered forms. Kim Davis unwittingly is making a total mockery of the alleged religious beliefs she espouses. American outside of her narrow fundamentalist group as well as worldwide are seeing just how the Christian right works and the hypocrisy of what they do.

  2. BeccaM says:

    Oh boy, it gets worse.

    Initially, those licenses were changed from the state’s standard form in order to take off Davis’ name.

    However, Davis made further changes on Monday, her first day back at work after being released.

    Davis altered the forms so that they don’t have her name or the name of the office, added a notation that the licenses were being issued pursuant to a federal court order, and cited the case number of a lawsuit against her.

    She also directed that each deputy clerk sign marriage licenses as a notary public, not as a county official.

    http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/15/4038023/aclu-concerned-about-validity.html

    Needless to say, the ACLU is all over this. The Kentucky state officials are being charitable about it, saying that because the couples made every attempt to comply with the law, it is not their fault if the forms and licenses are technically illegal, therefore the marriages themselves are legal. However, no one is disputing that what Davis is ordering to be done is, in fact, illegal under Kentucky law (KRS 402.080, .100, and .110). If a prosecutor were of a mind to do something about this, each act of first degree ‘official misconduct’ can result in fines and up to a year in jail.

  3. BeccaM says:

    The truly surprising thing about that first citation is it came from an 1883 court case.

  4. Marla R. Stevens says:

    It really got going with Nixon’s Southern Strategy.

  5. BeccaM says:

    #1 came from this:

    State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883): “They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites.”

    The only liberty I took was to replace the somewhat archaic term ‘progeny’ with the more modern synonym, ‘natural offspring’ and to obfuscate the last bit by collapsing it to ‘their marriage.’

    As it is with many of the homophobes today who insist gay and lesbian couples can’t have kids or can’t possibly raise them well, in past generations there were racists who seemed not to understand human biology either.

  6. Marla R. Stevens says:

    No possibility of coercion there, right?

  7. JaneE says:

    You might think that the descendants of the people who deliberately bred for lighter skinned slaves would realize that number one was false. But no.

  8. The_Fixer says:

    Becca, I know that I’ve heard the very first on your list used against same-sex marriage. Perhaps not verbatim, but certainly the same idea was advanced – gay people can’t procreate naturally, so no wedding march for them.

    Too bad I don’t get a cookie – I thought that was the lone exception on the list.

    That’s not to say that it wasn’t used in opposition to interracial marriage – I am quite sure you are correct in that. However, it does show that for all their protestations, denial of the right of two people of the same sex to marry is on the par with denying people of different races that right.

    They try to tell us that they’re not racist, they’re not homophobic and are oh-so-loving of their fellow humans, but this looks like the same old hate crap to me. The fact that the same rhetoric was used against both seals the deal for me.

  9. Quilla says:

    Yummmm!

  10. JohnnyD says:

    I’ve always argued that the institution of marriage, where a union is sanctified through a ceremony conducted by a priest, tribal elder, or wise one, predates Judeo-Christianity by thousands of years, so any claim by evangelical Christian sects to be “defending the sanctity of marriage” is them laying claim to a ritual, and a concept, practiced by everyone on Earth in their own way, and all the rules surrounding them both, and then claiming for themselves sole ownership and licensing rights, and denying anyone else the right or authority to do likewise. Even suing for “patent infringement”, if you will.

    It’s the same as how they approach all disputes: They are right, and you are the spawn of Satan, so don’t bother them with your “facts”, because they know who you work for. So, TA-DA! Like magic, they now own and must defend at all costs, an artificial construct of their own making which they use as leverage to punish those they hate. But not because of that, because they must keep marriage pure! From non-believers like YOU AND YOUR GAY SECULAR ATHEIST SINNER FRIENDS. These people have set themselves at war with the whole planet, basically, so ignore them at your peril. They are the ultimate enablers of a fascist revolution, because fascists is what they are. And dangerous, as all fascists are. A generation ago, everybody understood that. Now it’s like everybody just forgot all about it, or just no longer care.

    What’s truly frightening to me, is seeing how much farther down that road Israel already is. I mean, the irony in that turn is too indescribable for words, sort of like the actions of the last batch of fascists who won power in an industrial nation in Europe is likewise too indescribably evil for words. And yet is the very nation Israel is emulating, and the US, too, if these people have their way. Like I said, ignore them at your peril.

  11. rmthunter says:

    “Social diversity” is not a positive characteristic, as far as these people are concerned — they are very much tied to “us vs. them” thinking, where everyone who doesn’t share their beliefs, skin color, politics, etc., is “them.”

  12. GOOGLE~HOME+J0BS+$98~PER+HOUR says:

    google work providers earn $98 in one hour……….Afterg an average of 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 98 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online... three to five hours of work daly… Weekly paycheck… Bonus opportunities…Payscale of $6k to $9k /a month… Just few hours of your free time, any kind of computer, elementary understanding of web and stable connection is what is required…….HERE I STARTED…look over here
    ~~~~uh..
    ➤➤➤➤ http://GoogleSpecialSepJobsNetworksOnnetCenter/$98hourlywork…. ⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛

  13. rmthunter says:

    American Catholics have a long history of ignoring their bishops.

  14. JohnnyD says:

    All true. The only trouble is that the people in that 61 percent and 44 percent (in the two graphs) are of the opinion that anyone not agreeing with them is ruled by Satan and doesn’t warrant their consideration as a human being. In fact, they will likely be rewarded for NOT helping or associating with those people in any way, as to do otherwise would be lending support to the enemy. Which is why they don’t give a shit what these graphs might indicate, and why they insist that history is different than what is taught, and so pull their kids out of schools, and why they insist on believing things like the story of Noah and Moses taking place exactly as transcribed in The Bible, word-for-word, regardless how many scientific disciplines or accepted wisdoms they must dispense with, or how many tortured, incredibly elaborate readings of detail into short Biblical passages must be made to arrive at their interpretation. None of that matters, because they. have. Faith.

    Very hard to convince someone of that mindset to believe otherwise, and very hard to entrust to someone of that mindset the just dispensation of any kind of secular authority. Because everything goes by God’s desk first, then the boss’s, unless God instructs otherwise, because, well, you know, the boss is “possessed”. But because of religious discriminations passed, we can’t ask about religious affiliations on applications, and we can’t forbid any employment opportunity based on them, either. Nor can we consider the adoption of these religious tenets by current employees as grounds to terminate employment.

    The only way I see around the problem is a blanket ban on any on-the-job expression of religious sentiment of any kind, as a condition of employment in any government position. No crosses, no burkhas, no kippahs, no power crystals, NONE OF IT. Except whatever they might want to keep in a drawer or locker, like a St. Christopher necklace, or a crucifix, or whatever fetish their religion allows for, but not to be discussed or bandied about, or even gazed upon, while on the clock. Breaks, lunch, and after hours they can do as they please, so long as it doesnt also include employees still on duty.

  15. Baal says:

    I think to conservative evangelical white Christians (and the fascists that pander to them) there are no other religions that can have any claim to liberty because anything else is not a religion it is SATAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  16. BeccaM says:

    Hey, remember the lawsuit Davis and her Liberty (sic) Counsel attorneys brought against Kentucky Governor Beshear to try to force him (and the director of Kentucky’s official state records department) to give her permission to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples?

    Basically they’re appealing (AGAIN!) to the 6th Circuit to lift the requirement that Rowan County issue marriage licenses while Davis’ latest frivolous litigation wends its Ouroborosian way through the courts. The request was denied. Cited was “”Davis has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on her federal constitutional claims.”

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kim-davis-appeals-governor

    Specifically mentioned:

    In addressing her motion, we consider: (1) whether she a has strong likelihood of success on the merits;

    Nope, her chances are up the with the Astros winning the World Series.

    (2) whether she will suffer irreparable harm if the motion is not granted;

    Only Kimmie’s Bible-humpin’ fee-fees because the mean old gubmint won’t let her oppress gay people.

    (3) whether the requested injunctive relief will substantially injure other interested parties;

    Setting the Constitutional precedent of letting people opt out of obeying any laws they don’t like simply by asserting ‘deeply held religious beliefs’ seems to be a significant injury to the entire American legal system. Especially when those laws are regarding the civil rights of others.

    and (4) where the public interest lies.

    Again, I’d say ‘upholding the law as not-optional’ is pretty important.

  17. Quilla says:

    Oatmeal raisin, please.

    (Oh, yeah — well said, BeccaM!]

  18. BeccaM says:

    Let’s play a game. I’m going to put up a series of quotes and see if you can tell which ones were used with respect to gay marriage and which were in opposition to interracial marriage.

    “They cannot possibly have any (natural offspring), and such a fact sufficiently justifies not allowing their marriage.”

    “It not only is a complete undermining of … the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down … It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

    This type of marriage is not allowed “because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.”

    This type of marriage is “regarded as unnatural and immoral.”

    “I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose (this type of relationship) as ‘prejudiced’ is in itself a prejudice,” a psychologist submitted to the court. “Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage.”

    “The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against (this type of marriage) closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.”

    “(S)ociety does not readily accept the offspring of such relationships. (…) I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves. In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”

    Those of you who guessed these were ALL raised as objections to interracial marriage each win a cookie. I collected most of those quotes from here in a Mediaite article, but there was no shortage of very similar ones to be found out in transcripts and archived news accounts on the Internet.

    The last quote was from 2009, when Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell said he wouldn’t allow an interracial couple to marry under his signature. He later resigned, but not after admitting he’d turned away four couples for the same reason over the previous 2 1/2 years, but thought he hadn’t done anything wrong because he sent them to another Justice of the Peace. (Sound familiar?)

    Simple Google searches also uncovered fundamentalist/evangelical Christians citing the Bible — chapter and verse — to justify racism, segregation, misogyny and anti-feminism, and any number of prejudices. The forced assimilation of Native Americans was also given a Christian spin, particularly when it came to seizing children and sticking them into orphanages where they were stripped of their heritage, religion, and cultural identity.

    After Loving v. Virginia, there was no shortage of county clerks, JoPs, judges, magistrates, and others who said it was an infringement of their religious beliefs to be involved in any way in the secular functions of legal, civil marriage whenever the applicants were not of the same race. Then regarding mixed-race marriages, as it is now with same-sex marriages, the anti-equality / pro-discrimination side tries deliberately to blur the line between religion and secular law, and to assert the former should take precedence over the latter. But only when it goes their way and only for their beliefs, not those for any other religion nor for the non-Christians, agnostics, non-practitioners, and atheists.

    As most of us know, it is both impossible and unwise to attempt to outlaw bigotry, whatever its specific expression. A racist has a right to be a racist…but not to refuse to rent to someone because they’re a different race. A misogynist has a right to think women are inferior, but he doesn’t have a legal right to refuse to hire her or to pay her less. And an anti-gay bigot has a right to think gay people are going to hell…but if she’s a business owner or government employee she doesn’t have a legal right to deny them their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.

    This isn’t to say the prejudiced can’t get away with abridging others’ civil rights. All too often they do, and are only caught when either a pattern of unlawful discrimination can be proven or the bigots condemn themselves with their own statements. (It’s also somewhat surprising though how open many bigots are about their prejudices, probably due in large part because they mistakenly believe most people agree with them. I say this as someone who was raised by a deeply bigoted and prejudicial man who never thought there was anything wrong with his racist, misogynistic, or homophobic opinions.) The difference is the homophobes want legal cover, so they can go about discriminating against gay people LEGALLY — just like their predecessors wanted the same cover to be allowed to legally discriminate on the basis of race or gender.

    And here’s the thing about Kim Davis: She’s free to think gay people shouldn’t be allowed to have civil marriage. She’s free even to challenge it in court, both in general and with respect to her job as Rowan County Clerk. She’s free to disagree with the outcomes of court challenges that went all the way to the Supreme Court and back. But she’s not free to defy the law and lawful court orders without suffering consequences. Hence why she was jailed for contempt of court and why there was no chance of that contempt charge or the penalty for it being overturned by another court.

    Word I saw yesterday was Davis was defacing Kentucky state marriage licenses by replacing the required clerk authorization with a phrase along the lines that they were being issued not by the clerk, but ‘pursuant to federal court order.’ This is a violation of Kentucky state law, by the by. It wouldn’t surprise me at this point if Judge Bunning saw this as unlawfully interfering with the court orders.

  19. Houndentenor says:

    Late 70s really. Things like Anita Bryant’s anti-gay campaign in Florida. Falwell was political by 1978 or so. In many ways I blame Jimmy Carter. It would have happened anyway, probably, but politicans before Carter did not give detailed interviews about their religious beliefs. Campaigns up to that time were about building the largest coalition possible and getting specific about religion was considered divisive. You didn’t want to make too big a deal about what denomination you belonged to. And of course Kennedy had to very much downplay being Catholic and even insist that he would not be beholden to the pope or any bishops or cardinals as president. No many candidates (and not just Republicans) make sure everyone thinks they are very religious and that it factors in greatly into their decision making process. And again, that’s not just Republicans.

  20. nicho says:

    How crazy are these Christers? Georgia school allows mass baptism of athletes on football field before practice.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/georgia-school-district-repudiates-baptisms-on-football-field/

  21. emjayay says:

    I don’t think you have to use anyone’s holy book anymore, and it is a clear violation of church and state. I guess if it means something to the individual maybe it’s barely OK. I think the Muslim congressguy used a Koran. Maybe Mormons use some magical golden plates. I think you can just raise your hand and swear to whatever.

  22. Don Chandler says:

    The Kim Davis prototype can’t be educated, but the people around them get to see what KimTypes are like and the consequences of their actions. I loved the billboard that was put up in their small town. It’s not for Kim’s edification, though. It’s also not for the Holy See. Those guys will never change. Most Catholics don’t see the world through the same lenses and filters as the Holy See…. Judging from the make-up of the Vatican leadership, Francis has a lot of appointments to make before anyone can witness any change in that ancient hierarchy… and it’s kind of imminent ;) They make Pope Francis look young. I mean, it was Pope Francis that coined the expression: Spiritual Alzheimer’s. It’s not PC but it’s fucking apt. The Catholics as a whole seem to accept gays and divorce and other things…they don’t see it as sin. They are modern. They accept evolution. Science has done well via the Catholics. But the Burkes of the Church are at odds with the modern society.

    People like Huckabee want Christians to coalesce around his indignation. Liberty Counsel fits in too. Undermine the first Amendment and they are empowered. Go to a conservative site like National Review and you’ll see them trying to ‘villainize’ Atheists…it’s all to bring together the flocks for the next election. That’s why the Gun nuts are out too. That’s why the Libertarians dittoheads are out. And the neocons, they just need more votes to get their hands on more weapons and more power to make trouble.

    And through it all, Bernie goes to Liberty University: talking to young people! Not the faculty ;)

  23. FLL says:

    The point that you mentioned in your fifth paragraph–that bigots have no objection to an atheist man marrying an atheist woman–cannot be repeated often enough. Evangelical Christians so often say that marriage is a strictly religious institution that they think they own (rather than the civil institution that it is). Since they have never objected to an atheist man and woman marrying, the lie is obvious.

  24. Indigo says:

    and the White Rabbit went down the rabbit hole.

  25. The_Fixer says:

    I wonder if the first question were phrased differently to reflect the situation accurately, what would the responses be?

    Consider replacing this:

    As you may know, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry. Nonetheless a county clerk in Kentucky has refused to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, saying she objects on religious grounds. Do you think this county clerk should or should not be required to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples?

    With this:

    A county clerk in Kentucky has refused to issue any marriage licenses to anyone because she disagrees, for religious reasons, with the Supreme Court’s decision giving Gay and Lesbian couples the right to marry. Do you think that this county clerk should or should not be required to issue marriage licenses to all couples?

    I think the second version more closely describes the situation. Kim Davis refused to issue any marriage licenses because she did not want to be accused of discrimination (a really silly attempt at deflection).

    I wonder if it would have resulted in a different survey outcome?

  26. Quilla says:

    Swearing an oath on the Bible is so yesterday. Might as well use, say, a dictionary or War And Peace. And that “so help me God” should go, too.

    Pinky promise to uphold the Laws of the US might work better. Just keep all “religion” out of it.

  27. The_Fixer says:

    You’re not going to let that “Common Parlance” thing go, are ya? :)

  28. BeccaM says:

    Jerry Falwell and the Moral (sic) Majority (sic) movement of the 1980s. That’s when it changed.

  29. BeccaM says:

    I suspect education might help, but only if it’s possible to get someone who has enjoyed special religious privileges for so very long to realize (and accept as morally wrong) the fact their privilege directly and significantly curtails the civil rights of others. And that there’s something inherently unfair and wrong with this situation.

    Y’see, one of the core beliefs in Evangelical Christianity is their presumption that it IS their business to try to make other people live a certain way. Intolerance isn’t a bug; it’s a feature. “Live and let live” just isn’t in their philosophical vocabulary. In a sense, they are today’s neo-Puritans — demanding everyone else live according to arbitrary moral rules — while in shocking numbers behaving hypocritically themselves.

    Davis, for example, objects to same-sex marriage, for what she claims are biblical reasons. When it’s pointed out that Davis herself has violated her own religion — even presuming the very modern heretical interpretations thereof where she isn’t the chattel property of her husband(s) — with her serial divorces and adultery, she claims to have repented and been ‘forgiven by Jesus.’ (An assertion we are all expected to accept and believe without any proof whatsoever.)

    But as most of us have noticed, she doesn’t quiz prospective marriage license applicants if they have committed the sins for which she’s repented (divorce, adultery), and if so whether they’ve repented. She doesn’t ask if they’re Christians — which in fundamentalist Christianity is supposed to be a way WAY bigger deal than being gay. Heck, you’d think just maybe she’d be concerned if a marriage license applicant was a convicted sex offender or domestic abuser or a violent felon, but none of these rise to the level where Davis wants the right of veto. Or at minimum, a blanket “no gays” exemption from doing her secular elected job and the right to force all of her hired deputies to follow her beliefs rather than their own.

    I mean, think about that: Kim Davis apparently is okay with letting atheists and non-Christians get hitched, with HER NAME on their marriage licenses and certificates (the point she claims is the only reason she objects to letting gay people get hitched in her county). Something like this shows her motives aren’t informed by religion at all, but merely anti-gay bigotry all tarted up in a mere costume of religion.

    What I’ve concluded is that while education is a good strategy to pursue — it’s certainly helped since 2004 as more and more Americans now know gay and lesbian families, and realize most of ’em are as boring as they are — one mistake is to let the homophobes keep on with their constant strategy of endless Calvinball. They lost the initial religion and tradition arguments. Then lost the “gays are inherently mentally ill” arguments. Then lost on the procreation angles and the economic angles. Now they’re saying they shouldn’t have to recognize gay and lesbian families socially, commercially, or legally…which really gets down to what the racist segregationists were doing in the 50s and 60s.

  30. nicho says:

    The interesting thing in all of this is that this political involvement is relatively new for Evangelicals. I have a friend who was an Evangelical minister back in the ’60s and ’70s. In fact, he was being groomed to be in the upper echelons of the movement. He knew Billy Graham and all the names we hear today. He tells me that any kind of political involvement was not only not encouraged, but was actually frowned upon. Your job as an Evangelical was to get people saved. Period. They didn’t care about politics, elections, candidates, whatever. It was all about personal salvation. My friend got involved in the anti-war movement and was taken to task for it — not because his superiors were necessarily in favor of the war, but because it was political involvement. Then, apparently, things changed.

  31. Indigo says:

    I suspect the Vatican itself is an embarrassment for Catholics in several ways, and it’s possible the Holy Ghost chose the Holy Argentine for the very purpose of highlighting the discrepancies. It’s to the good. But there are also people for whom ancient and venerable institutions are fair targets on the grounds that they are not only ancient and venerable but also corrupt. The Papacy. Name-that-Monarchy. Washington D.C., Brussels, London, Qutar . . . the list is as long as we’ve got time to extend it. More often than not, people talk about stereotypes rather than actualities. It’s an faux-ethical practice used in the business of public propaganda distribution that spills over into “Common Parlance,” as the Oxford English Dictionary would have it.

  32. FLL says:

    The polls that you’ve mentioned have shown light on a certain truth that people don’t always want to acknowledge. Before I say it outright, I’ll state once again that I am happily and contentedly secular—no organized religion for me, thanks. But look at those polls, Jon, and tell me if this has the ring of truth: American Catholics are not the problem. The handful of higher Catholic clergy (and to a lesser extent lower clergy) may be idiots, but they represent a drop in the bucket compared to lay people who identify as Catholics; and those lay people often use the term to mean that their ancestors were Catholic, not that they themselves are active members of any local Catholic congregation.

    Poll after poll in city after city has shown that American Catholics are more likely than the average American to support gay rights and marriage equality. There is hate in the Vatican, but there is no grassroots hate among the majority of American Catholics. The grassroots hate is a problem among evangelical Protestants. Now there are certainly Americablog commenters who get their jollies by insulting everyone other than themselves (and the Americablog moderators prefer that I not mention names). However, those overly insulting Americablog commenters shed little light on any problems and their potential solutions. The polls that you cite, as well as any number of past polls, reveal that the real challenge is to educate evangelical Protestants. Mainstream Protestants, Catholics, secular people, atheists and just about everybody else already get it.

  33. Indigo says:

    That’s the correct analysis. I’m pretty sure of it. I couldn’t understand what she was even fussing about because she clearly doesn’t grasp the idea of social diversity as a precious element of our social fabric. But there’s more because whatever god that is that she says she’s invoking doesn’t sound the least bit familiar to me outside of my very loose (but native Hoosier) understanding of the Snake Handlers of the hills and valley on both sides of the Ohio River there between Indiana to the north and Kentucky to the south. That’s all I got out of it. A clutch of Snake Handlers!

  34. nicho says:

    Kim Davis put her hand on the bible and swore to obey the law of the land “So help me God.” She then reneged on that solemn oath. And Evangelical “Christians” support her. Pretty crappy religion they have going there.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS
CLOSE
CLOSE