1. Roman Catholics: A useless label politically? I.Intro – a potentially significant voting bloc A.25% of electorate, but concentrated in swing states (midwestern) B.Only had two major party nominees with one winner (Kerry and JFK) C.Probably the hardest religious group to explain, at least in terms of religious factors (theology or practice); typically counter-intuitive these days. D.American Catholic tradition; an independent streak often at odds with Rome; makes for predicting Catholic political behavior as a function of theological beliefs hard. E.Drift towards the GOP since 1960s, but not due to Catholicism (weakening of Catholic identity as a useful tool in explaining Catholic political behavior) F.Before, as late as 1960s, RCs exhibited group-based political behavior (behaved more uniformly, based on their shared group identity) and favored the Democratic party hands-down. They were part of the previous 1945 realignment where Dems had support of low SES folk as well as minorities of all kinds. Today, ideological preferences seem to trump group identity among Catholics. IN other words, they (Catholic whites) are behaving like non-Catholic whites and their political behavior can be explained similarly.

2. II.Political Behavior A.Partisanship - Gap between Dems and GOP among Catholics in 1960s was 45 points; today it has vanished (Table 4.1). Only 30% of RCs identified as Dems in 2004 compared to 60% in 1960s. B.Voting – Went from 83% JFK in 1960 to a bare majority bouncing around in recent cycles (Carter then Reagan; Clinton then Bush then split with Obama). C.Comparison to non-Catholic whites? Since 1990s, roughly similar (slightly more w-RCs GOP than non-C whites). III.Explaining RC political behavior A.Socio-economic changes (began to look like non-C whites in terms of education/income/occupation); as they moved up, the upper-class tilt towards the GOP was more appealing. 1952 10% attended college; today 50% do. B.Ideology – turns out that many w-RCs simply mirrored what other whites were doing in the period (196-2000), finding a home for their ideology (mostly politically conservative) in the GOP. That is, they were driven by factors not associated with their Catholicism but ideology (race, government spending and social welfare and taxes, anti-communism, etc.).

3. C.What about the ‘culture war’ that is supposed to explain white evangelical political behavior since the 1970s? Not so much, in fact, hardly at all. Religiosity does NOT appear to be a driving force behind RC political behavior these days (whether we are talking PID, voting, or policy preferences). IV.Who’s calling the shots? Rome? Is Rome calling the shots? Does not appear so. That is, their political preferences seem out of line with RC-Vatican social teachings. A.Why less RC uniformity/control/influence over members? Especially given hierarchical ecclesiology? 1. Secularization of Catholics (table 4.2) 2. Vatican II or Changes in Vatican ecclesiology (p. 95) 3. Generational evidence (Pre-Vatican II – pre-1941; Vatican II 1940- 1960; Post-Vatican II age cohorts); Table 4.4 4. American Catholic independence phenomena/tradition *Discussion: Can a ‘good’ Catholic disregard a dogmatic Catholic teaching in the same a way an Evangelical might disregard a Biblical command?

4. B. Basically, Catholicism is not explaining w-RC political behavior much today. C. Irony – Christianity matters politically (drives how people vote and so on) over other factors (education, income, ideology, race, region) WHEN at least two things are happening: First, the church has a clear and rich social teaching tradition AND when laypeople sit under and obediently receive that teaching regularly. Clearly RC, far more than evangelicals, have the former (rich tradition of social teaching or church instructions to society at large). The latter scenario has changed dramatically since Vatican II. Summary, they are more independent, less loyal, and not caught up in a culture war if there is one. They are behaving politically under little influence from Rome.

5. Black (Protestants) and Latinos “For many minority communities, it is difficult to separate religious culture from the culture of the minority group.” Kenneth Wald I. African-American Protestants A.Black churches 1.History: due to racial segregation, black churches and denominations were established separately from white ones. Theology was rarely the point of division. 2.Black freedom – Black church movement = first black freedom movement. 3.Became medium for civil society in the black community (absence of other viable institutions). Many secular activities were facilitated through black churches as a result (e.g., taxes, voter registration, publishing, funeral arrangements, entertainment events) B.Religion as basis for cultural cohesion – “The black church” refers to hundreds of disparate administratively, but largely united informally, organizations.

6. C.Political Activism – unlike white evangelicals in the later 19 th and early 20 th century (Great Reversal), black Protestants have a long tradition of viewing faith and church as vehicles of political and social change (e.g., MLK and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Question: should he/they have been rebuked for mixing faith and politics?), even though like most white evangelical denominations they largely abandoned any underlying theological work in favor of atheological revivalism in the early 19 th century. But a common thread throughout it’s history are polemical parallels drawm between the Hebrew Exodus and Christ as deliverer and American slavery/racial discrimination (Lincoln a ‘type’ of Christ in the same way Moses was) as well as the doctrine of Christian equality before God (In Christ there is neither slave nor free, greek nor jew…from every tribe tongue and nation…). So you hear this in the political sermons of many Civil Rights ministers “I have seen the promised land…” and “Go tell it on the mountain, let my people go…” and “I have a dream…” D.Political behavior - Black voting since the end of mandatory racial segregation and the Civil Rights act has reflected this unity. 1.Turnout - Frequent black churchgoers are more likely to vote than others (same as non-blacks). Their #’s only slightly less than whites. 2.Explaining the political effectiveness of Black churches:

7. Church environment = platform for political learning. Unique historical position; high esteem extended to ministers (Hattiesburg signs); unabashedly political polemically; site for direct and indirect political networking. Source for fostering social capital – churches foster the development of interpersonal trust, access to networks, beliefs about community responsibility (applies to churches in general). AA church culture has always been theologically politically engaged – prayer, song, dialogue, rituals, and Christian imagery. This group of religious adherents are more likely than any other to have and attend church meetings about politics. 4.Political liberalism – interesting contrast with Mormons. BP’s are theologically orthodox in beliefs but politically liberal. Mormons not theologically orthodox, but politically conservative. BPs are mostly conservative, like white evangelicals, on moral-cultural issues (e.g., gay marriage; school prayer, etc.), but nothing else (even slippage here regarding abortion). PID: Blacks are the most reliable voting bloc in America (favoring Dems); again largely facilitated by the church, especially in the south (half of all AAs live in the South). Significant surge when Jesse Jackson ran in 1984 & 88. In 2004, over 65% identify as DEM and over 90% voted for Kerry).

8. Common to have Dem candidates visit black churches due to their dependence upon the black vote. If the GOP suddenly received 20% of the black vote, they would virtually always win the White House (10% would usually do). E.Changes in Black-Protestant politics? 1.Frustration with perceived limited progress (we are a “tool” of the Dem Party). Always has been an element calling for more aggression and independence politically (Malcom X, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam). the Dem Party takes AAs for granted, not enacting the legislation they usually promote (in other words, there is a challenge in influencing election outcomes and policy outcomes). 2.Radical vs conservative revolution. 3.Church attendance among AAs dropping significantly (formerly 80% down to under 40%), especially among young, men, and poor. 4.Takeover of secular political leaders in politics (ministers no longer monopolize political power; link between black voters and politicians less and less mediated by black ministers)

9. 4. Nature of black church has changed - increasingly caught up in the larger charismatic/Pentecostal and prosperity gospel movement which is more apolitical (e.g., TD Jakes); now 15-20% of AAs are no longer members of BP churches; many are joining racially mixed churches, with white churches far more welcoming than decades ago. F.Black Public Theology – (p. 134-135 Wilson). To fill the void (much in the same way Neoevangelicals did in the 1940s), two movements emerged. 1.Black Liberation Theology – God has a unique relationship with African Americans (James Cone “Black Power is the gospel of Jesus Christ”). Read Cleage p. 137 in Wilson. BLT was a kind of bridge between the black identity, radical, separationist Islamic movement of Malcolm X with the Christian social gospel movement of MLK Jr. Also, it was a reversal of sorts of white- supremacy religious beliefs among some white ‘Christians’.

10. In BLT, the emphasis is NOT Christ as God (virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, resurrection, Son, etc.; these are seen as unhelpful ‘white’ holdover doctrines that must be jettisoned by black Christians); it is Christ as black liberator (leader of a movement to radically reverse fortunes in society between oppressor and oppressed). This movement is identified with the broader liberal Protestant theology stressing this world only and most importantly, the notion that Christianity is utterly malleable adaptable and meant to be finally interpreted by the individual adherent or group; it is not a fixed body of truths laid down in propositional form by God Himself, Christ Himself and His apostles and prophets once for all time; the ‘faith delivered once for all’ Jude). It is also a blending of Marxist themes/ideas with theological themes. BLT has largely failed at attracting BPs. 2. Prosperity Gospel – a recent development among mostly charasmatic Protestants, especially popular among AA charasmatics, this understanding of Christianity is that God intends for believers to be materially prosperous (Christ’s mission was to empower and advance the physical well-being of His people here on earth). Advanced especially through television ministries like Trinity Broadcasting Network and personal ministries of preachers like T.D. Jakes, Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, and Paul Crouch. Dollar quote p. 141 Wilson

11. If BLT teaches that blacks will obtain radical progress through social and political revolution, PG teaches they will get it through radical faith actions (planting ‘seeds’) and spiritual empowerment (Holy Ghost work). But they both deemphasize traditional Christian doctrines and concerns and focus on the immediate physical needs (or wants) of people. Another major point of departure, the BLT movement is decidedly socialist and politically liberal in orientation (Obama’s church); but the PG movement (at least the leadership) is far less committed to the Dem party and often explicitly supportive of the GOP (Fred Price Crenshaw 16000 member church). Read Wilson p. 159. Could be an ‘new’ opportunity for the GOP (something other than reaching out with culture war issues) I.Latinos A. Changing demographic dynamic among RCs (next slide)

12. Age and Racial Composition of Catholicism All Catholics18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ % who are... White 65%47% 51% 68% 75% 78% 85% Black 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 Latino 29 45 44 26 20 17 12 Other/Mixed 4 5 3 4 4 2 2 Total 100100 100 100 100 100 100 Among Catholics ages... Church AttendanceLatino CatholicsLatino Evangelicals Weekly43%74% Less than Weekly5023 Never73

13. B Catholicism among Latinos (4.5% total pop and 60% of Latinos). The Spanish conquistadores brought its Catholicism and its language to the Americas in the 16 th C. Latino Catholics immigrated to North America prior to the Puritans. Emphasize Catholic Marion doctrines and family a bit more than other Catholics. But… 1.Many others are cold towards Catholicism; associate it with historical conquest; lack of Spanish-speaking masses; American Catholicism has been associated with Irish immigrants; have been relatively few Hispanic Catholic bishops here and abroad; first Mexican-American bishop installed in 1970; religious focus different among Latino Catholics and Euro-American Catholics 2.Defections and declining replacement: % of Latino Catholics is falling (despite Catholic growth among other people groups). C. Protestants and Latinos – Protestants, especially evangelicals, charasmatics and pentecostals have attracted large numbers of native born Latinos (have Latino services, Latino youth groups, etc.) Pentecostals and charasmatics, who stress miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, personal empowerment, and non-elitism in church, have directly fashioned their message to very respondent Latinos (estimated 5m Latino Pentecostals). Today, Latinos are 60% Catholic, 23% evangelical, 7% mainline, 9% unaffiliated. 58% went for Bush in 2004, but flipped in 08.

14. C.Latino faith and politics – far less likely to see or use church as a vehicle for political action (more likely to set up secular political organizations for that; church deals more with the strictly spiritual). But some see political potential among Latinos because of its population growth in America (37m, 150% growth since 1980). More likely than blacks to disapprove of churches expressing political views. 1. For the GOP: Latinos, especially among protestant Latinos, are more socially conservative on abortion, homosexuality, and “family values” issues. 70% favor school prayer and 60% favor school vouchers. Bush has done well among Latinos compared to blacks (44% in 2004, 34% in 2000; 63% Latino P; 31% Latino C). He included many Latinos among his friends and appointees both in DC and Texas. Latinos are mostly Democratic, but Latino Protestants are divided and evangelical Latinos are slightly more Republican. But BIG shift (14pts swing) for Obama in 2008 (Kerry got 53% but Obama got 67%).

15. 2. For the DEMs: More Latino Catholics are Democrats (45%) but most voted for Kerry (56%); but among the “most committed” to religion and evangelical these numbers fall dramatically; Latino Protestants are more likely to identify than Catholics to be Republican. Latinos are generally more liberal on “non-morality” issues like government social services spending, especially as income goes down; So, it would be good politically for DEMs if Latinos got poorer, less religious or more nominally Catholic, and turned out more in elections. 3.Are Latino politics driven by ethnicity or faith? Issues (Wilson 177): Really hard to say, but Latinos are divided along religious lines (secular, Catholic, Protestant) on a few issues. Party/Vote – at least in 2004, Latino Protestants were significantly more likely to be Republican or vote that way than Latino Catholics (40% more likely to be GOP). In fact, Latinos increased their support for Bush in 2004 by over 30pts and this change was due almost entirely due to Latino Protestant movement. 4. Conclusion: It appears that politically, Latino Protestantism is having a much greater distinct effect on Latinos than simply being Latino or Latino Catholicism (latter two tend to behave similarly).