Dan Savage seems pretty sure religious intolerance more likely resides on the right side of the political spectrum than on the left. He uses the question of Mitt Romney's Mormonism and its related impact on his Presidential run versus Romney's successful election to Governor of Massachusetts to support his thesis. It's a nice anecdote, but doesn't give the issue or Savage's general supposition due justice.
First, it is exceptionally generous to even grant Savage standing in such a debate on whether the right or the left is more intolerant on religious grounds. The Stranger's own "Month of Sundays" feature generally dripped with disdain, repulsion, and confusion with the religious faithful and their houses of worship. If that is the model of religious tolerance then the current ownership of the Seattle Sonics are masters at skilled public relations.
More to Savage's point, Romney's Mormonism was obviously an issue affecting his candidacy. It probably affected his raw vote total less than some in the media might suspect, though probably more than some Republicans care to admit. Moreover, the presence of Mike Huckabee as a candidate who offered a distinctly comfortable choice to conservative, devout Evangelicals clearly had an effect as well.
To be fair though, most candidates had their problems. Rudy Giuliani's pro-choice position, Mike Huckabee's perceived image as a Bible thumper, and John McCain's many confrontations with the conservative base were all reasons for various Republican voters to take a pass on certain candidates. Such is the comparative luxury of the primary season.
But back to Savage's assertion that religious bias finds a more comfortable home on the right than on the left. If that were the case then there wouldn't be ongoing examples of Democrats desperately trying to reach out to religious voters after 2004 proved just how unpopular that party had become among large swaths of the faithful (see such discussions here and here). It's the whole reason the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life actually posed the question, "Do Democrats Have a 'God Problem'?"
The data discussed at the links above say yes to varying degrees, as does more recent study. A Time poll [pdf] from May 2007 asked whether respondents agreed with the following statement: "We are a religious nation and religious values should serve as a guide to what our political leaders to our political leaders do in office." That somewhat bland assertion, especially considering the history of the American nation to date, garnered agreement from 71% of Republicans. In contrast, 56% of Democrats disagreed.
The same poll asked voters whether a candidate being a Mormon would make them more or less supportive of that candidacy. For Republicans, 15% more and 28% said less. For Democrats, 9% said more and 32% said less. That data indicates Democrats are slightly more likely than Republicans to frown on a Mormon candidate (and note 39% of Democrats said they would be less likely to support a "Fundamentalist Christian").
A Harris Interactive poll from April of last year had clearer findings. 50% of Republicans said they would be willing to vote for an otherwise qualified Mormon candidate for President. 29% said not. On the Democratic side, only 38% said they could cast such a vote while 34% indicated they would not.
More recently, Gallup found Republicans and Democrats of similar mind in their willingness to vote for a Mormon, with about 18% of both parties pronouncing themselves unwilling to do so. Thus, the overall data on the Mormon question is mixed, ranging from equal misgivings across party lines to a clear edge toward Democrats being less accepting of a Mormon candidate.
Of course, such hypotheticals have their limits. A February 2007 poll by Gallup found more Americans unwilling to vote for a thrice-married or a 72-year old candidate than Americans unwilling to vote for a Mormon (a Washington Post/ABC poll the same month had similar findings). If such measures were truly predictive than Rudy Giuliani and John McCain should have mailed in their candidacies long before the primaries commenced.
Either way, neither the available data nor electoral history going back to the 2004 Presidential election support Savage's notion that the left is some comparative haven of religious tolerance. Indeed, his own newspaper's work says otherwise in stark fashion, even as it positions itself as the supposed cutting edge of "tolerant" urban liberalism.
UPDATE: link fixed.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 17, 2008 03:22 PM | Email ThisPlaces with varied populations tend to be more liberal, while monocultures tend to intolerance. The classic American examples are New Amsterdam, a riotously polyglot trading post, and the staid Puritans of nearby New England. That dichotomy still exists; the liberal "blue" states, like New York, tend to have greater diversity than the "red" states.
Posted by: tensor on February 17, 2008 03:55 PM-- Dan Savage, Germ Warfare, The Stranger, 1/27/2000
Now, that's tolerance for ya!
There is a strain of liberal Christianity, I believe that former Presidents Carter and Clinton had a conference recently on progressive Christianity, meaning those who support abortion, gay marriage, and a host of other ideas. I suspect that Savage would find this group and the Anglican convention to be tolerent religious folk.
I believe I had this conversation with Bruce, not Bruce G, long ago. The problem is always going to be that those religions like certain denominations of Christianity and Orthodox Jews who read Scripture literally will never come around sufficiently to suit Savage and Bubba, because they read Scripture literally.
I believe the issue was more with republicans that tended to view Romney as some sort of RINO.
Posted by: WVH on February 17, 2008 04:56 PMThe Huckster was the keynote speaker at a 1998 anti-Mormon conference in Salt Lake City. And he says he knows nothing about Mormons? Should we even consider a bigoted man who denigrates the fourth-largest U.S. religion?
Posted by: Bot on February 17, 2008 07:35 PMThat said, I do think that the left loves to wildly exaggerate the significance of religious differences among conservatives. It fits right in with the 'conservative=bigot' mantra. When Carlson ran for gov, I don't remember ANY complaints about his Catholicism. Nor do I hear of complaints about Medved's Jewishness, nor Limbaugh's vague version of Christianity.
All I ever hear from conservatives is mutual respect w/ regard to religion.
Similar to race issues, lefties like to use religion as a partisan club. They play up Romney's Mormonism, but play down the Farrakan connection to Obama's church.
Posted by: russell garrard on February 17, 2008 08:10 PMMormans have proven over the years that they understand our form of government. Islam has international ties to Russia.
Posted by: ljm on February 17, 2008 09:33 PMUm, MIsty, if it's true, that's an example of the "religiously committed" (whatever that means) exhibiting discomfort with the "[D]emocrats". It says nothing about liberal/Democratic attitudes towards the "religiously committed". Somehow, I doubt the original poster wanted anyone to provide evidence for the intolerance of the "religiously committed" towards liberals!
" Sounds like Seattle and San Francisco- almost a monoculture of liberals - who are very intolerant of people that do not agree with them."
So, ciites populated with communities of many different religious backgrounds somehow form "almost a monoculture" of intolerance of people -- that is, each other -- who do not agree with them? Is this like the alchemist's stated ability to turn base metals into gold?
Posted by: tensor on February 17, 2008 11:49 PMWe have been for years the unpaid footsoldiers of the Republican Party, and now the party has left us.
if there's no candidate to vote for, why not stay home, and let the perverts have it?
Posted by: Independent Voter on February 18, 2008 07:19 AM"diversity" of everything but opinion. With the left, it is "my way" or the "highway".
IV @ 15:
Indeed, the Republican Party has left social conservatives. Elect McCain't and we'll still get sodomite marriage, abortion up until baby's first step and milquetoast moderates nominated for the
SCOTUS. McCain't knows he needs the conservative wing and is promising all but the moon. I, for one, won't buy into his lies.
That all depends on how you define "liberal." If Seattle, for example, with it's prudish sex stings, bartender stings, malt liquor bans, seatbelt laws, anti-tobacco mania, garbage inspections etc. is "liberal," then you are correct. It doesn't fit the traditional def of "liberal," which shares the same root as "liberty."
Posted by: russell garrard on February 18, 2008 07:50 AMAt some level, I don't even see the point of the article. Why would you waste people's time with writers who already have a preconceived of what "religion" or "church" is like? It is like Vegan Monthly writing about how they tried a nice rib-eye steak and it was terrible. Thanks for that addition to the canon of human knowledge.
Posted by: Simon Lewis on February 18, 2008 04:37 PMI'm certainly for keeping the separation of church and state (and keeping Huckabee out of office).