Much of this discussion on LBO-Talk is snared in loose terminology.
Christian fundamentalism was a theologically reactionary Protestant populist backlash movement that became significant around 1920. From the beginning the leaders were overwhelmingly conservative politically. Voting habits of followers were more complicated. Fundamentalists are a hostile, doctrinaire, pious subset of evangelicals. So it is important to first make that distinction. The 2004 polling data refers to all evangelicals, not just fundamentalists. And then analysts break that down into White and Black, since Black evangelicals overwhelmingly vote Democratic (although there were some shifts toward Republican in 2004).
The current "Christian Right" was built in the late 1970s as an attempt by conservative political activists to lure evangelicals and fundamentalists into voting Republican using "traditional family values" issues like abortion, prayer in schools, porography, and homosexuality. But there have always been right-wing Christian groups and movements -- and left-wing as well.
The Christian Right mobilizes many Republican votes. But some mainstream Protestants and Catholics shifted toward the Republican Party in 2004.
There is no doubt that White evangelical Protestants are currently a major source of Republican votes. This has been documented up the kazoo by Green, Guth, et. al. -- but some White evangelical Protestants vote Democratic, and most don't vote at all, just like most Americans. The analytical issue is less theology or denomination than sense of piety linked to church attendance by White evangelicals. John C. Green writes about this.
See:
Evangelicals & voting: http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v17n2/evangelical-demographics.html
2004 trends: http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/election2004/statement.html
More: http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/election2004/index.html
Black evangelical liberation Protestant: Empire Christianity vs Liberation Christianity by Ruby Sales, Founder and Director of SpiritHouse http://www.portside.org/showpost.php?postid=1075
Chip Berlet
p.s. the Subject line "Christians from Hell" is offensive and counterproductive.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
> [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of T Fast
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 2:03 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Christians from Hell
>
>
>
> I don't know when a valid form of argumentation became, X
> usually says shit
> so anything X says must be shit and therefor we dont have to
> engage with the
> substance of the argument put forward by X.
>
> I think Carrol asks an important question: is christian
> fundemenatlism an
> ideological resource ready to hand that conservatives
> gravitate towards to
> legitimate their conservatism or populist reactions? Or
> rather, is christian
> fundementalism that which produces conservatism and populist
> reaction? The
> former makes one want to ask the further question about why
> people come to
> hold conservative values and employ reactionary populism. The latter
> terminates the conversation.
>
> It seems the Repub strategists took the latter path to the
> former as did
> fundementalist preachers. Who new materialism would be taken
> seriously by
> the right and derrided by the left.
>
> Travis
>
>
> Carrol wrote:
> > Does their xtianity flow from their conservatism or their
> conservatism
> > from the xtianity, or do both flow from some X not covered
> in the exit
> > polls?
> >
> > What evidence is there that their religious belief is an
> independent
> > variable?
>
> To which M. Dawson replied:
>
> Everybody who's Carrol Cox or properly worships Carrol Cox
> knows that fundamentalist Christianity has no independent
> impact on American politics! Duh. Obvious!
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>