At least, so says a poll released this morning by the Hartford Courant.
…68 percent said they don’t like it when politicians rely on their religious beliefs to make public policy decisions, and 54 percent said their own religion plays no role in deciding whom to support in an election.
It’s not that people in the state aren’t religious – 62 percent said religion was an “extremely important” or “very important” part of their lives.
But even the state’s most devout residents draw a clear line between religion and politics: 51 percent of those who said religion was “extremely important” to them said religious leaders should stay clear of politics. (Altimari)
Here are the full results. (PDF).
It wasn’t always this way. Long ago, when New England was first founded, religion and politics were inseparable. In Connecticut, citizens’ tax monies went towards supporting the Congregational Church (successor to the Puritan Church) until the constitution of 1818 disestablished it. Spiritual awakenings and movements were seen all over the northeast during the 19th Century. The Second Great Awakening in particular fired the imaginations of New Englanders, and led to the staunch anti-slavery position common in the region.
So why are New Englanders so suspicious of the evangelical Christianity that is a driving force in American politics today? It could be that religion and politics, when they mixed here in the 19th Century, often produced a more liberal and tolerant society. Abolition of slavery and rights for women were just a few of the liberal causes New England congregations fought for, and while our religious fervor has ebbed, our social liberalism has not. Therefore the activist, evangelical, socially conservative religion that has such strength elsewhere has not managed to take hold here. If it had, the “Family” Institute of Connecticut would have more members and influence. As it stands, the FIC seems more like a foreign infection rather than a homegrown organization. Indeed, its founder and former president, Brian Brown, is a Californian.
Why is the northeast, and New England in particular, so unlike the rest of the nation in this? It is our history? Our dense population and more cosmopolitan nature? Our great (secular) institutions of learning? It’s hard to say. However it happened, though, we’re different.
The Republican Party in Connecticut has suffered especially from the influence of evangelical Christians in the rest of the country. Traditionally, New England Republicans are socially tolerant and fiscally conservative. Nationally, however, today’s Republicans seem to have taken that formula and turned it on its head (especially if we take into account the massive fiscal hole left by the last Republican Congress). As the poll suggests, a lot of New Englanders are uncomfortable with the sort of deeply conservative, politically activist religion that is still quite powerful in national Republican circles, which has posed quite a dilemma for Republicans here. Successful Republican candidates like Chris Shays, Jodi Rell, Nancy Johnson, Rob Simmons and John Rowland stressed fiscal conservatism and left religion and social conservatism almost entirely out of their messages. It is rare for a candidate to speak at length about his or her religious faith in this part of the country. Elsewhere, it’s far more common.
In this, New England is a lot closer to Old England than it is to the rest of America. Western Europeans think that Americans’ insistence on bringing God into the public square is a little unseemly, and rather strange. Whether that’s a good or a bad thing, I’m not certain. But it’s worrisome that on some fundamental issues, America seems to be growing apart instead of together.
Source
Altimari, Daniela. “Voters: Keep God Out Of It.” Hartford Courant 26 August, 2007.
31 responses so far ↓
>>Congregational Church (successor to the Puritan Church)
Uh – no.
The Congregationalists began as a sort of merger between the Separatists & the Independents; while the Puritans sought to purify the Church of England from within.
Indeed, Hooker brought his flock here to escape the invasion of Puritans (there goes the neighborhood) that began in 1629 as they (the Puritans) began settling the Mass Bay Colony adjacent to Plymouth.
The successor to the Puritans is the Episcopalian Church.
The Society of Mayflower Descendants spells it out pretty well here.
Why this is so often mis-cited is beyond me; there’s countless sources that make the same reference (Puritan -> Cong.) and they’re all wrong because it simply isn’t true and it is historically inaccurate.
You have it backwards. The Puritans left the Church of England after they failed in their attempts to reform it.
The successor to the Puritans is not the Episcopal Church.
Besides, the modern day Episcopal Church is awfully Catholic-like to be even remotely connected to Puritanism.
You should take a deep breath and go smoke a cigarette ACR.
>>Besides, the modern day Episcopal Church is awfully Catholic-like to be even remotely connected to Puritanism.
Sorry – I’ve got this one right.
The Congrationalists came from the Mayflower Pilgrims; the Puritans quite literally invaded a decade later.
Come on – they don’t teach this basic stuff in school anymore?
In Connecticut, 37% of people say they attend church or synagogue every week or almost every week. That number actually seems a little high to me.
Of the bottom six states, five of them are the other New England states (the sixth is Nevada: I guess if you live in Vegas, going to church isn’t high on your list).
So the reason that Connecticut residents, and other New Englanders for that matter, don’t care much for religion in politics is that we don’t go to church as much as people in most other states.
Pilgrims settled the Plymouth bay Colony and the Puritans did the MA Bay Colony thing. Then things went form there – and , of course, Puritans remained on in England too. and ciggie smoking is bad for you, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan
I think what you got backwards is that liberal politicians are using government to infringe on the rights of the Church and Church-goers.
— Not the other way around.
Plan B is a case in point.
Why is it that liberals are so hostile to people of faith particularly Catholics? You speak of tolerance so how about a little of such for Catholics? Why is it that you liberals hate everyone that is not exactly like you?
It’s always the same thing with you folks. Diversity of thought must be stamped out till its dead. You can’t stand someone being pro-life or conservative Republican or even a person who is Black supporting the WRONG Party.
I think religious folks, of whom I am not one, are in fact very tolerant. Much more so that the typical liberal. I find religious folks typically comfortable with themselves, they know who they are, what they believe and are comfortable with people un-like themselves.
I think what drives you liberals up the wall is the fact that these people are impossible to brainwash.
Liberals are upset about their very existence on the planet even if they are a tiny powerless minority.
Again, Plan B is a case in point. Denise Merrill just can’t stand people walking around thinking that contraception is wrong. You want everyone to think exactly like she does and she is using government to force it on people.
I don’t happen to think contraception is wrong and I don’t think that the Morning After pill or Plan B or even that Abortion Pill is murder.
Yet somehow I am able to live with the knowledge that some do think Plan B is murder and I am able to accept that a Catholic pharmacist might not want to carry these pills in their privately owned store. There used to be something called “free will” in this country. Do you remember those days?
Yet here comes the Catholic-Bashers writing clever laws forcing Catholics to chose between their Faith and their means of making a living.
You got it all backwards buddy.
The First Amendment states
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
Huh? The RC Hospitals are government contractors and they need to abide by government rules when delivering government services. If the Jehovah Witnesses set up a hospital they’d be wrong not to offer blood transfusions as far as most of us are concerned.
I have heard it said that there are two parts of the USA – East of the Hudson River and West of the Hudson River. The form of local government is different in New England than in the rest of the nation. The feeling that religion is a private matter than effects the person but should not effect public acts is another reflection of this difference. Maybe how we are taught the first amendment has a bearing on this attitude.
PS: Since you brought up the FIC influence or lack thereof, Genghis, I thought this latest entry on their blog railing against McKinney and Cafero for their support of Guiliani for Prez was of note. I’d also suggest that Fairfield County is on the cusp of New England. And I am not a Guiliani fan at all, BTW.
http://www.ctfamily.org/blog/2007/08/21/states-top-gop-lawmakers-back-pro-abortion-candidate/
Ah, Sean McCommas, the Ann Coulter of CTLP!
[quote comment="18060"]Huh? The RC Hospitals are government contractors and they need to abide by government rules when delivering government services. If the Jehovah Witnesses set up a hospital they’d be wrong not to offer blood transfusions as far as most of us are concerned.[/quote]
Hit it dead center, Toucan.
As for Rudy, I’m not a big fan of his, either. But he has a lot of supporters in CT, especially in Fairfield County. Check out this map to see where his money is coming from in CT. BTW, he pulled in more $ from CT than anyone but Dodd and Obama during the last quarter.
Romney isn’t doing too bad either in my zip when compared to Rudy 2D.
Nic maps!!!!
I noticed from that map that there’s (no surprise) a lot more Romney support in my neck of the woods, up here near Massachusetts. Very little support, at least financially, for Rudy.
Wtfdnucsailor , you’re right about the difference between here and west of the Hudson. A lot of it is history, and some is geography, but those sometimes subtle differences between here and, say, Pennsylvania or Ohio do exist, and they do matter.
It took me forever to figure out what a “township” was. I’m still not 100% clear on how it relates to boroughs, counties and so on.
wtfdnucsailor, You said,
“I have heard it said that there are two parts of the USA – East of the Hudson River and West of the Hudson River”
I will stay out of the religious aspects of this discussion, but also say your comment here is remarkably correct. The center of the universe does not run through myopic Connecticut, or New England.
No question we who live here, live in a very beautiful and very historically blessed part of the country. However it would do a world of good for a lot of Connecticut and New England residents to spend some time out of state, or area. There is a huge world beyond New England.
In my case anyway, the thin air of the Rocky Mountains does wonders for clearing one’s mind, and giving me at least, the ability to see what is clearly in front of my eyes.
[quote comment="18057"]I think what you got backwards is that liberal politicians are using government to infringe on the rights of the Church and Church-goers.
— Not the other way around.
Plan B is a case in point.
Why is it that liberals are so hostile to people of faith particularly Catholics? You speak of tolerance so how about a little of such for Catholics? Why is it that you liberals hate everyone that is not exactly like you?
It’s always the same thing with you folks. Diversity of thought must be stamped out till its dead. You can’t stand someone being pro-life or conservative Republican or even a person who is Black supporting the WRONG Party.
I think religious folks, of whom I am not one, are in fact very tolerant. Much more so that the typical liberal. I find religious folks typically comfortable with themselves, they know who they are, what they believe and are comfortable with people un-like themselves.
I think what drives you liberals up the wall is the fact that these people are impossible to brainwash.
Liberals are upset about their very existence on the planet even if they are a tiny powerless minority.
Again, Plan B is a case in point. Denise Merrill just can’t stand people walking around thinking that contraception is wrong. You want everyone to think exactly like she does and she is using government to force it on people.
I don’t happen to think contraception is wrong and I don’t think that the Morning After pill or Plan B or even that Abortion Pill is murder.
Yet somehow I am able to live with the knowledge that some do think Plan B is murder and I am able to accept that a Catholic pharmacist might not want to carry these pills in their privately owned store. There used to be something called “free will” in this country. Do you remember those days?
Yet here comes the Catholic-Bashers writing clever laws forcing Catholics to chose between their Faith and their means of making a living.
You got it all backwards buddy.
The First Amendment states
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.[/quote]
This is insane. Hearing an adult use this line of reasoning does drive me up the wall.
Do me a favor brainbox and list for all to see the ways in which “liberals” have infringed on the rights of individuals to freely practice their religion in the private sector. Plan B of course would not count here because the Catholic hospitals take state dollars, just like schools, and courthouses.
True Blue.
Thanks for the compliment.
— Sean
>>Do me a favor brainbox and list for all to see the ways in which “liberals” have infringed on the rights of individuals to freely practice their religion in the private sector.
28,000 zoning cases alone in the US in a typical year; despite the 1st and the Religious Freedom Act signed by Clinton in August of 2000.
Nonsense as silly as demanding a site plan (3500 – $5000) for a Methodist Church to place a tent on their property for two weeks.
[quote comment="18083"]>>Do me a favor brainbox and list for all to see the ways in which “liberals” have infringed on the rights of individuals to freely practice their religion in the private sector.
28,000 zoning cases alone in the US in a typical year; despite the 1st and the Religious Freedom Act signed by Clinton in August of 2000.
Nonsense as silly as demanding a site plan (3500 – $5000) for a Methodist Church to place a tent on their property for two weeks.[/quote]
Please site the 28,000 stat and explain how this minor zoning incident (a tent in front of a church) is somehow a liberal conspiracy against religion as opposed to a local municipal zoning board doing its job just as they would if a retail outlet wanted to have a tent sale..
>>local municipal zoning board doing
They’re not.
I did zoning for ages and while most seem oblivious to it; there’s laws against putting churches through the nit-picky stuff.
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.
In General: Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Exception: Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person–
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
The key word is “compelling” and that’s a tough one to get by a judge after jerking a church around.
I can’t recall ever insisting on a site-plan for any commercial interests tent sale by the way.
Again. If you could just site the 28,000 stat and also explain how this is all a “liberal conspiracy” that would be great.
It’s an ACLU conspiracy and you may look at the ACLJ website yourself.
Clearly you’ve spent -0- time serving in any public office much-less on a land use board.
“Barbara Bujnarowski, 80, a retired United Technologies worker who lives in Tolland, is typical of the poll’s respondents. A Catholic, she doesn’t go to church every week, but “I say my prayers at night and try to be a good person.”
Can’t understand separation of church and state without understanding Barbara, very likely the daughter of Catholics who learned to repress their religious feelings because they were put upon by the grand sons and grand daughters of Cotton Mather. Catholics who came to New England in the great migrations hid their religion, and their sons and daughters have been hiding it ever since. JFK is a case in point. By the way, they also lie to pollsters. The kind of separation of church and state beloved of some liberals (Ghengis is right about the connection between religion and the anti-slavery movement; John Brown was liberal and religious) is quite simply impossible. Religion — the real deal — lays claim to the WHOLE man, the political part of him too. To understand the real connection between religion and faith, you have to put away the fables of post 19th century jerks, and learn to think out of the box.
If you really want to understand the roll of religion in America, read Orestes Brownson — began as a unitarian, better transendentalist than Emerson, ended up scandalising eneryone by joining the Catholic church, from which perch he often disputed with John Henry Newman, backed the Boston Catholics when they were persecuted by everyone, author of “The American Republic” the best single book written about the religious political connection in America. HE would have understood Barbara.
TrueBlue,
Better stay away from him. He’s more convincing than Ann.
Same idiotic, vituperous attacks……….
The only thing McCommas convinces me of is that he’d like to be the equivalent of an imerious Chris Saysl
Interesting post. But, what about Barack Obama’s recent (religious) address in Hartford? And, for the record, the Republicans were marginalized nationally (Goldwater’s landslide defeat at the hands of LBJ in ‘64) until they began to align with the social conservatives…..
Yet post-Goldwater, the influence of Republicans in the northeast began to seriously decline as the party’s sensibilities headed south and west.
Yup. But, to those who would criticize the alignment remember that George Bush — a Methodist — won over more Catholic voters in ‘04 than did John Kerry, only the second Catholic nominee ever. (The only other Catholic nominee, JFK, trounced the Quaker Nixon when it came to the Catholic vote in ‘60.)
ACR
You are the one that nailed it. That applies to all law. We are talking about the Constitution here.
I just got through doing two courses of Constitutional Law and that’s right there in the text book:
“In General: Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Exception: Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person–
(1) Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
That is the above test for testing the constitutionality of a statute and Plan B flunks with flying colors. I think what they say about this test is that it is hard to prove in theory and fatal in practice (or something like that). In other words, it’s hard for the government to prove constitutionality. We are talking about an enumerated right. You don’t fool around with those.
The legislature’s statute may pass the first test but it does not pass the second part of the test because it’s not the least restrictive. As Chris Powell has smartly written in one of his columns, the legislature may have mandated that the police take rape victims to a public hospital. That would have avoided the constitutional question but of course the legislature wanted to confront the church. That was the intent of the law – not to help out rape victims in any real way.
All of the Catholic hospitals in the state have a public hospital nearby so there is no reason to burden the faith-based hospitals with the dilemma of following the law or their church teachings.
If the mater can be avoided than it must be avoided. If the Catholics have the money to challenge it will be voided eventually either in appellate court or the SC if the former gets its wrong.
I am sure Don can cite the proper precedent for that. I am too lazy to look it up and I am going to bed.
(Besides I already sold my text book).
You must log in to post a comment.