The PEW study that I mentioned above explains that there are various groups that might be categorized as “evangelicals” as opposed “Mainline protestant”. However, this categorization, in itself, does not correlate with party-affiliation and political views. Rather, within the evangelicals, mainline protestants, and catholics, the researchers asked some questions about beliefs and practices: e.g. some Christians don’t think that a real devil exists, treating it more as a symbol; some do not believe in heaven and hell; some don’t donate much to their church; some hardly attend church. Using the answers to these questions, the researchers classified members of the evangelist denomiations as “Traditional”, “Centrist” and “Modern”.
This classification shows a stronger correlation with party affiliation and political views. So, for instance, “Traditional Evangelists” as a group have views that are closer to “Traditional Mainline protestants” and “Traditional Catholics” when it comes to questions like: should abortion be banned. The bad news, is that when one adds up the various “traditionalist” groups, they come to about 26% of the U.S. population.
Understanding people’s beliefs is more difficult that figuring out the sizes of various denominations. As a consequence data on long-term trends and changing beliefs seems harder to come by. So, it’s tough to say if the traditionalists are growing, or if they have merely become more vocal about their beliefs. The common “cultural” issues that the traditionalists feel strongly about are:
- Ban abortion
- Ban Stem cell research
- Ban gay marriage
- Support School vouchers
- Fund faith-based groups
- Allow 10-commandments, manger-scenes, etc. in govt. place
Since the government has never recognized gay marriage and since many governments allowed religious displays without even giving much thought to them, these are issues on which the religious folk are fighting to preserve the status quo rather than to limit some existing freedom.
In areas that are new, like stem-cell research and the “morning after” pill religious groups have had a negative impact in a way that they probably would not have had a couple of decades ago. They definitely have to be fought on these issues.
On abortion, things are (de-jure) better than if one goes back (say) 50 years ago. However, the trend over the last couple of decades has been to move public opinion away from the “abortion on demand” idea, with more people (even non-religious people) thinking that there should be some restrictions: parental notification, spousal notification, no “partial birth” abortions. Also, in some states they have managed to make abortions more difficult. (Hopefully, they can be kept distracted with this issue – fighting for every inch – for another couple of decades.)
When it comes to a particular election (e.g. in the case of Katherine Harris) one is faced with the problem that all the options are usually rather unsatisfactory. One could have two Democrat front-runners who are a traditional-leftist and a nihilist, while the two Republican front-runners might be a religious-sympathizer and a Guliani/McCain type. One just has to choose the best of the worst, and sometimes the religious one might be the right answer!