Think Progress: No, American politics didn’t create ‘Cafeteria Catholics.’ Catholicism did

That’s the question being batted about on Wednesday, when The Atlantic published a lengthy reported piece entitled “Why Only Cafeteria Catholics Can Survive in American Politics.” In it, religion writer Emma Green gives voice to an argument often repeated by centrist Catholics in election years: that America’s rigid two-party system, divided along deeply entrenched ideological lines, makes it impossible for rank-and-file Catholics to register with a party that matches all aspects of official Church theology. She argues this forces American Catholics to “pick and choose” their theology—making them dreaded “cafeteria Catholics”—resulting in a “diluted identity” for American Catholicism. [...]

But there remains a major problem with Green’s analysis: claiming a Catholic identity and harboring views contrary to Church hierarchy isn’t an American invention. It’s the norm in Catholicism, because being Catholic doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing with bishops, or voting the way they want you to. And it never has. [...]

No one disputes that American Catholics, once a beleaguered religious minority beset by rampant anti-Catholicism reminiscent of today’s Islamophobia, flocked to the Democratic Party to support Catholic candidates such as Al Smith in the 1920s and John F. Kennedy in the 1960s. They’re certainly not the first minority group to do so; America’s brand of democracy encourages minority groups to form alliances and cling to one party out of self-preservation. The same could be said of today’s American Muslims, for instance, who switched from voting for Republican George W. Bush to Democrat John Kerry in one election cycle, and remain firmly Democratic—even though many express conservative sensibilities on several issues. [...]

Granted, if this sort of dissenting spirit was unique among modern American Catholics, one could plausibly argue that the United States has created an environment that bifurcates Catholics in unusual ways. But it’s not: In 2014, a global survey conducted by Univision found that most of the planet’s Catholics disagree with the church on birth control, abortion rights, divorce, and priestly celibacy. This corroborates with several other polls showing the leftward tilt of many Catholic-majority nations: a 2013 Pew poll found that 65 percent of those in Brazil —which is still one of the world’s most Catholic countries—believe homosexuality should be accepted by society, which is probably why Brazil legalized same-sex marriage that same year. In Argentina, which Pope Francis calls home and where 70 percent of the population claims a Catholic identity, marriage equality is widely supported.

read the article 

The New Yorker: Russia's Election: Every Choice Was a Bad One

Suppose you had to choose between eating nothing at all and eating something that would immediately make you throw up. Or, say, between walking on hot coals and standing naked in an icy rain. Or between sleeping on a bed of nails and under a blanket of wood screws. The Russian language, honed over centuries of impossible choices, has a colloquial expression for that: oba khuzhe, meaning “both are worse.” [...]

There is also the issue of the country itself. The number of electoral districts has grown by two since the 2014 annexation of Crimea. Some people—most notably Garry Kasparov, the chess champion turned political activist in exile—have argued that the illegal annexation rendered the elections and the parliament itself illegitimate, and participation in them immoral. Others—most notably Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former oil tycoon and political prisoner turned political activist in exile—argued that any opening in the political system, no matter how illusory, can and should be used against the Kremlin. Khodorkovsky funded a small slate of candidates for parliament and local legislatures—not, he told me, with an eye to winning but with an eye to helping activists gain political experience that they will be able to use in an eventual age after Vladimir Putin.

Some of Khodorkovsky’s candidates ran as independents, and others joined an opposition party called parnas—an acronym for the Party of People’s Freedom—which was allowed on the ballot for the first time, as was a quasi-opposition party called Yabloko, which has been around for nearly a quarter century. Its leader, Grigory Yavlinsky, who served as an economic adviser to Mikhail Gorbachev in the late nineteen-eighties, has been a mild critic of Putinism. Two parties that criticize the party line seemed like an embarrassment of riches. This caused endless debates on strategy, oba khuzhe-style. True, some reformers argued, Yabloko has never in its existence taken a brave stand, but its chances of getting into parliament seemed marginally better than those of parnas, so give your vote to Yabloko. In the same vein, several opposition activists campaigned for an elderly historian who supports the ban on “propaganda of homosexuality” and would like to ban abortion, because at least he opposed the annexation of Crimea.

read the article 

The Atlantic: 12 Million Extra Votes for Putin's Party

When liberal-rights activist Ella Pamfilova was named the head of Russia’s election commission in March, she promised to clean house and oversee transparent, democratic elections. [...]

However, a statistical analysis of the official preliminary results of the country’s September 18 State Duma elections points to a familiar story: massive fraud in favor of the ruling United Russia party comparable to what independent analysts found in 2007 and 2011.

“The results of the current Duma elections were falsified on the same level as the Duma and presidential elections of 2011, 2008, and 2007, the most falsified elections in post-Soviet history, as far as we can tell,” physicist and data analyst Sergei Shpilkin said to The Atlantic. “By my estimate, the scope of the falsification in favor of United Russia in these elections amounted to approximately 12 million votes.” [...]

Moreover, Shpilkin shows that almost all “extra” votes from polling stations reporting higher-than-average turnout went to United Russia. That is, a party such as ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s LDPR received virtually the same number of votes from polling stations reporting a turnout of 95 percent as it did from stations reporting turnouts of 65 percent. United Russia, by contrast, received about four times as many at the 95 percent stations. [...]

In addition, Shpilkin’s graph is spiked because there were an improbable number of polling stations at the high end of the turnout scale reporting round-number turnouts ending in 5 or 0, such as 75, 80, or 85 percent. This is a phenomenon Shpilkin and other analysts noted in previous elections and dubbed “Churov’s saw,” after former CEC head Vladimir Churov.

In 2008, Shpilkin estimated that United Russia actually won 277 seats in the Duma instead of the constitutional majority of 315 that it was awarded.

read the article 

The Atlantic: Why North Carolina Judges Can Still Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Marriages

North Carolina is one of the only places in the United States where judges can refuse to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. If magistrates have a religious objection to same-sex marriage, state law says, they can tag themselves out of issuing any marriage licenses, for either gay or straight couples, for at least six months. In the past year, various groups have sued the state over religious accommodations for North Carolina judges. But as two decisions this week show, they haven’t been very successful so far. [...]

Not many states have put laws like this in place, even if legislators have wanted to. North Carolina’s law was passed in June of 2015, shortly before the U.S. Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage to be legal. Some legislatures, like Florida, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Virginia, have introduced similar legislation but have not yet passed it. Others have been thrown out: A sweeping law in Mississippi, for example, created exemptions for judges, along with select exemptions for other people who have religious objections to same-sex marriage or gender-reassignment surgery, but a federal judge blocked it from going into effect in July. The other major state that has taken up this issue is Kentucky, where the Rowan County clerk Kim Davis was jailed for refusing to sign same-sex-marriage licenses or affix her office’s name to the certificates. A law signed in April addressed that issue by removing the requirement that a clerk’s signature or office name be included on marriage licenses.

North Carolina’s judge law doesn’t affect a huge number of public officials: One of the suits alleges that “at least 32 magistrates across North Carolina who had previously performed marriages for opposite-sex couples invoked religious beliefs to recuse themselves.” But it has become a symbol in a much bigger fight. Now that same-sex marriage is legal in the United States, what rights should religious people have to avoid involvement in the ceremonies based on moral objections? Legislatures are also dealing with this question when it comes to other LGBT rights: Less than half of states forbid discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in housing, hiring, and public accommodations, and LGBT advocates are pushing for new legislation in the states where those protections don’t exist.

read the article 

FiveThirtyEight: The GOP’s Jewish Donors Are Abandoning Trump

In recent years, Republicans have made inroads into the overwhelmingly Democratic constituency of American Jews. But this year, Republican Jews — or Jewish donors to the Republican party, at least — are abandoning their party’s nominee at a stunningly high rate.

In 2012, 71 percent of the $240 million that Jewish donors gave to the two major-party nominees went to President Obama’s re-election campaign; 29 percent went to Mitt Romney’s campaign, according to our analysis of campaign contributors, which used a predictive model to estimate which donors are Jewish based on their names and other characteristics. This ratio of support mirrors how Jewish voters cast their ballots in 2012.

So far in 2016, of all the money given to major-party candidates by donors who appear to be Jewish, 96 percent has gone to Hillary Clinton and just 4 percent has gone to Donald Trump. [...]

In 2008 and 2012, about 70 to 75 percent of voters identifying as Jewish supported President Obama. A recent poll of Jews suggests that 76 percent of those voting for a major-party candidate are leaning toward Clinton. These numbers make Jews one of the most pro-Democratic constituencies in American politics.

But there are also active constituencies of Republicans, including Orthodox Jews, the majority of whom favor Republicans, as well as Jews who are dissatisfied with Obama’s handling of Israel, though there is overlap between these groups. And as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has moved to align himself with Republicans in the U.S., Jews who are supportive of Netanyahu’s policies in Israel may be following suit.

read the article