Pandering to people based on religion is just a dirty way of getting votes. Period. I won't go into separation of church and state, but what I will say is this:
The Republicans will happily take campaign contributions and other forms of assistance from religious organizations, all while promising to make abortion illegal. When George W. Bush was in office, the Republicans had the majority in the House and Senate. Bush appointed conservatives to replace more liberal or moderate supreme court justices. The supreme court still carries a conservative majority. If Roe v. Wade was ever going to be overturned, it would have happened already. The Republicans have no interest in overturning it. They know that the majority of Americans are content with the law of the land on this issue. However, that doesn't stop them from stumping on that issue to convince people who might not otherwise vote to vote.
Basically, people vote with their pocket book. That is the logical way to vote. People may cite religious reasons, but when it comes down to it, people will vote for what they deem is their own personal best interest.
I am unusual, because I can honestly say that the way I vote is not always in my best interest. I think about what is best for the most people. If I voted in my best interest, I would be voting for a third party candidate every time, but until there is instant runoff voting, I refuse to do so. It would essentially mean that I would be throwing my vote away.
I understand the basis of this thread. Officials in the Catholic Church have stated that Capitalism is immoral. However, they still donate big bucks to Republicans. Why? Don't let the abortion issue fool you... all the Christian Churches in the U.S. are voting with their pocket books too... school choice vouchers. Despite all these people in the media poo-pooing the public schools, a lot of people don't want to send their kids to a private, religious schools. Money is a factor. People don't want to pay for something that they feel should be free. But supply a free ride to private schools, and it will boost enrollment.
For me, I vote Democrat most of the time. In my lifetime, the economy has been better under the leadership of Democrats. The Clinton years are evidence of that. We are in hard economic times now, but it was Bush who enacted TARP and his deregulating buddies who got us into this mess. I essentially believe that when you let the markets decide, the people lose. Big corporations generally do not care about their employees or the consumers of their product. The best corporations at least care about their share holders, but over the past decade, that line of thinking became passe. I look at Enron and how only a few, a crooked accounting agency and the chief executives, came out ahead. I look at HP under the leadership of Carly Fiorina and how she ran the company into the ground, laying off 33,000 workers and having stock prices plummet under her leadership, all the while as she received a $45 million golden parachute to quietly go away. In the past, it may have made sense for people to vote Republican for their economic interests, believing that it was better to let the markets decide. Sadly, the Democrats are not much different on this. They are essentially Republican light.
I suppose some may consider me an extremist because I want there to be a lot more regulation. I don't see a thing wrong with socialism. On the political spectrum, socialism is not an extreme, but too many present a logical fallacy that mistakes it for Communism. It is essentially the opposite of libertarianism, which most do not see as an extreme.
Coming to terms with the belief that a socialist light government (such as what is seen throughout much of Europe) would be the best for this country has been a political journey. When I first reached voting age, I was a registered libertarian. I really believed in the "let the markets decide," minimal government approach. However, throughout the last 18 years of my life, I have seen where that doesn't work for the majority of the people living in these United States. Our markets are clusterf*cked!
There are numerous things wrong with our economic system that go beyond politics. This is why we have a diminishing middle class. We have a lot of working poor, and we have a small amount of wealthy individuals who continue to get wealthier, but the middle is where most would like to be and cannot. Many people cannot see how they will ever be able to live the simple American dream, which is more about having a home, a steady job and a decent means than amassing more money than they know what to do with. Having more people who can afford to live a sustainable existence, as in making enough money to afford the basics without accruing debt, would seem to be the moral position. That is going to require huge institutional changes beyond pointing out the hypocrisy of the political right. We essentially need to get rid of the wage an hour system that promotes inefficiency and economic stagnation. Perhaps, if employers were to adopt a model more like France's industries have, we would have a more efficient workforce, better returns, and less outsourcing of jobs. People should get paid for work done, not hours put in, and work should carry more reward than investment.
As of the beginning of October, I will be working three jobs and making less money than I was at the one job I was laid off from. It is a situation that former President George W. Bush called "uniquely American." I think I would rather be more like the rest of the developed world than "uniquely American," if it means that I fall behind despite working my arse off. I think most would agree, but have bought into the rhetoric that so flatters them all while making it seem morally okay to keep them oppressed.
That is my two cents. Although we are in a recession, so it is now only worth .00001 cent.