A few weeks ago I remarked on a Michael Kruse post and offered one dissection of the term “mainstream churchgoer” found in a Christian Century article to which he linked.

I don’t doubt that a large segment of the most consistent churchgoers are indeed of a conservative bent. In fact, in the US studies show that the more frequently one attends church, the more conservative one tends to be. But my point there was that these studies discount the religiosity of many a devout liberal or moderate church member, who even though they aren’t weekly attendants, they go two or three times a month. Its just not right to discount them as not members of “the mainstream”. And pundits and analysts miss something if they don’t see that behind the avid-weekly-republican crowd there’s an avid-almost-weekly-democratic one (with the obvious caveat that there are liberals in the former group and conservatives in the latter). Personally, I prefer the sort of analysis that breaks down various religious communities into traditionalist, centrist, and modernist perspectives, such as this one from 2001 in First Things.

All this has been swirling in my head these past weeks as polling organizations and those who blog mainly on political affairs note the auspicious numbers for democrats a month before the general elections. There was some media discussion several months ago about whether the Catholic vote was swinging back towards the democrats (but note that First Things article, which showed how in 2000 the modernist Catholic vote was Gore’s most reliable). This is around the time that the Religious Left was making a big push to be more prominent in the national political and media scene.

This week the Gallop Poll produced a fascinating piece that, if it is accurate, paints a bleak picture for the Republican party in November. From the precis:

The loss of support for Republican House candidates shown in the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll occurred disproportionately among religious white voters as opposed to less religious whites and nonwhites. At this point, religious whites are equally as likely to say they will vote Democratic as Republican, a marked change from their strong tilt toward the Republicans in surveys conducted June through September.

In this piece, Gallup is using that tested method for the most-frequent-churchgoers, that is, those who have been consistent supporters of the republican party over the past several years. The upshot: not only do the democrats have the support of those “less-frequent churchgoers” and non-churchgoers, but they’re getting more support from the most frequent churchgoers as well.

Here’s the recent polling in graphical format (the first for a generic “democratic candidate”, the second for the congressional race; note the former is pure percent of support, the second is the difference of democratic support minus republican support):

The long and the short of it is that these “frequent-churchgoing” voters are telling pollsters that they are now as likely to vote for a democratic candidate as they are a republican one.

Polls are polls, and what matters is the actual vote, but things look bleak for the national republican party. And, frankly, given what’s gone on with their recent blank-check-to-torture those under US custody and the Foley scandal, I’m not sure it should be any different.

More analysis at Washington Monthly.

I’m going to give the Kruse Kronicle a lot of linkage in this post.

Michael Kruse is presently at the Presbyterian Church General Assembly Council (what he calls the big cat roundup) working hard to save the denomination from implosion, perhaps by arguing for spinning off the Presbyterian from the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation (which, for the record, I’m not for). Recently, Michael helpfully pointed to this Christian Century article entitled Democrats Seen as Failing in Outreach.

After varied efforts by Democratic leaders to convince mainstream churchgoers that they share common moral values, a Baptist ethicist has suggested that the Democrats focus instead on core biblical issues of compassion and begin long-term contacts with centrist clergy at local levels.

“The Democratic Party simply doesn’t have messengers who are preachers of big-steeple churches,” writes Robert Parham, whose online column EthicsDaily.com is the frank voice of the independent Baptist Center for Ethics in Nashville.

Parham, who holds a doctorate from Baylor University, often critiques fundamentalist Southern Baptist leaders but tosses political barbs as well. He rapped President Bush for confiding recently to conservative journalists that he thinks America is in a revivalist Third Great Awakening. By portraying the Iraq war as one between good and evil, the president “diminishes his credibility” in using religion “to rally political support,” Parham wrote.

But Democratic leaders were panned in his September 8 essay. Despite new Web sites such as FaithfulDemocrats.com, a flurry of books in the past year excoriating the religious right, and hope-filled gatherings of religious progressives in Washington, D.C., Parham argued that Democrats’ outreach is not working.

Read the whole article. Its good. For my part, a few quick observations, since I’m late for work. I don’t know how to make more democrats  pastors of ‘big-steeple’ churches. I’m not sure if that should be an aim, frankly.

But first, a lot of what we’re trying to measure in this article depends on how you define “mainstream churchgoers” Statistics show that those who go to church every week tend to be Republican and conservative, but if you modify that for, say three times a month then you get a much more varied picture. I’m just not sure what “mainstream churchgoers” this article is talking about. Second, sure, the Republican party has a huge lead on the value conversation in this country. Its going to take a while for the Democrats to make headway in that conversation, given that it seems to me they’ve only really been trying for a few years. Barack Obama has had a point in his speeches on this score, and that point, along with the efforts of Jim Wallis and others like him, are just beginning to have an effect. It will take some time to measure whether the effect will be great enough or not.

Finally, you’ve got to look at the questions on the ground and scratch your head. Look: the Christian faith has words of support and many more words of critique for both political parties. It always will (the Democratic Bible and Republican Bible versions notwithstanding).

But from where I sit, right now, looking over the recent attempt to codify into law Torture of detainees, the right of the Executive to decide just what Torture would be permitted,  the inability of those detained to challenge their detention (and their guilt) in court, and the ability to make anyone–US Citizens included–an enemy combatant who can thus have their habeas rights suspended, I’m just stunned that anyone could even say with a straight face that the Republican Party captures the religious values of “mainstream churchgoers.” In fact, its the democratic party right now that is standing up for basic human rights and Christian values. Maybe this says something more about the faith of the “mainstream”?