Please answer honestly....
 

I am seriously curious if something I noticed is accurate, and would appreciate the honest reply from our membership to verify my observation....if you dont mind.

Liberalish atheist.

I cant answer your poll because Im religious and conservative on some things and liberal on others

Not religious, neither conservative nor liberal. I answered "I am not religious...and pay no attentiom to politics" even though it is not exactly accurate. More options would have been nice.

Moderate who follows no one religion. If I HAD to classify myself, I would be more Buddhist than anything I suppose.

On some issues:

Abortion: pro-choice
Gun controls: against
Stem cells: pro
Term limits: pro
Religion in school: against
Evolution: no-brainer, pro
Creationism: literally...NO brainer, against
Right to die: pro
Drug legalization: pro
Death Penalty: pro
Media censorship: against
Political correctness: against

Religious liberal, here. Of course I'm not associated with any denomination of christianity, or for that matter a specific political party (maybe loosely associated with libertarian or green, but I do not follow either of their party lines).

non-religious uber conservative here...

Not religious and all over the place on an issue by issue basis.

I'd consider myself moderate, but I'm probably liberal by this board's standards.

Extremely non-religious moderate. Although...if pressed...the scales would probably tip slightly to the left. Very slightly.

Not-very-religious heretical Catholic. More conservative than liberal.

Abortion: anti-choice
Gun controls: anti
Fetal Stem cells: anti
Term limits: pro
Religion in school: anti, unless comparative class or in private school
Evolution: pro
Creationism: against classification as science
Right to die: undecided
Drug legalization: pro
Death Penalty: anti
Gay rights: pro
Hate Crime legislation: anti
Foreign Policy: largely neocon
Civil liberties: liberal
Scooby Doo: worst show ever. scientific Fact.

Religious and left of center.

Abortion: pro
Gun controls: pro
Stem cells: pro
Term limits: pro
Religion in school: against
Evolution: pro
Creationism: against
Right to die: pro
Drug legalization: pro
Death Penalty: against
Media censorship: against
Political correctness: against

Ain't religious and don't give a shit about politics

I am who I am. Religious, ultra conservative.

This is me as well.

There are some subjects on which I am conservative and won't budge on. Other subjects on which I'm extremely liberal and any pure conservative would gasp at my opinion. I think I'm conservative when it comes to subjects concerning children (and fetuses) and more liberal when it comes to lifestyle choices (these include sex partners, gay marriage, alcohol, some drugs, and smoking). Just don't push YOUR choices on me and I won't push MINE on you. When it comes to kids, they can't choose how they live so you better be careful how you treat them.

completely agree with everything. what does that make us? Buddhist ? interesting!

The way I see it, I leave religion to the religious, and voting to the voters. I see that they're there, and such things are important to a whole lot of people. In the end, they don't quite fit with me.

I'm religious in the sense that I am a church (United) member and attend occasionally, but I value its place more as a community centre than as a dogmatic guiding institution. As such it doesn't really effect my views on politics. I would be considered liberal, especially by U.S. standards.

Not religious liberal here, and as raenna put it: Don't push your choices on me and I won't push mine on you.

I don't really fall into anything there... I'm a Libertarian spiritualist (though not really religious so to speak).

Not religious at all really - I pretty much don't care to be honest.

I'm more of a centerist than anything else, but these days that puts me on the left of most issues with the skewing of the spectrum by the far right.

I am an atheist, and in US terms I am not a liberal, but in British terms I am.

There are many issues that don't match in a European Liberals views to an American Liberal's.

It's hard to explain, but I believe in Freedm of Choice, Freedom of Expression, and Support for the Poor and Sick.

The political movement that has most in common with my possition is the Fabians - almost socialist, but not in favour of collective ownership.

I believe that we all have rights (free expression etc) but with them comes a heavy burden of responsibilities (just because I CAN say that i think your {insert sacred cow of choice} is a cnut-bucket, doesn't mean that I SHOULD say it).

Extremely non-religious? Isn't a whole lot of nothing... nothing? Or do you mean more anti-religious? :p

Religious? I won't say there isn't some rainbow-colored dude out there directing the tangling of my power cords and blooming of my flowers, but he/she/it hasn't yet deigned to leave a card. No imaginary friends, if that's what you mean. Conservative about things I've learned the hard way but very liberal in others. I do not identify with many polar positions other than knowing the fewer the better.

My thoughts for these kind of polls to be meaningful is you have to define what is religious.

I have a good friend who is a liberal, and he made a crack about intelligent design, something I don't agree with at all, as a jab at us 'conservatives'.

I pointed out that his own wife believes in palm reading and power crystals. His response was that at least they weren't trying to get it taught in the schools and mine of course was 'yet'.

Now she wouldn't define herself as religious, but I see there being little difference in being a devote catholic or believing in the magical power of crystals and palm reading. Both require faith, and both require you turn off a portion of your brain where logic is processed.

To me both are religious, though only one would define themselves as religious.

I myself am a conservative atheist. I think reguardless, most people on this board are going to swing to the non-religious side, being that this board is not friendly to people who express opinion in terms of religious belief.

Extremely non-religious, somewhat liberal.

I understand that you didn't want to describe what your observation was, lest you biased the poll, but could you share it now? Anyone reading this far down the thread probably has already voted.

I don't want to speak for BOR, but I used the same phrase (before reading the other posts).

But what I meant was that my lack of religion is not just a shoulder-shrugging case of not caring about "that sort of stuff"; I believe that religion is not only false in the claims that it makes, but that religions (all of them) are detrimental to society as a whole, and to the individuals living in said socities.

Significantly religious and significantly liberal. And, btw, Ustwo is right. It makes a difference how you define "religious." I tend to agree with Ustwo's definition, but if you define it by "how often do you go to church/temple" that means an entirely different thing.

Based on the results so far, it seems as though there is no correlation amongst TFP members who frequent Tilted Philosophy between their religiousness and political leanings.

Religious liberal votes/total votes: 7/11 - 64%
Non-Religious liberal votes/total votes: 15/21 - 71%

Perhaps this is best for a different thread (and, tbh, it's more rhetorical than anything because I don't think a worthwhile discussion can really be had on the topic), but how is something like Zen Buddhism detrimental to society? I suppose one could argue that a good Buddhist would be detrimental to capitalism due to the lack of attachment to material things...but I'm not so sure that's a worthwhile argument to be made anyway.

My experience is that this board is conservative and non-religious. I'm liberal and religious. I'm Episcopalian! (Gay bishops! Head for the hills!) I get more shit here about the religion than the liberalism, though.

If I could change one thing about this board? A respect for the religious that equals the respect I give to the non-religious among us. Over and over, I hear from people with no faith who seem to "know" that I don't think, that I don't use logic, etc. when it comes to faith, my religion, how I talk to my God. If you don't feel it yourself, why are you qualified to say what I feel is a delusion? What you lack in your life does not disprove what others have. Strange logic indeed.

i answered under the wrong rubric (someone had to, i suppose)
i am not religious in any conventional sense of the term (strangely, i almost agree with ustwo on something--the poll is a bit strange without a definition of the term "religious"---i took it in a narrow sense [are you part of an organized religion] because, well, i just did.)
i consider myself to be on the left politically.
liberal is somewhere in the middle, so far as i am concerned. dont like the term, dont identify in terms of it.

i don't think i fit comfortably into any label, religious or political. just said religious liberal.

politically independent though when voting, religiously i'm working on it and its coming back.

My observation was based on comments in another board....pretty much stating it the Right was primarily religious (Christian) and the left was not. I found this to be unfounded, and a generalization based on a vocal minority in the conservative wing of republican supporters. It seems this poll validates my observation, that in reality there is no correlation between Faith and the conservative.

Thank you all for participating.

I hear ya. I'm an ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) Lutheran (mainline churches FTW!) but when I attend church, I attend the Episcopalian church (SO is coincidentally Episcopalian...I started attending long before I met him). And yes, I'm liberal, and religious!

Jesus was a lover and a caregiver. I struggle to be the same.

You missed "I am neither religious nor non-religious, and I am a political moderate."

On the other hand, since I merely disagree with atheism and assertive agnosticim, and yet positively LOATHE organized religions, one could, if one really wanted to, say that I was, on the balance irreligious (and I would say that the person needs to stop following a church and start following their religion). And, though I am most definitely a moderate, I have seen the center start to recede away to the past, and so I may, from the point of view of some reactionaries, be seen as a liberal.

Not to answer for him, but personally, I thought "religious" referred tothe degree to which you followed a certain faith. For example, some people identify with a religion, but aren't devout followers. They might say "I'm Catholic, but I'm not religious", where someone who goes to prayer services regularly or who really believes in their book of prayer would be more inclined to label themselves as religious.
With that mindset, I thought that "extremely non-religious" meant "I don't identify with any religious group, and I might even be against the idea of organized religion."

That said, although I consider myself Jewish, it doesn't affect my opinions/beliefs on things very much, so I voted not religious and conservative.
I describe myself as right-leaning to people, becuase there are a lot of issues that I'm very liberal on (moral issues, like gay marriage and abortion...many of the things that are associated with religion), but in terms of economics and some other things, I am extremely conservative.

I agree. It's why I don't frequent the philosophy board much. If it's a religiously charged issue I hear too many putdowns of the 'you're stupid, you aren't thinking, you aren't using your brain, etc.' sort. It's annoying and juvinile.

Religious/spiritual liberal.

I believe that the Religious Right are more aggressive, vocal and judgemental in thier views and also in politics. And thus the GOP is more easily labelled because of figureheads such as Falwell and Roberts.

Whereas, the Left religious are more apt to seperate thier religious beliefs form their politics and not to push one into the other, or be as aggressively pushing their religion into political platforms.

Actually all you have shown is it doesn't matter on TFP :)

If you look at your numbers, TFP is by no means a reflection of the population as a whole. Your sample size of conservatives wouldn't even be a mote in a statisticians eye.

Don't overcome one generalization with another.

Excellent point....but it still makes me feel better....heh

I, myself, am religious, and would be considered conservative...

-Will

I don't consider myself religious in the way that I go to church and pray and read the Bible. I did that in the past, got sick of the politics in the church and the want for money and more money. I've given up on organized religion and Christianity all together. I am spiritual in that I meditate on ideas and try to live my life a good person. Anyway, I picked not religious, but to most people I am not.

Politics I tire of. But I do follow them enough to know that I am liberal, much to my dad's dismay. He tried so hard with teh forcing into young republicans. However, when it comes down to most issues...liberal it is.

Tec, there are many different twists one could play on this. For example, most teahers are democrat. Well, obviously that's a generalization, but that's what I seem to find. You could pick out a group of people and pretty much 'generalize' their political views. Union workers would be another group to look at.

I think that this is interesting for a sociology point of view though and although this is a small chunk of society here in TFP, aren't most polls conducted in areas like this. I mean on Fox news, who do you think takes most of the polls? Just some food for thought.

Well, regarding polling, an organization like FoxNews...yes, I would put about the same worth in their polls as this one. However, there are far more respectable polling organizations that go through a LOT of effort in their data gathering. As much as people would LIKE to not believe it, there is most certainly a science to polling when done properly. It's separating the crap from the good stuff that requires more effort than most people are willing to put into it, so instead the idea that all polls are inherently crap is born.

From looking at a lot of polling before the last election, I really do think they are all crap. How you ask a question, what questions you ask, and who is willing to take the time to respond play a big part, and often the correction factors use VERY fuzzy logic.

I consider myself to be an "atheist centrist standing on my right foot", but a lot of people insist I'm a conservative to more degrees than I will agree too.

That kind of polling is much more subjective, yes. First off, a poll is worth absolutely *nothing* if you don't have access to what exact questions were asked, what conditions, etc. Also, polls that are of higher quality have multiple controls. For example, polls recording trends over long periods of time ask the same question over, literally decades. Anyone who takes a class on statistics will tell you that statistics can be manipulated, but they will also appreciate that statistics are not worthless and, with the right information available, it is possible to gauge just how much certain statistics are worth. There are entire classes dedicated to the science of polling, especially in poilitical science departments. LOTS of polling is done poorly. It doesn't mean polling is inherently bad, it means that you need to put more effort into assessing polls to decide what they're worth. And, like statistics, it means that you need to look at multiple sources because nothing is perfect.

Extremely non religious | conservative-ish

I never really consider myself a liberal, since I've always felt it to be a term meaning someone who changes something just to bring about change, which in itself is not necessarily always good.

I like to think about myself as progressive, since even changes that seem like they may take a step back, in the end, fulfill some sort of genuinely good change.

Also, not religious, in any deistic sense. More towards stuff that Huxley describes in his Perennial Philosophy, if anything at all.

Pagan activist and Free thinker here. I'm liberal on most social issues and conservative on most other issues, but I put myself in the Religious Liberal category.

I am religious - and considered conservative.

Much to my dismay.

Why does everyone seem to group Libertarians with Republicans?
I do not have a specific system of belief that I follow. I was raised Mormon, and tend to enjoy Catholic Mass... but my heart is with Taoism, which my Catholic friends say is just a philosophy but I tend to disagree.

So I am religious in the sense that I love The Way, and I enjoy singing hymns that worship Jesus. And I am "conservative" only because people don't see Libertarians as anything but conservative - even though Libertarian thought jumps to every side of the spectrum.

Religion is for people afraid of hell-spirituality is for people who have been there. Spiritual conservative, generally.

Agnosticish. While I think that there has not been any real proof of a god or gods that have created the universe (or none that I will buy into), I suspect that there has to be a better reason for us being here than a big bang. Regardless, if there is a god, I don't think any religions as we know them today are doing his/her will. Not to say that there aren't some people who are, but organized religions I don't think are.

And I think that I'm conservative or liberal based on the specific issue. I may agree with many conservatives on something such as the death penalty, but I will likely disagree with their views on imposing their morality on others. Maybe that's why I dislike partisan politics. I don't like aligning with another based on simply sharing many of their points of view.

I'm not religious, but I am spiritual nowaways. I consider myself a buddhist. I'm very much liberal, in that I would not support starting a war, I believe in taxes to support public education and science, strong environmental regulations, solar-based energy(panels and biofuel - no hydrogen cells please!), and strongly believe that the drug war and war on terrorism are both misguided. I believe ideological quests are more often than not, harmful.

Perhaps you spoke too soon. The correlation between religon and conserativism appears to be showing up pretty clearly in the poll at the moment. (Conservatives; approx 50% religious. Liberals; approx 30% religious)

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, likely heading for hell as all non-believers do!

;)

Yup, you are interpreting the data correctly. Obviously, it's a small sample of the membership of a particular message board, but there is a definite correlation - those who identify themselves as liberal are more likely to be non-religious and those who identify themselves as conservative are more likely to self-identify as religious.

All religions are an institution of man, and as such are inherintly flawed. I personally see no reason to give my time or money to enrich an organization engaged in often dubious pursuits which refuses any and all external oversight.

Some would say that according to pascals wager, it is better to believe and be wrong, than it is to NOT believe and be wrong. But i have always felt that if there is a god, he'll understand. And if he doesn't he is not God.

Also, i find the idea that religion is mostly destructive to be patently false. Religion gives people hope and comfort. It offers an example to aspire to. It has given us a moral code, and a super-natural reason to follow it. (From both the carrot and big stick end of things.)

So, I am non-religious, and as a general rule i am fairly liberal.

That may be true... but the extreme left (socialism, marxism, communism) are based in blatantly anti-religious ideologies, and inasmuch as extreme conservatives are given their title based preserving the status quo of social power structures, this includes religion...

I agree that in reality there is no correlation, but there is a reason for people to perceive an imaginary connection based on (perhaps loosely) affiliated ideologies... so it should not be so surprising.

I find these religious/political associations to be very disingenuous, at best. To categorize the human thought process in such a simple manner - that is, to assign beliefs to a person based on other beliefs which they may have - is just ridiculous.

The tendency to generalize political and religious viewpoints tend to make discussions within these topics almost meaningless. The tag line "As seen on T.V!" comes to mind.

I just call it lazy thinking.

I would tend to agree. However, catagories are often useful as intellectual short-hand. It helps to contextualize someones comments, and therefore to judge the relevence of thier opinions.

Me... I'm not really religious and mostly liberal.

And just for the sake of argument... I know tons of people that aren't religious but are very conservitive. Like... most of my family.

I can not answer your question because Liberal people consider me conservative and Conservative people consider me Liberal.

Where goes the limit between religious and not religious?

There is no option for me. I am not sure if I am religious, and I don't follow politics.

Liberal on most social issues, religious.

I think it would depend a lot on the particular religion. Southern Baptists would, I would guess, tend to be mostly conservative along with Catholics, while Jews and Wiccans and Unitarians tend to be more liberal. Each group is going to have a mix, of course. We have conservatives at our church, even though it's one with a good half dozen openly homosexual couples.

Gilda

To classify myself, I am a Buddhist and a Democrat for the most part.

However, I consider my self a Socialist Democrat.

Taken from astrahl

My Issues:

Abortion: woman's choice
Gun controls: no semi automatics
Stem cells: pro
Term limits: pro
Religion in school: against
Evolution: no-brainer, pro
Creationism: literally...NO brainer, against
Right to die: pro
Drug legalization: only natrual grown
Death Penalty: pro
Media censorship: against
Political correctness: against

Tecoyah, I can't answer your question either. There weren't enough options! :) My husband and I have trouble fitting in anywhere simply because we're too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals. We're both deeply spiritual but not really religious in the sense I think you mean. I'm sure there's a huge sub-set of people out there with similar qualities, but I haven't managed to find any yet... As an eg: With hubby in the AF we are constantly "attacked" by the friends of our ultra-liberal friends. We're asked to defend the views of the extreme right, and it's assumed that we share those views. While amongst those of our friends with serious right leanings we're "attacked" and asked to defend the views of the "hippy tree-huggers" we've also befriended. So I guess our answer is, somewhere in the middle on both counts?

I am religious...and considered conservative

The first statement is absolutely correct.

The second statement is only my opinion. I really don't know how I am considered on a political level. I am about as non-political as a person can be.

I have to quibble over the term "religious." You have the type of people who attend church, follow its doctrine and consider themselves religious even though they may contradict themselves (e.g. "love thy neighbor" but have intolerance and perhaps even hate for homosexuals). Then you have the type of people who may not attend any church but have an unconditional acceptance of people, have extraordinary patience and actually live the concept of unconditional love.

I don't consider myself religious, but I don't discount the possibility of the existence of God. I don't think any of the world's religions have adequately explained who God is and why God exists; nor do I believe that God is necessarily Christian, Jewish, Muslim or of any other religion.

I truly see no connection between religious and political beliefs. I think people are more comfortable grouping these two together in nice, convenient stereotypes, but again, have to go back to the definition of religious. Conservatives believe they have the cornerstone on religion, yet liberals advocate tolerance, forgiveness and understanding. Each of the two major political camps are filled with inconsistencies and contradictions.

I believe in my right to defend myself with deadly force, if necessary. Owning a firearm guarantees me that protection, and I have no problem whatsoever with killing someone in self defense, especially if it's an intruder inside my home. And I believe that abortion is tantamount to murder; however, it is the law of the land, and I therefore support a woman's right to choose. I hope that my daughters would never opt for an abortion, but it is their right to choose, not government's right to impose its will. Having said that, my daughters will have to accept the consequences of their decision either way. I am not homosexual nor am I attracted to other men. Still, it's none of my business how someone decides to live his or her personal life. I do not believe that a homosexual Boy Scout leader is going to "contaminate" the boys nor secretly recruit them into the Secret Gay Society. I don't believe in political correctness; I grew up believing in manners. These are two different things. Common sense drives one and is completely absent in the other.

By the way, I don't believe in the concept of "hate crimes." When you murder someone, that in itself is already a pretty extreme form of hate.

I'm religious, but I'm a moderate. Or something. Niether Conservative nor Liberal fits me well at all, so "not paying attention to politics" fits me best, I suppose.

My stances
 

Abortion: pro-choice
Gun controls: support assault-weapon ban
Stem cells: pro
Term limits: pro
Religion in school: against
Evolution: pro
Creationism: against
Right to die: pro
Drug legalization: pro
Death Penalty: con
Media censorship: against
Political correctness: against, but I do believe in sensitivity to and respect for all

I thought I had answered this thread...evidently not.

I answered non-religious liberal...but I'm actually agnostic with some "liberal" views and some "conservative" views. I probably lean more towards liberal than conservative though...when I lived in a very conservative area in NC my coworkers all called me a hippie, but here in my very liberal neighborhood...I'm definitely NOT a hippie. I guess I'm pretty hard to label, eh?

In my estimation, there are two reasons why people who self-identify themselves as religious tend to lean to the conservative side:

1. Some liberals who show the same sorts of mental tendencies as those who classify themselves as "religious" instead prefer the label "spiritual". I have never heard a compelling defense of this distinction, save for the comment that spirituality doesn't require organization. It seems to me that this distinction is reasonably meaningless, as both terms refer to the practice of belief in objects, principles, etc. that cannot be perceived or derived through logic. Namely, spirituality and religion are both institutions that encourage belief based on faith. If the people who follow your brand of religion choose not to gather together to perform religious ceremonies, you will likely say you are "spiritual, not religious".

I'm not sure why this is a predominantly liberal phenomenon, but I would guess it is at least partially related to the fact that most organized religions espouse conservative social doctrines that alienate potential liberal members.

2. Some liberals who show the same sorts of mental tendencies as those who classify themselves as "religious" instead place their faith in "atheistic religions", primarily Marxism. This particular ideology contains a messiah, prophecy about the future, the attainment of heaven, etc. Further, it caters to one dream of members on the far left: the end of socioeconomic class discinctions and discrimination. That said, Marxism is not a falsifiable doctrine and the empirical evidence for the imminent communist revolution is, er... lacking.

It is my opinion, then, that it is true in the literal sense that conservatives are more "religious" than liberals... if the "religious" label is one that is self-identified. That said, many liberals are attracted to ideologies that satisfy similar needs. These alternatives are not typically classified as religions because they do not represent organizations dedicated to the worship of a deity. (This also explains why Buddhism is sometimes classified as spiritual as opposed to religious.)

As for myself, I'm an atheistic conservative.

Abortion: pro-choice, only as a last resort, adopt in all cases unless the mother is threatened.
Gun controls: gun laws only stop the lawful from owning guns.
Stem cells: pro, they have so many good uses
Term limits: pro keeping mixing it up.
Religion in school: religion is for church, science is for the schools
Evolution: I do believe in evolution
Creationism: keep it in the church where it belongs
Right to die: as long as you are of sound mind, if you don’t want to live, you should be able to die.
Drug legalization: legalize and tax the hell out of it.
Death Penalty: if just one innocent dies, we are all murderers. Lock them all up for life if we have to, if it’s too expensive, make them farm and let them eat imitation gruel. The system needs to be fixed; there is too much emphasis on winning, not finding the truth.
Media censorship: just change the damn channel, and have the sense to monitor your children
Political correctness: fuck political correctness; just know who you can joke with and who you can’t.

Libertarian Atheist

Well said, this is exactly what I was thinking.

No religion, no politics for me...

I do not consider myself religious, or politically aware.

Although, I have studied a few religions throughout high school, and have some knowledge concerning the most popular religious views accepted. The views presented in these religions I consider to be only philosophy; most have flaws, and all can be questioned. This is the reason I do not consider myself to be religious. I consider myself to be a philosopher. Questioning the the most simple morals of my culture from a young age, there has always been an inner-understanding that all views should be considered and then validated.

My opinion for politics are completely different.

All I have heard from a young age is that all politicians, and political parties have their positive and negative aspects. Most politicians, and political parties are corrupt in some way. The people working with the government are payed, so they shouldn't abuse it for their own benefit. Every job has it's perks, but manipulating the system for a select few instead of the greater good isn't a very fair form of running any social group.

We gave them our trust to run the country, since we may not be capable of doing an equal or better job. Conspiracy theories, hidden agendas, closed room meetings and classified documents are usually explained to be secretive for national security. I cannot trust this though. All secretive documents are like bottles underneath the sink without any labels. Would you like a label before you used, or even allow these bottles to be sitting in your house without being aware of what they are capable of. The bottles are kept behind locked doors by the government, but they are still being used in our country. How am I supposed to trust my government if they are not able to trust me? I do not vote, I do not watch politics, for I don't know which bottles they are going to be using.

Libertarian agnostic with atheistic leanings.

I agree with meembo!

I'm a very liberal, quasi-religious person. Well actually I take that back. I wouldn't call it religious, exactly. I'm more spiritual. I know it's kinda cliched or whatever, but still, that's my stance.

I'm considered a Liberal where I live, and have no religious dogma. To steal from another poster on here:

Abortion: pro-choice, even though I wouldn't abort a healthy kid, personally
Gun controls: against
Stem cells: pro
Term limits: pro
Religion in school: against
Evolution: pro
Creationism: pro (I'd like to see more philosophy classes teaching more about creationist theories of the world.)
Right to die: pro
Drug legalization: pro
Death Penalty: against
Media censorship: against
Political correctness: Anyone who doesn't believe in political correctness is a retard.

On some issues:

Abortion: pro-choice
Gun controls: against
Stem cells: pro
Term limits: pro
Religion in school: against
Evolution: pro
Creationism: pro
Right to die: pro
Drug legalization: pro
Death Penalty: pro
Media censorship: against
Political correctness: against, whether that's considered retarded or not...

Just thought I'd point out, because it may be interesting to some, that generally Catholics have tended to vote Democrat as a group. This has only recently started to shift as the Republican Party manipulates the abortion issue for votes. When it comes to most other things, the Democratic Party is much more in line with Catholic teaching on Social Justice.

As I stated originally, I consider myself significantly "religious," but do not tie being "religious" to how often one goes to church/temple/etc or how literally or infallibly one interprets religious texts. If forced to give a description, I would describe myself as a Buddhist Christian pluralist. I do not believe in "god" as a persona. I do not particularly believe that Jesus of Nazareth physically rose from the dead. I do not believe the authors of the bible were "told" what to write by "god." In fact, I believe spiritual truth can be found in the texts of many different religions. I don't think any of them are perfect guides, and I especially don't think they should be read with the intent to literally apply what they say to today's world. Context is everything. I do not believe in fate whatsoever. I do not believe in karma as anything more than a mythological explanation of the fact people who meet the world with negativity will be met with negativity by the world, i.e. a person who chooses to screw someone over will naturally encourage others to screw them over in return, but I do not believe in any metaphysical aspect to karma. Likewise, I do not believe in reincarnation as anything more than a mythological explanation of the belief that we are all capable of reaching enlightenment - understood only as contentment with the fact that we cannot control the world, we can only control how we react to it. I do not believe in heaven or hell as a place one goes after death. In fact, the only "afterlife" I can claim to believe in without lying is the possibility that there is a universal consciousness flowing through all things, which I would also identify as what we consider to be "god," and which we would all return to after death. I have difficulty laying claim to any particular metaphysical beliefs though. When it comes down to it, most people who consider themselves "religious" would probably consider me atheistic, at most agnostic, yet I don't think anything I believe goes against the spirit of Christianity. Personally, I think I just work hard to fuse what we know of "reality" with what tools we have developed as people to find contentment in an imperfect world.

To jump on the bandwagon regarding issue positions:

Abortion: Generally pro-choice, but I am under no delusion that it is not the taking of life. It should simply be used responsibly - sometimes value judgements are necessary.
Gun controls: Against limiting what kinds of guns law-abiding citizens can own. For background checks, waiting periods, required training, etc. Make it reasonably difficult to get guns, make there be a significant wait unless law enforcement is reasonably convinced the person's life is in danger, but don't make it impossible to get anything. Making possession of certain guns illegal does nothing to prevent the people who are going to be breaking the law anyway from getting them.
Stem cells: definitely pro
Term limits: Generally pro. Perhaps it would be better, at least in the case of House representatives and such, to limit how many consecutive terms one can have, but not how many overall terms. For example, the representative can serve two terms, but cannot run for the third, but if people still prefer him can run again the next term and serve two more. This isn't an idea I have given a great deal of thought to.
Religion in school: As someone else said, school is for science. However, I see no problem with classes in comparative religious studies that are approached from a secular point of view. Generally speaking, these types of classes are more appropriate in the university environment though.
Evolution: I see absolutely no basis for rejecting the general theory of evolution without rejecting our understanding of science altogether.
Creationism: Should not be taught in schools.
Right to die: rigorous psychological evaluation should be required, but a person who is diagnosed with Alzheimer's or has a chronic, painful, and fatal disease, or any similar situation, should have the right to choose not to suffer.
Drug legalization: By prescription, use hemp for paper, etc. I do not have any desire to see things like marijuana become a popular tool to be abused for escapism such as alcohol and the like already are for so many people. As a temporary fix to assist in dealing with the underlying issues of discontent with a therapist, I see much value in responsible and monitored drug use.
Death Penalty: against, in all cases
Media censorship: against, although the reality is that due to the nature of our current economic situation with both parents working, etc, parents need to be given tools to assist in their own monitoring of their children. Television ratings and things like the V-chip are useful in this way. The government should make sure parents are empowered to care for their children, but should not do the job of parents. As for adults, they should be able to make their own decisions regarding what they watch.
Political correctness: The phrase means different things to different people, so I won't take a stance one way or the other. I think it is prudent to consider the thoughts, feelings, and life experiences of other people and social groups when speaking and making policy decisions.

As a side note, of "religious" people who voted overall, 57% considered themselves liberal. Of "non-religious" people who voted overall, 58% considered themselves liberal.

Taking out the votes of those who said they pay no attention to politics, 65% of "religious" voters said they are liberal and 78% of "non-religious" voters said they are liberal. Keeping in mind the issues regarding the definition of "religious" that UsTwo pointed out, among the other obvious issues with a poll such as this, I stand by the belief that this does not show any significant correlation between political stance and religiousness.