January 4th, 2012
12:10 AM ET

My Take: Iowa caucus results puncture myth of 'evangelical vote'

Editor's Note: Ralph Reed is founder and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

By Ralph Reed, Special to CNN

(CNN)–One of the most important sub-plots in the Iowa caucuses was which candidate would win the support of Iowa’s evangelical voters, who comprised 60 percent of the vote in 2008, and according to the CNN entrance poll, comprised 58% of the vote Tuesday night.

In the media’s instant analysis, a “splintering” of Iowa's evangelical vote among numerous candidates made it difficult for them to influence the selection of the Republican presidential nominee.

But this narrative is based on a caricature of evangelicals and other voters of faith. Consider this: 61% of self-identified evangelicals who attended a caucus Tuesday night in Iowa voted for a candidate who is either Roman Catholic (Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum) or Mormon (Mitt Romney, who won the caucuses, besting Santorum by eight votes ).

Here's how the evangelical vote broke down: 32% for Santorum, 18% for Ron Paul, 13% each for Romney, Gingrich and Rick Perry, 6% for Michele Bachmann and 1% for Jon Huntsman.

This suggests a more nuanced and complex portrait of voters of faith. They are often crudely portrayed as voting based solely on identity politics, born suckers for quotes from Scripture or “code words” laced in the speeches of candidates appealing to their spiritual beliefs.

Evangelical voters, it turns out, are a more sophisticated bunch, judging candidates on a broad continuum of considerations from their personal faith and character to leadership attributes and electability.

There is a story out of Iowa - a story about a faith community that has matured beyond voting for the “most evangelical” candidate as a “statement” and takes seriously the responsibility of electing someone to occupy the Oval Office at a time of great national testing.

The same is true of Tea Party voters, women voters, or other subgroups within the electorate. None is breaking overwhelmingly for a single candidate, primarily because so many candidates have made credible appeals for their support, and because there is no single consensus front-runner.

The truth is that evangelical vote has never been monolithic. Pat Robertson won strong support from his coreligionists in Iowa in 1988, catapulting his candidacy to national prominence, but still lost the caucuses to Bob Dole, and lost the evangelical vote to then-Vice President George H.W. Bush in South Carolina.

George W. Bush won a third of the evangelical vote in Iowa in 2000, splitting that vote with Steve Forbes and more explicitly social conservative candidates like Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes. These voters march to their own drummer. They don’t bleat like sheep or move in herds, and they rarely respond en masse to endorsements.

This point is underscored by the entrance poll, which found that 42% of caucus-attenders list the economy as the number one issue in determining their vote, and 34% cite the budget deficit; only 14% listed abortion.

This is not to suggest that social issues are unimportant. No candidate can be competitive in Iowa (or beyond) without conservative credentials on the cultural agenda. Indeed, Santorum’s surge was in part a response to his deftly weaving the economic and social agendas together, arguing that it is impossible to have a vibrant economy without strong families.

It does suggest, as Kimberly Strassel recently observed in The Wall Street Journal, that evangelicals are embedded in the social and economic mainstream of American life and, as such, are motivated by a broad range of concerns, including jobs, taxes, the debt, and national security.

So when commentators prognosticate about the “evangelical vote,” we might want to ask them, “which one?” For there are there are many evangelical votes, many candidates who win their support, and a multitude of motivations for their engagement in the rough-and-tumble of American politics.

This is all to the good. It demonstrates that their civic involvement is a cause for celebration, not alarm, a sign of the health of our political system, not that it suffers from an anti-democratic or sectarian impulse.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ralph Reed.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Iowa • Opinion • Politics

soundoff (987 Responses)
  1. independent jim

    Evangelicals are not christian .. as this guy says he wants to do the right thing .. if he wanted to do the right thing he would vote for a liberal .. not a far right conservative .. remember Jesus was a liberal not a conservative .. jesus healed the sick not denied tem health care jesus said honor thy fatehr an mother not take away there SS and Medicar .. jesus said thou shalt not bear false witness he didnt say its ok to lie if your just trying to win an election .. Im tired of Evangelicals calling themselves christians

    January 4, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • Hooligan

      ever notice how any sect group of said religion calls the others "NOT" whatever religion is in question?

      get over it... all religions are stupid.. if you want to hold on to it fine, but don't act as if one is superior to another when you are all believing in written scripture supposedly given by god

      January 4, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • HellBent

      Please google 'no true scottsman fallacy'. While xtian infighting can be amusing for a while, after a time it just gets old and played out.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
    • kluvalab

      Jim... I agree with some of what you say, but perhaps with a different twist. I think Jesus was liberating. Jesus demonstrated it is important to fight for the underprivileged. Many who call themselves Christian do not ACT like Christians. When we put our own needs ahead of others, we are not acting like Christians. The term Evangelical is a theological term that describes the belief "one must choose Christ to be saved." It does not define ALL Christian beliefs.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
    • Clif

      Delusional much?

      January 4, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • Preston Raynie

      Where do you get it that evangelicals are against so many things? It is the more liberal political types who are making things harder for the plain old working folks. We need more working folks.. more taxpayers. The problem seems to be that there are too many not paying taxes.

      January 4, 2012 at 7:42 pm |
    • Preston Get A Brainie

      Those poor hard working folks who pay taxes most often belong to unions. They don't vote for right wing nutjobs like Santorum, who got voted out of his last job anyway.

      January 4, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
    • Jim

      Jesus was not a "liberal" as you think of one, and he didn't ever ask or suggest that the Roman state should provide health care (or anything for that matter) for the poor. He demanded that individuals take care of other individuals, because the State does not have a relationship with God – the individual does. What he encouraged in people was faith in God, and the faithless he had no use for. The State was irrelevant to him, as evidenced by the story about paying taxes to Caesar – "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and give unto God what is God's".

      January 4, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
  2. JOE


    And I thought I was the only one whose comments were being censored by CNN. Well...And I agree that we must find ways to end these wars and stay out of wars in the future. During the Keynote address at the Democratic National Convention a few years ago, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo said "peace is better than war because life is better than death." I couldn't agree more!

    January 4, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • FatSean

      Shame this smug tubby goon doesn't apply such rigorous thought to the basic claims of the religion he follows.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • FreeToThink

      Having not been dead, I couldn't say for sure that Cuomo is right. 🙂

      January 4, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
  3. MikeG

    Adults who believe in mythical beings should not be allowed to vote.

    January 4, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • jon

      These evangelical people are all just wacky. Stay away from them, and certainly DO NOT VOTE for any of these nutbags.
      Every election now it seems like we have to listen to this drivel. Even that great thinker, George Bush II, threw them out of his Oval Office.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • LordFlashheart

      Quite right indeed.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • Surprisingly intelligent religious man

      Unfortunately for you, considering 7/8th of the worlds population believes in a Supreme Being... you are in an extreme minority. But we all knew we'd find you here on CNN's page, you silly little devil, you!

      January 4, 2012 at 8:57 pm |
    • Commojoe

      And the fool said in his heart that there is no God........

      January 4, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
    • Jim

      Who says they're mythical? You? By what authority do you declare this? You? Lack of readily apparent material evidence doesn't negate the existence of something. Just like you can infer the existence of certain kind of objects in space by what they do to other discernable objects, the same is true for the idea of God. Non-rational isn't always irrational. Most of the world believes in a deity, and they believe it has changed them. You are no more omniscient than anyone else, so the best you can do is say "God is mythical to me", to which my response is: "You're missing out."

      January 4, 2012 at 11:47 pm |
  4. Hooligan

    what people fail to understand (or just don't care) is that when relying on your faith to cast a vote you are FORCING your religious views on those that do not follow the same faith.

    When you vote for a person solely on the concept of faith you are making sure people who share your faith take the lead and undermine the very concept of the separation of church and state.

    January 4, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Mike

      This is probably one of the dumbest comments I have ever read. If I take my faith into account when making a decision as to whom I should choose, this is "forcing" my religion on you? Yet you should be able to force your Atheistic beliefs on me by believing the opposite? Keep your Godlessness to yourself

      January 4, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • Jim

      What you don't seem to understand is that everyone forces their opinion on everyone else all the time. If you and a bunch of other people band together and vote in anything, doesn't that mean you've forced your beliefs on the rest of us who didn't vote for it?

      January 4, 2012 at 11:50 pm |
  5. Dan

    Man, some pretty scary quotes from the Evangelical "sampler" provided above.

    January 4, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
  6. MikeMazzla

    The yahoos who live in Iowa make little difference in a national election. And if you read the nutcase quotes from the people above, it just shows how crazy evangelicals and religious people are in general.

    January 4, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • LordFlashheart

      It never ceases to amaze me that in 2012 there are still these people loose in the "1st world"... Really? Wow, scary.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
  7. c

    US army soldier CPL. JESSE THORSEN Cut off by CNN at Ron Paul Rally when talking about the WAR!!!! When CPL. JESSE THORSEN begins to speak about how we need to end the wars, NOT ATTACK IRAN and LET ISRAEL DEFEND ITSELF, CNN DELIBERATELY CUTS THE INTERVIEW WITH HIM OFF. You can look the video up online. Media censorship. State censorship and propaganda. A concerted effort by our government and sell out corporate media to try and sway the people away from Ron Paul. Spread the word. Spread peace. We grow stronger together, we must stop the wars and violence our country is known for.

    January 4, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Steve the Goat

      CNN is not the state. If you're going to rant, get it right.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • BR

      Conspiracy is always the answer from the right when they're exposed for some extremist view.

      January 4, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
    • Grace Of The Witch

      *** CPL. JESSE THORSEN Did a bad thing.

      You do not go in front of the media dressed in a military uniform, and endorse a political figure.
      It is against the rules of the military.
      That is why it was cut off.
      This young man has every right to pick a candidate, but NOT
      wearing a military uniform.
      This guy was trained, and knew this, and he is in trouble,
      even Ron Paul should have known better.

      January 4, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
  8. Paduki

    This is the most uninspiring group of candidates I've ever seen. I will not vote for any of them, which also means I'm not likely to vote Republican as I have for 40 years. I won't vote for the Democratic candidate either. He has been ineffective as a leader, although he is a reasonably polished public speaker. Is there anyone out there who can actually lead without creating a climate of fear and repression, and is also credible as an individual?

    January 4, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • Clif

      I agree, I'm still waiting on that person to peak through.

      January 4, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • Cunning Stunts

      **** I won't vote for the Democratic candidate either. He has been ineffective as a leader,

      Hard to get anything done, since the day this man took office,
      The Republican mantra was NO !
      So h-e-l-l-b-e-n-t on getting back into power, that America can go to hell.
      The only way out of this mess is to give President Obama 4 more years.
      You want to go back to those 8 years of complete disaster under Bush ?
      Thats what you will get if you put another republican in the white house.

      Republicans suffer short term memory problems.

      January 4, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
    • geeky

      President Obama has had a very productive first 3 years. Are you not paying attention, or are you just not willing to give him credit?

      January 4, 2012 at 9:27 pm |
  9. tony

    All-powerful god needs collection plates to feed his most loyal priests/pastors.

    What wrong with this picture?

    January 4, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
  10. alex chapman

    What does born again mean ? Where is it found in the Four Gospels ? How does one go from the Message of Jesus to protesting at soldiers' funerals ?

    January 4, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • Dave1955

      Try reading the Gospel of John, chapter 3. The words come from Jesus' mouth. What they mean has been debated for 2000 years.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • kluvalab

      For those who wonder where the "born again" phrase comes from:

      "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit...You must be born again..." is a quote from the Gospel of John chapter 3. If you want to read the entire passage to gain its full context read John 3:1-21. Jesus is peaking of making a "commitment" to God. This is a commitment to turn your life over to God. Stop thinking of the pleasures of this life and look for fulfilment in heavenly treasures.

      Not all "born again" Christian protest at funerals. Like all groups there are radicals everywhere. Evangelicles just want to educate the unchurched to the joys of living a life full of the Spirit.

      Peace and blessings.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • tony

      Had lots of fun. Made my pile. Hurt others in the process of doing both. Ready to settle down now, so all forgiven.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • BR

      kluvalab: Your meddling in other people's beliefs because you think yours is better is extremely annoying, and more so, disrespectful. How would you like it if I tried to talk you out of being a Christian? You ALSO would be annoyed and feel disrespected. Get it?

      January 4, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
    • Cunning Stunts

      My guess is that christians think they can be born again,
      as many times as it takes to get it right.
      Get what right, seems to be the problem.

      They also tell me that Jesus died for my sins, so should i not be sin free ?
      Yet they tell me i am born with sin !
      How the heck can i be born with sin ?
      When my mother gave birth to me, did i do something wrong ?

      These people are crazy.

      January 4, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
  11. dowhatifeellike

    I still find it disturbing that roughly 1 in 7 evangelicals are most concerned about abortion, a social issue which has been protected by the Supreme Court and about which the President can do nothing. Whether for or against, it's here to stay. Please focus on issues that the candidates could actually do something about, should they be elected.

    January 4, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • glyder

      so whatever is here now is here to stay,just like always.get real.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      >>>"....a social issue which has been protected by the Supreme Court and about which the President can do nothing. "

      Basics civics. All that is needed to get past the Supreme Court is for Congress to approve and write down a law that says it is illegal. President signs it. From that point the only thing that the Supremes can do is look at the new law and follow it.

      Basic Saturday Morning School House Rock. "three ring circus"....

      Or we can get uglier .... Trail of Tears.

      "When the State of Georgia arrested him, he filed suit and took it to the Supreme Court. The decision took the policy that Native Americans were sovereign nations and were not covered under state laws. Andrew Jackson, the president at the time, said, "John Marshall (supreme court justice) has made his decision. Now let's see him enforce it." He then sent U.S. troops into Cherokee land and forced them to Indian territory in what is present day Oklahoma. "

      January 4, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • KK Denver

      Mark from Middle River: And the the Law is contested up to the Supreme court and is struck down as an invasion of a woman's privacy

      January 4, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • canamerican

      You took the words right out of my mouth. I am so sick and tired of listening to this constant issue every time there is an election or debates goiong on. Abortion is never going to go away, so let's just accept it, no matter how terrible we think it is and do what's in the best interest of the country and the people. Who gives a rat's behind if gays get married? If everybody would just worry about their own life and do what they think is right and let everybody else do the same, then we could get on with the issues that really matter.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
  12. Leo

    What ever happened to "there shall be no test of religion for public office?"

    January 4, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • PraiseTheLard

      In what country do you live?

      January 4, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Means that the elections boards on the federal and state levels can not prohibit a person from running for office based on his or her religion. It does not have a bearing on who the individual voter chooses once when they vote.

      In other words, your religion can not keep you off the ballet.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
    • JOsh

      Hijacked by cult christians.

      January 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
  13. Ron

    "Evangelical voters, it turns out, are a more sophisticated bunch, judging candidates on a broad continuum of considerations from their personal faith and character to leadership attributes and electability"..." The same is true of Tea Party voters, women voters, or other subgroups within the electorate." So, according to the article, the only people that blindly vote are left wing liberals.

    January 4, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • Steve the Goat

      Sets of inbred morons favoring different inbred morons does not make them sophisticated. It just makes their shortsightedness more in line with their flavor of space ghost believing idiot.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • Koyaanisqatsi

      Jesus was a liberal.
      The republicans trashed the hippies in the late sixties
      as unclean anti-social drug users.

      What is wrong with peace ?
      Thats all the hippies wanted was a better world
      void of war, hate and intollerence.

      The republicans have now branded liberals as, "socialists".
      Dont bother calling the fire department when your house is burning down.
      Your nieghbors taxes went into building that fire station,
      and that is "socialism".

      The dumbing down of America by the Republicans has worked very well.

      January 4, 2012 at 6:56 pm |
  14. JOE

    I always thought there was a seperation between church and state in America but after reading this article, I'm not sure. And I wonder why when an American President takes the oath, he is required to put his right hand on the Holy Bible and say "so help me God." God I'm puzzled!

    January 4, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
  15. honest abe

    religion doesn't mix well with anything... especially politics

    January 4, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
  16. Bob Dobbs

    If Ralph Reed says its true, you can bet on it. At your nearest Faith and Freedom Center-endorsed Indian casino.

    January 4, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
  17. Cynic

    Ralph Reed: Now there's a guy with his hand on the pulse of America.

    If Santorum hadn't run a close second, you wouldn't see Ralph Reed on CNN.

    Too many Christians are giving Christianity a bad name.

    January 4, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • alex chapman

      Amen,amen. Organized Christian Religion,starting w/the Catholic Church, has stayed so far from the Message of Jesus in the Four Gospels, that it is hard to recognize the Message of; "Love each other as the Father loves you."

      January 4, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
  18. Jay

    Religion and one's faith should have nothing to do with deciding the President of the United States of America! Before I get attacked – I believe in God but I don't believe that the Leader of our country should or should not make decisions based on his/her faith. Sorry – too many people who describe themselves as Christians are Christians provided that you agree with their VERSION of Christ – detour from what they believe and suddenly you don't believe in God and you aren't so righteous. Furthermore look @ Bachman & Perry both of whom have stated that it was God that convinced them to run for political office – if there is only one God then why did he want TWO people to run? Also, if God wanted someone to run wouldn't that person win the contest? Also, is America 100% Christian? 100% Born Again? No so religion is not a quality to base a Presidential decision upon. Finally, alot of the Born Agains and the Evangellicals want to base decision on Religious obligation to end abortion – which have been legal for almost 40 years – gay & gay marriages – which effects them not. Religion OUT of politics!

    January 4, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Bob

      Well said!

      January 4, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • kluvalab

      One's faith is directly related to one's piety. How one conducts one's life is related to one's religious beliefs. Therefore the faith practices of a candidate will effect how a candidate will structure political and civil policies – maybe not directly but certainly indirectly.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • pat carr

      as an atheist i say thank you for your well thought out post and position.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • Leo

      Kluvalab, if that's true, then the last person I want to elect is an evangelical Christian. It leaves a HUMANIST as the only viable choice.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      The Jim Crow laws lasted from 1876 and 1965. Religious figures such as Martin Luther King heard the same arguments that since the Crow laws were set down as "law" that it should be accepted as a something that could not and would be unconscionable to ever changed. Almost 100 years later and such laws were overturned, do you think the same could not happen with Abortion?

      Abortion is legal but for a great many it is a law that can and hopefully will be overturned. 🙂

      Lastly, the amount of Gay and Lesbian Faithful is growing in the congregation and in the clergy. So Gay rights have enough support with many Christians that can you really state that the Faithful are so much against such lifestyles.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • marc

      Great point. You would think that the Christians would overwhelmingly support Ron Paul and not warmonger / hatemonger Santorum. I clearly don't think the Bible preaches pacifism, but it also certainly doesn't preach save only the unborn and bomb the crap out of everyone else, killing countless women and children. Christians should vote for someone who wants to dramatically decrease Federal power and let the states do what they want. If New Jersey wants to be the "abortion state," let them. If Iowa wants to be the "there is not bigger crime in the world than abortion" state, let them. Christians have surrendered to the federal government in every way. If there is one God and the Bible is his word, then I would expect it won't be long before God deals a heavy blow against those waging unjust wars in his name.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
  19. JOE

    I would like the Republican Presidential candidates to name three things they would do as President. Hahahahaha!

    January 4, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • Grog Says

      1 – Put gays in concentration camps.
      2 – Bomb Iran.
      3 – uuummm, i dont remember

      Get back to ya.

      January 4, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
  20. Lorna Doodle

    Me thinks the atheists are becoming much more vitriolic than the religious zealots. Everyone just shut up and let the other worship what they choose to. Or not. Thank you.

    January 4, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • John

      Lorna, the problem is that the religious zealots do not just quietly worship what they choose. The vocally and forcefully try to impose it on everyone and make it part of our government.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • Bob

      It's high time they fought back. They've been on the recieving end of endless vitriol from the Xtian Taliban, more power to them for fighting back!

      And I am "born-again" but I respect others rights to worship or not, as they so choose.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • Lorna Eats DooDoo Twice Daily

      That'd be fine if the religious crazies didn't get to vote.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • Lorna Eats DooDoo Twice Daily

      And it's "methinks".

      January 4, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • meemee

      Ha, some atheists finally get to speak without being burned at the stake or ostracized from society and it immediately becomes persecution of Christianity and Christians! What a bunch of narcissistic hypocrites!

      The right and the intellectual need to question the status quo, including a domineering religion is imperative in the preservation of everyone's freedom. Nothing concerns me more than having people who believe they have invisible friends, believe a 2,000 year old myth about a virgin birth and resurrection from death, and a coming Apocalypse appointing their own to lead a supposed free country and world power. The dangers of a mass that worships a lord and master then pretends to indulge in a democratic process must be obvious.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • pat carr

      well methinks you haven't been around many religio zealots. We atheists are tired of having their views shoved down our throats and in our laws

      January 4, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • RAWoD

      The problem with many people of faith is that they tend to insist that you either agree with them or you're a bad person. I suggest that you treat your religious beliefs like you would treat your "lady parts" - be proud of them if you like but please don't keep pulling them out in public.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • tony

      It's when the tax-exempt collections get used for political posturing, it becomes obviosly illegal, but accepted. Atheism has no such favors done to allow it's position to be so generously spread.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • PraiseTheLard

      I was going to write something along the lines of "look at the dollar bills in your wallet" to point out the obvious forcing of a religious motto on everyone in the country, but then I realized... it really doesn't specify in which "god" to trust, and seeing the way this country has been going, perhaps they've got it right: the "god" of money...

      January 4, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • rick

      Religious zealots feel that they are called on to preach. I got no problem, with people's beliefs, but when they decide that they have to preach to me, then the line is crossed

      January 4, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
    • steve harnack

      Well if you thinks that, you thinks wrong. I would never either wish or predict that you suffer torture for eternity for what you believe.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • Grog Says

      That would be fine, except that they are trying to legislate
      how i should live, and who i can love.
      I live in America, not Iran.
      Do you get it now ?

      January 4, 2012 at 7:19 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.