Political Parties through the Lens of De Tocqueville, Part 2

This is part 2 of a reposting of a paper I wrote in the Spring of 2008 for Jon McFall's Democratic Political Philsophy class at Rutgers University. Certain points have been redacted for clarity, and will be noted with a *

But politics and democracy are more than pure numbers. For Tocqueville, religion plays a major role. According to Tocqueville, 

“Religion is no less the companion of liberty in all its battles and its triumphs; the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law and the surest pledge of freedom.”  
With that in mind, one can see the high emphasis de Tocqueville puts on religion as a foundation of American democracy. However, according to John Petrocik, religion has become more important to parties within the past twenty years. The main force of the Republican Party has become observant and higher class religious voters, composing nearly 60% of its constituency. By raising the profile of religious voters within the party, the Republicans are inching closer to reincorporating the two elements Tocqueville admires, religion and liberty.
However, in a modern society, there should be a certain amount of room for religious diversity, which Tocqueville did not have to take into account, but Democrats do. While Republicans have conservative, religiously observant white males in an overwhelming amount, the Democrats have every other main religious group under their wing. Jewish voters overwhelming vote Democrat, and Arabic and Muslim voters appear to have jumped ship from the Republicans to the Democrats since the Iraq War started. 
However, the problem begins again when noting how far religious legislation goes. Tocqueville criticizes New England of the 17th century for its religious legislation. He cites examples, ranging from compulsory church attendance, to blue laws punishing innkeepers for selling more liquor than allotted, to fines and beating for merely lying (making Puritan New England a very dangerous place for future presidents Nixon and Clinton). However, he does defend it as an exercise of the majority rule of the colonists.