Comments on: Evangelical “monolith” debunked

By: Anlir

Anlir — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:40:55 +0000

Boy, oh, boy – I can’t wait until a Democrat is elected to the White House and people like AJ and Llama go into heart failure

I think folks around here better start wrapping their earthly affairs up, because according to AJ and Llama the United States will be destroyed if a Dem is elected.

Less than 12 months left to enjoy your life folks!

Report comment to moderator

By: SteveG

SteveG — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:29:14 +0000

The evangelical monolith is no myth, it just lacks a single candidate to rally around this time. If a strong candidate emerges in 2012 who represents their core issues, they’ll be back.

The Real AJ in #15: See if we can’t have pro-life, we’re still not goin’ with you know who’s minions in the dem party. The city of Dems is run by the baby murdering lobby, the antiwar wussies, the commies and their warlord Soros the rich, and their union strongmen. The average dems follow blindly, having long ago lost control of his own destiny and the will to fight for control of the once great city of Dems. Hoping for govt handouts and free healthcare, as was promised by the Great Hildabeast from NY, yet never seeing the promised utopia. Are we expected to go here? No way.

Yeah yeah. Except for the Clinton years, every president since 1980 has been “pro-life.” How close are you to ending abortion?

Evangelical believers are sincer about wanting to end it, but evangelical-pandering politicians have a strong interest in not doing that. It’s one of their most effective tools to rally support and raise money.

So time and again you get lip service and no action, and you fall for it every single time.

Report comment to moderator

By: the real Aj

the real Aj — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 02:52:27 +0000

Scroop,
I love this;
Do you really think it’s over? Evangelicals lack a candidate for whom Christian belief is personally important, as it was for George W, so they wander beneath Mt. Sinai. But I don’t think that means they are going to worship the Golden Calf of the Democratic Party.

Exactly!!! But….
Though we wander now now, Ain’t no way we’re goin’ into the city of Dems. And we’re probably gonna eat the calf. We got no problem with veal, as long as you don’t bread it. But I digress..You see I am merely the messanger, here to finally make it known why we are what we are. I love it when you and anlir tell me your version of me and my voting bloc. It’s amusing.

Yes we want a pro-life candidate, but if we don’t get one {Rudy} we still won’t vote dem. Sure Frank in Phoenix and some like minded wanderers may waste their vote on a third party, no chance candidate, but most will not. See if we can’t have pro-life, we’re still not goin’ with you know who’s minions in the dem party. The city of Dems is run by the baby murdering lobby, the antiwar wussies, the commies and their warlord Soros the rich, and their union strongmen. The average dems follow blindly, having long ago lost control of his own destiny and the will to fight for control of the once great city of Dems. Hoping for govt handouts and free healthcare, as was promised by the Great Hildabeast from NY, yet never seeing the promised utopia. Are we expected to go here? No way.

We still want a ruler who will protect us from the hordes that will come. Not some “if we could just talk to them” wuss. We still want to keep our money, not give it to our govt. Again the city of Dem is not for us. We want to live free from the reach of govt intrusion into our beliefs and the right to express them. Again that city is not for us. While we await our savior we will battle evil, and not bow to it’s rein. If we side with the city of dems, we lose any hope of stopping the decline that got us here on this plain, wandering alone while everyone does what they consider right in their own eyes. It would be chaos if the reins of power were to fall to the city of Dems.

So instead we will wander until the Council of Rove tells us who the warrior is who will battle the Hildabeast, for she will by then be the annointed one. She is a crafty one, deceptive, and flip flopping across the battlefield. She’s a master at this, but she can be beaten. Unless that troll Kucinich steals her ring of power, but that’s another story for, another time.

Report comment to moderator

By: Kiyoshi

Kiyoshi — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 02:13:43 +0000

Mommy seems to have a good point. Other religions recognize the existence of radical evil, the importance of family units, the importance of human life, and the virtues of self-rule. What Leconte describes is nothing more than a kind of civic Gnosticism that exists among more traditionalist sectors of all societies — Christian and non-Christian. Sadly, Leconte has recognized that modern-day evangelicalism is little more than a man-centered self-help regimen.

Instead, we ought to be people whose sole rest is in the passive and active obedience of Christ, whose death and resurrection have secured redemption for His elect. To many Christians, traditionalism can look like an attractive alternative when compared to progressivism. But by faith in Christ, we see that traditionalism and progressivism both lead to death.

Report comment to moderator

By: RobHays

RobHays — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:26:46 +0000

I wouldn’t necessarily say that a the polls to which Scroop refers indicate a lack of diversity. Diversity is not measured by voter registration, or even voting patterns. Just because a Christian registers and votes GOP doesn’t mean that they agree with every bit of the party line, or even most of it. As I think we can all agree, most elections (especially at the national level) are a choice between the lesser of two evils; since these same Christians have yet to adopt or create a third party, they do often vote GOP.

The diversity of evangelicals goes far deeper than party affiliation or even issues. The article that kicked off this discussion I think captures the essence better than most, focusing on the principles that guide evangelicals’ political decision making rather than whether they like Rudy or McCain better.

Report comment to moderator

By: Random Name

Random Name — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:21:26 +0000

I’ve been trying as hard as I can to “triangulate” the evangelicals here at worldmagblog, separating the ones with a sense of humor from the humor-impaired ones.

Unfortunately, the best I’ve been able to do is to so far is octangulate them.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1169/is_n3_v36/ai_20616953/pg_2

On the other hand, the confused diversity is one of your most charming traits.

Report comment to moderator

By: Anlir

Anlir — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:57:09 +0000

Scroop is right, of course. Conservative Evangelicals have been the most reliable voting block for the Republican Party. Survey after survey has shown that they vote overwhelmingly for the Republicans. There is little true diversity among them.

One other point, Joe talks about one of the fundamentals being “support for the family”. First, the divorce rate is just as bad in the evangelical community as it is in the general population. Second, it depends on what one means by “family”. Certainly gay people are not part of the conservative “family” and would receive zero support from conservatives.

Report comment to moderator

By: Scroop Moth

Scroop Moth — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:46:56 +0000

Vanya — “more monolithic” doesn’t sound quite right for blacks who make up only 13% of the population compared with 28% for evangelicals (not counting Catholics and mainline protestants, many of whom are quite similar to evangelicals). While it’s true that blacks vote Democratic by margins of at least 85% while evangelicals have supported Bush by margins of up to 80%, the voting history of blacks is less surprising than the voting patterns of evangelicals. Black voting is deeply rooted in long experience and identity, and factors that Black people didn’t choose. Evangelical patterns on the other hand result from affinity, choice, and intentional rejection. Evangelicals are a far larger demographic, spread over the entire country, which makes their political coherence truly amazing — and decisive.

Do you really think it’s over? Evangelicals lack a candidate for whom Christian belief is personally important, as it was for George W, so they wander beneath Mt. Sinai. But I don’t think that means they are going to worship the Golden Calf of the Democratic Party.

Report comment to moderator

By: Ivan the Terrible

Ivan the Terrible — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:30:49 +0000

Mommy- I believe the discussion is about the political arena. Of course the Gospel is relevant and a given in all areas of life. Shoot, cut me some slack!

Report comment to moderator

By: RobHays

RobHays — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:58:31 +0000

I don’t think the intent of the list of beliefs on Britainandamerica was to be all encompassing, or even necessarily a theological statement. What the author did identify was the core political beliefs (i.e. principles rather than position statements) of American evangelicals. A discussion of our theology and approach to the Gospel is not particualrly relevant to the thesis that he’s trying to defend.

Certainly the Gospel is far more important than any political agenda; but I don’t think that its exclusion from the discussion was an oversight as much as a compartmentalization.

Report comment to moderator