Evangelicals share mainstream values, not extremism

[kaitykaity]

A good laugh for the day.

http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/111537388886081.xml&coll=7

Evangelicals share mainstream values, not extremism
Depictions of religious conservatives as foes of liberty are wrong and block discussion of values that could unify us
Sunday, May 08, 2005
MARK HALL
I f you believe the critics, evangelicals like me are against liberty, equality and the pursuit of fun. Garrison Keillor, of "A Prairie Home Companion" fame, says religious Republicans, mostly evangelicals, are interested in "dividing and conquering the sweet land I grew up in."

And historian Garry Wills famously argued in a post-2004 election essay that these conservatives are religiously intolerant and hate modernity.

Then, of course, Garrett Epps argued on these pages ("Conservatives in Conflict," April 24) that the authoritarian wing of America's conservatives wants to "make others live like me."

Epps claims that President Bush talks a good game about spreading freedom around the world, while Bush and his party seem "less like liberators and more like the religious police." Our only hope, he writes, is that Americans don't like would-be bosses, at least not for very long.

Such rhetoric sheds little light on what evangelicals value and desire, and it does great damage to our public discussion. Anyone can easily produce an isolated statement from an evangelical leader that seems to reinforce Epps' assertions.

...more

[NMDemDist2]

1. anybody got some Pat Robertson quotes handy to send the guy? n/t

[kaitykaity]

4. I sent the Falwell quote about 9/11 being the fault of the Wiccans

and the ACLU in an LTTE.

[sasquatch]

2. BULLSHIT!

No explanaition needed.

[Dr Ron]

3. We have to hope there is some truth to this

Most likely there is a variety of poltical viewpoints among them, or that acceptance of other views can be developed. Remember, the evangelicals also voted for Jimmy Carter.

So far the Republicans have done a much better job than Democrats of appealing to them.

Jim Wallis has done an excellent job of showing how liberal values should appeal to evangelical voters.

John Kerry has been trying to bridge the gap on several issues, but unfortunately when he tries he gets shot down by both the Republicans and by many on the left.

[More Than A Feeling]

5. Sadly, there is not

Support for giving public money to discriminatory religious institutions and having the government support religious symbols in places that aren't open to all mean that this guy is just trying to honey-coat the destruction of the first amendment ban on establishment of religion.

[Dr Ron]

10. Need to separate out individuals

No doubt there are tons of right wing extremists speaking for evangelicals. We need to keep in mind that not every evangelical necessarily has these political beliefs. In addition, those who have been led to vote this way are largely doing so because they are hearing only one message tying their religious beliefs to voting.

There remains hope that many of these aren't firmly tied to voting far right yet. To prevent this they need to hear Democrats also speaking towards shared values, showing there are values beyond abortion and gay rights.

[NAO]

6. Some Evangelicals have mainstream values; movement in general is extreme

While some Evangelical Christians have mainstream values (whatever THAT means), the Evangelical Movement as a whole is extreme and subversive to democracy.

No Evangelicals who are CONSCIOUS of their basic metaphysical assumptions - beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality - are anywhere NEAR mainstream - they are way off in the fringe.

And the Dominionist/Christian Reconstructionist movement within the Evangelical movement - which sets it's political agenda - is utter radical and subversive. They are moving along a carefully planned course to remake the United States along Theocratic lines; their plans are moving forward exaclty as predicted in what Katherine Yurica has called "the swift advance of a planned coup".

The Despoiling of America: How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

This article is the documented story of how a political religious movement called Dominionism gained control of the Republican Party, then took over Congress, then took over the White House, and now is sealing the conversion of America to a theocracy by taking over the American Judiciary. It’s the story of why and how “the wrath of God Almighty” will be unleashed against the middle class, against the poor, and against the elderly and sick of this nation by George W. Bush and his army of Republican Dominionist “rulers.”


Video on the Christian Reconstructionist Dominionist Theocratic Agenda
http://www.theocracywatch.org/av/video_dominion.ram

[havocmom]

7. Shared values? Yes, many are shared. We progressives believe in

being kind and helpful. We think decent treatment is important. We love our families and work to teach them well. We have a lot of the same values. Where we differ from the Evangelicals is in respect for other's views, beliefs, and lifestyles. The Evangelicals I have run into come up way short on those issues.

Progressives have much better values. We truly value individuals and don't insist everyone be our clones.

[theravenseldon]

8. no black and white

it widely depends on the evangical...some are nice people who are being misguided by their pastors..others are idiots (most notably: jerry fallwel/pat robertson/whoever saying that we had 9/11 happen cuz of gays)

[Nite Owl]

9. While there may be evangelicals

that are mainstream they are responsible for the letting the wackos take over and not standing up against them. Where is their outrage that Faldwell and Robertson speak for them? They should be making a fuss about the things that are being said if they are truly mainstream.

[Dervill Crow]

11. I agree with the writer. Not all evangelicals are nuts. n/t

[kaitykaity]

12. Their leadership is. And so is their agenda.

Making excuses that a few individuals "might be sane" is
like saying there were a few Germans who weren't "good."

:eyes:

[Dervill Crow]

13. The only evangelical agenda is to spread the gospel.

The political agenda is a whole different matter. Unfortunately there are far too many people who lack the discernment to realize when they are being manipulated by hypocritical pigs like Falwell, et al, who selectively use the bible to spread their hatefulness.

[kaitykaity]

14. Okay then, the "political agenda" is nuts, and so are the leaders.

That better? Sheesh.

It doesn't matter if the "good" evangelicals only want to
"spread the gospel." They do things like fall in line and
excommunicate judges who don't obey their Republican masters.

The "good Germans" also "lacked the discernment" to realize
what their leaders were doing. They were still responsible
for it. It's no excuse.

[ixion]

15. from my experience, this guy would be the exception to the rule

most evangelicals, not all, but most... have an agenda of conversion as their primary reason for befriending the 'heathens'. It doesn't always surface immediately, but it ultimately surfaces. They can't help it. It's evangelism by defintion.

[Bridget Burke]

16. While stating that Evangelicals are not all alike....

This guy claims to speak for all of them.

Yes, I saw Jim Willis on The Daily Show--a bright & politically liberal Evangelical. Even some conservative Evangelicals avoid politics--they represent denominations that suffered under an Established Church back in the old days.

But the writer appears ignorant of the Dominionists who want to make their own brand of Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christianity the law of the land. He appears unaware that these extremists are making him & his co-religionists look bad.

[struggle4progress]

17. You should sympathize with wingnuts now and then. Check this out:

It's from WorldNetDaily, a site that almost always makes me gag.

The Devil's own?
Posted: May 9, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

<snip> The minister, Chan Chandler, insists that he is acting according to God's Word. However, despite searching the King James, the New International Version and the American Standard Bibles – not to mention running various letter sequences through the Bible Code – I was unable to find the verse that said "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the President George Bush, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." <snip>

Then I considered the following description of the RealID plan:

Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service.

This sounds more than a little remniscent of words written on the isle of Patmos almost 2,000 years ago: "He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark ..." That's a rather impressive forecast, especially if you consider how far off the best science fiction writers of the Golden Age were from accurately portraying a reality only 50 years after their time. But then, I suppose one could argue that divine inspiration is a form of cheating. <snip>

Now, after five years of a presidency that has conclusively proven George Bush is no conservative, I am beginning to wonder if his claims of sharing a faith with the Christians of America might not be dubious as well.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44174


The author is evidently anguished by some of the same things that anguish many of us, although the discomfort is expressed in a language which many here may not appreciate, and the argument is based on a conservative logic we may not share. This leaves us with the real political challenge of our time: How do we bridge the gap?

[kaitykaity]

18. No, no, I'm firmly in the Mike Malloy camp

when it comes to sympathizing with the wingnuts.
Ain't no effing way in hell.

Or at least I was until he talked to a bunch of them
on Hitler's birthday and realized that they are just
as confused as we are. They're mad and they're scared,
but they can't wrap their brains around why.

Makes sense, I guess. It's just that a part of me wants
the lot of the 56 million dumbasses to have a pox on their
house for voting for the Bush bastard. I'm still that
pissed off about it.

[struggle4progress]

19. Then we'll continue to lose important political fights.

In the article I posted, the author was concerned about "RealID."

Ain't suggestin ya oughta luv the fella or even that ya oughta hold yer nose and kissem jist this one time. But ya oughta be able to work withem enuf to beat back some bad shit ya both oppose. Cuz otherwise, we's all scrod.

[kaitykaity]

20. What's with the stepinfetchit bullshit?

Kinda gets in the way of what might be a
compelling message.

It's self evident (goes without saying) that it will
take a coalition of our side and the moderate Republicans
who can no longer hold their noses in alliance with
the Bush Bastard.

Just like in 1973.

Duh.

[struggle4progress]

21. Oh, were you busy bustin their chops? Well, carry on. eom

[kaitykaity]

22. Well, glad I have your permission.

:sarcasm:

[struggle4progress]

23. You have my enthusiastic support. eom

[kaitykaity]

24. Uh-huh.

:eyes:

[struggle4progress]

25. Now here is my point: most Americans completely lack any form ...

... of usable political language. In this conceptual vacuum, they flounder and seize hold of any system they can use in order to attempt to describe and understand the world.

For example, throughout the cold war, and for many years afterwards, many of the politically and historically illiterate residents of our country, lacking any coherent language to discuss dictatorship and human rights abuses, used the word "communism" as a surrogate for such discussions; and to such discussions they therefore could bring only the standard rightwing analyses which completely identified any opposition to American policy as an expression of sympathy for totalitarian regimes. As intended, the language, once adopted, served perfectly to mystify reality. But some of these morans were nevertheless individually people of perfectly good will.

The article I posted perhaps exhibits this phenomenon: unfortunately, the language of conservative Christianity may not be useful for sophisticated analysis of Bush and the class interests he represents. Nevertheless, there is, beneath the surface discussion, some unease at the present situation. Such unease can be unpacked and explained, or it can be allowed to fester, in which case it simply creates additional anxiety and additional irrational political behavior.

I say it is a grave mistake to ignore confused conservative youth. Those with intellectual integrity, provided with better analytic tools than the right wingers supply, are still actively developing their views.

One of the best progressive activists I ever met was, as a young twenty-something, a confused conservative really interested in political issues, and was taken seriously as a person by some other (much older) progressive activists. It was interesting to see that transformation, and I do not think the story would necessarily be uncommon.

Moreover, politics is the art of working with people whenever possible. Some people, of course, are just shitheads and deserve no consideration: they simply need their butts kicked. Others, initially hopeless or complacent, can be roused into action. Still others will work with us on some things and not on others.

We're in a serious fight and long-term fight. We need to recognize that not everybody who seems to live in enemy territory is really on the enemy's side.