All Comments (14)

Sorry, but the fact that the Porn industry in this country makes more than Microsoft argues against more than about fifty percent of the country being seriously Christian.

You have the right to believe whatever you want and argue that belief as you see fit as do Christians You do not have the right to keep anyone from arguing your points. The problem with the Supreme Court's ruling on the wall of separation; which appears no where in the constitution and is in fact pulled from one of Jefferson's letters and even there the point isn't clear about what precisely Jefferson is talking about protecting from whom; is that it essentially establishes atheism as the de facto official acceptable position for people in government.

GaryD,
from the PEW forum on Religion and Public life:

Atheist: 1.6%
Agnostic: 2.4%
Secular unaffiliated: 6.3%
Religious unaffiliated: 5.8%

I used the "95%" of the world is religious statistic that is so often given to unbelievers as a method to point out to them that they are missing the boat, the US statistics vary somewhat from survey to survey. I've seen a stat that about 85% declare specific religious affiliations, a smaller leftover fraction a bit ambivilent and a very small number who actually call themselves "unbelievers."

So, I doubt highly that the odds have been stacked in favor of those "unbelievers."

I would venture to say that the "thrice" a year crowd --"'birth 'em, marry 'em, bury'em" crowd is mixed in their voting records.

There's a really excellent book written by Peter Irons called "God on Trial." Mr. Irons is a churchgoer, I think a member of the Episcopal church--but a constitutional scholar, political scientist, and attorney. In it, he addresses many of the concerns that you suggest, to a highly professional degree, without any pretentious pre-suppositions. I learned a lot about the "founders" and the original intent of the "separation clause," etc. And I have to agree, the protections were to, at least in some major part, protect citizens from a "state religion."

However, what is difficult for me to see is how people can proclaim "the constitution is supposed to protect people from the influence of a state religion, and NOT to protect people from the influence of religion in general." That's where we see much debate about the "separation clause" and try to interpret the meanings both in the spirit of the founders intentions and the needs of today, and thus the "philosophies" of constitutional interpretation and the reason we stack the benches with judges to our philosophical "advantage."

In the last decade, I just find it unfathomable that someone would consider that the Christian viewpoint has somehow been "suppressed" in the public square. The Christian right has penetrated every branch of our government, actual legislation to "celebrate Christmas as an important holiday," proposed legislation to "proclaim religious belief" important, "faith-based initiatives" without generally any verification of utility, the supreme court decision to suppress any lawsuits against "faith-based initiatives," hiring practices documented to be very favorable to particular Christian law schools and graduates, the attention to the infiltration of evangelical church leadership influence into the Air Force, and Naval academies, this Iraq War being the thing that our president has a "gut feeling" about and how he's appealed to his "higher father" to advocacy--the list goes on.

In what ways do you see the Christian viewpoint has been recently suppressed (excluding the known arguments of abortion.) And what do you see would be solutions to those issues? (I know that's a huge question.)

First off only about 80% of the country is religious. And another 15% off the top of that 80% attend church less than thrice a year. Those numbers are born out in survey after survey for nearly 40 years.

And that other 20% has dominated academia and the courts for more than 50 years. Hence we have a screwy interpretation of the first amendment which was designed to keep the government out of religion not vice versa, which is used to freeze people who take their religion - especially if that religion is Christianity - seriously out of political conversations.

tiene este documento en español porque pienso que debemos re-leerlo los latinos sirviendo en el ministerio aca en USA

It's certainly true, Steven, Christians try to claim that people not-accepting-further-Christian dominion is somehow 'forcing them into the closet,' when the reality is that just about any non-Christian running for office, (with the occasional exception of Jews in lockstep with the Religious Right) is essentially *disqualified* for the most part, and people who don't wear flag pins, pander to Christian voting blocs and parrot 'God Bless America' constantly, ...get attacked by major networks over it.

Heck, they can hold up admitting a dead soldier was Pagan for more than a decade, and cry 'oppression' when someone questions their right to put a written *commandment to worship only their God* in the public courthouses where people seek equal protection under the law.

GaryD you might be surprised to learn that the small percentage of atheists in the country are not a dominant vocal voice in American politics--they aren't the majority of voters, don't have a platform and generally wouldn't stand much of a chance in the public forum.

The don't have "power" to drive any large, organized group into a closet, don't organize drive-by shootings of religious political leaders, or influence the public square with their large political action organizations.

If 95% of America is religious, how can one possibly assume that the 5% of non-organized atheists control anything? I think your worries are unfounded.

Incidentally, the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is a group headed by the religious, which would be an interesting twist on your appeal that those leftist atheists have been keeping the religious from expressing themselves in the public square.

Evangelicals define themselves by their actions, not their declarations. And I'm afraid they've done themselves their greatest dis-service without any help from the atheists.

Dear Rev Salguero

As a Christian who happens to be Catholic by denomination, I wish you a Happy Holy Trinity Day! Today the Catholics reflect on and celebrate the mystery of the Holy Trinity (personally best expressed in John 14-17).

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Steven that would be some evangelicals worked hard...

Not all of them and not by a long shot and that was driven as much as anything else by the feeling that various people on the left were trying to shove them into the closet like someone's crazy uncle of whom they were greatly ashamed.

Simply put we got very tired of the Atheist position that they are the neutral ground among all us religious types and should be the only one's allowed to speak in the court of public opinion.

I believe some of what I've read is pretty important but what happens to doctrine. I guess it goes out the window; just be more loving, more tolerant; don't offend anyone. Why do you think they crucified Jesus: because they didn't like the message. What's so sad is that the Bible talks about this happening and it will come from inside the church...

Unfortunately, the document does actually attack other viewpoints, by mischaracterizing them, and in fact by blaming them for the things political Evangelicals and Fundies have supported and been involved in: even blaming seculars for the effects of their own anti-civility actions.

The message often being more a "We're sorry we ever listened to you misguided people," rather than a real apology, I should say.

It's a far cry from reality to expect Americans outside of the Evangelical circle to expect that some manifesto can "self-define" the group.

I can't say it any better than one of the other commentors on another thread, that of FATE:

FATE said:
"Evangelicals worked, and worked hard, to politicize their name and inject themselves and their theology into politics. Every agency in Bush's government has a faith-based office now thanks to them. Their mission was to spread their theology through government. It was not covert, it was not accidental.

But the political winds are changing. Their benefactor, Bush, has the highest unpopularity ratings of any president in history. His lack of leadership and putting forth faith-based agendas instead of paying attention to important things has landed this nation in debt, war, and a deepening economic pit. So it is only expected that evangelicals will want to disassociate themselves from the very mess they made.

As the good book says, you reap what you sow. And as the good book says, you should repent when you have caused damage and sorrow. But all I see is evangelicals running away from their damage instead of owning up to it. No repentance. Just whistling as though they were never near Bush or had anything to do with bringing this nation to its knees. What a sorry way to express your devotion to God, by acting like children who broke the cookie jar while trying to get cookies and saying you had nothing to do with it. Why would anyone want to be an evangelical when they can't even admit a mistake? What kind of morality are they teaching? What a poor example of Christians they are. What a poor examples of Americans they are."

Repentance is a necessary ingredient. What is missing is any expression of repentance for the intolerance that Evangelicals have traditionally projected. This repentance must be addressed by the Evangelical to the rest of the world; it is not a matter for Evangelicals to put in a 'manifesto'. They must instead show the necessary courage and stand in front of the public and express their repentance. Following that, they must of course evict those who do not share in the repentance, and must of course make amends, in a tangible manner.

May 7, 2008
Disregard “An Evangelical Manifesto”

Re: The Evangelical Manifesto on http://anevangelicalmanifesto.com

The very thing I immediately noted was the lack of conviction in the url for this document with the word “an” in it’s address. A Manifesto cannot be presented half-heartedly; You are either stating we should adhere to it’s content or never mind attempting it. the obvious example is the Gospel. You either declare the truth as unequivocal or don’t bother opening your mouth.

But it was clear, upon reading this document, that it was created for the following reasons:

1. To try and bring “into the fold” those who are not Christ’s in an ill-conceived manner outside of the Biblical Gospel.

2. To reiterate the notion that Christians need not be involved with a particular group in politics.

3. To try and clarify what an Evangelical is by stating what an Evangelical does not do more than what an Evangelical does, or should, do.

I also saw a disturbing implication to the content of the Gospel being more of a socialist attempt to engineer change in the lives of those around us than the Merciful Salvation from Hell, and the Eternal Lake of Fire that we all deserve for our violations of Yahweh’s Law, that His Precious Son Yeshua bought at the cost of His own blood, sweat and tears.

And lastly, and most disturbingly, I note that the Father’s name is particularly absent. “God” is not a universal, whomever-you-want-Him-to-be God: Yahweh is His name and Yeshua is His Son. To disregard this fact borders on the same false teaching as was warned against in Deuteronomy 12, which the translators of the King James versions of the bible, among many, many others since, did wantonly, replacing every instance of Yeshua’s name with His title.

I must therefore conclude that this “Evangelical Manifesto” is unnecessary, ill advised and unwise both in it’s lack of intent, content and commendation.

We would all be best to disregard “An Evangelist Manifesto” as nothing more than a disturbingly pandering diatribe to those to whom we need not capitulate.

Patrick J. Burwell
Evangelist@OnlyJesusSaves.com

This is a very good summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the document. All things considered, it is an excellent statement, especially the call for evangelicals to engage in self-evaluation and to define ourselves theologically instead of politically or culturally.