Frank, thanks for your response. It was very clear.

So, let's talk about Protestants. Do you have evidence that "what unifies most of them these days, however, is a lust for political clout"?

I'll grant that us Anabaptists (Mennonites, Amish, Brethren, etc.) are only a small portion of the Protestant grouping, but I do visit a broader bunch of Protestant churches and haven't seen "lust for political clout" as a unifying concern.

You probably are more familiar than I about Baptists (Anabaptists who have abandoned the peace witness) and whether they are unified by "a lust for political clout." I would think that Baptists are mostly unified by a common structure of congregational relations and by an emphasis on evangelism that results in baptism.

I am a Mennonite-member of an Anglican church (affilited with the Anglican Church of Nigeria, formerly affiliated with The Episcopal Church) that has a good number of non-Anglican (mostly Roman Catholic) members, and this church united with the Church of Nigeria and with other former Episcopal churches around the issue of primarily making church policy and doctrine based on instructions from the Bible rather than from other sources. This church's unity with non-Anglican churches (such as with Northern Virginia Mennonite Church) is based on common interests in revival, healing and empowering women (for example, the women at my church have invited the women of Northern Virginia Mennonite Church to join them for a women's retreat with a woman from Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship). A couple of years ago, my church did put "influencing the surrounding community" on the radar screen as a goal (although, the emphasis was more on being good neighbors rather than on exercising political power); however, that was hardly indicative of "a lust for political clout".

Protestants, and all Christians and all Jews, do have a Biblical interest in politics that fits with Proverbs 29:2 ("When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when a wicked man rules, the people groan."). However, I would be hard pressed to equate that with "a lust for political clout." Lust is an inordinate desire for something that doesn't rightly belong to someone, and Protestants have just as much right to political clout as anyone else in the USA.

Back to Baptists, I would be surprised to learn that the Southern Baptist Convention doesn't declare the same level of interest in post-natal nurture as in pre-natal nurture. You probably know better than I. From my own experience as a member of the board of directors of Angel Home Ministry (a ministry to single women and their babies in northern Virginia), I saw an equal interest in post-natal and pre-natal ministries among churches in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Your point on the issue of divorce and re-marriage is well taken. I'm in the minority in my church when I hold people accountable to Jesus' instructions on remarriage after divorce -- my congregation hasn't been well instructed on the sanctify of covenant relationships. In the Mennonite Church, on the other hand, there is much better instruction and adherence to Biblical principle concerning marriage covenants. However, I don't attribute my church's laxness on the issue to a money-seeking motivation -- it seems to be more of an issue of having absorbed some of the worldly culture of the surrounding community and not having a good grounding in Biblical teaching on covenant relationships (something sadly lacking in most American and European churches).

By the way, not only doesn't my church disdain the divorced (and even those who have remarried even if their former spouse isn't deceased), neither does it disdain its members who are recovering from homosexuality (many of whom were delivered through a ministry at a local Baptist church).

I don't see much evidence for "lust for political clout" as the unifying factor within or between the Protestant churches with which I am familiar.

I understand and to a degree sympathize with your push for precision, but I'm not going to be drawn into a taxonomy of evangelism. Protestants are the original schismatics, and they are further splintered along odd doctrinal lines. What unifies most of them these days, however, is a lust for political clout.

Funny you should mention Focus on the Family, because it is none other than James Dobson, their leader, who has been widely recognized as closely involved in far right-wing politics. Dobson was key to the evangelical rush to support Huckabee in the Republican primaries -- mainly as a means of keep Mitt Romney out of the running on the grounds that he is a Mormon.

Most of the evangelicals I know have either been Baptists or unaffiliated. By the way, I'm not any friendlier toward the Catholic Bishops for trying to push their anti-abortion agenda, or the Mormons for their cultlike support for anything Republican.

You'd expect people to want to put their principles into action. Therefore, church and state separation will always be a matter of degree. When the theocratic impulse goes too far, you can expect a shove in the opposite direction. I'd like to think that the Teri Schiavo case and the recent efforts to substitute the Book of Genesis for the Origin of Species in science classes was the high-water mark for the religious zealots, but continuing vigilance is essential.

I'll await the moment when the Southern Baptist Convention declares the same level of interest in post-natal nurture as it does in pre-natal rights, and scorns its divorced members in proportion to the Biblical (and indeed Christian) disdain relative to what the Bible meted out to homosexuals.

But that won't happen. Post-natal nurture costs money, and the Baptists are Republican tools. And to attack the divorced would to attack its own members, something that no money-seeking business would ever seriously do.

Frank, my question wasn't "bait" except in the sense that I was "fishing" for information about which evangelicals gave you the basis for your insights. It's the question of defining what we mean by "evangelical" that I'm seeking to answer.

I'm not interested in dismissing you, for any reason.

Until we define "they", it is difficult to analyze any of the phenomena (Evangelical's impact on American politics, for example).

In my own Evangelical denomination, Mennonite, it's generally thought that one-third vote Republican ("family values"), one-third vote Democrat ("social justice") and one-third don't vote ("no king, but Jesus"). However, with the current administration's war in Afghanistan and Iraq, I suspect that a lot fewer are voting Republican (at least at the national level), these days!

The Christian Coalition seems to be more of a conservative tool than a Christian tool, but does/did try to encourage Christians to run for office in order to have Christian morality influence the legislating and administering of laws (i.e. act according to Jesus). Focus on the Family does indeed focus on family issues that are effected by legislators, administrators and judges, as well as give training and inspiration to parents as they raise their children. These are issues that have a conceivable connection to Christianity, in that all that Christians do is to be in accordance with Jesus' teachings and commands. Certainly, there are groups that concern themselves with the practice of religion in a more restricted, internal, how-to-do-church sense, but Jesus doesn't limit his concern to such practices (just ask the Pharisees).

Evangelicals [not merely] "hoping that the wielders of temporal power come to Jesus and act accordingly" does begin to explain the activities of Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and many other Evangelical organizations (especially, the ones that are evangelistic -- which should be the defining adjective for determing what is Evangelical). See the comments of Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson in the debate that is the subject of another of Professor Berlinerblau's blogs.

Back to the question of which Evangelicals affected your perception (in a data-sense, not a psycological sense), are your Evangelical acquaintances Baptists, Methodists, Mennonites, fruitcakes, theologians, politicians, cowards ...?

As an African-American missionary with Youth With A Mission in Brazil used to say to me, "sometimes, some Christians don't act like Christians." I would say that, sometimes, Evangelicals don't act like Evangelicals, but they should at least have a primary focus on evangelism in order to be considered as Evangelicals.

Frank, my question wasn't "bait" except in the sense that I was "fishing" for information about which evangelicals gave you the basis for your insights. It's the question of defining what we mean by "evangelical" that I'm seeking to answer.

I'm not interested in dismissing you, for any reason.

Until we define "they", it is difficult to analyze any of the phenomena (Evangelical's impact on American politics, for example).

In my own Evangelical denomination, Mennonite, it's generally thought that one-third vote Republican ("family values"), one-third vote Democrat ("social justice") and one-third don't vote ("no king, but Jesus"). However, with the current administration's war in Afghanistan and Iraq, I suspect that a lot fewer are voting Republican (at least at the national level), these days!

The Christian Coalition seems to be more of a conservative tool than a Christian tool, but does/did try to encourage Christians to run for office in order to have Christian morality influence the legislating and administering of laws (i.e. act according to Jesus). Focus on the Family does indeed focus on family issues that are effected by legislators, administrators and judges, as well as give training and inspiration to parents as they raise their children. These are issues that have a conceivable connection to Christianity, in that all that Christians do is to be in accordance with Jesus' teachings and commands. Certainly, there are groups that concern themselves with the practice of religion in a more restricted, internal, how-to-do-church sense, but Jesus doesn't limit his concern to such practices (just ask the Pharisees).

Evangelicals [not merely] "hoping that the wielders of temporal power come to Jesus and act accordingly" does begin to explain the activities of Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and many other Evangelical organizations (especially, the ones that are evangelistic -- which should be the defining adjective for determing what is Evangelical). See the comments of Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson in the debate that is the subject of another of Professor Berlinerblau's blogs.

Back to the question of which Evangelicals affected your perception (in a data-sense, not a psycological sense), are your Evangelical acquaintances Baptists, Methodists, Mennonites, fruitcakes, theologians, politicians, cowards ...?

As an African-American missionary with Youth With A Mission in Brazil used to say to me, "sometimes, some Christians don't act like Christians." I would say that, sometimes, Evangelicals don't act like Evangelicals, but they should at least have a primary focus on evangelism in order to be considered as Evangelicals.

I'm not going to take the bait about my experiences with American evangelicals. After all, if I were to pour out some sad tale of this or that abuse, then you could dismiss my perspective as idiosyncratic. If I were to talk about how few of them I know, then you could dismiss my perspective as ignorant of personal contact.

So, let me say simply that I've suffered no identifiable personal trauma at the hands of an evangelical, and that I have personal acquaintances with evangelicals, and leave it at that. My statements are about the evangelical impact on American politics, not the flogging of a personal agenda.

I think it's obvious to see what has happened to the evangelical churches in the past 30 years. They've entered the Republican Party in a major way, and have virtually defined (in their eyes) Jesus as a Republican. It started with Jerry Falwell's anti-gay crusades, and it has never let up.

There was a time in this country when the Protestants, in particular, were very suspicious of the mixing of church and state. Those times are long passed. I am unconvinced by your argument that evangelicals are merely hoping that the wielders of temporal power come to Jesus and act accordingly; this does not begin to explain the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and all of the other "faith-based" politicking, especially on issues that have no conceivable connection to religion.

I have no doubt that there are individual evangelicals who decry all of this. But they are vastly outnumbered, and those who remain are too cowed to speak up.

Frank, as I alluded in my previous comment, the bulk of American evangelicals, that I have observed during 34 years as an American evangelical, have not been "busy trying to implement theocracy, offering what Puritans have always offered: correction for everyone else but themselves."

Besides reading/hearing/viewing media reports, what has been your experience with American evangelicals?

Of course, if your definition of "American evangelicals" is people in America who are "busy trying to implement theocracy, offering what Puritans have always offered: correction for everyone else but themselves" then I have no argument with you. That's the nature of a tautology -- it eliminates argument, but isn't very helpful to deeper analysis. I still look forward to a definition from Professor Berlinerblau that will focus our discussion on a specific/consistent/meaningful demographic group.

Frank, none of what I have just written is meant to denigrate your pointing to the "faith versus works" insight that you introduced. That is an important insight. My response to that insight is that Protestant Christians (defined as members of denominations or independent churches with roots in the Protestant Reformation) have the perspective (or at least are taught the perspective) of James that it is "faith evidenced by works" rather than "faith versus works".

As one of them, I refute the proposition that "they [Protestants] want to link their faith to the temporal power of the state to force everyone else to do as they say." We would be pleased to have the temporal power link itself to "the author of our faith" (which means that human beings in temporal organizations would have voluntarily/personally linked themselves to "the author of our faith") and to implement policies that are beneficial (as revealed by Jesus' values and knowledge about cause-and-effect) to people in our country and other countries. We don't want to link our faith to the temporal powers -- that would be a case of the tail wagging the dog! Also, we don't want to force anyone to do as we say -- Jesus isn't forcing anyone to do what he says, and we are The Body of Christ.

This discussion seems fruitful. Let's continue it. I appreciate your insights and would like to learn about your experience with American Evangelicals.

"An Evangelical," thanks for your thoughful reply. You're right, I didn't get into the sub-sects of Protestantism. There lies the path of obfuscation. The point I was making is that the Bible-flingers seem to be on the faith side of the faith vs. works schism.

But this is only for themselves. When it comes to everyone else, they are all about works, which in recent decades means politics. They want to link their faith to the temporal power of the state to force everyone else to do as they say.

I don't see much "crisis" or even "flux" among this group. I think that's more of a media invention used to justify this or that story. The bulk of American evangelicals (and Charismatics, and Traditionalists, etc.) are busy trying to implement theocracy, offering what Puritans have always offered: correction for everyone else but themselves.

PaganPlace, I know an "Evangelical" who was a producer with ABC News (while being an Evangelical) and who admitted to being only interested in producing news stories that involved sex scandals and political crises (preferably, both in the same story). So, I'm not surprised (nor convinced) by the news stories/commentaries about Evangelicals being less unified. Unlike our professor, they aren't expected to conduct rigorous research (oh, for the days of "who, what, where, how and someimes why" journalism).

In my opinion, "sending aggressive missionaries to Afghanistan is a douse of kerosene" that the place DOES particularly need. Of course, I'm thinking of "aggressive" missionaries as those that cast out the devils (along the lines of Saint Patrick), heal the sick and preach the good news about Jesus overcoming the "unholy alliance of Big Money, Big Military, and Big Religion". Agressive Evangelicals are still in lockstep with Jesus on that mission.

Evangelicals already agree that "putting Big Religion in government isn't such a grand idea", not because "the 'evangelical unity' is something of an illusion, when it comes down to brass tacks", but because Big Religion (except when referring to massive aid to widows and orphans) is one of the enemies against which Evangelicals fight. As you are probably thinking at this point, defining "Evangelicals" makes a difference when trying to figure what Evangelicals are thinking.

Frank, I appreciate your precise definition of Evangelicals: "Protestants who have declared that Jesus Christ is their personal savior, and that he died for their sins, ascended into heaven, and someday will return". Working with that definition (which doesn't distinguish between Evangelicals, Charismatics, Traditionalists, etc. within the Protestant tradition), one would not expect to be able to predict the backing of any candidate or political position. There doesn't seem to be any policy or political ramifications stemming from that definition; nor are there any evangelistic ramifications (the description seems very self-centered and seems non-commental regarding reaching others with that good news). Using your definition, there would not be reason to think that Evangelicals (i.e. Protestant Christians) are in crisis or flux when it comes to the 2008 primary season -- the issues discussed in the primaries have had no impact on Jesus Christ being their personal savior, having died for their sins, having ascended into heaven, and returning someday (things that have happened or will happen, independent of the primary elections).

I appreciate your insights on hypocrisy within the Evangelical (Protestant Christian) grouping: "Incidentally, for many years I've marveled at the ability of so evangelicals to lie, cheat, and steal, all while proclaiming their godliness. How can they be so blatantly hypocritical, I'd ask myself. Then, one day, it hit me: Evangelicals think they will be saved by faith alone." Those were the insights that James addressed in his letter to the Church, reminding the readers that faith which doesn't result in behavioral goodness isn't real (living) faith. Jesus also addressed this kind of hypocrisy in his parable about the sheep and the goats. Evangelicals (Protestant Christians) that lie, cheat and steal aren't real (living) Evangelicals (Protestant Christians) -- they are dead in their sins.

While you "see no discussion of this in the media, which is deathly afraid of offending the evangelicals of this country", I see this discussed all the time in the Evangelical (Protestant Christian) churches that I attend (most recently, during February and March, Anglican, Assembly of God, Independent and Mennonite). On Palm Sunday (last weekend), the senior pastor at Word Of Life Assebly of God (Springfield, Virginia) preached about how God focuses on "the church house rather than on the White House" when God seeks to correct a country.

Evangelicals (Protestant Christians) seem not to be in crisis nor in flux, they continue to correct themsleves and continue to offer correction to the world.

A day is coming when YOU will bow down before the ALMIGHTY GOD and confess HE WAS,, HE IS,,,, AND HE WILL BE FOREVER,,,,,,,,,GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOU,,

George W. Bush united the Evangelicals with a combination of patriotism and old-time values. It is a shame that these well-intentioned people were duped by a monomaniacal sociopath who is more concerned with his will than the desires of the American people. He has truly given new definition to compassionate conservatism. By ignoring the wounded soldiers, ordering 11 billion dollars worth of Presidential Helicopters but refusing to armor the humvees in Iraq, he has shown some of his Christian belief. We are helping to destroy the planet God gave us, allowing people to go hungry and refusing medical care to children. We are backing countries like Columbia with their abusive behavior towards their citizens while condemning others who don't offer us a profit. This President has no compassion, no spirituality, and when I hear him declare himself a Christian I can only think of Jesus and his many beautiful parables and hope, against logic, that GW Bush will actually read them. I guess more than read them it would be nice if he actually took them to heart.There is nothing wrong with Evangelicals. There is a great deal wrong with anyone who spouts Christianity but who redefines, in their extremist ways, the beauty, generosity, and compassion of Jesus Christ, substituting hate and cruelty for his love and kindness.

The way I define evanglicals is that they are Protestants who have declared that Jesus Christ is their personal savior, and that he died for their sins, ascended into heaven, and someday will return. I might have missed something in that definition, but I believe that's a pretty good representation of the incantation you hear out of the Bible thumpers.

Incidentally, for many years I've marveled at the ability of so evangelicals to lie, cheat, and steal, all while proclaiming their godliness. How can they be so blatantly hypocritical, I'd ask myself.

Then, one day, it hit me: Evangelicals think they will be saved by faith alone. So, once they've made that declaration of faith, it's as if they've been given a celestial wildcard to go whatever the hell they want to here on earth.

At the point of declaration, the strictures of the Bible become strictly advisory for the "believer," to be flung in an outward direction only. We see no discussion of this in the media, which is deathly afraid of offending the evangelicals of this country.

Please Visit Us from time to TiME. Thanka Shame!

E=eponymousECLATi, iS The NEW-SONG and e=mc2, iS The FiAT-LUX!!

[JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
J
O
Z
E
V
Z.US US.US.USA
J
O
Z
E
V
Z.US
[JO][ZE][VZ][.US]

FROM: "FRIENDS OF HOLY COSMIC SPACE-SHIP Momma/Poppa EARTH, a Planet of
Many, Many.., past, CURRENT & Future Bound! A MIRACLE, never a SIN!

I think, 'An Evangelical,' that the definition of Evangelical is certainly something that varies out there, particularly depending upon what self-identified 'evangelicals' you're talking to.

Admittedly a lot of the differences don't make much difference to me, when it comes to Evangelicals as a voting bloc, whoever's doing the describing.

Does seem to me that the author's assertion that those considered 'evangelicals' in the media are less unified now than they have been (Congrats on voting against Bush, not that sending aggressive missionaries to Afghanistan is a douse of kerosene the place particularly needs, in my opinion.)

Labels being what they are, ...perhaps the important bit is that the unholy alliance of Big Money, Big Military, and Big Religion isn't as much in lockstep as recent years have made of them.

Which should probably give evangelicals, whoever they are, some thought that just possibly putting Big Religion in government isn't such a grand idea after all... cause the 'evangelical unity' is something of an illusion, when it comes down to brass tacks.

Professor Berlinerblau:

How about providing a rigorous definition of Evangelicals or of whatever group you want to discuss?

You said, "First and foremost, in the person of George W. Bush, Evangelicals had themselves a keeper, an ideal candidate. In their eyes he was 'one of us.' The leadership was squarely behind him, as was the rank-and-file."

Professor, I'm an Evanglical who voted against George W. Bush because it seemed that he would kill non-believers in Afghanistan and Iraq at a faster rate than non-believers in those countries could be reached (by both local Christians and international Christians) with the good news about Jesus. An evangelical's first concern is with reaching others with the Word -- an evangelical is a teller of the good news about Jesus.

If you want to use a different definition then at least define it, precisely.

If your group of interest is "conservative Protestants" then you don't need to be puzzled that not all Evangelicals act as if they are conservative Protestants, since "conservative Protestant" is not the same as Evangelical. If you do want to target "conservative Protestant" as the group of interest then, please, specify the issue (religious doctrine? moral behavior? constitutional adherence? government involement? economic safety-net? ...) about which the group is to be described as conservative.

If the group is to be called Protestant, as you do in one place in your posting, then that would make the definition easier since you could simply list the Protestant denominations (a fairly straightforward list of denominations that trace their roots to the Protestant Reformation).

If you are going to subdivide your group into Progressive Evangelicals and non-Progressive Evangelicals then it would be useful to define what you mean by progressive (having concern with anything in addition to securing amendments prohibiting abortion and gay marriage? having concern about the environment, foreign policy, economic issues, immigration, and so forth?).

Professor, you said, "In Tuesday’s post, I called attention to a curiosity of the 2008 campaign that has yet to be widely discussed: Mike Huckabee, the alleged candidate of Evangelical America, was initially shunned by conservative Protestants."

Without a precise definition, why would you alledge that Mike Huckabee was the candidate of Evangelical America (a set of states in the Bible Belt? a subset of Americans defined by their membership in an Evangelical denomination? a subset of Americans defined by their telling others the good news about Jesus?)?

It would be easier to discuss whether Evangelicals are in a crisis or a flux when the definition of Evangelical doesn't fluctuate from paragraph to paragraph and from blog respondent to blog respondent.

My comment “Thank you for that reminder, I was ready to quit annoying the pig for good,” in my March 17, 2008 11:49 AM post, was not meant as a derogatory comment. It was referencing the “pig analogy” in this post “spiderman2 wrote: "I'm willing to waste my time if my purpose is to annoy the pigs. Who knows, they would soon jump off out of their dirty pens and be set free from their stupidity. Not doing so would surely bring them to the "slaughter house" -- a place where they'd be roasted forever."” March 17, 2008 1:15 AM.

Additionally, this comment, “Patrick I enjoyed your enthusiasm when talking with you about your love for nature,” in the same post was also just to reference that 2 people can talk/share even though they have different beliefs.

In no way did I mean either comment to be personally related, personally directed, or stating a personal involvement. That is why I am taking the time to clarify my intentions as not to be misunderstood or misinterpreted.

Arminius wrote : "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It only wastes your time and annoys the pig."

spiderman2 wrote: " I'm willing to waste my time if my purpose is to annoy the pigs. Who knows, they would soon jump off out of their dirty pens and be set free from their stupidity. Not doing so would surely bring them to the "slaughter house" -- a place where they'd be roasted forever." March 17, 2008 1:15 AM

Bravo, spiderman2! Thank you for that reminder, I was ready to quit annoying the pig for good. But one more time, maybe.....maybe not.......??? Perhaps I will give it some thought again.....maybe........maybe not.

it just It is so much better speaking to those who are willing to listen and share but render respect even though there are differences with one another beliefs and not judge you for not believing their way. I am sick...n...tired of it.

Patrick I enjoyed your enthusiasm when talking with you about your love for nature.

ChurchStateWall wrote : "I became concerned and active protecting the separation of church and state when I WAS still an evangelical".

Note the word "I WAS". What happened? Did you fall from grace? Were you born-again and get aborted? What are you now? Non-believing believer?

ChurchStateWall wrote : "I became concerned and active protecting the separation of church and state when I WAS still an evangelical".

Note the word "I WAS". What happened? Did you fall from grace? Were you born-again and get aborted? What are you now? Non-believing believer?

Never forget that there is a Bible passage that will help you tell if someone like Spiderman is really filled with the Holy Spirit, or is just a loud-mouthed Pharisee:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:22-23&version=31

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."

I have never seen a Pharisee even slightly affected by this Biblical truth -- thus proving that they were never spirit-filled to begin with.

Jesus said, "Work while it is yet day, for the Night Cometh when no one can work."

Reach out and preach while help is possible coz once a person dies, that would be it. It's hard to comprehend but once the burning starts, there will be no end to it.

Rules are rules and it can't be changed. Harsh rules but that's a fact of life. You either dodge the spear or be a fool and meet it head-on.

War will erupt between China and the U.S very soon. The one who prophesied this is the same one who holds that "spear". He is real and the eternal burning is real. Check it out if the prophecy is real a few years from now. Keep this post. Save it for future reference.

Once it happens, repent while there is time.

Did a supposed believer actually cite the secular myth of DNA? It looks as though someone needs a refresher course in Biblical genetics:

Genesis 30:37-39: And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which [was] in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

No, I don't want to hear that that passage needs to be "interpreted correctly." That's just what homosexuals say about the Bible passages directed at them.

Arminus, yes, I'm sure you're right when you say that most evangelicals are too stupid and/or lazy to know that the United States was founded as a secular nation.

Spiderman, if your vengeful Jesus is coming back to punish me, then why should you worry your head so much, anyway?

Arminius wrote : "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It only wastes your time and annoys the pig."

I'm willing to waste my time if my purpose is to annoy the pigs. Who knows, they would soon jump off out of their dirty pens and be set free from their stupidity. Not doing so would surely bring them to the "slaughter house" -- a place where they'd be roasted forever.

Unless they'd find the reason why DNAs can't exist without intelligent help, the prospect of Hell waiting for them would still be there. If there's a God, there is hell. That's the main reason why they really try hard to pretend there is no God to convince them that there is no Hell.

The DNA is there at your reach to examine, so start cracking them open. Break the mystery of DNA or break your head trying.

Crack it open... dream on. Change the history... delude yourself.

Frank Tilden:

First, I think that few evangelical types are lying when they say 'America is a Christian nation'. I think they are simply deluded.

Next, regarding Spidey2's drivel: I suggest that you not even bother to reply. Keep in mind the saying of Heinlein's character, Lazarus Long: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It only wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Arminius

Frank Tilden wrote : "a nation populated mostly by Christians. But that does not make it a "Christian nation,"

I think you're confused. All your replies are sprinkled with lies. Just wait a few years more so it would become clear to you what this country is standing for. It may be true that this country project a "non-christian" image thru it's media and entertainment but this nation is rooted on Christain values and when the time comes that it will be tried with fire, you would see what Name is written on it's breastplate. I hope you don't stand on the other side when that Name would be revealed coz along with that breastplate is a fiery sword that would exact true Christian justice.

The rule of the day would be No Mercy for the unbelieving.

Also, try to google the term "Establishment Clause" and try to understand it so your confusion will not be that glaring.

"Churchstatewall," go back and read what I wrote. In particular, the first sentence: "It would be nice if some evangelicals would stop lying ..."

I think a better way to put it would have been to say "most" evangelicals. But not "all" evangelicals. That's not something I argued, and it's not something I would argue.

Spiderman2, your argument is a pristine example of the sort of evangelical lying I mentioned. No one would deny that America is, and has been since its founding, a nation populated mostly by Christians. But that does not make it a "Christian nation," as the bulk of evangelicals have been claiming.

Oddly enough, the evangelicals are Protestants, and traditionally it's the Protestants who have opposed the mixing of church and state. That opposition went out the window with Ronald Reagan. Your organizations are now appendages of the Republican Party, not churches.

You can serve God, or you can serve Mammon. Most evangelicals have chosen the latter, which among other things shows how intellectually lazy they are. You haven't even bothered to study your own Bible, or your own country's history.

Steve- "I would argue that it is the media and culture at large that is only now becoming aware of the diverstity in Evangelical America. There have always been a substantial number of Evangelicals that have voted for candidates for both parties (I have done that myself)."

In a different way, I think the media CREATED the impression that Evangelicals were all Religious Right Fascists.

However, I speak not of the secular media. I speak of the Christian media themselves.

Turn on Christian radio, or Christian TV and cable programs, and you will NEVER hear a political voice that disagrees with the Religious Right. The program producers and station management will not permit the broadcasting of non-conformist political views.

There are millions of evangelicals -- and millions more moderate non-evangelical Christians -- who have absolutely NO representation in the religious media that claim to represent them.

Moderate Christians, evangelicals included, need to find their OWN voices, produce new Christian media outlets, and dispel for THEMSELVES the misperceptions that exist about evangelicals.

http://churchstatewall.typepad.com/

The only thing wrong with Frank Tilden's comment is his broad-brushing ALL evangelicals as liars, etc.

I became concerned and active protecting the separation of church and state when I WAS still an evangelical.

Even as an evangelical, I knew that the "Christian nation" historical revisionism was dangerous, and was being plied for very malicious political reasons.

The Religious Right (which is NOT representative of all evangelicals) can't stop carping about "special rights" when it comes to gays -- yet they claim that their *religion* is entitled to special rights and special preferred recognition and treatment in law.

It's all about power.

http://churchstatewall.typepad.com/

Frank Tilden,

It would be best if you continue reading about U.S history and focus on the "Mayflower", "Pilgrims", "Puritans", "Plymouth Colony", "The Great Awakening", Baptist's Freedom of Conscience belief" and how it influenced Separation of Church and State. It would also be good for you to memorize these words:

Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave![

Just in case you don't know it yet, this is America's National Anthem and it doesn't show a deist point of view.

Take note also that lie and ignorance are twin sisters. We, evangelical (born-again) Christians, don't lie. It just seem to be in your sight coz you're ignorant.

Evangelicals offer a certain kind of spiritual fuel or nourishment.

Some will find it hearty and fulfilling, others light weight and unsatisfying; still others will find little of value in the message at all.

What ever degree of nourishment one finds from the menu, that is right and as it should be for that individual.

No one has the ultimate answer, only the answer right for them.

The author is a little silly. Huckster is a conservative only to far left dems like himself. And the only rep in the race is Ron Paul.

I would argue that it is the media and culture at large that is only now becoming aware of the diverstity in Evangelical America. There have always been a substantial number of Evangelicals that have voted for candidates for both parties (I have done that myself). There have always been Evangelicals who have worked for peace (Jesus is the Prince of Peace), fought to end poverty in the world, visited those in prison, worked to care for God's creation and founded soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and hospitals. John Wesley, the Father of modern Evangelicalism, created the Methodist movement as both an evangelistic mission and a social reform movement. I want to welcome the rest of the culture to what we have always known about ourselves.

It would be nice if some evangelicals would stop lying about American history with respect to church and state. Specifically, the premeditated lie about the U.S. being a Christian nation. It's not true now, and it never has been true. The evangelicals know it, but they lie anyway.

In neither the Declaration of Indepedence, the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution is this country declared Christian, or even religious. The closest the founders ever came was the Declaration's assertion that our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were bestowed upon us by a "Creator."

These people had every chance, and in fact discussed the idea, to declare this a Christian nation. Instead, in the implementing document -- the Constitution -- the only mention of religion prior to the amendments was to forbid its use in determining qualification to hold public office.

The founders were not, as the evangelicals constantly claim, Christians. They were Deists who did not accept the divinity of Christ or the validity of the trinity and who rejected the idea that the Bible was the word of God or even divinely inspired. The first four presidents of the United States were Deists.

It is equally true that the founders considered religion a positive social force. They thought it stabilized communities. But they were very suspicious of clerical power, so they made sure to forbid the establishment of religion -- not of "a" religion like today's evangelicals so frequently say, but of "religion." Look it up.

The modern evangelical movement is a lie. It is not about the spiritual or even the doctrinal; it is about politics, and as such it incorporates a whole series of lies and deceptions. Evangelicals in America today are the Pharisees of the Bible, and the moneychangers in the temples. If Jesus returned, I don't think he'd be in their ranks.

I don't see any sign that the evangelicals are going to convert to the truth. They've been seduced by power, or at least the illusion of it, and no one ever gives that up willingly.

The crowning irony, of course, is that evangelicals are, by any rational political standards, a very cheap date. In return for a crumb here and a crumb there on gay marriage or Teri Schiavo, they turn the other way while their "allies" steal everything that's not nailed down and make empty mockery of Jesus' instruction to take care of the poor.

A future historian will surely pin much of the decline of the American empire to the mixing of church and state, and the resulting corruption of both.

Hunt,
Churches and other houses of worship are tax-exempt because they feed the hungry, clothe the naked and house the homeless. The government couldn't afford to fill the void that would be created if religious organizations (of all faiths) did not exist. The tax exemption benefits the government far more than it benefits churches.
Join us in the reality-based community, Hunt, the water's fine!

Wow.

I might start liking Evangelicals again -- instead of blaming them for empowering George W. Bush and his disastrous policies during his 8 term reign.

If you are an Evangelical -- do you ever stop to ask why the Holy Spirit didn't tell you the George Bush was bad.

If you are a non-Evangelical Christian -- the above definitely does not apply to you -- unless you also voted for Bush because you also believed he was a "great" Christian.

So Cal Michael-

After reading your diatribes , I can only conclude that you have never really sat down and talked to evangelicals, but have come to ill-advised conclusions regarding their intent when voting for particular candidates, or their viewpoints on politics and society in general. What you are looking for is a totally secular society, which was not the founder's intent.

By the way- "indoctrination" - that door swings both ways. Keep your "secular progressive" ideas to yourself, do you? Or is another point of view just too threatening to you?

Read and learn from GW's farewell address.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle"

"...a candidate who panders to them...." MORE more snearing from Berlinerlau.

Gosh, it's so good to hear the Jewish perspective on me and my people.
A professor of Jewish civilization, so much the better.

But don't worry, the Washington Post, identifiable because of the Israeli flag on the front page every day, save a few, will delete this post before it hits the either.

"Evangelical Christianity, especially the segment of it that accounts for its recent growth, is independent, and less likely to share the RR's ideals."

That should better read,

"A sizeable segment of evangelical Christianity, especially the segment of it that accounts for its recent growth, is independent, and less likely to share the RR's ideals."

The up and coming younger generation of evangelicals is slowly replacing the primarily aging Religious Right, and bringing into evangelical Christianity a different set of priorities.

Evangelicals actually come from two very different pedigrees -- the old-school institutionalized-religion guise (e.g. Southern Baptists, fundamentalist Presbyterians, Nazarenes), and highly independent non-denominational churches. Younger evangelicals tend toward the individualized strain of evangelicalism, and embrace the Religious Right's priorities at their own peril.

Evangelical Christianity, especially the segment of it that accounts for its recent growth, is independent, and less likely to share the RR's ideals.

"... But I think our definition of a perfectly functioning Evangelical polity is somewhat unrealistic." --- An astute observation, indeed. As one who lives in the Bible belt (Texas), you can be rest assured (to your eternal relief, no doubt) that Evangelicals are alive and well. --- However, the shrill voices of right wing fundamentalism is a reality that exists only on cable entertainment "news" and broadcasting networks. (Notwithstanding the abundance of non-profit religious stations that are losing money whilst their proselytizing preachers continue to profit by hiding behind their tax-exempt status.)

The minority of "god fearing middle-class Christian crusaders" are not ranting and raving like the propagandizing pseudo-journalists employed by America's media oligopoly because it is a luxury they can't afford. It's hard to be self-righteous (even for hypocrites) when one is unable to support their family. Wall Street's conglomerations have destroyed not only the economy and jobs but the very foundation of capitalism that was based on competition --- not consolidation. The same people who purportedly revile socialism are plotting the creation of the worst kind --- an oligarchy for personal financial gain. And it's killing us all, not just the god fearing Christians.

The main difference between the Evangelicals of today and those of 2004 is that today greater numbers of them understand that being a Christian involves more -- much more -- than being opposed to abortion and gay marriage. This is a good development. It ought to enable the Democrats to pick up more Evangelical votes than they have since Carter ran in 1976. That many Evangelicals still have some things to learn about both Christianity and politics, however, is clear from the failure of the campaign of John Edwards, who was the most obviously Christian candidate on the scene.

The main difference between the Evangelicals of today and those of 2004 is that today greater numbers of them understand that being a Christian involves more -- much more -- than being opposed to abortion and gay marriage. This is a good development. It ought to enable the Democrats to pick up more Evangelical votes than they have since Carter ran in 1976. That many Evangelicals still have some things to learn about both Christianity and politics, however, is clear from the failure of the campaign of John Edwards, who was the most obviously Christian candidate on the scene.

Many years ago, England was the most powerful nation in the world. "Incidentally", it was also the most Bible-believing population in the world.

Today, the U.S has the most number of people who believes the Bible and "incidentally", it is also the most powerful nation today.

Does power and Bible-believing related?

Yes, it is and the same Bible says that the U.S will someday rule this earth without opposition coz everyone which opposed it are turned into powder including the liberal ones living in America.

It's a very long shot to think that Christian Conservatives will fade away. Starting from just a mere plot of land in Plysmouth, Massachusett who believed the promise given to Abraham (children of faith), their descendants now owns the most powerful nation in the world today.

If you guys remain to be blind, you will soon fade away. Jesus Christ may have partly referred to it when he said, "...and great was it's fall " -- SLAMMED TO THE GROUND AND TURNED INTO DUST.

Without exageration, that is a fact and it's going to happen. The first settlers who landed in Plysmouth, Massachusetts didn't have a blind faith. The promise is fulfilled and a little more time, the total fulfillment of that promise. This world belongs to Christian Conservatives-- that's THE PROMISE. Believe it.

I think the answer is much more simple. I and others have warned fellow evangelicals for decades that government and politics are terrible means for doing the work of the Church. Politics is about power. Imitating Christ is about sacrificial service. Because Bush was both exactly what many evangelicals thought they wanted ex ante and such a total disaster ex post, many have finally started to notice that Jesus and the early Church changed the world without ever seeking political or military power. I am thrilled now that evangelical Churches everywhere are more concerned with privately run programs that serve orphans and less concerned with voter registration.

Jacques -- The very fact that this group you refer to united behind George Bush not just once but twice makes it clear that they are not diverse and not moderate.

The only reason Republican Evangelicals were not united this year is there was no candidate who met all the conservative tests and had a good chance of winning.

They are a bit dispirited because the Bush administration has made a mess of things -- but among the fundamentalists I know there is still resolute conviction on right-wing policies -- theocracy, low taxes, high deficits, and distain for government in any role except authoritarian policeman.

They have surprisingly few regrets about the last 6-7 years -- in their minds the only thing wrong was that Bush turned out to be a bungler -- and the reason he was a bungler, of course, was that he wasn't conservative enough!

In any case, I don't believe any polls that try to persuade us that Evangelicals have grown more sophisticated or more moderate. Waiting for "moderate" American Christian fundamentalism to emerge is a little like waiting for the "moderates" to emerge in the leadership of Iran.

I have spent a good deal of time trying to reason with Christian extremists over the years, and while it has not been entirely wasted, I do think fundamentalists take in new ideas very, very slowly.

When Evangelicals raise their hands in church (as if to touch God's love), it signifies to me that their search for answers is over. When you bring that feeling of finality to the political sphere, you end up with people who are basically unable to function in a democracy except to grab power and try to hold on to it indefinitely.

The Christian Republicans planned a Thousand-year Reich. But now that they have lost Congress, and won't have one of their own as president, the political process has lost meaning for them.

If non believers must must take religion seriously, why doesn't the opposite hold true? Non believers are the last(I hope) persecuted minority in this country. We have no objection to people of faith doing whatever it is they do, be it chanting, praying, singing, dancing, bending, handling snakes, speaking in tongues, fasting, feasting, procreating, not procreating, etc., AS LONG AS THEY KEEP IT A PRIVATE MATTER. The state of the minds of our youth is pathetic. They do not know how to reason and, more importantly, they fear questioning authority. If one never questioned authority, my hair would still be pulled by Alley Oop!

Here's a prediction: In 20 years, Evangelicals will be saying that they were ALWAYS environmentalists, and were among the first to recognize global warming.

That's what they do: rewrite their history in every generation. The pro-slavery legacy of the Southern Baptists is long forgotten, the segregationist sermons of Jerry Falwell are long forgotten. Now they trot out the abolitionists and Martin Luther King as examples of the typical Christian thought of their eras.

I basically agree with your argument and I think that some of the large "family" organisations and churches will start sinking into irrelevance and some will flourish by becoming realists. Just yesterday the Family Research Council was condemning one of the biggest Baptist denomenations for daring to suggest that evangelicals should do more about global warming. The FRC even went so far as to basically call global warming a liberal scam. Most people will see through this and decide that they are no longer relevant unless they politically move with the times

I just figured out why fundamentalists still believe in George Bush and the Iraq war: Romans 13:1:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: The powers that be are ordained of God.
There you have it folks, George is ordained by the great Yahweh himself. Bow to him!