Hello... Not All Evangelicals are Republicans

Ok? Please stop lumping all religious folks or just evangelicals as pukes and Bush Lemmings. You are throwing away votes when you do.

Not all evangelicals are Republicans, but we still separate those that do not believe in a woman's right to choose, those that will never accept gays as equal members of society, those who want religion as a basis for law.

Once those particular evangelicals are placed with those that are Republican supporters, then yes we should welcome the ones who are willing to look at the issues without blinders.

we're supposed to be godless, remember? :eyes:

on legislation or establishing government policy. By keeping religion as far removed from the government as possible, you protect everyone's rights - otherwise, one religion or sub-sect of a religion can get precedence over others, and having religion play a roll in government also discriminates against atheists (as well as violates the Constitution).

All these people who want religion involved in government certainly don't want Wiccans to take precedence, or Muslims, or Scientology, or anyone other than Christian (and only certain sects within xianity).

Having a personal religion is perfectly acceptable in a liberal - but it needs to be kept separate from government. Jimmy Carter is a person who is deeply Christian who managed to do this exceptionally. He personally is opposed to abortion yet has no problem saying that abortion must be legal. This is the sort of religious person I respect: someone who doesn't need to wear their religion on their sleeve or inject religion into government.

I have no problem with people who choose that for themselves and keep it a personal matter, particularly if it motivates them to do some good in the world.

As for my previous message, I was being sarcastic. Note the rolling-eyes smilie. :hi:

So we will try to remember that when we are talking about pandering to the fundaloon vote we are specifically referring to the republican voting subset of voters who vote primarily on religious issues. Hopefully Obama will get the message and will also make clear that he is talking about pandering to the fundaloon right, not evangelicals in general.

:evilgrin:
rocknation

so if we say that evangelicals are republican, the odd evangelical out who was going to vote democratic will say, 'well, i guess I am a repuiblican after all' these are the voters we want?

Not sure I even get your point.

if you vote you consience, as you should (as a religious person, at least) then why would a political party not campaigning to you make a difference? if the Democratic Party doesn't pander to you, are you going to vote for the Republicans out of spite? then we don't need you anyway.

You may be referring to Obama's statement. I am not referring to his statement. I am referring to the ignorance I have seen from some posters about Evangelicals. And I wish to correct them.

Imagine being an evangelical Democrat reading DU. That's all...

I just scanned down this post at the different threads, and as a Evangelical, Liberal Christian I am sick to my stomach. This is all so upsetting to me , I think I'll take a break from DU, and just stick to my favorite forums, because this is SHAMEFUL utter nonsense. What a way to win votes and influence people! If I were a "newbie, I'd turn around and get the hell out of here as fast as I could. What a bunch of tripe!! I'd be a little worried if I were some of you out there. Some of this borders on blasphemy!! Best of luck to ya!!

I guess another question is HOW MANY MORE ELECTIONS DO WE WANT TO LOSE.

What is wrong with people that they want less people to vote for the Democrats? Just where am I anyways?

I certainly don't want fewer people to vote for the Democratic party ticket, but I also don't want to sell my soul to pander to people who need that sort of constant affirmation. religious people should be doing what they feel is morally right, why do they need some sort of affirmation from a poltical party to do what they think is morally right? it makes no sense.

Just sayin'.

Just sayin'.

I was raised in an "Evangelical Lutheran" church. Forget about it, as they say. The term is quickly being merged with extreme fundamentalism, at least in the public mindset.

That they represent all Evangelicals.

Is not an Evangelical church in the sense of the use of the word. It essentially equals 'Protestant and is descended from mainland Europe.

I don't mind if someone has a "personal relationship" with God. As long as they don't try to enforce that relationship into our gov. And they usually do, even if they are socially liberal. They still almost always hate those damned gays (or they love the sinner!), want their values inserted into public life, etc.

...Fundamenalists...probably not many....

here's one evangelical that's a Democratic and despised by the fundies...

http://www.sojourners.com/

and another.......

http://mainstreambaptist.blogspot.com/

Does he count? Just askin'?

the same?!?! :crazy: :rofl:


it's hard to keep up with the bazillion versions of xianity going on out there.

Statistics do.

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=103

Maybe we can kick the rest of them out that way too while we're at it, eh? Maybe we can grow the religious right by a third or whatever, and help the Republicans win by a huge comfortable margin by being insane stuck-up blowhards or something.

What is wrong with people here today? I mean it's not too hard to tell what I'm trying to say. Go back to the OP and try and find out where it fits in to this discussion.

Get in the way of a good, strong generalization.

It's the religious extremists who want turn their "values" into the law of the land who are our enemies--they don't value freedom of (or from) religion and the separation of church and state. The Dems should actively be driving a wedge between them and the rest of spiritual America. Religion is not the problem with religious extremism--extremism is!

:headbang:
rocknation

It seems that all the evangelicals I know think that you must be republican if you go to church.

Apart from that, I see no difference between his views and those of the fundamentalist right. He wants his beliefs reflected in the politics of this country. He does not believe in the separation of church and state.

Do we really want the Dems to incorporate the theocratic viewpoint in exchange for votes?

......and I'm as liberal as they come. The difference is in literalism vs. the more 'esoteric' view. I sincerely believe that the problem with most RW evangelicals is that they take too much too literally too far out of context without understanding the historical and cultural influences on what was written. They stand up proudly proclaiming their morality while casting dispersions on those they feel are below them. They use the Bible to beat everyone over the head.

This is not what I consider 'true' evangelism.

The lessons that Christ taught in the NT were ones of humility, compassion, love, and service. They were not lessons of pridefulness, boasting, division, or discrimination. Sure some verses can be interpreted to be that way, but if taken in context, the true lesson is revealed. Even Paul in one of his letters warned against divisions in the early Church.

Do I believe that 'under God' should be part of the pledge? No. Do I believe in Ten Commandment monuments in every governmental office? Hell no. Even the Bible teaches separation of church and state. Don't believe me? Read Matthew 22:20-22.

For me, personally, there is one passage that spells it all out in black and white, Matthew 25:34-45. In particular, Matthew 25:40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

That, to me, is what it is all about. Making this world a better place by humbling yourself and serving others.

Your are in danger of becoming a fundamentalist of a different type. You need to realize that there are people of faith who call themselves Evangelicals who are on our side. They like most here don't agree on every progresive issue. Check out Jim Wallis at http://www.sojo.net/ Sojourners Magazine for an Evangelical minister you can love.

:applause:

According to every poll I've ever seen.

People should think about this - this notion that evangelical = Republican is one that the Republicans thoroughly promote as a strategy that will help them win elections. They picked it, as their plan.

So why do we let them fight according to the plan they picked? Why do we do our part to perpetuate a notion that they want furthered? Why do we insist on playing a role they've picked for us in their strategy?

some of us are social libertarians & anarcho syndicalists.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm not the one who threatens to take my vote and go home if a common misperception is used.

Your non-answer gives me all I need to know.:hi:

exactly... which isn't much, therefore you lack the capacity to think beyond your oh so suttle attempts to bait me. How's jackoff?

...never bothering to explain the differences in terminology that seem so fucking important to you. You have no place to call me on being belligerent.

Gay people have been beaten, stabbed, shot, bludgeoned and KILLED by people who call themselves "evangelicals", so don't condescend to me with your bullshit claim of victimhood. You call yourself one, then you own the word, and all the baggage that comes with it.

EDIT: BTW, I'm not baiting you. I'm downright attacking you and the whole culture of victimhood that evangelicals are selling to themselves, which you obviously bought into. Like I said ...Childish, and I'll add in thin skinned as well.

You know there was no personal attack in it, yet yours is still there for calling me a "Jackoff."

Yeah, thin skinned is very accurate.

Try reading comprehension while you are at your efforts to bait people. Who's whinning.....? :-(

Who's he? This is between you and me. I'm not an animal impressionist, I can't whinny.

I'm not baiting anybody. I'm fighting back against a vote extortionist.

I don't know why you guys are flaming stepnw1f like he/she is a freeper troll. Give it a break. There are all kinds in our party and that's the way it is. Ours is the party of the demos, of the people and guess what? people are different.

On edit: I don't think stepnw1f is going to vote or not vote based on your opinion of evangelicals. Someone with 1000+ DU posts is here and with us for the long run. I think the reference is to other who may be lurking. It makes no sense to insult those who aren't your enemy and who may become your friend or ally - unless you're BabyBush and then you do whatever you can to get the whole world pissed at you.

My vote is my worldview. I believe in the things that liberals and progressives stand for, and I'm in the Democratic Party because of that. It can't be offended by someone who calls me a Libra when I'm really a Virgo.

Either you believe in democratic principles and the American ideal of the commons or you don't. Selling, or threatening to withold your vote makes you a whore or an extortionist, and I'd rather lose a thousand elections than to stoop to that level.

You do realize that President Carter is an evangelical, right?

Steppenw1f did. Either he believes in democratic principles, or he doesn't. If he does, it shouldn't matter how anybody interprets the minutae and thousands of title partitions in Christendom.

If he's that sensitive, then it's not the fault of any of the rest of us who better things to do than to keep up on the latest Christian terminology, and kiss proper evangelical ass when doing it.

to you. That is to be expected.

And Stpnw1f pissed me off with that witholding vote remark enough for me to fight back and call him on his extortion. All because of Christianity's esoteric encyclopedia of disparate terminology, and his thin skin that most of us don't have time to know the distinctions.

Try and keep up. Ask him if he tried to patiently explain the differences. There's nothing in his first post except for a threat for not bowing before his sensitivities.

...which is also black. We can have a threesome, but one of us "...hates the sin" so I guess that's out.

He DID NOT say he was throwing away his vote, or not going to vote!! He said we, as the Dem. party would be throwing away Evangelical (Christian voters) votes if we keep up this NONSENSE!!! Take a reading comprehension test sometime!! OK rant over, I'm done with this. You all need to get over yourselves!

Either you believe in democratic priciples, and the right of the people to control the commons, or you don't. If you are holding up your vote for ransom, based on some thin skin notion of being "an opressed Christian" then you have no principles. It's that simple. If they can't see where their civic values are, and that our party represents them better then they weren't our votes to begin with. You are saying that you don't want true principled people in the party, you want us to pander to thin skinned people to win.

I'd like to see examples...any of them about what "NONSENSE" you are talking about? All I hear when I see "christian Bashing" is Jerry Fatwell's voice. Where is the proof of that. Did Matthew Sheppard get pistol whipped, tied to a fencepost and left to die because he was Christian? If not him, then who was brutally murdered in the USA because they were Christain? If you can't prove that, then you can't prove "Christian bashing".

"Oh' I'm Christian. I'm picked on! I'm a victim, cause those Democrats didn't earn my vote by kissing my ass!"

teachings of Christ and I fully support equal rights for EVERYONE. I do not view homosexuality as a "sin" or a disorder.

THAT is who these people are. A cult. A sect. A powerful political cult.
THIS imho is the most dangerous element of the RRR, not evangelicals in any over-broad catagoric sense. They are not interchangable terms.


http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/DirectoryRiseOfDominionismInAmerica.html

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/ChRecon.html

Do you support full equality for gays and lesbians, including marriage?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You have attacked me for no reason apart from asking a question.

He wants support for some evangelicals and with my experience with evangelicals right now they do not deserve it, and I was giving him a chance to earn my support.

How dare you!

Yeah, there's more than the obligatory 10% that are in this thread (or the less than 1% the evangelicals say there is). It's practically pink invaded!:rofl:

Where did "jerk" come from?

but of course... waiting.

i'm glad to hear it. And glad to hear not everyone is an ass when it comes to equality for everyone. Now you have my support, even though I don't usually flame religious folk unless they are of course those on the right who do not follow the bible properly.

I just have people close to me who are. And they are very good people. Those who are bigoted, I stay away from as much as possible. Many close to me are gay and I helped with Gay Pride Boston.

Seriously, I don't have a fucking clue. All these religions and their sects and their quibbles and everyone's different interpretations and definitions on every fucking thing related. Seriously. It's too complicated. What IS an "evangelical"? What are they? Who are they? What they do? What do they want? :shrug: I don't care what you want to call them, how about "lunatic fuckwad religious nutbags"? Is that better?

They believe in a duty to share their faith with others and bear witness to the role of Jesus in their lives. You don't have to be a fundamentalist or conservative to be an evengelical, you just have to have faith, and be willing to share it.

They push their lifestyles onto the rest of us.;)

and how it's changed OUR lives. You don't have to listen if you don't want to, but YOU don't have the right to tell us not to believe, and if we do, we are less intelligent than you because we believe in something BIGGER than ourselves. You really don't have a clue, do you?? That's sad, because you're almost as bad as the "sheeple" Now some of them are brainless, and would follow their leader right off a cliff!! So go take a time out and leave me alone!

but I am a Christian. Raised Methodist. And I find this sick fantasy that Christianity is under seige completley ridiculous. Not to mention your wild tale of anybody telling you not to believe. Show this person's face, or concede that you're making it all up.

You responded to me. I can't leave you alone because you won't let me... and it IS pushing. Sharing is talking for 5 minutes when the subject naturally comes up in a segway. You evangelicals bring it up out of the blue and never shut up until we say "Yes, I'll go to church with you and put money in the dish, then roll down the aisles."

Can't recommend it enough for any and all, for the serious in either side of this conversation.

http://www.yuricareport.com/

don't mean what that capitalization implies.

m-w.com says the following; #4b and 5 are the problems.
Capitalizing "evangelical" puts it under #4 - 4b has to do with fundamentalism.
So stop capitalizing it.

1 : of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels
2 : PROTESTANT
3 : emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual
4 a capitalized : of or relating to the Evangelical Church in Germany b often capitalized : of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : FUNDAMENTALIST c often capitalized : LOW CHURCH
5 : marked by militant or crusading zeal : EVANGELISTIC <the evangelical ardor of the movement's leaders -- Amos Vogel>

is Trent Lott."

Speech at Pentecost 2004
by Bill Moyers



WASHINGTON, DC


MAY 24, 2004



I was honored by your invitation to share this day with you. Call to Renewal is an inspiration to me and so is Jim Wallis – for his witness of faith, his generous heart, his way of life, his engagement with politics, and his magazine: I could not do without Sojourners. I also appreciate Jim because he knows there are different kinds of Baptists in America. Not everyone knows this, and it can be confusing when a young reporter, learning you are a Baptist, asks: “Oh, like Jerry Falwell?” I reminded her that there are more than two dozen varieties of Baptist in this country. Pat Robertson is a Baptist. So is Bill Clinton. Al Gore is a Baptist. So is Trent Lott. Jesse Jackson is a Baptist. So is Jesse Helms. Richard Gephardt is a Baptist. So is Newt Gingrich. Small wonder Baptists have been compared to jalapeno peppers: one or two makes for a tasty dish, but a whole bunch of them together in one place brings tears to your eyes.

- Bill Moyers

from: http://www.yuricareport.com/Religion/MoyersAddressLetsGetJesusBack.html


Not all evangelicals are republicans, not all baptists subscribe to all the same things, and not all democrats are atheists nor "lunatic fuckwad religious nutbags" (per upthread) by simple virtue of their religious faith. Enough said?

So we need to pander to the right-handed person's point of view, otherwise we would be taking them for granted and pushing them to vote for republicans.

***OR***

We can run on the issues

Is this thread really necessary?
As far as I am concerned, I don't care what religion anyone is as long as they keep it out of my government. The lot of you make me feel like I'm surrounded by people who believe in invisible rabbits.
Only way meaner than Jimmy Stewart.

feel free to "withhold" your vote if that makes you feel better, though that kind of attitude sounds childish if we're being honest here. :eyes:

Because "true christians" with any ethics or morals whatsoever would want to help get the * cabal thrown out of power asap.

Either you are part of the solution or part of the problem. YOUR CHOICE.

...but they cried and got my post deleted. Just remember, it would be the "childish" word that would get your post deleted. can't say "Olberman" on O'Reilly's show, can't say "Childish" on an evangelical thread I guess.:shrug:

...but "discerning" is clearly false advertizing.:rofl:

pushing their agenda onto the Government.

But I wouldn't expect anybody to give a hoot about how Satanists vote.

policy and economic issues; and moderate on social issues.



Sojourners is the group they were speaking to:

link for Sojourners

http://www.sojo.net /

link for Sojourners Magazine:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.home

Interview with Rev. Jim Wallis (founder and leader of Sojourners) on Democracy Now - link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/26/1355204


"The Rev. Tim Ahrens shared Wallis' dismay: "The faith of Jesus Christ has become such a violent and violating faith in the religious right," he contended. Ahrens is the founder of We Believe Ohio, a group of 300 clergy members dedicated to promoting social justice."

"Many Sojourner supporters didn't hesitate to call right-wingers "bible thumpers" and "fanatics," and they criticized the Bush administration for not helping the poor. They gave Obama thunderous applause when he proclaimed his support for separation of church and state and giving teenagers access to contraception. " link:
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/14923089.htm