>"How about the reality of 3 billion of God's children living on less than $2 per day? ... What about pandemics like HIV/AIDS ... [and] disastrous wars like Iraq?"

To the fundies this guy must be a fruitcake... you'd think he was a follower of that christ guy or sompthin'.

Schism is inevitable.

All that stuff in the Bible about peace and forgiveness were just window dressing to spruce up the anti-gay agenda.

What is the difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelist?

John Edwards hiring a blogger who hates Catholics and Christians proves that Democrats have a long way to go before they can reach out to people of faith. I also haven't heard any democratic candidates for president condemn the ACLU for harassing townships for having the audacity to put up a christmas wreath.

Soon the republics will be missing their marks, so to speak. Jesus would be pleased.

I am reading Ron Chernow's "Titan" about John D. Rockefeller..a sentence jumped out.."Protestant evangelicals deplored the moral crisis that accompanied industrialization and the lopsided distribution of wealth."

Things have changed.

What is the difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelist?

As lapsed protestant, I think it's that:

A fundamentalist belongs to a branch of the church that believes that the bible is G-d's literal word and must be followed as such.

An evangelist belongs to branch of the church that believes one of the primary acts which the faithful undertake is speaking of the gospel to others.

So there may be fundamentalists, evangelists, and evangelistic fundamentalists.

The rational among us need a religion we can take to the political talks. So, herein, and only once, I define:

The Religion of All:

Premise: Religion is Man's Divine inspiration.

Hypothesis:

God is All
All is God

Conclusion:

Man's Divine goal is to discover God's expression in All.

---------------------------------

You can see this definition is closed and complete, in the algebraic sense.
Thus the Religion of All is sufficient and necessary to support all the natural laws.

You may all join, then in discussion with the Jesus psychotics, you can respond with a straight face!

"Jesus is God's expression in humanity."

Wallis is absolutely correct. Air pollution kills three million people per year and 30,000 people die every day due to extreme poverty. Where is the moral outrage over those facts? Check out this article, wherein some Southern Baptist doorknob wants to look into the possibility of genetically altering a fetus in utero, if there is any indication the child will be homosexual. This modern day Mengele needs to emulate what Jesus had to say about homosexuality – absolutely nothing!

Evangelicals sell a "personal relationship with Christ" and use social issues to demonstrate the need for their product. As the society changes, evangelicals will adjust their sales pitch.

Fundies sell biblical inerrancy and creation--hellfire and damnation. They don't really care so much about social change.

Fundies are the largest subset of evangelicals, but there is a lot of room to attract open-minded evangelicals.

Widening disagreements among the evangelical figures often quoted in the mainstream media do not necessarily indicate increasing disagrements among evangelicals at large.

Most evangelicals haven't changed their views about abortion, or what marriage means, or other public policy issues long of concern to them. Most of them also have not changed their view that these issues are secondary to the practice and spread of their faith. Increasing questioning of the narrow focus of some politically active organizations speaking on behalf of evangelicals does appear to have arisen, but this doesn't mean evangelicals are about to follow some of the older mainline denominations into downplaying their faith in order to better fit in to the secular culture.

Pat Robertson's groups and Focus on the Family are heavily influenced by their institutional requirement to keep contributions rolling in. This in turn requires a focused message that does not arouse undue controversy among their likely contributors. The profound loathing many people associated with these groups have for John McCain is directly related to his attacks on their fundraising practices during the 2000 Republican primaries; their resistance to involvement in issues new to evangelical politics, like climate change, has the same foundation.

Kevin, Wapiti is correct. "Evangelical" never implied rightwing; it's just that the wingnuts usurped the term when "fundamentalist" became a term of derision, and are now fighting against its restoration. Lefties may be a minority of the evangelical movement, but they are a substantial minority.

Btw, once again AH, the craven idiot who usurps the handles of others, is distinguishing between Catholics and Christians as only anti-Catholics do. It seems as if he is begging to be banned.

What is the difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelist?

I don't know, but I know why the elephant painted his toenails red.

"What is the difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelist?"

I'm still waiting on the punchline.

Schism is inevitable.

You might even say... preordained.

God is All
All is God

A super set.

Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada. Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.

bought-and-paid-for subsidiary of the Republican Party,

Yeah, right.

"Christian Right is neither" - bumper sticker.

'The message from Washington, D.C. to all of us out here in the heartland is very clear: Our government is the exclusive gated community of Big Money interests, their appointed pawns in Congress, and a select group of self-declared "experts" in the media and at think tanks (which are, of course, funded by many of those same Big Money interests). Inside this gated community, actually listening to or shaping policy on behalf of the vast majority of Americans is considered either laughably outdated or disgustingly unsavory.'

- David Sirota - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/
dems-big-middle-finger-t_b_42940.html

"what is the difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelist?"

a $100 million tv contract.

I saw this over at Wood S Lot:

Hanging Baptists
Joe Palmer

Religiosity in the United States is astonishing to the visitor. (...)

Soon the newcomer sees that public discourse is dominated, not by concern over social welfare and foreign policy, as one might expect in a modern country, but by matters of sexual subversion and family chaos. Fundamentalists, Catholics, and Evangelical "Christers", conservatives of the far right have the political clout to elect presidents, to defeat numerous Equal Rights Amendment bills (since 1923), to oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage and abortion rights, to thwart the National Organization of Women, and to pack the Supreme Court with yes persons.(...)

In its political consequences today, the voting majority edge that the Republicans flaunt, the effects of the Great Revival are still felt, even though it never became a unified movement for lack of a controlling center. Today the Great Revival is an organic part of Middle-American life. And don't you forget it.

The evangelicals are just the modern Pharisees. They are not christians, but rather those who use the power of religion to trample on the masses.

Thomas Jefferson: (1743-1826), third U.S. president.

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies."

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ... perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind ... a mere contrivance [for the clergy] to filch wealth and power to themselves."

They'll just invent something else.

I've been saying this for years. Evangelicals have been tricked into buying whole=hog into the Republican/Mega-Corporation agenda all the while thinking they were doing God's work. This is nothing but used-car salesmanship and bait-n-switch tactics. Evangelicals have no religious reason to support the environmental recklessness of Exxon and GE but, they do it because their "religious" leaders have packaged such support within the framework of their "liturgy". What a friggin' joke!

Ah, Kevin.

So a couple of confused libs in the evangelical movement are trying to sow confusion, and Kevin Drum thinks this signals the end of the movement.

Evangelicalism is strong and deeply Republican. Can you imagine an evangelical supporting Billary or Baraka?

These libs were kicked out of the movement and good riddence to them. To hell with them. I'm sure they'll be more comfortable hanging out with they're faggot friends (oops, do I have to go to rehab? LOL!)

Jimmy Carter is an evangelical.

Dobson and Falwell are fundamentalists.

Egbert, good try on the "Evangelicalism is strong(ly) and deeply Republican" - however, Jimmy Carter would differ with you. Read his books.

An interesting film treatment on the subject of evangelicals and fundamentalists is The God Who Wasn't There.

Here's a link to a trailer:

http://tinyurl.com/aw74e

Riddance, troll. Riddance.

The political 'evangelical Christianity' of Dobson et. al. isn't a religious movement, and it does not have a religious program. It is a POLITICAL movement with a POLITICAL program, one that depends on scapegoats, notably gays in this case.

Sound vaguely familiar?

Real conservative Christians are never going to be social or political liberals like some of the rest of us, but there's no natural reason why they have to be the property of the Republicans, or of the Dobson/Fallwell/Robertson Axis of Evil. Keep punching Dobson and his ilk in the nose. Keep pointing out their un-Christian contempt and cruelty towards the poor and weak. Something good might happen.

What is the difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelist?

An evangelist is anyone who works to spread the gospel (or, more generally, any view). Evangelical, OTOH, ... well, the most commonly encountered sense of the term in the US (but not the only sense in which "Evangelical" is used) refers to a movement of which the Fundamentalist movement was originally a particularly strident element (and from which Fundamentalism gets the doctrines of the sole authority, literal truth, and inerrancy of the Bible and other defining theological elements). Now, more Fundamentalist prefer to be called Evangelicals only—particularly when they are political activists and leaders—as "fundamentalist" has become a general term for "extremist" (through the actions of the Fundamentalist themselves!), and Evangelical has yet to be quite as tainted.

But there are important distinctions; the broader evangelical movement certainly experiences some anti-modernist influence, but the fundamentalist movement is distinguished by intense anti-modernism (evangelicals generally might be cautious about science alone as a source of answers for what should be done, and particularly troubled by scientific results that conflict with what they take to be revealed Biblical truths, but the evangelical movement is not as anti-science or anti-intellectual across the board as fundamentalists movement tends to be.) Fundamentalists tend to be particularly suspicious of non-fundamentalist Christians (including the broader evangelical community, which remains the case now when fundamentalists don't self-identify as much but instead often try to claim the title "Evangelical" as their exclusive badge), though the intense intertwining of the modern fundamentalist movement with Republican party politics makes that something of an on-again, off-again thing with a lot of the visible leadership of the movement, as they serve their immediate political interest through temporary (at least rhetorical) alliances with religious groups far from the fundamentalist movement. Eschatologically, IIRC, fundamentalist tend to be influenced either by outlooks like dispensational premillenialism or the more theocratic forms postmillenialism (such as Christian Reconstructionism), whereas other outlooks like revivalist postmillenialism are more influential in the broader evangelical movement.

Politically, Evangelicals have been important in many progressive causes; as in the Social Gospel movement, which was not, IIRC, an Evangelical movement, per se, but one in which many Evangelical groups and leaders were active.

interesting. here in germany this is no topic at all.

greetings from europe

Fundies are the largest subset of evangelicals

I dunno. I think it more be more accurate to say that Fundamentalists are the loudest, and most political well-organized subset of Evangelicals.

"Anyway, I don't have any special comment here. Just thought I'd let everyone know that there are cracks in the evangelical movement's longtime role as a bought-and-paid-for subsidiary of the Republican Party, and those cracks are getting bigger. The old guys don't like it much, but time may not be on their side."

The times they are a changing I guess. I remember guys in the Southern Baptist youth group I was in wearing T-shirts with marijuana leaves on them in the early '70's and none of the parents or leaders in the church really made much of a fuss about it. They wore them to church on Sunday! The prevailing mood at the time was permissive. The mood has become very conformist since then. However, since the Iraqi adventure started I have heard more and more from people lately who attend very conservative churches saying there are more arguments about war policies/war profiteering, etc., and many members questioning the churches alliance with political groups and whether it is corrupting their faith.

Nope. Still not buying it.

I've been reading Wallis' and Amy Sullivan's "evangelicals are really liberals" bullshit for years and it never gets any closer to reality.

In fact, the more the "let's help the poor and downtrodden" fringe Xians push their claims, the more hard-core republican the sex-phobic majority of evangelicals gets.

Xians who genuinely care about the issues Jesus preached - taking care of each other and the community - are not evangelicals; they're liberals.

They need to just admit it and join the nearest Unitarian-Universalist congregation.

From Kevin's quote: The best-known champion of such causes, the Rev. Jim Wallis...

Is this the same Jim Wallis who wrote in TIME Magazine, Friday, Feb. 16, 2007, The Religious Right's Era Is Over? Excerpts (with emphasis):

As I have traveled around the country, one line in my speeches always draws cheers: "The monologue of the Religious Right is over, and a new dialogue has now begun." We have now entered the post-Religious Right era. Though religion has had a negative image in the last few decades, the years ahead may be shaped by a dynamic and more progressive faith that will make needed social change more possible.

In the churches, a combination of deeper compassion and better theology has moved many pastors and congregations away from the partisan politics of the Religious Right. In politics, we are beginning to see a leveling of the playing field between the two parties on religion and "moral values," and the media are finally beginning to cover the many and diverse voices of faith. These are all big changes in American life, and the rest of the world is taking notice.

Evangelicals — especially the new generation of pastors and young people — are deserting the Religious Right in droves. The evangelical social agenda is now much broader and deeper, engaging issues like poverty and economic justice, global warming, HIV/AIDS, sex trafficking, genocide in Darfur and the ethics of the war in Iraq. Catholics are returning to their social teaching; mainline Protestants are asserting their faith more aggressively; a new generation of young black and Latino pastors are putting the focus on social justice; a Jewish renewal movement and more moderate Islam are also growing; and a whole new denomination has emerged, which might be called the "spiritual but not religious."

Even more amazing, the Left is starting to get it. Progressive politics is remembering its own religious history and recovering the language of faith. Democrats are learning to connect issues with values and are now engaging with the faith community. They are running more candidates who have been emboldened to come out of the closet as believers themselves. Meanwhile, many Republicans have had it with the Religious Right. Both sides are asking how to connect faith and values with politics. People know now that God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and we are all learning that religion should not be in the pocket of any political party; it calls all of us to moral accountability.

Most people I talk to think that politics isn't working in America and believe that the misuse of religion has been part of the problem. Politics is failing to resolve the big moral issues of our time, or even to seriously address them. And religion has too often been used as a wedge to divide people, rather than as a bridge to bring us together on those most critical questions....[More]

Christ! Where's Amy Sullivan when we need her? Oh wait. We don't need her. Go back to what you were doing ...

Most of the liberals I know are very spiritual people who live humble, Christian lives. Many right-wingers, on the other hand, are full of hate and greed and worship war and money.

Christ said it best, "By their actions ye shall know them".

Talk is cheap.

dataguy, Not quite right, but close.

Fundamentalists are the modern day Pharisees.

There is a difference in the 2 terms. I would say Evangelicals spread the word of God by practicing the example of Jesus.
Fundamentalists preach the word of God & ignore Jesus' example.

Do you see the difference? You don't see true Evangelicals rich. Billy Graham was a good example. With his following, he could easily have become a multimillionaire, but wasn't because most of what he took in went out to missionary work. He never publicly spoke out for any political Party. Jerry Falwell lives rich & supports a political Party, & now calls himself an evangelical for publicity reasons.

The so-called Relious Right is the segregationist wing of the party of Wall Street.

Two Fundamentalists walk into a bar...

craigie, I heard one that's similar...

Two Fundamentalists walk into a gay bar...

What is the difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelist?

An evangelist is a religious person.
A fundamentalist is a republican extremist.

Next.

Yeah, I remember that part in the Bible...

Wasn't it the Sermon on the Mount?

Blessed are the change-makers? But of course He was talking metaphorically about the entire financial industry.

On a recent NPR show about evolution, Cizik, representing the "fundamentalist" viewpoint, was interesting, nuanced, and admitted to not knowing all the answers. It would be a shame for the evangelical movement to lose him.

American Stalker: "John Edwards hiring a blogger who hates Catholics and Christians proves that Democrats have a long way to go before they can reach out to people of faith. I also haven't heard any democratic candidates for president condemn the ACLU for harassing townships for having the audacity to put up a christmas wreath."

None of those words mean what you think they do. Night school beckons, sir!

mhr: "Wallis, like Edwards, believes that the greatest saint was named Karl Marx."

And he was Jew, too, goldangit! Get my point! Everybody what scares me is bad, bad, bad! And they're all alike: communist Jew homosexual millionaires! And that Jesus was the worst of them all. (Psst: where does I sign up?)

On a less-retarded note, Kevin, you mentioned Republican out-sourcing of IRS auditing etc. Couldn't this eventually bite the evangelical base on its, well, base? The kinds of companies CheneyCo works with ultimately don't give a rat's ass about ideology or religion (tm). They won't want to see potential revenue streams evaporate just because the word "God" is attached to all company documents—er, I mean, sermons.

Yellow Dog: Nope. Still not buying it....

We would be wise to keep our eyes peeled at local and state level activities: The Theocratic Agenda Is Heading for a Statehouse Near You

What struck me most about the letter was the absence of any mention of Christ. Apparently when it comes to defining what an evangelical should be, He's not in the picture.

Yeah, 'cause everybody keeps forgetting about Jesus! And those who use His name constantly are always the most worthy.

Precisely, Apollo 13. In just the last month, Kentucky's state house and senate wingnuts have - in the name of Jesus Christ and moral values - proposed bills:

1) requiring a mandatory in-person meeting with a doctor 24 hours before an abortion. Given that most women in Kentucky - especially poor ones - live a two- to four-hour drive from the only abortion clinics in the state, this effectively bans abortions for all but wealthy urban women.

2) barring state universities from offering employees the opportunity to purchase health benefits for anyone other than a spouse or children. Aimed at domestic partners, of course, the broad language manages to deny health coverage to heterosexual non-spouses as well as indigent parents, orphaned nieces and nephews and abandoned granchildren.

3) stopping the state from testing jail and prison inmates for HIV at entry, ostensibly to save the state health care costs but in effect condemning the inmates and their prison sexual partners to slow, painful deaths gfrom AIDS.

No surprise that some of these efforts attracted support from Xian Democrats.

It's ugly down here in the trenches, and getting uglier.

For a broader look at the growing rift between thinking consevatives and knee-jerk conservatives over global warming, see:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194

Craigie: "An evangelist is a religious person.
A fundamentalist is a republican extremist."

Unless he (and always a "he") is a Taliban exterenist.

Oh, right. The question was what the 'differences' might be.

Did you enjoy the film, FreakyBeaky?

John Edwards hiring a blogger who hates Catholics and Christians proves that Democrats have a long way to go before they can reach out to people of faith

So Catholics aren't Christians? It's reassuring to learn that American Hawks's stupidity extends to matters spiritual as well as temporal.

Our churchgoers helped get us into the war in Iraq and they are helping keep us there.

Posted by: American Hawk on March 10, 2007 at 1:46 PM

To which blogger are you referring?

I don't remember the Edwards campaign bloggers hating Catholics and Christians. (Are Catholics NOT Christians in your mind, then?).

I always got the impression that they were against, in your words, Catholics and Christians making personal decisions for other people.

I am Christian and a republican and know I will most likely be attacked from many of you however that is exactly my point. Try a little kindness, understanding and objectivity as you would want your own son or daughter to be given when interacting with others. Whether you agree or not with someone, let us not behave like animals even though many of you may believe that is all we are. I obviously disagree with so many posts, many of you are putting all Christian's in one category. Its not that simple just as I have learned it is not a box that all my liberal friends can be put it. We all differ on many issues but love and decency should always reign over us all. Just because I may not agree with how someone lives their life (whether it be living together or homosexual does not mean I don't or won't love them.) Jesus loved me when I was yet in my own sin and still often am, who would I be to judge those who still don't know our Lord?

Loving eachother like ourselves (God's golden rule) is the most important and if we were to really do that what problems could we have?

Blessings,
Kristie

Christ said it best, "By their actions ye shall know them".

Global warming is "Satan's attempt to redirect the church's primary focus" from evangelism to environmentalism. - The Reverend Jerry Falwell 2/26/07

"...blow them all away in the name of the Lord." -- Jerry Falwell on CNN, 10/29/04

Conservatives more generous than liberals, public policy expert finds
Allie Martin and Jody Brown
OneNewsNow.com
February 8, 2007

A regular contributor to the Wall Street Journal says there is a huge divide between those who give to charity and those who don't. In his new book "Who Really Cares," Arthur Brooks documents what he calls the "Right-Left charity gap" between conservatives and liberals when it comes to donating to charities.

A public policy expert and regular contributor to the Wall Street Journal says the stereotype that liberals are more compassionate than conservatives is false.

For his new book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, Arthur Brooks spent years researching data on the giving habits of conservatives and liberals. Brooks says when he began his research, he expected to find proof that liberals are the more generous group in America. But his findings show that conservatives are more generous in every way -- from volunteering, to donating blood, to giving money.

For example, homes headed by a conservative gave 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal families. Religious upbringing, he says, played a key role in the findings.

"Conservative households are disproportionately religiously observant," he says. "They take their faith more seriously, typically." But he is quick to clarify that that does not mean a person cannot be both a liberal and religious.

"Now there are lots of religious liberals out there," Brooks says, "but there are three times more religious conservatives than there are religious liberals in America today -- and that's driving the biggest part of the Right-Left charity gap."

Brooks explains that, according to his research, a household headed by a conservative, on average, gives 30 percent more dollars to charity than does one headed by a liberal -- despite earning six percent less income. He finds that significant.

"That's an important finding because that goes contrary to our intuition and the stereotypes," he admits; "but it turns out it's not because of the politics -- the main reason for that is that conservatives are disproportionately religiously observant ...."

Brooks also found that those who give regularly to charity are, on average, happier and healthier than those who don't.

Religion News Service notes the author's take a commonly heard liberal mantra on the topic of helping the needy. "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society," he writes. "Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

Another observation from Brooks' findings: liberals typically want everyone's tax dollars to support government entitlement programs -- but are hesitant to give their own money to those same programs, even when the government subsidies are inadequate.

In the introduction to his book, the writer/author admits he was taken back by his own findings. "These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving ... 10 years ago [in graduate school]. I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."

The former Democrat and Republican, who now considers himself an Independent, also admits he expects some flak for reporting his findings. "I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he tells Religion News Service. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at."

Before I begin, let me dispose of one of the silly things said earlier.

"This modern day Mengele needs to emulate what Jesus had to say about homosexuality – absolutely nothing!"

Jesus was a Jew speaking to Jews who knew perfectly well that abomination means abomination. Since He came to do the will of the Father, why should his silence be interpreted as disagreement ? It's not as if He came to remind us that it is still wrong to have anal sex with your mother.

For years Jim Wallis has been peddling, to the delight of the liberal media, this "The Christian Right is dead !" line. For years he has been a one man Christian Left. And he still is. Because as the above posts illustrate the cultural left absolutely despises the Christian faith and Christians know it. The ACLU's war to eradicate Christianity from American public life IS the agenda of the cultural left.

The point of the entire conflict is, what will be the foundations of the Christian faith ? The Bible or cultural elite opinion ? Last week the British Parliament passed a law forbidding Christian schools to teach that the word of God on sexual matters is 'objectively true' because homosexuals might be 'offended' (needless to say it wasn't extended to Muslim schools because Christians won't plant bombs in response). Apparently it is not enough for the cultural elite secularist to drive Christianity from public life. Now, Christians are to be told what they can teach their children and preach in their churches. There are lots of people on this thread who would just love to do something like that here and Christians know it.

The candidate who treats the Christian religion with respect will get the Black vote and therefore win the nomination. Period. Clinton and Carter, being from a deeply religious region, won their respective nominations because they could relate to Black voters in a way that godless liberal secularists couldn't. Edwards's campaign hasn't recovered from the blogger flap and he has made no progress in securing Black support. I guess Blacks are put off by it.

Soon, Tony Dungy, the winning Super Bowl coach, will receive an award from Dobson's group, a group which represents the mainstream of Black opinion a lot more closely than white secularists do. He has been getting some flak in the media about it. Liberal secularists would do well to stop trying to create trouble for him if they don't want trouble with us.

just for the record, I believe that any private school that doesn't receive public funds can teach its children any fairy tale it wants.

Brooks also found that those who give regularly to charity are, on average, happier and healthier than those who don't.

that explains why Dick Cheney is such a miserable and unhealthy person. His tax records showed a surprisingly low amount donated to charity.

Jesus loved me when I was yet in my own sin and still often am, who would I be to judge those who still don't know our Lord?

You cannot support the US occupation of Iraq and be loved by Him.

Forgive me if someone else already said this, but I LOVE egbert's word "evangelicalism". The correct word is evangelism, but his is more fun to say. You could be an evangelicalist! One cringes, but with amusement, at the opinion without thought.

Brojo, being as schooled as you are on being loved by Him, how do you relate the numerous military wins of Biblical David clearly given to him by God and not being loved by God for believing in defending your people from this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckFRUWlGhq0&mode=related&search=

I think we all better understand who and what we are dealing with and join together rather then fighting amongst ourselves as the radical left prefers for political gain.

Watch this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st7-o0QVLLE&mode=related&search=

Facts?

God loves blood, human guts splattered about, human suffering and misery.

Now that's a fact.

If you are going to mock someone's supposed stupidity you might want to educate yourself first. Can't believe you did absolutely no research to find out if "Evangelicalism" is a word before making fun of someone who used it.

e·van·gel·i·cal·ism

–noun 1. evangelical doctrines or principles.

2. adherence to evangelical principles or doctrines or to an evangelical church or party.

Evangelicalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word evangelicalism usually refers to religious practices and traditions which are found in conservative, Protestant Christianity. Evangelicalism is typified by an emphasis on evangelism, a personal experience of conversion, biblically oriented faith and a belief in the relevance of Christian faith to cultural issues. In the late 20th century and early 21st century, Protestant people, churches and social movements have often been called evangelical in contrast to Protestant liberalism.

charles Warren: "Jesus was a Jew speaking to Jews who knew perfectly well that abomination means abomination. Since He came to do the will of the Father, why should his silence be interpreted as disagreement ? It's not as if He came to remind us that it is still wrong to have anal sex with your mother."

Yuck.

That particularly crude statement tells me more about you than about your professed God and Saviour.

It doesn't quite explain what all those Republicans and fundamentalist evangelicals at the recent CPAC convention in Washington were doing hanging out and having their photos taken with gay porn star Matt Sanchez of Glory Holes of Fame 3 fame, or what was up with that "Crystal Methodist", the fabulously Rev. Ted Haggard, and his penchant for paying for rough sex with gay bodybuilders -- but it'll suffice for now.

God forbid that you should speak for the majority of Christians.

It's very important to kick out the liberal Christians and Evangelicels cause any day soon Dobson and the rest will divide up all their money and give a share to each member of their church. There is a Biblical injunction which makes them do this act.
And the less of us there is, the more each one gets!

There was a time when evangelicals were apolitical and the political class was not interested (for or against) religion.

I miss those days.

“There was a time when evangelicals were apolitical and the political class was not interested (for or against) religion. I miss those days.”

Why Jim? Out of curiousity, what particular law has a Christian organization had passed that has been an undue hardship for you?

Why Jim? Out of curiousity, what particular law has a Christian organization had passed that has been an undue hardship for you?

My War on Christmas, mainly. Oh, and my strong pro-ACLU/NAMBLA, active aborting lifestyle. Not to mention my surrender to the terrorists, and poor support of the troops.

how do you relate the numerous military wins of Biblical David clearly given to him by God

Your and David's god is Satan.

"What particular law has a Christian organization had passed that has been an undue hardship for you?"

Christian organizations don�t pass laws. Governments pass laws. I realize that Theocons are continually trying to eliminate the distinction between religion and government, but you can at least acknowledge the fact that the distinction exists.

While we�re on the topic, which Gay couple�s relationship has damaged your relationship with your wife or girlfriend? Which zygotes and fetuses are you psychically connected to, such that you are able to feel their �pain�?

As far as personal �undue hardship�, I�ll leave the answer to the military families, the single moms, the Michael Schiavo�s, and the Valerie Plame�s of the world. My grievances are small by comparison - I simply don�t want the US to turn into Iran.

There was a time when evangelicals were apolitical and the political class was not interested (for or against) religion.

The second, perhaps, but no, the evangelicals have been very political from very early in the evangelical movement, though not consistently conservative.

It's funny that Kevin refers to Dobson et al as "dinosaurs", considering they probably believe their ancestors hunted dinosaurs with spear and arrow.

Basically, Dobson, Falwell etc...are objecting to the idea of de-linking "Evangelical Christianity" from political conservatism has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with lust for worldly power and wealth. They have become dependent upon "pimping" God for political and material gain that they react viscerally against any threat to their monopoly on faith and the blasphemous tactics that follow therefrom.

Somebody need to remind these guys that "A man may only serve one master," theirs appear to be Mammon.