http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/the-new-evangelical-agend_b_2137388.html I can get behind a definition of evangelical as described in the bolded paragraph.
Goldwater was right. Teaming up with the evangelicals has done immense harm to the Republican Party as a brand name and they've been captured by the movement. It's hard to really claim you're a small government party when you're always trying to use big government to force your religion and your morality on to everyone else. That's why I laugh at anyone who claims Republicans are for small government.
given that so much of the anti-gay rhetoric uses the term "traditional marriage", and given how very much of the W.E.R. crowd tends to try and propagate religious traditions under the guise of actual Biblical doctrine, i've taken to calling the sort of voter the article refers to as "traditionalists"
While that might very well be true, it is not a necessary conclusion from the statistical data given in this article.
You guys haven't noticed Clyde's little game yet I take it? I find his post entirely consistent with his "I'm above partisanship but only criticize expressions of liberal partisanship," bit.
I've noticed, although I'd say it's more of an "I'm above partisanship but my posts uniformly consist of nothing but vapid criticisms of liberal partisanship real and imagined, mostly the latter" bit.
I can't. It both misrepresents the nature of the bible, and the nature of politics. One cannot "obey scriptures" without that having an effect on the political positions that one takes. No, better not to be an "evangelical" in the first place, and just be a proper person.
To clarify, there's no new crack. The "crack" described was always there - black evans voted Dem and white Evans voted, almost as strongly, Republican. The only difference here is (a) changing demographics; (b) the growing role of Hispanics; and (c) the evans that stayed hoe rather than vote for a dirty stinking Mormon.
I don't understand a) how anything in the bolded part misrepresents the nature of the Bible or the nature of politics. While I realize that many people can take and have taken different lessons from the Bible, it seems to me that the parts in the bolded section all have ample Biblical support. I also don't understand your point how one cannot "obey scriptures" without that having an effect on the political positions that one takes contradicts the notion of being evangelical. That in fact is part of the nature of being evangelical: that one's faith has and should have an effect on the political position one takes. While the split is not new, typically coverage of evangelicals in politics has overlooked/underplayed black, Latino and Asian evangelicals. As the Republican Party and the media are coming to the realization that the traditional white vote alone is not necessarily the end all, be all, perhaps they will also see the different aspects of the evangelical community. It will be interesting, for instance, if Republicans try to reach out to Latino and black evangelicals in 2014 or 2016. It'll be interesting if the public sees that there is more than one way to follow Christ than the white evangelical way. [quote\The only difference here is (a) changing demographics; (b) the growing role of Hispanics; and (c) the evans that stayed hoe rather than vote for a dirty stinking Mormon. [/quote] I don't know if a lot of conservative evangelicals did actually stay home. Did they?
Nobody can make any money out of keeping life that simple. Are you trying to put the clergy out of a job? And without hyper-organized religion and faithful followers, how are church leaders supposed to get laid, and drive nice cars?
It's an attempt to pretend that there is no disconnect between the values of the 1st century near east and a modern progressive agenda. If you look hard enough, you'll probably find some verses that can be used to justify it (although I'm not sure where you find environmentalism in the bible) but it's far from the central thrust and it's very selective. Then why try to maintain that "evangelical" is not a political term? And why try to whitewash the message of the bible? If the nice stuff influences your political views, then the nasty stuff ought to as well.
Yeah I'm sure it would seem that way to a liberal! Seriously though, I've been called a lot worse than elephant ninja, and had my opinion dismissed for far less reason.
The lesser of two insults yet still tiresome. Wish I were above it all, wish that I could escape it, but I'm mired in the same partisan slop we all have to wade through. This insight is commonplace, ain't nothing superior about it.
Interesting spin in that column. I wonder how long the religious right can keep deluding themselves that the only reason Republicans lose is that they're not sucking up to bigots enough (rather than simply that bigots are a shrinking and increasingly irrelevant voter bloc).
FACT: More evangelicals voted for Romney than voted for McCain just like more evangelicals voted for McCain in 2008 than voted for Bush in 2004. Yet in 2004 evangelicals claimed they had their best turn out ever and were to credit for Bush's reelection. How can we see their single best turn out EVER yet still claim they stayed at home? Answer: We can't, evangelicals turned out in record numbers in 2012, but their arrogance and ignorance pissed off far more regular people thus countering the evangelical vote. It's simply not possible to have both your best turn out ever and claim people just stayed home ergo the claim that evangelicals stayed home is not creditable and is just political spin.
