Meanwhile, some Americans are getting confused and even angry about all of this, even though they admit that they know little or nothing about evangelicalism.
According to surveys by Ellison Research of Phoenix, 36 percent of Americans polled indicate that they have no idea “what an evangelical Christian is” in the first place. Only 35 percent of all Americans believe they know “someone very well who is an evangelical,” while a stunning 51 percent are convinced they don’t know any evangelicals at all. On the left side of the aisle, some critics have grown hostile.
One of the surprises of a new Ellison study is “how much abuse is aimed at evangelicals,” noted company president Ron Sellers. “Evangelicals were called illiterate, greedy, psychos, racist, stupid, narrow-minded, bigots, idiots, fanatics, nut cases, screaming loons, delusional, simpletons, pompous, morons, cruel, nitwits, and freaks, and that’s just a partial list. …
“Some people don’t have any idea what evangelicals actually are or what they believe — they just know they can’t stand evangelicals.”
A lot of it may depend upon hw much the democrats continue to treat religion like a political tool without any respect for the things people actually hold sacred.
Everything you want to know about how Democrats view people whose religious beliefs are not entirely a subset of the Democratic Party’s platform was on display in Charlie Gibson’s interview of Sarah Palin, and his expressions of distaste were relatively mild by comparison to most one the port side that have seen fit to comment on the Governor.
Spend some time on such leftist sites as “Democratic Underground,” “Daily Kos,” and “MoveOn.org.” It will open your eyes, and you will be amazed how much hatred there is against Christians; it’s most virulent on Democratic Underground. Although many on the Left will not use the term Christians, but will instead use the code word “Dominionists,” like they use “NeoCons” as shorthand for non-liberal Jewish people (or non-Jews who support Israel). It’s the present catchy term for what alternatively is called “The Religious Right” or “Evangelicals.” Do a search on Democratic Underground for the term “Dominionist,” or do a Google search on the same term, and look at what pops up.
For many on the left, Dominionists must be suppressed or forcibly removed from society. They believe Dominionists are driven by a secret master plan very similar to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” and are a vast conspiracy to take over the country and to remove civil rights, especially the sacred concept of “Separation of Church and State.”
This is one reason the reaction against Palin has been so vicious on the left and in the mainstream media; they see her as the paradigm of the Dominionist.
Rightly or wrongly, this attitude is almost universal in this country. It certainly is here in New England. And it will influence voters at the gut level, where voting forces are generated/ Its strength will also get voter s t o the polls who would otherwise not go. Hatred and anger moves t o action in ways all the pleasanter emotions fail to do. Larry
One of the first things I saw after Palin’s debut was a link to a Daily Kos diary on Palin as an evil Dominionist. I didn’t even read the comments; the front-page article was bad enough. It’s pure ignorant hatred. Obama’s sane supporters may well be saying to themselves, “With friends like this, do we need enemies?” Pre-Palin, evangelicals were only lukewarm about McCain. This abuse may bring them to the polls in droves.
[b]”Pre-Palin, evangelicals were only lukewarm about McCain. This abuse may bring them to the polls in droves. “[/b]
I am one of them. I was dead set against McCain, but I now think that I will hold my nose and vote for Palin. I was/am a Ron Paul guy. I was planning on voting for Bob Barr after Ron Paul dropped out of the race. Now, I am really conflicted, but I think I will vote…one more time…for the Republicrats. I do this with eyes wide open and in the hope that Palin will be the eventual party nominee for President. The “Project for a New American Century” gang need to go. They are elitests, globalists, and empire builders. PNAC’s stated goal is “to promote American global leadership.” It is a matter of public record that back in 1998, in an open letter to then President Bill Clinton, PNAC explicitly called for a U.S. military ground campaign to oust Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Only 9 days after 11 September 2001, they sent this to President Bush:
“…even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”
They got what they wanted and no surprise. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, both PNAC, were Sec. Def. and the deputy Sec. Def. They had no concern for the people of this country or the welfare of our troops in harms way. They seem to have been “all about the money” and power mad. I do not think that McCain has ties with PNAC, so I am hoping…
I will proudly vote for Pailin and the guy she is running with. Seriously I was luke warm/ambivalent about McCain, but now I really want him to win.
They had no concern for the people of this country or the welfare of our troops in harms way. They seem to have been “all about the money†and power mad.
This is the kind of judgmentalism that really pisses me off. How do you know what concerned them? Is it not possible that they thought their policies were the best way to look after the people of this country? As for the troops in harms way, that is their job once it has been decided that the welfare of thier country requires it.
Questioning the ideology or the particular policy is fine. Going from there to judging the hearts of your opponents based on nothing more than an ideological disagrement is both unChristian and unpatriotic.
You might take heed the “lest ye be judged” clause.
Brother Chris,
I’m sorry I upset you. I will tell you EXACTLY how I know that “they had no concern for the people of this country or the welfare of our troops in harms way”.
Commanders on the ground in Iraq were asking/begging/demanding armored vehicles, to protect their troops and give them an advantage in fire and maneuver over their enemies, for something like two years…during a hot war in Iraq…and the troops kept getting Humvees and Strykers. There were over 700 M113 Armored Personnel Carriers just sitting there in Kuwait. But that did not fit in with their pre-conceived notions of the new Modular Army. They were determined to have “light wheeled vehicles” do the fight. BTW, they also were saying that they could not get the mine resistant vehicles [MRAPs] for our troops because they could not be produced quick enough. Yet, while we couldn’t procure them for our troops, we gave 600 of them to the Iraqis.
After Rumpswab left, guess what they are using RIGHT NOW? You got it…M113’s. http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,SS_010405_Armor,00.html
Last year, just before my nephew was going to basic training and Armor school, I read his copy of the current FM 1, The Army. The entire focus was on restructuring the Army…not on winning the TWO WARS WE ARE CURRENTLY FIGHTING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN!!!
Here are some quotes:
“4-2 The War on Terrorism has given the Army a strategic opportunity to reshape itself.” “The Army’s goal is to transform itself into a more responsive, effective expeditionary force capable of sustained campaigning anywhere in the world.”
http://www.army.mil/fm1/chapter4.html
There is no focus on WINNING the WARS WE ARE IN NOW!!! These idiots don’t care about the troops in the field right now fighting. They were looking to fight the next war…guessing what it will be…and their entire focus was on the transition of the force…not winning.
I can’t find the quote right now, but I saw it on C-SPAN, the General was testifying before congress and his biggest concern wasn’t about winning the war, it was that funding for force modernization and transition would decrease when hostilities ended!
Finally, in May of this year, the new Sec. Def, Secretary Gates made a statement indicating that he “gets it”. He said that the Military must focus on current wars [ie. winning]. He said: “I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called Next-War-itis — the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24600218/
We have been at war since 2001 and we finally have a Sec. Def. who understands that it’s more important to win the war we are currently fighting than to prepare for the theoretical “next war”.
“The risk of overextending the Army is real,” said Gates. “But I believe the risk is far greater — to that institution as well as to our country — if we were to fail in Iraq. That is the war we are in. That is the war we must win.”
So, I am sorry if my first statement upset you, but I am furious with both the former political “leadership” in the DoD and the senior generals that are doing the lacky work for them. My nephew, trained for war fighting on tanks…is currently doing patrols on a stinking “up-armored” Humvee…a fantastic jeep, but still just a jeep. I am concerned for him and the thousands of troops that have needlessly been used as test dummies for the ill conceived and poorly executed modualar Army concept.
Sorry for all the typos, spelling errors, and gramatical errors. I have a lot of energy around this subject, as a veteran, and as the family member and friend of many other veterans and active duty folks.
Sick and Tired, but the Army always goes through this sort of thing. Due to airlift limitations etc. they want to move away from heavy armor, only to the discover what we old tankers already know that armor saves lives.
The Army loves the light mobile vehicle. It’s cheaper, transportable and in almost every case a disaster. Remember the M24, M41, M114, the M551 Sheridan etc. The troops hated them for their lack of armor protection. Even the venerable M4 Sherman was a death trap due to it’s thin armor (the Germans called them Ronsons after the cegarette lighter, “Lights the first time”).
No hearvy armor isn’t invulnerable, but they withstand hits that turn armored cars and Hummers into sheet metal.
Thanks for the reply Brother Michael. I know that the Army goes through transitions and that they are needed. What I do not understand is why commanders in the field were denied resources that they needed and that were readily available. The denial of both M113s and MRAPs to our troops is inconceivable to me. I can only think of one other historic example of such deliberate obtuseness by the Army leadership.
During WW II, the concepts of the “flying fortress” and the “combat box” formations without fighter escort, were continued despite nearly 50% losses. Someone finally got the bright idea of adding “drop tanks” to P51s and actually gave fighter escort to the bombers. Wonder of wonders, the casualties went down, despite the continued daylight bombing.
For the requests of commanders in the field to be ignored, when the equipment was available, merely because use of that equipment did not fit some pre-conceived notion of how the Army should eventually be equipped, is very hard for me to accept.
“Evangelicals were called illiterate, greedy, psychos, racist, stupid, narrow-minded, bigots, idiots, fanatics, nut cases, screaming loons, delusional, simpletons, pompous, morons, cruel, nitwits, and freaks, and that’s just a partial list. …
“Some people don’t have any idea what evangelicals actually are or what they believe — they just know they can’t stand evangelicals.”
Well, of course! How have Evangelicals, and Bible believing and honoring Christians of all stripes been portrayed by the popular media and various “news” outlets for the last, oh say, 20 years? You have an entire generation that’s been raised on this poisoned milk.
GSP98, it has been going on since the Fall, sometimes more overtly than other times. The World hates the Word.
Undeniably so, withasword. My remarks were put largely in the context of American popular culture in general. Religion – and Christianity in particular – was given a measure of deference and respect in the popular media, such as it was, pre-1960s especially.
Case in point – how many reading this remember the very popular kids TV show, “Andys Gang”, hosted by actor Andy Devine [Froggy the gremlin; Buster Brown shoes; am I ringing a bell out there]?
At the end of every show, Andy would give an encouraging little talk to his child audience, and one of the last things he would admonish them with was this: “Now kids; don’t forget church or Sunday school this Sunday!” Could you imagine that happening today?
Daniel Radosh’s book Rapture Ready is a good antidote to the reflexive anti-evangelicalism out there. It’s written by a secular Jew who really tries to understand.
Siock and tired, you may believe that their policies and decisions are bad and destructive, but that gives you no justification for claiming that you know the intentions of their hearts. People may choose bad policies because of bad ideas honorable held. You have to assume that they must see it as you do and simply not care, but you have no right to make that assumption. You are guilty of judging their hearts, and this I say based upon what you have DONE. I don’t care what your intentions are. You are guilty of claiming to know what you can’t and judging others by that. Shall you be judged by the same standard?
So Chris, is it impossible to know the motivation of the bank robber as he enters the bank with his mask on, waves a pistol in your face, and demands all the cash? I think that it would be reasonable to assume, based on observable facts, the motivation of the bank robber is to get the money. It is reasonable to assume that he intends to intimidate, hence the pistol waved in your face. It is even reasonable to assume that if he shoots someone else, he may be willing to shoot you too.
I don’t assume that the PNAC crowd see things as I do. I assume that the PNAC crowd has an even better vantage point than I do. They have been better educated. They have had access to intelligence reports that I have not had. They know the budget better than I do. They actually received the requests from the desperate men in the field.
Having said all that, it is an objective fact that defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld denied M113 armored personnel carriers to troops on the ground while their commanders were urgently requesting them, they were available, they were local, and they were cheaper to put into the conflict than the Humvees. Why would anyone ignore experts to purchase at a greater cost something that will not work as well and something that is proven to enable great hurt to many people? When questioned by a soldier in Iraq about the problem of inadequate armor protection, Mr. Rumsfeld famously replied that, “As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want,” Why would he say that to soldiers forced to search junk yards for scrap metal to try to improve the armor on their vehicles with…when he knew there were 700 armored personnel carriers just sitting in Kuwait? The M113 is faster than a Bradley fighting vehicle, more maneuverable than a Stryker or a Humvee, better armored than a Stryker or a Humvee, more reliable, more survivable, carries more troops, requires no extensive training, is air droppable, can be more readily air transported, and costs less. What possible motive could someone have for ignoring all these facts to spend more money and serve the troops worse? You tell me.
You may criticize me and judge me for judging their motives all you like. It does not require psychic powers to determine motivation. Either they were complete idiots, and the evidence does not bear that out [they are smart, capable, educated men], or they betrayed those they served. What would be the motivation for such betrayal? There is an ancient axiom, quo bono, which is used to determine things like this. Who profited?
There is also the matter of intransigence for years in the face of mounting casualties and urgent requests from the field commanders. This was no momentary lapse of judgment. It was pernicious and extended, which leads me to conclude they had a complete disregard for the hurts, traumatic amputations, mutilations, brain injuries, and deaths attributable to the continued required use of demonstrably inferior equipment…when better equipment was in theater, viable, and cheaper.
If a man with a swastika tattooed on his forehead desecrates a Jewish cemetery with anti-Semitic graffiti, do you think his motivation and the condition of his heart are indiscernible? Were his intentions inscrutable? Sure, I may not know the state of his soul in relationship to God, and I would not presume to judge him in that way. I would however, reasonably conclude that he was motivated by hatred of Jewish people. By the same token, I do not presume to judge the relationship members of PNAC have with God. It is, however, perfectly reasonable to draw conclusions about their motivation based on their actions.
Ok, I am done on this. I did not mean to hijack the thread. Back to the subject…I like Sarah Palin and think I will be voting for her in the election. I am an evangelical that was not intending to vote for the McCain ticket.
So Chris, is it impossible to know the motivation of the bank robber as he enters the bank with his mask on, waves a pistol in your face, and demands all the cash?
Who cares about the motivation? It is the deeds of waving the gun in your face that is the issue. The only intent that really matters is if he actually chose to do it. That is what I am talking about. You are judging their intents, but you can’t know them. I don’t need to wonder about the motivations of a man desecrating a tomb. His act is evil enough. It is a dangerous, and I think cowardly, argument that seeks to look at “intent” when the argument against the act isn’t enough to justify condemnation.
You can only judge others for what they DO, not for why you think they do them. That is God’s job, not yours and not mine. Argue all you want that their ACTIONS are wrong and destructive. That’s fine. But you cross a clear moral dividing line when you go beyond that and assume evil intent for the purposes of your argument. I don’t give a damn about your intentions but I know that thataction in itself is wicked. Maybe you do it because you think you have a right to judge others at that level. Maybe you do it out of natural foolishness belief that you are capable of knowing the intentions of the hearts of people you don’t know and who operate in situations that you only understand second and third hand through news reports and maybe the analysis of partisan reporters. Maybe your righteous anger against a known evil has caused you to skip the moral due processes that would give those with whom you disagree a pressumption of honesty, or at the very least of honest error, and instead have labled them as intentionally wicked because it is convenient to have a simple explanation for the world’s wickedness. It doesn’t matter. The deed is bad enough. Only you know your heart. Only I know mine. And only they know their hearts. And God knows our all hearts better than any of us.
You may think “It does not require psychic powers to determine motivation”, and you’d be right. It only takes a judgmental arrogance and a refusal to behave with a Christian humility and charity.
In response to the question: pretty much how they have been voting in the past — for the most conservative candidate who they believe has a chance of being elected.
The MSM’s vain attempts to create a false story only causes more and more Americans to lose trust for them. And that’s going to be one of the big stories of this season — as one of my friends pointed out today: “we’re seeing yet another chunk of the shoreline slide into the sea in terms of the MSM’s influence and credibility.”
#21 The WSJ Saturday edition had a great essay by Lee Siegel on your question and this general theme. Siegel’s answer is [i]for Republicans, because Democrats haven’t a clue about the nexus of culture and politics[/i]. Siegel’s proofs were apt:
1. If you think that culture = Mozart whereas politics = socio-economic policies and never the twain will meet (except on NPR), then you are a liberal.
2. If you think that culture = politics plus a lot of other stuff (including church) because it is all the same mess, then you are a conservative.
Only the Republicans speak towards the second group. Not that Democrats cannot, they just don’t.