• Marccooper5_1

Back To Home Page

« How Do We Know What We Say We Know? | Main | "Business Is Good" »

Tuesday, October 11, 2005


Anthony Nassar

NeoDude, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. "Evangelical" and "fundamentalist" apply to totally different movements within American Protestantism, as you could easily determine by looking the words up, e.g. at Wikipedia, which would cost you less time than reading my posting. That they may overlap sometimes, or even often, is irrelevant. One is not a front for the other.

Rick Warren is certainly an evangelical, and he is certainly quite "liberal" w/r/t his concern for the poor and displaced. The Purpose-Driven Life is in no sense fundamentalist. A book that sells 25 million copies can fairly be taken as representative of evangelicalism. Nothing about the end days there! Nothing about millenial dispensationalism! Nothing about Biblical literalism!


Evangelical has become code for fundamentalist.

Dr. Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and most of the charismatic fundamentalist evangelicals and plain old Reformed fundamentalist evangelicals, I grew up around, have dropped their public use of the word “fundamentalist” for just plain old harmless “evangelical”.

I agree, they are not theologically identical…EXCEPT in the American political scene.

Most Christians on the Left DO identify with “evangelical” but when Bush uses it to tell his base that she is like them or when Dobsen and Falwel are throwing it around, they are not being students of theology…I assure you the Fundies are not reading “evangelical” as astute students of theology and Christian history.

Evangelical, IS code word for Fundie.

"Born-Again" and "Judeo-Christian" have taken on new meaning in the right-wing American Proestant world.


And if Marx is right, and religion is the opiate of the masses...well then...the last thing you want to do is get between a dope-fiend and his dope.

Or at least be very wise as to how you get between them.

Mavis Beacon

NeoDude, I think you're falling for a political ploy. Evangelicals are a large group and fundamentalists are a much smaller one. If you identify fundamentalists as evangelicals, you'll be doing them a favor by enlarging the number of people who identify with them. So while Robertson, Dobson, and the like would love to drop the fundamentalist label and be known only as evangelicals, I don't think we should do them that favor.


Sorry, its already been done.

Like LIberal. Many Libertarians are pissed that "liberal" has become associated with Leftist/Socialist. It is not...but in the American poltical landscape...it is.

I wish more folks were aware of words in their political, theological, philosophical context...but they are not...I have to use my words within the context that they are givin' to me...and Evengelical has morphed into fundie.

Mainline Protestants may dominate the academic world of American theology...but they don't sell books in the Malls of America and have 24 hour shows, like the 700 Club or TBN.

Evangelical has been co-opted.

It already happened.

Michael Turner

Google News, on "evangelical". What do I find? On the very first page, a story about a social-justice crusading evangelical, another about the Evangelical Lutheran church (quite liberal, my father was married to one for a while), and quite a few stories qualifying "evangelical" with "conservative" in stories about Miers. Why the qualification, NeoDude? Because without it, it's INACCURATE. Just because your language is sloppy (no, "liberal" is not synonymous with "leftist/socialist"), doesn't mean everyone else must be infected.


Marc...I detest fundamentalism as much as anyone, but it's also evident to me that you have "intellectual weakness" confused with "human vulnerability". Change the "all" in your sentence to "most" and I can't argue with you. Beyond that, I'd suggest you relate to religion on the basis of the questions asked, not the answers we get from the usual suspects. Anyone, including you, who thinks that pure intellect is suffiicient to explain or sustain the sum of their behavior and beliefs is kidding themselves.

GM Roper

What Reg just said.


So, when Rush Limbaugh and O’Reily keep blaming the disease of liberalism for the corruption of America, they are referring to Herbert Spencer and Adam Smith?

Newt Gingrich may have used the word "liberalism" to mean one thing in his history classes, but I assure you that when he used "liberalism" in the political arena, it had another meaning.

Evangelical and Born-Again has done the same thing, in the political arena. It has replaced fundamentalist…they use words like “evangelical” and “originalist” to hide “fundamentalism” and Hard Right.


"What Reg just said."

GMR - Have you considered copying that onto one of your computer's macroKeys, just to save yourself the time and trouble of typing it all the time.


Found this at Atrios':

On today’s “700 Club” broadcast, the Rev. Pat Robertson responded to criticism from the Right regarding the Miers nomination and also offered a stern warning to those conservative senators who might be thinking of voting against her. Rev. Robertson suggested that people should look at who is supporting Miers before they doubt her conservative credentials. He named James Dobson, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Jay Sekulow of the Robertson-founded American Center for Law and Justice, and himself as proof of support for Miers’ nomination from the Right. Robertson concluded by noting: “These so-called movement conservatives don’t have much of a following, the ones that I’m aware of. And you just marvel, these are the senators, some of them who voted to confirm the general counsel of the ACLU to the Supreme Court, and she was voted in almost unanimously. And you say, ‘now they’re going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative President and they’re going to vote against her for confirmation.’ Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office.”


Marc says that people who criticise Hitchens in this trhead are supporting Myers, but that plainly is not true. They have only shown, as Dennis Perrin shows, that Hitchens' logic is terribly sloppy and what he has said in the past that contradicts him is conveniently forgotten by him and his defenders like Cooper, Totten, etc.
God though I'd love to see Hitchens not be afraid of debating Perrin, that would be one interesting debate.


Damn Reg, can't accept a compliment?.... besides, it happens so very damn rarely I wouldn't be able to remember which macro key to use.

You are so damnably predictable reg. I note when I think you make a fair or correct statement and you get snarky.

From now on, when you say something reasonable (which in the year plus I've been coming here is only two or three times to my recollection - not often given the number of times you get diarrhea of the keyboards as it were.) I'll ignore it. Fair enough?

GM Roper

Whoops, that was me... for some reason I started to reply to the reg in the name field... my bad!


Jeeez...that was a joke...based on "what you said", i.e. "it happens so very damn rarely"...wasn't trying to be mean. Thought it was harmless irony dipped in mild sarcasm and - possibly - a tad humorous.

Randy Paul


Just for the record, I'm a regular mass-attending Catholic who wishes my church would return to the John XXIII era. My view tends to be more ecumenical probably because of the history of my ancestors: Huguenots fleeing Catherine de Medici,Irish fleeing the Famine, Jews fleeing the Cossacks, Bolsheviks and later, bigots in Georgia (my father changed his name from Polsky to Paul before moving to Southern Georgia in the 1930's).

As for "weakness", Marc, I certainly doubt that a lot of those who were grateful for the existence of the Comite Pro Paz followed by the Vicaria de la Solidaridad in Chile after Pinochet regard Cardinal Silva as very "weak."

What I do object to is those who abuse religion. All too many use it as a mirror to reflect their own preconceptions back at them. The president would do well to read Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae, especially the parts about pride. I think the best thing that Woody Allen has ever written is Frederick's line from Hannah & Her Sisters: "If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in His name, He'd never stop throwing up."

As for this line of yours, Marc:

"All of these great leftists ready to damn the Christian Right until Hitchens comes out and bashes them.. all of a sudden time to turn spiritual."

Give me a frigging break! If Hitchens didn't realize that his support of Bush meant that he ended up supporting the whole package including the package that is beholden to the Protestant-fundamentalist right, then he's only fooling himself.

(I'll start calling them Christian when they start quoting The Gospel According to Matthew, Chapter 6, verses 5 & 6)

Please don't criticize me for pointing out Hitchens inability to think through his vigorous support of Bush and that it could lead to unintended consequences. What the hell was he expecting?

richard lo cicero

I think the Democrats are wise in not saying much now except "let's wait for the Hearings", as Sen. Leahy told Stephanopolis last Sunday. I believe, in the end, most will vote against confirmation. And by not speaking now they will look reasoned. Not knee-jerk in their judgement like the fundies in the GOP. Anyway that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

GM Roper

Reg, re-reading I see your joke. I apologize for the dig!


"re-reading I see your joke" - Could you put the knife in any deeper ? You really know how to hurt a guy. Nothing worse than having to explain one's attempts at humor...

(kidding...oooops, had to do it again!)

GM Roper

Reg.... now I have to wipe the coffee off of my monitor... ;-)

The comments to this entry are closed.