home

A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity

by TChris

An evangelical Christian, Randall Balmer, takes a thoughtful look at the relationship between evangelical Christianity and the Republican party. Among other questions raised in his essay, Jesus Is Not a Republican, Balmer asks why the religious right hasn't taken a stand against the Bush administration's reliance on torture.

Surely, I thought, this is one issue that would allow the religious right to demonstrate its independence from the administration, for surely no one who calls himself a child of God or who professes to hear "fetal screams" could possibly countenance the use of torture. Although I didn't really expect that the religious right would climb out of the Republican Party's cozy bed over the torture of human beings, I thought perhaps they might poke out a foot and maybe wiggle a toe or two.

I was wrong. Of the eight religious-right organizations I contacted, only two, the Family Research Council and the Institute on Religion and Democracy, answered my query. Both were eager to defend administration policies.

Balmer's conception of Christianity differs from that promoted by right-wing evangelists.

I went to Sunday school nearly every week of my childhood. But I must have been absent the day they told us that the followers of Jesus were obliged to secure even greater economic advantages for the affluent, to deprive those Jesus called "the least of these" of a living wage, and to despoil the environment by sacrificing it on the altar of free enterprise. I missed the lesson telling me that I should turn a blind eye to the suffering of others, even those designated as my enemies.

Balmer fears that evangelical Christians, intoxicated by the power they wield within the Republican party, are promoting "the kind of homogeneous theocracy that the Puritans tried to establish in 17th-century Massachusetts" in order "to impose their vision of a moral order on all of society."

One reading of the religious right is that many evangelicals believed that their faith could no longer compete in the new, expanded religious marketplace. No wonder the religious right wants to renege on the First Amendment. No wonder the religious right seeks to encode its version of morality into civil and criminal law. No wonder the religious right wants to emblazon its religious creeds and symbols on public property. Faced now with a newly expanded religious marketplace, it wants to change the rules of engagement so that evangelicals can enjoy a competitive advantage. Rather than gear up for new competition, as Beecher did in the 19th century, the religious right seeks to use the machinations of government and public policy to impose its vision of a theocratic order. ...

As I argued in my testimony as an expert witness in the Alabama Ten Commandments case, religion has prospered in this country precisely because the government has stayed out of the religion business. The tireless efforts on the part of the religious right to eviscerate the First Amendment in the interests of imposing its own theocratic vision ultimately demeans the faith even as it undermines the foundations of a democratic order that thrives on pluralism.

The entire essay, ending with a call for tolerance of diversity and pluralism, is well worth reading.

< Employees Voice Concerns at U.S. Embassy in Iraq | Jersey City Mayor Alleges Police Abused Him >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 08:47:19 AM EST
    People can justify just about anything to themselves...

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#2)
    by Punchy on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 09:00:16 AM EST
    It LONG ago stopped being about "religion" and "Christianity" and is now 100% about power. They back the WH's views on torture b/c the WH gives them POWER. Anger the WH? Kiss these fed dollars, fed programs, and late-night meetings with Bush goodbye. This:
    Balmer fears that evangelical Christians, intoxicated by the power they wield within the Republican party, are promoting "the kind of homogeneous theocracy that the Puritans tried to establish in 17th-century Massachusetts" in order "to impose their vision of a moral order on all of society."
    could NOT have been better stated. That is exactly what they want. Homogeneous theocracy. For all the Jews and various "brown religions", see ya.

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#3)
    by Richard Aubrey on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 09:27:40 AM EST
    I suspect the real reason for not complaining about the Bush administration's dependence on torture is that they know it's a flat-ass lie. We've been over this ground before and discovered that all you have to go on is skim milk. The infamous memos do not claim what you claim, the techniques documented are not torture, and all in all, it's just crap. So when there's nothing to complain about, not complaining about it seems like the right course.

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 09:42:10 AM EST
    Or maybe the jesus-patrol is in denial like Richard.

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#5)
    by desertswine on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 09:48:11 AM EST
    Smashing a guy to death in a sleeping bag looks like torture to me.

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#6)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 10:02:46 AM EST
    The group of Fundamental Christians that are the most vocal in support of Bush and have worked hard to acquire political power have been referred to as Dominionists.
    Its most common form, Dominionism, represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christianity thought. Its followers, called Dominionists, are attempting to peacefully convert the laws of United States so that they match those of the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to achieve this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order. One of the first tasks of this order will be to eliminate religious choice and freedom. Their eventual goal is to achieve the "Kingdom of God" in which much of the world is converted to Christianity.
    For an overview of the inroads Dominionism has made in US government see here For an example of its influence on the state level see the Ohio Restoration Project
    A fundamentalist congregation in Ohio is spearheading a right-wing Christian drive to dominate politics in the Buckeye State. Fairfield Christian Church of Lancaster has an ambition so great that it caught the attention of The New York Times, which recently reported that the church and its allies are "mounting a campaign to win control of local government posts and Republican organizations, starting with the 2006 governor's race."
    Note not all fundamentalists share these views. Some have split because of a sharp disagreement on the enviornment for example. But the movement has taken over the SBC and other religious organizations. The goals of the dominionists mesh with the goals of the Rethugs currently in office. There is a new book out "Kingdom Coming: The rise of Christian nationalism" by Michele Goldberg that is a must read for those interested in this important topic.

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#7)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 10:19:47 AM EST
    Various religious groups are fighting back to varying degrees see here, but the Dems dont seem to be interested in capitalizing on this.

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#8)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 10:29:04 AM EST
    progress is being made in the "exit strategy" by christian fundamentalist from public school.

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#9)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 10:33:28 AM EST
    Digby brings our attention to the recent "Battle Cry" rally in Philadelphia, where a crowd of about 25,000 -- mostly teenagers and young adults -- pledged their fealty to a vision of a theocratic Christian nation. This pledge was obtained, mostly, by scaring the crap out of them, That was clear from this
    link

    There is an oft-quoted axiom, attributed to some long dead wise-person.....those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Ifn yu want to understand Christianity in America, yu need to research the history and most especially tha Puritan/Baptist connection. Here's a good website to start yall down tha road to enlightenment http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/puritans.htm . Something to remember, tha Puritans said they emigrated to tha colonies to escape persecution, but if yu go and research tha histories of England and tha Netherlands - they weren't persecuted - they were exiled, kicked out, banished, told to pack up and hit tha road. The only country that hasn't kicked them out----is our country, U.S.of A. and perhaps our ancestors should have. Because one of tha 1st things tha Puritans/Pilgrims did was to Bite tha Indian Hand that fed them. Read tha Pilgrim histories of tha conversion of tha Indians to Pilgrim morals. Pilgrims lynched Indians w/o trials that didn't comply. So I ask, is it any wonder that tha decendants of tha Pilgrim evangelicals should be any less hardcore theocratic? Oh yeah, this is cute, while tha Puritans were in power in Olde England, they outlawed tha celebration of Christmas. In discussions I've been a part of, many are of tha opinion that tha Puritans are a death cult, i.e. they worship tha death of Christ, not his birth and life. Ever notice how enthralled modern evangelicals are with tha last Book of tha Bible?

    Richard:
    We've been over this ground before and discovered that all you have to go on is skim milk. The infamous memos do not claim what you claim, the techniques documented are not torture, and all in all, it's just crap.
    Yes, we know. And treason is patriotism, and attacking our rights is defending them. And black is white, and what's wrong is really right. We've got used to hearing these arguments from the so-called "right". What a misnomer that turns out to be. Now to cap it all, hatred and intolerance are being presented as Christianity. That's shameful.

    first of all not all "evangelicals" support bush, i dont, second of all the USA hasnt tortured anyone i know u all who hate america are quick to believe what our enemy puts out there that is actually in their training manual to make false allegations of torture cause they know the power of the media, those suicides in cuba were a part of they psy war strategy. and of course jesus is not a republican he isnt a liberal hippie either

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 01:53:21 PM EST
    zab - If beating or smothering someone to death, or sticking a halogen bulb up in 'em isnt torture, what is it?

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 02:08:52 PM EST
    I mean, mean aside from skills that might earn you a Whitehouse press pass?

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#15)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 02:34:49 PM EST
    Depends on the branch of Islam. What's your remedy, kill 'em all and let Pat Robertson sort 'em out?

    Is ANY religion less tolerant than Islam?
    It's a matter of degrees, but what I've seen lately suggests that certain Christian cultists could give the mad mullahs a run for their money. I only wish the most hardcore on both sides (those that justify torture and killing) could kill eachother off for good. Dear God, please protect us from those who believe in you.

    No, but my remedy starts with recognizing that there IS a threat that is much greater than the threat from the very small number of nutball Christian extremists.
    The relatively small number of nutballs you refer to is more than offset by the fact that they have considerable pull with those that currently have control of the U.S. military, including the nuclear arsenal.

    The wack-o's that brought us 9-11 could care less about the average American. They simply want to scare those in power. I say, let them. I'd be happy to give them the keys to every gated community in America. Leave the 99% of us who actually work for a living alone. Let them have the run of the White House for a night, I mean, it ain't like it is the original White House, for Christ's sake. Nothing I have read states that "they" want to change our government or the way we live. All they want is to change the way we abuse 3rd world countries. If we need a Jonah to sacrifice, we have at least one Goldberg and one Hitchens. Toss 'em.

    Sky-Ho:
    The wack-o's that brought us 9-11 could care less about the average American.

    They simply want to scare those in power.
    Close, but you've got the details wrong. You're right that the wackos that brought us 9-11 could care less about the average American. But they already have the power, and their plan for increasing their power was by scaring the average American.

    that brings me to the question that has never been answered: Do we stop supporting Israel? They will,of course, be wiped off the face of the Erath without our support.
    They have about 400 nukes, I think they can fend for themselves.

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 07:03:55 AM EST
    Sky-Ho wrote:
    I say, let them. I'd be happy to give them the keys to every gated community in America. Leave the 99% of us who actually work for a living alone.
    In a previous comment you claimed to have been in a position to know things the rest of us do not. I now understand why your claim was in the past tense. You also write:
    Nothing I have read states that "they" want to change our government or the way we live. All they want is to change the way we abuse 3rd world countries. If we need a Jonah to sacrifice, we have at least one Goldberg and one Hitchens. Toss 'em.
    Don't you think advocating physical harm to someone is a bit over the line BTW - Here is what OBL said to Peter Arnett in 3/97.
    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ? .....So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world
    The above says it plain. Even if we withdraw, we must then let the Moslems do as they want through out the "whole world." And then we have this about the "average American."
    As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge
    Read and learn, Sky-Ho. Your education is sorely lacking.

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#22)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 07:26:51 AM EST
    Jondee, et al. The original point was the Bush Administration depending on torture. BS. Isolated incidents are both regrettable and demonstrably against policy--see courts martial. My point was, more than a year ago, that when you tried to punch up the numbers by hauling in naked twister and panty-heading, and fake menstrual blood, reasonable people would begin to think you're lying. Which, of course, you were and are. So, even if you had evidence, nobody would bother with you because you've already proven you have no credibility and will lie at any point to make a case. The boy who cried wolf is a lesson from thousands of years ago FOR A REASON. If you'd kept it real, people might be paying attention now.

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#23)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 07:36:39 AM EST
    PPJ - your continued effort to peddle that one line from anOBL speech that you parse incorreclty is freakin amazing.
    It often comes as a surprise to people to discover that bin Laden has never claimed that al-Qaeda can or would defeat the US, much less that al-Qaeda's goal was to destroy the "American way of life" or "Western civilization". He is not a man given to grandiose pronouncements and has limited his goal to incrementally increasing the pain inflicted on the US and its allies to force them to disengage from the Middle East to the greatest extent possible.
    LINK Michael Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004. He served as the chief of the bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. I guess if I had a choice of believing a hack like you or this guy, you lose.

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#24)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 07:38:48 AM EST
    RA - pathological denial is not healthy. BTW can you back up that quote I asked you about or not, I didn't think so.

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 07:42:49 AM EST
    TChris - I suppose it is possible to say that Balmer is "An evangelical Christian," if you assume that he is prone to define is own views and understanding of the Bible as compared to other sects. But what you leave out is the words "far left wing." Now that doesn't make him bad. But it does explain and clarify his position on various points, and his attacks on other sects. Punchy writes:
    It LONG ago stopped being about "religion" and "Christianity" and is now 100% about power. They back the WH's views on torture b/c the WH gives them POWER.
    First, please tell me what "power" does the WH give them? I mean, please be specific. Frankly, I see none. Secondly, how does torture come into this? Only because Balmer claims that the religious right supports what he falsely claims as the administration's position on torture. As for his use of the Right's position on abortion to decry his unproven allegations about their position on torture, the Right can easily ask: How can the Left condemn torture yet support the killing of unborn children? (And before anyone gets into a tizzy, I do support a woman's right to choose.) et al - Balmer has done the usual. He has described his opposition and attacked his description. Clever, but not unusal. Ernesto writes:
    It's a matter of degrees, but what I've seen lately suggests that certain Christian cultists could give the mad mullahs a run for their money.
    And who might these be, Ernesto? Come, don't be shy. After all, you can hide behind "suggests."

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 07:46:02 AM EST
    Soccerdad, These guys remind me of an old Paul Simon song. ;-)
    See how he dances
    See how he loops from side to side
    See how he prances
    The way his hooves just seem to glide
    Hes just a one trick pony (thats all he is)


    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 07:47:00 AM EST
    SD - Believe who you wish. As for the CIA's record on OBL and the ME, I think the (lack of) results speak for itself. And I continue to find it laughable that when confronted with the stark plain truth of what OBL said speaks for itself you try to duck and hide. Too bad your source never read it.

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 07:51:35 AM EST
    edger - And you guys remind me of a friend of mine who carefully told me that the first and second diagnosis of cancer in his lungs was wrong.

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#29)
    by Peaches on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 08:08:23 AM EST
    et al - Balmer has done the usual. He has described his opposition and attacked his description. Clever, but not unusal.
    Jim, I am going to point out the obvious that this is exactly what you do also. But, to be fair, it is also what I do and many others here, too. It is not only clever, but perfectly acceptable in argument when attempting to influence opinions through rhetorical persuasion. Some do it very well and their descriptions appear to be accurate so their attacks come accross as justified. Others do not do so well. At times, you have done it well. At other times your descriptions are not accurate or believable. From my position, Balmers descriptions were accurate, but then again, I share many of his views, so he is preaching to the choir. Whenever two opposing views on a topic meet each side attempts to shift the grounds for discussion to support one's position. Balmers has done the usual-the question is, has he done it persuasively? The answer to that will come from his fellow evangelicals and his influence amonst the rank and file.

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#30)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 08:45:19 AM EST
    How do you know he didn't read it. I've read it. It doesn't say what you claim it does, at least without twisting the conventional meaning of words into pretzels. if your interpretation of what OBL said is indeed true than it should be relatively easy to find confirming quotes from many of his other speeches. so why dont you confirm it. We've gone down this road many times and your continued intellectual dishonesty on this is a matter of record and therefore not surprising.

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 08:53:51 AM EST
    How can the Left condemn torture yet support the killing of unborn children? (And before anyone gets into a tizzy, I do support a woman's right to choose.)
    And, in keeping with full disclosure, tizzy prevention etc, ppj supports torture as well.

    Re: A Dissenting View of Evangelical Christianity (none / 0) (#33)
    by Dadler on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 11:19:09 AM EST
    Jim, Tortured prisoners are not INSIDE a woman's body at various stages of development, and therefore are not PART of her body as a fetus is.

    First - Sky-Ho said: Let them have the run of the White House for a night, I mean, it ain't like it is the original White House, for Christ's sake. I take objection to this statement out of pride of accomplishment. It is tha original walls and some of tha wood is also original. How do I know? After tha Brits burned it in 1814, my family cut and milled tha old growth northen hemlocks that so many Presidents walked over. Until tha 50s that is, when they put steel beams in tha floors. So tha WH is still an original American House SkyHo. As to my previous post, I was only pointing out that tha American version of Christianity seems to be of a more Crusader theology, hmmmmm I wonder.....do yall think that it is possible? Could the Templars have hidden themselves from history as Puritans?

    And who might these be, Ernesto? Come, don't be shy. After all, you can hide behind "suggests."
    Pat "Hey, Let's Kill Chavez" Robertson for one. He only wishes people would take his fatwas seriously.