Evangelicals are not happy with the GOP

[charby]

Having been on the inside, I would disagree with that, and so does the OP article.

Oh boy here we go again. Tallpine prepare yourself to be tarred and feathered in 3,2,1......

[cordex]

There are a LOT of evangelicals in this country.  Most of them don't want a theocracy. 

Well, we've recently seen here on APS that "theocracy" can have a pretty broad definition depending on who is speaking.

[Balog]

Where did I ever say that 

Well, you made a blanket statement about what "most" evangelicals want, and backed that up with the assertion that you've "been on the inside."

Since I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't use an experience with a tiny fraction of a group to justify making inflammatory comments about the entire group, the only explanation would be that you've "been inside" most evangelical churches. The alternative (which I'm sure you'd never do, of course) is the same as me using my experience at a friend's wedding with a gay DJ who stole the groom's iphone to claim that "most" homosexuals are thieves.

[MechAg94]

I grew in a pretty conservative non-denominational Church.  I still considered it evangelical since they talk about witnessing to non-believers to some extent.  I guess it depends on your definition of the word.  That said, I don't go to a mega-Church and really don't want to have anything to do with them.  If I visit a Church and see a rock band setting up for the service, I really want to just walk back out.  I rarely hear of one getting political though (considering how many thousands there are). 

Now if you are talking about individuals getting into the "there ought to be a law" mind set, I would agree that there is a healthy percentage of those people.  I just don't know if it is a majority.  However, if you equate that with wanting a theocracy, I think you are stretching things a whole lot.

[Tallpine]

Now if you are talking about individuals getting into the "there ought to be a law" mind set, I would agree that there is a healthy percentage of those people.  I just don't know if it is a majority.  However, if you equate that with wanting a theocracy, I think you are stretching things a whole lot.

It's just a matter of degree.  Let's ban one thing and then another and another ...

Basically 100% of my sample leans in that direction (let's use government to enforce "God's law" - presumably because he needs help    ).

I think most here would agree that anyone that wants the .gov to take money by force from productive citizens and give it to some "needy" persons would qualify as a "socialist."

[Balog]

It's just a matter of degree.  Let's ban one thing and then another and another ...

Basically 100% of my sample leans in that direction (let's use government to enforce "God's law" - presumably because he needs help    ).

I think most here would agree that anyone that wants the .gov to take money by force from productive citizens and give it to some "needy" persons would qualify as a "socialist."

Your sample being what, a few hundred out of several million?

Also, close to %100 of everyone in America wants the .gov to take money from one group and give it to another. All that changes is the groups who are giving and receiving. Look at our threads on farm subsidies etc. Even among folks who profess how small .gov conservative they are, there's generally at least one or two places where they are not ideologically consistent.

[Hawkmoon]

Also, close to %100 of everyone in America wants the .gov to take money from one group and give it to another.

So you jump on Tallpine/Grumpy for extrapolating, then you follow up with a statistic that almost certainly had to come out of thin air. Where has there ever been any sort of legitimate study or poll showing that "close to %100 of everyone in America" wants the government to redistribute their alleged "wealth"?

My guess is that it's a lot closer to 0% than it is to 100%.

[cordex]

Where has there ever been any sort of legitimate study or poll showing that "close to %100 of everyone in America" wants the government to redistribute their alleged "wealth"?

I think we call those polls "elections".

My guess is that it's a lot closer to 0% than it is to 100%.

Very few want to give up their money, but plenty want to give up others cash. And some are willing to profess willingness to give up their own dollars for certain things. For some people that is welfare, for others it is  a strong military, for still others it is environmental enforcement, and others want to pay for drug control.

[Balog]

So you jump on Tallpine/Grumpy for extrapolating, then you follow up with a statistic that almost certainly had to come out of thin air. Where has there ever been any sort of legitimate study or poll showing that "close to %100 of everyone in America" wants the government to redistribute their alleged "wealth"?

My guess is that it's a lot closer to 0% than it is to 100%.

1. I pointed out how silly it is to smear a group composed of many millions of people based on claims of personal experience, when that personal experience consists of what is probably a few dozen people.
2. If one defines "theocracy" as loosely as charby/tallpine et al seem to be, then I get to define what counts as desire to redistribute wealth just as loosely. let's start with "anything outside of the most strict duties defined in the Constitution ie common defense, regulating inter-state trade, and a justice system.
3. So why do I say almost everyone wants to redistribute wealth in one way or the other? First, let's assume that "almost %100" is roughly synonymous with "around %99" which allows roughly %1 opposition or over 3 million people. So, between all the people who support some shape or form of welfare, corporate bailouts, farm subsidies, energy subsidies, public schools, public libraries, any level of public support for anything to do with health insurance or healthcare, keeping useless .mil bases open because of their positive effect on the local economy, buying sub-standard or unneeded products because they're "made in America!", tariffs, student loans, SBA loans, FDIC guarantees, promoting research, foreign aid, and a million more then yes almost everyone supports at least one program that takes wealth from one group and gives it to another. Principled anarchists are basically the only ones who don't, and there are significant schisms in the anarchist community over that point.

It's really easy to say "I don't want the .gov to redistribute wealth" as a general principle, but if you drill down into everything .gov does there's generally at least one area that even the most libertarian person supports.

ETA Which is why no candidate has ever been elected (at least above the local level) on a principled, detailed, "let's cut off all .gov spending that is not explicitly needed for the limited roles described in the CotUS.

[Tallpine]

Reply to Balog:

1. No smear intended.  I think a lot of them would agree with my assessment and be proud of it.

2. I like your definition 

3. Great, so I'm in the 1% now    There are .gov expenditures which basically benefit everyone, such as roads and fire protection, though even those might be better handled privately.

[vaskidmark]

You've been on the inside of most evangelical churches in America? That's impressive.

Where did I ever say that 

Even I could understand that you were admitting to having been part of the core conspiracy of the evangelical theocracy cabal.

You could at least have told us if they have cookies.

stay safe.

[charby]

You could at least have told us if they have cookies

[Tallpine]

Even I could understand that you were admitting to having been part of the core conspiracy of the evangelical theocracy cabal.

I escaped, or defected, or something ....   

[Perd Hapley]

Of all the possible picks for spokesperson for evangelicals, they came up with

[leader at mid-4-figures church]

Call me back when you get the head of one of those super-churches that pack 6 figures through their multiple seatings (only because the damned NFL insists on using those stadiums (yes I know it should be stadia) on Sundays).  And that's not counting the folks that are glued to the simulcast.

stay safe.

Not sure if serious. A church with thousands of members is very large, as churches go. The largest congregation in the United States is supposed to be Joel Osteen's, and he apparently has fewer than 50,000. http://www.sermoncentral.com/articleb.asp?article=Top-100-Largest-Churches

According to this website, most churches don't crack 3 figures, and most believers attend such churches. However, according to this PDF, the largest 10% of churches contain half the worshipers.

[grampster]

The notion that there is some sort of political group called Evangelicals is a myth created by the political class and their servants in the media.  It is a demonizing propaganda tool.  Pun intended. 

There are people of faith and they come in a vast array of opinion or non opinion.  This mythical group is similar to the portrait painted by the same Usual Suspects that demonize another non existent group called the Tea Party.  These definitions come from the same source that created the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" and the "Silent Majority".

It is amusing to see how easily manipulated the sheep are.

[lee n. field]

The notion that there is some sort of political group called Evangelicals is a myth created by the political class and their servants in the media.  It is a demonizing propaganda tool.  Pun intended. 

D. G. Hart, Deconstructing Evangelicalism

Good read.  Argues for the uselessness of the term "evangelical". 

There are people of faith and they come in a vast array of opinion or non opinion.  This mythical group is similar to the portrait painted by the same Usual Suspects that demonize another non existent group called the Tea Party.  These definitions come from the same source that created the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" and the "Silent Majority".

It is amusing to see how easily manipulated the sheep are.

I long ago grew tired of watching people's faces shut down.  I learned shut up about my politics in a church setting.   

[Tallpine]

^^^^  I once tried to get some sort of inter-church thing going and I remember how the Lutherans (IIRC) said that they don't have much to do with "evangelicals" whatever that meant to them. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I most often heard the term evangelical used as a self identifier


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Angel Eyes]

^^^^  I once tried to get some sort of inter-church thing going and I remember how the Lutherans (IIRC) said that they don't have much to do with "evangelicals" whatever that meant to them. 

Interesting.  I know Lutherans who consider themselves evangelical.

. . . and of course there is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (http://www.elca.org/)

[Perd Hapley]

Interesting.  I know Lutherans who consider themselves evangelical.

. . . and of course there is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (http://www.elca.org/)

If I remember correctly, the Lutherans were originally referred to as Evangelicals, about 500 years ago, but of course that is not how the term is being used today.

[Ron]

Seems at some point the term 'evangelical' started getting used as a descriptor that meant "we aren't as strict as fundamentalists but you still need to be saved".



 

[lee n. field]

Seems at some point the term 'evangelical' started getting used as a descriptor that meant "we aren't as strict as fundamentalists but you still need to be saved".

Bingo.  Darryl Hart's point in the book referenced above.  Modern evangelicalism is (per his historical work) a post WWII phenomenon, a bunch of people who didn't want to be lumped in with the mean fundamentalists.  Christianity Today, National Assoc. of Evangelicals, and that lot.

Here, BTW, is an excellent interview with him.  This stuff and a whole lot more: Darryl Hart, Being Faithful in a Secular World

[grampster]

In America where we are supposed to be Americans, we have an extremely boring proclivity to separate each other by assigning labels.   Sweeping statements lumping people into groups is generally wrong because the sweeper really has no idea what is going on in the mind of the person next to him, to say nothing about a real mindset of a so called group. 

My stereotyping statement in that regard is that people tend to act like particular groups when they are in the company of people who are also acting a part.  It is more likely if you got 100 people together under a certain banner, you might just find that only a handful were "true believers".  We want to be accepted more than we might agree with each other.

We have spent most of my lifetime, for example, dealing with racial stuff.  Fred on Everything a couple of days ago had an opinion on that which was particularly interesting, whether you agree or not.

The Ruling Class and the MSM (see I can label, too) needs this divisiveness which is called Celebrating Diversity.  Then of course, once "diversity" is well established, they begin to demonize it to further divide us.   

[Tallpine]

Seems at some point the term 'evangelical' started getting used as a descriptor that meant "we aren't as strict as fundamentalists but you still need to be saved".

I thought "evangelical" meant "any church that you might go to if you decided you wanted to go to church but weren't born/raised in that denomination" 

[Perd Hapley]

Seems at some point the term 'evangelical' started getting used as a descriptor that meant "we aren't as strict as fundamentalists but you still need to be saved".

Maybe for some people, but I see it predominately used to refer to those who aren't Catholic, and don't belong to an old-line, left-wing, Protestant denomination, or a more traditional outfit, like the Eastern Orthodox.