Evangelicals Branch Out Politically (social action SOTU watch parties)

[DeepModem Mom]

LAT: Evangelicals Branch Out Politically
A growing movement sees myriad causes beyond abortion and gay marriage. What about helping the poor and global warming?

By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer


Answering an evangelical call to arms, Christians will gather in communities across the nation tonight to watch President Bush's State of the Union address. They will invite local media to listen in as they measure Bush's policies against the moral values laid out in the Bible.

But don't expect a lot of applause for the president.

These "watch parties" are being organized by a small but growing movement of evangelical Christians who no longer want to be defined by gay marriage and abortion. Plumbing the Bible for God's priorities, they are talking instead about global warming and affordable housing, about fewer tax cuts for the rich and more food stamps for the poor.

"The typical image of evangelicals is that they're concerned with the sanctity of life, the traditional family and that's it — they buy the whole Republican agenda when they vote," said Ron Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action, a think tank based in Wynnewood, Pa.

Without giving up their opposition to abortion and gay marriage, "they're asking, what does God care about?" Sider said....


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-christians31jan31,0,6073368.story?coll=la-home-nation

[napi21]

1. Well, I sure don't intend to side with this crowd, but it would be

a very entertaining event IF they were to turn on Shrub AFTER he thought he gave them everything they wanted!

[saigon68]

12. "they're asking, what does God care about?

STOCK DIVIDENDS AND CORPORATE PROFITS IN THAT ORDER ----- ASK ANY NUTCASE FUNDY REPUKE

[ret5hd]

2. my only questions to them is...

1)"who did you vote for?"
2)"who ya gonna vote for next time?"

as long as they're concerned with a right-to-choose and who someone loves, it just sounds like a mind-numbing replay of "kinder, gentler" to me, their phony concern for the poor and the environment be damned.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Way to reach out to people starting to divorce themselves from the Repubs.

:applause:

Good to know we're putting strategy before anger or anything.

_{NOTE: This post is sarcastic.}

[Ian David]

11. They're still anti-choice and anti-gay

Even "liberal" Jim Wallis is against gay marriage (but favors Civil Unions).

The problem is that people who believe gays getting married will destroy civilization and a virgin was impregnated by an invisible man in the sky will also fall for GOP Orwelian double-speak like "Blue Skies Initiatiave" means cleaner air. And they'll fall for the fear tactics of the right-wing.

And the fact that these evangelical groups are still embracing the GOP fear-and-smear-the-queers strategy means they're still vulnerable to getting riled-up based on their own endemic ignorance.

"If I vote for the candidate who supports clean air and clean water and feeding the hungry, that means I'm voting to defile marriage and Gawd will condemn me to Hell for eternity! In Jeebus name I pray, give me guidance! DARKSIDED! DARKSIDED! EVERYTHING'S DARKSIDED!"

Note to Jim Wallis and other "Progressive" Evangelicals: YOU CAN NOT FREE THESE PEOPLE TO DO THE RIGHT THING UNTIL YOU FREE THEM FROM THE FEARMONGERING AND BIGOTRY FIRST! FEAR ALMOST ALWAYS WINS OVER SANITY!

[ret5hd]

14. they don't believe the "Blue Skies Initiatiave" means...

cleaner air...
they don't believe the "Healthy Forests Initiatiave" means stopping clear-cutting...

This is just a ploy to give those who voted Dem because of the environment and the poor but are also anti-choice and anti-gay-marriage, a way to vote Repug. A cynical ploy.

[sasha031]

3. i can remember the days when I could laugh at these freaks

I no longer laugh, they have succeeded in taking over our government

[sarcasmo]

5. This is just to scary. Reminds me to much of the Third Reich.

[54anickel]

6. WTF? Are they redefining Evangelical now? No disrespect to Wallis, I

enjoyed his book but I find many parts this article disturbing.

Evangelicals emerged as a potent political force in the late 1970s and early '80s with the Rev. Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" crusade on issues such as abortion, gay rights and school prayer.

Those campaigns made "evangelical" synonymous with "conservative" in the public eye. In fact, the term has nothing to do with politics. Evangelicals are Christians who have accepted Jesus as their savior (an experience often called being "born again") and who take the Bible as the word of God, to be faithfully obeyed.

I think the ECLA, for one, might disagree with that description.

Bush is an evangelical, as are Democratic former Presidents Carter and Clinton.

A decade ago, white evangelicals were fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Today, the group leans heavily Republican. White evangelicals make up 23% of the electorate; in the last election, 78% backed Bush, according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.


Has the division changed or has the definition changed? :wtf: First they taint the term Christian and now Evangelical.


http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Evangelical

Evangelical has several distinct meanings:

In its original sense, it means belonging or related to the Gospel (Greek: euangelion - good news) of the New Testament.

In the United States and the UK, it usually refers to adherents of Evangelicalism.

In mainland Europe, especially in the German speaking and nordic countries, Evangelical (evangelisch) is a general designation for churches adhering to beliefs of the Reformation, e.g. Evangelical Lutheran Church, Evangelical Reformed Church, or Evangelical Methodist Church, in contrast to Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. In this sense, it comprises everything from a liberal state church to a conservative free church in the Baptist or Pietist tradition.

However, in German there are now two words used which are commonly translated "Evangelical": "evangelisch" meaning Protestant, and more narrowly the Lutheran and Reformed churches, and "evangelikal", pertaining to Evangelicalism. In Austria, the United Lutheran and Reformed Church (Evangelische Kirche in Oesterreich) claims a monopoly on the former term and has in the past sued independent churches using the designation "evangelisch".

In non-Christian circles it means "of a tendancy to pursuade others to your views". Microsoft employs evangelists to get their customers excited about their products and technologies, such as Robert Scoble

[Ally McLesbian]

7. I have zero tolerance

for religions that REFUSE to coexist with people who disagree. And Christianity is the worst offender of all in this regard.

Even liberal Christianity makes me sick.

[peacetalksforall]

8. What is wrong with me? Why is there something way down that seems

to make me doubt? Is this another form of manipulation?

A test for me would be a feeling in my gut that this is a genuine awakening and the capper would be if they wished to set aside division centered on abortion and unite with all other Christians similarly concerned about the issues in this article, but who will fight against governmental intrusions in any form other than the laws that are on the books and are humanly enforced and that all new laws are advancements based on the expectations of honor and integrity of humans given a guarantee that the playing field will be one of justice and sincerity.

Until then... i will note their spokepeople and organizations and wait and see. I will be interested in knowing how they donate to politicians. I will be interested to see if they lead movements to put the ten commandments in public buildings or on public grounds.

On the other hand - if they adopt the Beatitudes .....

[AX10]

9. Is this sincere, or is this manipulation to bring more people into..

their ranks?

As long as they keep on attacking abortion rights and gay rights, they are still in the hands of the GOP.

i.e.;"Without giving up their opposition to abortion and gay marriage"

[Ian David]

10. "Most people's eyes glaze over when you start talking about billions...

"Most people's eyes glaze over when you start talking about billions and trillions of dollars," said American Family Assn. President Tim Wildmon. "Abortion? Gay marriage? Everyone understands that."

Stupid small-minded bigoted Jesus-nazis.

[IndianaGreen]

13. A Christian version of an Islamic Republic, how nice!

Too bad that the all-powerful and all-knowing God of theirs is totally incompetent when it comes to mine safety.

Keep burning incense at your religious icons, dumbasses!

[StoryTeller]

15. Some of these responses paint with too broad a brush!

First of all, I would be considered an Evangelical because of my theological beliefs. The term is a theological term, and it's a crying shame that it has become a political term because it really confuses the issue.

Second, I'd like all of you who have expressed such hatred of these people to remember that some of them are fellow DU members who work alongside you to bring changes to our country. Last I heard, liberals were supposed to be more accepting of a diverse range of beliefs. The evangelicals in this article aren't going around trying to force people to become Christians. They don't deserve to be characterized as if they are.

Third, it makes no sense at all to say that you doubt their intentions. Do you know what some of them (myself included) have given up for their stand on things like poverty and women's right? Most conservative churches in America are pretty darn good at persecuting dissenters--at least verbally and relationally, even if not physically. Many of us who are progressive or liberal Christians have stood for our beliefs at the expense of friendships with other Christians and even at the expense of public humiliation and being kicked out of churches we grew up in. I speak from personal experience on this. So now, are we going to get criticized from the left as well as the right?

Fourth, for the record--as an evangelical Christian, I have no problem at all with gay marriage, providing churches are not required to perform ceremonies they cannot in good conscience support. If gay marriage is something that goes against the belief of a given church, they shouldn't be forced to violate their beliefs. As long as that balance between civil rights and religious freedom is preserved, I'm okay with it. I know nobody has suggested forcing churches to do anything, but this is a fear of many churches I am familiar with. I just want to point out that there is a range of opinions about this and many other topics. It's not a good idea to generalize.

So please don't paint me, your fellow DU'er, with such a broad brush. I don't deserve it, and I'm betting these folks in the article don't deserve it either. Let's show some respect and support for the stand they're taking. It's a step in the right direction, isn't it?