I am purposefully missing your point(s), because it strikes me as obfuscation. They are simply a group of citizens banding together to lobby the government for the things they want. Just like the ACLU, the tobacco industry, GLAAD, the AARP, and airheaded celebrities. They might ask for stupid stuff, just like Madonna, but they are merely exercising their rights. More than that, in fact, they are doing what many here seem to feel is one's duty to one's country: educating themselves about politics and getting out the vote. You say they seek to curtail rights and exclude segments of the population; I think that is a matter of interpretation. In any case, it will be decided in the political arena and will be dependent on their democratic stregth, or lack thereof. What's not to like? On the reverse, I wholeheartedly endorse the opposition to their endeavors. Just as they have a right to assemble, so do others retain the right to censure them, even if the censure is rife with prejudice, xenophobia, intolerance, and strawman hyperbole (that's a nod to the evangelical conspiracy to ban every American man, woman and child from listening to that dreaded 'rock' music). So, it's cool, carry on. I don't much like Falwell either and don't have much love for the platform his group endorses. But Solid sounds the most reasonable here (myself included): just because some people want these things doesn't mean they will happen (especially the marriage amendment, which needs the prez, a convincing majority in both houses and of the States). And, for whoever mentioned it, you can't call Reagan a fiscal-conservative either. He's the one that made crushing national debt fashionable in the first place.
Glad that we can find middle ground, you arguments are persuasive as they are thoughtful...I guess that makes me a weeny liberal!
the evangelicals i know...or the people i know who are most on fire about their faith....embrace rock music...look for spirtiual metaphor in the secular arts...love people of all backgrounds. now they may disagree with you...and they may vote in such a way as to change a situation they see as problematic...but that doesn't mean they're going to condemn you to hell or something like that. i don't consider falwell and robertson to be evangelicals. i find them to be highly self-serving and of very little help as shepherds to me in my faith. i am very concerned with how loose and fast they both play the prophecy card.
A qualified "NO"...hehehe...you outclass me intellectually and I don't want to wade to deep! I mean, when you say obfuscation my mind goes into vapor-lock!
THANK YOU! THANK YOU! people act like a belief set isn't allowed to be promulgated just because they don't like it. of course it is. if enough people feel that way, then it is the will of the people and will go into effect. of course sometimes measures must be taken to protect a minority group against the will of the people but in most instances the will of the people is ok. environmentalist may wanna never chop down another tree. if enough people agree with them, we'll have laws that stop the chopping. if they don't, we won't. if the evangelicals have certain ideas that enough people are behind, they might get passed into law. if they want us to stop listening to rock music (do they really?) and 99% of the country laughs and says "yeah right" well then it won't happen. society is its own moral compass. we'll let ideas go as far as we want them to. falwell doesn't rule this country under martial law and get what he wants. what he wants will have to go through the american people and the political process like everything else everyone else wants. if it works, i guess more power to him. if not, too bad for him. i'm not for falwell at all. in fact, i oppose the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. i find it to be discriminatory and would think it an incredibly petty thing to make it into our sacred document of governance that has only been changed 17 times since it's inception along with the Bill of Rights. it would get repealed one day like prohibition and people would look back on it's endorsement much the way past generation must've looked back on women not being allowed to vote and the way people of my generation look back on "white only restrooms." they wouldn't be able to believe we were really like that i think. to me this is a no one's getting hurt issue and a "judge lest ye be judged" type thing where what people wanna do privately should be left to them if it hurts no one. that would be very unlike being anti-abortion (which i am) because it is seen by that side as hurting someone, and not just a private choice. what exactly is falwell doing? it's not like he's in control of this country. it's not like he has a massive influence on our lives like a mullah perhaps. i wouldn't know him if he passed me wearing an "i'm jerry falwell" t-shirt. whenever he speaks, most every public reaction i see to his comments is disdain for the extremism invoked by his comments and just general "he's part of the lunatic fringe" feelings for his comments. for my money, he is stopped. he was no power in our country. he talks, some small segment of people listen. others hear it only b/c the news reports it b/c he's so extreme and radical and then it is quickly dismissed. and like i said, he's not going to enact a law by himself. he's got to go through the process like everyone else. we won't just wake up one morning with no rock music. 'tis a long way to theocracy from where we are. and i'm pretty sure i had something else to say but i lost it somewhere in all that other stuff.
Falwell and Robertson are evangelicals MadMax. You, on the other hand, are not. You are a Christian. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't see why you feel like you have to categorize yourself differently from other Christians.
No, your problem is that you have a narrow view of what an evangelist is. I think MadMax would tell you that the Christian faith is by definition evangelical ("Go out to all the world.... and The Great Commission). You object to these televangelists in particular. Why are they so terrible but Cameron Diaz' pablum is okay because that is her right?
Televangelist TV shows are just like soap operas, Super Bowl halftime shows, and Cinemax soft core p*rn. If you don't like it, don't watch it!
How many preachers, priests, and ministers recruited people who bombed abortion clinics or killed doctors? I'm not saying that it is a large percentage, it is obviously an aberration, the same aberration that occurs in the Muslim religion. By far the VAST majority of Muslims (as well as their spiritual leaders) preach peace just as the VAST majority of Christians do. The problem is not the Muslim religion, it is their fanatics, just as the problem is not with the Christian religion, but its fanatics.
yes, but the problem seems to be, whatever the percentage of fanatics, the muslim ones have a lot more influence and power over the middle east than christian fanatics have over here. i mean, when someone goes sex toy shopping, do they think, man jerry falwell condemns this type of stuff, someone might walk in here and blow themselves up and kill me? no, they buy their 12 inch, vibrating, spiked, honey-flavored dildo and walk out in peace. the difference is in the impact.
man...am I the only one that remembers the PMRC and other faith based groups like that from the 80's? first JV, and then Max doubt my statements about the fact that the radical evangelicals have(had) a agenda against rock music ... I realize it is only one small issue in the whole shebang...but it speaks volumes about how they feel about issues they dont approve of and what they are willing to do to get rid of it. and btw....when a 'majority' of citizens feel like something is a good idea...it doesnt necessarily mean it is....what are the numbers from this last election? 55 million versus 50 million? so what you are telling me is that the feelings of 48% of the country dont matter if more people(51%) think they are wrong?
Falwell and Robertson are evangelicals. If you walk up to someone that you do not know and the first thing you say is "I want to witness to you about Christ ...", you might be an evangelist. As an aside, I would not recommend anybody approach me with the "I want to witness to you" line. My usual reply goes something like "I heard about you guys. You dance naked in the moonlight and sacrifice goats and drink their blood. You guys rock. How can the wife and I join?"
And if the fanatics HERE continue along their path, they will wield a lot more power here, to the point of banning same sex marriage, outlawing abortion, and tearing down the walls between church and state that the founders KNEW had to be there to prevent the problems that state sponsired religion brings.
This is an important point - with our election-fueled obsession over majority-rule and mandates (seems to be a common point of reference in this forum lately to bring up the "will of the people" as a function of majority rule) - maybe we're forgetting that, though majority rule is recognized in a representative democracy, the protection of minority rights and liberties is also part of our democracy. The question is how far majority rule is allowed to infringe on minority liberties. Apparently, the majority would have us all attending church on Sundays - and, if that were put to a vote and proven to be the case, would that make it right? It would be, after all, the "will of the people."
