<p>Those of the dreaded evangelical-right, as you say, are in fact Americans (not to be confused with the saints on the evangelical left, I assume). You may disagree with them on the bulk of their social or foreign policy, as do I, but they are not ■■■■■■, demons or devils to be hissed at. </p>
<p>Moreover, as Poetsheart has indicated, to take a mini college such as PHCa school that, according to the op, can loose 1/3 of its faculty by losing 4 professors!and extend its infinitesimal number into all, most, or a great many evangelical Christians is to intend to deceive and dissemble: A rhetorical tactic unworthy of honest debate.</p>
<p>But hate is hate, and those who possess it always seem to know it when they see it, so I must defer. </p>
<p>Still, communists were once in a liberal big-tent (since fallen on hard times). And all would now agree that it would have been disingenuous to claim that liberal Democrats were being driven by or led by the Troskyites or Maoists among them. Or that, such miscreants as these were the vanguard of the liberal Democratic agenda. </p>
<p>90+% of the evangelicals in America have never even heard of PHC; of course, they are not, unlike many mischief makers, driven by such fear-mongers as yell fire! at the sign of an openly Christian pedestrianevangelical or otherwise.</p>
<p>Either you don’t understand the concept of “leadership”, you didn’t read my post, or this hits a nerve.</p>
<p>Most of us would agree that the evangelical right is largely made up of rather normal folks. The problem is its leadership. Take the (recently weakened) leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention. I doubt most of the rank and file particularly cared about, or agreed with, the leadership’s call to evangelicize Jews a few years ago, but the implications are the same nonetheless. </p>
<p>To the degree that PHC trains leaders that “go forth” and influence policy, I have concerns. And they will have such influence without ever disclosing their PHC training. That’s pretty normal. So to dismiss our concerns with “90% have never even heard…” is either disingenuous or wrong.</p>
<p>Why do we get upset when ultra-conservative Christians exert their right to be involved in politics and yet nobody on this board complains about the major Hasidic voting blocs that occur in Monroe and in NY borough neighborhoods such as Williamsburg? </p>
<p>Back to the PHC graduates: their PHC “training” (I think a better phrase would be undergraduate education) will be disclosed on their resumes under colleges.</p>
<p>Then complain about your dislike of the policy or influence of PHC, not evangelical Christians en mass, as is laboriously being done here. I, along with most here, deplore and disagree with the policies of PHC, but unlike the irrational opponents of the dominant religion amongst us, I do not appoint them to leadership positions amongst the dreaded evangelical Christians as it suits my anger. I leave that to the evangelicals themselves. Neither do I mistake them for more than what they are for rhetorical effect. </p>
<p>You can hate PHC, or you can hate evangelical Christians en massyou can simultaneously hate both, as many dohate what you will; but you cannot say they are the same thing, even if saying so reinforces your self-righteous ire towards either.</p>
<p>I think the difference is that the Hasidim are primarily concerned with how they themselves live, whereas the PHC types (indeed, in theory all evangelicals) are concerned with how I live. IMHO, a big difference.</p>
<p>FS,watch your hyperbole. Who said anything about “HATE”? I don’t HATE evangelicals; that’s patently ridiculous. The dominionists are doing their best to change policy; however, I don’t blame the fundamentalists, who really believe that floods, debt and wars are dandy states of affairs because they are awaiting their rapture anyway. I might think them deluded, but I don’t have enough energy or interest to hate them.</p>
<p>I don’t see anything in your link about evangelicizing christians, just to use one example. Yes, KJ, who has a loong track record, wants to do things that impact neighbors. But, IMHO, that’s a bit different from trying to influence everyone.</p>
<p>If any of you are in DC, Atlanta, or Chicago, see “Islam: What the West Needs to Know.” It’s in theatres until tomorrow. It describes how the entire religion is more than a religion - it is social and political and economic as well. It is an entire way of life, and their goal is to convert others to this way of life.</p>
<p>Now, this tells us a few things. 1. Fundamentalists are fundamentally (ha!) the same - it is not sufficient for the radicals to live and let live; they must convert others. 2. We don’t hear much screaming about them in America, despite the fact that it is the stated goal of many fringe groups to impose Islamic rule.</p>
<p>Now, I’m a hard-core libertarian, so I disagree with a LOT of the “fundamentalist agenda.” I do not, however, sit around and wonder why. It is, quite simply, a backlash against a country that appears to lack any kind of moral compass. If you don’t like the current moral compass, feel free to get together with like-minded people and remove it (I’m all about representation and participation in a democratic republic); but do not leave a moral vacuum. IMO, the best way to fight the fundamentalists, if one so desires, is to not oppose them diametrically, but to align yourself with a moral agenda but shape it as you see fit. (For those of you who are already typing away, I mean “morality” in a loose sense - anything from pro-family to anti-divorce to pro-civil rights and dignity of all humans is, IMO, a moral position.)</p>
<p>Finally, I really really resent when people seem to think that fundamentalists or conservatives don’t have the right to participate in our society. I might (heartily) disagree with them, but I’ll fight to the death for their right to promote their interests and organise with others to do the same. That, IMO, is what a democratic republic is all about. The fact that others disagree with them does not mean that they should stop working for their goals… and neither should anyone here. Public discourse is a phenomenal thing.</p>
<p>They have the right to participate. I have the right to find their goals scary and deplorable, and to say so. :)</p>
<p>I do agree though about fighting to the death for their right to participate in public discourse.</p>
<p>And a quote from Hanna:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>18-year olds, I have less sympathy for, maybe because I’m not that much older. But when I was 18, and protesting at the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention in favor of gay marriage, facing off against protesters who opposed it, there was a nearby Protestant elementary school that had brought a group of kids on a field trip to protest. The paper said that some were as young as 7. It made me so sad to see all these little bitty kids, following their teacher through the protests in a confused line, holding up anti-gay signs.</p>
<p>I think all the fundementalist extremist groups whether they are evangelicals, Jewish, Muslim, polygamists etc can stir up trouble and should be watched.</p>
<p>Of course members of these groups have a right to vote and be involved in government. It does concern me when people follow spiritual leaders to such an extent that when the leader does say to vote for particular candidates or specific referendums, the followers will do so simply on the direction of that individual.</p>
<p>“The Scream” FS? Such a label just might endear me to you (your goal, I know…)!</p>
<p>I agree with Aries. Fundamentalists of all stripes, from all religions, are to be watched carefully, as they clearly have agendas, both political and social. This is true in all three major faiths; it just so happens that America is a predominantly Christian country, and the threat to civil liberties from the evangelicals and dominionists is much greater than the threat from Islamists. I am certain there are those here who disagree with that sentiment, and feel the threat is exactly reversed.</p>
<p>Such is America. A land where we can disagree.</p>
<p>I could care less what anyone believes religously, it s when they want to take their beliefs and bring them into laws, government, and deny as much as you want, that is the goal, say, oh yeah, its a Personal thing. It is not.</p>
<p>When leaders pull students for internships, etc from admitedly a small school, it makes people wonder</p>
<p>When these groups push for bad educational policy, it makes people wonder</p>
<p>When these groups (note I am talknig about a group, not individuals) do not want kids to be educated properly, it makes people wonder</p>
<p>When these groups want to push their agendas iinto PUBLIC policy, we need to be watching</p>
<p>Whether a certain group’s educational or political policies are bad or good is in the eye of the beholder. They are advocating for policies which they think are good. Of course, you and I are free to disapprove of their policies. It is up to us to contact our elected officials and let them know our opinions on such policies as well.</p>
<p>When I was 17, I co-founded my school’s Gay-Straight Alliance. That May, we all went into Boston for the annual GSA Pride Parade. Lots of supporters; lots of protesters. I don’t know if they still do it, but there is a “prom” every year at City Hall Plaza that is an absolute blast.</p>
<p>That was the year of Matthew Shepard (horribly sad) and the Vermont Civil Union decision.</p>
<p>I still think that gays are asking for something fundamentally conservative: the state sanction of forming a stable, monogamous family. Families are good. People taking care of each other so that the government doesn’t have to is fantastic. Lifelong committment to a person is wonderful.</p>
<p>Many of my friends are very religious and against gay marriage. Some of them are strong libertarians and think that government should get out of marriage and everyone should have civil unions; leave religion up to the Church. For others, gay marriage is the stepping stone from no-fault divorce and the stepping stone to polygamy. Until the gay rights movement can 1) decry divorce and 2) decry polygamy and tell those people to get out of their marriage-movement camp, the religious right will continue to fight them.</p>
<p>FYI: I am all for covenant marriage and that movement (Louisiana and Arizona). </p>
<p>Fundamentalism and Evangelicism (and, by extension, fundamentalists and evangelicals) are different things. Especially in the US, one can be both a fundamentalist and an evangelical, or either (or neither!).</p>
<p>Fundamentalists believe in the inerrancy of scripture (whether the bible, koran or whatever), whereas evangelicals, almost always christian, believe, among other things, “Encouragement of evangelism (the act of sharing one’s beliefs) – in organized missionary work or by personal encounters and relationships with others.”</p>
<p>America is a great country - I would argue the greatest, but since it’s America we can disagree. Of course we can also disagree on which groups are the most threatening. For me I have a problem with people that are trying to kill me, but whatever works for the rest of you is fine with me.</p>
<p>Bad- Teaching bible in the class as religion and morals</p>
<p>Good- Teaching all kids about all kinds of religions so they understand the world</p>
<p>Bad- Teaching that pre marital sex is wrong cause God says so</p>
<p>Good- Teaching safe sex, abstinance and making smart choices</p>
<p>Bad- Saying that the world is ten thousand years old and that scientists lie cause it doesn’t match the bible, or that the moon was created by God (yes I have seen the text books, not making this stuff up)</p>
<p>Good- Teaching the science of the universe and that man did not walk with the dinosaurs</p>
<p>Eye of the beholder. well in this eye, scienece is good, biblical science, teaching that is not fair to young minds</p>