You would notice that trend among other groups too. Evangelicals are just easier to identify as a group.

I don't understand why democracy is good but when people team up to support a party, it's suddenly an attempt to control the masses. Isn't that what democracy is about?

I notice other groups as well,  I just went with the Evangelicals because I had once specifically read about them while doing a lil research for a presentation on the movie "jesus camp" and thuse knew a bit more about them than about other groups.

Controll the masses sounds overly negative, doesn't it, but that's exactly what they want to accomplish (as do other political groups) by gaining political influence - that is what every political party and their lobbyist do after all. It is indeed what democracy is all about.  I only wanted to show the general connection between cult/religion and political power, something that is visible in most major high societies, but I had no intention  to single the evangelicals out and paint them as the bad guys with nefarious goals. They're easy to identify, though, and that's why I used them.

I stumbled across this site here www.frc.org It was during election timeand they had a voter impact toolkit for pastors that you could download or order where pastors and private people could get campaigning material to support the republican vote. I tried to download it but you had to supply your credit card information and I didn't want to do that. I feel uneasy about pastors telling their congregations what party and candidates to vote - that's what statereligions did and do. Pastors have a specials place in a community after all so their reccomendation carries weight. That is  direct influence at the core and an small attempt to controll the masses on a community level. The aim is to widen political influence.

I know that other groups do similar things, but a church is not like any other political lobbyist group. You can't deny that there is an organized effort to have key positions filled with republican or even evangelical politicians. Even if everything is democratic in the US, religeous groups want political influence - that's been the case throughout history.

 

You didn't get my point. There is nothing special about religious groups wanting influence. EVERYONE wants influence. And democracy exists to make sure that everyone can have influence.

Why single out religious groups? They have just as much a right to influence policy as treehuggers and traffic cone fans.

And yes, there is an organised effort to have key positions filled with Republican politicians. It's called the Republican Party. There is also an organised effort to have key positions filled with Democratic politicians. That's the Democratic Party.

I don't understand why that seems like a big surprise to you or like something that needs pointing out.

In fact I would be shocked and surprised if there weren't an organised effort to have key positions filled with Republican politicians. It would mean that democracy is failing.

 

You treat a church, the core of moral values for many, like any political lobbyist group. Fine, you can do that. 

But I think a pastor has no business in telling his people which candidate possesses the correct moral base and who doesn't. They should stay out of politics, I sort of like the concept of no clerical influence on political decisions. That is my oppinion. They don't have the right to influence policy - my oppinion. Thankfully, they stay in the background in Germany even though the church is much more intertwined with the state here.

I was sort of surprised just how well organized the effort is to get key positions filled with people that share a specific moral and religious value codex. They dont seem to bet republicans first, they're biblical evangelicals first like Ahscroft. I think that is worth pointing out, but that's me. The mixing of religious beliefs with political goals makes my warning bells go off.

In a secular state like the US, what other treatment would be justified?




Yes, he does.

That's his job. People follow a religion because it gives them moral guidance. Everyone has the right to tell people whom to vote for. Television does it all the time. Why wouldn't a pastor have that right?




There were countries that had laws against clerical influence on political decisions. The Soviet Union was one such country. But in a liberal democracy clerics will have influence just like everybody else does.

I think you are confusing a secular state with a state where religious people have no right to voice their opinion or to vote.




They stay in the background? I find them quite vocal. They constantly speak up, sometimes against abortion but mostly for left-wing causes. Maybe it's hardly noticceable if you live there because the clerics basically parrot what the media say.




But religious beliefs are political goals.

What's the point of believing in something and then not acting on it?

Some Pastors are more political than others.  It's been my experience knowning many Pastors, some well known, some not, that most are not political.  The ones that come to mind as overtly political would be Jerry Falwell, D.James Kennedy and Rick Warren.   Right now, two of the three are dead. 

But many others, big and small are not telling their people how to vote.  The more political they are the more they may  speak out on social issues like abortion and homosexuality telling their congregations repeatedly how wrong this would be and not to vote for anyone with that mindset.  But I've never heard one specifically, from the pulpit, tell anyone who to vote for.   

My husband, a preacher, would NOT speak on politics from the pulpit.  He felt that preachers have the awesome responsibility to preach the gospel and should stay out of politics.  If you're preaching the gospel correctly, the other will take care of itself.  Too sad, but many are not preaching like they should nowadays.  Churches today are more social than gospel. 

As far as outside the church, believers, like any group have the right to organize and support whom they wish.  That's democracy. 

The reason why the strongest Christians support say the Republican party is because the Republican Party, has in the past, been the strongest advocate for biblical values.   I tend to vote for the man, not the party but so far there hasn't been a Democrat I could, biblically speaking, put my support behind.  As soon as they say they support abortion or homosexuality I have to follow my conscience which is centered around the Word of God. 

In the long run tho, I know it really doesn't matter because the world is going in a direction that will not be stopped.  It's been predicted and it's pretty easy to say that all systems are go exactly as written. 

This feminization of the churches is just another sign (in a long list) showing where we are heading. 

 

pushing the Jesus guy?     I like that.  Ya, I'm a Jesus Freak.  I admit that.  He's where it's at so ya, I guess I'll keep pushing the Jesus guy... LOL. 

That's not it.  I keep telling you.  You can mention it but not proselytize it.  You are, without a doubt, putting down Catholic Commentary stuff verbatim.  If you speak from your heart or discuss scripture, fine.  But don't sit down and unload a dictionary of Catholic belief here.  I know the difference.  You know that. 

well the way you say it, makes it look pretty silly but remember little kids like to dress up and make believe.  When my kids (three little boys) were little they were always play acting.  For a while there I never thought I'd get my youngest out of his Ninja Turtle outfit.  At least Bibleman stands for good pure stuff.   To me that's better than dressing up like the devil. 

 

I didn't think this sideissue warranted so much attention. It's more meant in the direction of a social sciences approach  to how societies and organized religions mesh together and my internal focus had been more on the question why different religious beliefs are enough grounds to kill someone. War over religion seems to be so pointless.

Thank you for your answer, KFC. It is interesting to hear your point of view and personal experience on this, all I had was a statistic and oppinion poll. And the family research council's homepage.

Utemia posts:

The simple answer is love and happiness and wishing well for others. 

kfc posts:

 leauki posts:

The World Book definition of "religion" is  1. Belief in God or gods. 2. worship of God or gods  3. A particular system of religious belief and worship.  4. Anything done with reverence or devotion.

Protestantism then is a religion developed in the 1500s that definitely has a history.  

I enjoyed reading the back and forth between Utemia and Leauki ......With the exception of points concerning Germany, of which I know little, I think Leauki's points regarding religious people in the public square were well made.

 

 

Germany has valid treaties signed with the Vatican that concern the teaching of religion in schools and the qualification of the teachers. That is one intertwinement of government and religion. Nowadays, students can opt out of religious class and take ethics or philosophy classes instead. Also, catholic religion in school was more about church history and knowledge about religion and theology and not so much about conveying faith. My teachers weren't priests either.

Then there is an official church tax that you pay when you're a registered member of your denomination. And yeah, the catholic and protestant bishop conferences that gather do talk about moral and social issues and make statements on them. There is also a division in Germany between predominantly protestant and catholic regions (and regions where people were recatholicized.) Interestingly enough, it always carried a political significance in the past wether someone in a position of power was protestant or catholic. In some region, I dare say it still does.

It is an interesting historic issue in itself how the protestant and catholic church tried to redefine themselves after WW2 and find a new social and political identity in the new west german state. The allied command was certainly interested in working together with the churches because they held a certain power on a local level. I don't think this issue is overly interesting for americans per se, not even most germans know alot about it.

This is NOT a good movie and is not getting rave reviews from the evangelicals I know.  I would not support this at all.  Just so you know.   It's not biblical but more political than anything. 

I noticed it's centered around a woman Pastor!  Again, if they're wrong about this simple mandated scripture what else are they wrong about?  What they are doing with young children's minds is not unlike what the jihadists are doing with their young children as well. 

I know in Poland that the government is tightly controlled by the RCC.  The Baptists (and other groups) are being taxed where the RCC is not.  The RCC owns much property while the other denominations are poor and struggling.  And there is alot of friction because the RCC does not look kindly on the Protestant groups around them.   Many, in government jobs who wish to go to the Protestant churches have to do so in secrecy in order to keep their jobs. 

 

I agree with your sentiment about the movie. I found it very interesting in a creepy sort of way nontheless. The most interesting part for me of that film was that there was no narrator and especially the kids seemed to talk freely. Of course, I didnt know what questions had been asked to get them talking.

I think you're spot on with the comparison to jihadists, that part scared me the most. It is good to know that these aren't in the majority.

Even if they stand for a minority, there are enough issues that overlap to get a broad idea about what many think about abortion, family, patriotism etc. If you don't know alot about evangelicals in general it isn't a too bad place to start. Of course a critical evaluation is necessary but extrapolating to more general terms is possible.

I see you are still whining about Poland. 

 As far as I'm concerned, Poland's Catholicity brought it out of Communism.   Talk about being persecuted for their religion...that's Polish Catholics under Communism.

Poland isn't tightly controlled by the Chruch...but it may be tightly controlled by Catholics.

Poland is a Catholic country as was the rest of Europe including England, Scotland and part of Ireland. But unlike them, Poland was not taken over into Protestantism as a result of the Protestant Revolt that began in 1517 Look where Europe, England and the Scandinavian countries (which were wholly Protestant )are now! Protestantism failed...they are secular, or deep into Marxist socialistism or Islamified.

Will this happen to us in America...time will tell.

It's not often addressed, but at the founding of America, the Protestants held sway and for nearly 100 years, they would not allow Catholics to vote, hold office and they taxed them unfairly too.

  

 

  

Isn't that movie about some weird Pentecostal sect? I'm not sure if that should be taken as representative for all of Christianity or even Evangelicals. That would be like judging Islam based on solely the acts of Al-Qaeda and the "Jesus Camp" is not even in the same league as the more moderate Islamic fundamentalist groups.

But Christianity can safely be "criticised" and hence such a movie is regarded as a "documentary" whereas a movie about some of the Islamic sects the media call "moderate" (despite their murderous ideologies) are considered hate crimes.

Many feel like they are being very brave when they criticise Christian fundamentalists, but in reality they do it because doing do is (almost) completely safe and because criticising other groups requires too much reality to be faced.

 

England didn't really become Protestant as such. The king just wanted to divorce and execute his wives a bit too often and the Pope (naturally and rightly so) wouldn't allow it any more. That's when England decided to become "Protestant". It wasn't about injustices or theological differences at all.

I wouldn't call Ireland a Catholic country any more. Few people go to mass and the Catholic Church has in recent years been demonstrated to be exactly what many church buildings say they were: a refuge for sinners (if you get my meaning).

The same scandal is now unfolding in Germany. The Protestant countries have nothing of the sort. So while the secular states with mostly Protestant populations have failed, their churches have not (necessarily). But the Catholic Church failed big time.

In Poland the Catholic Church did good, but in Germany it, like the Protestant churches, refuses to protect Christianity and speak up against Islamisation (although individual Catholic clerics do) and has now lost its good name and hence its power to act as well.

 

 

That's true and I thought well known.

 

Have you seen the movie? Your comment doesn't sound like you have or maybe it's been a long time ago. There is no narration, no negative commentary and blatant criticism of christianity. The only people that are speaking are interviewees that are speaking freely - (of course, the way the movie is cut together and the question that had been asked to get people talking always should be taken into account because they influence the viewers as well.)

But the viewer is entirely left on his own to make up his mind wether what happens in that summer camp is good or not. It's not about a sect, it's a film about a pentacostal summer biblecamp that was open to everybody that wanted to go there. They show what happened in the camp and with what methods those children were "brainwashed" - THAT was the focus of the intended criticism, not christianity. It's is not a bad documentary at all for that purpose because it drives the point home pretty well, so there's no need for quotationmarks. This bible summer camp has since then closed as a result of the movie.

It isn't representative documentary of evangelical christians in the US and I didn't understand it as such, and I can understand why KFC doesn't want to be compared to that female pastor who ran the camp, which I never did. But nevertheless, if you're an academic it isn't very difficult to extrapolate general moral issues that seemed important to the people in the film, and they are not so very different from what I read from many users on JU.