home
RSS
My Take: Are evangelicals dangerous?
Many evangelicals want to ban abortion, but does that mean they want theocracy?
October 15th, 2011
10:00 PM ET

My Take: Are evangelicals dangerous?

Editor's Note: R. Albert Mohler, Jr., is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Special to CNN

Here we go again.

Every four years, with every new presidential election cycle, public voices sound the alarm that the evangelicals are back. What is so scary about America’s evangelical Christians?

Just a few years ago, author Kevin Phillips told intellectual elites to run for cover, claiming that well-organized evangelicals were attempting to turn America into a theocratic state. In “American Theocracy,” Phillips warned of the growing influence of Bible-believing, born-again, theologically conservative voters who were determined to create a theocracy.

Writer Michelle Goldberg, meanwhile, has warned of a new Christian nationalism, based in “dominion theology.” Chris Hedges topped that by calling conservative Christians “American fascists.”

And so-called New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris claim that conservative Christians are nothing less than a threat to democracy. They prescribe atheism and secularism as the antidotes.

This presidential cycle, the alarms have started earlier than usual. Ryan Lizza, profiling Rep. Michele Bachmann for The New Yorker, informed his readers that “Bachmann belongs to a generation of Christian conservatives whose views have been shaped by institutions, tracts, and leaders not commonly known to secular Americans, or even to most Christians.”

Change just a few strategic words and the same would be true of Barack Obama or any other presidential candidate. Every candidate is shaped by influences not known to all and by institutions that other Americans might find strange.

What stories like this really show is that the secular elites assume that their own institutions and leaders are normative.

The New Yorker accused Bachmann of being concerned with developing a Christian worldview, ignoring the fact that every thinking person operates out of some kind of worldview. The article treated statements about wifely submission to husbands and Christian influence in art as bizarre and bellicose.

When Rick Perry questioned the theory of evolution, Dawkins launched into full-on apoplexy, wondering aloud how anyone who questions evolution could be considered intelligent, even as polls indicate that a majority of Americans question evolution.

Bill Keller, then executive editor of The New York Times, topped all the rest by seeming to suggest that conservative Christians should be compared to those who believe in space aliens. He complained that “when it comes to the religious beliefs of our would-be presidents, we are a little squeamish about probing too aggressively.”

Really? Earlier this month, comedian Penn Jillette - a well–known atheist - wrote a very serious op-ed complaining of the political influence of “bugnut Christians,” in the pages of The Los Angeles Times, no less. Detect a pattern here?

By now, this is probably being read as a complaint against the secular elites and prominent voices in the mainstream media. It’s not.

If evangelicals intend to engage public issues and cultural concerns, we have to be ready for the scrutiny and discomfort that comes with disagreement over matters of importance. We have to risk being misunderstood - and even misrepresented - if we intend to say anything worth hearing.

Are evangelicals dangerous? Well, certainly not in the sense that more secular voices warn. The vast majority of evangelicals are not attempting to create a theocracy, or to oppose democracy.

To the contrary, evangelicals are dangerous to the secularist vision of this nation and its future precisely because we are committed to participatory democracy.

As Christians committed to the Bible, evangelicals have learned to advocate on behalf of the unborn, believing that every single human being, at every stage of development, is made in God’s image.

Evangelicals worry about the fate of marriage and the family, believing that the pattern for human relatedness set out in Scripture will lead to the greatest human flourishing.

We are deeply concerned about a host of moral and cultural issues, from how to address poverty to how to be good stewards of the earth, and on some of these there is a fairly high degree of disagreement even among us.

Above all, evangelicals are those who believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and are most concerned about telling others about Jesus. Most of America’s evangelical Christians are busy raising their children, working to support their families and investing energy in their local churches.

But over recent decades, evangelical Christians have learned that the gospel has implications for every dimension of life, including our political responsibility.

We’re dangerous only to those who want more secular voices to have a virtual monopoly in public life.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Opinion • Politics

soundoff (5,318 Responses)
  1. Tim

    Thanks for the warning. I thought Dawkins et al were just being reactionary. Its actually scarier to here the same threat from an evangelical. "Jesus, save us from your followers."

    October 16, 2011 at 2:07 am |
    • Anon

      Bill O should have acknowledge the privilege of interviewing RD but you know how that turned out.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:17 am |
  2. Sam

    I have five words: Crazy Christian Camp For Children, it will scare you straight away from evangelicals.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:06 am |
  3. Joe

    Really? Secular Governments are neutral? We are seeing the bigoted anti-religious statements of Atheists like Penn Jellette and Richard Dawkins accepted as "normative", and presented as the correct American viewpoint in the Media. Atheists do NOT want democracy. They do NOT want Christians to be able to vote, to express an opionion, to gather together and express their opinions in public. This is decidedly fascist and anti-American. Aren't Atheists allowed to express their opinions? But, for Christians, NO! declares the Atheist. NO freedom of speech for Christians! Atheists are interested in wiping out religion, erasing it from public view, even preventing Christians from expressing their opinion, and attempting to criminalize Christianity. Pardon me, but Atheists are some of the most bigoted, ignorant, self righteous people in the country, and really should emigrate to Soviet Russia, where they will feel much more comfortable. They certainly do not understand American Democracy.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:03 am |
    • Anon

      Of course you can vote, just use f&cking reason and logic when doing so.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:10 am |
    • Gigiastro

      Nonsense. We atheist are not against Christian;s opinions. We reject their dogmas. We rejected the very concept of dogma, which are he foundation of religious faith.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:11 am |
    • HotAirAce

      You may express your opionions all you like. Where you will run into opposition is when you say something like "We should change this or that law to say whatever because my (unseen and unproven) imaginary friend or book of silliness (such as The Babble) says so."

      October 16, 2011 at 2:11 am |
    • DeeBee

      Anon – See my 2:01 post. Who will you be voting for in 2012?

      October 16, 2011 at 2:17 am |
    • Anon

      No one, they're all crazy.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:18 am |
    • DeeBee

      Anon – Then you are getting the leaders you deserve.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:21 am |
    • alkhuu

      I am not interested in depriving Christians of votes or voices in democracy rather I view Christianity as a dangerous philosophy to the existence of democracy in the same way I view Nazism and Communism. It is interesting that you brought up the Soviet Union. Communism's ideal of equality and classlessness is very appealing to most people if you actually read about it (this was why it was so popular). However, its execution in the real world that is deadly. Most Russians under communist rule in the USSR were fairly decent people who never committed any crimes, built gulags or attempted to conquer the world. Some of them even genuinely believe in an equal society. However, the absolutist beliefs of communsim led many of its ardent followers to do unspeakable crimes.
      Christianity, like communism, is an absolutist belief that has very ardent followers who had committed atrocious crimes through the centuries. Although most Christians are benign, the religion has created some very ugly extremists from time to time. How do you negotiate with radical absolutist Christians in a democratic society? Democracy requires compromises, not absolutism. To get rid the world of Christian extremist, democratic societies should fight Christianity in the same way they fought Communism, Nazism and Fascism (other absolutist beliefs).

      October 16, 2011 at 2:24 am |
    • Anon

      What can I do when the majority of the population have a religious mindset thus voting someone with a similar mindset. Education is the key but faith is chosen instead of reason and logic.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:25 am |
    • Andrew

      Would you do me a favor and quote Dawkins on having ANY of those beliefs, please? I wouldn't be surprised if Penn has made comments like that, but he's an entertainer, and if you take him seriously, you've got your own issues.

      But Dawkins however would likely NEVER advocate for any of that. He is condescending, but if you listen to his ideal worlds, he makes it quite clear he would NEVER want to force people what to believe. You can watch the "Four Horsemen" video, a discussion between Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris, where they clearly say absolutely nothing akin to the crimes you charge them of.

      You are beating a strawman of Dawkins, nothing more.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:25 am |
    • Mason

      Being the son and grandson of southern baptist preachers I have seen the dark underside of evangelicals. The SBC absolutely has a right to voice it's political opinion, however, the insistence that their views become integral to the governments and in turn the educational system via veiled concepts like intelligent design is deeply troubling and no less dangerous than Sharia law. As my grandfather wrote in 1960s: if we seek to insist that religious views be taught in our schools we are admitting that our churches have failed. The SBC and evangelicals as a whole need to ask themselves if their political activity is about spreading the word of God or an admission that their churches have failed to meaningfully reach out to the masses.

      Jesus did not become a political activist. He drew crowds and disciples by his action...feeding the poor, healing the sick and yes throwing those out of the temple who chose to use it as a forum for lining their own pockets. Maybe following his example will yield a more desirable result.

      Look inward before condemning outward.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:30 am |
    • Charles

      Joe, you must be watching FOX NEWS and think they are the most impartial source for news...You must think James Dobson speaks for GOD and you must also live in cave. Soviet Russia....? There is no SOVIET RUSSIA!!! communism in Russia has been gone for over 20 years....I believe in GOD and being Christ-like is something we should all try to do. But being a Christian?
      What does that mean today? Be a Hunter and join the NRA.....God bless America while you kill animals just for fun....Support the Military because God wants us Christian Americans to go kill people.....Screw the poor...health-care? Pay or die....no insurance.....then you deserve to die...Yeah Christians are not so Christ-like

      October 16, 2011 at 2:35 am |
    • Johan S

      Democracy cannot provide anyone or any government with the right to oppress someone. Certain human rights are self evident and come from the creator .. they can't get taken away from an individual just because all human beings say that it should be taken away and write that down on a piece of paper.

      It's better to live in a dictatorship that preserves the basic human rights than a democracy that denies it.

      October 16, 2011 at 4:07 am |
    • forgethistory

      @alkhuu do you not see that your belief is absolutist as well... you have no room for people with different religious values in your belief system stop pretending that your any different. labeling Christians as intolerant while being intolerant to the christian religion is hypocrisy.

      October 16, 2011 at 6:34 am |
    • Zamiel

      Don't capitalize 'atheist" please. It's not a religion, nor is it an organization.

      October 16, 2011 at 8:47 am |
    • Jennifer

      wow, I see we have a "dangerous evangelical" on our hands! You are spreading LIES. Since when, exactly, have Christians not been able to express their opinions? They do it all the time.

      There may be some atheists who are bigoted, angry, divisive, etc, but they are NOT all like that.

      Freedom of religion is a good thing and we should all be on our knees thanking the Founding Fathers for having the reason and foresight to consider it.

      October 16, 2011 at 10:01 am |
    • Kerry Berger

      Talk about fear mongering. It is you Evangelicals who keep on vilifying those who are atheist, agnostic or secular with lies that said people would take away your rights. That's bunk, pure and simple. It is people like you and your prejudices that threatens all our civil rights. I find your words highly offensive.

      October 16, 2011 at 10:52 am |
  4. David Johnson

    @Michael Wong

    You said: "Religious people always try to paint secular people as if they are just another religion, hence this language about secularists seeking "monopoly" and pushing out evangelicals. But secularism is actually religious NEUTRALITY."

    I don't want a Christian Theocracy. A secular monopoly sounds great. I want to push evangelicals out of government. I don't want them even on the town council. Their beliefs are beyond insane. I want them to home school their kids, so they won't proselytize to my kids. I want them to move to Texas and secede from the Union.

    I like your ideas, dude! Keep on posting.

    Cheers!

    October 16, 2011 at 2:03 am |
    • Joseph

      So in other words, your view of a better USA is anti-democracy and intolerance of those you disagree with. Yeah, I'm not holding my breath for that secular monopoly.

      October 16, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
  5. Shorn

    Evangelicals are fundamentalists. Fundamentalists intend to impose their religious 'laws' upon you whether you like it or not. That is why they are dangerous.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:03 am |
    • Linda

      And secularists don't intend to impose their secularist 'laws' upon you whether you like it or not? Hmmm . . .

      I think pretty much everyone of whatever political or religious persuasion wants to impose their "laws" on everybody else whether any of those people likes it or not. The issue is whether it's done legitimately through the legislative process or in some illegitimate fashion - by judicial fiat, for instance. That seems to be a popular tactic of many secularists.

      October 16, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
  6. Irony

    No, the bad part is that most evangelicals believe they are part of the Dominion. In simpler words?: God gave them Dominion over the whole Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology).

    Most Republicans Candidates are, or are affiliated to this cult-like belief group =P

    October 16, 2011 at 2:02 am |
  7. bulldogfrog

    Looney, looney, looney!

    October 16, 2011 at 2:02 am |
  8. dave836

    I think it all comes down to the person.

    I have a very good friend who's evangelical yet she will never judge anyone for their beliefs and she accepts anyone who's a nice person.

    On the other side, I passed by a crazy group of Christians (IDK if they are evangelical) the other day who called every female passing by a w_hore and every male a sinner in attempt to persuade people to join their faith (which is absolutely the most stupid thing ever). These are the type of people who should be labeled as "dangerous" – not a group of people with a certain belief.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:01 am |
    • Anon

      The Problem with Religious Moderates: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/The-Problem-With-Religious-Moderates.aspx

      October 16, 2011 at 2:04 am |
  9. DeeBee

    Can we assume these posts that rant against the crazed Republicans will be voting to re-elect President Obama, who professes to believe the same basic tenets of the Christian faith? What are we to make of this, then? Are they consciously voting for a man they must also claim to believe is an idiot, liar and hypocrite?

    October 16, 2011 at 2:01 am |
    • Tom

      Does CNN let you post links? If so, here's a good read on Obama's faith: http://spectator.org/archives/2008/05/07/the-audacity-of-what/

      Having a strong Christian background is a litmus test for presidents these days. In truth, I think he's pretty agnostic underneath. And at any rate, he's not going to be fighting against gay rights or denying evolution anytime soon.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:27 am |
  10. Lenny Pincus

    BTW, stare at the author's eyes for ten seconds and tell me he's not nuts. And if abortion is murder, what is dropping bombs on a civilian population? Tiddlywinks?

    October 16, 2011 at 2:00 am |
    • DeeBee

      Don't you mean, "And if dropping bombs on a civilian population is murder, what is abortion? Tiddlywinks?"

      October 16, 2011 at 2:04 am |
    • Lenny Pincus

      I believe neither is murder. What's your take?

      October 16, 2011 at 2:06 am |
    • DeeBee

      Both are murder. a.) If a woman walked into a hospital and asked to have her healthy arm cut off because it was 'inconvenient' for her to have it, she would be committed. If she asks to have a healthy, viable fetus cut out of her because it is 'inconvenient', she is hailed as a hero of women's rights and reproductive 'health.' b.) If any country's military knowingly drops a bomb on civilians, and it is not an accident or error, or if the civilians are not activity participating in the war by knowingly aiding, sheltering or protecting the actual combatants, it is murder.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:13 am |
    • Anon

      One is a viable medical practice that could be reduced if certain people didn't mind $ex education at schools while giving out free contraceptives and the other is an outdated primitive mindset that should be outgrown as soon as possible.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:22 am |
  11. KeithTexas

    Fundamentalist of any sort are dangerous. Islamist, Christian, Jew, or Hindi

    October 16, 2011 at 2:00 am |
  12. DeeBee

    Who to be afraid of? The Christians, or those writing here with such taunts and vindictiveness and hate? It was my understanding that the enlightened liberal atheist was held up to be the example of the better society to come once the believers were stamped out. I don't see that better society represented by the rantings here. I see the same intolerance, divisiveness and scorn we are lead to believe only the Fundamentalists possess.

    October 16, 2011 at 1:56 am |
    • Awkward Situations

      Dumpster baby?

      October 16, 2011 at 1:59 am |
    • Jennifer

      Seeing what you only want to see, hmm

      October 16, 2011 at 10:03 am |
    • Opiate of the masses

      The amount of logical fallacies and personal attacks made by the "intellectual liberal" is astonishing. Please realize that you can not generalize people with such sweeping strokes. Also it would help your argument if you didn't act like the "crazies" you are attacking.

      October 16, 2011 at 11:03 am |
  13. Me

    Five words important to our foundation: seperation of church and state

    October 16, 2011 at 1:56 am |
    • Sam

      Five words: Crazy Christian Camp For Children

      October 16, 2011 at 2:03 am |
  14. dave_in_altmar

    Simply put, evangelicals are whacky throwback links to the dark days when religion was the basis for cruelty to all of mankind.

    October 16, 2011 at 1:54 am |
  15. USA

    Is this for real? Because people don't agree with abortion, they are dangerous? But you can protest Wall Street because you want a handout, and while you're protesting smoke pot and urinate on public ground, then your a saint? This is completely ridiculious CNN. Hate propaganda!!! I hope the American people can see through this blantant ruse to create more hatred.

    October 16, 2011 at 1:54 am |
    • Andrew

      No, because people try to get creationism taught in schools, they're dangerous. (Bachmann actually tried.)
      It's because evangelicals try to limit the rights of marriage, a CIVIL inst-tution, because of their RELIGIOUS values.
      It's because evangelicals try to prohibit muslims from buldng mosques that they're dangerous.
      It's because evangelicals try to push their own religious values into making decisions for people who don't share those religious values that they are dangerous.

      And it's the fact that you think the OWS protests are people asking for handouts that you're ignorant, as well as dangerous. If you honestly don't see a problem with CEOs making 400 times more than their employees the US, if you don't see the problem with 1% of the country owning 40% of the liquid assets in the country, and 35% of the total equity of the country, you are living in a fantasy. Honestly, taxes for the rich are at historic lows, they're making record amounts of money, the people at the bottom are getting poorer, money is being transfered into increasingly few hands... this is a bad thing for ANY economy. It's not asking for handouts to be pointing out that 'this is fd up'.

      Oh, and why should you care if someone wants to smoke pot? Who are you to arbitrate your morality on others? Oh, that's right, an evangelical.

      Still trying to figure out why you guys are dangerous? You're ignorant, and ideologically driven.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:21 am |
    • SWbeth

      Yes USA this is for real. I'm amazed at the ignorance of most of the posters. They don't know their history, they don't know their own philosophy, and their rabid written hatred for anything Christian here in the safety of virtual anonymity is creepy in the extreme. Dare them to go to their workplaces or family gatherings or even the grocery store this afternoon and spout this intolerant reactionary athieistic diatribe. They won't. They can't. That actually takes an act of courage to come out from under your rock into the sunlight.

      October 16, 2011 at 5:52 am |
  16. Pimpson

    I'm not religious at all, but abortion should be banned. It's cold blooded murder, plain and simple. Everyone knows it, even the idiots who still support it.
    It's not theocratic to desire that murder be illegal in our society. Abortion is legalized murder, it's premeditated homicide.

    October 16, 2011 at 1:51 am |
    • Anon

      Enjoy banning abortion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

      October 16, 2011 at 1:59 am |
    • Bob

      I used to be "Pro Choice" until I saw pictures of an aborted fetus and realized this was not some blob of tissue. Seeing arms, legs, and heads ripped apart was enough to convince me that something was wrong with this so called "Pro Choice." I challenge others to take a look if they are brave enough to see the truth.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:03 am |
    • dave836

      I don't agree with abortion but I think people should have the choice. It's hard to say for me though because I don't know much about it and I'm really not interested in learning about it.

      What I really don't agree on though is that it's paid for by the government. Abortion should be paid for by the person unless it can be proven a major risk to the "mother's" health. Like if she had Hemophilia(IDK if this can actually be dangerous during child birth but it's just an example).

      October 16, 2011 at 2:07 am |
    • Anon

      Abortions are a medical practice, deal with it.
      Some women can die depending on the case if they're denied an abortion.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:08 am |
    • Anon

      Here's the irony, many pro-lifers DON'T want schools to talk about $ex education nor give out anti-contraceptives.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:13 am |
    • Anon

      Thus reducing the need for abortions in the first place.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:14 am |
    • Anon

      I meant give out free contraceptives, not anti-contraceptives.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:12 am |
    • JustThinkForOnce

      If you want to take all those aborted fetuses into your home and you (not the government and tax payers) support them, then set up a system that allows you to do that. Otherwise let each person makeup their own mind and give the young people some education and the means to prevent pregnancy.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:26 am |
    • J.R.

      Pro-Lifers are really not Pro-Life only because they want those babies to grow up to fight the Pro-Lifers Wars. So you see, you're really not so Pro-Life after all. I not only love abortion but also want mass sterilization. Slow down procreation DRAMATICALLY until we can straighten out these problems instead of adding to the problems by having more and more humans.

      October 16, 2011 at 8:10 am |
  17. JR

    "We’re dangerous only to those who want more secular voices to have a virtual monopoly in public life."

    Funny, seems like the Dominionists are shooting for the exact same thing...

    October 16, 2011 at 1:51 am |
  18. Matt

    When one person has an invisible friend that person is crazy. when a large group of people do the same it's called a religion..After reading the comments i can see that both sides of this argument turn to ad hominem over actually arguing their point. Religion is only a creation of man to make believe that there is some grand meaning to why we are here.

    October 16, 2011 at 1:51 am |
    • USA

      It's a lot better to believe in something greater and wiser than we are, than to think we evolved from apes and this is the extent of our existence. It must be really sad to think you live for so many years then die with nothing past that.

      October 16, 2011 at 1:57 am |
    • Matt

      It's not sad to think that. It's logical. If you want to prance around pretending that in the end the world is made of rainbows and cotton candy then go for it, but i've seen how messed up this place is. Go to the middle east, you'll quickly see there is not god there. you're little American bubble will quickly pop, and maybe you too can accept the reality that the bible is a bunch of nonsense

      October 16, 2011 at 2:05 am |
    • Matt

      Also at the same time outside of this forum i would never push my beliefs on anyone. I think freedom of religion is paramount, but evangelicals don't think that way. they want to push their crazy ideals on everyone, and have the arrogance to say that if you don't believe the way they do then you are wrong and will spend the rest of eternity suffering. how can anyone truly believe that way? that sounds like spiritual coercion to me. honestly, the world would be a much happier place if everyone kept their religious beliefs to themselves.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:10 am |
    • Andrew

      USA, personally, I prefer truth to comfortable delusions. Now, you're free to believe whatever you want, but as far as what we can support, yes, we aren't just 'evolved apes', we are simply apes. We are fairly smart apes on a really really tiny planet in a fairly moderate sized galaxy in a modest cluster inside a very enormous universe. Our lives mean very little. When you die, you become food for worms.

      But you know what, I'm ok with that. I would rather believe what I can demonstrate to be true, than believe a comfortable lie about being some special creature held in esteem by the creator of the universe itself. I don't feel the need to be so special. I enjoy life the way I have it. I like looking at stars, I like cooking good food, I like good wine, and I really hate hangovers. I know my time on this planet is limited and as soon as I die, that's it. So I seek to enjoy the time I'm put on this planet as well as I can.

      It's only sad if you feel the need to be part of something bigger than the universe. I find the universe plenty big already. And when I die, my atoms will all be part of it again. At least, until heat death comes by and dooms the universe itself. And who knows, even after heat death, maybe after a few googel googelplex years there will be some ultra-dense dark energy pocket brought about by quantum fluctuations and the whole thing starts over again. Or not. I certainly won't be around to see.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:10 am |
    • Kim

      USA, you just admitted that your beliefs are based on a discomfort about your own mortality. That's what drives many (perhaps most) people to religion, but it's certainly not a very compelling argument.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:12 am |
    • Tom

      @USA: It's not BETTER, it's more COMFORTABLE. There's a very critical difference.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:12 am |
    • George Marshall

      USA the modern theory of evolution does not indicate that people evolved from apes but that all living primates are descended from primate ancestors. And what do you have against apes that allows you to feel so superior? Human beings are by far the most destructive animal on the planet. You probably won't have to worry about apes much longer. We are doing an effective job of exterminating them.

      October 16, 2011 at 11:49 am |
  19. David Johnson

    Consider, that if asked, Hitler would have sworn we had nothing to fear...

    Better to vote for the Dems and avoid a fascist Christian theocracy.

    Evangelicals make me wanna puke. The Christian god is very unlikely to exist.

    Cheers!

    October 16, 2011 at 1:47 am |
    • Jimtanker

      R'amen!

      October 16, 2011 at 1:51 am |
  20. Michael Wong

    Religious people always try to paint secular people as if they are just another religion, hence this language about secularists seeking "monopoly" and pushing out evangelicals. But secularism is actually religious NEUTRALITY.

    It is not "monopoly" that secularists seek, but in fact it is religious monopoly which secularists oppose. A government which is run on secular principles will cater equally to Christians, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Sikhs, Buddhists, whatever. Secular government is the ONLY kind of government which can make that statement.

    October 16, 2011 at 1:47 am |
    • Cassie

      Well said!

      October 16, 2011 at 1:53 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Michael Wong

      You said: "Religious people always try to paint secular people as if they are just another religion, hence this language about secularists seeking "monopoly" and pushing out evangelicals. But secularism is actually religious NEUTRALITY."

      I don't want a Christian Theocracy. A secular monopoly sounds great. I want to push evangelicals out of government. I don't want them even on the town council. Their beliefs are beyond insane. I want them to home school their kids, so they won't proselytize to my kids. I want them to move to Texas and secede from the Union.

      I like your ideas, dude! Keep on posting.

      Cheers!

      October 16, 2011 at 2:04 am |
    • Nick

      Michael, I can at least see where you're coming from in your second paragraph, but I wish you'd give more to back up your claim that secularism is religious neutrality, rather than another religion. I don't think I'm convinced. Then again, "religion" can be defined in many ways, and I think if you ask anyone of any belief system, they're all going to want to distinguish what they believe from "just another religion."

      October 16, 2011 at 2:32 am |
    • Nick

      @David Johnson

      How narrow minded could you be? Lol, man. I'm sorry, I'm normally big on respect for what other people believe, but I don't think you're allowed to call someone's beliefs "insane" in the same paragraph you suggest pushing Christians to Texas to secede from the union.

      To All:
      Here's an opportunity to accept that there are people on both sides that are crazy. Who wants to say that evolution can't be true because this guy has some crazy Christian schooling plan? Doesn't make sense, does it?

      October 16, 2011 at 2:40 am |
    • gracebeliever

      You are so right! good comments.

      October 16, 2011 at 10:30 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.