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. Tom

    Well, secular voices deserve a monopoly regarding voice, they are the only ones talking about the reality we all share. I'm sorry but there is no god. There is nothing to prove, no certainty necessary, the idea is false. They can believe whatever they wish, it should however have no effect on how laws are made, morals are created, or governments are run. You may not agree, and that is your right, but to limit all people based on morals designed by man, by a god made by man, is the greatest tragedy in human history. Your perspective looks at the debate on religion where god and atheism are equals in a debate... they never have been, and never will be. A god shouldn't even be a consideration for anything besides what you want to entertain in your head.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:29 am |
    • Dave

      Wow...such firm religious devotion to Dawkins. While you are attending your secular humanist meetings complaining about how terrified of death you are and spending all you money on atheist books and beating the drum until the hide splits about how you atheists are Darwin's "chosen ones" to breed the world into heaven on earth....the rest of us are simply tired of hearing you run your mouth and want some peace and quiet.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:15 am |
    • Brad

      @Dave - Awful defensive are we? One issue with your statement. Darwin is not god and unlike the bible... evolution is not a story in a book. In short, you've truly missed the point and are stuck on the short bus.

      October 16, 2011 at 8:24 am |
    • seeker

      @Tom- I want to believe your secularist views. But how do I know what you claim to be true. Where is the proof?

      October 17, 2011 at 1:51 am |
  2. Scott

    Mohler simply chooses to ignore the intolerance associated with so called evangelicals. Evangelicals believe the world in terms of black and white and simply follow the teachings of their pastors without question, even though many of them are not fully grounded in Biblical teachings. You won't see a evangelical sparing an adulterer from stoning or helping the poor like Jesus did. Their politcal aims are not benign since they would seek to trample on the individual freedoms of others to suit their own views. It is not enough for them to live their own life. They need to tell you have to live yours and put in place legal restrictions to enforce their views. And that is why many people have reservations about evangelicals and their cult behavior.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:29 am |
  3. Dre

    When you bring religion into politics, you are no better than fundamentalists in other parts of the world preaching social and moral correctness. Think Taliban who want strict Sharia law, lack of rights for women and one way of thinking toward their religion or you are an infidel. Christian fundamentalist who are ardent in their views in this country are very similar.

    Look you as an american citizen have to right to believe in whatever you want, and teach that your children, but, expecting a candidate to be your political messiah who will spread 'your' gospel is pretty nuts. Government and religion should never be joined at the hip. Period. If you think this is incorrect, look at the governments of Iran, Middle East where religion social laws rule the land, do you prefer such societies?

    October 16, 2011 at 2:28 am |
  4. buckup

    USA is 'the' global leader in creating new religions.
    Has any country created more in such a short time?
    Let them pay taxes. Bring back Baal and baby sacrifices.
    The old religions are merely out of fashion, but solid. Fixer-uppers.
    religious fascism? no such thing, can't happen, impossible, just doing the will of God(s). Get with the program and obey.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:26 am |
  5. J

    Atheists want to get rid of religion, not understanding that it is their own moral nihilism which led to such atheist utopias such as Stalins Russia, Hitlers Gemany, and Maos China..collective death toll for those experiments was at least 100 million. Hitler in particular was a social darwinist, who wanted to create the master race, by getting rid of those races he thought were closer to apes. He thought he was doing humanity a favor by following evolutionary logics to their natural conclusion. Secular humanism is far more dangerous as proven by the holocausts of the past 100 years. Check out "The Origins of Totalitarianism" some time..

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

      Exactly! I wish there was a "like" button on here!

      October 16, 2011 at 2:26 am |
    • tljnsd

      And how many wars have there been and people died in the name of religion over the last 2,000 years? A dare same many millions more than the examples you cited. People are still dying in this world over religion daily. And you wonder why some of us think we'd be better off without it. Get back to taking care of the poor....wait a minute; for evangelicals Jesus would be a Republican so damn the poor.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:33 am |
    • Andrew

      Ah, the ye ol' "atheists are HITLER!" argument. Classic. It's strange people still use it, by now you'd have thought they'd figure out Hitler has said "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth!"

      Hitler has never said anything which could be made to seem as though he were an atheist. But, guess what, I don't blame religion for Hitler's actions. I blame religion for causing the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades, but Hitler was something different. Hitler was INSANE, he was an ego maniacal insane individual who achieved way too much power by finding a viable scapegoat. Religion did not cause him to go crazy, he was just crazy. (I doubt the same could be said about the 9/11 terrorists) (PS, Hitler actually banned "Origin of Species" in Germany, and social darwanism is nothing like biological evolution.)

      But then you go to the opposite end, Stalin and Mao were certainly atheists. And guess what, they were also INSANE, they were egomaniacs and killed because they were simply horrible people, who happened to be atheist, just like Hitler happened to be Christian.

      So lets look at what atheists actually say. Do people like Dawkins or Hitchens advocate for a totalitarian state where religious individuals are exterminated? Umm, nope, they generally just say 'your beliefs are flawed, and I would like to inform you why... though I might be a dick about it'.

      Just because people don't believe in god doesn't mean they're going to want to advocate mass genocide. But nice try.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:35 am |
    • tljnsd

      And how many wars have there been and people died in the name of religion over the last 2,000 years? I dare same many millions more than the examples you cited. People are still dying in this world over religion daily. And you wonder why some of us think we'd be better off without it. Get back to taking care of the poor....wait a minute; for evangelicals Jesus would be a Republican so damn the poor.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:36 am |
    • tljnsd

      And how many wars have there been and people died in the name of religion over the last 2,000 years? I dare say many millions more than the examples you cited. People are still dying in this world over religion daily. And you wonder why some of us think we'd be better off without it. Get back to taking care of the poor....wait a minute; for evangelicals Jesus would be a Republican so damn the poor.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:36 am |
    • D

      But herein lies the issue with that argument..and a great example is the NAR (national apostolic reformation) which sponsored Rick Perry's prayer meeting in TX. This group claims the Statue of Liberty is a demonic presence, and that if they can create a large enough genocide..it will force God to rapture them (I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried..go read about it). Quite frankly, I do believe in God...but some of the things that have come from the 'right' here lately are absolutely terrifying. What the majority fears is something 'extremist' that people don't agree with but will be forced into. That's why these people want religion seperate from politics (and believe it or not, the majority of Dem's do believe in God, studies have proven it..they just don't agree with the GOP manipulation of it).

      October 16, 2011 at 2:37 am |
    • Anon

      Evolution by natural selection is not the same thing as artificial selection. Hitler advocated artificial selection which has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution and the theory has gained lots of evidence since it's discovery.

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

      Funny, I always thought current right-wing US politics were more social darwinian than not. In terms of social policy, the US in general offers disadvantaged people a lot less than does Canada and other western European countries.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:41 am |
    • Rickote

      If you could measure desnsity of stupidity by square inch, this coment just create a discontinuity!

      October 16, 2011 at 2:41 am |
    • J

      Andrew, you are obviously not a student of history. Hitler may have claimed Christianity in his propaganda, to manipulate the masses, but he in fact despised Christianity. Here are some quotes:

      14th October, 1941, midday

      "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
      "Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
      "...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
      "Christianity the liar....
      "We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State."

      19th October, 1941, night

      "The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

      Have you ever heard of Eugenics? The connection is there, Hitler was trying to create the master race based on evolutionary principles. Here is a nice video for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBi-5Y-onVI

      "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBi-5Y-onVI

      October 16, 2011 at 2:55 am |
    • Andrew

      You're right, I'm NOT a student of history. I'm a physics student. So, I will concede I was wrong about Hitler, "Hitler's table talks" seems pretty convincing.

      Now, regarding eugenics, that I'm a bit more able to comment on. While biology's not my major, it's not like I haven't taken courses and I do have a firm grasp on the fundamentals. Eugenics is really, really stupid from an evolutionary point of view. Hitler might have wanted to do so, but as far as evolution is concerned, self-inflicted bottlenecks are idiotic.

      The reason is genetic diversity. One of the healthiest things for a species is a large amount of genetic diversity, it's what helps prevent diseases from wiping out the species. The reason our banana trees are all dying is because they're all roughly the same, and so when blight infects it, they're all equally susceptible. That creates giant pandemics. Same thing is happening to Cheetahs, which are highly susceptible to disease and have also had a recent bottleneck event.

      Conscious biology students would be aware of this. They have a fundamental understanding of the need for diversity within a species. Diversity in biology is a very, very good thing, and why the mass extinction going on in oceanic coral is a bit troublesome. So, Hitler being a bad student of biology does not make the theory any less valid, it just means that Hitler was an idiot when it came to understanding science.

      ... And I chuckled a bit on the inside when you literally linked me a youtube video of Ben Stein's "Expelled, no intelligence allowed". Seriously, Ben Stein? As a student of the sciences, I tend to prefer better sources when discussing matters relating to science. Poorly produced absurd movies that takes numerous (see:every) liberty with facts is hardly a decent source.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:10 am |
    • Andrew

      As it turns out, now I'm not so sure he was an atheist anymore. I have NO idea what Hitler's actual beliefs were, as the table talks aren't entirely a single coherent source. The wikipedia article on the table talks comes with a rather large list of citations from historians who come down on both sides of it. You've got the lines, which even as poor translations, seem to be highly atheistic, but little other indication of such beliefs. If students of history aren't really sure if Hitler was an atheist, then I'm not going to make a judgment one way or the other.

      If you happen to be a student of history, I suggest to you that the answer isn't clear cut.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:17 am |
    • Jimtanker

      J was just quote mining. There are many examples in which HitIer stated that he was a catholic and was doing what he did to exterminate the jewish people. He also had the direct backing of the pope at the time.

      October 17, 2011 at 6:48 am |
  6. Ron

    Mohler is 100% correct. Evangelicals don't want to creat a theocracy. They just don't want anti-religious bigots ruling the country.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:24 am |
  7. Lewis

    ".. The vast majority of evangelicals are not attempting to create a theocracy .."
    So long as the government passes laws that agree with their cult belief system and allows their right wing conservative tea party to control the country

    October 16, 2011 at 2:19 am |
    • Dave

      No, I think the question "what stage of development does life begin?" is a very important question. Secularists really don't read and think philosophically very much do they?

      October 16, 2011 at 2:22 am |
    • Dave

      As far as the tea party goes, that isn't a Christian organization, it is a "right wing" organization. Plenty of Chrisitians who are progressive exist if you don't buy into stereotypes.

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

      Love them or hate them, they have to be taken seriously. They kicked butt in the last national election. Not since the 1940's has had their been such a change in seats in Congress.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:31 am |
    • Rickote

      Dave, you can't be more wrong. Yes seculars we read, then think and create our own views, very often using philosophy as the basis, most serius religous people do not think (that is a sin), and read (that not understand) just one book that just put in memory. Forget about philosophy, such a liberal art!!

      October 16, 2011 at 2:35 am |
    • HotAirAce

      @Dave

      The question of when does life begin, at least as it relates to abortion, has been asked and answered, all the way up to the US and Canadian Suprem Courts (and in many other countries). Please note that while I do not know the religious character of the USA Supreme Court at the time this questions was settled, the current members are described as "6 christians and 3 Jews" and it is unlikely that any justice has been an atheist – my point here is that no believer can argue that atheists created the current laws. And of course, I don't think any change is requried. If a believer or anyone else for that matter, does not believe abortions are OK, they simply can refrain from having one, rather than trying to impose their beliefs on others and taking their rights away.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:41 am |
    • Dave

      @HotAirAce
      No that debate wasn't about the beginning of life, it was about whether it would be worse having abortion as birth control or women dying in black market clinics

      October 16, 2011 at 2:46 am |
  8. Keith

    Theocracy bad. Anybody's theocracy bad. That's why the Founding Fathers clearly established separation of church and state.

    Many of the colonies were founded on faiths different from the other colonies, and they were already fleeing religious persecution in England. As a result of that environment, the Founding Fathers bordered on paranoia when it came to wanting to make sure no one system of belief could finagle itself into domination over the other beliefs. Thus, separation of church and state came about from very real and tangible concerns of the times.

    ...and NOTHING in regards to religion has changed since then. Too many "Christians" are all too willing to proclaim their personal brand of Christianity should dominate everyone else's personal brand of Christianity. The Catholic Church still proclaims itself "the one true church". Intolerance of other non-Christian religions is all too prevalent. Thus separation of church and state is every bit as huge a concern as when it was for the Founding Fathers – and for the continuing exact same reasons.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:19 am |
  9. mbal

    Perry's questioning of evolution is about as idiotic as questioning gravity or heliocentrism, that is why Dawkins excoriated him. And just because a lot of Americans "question" evolution, it does not make them relevant, it just proves the US is very far behind other developed countries in science education.

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

      Lets say we are behind in education, in general, science is only one small part.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:23 am |
    • Dave

      I say people have a right to think for themselves. Yeah I support science and science education, but open debate makes things interesting. Besides every creationist I know knows and understands the theory of evolution just fine, they just question it. The freethinker label is a definite oxymoron,

      October 16, 2011 at 2:33 am |
    • mbal

      People do have a right to think for themselves. But Perry is not thinking for himself when he questions evolution. It is a strategy to try to discredit evolution in favor of creationism. Christians have already had the Bible disproven regarding astronomy (geocentrism vs heliocentrism), so they do not want see it happen regarding biology (creationism vs evolution). Despite all the evidence supporting evolution as a scientific principle, Perry just cannot accept the fact that the Bible is wrong again. He can believe and "think" in all his heart that god "poofed" everything into existence the way it is now, but it won't make it true and will not help to make him look intelligent.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:22 am |
    • George Marshall

      Dave your statement that creationists know and understand the theory of evolution is nonsense. They know nothing about it because they don't want to learn anything about it. If they try to address it they quote something that Darwin said 150 years ago or distort the Second Law of Thermodynamics to argue that life could not have emerged spontaneously, or the goofy belief in "intelligent design," the belief that prevailed before the Age of Enlightenment, that everything that was not understood must be explained by a miracle. A an educational starting point may I suggest the NOVA Science Now public television program "What Darwin Never Knew." It's available for less than $25.

      October 16, 2011 at 12:37 pm |
  10. Ron Cole

    Well, interesting, shallow, and poorly investigated, but I read it anyway. Can those who are religious be dangerous, and more dangerous than others? Historically, yes, they are. Take a look at the New York skyline and compare that to a picture before 2001 and you'll see what religion can do. Read the figures of how many people in central of south American lost their lives to religion during the days right after Columbus and you'll get another idea. Count how many people have lost their lives in the past 10 years in Norther Africa and yet another picture reveals itself.

    Religion can be a good thing, but history has taught us well, always keep one eye on those who are religious and a big stick in your hand, or you too may end up like one of those in south American when organized Christian religion came to the America's. So many are now gone, there are few to even talk to about what happened.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:18 am |
  11. FormCritic

    It is fascinating to me how this particular debate is always rife with misquotes, quotes out of context, or quotes that demonstrate ignorance on the part of the speaker.

    I believe it is also important to remember that sarcasm is amusing, but it is not actually a cogent argument.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:18 am |
  12. Devin

    What stupid article!

    October 16, 2011 at 2:16 am |
    • Bob

      What stupid post!

      October 16, 2011 at 2:17 am |
  13. BX

    Im Christian..very!! But yiyiyi

    October 16, 2011 at 2:15 am |
  14. Dave

    I agree with Mr. Mohler. Ultimately secularist rhetoric was born in Europe during a for different time in history and really lost a legit basis in reality a long time ago. People who are proponants of that worldview today either have sore feelings, are narcissist bullies with resentment toward moral standards trying to act like secular humanist gurus to feed their ego (Sam Harris is a great example), or are following what is the newest trendy thing to do by wearing atheism as the newest fashion statement. I'm far more worried about political extremes, both right and left, dividing and turning people on each other. Listening to secularists post their thoughts does trouble me. If they had their way we would have what amounts to thought crimes in this supposedly free country.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:15 am |
    • Void

      Funny you mention "thought crimes", because as a secular individual I don't believe a thought crime is possible to commit. You on the other hand, do, as your deity of choice knows your every thought before you even have time to think it, knows you to your very soul. It must be tough, walking on eggshells through your own mind.

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

      First of all, secularism isn't rhetoric, it's the foundation on which the United States is built. And Mohler and you could not be more wrong about a host of issues regarding seculars and atheists. We simply do not want anybody, especially our government, telling us, you, or anybody what to believe. Why is that so hard to understand? As for thought crimes, are you kidding? Coming from a xtian that pretty much defines irony.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:37 am |
    • Dave

      @Void

      Actually that is hilarious considering that if you say anything like "Richard Dawkins is a pseudo-intellectual with lots of hate but nothing of substance to say" you all flip out and like if I keyed your car or something.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:56 am |
    • Dave

      @Bill this country was founded on freedom of religion...it isn't an atheist state. The communists tried to make an atheist state, we see how free that turned out.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:00 am |
    • Void

      Was that an honest attempt at rebuttal?

      October 17, 2011 at 1:15 am |
  15. be

    Interestingly enough it was the law of a religion that had Jesus crucified.....the secular government (Pilot) wanted to release him. I think I will stick with separation of church and state. Religious zealots of all faiths tend to allow the emotions of their beliefs to blind them to the voice of reason and science. And, since God is the author of reason and science, I fear religious zealots to be the most ungodly of all.

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

      Very well said, I go to church each week but I believe your religion and your beliefs should have no part in government.

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

      I would beg to differ. The emporer was look to as a god.

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

      Beg all you want, Bob.....but although the Roman emperor was considered "a god," there was no dogma or creed that blinded his decisions or tainted his reason......it just made his decisions "infallible." Big, big difference. While I agree that it is a bizarre way of thinking, the reality is that it is really no different than a monarchy.......and probably just as secular.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:28 am |
  16. LOL

    Fundamentalists are dangerous, and i don't care who they call god. Fundamentalist Xtians/Evangelicals, Fundamentalist Muzzies, FLDS, and what have you. I take the average Evangelical about as seriously as i take a Scientologist except i don't kick them as much trying to get them off my porch. DO NOT seek to impose your faith upon me through litigation and politics. Politicians are bad enough, politicians who talk to imaginary people in the sky are worse.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:14 am |
  17. Jean

    "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."

    Up until the moment they are born, that is. After that, they're on their own. No health insurance, that's their problem. Poor, that's their problem. It's funny how that evangelical thing works.

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

      Not all, some including myself are pro-life and deeply supportive of social programs that help those in need. Thats a stereotype.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:43 am |
    • Anon

      You don't mind schools teaching about $ex education and giving out free contraceptives?

      October 16, 2011 at 3:44 am |
  18. Nightwing

    If these evangelistas wanna get into politics, then REVOKE their tax exemption.

    There's no doubt that, if given the chance, they would tear down the Statue of Liberty and replace it with a cross.

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

      AMEN !

      October 16, 2011 at 2:15 am |
    • Franco

      So ... by the same logic, any Nonprofit Organization (Unions, churches, Enviromental Organization , etc) that support one political issue must lose its Nonprofit Status.

      October 16, 2011 at 11:40 am |
    • seeker

      @Franco –Amen and Amen!!

      October 17, 2011 at 2:00 am |
  19. 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 2:10 am |
    • Chloe in Chatsworth, CA

      So don't have abortions.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:19 am |
    • Anon

      Abortions are a medical practice, deal with it.
      Some women can die depending on the case if they're denied an abortion.
      Here's the irony, many pro-lifers DON'T want schools to talk about $ex education nor give out contraceptives, thus reducing the need for abortions in the first place.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:52 am |
    • seeker

      If your parents decided to have you aborted and you had something to say about it, would you just "deal with it?"

      October 17, 2011 at 2:04 am |
    • MN

      @seeker-I wouldn't have a say, I'd be DEAD and therefore no better or worse off than I was before.

      Now, I don't believe in god, but let's pretend I do for a second.....If a child is aborted and there is a god, then it stands to reason this child would be in heaven. Living in eternal happiness with the lord. Doesn't sound terrible to the theist. As oppossed to this same child, being born to a mother who doesn't want it and ends up at best giving it up for adoption, a lot of whom end up in foster care, tossed around from family to family with no real home. And even the ones who get adopted by a nice family can have SEVERE emotional problems. I know I have four teenage foster children, two of whom where adopted but then put into the system due to their behavioral problems, even though they had stable loving parents. Now do some get adopted and live perfectly normal lives, yes, of course but believe me when I tell you it is NOT the norm. The other alternative is that they stay with the mother and/or father who didn't want them and end up being abused, neglected, and not taken care of. So looking at both of these scenarios, you would think even the right wing evangelicals would favor abortion, especially given their stance on helping poor or abused children and families. Why the rush to "be their voice" according to the article before they are born and then kick them to side once they are here, how is that reasonable?

      October 21, 2011 at 10:50 pm |
  20. HotAirAce

    This seems like a perfect place to remind all that 70+% of all abortions in the USA are had by believers. If believers want to signficantly reduce the number of abortions in the USA, all they need to do is follow their own cults' rules and live according to their own stated values. No changes in laws are required to eliminate 70+% of the abortions in the USA!! As is so often the case, believers should clean up their own backyard before attempting to tell others how to behave.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:08 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.