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. withoutgod

    2 Chronicles 21 14-15 :14 Behold, with a great plague will the LORD smite thy people, and thy children, and thy wives, and all thy goods::15 And thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day.

    October 16, 2011 at 7:40 pm |
    • ExCatholic

      Withoutgod, doing that is called preaching to those of like mind. It won't reach those who just don't agree. Do you want to be at least tolerated? Then be tolerant and respectful. I know, fyat chyance....

      October 16, 2011 at 7:43 pm |
    • ashrakay

      haha... And luckily science will be there to protect you.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:43 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Great example of Bronze Age medical diagnoses: trouble with the bowels.
       
      I am an atheist. In case of accident, call a doctor.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:47 pm |
    • Lenny

      And then the zombie apocalypse started...

      October 16, 2011 at 8:02 pm |
  2. russ

    Just to make a small correction. The picture shows the March for Life of which the majority participants are Catholics. The young lady in the picture is carrying a Knights of Columbus made sign, a Catholic organization. CNN should not use a picture of Catholics to represent evangelicals, of which only a small percentage attend the March for Life.

    October 16, 2011 at 7:39 pm |
  3. BW42

    "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."

    Evolution is a FACT. It didn't happen just in the distant past. It's been observed in real time for nearly a century. The theory of evolution (how it works) is one of the most successful scientific theories ever developed. People who question evolution, occurring before our very eyes, don't undermine the theory. They highlight their own ignorance. That a majority of Americans question evolution is a national embarrassment.

    What's dangerous is that a group of people want this ignorance imposed on our educational system and national policies.

    October 16, 2011 at 7:34 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      The author needs to do more research on what const¡tutes apoplexy. Apparently he thinks it means "calm, sensible, fact-based criticism", which is what Richard Dawkins provided.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:45 pm |
    • BW42

      PS:

      http://geology.com/news/2011/examples-of-evolution-today-2.shtml

      October 16, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
    • Richard Kaiser

      Evolution is a FACT. It didn't happen just in the distant past. It's been observed in real time for nearly a century. The theory of evolution (how it works) is one of the most successful scientific theories ever developed.

      Theoretical facts,,, evolution is a theoretical fact? Most successful? Scientific theory? Sorry, but I can't seem to follow your lines of thought,,,, I must have my dunce cap on too tightly,,,, 🙂

      October 16, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
    • BW42

      "I must have my dunce cap on too tightly,,,,"

      You don't understand the difference between a theory and a fact. A theory explains the facts that we observe (evolution) and makes predictions based on those facts.

      October 16, 2011 at 8:01 pm |
    • Richard Kaiser

      BW42,,,, the following is what you wrote,,,, "Evolution is a FACT. It didn't happen just in the distant past. It's been observed in real time for nearly a century. The theory of evolution (how it works) is one of the most successful scientific theories ever developed."

      You wrote that "evolution is fact" and then stated, "The theory of evolution (how it works) is one of the most successful scientific theories ever developed."

      Guess I'm not the only one with a dunce cap on rather tightly,,,, ya think? 🙂

      October 16, 2011 at 8:12 pm |
    • BW42

      "Guess I'm not the only one with a dunce cap on rather tightly,,,, ya think?"

      I think you're deliberately misunderstanding the relationship between theories and facts.

      Gravity is a fact. If you jump off a building you'll fall.

      The THEORY of gravity explains why you fall, and how fast you'll be falling when you hit the ground.

      If you've graduated from high school, you should have been taught this in one of your science classes.

      October 17, 2011 at 12:37 am |
  4. NASCAR fuel is people!!

    IT'S PEOPLE!! AAAAAAAAAHHH!!

    October 16, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
  5. Thomas

    If it weren't obvious that the Republican Party has essentially become the Christian Right Party, I'd offer a big yawn to the whole article. I'm tired of hearing Evangelicals talk about themselves. Bo-ring!

    October 16, 2011 at 7:27 pm |
  6. Richard Kaiser

    Re-edited & re-posted due an update,,,,

    Freedom? What? Freely given? Where? Freedom for all? When? Free will? How? And we all have a free spirit? Right,,,,, What’s next for the political and religious panderers to proclaim freely? Huh?

    October 16, 2011 at 7:27 pm |
  7. ashrakay

    @somehow, the enemy of your mind.

    October 16, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
  8. mervel

    People do have the right to make decisions about their body, just not the bodies of their children.

    October 16, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
    • Richard Kaiser

      Ya musta been sleeping when pro-choice became a lawful activity,,,,,?

      October 16, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Moron. Women do indeed have the right to make decisions about their OWN bodies and whatever is IN THEM. Just like men do.

      October 16, 2011 at 8:48 pm |
  9. Joshua

    Yes, we're really, really dangerous ... what with our churches and voting and what not.

    October 16, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
    • KeithTexas

      If you are a Christian I don't believe you are dangerous.

      If you are a Fundamentalist Praise Jesus Christian you are dangerous. Fundamentalist are dangerous no matter their belief system.

      Fundamentalism is any philosophy which is literal-minded or carries a pretense of being the sole source of objective truth as fundamentalist, regardless of whether it is usually called a religion. If it is unquestionable and unerring it is outside the experiential physical and philosophical lives of man. In other words the truths being presented can not be proven in the material reality of every day life.

      I have faith and a belief system but it is not infallible and unquestionable so if you are a fundamentalist Christian you would say that I was not a Christian. If you ask me however, I would profess myself as a Christian. That is the best explanation of fundamentalism I can devise.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:41 pm |
  10. jma58

    People should have the right to make their own decisions regarding their own body. Do any of you want the government to tell you what part of your body you can have romoved?

    October 16, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
    • Scott

      A baby is not a "part" of a woman's body. It is a life that is growing inside of her that is dependent of her own. Being dependent on a mother for survival does not make it part of her body.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:50 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Doesn't matter what you think it "makes it". The fact is that a woman has the right to choose.

      Really gripes your azz, doesn't it, that you can't control other peoples' bodies for them?

      October 16, 2011 at 8:50 pm |
  11. Daniel

    I have no qualms with religion. If it weren't for religion, we would have absolutely no checks and balances on the worlds population growth. I'm all for it.

    October 16, 2011 at 7:21 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Well, you may have a point there. It IS true that the pope's opposition to condoms has led to the massive spread of AIDS in Africa. But any justice involved would pretty much require the religiots to be offing themselves or each other, not innocent bystanders. Sadly, not the case.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:34 pm |
  12. Tom

    It is a repression of my religious freedom that the law doesn't reflect my Pastafarian beliefs. I demand 'Talk Like a Pirate Day' be a national holiday and that all people not talking like a pirate that day be imprisoned.

    October 16, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
    • Daniel

      That's right! And I am "offended" by everyone who does not believe that FSM is a religion! And by virtue of me being "offended," I demand that FSM be taught in our public schools!!!!!!!!!!!!

      October 16, 2011 at 7:24 pm |
    • Thomas

      Did you really call your faith "Pastafarian?" There's no guessing what you eat during your rituals...

      October 16, 2011 at 7:31 pm |
    • Tom

      Some Christians think they communion is transformed into blood and Christs body. My faith is no less ridiculous since we can prove we eat pasta.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:35 pm |
    • ashrakay

      Fairies have 6 wings and not 4. Those who believe otherwise are infidels.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:41 pm |
  13. Evan

    When abortion-choice advocates say "If you don't want abortion, than don't have one, but people have the right to make their own decision", the same logic can be applied to the following situation: If you don't like drug gangs, than don't join one, but you have no right to prevent me from pursuing my career as a gangster...

    October 16, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
    • KeithTexas

      You must one of those Christians who didn't bother going to college. Logic is one of the courses you might have taken if you had gone.

      Your argument is about as stupid as they get.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
    • MaryM

      Evan, NO religion in government period. You can not force you beliefs on other people

      October 16, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
    • Daniel

      The two are incomparable. Sometimes, abortion is necessary, such as when the mother is impoverished and birth control failed, or when the mother will die if she carries it to term, etc. There is no necessity to be in a drug gang.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:24 pm |
    • Evan

      "You must one of those Christians who didn't bother going to college"

      I'm not sure how many colleges would accept me considering I'm a freshman in high school.

      "Your argument is about as stupid as they get"

      This statement is so contradciting it's almost funny. First off, you didn't point out what was invalid about my logic. You just said that it is, which is the equivelant of saying "You're wrong because you are!" Second, did your logic class (assuming that even existed) teach you about Ad Hominem attacks? Apparently not.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
    • Evan

      MaryM

      "NO religion in government period. You can not force you beliefs on other people"

      First off, I think this abortion debate transcends religion. I personally know pro-life Atheists and abortion-choice Christians. The Bible doesn't really say anything about it. Second, aren't you being hypocritcal by saying that my opinion doesn't count? That's not very democratical either.

      Third, alright, so I can kill and sell drugs to all the people I want, and you can't stop me because you can't force your beliefs on me (please don't tell me that you actually believe that. This "moral relativism" that Americans have picked up is just ridiculous). Lastly, you're basically saying "Don't force your beliefs on others". First off, I wasn't. Second, this statement is contradicting and slighlty hypocritical.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:30 pm |
    • Dubya

      Evan

      Your reason is child like. Get an education.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:31 pm |
    • George

      The gangster analogy isn't really applicable. Abortion isn't illegal. Committing crimes for a living is.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
    • Evan

      Daniel,

      I count that as an exception. If the death of the mother is likely, than I think such an abortion is justifiable. What I'm against is people who have abortions simply because they do not want to have children. These aren't necessary either, so I believe that my comparison stands.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:33 pm |
    • JT

      "I'm not sure how many colleges would accept me considering I'm a freshman in high school."

      Well, that explains your ridiculous analogy but you should still have a bit more world smarts. I hope by the time you're a senior you will have become more rational and educated.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:33 pm |
    • Super Patriotic Vetern who died for your rights

      His reasoning is child-like because he is a child.

      So he can be excused to a degree. But remember – crazy brainwashed kids grow up to be crazy brainwashed adults.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:35 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Actually, Evan, I appreciated your riposte about the ad-hominem nature of some of the responses to your original post. The reason it was being criticized is because you are drawing a false analogy. The main reason society advances for regulating your conduct is to prevent harm (or threat of harm) to other citizens and their property. I personally would defend gang membership as a valid exercise of your freedom of association, but I'd draw the line if the gang started engaging in destructive behavior. It's the harmful nature of the activity that provides the validation for the restriction, not the mere fact that there IS a restriction.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:39 pm |
    • andrewthree

      Evan, you're on the right track. They have not answered your argument. Don't let them discourage you, keep at it. Don't let them off the hook.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:42 pm |
    • Evan

      Dubya,

      You're statement is so contradicting it's almost funny. You claim that my logic is childlike, but you do not point out how? Saying "You're wrong because you are" is quite a childlike argument.

      George

      "Abortion isn't illegal. Committing crimes for a living is"

      Just because it is illegal does not mean that it should be, nor does that make it moral. But you're missing the point, people argue that people have the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion. I'm arguing, by the same logic, that I'm allowed to be a gangster because nobody has the right to force their opinion on me. Seriously, this "moral relativism" that the vast majority of Americans have picked up is just so ridiculous.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:42 pm |
    • George

      No Evan you comparison does not stand because any reasonable person thinks that committing crimes as a career is immoral while not all reasonable people will assume abortion is immoral. BY your own admission you think it is immoral but you do not represent all people.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:43 pm |
    • Mike

      That's absurd. There is a philosophy that what affects the personal sphere is not the business of the government, and that as your actions exit the personal sphere and begin to affect society, then those issues carry greater government influence. Having an abortion is a deeply personal decision in which the sphere of those being affected is strictly bound to those making the decision. I understand evangelicals view the fetus as another life being affected, and that issue cast a cloud that affects the reasoning of many liberals as well. We may not agree with the decision, and we may believe that life would be a far more moral choice, but we understand that to allow the government make that decision for a person would be tyranny over the individual. The philosophy of a personal sphere can be seen in how liberals handle gay marriage- it's your life, your marriage, government has no place in deciding if you can do it (spare me the goat-marring equivocations). This is not that same as if you want to blackmail and extort other people. Just as Jesus said, "let what is of Caesar be Caesar's, and let what is of God be God's." Then let what is of the individual be the individual's and let what is of society be subject to that society. Stop trying to legislate personal morals by spending tax-payer money while championing "small government" that allows bankers to collude to extort workers.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:44 pm |
    • *frank*

      "ad hominem" –> 'to the man'. A freshman in h.s. is not a man.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:44 pm |
    • KeithTexas

      I am sorry Evan, I was not trying to debate with you, my intention was to insult you. Since reading your answer I see that you may be mature beyond your years.

      Actually RichardSRussell gave you the adult response to your question to me.

      Good luck

      October 16, 2011 at 7:48 pm |
    • Tim

      Evan- your analogy has not been lost by these inane responses.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:53 pm |
    • andrewthree

      @ George: "...any reasonable person thinks that committing crimes as a career is immoral while not all reasonable people will assume abortion is immoral." The rightness or wrongness of something is not determined by what most "reasonable" people believe.

      @ Mike Assuming there is a legitimate concern about whether abortion is the taking of a human life, it is an appropriate issue for government to be concerned with. Government has a responsibility to maintain law and order, promote the general welfare and prevent the strong from taking advantage of the weak.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:54 pm |
    • George

      I teach logic at the college level and I can tell you that are the person who is using a moral relativism. My argument is based entirely on the legality of each act while your analogy is connecting two acts you believe to be immoral. Abortion is only considered to be immoral by those opposed to it not all people.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:56 pm |
    • chrisg

      Evan, since you did not understad what Mary said. I will repeat it. NO RELIGION IN GOVERNMENT. PERIOD

      October 16, 2011 at 7:56 pm |
    • Evan

      chrisg,

      So my opinion doesn't count because it is relgiously backed? You call that democratic?

      The 6th of the 10 Commandments forbids murder. I guess you should legallize murder because otherwise, it is religiously backed?

      October 16, 2011 at 8:11 pm |
    • chrisg

      Evan, please say your prayers and go to bed

      October 16, 2011 at 8:24 pm |
  14. mervel

    Well sure an acceptable Christian to the secularists would be one who does not actually have faith in Christ as Lord, I guess those would be the "good" Christians. The fact is the guy writing this article is head of of the theological seminary of the largest Protestant Denomination in the United States, they are not fringe. Being against things like abortion is far far from fringe, in fact it is close to the majority view in the US. We are not there yet but we will be soon.

    October 16, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
    • Dubya

      If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. In the mean time tend to your own sins, focus on your life, and mind your own business.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
  15. Don Camp

    This is definitely a hot button topic. It will generate extreme reactions from extremists on all sides. But is there not a reasonable position that reasonable people can agree on? How about letting everyone in the republican democracy have an equal vote? How about allowing everyone the freedom to speak their concerns and giving reasoned consideration to those concerns.

    Putting people in a box and dismissing their contribution or opinions is foolish. And if there is anything in all this that we should fear, it is dismissing other people because they are not like us.

    October 16, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
    • martinipaul

      You are too rational to be on this blog.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:31 pm |
  16. Keith

    I am sick of people basing their lives and pointing their judgmental (and almost always hypocritical) fingers at others based on a book of which zilch can be proven. Prove it or shut your holier-than-thou faces.

    October 16, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
    • Older Sista

      Before I became a Christian, I had a few negative things to say about them until one day it occured to me that I didn't really know any....or maybe only two. I knew some people who were religous, who went to church on Christmas or Easter....some people wore a cross but none of that makes you a Christian even if that's what you call yourself or that's what others call you. Jesus said, "You MUST be born again." I hope for your sake that someday one of the real ones is kind enough to listen to all your doubts, fears and anger and presents the Gospel to you. In the meantime, please stop hating us, you don't know what you do.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:56 pm |
  17. IceT

    You can't reason with unreasonable people.

    October 16, 2011 at 7:15 pm |
    • JRB

      I agree. Liberals are just too close minded to reason with.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:19 pm |
    • MaryM

      JRB, NO religion in government, period

      October 16, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
    • JRB

      MaryM, you are totally missing the point. NO ONE IN AMERICA WANTS RELIGION IN GOV'T! We are ALL in violent agreement on that issue. (Except for maybe Muslim Extremists who want their perverted Sharia Law.)

      Now that we agree on no religion in Govt let's talk about the real issue. The real issue is that people want us Evangelicals to recuse ourselves from exercising our rights as Americans to express our opinions and to vote for candidates who share our values. None of us would allow any political candidate to force religion on another human being. That's unethical and immoral. However, we do vigorously defend our right to speak our minds, live our beliefs and elect people who align with our values ... just like those on the other side do. Get it????

      October 16, 2011 at 7:40 pm |
  18. Dubya

    Evangelicals are a fanatical group rooting for the end of the world so that they can see Jeebus. Do these people belong in government? Of course not.

    October 16, 2011 at 7:13 pm |
    • Brad

      Heeeeellllp meeeeeeee JeeeeeBaaaaas!

      October 16, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
    • Don Camp

      Be reasonable. Get informed before you write this drivel. Evangelicals do not hope for the end of the world so we can see Jesus. We will see Jesus in time whether the world comes to an immediate end or not- as will you. Rather we are committed to making the world better while at the same time inviting people to know a God who does have a better idea and a better hope than more of the same thing that history has dished up for us.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
    • JRB

      Great point. Let's only allow people who think that the most complex thing ever imagined (the universe) magically appeared out of nothing on its own and then an eletrical storm mixed with gases spawned life on earth (like Frakenstein). Yeah. Those people are the only people should be allowed to hold office. I mean, they are so smart and logical, right?

      October 16, 2011 at 7:27 pm |
    • MaryM

      JRB, NO religion in government. period

      October 16, 2011 at 7:30 pm |
    • Brad

      I'm a good Christian. I'm going to see my Jeebas, because he is a cosmic Jewish zombie who can make me live forever because I symbolically drink his blood and telepathically accept him as my master so he can remove an evil force from my soul that was inflicted upon humanity because some rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Yeah, buy right into that! Save me Jeeeebaaaas! I can't think for myself, so I am a sheep who is easily led and needs fire insurance!

      October 16, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
    • Older Sista

      You're wrong. We know that someday, probably soon, God is going to bring down the curtain on this whole show. We know it's inevitable. But, we're NOT rooting for it....we're fervantly praying that He'll hold off just a little longer until unbelievers like you take the hand that God is holding out to you in love. The hard, cold spiritual fact of the universe, is that the God of the Jews is the only game in town. When your body stops breathing, your being still exists and you will stand, by yourself in front of a God who is completely just, loving and without mistakes. And He will have one question for YOU...not, what good and bad things have you done, or what did you think....He will simply ask you in one way or another: "I sent my precious Son Jesus to die to pay for all of YOUR sins. What did you do with Him? What did you say to His gift of salvation?" That soul of yours (also a gift), that awareness that is you is an eternal thing. You don't just wink out and you don't dissapate into the universe.. YOU stay YOU but your answer will dictate WHERE you'll be. It is your choice. Please go find out what this Jesus says. Stop being so judgemental.....you don't know where you came from and you don't know where you're going. I call that lost. Jesus said, "I have come to save those who are lost." (that's all of us)

      October 16, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
  19. Kritz

    Yes, Evangelicals are dangerous to those who consider that one of America's greatest strengths comes from the explicit separation of religion from governance. "Secular voices," don't ya know.

    I agree with Dawkins that religion is a dangerous, destructive, and preposterous force. However, I don't agree with him that it's more dangerous than any of a hundred other fantasy-based beliefs that human beings embrace.

    So I don't follow Dawkins' lead in trying to scorn religion out of existence, since I'm pretty sure it will fade into irrelevance by itself. The process is already well under way in places like Europe, Australasia, and many parts of Asia.

    The sooner the better, I say.

    In the meantime, while the chorus of voices against religionism continues to grow — and the voices of the fervent begin to fade — the ability of religionists to inject their particular fantasies into politics continues to shrink.

    October 16, 2011 at 7:12 pm |
    • Jenna

      What is the West going to do without Christianity to counterbalance other religions? The secular elites are not thinking things through and villifying Christians and conveniently forgetting other belief systems. To me, that shows narrow-mindedness and short-sighted thinking. If Christianity is eradicated eventually...which religion will replace it? Religion/Spirituality always was, currently is, and always will be. Being secular/atheist/agnostic will never be in the majority...even people living before 'Bible' times had a form of worship to their "Gods".

      October 16, 2011 at 7:31 pm |
    • dere

      You must be joking or self deceived. Religion fading away??? Others have prophesied the death of Christianity but they are no longer while the Gospel continues to strive.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
  20. Robert

    I travel on business to Asia often. I've heard some people there say that they only trust westerners i.e., Christian upbringing. Everything in moderation I say. Let people individually decide on abortion. If wrong, they'll answer to God. Isn't that enogh?

    October 16, 2011 at 7:11 pm |
    • Rayzak

      That's funny Robert. I live in "Asia" and everybody around me says the exact opposite of what you sited.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:12 pm |
    • Joe

      That is too reasonable. I must be allowed to push my beliefs on others.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:12 pm |
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.