July 22, 2008
McCain’s Lead Among Evangelicals Smaller than Bush’s in ‘04
Make no mistake about it, evangelicals are still very important to the GOP electorate. In 2004, 34% of the Bush vote came from self-proclaimed evangelicals (of which I identify). 69% of evangelicals in general voted for Bush. I’m not sure what the other 31% were thinking, but you can be sure that they do not listen to Dobson. (just kidding).
This year, (so far) McCain is attracting 61% of that same demographic. That is a catastrophic loss of support. It is still a great majority, but with this election being so close, and with evangelicals being courted left and right by Obama (The Joshua Generation, anyone?), you can be sure that the left sees this as available swing voters. (The Joshua Generation has been scrapped because of a naming conflict with a legitimate Christian organization, but you can be sure the the concept lives on)
In a recent interview with Beliefnet.com, Mark DeMoss of Spirited Public Relations believes that Obama could get some 40 percent of the Evangelical vote in November.
There’s a reaction among some evangelicals to swing out to the left in an effort to prove that evangelicals are really not that right wing,” DeMoss said. “There’s some concern that maybe Republicans haven’t done that well. And there’s this fascination with Barack Obama. So I will not be surprised if he gets one third of the evangelical vote.
I strongly disagree, and feel that when people evaluate the issues, they will follow solidly with the party that has been the torch bearer for Christian ideology, but too may people do not look at issues, they follow emotion. If that is the case, then the RockStar will siphon some badly needed electorate away from McCain.
We need to be promoting the “truthing” materials about BHO to our friends and families. Our grassroots (and netroots, but not to the same extent) need to be well fertilized. We need to get the word out to the other undecideds about how the Big “O” is just another Big Chicag”O” democrat.
Partly based on data from the Pew Forum:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain has a smaller lead among white evangelical Protestants than Republican George W. Bush had at a similar point in the 2004 campaign, even though Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has made few inroads into this key constituency. Those who are unaffiliated with a particular religion, on the other hand, are just as supportive of the Democratic candidate as they were at this point in the 2004 campaign and are substantially more supportive of Obama than they were of Democratic candidate Al Gore in June 2000.
“White evangelicals are more undecided today than they were at this point in the previous two presidential elections. More than one-in-ten (12%) white evangelicals say they do not know who they would vote for if the election was held today.”
“And as was the case in 2004, people who seldom or never attend worship services are more supportive of the Democratic candidate, as compared with those who attend services at least once a week. In June 2004, 52% of those who attend church seldom or never expressed support for Kerry, compared with 41% for Bush. This year, Obama enjoys an even larger lead of 21 points over McCain among this group (55% to 34%).”
This bloc of “Non-attending” Christians is growing at much larger rate than that of those who attend church at least once or more a week. This is a problem on multiple levels.
h/t: Adam Graham
You can follow more on the Evangelical Outreach at The F3 Coalition Blog
http://race42008.com/2008/07/22/mccains-lead-among-evangelicals-smaller-than-bushs-in-04/trackback/
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:47 am
I would love to see religious fundamentalists split 50/50 among the two parties, so ours is not smeared as “that” party any more.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:48 am
…the party that has been the torch bearer for Christian ideology
And we wonder why voters have been turned off by the “holier-than-thou” GOP.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:48 am
Holy crap Brett, did you really type this about the GOP? “has been the torch bearer for Christian ideology”?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am
Heh, both posted at 11:48.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am
Brett, if other GOP activists take up your language, I will work for the defeat of the GOP at all costs.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am
#1, won’t and can’t happen. Conservative ideology and Christian ideology are synonymous in too many ways.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:50 am
#3, when compared to the other options (aka - Democrats)
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
#6
Huh? I don’t remember the Bible saying anything specific about free trade, free markets, strong national defense, federalism, low taxes, etc.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
Re #1 I’ve actually converted more than one Christian fundamentalist into a Christian socialist, by explaining the Bible is far more clear about the needs of the poor trumping those of the evil rich, than it is about gay marriage or abortion.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:55 am
#4 and #9,
Heh again.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
#6, limited Gov, free will, personal choice and responsibility.
#9, The Gov has NO ROLE in promoting welfare in my opinion - that is the Churches job, and more importantly, it is yours and my job, the people who see the need. We do not need to surrender this responsibility to the Government. Your “converts” are nothing more than blind sheep if they didn’t think that through.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
As the numbers stand, we cannot win with half of all Christians voting for the Dems. We would stay in opposition essentially forever.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 am
Brett, every time you try to make the GOP into a religious institution there will be an outcry from those of us saying NO WAY.
Why don’t you devote your efforts to your Church instead?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
OHIO JOE, did I say Christians? Or did I say Christian fundamentalists?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
Brett, your own words comfort me. Once people are introduced by the PAC’s to Obama’s past voting record, he has ZERO chance of getting 40% of the evangelical vote.
And to your points Conservative and Christian ideology being synonymous, what are you taking about? The activist right of the Christian base is constantly trying to legislate their morality, what is conservative about that? I honestly think that in a perfect world, evangelicals would be democrats. They’d be happier in the party of government interference in our lives.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:59 am
I’m sure you’ve converted a lot of people to socialism. Your arguments in favour of capitalism are so strained and absurdly casuistical that you nearly converted me. But this says more about your powers of persuasion than it does about your unique take on the Christian bible.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
#7
What you miss is that if enough people are turned off by a GOP bathed in religion, their gradual transference into the Democratic Party will CHANGE that party to make it more acceptable to, well, the types of voters who despise the conflation of government and religion. This is essentially what happened in the 1970s, when the far left wing of the Democratic Party decided they could go all McGovernite on us because the sensible New Deal Democrats would never start voting Republican. They did over time, and that led to the transformation of the GOP into a different kind of party.
As Ronald Reagan said, he never left the Democratic Party, it left him. I can assure you that it won’t be me who leaves the GOP. But it’s not my fault if the GOP leaves me.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
#13, I dont want it to be as such.
I want you to believe whatever you want to believe. But, I want to offer a home to those evangelicals that have a responsibility to be active in politics to promote their worldview.
It cannot be done in the Democratic party.
I am not out to convert you. But, you must understand that Christianity shares more with Republicans than other parties, and we are a very active block.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
#17: Thank you, DaveG. You wouldn’t think it necessary for us to have to re-explain that every time. But some heads are thick. Especially among those who’ve chosen to substitute their brains for literal interpretation.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Incidentally, I think an excellent response to the Joshua Generation would be a campaign by a secular conservative called the “Hitchens Generation,” that seeks to reach out to disaffected secular voters who are not “progressives” on political issues and who shows them that it’s okay to be conservative and highly skeptical and critical of religion.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Is it really a surprise that McCain is polling below an incumbent President who had spent 4 years cultivating the evangelical movement. Don’t forget the 4 million evangelicals that was Karl Rove’s secret plan in 2004.
Bush himself is an evangelical, he has connections and ties with them going back to his meeting with Billy Graham and his role as director of outreach to them for his father back in the 88 and 92 campaigns. He was clearly more comfortable talking about the social issues and had never alienated them with phrases like agents of intolerance, etc…
The better comparison is to Bush in 2000 when he wasn’t yet an incumbent in wartime and there the difference is really negligble. Bush was +37 against Gore, McCain is +36 against Obama. Obama is 3 pts behind Gore, McCain is 4 pts behind Bush. So he’s pretty much tied with where Bush was. And this is before any endorsements from Dobson or other bigwigs and before the church networks that Huckabee tapped into really get fired up.
And, McCain is ahead of Bush when it comes to white catholics, so he makes up for it in other areas. You don;t see that mentioned, though.
For all the talk about how Obama is cutting into evangelicals, shouldn’t the news be that he’s behind where Kerry and Gore were.
I wouldn’t be too worried about this
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
#11
I don’t buy the free will argument. Many Christians have a very limited view of free will; have you ever heard of Unconditional Election or Irresistible Grace? Also, what kind of “limitations” of government are you talking about?
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
#18: You can support whomever you want to. But don’t call a secular party Christian. It’s that damn simple.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
It’s really not Christian voters that’s important. It’s churches, i.e. 501(c)3 organizations, i.e. churches as civil institutions. Did you ever wonder why the DNC has to spend so much money on organization than the RNC to achieve about the same performance? With the decline of the unions Democratic constituencies are largely unorganized—there are no civil society institutions where they gather, learn, commune etc. The RNC on the other hand can, or at least could, depend on existing networks of institutions grounded in the life and work of their communities, i.e. churches.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
#15, i do not advocate legislating morality, because it doesn’t work. You cannot make a law against every depraved thing man does - their isn’t enough paper and pencils to write them all down.
But I do advocate enforcing the laws on the books, and to that, those laws are based on the judeo-christian morality code described in the 10 commandments. Do not kill, do not steal, - these sound pretty good to me.
Oh, and the honor your father and mother bit - sounds great. Right along with that one goes Fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath - and Fathers lead and train your household.
All of these are forgotten or ignored.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Well please get right on that. I mean, be off with you. We would all benefit from a transformed Democratic party. But I think the task you set for yourself may be tougher than you think.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
#25: You think not killing and not stealing are ideas dependent on Christianity?
You think they’re not present in other religions?
You think non-believers don’t overwhelmingly agree those things?
You think… at all?
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
This election is different than either the election in 2000 or 2004. In 2000, both Bush and Gore were known commodities. Gore was linked to Clinton and Bush to his father. In 2004, Kerry was an unknown, but Bush wasn’t. As people learned more about Kerry, they turned to Bush. In 2008, both Obama and McCain are unknowns. This election isn’t as stable as the last two (especially 2000). It could really turn into a landslide one way or the other depending on what voters learn about McCain and Obama. Obama’s lead is tenuous and shouldn’t be considered a fait accompli.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Brett, I suggest you have some conversations with this site’s many Evangelical authors who know better than to mix religion and politics. Most of them get it, but you don’t. I’m not going to pretend I’m going to convince you of anything, but you can learn from your own.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
You’re about 500 years out of date, dude. Not since Cromwell’s Puritan Republic or Calvin’s Geneva has Christendom claimed the seat of a government. We would be talking about constitutional limitations. What sort of limited gov. do you recognize?
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
The last thing we need is more Protestant influence on the GOP.
Iowans aren’t letting their own Republican Senator into the convention … and why? Because the Iowa Christian Alliance says so.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080721/NEWS09/807210332
“I always thought we were really about less government, responsible spending and low taxes. The message I’ve received is that’s not the direction we want to go right now.”
Religions have fundamentally different motivations and goals than a political party and neither one should have anything to do with the governance of the other.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
It seems to me that that evangelicals christians are quite spilt between conservatism and socialism. The only religious group that
reliably and consistently embraces the GOP platform are heathen Mormons. Maybe Brett could explain why most Mormons share the same
values but “christians” are all over the map? Why the discrepancy?
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Really? The latest polling does not support your perception. See:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121633761975563839.html?mod=taste_primary_hs
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I don’t buy the free will argument. Many Christians have a very limited view of free will; have you ever heard of Unconditional Election or Irresistible Grace? Also, what kind of “limitations” of government are you talking about?
Hello! Unconditional Election doesn’t deal with free will!
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
The religious right always reminds us that they make up the vast majority of the GOP’s volunteers.
Shall we ask why that is? Because when others of us go to GOP events, it’s like a high school clique. If you aren’t one of “them” you are made to feel unwelcome. Most of us don’t go back.
Time to break up the parasitic invasion.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
(okay, dotan: how do you do those quote boxes?)
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
You’re about 500 years out of date, dude. Not since Cromwell’s Puritan Republic or Calvin’s Geneva has Christendom claimed the seat of a government. We would be talking about constitutional limitations. What sort of limited gov. do you recognize?
If only I was 500 years out of date. There are still plenty of Christians who adhere to very Calvinist theologies. Why, just the other day, a front-page blogger on this site had a discussion with another about assuming that others are “elect.” You can look it up! We’re not talking about the history of Christian governments, but whether or not conservative ideology (and free will, whatever that is) and Christian ideology are largely interchangeable.
As for limited government, many social conservatives tend to advocate just as much government as non-conservatives; the only difference is in which governments they would prefer to recognize as legitimate.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
32,
Here’s a bomb to throw out there:
Most people who call themselves “Mormon” follow their Mormon religion. It’s hard to find someone carrying the label “Mormon” who doesn’t walk the walk. But, there are a ton of people who call themselves “Christian” who don’t follow the Christian religion. It’s because Christianity is the dominant religion in the United States. You’ll find the same thing in Albania happening with people calling themselves “Muslim” but not living the life of a Muslim or following their own religion. You’ll also find a lot of these people who call themselves “Christian” but really aren’t voting Democrat. I don’t see how any reasonable person who is really a Christian could justify voting Democrat for any reason (as long as the Republican party stays true to socially conservative principles).
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Metro, we can argue where to draw the line between what is a Christian and what is a Christian fundamentalists, but even if a majority of Fundamentalist Christians vote Democrat, we are finished, because non-Fundamentalist Christian (Catholic or Protestant) will not vote GOP in greater number that Fundamentalists.
Taylor, you are correct that Mormons tend to be Conservative in high ratios, but to say that Evangelicals are just 50/50 when comparing Conservatism to Socialism is simply not accurate.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Hello! Unconditional Election doesn’t deal with free will!
Please explain. I eagerly await the discussion of “compatibilistic” free will vs. other forms.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Thank you for sharing this insight into your high school experience. I’m sorry if felt abused or excluded. But to transfer your feelings of not being one of the cool kids in school to the operations of political coalition building is kind of, well, insane, don’t you think?
You’d better get right on that. Good luck and all. Hey, maybe you should start your own party! You can have your own clique and boy would that ever show those cruel cool kids, eh what?
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:23 pm
#39: IF the GOP continues to scare away non-fundamentalists. You’re missing the main point. See #17.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
dotan, nice attempt, but I was the most popular kid in high school, because I singlehandedly saved it from being closed.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
36. Jamison. Use the HTML tag “blockquote” “/blockquote” only put it in pointy-brackets. HTH.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Did you also get beat up by a fundamentalist girl or something?
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Re: #29
Metro, I thought Brett was the only Evangelical author on the blog.
I may have a difference here with Brett. I don’t think there is a Christian ideology about government. Besides admonitions to respect, obey but not to trust legitimate authority, the New Testament is silent about ‘Christian government’.
It is perfectly possible for a Christian to rationally support monarchy, democracy, socialism or any other government structure as long they don’t put their trust in those systems.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
#40
Unconditional Election means that God does not choose believers based on their “merits”. Nothing we could ever do would make God want to choose us.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Christians supported pagan emperors for several centuries before they took the imperium for themselves. Boy those Byzantines could party! And by that I mean political parties. They even divided themselves similar to how we did, only it was red and green instead of read and blue. Do you know why Muslims favour green flags and banners to this very day?—as minorities in the empire they sided with the greens.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
God must a lot like Obama. You know, sort of aloof if there is NOTHING I could do to earn his favour or respect.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Dotan, Sunni Muslims favor the color green because it was held to be a symbol of life. Shia Muslims favor the color black. My female Shia cousins wear black.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
New Gallup Poll:
Obama 45
McCain 42
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
#47,
In other words, an individual’s attainment of salvation is pre-determined, and is not, ultimately, influenced by the decisions they make. Hyper-Calvinists will justify this by invoking the concept of “compatibilistic free will,” in which the only freedom is for an individual to follow his desires, which are controlled by God. That’s actually a lot more like the economic determinisms of Marx and Galbraith than any modern conservative view of political freedom.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
51,
Big improvement from yesterday! YAAAAAAAAAY!
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
#47 - or put another way, the vast majority of all mankind that have ever lived on earth are doomed to an eternal hell with nothing whatsoever they can do about it! Knowing that our Heavenly Father is a loving God, and that he is a just God causes one to wonder.
Doug - I’m not sure about your statement “It is perfectly possible for a Christian to rationally support monarchy, democracy, socialism or any other government structure as long they don’t put their trust in those systems.”
I tend to disagree with your word ’support’.. I could buy words like ‘function within’, or ‘being subject to’.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Brett
The poll is picking up an increased number of blacks that are calling themselves evangelicals this year. McCain will do BETTER than Bush when all is said and done.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Perhaps they do. But the origins of the colour as a political statement of identity for Islam reach back to Byzantine party politics as argued by John Norwich in his history of Byzantium and Gibbon’s Decline and Fall.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
#52, not to delve into theology but _double election_ is a point of tense disagreement among the groups of the Reformation and even many Calvinists.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Unconditional Election is closely related to the (Calvinist) doctrine of Total Depravity. By nature, man is opposed to God (Romans 3:10-11: As it is written: there is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God.). It’s only through the grace and mercy of God that he chooses the elect. I’m a sinner; left to myself I would continue in a path leading to destruction, an eternity in hell in punishment for my sin. But God in his infinite wisdom, mercy and grace chose me to believe in the free gift of salvation in his Son. Just because I believe in predestination doesn’t mean we have no free will; I believe that free will and predestination go hand-in-hand.
But this is not exactly a theological discussion here… and I don’t have the time to delve into this topic in the depth it deserves. We’re talking politics, not doctrine.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Dude. Massive category error! Calvin was a, you know, theologian among other things. Marx was a—well, he was many things, a journalist, a Left Hegalian, a revolutionary and organizer, and finally an autodidact economist. My point: determinism of any flavour—whether type physicalist, token physicalist, economic, materialist etc.—has nothing to do with any theory of Divine election.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
#58
You’re talking about a very qualified version of free will that would be all but unrecognizable to most people.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Yes! Thank you!
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
It’s not a category error. All of these ideologies state that individuals are unable to exercise free will in many circumstances based on their conditions within a given power structure, and that something else “makes decisions” for them, whether it is a god, a class system, or someone “manufacturing demand”.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
We’re talking politics, not doctrine.
We’re talking about both, since Brett effectively stated that (conservative) Politics = (conservative) Doctrine.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I’m a bit confused by what people mean when they say free will. Often it sounds like a supernatural idea that our minds extend beyond the loose determinism of physical reality. Our brains are chemical and electric with processes that are entirely controlled by physical laws. I don’t understand what materialists mean by free will.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Oops!
That is -
(conservative) Politics = (christian) Doctrine
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Ditto.
Okay, time for Sin 101. We all sin (do bad things, things we shouldn’t… I think you know what I mean). Everyone knows when they’ve done something wrong; normally, we willfully (our free will at work there!) chose to sin! God hates sin, can not stand sin. Does not allow sin into Heaven. Any sin will disqualify you for Heaven, sending you to Hell when you die.
It’s our nature to sin. We chose to sin. We even love to sin. But God will save us out from our own selves, place our sin on the shoulders of his perfect, spotless Son, and allowing us into Heaven.
Btw, another way to explain predestination is that God chooses some, and does not choose others; not God chooses some for Heaven and some for Hell.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
OK., so, apparently you don’t understand either determinism -or- the theological concept of election. Determinism is not about decision making, and did you know it isn’t necessarily incompatible with free will?—there’s a whole book about that by Daniel Dennett titled Elbow Room—token physicalism, for example, supports the notion that our deliberations about the world have real meaning. And many flavours of economic determinism actually DEPENDS on the aggregated behaviors of lots of actors pursuing their own interests. Anyway, whatever. This is not the proper forum for me to teach you these concepts even if I had the motivation.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
In philosophy free will reduces to the question of whether your deliberations about the world have any real meaning, or whether your thoughts and intentions themselves were determined etc., etc. It is a speculative question because we really can’t develop any grounds to decide the issue one way or the other.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
#55, I hope you are right, - I am not waiting around for that - I an encouraging others to get involved. In my opinion, that is our only hope. We need to be telling others.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Speaking as one of the unchosen, I know I am going to have major issues with being in hell for no other reason than that I got passed over in favour of some other schlep with no other claim to Divine favour other than that he or she got chosen instead of me. I’ll probably make lots of angry phone calls, believe me.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Brett, the work you do with F3 is very important this year.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
#67
Teach away! You can state that I don’t know anything about determinism all you want, but when you state that determinism, whether it is theological (original sin or election, for example) or economic, has no relationship to the independence of decisions (what many would call “free will” of some kind), you begin to sound silly.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
#65,
I never said
You did.
I said
Maybe I should have clarified - they are not equal, they are similar. I never knew i would cause a Calvinistic debate on Race 4 2008
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
#71, Thank you - I hope we can make a difference. I really do. I cant stand the thought of an Obama-nation.
thanks again
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Speaking as one of the unchosen, I know I am going to have major issues with being in hell for no other reason than that I got passed over in favour of some other schlep with no other claim to Divine favour other than that he or she got chosen instead of me. I’ll probably make lots of angry phone calls, believe me.
How do you know you’re “unchosen”?
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Oh, boy. Where do I even begin? Perhaps here: There is no theological determinism. Determinism is not a theological concept. When you confuse any of the many flavours of determinism with any account of e.g. divine election or predestination you are committing the most risible of category errors.
And, again, there are many flavours of determinism that are compatible with some species of free will!—again, I would refer you to Dennett’s Elbow Room for a good introduction.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I’m a Jew.
Of course we think we’re the chosen, cough-cough.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
#77, you could be one of the 144,000
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
#78, huh? Is that some Evangelical thing?
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Brett, the solution = Huckabee as Vice President. It’d be a “purpose driven” pick.
Evangelicals would love it.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:33 pm
#79 - Kinda - it was just kidding, but in Rev 7:3x
#80 - Nice - He did say he was the “Chosen One”, right? I think I read in comments somewhere from someone on Race 42008 quote him, but I never saw it/ heard it….
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:33 pm
#76
Determinism is indeed a theological concept, for many anyway. In fact, it even has its own Wikipedia page! Imagine that! Your continued references to Dennett scare me a bit, based on my familiarity with his confused commentary in my own field of expertise (biological chemistry).
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
No, determinism is not a theological concept by definition. Determinism posits that the universe is only made out of one kind of stuff, physical stuff. Those who hold to a belief in the SUPERnatural believe that not only is there another kind of stuff, say, spiritual stuff. They also hold that that spiritual stuff can and often does intervene in the causal nexus, whether in the form of miracles OR of some unfolding of the Divine plan over time etc., etc. That a Divine planner may be afoot may SEEM like determinism to those who don’t really understand the concept, but to those who do understand the concept it is the very antithesis of determinism as it introduces a whole new class or classes of determiners—determiners who have their own wills or intentions.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Was it any surprise McCain wouldn’t round up the evangelical vote as well as Bush did…?
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
re #46 “Metro, I thought Brett was the only Evangelical author on the blog.”
That proves my point. There are other Evangelicals, but you don’t know it, because they aren’t mixing their religion with political arguments or definition of the GOP.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Metro, would you name one please?
I write on here and I’m only aware of Catholics and secularist authors besides me (a Lutheran) and Brett (an Evangelical). We used to have another Evangelical author a few months ago.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
MetroRepublican can tolerate open homosexuals, just not open evangelicals.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Who doesn’t accept evangelicals. You can say that politically pandering to evangelicals is a foolish long-term political strategy without hating evangelicals or even not tolerating them.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
#83
Merriam-Webster:
You’re taking a narrow view of the definition (as given here and elsewhere) to suit your own argument.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
#86: I suggest you write to Kavon and ask.
#87: Do you still not get it? Calling the GOP a Christian party would be akin to the Democrats calling themselves a Homosexual party. How do you think the Hillary demographic would feel about that?
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Does Hillary have her own demographic now? She’ll be happy with that.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Metro, is that your way of saying you don’t know any current Evangelical authors on here and were just betting we had more than one?
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:15 pm
#69 Who said wait. BTW, you notice that I was right last winter when I said Dobson would come around! He acheived his goal: no rudy
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
[...] sure hope GameCock is right when he says these “Evangelicals” are not from the traditional cut, but rather new [...]