WaPo scribe sneers at evangelicals
posted at 10:02 am on May 25, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
If the Post’s Hanna Rosin wrote a piece that sneered at Muslims with as much obvious glee as her latest on evangelical Christians, she would have CAIR denouncing her in a nanosecond.
Which is probably one reason she chose to attack evangelicals instead.
The other reason: She’s a typically tolerant liberal.
(h/t SeeDubya)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I’m not seeing the sneering thing in this article…she pretty well derides Maher and his sneering, but except for the party identity thing (which you have to admit is true), she is pretty neutral about the evangelicals themselves.
James on May 25, 2007 at 10:09 AM
One other is she wants to keep her head attached to her body.
Pick on the ones that won’t fight back, leave the big bullies alone…at least she learned something in school.
right2bright on May 25, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Read that way to me also.
Spirit of 1776 on May 25, 2007 at 10:13 AM
She’s
atypically intolerant and illiberal.There. That’s better.
Blacksheep on May 25, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Does Rosin quote Maher so much for cheap shots without her fingerprints on the weapon, or is she really just pointing out what “some” might think of evangelicals?
I got the impression she’s nervous about evangelicals entering the government in great numbers, but she is grudgingly honest about their job performance:
Was that a compliment? A sneer? Hard to tell. Maybe a bit of both.
Graybark on May 25, 2007 at 10:28 AM
I see a little bit of the sneering in the following:
Well, maybe sneering-ish. The mascot of Messiah College is the Falcon
My overall impression – evangelical schools invading. It’s almost like they’re the little kid on the block who wants to play with the big boys and they force themselves in, much to everyone’s chagrin, thinking there’s nothing they have to offer. I think I see what you’re seeing, Brian.
looking4statesmen on May 25, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Evangelical may be a modern term, but she’s either confused or disengenuous if she’s trying to portray Christian’s entry into politics as a newfangled thing.
And she doesn’t refute the snide in Maher’s remarks. She quotes him to avoid saying those things herself, but noting that “the joke’s on him” hardly registers as a refutation of his hateful comments, nor a hearty endorsement of the qualifications of the woman she’s just slandered, albeit “by quotation.”
I don’t suppose this reporter’s understanding of history reaches back to when Harvard’s goals were pretty much the same as Regent’s today?
TexasDan on May 25, 2007 at 10:34 AM
It’s very apparent from the comments section who her typical audience is:
Rosie???? Is that you????
*sheesh*
lan astaslem on May 25, 2007 at 10:45 AM
I see it as someone who’s trying to describe something she really doesn’t understand too well.
Fixed her paragraph:
I think she’s trying to say the Republicans had linguini spines when they were in the majority, don’t know how to act as if they’re leaders, and wonders if evangelicals will end up the same way.
It will be interesting to see what’s in her upcoming book: God’s Harvard: A Christian College on a Mission to Save America about Patrick Henry college.
INC on May 25, 2007 at 10:45 AM
She writes as a definite outsider. Seemed reasonably fair from her “Evangelicals in the Mist” point of view.
jdpaz on May 25, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Or just think what it would be like is she talked about any other voting block, namely minority voting blocks which are dramatically more unified in who they vote for than Christians.
Now imagine she were talking about black people. Would she really try to track down every lead to find the 10% or less who voted for Bush?
I’m not entirely convinced she was sneering, but I’m getting sick of being treated like a lab project simply because I’m a Christian and make it a habit to vote.
Esthier on May 25, 2007 at 11:04 AM
I’m not evangelical, but it didn’t seem like a sneer to me. Nice to know they “are embedded firmly enough into Washington to provide jobs for smart young Christians for generations to come.” If the author left out the Maher stuff, her editor would have probably objected to her lack of nuance and balance.
boru on May 25, 2007 at 11:06 AM
If I don’t get insulted, sneered-at, or mocked on a daily basis by some liberal, I feel like I’m not doing my job.
Like we say in business: if you’re taking flak, you know you’re over the target.
Anton on May 25, 2007 at 11:06 AM
From the article:
“It took the conservative political movement 30 years to become a fixture in American politics, and it’s taken evangelicals about the same. Like conservatives, evangelicals may remain chronically ambivalent, afflicted with a persecution complex despite their obvious successes. But they are embedded firmly enough into Washington to provide jobs for smart young Christians for generations to come.”
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
My biggest criticism of the church is that the multiple denominations have put more of an emphasis on “growing” that arm rather than joining with other churches to address the needs of the community. I fault many of the religious leaders for a great deal of short sightedness in that regard. “Thousand points of light” and “compassionate conservative” are the right idea but too many ministers are lured to the bright lights of fame and their calling becomes secondary to their fame.
Bradky on May 25, 2007 at 11:06 AM
I fail to see the sneering in the piece, if anything she seems to be sneering more at Maher than at Goodling.
In fact, this is probably the most flattering portrait of Goodling I’ve seen in any mainstream news source. Could someone please point me to the outrage?
JaHerer22 on May 25, 2007 at 11:09 AM
From the article:
From Bryan:
Hmmm, I wonder if that’s the persecution complex she was talking about…
Enrique on May 25, 2007 at 11:09 AM
The article didn’t acknowledge the obvious fact that evangelicals are morally superior to the rest of America. C’mon, you didn’t notice? :)
Enrique on May 25, 2007 at 11:11 AM
You’re just drawn to these articles, aren’t you?
I have a question for all the lefties and/or anti-Christians here. What’s with the fascination of Christians in politics, and why is this fascination missing in regards to all other voting blocks, specifically ones with much more uniformity?
Esthier on May 25, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Like some others have said already, I’m not seeing the sneering. If anything, Maher took the brunt.
rhuppertz on May 25, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Goodling is part of a new generation of evangelicals ushered in by Falwell, who insisted that Christians get involved in politics. They are graduates of the exploding number of evangelical colleges, which no longer aim to create a parallel subculture but instead to train “Christian leaders to change the world,” as the Regent mission statement reads.
This doesn’t get less annoying when a Liberal says it. Christians have always been involved in American politics. What’s being talked about here is a certain type of neo-puritan with an eye on the establishment clause.
These are the Conservative activist judges of tomorrow who hold the Constitution in as high a regard as their Liberal counterparts.
Krydor on May 25, 2007 at 11:27 AM
First let me preface my comments by saying “Christians in politics” is much too broad a category considering at least 95% of politicians self-identity as Christians. Evangelical Christians is a little more narrow, but still too broad. Christianists works for me, but I know that term isn’t exactly appreciated, so I’ll respectfully refrain from using it…Anyway, my ‘fascination’ is with Christians who believe it is their prerogative to force their biblical morals on the rest of America through legislation–Christians who believe their idea of right and wrong should be law.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with these biblical morals and respect many Christians who hold themselves to a higher standard by following them, but that doesn’t mean they should be law or that Americans who don’t hold the same beliefs should be expected to have to same morals.
JaHerer22 on May 25, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Jaherer, do you have any examples of any law being passed or even proposed that forces a uniquely Christian morality on America? (Setting aside the fact that every single law ever passed forces someone’s morality on us all.)
jdpaz on May 25, 2007 at 11:55 AM
I am not getting into a snark fest here BUT what is wrong with using the legislative process? If a law passes it is because Christians have convinced a majority that the law is a good one. A far cry from ramming values down the throats of citizens via the court. I am fairly libertarian myself but I get a vibe that people are upset that Christians are using political mechanisms the same way any other group does because they are deemed intrusive on your morals. As if other folks morals aren’t intrusive to me. The political process is far downstream from the cultural issues and legislation tends to be a stopgap for cultural problems, to paraphrase Chuck Colson.
Taleena on May 25, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Gay marriage is the first thing that pops into my head, it may not be uniquely Christian to oppose homosexuality, but if the Bible didn’t condemn homosexuality I find it hard to believe gay marriage would have much opposition.
And while I agree that every law legislates morality to a point, my libertarian ideals tell me the only necessary laws are the ones that protect the liberty of others. While outlawing murder, rape, and robbery may be legislating morality, more importantly they are protecting the liberty of others not to be raped and killed.
I have a problem when Christians (or nanny-statist liberals) try to make laws that tell me what I can or cannot do because they know what’s best or they know what is moral. Christians may find it immoral to smoke pot; I don’t…so let’s agree to disagree that as long I can smoke pot without infringing on another person’s liberty it should not be prohibited. The same goes with trans-fats. And with same-sex marriage–as long as it does not interfere with another person’s liberty it should not be prohibited.
That is the problem I have with Christians who want to legislate their biblical morality–they want to make laws infringing on my liberty when the actions they are prohibiting are not infringing on any one else’s liberty.
JaHerer22 on May 25, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Can you name a recent example of one?
Buck Turgidson on May 25, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Can you name a recent example of one?
Buck Turgidson on May 25, 2007 at 12:33 PM
You’re projecting the work of elected lawmakers onto the church who have little to do with actual drug laws. Christ’s first miracle was providing an open bar for a wedding. We’re not all as stiff as you think.
Buck Turgidson on May 25, 2007 at 12:50 PM
I think you guys are reading into this one what isn’t there. I see the writer recounting the “sneering” being done by scum like Maher, but I see her recounting the strength that the Evangelicals are gaining.
Sorry, I see no “sneering” going on by the writer of this WaPo article.
Warner Todd Huston on May 25, 2007 at 12:50 PM
There are plenty of good conservative, non-religious arguments against gay marriage and drug use (Virtually every culture in the world past and present considers homogamy taboo. Should an airline pilot be able to use drugs—he’s not infringing on anyone else’s rights, is he?) Some Christians glom onto these social issues for purely Biblical reasons, but many arrive at these positions from conservative principles.
I have libertarian leanings myself so I can sympathize with your feelings re nanny-statism.
jdpaz on May 25, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Please cite a real example outside of your own paranoia.
The fear and loathing of Christians, even among “right wingers”, is really silly. If it hadn’t been for a bunch of Christians, this wouldn’t be an independent nation. If it hadn’t been for another bunch of Christians, we would have no Bill of Rights.
On topic, the article, while never offering anything remotely like praise or goodwill towards evangelicals, certainly wasn’t nasty either. The least offensive such article I’ve seen in awhile, so no big deal really.
Freelancer on May 25, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Freelancer,
My own paranoia? Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore comes to mind. Surely, you know the guy who was certain the foundation of the legal system was the 10 commandments that he had a giant granite slab placed in front of the courthouse. 30 years down the road, the interns from these institutions will be the lawmakers and will share a similar outlook as Roy. Similar incredibly poor historical knowledge, as well.
Don’t do the “bunch of Christians” thing in relation to the Founding Fathers. I don’t know why that has become some sort of “repeat it enough and becomes true” themes one sees these days. I hold it in the same regard as the reinterpretation of the Second Amendment meaning that citizens shouldn’t carry firearms.
Krydor on May 25, 2007 at 3:04 PM
The SCOTUS has multiple references to the 10 commandments throughout the building. Moore didn’t do more than has already been done in the highest court building in land. I don’t agree with how he went about it, but it wasn’t really all that radical
jdpaz on May 25, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Fair enough Krydor. Personally, I disagreed with Roy Moore too. Though as judicial activism goes, I have a hard time equating inventing a right that kills millions of the unborn with overzealous public decorating in Alabama.
Buck Turgidson on May 25, 2007 at 5:01 PM
The phrase “as dead as Jerry Falwell” is not respectful in light of how recently he passed away. Imagine reading, say, “as dead as Molly Ivins.” What would that tell you about the writer?
mymanpotsandpans on May 25, 2007 at 5:49 PM
I think that part of what I’m getting at, in my hamfisted way, is that activist judges are bad, regardless of political orientation. Turns into a tit-for-tat controlling of the public agenda through unelected and unaccountable officials.
If it’s some dude from Berkley with visions of Mao dancing in his head, or some gal from Bob Roberts U, neither seems capable of being a strict constitutionalist if they happen to become a judge.
There is an underlying agenda that runs counter to what was clearly intended.
Krydor on May 25, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Sorry Bryan, but where’s the beef? I don’t see gleeful sneering; I see someone actually debunking the leftist stereotype of evangelicals, for a change. What is it about “the joke is on Maher” that the folks taking offense here don’t get?
I have to wonder if you took more than a nanosecond before firing off a denunciation yourself, because unlike most of the anti-evangelical rhetoric floating around these days, this piece strikes me as a pretty solid, sympathetic rendering, not an attack. If you’ve got specific complaints, let’s hear them.
JM Hanes on May 25, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Well, it beats the crap out of being called “poor, uneducated, and easy to command” doesn’t it? I call this progress.
Laura on May 25, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Comment pages: