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.

Well, it beats the crap out of being called “poor, uneducated, and easy to command” doesn’t it? I call this progress.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I have libertarian leanings myself so I can sympathize with your feelings re nanny-statism.

Sorry, I see no “sneering” going on by the writer of this WaPo article.

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.
JaHerer22 on May 25, 2007 at 12:30 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.

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

Can you name a recent example of one?

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

Can you name a recent example of one?

jdpaz on May 25, 2007 at 11:55 AM

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.

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.

JaHerer22 on May 25, 2007 at 11:36 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.

Esthier on May 25, 2007 at 11:16 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.

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.

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?

Could someone please point me to the outrage?

The article didn’t acknowledge the obvious fact that evangelicals are morally superior to the rest of America. C’mon, you didn’t notice? :)

Like conservatives, evangelicals may remain chronically ambivalent, afflicted with a persecution complex despite their obvious successes.

From Bryan:

Which is probably one reason she chose to attack evangelicals instead.

Hmmm, I wonder if that’s the persecution complex she was talking about…

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?

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.

Like we say in business: if you’re taking flak, you know you’re over the target.