DATELINE - Rise of Evangelism in America

MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

A recent New Scientist is about half devoted to the question too.

People are afraid, people need hope, maybe?

Of all the trends in the world today, the rise of th Evangelical Movement in the US is perhaps the single most terrifying. When you look at the oppressive measures they espouse and their growing political clout aligned with their extensive and sophisticated propaganda machine, you have to wonder if the US is not already entering a new Dark Age.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

We are experiencing an upsurge in Oz too, with politicians of all persuasions jumping on the bandwagon to show 'I`m more Christian than you' Heaven forbid (gulp) they use it in the next election.

oppressive measures?LOL. Get real, dude.

If Islamic fundamentalists became the majority and instituted their ideas of morality as laws, you would likely find them oppressive.Those that are not fundie Xian find the current push for fundie Xian morality being pressed upon us as oppressive. How hard is that to understand?You yourself have suggested that keeping education secular in nature is somehow oppressive, so really your questioning of jar is quite hypocritical. You certainly should understand where he's coming from.By the way, check the Coffee House for a thread on secular vs xian education.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Suppose that I, a man, fall in love with another man. I cannot marry him, nor obtain any of the rights (or assume any of the obligations) of marriage to him, and the fundamentalists are the main ones that want to continue to deny these rights and obligations to me.Furthermore, many of these fundamentalists would like to be able to have me legally punished for having sex with this individual.My guess is many of these fundamentalists would like legal protection to engage in social behaviors that would drive me out of their communities.How is that not an example of oppresive measures?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

is not so much in the oppressive laws they try to impose on the rest of the world as in their approach to life, the subjugation of reason, the glorification of willfull ignorance, the preeminence of irrationality.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jarI want to become an evangelical atheist. Is this possible?

And these, in turn, allow them to advocate and attempt to implement misguided policies that affect the rest of us (even if, in this case, the policies aren't directly related to religious beliefs).

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

How is that any more oppresive than all sorts of things, such as the cocain or ecstasy user that cannot legally do that while aclohol abusers can get drunk legally, or the guy that wants more than one wife, etc,...?The simple fact is marriage right now is defined as between a man and a woman, and that's how it always been. Plenty of non-evangelicals also believe it should stay that way, up to 80% of America in fact. So the idea the evangelicals are pushing some sort of new oppressive measure is rather stupid.They favor the status quo here. Big deal. It's not indicative of oppresion overall, and moreover, many accept the compromise of civil unions.In my opinion, much of the opposition centers around the Left using the homosexuality issue to try to demonize religious conservatives. Perhaps if it was not part of a process of vilification, the issue could be considered differently, but nonetheless, accepting and normalizing gay marriage and gay families could have, as some claim, negative consequences. I am not sure if anyone knows for sure what, if anything, would happen, but at the same time, if the ideal family structure is weakened, it could undermine the building blocks of soceity, families raising children.Whether children ideally need a father and mother can be debated, but moving to normalize gay marriage well undermine that concept, and if it is better for children to be raised overall by married fathers and mothers, this could be step in the wrong direction.In other words, there is compelling state interest, especially historically, to recognize marriage between men and women. In the past, it was especially crucial to establish paternity and heirs and protect women and children.There really is little compelling state interest to grant homosexual unions marital status, but I do think there is some unfairness in visitation and health decision rights, and they can be addressed via civil unions.

That's your opinion, and nothing more than that. I feel that way about evos.

What actual morals are being pushed on you? I trying to protect babies in the womb, human beings, is oppressive in your book? Kind of like freeing the slaves was oppressive to the slavemasters.The simple fact is if, say, Pat Robertson or some other noted political religious conservative had their way completely, I think overall the government would be less oppressive as they would institute less taxes and less regulation.I suppose you could argue they would enact stricter porn laws, but once again, that's a drop in the bucket compared to the things the Nanny-staters want to force on everyone.

Really? I mean, historically, when has that ever been true? Also you seem to have this idea that Robertson is some kind of fiscal conservative but it's not clear to me why you think so. As far as I'm aware he's foursquare behind Bush's profligate spending increases.The idea that more religious influence leads to less oppression doesn't hold up in any historical example.