Evangelicals make up a major block of republican voters and represent the ideology that marks the GOP.

So we can see that Evangelicals don't really stand for any of these things. Or they are so general (love music) that they fit almost everyone.


(I was going to do a long post listing each subject and showing it to be BS, but it's so obvious i didn't feel the need to spend the time&gt

To paraphrase something you just said today: The problem here is evangelicals are too varied to say any actions define them.

Why do you think it's ok to generalize about some very diverse groups and not others? You don't have to answer that, I know why.

You have no standing to say her experience was not true. I suspect it galls you to think that she came away from her evangelical church with some things she values and cherishes, but she did.

That these are very general nice things, and don't talk to harm found from these groups, including overwhelmingly voting Republican.

Wow, they like music and think you can have close friends who aren't romantic.

Who doesn't.

experience in the church. Do you really think she is obligated to talk about the bad things? When prominent atheists talk about the good they see in atheism, are they obligated to talk about the bad?

Lots of people don't value the same things she does.

The demographics that you refer to are not really "overwhelming".



Such a broad and uninformed brush you paint with.

I just kills you that she got something positive, doesn't it?

Positive thing people got from the Moonies, or Scientology, or League of Conservative Voters.
I am sure there a lot of warmth and good times there too.

though I wouldn't expect an article about that to be on this site.

As has been talked about here, people should be judged on their actions, not on their labels.

And it certainly seems wrong to judge some people by their labels but claim that your labels shouldn't be used to judge you.

There is currently a surge of evangelical churches that are pursing environmental causes. Their reason are religious, but it makes not difference to me.

Did the demographics surprise you? Does it change your overall POV? It certainly should, because your claims were inaccurate.

is a color chart without notation.

Maybe a link?

More to my point, nice he had good times, but he admits that the same thing is found in many groups.

I am sure many people in these Churches are having a wonderful time.

So what, it's what they believe and preach that matters.

You are showing.

It is my understanding that he came from a Fundy type Church.

Giving people the sense of community and good times in Church is how they perpetuate the bad ideas they promote.

Sorry you can't see that.

They are not all automatically bad people, they just have damaging beliefs.

Here is the data on political affiliation among evangelicals.

Party Affiliation Among Evangelical Churches
38% Republican
12% Lean Republican
9% Independent
10% Lean Democratic
24% Democratic
7% Other/ no preference/ don't know/ refused

Although there can be some overlap, there is a clear differentiation between evangelicals and fundamentalists. I am once again going to challenge and object to your gross over-generalizaions.

The author never makes mention of fundamentalism and your conflating of two things has led you to false assumptions. That fits your preferred narrative, but it's not accurate.

Giving people a sense of community and positive experiences is one things that many churches do very well. Promoting good, even great, ideas is something many of them do really well too.

Sorry you can't see that. Your inability to distinguish and to see the good as well as the bad keeps you blind and intolerant, imo. The worst example is right at the end where you categorize beliefs as "damaging".

You might have been damaged, but others weren't, including this author.

You are not a representative sample. Sorry for whatever damaged you. Hope you get over it enough to see that others have had grossly different experiences.

fundamentalist Church. Nice he had some good times.

So I'm responding to that.

He agrees with their views of Humanists as well: (well partially)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-sosa/dont-call-me-a-humanism_b_4624706.html

Or do you think Churches that warn of the threat of Secular Humanism are bastions of liberal thought?

Just because some evangelical churches are more liberal, doesn't give the rest a pass as you would have it.

And if we are talking about Fundamentalist Churches, as he is, then i will continue to "not give them a break."

in keeping with your style of giving none a pat on the back because some are bad.

Where is all that critical thinking and rational thought? Have you been indoctrinated, lol?

Is he not a good atheist?

When I have acknowledged good acts by religious people.

But I guess that would disrupt your pre-concieved notions.


He is an atheist, period, The little I've read shows I agree on some things and disagree on others.

position after getting more information. I much prefer that response than a knee jerk reaction driven by anti-religious sentiment.

My pre-conceived notion is that you are a thoughtful and honest person who follows your own bath and changes your POV when given new information.

It's when you become dogmatic that my pre-conceived notions are disrupted.

I do judge Churches more on their ideology than the niceties of their community.

BTW.I would think you would have a problem with Evangelical Churches, since you dislike evangelizing.

You may not believe, but I'd be willing to bet that your ideology and that of many churches and many believers are quite similar.

Why so black and white, ed? Why does my support for some aspects of some evangelical churches lead to the conclusion that I don't have a problem with other aspects of evangelical churches?

You seem to say that if one accepts or supports one aspect of a thing, then they accept and support all of it. If this is your POV, it definitely helps explain why you have so much trouble wrapping your head around the positive parts of religious groups. That would be, well, traitorous in a certain.

About Fundy Churches.

But it is probably true of others,

I have a much bigger problem with the Catholic Church, than the Universalist, for example.

I know a few Fundy people that are quite nice, but their beliefs on everything from LGBT to women to science is abhorrent.

I will continue to condemn their religious beliefs and I don't care about the warmth of the services.


If you have info that his church was not of by this type, In am willing to look.

You made the claim that is was "fundamentalist" and rejected it based on that, even though there was nothing to support your contention.

You drew your conclusions and based your judgement on an assumption without evidence. Then you went on to dismiss the positive things this person say they got from their former affiliation with a church. You don't know the religious beliefs of this particular church, but you condemn those beliefs regardless.

This sound so eerily familiar.

on other things he had written on Huffpost.

Was I mistaken?

I'd like to assess it for myself, but understand that you had other sources of information that led to your conclusions.

On your article, his previous posts come up.

I remember one about the harshness of their views on Gay people.

I fully admit I may be confusing another writer.


But the stuff about the church calling Secular Humanism a threat is accurate.

So that alone would make me not have a favorable view of them.

He doesn't talk of it as a threat, just as a position he doesn't relate to. He thinks it can be an arrogant and makes the case that human life is not more important than other kinds of life. He actually thinks the humanist position has a lot in common with fundamentalist view of the superiority of human life over other forms of life.

At any rate, he says that within his church he was taught that humanism was a threat, but he rejects it for any entirely different reason.

I really don't see much in his other articles about the church he was raised in, and certainly not anything that I would find particularly fundamentals. And I see zero in his articles on the topic of his ex-churches views on homosexuality.

In terms of gay rights, evangelicals are all over the place. The Evangelical Lutherans support them, while the Presbyterian evangelicals do not.

The bottom line here is that I think you made an error early on and conflated evangelism and fundamentalism. Due to that, you drew many conclusions about the kind of church this man was raised in.

that's another matter.

It is their view, the church, they called it a threat.

Growing up in the Evangelical Christian tradition, I was repeatedly warned of the threat posed by "secular Humanism." This movement was said to glorify the self and provide an empty view of the world.

I grew up in the Evangelical tradition. From first-hand experience, I can easily confirm that this community operates in an incredibly insular fashion that operates from a place of fear

The excerpts you give here seem pretty benign and really just say that it is a system which is insular and operates using fear. The threat, of course, is that humanists say you are good without god, but I don't think they see them as mortal enemies.

If I were to speculate, I would say that the church he grew up on wasn't that bad. He does not seem at all bitter or damaged. Most of all, he can embrace some of the positive things he got from his experiences. This I can definitely relate to. It's really a great way to live.

Last edited Mon Dec 15, 2014, 06:00 PM - Edit history (1)

But maybe it's just me?

Those that did probably had a different experience than she did, and, for that matter, than I did.

And by "Saved" they mean "saved from going to Hell".

Like Mark Twain I would go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company so being told I'm going to Hell doesn't bother me that much, I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.

It still seems a bit impolite though, particularly when it's said in a sanctimoniously gleeful fashion.

Thanks Obama, for reminding me to use the word sanctimony more often.

Indeed, if you are a good fit and the lifestyle suits you then Evangelism can be a comfortable place but for those who aren't and it doesn't it can be sheer misery. You might remember my Iranian redneck nephew, he'd be as lost in Iran as Henry Cho was in Korea, people assuming you do fit when you really don't can be remarkably alienating.

While I agree that the primary and general focus of evangelicals to to spread the word and convert, their views on hell seem to be all over the place.

I agree that getting up in someones face and telling them they are going to hell is not at all nice. I suggest laughter as a response.

Regardless, I think this is a good read that highlights some of the positive things that he got from his church when he was religious

He claims something is lacking in "mainstream", whatever the fuck that means, then makes generalizations of his own experiences.

Intimacy is not just for romantic partners. I tell my platonic best friend I love her all the time, along with other friends besides my SO, I'm a straight guy. I also get into conversations with friends that are quite personal, this might be more a generational thing, being in between generation X and millennials, I find people my age and younger care less about such boundaries and are more open emotionally, at least the men are.

Caring for the needs of others leads to a happier life. I thought this is, generally, part of mainstream culture? What makes how this is practiced in Evangelical Christianity different are the organizations involved. Those who have the means are encouraged to give to charities in many different contexts in mainstream culture, even seeing it as a moral good and altruism feels good, that's actually a part of human nature.

Using polite language averts hostility. No shit.

Music is an essential component of community. What mainstream culture doesn't value this?

Loving others is our primary responsibility. I would say caring for others is a better way to word this.

But again, I don't see how any of these are lacking in mainstream culture unless he restricts mainstream culture to what is shown on reality TV.

Alain de Botton being the foremost example.

the point i was trying to make.

But guess my blind hatred for everything religious got in the way.

I guess you could say supernatural beliefs, but plenty of people don't claim their belief in ghosts or ESP and such as "religious", so its a fuzzy area.

When it comes down to it, religion isn't necessary for any particular action, you have secular analogues for practically everything from ritual to services. These don't even have to be things that are explicitly designed to imitate religion either, would not non-religious meetings of any sort serve as an analogue for church services? Hell, some of them, such as political and governmental meetings, like town hall meetings, are actually more useful. Ritual can be practically anything really, charity we don't need to get into at all, there are thousands of secular charities out there to pick from.

I guess there is one activity that is unique to at least some religions, that would be prayer, but that's the only thing I can think of.

I might add that I get ticked off by the opinion of many religious people that they are the only ones who have these attributes.