Fundamentalists Losing Favor with Public <barf alert>

The Data Lounge ^ | Friday, 6 December 2002 | -- C. Barillas, Editor

[doc30]

Fundamentalists Losing Favor with Public
Friday, 6 December 2002

WASHINGTON -- The American Family Association, a far right lobbying group in Washington, released results from a recent survey that shows mainstream Americans see evangelical Christians as one of the least likeable groups in the country.

Small wonder

Researchers from the Barna survey asked respondents how they felt about evangelicals, born-again Christians, ministers, and other groups of people in society. According to the survey, evangelicals came in tenth out of eleven, narrowly beating out prostitutes.

---

Below lawyers and just above prostitutes.

---

Overview of this issue
>	Far Right - National Strategies
Web Sites
>	Christian Coalition
>	GayVote.com
Other Data Lounge stories
>	Washington DC
Send this article to a friend

Fellow evangelical George Barna, president of the Barna Research Group, said religious conservatives "have a lot of work to do" in combating the general public's negative views.

Speaking to distressed members of the AFA, he said, "We may not be 'evil' people, we may not be 'bad' people -- we may be completely loving and wonderful. But somehow we are being perceived by non-Christians in America as a group of people who are not particularly loving [and] not particularly generous, kind, or understanding."

Particularly galling to the AFA constituency was the country's more open embrace of gay men and lesbians. Gay people, a group conservatives frequently slander and oppose politically, ranked significantly higher in the survey than evangelicals.

"Whether that's because the media portray evangelicals in a negative light or because [religious conservatives have] earned that 'badge of dishonor,' if you will, we've got to figure that out," said Barna, "we have to address that."

Affirming results from other studies, the Barna survey also found the more highly educated non-evangelicals are, the less likely they are to have a positive view of fundamentalist Christians.

-- C. Barillas, Editor

[Alex Murphy]

Bumpo

[jude24]

I'm not convinced that the negative reaction towards fundamentalists is wholly unearned. The caricature of the Fundamentalist Christian -- the ultra-legalist -- is not without merit.

On the other hand, a lot of the hatred towards fundies is that they are, on the whole, right-- that is, they are often proclaiming the Gospel, whereas much of Christianity has been corrupted.

[RAT Patrol]

I'm not a youth minister, lol. Just a stay-at-home mom. I've taught Sunday School to little kids; does that count? I've been a Christian for 30 years. Faith saved my life and I don't mean just in its religious context. As a kid, Christians were always there for me when the people who should have been there for me--although they were Christians themselves--were not. (They did the best they could within their circumstances but...) The church people became my family and my support and it didn't cost the government a dime. I am forever grateful and those same people are my best friends still today. (Would I have that same attitude if the help came from a government program or check drawn on funds stolen from taxpayers?) It is foolish, imo, for the gov't to be hostile to religion. (That doesn't mean the gov't should endorse one either.)

[xzins]

I'm torn over words on this one, Jude.

When the media says "fundamentalist" they basically mean anyone we would call conservative evangelical. And that is what they REALLY mean. They enjoy grouping us with the taliban.

When you say "fundie" you mean "hyper-legalist" and I know exactly what you mean and agree with you.

In any case, if the world hated Christ, it will also hate us.

[MEGoody]

"Fellow evangelical George Barna, president of the Barna Research Group, said religious conservatives "have a lot of work to do" in combating the general public's negative views."

Fellow evangelical George Barna needs to remember that Jesus said "They have hated me; they will hate you."

[RAT Patrol]

Somehow I don't see Christ slamming Christian "fundamentalists."

[general_re]

Don't worry about checking out - I had to do the same thing, hence the delay in my response ;)

Are they true? I don't know, but even if they are, one person's views can hardly be blamed for the popular opinion of fundamental and evangelical Christians. That blame, IMO, rests with the prevailing negative portrayal of such people in the popular press, which hardly needs to name a specific person to express those views.

Of course, but think how much easier it is when you can put a face to the thing you're trying to smear. Guys like Phelps and Wildmon are the perfect foils for the left, because they can always be counted on to say something intensely stupid. Are they marginal figures? Of course they are, but not nearly marginal enough. As long as they exist, and they will always exist, the press and the left in general will hold them up as typical evangelicals, and tar everyone with that brush. That's why there is little choice but to actively oppose that kind of thing. Silence is invariably interpreted as assent, and assent is the kiss of death.

I understand your issues, whether this is the time, or the place, or the manner for such a thing, and truth be told, I don't completely disagree with you. But eventually someone is going to have to stand up and say "this is not what we're about". Maybe there's a better time and place and way to do this, but there's never a perfect time. This sort of infighting is ugly and nasty, but it has to be done. Deciding that maybe some folks are just so far out there that they're doing more harm than good, and that maybe, as a consequence, they need to be shunned, is not a nice thing to do, but it is a necessary thing to do.

I'm not evangelical - never have been. But on a lot of issues of culture, society, and politics, I find myself aligned with evangelicals far more often than not, and that makes me a natural ally and a friend. Judging by this poll, evangelicals need all the friends they can get. And I need their help too, which means that I have a vested interest in seeing that the evangelical voice is as strong and clear and effective as it can be. Which, clearly, it isn't. Will the press continue to attack the Christian right, even if this sort of thing is actively opposed and denounced? Of course they will. But that doesn't mean we should roll over and make it easier for them.

I'm here as a friend, really I am. And as your friend, I cannot sit back and watch evangelical conservatives be marginalized even more than they already are, or worse, self-marginalize. I'm here to tell you that I am your friend, and those sorts of people aren't. They hurt you far more than they help you. And evangelicals are going to have to choose which friends they want around them. I'm not unsympathetic to the position that puts many of them in - that's a really sh*tty choice to have to make. It really is. In a perfect world, we wouldn't be faced with decisions like that, but we don't live in that world, and as bad as that deal is, that's the deal you're stuck with.

We may not see eye to eye on everything, you and I. But I promise you, that other guy can't get you into the big dance. And neither of us can make it alone. We need each other far more than we need guys like that. You can either ride with me and my friends for as long as it benefits you, or you can sit alone in the corner and hold hands with the guy that nobody wants to be around.

It's pure pragmatic power politics. It's just that simple. That's what matters. Without that, nothing either of us want or believe in means a damn thing....

[MEGoody]

"It's simple, mind your own business, quit trying to legislate your morals onto everyone else."

If everyone did that, there would be no laws at all. EVERY law is about legislating someone's morality.

[Destructor]

"Small wonder Researchers from the Barna survey asked respondents how they felt about evangelicals, born-again Christians, ministers, and other groups of people in society. According to the survey, evangelicals came in tenth out of eleven, narrowly beating out prostitutes."

I wonder how wild-eyed, bleeding heart Liberals rated? This survey is biased from the get go!

[Marysecretary]

What nonsense. Is this supposedly happening here? Where is this supposedly happening if not in the U.S.?

[jude24]

I know, I know... semantics, semantics.

I do not consider myself fundamentalist, but rather evangelical. Yet, you know that I firmly believe in historic orthodox Christianity.

I think it comes down, in my mind, to my equation of fundamentalism, not with doctrinal orthodoxy, but rather with a negative general tone -- essentially that they are legalists.

My mother is a schoolteacher at a local fundamentalist Baptist school, and I deeply respect them, but they are undeniably legalistic. When she signed on to teach, for instance, she had to sign a contract saying she would not drink any alcohol. I've read the Bible through 3-4 times, and studied various books in-depth, but I've never seen alcohol prohibited -- heck, Jesus Christ made alcohol for a party in his very first miracle! Timothy was admonished to drink a little wine. (Note: since I am not yet of legal drinking age, whenever my friends who are legal partake, I always get a Coke.) This is what I associate with fundamentalism.

I used to think like a fundamentalist, so thats also probably part of my concern about fundamentalism.

[biblewonk]

The title must be a joke right?

[RAT Patrol]

You sound as though you think morality is bad. Is morality something only religious people value? If so, which religion? Are they ALL bad? Are you saying that no laws whatsoever should have any kind of moral reason for them? Should public health be an issue? Immorality spreads disease, causes social problems, and ultimately costs all of us through healthcare, welfare (those unwanted pregnancies), lawsuits, children's issues, etc... I know lots of pro-family and pro-morality people who are not religious.

[MEGoody]

"she had to sign a contract saying she would not drink any alcohol"

They may do this because of the admonishment to 'avoid any appearance of evil.' Think about how it MIGHT appear if a Christian school teacher were out in public drinking (even if it's just a glass of wine with dinner). Not saying their position is right or wrong, just that I can understand appearances might be an issue for a teacher.

[Marysecretary]

Well, it WOULD put a stop to that practice before too long...

[realpatriot71]

If everyone did that, there would be no laws at all. EVERY law is about legislating someone's morality.

No, that's where you're wrong. Laws are about protecting rights ( ie life, liberty, property, etc), not about protecting anyone's cherished morals. It is immoral to initiate force or fruad against that which is naturally ours - rights. So in this sense, the jurisprudence legislating the protection of rights is also one of morality. However, on issues that do not direct force against your rights (ie smoking weed at home, two guys in the bedroom of their home, etc.) your morals may say these things are wrong, but since these activities do not directly assaut your rights it is immoral to legislate aganst them. It's rather simple.

[realpatriot71]

See #176

[tortoise]

Interesting that what the survey actually showed, is that non-Christians have a negative view of most poeple.

You got that right. I hate just about everyone. Except my friends.

[FF578]

Laws are about protecting rights ( ie life, liberty, property, etc), not about protecting anyone's cherished morals.

Way back in 1815, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided an important case, here are excerpts from that case: It reflects the case law of the day, and the attitude on which our nation was founded.)

This court is...invested with power to punish not only open violations of decency and morality, but also whatever secretly tends to undermine the principles of society... Whatever tends to the destruction of morality, in general, may be punishable criminally. Crimes are public offenses, not because they are perpetrated publically, but because their effect is to injure the public. Buglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable.

Hence it follows, that an offense may be punishable, if in it's nature and by it's example, it tends to the corruption or morals; although it not be committed in public.

Although every immoral act, such as lying, ect... is not indictable, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general...it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of government invalid...

No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people, secret poision cannot be thus desseminated.

[general_re]

The cure is worse than the disease. Not that it's ever going to be implemented - running on that platform will be a very lonely experience, trust me...