No all you have done is given vague generalities, set up false equivalences “both sides do the exact same thing”, and present extreme examples as though they were commonplace. Without giving any specifics it is hard to take any of your claims seriously. Esp. since the one example you did give turned out to be incomplete and left out a significant piece of information.

It’s not new that the concept of evangelicals has been associated with the Republican Party. I’m sure you remember Moral Majority movement from the 1980s! I am not so sure that Ralph Drollinger and Capital Ministry, about whom this article is written, are necessary Republican lobbyists let alone Trump supporters, though. They come across as those who want to evangelize as many politicians as possible without really endorsing any particular political party.

Agreed, of course, but I am just pointing out that when these evangelicals do so, they incur the label of “not REALLY a Christian” by the “evangelical leaders” who have provided blanket unquestioning support, and whom always seem to be the people who are featured on and quoted in mass media when they want to obtain an “evangelical perspective.” So, for many non-evangelicals in this country, “evangelical” has become virtually synonymous with “GOP stalwart completely sold out to Trump.” It has come to primarily mean a political identifier, not a particular theological orientation.

I’m finished answering questions you pose in this discussion, because it’s busywork. I already answered both of those questions plainly in previous comments. Thanks for engaging… I honestly do not think we disagree about much in the bigger picture. Enjoy your Sunday!

who, specifically, are the “both sides” you claimed you were pointing out and that were “doing the exact same thing” (and what is that “thing” they are both doing)?

What I was responding to was your misrepresentation which implied a massive anti-christian sentiment “lets all flip out over a bible”

To me, the idea that Christians cannot criticize the actions of ANY politicians, be they Republican, Democrat, or members of other parties, appears uncommonly silly. Remember that article written by Jim Wallis, who is an evangelical Christian? In it, he criticized Trump and Sanders, members of different major parties.

Never said any of that. I’m pretty sure I was careful to point out that both sides do the exact same thing.

Taken in isolation, perhaps not as significant a concern. But it is part of a larger context where a group of “evangelical leaders” have gained tremendous amounts of influence in this administration in exchange for their total support and unceasing praise, never uttering a word of criticism, and using their considerable influence to help deliver large percentages of the evangelical vote. Jerry Falwell Jr. among others tells people that it is immoral (and essentially an act of rebellion against God) for any Christian to speak a word of criticism against anything —ANYTHING— the administration says or does.

And this group, now so influential, represents a very narrow view of Christian theology and practice. They essentially boil the entire Bible down to nothing but anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ doctrine, and ignore essentially anything outside of those two items. Then they subscribe carte-blanche to the entirety of Trumpiam politics and claim, with little proof, that all of Trump’s positions are inherently godly and Scriptural (or, in the case of JFJ, they simply and conveniently dismiss any relevance of Scripture to the “earthly political kingdom”). And thus they promote a political program that inherently favors the strong over the weak, the rich over the poor, and demonizes and dehumanizes large swaths of the population. And they label as apostate Satanist “liberals” anyone who dares to suggest that any of this is inappropriate.

And since they themselves personally stand to gain from such political principles, I have come to see them as little more than opportunists who are deliberately and deceitfully manipulating the Christian masses simply to obtain for themselves power and material gain, seeing the Gospel as little more than a means to their desired end of personal enrichment and obtaining of power.

You just said a lot that I never said, but I think you are missing my point anyway. We agree in most respects. But I believe that to focus on a Bible, or a Koran, or the Tao Te Ching, or a cross around a teacher’s neck, or a Christmas tree in a library, or “Christian Nationalism” in the way that Warren seems to understand it, is very possibly a complete distortion and misuse of separation of church and state. One which utterly misses the entire purpose of a wall of separation.

If the goal is a more free common space for all of us, I think a better standard is to try to separate debatable/divisive ideology and state, but that’s more challenging than petitioning courts to tear down every cross on public property. And, of course, would require that both the left and the right give up their unwavering commitment to trying to subjugate and marginalize their ideological opponents with the power of government.

Currently certain individuals and organizations seem prone to an odd type of neo-Puritanism which seeks to prevent Christianity (in particular, I might add) and the government from touching. In my opinion, that is a hamfisted and sometimes bigoted approach to solving a problem that largely doesn’t exist anymore.