Alphecca

I think that opinion article is pretty off base. Anyone who paints with such a large brush is generalizing too far. Sure, there are those in the Republican Party that are fundamentalist. They are outspoken people in some cases. This is a recent phenomenon. They used to be told to shut up and keep their views to themselves.

I happen to believe that strongly held convictions are important. Many things ARE right. Many are wrong. There are grey areas too, of course. I object to people telling me that everything is grey and that thinking otherwise is simplistic.

The us v. them thing is nothing new either. It's politics. That's how our system was set up. We have to fight for those things that we deem important. We fight with rhetoric and ideas.

Given all of that, I am not a fundamentalist. I do not watch or listen or pay any attention to Pat Robertson or any of his type. I probably agree with many things he espouses though.

One last thing. The author cites things like helping the poor as a Christian value, which it is. He seems to believe that Republicans have some sort of predisposition against helping the poor. He is not much of a (former)Republican if he thinks as such. It is a patently false and ignorant argument. Anyone who brings that old horse out of the barn is suspect in my opinion. Please stop with the old "Starving Elderly and Poor" crap. That's the oldest Democrat argument there is. They SAY they care more. "Republicans are hard-hearted and cold." Bull. Saying something doesn't make it true.

Buck

The gist of his article seems to be that he is lamenting the politicization of Christianity. I wonder why this would be? I'm not even particularly religous, but I can see it. Christianity has been under assault by the Left in this country for a long time. From Piss Christ to the stink about the logo for the City of Los Angeles, there has been a concerted campaign to denigrate Christian faith. It is all over the media and popular culture. Is it any wonder that many Christian's are pushing back? Now recently, we are told that we have to respect(beyond any respect shown towards Christians) the Muslim faith. Why? If it is OK to attack Christian symbols, why not Muslim ones?

His other criticism's are almost self fisking. He laments attacks on John Kerry, but fails to note the particular reason he was attacked. He was denied communion because he believes in abortion on demand and is a big promoter and advocate for it. Now one may support this position, but it is against the teachings of the Catholic church and it is no surprise that many in that church disagreed to Kerry's stance.
He laments Lee Atwater's style of politics, but this agressive style of campaighning is hardly new in American politics(look at any 19th century campaign for much more strident rheotric) and the Democrats have used similar tactics before and after Atwater. Republicans feel the stakes are high and worth fighting for. What is wrong with that? Sometime things are black and white.
Finally, he complains about how evangelical Christians don't care about or give money to the poor. One word--Bull$hit. Funds to give to Africa and other poor areas of the world are collected at churches almost every Sunday and this money is voluntarily donated. Collections are organized after every disaster. Just because one might disagree that aid to the poor should be forced at the point of the gun by the State doesn't mean that a person has no compassion for the poor. Remember, it isn't charity if it's forced. As an aside, one of the most Liberal states, Massachusetts gives the least amount of money to charity. Mississippi, gives the most.