I think people have difficulty discussing their faith and their politics in the same place, Lorie. I don't understand why, but I've noticed it before.

Isn't the American Religious Right almost exclusively peopled by "radical left" (in history's terminology) apocalpytic millenialists who long for and believe in an imminent Armageddon and the return of Christ? Aren't the vast majority some stripe of "Rapture"-yearning
"pre-tribulationists" who can also be called
"Christian Zionists" , as they view the state of Israel as a fulfllment of Bible prophecy and
believe they should support only politicians who do the bidding of Israel's right wing parties?

Doesn't seem all that optimistically healthy-or positive- a phenomenon to me. And the eschatology is very modernist & un-Traditional, again , not a very "Right" orientation.

Ken, in a word, no.

In two words, hell no.

In three words...you get the idea, don't you?
-=Mke

Ken, your ignorance is showing.

Nice try Ken, but not even close.

I'm a so called(right wing Christian)and i'll vote and incourage all Christians to vote because we can't afford to allow the Athiest left to control this country.The Repubs. tried to lose this election,but no matter how weak they have been,we can't allow the dems in power that would be the begining of the end.

Anybody else think that Ken's response was cut and pasted?

Meanwhile, the one negative review of th book posted on the Amazon site by some clown named Steve Zecola was utterly ridiculous. His rant had nothing to do with the book at hand and everything to do with his prejudices against Christianity. His first sentence is telling:

"Evangelicals believe the Bible is inerrant. However, we know that virtuous human beings wrote the Bible without the insights provided by the microscope or the telescope, nor did God choose to bestow these insights upon them."

Offered with no proof, no context, no intelligence, either.

If you're going to review a book, at last 1) read it, 2) critique its contents, 3) consider its arguments, and 4) critique its conclusions. Don't rant and rave because you want to score some cheap political points or want to use someone else's work to spread your own message of predjudice or misinformation.

(Disclaimer: Pat Hynes has asked me to review this book for Amazon, which I will do fairly and to the best of my abilities.)

I found Ken's statements to be at least true enough to be amusing... including the pro-Israel thing. It's better than being pro-theotherguys, though, and at least apocalyptic milenialists don't go around cutting people's heads off.

And it's very true that they aren't mono-lithic enough to be shooting for any sort of theocracy, so that's accurate too.

At least Synova gets it. Evangelicalism is
dominated by premillenial Rapture-yearners.
But while "God and One are a majority", the US
and Israel are not. And if the US continues to
allow Israel-first neocons to dominate foreign
policy, the US will continue to lose in Iraq,
and lose influence in the Middle East.

Ken, your description pegs me pretty accurately. So what? I could similarly characterize the religious left as godless humanists who care more about whether a lobster feels pain when it's cooked than they care about the killing of millions of innocent fetuses.

We will not "continue to lose" the war in Iraq, we will continue to win it - despite the best efforts of American Traitorcrats to defeat us from within.

Pope Pius IX, in his Encyclical Letter of August 15, 1954, said:"The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defence of liberty of consdience are most pestilential error---a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a state." The same Pope in his Encyclical Letter of 1864 ANATHEMATIZED "Those who assert the liberty of conscience and of regligious worship, also "all such as maintain that the church may not employ force." The Catholic church dosn't belive in seperation of church and state the Catholic is supreme,the Pope is the Absolute authority in all earthly and hevenly matters and thay will be the MAJORITY in a decade or two.