Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘conservatives’ Category

>Goodbye, Republican Party


Is the Republican Party Finished?


The lame-duck session of the 111th Congress proved one thing beyond a doubt: the Republican Party does not represent the interests of conservatives.  Despite the midterm election tidal wave, in which the Republican Party gained 63 House seats (eclipsing its historic 1994 success against Clinton), congressional Republicans failed to leverage their victory into political clout and collapsed like a house of cards in the lame-duck session.
The last two weeks ought to sicken conservatives.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell spectacularly failed to hold his caucus together to even delay ratification of New START until the 112th Congress is seated in January.  Republican leftists Olympia Snowe and Lisa Murkowski sided with Democrats to end the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, forcing the gay agenda from the streets of San Francisco right into the U.S. Marine Corps.  Congressional Republicans agreed to cut FICA taxes for Social Security (which is underfunded already) and expand the Democratic Party’s welfare state constituency by extending unemployment benefits — in exchange for maintaining current tax rates for a paltry two years.  The deal will add billions to the deficit.  Tea Party darling Scott Brown, mocked by Obama for driving a truck in his insurgent 2009 campaign in which he stole “Ted Kennedy’s seat” from the Democrats, voted for Obama’s agenda on all of these issues.

Add New Comment


>Bush Was A Damned Liberal, Let’s Face It!

>I made a comment after reading columnist Byron York’s fine article found in the Washington I said Bush was a “damned” liberal on Constitutional freedom, the economy, and the borders. He was only conservative when it came to attacking the people who knocked down the Trade Centers in New York. Or was he, because if he was he should have attacked Saudi Arabia and looked for WMDs there. Don White

The following Noah Webster quote is even better:

Wise Words: 2nd Amendment

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”. Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

Bush 43: Conservative movement is inconsequential

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
September 15, 2009

Former President George W. Bush addresses a Fourth of July crowd at the Let Freedom Ring 2009 festival at Crystal Beach Park Arena in Woodward, Okla., Saturday, July 4, 2009. (AP Photo)

How many times during the last eight years did you hear that George W. Bush was a dangerous right-wing extremist? Probably too many to count.
What you heard less often were expressions of the deep reservations some conservatives felt about Bush’s governing philosophy.
Conservatives greatly admired Bush for his steadfastness in the War on Terror — to use that outlawed phrase — and they were delighted by his choices of John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. But when it came to a fundamental conservative principle like fiscal discipline, many conservatives felt the president just wasn’t with them.
You saw that throughout the 2008 Republican presidential primaries, when GOP candidates, while not mentioning Bush specifically, got big applause from conservative Republican audiences by pledging to return fiscal responsibility to the White House.
Those cheering conservatives will find a revealing moment in a new book, scheduled for release next week, by former White House speechwriter Matt Latimer.
Latimer is a veteran of conservative politics. An admirer of Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, for whom he worked for several years, Latimer also worked in the Rumsfeld Pentagon before joining the Bush White House in 2007.
The revealing moment, described in “Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor,” occurred in the Oval Office in early 2008.
Bush was preparing to give a speech to the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. The conference is the event of the year for conservative activists; Republican politicians are required to appear and offer their praise of the conservative movement.
Latimer got the assignment to write Bush’s speech. Draft in hand, he and a few other writers met with the president in the Oval Office. Bush was decidedly unenthusiastic.
“What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?” the president asked Latimer.
Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement — the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.
Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.
“Let me tell you something,” the president said. “I whupped Gary Bauer’s ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement.”
Bush seemed to equate the conservative movement — the astonishing growth of conservative political strength that took place in the decades after Barry Goldwater’s disastrous defeat in 1964 — with the fortunes of Bauer, the evangelical Christian activist and former head of the Family Research Council whose 2000 presidential campaign went nowhere.
Now it was Latimer who looked perplexed. Bush tried to explain.
“Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say,” the president said, “but I redefined the Republican Party.”
The Oval Office is no place for a low-ranking White House staffer to get into an argument with the president of the United States about the state of the Republican Party — or about any other subject, for that matter. Latimer made the changes the president wanted. When Bush appeared at CPAC, he made no mention of the conservative movement. In fact, he said the word “conservative” only once, in the last paragraph.
Bush veterans are going to take issue with some of Latimer’s criticisms in “Speechless.” As an observer of it all, I certainly don’t agree with his characterizations of some Bush administration officials. But looking back at the Bush years, the scene in the Oval Office adds context to the debate that is going on inside conservative circles today.
Right after the Republican Party’s across-the-board defeat last November, there was a wave of what-went-wrong self-analysis. Republicans were divided between those who believed the party had lost touch with conservative principles and those who believed it had failed to adapt to changed political and demographic circumstances.
Bush’s words in the Oval Office speak directly to that first group. You can argue whether Bush was a fiscal conservative at any time in his political career, but he certainly wasn’t in the White House. And some real fiscal conservatives, with their guy in charge, held their tongues.
Now, with unified Democratic control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, we’re seeing spending that makes Bush’s record look downright thrifty. Republicans have again found their voice on fiscal discipline. And some of them wish they had been more outspoken when a president of their own party was in the White House.
Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on

>Obama’s Health Care Speech Fell Flat Between DC and LA

>By Don White
The camera work and photographs were excellent – far better than the speech. Obama has a flare for the dramatic, the anti-American, the radical, the anti-Constitutional, anti-flag, etc. But let us not mistake style for substance. He was short on substance, long on smile appeal.

This speech won’t get the traction he hopes. But, part of an entertainer’s shtick must always be the appearance of inner confidence, poise, golden words, and of course some comedy.

He provided all of that, and for the partisans it was a good night out on the town and for the right it didn’t resonate. For America between D.C and L.A. it was just plain scary, not what the vast majority of people in this country want. I’m part of the latter group, thank you, and it won’t do anything to turn our hearts his way so he will have to ram something through if he wants a government option, AND SEE DEMOCRATS SUFFER AT THE POLLS NEXT YEAR, which last night proved he did.

By the way, the Kas Sunstein (the man who wants to put chickens before man, give them attorneys, and regulate farmers out of business) confirmation cloture vote proved one thing. That even Utah Republicans once thought to be conservative, Bob Bennett and Orin Hatch, have a price. Don White

>OUTRAGE: Americans Are Rising Up!


Dear Fellow Conservative:

Right now, something is happening in America that, try as they might, the liberal media can’t stop simply by distorting or ignoring it.

I’m talking about the surging opposition to President Obama’s plans to “remake” America (his word) from an independent republic of freedom-loving, self-reliant citizens into a Euro-socialist nanny state.

Call it a backlash. Call it a counter-revolution. Call it a conservative comeback. Call it what you will — but it’s real, it’s massive, and it’s about to boil over into something the liberals can’t deny any longer.

How do I know? Because it’s my job, as editor in chief of HUMAN EVENTS, to report on things that the liberal media won’t.

And everywhere my staff and I look these days we see the signs of this extraordinary political uprising…

IN THE POLLS showing a sudden and dramatic erosion in President Obama’s approval ratings — and an even steeper, faster decline in support for his neo-socialist policies

ON THE STREETS of mainstream America where “tea party” tax protests and other expressions of populist outrage are spreading like wildfire from town to town, city to city nationwide

IN STATEHOUSES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS where voters are forcing legislators — by popular referendum if necessary — to roll back the tax-and-spend policies that have brought so many states and localities to the brink of bankruptcy

ON THE AIRWAVES where conservative TV and radio personalities such as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity are soaring to new heights of popularity — while the ratings for liberals like Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman are plummeting

ON THE BESTSELLER LISTS where books like Mark Levin’s ” Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto” and “Glenn Beck’s Common Sense” have dominated for months, outselling liberal tomes by hundreds of thousands

AND EVEN, AT LONG LAST, IN CONGRESS where, after years of selling out conservative principles, a small but growing number of Republicans are loudly voicing and voting those principles once again — despite the loud complaints of the liberal media.

What’s driving this extraordinary phenomenon? In a word — outrage.

After trusting Barack Obama‘s soothing promises, and the media’s constant reassurances, that once in office he would “transcend” partisan politics, Americans quickly realized they had elected the most radical leftist ever to serve as President of the United States.

They also realized that for all Obama’s talk of “transparency” and “accountability,” his administration was creating the conditions for a level of political sleaze, corruption and back-room wheeling-and-dealing far worse than anything Washington has seen in a very long time.

And now that the gap between Obama’s smooth-talking rhetoric and his actual performance has finally become plain to anyone but the most besotted of his admirers, Americans have had enough.

They have had enough of the out-of-control spending on bailouts and “stimulus” that have sent the federal deficit soaring to $1.8 trillion for 2009 alone — and even higher down the road — threatening to bankrupt our nation, destroy our currency, and impoverish our descendents for generations to come

They have had enough of Obama’s crusade to replace private healthcare with a government-run system that will empower federal bureaucrats to make life-and-death decisions about your medical care — and that will put all your private medical records in a government database (don’t worry, they promise never to use them to harm you)

They have had enough of Obama’s proposed tax hikes and tax “surcharges” to pay for all his spending programs that will drive U.S. tax rates higher even than the welfare-state economies of Europe (New Yorkers, for instance, could face a combined federal-state income tax rate of nearly 60 percent)

They have had enough of the appalling rogue’s gallery of crooks, cronies, tax cheats, and political big-spending leftists that Obama has appointed to the highest levels of our government — while firing or abruptly “retiring” official government watchdogs who have blown the whistle on his cronies and their schemes

They have had enough of the outrageous threats to investigate and prosecute Bush-era anti-terrorist agents and officials for the heroic work they did in keeping our country safe

They have had enough of the endless procession of unelected “czars” President Obama has appointed — 32 at last count! — to bring one sector after another of our economy and government under his direct control (come to think of it, why don’t we just call him “Czar Obama”?)

They have had enough, in short, of how President Obama and his allies are rapidly destroying so much of what has made our country prosperous and free — while arrogating to themselves a degree of power that would make Hugo Chavez blush.

And what about you, my friend? Have you had enough? Are you ready to join the swelling ranks of Americans who are determined to put a stop to this madness? Are you ready to add your voice to theirs in demanding an end to this assault on our liberties… an end to this era of fiscal insanity… an end to this government “of the cronies, by the cronies, and for the cronies”?

If you are — if you are among those who refuse to tolerate even for one more day what is happening in our nation’s capital, then I have only one thing to ask of you…

Join the conservative
counter-revolution today.


#yiv1503138028 { background-color:#E7E7E7;}

>Discovering America Discovered Don White

>By Don White
I’m an American and I thought it only right to be allowed onto Barak Obama’s web site. I entered my information, complaints, political feelings – which certainly don’t coincide an inch with Obama and his gang. I told them so.

When it came time to create my blog, which I would suggest all true conservatives do on his blog, I let it all hang out. I copied two Political Disconnect blogs of mine that really should hit home to those people who support this president. Let’s get the word out, even on his own blog.

Now, it will be nothing short of a miracle if those administrating that web site will allow my articles to be printed. The little box I read said they would not be printed right away, they needed to be edited for “moderation.” If someone is stealing your rights, your country right beneath your eyes is it time for moderation? If someone has a gun to your head and wants to hold you up, is it time for moderation? No, it isn’t! Speak up! Use all the force and intelligence available to you to resist tyranny wherever it’s found.

Don White

>What Dirty Tricks Government People Pull: Must Americans Live In Constant Fear?

>A prominent leftist blogger associated with has proudly accepted an award named for Soviet agent of influence I.F. Stone and has denounced Accuracy in Media and Commentary magazine, which is an upstanding blog and a credit to America, for drawing public attention to Stone’s communist connections.

Glenn Greenwald and fellow award winner, Amy Goodman, appeared on the April 3 edition of a public television show hosted by Bill Moyers, just weeks after new disclosures of how Moyers used his position as a top official of the Democratic Lyndon Johnson Administration to gather political dirt and potential blackmail material on American citizens. One of Greenwald’s big complaints about the Bush Administration has been that it illegally monitored telephone calls as part of the war on terrorism.

What comes around goes around — and both parties are complicit. One wonders who in the Obama administration is digging up dirt about us? A better question is who isn’t?

We know the Janet Napolitano flak about how she is attacking all war veterans, conservatives, people over 70, and others, branding them as enemies of the state. We also know that the NSA is listening in on phone conversations, trying to expose and prosecute anyone who may make a disparging remark about Obama and his gang. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Well, the latter is where we are headed, especially if Obama continues to allow this kind of nonsense to happen.

Must Americans live in fear? It could get worse. He could name the former Arizona governor and current Homeland Security Agency head, Napalitano, to the Supreme Court.
To read the complete AIM article at “Kaupunki” by Cliff Kinkaid of AIM, go here now.

>There May Be 40 Million Evangelicals in America

>Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement which began in Great Britain in the 1730s.[1] Most adherents consider its key characteristics to be: a belief in the need for personal conversion (or being “born again“); some expression of the gospel in effort; a high regard for Biblical authority; and an emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus.[2] David Bebbington has termed these four distinctive aspects conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism, saying, “Together they form a quadrilateral of priorities that is the basis of Evangelicalism.”[3]


Alternative usage

The term evangelical (with a lower case “e”) can refer to the personal belief that Jesus is the Messiah. The word comes from the Greek word for “Gospel” or “good news:” ευαγγελιον evangelion, from eu- “good” and angelion “message.” In that sense, to be evangelical would mean to be a Christian; that is, someone whose life is founded upon and motivated by the message of the New Testament.

Beginning with the Reformation, evangelical was used in a broad sense to refer to either Protestants or Christians in general. Martin Luther referred to the evangelische Kirche or evangelical church to distinguish Protestants from Catholics in the Roman Catholic Church.[4][5] In Germany and Switzerland, and especially among Lutherans, the term has continued to be used in a broad sense.[6] This can be seen in the names of certain Lutheran denominations or national organizations, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, and the Evangelical Church in Germany.

Current usage

The contemporary North American usage of the term is influenced by the evangelical/fundamentalist controversy of the early 20th century. Evangelicalism may sometimes be perceived as the middle ground between the theological liberalism of the Mainline (Protestant) denominations and the cultural separatism of Fundamentalist Christianity.[7] Evangelicalism is therefore described as “the third of the leading strands in American Protestantism, straddl[ing] the divide between fundamentalists and liberals.”[8] While the North American perception is important to understand the usage of the term, it by no means dominates a wider world view, where the fundamentalist debate was not so influential.


Protestant Reformation to World War II

In the 18th century the Wesleyan revival in the Church of England influenced the formation of a party of pietistic Anglicans, whose descendant movement is still called the “Evangelical party”. In the United States, Jonathan Edwards and the “New Lights” (revival Calvinists) were opposed by “Old Lights” (confessional Calvinists). George Whitfield, a Methodist, continued and expanded this pietistic “New Light” revivalism together with the non-Calvinist, Arminian Methodist movement.[citation needed]

From the late 20th century such conservative Protestant Christians, and their churches and social movements, are often called evangelical to distinguish them from Protestants who have a tendency towards more liberal Christianity.[citation needed]

John Nelson Darby, 1800’s English minister – Created the movement of Dispensationalism, an innovative protestant movement that gave rise to evangelicalism – (History Channel “Antichrist: Zero Hour” (2005)).

Post WW II to Present

The term neo-evangelicalism was coined by Harold Ockenga in 1947, to identify a distinct movement within fundamentalist Christianity at the time, especially in the English-speaking world.

There was a split within the fundamentalist movement, as they disagreed among themselves about how a ‘Christian‘ ought to respond to an unbelieving world. The evangelicals urged that Christians must engage the culture directly and constructively,[9] and they began to express reservation about being known to the world as fundamentalists. As Kenneth Kantzer put it at the time, the name fundamentalist had become “an embarrassment instead of a badge of honor.”[10]

The fundamentalists saw the evangelicals as often being too concerned about social acceptance and intellectual respectability, and being too accommodating to a perverse generation that needed correction. In addition, they saw the efforts of evangelist Billy Graham, who worked with non-evangelical denominations, such as the Roman Catholics (which they claimed to be heretical), as a mistake.[11]

The self-identified fundamentalists also cooperated in separating their opponents from the fundamentalist name, by increasingly seeking to distinguish themselves from the more open group, whom they often characterized derogatorily, by Ockenga’s term, “Neo-evangelical” or just Evangelical.

North American perspective

Evangelicals held the view that the modernist and liberal parties in the Protestant churches had surrendered their heritage as Evangelicals by accommodating the views and values of the world. At the same time, they criticized their fellow Fundamentalists for their separatism and their rejection of the Social gospel as it had been developed by Protestant activists of the previous century. They charged the modernists with having lost their identity as Evangelicals and the Fundamentalists with having lost the Christ-like heart of Evangelicalism. They argued that the Gospel needed to be reasserted to distinguish it from the innovations of the liberals and the fundamentalists.

As part of this renewal of Evangelicalism, the new evangelicals sought to engage the modern world and the liberal Christians in a positive way, remaining separate from worldliness but not from the world — a middle way between modernism and the separating variety of fundamentalism. They sought allies in denominational churches and liturgical traditions, disregarding views of eschatology and other “non-essentials”, and joined also with trinitarian varieties of Pentecostalism. They believed that in doing so, they were simply re-acquainting Protestantism with its own recent tradition. The movement’s aim at the outset was to reclaim the Evangelical heritage in their respective churches, not to begin something new; and for this reason, following their separation from Fundamentalists, the same movement has been better known as merely, “Evangelicalism”. By the end of the 20th century, this was the most influential development in American Protestant Christianity.[citation needed]

Global demographics

On a worldwide scale evangelical churches (together with Pentecostals) claim to be the most rapidly growing Christian churches. The two often overlap, in a movement sometimes called Transformationalism. Churches in Africa exhibit rapid growth and great diversity in part because they are not dependent on European and North American evangelical sources. An example of this can be seen in the African Initiated Churches. The World Evangelical Alliance is “a network of churches in 127 nations that have each formed an evangelical alliance and over 100 international organizations joining together to give a worldwide identity, voice and platform to more than 420 million evangelical Christians”[12]. The Alliance (WEA) was formed in 1951 by Evangelicals from 21 countries. It has worked to support its members to work together globally.

Conservative evangelicalism

Chinese evangelical church in Madrid, Spain, a Roman Catholic nation.

Especially toward the end of the 20th century some have tended to confuse evangelicalism and fundamentalism, but they are not the same; the labels represent very distinct differences of approach which both groups are diligent to maintain. Both groups seek to maintain an identity as theological conservatives; evangelicals, however, seek to distance themselves from stereotypical perceptions of the “fundamentalist” posture, of antagonism toward the larger society, advocating involvement in the surrounding community rather than separation from it.

In North America, evangelicals tend to be perceived as socially conservative. For instance, based on the view that marriage is defined as only between one man and one woman, many evangelicals oppose same-sex marriage and polyamory. Also, based on the view that the life of a child begins at conception and that a baby’s right to live takes precedence over the legal right to terminate an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy, evangelicals tend to oppose laws permitting abortion (See below for more details).


British author Dave Tomlinson characterizes post-evangelicalism as a movement comprising various trends of dissatisfaction among evangelicals. The term is used by others with comparable intent, often to distinguish evangelicals in the so-called emerging church movement from post-evangelicals and anti-evangelicals. Tomlinson argues that “linguistically, the distinction [between evangelical and post-evangelical] is similar to the one that sociologists make between the modern and postmodern eras.”[13]

Evangelicalism in the United States


The 2004 survey of religion and politics in the United States[14] identified the Evangelical percentage of the population at 26.3%; while Roman Catholics are 22% and Mainline Protestants make up 16%. In the 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, the figures for these same groups are 28.6% (Evangelical), 24.5% (Roman Catholics), and 13.9% (Mainline Protestant.) The latter figures are based on a 2001 study of the self-described religious identification of the adult population for 1990 and 2001 from the Graduate School and University Center at the City University of New York.[15]

The National Association of Evangelicals is a U.S. agency which coordinates cooperative ministry for its member denominations.


Christian right

Evangelical influence was first evident in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century movement of prohibition[16].

Ironically Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision rendered in 1973 preventing states from making laws that prohibit abortion, was not the most significant landmark of a new era of conservative evangelical political action. It was not until 1980 that the evangelical movement came to oppose abortion.[17][18] In reality, it was Green v. Connally a.k.a. Coit v. Green (and President Jimmy Carter‘s support of the decision), which ruled any segregated institution was not charitable and thus not tax-exempt, that galvanized conservative evangelicals.[19]

The mass-appeal of the Christian right in the so-called red states, and its success in rallying resistance to certain social agendas, is sometimes alleged as an attempt to impose theocracy on an otherwise secular society.[20] There are indications that the belief is widespread among conservative evangelicals in the USA that Christianity should enjoy a privileged place in American public life according its importance in American life and history.[21] Accordingly, those evangelicals often strenuously oppose the expression of other faiths in schools or in the course of civic functions. For example, when Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala became the first Hindu priest to offer an invocation before Congress in 2000, the September 21 edition of the online publication operated by the Family Research Council, Culture Facts, raised objection:

While it is true that the United States was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country’s heritage. The USA’s founders expected that Christianity—and no other religion—would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples’ consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference.

However, the Christian Right is not made completely (or even a majority) of Evangelical Christians. According to an article in the November 11, 2004 issue of The Economist, entitled “The Triumph of the Religious Right”, “The implication of these findings is that Mr. Bush’s moral majority is not, as is often thought, composed of a bunch of right-wing evangelical Christians. Rather, it consists of traditionalist and observant church-goers of every kind: Catholic and mainline Protestant, as well as evangelicals, Mormons, and Sign Followers. Meanwhile, modernist evangelicals tend to be Democratic.” Although evangelicals are currently seen as being on the Christian Right in the United States, there are those in the center as well. In other countries there is no particular political stance associated with evangelicals.

According to recent reports in the New York Times, some evangelicals have sought to expand their movement’s social agenda to include poverty, combating AIDS in the Third World, and protecting the environment.[22]

Christian left

Typically, members of the evangelical left affirm the primary tenets of evangelical theology, such as the doctrines of Incarnation, atonement, and resurrection, and also see the Bible as a primary authority for the Church. Unlike most evangelicals, however, the evangelical left is generally opposed to capital punishment and supportive of gun control. In many cases, evangelical leftists are pacifistic. Some promote the legalization of gay marriage or protection of access to abortion.

Evangelicals of both the right and left often utilize modern Biblical criticism, most commonly textual criticism.

See also


[Further reading

  • Bebbington, D W Evangelicals in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Unwin, 1989)
  • Carpenter, Joel A., “Fundamentalist Institutions and the Rise of Evangelical Protestantism, 1929-1942,” Church History 49 (1980) pp. 62-75.
  • Freston, Paul (2004). Evangelicals and Politics in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 052160429X.
  • Marsden, George M., Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism, William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1987.
  • Pierard, Richard V., “The Quest For the Historical Evangelicalism: A Bibliographical Excursus,” Fides et Historia 11 (2) (1979) pp. 60-72.
  • Price, Robert M., “Neo-Evangelicals and Scripture: A Forgotten Period of Ferment,” Christian Scholars Review 15 (4) (1986) pp. 315-330.

External links

Look up evangelist, evangelical, evangelicalism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.


  1. ^ Bebbington, D. W. (2008). Evangelicals in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s, London: Unwin, 1.
  2. ^ Eskridge, Larry (1995). “Defining Evangelicalism”. Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals. Retrieved on 4 March 2008.
  3. ^ Bebbington, p. 3.
  4. ^ Livingstone, Elizabeth A (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 1800. ISBN 0192802909. p. 583
  5. ^ Gerstner, John H. (1975). “The Theological Boundaries of Evangelical Faith”. in David P. Wells. The Evangelicals. John D. Woodbridge. Nashville: Abingdon Press. pp. 21–36. ISBN 0687121817. “Despite the dominant usage of euangellismos in the New Testament, its derivative, evangelical, was not widely or controversially employed until the Reformation period. Then it came into prominence with Martin Luther precisely because he reasserted Paul’s teaching on the euangellismos as the indispensable message of salvation. Its light, he argued, was hidden under a bushel of ecclesiastical authority, tradition, and liturgy. The essence of the saving message for Luther was justification by faith alone, the article by which not only the church stands or falls but each individual as well. Erasmus, Thomas More, and Johannes Eck denigrated those who accepted this view and referred to them as ‘evangelicals.'”
  6. ^ {{cite book |last=Marsden |first=George M. |authorlink=George Marsden |title=Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism |year=1991 |publisher=W.B. Eerdmans |location=Grand Rapids, MI |isbn=0802805396 |pages=5
  7. ^ Luo, Michael (16 April 2006). “Evangelicals Debate the Meaning of ‘Evangelical’“. The New York Times (
  8. ^ Mead, Walter Russell (2006). “God’s Country?”. Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved on 27 March 2008.
  9. ^ Henry, Carl F.H., (1947), The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism; reprinted, (2003), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids
  10. ^ Kenneth Kantzer, The Fundamentalist-Evangelical Split retrieved July 2005
  11. ^ (Christian) Fundamentalism
  12. ^ “History”. World Evangelical Alliance. 2006. Retrieved on 24 May 2007.
  13. ^ Tomlinson, Dave (2007). The Post-Evangelical. pp. 28. ISBN 0310253853.
  14. ^ Green, John C.. “The American Religious Landscape and Political Attitudes: A Baseline for 2004”.
  15. ^ Kosmin, Barry A.; Egon Mayer, Ariela Keysar (2001). “American Religious Identification Survey”. City University of New York.; Graduate School and University Center. Retrieved on 4 April 2007.
  16. ^ Jason S. Lantzer. “From Temperance to Prohibition”.
  17. ^ “Church Meets State in the Oval Office” on Fresh Air
  18. ^ “Charismatic Movement”
  19. ^ [1] Evangelical author Randall Balmer’s article.
  20. ^ New York Times Review of Books ‘American Theocracy,’ by Kevin Phillips
  21. ^ Fresh Air A Political Warning Shot: ‘American Theocracy’
  22. ^ The Evangelical Crackup, cited from