I hope the lack of comments on this diavlog does not mean it has been passed over by viewers here. It was a good conversation and one that can be educational to those who take a narrow view of Evangelicals.

Quoting jh in sd: I hope the lack of comments on this diavlog does not mean it has been passed over by viewers here. It was a good conversation and one that can be educational to those who take a narrow view of Evangelicals.

I watched it. I thought Richard had a couple of interesting things to say, and I was happy to hear him speak so forcefully against excessive politicking in churches, but on the whole, I didn't learn much of anything from either. Whether that means my view of Evangelicals is not so narrow or is excessively narrow, I'll leave for you to say.

I think there will be more comments when the talk goes up on the home page screen. I am a big fan of Jim Wallis, so I found these guys quite interesting. I don't really have a stereotype of Evangelicals as necessarily right wing, since I've worked with quite a few Evangelical Christians in the peace movement going back several decades. I thought Richard had some insight into the conflation of nation and religion. Although many people have noted it before, the analogy between extreme right wing Americans to Nazis is powerful, coming from someone who's associated with the religious right. On the other hand, reading between the lines this dialogue is also an example of why most Evangelicals will never vote for a Democrat. Richard makes clear that "sanctity of life" issue (i.e., abortion) will ultimately remain a litmus test for all the Evangelical vote. It's too bad that abortion is the deal breaker because I think Democrats (with all their hawkish warts) are a less violent political culture with a more sophisticated Christian sense of social justice.

What's the deal with posting diavlogs now? This time the diavlog was four or five down the list on the left hand side. Are we posting for posting sake now?

In the context of their discussion on gambling, Land brought a social checks and balances system to imitate the political one between the three branches of the Federal government. In comparative political terms, what he's advocated comes closest to both Christian democracy and corporatism. Any form of community-based politics has been DOA in national politics, no matter how relevant it stays in localities, since the end of the 60s. It's a more useful start for a dialogue with progressives than libertarian, neoconservatives, and nationalist conservatism.

Mr land objects to the notion that a catholic can be an evangelical. Maybe not in his mind, but there are certainly Catholics who view themselves as such. I once heard a presumably Protestant evangelical explain that Mr Romney is not a Christian and went on to point out that neither are catholics Christian; funny if were not so sad.

I just wanted to say, the first section of this diavlog is really awesome, and I think these guys are great. "America's not as divided as you think." Something positive, oh my god...

Without having looked at this dialog yet, I want to simply make the point that this guy Richard Land is suspect as a spokesman for anything remotely defensible as upholding in our times the spirit of Jesus Christ. Aside from the fact that his particular denomination was founded on the theological defense of America's "original sin", slavery, would not otherwise exist - or the fact that they didn't accept women pastors until 2000 and demonize homosexuals despite their protestations about "loving the sinner - Land was responsible for cooking up a "Christian just war" defense of his buddy Bush's invasion of Iraq: http://erlc.com/article/the-so-called-land-letter Land is a very shady, slippery character who represents a group more notable over the life of their sect for adherence to the most extreme moral and cultural relativism than attempting, however imperfectly, to vindicate the Christ who comes forth in the book of Matthew.