Craig Eisele on …..

January 22, 2012

Why Did Gingrich Triumph in an Evangelical State like South Carolina?

Why Did Gingrich Triumph in an Evangelical State like South Carolina?

 By Professor John A. Tures, LaGrange College 

COMMENTARY |

What confounds pundits about the South Carolina results is how a state where half of the voters sampled describe themselves as evangelical could pick Newt Gingrich, and by a large margin. It comes down to a simple fact: Most pundits don’t know anything about Evangelicals.

I have to admit that 10 years ago when I moved to a small Southern town from Washington, I didn’t know what an Evangelical really was either. Like many in the media, I treated it as some catch-all term for religious conservative. Clearly others have made that same blunder.

Not all Evangelicals are Christian, just as not all Christians are evangelical. The term comes from the four evangelists who wrote the Gospel, and it simply means one who spreads the good news.

There are liberal evangelicals, like the Rev. Jim Wallis, just as there are conservative evangelicals. There are also some moderate ones too.

Assuming all Evangelicals automatically religious zealots is like assuming the Sunnis are the more “hard core” Muslims or the Shiites are the real fanatics. You have liberal Sunnis and liberal Shiites, just as you have really dogmatic Sunnis and Shiites. Are Protestants more religiously conservative than Catholics, or vice versa? It depends on the person.

Regardless, how could a state regarded as so religious pick Newt Gingrich, just as news hit about his alleged “open marriage” proposal, along with his infidelity. Again, you have to understand Evangelicals.

As a National Public Radio commentator noted, Evangelicals, especially Southern ones, believe in redemption. They have to — how else could we be forgiven for our own sins? You hear the parable of the unforgiving servant down here a lot.

It explains why Mike Huckabee didn’t run for office, as he pardoned a number of criminals, including one who killed some cops in the Seattle area. It also accounts for Haley Barbour releasing so many before ending his term as Mississippi governor. Evangelicals are forgiving folks.

 In an interview years ago, Jimmy Carter sought to distinguish between an evangelical and a fundamentalist. “Fundamentalism exists in religious circles and now very overwhelmingly in Washington,” Carter said. “A fundamentalist believes, say, in religious circles, that I am close to God. Everything that I believe is absolutely right. Anyone who disagrees with me, in any case, is inherently wrong and therefore, inferior. And it violates my basic principles if I negotiate with anyone else or listen to their point of view or modify my own positions at all. So that is what has permeated this [Bush] administration.” That’s a smaller percentage of the state, and probably explains why Santorum finished a distant third.

Romney’s 21-point lead was always soft, and contingent upon being the most “electable” candidate, even if his views don’t match that of the voter. He finished a close second in Iowa and won New Hampshire because he hadn’t made mistakes. Now that he’s made blunders, folks figure it is better to pick someone who shares their conservative opinion rather than the one who looks less electable than he did a few weeks ago. In other words, South Carolina voters went with their religious “beliefs.” We just didn’t understand what those were.

Advertisements

1 Comment »

  1. [Yo, Craig. Here’s why: a bombshell that I spotted on the never-boring net!]

    Mormonism’s DIRTY Little Secret

    by Aaronita Smith

    Non-Mormon scholars as well as Mormon ones are aware of a hard-core pornographic drawing in the “Book of Abraham” which is Mormon-approved scripture.
    This Book is part of the “Pearl of Great Price” which, along with the “Book of Mormon” and the “Doctrine and Covenants,” make up the LDS church’s “triple combination” in one volume.
    The porn is found in Fig. 7 of Facsimile 2 in the “Book of Abraham” which shows two beings facing each other, which were described by Joseph Smith as representing the “Holy Ghost” and “God sitting upon his throne,” the latter clearly showing an aroused male sex organ.
    After Smith published this sketch in his newspaper in 1842, which offended Mormon sensibilities, the phallic portion was whited out for more than a century until the “restored” LDS church decided in 1981 to restore what had long been censored!
    Equally shocking was the discovery that the “Book of Abraham” had nothing to do with Abraham or his God but was actually based on ancient Egyptian funeral documents depicting occultic obscene practices – and the original sketches showed an erotic phallus on both beings including the one Smith blasphemously claimed was the Holy Ghost!
    For further information see “Book of Abraham” (Wikipedia). Also see Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s “Mormonism – Shadow or Reality?” which on 76 pages reproduces the original Egyptian X-rated drawings and shows how Smith altered them and created one of his many frauds. Highlights in the classic Tanner work can be seen by typing “Facts From Mormons (By a Utah Resident)” and “What LDS Leaders Say” on Yahoo.

    (Mitt Romney did NOT approve of this message!)

    Like

    Comment by Johnny Ward — January 24, 2012 @ 2:04 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: