Washington Post reporter and author of "God's Harvard," Hanna Rosin, admitted in an October 15 blog post that she disagrees politically with most evangelical Christians and that she thinks that the religious views informing their political ideology and activism is downright unhealthy for democracy.
Posting an entry in a "blogalogue" at Beliefnet.com, Rosin offered these reflections on conservative evangelical Christians and their participation in politics (emphasis mine):
The Bush administration has served as a training ground for the rising generation of young evangelical elites, who work at every level of the administration. At the same time, the number of congressmen calling themselves "evangelical" has soared in the last thirty years. It's pretty clear that evangelicals have become just another part of the Washington establishment, accustomed to political power.
I disagree with evangelicals on most political issues, so it's hard for me to welcome this development. But what makes me uneasy is not so much the issues as the effect on the political culture. Political disagreements are great - healthy for a democracy, fun for a journalist. But not when those disagreements are loaded with the weight of sin and evil. This generation grew up thinking of Republicans and Christians as twins, and in my experience it's hard for them to separate between those two. Supply side economics is a staple of the Republican party platform, not something dictated by the Bible. Ditto on tort reform, and even gay rights. I would bet that some part of Bush's brain confuses his commitment to the war with his commitment to God.
Of course, evangelical Protestant Christians are not alone among Christian traditions (Catholic, Orthodox), and indeed other religions, that believe in sin and human evil. And certainly the concept of evil and its dangers when mixed with the intoxicating nature of power lay at the heart of traditional Anglo-American political thought about separation of powers and limited government.
Indeed, it was the English historian Lord John Acton, a practicing Catholic, and not Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or Bob Jones who said that "power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." If that doesn't speak to the dangers of power in the hands of sinful, evil human beings, I don't know what does.
For another look at Rosin's biases in reporting on religion and politics, check out NewsBusters senior editor Tim Graham's April 13 post, "WashPost Publicizes Gay Bus Crusade Against 'Oppressive' Conservative Christians":
The Washington Post Style section on Friday featured a front-page story on the gay-left group Soulforce and their so-called "Equality Ride" to conservative Christian colleges trying to stir up fights and publicity. Hanna Rosin's story was headlined "Young, Gay Christians On A Bumpy Bus Ride."
Soulforce is the organization of Mel White, a former speechwriter for Jerry Falwell before he came out of the closet and the author of the 2006 book "Religion Gone Bad: The Hidden Dangers of the Christian Right." White warned that religious-right leaders "are not just Neocons dressed in religious drag. These men see themselves as gurus called by God to rescue America from unrighteousness. They believe this is a Christian nation that must be returned forcibly to its Christian roots." He describes conservatives as the forces of "spiritual violence." But Hanna Rosin never used the word "liberal" once in the story to describe this bus crusade, even as she explained the gay leftists are traveling to "conservative" colleges.
Rosin's story drew heavily on the idea that the gay youths were oppressed, much like blacks in the Jim Crow South...
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
I would bet that some part
October 17, 2007 - 17:40 ET by Free ThinkerI would bet that some part of Bush's brain confuses his commitment to the war with his commitment to God.
I don't think there is any confusion except in the author's mind. It appears she is confusing the personal virtues demanded by Jesus with God's demands of governments to protect their populations from evil. I think the bias in Rosin's mind stems from not having the convictions to make decisions based on right versus wrong, good versus evil, etc.
FT -
October 17, 2007 - 17:54 ET by drillanwrI'll just echo what you said ...
And add socialist elitists who insist on stomping out and silencing one religion (that IS NOT flying planes into buildings or blowing themselves up) while enabling and excusing one that does scares the Hell out of me ...
delete
October 17, 2007 - 19:27 ET by motherbeltdelete
Rosin is out of her mind
October 17, 2007 - 17:40 ET by exLibThe Bible, sin and evil, and Gay Rights are ALL in the Bible and the WAY the fight is going and the actual goal of those fighting for them are clearly spelled out in the Bible.
I have had conversations with people like Hanna. Unfortunately for them, they don't realize that the "problem" they have with Evangelicals is that #1 it threatens their warm-fuzzy view of a sinless/eviless world and #2 they don't like it when Biblically literate people are fighting for their values when they disagree with hers.
On a side-note, anyone see the CNN special? I was amazed at the virulent HATE spewed by the homosexual activites in SF against the minister guy they were featuring and yet Amanpoure was saying to him, "don't you see how hateful your words are and how you are stirring them up?" Yet the guy spoke calmly and loveling and with allot of concern.
edhenry When this country
October 17, 2007 - 17:55 ET by Edhenryedhenry
When this country was formed, religiosity was presumed and understood to be integral to human existence & political fabric, so it was not threatening.
Now it is determined a threat, or maligned, due to ignorance.
Pity.
Ken, I assume that it's
October 17, 2007 - 17:48 ET by balboaKen,
I assume that it's the fact that Rosin admitted this on her blog that you don't like, and not that she feels uneasy with evangelicals?
It's notable that she
October 17, 2007 - 18:09 ET by Ken ShepherdIt's notable that she mentioned unease with evangelicals. I think it's important to keep in mind given her authorship of a book dealing with a major evangelical educational institution and her reporting for the Washington Post.
I would bet that some part
October 17, 2007 - 18:03 ET by bigtimerI would bet that some part of Bush's brain confuses his commitment to the war with his commitment to God.
White warned that religious-right leaders "are not just Neocons dressed in religious drag. These men see themselves as gurus called by God to rescue America from unrighteousness. They believe this is a Christian nation that must be returned forcibly to its Christian roots." He describes conservatives as the forces of "spiritual violence."
Isn't this all just precious?
and I just love the
October 17, 2007 - 19:33 ET by motherbeltand I just love the reference to "spiritual violence." I'm just surprised he didn't call it spiritual "terrorism."
You know, it all depends on who it is that claims a "connection" to God. They hate everything about President Bush, so of course his faith comes under attack too.
I don't recall Rosin or any other liberals having a hissy when Barack Obama asked a bunch of people, in church, to "pray that [he] can be an instrument of God." and talked about wanting to create a "Kingdom" here on earth.
So I guess a "liberal" insturment of God is OK
Let me preface this by
October 17, 2007 - 19:42 ET by balboaLet me preface this by saying this is not necessarily what I believe.
I think some liberals believe that a conservative "connection" to God can lead to waging war and curbing artistic expression. Whereas a liberal "instrument of God" is perceive as someone who wants to help people, such as the poor.
boa... Funny that it
October 17, 2007 - 19:54 ET by bigtimerboa...
Funny that it seems to be the big bad conservatives who seem to contribute the most to the poor.
Btw...I am not going to debate the obvious double hypocrisy when it comes to religion and the leftists, for me it is pure hatred...which I equate with evil and evil purposes which I equate with Satan, you know the devil's workshop for me are the msm and their collective voices which are getting shill er and shriller....know why boa...they are afraid the noose is tightening around them....they will lose and they feel it...just takes time.
Like I said, not what I
October 17, 2007 - 20:04 ET by balboaLike I said, not what I necessarily believe. I think there are truly religious people on the left, and people who are religious only when it's convenient. Same on the right.
boa... Agreed.
October 17, 2007 - 20:09 ET by bigtimerboa...
Agreed.
let's ask bal where he gets
October 17, 2007 - 20:05 ET by TruthMongerlet's ask bal where he gets his "perceptions" from...
could it be...........
the MSATANM?!?!?!? lol
A service of the new NB respect police
I get all my perceptions
October 17, 2007 - 20:07 ET by balboaI get all my perceptions from Ziggy cartoons.
well with Ziggy you're
October 18, 2007 - 11:42 ET by TruthMongerwell with Ziggy you're OK...
A service of the new NB respect police
I think you're right, bal.
October 17, 2007 - 20:35 ET by motherbeltI think you're right, bal. For liberals, religion equals "social justice." Nevermind that Jesus never said to lobby the Roman governor for more "help" for the poor. Conservatives give more to the poor than liberals do, but they do it quietly, on their own. They don't make a big deal out of organizing "benefits" etc.; they just do it. Liberals make a big show of "helping the downtrodden" in ostentatious groups, so it looks like they do more of it.
Liberals also tend to believe that God doesn't care about abortion, divorce, and fornication. Just as long as you're a "good person." (by their own definition of it). Conservatives believe there is sin, and that God has "standards" that He wants us to live up to (commandments.)
funny that's not the
October 18, 2007 - 11:43 ET by TruthMongerfunny that's not the PERCEPTION out there
where do these PERCEPTIONS come from any way
A service of the new NB respect police
mb... The spiritual
October 17, 2007 - 19:42 ET by bigtimermb...
The spiritual violence is what got me too...one of many but it stood out.
But there's no antiChristian
October 17, 2007 - 18:05 ET by robert108But there's no antiChristian bias in the MSM. /sarcasm
unease
October 17, 2007 - 18:51 ET by CurtI'm more than a bit uneasy with her anti-evangelicalism. I guess I'm even more stressful to her being one of those hated "Calvinists."
Curt
"But not when those
October 17, 2007 - 19:50 ET by Darth Dutch"But not when those disagreements are loaded with the weight of sin and evil."
And that right there is the heart of the matter. By and large the liberal, secular world view wants nothing to do with anything remotely looking like sin or judgement because doing so would require there to be an objective measurement of morality, i.e., God.
And the Left wonders why so many people of faith do not trust them.
Dutch
Dammit, at first glance I
October 17, 2007 - 20:11 ET by FairlightDammit, at first glance I thought this was going to be an article about Rosie.
Nevermind this Rosin person. I only read articles about Rosie.
Hopefully tomorrow.
Libs often fight on "moral" grounds
October 17, 2007 - 22:31 ET by nkviking75Y'know, seems to me a great many of the libs' arguments against conservative positions and people are couched in terms of good and evil. They may not label people as sinners, but they're very free with accusations like: racist, homophobe, bigot, uncaring, unfeeling, greedy, etc., etc., etc. Libs are moralists, but the code isn't written down anywhere. That way, if you need to change one of your standards, there's no paper trail.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
You're wrong!
October 17, 2007 - 22:39 ET by NL207Libs do not fight on moral grounds. They cannot, because they believe in no morality greater than themselves.
This is one of the fundamental truths of moral relativism. If right and wrong are the product of human reasoning only, then they are also subject to redefinition at the whim of human reasoning. Therefore, there is no moral compass to define a moral high ground. One man's truth is another's lie. One man's right is another's wrong. All men are equally empowered to define right and wrong. Therefore no conflict can be justified upon moral grounds. This reduces all liberals to 'Because I say so'. It also exposes them as the ruthless tyrants they really are.
Moralistic language
October 17, 2007 - 23:41 ET by nkviking75My point was, libs generally attack by describing conservatism with terms that fall under the general heading of evil. If you review what I wrote, I acknowlege the moral relativism. Nonetheless, they use moralistic language as a weapon.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
And their language is
October 18, 2007 - 00:05 ET by NL207And their language is therefore hypocrisy.
Well, as long as we're
October 17, 2007 - 22:41 ET by balboaWell, as long as we're generalizing, it seems that many conservatives claim to be religious, yet engage in rather non-religious activities. They label others as sinners, but they're guilty of the same thing, even though there are "codes" written down.
Bal, whatever makes you feel
October 17, 2007 - 22:43 ET by PeskyDaneBal, whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
I enjoy reciprocal
October 17, 2007 - 22:48 ET by balboaI enjoy reciprocal generalizing. The first post was no more stupid than mine.
Bal
October 17, 2007 - 22:49 ET by botgyour point is that even though your point is stupid another post is more stupid? let's put that to music
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
Hey it's all about
October 17, 2007 - 22:52 ET by balboaHey it's all about achieving a balance! One stupid post deserves another to keep the cosmic powers in check. :-)
bal is Biblically correct -
October 18, 2007 - 11:47 ET by TruthMongerbal is Biblically correct - we all fall short
we are all on equal ground - we are all sinners
Jesus is not a Republican - He is the ultimate conservative and the ultimate radical - He is God - and we are imperfect copies made in His image - and Jesus can restore us
the question is who points to Jesus as our leader?
A service of the new NB respect police
bal is Biblically correct
October 18, 2007 - 11:59 ET by Jack Bauerbal is Biblically correct -
And anatomically too. One hopes.
my chocolate bal is - and I
October 18, 2007 - 14:38 ET by TruthMongermy chocolate bal is - and I can honestly tell you he is definitely left wing
A service of the new NB respect police
Are you saying that libs
October 17, 2007 - 22:53 ET by PeskyDaneAre you saying that libs don't fire off accusations of racist, homophobe, bigot, uncaring, unfeeling, greedy, faster than a kid-toucher racing to the toilette with the postal inspectors on his heels?
Some do. Some. And those
October 17, 2007 - 22:58 ET by balboaSome do. Some. And those people are very reactionary, and don't make up the majority.
Double standards, again
October 17, 2007 - 23:44 ET by nkviking75The ol' hypocrisy argument. Well, it's just as hypocritical to condemn "judgemental" Christians and then turn around and pronounce one's own judgements.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Is Rosin right that strong religious beliefs can
October 18, 2007 - 02:30 ET by BlindSightcause problems for democracies? Isn't this a fairly consistent concern throughout the history of America, and isn't this precisely the concern that all of us share about Islam and Muslims - whether in our own society, in others or broadly between Western democracies and Islamic countries?
Is it okay for a reporter to publicly acknowledge misgivings about the latter issue, but not more broadly about possible problems relating to religious factionalism and fundamentalism?
"Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people."
- Presid
Liberal Antipathy with Conservative Christians
October 18, 2007 - 08:28 ET byMy friends and family include or are on good relations with people who profess a religious faith. The problem we have is with those religious people who bring politics into this, in particular those that want to use the government to impose their religion on us. They want to force my daughters and grand-daughters to undergo pregnancies against their will. They harass my gay and lesbian friends and refuse to allow them to honor their relationships with marriage as I and my wife of 43 years have been allowed to. We aren't forcing them to have abortions or forcing their gay and lesbian children to marry. All these religious conservatives have to do is leave us alone, practice their religion at home or in their churches, and not force their religion on me. To the extent that they are forcing their religion on others is the extent to which there will be people fighing back.
I think the argument is
October 18, 2007 - 09:23 ET by Free ThinkerI think the argument is easily made the other way that Christians do not want secular values forced on them. The intolerance towards Christians for practicing their faith is unlike that towards any other group in America. Don't forget that this country was founded on Christian values and the effort of the secular left to dismiss those values from our culture I find to be quite offensive. It is the "religious conservatives" as you call them that are the large majority of this country. To say that religion should be kept out of politics is absurd. Nobody is forcing Christianity on you, it is the cultural decay caused by secularism that seems to being pushed on the citizens of this country through the fallacies of political correctness.
Who forced your daughters
October 18, 2007 - 09:30 ET by dvdaughtryWho forced your daughters and grandaughters to get pregnant?
It's a fundemental difference. Abortion is murder on one side, and abortion is not on the other. I find it funny (not in the humorous sense) that if a pregnant woman is murdered, the suspect can be charged with 2 counts of murder.
Why does everything change when the pregnacy is "against their will"?
It's life when it is wanted and not life when it is not wanted? Abortion is disgusting.
Also, marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman, as husband and wife, not woman and woman, or man and man. It takes a husband and wife to make a marriage.
So, unless liberalspeak is able to change defintions, its not a matter of religion, but of logic.
Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns
speak for yourself
October 18, 2007 - 14:41 ET by TruthMongeras a devout Christian, I for one actively force girls to get pregnant everyday - after all, isn't that what Christianity is all about - or am I wrong?
been reading adultchristianity.com again...
A service of the new NB respect police
Most
October 18, 2007 - 12:31 ET by cvgbuckeyeof these people have absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of the Bible. They are clueless as to who came first, Abraham or Moses or Jesus Christ. BUT they are such experts about Christians and Christianity in general.
I have seen that less than 4% of church attending Christians have ever read the Bible from cover to cover and less than .3%, (he said three tenths of one percent), of the American public have ever done so. YET we have all of these experts.
Sometimes it just gets worn out doesn't it!
Rosin's religion is secular liberalism
October 18, 2007 - 14:25 ET by greenfairieLiberals like Rosin have their own faith, in aggressive secularism and government institutions. As a practitioner of that faith, she is ignorant of the historical fact that most of the sweeping changes for the better in this country have been because of religious people motivated by their conscience to right a wrong. It is no accident that the American Revolution followed a Great Awakening, and the abolition movement started after another Great Awakening in the 19th century. Quakers were at the forefront of abolishing slavery and among the first to advocate extending voting rights to women (Susan B. Anthony was a Quaker). And what did one of the great civil rights leaders, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. do for a living? Oh yeah, he was a Baptist minister.