Are Evangelicals Adrenaline Junkies?

[go4tli]

Amanda Marcotte writes some interesting things about the Iowa caucus
and abortion:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Iowa caucus was regarded in the light it deserves -- as a
reflection of what Christian right extremists are thinking right now,
instead of as a predictor of larger trends -- it could be incredibly
useful. It would be nice, for instance, if the nation at large was
aware of how Christian conservatives are voting not because of reality
or even realistic-sounding misinformation, but because they believe
stories that are too fantastical on their surface to be true.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/01/01/why-iowa-caucus-is-about-abortion

She's talking about things like Ron Paul's story "that he saw doctors
throwing a live baby away to let it die".

I do not believe this story. I do not believe it precisely because
I've heard many similar stories from other people Evangelicals have
historically been willing to associate their name and motivations
with, charlatans like Bob Larson and Mike Warnke. These stories are
often told with graphic and grisly detail, but never with the *kind*
of detail that would make the story verifiable -- names and places
that could be confirmed (or at least investigated!), for example. It
would take a lot of good evidence to convince me that this isn't one
of those stories, specifically designed to guarantee my allegiance and
loyalty.

As it turns out, Ron Paul was caught off-guard when he was asked for
this kind of confirming detail -- not by a skeptic like me, but by a
Religious Right radio talk-show host by the name of Jan Mickelson, who
wanted those details precisely because this is the sort of story
sensationalistic Evangelicals tend to feed on. He wasn't seeking
confirmation -- merely a slaking of lurid appetites. So he asked why
Paul didn't try to rescue the discarded infant. (Whoops.)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/29/the_ron_paul_fetus_rescue_test.html

In a different post, Marcotte even goes so far as to theorize that the
reason Mitt Romney isn't appealing to the Religious Right is simply
because he isn't feeding them the standard stories.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
One reason that Romney bores the right and causes them to dislike him
so strongly is that he's not very good at spinning fantastical
[stories]. ... It's hard to imagine Romney busting out a whopper about
doctors throwing a live baby in a bucket and leaving it there to die.
Romney is mealy-mouthed about global warming, claiming (falsely) that
we don't know what causes it, which conservatives feel is a bare
minimum requirement. But it's not exciting, like suggesting that
there's an international conspiracy to invent global warming that
scientists perpetuate because they're all secretly communists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/satan-cloaks-himself-in-truth

Did you catch that turn of phrase? The key to Romney's disfavor is
that he's "not exciting". Without some thrilling fantasies, without
front-line stories of good versus evil that allow voters to imagine
themselves as heroes like Oskar Schindler or Dietrich Bonhoeffer,
there's simply no draw. Agree? Disagree? What should an Evangelical
do to encourage his fellow believers not to be deceived?

(Bonhoeffer! Now, there's an interesting person to consider in light
of our recent discussions about Christians changing the world by
advocating social justice. Was it right for him to advocate for
political change and/or to speak out against the political evils of
his day? If not, why not, and what *should* he have done? If so,
when is it okay to speak out against evil, and when isn't it?
Discuss.)