As a former Patrick Henry student, I found Hanna's answer very interesting. Though I did not personally know her, some of my friends did and liked her.

The idea that PHC students are scary makes me laugh. What I think is really scary is the idea that being an evangelical Christian would disqualify a person from being a good public servant. Hanna seems to believe this, even though she is not extreme in other ways.

Patrick Henry is no more right-wing than ivy league schools are left-wing. It's just not as common to have a conservative, academically elite college in America.

In truth, most evangelicals and fundamentalists are puzzled that people could find them scary - and it usually takes a serious abstraction for average joes to find individual evangelicals or fundamentalist christians scary, face to face.

The exceptions are most likely those people who are standing in for some abstraction against which the evangelicals are fighting. Abortion doctors, homosexual activists, these may feel that the evangelicals who talk to them are scary just on a very literal level. The feeling is usually somewhat mutual; as the evangelicals usually feel that these people and the sins they represent, and even champion, are threatening the very lives of the people around them.

The evangelicals, for their part, see themselves as helpful, even self-sacrificially so. They sometimes naively believe that everyone whom they approach understands that their motivation is the other person's good. They generally blame evil spirits or malevolent influences for the rejection they experience. You can see this most clearly in the Jesus Camp movie, which really manages to pinpoint certain miscommunications across culture lines.

"Patrick Henry is no more right-wing than ivy league schools are left-wing"

Considering that right wingers graduate from Ivy League schools all the time and left wingers never, ever, never-ever-EVER graduate from your school, I'm gonna have to disagree there.

I'm curious why you would substitute the term "abstraction" for "political issue." Evangelicals are "scary" to nonevangelicals for political reasons.

Also its not "Abortion Doctors" and "Homosexual Activists." Its those of us who support the right to have an abortion and those of us who support equality for people regardless of sexual orientation. I'm not an Abortion doctor or gay, but anyone who uses religious quotes to defend a political position, for lack of a better term, scares me.

...as the evangelicals usually feel that these people [abortionists and homosexuals] and the sins they represent, and even champion, are threatening the very lives of the people around them.

Hard to see how abortionists or homosexuals are threatening the lives of people around them -- I can comprehend that they consider abortion to be murder, but the zygotes in question are hardly the people around them.

well, so, here is where you hit your most basic difficulties with comprehending evangelicals and fundamentalist christians.

A summary of some beliefs

1. An unsaved sinner is basically the 'walking dead.' Their lives are meaningless, possibly even worse than that. A saved sinner is walking wounded - and that's most of us, by these standards. The afterlife is just as important as the present life, and once again, the unsaved sinners are in a bad way.

2. People can be threatened either by being forced or tempted to sin. Encouraging people to sin is a very immediate threat to their well being. Preventing them from becoming saved is a mortal threat.

3. Children are people too; infants, fetuses, are as well. In fact, generations not yet known are as important as present people; preserving society for them so that they too can be saved is critical. At some point the world will be 'renewed' but frankly, the timing is unknown and so 'stewardship' means keeping things in order for future generations.

4. God judges groups and not just individuals. Families, cities, nations, humanity as a whole. So doing something that brings sin into a community also brings judgment on that community. It is an attack directly on all. This also occurs in Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologies as well, suggesting that suffering in the world is the result of sinners acting selfishly and thus distorting a good creation, ruining it for themselves and everyone else. So, to protect everyone, sin needs to be restrained - and since the poor and vulnerable also tend to receive the worst of things, dealing with public sin is a special way of protecting the poor, weak, sick, oppressed, etc.

Thus, you can see that there is a completely different point of view than the secularist one. It is internally consistent, and is frequently misunderstood.

Pickwick, does BenK's summary (I assume BenK is not an evangelical) accurately depict your views?

If so, sorry, but that scares the crap out of me.

Someone who believes that MY actions (in the bedroom, at the voting box, on Sunday, etc.) have a direct effect on THEIR (more important) second life is a person with beliefs that can far too easily drift into violence and extremism.

You are scary to all of us who believe in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The points of your belief system confirm your desire to impose, on everyone else, your definition of sin and societal control.

You are no different than the Muslim extremists who believe people who aren't their kind of Muslim can be killed because that is what God (Allah) wants them to do to be a good Muslim.

Anyone who chooses to live in a "magical," world, and wants to impose those magic-based beliefs on everyone else is frightening because their belief in dominion over the rest of us, and how it will be accomplished, differ only by that tactics they currently employ. If we can't make you all Muslims, we'll bomb you. If we can't outlaw abortion, we'll shoot the doctors, bomb the clinics, terrorize their families at home, etc.

Those of us who live in the real world, wish those of you who think the next life is just as important as this one, would move on to the next one quickly, and leave the rest of us alone to live without religious violence, prejudice and ego-based condescension.

Ben, I was raised in a strict fundamentalist church and attended church schools through my first two years of university, so I do have some comprehension of how at least this particular group of fundamentalists view things. Based on my impressions, I have the following comments:

1. I agree that they at least theoretically view the afterlife as more important than this life.
2. Preventing them from being saved IS a mortal threat, but they emphatically taught that believers should deliberately go out amongst the sinners in order to show them. Thus, being exposed to, and tempted by, sinners is a risk they believe should be taken.
3. I understand how they might see abortion a threat to unborn -- but the comment was that abortionists were a threat to those around them, which is something else.
4. Assignment of guilt to groups, families, nations etc most certainly was not part of the theology of the church in which I was raised. They viewed salvation as entirely a matter between the individual and G_d. Perhaps it is different in other sects.

On point 2, I'd like to say that the usual quote would be 'I send you out as sheep among the wolves" ... and that the threat is really a threat to their children, and to each other; it isn't a matter of the christian defending himself, it is a matter of him defending others.

Similarly, on point 3, abortionists are thus percieved as a threat to young mothers and their unborn children, and even fathers who might be encouraged by abortion's legality to request that their partners pursue an abortion.

The final point is really an interesting question... even the Roman Catholics pray intercessory prayers for cities and nations. Haven't you heard this yourself? I would be very surprised if there was a single evangelical community that didn't talk at least sometimes about group guilt and innocence. It may be a carry over from the old testament, but it is still very much alive in the evangelical, and especially pentecostal, churches.

well, it is a pretty widespread set of beliefs, and understanding them will help you reason with, and convince, such people of things that you would like them to believe.

No, actually BenK didn't summarize my views. I will address his points by number.

1. No one's life is meaningless, whether they are a Christian or not. Everyone has the God-given ability to do good things, whether they are a believer or not. A saved sinner is not wounded by any means. A saved sinner is better than healed. A person who is not saved is living potential.

2. People choose to sin or not. It is impossible to force someone to do something wrong. It is also impossible to prevent someone from being saved. Both sin and salvation are personal choices.

3. Yes, children and fetuses are people. No, I do not believe the world should be kept in some stasis mode for new generations. Actually, I believe the people I interact with today are the most important ones I will ever meet.

4. I do not believe judgment on groups is a result of a mean God hurling lightning bolts. It is the principle of sowing and reaping at work. If you touch a stove, you get burned. If a group of people all touch the same stove, they all get burned the same way. So, if a whole bunch of people decide to stop touching the stove at the same time, they all quite getting burned.

I agree my views differ from those of secularists, but I do not believe they are scary. I see inherent worth and unimaginable potential in every person, both individually and as a nation. If that makes me scary, then so be it

"It's just not as common to have a conservative, academically elite college in America."

Any college or university that rejects sound scientific principles because they differ from a theological belief has no business being considered academically elite.

Sickday:

Considering that right wingers graduate from Ivy League schools all the time and left wingers never, ever, never-ever-EVER graduate from your school, I'm gonna have to disagree there.

Actually this is flatly untrue. When I attended, there were students in good standing who disagreed vehemently with the school's views.