Top 10 Ways To Identify An Evangelical Republican

In the aftermath of a week of bully pulpit ballyhoo from the GOP presidential candidates, I decided to address my disdain in the only manner which would allow me to stomach the subject…sarcasm.

Having watched Mitt Romney tell us the meaning of faith in America and listened to Mike Huckabee toss tactical banana peels at the Bostonian’s (former Massachusetts liberal) forever flip-flopping feet, I found myself wondering which candidate would soon be sporting a wooden cross on his shoulder for the duration of the campaign.

Fortunately, there may well be a silver lining hidden in these holier than thou high jinks. By the time the GOP is done vetting it’s candidates, the average fair minded American may find them to be far too extreme and far too beholding to their religious right-ocrites. We’ve all heard the expression “if you live by the sword, you die by the sword”…well…2008 may provide a worthy successor, “if you live by the lord, you die by the lord”…especially when you spend all of your time fighting about which lord to worship.

Moving on, the following is my offering to assist voters in determining how to qualify for entry into the GOP’s evangelical enclave. Feel free to offer additional requirements and restrictions. I would hate to be accused of an act of omission…I’ve heard the punishment is ghastly…if you’re not George Bush or an acceptable affiliate.

The Top Ten Ways To Identify An Evangelical Republican:

Number Ten:

They’re opposed to sectarian conflict in Iraq but in favor of sectarian politics in the United States.

Number Nine:

They’re opposed to homosexuality and same-sex relationships but they’ll vote for a presidential candidate who does drag and lived with two gay men if he can beat Hillary Clinton and her “typically” unfaithful heterosexual husband.

Number Eight:

They wouldn’t dare vote for a Clinton given Bill’s disgraceful sexual antics in the White House but they’re happy to support a candidate who used New York City funds to carry on an adulterous affair.

Number Seven:

They criticize Democratic candidates for suggesting they would only nominate pro-choice judges to uphold the law of the land while they require their own candidates to pass religious litmus tests in conflict with the law of the land.

Number Six:

They’re in favor of abstinence only sex education even if it leads to more unwed teen pregnancies and more parent sponsored abortions (call it the evangelical version of NIMBY - not in my back yard; NIMBU - not in my babygirls uterus).

Number Five:

They’re in favor of the separation of church and state if it involves opposing a congressional inquiry into the fundraising and spending habits of leading televangelists but opposed to the separation when it comes to selecting a presidential nominee.

Number Four:

They support candidates who endorse more funding for AIDS in Africa while embracing a candidate who favored quarantining AIDS patients in America as well as having Hollywood fund AIDS research instead of the government.

Number Three:

They tout Ronald Reagan as their political icon despite the fact that he was unable to acknowledge the toll of HIV on gays in America or even utter the word AIDS…while they and their church’s now run around talking about saving Africa from the ravages of HIV…as long as it doesn’t involve condoms.

Number Two:

They talk about their Christian values while they favor denying health care treatment to the children of illegal immigrants. Family values apparently stop at the waters edge (that would be the Rio Grande river).

Number One:

They’ll never make enough money to truly benefit from George Bush’s tax cuts for the rich or condemn his doubling of the national debt but they’re happy to call the Democratic candidates who supported an increase in minimum wage and favor a national health care system unacceptable tax and spend liberals.

Bonus Qualifier:

They abhor the fact that Jesus was tortured, mocked, and condemned to death without due process but they’re damn sure in favor of waterboarding and disregarding the principle of habeas corpus while indefinitely imprisoning war on terror detainees.

The following video clips provide Mike Huckabee’s assertion that his surge is God’s work (therefore proving Mitt Romney is a “Christian” imposter) and some candid discussion of Romney’s faith speech (a speech that pales in comparison to the JFK speech).

Huckabee: Higher Power Responsible For His Surge

CNN Discussion On Romney’s “Faith” Speech & The GOP Religious Test

Olbermann & Robinson On The Flawed Romney “Faith” Speech

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

14 Responses to “Top 10 Ways To Identify An Evangelical Republican”

  1. steve Says:

    #7 Uphold the law of the land? Do you even know how the law freaking works? Abortion could someday, somehow outlawed or even restricted and it will only be because of the law with the same process and the same way it was made into a law.

    I don’t know how nominating judges that are against it is somehow breaking the law. Of course, I can’t see the world through a liberal elitist prism like the rest of you folks do.

  2. Daniel DiRito Says:


    Perhaps you might want to read number seven again. Let me explain it to you.

    Currently, by virtue of Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal. It’s rather hypocritical for evangelical Republicans to criticize Democrats for “upholding” that law of the land if they, at the same time, are going to violate Article Six of the Constitution and impose a religious test on their presidential candidates.

    From Article Six:

    “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    You see, running around accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a “judicial activist” should mean you’re not one yourself. What’s good for the goose ought to be good for the gander, eh?

    I know how frustrating consistency can be for those who approach the application of logic in a manner similar to the way in which Congo the chimp applied paint to canvas. Then again, maybe you fashion yourself to be a famous abstractionist? Perhaps I’ll learn to see the world through your prism…as soon as we complete the task of suspending all rational thought.

    Oh, BTW…I should tell you that “I am merely doing the same thing to watch you get your panties all bunched up. We are laughing at your responses with great joy and pleasure. If at one moment you take the antagonists on this blog seriously then you have really fallen for it. We’ve got better things to do with our time.”

    Hmmm, I wish I could remember where I read that before? Any chance you recall?

    Have a great evening.


  3. me Says:


    The religious test language of the Constitution, like every other clause of the Constitution (with the exception of the 13th amendment and, possibly the 14th amendment), applies only to the Government. That is to say, the government may not make laws or rules that exclude from running for office anyone because of their religion or lack thereof. It says nothing about whether voters may vote for or against any candidate on the basis of their religion or lack thereof. So who, exactly is requiring a religious test for President or any other office of trust?

  4. Daniel DiRito Says:


    If you’ll reread my comments, you may notice the language I used in my statement, “They criticize Democratic candidates for suggesting they would only nominate pro-choice judges to uphold the law of the land while they require their own candidates to pass religious litmus tests in conflict with the law of the land.” I don’t see where I stated that someone was breaking the law…I said their actions were in “conflict” with it.

    If you’re objection is to my use of the expression, “law of the land”, please accept it in the same spirit as that offered by those who believe some of our adjudicated laws are in conflict with “God’s law as written in the Bible”. Utilizing the logic you’ve employed, then the Bible may be what those of faith accept as law “but voters may vote for or against any candidate on the basis of their religion or lack thereof”. Notwithstanding, people of faith may and do assert that “the one true law” is being violated. I’ve simply done the same.

    To answer your closing question requires your understanding of the assertion I’ve made; that being that the hypocrisy exhibited by those who assail others as judicial activists while embarking on the same efforts to demand a particular iteration of religious beliefs to select a nominee as the GOP presidential candidate is a quid pro quo religious test. That does “violate” the spirit of Article Six…hence…as I stated, “the law of the land”.

    I’m not the only one who thinks as much. Note the following excerpts should there be any doubt as to the legitimacy of the concern. Clearly, you can disagree with the stated concern and my assertion of hypocrisy…but that in no way negates the validity of the argument.

    Lastly, if it isn’t possible for a non-believer to obtain the GOP nomination, do you believe that would comport with the wishes of those who found it worthy to insert the concepts of Article Six into the Constitution…or do you believe they only had an expectation for the government while simultaneously being ambivalent as to the voting public? That seem antithetical to the intent…after all our origin was predicated upon a rejection of what was perceived to be an unreasonable imposition of religious rigidity.

    I seriously doubt our forefathers would have approved of the currently blurred lines of demarcation. The fact that we were founded as a republic and not strictly as a majority rules democracy suggests they were concerned that one set of beliefs should not be allowed to nullify all others. I suspect they realized many of the differences would be irreconcilable…therefore their desire to assure a defined separation of church and state.

    The fact that some were non-believers also suggests they opposed a structure that may preclude an individual of like thought…in the future…from being electable. Past context must be considered when evaluating the homogeneity of current constructs.

    From The Atlanta Journal Constitution:

    Perhaps the U.S. Constitution forbids a religious test, they say, but the GOP platform has come to require it.

    From The LA Times:

    Kennedy defended — indeed, insisted on — separation of church and state; Romney simply asked that what is essentially a religious test for office be expanded to include his religion.

    It would have been refreshing if at least some of the analysis of the former Massachusetts governor’s address had pointed out that it was not, as billed, a speech about religious liberty. It was, beginning to end, an appeal to a single GOP constituency, the evangelical right, which now applies a religious test for office. Unlike Kennedy, Romney doesn’t have any problem with such a test — he just wants it graded on a steep enough curve to include Mormons.

    From The Chicago Tribune:

    Like John F. Kennedy, who said in 1960 that the presidency should not be “tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group,” Romney said there should be no religious test for this office. “A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith,” he said.

    When he said “we do not insist on a single strain of religion—rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith,” he drew a line that excludes those professing no creed. Zoroastrians and Taoists in, agnostics out.

    As he sees it, any American who doesn’t worship at least one god is eating away at our democratic structure like a hungry termite. He quoted John Adams: “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.” Romney went further: “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. . . . Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”

    He ignores evidence that the framers thought otherwise. The Constitution they so painstakingly drafted contains not a single mention of the Almighty—unlike the Articles of Confederation, which it replaced. A 1796 treaty, ratified by the Senate and signed by that very same John Adams, stipulated that the U.S. government “is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

    If the founders thought religion was indispensable to a free republic, why does the national charter say “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office”? Wouldn’t it have made more sense to include a religious test?

    From The New York Times:

    But Mr. Romney said it was inappropriate for a presidential candidate to be asked to explain the details of his religion.

    “To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution,” he said. “No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.”

    Thanks for the dialogue.



  5. me Says:

    No. I’m not objecting to your use of “law of the land” or to your pointing out hypocrisy and I haven’t said anything about the Bible or God’s law so I’m not sure where that’s coming from. The only problem I had with your comment was quoting the “religious test” language of the Constitution. I thought perhaps that you thought someone was doing something unconstitutional by deciding whether to vote or not to vote for someone based upon their religion or their stance on abortion. Fact is, it is perfectly constitutional to have a “no Mormons for President” litmus test or a “no abortion supporters” litmus test or a “no warts on the nose” litmus test when it comes to deciding whom to vote for for president. Perhaps that’s not what you had in mind. In that case, I misunderstood you and apologize.

    By the way, I’m not saying that any of the above would be rational but then, the voting patterns of most people probably isn’t very rational when it comes right down to it. All I’m saying is, no one has erected an unconstitutional religious test in this country since, well, as far as I know, since the founding of our constitutional republic.

    As for the “spirit” of the Constitution, what ever that might mean, it is irrelevant to my argument. Except for things like enslaving another person or one individual physically restraining another individual in order to keep them from voting, individuals who are not acting as agents of the government cannot commit unconstitutional acts for the simple reason that the Constitution constitutes the federal government; it does not govern individuals’ actions. Put another way, except for slavery and keeping someone from exercising voting rights, only the government can act unconstitutionally. There’s no way for individual voters to act unconstitutionally when selecting the bases upon which they make their electoral choice.

    On the Abortion issue, the legality of abortion is the law of the land but only because a majority of nine justices, who were not elected by anyone to make law, decided to read reproductive rights into the Constitution where, theretofore, no mention of abortion had ever been discovered. Well, that can be changed. It can be read out of the Constitution (or, put another way, the Constitution can be returned to the same “no mention of abortion” state that it had from 1787 right up to 1973) the same way it was read in.

    I, of course, do not object to Democrats promising to place judges on the bench to protect abortion rights, or for running candidates on the platform of keeping abortion availability the law of the land. That’s the American political way. Each person votes according to his or her own conscience. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

    As for Romney’s speech, I haven’t really paid attention because I really don’t care. I agree with you that, at least from what I’ve read about it, it was pretty much a “you Evangelicals shouldn’t not vote for me just because I’m a Mormon” message but it was one that, I guess, he needed to give if he hoped to win in the general election, which is too bad. While I have decided that there are certain candidates from both parties that I would not, under any circumstances, vote for, I haven’t decided who I will vote for. For example, I would not vote for Huckabee under any circumstances. I would vote for Hillary Clinton before I voted for Huck if it came down to those two in the 2008 general election. So while I’m not actively campaigning for anyone, I am considering mounting an anti-Huckabee campaign — “Anyone But Huck!”, as it were. I probably would vote for Giuliani or Romney over whoever the Democrats put forward. I sort of wish/hope that Fred Thompson would get the nod but that just doesn’t seem to be in the cards.

    Good chatting with you.

  6. Daniel DiRito Says:


    Thanks for your thoughts.

    I’ll offer one additional observation. Voters can, in fact, act unconstitutionally…and I’ll provide an example. In Colorado, in 1992, the voters of Colorado passed an amendment to the state constitution (Amendment 2)…placed on the ballot, through the gathering of the required signatures, a measure which restricted the state and municipalities from affording recognizable rights to gays.

    Through their votes, the voters of Colorado thus enacted a measure which was subsequently ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Theoretically, voters could enact legislation related to Article Six which could later be found to be unconstitutional.

    So while an individual voter may rarely be able to be convicted (if you will) of an act that violates the constitution, it can and has been done collectively through voter initiatives as well as the electing of representatives who subsequently enact legislation that can and has been ruled unconstitutional.

    In essence, these examples complete the circle of understanding our republic government and the interactions between the three part structure and the voting public. Voters were therefore not excluded from engaging in and being rebuffed for unconstitutional acts…remotely connected though they may be.

    Just to be clear, I wasn’t asserting that the religious test applied to GOP candidates constituted an actionable unconstitutional act…though by virtue of the mechanisms in the above examples they (any particularly inclined group by virtue of majority vote) could theoretically enact unconstitutional legislation through elected representatives.

    Truth be told, I doubt we disagree when viewing the structural dynamics in that regard.

    Take care,


  7. me Says:

    Well, yes, I guess you could look at it that way. However, in my opinion, that is not a case of the voters’ actions being unconstitutional but of the particular amendment that they passed by referendum being unconstitutional. Put another way, it was not the act of passing an amendment to their state’s constitution that was found to be unconstitutional, but the particular amendment but that’s a fairly fine distinction.

    I do think you’re right in that we probably agree in the important points. It was mostly a matter of clarifying the understanding of each others’ points of view.


    Craig R. Harmon

  8. Liberal Jarhead Says:

    Don’t forget the requirement to deny the existence of evolution and global warming, in spite of the fact that both are supported by mountains of evidence (bonus points for remembering to play semantic games with the word “theory”) and are accepted by all of the scientific community except for the same kind of shills who used to swear that tobacco wasn’t bad for people.

    And then there’s the requirement to be pro-war and an avid supporter of the death penalty, despite claiming to be a devout follower of a faith that says something or other about not killing people.

  9. rube cretin Says:

    Like Grandma said.
    There’s two kinds of Republicans.
    Rich ones and stupid ones.

  10. steve Says:


    You know I respect you… but dude, c’mon… Republicans are not required to deny global warming or the theory of evolution.


    Thanks for quoting that text from that comment a few days back. I stand by what I said. You need antagonists or this becomes another boring blog like DailyKos… I may not always be fully correct in my opinions but I am not afraid to give an opinion. In #7,I also I stand by what I said… Craig made a nice rebuttal and I can’t add anything else.


    Go to hell…Not all of us can be stupid…

  11. Paul Watson Says:

    To be fair to LJ, the title of the post is “How to Identify an Evangelical Republcian” not “How to Identify a Republican”. So you clearly fall into one of the other categories of Republican. Proably the free-market libertarian types.

  12. Dusty Says: may be giving steve way too much credit ;)

  13. MK Says:

    The most fatal flaw in the thinking of America’s Taliban is the belief that those who profess a faith - or their brand of faith - is going to make for a good, moral leader. George Bush completely negates that belief, notwithstanding the fact that he knows how to tickle the ears of the faithful who fawn at anyone who carries a bible or mentions Jesus.

  14. rube cretin Says:

    steve, thanks. coming from you i consider it a complement. no, all of us cannot be stupid. but really it is nothing to be proud of and if you pay attention maybe there is a outside chance you too could become edified.

Leave a Reply