I do not think it is much to ask a candidate to be able to at least name one other Supreme Court case. But then, in the evangelical world, this is really the ONLY one.
I am up to the part in Crazy For God in which Frank Schaeffer lays bare his part in making this happen back in the 70s and 80s, so completely and blatantly posturing for, and pushing what would become, "the base". Defining pro-life as the Republican side of the card, and obviously labeling Democrats as the babykilling other. And as the movement took hold, as money poured in from congregations near and far, as preachers with as much power as any high powered DC lobbyist brought pressure to bear, politicians had no choice but to play along and begin the game of pandering. It is perpetuated still today.
Frank writes, "Evangelicals weren't politicized until after Roe v Wade and after Dad, Dr. Koop, and I stirred them over over the issue of abortion. More than thirty years after helping to launch the evangelical pro-life movement, I am filled with bitter regret for the unintended consequences."
"In 2000, after a close and disputed contest, settled by the Supreme Court, we elected a president who claimed he believed God created the earth and who, as president, put car manufacturers' and oil companies' interests ahead of caring for that creation. We elected a "born again" president who said he lived by biblical ethics but who played the dirtiest political games possible, for instance in the filthy lies his people spread to derail Senator John McCain's presidency primary bid. We elected a pro-life Republican Party that did nothing to actually care for the pregnant women and babies they said they were concerned for, but rather were corrupted by power, and took their sincere evangelical followers for granted, and played them for suckers."
An angle still worked to this day.
And worse, because of this mindset and decades of brainwashing, this is what we get in our highest office...
"But what if absolute consistency on any issue from the left or the right, religious or secular, is an indication of mediocre intelligence and a lack of intellectual honesty? What if the world is a complex place? What if leadership requires flexibility? What if ideaology is a bad substitute for common sense? What if ideological consistency, let alone "purity," is a sign of small-mindedness, maybe even stupidity?"
What if, indeed, Frank. If George Bush is Exhibit A, then surely this is Exhibit B: