The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

"Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." --Bill Ruder, Democratic campaign consultant and Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Kennedy Administration[i]

"The main thing is the Post is going to have damnable, damnable problems out of [its Watergate coverage]. They have a television station...and they are going to have to get it renewed." --President Richard Nixon[ii]

As much as Weinstein is right about the principles he is upholding, and I am glad he is doing it, he is absurdly wrong in his description of the people who violate them.

fundamentalist Christianity--it's actually got a longer technical name, called pre-millennial dispensational re-constructionist Dominionist fundamentalist evangelical Christianity

There is, of course, no such thing. There are many groupings and belief sets under the wide category of evangelical Christianity; some of them disagree with one another quite strongly. Weinstein lumps them all together as though everyone believes in exactly the same things. This is a not uncommon error among people who come to be rightly concerned about the religious right. (That, along with unnecessarily inflammatory language.) Such errors undermine the credibility of all of our efforts, and often backfire as well.

... American fundamentalism really has to be understood as two movements - the Popular Front of televangelists and mass rallies and voter drives, and the elites of groups like The Family.

... they've done an end run around the Democratic process.

Sharlet clearly has little or no clear understanding of historic evangelicalism, or if he does, he decided to set this knowledge aside in order to complete this convoluted attack on Hillary Clinton.

I don't think it is a far stretch to say that the efforts to attack Clinton might go to this extent.  After all, anyone can publish a book and some publishers will print anything for a buck.  But in context, Clarkson seems always to be looking for a way to attack or otherwise humiliate anyone who looks like an orthodox Christian, or, in this case, who would dare associate with them.

This casserole is expected to be finished sometime in late Summer or early Fall.

By Jefferson's standard, per his letter to the Danbury (CT) Baptists, separation meant that the government would not establish a state church.

By the standard of the First Amendment, the government is prohibited from interference in or active participation in religious life:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (italics mine)

Now that we have the simple stuff out of the way, let's talk Biblical standards. The particular question that I want to address is this:

Is it right for the church to confront the government?
Is it right for the church to confront candidates?
Is it right for the church to speak to election matters?

To the first question, yes. John the Baptist confronted Herod and paid with his life. Values in government, even in law, has a place. The promotion of these values can be see in I Tim 2:1-8, where we encourage a justice to allow for peaceful existence (giving the Gospel more opportunity).

To the second, yes. Matters of sin deserve confrontation. Matters of destructive policy deserve equal confrontation. But let's not be too selective. There is as much sin and bad policy in one party as another, from any one candidate as from the other. We must be clear and theological in our approach, not partisan.

That said, I'll be specific. Clinton is willing to use the FBI as a private police force. Those 900 FBI files is suiable evidence. Obama is too close to Hamas and some other questionable relationships. McCain's willingness to limit speech (McCain-Feingold) is an idea that should be corrrected so that it does not go further.

To the third, yes. But we must be ready to pay a price. Some laws are unjust, and the 501(c)(3) rules that were put in place (to limit what LBJ saw in the 1950s as interference to his agenda) are as direct a violation of the First Amendment as is McCain-Feingold. Unjust laws require a response. But our response should not be mere disobedience, but tempered with a call to reform (that is, legislative repentence) for the sake of justice.

There is no separation of church and state when the church is placed under state authority. Do not be intimidated by the Left. (It's pretty transparent -- they want to speak to political issues, and even promote candidates, and get their values into law, but say that somehow "separation" prohibits us but not them. It's so shallow, so hypocritical.) We must respond to that; we should work to maintain liberty (for all) of the heart and mind. Not for the sake of partisanship, but sake of the Gospel.

Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth.

To be Evangelical, and to define our faith and our lives by the Good News of Jesus as taught in Scripture, is to submit our lives entirely to the lordship of Jesus and to the truths and the way of life that he requires of his followers, in order that they might become like him, live the way he taught, and believe as he believed.

1. Jesus Christ is the God-Man.
2. Reconciliation to God is through the pental-substutionary work of Christ.
3. The necessity of regeneration.
4. The Scriptures are the final word for faith and practice.
5. The disciple is by nature engaged with the needs of the world.
6. The personal return of Christ and the consumation of history.
7. Disciples will grow in worship and maturity.

All too often we have trumpeted the gospel of Jesus, but we have replaced biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, worship with entertainment, discipleship with growth in human potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism, concern for the church and for the local congregation with expressions of the faith that are churchless and little better than a vapid spirituality, meeting real needs with pandering to felt needs, and mission principles with marketing precepts. In the process we have become known for commercial, diluted, and feel-good gospels of health, wealth, human potential, and religious happy talk, each of which is indistinguishable from the passing fashions of the surrounding world.

We must find a new understanding of our place in public life. We affirm that to be Evangelical and to carry the name of Christ is to seek to be faithful to the freedom, justice, peace, and well-being that are at the heart of the kingdom of God, to bring these gifts into public life as a service to all, and to work with all who share these ideals and care for the common good. Citizens of the City of God, we are resident aliens in the Earthly City. Called by Jesus to be ?in the world but ?not of the world, we are fully engaged in public affairs, but never completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, class, tribe, or national identity.

Responses:
All in all, it's a good document but it falls short because of what it leaves out.  It is broad enough to include the Anglican evangelicalism of the Wesleys and C. S. Lewis but seems to broad, lacking adequate exclusivity from the neo-orthodox, existentialist, emergent, and other modern phenomena.

I also believe that too much credence is given to the political criticisms of evangelicalism.  While our involvement in politics is (and I agree with them) misguided, the ones who offer this criticism are themselves largely engaged in the political world and their criticism is driven more by a desire to eliminate competition than to place Christiainity in a proper frame.  Liberals may not acknowledge its value, but nothing would please them short of Evangelicalism's demise.  Bruce Prescott sees it as something outside of reality, as though liberals are faultless, despite the history that they've been married to politics for a far greater duration (several decades) than evangelicals.

A "straw man" is something that is both easily constructed and even more easily torn down.  This holds true for both the actual physical item out in the field and for the logical argument.  One would normally expect that a "straw man" argument was not the domain of the intelligent.  At lest not normally.

There are many ways to construct a straw man argument.  One (#1) is to employ falsehood (whether by intent or careless neglect). Just assert that your opponent has said or believes something that is not the case.  And for the greatest effect make the statement as objectionable to as possible to your supporters.  A current example of this is the Obama & supporters' use of the "100 years" argument against Sen. McCain in the presidential campaign.

Another practical method is the use of (#2) incomplete information.  A couple of things can be accomplished with this method.  It allows you to paint your opponent as ignorant or unwilling to be prudent with information.  Or (#3) you can stereotype your opponents, placing them all into one convenient package that is often not representative of those bundled together.  Another (#4) effective option is to mix your opponent's position with another and objectionable position, allowing your supporters to establish a false relationship in a less direct but equally damaging.  These certainly do not cover all the methods available.  Manipulative people will find all sorts of ways to accomplish their goals and careless people will make these errors, generally through negligence.

Richard Bartholomew provides a good example (#1) of a mis-assigned position.  In attacking historic Christian doctrine he says:

Aside from the question of bad taste, the theological problem (NB: I mean "problem" in terms of "intellectual coherence", not in terms of what I may or may not believe) with Christian exclusivity as regards Judaism is that if Judaism used to be the true religion, how can that not be the case now?

The error here is that the religion of Judaism has not been seen simply as the "true religion" but that faith, the beginning point of Judaism through the faith of Abraham, is part of a shared core belief system that Christianity inherited from and with Judaism.  Whether this neglect of theological study when making a theological statement was by intent or laziness cannot be judged.  But it is clear that the information is false, and so leads to a false conclusion about Christianity, the common Christian views of the Jewish people's standing before God, and the nature of evangelism.

Ed Brayton gives us another example of manipulative illogic.  In his post the straw man comes from a redefinition of terms in order to presume and assign a racist position upon evangelicals.   He begins by (correctly) quoting Shirley Dobson regarding the National Day of Prayer:

The National Day of Prayer Task Force was a creation of the National Prayer Committee for the expressed purpose of organizing and promoting prayer observances conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values.

It is clear here that the term refers to the shared ethic found throughout the Bible and shared generally by Christianity and Judaism.  But he thinks the term does something more, or at least should.  This inference is drawn from his closing remark:

We're here to conform to a Judeo-Christian system of values. So naturally, no Jews are allowed. Very nice.

To say that "no Jews are allowed" is indicative that he finds the Christian exclusivity somehow worse than wrong-headed but actually quite racist.  He led into this with an earlier statement concerning early American history, so it's not a stretch of reason.

The error (per #3) in Brayton's post is making an exclusive Christian belief and practice out to be racist.  It's certainly some sad "logic" but still a clear example.  Sadly, though, this same weakness can be found in a good deal of conservative and Christian material.  For the sake of the gospel, I will challenge Christians to not resort to these methods.

The patent lies of these manipulators are easily discerned.  The pretense of TalkToAction being concerned only about dominionist and theocratic matters is transparent.  The pretense of "science" in Dispatches is transparent.  Liars are liars, through and through, day after day.

When the abortion movement received its nationwide imperative in 1973 via Roe, Jesse Jackson called it genocide. I wish he had not changed his mind because the evidence is becoming clearer to all of us.

Planned Parenthood is the main culprit. And unless you think this is a slur or otherwise a smear of a good organization, go to their web site and type in "sanger" in their search line and hit Enter. This is what you'll come up with.

These links paint a picture of Margret Sanger, PP's founder. Through spin that makes it sound nice, the target groups of PP is stated in the article entitled Planned Parenthood - Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood Founder :

created access to birth control for low-income, minority, and immigrant women

Sadly, it is completely consistent with those several PP representatives in high positions (a "Development" position is one of serious commitment) as they seek funds to fulfill their goals.

But abortion is non-partisan. Voting or not voting for any candidate because of party affiliation will not stop the racism and quasi-genocidal principles that drive this movement. How we vote is often a matter of life and Christian decency. (Don't let anyone tell you to vote your pocketbook over your morality. That is idolatry, imnsho.)

Bruce Wilson continues to provide us all with some wonderful material.  It was like a trip back to the 1980s.  If it wasn't serious it might make decent comedy by way of parody. But alas. And as always, it's not targeted at any presumed Dominionist influence but at the evangelical community in general. So just for the sheer pleasure of reading some serious nonsense I'll provide a series of quotes with appropriate explanation. And you can laugh right along. All of the quoted material is from Testament of the Death Squads: Good Christ, Bad Christ, by Greg Grandin.

More than two hours of remorseless sadism, of thorns, whips and nails, washed away not just sin but theological quarrels that have defined Christianity since Luther nailed his 95 theses to the gate at Wittenberg Church.

Actually, the blood, thorns, etc., all happened roughly 2,000 years ago. The purpose of the books written at the time attempted to convey the horror of the event.

... he transubstantiated the body and blood of a humane and forgiving Jesus worshiped by less vengeful Christians ... into Christ in Pain, a castigated and castigating icon that served as a common reference point for an amalgamated Religious Right.

Please read Isaiah 53 for an update.

Hard-core dispensationalists believe that Israel needs to be defended only to be sacrificed at the Final Conflict, when upward of two thirds of Jews will be slaughtered and the rest either converted or eternally damned.

I'm trying to figure out what "hard-core" means. If he means "hyper" then it's not really Dispensationalism but a strange type of determinism.

... fundamentalists have come a long way from when Billy James Hargis, leader of the Christian Crusade, declared in 1962 that "the primary threat to the United States is internationalism."

In fact, conservative evangelicals are America's true internationalists. Congressional Christians like Virginian Representative Frank Wolf and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback consistently push the US government to deal with global humanitarian issues such as AIDS, sex trafficking, slavery, religious freedom, malaria, and genocide prevention.

Well, only if you want to redefine "internationalism" for your own convenience. Hargis would talk about the U.N. and other international treaties. But evangelicals (and other Christians) have always, for all two millennia of our existence, reached across national and ethnic boundaries.

In order to bypass public and Congressional opposition, the White House outsourced the "hearts and minds" component of its Central American wars to evangelicals.

And who should influence the hearts and minds of the nation? I seem to recall a time in the 1930s when a similar political alternative was proposed and then implemented. Dang Hegelians!

And the idea that the evangelical leaders were actually running foreign policy is just laughable. There has been influence but not this level of control.

... the banner of the lord of love popularized by Dan Brown ...

Really? Placing validity on ancient Gnostic fabricated history (and theological heresy)? So much for intellectual integrity.