In an interview with ReligiousIntelligence.com, he said that the good work done by many Christian and evangelical groups is often just ignored and derided. “I think there is a culture now in our society where if something is even vaguely Christian, if there is a whiff of evangelical fervour about it then it’s almost somehow verboten to fund it,” he told the paper at a hustings event in the lead-up to the election.
He continued: “I think that’s quite wrong because if you look at the good that these groups do and you look at the way we’re going to transform society and undo the breakdown that we’ve seen in family life, the growing-up of kids without boundaries and all the rest of the things we’ve been talking about in this campaign, the Christian groups are essential.”
The reason for this is primarily rooted in politics.
Ever wonder why liberals, when they whine about Evangelical preachers, always bring up Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson? It’s simple: these two, more than others, awoke the "Religious Right" in the 1980’s and facilitated the triumph of the Reagan Revolution. Ever since then the left, here and abroad, has propagated an inchoate fear of Evangelicals, reflecting their own terror of being dethroned by movement so populistic and alien to everything they stand for and, as an elite, live for. I personally think they’d rather have shar’ia; the deeply political nature of Islam is something they don’t like, but understand.
This is amazing considering that, IMHO, Evangelicals have a notoriously weak game plan to actually finish the job and take over society, in the West at least. But then there’s the Third World…and if you think that Western Evangelicals inspire terror, the thought of their Third World counterparts getting the victory and redistributing the world’s inequitable distribution of wealth really has some reaching for the brown pants. But only those who can see past their own racial paradigm are focused on this, and that hasn’t quite reached critical mass just yet.
The back side of Johnson’s comments–to fund Evangelical projects–has certainly had a lot of play on this side of the Atlantic, but there’s a danger there too–that the state will seek to redefine the people’s religion in the course of underwriting it.