quetzalcoatl wrote:There's no outrage over thousands of children being deliberately starved in Yemen, for example. Why is their no anti-war movement in the Evangelical community? Even if you're not a pacifist and you do accept the need for military self-defense, there's no moral basis for the dozens of worldwide military conflicts the US is involved in. And without a moral base, the mass killing of war is certainly just as bad as abortion, would you not agree?
I don't think most of your average evangelicals could even tell you where Yemen is on a map and most don't likely even know anything is going on there. Even if they could, they would have a hard time picking sides between two Islamic peoples killing each other a million miles away.
Even if there was a side that clearly was right or wrong (that they could discern) and they could clearly figure this correct side out (two HUGE assumptions), it is hardly a vested interest for them as a voter base.
After all, evangelicals are NOT inherently anti-war as most do believe in a justified form of war and most American evangelicals think (wrongly) that most American wars were, in fact, justified. This, of course, being exaggerated further because they view ANY lack of patriotism with serious suspicion and they are aren't exactly friends to Islam either.
For these reasons, most evangelicals aren't going to see conflicts abroad as even registering on the same moral scale as the issue of abortion.
After all, the pro-life evangelicals are outraged about abortion laws HERE in the U.S., they aren't booking flight tickets to protest this issue in Belfast (for instance). Most would probably think Belfast is a brand of breakfast shake anyway.
I am not saying these things as a defense per se, only as to clarify what they are thinking. Rarely are any voters in a particular base acting as in a plainly irrational manner as their critics would like to suppose. Evangelicals are no exception to this.