ADVERTISEMENT

Evangelical conservatives are proving their harshest critics right

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,614
59,176
113
For years, Democrats accused Christian conservatives of being closet theocrats, seeking to impose Christianity on the country and refusing to accept, let alone embrace, American diversity. That was a generalization, but it turned out to be more true than not.

The evangelical defense of President Trump has taken on a religious fervor immune to reason. The Post reports:

Although some say the Trump-evangelical alliance harms Christianity, it’s common to hear other conservative Christians say that Trump’s unexpected win — down to the electoral college — shows that God had a more-deliberate-than-usual hand, and has put Trump there for some reason.

Brian Kaylor, a Baptist pastor with a PhD in political communications who has written several books about religion and politics, thinks [White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee] Sanders holds this view of a divine plan and it gives her confidence at the podium.

“When you have to stand up there and defend whatever he’s done, it’s more than you are defending a politician, or even a president; you are defending God’s chosen leader for this time,” he said of Trump’s defenders.

That’s stunning to the many Americans who think the divine right of kings was what we fought against in the American Revolution. A God-chosen president can do no wrong, tell no lie, make no error. And that, it seems, has been the default setting for many of Trump’s most loyal supporters among the religious right.



The notion that lies don’t matter, that politics is akin to a religious mission, strikes many Americans as a scary repudiation of the Constitution’s establishment clause. Protecting Trump and dodging critics who raise legitimate issues about his behavior have now become acts of faith. The Post relates the following:

[Christian network CBN’s David] Brody said his viewers were wowed by a briefing over the summer, when Sanders was asked whether Trump brought low the office of the president by tweeting a crack about television host Mika Brzezinski, whom he called “low IQ, crazy” and whom he said he saw “bleeding badly from a face lift.”

“Are you going to tell your kids this behavior is okay?” a reporter asked.

“As a person of faith, I think we all have one perfect role model. And when I’m asked that question, I point to God. I point to my faith. And that’s where I always tell my kids to look.”

Brody raved.

“I don’t remember that coming from Republicans, Democrats — that’s pretty bold in the context of a White House briefing,” he said.

Brody raved. He raved about someone who works for a president who is an abject liar, a president especially hostile to women. He raved about how clever Sanders was in evading a legitimate question about the president’s fitness to lead and in managing to sound pious in defense of a powerful public figure with a long list of female accusers.

We’ve tracked the evolution of Christian conservative leaders from public moralists to leaders of tribal identity. Their most visible leaders increasingly consider themselves the vanguard of white rural America (where so many of their flock reside), a group resentful of its demographic and cultural decline. Trump’s coterie of evangelical pastors is among the inaptly named “values voters” leadership that, having lost on gay marriage, on legalized abortion and on cultural decay, now takes refuge in nativism, xenophobia and white grievance. For these evangelical figureheads, “us vs. them” has replaced a message of brotherly love and Christian charity.

Robert P. Jones, author of “The End of White Christian America,” observes, “One of the most astounding shifts in modern politics has been the utter transformation of white evangelical Protestants from being confident self-described ‘values voters,’ who measured candidates for office against a high bar of moral character, to anxious and unwavering Trump supporters who have largely dropped these standards for a candidate they believe will deliver policies that benefit them.” He explains that “white evangelicals have exchanged an ethic of principle that might hold a political leader accountable to consistent standards for a consequentialist ends-justify-the-means posture that simply stops interrogating character, the quality of leadership, or the morality of actions when it’s beneficial.”

This phenomenon is deeply troubling for both religion and politics. If religion becomes a tool of the state, its influence as a force for morality, public virtue and social cohesion crumbles. It is a blow to civil society, the vital portion of our segment defined by voluntary association and civic institutions. And if politics is now a matter of religious faith, not unlike Europe in the age of religious wars, we surely will lose the distinctive character of America, its devotion to tolerance, its ability to resolve conflicts peacefully and its commitment to equal treatment under the law.

Under a president who now actively courts theocratic leaders and seeks to widen racial and religious division, the United States is being seriously tested. It will take people of faith and of no faith committed to democratic norms and American diversity to repel this assault on the country’s animating principles.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...t/?tid=pm_opinions_pop&utm_term=.d050290cd46c
 
Christian are in a tight spot. Not much to choose from . . .

BTW, Trump backed Roy Moore's opponent - certainly a very ungodly act by our President. The Post get things mixed up on ocassion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole09
For years, Democrats accused Christian conservatives of being closet theocrats, seeking to impose Christianity on the country and refusing to accept, let alone embrace, American diversity. That was a generalization, but it turned out to be more true than not.

The evangelical defense of President Trump has taken on a religious fervor immune to reason. The Post reports:

Although some say the Trump-evangelical alliance harms Christianity, it’s common to hear other conservative Christians say that Trump’s unexpected win — down to the electoral college — shows that God had a more-deliberate-than-usual hand, and has put Trump there for some reason.

Brian Kaylor, a Baptist pastor with a PhD in political communications who has written several books about religion and politics, thinks [White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee] Sanders holds this view of a divine plan and it gives her confidence at the podium.

“When you have to stand up there and defend whatever he’s done, it’s more than you are defending a politician, or even a president; you are defending God’s chosen leader for this time,” he said of Trump’s defenders.

That’s stunning to the many Americans who think the divine right of kings was what we fought against in the American Revolution. A God-chosen president can do no wrong, tell no lie, make no error. And that, it seems, has been the default setting for many of Trump’s most loyal supporters among the religious right.



The notion that lies don’t matter, that politics is akin to a religious mission, strikes many Americans as a scary repudiation of the Constitution’s establishment clause. Protecting Trump and dodging critics who raise legitimate issues about his behavior have now become acts of faith. The Post relates the following:

[Christian network CBN’s David] Brody said his viewers were wowed by a briefing over the summer, when Sanders was asked whether Trump brought low the office of the president by tweeting a crack about television host Mika Brzezinski, whom he called “low IQ, crazy” and whom he said he saw “bleeding badly from a face lift.”

“Are you going to tell your kids this behavior is okay?” a reporter asked.

“As a person of faith, I think we all have one perfect role model. And when I’m asked that question, I point to God. I point to my faith. And that’s where I always tell my kids to look.”

Brody raved.

“I don’t remember that coming from Republicans, Democrats — that’s pretty bold in the context of a White House briefing,” he said.

Brody raved. He raved about someone who works for a president who is an abject liar, a president especially hostile to women. He raved about how clever Sanders was in evading a legitimate question about the president’s fitness to lead and in managing to sound pious in defense of a powerful public figure with a long list of female accusers.

We’ve tracked the evolution of Christian conservative leaders from public moralists to leaders of tribal identity. Their most visible leaders increasingly consider themselves the vanguard of white rural America (where so many of their flock reside), a group resentful of its demographic and cultural decline. Trump’s coterie of evangelical pastors is among the inaptly named “values voters” leadership that, having lost on gay marriage, on legalized abortion and on cultural decay, now takes refuge in nativism, xenophobia and white grievance. For these evangelical figureheads, “us vs. them” has replaced a message of brotherly love and Christian charity.

Robert P. Jones, author of “The End of White Christian America,” observes, “One of the most astounding shifts in modern politics has been the utter transformation of white evangelical Protestants from being confident self-described ‘values voters,’ who measured candidates for office against a high bar of moral character, to anxious and unwavering Trump supporters who have largely dropped these standards for a candidate they believe will deliver policies that benefit them.” He explains that “white evangelicals have exchanged an ethic of principle that might hold a political leader accountable to consistent standards for a consequentialist ends-justify-the-means posture that simply stops interrogating character, the quality of leadership, or the morality of actions when it’s beneficial.”

This phenomenon is deeply troubling for both religion and politics. If religion becomes a tool of the state, its influence as a force for morality, public virtue and social cohesion crumbles. It is a blow to civil society, the vital portion of our segment defined by voluntary association and civic institutions. And if politics is now a matter of religious faith, not unlike Europe in the age of religious wars, we surely will lose the distinctive character of America, its devotion to tolerance, its ability to resolve conflicts peacefully and its commitment to equal treatment under the law.

Under a president who now actively courts theocratic leaders and seeks to widen racial and religious division, the United States is being seriously tested. It will take people of faith and of no faith committed to democratic norms and American diversity to repel this assault on the country’s animating principles.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...t/?tid=pm_opinions_pop&utm_term=.d050290cd46c
If Trump is God's leader for America, than God wants to destroy America....
 
As an Evangelical, I have no idea how Evangelicals can vote for Trump. I get how they could "support" him using the idea that we should support the POTUS, but that's different than voting for him.

And before anyone goes there, no, Hillary being a worse choice isn't a valid argument. Not when your (an Evangelical) entire worldview is based on principle and morality, or at least should be based on those. It isn't an either/or argument. It's a "Does this person reflect the values we do?" argument. If the answer is no, and Trump certainly doesn't reflect a believer's values, you don't vote for them. If there are only bad choices, you raise your voice to demand better, you don't vote for a "less bad" choice.
 
This article about Sarah Huckabee-Sanders is interesting as well.

Although some say the Trump-evangelical alliance harms Christianity, it’s common to hear other conservative Christians say that Trump’s unexpected win — down to the electoral college — shows that God had a more-deliberate-than-usual hand, and has put Trump there for some reason.

Brian Kaylor, a Baptist pastor with a PhD in political communications who has written several books about religion and politics, thinks Sanders holds this view of a divine plan and it gives her confidence at the podium.

“When you have to stand up there and defend whatever he’s done, it’s more than you are defending a politician, or even a president; you are defending God’s chosen leader for this time,” he said of Trump’s defenders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/how-sarah-huckabee-sanders-sees-the-world/2017/10/10/caa9f20e-9e2b-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_sanders-945a:homepage/story&utm_term=.8a698db3b237
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
For years, Democrats accused Christian conservatives of being closet theocrats, seeking to impose Christianity on the country and refusing to accept, let alone embrace, American diversity. That was a generalization, but it turned out to be more true than not.

The evangelical defense of President Trump has taken on a religious fervor immune to reason. The Post reports:

Although some say the Trump-evangelical alliance harms Christianity, it’s common to hear other conservative Christians say that Trump’s unexpected win — down to the electoral college — shows that God had a more-deliberate-than-usual hand, and has put Trump there for some reason.

Brian Kaylor, a Baptist pastor with a PhD in political communications who has written several books about religion and politics, thinks [White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee] Sanders holds this view of a divine plan and it gives her confidence at the podium.

“When you have to stand up there and defend whatever he’s done, it’s more than you are defending a politician, or even a president; you are defending God’s chosen leader for this time,” he said of Trump’s defenders.

JFC! And may God have mercy on all of us!
 
As an Evangelical, I have no idea how Evangelicals can vote for Trump. I get how they could "support" him using the idea that we should support the POTUS, but that's different than voting for him.

And before anyone goes there, no, Hillary being a worse choice isn't a valid argument. Not when your (an Evangelical) entire worldview is based on principle and morality, or at least should be based on those. It isn't an either/or argument. It's a "Does this person reflect the values we do?" argument. If the answer is no, and Trump certainly doesn't reflect a believer's values, you don't vote for them. If there are only bad choices, you raise your voice to demand better, you don't vote for a "less bad" choice.
I would love for Trump supporters to reply to this man's post.
 
This article about Sarah Huckabee-Sanders is interesting as well.

Although some say the Trump-evangelical alliance harms Christianity, it’s common to hear other conservative Christians say that Trump’s unexpected win — down to the electoral college — shows that God had a more-deliberate-than-usual hand, and has put Trump there for some reason.

Brian Kaylor, a Baptist pastor with a PhD in political communications who has written several books about religion and politics, thinks Sanders holds this view of a divine plan and it gives her confidence at the podium.

“When you have to stand up there and defend whatever he’s done, it’s more than you are defending a politician, or even a president; you are defending God’s chosen leader for this time,” he said of Trump’s defenders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/how-sarah-huckabee-sanders-sees-the-world/2017/10/10/caa9f20e-9e2b-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_sanders-945a:homepage/story&utm_term=.8a698db3b237


It looks to me like Kaylor is suggesting something similar to what I've mentioned before. There far too many of them that let their politics guide their religious beliefs than having their religious beliefs drive their politics.

Which makes me wonder what, and if, they actually believe.
 
I would love for Trump supporters to reply to this man's post.

Undoubtedly, there are die hard Trump voters that aren't Christian, nor would they even claim that. But make no mistake, there are many Christians that would defend Trump for things that are far worse, morally, than what they would call out an Obama or a Clinton, purely because they disagree with those two politically.

And yes, people who use their religion as a defense of Trump piss me off FAR more than people who use economics, or safety, or whatever to defend him. The Christians should know better, if they have read their Bible. I don't think it's an accident that the only times Jesus lost his temper was in response to those who were self righteous and looked down on those who weren't "good enough", like publicans and prostitutes. It's far worse to claim righteousness and not act in that manner than to not claim it and act the same way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Christians believe that God rules the world as its
Creator and King. Despite recent evil leaders such
as Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, Putin and others, God is
still in control of His universe. He holds evil in check
according to His Divine Will. God does not engineer
the results of the U.S. Presidential elections. America
is a democracy not a theocracy.
 
We heard the same BS when President George Bush
was in office during 9/11. We heard the big lie that
God wanted Bush in the White House so that the USA
could avenge this terrible tragedy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole09
Undoubtedly, there are die hard Trump voters that aren't Christian, nor would they even claim that. But make no mistake, there are many Christians that would defend Trump for things that are far worse, morally, than what they would call out an Obama or a Clinton, purely because they disagree with those two politically.

And yes, people who use their religion as a defense of Trump piss me off FAR more than people who use economics, or safety, or whatever to defend him. The Christians should know better, if they have read their Bible. I don't think it's an accident that the only times Jesus lost his temper was in response to those who were self righteous and looked down on those who weren't "good enough", like publicans and prostitutes. It's far worse to claim righteousness and not act in that manner than to not claim it and act the same way.
I am a white evangelical who voted for Trump, but I certainly am not a supporter or an apologist. The labels we put on ourselves or others, though, make this an unwinnable argument because, though you summarily dismiss it, to not vote was, in fact, a vote for HRC.

I am abhorred by many things Trump has said and done, but there is no doubt that Trump has acted pretty consistent with his personality and public persona. That certainly doesn't excuse him, but the concern I had with HRC (and what I suspect was the concern of many who didn't support her) is that she did not have a history of acting consistent with her words.

I'd prefer to respond to your claim that an evangelical cannot in good conscience vote for Trump with the reality that a vote for HRC or to abstain from voting is unconscionable as well.

For those of you who have a personal relationship with God, I implore you to pray like mad for all of our leaders - D, R, or I. Then commit yourself to being involved in making the world a better place instead of slinging mud.
 
I am a white evangelical who voted for Trump, but I certainly am not a supporter or an apologist. The labels we put on ourselves or others, though, make this an unwinnable argument because, though you summarily dismiss it, to not vote was, in fact, a vote for HRC.

I am abhorred by many things Trump has said and done, but there is no doubt that Trump has acted pretty consistent with his personality and public persona. That certainly doesn't excuse him, but the concern I had with HRC (and what I suspect was the concern of many who didn't support her) is that she did not have a history of acting consistent with her words.

I'd prefer to respond to your claim that an evangelical cannot in good conscience vote for Trump with the reality that a vote for HRC or to abstain from voting is unconscionable as well.

For those of you who have a personal relationship with God, I implore you to pray like mad for all of our leaders - D, R, or I. Then commit yourself to being involved in making the world a better place instead of slinging mud.
Whew! There's an evangelical circle jerk for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
And, for the record, most of the statements made about evangelicals in general in the original posted article do not resonate with me. The author is speaking about religious zealots (that in this case happen to be a segment of the evangelical world) that would rather defend their beliefs than truly apply the life and teachings of Jesus to today's culture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obviously Oblivious
I am a white evangelical who voted for Trump, but I certainly am not a supporter or an apologist. The labels we put on ourselves or others, though, make this an unwinnable argument because, though you summarily dismiss it, to not vote was, in fact, a vote for HRC.

I am abhorred by many things Trump has said and done, but there is no doubt that Trump has acted pretty consistent with his personality and public persona. That certainly doesn't excuse him, but the concern I had with HRC (and what I suspect was the concern of many who didn't support her) is that she did not have a history of acting consistent with her words.

I'd prefer to respond to your claim that an evangelical cannot in good conscience vote for Trump with the reality that a vote for HRC or to abstain from voting is unconscionable as well.

For those of you who have a personal relationship with God, I implore you to pray like mad for all of our leaders - D, R, or I. Then commit yourself to being involved in making the world a better place instead of slinging mud.

I didn't vote for either one. A vote not for Trump is not a vote for HRC. I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for either one. It didnt matter to me, because both were horrible choices, I was not going to cast a vote for either. Neither have the morals to gain my vote. I'll live with whoever is elected, voice my displeasure when they do stupid, unethical or immoral things, but I'm not casting a vote for someone like either.
 
I didn't vote for either one. A vote not for Trump is not a vote for HRC. I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for either one. It didnt matter to me, because both were horrible choices, I was not going to cast a vote for either. Neither have the morals to gain my vote. I'll live with whoever is elected, voice my displeasure when they do stupid, unethical or immoral things, but I'm not casting a vote for someone like either.
I think that's a fair conclusion too. I think that's a reasonable action.
 
Sorry... hit send too soon.

I wish more people would have put the kind of thought into their decision that you did.
 
As an Evangelical, I have no idea how Evangelicals can vote for Trump. I get how they could "support" him using the idea that we should support the POTUS, but that's different than voting for him.

And before anyone goes there, no, Hillary being a worse choice isn't a valid argument. Not when your (an Evangelical) entire worldview is based on principle and morality, or at least should be based on those. It isn't an either/or argument. It's a "Does this person reflect the values we do?" argument. If the answer is no, and Trump certainly doesn't reflect a believer's values, you don't vote for them. If there are only bad choices, you raise your voice to demand better, you don't vote for a "less bad" choice.
This is according to your view. Not mine and many others. It was more of a anybody but another Lib who would be a 3rd term of the worst POTUS in history. Is Trump a saint? Hell no. But I am liking my 401k tight now.
 
I'm still waiting for a evangelical Trump supporters to defend him. I really want to hear what you have to say.

I can understand why evangelicals would have voted for Trump over Hillary.

Hillary is 100% pro-abortion in almost every circumstance. She would have put a liberal on the Supreme Court and it would have stayed to the left for decades.

Evangelicals would also completely oppose Hillary on many social issues, such as LGBT stuff.

So, I understand why they would vote Trump.
 
This is according to your view. Not mine and many others. It was more of a anybody but another Lib who would be a 3rd term of the worst POTUS in history. Is Trump a saint? Hell no. But I am liking my 401k tight now.
You liked your 401k under Obama too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole09
Christians believe that God rules the world as its
Creator and King. Despite recent evil leaders such
as Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, Putin and others, God is
still in control of His universe. He holds evil in check
according to His Divine Will. God does not engineer
the results of the U.S. Presidential elections. America
is a democracy not a theocracy.
And Calvinists are huge into predestination. Ever try and debate or win an argument with a Calvinist. The have an answer for everything.....it is God’s will. God’s will is a convenient way of shirking one’s Christian obligation. Convenient, ain’t it?
 
Seriously? You just told us you voted for Trump because you thought he was honest. Think on that for a moment.
I did not say that. But I believe that he is likely more honest than HRC, which isnt really much to brag about.

These discussions are somewhat futile because everything is typically over-simplified. This election was tremendously complex. That's why I gave SSG T credit for obviously putting thought into his decision rather than simply looking at it as D vs. R.
 
I did not say that. But I believe that he is likely more honest than HRC, which isnt really much to brag about.

These discussions are somewhat futile because everything is typically over-simplified. This election was tremendously complex. That's why I gave SSG T credit for obviously putting thought into his decision rather than simply looking at it as D vs. R.
Which is why I'm critical of you. Anyone who thinks Trump is more honest than Hills didn't put much thought into his vote. There might be thoughtful reasons to vote for Trump, but honesty isn't one.
 
Which is why I'm critical of you. Anyone who thinks Trump is more honest than Hills didn't put much thought into his vote. There might be thoughtful reasons to vote for Trump, but honesty isn't one.

Yep. There truly is no possible way that anyone with any moral integrity whatsoever could have even considered voting for such an obviously unqualified and intellectually, temperamentally and morally unfit candidate such as Trump. Anyone who sees any moral equivalency between Trump and secretary Clinton has simply been brainwashed by all of the phony "scandals" the wingnut echo chamber has foisted upon the Clintons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole09
Which is why I'm critical of you. Anyone who thinks Trump is more honest than Hills didn't put much thought into his vote. There might be thoughtful reasons to vote for Trump, but honesty isn't one.
Which brings us right back to the same debate: Which candidate is the lesser of two evils?

I'm not sure I will be able to convince you, but I put a substantial amount of thought into my vote... and whether or not I'd vote at all.

I didn't like either candidate. I decided that Trump's warts were numerous but likely more visible. I may or may not have been right about that, but to claim moral superiority for a vote for HRC is something I can't support.
 
Which brings us right back to the same debate: Which candidate is the lesser of two evils?

I'm not sure I will be able to convince you, but I put a substantial amount of thought into my vote... and whether or not I'd vote at all.

I didn't like either candidate. I decided that Trump's warts were numerous but likely more visible. I may or may not have been right about that, but to claim moral superiority for a vote for HRC is something I can't support.
That might be supportable depending on how you wanted to define warts. But you claimed honesty as the benchmark. It can objectively be shown that Trump told more lies during the campaign, a character flaw he has continued. So if you want to get credit for your thoughtful position, you should find a better way to express your reasoning than pointing to the honesty of the candidates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
That might be supportable depending on how you wanted to define warts. But you claimed honesty as the benchmark. It can objectively be shown that Trump told more lies during the campaign, a character flaw he has continued. So if you want to get credit for your thoughtful position, you should find a better way to express your reasoning than pointing to the honesty of the candidates.
I certainly get your point, but my original claim is that Trump has acted consistent with his personality and public persona more so than HRC has. My follow-up statement led us to the honesty discussion.

They both are dishonest. It is conceivable that his lies were more acceptable to me than hers.

Again, though, using honesty as a benchmark is over-simplification, so the debate is rather futile. There are too many variables and issues, and both candidates stunk.

While I understand why some people argue for vote abstinence, that is also a decision that has consequences. So, God help us all.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT