The Religious Right and Trump's Victory

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

In looking at the returns, one of my observations is that Trump very much had it both ways on the issue of religious conservatism.

Trump won Evangelicals convincingly.  He did so because (A) he promised to appoint conservative SCOTUS Justices, (B) he indicated that he would not use government to interfere in the operations of churches, and (C) because Hillary Clinton is a uniquely loathsome figure amongst Evangelicals, advocating Partial Birth Abortion on demand, actively willing to use unbelievers to work changes in doctrines of churches, and her advocacy of policies that, in the eyes of Christians, undermine the role of the Nuclear Family in society.

But Trump also reversed the slide in states which sharply trended Democratic, beginning in 1988, and being cemented in 1992.  I'm talking about PA, MI, and WI (which he carried) and NH, MN, and ME (where he improved).

This second group of states became more Democratic at the Presidential level, in part, because of a rejection of the GOP's embrace of the vocal Religious Right.  These folks were anathema to many middle-class Republican voters in those states.  They agreed with moderate Republicans such as Labor Secretary Lynn Martin who stated after the 1992 GOP loss that it wasn't enough for the Republicans to want to be folks' political party; now they wanted to be people's church as well  That sentiment resonated with many traditional GOP voters, who left the GOP with less fanfare than Reagan Democrats left the Democratic Party.

In Trump, these folks had a relief from this.  Yes, the Evangelicals voted for him, but Trump never tried to be folks' pastor.  These voters saw Trump as going along with an established platform, but not someone who was going to meddle in their private lives or lecture them on personal morality.  Trump provided the socially conservative public policy without the moralizing, which is something these voters could swallow.

This is my own theory as to a driving force in politics over the last 28 years.  I wonder if anyone else sees this in part or in whole.

[MarkD]

I see it this way: for the last 48 years, Republicans have been emphasizing their promise to appoint conservative Justices to the Supreme Court as a way of gaining more votes from conservative Democrats; as some might say, "pandering." It's crucial to recognize what ways they delivered on their promise and what ways they did not.
Richard Nixon started this by emphasizing "law and order," and that the Warren Court greatly expanded the rights of the criminally-accused (Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, Escobedo v. Illinois, Miranda v. Arizona). I believe that, to Nixon, the most important quality to look for when choosing who to appoint was that his appointees should go no further to the left on that kind of issue -- don't do any more expanding of the rights of the accused. But I also believe that that very quality was the most important thing to look for, as well, to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. In Bush's case, it was that quality, at least, that Bush looked for when choosing to appoint David Souter; the reason to choose Clarence Thomas was because of his views on Affirmative Action.
Ronald Reagan seemed as if he was going to appoint "cultural conservatives" to the SCOTUS, because he campaigned as an opponent of the Court's decisions on the topic of school prayer and abortion. Emphasizing those two issues did gain him a lot of votes, but he did not try to fulfill any implicit promise that his appointees were going to reverse decisions like Engel v. Vitale and Roe v. Wade. Indeed, Rev. Jerry Falwell pointedly objected to the appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor precisely there was no evidence at all that she was going to overturn Roe. But Reagan didn't actually look for the quality of being "conservative" about cultural issues like school prayer, abortion, and gay rights. He looked for the quality of being "conservative" about crime -- oriented toward "law and order," and isn't the guilt of the accused more important than whether the police did not dot every "I" and cross every "T" on their application for a search warrant. Bush 41 did not try to appoint "cultural conservatives" either; he wanted that conservatism about crime when he appointed David Souter and Bush wanted conservatism about Affirmative Action when he appointed Clarence Thomas.
Bush 43 emphasized his opposition to gay marriage -- the idea that it should be up to the legislatures to decide how to handle that issue, not the courts -- and in the end, his appointees to the Court did fulfill the promise of not going along with liberals on that. But the most important failure, regarding how Republicans treated their appointments to the Court, was that Anthony Kennedy has performed as a compromising "moderate" on the cultural conservative issues such as school prayer, abortion, and gay rights.
But remember, he was not chosen for the SCOTUS because of his views on cultural issues; he was chosen because he would be -- like Nixon's appointees in 1969-1971, and like Reagan's two previous appointees, O'Connor and Scalia -- conservative on the subject of the rights of the criminally accused.
So I have in mind a crucial question: since Republicans have not actually been trying, in the last 48 years, to appoint anyone to the SCOTUS because the appointees were cultural conservatives, why would culturally conservative voters be so supportive in Trump? Can't they see, from the pattern of the last 48 years, that they have been "pandered" to already; have been given promises that were usually not fulfilled?

[HAnnA MArin County]

Do the Jesus voters even have that much influence anymore? More and more people are becoming irreligious, thanks in large part to the repeated hypocrisy of the so-called "born again evangelical conservative Christian" Republicans who have exploited religion for their own personal gains. It's hard to take them seriously when they preach about the "sanctity of marriage" and then get caught committing adultery, or they call themselves "pro-life" but they pay for abortions for the women in their lives.

One good thing about Trump's election and the evangelicals who supported him is that their hypocrisy has been validated. They've collectively determined that in order to be an "evangelical," you must vote Republican regardless of whom the nominee is. Forget the fact that Trump owns casinos (as many evangelicals believe gambling is a sin) and let's just ignore #Pussygate and who cares that Trump was pro-choice up until he decided to run as a Republican and then pulled a Romney and flip-flopped. Yeah, I'd say the days of the evangelicals calling the shots in the GOP are long gone. No longer can they preach the sanctity of marriage when they've supported a twice-divorced greedy plutocrat (but I guess to them, the only way one can be forgiven for those sins is to be a Republican. If you're a Democrat, you must be subjected to all the fire and brimstone eternal damnation pits of Hell rapture because Democrats support baby killing and homosexuals destroying "traditional marriage," whatever that means).

Give me a break.

[Erc]

To quote the man's favorite President: "You can fool all of the people some of the time."

[Thunderbird is the word]

Putting myself in the mindset of these evangelicals it makes perfect sense that even if they may not have particularly liked Trump it's no surprise they'd end up overwhelmingly backing him. I know I never particularly cared for Hillary yet I came around to voting for her because ultimately i'm looking at the same thing they are, the supreme court.

Also if you think about it evangelicals love a repentant sinner and in that sense Trump is exactly the type of person they'd love thinking they could somehow "save."

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Do the Jesus voters even have that much influence anymore? More and more people are becoming irreligious, thanks in large part to the repeated hypocrisy of the so-called "born again evangelical conservative Christian" Republicans who have exploited religion for their own personal gains. It's hard to take them seriously when they preach about the "sanctity of marriage" and then get caught committing adultery, or they call themselves "pro-life" but they pay for abortions for the women in their lives.

One good thing about Trump's election and the evangelicals who supported him is that their hypocrisy has been validated. They've collectively determined that in order to be an "evangelical," you must vote Republican regardless of whom the nominee is. Forget the fact that Trump owns casinos (as many evangelicals believe gambling is a sin) and let's just ignore #Pussygate and who cares that Trump was pro-choice up until he decided to run as a Republican and then pulled a Romney and flip-flopped. Yeah, I'd say the days of the evangelicals calling the shots in the GOP are long gone. No longer can they preach the sanctity of marriage when they've supported a twice-divorced greedy plutocrat (but I guess to them, the only way one can be forgiven for those sins is to be a Republican. If you're a Democrat, you must be subjected to all the fire and brimstone eternal damnation pits of Hell rapture because Democrats support baby killing and homosexuals destroying "traditional marriage," whatever that means).

Give me a break.

The "sanctity of marriage" is, I agree a faux argument, and not the reason I oppose SSM.  I oppose it because the Bible, the Inerrant Word of God, clearly and unambiguously states that marriage is between a man and a woman and that sexual activity between anyone other than a man and his female spouse is sin.  SSM has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage".  I oppose it because I consider it an affront to God.

And, yes, it is very true that a number of Christian officeholders have been caught cheating, divorcing their spouses, marrying their staff assistants, etc.  That's sin as well, and it is also an affront to God.  That being said, this is a personal lifestyle issue, while issues like SSM, abortion, etc., are policy issues, and an election in America is a binary choice, the outcome of which will have ramifications on public policy.  I've voted for lots of candidates, Democrat and Republican, whom I though to be tawdry individuals, sometimes in place of folks who were more upstanding on certain levels, because my choice of candidate would advance the public policies I thought important.

To call Christians "hypocrites" because they voted for Trump is not accurate, and not fair.  If a Christian were elected to office and got caught sleeping with his female staffer, that would be hypocrisy (or, at a minimum, sin).  But that's not what Christians are doing. 

Do Evangelicals have power?  They are an important GOP constituency.  No Republican could be nominated with the opposition of Evangelicals, and the pro-life stance has become a litmus test for Republicans over time; pro-choice Republicans at the Congressional level or higher are a rarity, as pro-life Democrats are.  I'd consider that power, and I'd consider that relevancy.  I don't believe that a Bill Weld, no matter how minimalist government a platform he came up with, could be the GOP nominee, even in today's environment.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Do the Jesus voters even have that much influence anymore? More and more people are becoming irreligious, thanks in large part to the repeated hypocrisy of the so-called "born again evangelical conservative Christian" Republicans who have exploited religion for their own personal gains. It's hard to take them seriously when they preach about the "sanctity of marriage" and then get caught committing adultery, or they call themselves "pro-life" but they pay for abortions for the women in their lives.

One good thing about Trump's election and the evangelicals who supported him is that their hypocrisy has been validated. They've collectively determined that in order to be an "evangelical," you must vote Republican regardless of whom the nominee is. Forget the fact that Trump owns casinos (as many evangelicals believe gambling is a sin) and let's just ignore #Pussygate and who cares that Trump was pro-choice up until he decided to run as a Republican and then pulled a Romney and flip-flopped. Yeah, I'd say the days of the evangelicals calling the shots in the GOP are long gone. No longer can they preach the sanctity of marriage when they've supported a twice-divorced greedy plutocrat (but I guess to them, the only way one can be forgiven for those sins is to be a Republican. If you're a Democrat, you must be subjected to all the fire and brimstone eternal damnation pits of Hell rapture because Democrats support baby killing and homosexuals destroying "traditional marriage," whatever that means).

Give me a break.

You're trying to apply logic and reason to people (using the term very broadly) who think the Earth is 6000 years old and global warming is hoax. THEY DON'T CARE. All their religion is to them is an excuse to believe what they want to believe, and do what they want to do. Jesus H. Christ could descend from Heaven, backed up by the thundering voice of the Lord Almighty and say "be nice to you fellow man, and don't vote Republican" and they'd go shoot some people with different skin color or who speak a different language and then go rape some women before voting straight R. And then they'd spend the next six weeks repeating whatever excuse Rush Limbaugh and Trump fed them.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

To quote the man's favorite President: "You can fool all of the people some of the time."

When it comes to Evangelicals, I think you meant "you can fool some of the people all of the time".

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Do the Jesus voters even have that much influence anymore? More and more people are becoming irreligious, thanks in large part to the repeated hypocrisy of the so-called "born again evangelical conservative Christian" Republicans who have exploited religion for their own personal gains. It's hard to take them seriously when they preach about the "sanctity of marriage" and then get caught committing adultery, or they call themselves "pro-life" but they pay for abortions for the women in their lives.

One good thing about Trump's election and the evangelicals who supported him is that their hypocrisy has been validated. They've collectively determined that in order to be an "evangelical," you must vote Republican regardless of whom the nominee is. Forget the fact that Trump owns casinos (as many evangelicals believe gambling is a sin) and let's just ignore #Pussygate and who cares that Trump was pro-choice up until he decided to run as a Republican and then pulled a Romney and flip-flopped. Yeah, I'd say the days of the evangelicals calling the shots in the GOP are long gone. No longer can they preach the sanctity of marriage when they've supported a twice-divorced greedy plutocrat (but I guess to them, the only way one can be forgiven for those sins is to be a Republican. If you're a Democrat, you must be subjected to all the fire and brimstone eternal damnation pits of Hell rapture because Democrats support baby killing and homosexuals destroying "traditional marriage," whatever that means).

Give me a break.

You're trying to apply logic and reason to people (using the term very broadly) who think the Earth is 6000 years old and global warming is hoax. THEY DON'T CARE. All their religion is to them is an excuse to believe what they want to believe, and do what they want to do. Jesus H. Christ could descend from Heaven, backed up by the thundering voice of the Lord Almighty and say "be nice to you fellow man, and don't vote Republican" and they'd go shoot some people with different skin color or who speak a different language and then go rape some women before voting straight R. And then they'd spend the next six weeks repeating whatever excuse Rush Limbaugh and Trump fed them.

Not all Evangelicals believe in a Young Earth.

Few give a crap about your opinions, however.  At least in regard to what you think about them.  Your opinion is likely not based on any kind of firsthand knowledge.

[angus]

Hillary Clinton is a uniquely loathsome figure

Truer words are rarely spoken, but I' a little surprised that evangelical protestants would nominate The Donald.  Still, maybe you're right.  He simply played all the cards right.  He certainly didn't seem to "moralize."  I wouldn't think it possible for such an amoral person to moralize anyway.  

[Wisconsin+17]

Not all of us supported Trump. Many echoed the concerns listed above - as to whether or not we've really gotten a great deal out of SCOTUS, given Souter, Sandra Day-O'Connor, Nixon's appointees, etc.

However, the ultimate question is:

"When was the last time democrats nominated someone who remotely approached their values?

The last was Byron White - who was a Kennedy nominee. That was more than half a century ago. There hasn't been a conservative democrat nominee to the court since White passed on in 1993. That's over 20 years.

Democrats have lost the conservative democrat white working class.

[Erc]

To quote the man's favorite President: "You can fool all of the people some of the time."

When it comes to Evangelicals, I think you meant "you can fool some of the people all of the time".

Also true, but not the angle I was going for.

Trump is an inveterate and notably inconsistent liar.  If you're in the mood to be "persuaded" by him, you can look through his statements and cherry-pick your way to convincing yourself that he's entirely in agreement with you.  Evangelicals see his occasional hard line on abortion (we'll need to have penalties for people who get abortions, promises to appoint hardline judges to the court), while Midwesterners and folks from New Jersey like that he's not a Southerner and clearly isn't a crazy holy roller.

You can have it both ways when campaigning; somehow the man pulled off an amazing feat of simultaneously getting a majority of college-educated whites to still support him (thinking that he's a regular Republican) while getting an overwhelming majority of non-college-educated whites to back him on the premise that he's the champion of the common man.

You can't really have it both ways when governing, though I'm sure he'll try to.  Sooner or later, he'll have to piss off some part of the 46% of the country that voted for him---though he could get a long way by just acting like a normal Republican with enough Carrier-style sleight of hand and race-baiting to keep the Trumpenproletariat on his side.

Thankfully, he's not that competent.  He does actually have some governing to do, and you can't do that by being a media personality.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Hillary Clinton is a uniquely loathsome figure

Truer words are rarely spoken, but I' a little surprised that evangelical protestants would nominate The Donald.  Still, maybe you're right.  He simply played all the cards right.  He certainly didn't seem to "moralize."  I wouldn't think it possible for such an amoral person to moralize anyway.  

J. D. Vance pointed out in an interview that Ted Cruz was the GOP choice of REGULAR churchgoers.  Trump was the choice of Evangelicals that were not regular churchgoers, or lapsed churchgoers.

I'm an Evangelical and a regular churchgoer.  I'm not looking for my President to be my pastor.  I'm not happy with Trump's lifestyle, but he will enact policies that are far more compatible to a Christian World View than Hillary Clinton would.

What ISSUE can anyone here name that an Evangelical Christian ought to be more enamored of the Hillary Clinton position than the Donald Trump position?  If you can find one, where do you think an Evangelical Christian would put that issue on the hierarchy of issues?  Saying "Trump's a Whoremonger!" may or may not be true, but even if he is, that doesn't impact public policy at all.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I actually openly admit to thinking the role of the nuclear family in society should be weakened, but it should be weakened in favor of extended support networks of collateral relations, not in favor of 'individual negative rights TO THE EXTREME!!!' atomization.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I actually openly admit to thinking the role of the nuclear family in society should be weakened, but it should be weakened in favor of extended support networks of collateral relations, not in favor of 'individual negative rights TO THE EXTREME!!!' atomization.

Makes sense.

[libertpaulian]

The Religious Right is dying.  Compassionate Evangelicalism and Progressive Christianity are on the rise and growing.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "Religious Left" equivalent to the Religious Right that starts making its way into the mainstream political consciousness in the 2020s or early 2030s.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

The Religious Right is dying.  Compassionate Evangelicalism and Progressive Christianity are on the rise and growing.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "Religious Left" equivalent to the Religious Right that starts making its way into the mainstream political consciousness in the 2020s or early 2030s.

I've never identified as a member of the "Religious Right", and I find guys like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed more than a little smarmy.

I do believe, however, in the Bible as the Infallible Word of God.  As such, that has implications for my voting.  I've not always voted for the "pro-life" candidate, for example, but there are certainly reasons in Scripture which would cause me to ask myself why I'm NOT supporting a pro-life candidate.  I don't think God views the GOP as "His" party of choice.  But I do think God holds me responsible for how I vote, and the implications for that vote on His Will being done.

[libertpaulian]

The Religious Right is dying.  Compassionate Evangelicalism and Progressive Christianity are on the rise and growing.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "Religious Left" equivalent to the Religious Right that starts making its way into the mainstream political consciousness in the 2020s or early 2030s.

I've never identified as a member of the "Religious Right", and I find guys like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed more than a little smarmy.

I do believe, however, in the Bible as the Infallible Word of God.  As such, that has implications for my voting.  I've not always voted for the "pro-life" candidate, for example, but there are certainly reasons in Scripture which would cause me to ask myself why I'm NOT supporting a pro-life candidate.  I don't think God views the GOP as "His" party of choice.  But I do think God holds me responsible for how I vote, and the implications for that vote on His Will being done.

I would think of your voting patterns this way.  We're saved by GRACE, and not by WORKS.  And as believers in Christ, we have soul liberty to live our lives.  1 Corinthians 10:23.

You can justify your voting for the pro-choice candidate by saying "I'm covered by grace."

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

You can justify your voting for the pro-choice candidate by saying "I'm covered by grace."

I've voted for pro-choice candidates using a similar heuristic to what Fuzzy Bear is describing and may well do so again in the future, but thinking about it, or anything, this way is ludicrously antinomian and just dangerous both politically and morally.

[RI]

You can justify your voting for the pro-choice candidate by saying "I'm covered by grace."

What on earth is that even supposed to mean?

[libertpaulian]

You can justify your voting for the pro-choice candidate by saying "I'm covered by grace."

What on earth is that even supposed to mean?

It means that voting for a pro-choice or pro-marriage equality candidate isn't some grave sin like the fundy Bapticostals or hardcore tradcon Catholics say it is.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

The Religious Right is dying.  Compassionate Evangelicalism and Progressive Christianity are on the rise and growing.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "Religious Left" equivalent to the Religious Right that starts making its way into the mainstream political consciousness in the 2020s or early 2030s.

I've never identified as a member of the "Religious Right", and I find guys like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed more than a little smarmy.

I do believe, however, in the Bible as the Infallible Word of God.  As such, that has implications for my voting.  I've not always voted for the "pro-life" candidate, for example, but there are certainly reasons in Scripture which would cause me to ask myself why I'm NOT supporting a pro-life candidate.  I don't think God views the GOP as "His" party of choice.  But I do think God holds me responsible for how I vote, and the implications for that vote on His Will being done.

I would think of your voting patterns this way.  We're saved by GRACE, and not by WORKS.  And as believers in Christ, we have soul liberty to live our lives.  1 Corinthians 10:23.

You can justify your voting for the pro-choice candidate by saying "I'm covered by grace."

Being Saved involves acknowledging Christ as Lord, and not just as Savior.  Salvation is not accomplished by works, but it is evidenced by "Good (Godly) Works".  

The liberty we have in Christ is not license to willfully sin.  If a person is living their life in that manner, it begs the question as to whether or not this person truly believes that Jesus is Lord as well as Savior.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I would think of your voting patterns this way.  We're saved by GRACE, and not by WORKS.  And as believers in Christ, we have soul liberty to live our lives.  1 Corinthians 10:23.

You can justify your voting for the pro-choice candidate by saying "I'm covered by grace."

Being Saved involves acknowledging Christ as Lord, and not just as Savior.  Salvation is not accomplished by works, but it is evidenced by "Good (Godly) Works".  

The liberty we have in Christ is not license to willfully sin.  If a person is living their life in that manner, it begs the question as to whether or not this person truly believes that Jesus is Lord as well as Savior.

My impression, as an agnostic atheist, is that utilizing one's religious beliefs as a free pass to exonerate one's own behavior and to freely judge others has been a highly popular lifestyle choice among the religious in this country. If that's not a fair assessment, you can blame the Religious Right and its supporters for providing this impression.

You're right that many of these failings among devout Christian office holders and figureheads to practice what they preach are personal failings that shouldn't necessarily translate to their political capacity. Bill Clinton was a womanizing cheater, but I don't factor that into my assessment's of his successes or failures as a politician. The problem with the Religious Right was that they utilized their appeals to traditional morality as the foundation to their supposed moral high ground which made them the superior legislators of law.

In reality, they were entirely campaigning on tribalism and pandered to the devout with fearmongering. They spoke of religious freedom and individual liberty, but their policies were exclusionary and adhered to the concept of public policy as a zero sum game. Either the Evangelicals would right the ship or America would descend into a nihilistic dystopia of unbounded hellfire, sin, and relentless persecution of Christians. There was no room for tolerance of those who wished to think or live outside the parameters set by their interpretation of scripture. Spreading the good news by words and "godly works" was replaced by enforcing it with a political cudgel and constraining by legal prescription. Sectarian gospel had to be acknowledged by the law as the common foundation that society adhered to; the binding force that held us all together.

This was the source of grievances for those whom were not included in the Religious Right's vision of America. Those on the political left didn't see these beseeching moralistic campaigns as noble acts of protecting one's belief system from harm, they saw it as persecutor's with greater political power justifying their persecution of others with less power. So when said pious figureheads would be continuously lacking in their own moral preachings, it was hardly surprising how intensely this generated bitter resentment. It was not merely the hypocrisy that drew so much ire from the left, it was that these standards they failed to uphold were also standards they wished to enforce on everyone else. When their elected officials slipped up, they were forgiven, but no forgiveness was granted to their political enemies that were "ruining" the country. Forgiveness was reserved for those who were wearing the correct team jersey in the game of religious politicking.

The coalescence behind Donald Trump has exposed how hollow the "moral politics" approach endorsed by the Religious Right truly was. While the legitimacy of their "preaching" methodology is likely severely reduced as a viable political tool, the antipluralistic, exclusionary nature of the politics they endorsed lives on in Trump's anti-multiculturalism, at least for now. I personally think both sides of the spectrum are missing the mark on how culture works. I find the anti-multiculturalists that fear perpetual and multiplying non-assimilated groups and unabashed cultural purists that decry "cultural appropriation" as equally foolish. Culture is a dynamic, living thing that is constantly reshaping itself based on the inputs it receives. Believing that one's culture is "under siege" from out-groups or that other cultures are being "corrupted" by the predominant one are understandable reactions, but they require a subscription to misguided binary thinking in order to uphold.

For the record, I think liberals have taken it a bit too far as well. I don't agree with the efforts to force Christian bakeries or flower shops or photographers to provide services to gay weddings or to mandate privately held religious organizations to provide contraceptives that go against the owner's beliefs. I also don't think these are necessary actions prescribed by liberalism; the left is ideologically supportive of pluralism, and while there are certainly some flashpoints that will continue to be hotly contested (like abortion), I see no reason why Evangelicals need be inherently excluded from a left-leaning vision of America. On the other hand, the politics of the Religious Right was inherently exclusionary on its foundation. I agree with Libertpaulian that Evangelicalism is likely to adopt a more "compassionate" phase in the near future ---especially if Donald Trump fails to actually achieve any of their goals--- and that discrimination of certain rights based on sexual orientation will be as frowned upon 30 years in the future among the religious as discrimination of certain rights based on race is now.

Granted, you claim not to fall under the label of Religious Right and your reasoning for generally supporting socially conservative candidates is understandable and acceptable. However, while I'm not so sure that most Christians necessarily invoke the concept of grace as a "license to willfully sin," I am wholly under the impression that many do emphasize the "Jesus as Savior" aspect as an excuse to justify their treatment of others and to exempt themselves from introspection of their behavior. I consider this to be a product of the tribalistic identity politics the Religious Right inspired and that it corrupted the "forgiveness" ethos and reshaped it onto a framework of ingroup-outgroup dynamics. When religion dressed up as politics was transformed into a politics dressed up as religion, and social conservatives began taking greater cues from the Republican platform than they did from scripture, it became more important to reward possession of the correct labels than possession of the correct morals; it became more important to believe correctly than to demonstrate that belief through "good godly works."

That's been my perspective from the outside looking in. I'd be interested in hearing your perspective from the inside looking out.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I would think of your voting patterns this way.  We're saved by GRACE, and not by WORKS.  And as believers in Christ, we have soul liberty to live our lives.  1 Corinthians 10:23.

You can justify your voting for the pro-choice candidate by saying "I'm covered by grace."

Being Saved involves acknowledging Christ as Lord, and not just as Savior.  Salvation is not accomplished by works, but it is evidenced by "Good (Godly) Works".  

The liberty we have in Christ is not license to willfully sin.  If a person is living their life in that manner, it begs the question as to whether or not this person truly believes that Jesus is Lord as well as Savior.

My impression, as an agnostic atheist, is that utilizing one's religious beliefs as a free pass to exonerate one's own behavior and to freely judge others has been a highly popular lifestyle choice among the religious in this country. If that's not a fair assessment, you can blame the Religious Right and its supporters for providing this impression.

You're right that many of these failings among devout Christian office holders and figureheads to practice what they preach are personal failings that shouldn't necessarily translate to their political capacity. Bill Clinton was a womanizing cheater, but I don't factor that into my assessment's of his successes or failures as a politician. The problem with the Religious Right was that they utilized their appeals to traditional morality as the foundation to their supposed moral high ground which made them the superior legislators of law.

In reality, they were entirely campaigning on tribalism and pandered to the devout with fearmongering. They spoke of religious freedom and individual liberty, but their policies were exclusionary and adhered to the concept of public policy as a zero sum game. Either the Evangelicals would right the ship or America would descend into a nihilistic dystopia of unbounded hellfire, sin, and relentless persecution of Christians. There was no room for tolerance of those who wished to think or live outside the parameters set by their interpretation of scripture. Spreading the good news by words and "godly works" was replaced by enforcing it with a political cudgel and constraining by legal prescription. Sectarian gospel had to be acknowledged by the law as the common foundation that society adhered to; the binding force that held us all together.

This was the source of grievances for those whom were not included in the Religious Right's vision of America. Those on the political left didn't see these beseeching moralistic campaigns as noble acts of protecting one's belief system from harm, they saw it as persecutor's with greater political power justifying their persecution of others with less power. So when said pious figureheads would be continuously lacking in their own moral preachings, it was hardly surprising how intensely this generated bitter resentment. It was not merely the hypocrisy that drew so much ire from the left, it was that these standards they failed to uphold were also standards they wished to enforce on everyone else. When their elected officials slipped up, they were forgiven, but no forgiveness was granted to their political enemies that were "ruining" the country. Forgiveness was reserved for those who were wearing the correct team jersey in the game of religious politicking.

The coalescence behind Donald Trump has exposed how hollow the "moral politics" approach endorsed by the Religious Right truly was. While the legitimacy of their "preaching" methodology is likely severely reduced as a viable political tool, the antipluralistic, exclusionary nature of the politics they endorsed lives on in Trump's anti-multiculturalism, at least for now. I personally think both sides of the spectrum are missing the mark on how culture works. I find the anti-multiculturalists that fear perpetual and multiplying non-assimilated groups and unabashed cultural purists that decry "cultural appropriation" as equally foolish. Culture is a dynamic, living thing that is constantly reshaping itself based on the inputs it receives. Believing that one's culture is "under siege" from out-groups or that other cultures are being "corrupted" by the predominant one are understandable reactions, but they require a subscription to misguided binary thinking in order to uphold.

For the record, I think liberals have taken it a bit too far as well. I don't agree with the efforts to force Christian bakeries or flower shops or photographers to provide services to gay weddings or to mandate privately held religious organizations to provide contraceptives that go against the owner's beliefs. I also don't think these are necessary actions prescribed by liberalism; the left is ideologically supportive of pluralism, and while there are certainly some flashpoints that will continue to be hotly contested (like abortion), I see no reason why Evangelicals need be inherently excluded from a left-leaning vision of America. On the other hand, the politics of the Religious Right was inherently exclusionary on its foundation. I agree with Libertpaulian that Evangelicalism is likely to adopt a more "compassionate" phase in the near future ---especially if Donald Trump fails to actually achieve any of their goals--- and that discrimination of certain rights based on sexual orientation will be as frowned upon 30 years in the future among the religious as discrimination of certain rights based on race is now.

Granted, you claim not to fall under the label of Religious Right and your reasoning for generally supporting socially conservative candidates is understandable and acceptable. However, while I'm not so sure that most Christians necessarily invoke the concept of grace as a "license to willfully sin," I am wholly under the impression that many do emphasize the "Jesus as Savior" aspect as a platform to justify their treatment of others and to exempt themselves from introspection of their behavior. I consider this to be a product of the tribalistic identity politics the Religious Right inspired and that it corrupted the "forgiveness" ethos and reshaped it onto a framework of ingroup-outgroup dynamics. When religion dressed up as politics was transformed into a politics dressed up as religion, and social conservatives began taking greater cues from the Republican platform than they did from scripture, it became more important to reward possession of the correct labels than possession of the correct morals; it became more important to believe correctly than to demonstrate that belief through "good godly works."

That's been my perspective from the outside looking in. I'd be interested in hearing your perspective from the inside looking out.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I would think of your voting patterns this way.  We're saved by GRACE, and not by WORKS.  And as believers in Christ, we have soul liberty to live our lives.  1 Corinthians 10:23.

You can justify your voting for the pro-choice candidate by saying "I'm covered by grace."

Being Saved involves acknowledging Christ as Lord, and not just as Savior.  Salvation is not accomplished by works, but it is evidenced by "Good (Godly) Works".  

The liberty we have in Christ is not license to willfully sin.  If a person is living their life in that manner, it begs the question as to whether or not this person truly believes that Jesus is Lord as well as Savior.

My impression, as an agnostic atheist, is that utilizing one's religious beliefs as a free pass to exonerate one's own behavior and to freely judge others has been a highly popular lifestyle choice among the religious in this country. If that's not a fair assessment, you can blame the Religious Right and its supporters for providing this impression.

You're right that many of these failings among devout Christian office holders and figureheads to practice what they preach are personal failings that shouldn't necessarily translate to their political capacity. Bill Clinton was a womanizing cheater, but I don't factor that into my assessment's of his successes or failures as a politician. The problem with the Religious Right was that they utilized their appeals to traditional morality as the foundation to their supposed moral high ground which made them the superior legislators of law.

In reality, they were entirely campaigning on tribalism and pandered to the devout with fearmongering. They spoke of religious freedom and individual liberty, but their policies were exclusionary and adhered to the concept of public policy as a zero sum game. Either the Evangelicals would right the ship or America would descend into a nihilistic dystopia of unbounded hellfire, sin, and relentless persecution of Christians. There was no room for tolerance of those who wished to think or live outside the parameters set by their interpretation of scripture. Spreading the good news by words and "godly works" was replaced by enforcing it with a political cudgel and constraining by legal prescription. Sectarian gospel had to be acknowledged by the law as the common foundation that society adhered to; the binding force that held us all together.

This was the source of grievances for those whom were not included in the Religious Right's vision of America. Those on the political left didn't see these beseeching moralistic campaigns as noble acts of protecting one's belief system from harm, they saw it as persecutor's with greater political power justifying their persecution of others with less power. So when said pious figureheads would be continuously lacking in their own moral preachings, it was hardly surprising how intensely this generated bitter resentment. It was not merely the hypocrisy that drew so much ire from the left, it was that these standards they failed to uphold were also standards they wished to enforce on everyone else. When their elected officials slipped up, they were forgiven, but no forgiveness was granted to their political enemies that were "ruining" the country. Forgiveness was reserved for those who were wearing the correct team jersey in the game of religious politicking.

The coalescence behind Donald Trump has exposed how hollow the "moral politics" approach endorsed by the Religious Right truly was. While the legitimacy of their "preaching" methodology is likely severely reduced as a viable political tool, the antipluralistic, exclusionary nature of the politics they endorsed lives on in Trump's anti-multiculturalism, at least for now. I personally think both sides of the spectrum are missing the mark on how culture works. I find the anti-multiculturalists that fear perpetual and multiplying non-assimilated groups and unabashed cultural purists that decry "cultural appropriation" as equally foolish. Culture is a dynamic, living thing that is constantly reshaping itself based on the inputs it receives. Believing that one's culture is "under siege" from out-groups or that other cultures are being "corrupted" by the predominant one are understandable reactions, but they require a subscription to misguided binary thinking in order to uphold.

For the record, I think liberals have taken it a bit too far as well. I don't agree with the efforts to force Christian bakeries or flower shops or photographers to provide services to gay weddings or to mandate privately held religious organizations to provide contraceptives that go against the owner's beliefs. I also don't think these are necessary actions prescribed by liberalism; the left is ideologically supportive of pluralism, and while there are certainly some flashpoints that will continue to be hotly contested (like abortion), I see no reason why Evangelicals need be inherently excluded from a left-leaning vision of America. On the other hand, the politics of the Religious Right was inherently exclusionary on its foundation. I agree with Libertpaulian that Evangelicalism is likely to adopt a more "compassionate" phase in the near future ---especially if Donald Trump fails to actually achieve any of their goals--- and that discrimination of certain rights based on sexual orientation will be as frowned upon 30 years in the future among the religious as discrimination of certain rights based on race is now.

Granted, you claim not to fall under the label of Religious Right and your reasoning for generally supporting socially conservative candidates is understandable and acceptable. However, while I'm not so sure that most Christians necessarily invoke the concept of grace as a "license to willfully sin," I am wholly under the impression that many do emphasize the "Jesus as Savior" aspect as a platform to justify their treatment of others and to exempt themselves from introspection of their behavior. I consider this to be a product of the tribalistic identity politics the Religious Right inspired and that it corrupted the "forgiveness" ethos and reshaped it onto a framework of ingroup-outgroup dynamics. When religion dressed up as politics was transformed into a politics dressed up as religion, and social conservatives began taking greater cues from the Republican platform than they did from scripture, it became more important to reward possession of the correct labels than possession of the correct morals; it became more important to believe correctly than to demonstrate that belief through "good godly works."

That's been my perspective from the outside looking in. I'd be interested in hearing your perspective from the inside looking out.