The Religious Right and Trump's Victory

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

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.

I could comment extensively on this.  I do agree that Christians have compromised their witness with some of their more hamhanded forays into politics.  In supporting Trump, I would frequently point out that I wasn't asking anyone else to do so, and that I was not signing off on Trump as a "better Christian" than Hillary Clinton.  I don't think it's wrong to say that whatever their personal standing with God, Donald Trump represented and advanced a more "Christianized" point of view, whereas Hillary Clinton (or, at a minimum, many of her supporters) wishes to actively use public policy to diminish Christian influence in American society.

[Rob Bloom]

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.

Well, I don't know the specifics of Evangelical Christians. But for Christians in general, here are two important ISSUES:
I strongly believe that Jesus, being a messenger of peace and not of violence, would be strongly in favor of strict gun control.
And, as he himself healed the sick, I suspect he would not be in favour of repealing the Affordable Care Act, instead he would support transforming it into a single payer system.

For all I know, Pope Francis would agree with me. (Yeah, I know, he ain't no evangelical)

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

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.

Well, I don't know the specifics of Evangelical Christians. But for Christians in general, here are two important ISSUES:
I strongly believe that Jesus, being a messenger of peace and not of violence, would be strongly in favor of strict gun control.
And, as he himself healed the sick, I suspect he would not be in favour of repealing the Affordable Care Act, instead he would support transforming it into a single payer system.

For all I know, Pope Francis would agree with me. (Yeah, I know, he ain't no evangelical)

I have a tough time with Jesus being more concerned with gun control than with abortion, especially partial birth abortion.

[Rob Bloom]

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.

Well, I don't know the specifics of Evangelical Christians. But for Christians in general, here are two important ISSUES:
I strongly believe that Jesus, being a messenger of peace and not of violence, would be strongly in favor of strict gun control.
And, as he himself healed the sick, I suspect he would not be in favour of repealing the Affordable Care Act, instead he would support transforming it into a single payer system.

For all I know, Pope Francis would agree with me. (Yeah, I know, he ain't no evangelical)

I have a tough time with Jesus being more concerned with gun control than with abortion, especially partial birth abortion.

I didn't mention abortion. Of course I can understand being against abortion - and the death penalty, by the way -  from a Christian point of view. But that doesn't exclude endorsing common sense gun control. 

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

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.

Well, I don't know the specifics of Evangelical Christians. But for Christians in general, here are two important ISSUES:
I strongly believe that Jesus, being a messenger of peace and not of violence, would be strongly in favor of strict gun control.
And, as he himself healed the sick, I suspect he would not be in favour of repealing the Affordable Care Act, instead he would support transforming it into a single payer system.

For all I know, Pope Francis would agree with me. (Yeah, I know, he ain't no evangelical)

I have a tough time with Jesus being more concerned with gun control than with abortion, especially partial birth abortion.

I didn't mention abortion. Of course I can understand being against abortion - and the death penalty, by the way -  from a Christian point of view. But that doesn't exclude endorsing common sense gun control. 

There is debate in Christendom as to the Death Penalty.  I am on the side of those who view it as against the will of Jesus, Himself. 

Scripture does, very much, distinguish "innocent" life from all life.  The Fourth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." translates to "Thou shalt not murder.", and makes a clear distinction between the taking of innocent life and taking life in self-defense, or in carrying out the legally prescribed death penalty. 

[angus]

Saying "Trump's a Whoremonger!" may or may not be true, but even if he is, that doesn't impact public policy at all.

I agree with that, but Donald Trump has been divorced multiple times.  He has become rich by buying cheap, declaring bankruptcy, and letting others pay for his mistake.  He has created fraudulent educational programs to swindle people out of their money.  He used undocumented workers to build Trump Tower, then cheated them out of their money because he knew they would have no legal recourse. 

Not exactly the sort of history that might inspire one to think that he'll execute the law in a manner consistent with the gospels.  One might even say that camels fit through needle eyes more easily than Donald Trump fits through the Pearly Gates.

[Mike67]

As a Christian I was very surprised that Christians backed President Trump the way they did.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

As a Christian I was very surprised that Christians backed President Trump the way they did.

HRC's brand of christianity, Methodism, is very different from traditional christianity. Unlike many other denominations, it openly welcomes those who are personally pro-choice, gay, or transgender, its churches include female pastors, and believes there is no possible conflict between the creation story in genesis and the theory of evolution (While many other denominations conveniently avoid directly addressing creation in front of their congregation as a means of not alienating newer members of the faith, and there are certainly many within more traditional christianity who believe in an old earth (I am one of them), usually a church's statement of faith will hint at or specifically argue for a young earth view, or at least say that evolution is unproven. The Methodist Church fully accepts evolution.). For more traditional christians, while they typically maintain that these sorts of beliefs do not affect a person's salvation (and if I had to guess, I would say that HRC is saved, FTR, although I should note that that is between her and god and not my decision to make.), they truly believe that the methodist interpretation of the bible is misguided.

Now, as it turns out, Trump is not an obvious candidate for them either. The guy has been married several times, lies frequently, has flip-flopped on abortion several times, can't say the names of some books of the bible correctly, and apparently doesn't ask god for forgiveness. I actually am fairly confident that Trump will not make it to heaven. But he did say a few things that were right for them - he promised to appoint pro-life judges, he advocated for a smaller government, he promised to end ObamaCare, he promised to bring back the jobs that Obama could not, and he said he would pick his judges from a list of 22 conservative names that even agreed consisted of effective conservatives. Also, by being someone not from politics and someone who didn't care about being politically correct, he seemed like something truly new and someone that might take the country in a direction that it had never tried before. Effectively, the argument for Trump was "Yes, I know, he's done x, y, and z, but we know that we're getting a government of nominal christianity with Hillary. There's a place for traditional christians under Trump, he might do what we want on abortion, and he's so different from everyone else that he can't possibly be like Obama or Bush. What do we have to lose? Let's try it out!"

As far as why they didn't vote for Johnson, I can tell you from personal experience that many felt that even though his position on abortion is more nuanced than Hillary's, the fact that he was still pro-choice made people feel that they weren't getting something all that better than Hillary in terms of policy, and should "go bold" with Trump. Also, the fact that Johnson doesn't seem to really care about religion that much (He believes in god, but does not attend church or otherwise openly practice a religion), along with his past drug use and 73% agreement with Sanders, likely played a role.

I personally know many christians who went for McMullin so they could say they didn't cause an admittedly quite risky Trump Presidency, and to "stand on principle", but on a more national scale, most people outside of Utah and Idaho looked at his polling numbers and ballot access and decided it would just be a complete waste.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

As a Christian I was very surprised that Christians backed President Trump the way they did.

They didn't. Calling themselves Christians does not actually make them Christians.

If you think that people (using the term loosely) voting for Pussygrabber von Puppet were Christians, then you should also be very angry at the United States for destroying the noble and well-intentioned supporters of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

[Make My Bank Account Great Again]

A lot of people are justifiably upset at the evangelical base of the Republican Party for turning out in droves to vote for Trump; a man who by all accounts is the antithesis of good, moral, Christian behavior. However, I'm actually quite pleased that the zealotry and quackery of the religious right was toned down this time around because of Trump.

If Ted Cruz had been the nominee, dear God...he would've made this election a referendum on good Christian behavior. It would've been nauseating. At least Trump didn't turn the debates into a confession monologue from the 700 club.

I hope this trend continues.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

A lot of people are justifiably upset at the evangelical base of the Republican Party for turning out in droves to vote for Trump; a man who by all accounts is the antithesis of good, moral, Christian behavior. However, I'm actually quite pleased that the zealotry and quackery of the religious right was toned down this time around because of Trump.

If Ted Cruz had been the nominee, dear God...he would've made this election a referendum on good Christian behavior. It would've been nauseating. At least Trump didn't turn the debates into a confession monologue from the 700 club.

I hope this trend continues.

Take a look at Ohio.

What they fake-Christians of the so-called religious right are *doing* isn't changing. If anything it is getting *worse*.

The hypocrisy at the high-profile level is just a little more obvious, that's all.

[Make My Bank Account Great Again]

A lot of people are justifiably upset at the evangelical base of the Republican Party for turning out in droves to vote for Trump; a man who by all accounts is the antithesis of good, moral, Christian behavior. However, I'm actually quite pleased that the zealotry and quackery of the religious right was toned down this time around because of Trump.

If Ted Cruz had been the nominee, dear God...he would've made this election a referendum on good Christian behavior. It would've been nauseating. At least Trump didn't turn the debates into a confession monologue from the 700 club.

I hope this trend continues.

Take a look at Ohio.

What they fake-Christians of the so-called religious right are *doing* isn't changing. If anything it is getting *worse*.

The hypocrisy at the high-profile level is just a little more obvious, that's all.

I never expected it to vanish after one election cycle. That kind of thinking is silly at best.

The Supreme Court isn't gonna uphold their proposals in the short term. And the long term trends don't look pretty for them on these issues.

[angus]

I hope this trend continues.

I don't.  If you had asked me about this ten or twenty years ago I'd have said sure, I'm getting sick of politicians interjecting their religious beliefs into campaigns and anything is better than those who wear their religion on their sleeves, but now I have seen the alternative.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and their campaign styles, are disgusting.  One was crude and the other was insulting.  One is addicted to his mobile phone and the other is addicted to platitudes and overconfidence.  This election was probably the most peurile I've seen.  As much as I am loathe to say it, I would prefer the holier-than-thou types to the low-brow campaigns that these two narcissistic individuals waged.

[Make My Bank Account Great Again]

I hope this trend continues.

I don't.  If you had asked me about this ten or twenty years ago I'd have said sure, I'm getting sick of politicians interjecting their religious beliefs into campaigns and anything is better than those who wear their religion on their sleeves, but now I have seen the alternative.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and their campaign styles, are disgusting.  One was crude and the other was insulting.  One is addicted to his mobile phone and the other is addicted to platitudes and overconfidence.  This election was probably the most peurile I've seen.  As much as I am loathe to say it, I would prefer the holier-than-thou types to the low-brow campaigns that these two narcissistic individuals waged.

I see it differently.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump despise each other. If they had ran their campaigns under the pretense that they were forced to be civil with one another out of obligation then it would've come across as a complete lie. Nobody would've believed it. If either of them tried to out Jesus each other it would've been nasuating; at least to me it would have. Being nice to eachothers face or to the other when speaking in front of a public audience while simultaneously hating one another would've been exposed right away. Not sure how many people would've preferred watching that.

Sanders and Trump redefined how a politician speaks in a lot of ways. The fake rhythm and cadence, the timed pauses, the right inflection at certain points in their speech, etc. All of these tactics were thrown out the window by these two. Watching Ted Cruz speak then hearing it switch over to Trump was a breathe of fresh air. Cruz just reeked of slime and a used car salesman demeanor that drove me nuts.

If I had to pick between Ted Cruz/Romney/Hillary style of campaigning and speaking vs the Trump/Sanders way, then I would prefer the latter. One is cruel and honest about it; while the other is a lie that everyone can see.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

As a Christian I was very surprised that Christians backed President Trump the way they did.

They didn't. Calling themselves Christians does not actually make them Christians.

If you think that people (using the term loosely) voting for Pussygrabber von Puppet were Christians, then you should also be very angry at the United States for destroying the noble and well-intentioned supporters of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Then, again (A) you're not a Christian, and (B) you have expressed your contempt for Evangelical Christians in more than one post.

You have a right to post whatever you want.  You don't have a right to experience credibility, and you deserve none in terms of this post.  I doubt you know what a Christian is.

I will say this:  Lots of folks have different ideas as to who Jesus Christ was, is, and forever will be.  Not all of those ideas lead to Salvation by Grace.  Belief in some of them leads to Eternal Separation from God and the Lake of Fire.  Who Jesus was, is, and forever will be is a question, the answer to which has Eternal Consequences

[angus]

If they had ran their campaigns under the pretense that they were forced to be civil with one another out of obligation then it would've come across as a complete lie. Nobody would've believed it.

That's a good point, so let's take it from there.  You prefer a lie that no one recognizes to a lie that everyone recognizes?  I ask because that's what we have with Donald Trump.  He made all sorts of outrageous campaign promises that (fortunately) he will not keep, and probably never intended to keep.  He promised to be a new kind of Republican for a new era.  He promised to build walls and export millions.  He promised to take legal action against Hillary Clinton.  He promised protectionism and isolationism.  He promised to make America great again.  I'm glad that he won't keep those promises, but I wonder if his supporters are glad?  He is simply padding his executive branch seats with campaign donors who will collect salaries and do nothing.  Moreover, he intends to let the traditional elements of the GOP pursue a traditional GOP agenda.

If you give me a choice between lies that people can smell and lies that people can't smell, I would prefer the former to the latter.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I hope this trend continues.

I don't.  If you had asked me about this ten or twenty years ago I'd have said sure, I'm getting sick of politicians interjecting their religious beliefs into campaigns and anything is better than those who wear their religion on their sleeves, but now I have seen the alternative.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and their campaign styles, are disgusting.  One was crude and the other was insulting.  One is addicted to his mobile phone and the other is addicted to platitudes and overconfidence.  This election was probably the most peurile I've seen.  As much as I am loathe to say it, I would prefer the holier-than-thou types to the low-brow campaigns that these two narcissistic individuals waged.

I see it differently.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump despise each other. If they had ran their campaigns under the pretense that they were forced to be civil with one another out of obligation then it would've come across as a complete lie. Nobody would've believed it. If either of them tried to out Jesus each other it would've been nasuating; at least to me it would have. Being nice to eachothers face or to the other when speaking in front of a public audience while simultaneously hating one another would've been exposed right away. Not sure how many people would've preferred watching that.

Sanders and Trump redefined how a politician speaks in a lot of ways. The fake rhythm and cadence, the timed pauses, the right inflection at certain points in their speech, etc. All of these tactics were thrown out the window by these two. Watching Ted Cruz speak then hearing it switch over to Trump was a breathe of fresh air. Cruz just reeked of slime and a used car salesman demeanor that drove me nuts.

If I had to pick between Ted Cruz/Romney/Hillary style of campaigning and speaking vs the Trump/Sanders way, then I would prefer the latter. One is cruel and honest about it; while the other is a lie that everyone can see.

I agree with most of this.  Possibly all of this.

I've said this before, but the backdrop to this election is that millions of Americans have been screwed over and their lives destroyed by folks with a civil tone, good manners, and clean language.  And a good many of the people doing the screwing are folks who are quick to cut people off when they express their anger, suggest that it's "not constructive to blame others" and suggest that everyone "move on".

Trump and Sanders were "blamers".  They were folks that called the well-mannered screwors out.  Hillary, on the other hand, called a huge swath of the American people out, calling them "deplorable" and members of the "Alt Right".  Not too swift, eh?  In some ways, it's amazing that she beat Sanders in the primary.