The Religious Right and Trump's Victory

[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.