Religious Right hypocrites cheer Trump at summit

[Gustaf]

As I recall, Trump got his best numbers in the primaries from evangelicals who never go to church. That tells you a lot.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Fuzzy bear inadvertently summed up the problem that for so long the religious right treats persecution as not being able to force your religious views on everyone else

I don't understand this "force your religious views on everyone else" bit.  What does that mean?  Really, what constitutes "forcing your religious views on everyone else"?

Public policy is motivated by all sorts of forces.  Are you saying that public policy cannot be motivated by religious conviction, even when that public policy does not force one to attend one's church, worship one's God, financially support a religious denomination, etc?  Spell out the standard.  Because if you don't do that, what you're asserting is your imagined right to never be exposed to Christian doctrine and practice in any form.  Is that what you're asserting?  Clarify.

Defunding PP and other restrictions on abortion for one, the attempts through bs like the weddings cakes to still fight SSM, the butthurt over "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas" that Trump brought up. An God knows how many others

I could argue that taking taking the opposite side of these issues are attempts of folks who are, specifically, anti-Christian to force their anti-Christianity on folks.

Those issues are issues of public policy.  None of these issues force people to attend church, pay tithes or offerings, or even listen to Joel Osteen instead of elevator music while taking the elevator in Federal buildings. 

You resent Christians.  You don't wish their World View to succeed in the arena of public policy.  That's your right, and I don't have a problem with such sentiments.  But Christians advocating the above isn't forcing religion on anyone.  For you to say so is to say that Christians don't have the right to succeed in public policy fights because of what motivates them.  Christians have the same rights as anyone else for their views on public policy to prevail in the public debate and become law.

Well I'm Catholic actually so you can stick that. What we are taught on Sunday should only dictate how we act in our lifes not be forever on society as a whole especially one as religiously diverse as ours that also has a thing called seperation of church and state"

If what I am "taught on Sunday" shows me a Biblical basis that human life begins at conception, and I am a public official, should I advocate for partial birth abortion in the name of "separation of Church and State"?

Do religious motivations mean that my ideas are automatically disqualified from being incorporated into law or public policy?  Are only folks with secular motivations allowed to experience their ideas being incorporated into law or policy initiatives?  That's what you're actually saying, whether you realize it or not.

Yes that is what I am saying your religious beliefs shouldn't be the basis for policy that effets everyone of whom many wouldn't share those beliefs

Your belief (A) is not what the First Amendment calls for, (B) not what the Framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind, and (C) is an attempt to rob millions of religious Americans of effective political representation sub silentio. 

Not really your religious convictions can play a role in your policies but it can't be the whole point and since defunding PP and SSM outlawing is solely based on the bible them we have an issue. Also you clearly are ignoraing my whole point: in a pro-choice country you are not forced to have an abortion but in an pro-life country you are being forced to not have one

But if life is the most fundamental of rights, and if human life begins at conception (as I believe it does, logically and Biblically), a pro-choice country submits my fundamental rights to popular vote and the whims of others, does it not?

No one is "forced to not have an abortion". 

And there are secular arguments for being pro-life and defunding PP. 

Then don't di it in your own personal life! God why does this point keep not getting through to you that society shouldnt be forced to conform to your views on such a hot button issue?!

Well, then, let's repeal laws on theft and murder in general.  After all, they are motivated by the Ten Commandments.

Not a good idea, eh?

Abortion is the taking of a human life.  It is the taking of an unborn human's right to live.  Hot button?  Well yes; it involves matters more serious than just the impact on the budget.

[JA]

I have to take Fuzzy Bear's side in this argument. Not because I support making America a more Christian country or changing our laws to be more reflective of Christian values because I just don't. But there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional Christian position on the role of government, the way in which Christianity can or should be used to shape policy, and the way Christians are obliged to interact with their body politic.

Secular folks often can't see the forest for the trees. They focus on particular policies piece by piece, treating them as separate entities rather than as part of a whole. Secularists believe that their approach to government, which results in either a libertarian "hands-off" approach or a progressive social reform approach, means that individuals are free to do X or Y. A Christian, if they object to abortion, for example, is free not to have an abortion. So, what's the problem? The traditional Christian perspective, however, doesn't accept the worldview that the laws of society should be free of morality - or that they ever can be. Secularism is a unique worldview that shapes policy in its image just like Christianity. If secularism dominates policy, then it's at the expense of Christianity. For them, separation of church and states means that the state cannot establish a church, mandate attendance, require faith in any particular creed, or anything like that. However, Christianity is a worldview that can and should (in their eyes) shape the government since Christians should strive to propagate their faith and cultivate a more Christian, pious, and holy society whereby Christians may more easily live by their faith.

Telling a traditional Christian to restrict their faith to their homes, churches, and personal lives is expecting them to violate their faith by not spreading the gospel and to submit to an alternative worldview in the societal realm. Just as a secular person would say, "you're free to not use birth control or watch pornography," they'd say, "you're free to not attend church or believe in Jesus." The point is: both are complex worldviews that seek to apply their values to society and shape policies in accordance with their beliefs. They are, also, largely incompatible and have proven to ignite cultural conflict.

[7,052,770]

Most Catholic Democrats would support a "Catholic Spring," so it shouldn't be surprising that Catholics who worked for Hillary would too.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Most Catholic Democrats would support a "Catholic Spring," so it shouldn't be surprising that Catholics who worked for Hillary would too.

Many Catholic Democrats are Hispanics, and Hispanics from places other than Cuba.  I doubt that these Catholics are out of harmony with the Catholic Church's doctrines on the "hot button" social issues that provide the source of conflict between the Catholic Church and the Democratic Party.  The issue for me is that such a movement should be motivated by a belief that the Church is out of compliance with the Will of God, and not that the Church is out of sync with their own secular political agenda.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I have to take Fuzzy Bear's side in this argument. Not because I support making America a more Christian country or changing our laws to be more reflective of Christian values because I just don't. But there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional Christian position on the role of government, the way in which Christianity can or should be used to shape policy, and the way Christians are obliged to interact with their body politic.

Secular folks often can't see the forest for the trees. They focus on particular policies piece by piece, treating them as separate entities rather than as part of a whole. Secularists believe that their approach to government, which results in either a libertarian "hands-off" approach or a progressive social reform approach, means that individuals are free to do X or Y. A Christian, if they object to abortion, for example, is free not to have an abortion. So, what's the problem? The traditional Christian perspective, however, doesn't accept the worldview that the laws of society should be free of morality - or that they ever can be. Secularism is a unique worldview that shapes policy in its image just like Christianity. If secularism dominates policy, then it's at the expense of Christianity. For them, separation of church and states means that the state cannot establish a church, mandate attendance, require faith in any particular creed, or anything like that. However, Christianity is a worldview that can and should (in their eyes) shape the government since Christians should strive to propagate their faith and cultivate a more Christian, pious, and holy society whereby Christians may more easily live by their faith.

Telling a traditional Christian to restrict their faith to their homes, churches, and personal lives is expecting them to violate their faith by not spreading the gospel and to submit to an alternative worldview in the societal realm. Just as a secular person would say, "you're free to not use birth control or watch pornography," they'd say, "you're free to not attend church or believe in Jesus." The point is: both are complex worldviews that seek to apply their values to society and shape policies in accordance with their beliefs. They are, also, largely incompatible and have proven to ignite cultural conflict.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in saying this is how the religious right feels but then FB, Trump, and this summit turns around and freaks out over "sharia law"?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I have to take Fuzzy Bear's side in this argument. Not because I support making America a more Christian country or changing our laws to be more reflective of Christian values because I just don't. But there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional Christian position on the role of government, the way in which Christianity can or should be used to shape policy, and the way Christians are obliged to interact with their body politic.

Secular folks often can't see the forest for the trees. They focus on particular policies piece by piece, treating them as separate entities rather than as part of a whole. Secularists believe that their approach to government, which results in either a libertarian "hands-off" approach or a progressive social reform approach, means that individuals are free to do X or Y. A Christian, if they object to abortion, for example, is free not to have an abortion. So, what's the problem? The traditional Christian perspective, however, doesn't accept the worldview that the laws of society should be free of morality - or that they ever can be. Secularism is a unique worldview that shapes policy in its image just like Christianity. If secularism dominates policy, then it's at the expense of Christianity. For them, separation of church and states means that the state cannot establish a church, mandate attendance, require faith in any particular creed, or anything like that. However, Christianity is a worldview that can and should (in their eyes) shape the government since Christians should strive to propagate their faith and cultivate a more Christian, pious, and holy society whereby Christians may more easily live by their faith.

Telling a traditional Christian to restrict their faith to their homes, churches, and personal lives is expecting them to violate their faith by not spreading the gospel and to submit to an alternative worldview in the societal realm. Just as a secular person would say, "you're free to not use birth control or watch pornography," they'd say, "you're free to not attend church or believe in Jesus." The point is: both are complex worldviews that seek to apply their values to society and shape policies in accordance with their beliefs. They are, also, largely incompatible and have proven to ignite cultural conflict.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in saying this is how the religious right feels but then FB, Trump, and this summit turns around and freaks out over "sharia law"?

The logical conclusion of a Christian living out their beliefs is a very different thing than a Muslim advocating Sharia Law living out their beliefs.  Sharia Law is more than being influenced by one's belief's it's the advocacy of a theocracy that seeks to establish a Caliphate, and is in opposition to both the Bill of Rights and the Guaranty Clause of the Constitution.

There are some Christians who advocate a Christian theocracy.  They are NOT the "Religious Right", and even most of the Religious Right folks that people here find smarmy aren't down with that. 

[JA]

I have to take Fuzzy Bear's side in this argument. Not because I support making America a more Christian country or changing our laws to be more reflective of Christian values because I just don't. But there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional Christian position on the role of government, the way in which Christianity can or should be used to shape policy, and the way Christians are obliged to interact with their body politic.

Secular folks often can't see the forest for the trees. They focus on particular policies piece by piece, treating them as separate entities rather than as part of a whole. Secularists believe that their approach to government, which results in either a libertarian "hands-off" approach or a progressive social reform approach, means that individuals are free to do X or Y. A Christian, if they object to abortion, for example, is free not to have an abortion. So, what's the problem? The traditional Christian perspective, however, doesn't accept the worldview that the laws of society should be free of morality - or that they ever can be. Secularism is a unique worldview that shapes policy in its image just like Christianity. If secularism dominates policy, then it's at the expense of Christianity. For them, separation of church and states means that the state cannot establish a church, mandate attendance, require faith in any particular creed, or anything like that. However, Christianity is a worldview that can and should (in their eyes) shape the government since Christians should strive to propagate their faith and cultivate a more Christian, pious, and holy society whereby Christians may more easily live by their faith.

Telling a traditional Christian to restrict their faith to their homes, churches, and personal lives is expecting them to violate their faith by not spreading the gospel and to submit to an alternative worldview in the societal realm. Just as a secular person would say, "you're free to not use birth control or watch pornography," they'd say, "you're free to not attend church or believe in Jesus." The point is: both are complex worldviews that seek to apply their values to society and shape policies in accordance with their beliefs. They are, also, largely incompatible and have proven to ignite cultural conflict.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in saying this is how the religious right feels but then FB, Trump, and this summit turns around and freaks out over "sharia law"?

A traditional Christian would want to be governed by Shariah* about as much as a standard secular American would want to be governed by former Soviet Atheist laws. Just because they're both religious worldviews that inform their sense of community and shape their approach to society doesn't mean they're interchangeable. The Christian and Islamic worldviews are wholly distinct, just as Western Secular Humanism is distinct from Chinese Atheism. They only appear hypocritical to you because to you they're more similar than different; they're both, essentially, theocratic in nature. Whereas, to them, they're as different as the secular and Christian worldviews. Rather than seeing Secularism as on its own, you must see it as one among many worldviews that may shape the body politic and society, rather than limit it to secular versus religious.

*Shariah only applies to Muslims anyway. You can't apply Shariah to non-Muslims, so any fears of "encroaching Shariah" is absurd.

[136or142]

Religious people have a right to have their political views informed by their religion, but their right to do that ends when other people's rights begin.  This is true with anybody's political views.

[JA]

I have to take Fuzzy Bear's side in this argument. Not because I support making America a more Christian country or changing our laws to be more reflective of Christian values because I just don't. But there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional Christian position on the role of government, the way in which Christianity can or should be used to shape policy, and the way Christians are obliged to interact with their body politic.

Secular folks often can't see the forest for the trees. They focus on particular policies piece by piece, treating them as separate entities rather than as part of a whole. Secularists believe that their approach to government, which results in either a libertarian "hands-off" approach or a progressive social reform approach, means that individuals are free to do X or Y. A Christian, if they object to abortion, for example, is free not to have an abortion. So, what's the problem? The traditional Christian perspective, however, doesn't accept the worldview that the laws of society should be free of morality - or that they ever can be. Secularism is a unique worldview that shapes policy in its image just like Christianity. If secularism dominates policy, then it's at the expense of Christianity. For them, separation of church and states means that the state cannot establish a church, mandate attendance, require faith in any particular creed, or anything like that. However, Christianity is a worldview that can and should (in their eyes) shape the government since Christians should strive to propagate their faith and cultivate a more Christian, pious, and holy society whereby Christians may more easily live by their faith.

Telling a traditional Christian to restrict their faith to their homes, churches, and personal lives is expecting them to violate their faith by not spreading the gospel and to submit to an alternative worldview in the societal realm. Just as a secular person would say, "you're free to not use birth control or watch pornography," they'd say, "you're free to not attend church or believe in Jesus." The point is: both are complex worldviews that seek to apply their values to society and shape policies in accordance with their beliefs. They are, also, largely incompatible and have proven to ignite cultural conflict.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in saying this is how the religious right feels but then FB, Trump, and this summit turns around and freaks out over "sharia law"?

The logical conclusion of a Christian living out their beliefs is a very different thing than a Muslim advocating Sharia Law living out their beliefs. Sharia Law is more than being influenced by one's belief's it's the advocacy of a theocracy that seeks to establish a Caliphate, and is in opposition to both the Bill of Rights and the Guaranty Clause of the Constitution.

There are some Christians who advocate a Christian theocracy.  They are NOT the "Religious Right", and even most of the Religious Right folks that people here find smarmy aren't down with that. 

Except that Sharia pertains exclusively to Muslims and, to the extent that it applies to non-Muslims, it defines what relationships Muslims may have with them and how to treat them. Sharia is a set of rules by which Muslims are expected to live and govern themselves as individuals and a community. In legal jurisdictions where Islam is the historically dominant religion, yes, it shapes the laws, just as Christianity has done in the West. But there is nothing dictating that X or Y must be the form of government or that Sharia cannot be a voluntary individual or community system of self-governance. That is the approach typically adopted by devout Muslims in non-Muslim majority countries.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Religious people have a right to have their political views informed by their religion, but their right to do that ends when other people's rights begin.  This is true with anybody's political views.

This is only true to the extent of compelling church attendance, forcing religious practice, etc.

Seeking a ban on abortion is seeking a ban on a practice that ends a human life.  That argument can be logically made.  That folks would advocate this out of religious conviction is not a reason it cannot be enacted into law.

[136or142]

Religious people have a right to have their political views informed by their religion, but their right to do that ends when other people's rights begin.  This is true with anybody's political views.

This is only true to the extent of compelling church attendance, forcing religious practice, etc.

Seeking a ban on abortion is seeking a ban on a practice that ends a human life.  That argument can be logically made.  That folks would advocate this out of religious conviction is not a reason it cannot be enacted into law.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Religious people have a right to have their political views informed by their religion, but their right to do that ends when other people's rights begin.  This is true with anybody's political views.

Ding ding ding

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/355594-trump-joked-that-pence-wants-to-hang-all-gay-people-report

[Santander]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/355594-trump-joked-that-pence-wants-to-hang-all-gay-people-report

LOL

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I have to take Fuzzy Bear's side in this argument. Not because I support making America a more Christian country or changing our laws to be more reflective of Christian values because I just don't. But there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional Christian position on the role of government, the way in which Christianity can or should be used to shape policy, and the way Christians are obliged to interact with their body politic.

Secular folks often can't see the forest for the trees. They focus on particular policies piece by piece, treating them as separate entities rather than as part of a whole. Secularists believe that their approach to government, which results in either a libertarian "hands-off" approach or a progressive social reform approach, means that individuals are free to do X or Y. A Christian, if they object to abortion, for example, is free not to have an abortion. So, what's the problem? The traditional Christian perspective, however, doesn't accept the worldview that the laws of society should be free of morality - or that they ever can be. Secularism is a unique worldview that shapes policy in its image just like Christianity. If secularism dominates policy, then it's at the expense of Christianity. For them, separation of church and states means that the state cannot establish a church, mandate attendance, require faith in any particular creed, or anything like that. However, Christianity is a worldview that can and should (in their eyes) shape the government since Christians should strive to propagate their faith and cultivate a more Christian, pious, and holy society whereby Christians may more easily live by their faith.

Telling a traditional Christian to restrict their faith to their homes, churches, and personal lives is expecting them to violate their faith by not spreading the gospel and to submit to an alternative worldview in the societal realm. Just as a secular person would say, "you're free to not use birth control or watch pornography," they'd say, "you're free to not attend church or believe in Jesus." The point is: both are complex worldviews that seek to apply their values to society and shape policies in accordance with their beliefs. They are, also, largely incompatible and have proven to ignite cultural conflict.

I don't entirely disagree, but there is an irony that somebody called "Jacobin" is saying this.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Religious people have a right to have their political views informed by their religion, but their right to do that ends when other people's rights begin.  This is true with anybody's political views.

Ding ding ding

Rights are a social construct.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Religious people have a right to have their political views informed by their religion, but their right to do that ends when other people's rights begin.  This is true with anybody's political views.

Ding ding ding

Rights are a social construct.

I have a right, you have a right... everybody's always yammerin about their God damned rights...

You have privileges...and you only have them until the guy with a gun says you don't.

[MarkD]

Religious people have a right to have their political views informed by their religion, but their right to do that ends when other people's rights begin.  This is true with anybody's political views.

Ding ding ding

Rights are a social construct.

And oftentimes a legal construct.

[Beet]

But if life is the most fundamental of rights, and if human life begins at conception (as I believe it does, logically and Biblically), a pro-choice country submits my fundamental rights to popular vote and the whims of others, does it not?

First of all, it does not, because you are not going to be aborted, as you are a person, to whom rights apply. I agree that life is the most fundamental of rights, but rights apply to people, not to fetuses. The question is when personhood begins.

It cannot logically begin at conception. If so, then what of the 1/3 of all natural pregnancies which go through conception, but never implant onto the placenta? If these embryos were persons, then this would be the greatest tragedy in human history. Do you think then, that we should make sure that every embryo that is created successfully implants and is born? It is not logical because no one advocates this, despite the fact being well known to medical science for decades.

Biblically I have already pointed out that the Bible never mention the word "abortion", so how can it be "Biblically" prohibited? The last time I mentioned this, I was pointed to the apocrypha, but whether that represents a Christian view or not, the apocrypha is not the Bible. The Bible heavily hints that killing a fetus is not considered murder. There are many other statements in the Bible that are much more clear than abortion. For instance, the Bible clearly says that women should cover their heads in church. Yet you see no one following this. The reality is, most religious right preachers just make up things that align with the preexisting prejudices and then claim it's Biblical.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Why should laws be made on the basis of the Bible again?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Here's a primer on why it makes absolutely no sense for religious conservatives to support Trump:

1. He said in an interview that he doesn't need God to forgive him for anything.
2. He is full of pride, greed, and lust, which are three of the Seven Deadly Sins, and exploited hateful rhetoric as a candidate.
3. He is twice divorced and remarried, and his current wife has a long history of posing nude for pornographic magazines.
4. He made much of his fortunes from casinos.
5. He said several times in the Republican debates that Planned Parenthood does "great work" (which, incidentally, would have been political suicide for any of the other GOP candidates)
6. I'm probably forgetting something, but please feel free to add it.

If he had run as a Democrat, religious conservatives would have denounced him as a mortal threat to America by pointing to these facts, and quite possibly would have told their congregations that they would go to hell if they voted for him.  Jesus said that we could judge a tree by its fruits.  Does this sound like the kind of fruits of a true Christian?

Why should laws be made on the basis of the Bible again?

I don't know, ask Alabama's next Senator.

[uti2]

5. He said several times in the Republican debates that Planned Parenthood does "great work" (which, incidentally, would have been political suicide for any of the other GOP candidates)

Actually, that's part of the reason why he won the primary. He consistently won self-identified moderates throughout the primaries.

The fact that the other candidates weren't willing to do this, if anything, suggests that without Trump, there would've likely been a contested convention. A single candidate wouldn't been able to consolidate the moderate vote and combine it with a broad cross-section of conservatives/populists.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Here's a primer on why it makes absolutely no sense for religious conservatives to support Trump:

1. He said in an interview that he doesn't need God to forgive him for anything.
2. He is full of pride, greed, and lust, which are three of the Seven Deadly Sins, and exploited hateful rhetoric as a candidate.
3. He is twice divorced and remarried, and his current wife has a long history of posing nude for pornographic magazines.
4. He made much of his fortunes from casinos.
5. He said several times in the Republican debates that Planned Parenthood does "great work" (which, incidentally, would have been political suicide for any of the other GOP candidates)
6. I'm probably forgetting something, but please feel free to add it.

If he had run as a Democrat, religious conservatives would have denounced him as a mortal threat to America by pointing to these facts, and quite possibly would have told their congregations that they would go to hell if they voted for him.  Jesus said that we could judge a tree by its fruits.  Does this sound like the kind of fruits of a true Christian?

Why should laws be made on the basis of the Bible again?

I don't know, ask Alabama's next Senator.

I doubt Trump is Saved.  I also think it's a negative testimony for Christians to imply that he is some kind of "Baby Christian".  I can't imagine Trump taking correction from a Pastor, and I don't think it does the Body of Christ any good to gain favor with Trump at the expense of the Gospel.

That being said, the election of 2016 was, indeed, a binary choice.  Trump advocates policies that are more in line with the interests of Christians, and with Biblical morality (even if Trump is the furthest thing from Biblical morality ever to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue).  Trump, whom I doubt is Saved, does have respect for the Body of Christ and for religious folks.  Except for predominantly African-American denominations that feature "Souls to the Polls" get-out-the-vote efforts and liberal denominations that blatantly contradict Scripture (but adhere to secularist thinking on social issues), Hillary Clinton has nothing but contempt for the Body of Christ, viewing it as something that ought to be a Social Service program, but not try to exert influence on public morals.  (I should state that I have no problem with "Souls to the Polls" efforts, but I can just imagine what would happen if, for example, John Hagee's church did the same thing.)

[Statilius the Epicurean]

If he had run as a Democrat, religious conservatives would have denounced him as a mortal threat to America by pointing to these facts, and quite possibly would have told their congregations that they would go to hell if they voted for him.  Jesus said that we could judge a tree by its fruits.  Does this sound like the kind of fruits of a true Christian?

Hold on a second. Isn't this logic more-or-less criticising Christians for not voting as bigoted sectarians? You're saying that it's hypocritical for Christians to vote for non-Christians regardless of policy as they should only support Presidential candidates they believe are 'saved' by God. That's basically a religious test. To stay consistent, should evangelicals refuse to vote for Sanders in 2020 on the grounds that he's Jewish?

I think evangelical support for Trump should be celebrated by progressives as it shows how admirably non-religious and accepting of cultural liberalism (divorce, sexual liberation) American conservatives are, instead preferring a more wide-based, secular American nationalism. It should be proof, if anything, that liberalism won the culture war of the 90s and 00s.