Religious Right hypocrites cheer Trump at summit

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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.

Alternatively, it may just be proof that the evangelicals are now (and probably have always been) insincere and shallow, using their religion only an excuse for their own desires.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

Alternatively, it may just be proof that the evangelicals are now (and probably have always been) insincere and shallow, using their religion only an excuse for their own desires.

Insincere and shallow how?

I'm sure you can point out some TV preachers who've embarrassed themselves.  But how many actual "Evangelicals" do you know on a personal level?

I will tell you, unequivocally, that the underlined part of the above-quote is NOT true of the vast majority of folks that I know as my Brethren in Christ.  They (and I) are quite imperfect, but we ARE being perfected by God.  I can assure you that there is more self-denial amongst Christians than in today's secular America. 

[Brittain33]

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.

We're coming off of 30 years of these Republicans criticize Dem candidates for their personal lives and alleged personal sins, and encouraging Republican candidates to promote their own moral values and relationship with Christ. No one is imposing a religious test. We're just noting that they threw away thirty years of saying "personal values matter" when they swooned for Trump.

[pbrower2a]

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.

As a secular liberal I would have had problems on all but (5).  As for (6), grabbing women by the crotch without their consent is sexual assault (as grabbing someone by an arm could be assault, but not sexual in itself) and rape should there be penetration even by a fingernail. If you are a defense attorney, you do not want me on a rape case in which someone has grabbed a woman by the crotch and inserted so much as a fingernail (deliberately or recklessly) into her vagina without her consent.

I'll give you (7): he is a demagogue, and demagogues never get good results for the nation or a national subdivision in which they govern or for which they legislate. We Americans have generally rejected demagogues handily, and this time we did not reject Donald Trump enough.

I could accept an atheist or agnostic, but that said, an atheist or agnostic seeking my vote had better have some moral compass. The Seven Deadly Sins include not only greed, lust, and (hubristic) pride -- but also anger. People with a moral compass know enough to constrain these no matter what their religious heritage is or even if they have no religion.

Divorce and remarriage is permissible (Ronald Reagan) -- but Nancy Reagan didn't appear even in pin-up pictures.

I have visited a casino and found the array of slot machines utterly resistible. Considering that casino gambling is just about a pure rip-off... but I would also have trouble with a politician who made his income operating strip clubs or operating as a predatory lender.  I did invest an insurance payout in the stock market, but I chose to avoid investing in firearms, gambling, tobacco, and alcoholic beverages on ethical principles. Fossil fuels was OK even if I disliked the politics of the industry.

If Donald Trump had been running as President and got nominated on boilerplate liberal appeals, then I would have had to vote for the Republican opponent. I have a conscience.

Donald Trump: the Playboy philosophy meets Ayn Rand. How godless can one get?         

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

No, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of religious conservatives in voting for a candidate who was diametrically opposed to nearly everything they stand for, simply because he had an R next to his name.

[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.

As a secular liberal I would have had problems on all but (5).  As for (6), grabbing women by the crotch without their consent is sexual assault (as grabbing someone by an arm could be assault, but not sexual in itself) and rape should there be penetration even by a fingernail. If you are a defense attorney, you do not want me on a rape case in which someone has grabbed a woman by the crotch and inserted so much as a fingernail (deliberately or recklessly) into her vagina without her consent.

I'll give you (7): he is a demagogue, and demagogues never get good results for the nation or a national subdivision in which they govern or for which they legislate. We Americans have generally rejected demagogues handily, and this time we did not reject Donald Trump enough.

I could accept an atheist or agnostic, but that said, an atheist or agnostic seeking my vote had better have some moral compass. The Seven Deadly Sins include not only greed, lust, and (hubristic) pride -- but also anger. People with a moral compass know enough to constrain these no matter what their religious heritage is or even if they have no religion.

Divorce and remarriage is permissible (Ronald Reagan) -- but Nancy Reagan didn't appear even in pin-up pictures.      

Good work, I forgot wrath.

And Reagan was a different character.  He was very public, both as a candidate and as president, about his Christian faith, and his views were more or less in line with them on the issues they cared about.

If anything, Trump's misogyny helped him with religious conservatives, most of whom believe that women are scripturally inferior to men (even though the Bible says exactly the opposite) and that they are little more than sex objects, whose bodies are inherently sinful and should be covered as much as possible to prevent men from lusting after them.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

No, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of religious conservatives in voting for a candidate who was diametrically opposed to nearly everything they stand for, simply because he had an R next to his name.

I still don't get the "hypocritical" part.  To say that Donald Trump, the 2016 GOP Presidential Nominee "was diametrically opposed to nearly everything (Evangelicals) stand for" is, in public policy terms, just not true.  The stated positions Trump took in the campaign are far more in line with what Evangelicals would desire in a President than the positions Hillary Clinton would take.

To the degree that the 2016 Election was a binary choice, how would voting for Hillary, or voting for a third party candidate, thus aiding Hillary, been less hypocritical?  I'm not going to pretend that Trump is a Christian Role Model, but when presented with an unsavory binary choice that has consequences, Christians have to evaluate policy positions.  And the (R) by Trump's name is significant; the GOP has long advocated positions more amenable to conservative Christians, and if Trump were elected by those folks, he'd be accountable to them.

I voted for Trump in 2016.  I never told anyone else to do so, and I've never suggested Trump is a Christian.  I don't believe he is, and I'm not real impressed with his personal lifestyle.  I understand the Erick Erickson position of being without a candidate, and I do agree with him that the danger to the church comes from Christians compromising their testimony by presenting Trump as something he clearly is not.  But I would like someone to explain to me why deliberately taking action to cause Hillary Clinton's election is less "hypocritical" for an Evangelical Christian in this case.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

No, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of religious conservatives in voting for a candidate who was diametrically opposed to nearly everything they stand for, simply because he had an R next to his name.

I still don't get the "hypocritical" part.  To say that Donald Trump, the 2016 GOP Presidential Nominee "was diametrically opposed to nearly everything (Evangelicals) stand for" is, in public policy terms, just not true.  The stated positions Trump took in the campaign are far more in line with what Evangelicals would desire in a President than the positions Hillary Clinton would take.

To the degree that the 2016 Election was a binary choice, how would voting for Hillary, or voting for a third party candidate, thus aiding Hillary, been less hypocritical?  I'm not going to pretend that Trump is a Christian Role Model, but when presented with an unsavory binary choice that has consequences, Christians have to evaluate policy positions.  And the (R) by Trump's name is significant; the GOP has long advocated positions more amenable to conservative Christians, and if Trump were elected by those folks, he'd be accountable to them.

I voted for Trump in 2016.  I never told anyone else to do so, and I've never suggested Trump is a Christian.  I don't believe he is, and I'm not real impressed with his personal lifestyle.  I understand the Erick Erickson position of being without a candidate, and I do agree with him that the danger to the church comes from Christians compromising their testimony by presenting Trump as something he clearly is not.  But I would like someone to explain to me why deliberately taking action to cause Hillary Clinton's election is less "hypocritical" for an Evangelical Christian in this case.

Voting for Hillary certainly would have been more hypocritical, but it doesn't change the fact that religious conservatives blindly followed a man who never represented their values until he ran for president as a Republican.  In short, religious conservatives are yellow dog Republicans and thus the GOP needs to stop pandering to them.  Our party could nominate an ax murderer and religious conservatives would still vote for him/her, just because of the R next to the name.

There was never a binary choice between Trump and Clinton.  There were plenty of minor party candidates who received a significant share of the vote because both major party choices were so widely disliked.  (I even voted for one of them myself.)  Voting third party wouldn't have helped Hillary any more than it would've helped Trump.  It would have given 0 votes to both of them, and 1 vote to the candidate you chose.  That's why real "spoiler" effects are rare and are just a lazy excuse for people to delegitimize a president, senator, governor, etc. they don't like.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

No, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of religious conservatives in voting for a candidate who was diametrically opposed to nearly everything they stand for, simply because he had an R next to his name.

I still don't get the "hypocritical" part.  To say that Donald Trump, the 2016 GOP Presidential Nominee "was diametrically opposed to nearly everything (Evangelicals) stand for" is, in public policy terms, just not true.  The stated positions Trump took in the campaign are far more in line with what Evangelicals would desire in a President than the positions Hillary Clinton would take.

To the degree that the 2016 Election was a binary choice, how would voting for Hillary, or voting for a third party candidate, thus aiding Hillary, been less hypocritical?  I'm not going to pretend that Trump is a Christian Role Model, but when presented with an unsavory binary choice that has consequences, Christians have to evaluate policy positions.  And the (R) by Trump's name is significant; the GOP has long advocated positions more amenable to conservative Christians, and if Trump were elected by those folks, he'd be accountable to them.

I voted for Trump in 2016.  I never told anyone else to do so, and I've never suggested Trump is a Christian.  I don't believe he is, and I'm not real impressed with his personal lifestyle.  I understand the Erick Erickson position of being without a candidate, and I do agree with him that the danger to the church comes from Christians compromising their testimony by presenting Trump as something he clearly is not.  But I would like someone to explain to me why deliberately taking action to cause Hillary Clinton's election is less "hypocritical" for an Evangelical Christian in this case.

Voting for Hillary certainly would have been more hypocritical, but it doesn't change the fact that religious conservatives blindly followed a man who never represented their values until he ran for president as a Republican.  In short, religious conservatives are yellow dog Republicans and thus the GOP needs to stop pandering to them.  Our party could nominate an ax murderer and religious conservatives would still vote for him/her, just because of the R next to the name.

There was never a binary choice between Trump and Clinton.  There were plenty of minor party candidates who received a significant share of the vote because both major party choices were so widely disliked.  (I even voted for one of them myself.)  Voting third party wouldn't have helped Hillary any more than it would've helped Trump.  It would have given 0 votes to both of them, and 1 vote to the candidate you chose.  That's why real "spoiler" effects are rare and are just a lazy excuse for people to delegitimize a president, senator, governor, etc. they don't like.

Well, yes, religious conservatives ARE "Yellow Dog Republicans".  That is very true, and it begs the question as to why.

I do not consider myself a "religious conservative", and I am hardly a Yellow Dog Republican, but I must confess my belief that the Democratic Party has become progressively more hostile to Evangelical Christians over the years.  Evangelical Christians are being lumped in with the Alt-Right in the minds of the Progressive Movement, and that movement is becoming the mainstream of the Democratic Party. 

It is hard to vote for someone who you know loathes you.  If the choice were between, say, Barbara Boxer and David Duke or Richard Spencer, I'd do what I had to do and vote for Waters.  I'd fill up an entire bucket puke after the fact, but I'd do the right thing.  I would be voting for someone I KNOW loathes me, however; it's just that the damage the others could do would be far greater to the entire whole.

The Democrats send out messages all the time that Evangelicals are the enemy; they're all HPs, while Democrats are the FF party.  Evangelicals have gotten that message.  How did you expect they'd react?

[Sumner 1868]

Remember when evangelicals voted two-thirds for the divorced Hollywood elite over a peanut farmer who called himself "born-again" because Falwell denounced private school integration?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Remember when evangelicals voted two-thirds for the divorced Hollywood elite over a peanut farmer who called himself "born-again" because Falwell denounced private school integration?

I was a backslid Christian in 1980, and I utterly hated the Religious Right and the Moral Majority.  I was an activist Democrat back then and a heavy drinker (probably an early stage alcoholic by then).  I remember one time seeing Jerry Falwell on the news on the TV news while I was at a bar and I flew into a tirade of profanity against Falwell and his "Constipated Moral Fascists" who "just need to get laid".  (Oddly enough, I was a pro-life Democrat, but I didn't want these folks lecturing me about how I should live my life.)  I dropped a number of F-Bombs; it took my friends some kind persuasion to calm me down so I wouldn't get thrown out.

A few years later, in 1984, I sobered up.  While I was not a committed Christian, my Divine Deliverance from alcohol did bring me to drop my hostility toward religious folks, including Evangelicals.  I remember talking to such a man regularly; he was a decent man who ran a nursery, and we talked politics.  I asked him why he didn't vote for Carter and why he liked Reagan.  His answer was simple; he viewed Carter as wavering and wishy-washy, and he viewed Reagan as decisive, and while it is quite possible that Carter may have ended up having an exceptionally successful second term, Reagan WAS more decisive and he DID win the Cold War in our favor. 

The other thing my friend shared with me is that he believed that the Democrats were against school prayer, for abortion, and for all sorts of moral permissiveness that he believed would undermine the fabric of society.  He believed that God ordained the Family as the means by which man would carry on.  (Indeed, God ordained the Family long before He ordained the Church.)  And in terms of public policy, he was right; elected Democrats behaved as if they were responsible to the moral liberals that elected them, while elected Republicans (including religious phonies and posers) would, nonetheless, hold the line on moral issues, which were important to him, and to his brethren (who are now my brethren, praise God).  I find this quite rational.  Jimmy Carter, himself, was of two minds on abortion and still is today, but he was elected by pro-choicers and he governed as a pro-choicer, for the most part. 

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance"  (Psalms 33:12)  This does not command a Christian to vote Republican every time out, but a Christian ought to consider every vote he/she casts with this Scripture in mind. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Having said all of this, I would share this part of an essay by Erick Erickson:  Reconsidering My Opposition To Trump.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think he's wrong here.  I don't share his conclusion and don't regret my vote for Trump, but I do believe that Christians need not glorify Trump, nor should they gloss over Trump's sin as something less than it is.  There is nothing Trump has done that Evangelicals haven't made a big deal out of when a Democrat did it, and that's a flaw in one's testimony.  Scripture says that God is not a Respecter of Persons.  If so, he's not a Respecter of D's and R's either.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Remember when evangelicals voted two-thirds for the divorced Hollywood elite over a peanut farmer who called himself "born-again" because Falwell denounced private school integration?

In fairness, Reagan was a very committed and outspoken Christian who was pro-life and anti-gay marriage.  That's why religious conservatives voted for him.

[PragmaticPopulist]

Remember when evangelicals voted two-thirds for the divorced Hollywood elite over a peanut farmer who called himself "born-again" because Falwell denounced private school integration?

In fairness, Reagan was a very committed and outspoken Christian who was pro-life and anti-gay marriage.  That's why religious conservatives voted for him.

That's all they cared about following the rise of the Religious Right. Sad!

[pbrower2a]

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.

No, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of religious conservatives in voting for a candidate who was diametrically opposed to nearly everything they stand for, simply because he had an R next to his name.

I still don't get the "hypocritical" part.  To say that Donald Trump, the 2016 GOP Presidential Nominee "was diametrically opposed to nearly everything (Evangelicals) stand for" is, in public policy terms, just not true.  The stated positions Trump took in the campaign are far more in line with what Evangelicals would desire in a President than the positions Hillary Clinton would take.

I am appalled that anyone claiming to be a devout Christian could vote for someone who violates moral tenets of Christianity so blatantly as Donald Trump or Roy Moore. If one is to call oneself part of some moral majority, then at least vote for someone more moral than the rake.

Would Jesus have grabbed a woman by the crotch? Tried to date a 14-year-old girl? Made money as a crony capitalist?

If your shtick as a political candidate is that you are a devout, believing Christian, then maybe you had better act as a Christian. 
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not voting for the hypocrite is a choice. I'm not saying that it is a good idea to vote for an irreligious malefactor.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Grabbing women by their crotches is blatantly un-Christian. Getting rich through coruupt means isn't Christian.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

No, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of religious conservatives in voting for a candidate who was diametrically opposed to nearly everything they stand for, simply because he had an R next to his name.

I still don't get the "hypocritical" part.  To say that Donald Trump, the 2016 GOP Presidential Nominee "was diametrically opposed to nearly everything (Evangelicals) stand for" is, in public policy terms, just not true.  The stated positions Trump took in the campaign are far more in line with what Evangelicals would desire in a President than the positions Hillary Clinton would take.

I am appalled that anyone claiming to be a devout Christian could vote for someone who violates moral tenets of Christianity so blatantly as Donald Trump or Roy Moore. If one is to call oneself part of some moral majority, then at least vote for someone more moral than the rake.

Would Jesus have grabbed a woman by the crotch? Tried to date a 14-year-old girl? Made money as a crony capitalist?

If your shtick as a political candidate is that you are a devout, believing Christian, then maybe you had better act as a Christian. 
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not voting for the hypocrite is a choice. I'm not saying that it is a good idea to vote for an irreligious malefactor.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Grabbing women by their crotches is blatantly un-Christian. Getting rich through coruupt means isn't Christian.

And Partial Birth Abortion isn't un-Christian?

Partial Birth Abortion is infanticide.  We can argue, perhaps, about a month old fetus, but Partial Birth Abortion of a viable fetus is infanticide. 

[QAnonKelly]

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.

No, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of religious conservatives in voting for a candidate who was diametrically opposed to nearly everything they stand for, simply because he had an R next to his name.

I still don't get the "hypocritical" part.  To say that Donald Trump, the 2016 GOP Presidential Nominee "was diametrically opposed to nearly everything (Evangelicals) stand for" is, in public policy terms, just not true.  The stated positions Trump took in the campaign are far more in line with what Evangelicals would desire in a President than the positions Hillary Clinton would take.

I am appalled that anyone claiming to be a devout Christian could vote for someone who violates moral tenets of Christianity so blatantly as Donald Trump or Roy Moore. If one is to call oneself part of some moral majority, then at least vote for someone more moral than the rake.

Would Jesus have grabbed a woman by the crotch? Tried to date a 14-year-old girl? Made money as a crony capitalist?

If your shtick as a political candidate is that you are a devout, believing Christian, then maybe you had better act as a Christian.  
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not voting for the hypocrite is a choice. I'm not saying that it is a good idea to vote for an irreligious malefactor.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Grabbing women by their crotches is blatantly un-Christian. Getting rich through coruupt means isn't Christian.

And Partial Birth Abortion isn't un-Christian?

Partial Birth Abortion is infanticide.  We can argue, perhaps, about a month old fetus, but Partial Birth Abortion of a viable fetus is infanticide.  

“Partial birth abortion” isn’t a medical term and when the actual procedure is done it’s because it’s a medical necessity. Either the fetus isn’t viable or the mom will die in childbirth. It’s not something anyone wants to do. They also only account for .2% of all “abortions”