Religious Right hypocrites cheer Trump at summit

[Fuzzy Bear]

There is no reason that the "Religious Right" shouldn't be pleased with Donald Trump.  The "Religious Right" is a POLITICAL movement.  They seek to bring public policy more in line with Biblical standards.

In that respect, Trump has delivered, possibly more than any President in my lifetime, on the issues pertinent the "Religious Right" in his first year in office.  The policy wins in this area are significant because (A) society, left and right, is more secularized now than in 1980, and (B) we are a far less "Christianized" society than we were in 1980.  "Religious Right" folks see Trump as a President that (A) doesn't try to dismiss them or blow them off, and (B) actually expends some political capital on behalf of their objectives.  Why shouldn't they be happy with Trump for those reasons?

I do think that Christians are wrong if they present Trump as a Godly example of a Christian man.  He's not been that.  Lots of Christians I know say that Trump is a 'baby Christian" who has recently been saved.  I see no evidence of Trump making the kind of confession of faith necessary for salvation; if he has, I've either missed it, or it's not been said publicly.  Christians compromise their testimony and obscure the Gospel when they do this.  But to call them hypocrites is ridiculous.  Some in the crowd may be, but what, then, do we say of feminist icons who have yet to criticize Bill Clinton? 

[Fuzzy Bear]

In that respect, Trump has delivered, possibly more than any President in my lifetime, on the issues pertinent the "Religious Right" in his first year in office. 

What wins has he delivered on?

Consider the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

None of this will make Trump a candidate for being a Pastor or get him into Heaven.  But he has done what he said he'll do, and many Republicans haven't done that, as far as Religious Conservatives go.

Trump also vigorously, and without apology, defends religious conservatives, not only against attacks of liberals, but attacks against other Republicans.  Trump may, or may not, be Saved, but he does, indeed, understand the real benefits all Americans derive from the Godly work of Christians and their churches in America.  He gets it that out there, millions of Christians are being Salt and Light, keeping America Good, in that it may deserve greatness.  In this, I unapoligetically support Trump.  It is not Christians that owe apologies to Secular America.

[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.

[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.

[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.

No, it's very much possible to accept the views of Christians and be skeptical of the influence they have on domestic policy. Frankly, it'd be extremely boring and I'd want to kill myself if everyone in the world was a "woke" latte liberal who wanted no restrictions at all on abortion and wanted to force small business owners to serve everyone (because frankly, if a closet self-loathing homosexual bakery owner doesn't want to serve his fellow gays a cake, that's his prerogative, and he should let the entire world know of his bitterness rather than being forced to serve a cake by the government). So, I WANT some people like Mike Pence and Ted Cruz in our legislative bodies. Just not running the country under their world view. Because who knows how many pregnant women who would otherwise elect to get an abortion would be throwing themselves down stair cases or taking out a pair of tweezers or coat hangers to get the job done if President Pence proclaimed America abortion-free with no exceptions.

It's your right to not want Mike Pences and Ted Cruzes in the majority.  But they have the right to be in the majority if their kind is elected.

The right to run for office implies the right to have your ideas prevail if enough like-minded folks are elected with you.  They can't vote to impose mandatory Church attendance, but they can vote to defund PP.  I dread a majority of Hillary Clintons and Barbara Boxers in any legislative body, but if that's what folks choose, well, they have the right to prevail.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't hate Christians; I am a Christian. I just don't see what's Christian in the least bit about what Trump has done. And yes, feminists who defend Bill Clinton over his philandering and sexual escapades are hypocrites - that's why I've always criticized him over his sexual behavior, even though I think he was a good president otherwise. But religious Christians who condone Trump's frankly hostile and frightening actions towards defenseless people are also hypocrites. "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." I'm no Catholic, but frankly this Pope has a better handle on Christian principles than the president.

Trump has supported public policy issues that are important to Christians.  That doesn't make him a Christian, let alone a mature Christian.  And, yes, many Christians are in error in presenting Trump as a Christian.  If he is saved, he has not made the kind of confession of faith necessary for salvation public, and for Christians to imply otherwise compromises the Gospel.

I'm not a big fan of the "Religious Right".  Many of them are some of the worst warmongers in Washington, DC.  They cause ordinary folks to wonder if Christians have become bloodthirsty.  Our Lord and Savior is, after all, the Prince of Peace, yet so many religious conservatives have never found an opportunity for war they could refuse.  And I will certainly agree that Donald Trump has act in un-Christian ways many times.  I don't hold him up as a role model on how to live for Christ.

But if Donald Trump is un-Christian, Hillary Clinton (and much of today's Left) is anti-Christian.  Hillary and her followers actually discussed a scheme to bring about a "Catholic Spring" where liberals would join the Catholic Church and seek to change its doctrines on a number of issues.  This is not Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the Cathedral Door at Wittenberg and it is not calling out racist Congregations in the Jim Crow South.  This is infiltrating the Church to manipulate it for political purposes.  

[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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump has supported public policy issues that are important to Christians.  That doesn't make him a Christian, let alone a mature Christian.  And, yes, many Christians are in error in presenting Trump as a Christian.  If he is saved, he has not made the kind of confession of faith necessary for salvation public, and for Christians to imply otherwise compromises the Gospel.

I'm not a big fan of the "Religious Right".  Many of them are some of the worst warmongers in Washington, DC.  They cause ordinary folks to wonder if Christians have become bloodthirsty.  Our Lord and Savior is, after all, the Prince of Peace, yet so many religious conservatives have never found an opportunity for war they could refuse.  And I will certainly agree that Donald Trump has act in un-Christian ways many times.  I don't hold him up as a role model on how to live for Christ.

But if Donald Trump is un-Christian, Hillary Clinton (and much of today's Left) is anti-Christian.  Hillary and her followers actually discussed a scheme to bring about a "Catholic Spring" where liberals would join the Catholic Church and seek to change its doctrines on a number of issues.  This is not Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the Cathedral Door at Wittenberg and it is not calling out racist Congregations in the Jim Crow South.  This is infiltrating the Church to manipulate it for political purposes. 

That comment was obviously a joke.  Hillary Clinton is clearly far more devout than Donald Trump is (assuming he's even a believer and not just appeasing conservative Christians the way Putin appeases the Orthodox Church) and said earlier this year she's considered joining the ministry.  Hardly "anti-Christian."

Why would liberals "infiltrate" the Catholic Church to push doctrinal change?  It's not like you get to vote.  That's not how the Catholic Church works.  That's why most progressive Christians are in mainline Protestant denominations.

A joke?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[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. 

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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.)

[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. 

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.