Evangelicals Are Supporting Trump Out of Fear, Not Faith

[Silverback]

I don’t understand how if Trump was such a horrible (albeit better than Clinton in some minds) choice he even made it to that point. Couldn’t Christians find someone better in the crowded Republican primary field? They had a hand in getting Trump to that point against 15(?) other candidates. Some who wouldn’t force supporters into knots defending. You may believe Trump was better than Clinton but do you really believe Trump was better than Cruz, Kasich, Walker, Carson, etc.?

The other canidates, many anyway, were seen as career polititions, corrupt, deceptive, two faced, who did not do enough to hold President Obama in line.

Donald Trump, was viewed differently (wrongly some would say in 2019) but he was supportive of Christianity...in a Constantine kind of way, in other words, supported christianity, but perhaps not fully converted himself, but in the end it furthered his political goals, and I think his motives were sincere.

 

[Albion]

You may believe Trump was better than Clinton but do you really believe Trump was better than Cruz, Kasich, Walker, Carson, etc.?

Not in theory, but he was a better campaigner, and that made a difference to many people. He also was not cowed by the sniping that was thrown at all the Republican candidates.

Walker folded his tent before he really could get going. Carson was a good man but a lackluster campaigner. Trump was a fighter and most people realized that the GOP had to get someone like that or suffer another of the half-hearted -- and losing -- campaigns that they had been treated to with McCain and Romney.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

{snip} The American evangelical church isn’t so weak that it needs Trump’s version of secular salvation. David French: Evangelicals Are Supporting Trump Out of Fear, Not Faith

That article states the state of affairs with the evangelical church with Trump. It's not the first time I saw this and saw this during the Bush presidency. A lot of evangelicals then I recalled believed that Bush was right to invade Iraq due to the belief Saddam having weapons of mass destruction and he harboured al terrorists who were part of 9/11. Here is the link to the evangelical support for Bush in the case for war in IraqLooking back at conservative evangelicals' support for the Iraq War | Faith | Dallas News

I saw the snap happen when Obama was elected.

I don't think it has anything to do with true Christian concerns.

I think it has to do with the WASP culture gang fearing the loss of territory to other culture groups.

Jesus is not their way of life, Jesus is just their gang sign.

According to recent studies, this fear stems from white people becoming the minority in America.

White fear of demographic change is a powerful psychological force

Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote

Fear of Becoming Minorities Sustains White Conservatism, Study Suggests

The studies demonstrate how some white people are very fearful of the recent demographics statistics that illustrate white people will eventually become the racial minority in the United States.

The US will become ‘minority white’ in 2045, Census projects

White Americans to become minority by 2044 thanks to ageing population

 

[Shiloh Raven]

It wouldn't be so bad if American evangelicals would do at least as much as some Republicans did: "Hold your nose and vote for Trump."

A few did, such as John Piper.

But more of them were like Franklin Graham, who had previously literally changed his own theology to support the Mormon Mitt Romney...which proved where his religion ranked with his politics.

It's too bad Franklin tarnished his father's legacy by endorsing Donald Trump. He seems to have a habit of compromising his personal Christian convictions to suit his political conservative agenda.

 

[mala]

Sure, but Weimar looked reasonably stable only a couple of years prior to that, so when Christians see the rapid movement of one of our major political parties in the direction of Socialism, they are not foolish to be worried about what may lie ahead, and perhaps not too far ahead.

Consider that until the 2016 election to be called a Socialist if you were a Democratic politician was shocking, extreme, and was sternly rejected. Yet in only several years some of the most active members of the Party in Congress are labelling themselves with that word and promoting it.

i keep seeing this false paradigm brought up a lot. the "christian" right in the states is really in love of the idea that it is the persecuted minority. when in reality the entire country has been and still is and more than likely will always be built to cater to them. you aren't the jewish minority in germany. you are the aryan majority. the very idea that they are not the group with almost all of the power is laughably stupid. the fact that one non-white (50% non-white) guy with a "funny" sounding name even got to be president sent the evangelicals into frothing fits, as if it was the end of the world.

 

[Albion]

i keep seeing this false paradigm brought up a lot. the "christian" right in the states is really in love of the idea that it is the persecuted minority. when in reality the entire country has been and still is and more than likely will always be built to cater to them. you aren't the jewish minority in germany. you are the aryan majority. the very idea that they are not the group with almost all of the power is laughably stupid. the fact that one non-white (50% non-white) guy with a "funny" sounding name even got to be president sent the evangelicals into frothing fits, as if it was the end of the world.

That's the reason I did not confine my answer to the Jewish people under persecution.

It happens to Christians, too, so for them to be wary in the face of ever-intrusive governments is more than sensible.

 

[mala]

That's the reason I did not confine my answer to the Jewish people under persecution.

It happens to Christians, too, so for them to be wary in the face of ever-intrusive governments is more than sensible.

in the west mostly it's just "christians" being mad that minorities are gaining the same rights that they have always enjoyed. there is little to no christian persecution going on in the the west.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

in the west mostly it's just "christians" being mad that minorities are gaining the same rights that they have always enjoyed. there is little to no christian persecution going on in the the west.

I don't think minorities having civil rights and equality is much of a pressing issue anymore. I think the pressing issue now for many Christians is LGBT people having civil rights and marriage equality.

 

[mala]

I don't think minorities having civil rights and equality is much of a pressing issue anymore. I think the pressing issue now for many Christians is LGBT people having civil rights and marriage equality.

I was including them as well when I used the term minority.

 

[RDKirk]

the fact that one non-white (50% non-white) guy with a "funny" sounding name even got to be president sent the evangelicals into frothing fits, as if it was the end of the world.

Oh, many of them actually pronounced it the end of the world. They named Obama the eschatological Antichrist.

 

[Willie T]

I imagine most Christians who voted for Trump just didn't want a godless baby murder in office. And Hillary has supported both those positions.

 

[Goonie]

I imagine most Christians who voted for Trump just didn't want a godless baby murder in office. And Hillary has supported both those positions.

So has Donald.

 

[Speedwell]

I imagine most Christians who voted for Trump just didn't want a godless baby murder in office. And Hillary has supported both those positions.

I see only one position described.

 

[Albion]

Yours is an important contribution to the discussion, Willie. For one thing, the popular pastime of questioning how Christians could possibly have supported Trump almost always wants to avoid taking any account of Hillary Clinton's negatives. Yet that is the nature of elections: this candidate instead of that candidate. We don't elect presidents by voting "yes" or "no" on one of them.

Then, for another, you are right that first among those negatives may well be her--and her party's--support for abortion even up to moments before birth. Who deserves to be challenged for opposing murder, anyway!? And who is more apt to make this a top concern at election time than a religious person??

 

[Willie T]

Craving wholesale abortion, I have come to expect from Democrats..... but this denial of having God mentioned in their platform was hard to believe, even as I watched it.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

So has Donald.

He was a Democrat for years before he starting pretending he's a conservative so he could pander to his conservative Christian voting base. He still supports abortion in cases of rape and incest, btw.

Trump shifted from pro-choice to pro-life only as he planned a presidential run

Trump supports abortion in cases of rape and incest, opposing Alabama’s new law

 

[Speedwell]

Craving wholesale abortion, I have come to expect from Democrats..... but this denial of having God mentioned in their platform was hard to believe, even as I watched it.

A little bit dishonest don't you think? Combining two resolutions, one mentioning God and the other a controversial proposal regarding Israel, into one vote and then interpreting the negative reaction as a denial of God?

 

[JackRT]

A fairly large block of my fellow Christians have what could be called an entitlement mentality. For a great many centuries we Christians have had things our own way and have controlled society to such an extent that we have been able to impose our own agenda without challenge. However, when minority groups started demanding and receiving rights that they had previously been denied, rights that Christians held all along, these same Christians felt threatened and some even claimed that they were being persecuted. Rights and freedoms are not part of a zero-sum game. Expanding them does not thereby reduce them for some other group. For example, extending marriage rights to homosexuals has not reduced the rights of heterosexuals in the slightest way. In reality Christians have lost no rights and are not threatened in any meaningful way. In Canada and the USA Christians are certainly not being persecuted.

 

[Willie T]

A fairly large block of my fellow Christians have what could be called an entitlement mentality. For a great many centuries we Christians have had things our own way and have controlled society to such an extent that we have been able to impose our own agenda without challenge. However, when minority groups started demanding and receiving rights that they had previously been denied, rights that Christians held all along, these same Christians felt threatened and some even claimed that they were being persecuted. Rights and freedoms are not part of a zero-sum game. Expanding them does not thereby reduce them for some other group. For example, extending marriage rights to homosexuals has not reduced the rights of heterosexuals in the slightest way. In reality Christians have lost no rights and are not threatened in any meaningful way. In Canada and the USA Christians are certainly not being persecuted.

I wonder if the people Lot left behind would have felt that way as they watched the rain of hail and fire? I think God was kind of making His point about which was to be followed, His law, or the desires of man. This has little to do with "Christians getting hurt", IMHO.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Yours is an important contribution to the discussion, Willie. For one thing, the popular pastime of questioning how Christians could possibly have supported Trump almost always wants to avoid taking any account of Hillary Clinton's negatives.

Who the heck are you talking to? Certainly nobody around here. Most folks I know and virtually everybody around here is pretty open about Hillary's flaws.

What really bewilders us is the double standard on certain things. Hillary's emails are bad; Trump's obstruction of justice is fine. Uranium One is bad; selling nuke parts to the Saudis is fine. Self-dealing with the Clinton Foundation is bad; self-dealing with the Trump Foundation and the office of the presidency itself is fine. "Deplorables" is bad; Trump's constant name-calling and sniping is fine. Benghazi is bad; supporting the blockade in Qatar is fine. Van Jones' 9/11 Truther comment is bad (to go back to Obama); Trump's rampant birtherism is fine.

If conservatives had just held their nose and voted for him, nobody would be confused. It's the double standards and incessant fawning over him following the election that makes everybody question your sincerity.