What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Evangelical support of Trump (1 Viewer)

adonis

Footballguy
I don't understand it.  

Trump is one of the least moral folks we've had as president in some time.  He's an incredible hypocrite, he treats people terrible, he's a horrible role model, his treatment of women is atrocious, he has cheated on his spouses repeatedly, he's ignorant of religion, yet he has their full support.

What in the world is going on here?

Has the evangelical world sold their souls, compromising on the longstanding stance that a moral leader is important, in order to get conservative policies passed?

 
I don't understand it.  

Trump is one of the least moral folks we've had as president in some time.  He's an incredible hypocrite, he treats people terrible, he's a horrible role model, his treatment of women is atrocious, he has cheated on his spouses repeatedly, he's ignorant of religion, yet he has their full support.

What in the world is going on here?

Has the evangelical world sold their souls, compromising on the longstanding stance that a moral leader is important, in order to get conservative policies passed?
Even as bad as he is...they are under the notion that any democrat would be worse.

 
Even as bad as he is...they are under the notion that any democrat would be worse.
It's odd, because the bible is pretty full of leaders who have turned their backs on God and how the people have paid for it.  Evangelicals for years have lauded the importance of morality in our nations leaders, yet with Trump they give him a pass on the worst package of behavior I've ever seen in a public figure who wasn't a killer.

I mean, Trump at almost every conceivable level is the opposite of a moral leader, that the only thing the evangelicals can really care about is conservative policy...which means to them, politics comes before religion, which can't be right.

 
Franklin Graham was on MSNBC this morning and asked this question. At first he tried to claim that none of the accusations against Trump have been proven. Then he went on to argue how good Trump has been for religious liberties, the pro-life movement, etc. I have also heard Dennis Prager (a religious Jewish ally of the evangelicals) compare Trump to King David: weak and flawed, but an instrument of God. 

However, I strongly suspect that all of these reasons are superficial. The real answer is much more basic: Trump pisses off the godless. Trump consistently angers everybody the Christian Right despises. So naturally they love him. 

 
Franklin Graham was on MSNBC this morning and asked this question.
This topic has been rattling around in my head for a while, but this interview was what caused me to ask the question here.

I just don't get it.  The only way a moral person can be happy with Trump as president is if they care less about the moral character of the president than they do about the politics.  This runs counter to decades of rhetoric from this camp...how can they so easily turn their back on morality when it's politically expedient and not be branded blatant hypocrites?

 
Franklin Graham was on MSNBC this morning and asked this question. At first he tried to claim that none of the accusations against Trump have been proven. Then he went on to argue how good Trump has been for religious liberties, the pro-life movement, etc. I have also heard Dennis Prager (a religious Jewish ally of the evangelicals) compare Trump to King David: weak and flawed, but an instrument of God. 

However, I strongly suspect that all of these reasons are superficial. The real answer is much more basic: Trump pisses off the godless. Trump consistently angers everybody the Christian Right despises. So naturally they love him
I totally disagree. The "Christian Right," as it were, has made a devil's bargain. They're looking at Supreme Court justices and court appointees. They're savvier and smarter than just being reflexive. If Sotomayor were to have passed the other night, it would be a much different Court, a much different country.  

 
This topic has been rattling around in my head for a while, but this interview was what caused me to ask the question here.

I just don't get it.  The only way a moral person can be happy with Trump as president is if they care less about the moral character of the president than they do about the politics.  This runs counter to decades of rhetoric from this camp...how can they so easily turn their back on morality when it's politically expedient and not be branded blatant hypocrites?
Because evangelics are about ends (conversion) and not about means, necessarily?

Often throughout history that's proven to be true.   

 
Because evangelics are about ends (conversion) and not about means, necessarily?

Often throughout history that's proven to be true.   
I think this is likely true, but for these folks to convince themselves that having an incredibly immoral person as president is OK and actually good, is just the height of hypocrisy based on the last several decades of rhetoric from this camp.

I'm looking for other explanations though.

 
I don't understand it.  

Trump is one of the least moral folks we've had as president in some time.  He's an incredible hypocrite, he treats people terrible, he's a horrible role model, his treatment of women is atrocious, he has cheated on his spouses repeatedly, he's ignorant of religion, yet he has their full support.

What in the world is going on here?
2-party politics.  I’ll die on this hill.

 
2-party politics.  I’ll die on this hill.
Evangelicals aren't a party though.  They're supposedly a religious grouping.  I think they, like Republicans, have lost their way.

Republicans have become party over country.  Evangelics have become party over morality.

It's unbelievable the pull that "party" has had lately.  Propaganda from Fox News and talk radio and the darker spots on the internet, I believe, are to blame for this appropriation of previously meaningful identities, now subsumed by "party", which is the GOP.

 
Evangelicals aren't a party though.  They're supposedly a religious grouping.  I think they, like Republicans, have lost their way.

Republicans have become party over country.  Evangelics have become party over morality.

It's unbelievable the pull that "party" has had lately.  Propaganda from Fox News and talk radio and the darker spots on the internet, I believe, are to blame for this appropriation of previously meaningful identities, now subsumed by "party", which is the GOP.
I think you could go back to LBJ for Democrats and wonder the same thing as your last sentence. 

 
Evangelicals aren't a party though.  They're supposedly a religious grouping.  I think they, like Republicans, have lost their way.

Republicans have become party over country.  Evangelics have become party over morality.

It's unbelievable the pull that "party" has had lately.  Propaganda from Fox News and talk radio and the darker spots on the internet, I believe, are to blame for this appropriation of previously meaningful identities, now subsumed by "party", which is the GOP.
My point is a lot of evangelicals associate with the Republican Party and they are more interested in Republicans winning than anything else when it comes to politics.  This really isn’t that hard: Republicans == good guys and Democrats == bad guys.  Any other explanation (for me) is just making it more complex than needed.  We still live in a society where most people can’t name their Senators, they have no ####### clue what is going on.  It’s a game and they want their team to win.

 
I think you could go back to LBJ for Democrats and wonder the same thing as your last sentence. 
Democrats have their flaws, but I don't sense the same party over country vibe from them as I get from republicans.  For decades, Republican unity has been more akin to religious unity, where you have orthodoxy, and the heretics are run out by the priests of the party.

Democratic unity has been an oxymoron for a while, and is a big part of why their unity yesterday was atypical.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep, I'm sure they don't love Trump right now but I guarantee you they would change their vote now if they could go back in time.  Supreme court was huge.  Hillary was worse.  Sorry

 
Evangelicals aren't a party though.  They're supposedly a religious grouping.  I think they, like Republicans, have lost their way.

Republicans have become party over country.  Evangelics have become party over morality.

It's unbelievable the pull that "party" has had lately.  Propaganda from Fox News and talk radio and the darker spots on the internet, I believe, are to blame for this appropriation of previously meaningful identities, now subsumed by "party", which is the GOP.
My point is a lot of evangelicals associate with the Republican Party and they are more interested in Republicans winning than anything else when it comes to politics.  This really isn’t that hard: Republicans == good guys and Democrats == bad guys.  Any other explanation (for me) is just making it more complex than needed.  We still live in a society where most people can’t name their Senators, they have no ####### clue what is going on.  It’s a game and they want their team to win.
Human hypocrisy and lack of shame when it's called out will never cease to amaze me, although it really should given how many examples I've seen over my lifetime.

For folks who say morality in public leaders, a christian leader with christian values, is paramount...to wholeheartedly adopt Trump, is just the height of moral hypocrisy.  It's moral expediency, and for anyone who seriously considers themselves to be religious, should be something they are ashamed of in themselves.  When you set aside your morality, values, or standards in order to get the end result you want...well, your religion/morality/values then become no better than political frameworks.

 
Yep, I'm sure they don't love Trump right now but I guarantee you they would change their vote now if they could go back in time.  Supreme court was huge.  Hillary was worse.  Sorry
Hillary was clearly more moral than Trump.  Like, it's not even close.

In a moral race between Hillary and Trump, it'd be like Usain Bolt vs a toddler.

If morality was paramount, the clear choice would be Hillary.  If politics were paramount, the clear choice is Trump.  Evangelicals made their decision.

And frankly, I'd have more respect for them if they said "Man, I had no idea how depraved he was and had I known, I would've voted for someone else even though I'm happy we got the supreme court pick."

 
Hillary was clearly more moral than Trump.  Like, it's not even close.

In a moral race between Hillary and Trump, it'd be like Usain Bolt vs a toddler.

If morality was paramount, the clear choice would be Hillary.  If politics were paramount, the clear choice is Trump.  Evangelicals made their decision.

And frankly, I'd have more respect for them if they said "Man, I had no idea how depraved he was and had I known, I would've voted for someone else even though I'm happy we got the supreme court pick."
Don’t wanna speak for the entire demographic here, but in my experience, a “moral politician” to evangelicals pretty much boils down to “a politician who opposes abortion.” Which means  Trump was (and still is) the more moral option to them.

 
Don’t wanna speak for the entire demographic here, but in my experience, a “moral politician” to evangelicals pretty much boils down to “a politician who opposes abortion.” Which means  Trump was (and still is) the more moral option to them.
You forgot another one...can’t get too cozy with the homosexuals.

 
Don’t wanna speak for the entire demographic here, but in my experience, a “moral politician” to evangelicals pretty much boils down to “a politician who opposes abortion.” Which means  Trump was (and still is) the more moral option to them.
I was kicking around an argument in my head that's not quite compelling but it goes something like this:

If evangelicals are willing to trade off their requirements for a moral leader, a christian leader, a good example in the presidency in order to get a Supreme Court Justice and someone who opposes abortion (today at least), then this is basically accepting immorality for some greater reason that could be considered moral.

Why not take it another step in that abortion is immoral, but it has been shown that as abortion rates have climbed, the number of people born into poverty has declined, causing a decline in violent crime, murders, rapes, sexual assaults, and other crimes that are often committed by kids born into families where they're unwanted.

So what's the difference between folks accepting an immoral president in order to achieve moral ends, and folks accepting something like abortion in order to achieve moral ends?

 
"Evangelical" is more of a cultural/political term than a theological term these days. 80% of them voted for a guy who goes against just about everything that Jesus stood for. In my experience few of them are particularly knowledgeable about their faith - usually the curious ones end up outside of evangelicalism - and they've simply allowed themselves to believe that the God of the Bible is someone who agrees with them on every issue. 

Being quite blunt, they're the dumbest Christians. 
this x 10000000

 
Evangelicals almost sent a pedophile to the senate. They don't care about character. 

This is all just a by-product of a 2 party system. Republicans are the party of the religious whack jobs. 

Just like the democrats are the party of the gender fluid/sapsiosexual/pansexual/whatever sexual camp. 

 
Many are con men just like Trump, who should stop evangelizing because they've proven their beliefs are built on sand. 
While I think there are hucksters on both sides of the aisle, likely fairly proportional, I think the bigger issue is that you think that there are many people who are acting deviously

More politics needs to be viewed under Hanlon's razor in my opinion. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

 
This is all just a by-product of a 2 party system. Republicans are the party of the religious whack jobs.
The two-party system has been around for hundreds of years. Religious whack jobs used to occupy both sides of the aisle.

Roe v. Wade changed all that.

 
I don't understand it.  

Trump is one of the least moral folks we've had as president in some time.  He's an incredible hypocrite, he treats people terrible, he's a horrible role model, his treatment of women is atrocious, he has cheated on his spouses repeatedly, he's ignorant of religion, yet he has their full support.

What in the world is going on here?

Has the evangelical world sold their souls, compromising on the longstanding stance that a moral leader is important, in order to get conservative policies passed?
I think it tells you more about the underlying morality (or sheer lack thereof) of those who subscribe to such beliefs than anything else.

 
If only there was something that both sides could agree on, like trying to reduce the number of abortions.  oh well.
Abortions always go down under democratic presidents. 

The abortion rate went down significantly under Clinton & Obama. 

Funny how that works.

 
Abortions always go down under democratic presidents. 

The abortion rate went down significantly under Clinton & Obama. 

Funny how that works.
The old adage works: abortions for some, miniature American flags for others. 

 
The two-party system has been around for hundreds of years. Religious whack jobs used to occupy both sides of the aisle.

Roe v. Wade changed all that.
The rise of the religious right can absolutely be attributed to Roe v Wade. They really gained traction during the Reagan years. Barry Goldwater hated that republicans let religious fanatics infect the party and said he wanted nothing to do with what conservatism had become.  

Roe v Wade wasn't even a split decision, it was like 7-2 I believe. Surely there was more than 2 conservative justices at that point, right? 

 
Roe v Wade wasn't even a split decision, it was like 7-2 I believe. Surely there was more than 2 conservative justices at that point, right? 
A 7-2 decision (which RvW was) is a split decision (not unanimous). You'd be more accurate stating the court wasn't deeply divided.

 
I think this is likely true, but for these folks to convince themselves that having an incredibly immoral person as president is OK and actually good, is just the height of hypocrisy based on the last several decades of rhetoric from this camp.

I'm looking for other explanations though.
This question came up in the early days of one of the Trump threads of i recall. I think there were different articles linked that offered explanations.

The one I seem to recall reading offered "authoritarianism appeal" as the main explanation for evangelical support. According to that it was the existence of an authoritarian thread that runs through evangelical culture that made Trump attractive to evangelicals. That's flimsy I guess. 

 
We need to get some solid reporting to find out how the evangelicals really feel. What’s Bernie Bernstein from the Washington Post up to these days? 

 
Matthias said:
They've been hypocrites for years. 
There are certain evangelical leaders that ate blatantly corrupt, but to call all evangelicals hypocrites is an unfair generalization that wouldn't be allowed on this board if it was made about almost any other group.

 
Matthias said:
They've been hypocrites for years. 
When you care more about electing Republicans than you do anything else in politics then it’s not hypocritical to vote or feel like they do.  Being a good Christian is secondary to a lot of these folks.

 
SNL did a quiz show sketch last night named “What Even Matters Anymore?”, a shot at Trump supporters continuing to support him despite Trumps flaunting his lack of ethics and values.  

After a run through of Trump highlights, the bonus round was contestants guessing what Trump could do in the future where he would actually face negative consequences from his base.

The guesses were:

”Trump Punches Pope” 

”Trump Cancels Olympics Because Flags Are ‘Gay’ “ 

“Sex Tape With Don Jr.” (Contestant: “because that checks a LOT of boxes”.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Matthias said:
He's already publicly insulted the Pope. And the Pope is fairly progressive. My guess is that his supporters would applaud him punching the pointiff. Even conservative Catholics would probably get behind it as feeling like they were being betrayed by the church, being led by a liberal.
Don’t bring us Catholics in this...us Catholic Dems still exist. :gang1:  

 
Don't disagree. I'll call them Christians, but they aren't very Christian. 
I’m sorry but this is really unfair. I hate the political hypocrisy of the Religious Right and I get your background and history with the church (and on many of your criticisms I agree). 

The 10 most selfless and giving and loving people I’ve known are Evangelical Christians. There are a lot of tremendous humans within this group. 

 
I am a Christian and steadfastly refused to vote for Trump or Hillary, not only because I disliked what they brought to the table, but also because I believe that no politician or party can fix this nation. And before anyone accuses me of wanting some type of theocracy, all I want is a nation where we are free to disagree on stuff, but that won't make us mortal enemies. We all need to be shown love. We all need Jesus, and it's disturbing just how many people are twisting His words around. He said to "Love your neighbor." No caveats, no exceptions, and no excuses. There are going to be a lot of surprised people at the Pearly Gates who suddenly find they're not on the admission list. 

 
What's the definition of "all?"
Then I think you mean to include non-Christians. If that’s true, why aren’t you in favor of a theocracy?

I don’t mean to be argumentative. I just have trouble reconciling this. Maybe I don’t understand your definition of “need”.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top