David French: "Evangelicals Are Supporting Trump Out of Fear, Not Faith" (4 Viewers)

[ericttspikes]

those who’ve enjoyed privilege will always see attempts at equality as oppression

and believe that their freedom will only happen when others are oppressed.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The weird thing to me is not that evangelicals supported Trump over Hillary in the general election. The weird thing to me is that they supported him over Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee et al. in the primary.

What was that all about?

 

[shader]

 u can’t be serious

Would Jesus vote for Trump?  Of course not.  Absurd to even imagine it.  The guy is morally repulsive and when you vote for someone, you are supporting that person.  It makes zero sense for an evangelical to support Trump. This isn’t hard

 

[shader]

The weird thing to me is not that evangelicals supported Trump over Hillary in the general election. The weird thing to me is that they supported him over Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee et al. in the primary.

What was that all about?

Id say that their politics are more important to them than their religion. But that’s just one opinion 

 

[Amused to Death]

School prayer

public invocations

abortion laws

contraception laws

God as mentioned in gov’t proceedings

censorship and community standards

etc., ad nauseum

So if think Christian prayer should be allowed in public schools, would you allow Muslim prayer? Would you allow a statue of Baphemet in a public school next to the Ten Commandments? Would you be sympathetic to a Jew being opposed to pictures of Jesus in public schools?

Just because one religion enjoyed preferential treatment for decades doesn't mean it was correct.

 

[Henry Ford]

The weird thing to me is not that evangelicals supported Trump over Hillary in the general election. The weird thing to me is that they supported him over Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee et al. in the primary.

What was that all about?

There is a hypothesis that evangelical Christians are particularly susceptible to authoritarian rulers - they crave the simplicity of someone who tells them exactly what to think and do and who is right.  That someone who says "X is true, Y is false, it is known" will garner support specifically from people who believe in an ironclad literal translation of the Bible as the inerrant and unchanging word of God.  In fact, since they all know that there are hundreds of different translations of the Bible even just into English, it is believed that the ability to believe that all of those are the inerrant and unchanging word of God makes them particularly susceptible to those who activate "feelings" over facts, and who tell them that people who claim to have proved the authoritarian wrong are just playing "semantic games" - you know, like the people who say that not all of those translations can be the accurate and unchanging word of God.

I suppose that hypothesis has some merit, though I don't imagine it's been studied very heavily.

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

There is a hypothesis that evangelical Christians are particularly susceptible to authoritarian rulers - they crave the simplicity of someone who tells them exactly what to think and do and who is right

Anecdotally....

this is spot on

 

[Henry Ford]

Anecdotally....

this is spot on

I've certainly seen examples.  Of course that doesn't mean it is a valid conclusion overall, but it seems plausible for at least some.

 

[Black Box]

As a Christian, I've been asked (told?) ad nauseam, to leave my faith at the door when entering the voting booth.

Maybe we are finally taking that advice.

 

[Henry Ford]

It's the reason slogans like "Build The Wall" and "Lock Her Up" resonated so well.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill."

Now, that obviously doesn't mean thou shalt not kill under any circumstances - but it's used to mean that when it's convenient (the evangelical abortion argument) and discarded as "obviously not what God meant" when it's inconvenient (war, death penalty, etc.)  "Build The Wall" doesn't literally mean build a wall if Trump can't make that happen - it means construct some limited amount of barrier/fencing, which he is making happen.  Unless Democrats just want to fund some limited barrier/fencing, and then why aren't you building the wall?!?

 

[Henry Ford]

As a Christian, I've been asked (told?) ad nauseam, to leave my faith at the door when entering the voting booth.

Maybe we are finally taking that advice.

Maybe.  Is that what you're doing? You're probably best equipped to explain what you're doing.

 

[Hawkeye21]

As a Christian, I've been asked (told?) ad nauseam, to leave my faith at the door when entering the voting booth.

Maybe we are finally taking that advice.

Seems to go against what religion is all about though.  What's the point of being a religious person if you're going to completely leave it as an afterthought when voting for the leader of your country?

 

[Black Box]

Two big reasons:

Gorsuch

Kavanaugh

But seriously, I think this is the answer.

But I do agree with French that backing Trump for any perceived short-term cultural gains is not worth selling out ones faith for.

 

[roadkill1292]

As a Christian, I've been asked (told?) ad nauseam, to leave my faith at the door when entering the voting booth.

Maybe we are finally taking that advice.

You didn't really leave your faith at the door if you voted for Donald Trump. But one of the things you did do was sacrifice the "character matters" argument in elections to come. 

 

[Black Box]

Maybe.  Is that what you're doing? You're probably best equipped to explain what you're doing.

No. I was being tongue in cheek.

 

[Henry Ford]

No. I was being tongue in cheek.

Oh.  So what's the actual explanation, do you think?

 

[Black Box]

Seems to go against what religion is all about though.  What's the point of being a religious person if you're going to completely leave it as an afterthought when voting for the leader of your country?

Agreed. My faith does influence what I do in the voting booth. It always has and always will. 

I just find it a bit rich that Jesus is waved about when convenient (be either side). That is all.

 

[Black Box]

You didn't really leave your faith at the door if you voted for Donald Trump. But one of the things you did do was sacrifice the "character matters" argument in elections to come. 

Sadly, I agree.

Character does and still will matter to me, but many others made that sacrifice.

 

[The Commish]

Right. And here’s a big one in recent years: “protecting” Christians from gay rights. For some reason or another there is a paranoid fear in certain parts of the country that a gay couple is going to try to force a Baptist church to perform gay marriages. 

Do you mean at a federal/legal level?  There are numerous "complaints" that have been filed within the various organizations in the past.  That's probably where the fear comes from, but you'd have to ask them that.

 

[Black Box]

Oh.  So what's the actual explanation, do you think?

The Supreme Court imo.

 

[roadkill1292]

Do you mean at a federal/legal level?  There are numerous "complaints" that have been filed within the various organizations in the past.  That's probably where the fear comes from, but you'd have to ask them that.

What does this mean? Or, maybe better, what kinds of complaints?

 

[The Commish]

It’s difficult to imagine how an “evangelical” would be a supporter of Trump.  This seems as good a reason as any, because logically it makes little sense.

Lesser of 2 evils.

This is an example of his question, not an answer to his question.  Was that the intent?

 

[Henry Ford]

The Supreme Court imo.

Is there some reason Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Lindsay Graham, etc wouldn't have appointed conservative justices?

 

[timschochet]

The weird thing to me is not that evangelicals supported Trump over Hillary in the general election. The weird thing to me is that they supported him over Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee et al. in the primary.

What was that all about?

Not at first. Don’t forget that Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucus. And when Trump won in New Hampshire it was mostly with non-evangelical conservative types. 

Huckabee was never really in it, but Cruz was the choice of social conservatives until after New Hampshire. After that it became the old adage: you go with the winner. 

 

[munga30]

Lesser of 2 evils. 

If you knew then what you know today, you're still voting Trump?

 

[timschochet]

Is there some reason Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Lindsay Graham, etc wouldn't have appointed conservative justices?

If you ask a social conservative I’m betting they would tell you “yes. The reason is they would have lost to Hillary.” 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

There is a hypothesis that evangelical Christians are particularly susceptible to authoritarian rulers - they crave the simplicity of someone who tells them exactly what to think and do and who is right.  That someone who says "X is true, Y is false, it is known" will garner support specifically from people who believe in an ironclad literal translation of the Bible as the inerrant and unchanging word of God.  In fact, since they all know that there are hundreds of different translations of the Bible even just into English, it is believed that the ability to believe that all of those are the inerrant and unchanging word of God makes them particularly susceptible to those who activate "feelings" over facts, and who tell them that people who claim to have proved the authoritarian wrong are just playing "semantic games" - you know, like the people who say that not all of those translations can be the accurate and unchanging word of God.

I suppose that hypothesis has some merit, though I don't imagine it's been studied very heavily.

Was at a funeral yesterday.  The Lutheran minister was running Numbers 6:24.  Now I attended Lutheran ceremonies occasionally as a young person with my grandfather, but more often, much, much more often Catholic ceremonies with my parents and grandmothers. I was expecting him to run with the Lord maketh his countenance to shine down upon us but found it nearly startling when all the Lord was beseeched to do was to make his face shine down upon us.  Not a major difference, but there it is.

 

[[scooter]]

The weird thing to me is not that evangelicals supported Trump over Hillary in the general election. The weird thing to me is that they supported him over Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee et al. in the primary.

What was that all about?

Not at first. Don’t forget that Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucus. And when Trump won in New Hampshire it was mostly with non-evangelical conservative types. 

Huckabee was never really in it, but Cruz was the choice of social conservatives until after New Hampshire. After that it became the old adage: you go with the winner. 

There is a grain of truth to this, but.......a poll from January 2016 showed that Trump had the support of 37% of evangelicals, compared to only 20% for Cruz.

 

[shader]

There is a hypothesis that evangelical Christians are particularly susceptible to authoritarian rulers - they crave the simplicity of someone who tells them exactly what to think and do and who is right.  That someone who says "X is true, Y is false, it is known" will garner support specifically from people who believe in an ironclad literal translation of the Bible as the inerrant and unchanging word of God.  In fact, since they all know that there are hundreds of different translations of the Bible even just into English, it is believed that the ability to believe that all of those are the inerrant and unchanging word of God makes them particularly susceptible to those who activate "feelings" over facts, and who tell them that people who claim to have proved the authoritarian wrong are just playing "semantic games" - you know, like the people who say that not all of those translations can be the accurate and unchanging word of God.

I suppose that hypothesis has some merit, though I don't imagine it's been studied very heavily.

Other than those that think the KJV is the literal word of God, most Christians I know understand that the Bible was originally written in different languages and that current translations into modern languages are man’s best attempts to put the original word of God into languages that modern man can understand

 

[The Commish]

Would Jesus vote for Trump?  Of course not.  Absurd to even imagine it.  The guy is morally repulsive and when you vote for someone, you are supporting that person.  It makes zero sense for an evangelical to support Trump. This isn’t hard

From a Christian perspective it makes total sense if we acknowledge how broken we are.  From a logic perspective, I agree 100%.  From a theological perspective, I can easily see how this happens.  This is probably discussion for another thread though.

 

[The Commish]

What does this mean? Or, maybe better, what kinds of complaints?

Example from 2014

Essentially, members of most church organizations have a process they can go through if they want to attempt to challenge the "rules" of their governing body.  Many have used this process to try and get the churches to change their minds....most won't even acknowledge it, but when they begin the process, the word gets out pretty quickly throughout the denomination they are a part of.

 

[Henry Ford]

Was at a funeral yesterday.  The Lutheran minister was running Numbers 6:24.  Now I attended Lutheran ceremonies occasionally as a young person with my grandfather, but more often, much, much more often Catholic ceremonies with my parents and grandmothers. I was expecting him to run with the Lord maketh his countenance to shine down upon us but found it nearly startling when all the Lord was beseeched to do was to make his face shine down upon us.  Not a major difference, but there it is.

I actually think that one in particular is potentially a pretty substantive difference, but it's a really boring discussion.

 

[Politician Spock]

I can only speak to this on an anecdotal level. But the evangelical Christians I know (quite a few) who support President Trump are very happy with him. They approve of his statements and actions, and especially his court appointments. I certainly don’t sense fear. They like him. 

They're "happy" in the same way someone who has joined an MLM is "happy" with the MLM despite their costs obviously outweighing their benefits so far. It's hope that they have, and that hope is more than enough to blind them from a disappointing reality. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Other than those that think the KJV is the literal word of God, most Christians I know understand that the Bible was originally written in different languages and that current translations into modern languages are man’s best attempts to put the original word of God into languages that modern man can understand

Most Christians I spend time with consider the Bible to be a collection of important allegories that, when considered thoughtfully, lead to an increased ability to understand the human condition and humanity's place here on Earth.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I actually think that one in particular is potentially a pretty substantive difference, but it's a really boring discussion.

Lets not have it then, at least in public. 

 

[badmojo1006]

Two big reasons:

Gorsuch

Kavanaugh

That is true. Gut feeling, Gorsuch will move closer to the middle in the next few years. Just a gut feeling

 

[roadkill1292]

Example from 2014

Essentially, members of most church organizations have a process they can go through if they want to attempt to challenge the "rules" of their governing body.  Many have used this process to try and get the churches to change their minds....most won't even acknowledge it, but when they begin the process, the word gets out pretty quickly throughout the denomination they are a part of.

Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure if I understand how people challenging a church's rules within the procedures established by the church is a threat to evangelicals (maybe you didn't want to relate it to that). I would hope -- but certainly not have 100% confidence -- that gay people would not ask the courts to intercede with a church's decision not to participate. 

 

[shader]

Most Christians I spend time with consider the Bible to be a collection of important allegories that, when considered thoughtfully, lead to an increased ability to understand the human condition and humanity's place here on Earth.

That's an interesting perspective, but not really a Christian one.

 

[The Commish]

Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure if I understand how people challenging a church's rules within the procedures established by the church is a threat to evangelicals (maybe you didn't want to relate it to that). I would hope -- but certainly not have 100% confidence -- that gay people would not ask the courts to intercede with a church's decision not to participate. 

To the final point, there have been cases around the world where gay couples have challenged, in their federal courts, the decision.  All I'm saying is that, to me, its relatively easy to see why a group would fear this happening.  They see it happening in individual church organizations in this country and in federal courts around the world, what's to stop it from happening in our federal or state courts if this country?

 

[Henry Ford]

That's an interesting perspective, but not really a Christian one.

Well, that's definitely not true.

 

[Black Box]

Is there some reason Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Lindsay Graham, etc wouldn't have appointed conservative justices?

No. But I took the article (and your subsequent question) to revolve around why evangelicals support Trump now, not during the primaries.

I can't speak intelligently as to why evangelicals supported him back then.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I flat out reject French's premise that Christian evangelicals "changed" in 2016.  I think Trump simply built off of decades of conservative fear mongering, and had the audacity to actually say what a lot of conservatives have been thinking/feeling for a long, long time.  That's why you so often hear Trump supporters saying that they love him because he "tells it like it is", despite the fact that he is objectively the least honest POTUS in history.  

It's extremely self serving for moderates and long term conservatives to play the "suddenly something happened to the conservative party in 2016" than to actually self reflect and consider the possibility that Trump is the result of decades of GOP propaganda.  Admitting that one has been wrong about their worldview for a long, long time is extremely difficult and goes against human nature.  I think French and lots of other non-Trumpers are taking the easy way out.  

 

[kface]

The really interesting part, and I think the love of trump really shows it, is that what they want is the country to be ruled as a christian taliban.  They want the complete destruction of all things they don't believe in and they don't care if we have to throw them all in cages to do it.  I am quite certain they would love trump to change the rules so he has absolute power forever

 

[rockaction]

Yes, both a love of tyranny and a desire to see the United States ruled as a "Christian Taliban" is what evangelicals want. This makes sense and uses sound logic.

There's a reason this place is hilariously out of touch.

 

[timschochet]

Yes, both a love of tyranny and a desire to see the United States ruled as a "Christian Taliban" is what evangelicals want. This makes sense and uses sound logic.

There's a reason this place is hilariously out of touch.

Well they’re in touch with “The Handmaid’s Tale”, anyhow. 

 

[kface]

Yes, both a love of tyranny and a desire to see the United States ruled as a "Christian Taliban" is what evangelicals want. This makes sense and uses sound logic.

There's a reason this place is hilariously out of touch.

He said himself that he could shoot someone in the street and wouldn't lose support.  I feel strongly he knows best

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/donald-trump-says-he-could-shoot-somebody-and-still-not-lose-voters