"God bows down to Donald Trump"

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Here's a two part question:  Why should Evangelical voters find it to be the right thing to do to either (A) vote Democratic, or (B) either vote for a third party, abstain, write-in Franklin Graham, or any other course of action that would, in terms of real politics, keep Trump from getting a vote that would ordinarily go Republican?  Also, why should an Evangelical Christian PREFER a Democratic victory to a Trump victory?

You're missing the third option, which would be to not have supported Trump in the 2016 primary nor unreservedly support him in 2020 to the extent that no viable Republican believed they had a chance to challenge him this year. We're not asking you to vote Democratic; we're calling out that your full-throated, enthusiastic support for Donald Trump ensured he would be the Republican nominee again in 2020 after the partial support you gave him in 2016 enabled him to sneak into the nomination with a plurality.

Well, I voted for Donald Trump in the Florida GOP primary, and he was my first choice.  Most "regular churchgoers" voted for Ted Cruz, nationwide.

I find the actual POLICY and STATECRAFT of the Trump Administration, coupled with the outright hostility toward Evangelical Christians by Hillary Clinton, a clearly defensible and preferable outcome.  Trump has been supportive of public policy

So why should I, as an Evangelical Christian, prefer the OUTCOME of a Biden victory, to the OUTCOME of a Clinton victory in 2016 or a Biden victory in 2020?

My support of Trump led to a better outcome, all things considered, in terms of public policy overall.  And I certainly prefer Trump's full-throated opposition to abortion.  He is the first President who actually sacrifices political capital to support initiatives that Evangelicals support that may not be "consensus" proposals. 

There was only two (2) possible outcomes in 2016; Clinton or Trump.  There are only two (2) possible outcomes in 2020; Biden or Trump.  Why, as an Evangelical Christian, should I have preferred the other outcome, when the Trump outcome provided the more desirable policy?

That really is the bottom line, is it not?

[Brittain33]

There was only two (2) possible outcomes in 2016; Clinton or Trump.  There are only two (2) possible outcomes in 2020; Biden or Trump.  Why, as an Evangelical Christian, should I have preferred the other outcome, when the Trump outcome provided the more desirable policy?

That really is the bottom line, is it not?

No, you can't handwave away agency in Trump becoming the nominee in 2016 nor especially in 2020. As an individual, there's little you can do, but the evangelical movement throwing their full support behind Trump these last four years and ensuring he would not face a primary challenge from a Republican with greater respect for human dignity, morality, and the future of America was a decision the evangelical movement made. You would not have alienated an entire generation of young Evangelicals who have turned away from the church because of their embarrassment and alienation over your embrace of the golden calf.

If you had let Trump lose in 2016, you would have seen overwhelming Republican victories in 2018 and 2020 with an uncompromised and morally upright leader, and a united evangelical movement with a bold future.  

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

There was only two (2) possible outcomes in 2016; Clinton or Trump.  There are only two (2) possible outcomes in 2020; Biden or Trump.  Why, as an Evangelical Christian, should I have preferred the other outcome, when the Trump outcome provided the more desirable policy?

That really is the bottom line, is it not?

No, you can't handwave away agency in Trump becoming the nominee in 2016 nor especially in 2020. As an individual, there's little you can do, but the evangelical movement throwing their full support behind Trump these last four years and ensuring he would not face a primary challenge from a Republican with greater respect for human dignity, morality, and the future of America was a decision the evangelical movement made. You would not have alienated an entire generation of young Evangelicals who have turned away from the church because of their embarrassment and alienation over your embrace of the golden calf.

If you had let Trump lose in 2016, you would have seen overwhelming Republican victories in 2018 and 2020 with an uncompromised and morally upright leader, and a united evangelical movement with a bold future.  

Consider what Erick Erickson (a 2016 #NeverTrump Republican) said of a Hillary Clinton Presidency:

With Hillary Clinton, the Supreme Court will fall into the hands of the left for a generation at least. The devastation to our social fabric will know no end. Trading in the idea of negative liberty, Clinton and a left-wing Supreme Court will pursue expansionist federal policies and concepts of positive liberty that advance the individual prurient interests of deviants against the church in ways the founders would not have anticipated and no rational person would think wise. But Clinton as President will mean the insane have taken over the asylum.

Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote, “What was once stigmatized as deviant behavior is now tolerated and even sanctioned; what was once regarded as abnormal has been normalized . . . . As deviancy is normalized, so what was once normal becomes deviant. The kind of family that has been regarded for centuries as natural and moral ”“ the ‘bourgeois’ family as it is invidiously called ”“ is now seen as pathological.”� Clinton’s Presidency will lock that in.

In addition to that, the increasingly illiberal left will further capitulate in the face of evil, choosing to surrender to radical Islamists blowing themselves up as a new normal.

In short, I see the election of Hillary Clinton as the antithesis of all my values and ideas on what fosters sound civil society in this country. Further, she should be in jail.

And there was a bottom line to that which causes Evangelical Christians to ponder:

At least with Trump we might, might, get a better Supreme Court. We might get better cabinet picks. In fact, in terms of my view of the country the odds are pretty great that my side has a greater chance of prevailing with Trump than Clinton. What most would identify as my side would have control of the Executive Branch and the powers of appointment and regulation that come with it.

The description of Hillary Clinton is accurate.  It's not an exaggeration.  Christians aren't stupid to the point where both candidates are less than moral, personally, but one will enact distinctly better public policy.

I should also point out that Evangelical Christianity is not a POLITICAL movement.  Jesus NEVER led a political movement, and Evangelical Christianity is not a political movement; it's a movement to win souls and to be Salt and Light in the part of the World they live in.  Erickson realizes this, and he did come to a bottom line that led him to support neither major candidate:

That I see so many Christians justifying Donald Trump’s immorality, defining deviancy down, and turning to anger and despondency about the future tells me I cannot in good faith support Donald Trump because his victory would have lasting, damaging consequences for Christianity in America. We harm our witness and the testimony of the strength of our Lord by embracing the immoral, unrepentant strong man. We harm our American virtue by buying into the idea that one man can make America great again. Further, we risk losing Donald Trump’s soul for the sake of our selfishness.

The latter is a legitimate point.  The answer I gave to this is that I don't justify Donald Trump's immoral behaviors.  I justify my vote for him and my degree of support for him.  He's not God, and he's not a God-Emperor; he's an elected American President and a politician.  But much of your argument is a manipulation of Christians to get them to vote for a candidate that opposes the public policy objectives that are important to them, some of which are matters of conscience.  And Hillary Clinton hates Evangelical Christians

https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2016/october/why-evangelicals-dislike-and-distrust-hillary-clinton-so-mu.html

In one of the more ironic illustrations of such, she launched her campaign at Four Freedoms Park, which celebrates Franklin D. Roosevelt's famous State of the Union speech in January of 1941. FDR explained:

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want — which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants - everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear — which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor — anywhere in the world.

However, in what can only be described as a stunning irony, she did not mention religion—and, remember, the majority of Americans (all Americans, not just evangelicals) think religious liberty is in decline. Clinton could not mention religious freedom at a park named after religious freedom.

Simply put, Evangelicals don't feel represented by Clinton in religious liberty and freedom, in matters of policy, or in public discussion. It is worth noting, there has been no substantial effort from the Clinton campaign to reach out and engage Evangelicals or people of faith in general. The names Michael Wear and Joshua Dubois are familiar to Evangelicals because they were self-identified Evangelical Christians who worked for the Obama campaign to help recruit religious voters.

Out of the wellsprings of the Heart, the Mouth speaks.  Or doesn't speak. 

Why someone should vote for someone who (A) doesn't like the group they are identified with, and (B) opposes policy they believe in and believe in as being of primary importance when the other candidate is favorably disposed toward them and supports their policies is beyond me.  That's the question Evangelical Christians have to ask when choosing between Donald Trump and any of the current Democrats.  Biden is less hostile, personally, but not any better on policy.  So why should I vote for Biden.  There's something in that for you.  Is the something in it for me worth the part of that I cannot morally abide?

[AltWorlder]

How are there Christians who believe this?

There aren't.

The people who believe this aren't Christians. (Except in their own imaginations.)

Sure they are. Do they meet the moral and theological parameters? Probably not. But if we applied such a standard, the pews would be empty.

A lot of these folks might not even be regular churchgoers.

[Brittain33]

Why don’t you engage with the dynamics of the PRIMARY, rather than the choice between Clinton and Trump?

I understand why evangelicals concerned with power decided the ends justify the means in the 2016 general, and didn’t consider the negatives of a President Trump. That’s not what’s interesting.

[Sumner 1868]

How are there Christians who believe this?

There aren't.

The people who believe this aren't Christians. (Except in their own imaginations.)

Sure they are. Do they meet the moral and theological parameters? Probably not. But if we applied such a standard, the pews would be empty.

A lot of these folks might not even be regular churchgoers.

And going to church doesn't really entail they are religious either.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/biblical-illiteracy-in-us-at-crisis-point-says-bible-expert.html

https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/scandal-biblical-illiteracy/

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/why-are-so-many-christians-biblically-illiterate

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

How are there Christians who believe this?

There aren't.

The people who believe this aren't Christians. (Except in their own imaginations.)

Sure they are. Do they meet the moral and theological parameters? Probably not. But if we applied such a standard, the pews would be empty.

A lot of these folks might not even be regular churchgoers.

And going to church doesn't really entail they are religious either.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/biblical-illiteracy-in-us-at-crisis-point-says-bible-expert.html

https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/scandal-biblical-illiteracy/

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/why-are-so-many-christians-biblically-illiterate

https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/scandal-biblical-illiteracy/

Worse, many who identify themselves as Christians are similarly confused about the gospel itself. An individual who believes that “God helps those who help themselves” will find salvation by grace and justification by faith to be alien concepts.

I've never heard these things in the Evangelical Churches I go to.  Nor will you hear "God helps them that help themselves." quoted as Biblical on TBN.

I'm not a Biblical Scholar, but I'm not Biblically illiterate, either.  Neither are a great many regular churchgoers.  This is a post that is grasping at straws for something to attack Evangelical Christians with.

[Sumner 1868]

How are there Christians who believe this?

There aren't.

The people who believe this aren't Christians. (Except in their own imaginations.)

Sure they are. Do they meet the moral and theological parameters? Probably not. But if we applied such a standard, the pews would be empty.

A lot of these folks might not even be regular churchgoers.

And going to church doesn't really entail they are religious either.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/biblical-illiteracy-in-us-at-crisis-point-says-bible-expert.html

https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/scandal-biblical-illiteracy/

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/why-are-so-many-christians-biblically-illiterate

https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/scandal-biblical-illiteracy/

Worse, many who identify themselves as Christians are similarly confused about the gospel itself. An individual who believes that “God helps those who help themselves” will find salvation by grace and justification by faith to be alien concepts.

I've never heard these things in the Evangelical Churches I go to.  Nor will you hear "God helps them that help themselves." quoted as Biblical on TBN.

I'm not a Biblical Scholar, but I'm not Biblically illiterate, either.  Neither are a great many regular churchgoers.  This is a post that is grasping at straws for something to attack Evangelical Christians with.

It's not just evangelicals. In practice, the vast majority of supposed Christians in the US are pretty much In Name Only. This is well known and has been extensively documented for years.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2012/september/new-research-less-than-20-of-churchgoers-read-bible-daily.html

https://lifewayresearch.com/2017/04/25/lifeway-research-americans-are-fond-of-the-bible-dont-actually-read-it/

https://religionnews.com/2017/04/25/the-bible-helpful-but-unread/

https://lifewayresearch.com/2017/12/06/many-evangelicals-dont-hold-evangelical-beliefs/

http://www.millennialevangelical.com/majority-of-american-christians-do-not-find-bible-reading-and-church-attendance-essential/

https://thefederalist.com/2016/10/10/survey-finds-american-christians-actually-heretics/

Of course there are a great many churchgoers who are well-versed in their faith - if nobody read the Bible or other religious texts they wouldn't be in print. But such people are a clear minority.

[T'Chenka]

We're not asking you to vote Democratic; we're calling out that your full-throated, enthusiastic support for Donald Trump ensured he would be the Republican nominee again in 2020 after the partial support you gave him in 2016 enabled him to sneak into the nomination with a plurality.

Something sounds wrong about "full-throated, enthusiastic support for Donald Trump". I think it's the "full-throated" part.

[Brittain33]

We're not asking you to vote Democratic; we're calling out that your full-throated, enthusiastic support for Donald Trump ensured he would be the Republican nominee again in 2020 after the partial support you gave him in 2016 enabled him to sneak into the nomination with a plurality.

Something sounds wrong about "full-throated, enthusiastic support for Donald Trump". I think it's the "full-throated" part.

It’s a reference to vocalization, not sex.

[T'Chenka]

We're not asking you to vote Democratic; we're calling out that your full-throated, enthusiastic support for Donald Trump ensured he would be the Republican nominee again in 2020 after the partial support you gave him in 2016 enabled him to sneak into the nomination with a plurality.

Something sounds wrong about "full-throated, enthusiastic support for Donald Trump". I think it's the "full-throated" part.

It’s a reference to vocalization, not sex.

Oh yes, I know. It's just that Trump supporters have been accused of (metaphorically) fellating Trump instead of judging his words and actions objectively. Some of us associate MAGA supporters and Trump with fellatio, amd then along comes a post saying they offer him "full-throated support". I thought it was apt, intentionally or not.

[John Dule]

Here's a two part question:  Why should Evangelical voters find it to be the right thing to do to either (A) vote Democratic, or (B) either vote for a third party, abstain, write-in Franklin Graham, or any other course of action that would, in terms of real politics, keep Trump from getting a vote that would ordinarily go Republican?  Also, why should an Evangelical Christian PREFER a Democratic victory to a Trump victory?

Maybe because they've come to the realization that it's not fair for a person to force their subjective beliefs on others through the mechanisms of the state?

[Badger]

Here's a two part question:  Why should Evangelical voters find it to be the right thing to do to either (A) vote Democratic, or (B) either vote for a third party, abstain, write-in Franklin Graham, or any other course of action that would, in terms of real politics, keep Trump from getting a vote that would ordinarily go Republican?  Also, why should an Evangelical Christian PREFER a Democratic victory to a Trump victory?

Maybe because they've come to the realization that it's not fair for a person to force their subjective beliefs on others through the mechanisms of the state?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I’m not a Christian, so this isn’t intuitive to me. Help me understand. If all that matters is accepting Jesus as the Son of God for salvation, but all of his teachings about caring for the poor and weak, living simply, turning the other cheek aren’t relevant and don’t mean anything, then why bother having and studying the New Testament? Why did God waste everyone’s time having Jesus proclaim a moral code and advise people how to live a moral life, if it didn’t matter and wasn’t important to follow? Seems kind of strange if the only point of Jesus was to come down and tell people “you must achieve salvation through me, full stop” for him to mess things up by taking about morality and babbling on in the Sermon on the Mount, etc.

Many Christians, particularly rightwing Protestants, take this theological shortcut because tribalism is much easier than altruism. If faith is all that's required, and you aren't judged for being a nasty, miserly person, then "Christianity" is perfectly compatible with the values of Franklin Graham, Jerry Jr., Kim Davis, Rebekah Mercer, Donald Trump, et al.    

It's far from a "theological shortcut".

Faith in Christ IS all that is required for Salvation.  Now FAITH in Christ is the belief that he IS who he SAYS HE IS.  The King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Yeah, you're a rightwing Protestant, and this is what you believe. I'm not quibbling with it. What I am suggesting is that for the vast majority of your counterparts, tribalism comes much easier than altruism. As they've proved time and time again. Which your particular brand of Christianity makes very easy. We can't and shouldn't forget that white supremacy was once (still?) an immensely cherished value of Southern, white, evangelical Protestants. They managed to work slavery into their theology, so we shouldn't exactly look to them as moral exemplars.

Franklin Graham's values include using the resources of his ministry to establish emergency medical facilities in Central Park for COVID-19.  Kim Davis, whom I believe to be something of an immature Christian, attempted to live her beliefs out in a tough situation; one that she didn't face when she began her job as Clerk of Court.  Rebekah Mercer is a major donor; why you threw her name in there is something I'm not sure of.

Billy Graham said disgusting things about Jews, Franklin Graham says disgusting things about Muslims and traffics in birtherism. Potato, potahtoh.

As for Donald Trump:

LOL. Don't even try — everyone outside of your (dying) tribe (correctly) perceives this particular brand of apologism as clownish. He is what he is, you are what you are.

Billy Graham did make indefensible dispariging comments about Jews, for which he apologized and repudiated.  I believe his work during his lifetime supports those comments.  Those comments were wrong and indefensible, but he repudiated them in his lifetime.  He certainly earned the criticism he received for them.

I would also mention that Billy Graham's comments were made on tape in a private conversation with President Richard Nixon.  Nixon's views on Jews were, to be kind, "complicated" he had a Jewish Rabbi (Baruch Korff) as his leading public defender in the last days of his Administration, yet he made many negative comments against Jews, reflecting his view that prominent Jews in public life were all part of the great conspiracy to get him.  That doesn't mitigate Billy Graham's comments, but they were not PUBLIC comments, and they were unearthed decades later.  One can only imagine the comments you've made in private regarding Evangelical Christians.  Of course, Jesse Jackson referred to New York City as "H----town" in 1984, not on tape, but in an open public statement.  He's still alive and still politically active.  I'm dying to see how you condemn one and not the other.  (To be fair, I should, and will, accept Jackson's public apology as I have accepted Graham's, and I do so here.)

I've been critical of Franklin Graham's birtherism, and his tendency to posture as a conservative pundit.  I've been critical of his open skepticism of Barack Obama's profession of faith, while expressing no such skepticism of Donald Trump's Christianity (and, in actuality, no concern for Trump's Eternal Soul).  I've done this publicly, using my own name on HIS Facebook Page, and I've actually voiced this to real life Christians who know where I live and what I do.  But he's not wrong about his concern about Islamists in the Obama Administration.  And while I don't question that Obama has made a confession of Saving Faith, and I do consider him a Brother in Christ, I can't think of a single instance where Barack Obama rejected the political orthodoxy of the Democratic Left and pursued a course of public policy because Scripture would state that it's the right thing to do.  And, no, that's not a violation of the 1st Amendment; if it were, people would have to deliberately advocate the opposite of what their particular religion advocated.  

You hate Evangelical Christians, however.  Let's be real.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

I’m not a Christian, so this isn’t intuitive to me. Help me understand. If all that matters is accepting Jesus as the Son of God for salvation, but all of his teachings about caring for the poor and weak, living simply, turning the other cheek aren’t relevant and don’t mean anything, then why bother having and studying the New Testament? Why did God waste everyone’s time having Jesus proclaim a moral code and advise people how to live a moral life, if it didn’t matter and wasn’t important to follow? Seems kind of strange if the only point of Jesus was to come down and tell people “you must achieve salvation through me, full stop” for him to mess things up by taking about morality and babbling on in the Sermon on the Mount, etc.

Many Christians, particularly rightwing Protestants, take this theological shortcut because tribalism is much easier than altruism. If faith is all that's required, and you aren't judged for being a nasty, miserly person, then "Christianity" is perfectly compatible with the values of Franklin Graham, Jerry Jr., Kim Davis, Rebekah Mercer, Donald Trump, et al.    

It's far from a "theological shortcut".

Faith in Christ IS all that is required for Salvation.  Now FAITH in Christ is the belief that he IS who he SAYS HE IS.  The King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Yeah, you're a rightwing Protestant, and this is what you believe. I'm not quibbling with it. What I am suggesting is that for the vast majority of your counterparts, tribalism comes much easier than altruism. As they've proved time and time again. Which your particular brand of Christianity makes very easy. We can't and shouldn't forget that white supremacy was once (still?) an immensely cherished value of Southern, white, evangelical Protestants. They managed to work slavery into their theology, so we shouldn't exactly look to them as moral exemplars.

Franklin Graham's values include using the resources of his ministry to establish emergency medical facilities in Central Park for COVID-19.  Kim Davis, whom I believe to be something of an immature Christian, attempted to live her beliefs out in a tough situation; one that she didn't face when she began her job as Clerk of Court.  Rebekah Mercer is a major donor; why you threw her name in there is something I'm not sure of.

Billy Graham said disgusting things about Jews, Franklin Graham says disgusting things about Muslims and traffics in birtherism. Potato, potahtoh.

As for Donald Trump:

LOL. Don't even try — everyone outside of your (dying) tribe (correctly) perceives this particular brand of apologism as clownish. He is what he is, you are what you are.

Billy Graham did make indefensible dispariging comments about Jews, for which he apologized and repudiated.  I believe his work during his lifetime supports those comments.  Those comments were wrong and indefensible, but he repudiated them in his lifetime.  He certainly earned the criticism he received for them.

I would also mention that Billy Graham's comments were made on tape in a private conversation with President Richard Nixon.  Nixon's views on Jews were, to be kind, "complicated" he had a Jewish Rabbi (Baruch Korff) as his leading public defender in the last days of his Administration, yet he made many negative comments against Jews, reflecting his view that prominent Jews in public life were all part of the great conspiracy to get him.  That doesn't mitigate Billy Graham's comments, but they were not PUBLIC comments, and they were unearthed decades later.  One can only imagine the comments you've made in private regarding Evangelical Christians.  Of course, Jesse Jackson referred to New York City as "H----town" in 1984, not on tape, but in an open public statement.  He's still alive and still politically active.  I'm dying to see how you condemn one and not the other.  (To be fair, I should, and will, accept Jackson's public apology as I have accepted Graham's, and I do so here.)

I've been critical of Franklin Graham's birtherism, and his tendency to posture as a conservative pundit.  I've been critical of his open skepticism of Barack Obama's profession of faith, while expressing no such skepticism of Donald Trump's Christianity (and, in actuality, no concern for Trump's Eternal Soul).  I've done this publicly, using my own name on HIS Facebook Page, and I've actually voiced this to real life Christians who know where I live and what I do.  But he's not wrong about his concern about Islamists in the Obama Administration.  And while I don't question that Obama has made a confession of Saving Faith, and I do consider him a Brother in Christ, I can't think of a single instance where Barack Obama rejected the political orthodoxy of the Democratic Left and pursued a course of public policy because Scripture would state that it's the right thing to do.  And, no, that's not a violation of the 1st Amendment; if it were, people would have to deliberately advocate the opposite of what their particular religion advocated.  

You hate Evangelical Christians, however.  Let's be real.

The persecution complex is strong with this one maybe evangelicals have a strong urge to be persecuted because you guys can't do anything on your own without making it look like it's someone else's problems get real fuzzy

You literally are proving why so many people have problems with evangelicals in general

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I’m not a Christian, so this isn’t intuitive to me. Help me understand. If all that matters is accepting Jesus as the Son of God for salvation, but all of his teachings about caring for the poor and weak, living simply, turning the other cheek aren’t relevant and don’t mean anything, then why bother having and studying the New Testament? Why did God waste everyone’s time having Jesus proclaim a moral code and advise people how to live a moral life, if it didn’t matter and wasn’t important to follow? Seems kind of strange if the only point of Jesus was to come down and tell people “you must achieve salvation through me, full stop” for him to mess things up by taking about morality and babbling on in the Sermon on the Mount, etc.

Many Christians, particularly rightwing Protestants, take this theological shortcut because tribalism is much easier than altruism. If faith is all that's required, and you aren't judged for being a nasty, miserly person, then "Christianity" is perfectly compatible with the values of Franklin Graham, Jerry Jr., Kim Davis, Rebekah Mercer, Donald Trump, et al.    

It's far from a "theological shortcut".

Faith in Christ IS all that is required for Salvation.  Now FAITH in Christ is the belief that he IS who he SAYS HE IS.  The King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Yeah, you're a rightwing Protestant, and this is what you believe. I'm not quibbling with it. What I am suggesting is that for the vast majority of your counterparts, tribalism comes much easier than altruism. As they've proved time and time again. Which your particular brand of Christianity makes very easy. We can't and shouldn't forget that white supremacy was once (still?) an immensely cherished value of Southern, white, evangelical Protestants. They managed to work slavery into their theology, so we shouldn't exactly look to them as moral exemplars.

Franklin Graham's values include using the resources of his ministry to establish emergency medical facilities in Central Park for COVID-19.  Kim Davis, whom I believe to be something of an immature Christian, attempted to live her beliefs out in a tough situation; one that she didn't face when she began her job as Clerk of Court.  Rebekah Mercer is a major donor; why you threw her name in there is something I'm not sure of.

Billy Graham said disgusting things about Jews, Franklin Graham says disgusting things about Muslims and traffics in birtherism. Potato, potahtoh.

As for Donald Trump:

LOL. Don't even try — everyone outside of your (dying) tribe (correctly) perceives this particular brand of apologism as clownish. He is what he is, you are what you are.

Billy Graham did make indefensible dispariging comments about Jews, for which he apologized and repudiated.  I believe his work during his lifetime supports those comments.  Those comments were wrong and indefensible, but he repudiated them in his lifetime.  He certainly earned the criticism he received for them.

I would also mention that Billy Graham's comments were made on tape in a private conversation with President Richard Nixon.  Nixon's views on Jews were, to be kind, "complicated" he had a Jewish Rabbi (Baruch Korff) as his leading public defender in the last days of his Administration, yet he made many negative comments against Jews, reflecting his view that prominent Jews in public life were all part of the great conspiracy to get him.  That doesn't mitigate Billy Graham's comments, but they were not PUBLIC comments, and they were unearthed decades later.  One can only imagine the comments you've made in private regarding Evangelical Christians.  Of course, Jesse Jackson referred to New York City as "H----town" in 1984, not on tape, but in an open public statement.  He's still alive and still politically active.  I'm dying to see how you condemn one and not the other.  (To be fair, I should, and will, accept Jackson's public apology as I have accepted Graham's, and I do so here.)

I've been critical of Franklin Graham's birtherism, and his tendency to posture as a conservative pundit.  I've been critical of his open skepticism of Barack Obama's profession of faith, while expressing no such skepticism of Donald Trump's Christianity (and, in actuality, no concern for Trump's Eternal Soul).  I've done this publicly, using my own name on HIS Facebook Page, and I've actually voiced this to real life Christians who know where I live and what I do.  But he's not wrong about his concern about Islamists in the Obama Administration.  And while I don't question that Obama has made a confession of Saving Faith, and I do consider him a Brother in Christ, I can't think of a single instance where Barack Obama rejected the political orthodoxy of the Democratic Left and pursued a course of public policy because Scripture would state that it's the right thing to do.  And, no, that's not a violation of the 1st Amendment; if it were, people would have to deliberately advocate the opposite of what their particular religion advocated.  

You hate Evangelical Christians, however.  Let's be real.

The persecution complex is strong with this one maybe evangelicals have a strong urge to be persecuted because you guys can't do anything on your own without making it look like it's someone else's problems get real fuzzy

You literally are proving why so many people have problems with evangelicals in general

Evangelical Christians are persecuted the World over.  Now I will grant you that a degree of the public whining about "religious freedom" is wolf-crying.  I would never compare the treatment of Christians in America to Christians in China, or in any number of Muslim-majority nations.  Indeed, Evangelical Christians are persecuted in countries such as Russia and Mexico. 

On Atlas, however, it has been OK to make comments about Evangelical Christians that would be promptly infracted if made against Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.  My issue is simple:  Infract for all or for none.  But don't say that because one group is a large segment of America and has "power", it can be insulted and derided in ways that other groups can't be.  That's neither equality nor fairness.

[ProudModerate2]

Notice the line in red, and how it has skyrocketed into Heaven.
But somehow, I dont think that would be a "place" for someone with such a drastic change in morals/ethics.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

"Private immoral conduct" involves homosexual activity in the opinion of most of the audience surveyed that identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.  There is a real paradigm shift on this issue with Evangelical Christians, many of whom have had a child or grandchild "come out" as gay.  While this is a difficult subject for Evangelical Christians in this situation, the majority want the best for their LGBT loved ones.  Part of that includes not wishing that they lose a job over being LGBT if they are qualified for that job.  I'm not blind to LGBT folks who've been disowned by their nuclear family over that issue, and I'm not denying other people's experience, but I can tell you that the Christians I know in that situation love their family member.  While you may think it awful, Evangelical Christians believe homosexual acts to be sin, and that believe is supported by Scripture.  They do the work of balancing their love for their family member with the scriptural consequences of their loved one's sexual behavior.  This new reality has led to changes in thinking among Evangelicals; without changing their opinions on what Scripture says, they don't wish to keep people from jobs they are qualified for.  There will be no more James Hormel Nomination Circuses.

The other two things that have moved that needle, IMO, are twofold.  One is that Trump has been faithful to Christians, politically, moreso than any other President.  Their votes for Trump are quite rational; he has advanced policies Evangelicals view as important.  Evangelical Christians owe Bill Clinton a bit of an apology, as his lifestyle appears to be a bit of a red herring to Evangelicals today, but they were not wrong to oppose Bill Clinton, as he opposed many policy initiatives Evangelicals thought important.  (BILL Clinton was, however, nowhere near as anti-Evangelical as Hillary, who hates Evangelicals.  Bill was a kid who was at his Baptist Church every time the doors were open.)  The other is that, sadly, stats on adultery and divorce for Evangelicals don't diverge much at all from the rest of America.  This is unfortunate. 

Yes, I know you wish to use this poll as proof that Evangelicals worship Trump.  That's not the case.  It's just not.  It may be from Evangelicals giving in to creeping secularism in our society and culture, but it's not because they can't tell the difference from their President and their Lord and Savior.  (Hint:  They know Trump isn't God.)

[QAnonKelly]

I’m not a Christian, so this isn’t intuitive to me. Help me understand. If all that matters is accepting Jesus as the Son of God for salvation, but all of his teachings about caring for the poor and weak, living simply, turning the other cheek aren’t relevant and don’t mean anything, then why bother having and studying the New Testament? Why did God waste everyone’s time having Jesus proclaim a moral code and advise people how to live a moral life, if it didn’t matter and wasn’t important to follow? Seems kind of strange if the only point of Jesus was to come down and tell people “you must achieve salvation through me, full stop” for him to mess things up by taking about morality and babbling on in the Sermon on the Mount, etc.

Many Christians, particularly rightwing Protestants, take this theological shortcut because tribalism is much easier than altruism. If faith is all that's required, and you aren't judged for being a nasty, miserly person, then "Christianity" is perfectly compatible with the values of Franklin Graham, Jerry Jr., Kim Davis, Rebekah Mercer, Donald Trump, et al.    

It's far from a "theological shortcut".

Faith in Christ IS all that is required for Salvation.  Now FAITH in Christ is the belief that he IS who he SAYS HE IS.  The King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Yeah, you're a rightwing Protestant, and this is what you believe. I'm not quibbling with it. What I am suggesting is that for the vast majority of your counterparts, tribalism comes much easier than altruism. As they've proved time and time again. Which your particular brand of Christianity makes very easy. We can't and shouldn't forget that white supremacy was once (still?) an immensely cherished value of Southern, white, evangelical Protestants. They managed to work slavery into their theology, so we shouldn't exactly look to them as moral exemplars.

Franklin Graham's values include using the resources of his ministry to establish emergency medical facilities in Central Park for COVID-19.  Kim Davis, whom I believe to be something of an immature Christian, attempted to live her beliefs out in a tough situation; one that she didn't face when she began her job as Clerk of Court.  Rebekah Mercer is a major donor; why you threw her name in there is something I'm not sure of.

Billy Graham said disgusting things about Jews, Franklin Graham says disgusting things about Muslims and traffics in birtherism. Potato, potahtoh.

As for Donald Trump:

LOL. Don't even try — everyone outside of your (dying) tribe (correctly) perceives this particular brand of apologism as clownish. He is what he is, you are what you are.

Billy Graham did make indefensible dispariging comments about Jews, for which he apologized and repudiated.  I believe his work during his lifetime supports those comments.  Those comments were wrong and indefensible, but he repudiated them in his lifetime.  He certainly earned the criticism he received for them.

I would also mention that Billy Graham's comments were made on tape in a private conversation with President Richard Nixon.  Nixon's views on Jews were, to be kind, "complicated" he had a Jewish Rabbi (Baruch Korff) as his leading public defender in the last days of his Administration, yet he made many negative comments against Jews, reflecting his view that prominent Jews in public life were all part of the great conspiracy to get him.  That doesn't mitigate Billy Graham's comments, but they were not PUBLIC comments, and they were unearthed decades later.  One can only imagine the comments you've made in private regarding Evangelical Christians.  Of course, Jesse Jackson referred to New York City as "H----town" in 1984, not on tape, but in an open public statement.  He's still alive and still politically active.  I'm dying to see how you condemn one and not the other.  (To be fair, I should, and will, accept Jackson's public apology as I have accepted Graham's, and I do so here.)

I've been critical of Franklin Graham's birtherism, and his tendency to posture as a conservative pundit.  I've been critical of his open skepticism of Barack Obama's profession of faith, while expressing no such skepticism of Donald Trump's Christianity (and, in actuality, no concern for Trump's Eternal Soul).  I've done this publicly, using my own name on HIS Facebook Page, and I've actually voiced this to real life Christians who know where I live and what I do.  But he's not wrong about his concern about Islamists in the Obama Administration.  And while I don't question that Obama has made a confession of Saving Faith, and I do consider him a Brother in Christ, I can't think of a single instance where Barack Obama rejected the political orthodoxy of the Democratic Left and pursued a course of public policy because Scripture would state that it's the right thing to do.  And, no, that's not a violation of the 1st Amendment; if it were, people would have to deliberately advocate the opposite of what their particular religion advocated.  

You hate Evangelical Christians, however.  Let's be real.

The persecution complex is strong with this one maybe evangelicals have a strong urge to be persecuted because you guys can't do anything on your own without making it look like it's someone else's problems get real fuzzy

You literally are proving why so many people have problems with evangelicals in general

Evangelical Christians are persecuted the World over.  Now I will grant you that a degree of the public whining about "religious freedom" is wolf-crying.  I would never compare the treatment of Christians in America to Christians in China, or in any number of Muslim-majority nations.  Indeed, Evangelical Christians are persecuted in countries such as Russia and Mexico. 

On Atlas, however, it has been OK to make comments about Evangelical Christians that would be promptly infracted if made against Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.  My issue is simple:  Infract for all or for none.  But don't say that because one group is a large segment of America and has "power", it can be insulted and derided in ways that other groups can't be.  That's neither equality nor fairness.

Yeah I really don’t think Evangelicals are being put in concentration camps in the world’s most populous country or about to lose their citizenship in the second most populous. The world doesn’t revolve around Evangelicals and America. I don’t think they’re being slaughtered in Burma.  These are the worst acts of the very recent past and they were all done to Muslims. When stuff like this happens to Evangelicals, let’s talk.  There are other countries and other religions in this world, you know.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I’m not a Christian, so this isn’t intuitive to me. Help me understand. If all that matters is accepting Jesus as the Son of God for salvation, but all of his teachings about caring for the poor and weak, living simply, turning the other cheek aren’t relevant and don’t mean anything, then why bother having and studying the New Testament? Why did God waste everyone’s time having Jesus proclaim a moral code and advise people how to live a moral life, if it didn’t matter and wasn’t important to follow? Seems kind of strange if the only point of Jesus was to come down and tell people “you must achieve salvation through me, full stop” for him to mess things up by taking about morality and babbling on in the Sermon on the Mount, etc.

Many Christians, particularly rightwing Protestants, take this theological shortcut because tribalism is much easier than altruism. If faith is all that's required, and you aren't judged for being a nasty, miserly person, then "Christianity" is perfectly compatible with the values of Franklin Graham, Jerry Jr., Kim Davis, Rebekah Mercer, Donald Trump, et al.    

It's far from a "theological shortcut".

Faith in Christ IS all that is required for Salvation.  Now FAITH in Christ is the belief that he IS who he SAYS HE IS.  The King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Yeah, you're a rightwing Protestant, and this is what you believe. I'm not quibbling with it. What I am suggesting is that for the vast majority of your counterparts, tribalism comes much easier than altruism. As they've proved time and time again. Which your particular brand of Christianity makes very easy. We can't and shouldn't forget that white supremacy was once (still?) an immensely cherished value of Southern, white, evangelical Protestants. They managed to work slavery into their theology, so we shouldn't exactly look to them as moral exemplars.

Franklin Graham's values include using the resources of his ministry to establish emergency medical facilities in Central Park for COVID-19.  Kim Davis, whom I believe to be something of an immature Christian, attempted to live her beliefs out in a tough situation; one that she didn't face when she began her job as Clerk of Court.  Rebekah Mercer is a major donor; why you threw her name in there is something I'm not sure of.

Billy Graham said disgusting things about Jews, Franklin Graham says disgusting things about Muslims and traffics in birtherism. Potato, potahtoh.

As for Donald Trump:

LOL. Don't even try — everyone outside of your (dying) tribe (correctly) perceives this particular brand of apologism as clownish. He is what he is, you are what you are.

Billy Graham did make indefensible dispariging comments about Jews, for which he apologized and repudiated.  I believe his work during his lifetime supports those comments.  Those comments were wrong and indefensible, but he repudiated them in his lifetime.  He certainly earned the criticism he received for them.

I would also mention that Billy Graham's comments were made on tape in a private conversation with President Richard Nixon.  Nixon's views on Jews were, to be kind, "complicated" he had a Jewish Rabbi (Baruch Korff) as his leading public defender in the last days of his Administration, yet he made many negative comments against Jews, reflecting his view that prominent Jews in public life were all part of the great conspiracy to get him.  That doesn't mitigate Billy Graham's comments, but they were not PUBLIC comments, and they were unearthed decades later.  One can only imagine the comments you've made in private regarding Evangelical Christians.  Of course, Jesse Jackson referred to New York City as "H----town" in 1984, not on tape, but in an open public statement.  He's still alive and still politically active.  I'm dying to see how you condemn one and not the other.  (To be fair, I should, and will, accept Jackson's public apology as I have accepted Graham's, and I do so here.)

I've been critical of Franklin Graham's birtherism, and his tendency to posture as a conservative pundit.  I've been critical of his open skepticism of Barack Obama's profession of faith, while expressing no such skepticism of Donald Trump's Christianity (and, in actuality, no concern for Trump's Eternal Soul).  I've done this publicly, using my own name on HIS Facebook Page, and I've actually voiced this to real life Christians who know where I live and what I do.  But he's not wrong about his concern about Islamists in the Obama Administration.  And while I don't question that Obama has made a confession of Saving Faith, and I do consider him a Brother in Christ, I can't think of a single instance where Barack Obama rejected the political orthodoxy of the Democratic Left and pursued a course of public policy because Scripture would state that it's the right thing to do.  And, no, that's not a violation of the 1st Amendment; if it were, people would have to deliberately advocate the opposite of what their particular religion advocated.  

You hate Evangelical Christians, however.  Let's be real.

The persecution complex is strong with this one maybe evangelicals have a strong urge to be persecuted because you guys can't do anything on your own without making it look like it's someone else's problems get real fuzzy

You literally are proving why so many people have problems with evangelicals in general

Evangelical Christians are persecuted the World over.  Now I will grant you that a degree of the public whining about "religious freedom" is wolf-crying.  I would never compare the treatment of Christians in America to Christians in China, or in any number of Muslim-majority nations.  Indeed, Evangelical Christians are persecuted in countries such as Russia and Mexico. 

On Atlas, however, it has been OK to make comments about Evangelical Christians that would be promptly infracted if made against Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.  My issue is simple:  Infract for all or for none.  But don't say that because one group is a large segment of America and has "power", it can be insulted and derided in ways that other groups can't be.  That's neither equality nor fairness.

Yeah I really don’t think Evangelicals are being put in concentration camps in the world’s most populous country or about to lose their citizenship in the second most populous. The world doesn’t revolve around Evangelicals and America. I don’t think they’re being slaughtered in Burma.  These are the worst acts of the very recent past and they were all done to Muslims. When stuff like this happens to Evangelicals, let’s talk.  There are other countries and other religions in this world, you know.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/02/persecution-driving-christians-out-of-middle-east-report

“The inconvenient truth,” the report finds, is “that the overwhelming majority (80%) of persecuted religious believers are Christians”.

Ah, well, they're only Christians. 

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

One thing that gets lost in a lot of these conversations is that a lot of Evangelicals did not vote.  The pastors who are mixing politics and religion make the headlines, but they are not representative of all Evangelicals.  Most Evangelical Christians I know either voted for Trump reluctantly, or voted third party/stayed home.

[pbrower2a]

"Private immoral conduct" involves homosexual activity in the opinion of most of the audience surveyed that identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.  There is a real paradigm shift on this issue with Evangelical Christians, many of whom have had a child or grandchild "come out" as gay.  While this is a difficult subject for Evangelical Christians in this situation, the majority want the best for their LGBT loved ones.  Part of that includes not wishing that they lose a job over being LGBT if they are qualified for that job.  I'm not blind to LGBT folks who've been disowned by their nuclear family over that issue, and I'm not denying other people's experience, but I can tell you that the Christians I know in that situation love their family member.  While you may think it awful, Evangelical Christians believe homosexual acts to be sin, and that believe is supported by Scripture.  They do the work of balancing their love for their family member with the scriptural consequences of their loved one's sexual behavior.  This new reality has led to changes in thinking among Evangelicals; without changing their opinions on what Scripture says, they don't wish to keep people from jobs they are qualified for.  There will be no more James Hormel Nomination Circuses.

Most people have decided that homosexuality is no longer a great moral offense. They may not want their children to identify as LGBT... but I can think of behavior far more troubling.

The other two things that have moved that needle, IMO, are twofold.  One is that Trump has been faithful to Christians, politically, moreso than any other President.  Their votes for Trump are quite rational; he has advanced policies Evangelicals view as important.  Evangelical Christians owe Bill Clinton a bit of an apology, as his lifestyle appears to be a bit of a red herring to Evangelicals today, but they were not wrong to oppose Bill Clinton, as he opposed many policy initiatives Evangelicals thought important.  (BILL Clinton was, however, nowhere near as anti-Evangelical as Hillary, who hates Evangelicals.  Bill was a kid who was at his Baptist Church every time the doors were open.)  The other is that, sadly, stats on adultery and divorce for Evangelicals don't diverge much at all from the rest of America.  This is unfortunate. 

Outlawing homosexuality, abortion, and contraception will require Constitutional amendments.

...on the stats for Evangelical Christians: they tend to be lower in social-economic status (SES) than others of the same ethnic group. Maybe this is a regional difference, but I can see them under more, and not less, challenges to their values from economic pressures.   

Yes, I know you wish to use this poll as proof that Evangelicals worship Trump.  That's not the case.  It's just not.  It may be from Evangelicals giving in to creeping secularism in our society and culture, but it's not because they can't tell the difference from their President and their Lord and Savior.  (Hint:  They know Trump isn't God.)

I wish that they would recognize the personality cult around Donald Trump for the un-Christian behavior that it is.

[Brittain33]

"Private immoral conduct" involves homosexual activity in the opinion of most of the audience surveyed that identify themselves as Evangelical Christians. 

LOL No. Just ask our VP. It’s clearly about Trump and rationalizing his pussy-grabbing, materialism, filthy language, cheating his business partners, and lack of morality or religious virtue so evangelicals can have their King David and a seat of power.