Evangelical Support for Trump Eroding?

[Dill]

(10-12-2018, 08:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Let’s not misunderstand that Jesus was speaking to individuals and what they do. I’m not saying He would be against government helping the poor, but that’s not what he was preaching.

Can we be certain that he was speaking to "private individuals" as opposed to individuals-in-government?  You CAN cast the first stone as a representative of the government?  

[*bfine32*]

(10-12-2018, 08:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Let’s not misunderstand that Jesus was speaking to individuals and what they do. I’m not saying He would be against government helping the poor, but that’s not what he was preaching.

And this is why I've stated I see paying my taxes as a civil duty, not a religious one. But folks will try to twist whatever they can in an attempt to fulfill an agenda. 

[*michaelsean*]

(10-12-2018, 08:51 PM)Dill Wrote: Can we be certain that he was speaking to "private individuals" as opposed to individuals-in-government?  You CAN cast the first stone as a representative of the government?  

His message was for everyone including any goverment officials, but not in their capacity. I mean he didn’t tell Matthew to make sure the taxes he collected were spent in the poor. He took him away from that job. Again I’m not saying He would object to government aid.

[Dill]

(10-12-2018, 09:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: His message was for everyone including any goverment officials, but not in their capacity.  I mean he didn’t tell Matthew to make sure the taxes he collected were spent in the poor. He took him away from that job.  Again I’m not saying He would object to government aid.

Apparently some Evangelicals are, though. And they approve of some very un-Christlike behavior on the part of ICE and Trump. Still others may find it unChristian, but cannot criticize it, adopting a rather Medieval view of state authority: one must submit to it as sent from God, even if heathen.

So one can still be Christlike feeding a few homeless in the neighborhood, while approving of government pulling children from their parents by the hundreds, or kicking the hungry off the dole by the thousands.

But I don't find the break between private and public so clean as that.  I think there are lines people won't cross, including Evangelicals; they don't know what those lines are until suddenly the state starts crossing them. Then they do think the state ought to be more Christian. That maybe is why we are seeing this disruption within the Evangelical community as some call Trump out for his wickedness and others tell them to STFU and submit.

[fredtoast]

Churches could not meet the demands of the poor.  So the government started helping.  Churches and religious organizations do a lot of good work for charity, but more was needed

Helping poor people is not a "religious" duty.  It is a human duty.

[GMDino]

[Dill]

(10-12-2018, 12:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This thread reminded me of something I read last year and I finally found it, today, while on my lunch break: https://religioninpublic.blog/2017/02/14/are-evangelicals-economic-conservatives-too/

Thanks for posting that.  I have never seen much daylight between Evangelicals and secular Republicans when it comes to economic issues.  Interesting too, the link to concerns about the "size and scope of government" appear to increase after the rise of the Tea Party.

We also argue that the emergence of the Tea Party, which has been credited for moving the Republican Party in a more conservative direction on many economic issues, may have played a role as well. Tea Party organizations, in collaboration with conservative think tanks and religious organizations, have embraced a biblically-backed view of economic conservatism, which has found appeal among many white evangelical Protestants.  Our analysis in the journal article, in fact, examines General Social Survey data since the early 2000s, showing that while white evangelicals have long held more conservative views on economic policy than most Americans, their attitudes on the size and scope of government began to diverge in a more conservative direction after the rise of the Tea Party in 2009.

The important point here is that the allegiance that many white evangelicals feel for the GOP is not only present because of cultural concerns. White evangelicals have come to support conservative economic positions long espoused by Republicans nationally, including their embrace of tax cuts as a way to stimulate the nation’s economy.  While Trump’s emphasis on religious liberty and national security may have appealed to many white evangelicals, his promise of tax cuts certainly did not hurt.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-11-2018, 07:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Actually, a lot of the pro lifers are free marketeers.  Plenty of free marketeers might support a woman's right to choose if it helped the bottom line, but I wonder, in fact, how many pro lifers (if any) are not free marketeers .  The religious right follows the free marketeers because the latter promise pro-life support to get their votes.  

When you say religious, are you talking "I am religious" (on Facebook) as they say something lame, or people that ACTUALLY are religious, go to church every week, participate in church activities?

Because I can't help but think you're equating the "religious" with the actually religious, which is wrong. The real religious are doing food drives for the poor, gathering warm coats when the temperatures drop to hand out to the homeless, building homes, going overseas to help get people vaccines and clean water sources. I know people who went with their church to New Orleans to tear down ruined flooded houses and rebuild new ones after Katrina.

NONE of those things sound anything like "enjoying the concept of the poor suffering". So I think you are either using social media "religious" folk who are only "religious" in words and only when it suits them as your view, or you really just don't know any truly religious people and have formed a very sadly ignorant opinion with your self-admitted bias. (I'm not religious myself, but I have come into contact with a ton of people who are, and have done so much good for those who needed it.)

[fredtoast]

(10-15-2018, 10:49 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: NONE of those things sound anything like "enjoying the concept of the poor suffering". So I think you are either using social media "religious" folk who are only "religious" in words and only when it suits them as your view, or you really just don't know any truly religious people and have formed a very sadly ignorant opinion with your self-admitted bias. (I'm not religious myself, but I have come into contact with a ton of people who are, and have done so much good for those who needed it.)

You can't call people "ignorant" and "biased" when all they are doing is judging people on what they say.  In other words you can't blame people for judging "religious people" based on what people who claim to be religious say. How am I supposed to know how much charity work the people around here who claim to be religious are doing?

Also funny how people criticize moderate Muslims for not strongly condemning the radicals among them, but we don't see many Christians calling out the hypocrites among themselves.

[*Nately120*]

(10-15-2018, 12:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't call people "ignorant" and "biased" when all they are doing is judging people on what they say.  In other words you can't blame people for judging "religious people" based on what people who claim to be religious say. How am I supposed to know how much charity work the people around here who claim to be religious are doing?

Also funny how people criticize moderate Muslims for not strongly condemning the radicals among them, but we don't see many Christians calling out the hypocrites among themselves.

I don't claim to know all religious folks, and I'm as ignorant and biased as a human can be, I guess.  It's just that more than zero times I've awkwardly sat while god-fearin' conservatives complained that our society is "too good" to criminals and the poor and so on.  I know people who are very high on Jesus who also have those "WE DON"T CALL 911" signs.  I guess they are tongue in cheek, but joking about shooting someone and thinking it would be kinda cool always seemed a little odd to me, no matter how bs-driven it is. More than zero people have seriously told me that people should be sterilized and/or we should be more willing to just shoot criminals in the back of the head, no fuss no muss, no undeserved humanity and so on. I'm not saying this stuff is unique to the religious, it's just politics over all else.

It's ok to have disdain for someone who has tens of thousands of dollars of medical bills because he or she has a $300 phone he/she can sell if paying the bills was REALLY important.  And so on.  I think we all agree that it is somewhat wrong to glorify in the suffering of others, but we always come up with excuses why people who aren't us who are suffering deserve it, so we can be free of that stigma and free to accept if not enjoy it.

How about the latest mass shooting? Well, if I were there I would have run in there heroically, not died like a coward like all those victims, etc. We are just delusional to the point of mostly incidental offense, at times.

Everyone deserves what they get...except me...I'm a victim of circumstance.  

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-15-2018, 12:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't call people "ignorant" and "biased" when all they are doing is judging people on what they say.  In other words you can't blame people for judging "religious people" based on what people who claim to be religious say. How am I supposed to know how much charity work the people around here who claim to be religious are doing?

Also funny how people criticize moderate Muslims for not strongly condemning the radicals among them, but we don't see many Christians calling out the hypocrites among themselves.

If you weren't so busy being such a Fred, you would realize he literally said himself that he is biased. If someone calls themselves bias, then yes, I can call them bias.

As for the Muslim/Christian thing, that is probably because the fake Christians are just douchebags who say stupid shit on the internet, while the Muslims that aren't being called out are beheading people, blowing themselves up in crowded markets, flying planes into skyscrspers, and gunning down buildings full of cartoonists for drawing Mohammed.

But yes Fred, other than that funny how it is totally the same.

[*Nately120*]

(10-15-2018, 01:05 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If you weren't so busy being such a Fred, you would realize he literally said himself that he is biased. If someone calls themselves bias, then yes, I can call them bias.

As for the Muslim/Christian thing, that is probably because the fake Christians are just douchebags who say stupid shit on the internet, while the Muslims that aren't being called out are beheading people, blowing themselves up in crowded markets, flying planes into skyscrspers, and gunning down buildings full of cartoonists for drawing Mohammed.

But yes Fred, other than that funny how it is totally the same.

Who isn't biased?  The closest thing I have to show I'm not super biased is that I've lived in many places with many different people around me and I've disliked, but mostly been ok with all of them.  That's something, hain't it?

[Belsnickel]

I think one of the issues I'm running into with this discourse is that there is a lot of discussion about Christians without really breaking it down. There is a difference in how Catholics, Orthodox, mainstream Protestants, and evangelicals tend to view these things.

These are from the article I posted:




I will say this, as well, in that from my experiences the more charitable denominations have been the Catholic and mainline Protestants. I serve on the board of directors for an ecumenical charity in my area and we work closely with all of the congregations in the county and city, here, to help pool resources and more efficiently and effectively provide for the community. I try to stay on top of what the congregations are doing, talking to them about their benevolence activities and the ways they serve the area. What I have found is that the group that is most active relative to their size is the Catholics. The congregations that do little to no work in the community, though, are the evangelical protestants.

Now, this is anecdotal and I'm not going to claim that this is something that holds true everywhere, but this is just what I have noticed in my area. I also don't know the reason. I couldn't tell you if it is a lack of real formal structure that leads to a lack of organized efforts for community aid, or if they are just being greedy. I'm just saying that there are real efforts by some denominations/congregations to help people that need it, but not all of them are as benevolent with their resources.

[Dill]

(10-15-2018, 10:49 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: When you say religious, are you talking "I am religious" (on Facebook) as they say something lame, or people that ACTUALLY are religious, go to church every week, participate in church activities?

Because I can't help but think you're equating the "religious" with the actually religious, which is wrong. The real religious are doing food drives for the poor, gathering warm coats when the temperatures drop to hand out to the homeless, building homes, going overseas to help get people vaccines and clean water sources. I know people who went with their church to New Orleans to tear down ruined flooded houses and rebuild new ones after Katrina.

NONE of those things sound anything like "enjoying the concept of the poor suffering". So I think you are either using social media "religious" folk who are only "religious" in words and only when it suits them as your view, or you really just don't know any truly religious people and have formed a very sadly ignorant opinion with your self-admitted bias. (I'm not religious myself, but I have come into contact with a ton of people who are, and have done so much good for those who needed it.)

My term was "the religious right"--meaning people who actively support right wing politics on religious grounds. All of these people claim they are "religious," so I am not going to claim they are not "really" religious if they don't hand out coats to the homeless.  I am just describing political behavior, then evaluating it.

But if you have been following my posts and the links I have quoted, then you know that my interest is in a subset of the religious right, namely white Evangelicals, who generally self identify with the religious right and claim to follow Jesus--and who do give handouts to the homeless while supporting reduction of welfare for poor families and tax cuts for the rich and Trump policies of separating families on the border.

And again, if you follow my links, "what I am using" are statements by Evangelical pastors and theologians who influence the political behavior of millions of Americans.  And it looks like a great many of the people "doing food drives" and what not are also Trump supporters. (Check out Bels' bar graph above, post #93.)

I don't recall admitting my "bias."  That's not a term I use; I don't find it has much descriptive or explanatory value (same reason I don't use the term "extremist"). I just started a thread last week suggesting bias hunters are generally projecting their own bias on everything.

In addition to knowing something of the history of Christianity, including its Greek roots, I should also mention that my father was a Baptist minister and missionary, so I grew up "in the church" as they say, and know something about "truly religious people"--starting with the church women's group who sent me cookies every semester my first year in college, and people who paid their tithes by bringing our family a side of beef or donating medical care (dentists and doctors). I have been to dozens of pot lucks and funerals and helped disabled farmers get their fences mended.
My parents were always taking people in and feeding them. Once they took care of a 16-year old orphan for a year, till he was old enough to join the military.  I am still an "inactive" member of the First Baptist Church in my hometown, still see the old members when I go back for a visit. My sister is, if anything, OVERACTIVE in church programs helping the poor and children. So even though I am not myself a believer, I do know something of people who claim to be "really religious," and that knowledge has little to do with Facebook, which I only check once a month.

[fredtoast]

(10-15-2018, 01:05 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: As for the Muslim/Christian thing, that is probably because the fake Christians are just douchebags who say stupid shit on the internet, while the Muslims that aren't being called out are beheading people, blowing themselves up in crowded markets, flying planes into skyscrspers, and gunning down buildings full of cartoonists for drawing Mohammed.

Now there is some brilliant logic to defend Christians.

"We don't have to call out any hypocritical Christians because radical Muslims kill people."

And we know that is the exact reason because it come from an unbiased expert like yourself.

[Benton]

(10-15-2018, 01:05 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If you weren't so busy being such a Fred, you would realize he literally said himself that he is biased. If someone calls themselves bias, then yes, I can call them bias.

As for the Muslim/Christian thing, that is probably because the fake Christians are just douchebags who say stupid shit on the internet, while the Muslims that aren't being called out are beheading people, blowing themselves up in crowded markets, flying planes into skyscrspers, and gunning down buildings full of cartoonists for drawing Mohammed.

But yes Fred, other than that funny how it is totally the same.

Oh, there's militant, extremist christian's too. If there's a religion, there's probably someone out there exploiting it.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-15-2018, 01:11 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Who isn't biased?  The closest thing I have to show I'm not super biased is that I've lived in many places with many different people around me and I've disliked, but mostly been ok with all of them.  That's something, hain't it?

Harry Callahan isn’t biased. Hates everyone equal. (If I put the actual quote it would look like the top of a keyboard)

[*PhilHos*]

(10-15-2018, 12:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Also funny how people criticize moderate Muslims for not strongly condemning the radicals among them, but we don't see many Christians calling out the hypocrites among themselves.

That's probably because it's the hypocrites among Christians usually calling out everone else.   

[GMDino]

Evangelical leader: Going after Saudi Arabia for journalist's disappearance not worth risking "$100 billion worth of arms sales" https://t.co/nJjsIWJcdd pic.twitter.com/jyhsVu2bDZ

— The Hill (@thehill) October 17, 2018

[Dill]

(10-17-2018, 11:27 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Evangelical leader: Going after Saudi Arabia for journalist's disappearance not worth risking "$100 billion worth of arms sales" https://t.co/nJjsIWJcdd pic.twitter.com/jyhsVu2bDZ

— The Hill (@thehill) October 17, 2018