[Trump] An invitation for Evangelicals to Debate the Merits of Supporting Trump

I'm a minority, and I have friends who are Evangelical right wingers. They have all the talking points, but man they are closet racists as well. I know this because their children tell me.

As for a poll, look at the 2016 SC primary, I believe you will see that Trump beat Cruz amongst evangelicals by 5-10 points. I remember that one because it shocked me at the time, and was a real wake-up that it wasn't about social issue but rather xenophobia.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...cals-arent-necessarily-voting-on-their-faith/

Interesting article from March 2016 discussing the rise of "trumpvangelicals"...

Trumpvangelicals are the new evangelicals

https://theweek.com/articles/609834/trumpvangelicals-are-new-evangelicals

 

From my experience, the Evangelical Christians who genuinely read the Bible and try to understand it rather than just adhering to cultural values and assuming what's in the Bible are the ones most like to do things such as help refugees.

 

#3-#5 sounds like rationalizations for #1 and #2

#1 is clear.

#2 is muddy and I'm curious if you can talk more about it. I interpret that more than simply religious freedom- we all have that in the US. In fact, I see it as the very opposite of religious freedom.

What I interpret that as is not religious freedom, but a nation of Christain values, or traditional White American culture that was once exclusively Christain. Which rub directly against freedom of other religion or culture that is viewed as anti-Christain. This is where the MAGA resonant - to bring that culture back. (And that is where some folks see as "racism").

Why? I think Evangelicals have witnessed the decline of religion, their religion, in the public sphere and in American culture - in school, in films, in the younger generation and worse, they see a further decline - a fear of the minority-majority status, a fear of Islam supports, fear of agnostic atheism and other trends against their culture.

What is your interpretation of #2?

 

What is your definition of refugee? Poor person using the title as a loophole to sneak in from another country isn't it. I am assuming this is your meaning based on past discussions in this forum.

Furthermore, if you are talking about actual refugees, there are other ways to support it. Like supporting Tulsi who opposes regime change wars the CREATE REFUGEES. Or go with Trump for now who appears to not be for starting wars in comparison to most candidates against him.

The best way to help refugees is to not create them and destroy their homes.

 

So they are your friends.... lol

 

Your myoptic views are easy to pick apart.

Which is it? What is todays goal post? In one post of yours, racism is black and white. In this one, its a gradient. Let me ask you this; At one point does one come racist enough to officially be called racist on the @Sweet Lou 4 2 scientific racist scale? When they vote R? When they dont completely attack and ridicule Trump? When they disagree with you? For someone who is all about the Racist Range, you're one to be the first to label someone a racist or some other derogatory term.
And for the record, this is one of the few times I agree with you. I disagree with you when you go on one of your anecdotal tirades insinuating people are racist.

This has been stated. Evangelicals tend to be very tribal. Yes, they are indeed going to be unfriendly towards Muslims. There is not a strong Asian presence in Christianity. Evangelicals are still deeply rooted in the patriarch, so yes, they are going to resist feminists.

And I have no idea what 'white cultural values' are. Coming from you, it sounds like a synonym for Racist.

It was not the Evangelicals who were high on the idea of Kavanaugh attempting to overturn Roe vs Wade. It was a liberal boogieman who thought a Republican leaning majority in the SCOTUS would instantly return us back to the puritan ways of the 1600's.

And what is your definition of an Evangelical? You do understand there is not a black and white definition of Evangelical. The OP has stated as much in his view.

 

I think the above statement summarizes your post perfectly and is exactly my point

 

A Christian of Jesus' teachings probably have empathy for people who find their current living conditions so poor and miserable they are willing to trek 1000 mile journeys and rush imprisonment.

Just put yourself in someone's shoes who genuinely believes there is an eternal after life and that this plane is merely temporary. Imagine adhering to a god like figure in Jesus who incessantly preached about helping the poor and how wealthy people will have significantly harder times finding God in the after life. Do you think they would give a **** about human made legal labels? They are going to prioritize their empathy over the distinction between legal and illegal refugee because in the eyes of those type of Christians, even the ones who come here illegally because they are so damn poor and just want a job opportunity to feed their families also deserve empathy.

Thank goodness Tulsi isn't the only candidate that doesn't pander about stopping regime change wars. Except people like Bernie don't pander and have been addressing those issues for decades while Tulsi before the Trump era was blasting Obama about how he needs to label our "war on terror" a "war on fundamentalist Islam".

 

They are the parents of friends. I don't know many evangelicals outside the ones I knew growing up in the south or the parents of close friends. They tended to try to tell my family how we were going to hell because we worshiped idols or multiple gods. I also went to a Parochial school when I was in grade school and was told similar things. Thankfully our parents pulled us from there and put us into public school.

 

Should a Muslim baker be able to refuse to make a cake for Christians? Should someone who has a conscious objection against issuing marriage certificates to heterosexuals be placed in an official role where they are suppose to follow the law? And should a doctor who has an issue with abortions be a gynecologist?

No one is forcing these things on to people no more than their job requires them to. If Walmart makes you clean the toilets, is that being "forced" to do things?

This is what annoys me about this argument, you act like Christians have some special privileged over other people.

 

My family is very well versed in theology. My dad was a deacon in the church growing up. They know he’s immoral but they choose to support him nonetheless and passionately at best.

If at Christmas I was to challenge them regarding theology and calling out the teachings of Jesus and how they conflict with cruelty of refugees, stealing from the poor (food stamp cuts), or just blanket racism I guarantee you the conversation would not go well. They would emotionally throw back every talking point you can imagine, and if they did have to cite the Bible, they always go to David to tell how God takes unlikely immoral characters and changes them to change the world to God. Seriously... and I know all the problems with that argument as well (the fact that David had repented before he was really seen as a Godly representation etc). It does not matter. In the end, the support and passion for him comes down to one thing and one thing alone...

They believe liberals (Muslims, African Americans, Democrats, Latinos, etc.) are an existential threat to their culture and way of life. They have chosen Trump and believe he is truly chosen by God to fight for their Leave it To Beaver utopia culture, and nothing will convince them otherwise until Trump is beaten and is honest about how he has used Evangelical Whites for their voting and media power.

They choose him because he can literally get away with murder and say what they really think... as crazy as what they think is. They chose Trump over Cruz because Trump can get away with what they know others in the GOP cannot. This is the end times in their minds. They NEED a bomb thrower to get what they want as the world ends in their minds. The obsession with the end times only gives them more credence to throw the rule of law out the window. It’s time to throw the gloves off and really battle the liberals once and for all.

 

You do realize that borders have a purpose? Religion aside, you won't have a nice country if you let everyone in. If you fail to grasp this concept, then there is really no point in further discussion. We are at an impasse.

Just saying Christians have to give to everyone seems to be a bit base which is what you are getting at regarding this just help all the poor thing. Unfortunately, you can't help everyone at the expense of your future and your family's future.. At the end of the day, they have a responsibility to help their own by ensuring a nice place for the future generations. Family, just after God, is the Top responsibility of a Christian. Not destroying their homeland and its future for their children. That is a basic economic argument, as unrestricted flow of migration is essentially a death nail for a culture, society, and an economy. It's already wreaked havoc because generations of people refused to properly enforce bipartisan laws regarding immigration.

One way Christians can help is by supporting political causes that will improve trade deals with poor countries. Another way, and this is a way to help those poor in your country, is to make sure more poor don't come in and take their resources and compete for jobs and suppress wages (the best way to help to poor is to not be poor, they say). These are actually reasons to vote for Trump or others willing to enforce the border laws and even improve them. Wall or no wall, improvement is needed.

And furthermore, I will restate this, Christians seeking to help the refugees, the actual ones, should support those willing to stand against regime change wars, resource wars, and other actions that cause instability. And this is not a party issue. Bush was a war monger, Clinton was willing to be one, Obama was also a war monger, and Trump is showing that he likes to skirt the border of it (I have no doubt he will get us into one next term). In fact that is why I would prefer Tulsi, as she is the only one will to take the correct moral stance on this issue.

 

Sorry - I thought you were making that argument versus repeating what they were saying