Donald Trump has exposed 'evangelical' voters

[Danmark]

I was raised as an evangelical. I WAS an evangelical. It is clear that Trump is not an authentic evangelical; he knows next to nothing about the Bible and has lived and continues to live and promote a lifestyle that is antithetical to evangelical Christianity.
Yet he is doing very well, better than any other Republican candidate, among evangelicals.

My conclusion is that evangelicals care much more about secular politics than about true Christian values. Has Trump support among 'evangelicals' exposed the fact the 'evangelical voting block' is not based on Christian values, but on secular political values?

[Danmark]

Between 1980 and 2005, out of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, only 6% were from Muslims.

You are not of course looking at the magnitude of the various attacks.

Your response to Goat's statistic which completely explodes your "it is correct to say all terrorists are Muslims (as far as the present brand of terrorism is concerned," has nothing to do with what you said. AND you have supplied NO figures to support your new, changed argument which is about some undefined 'magnitude' instead of your now apparently abandoned [due to being confronted with facts]argument that all 'present' terrorists are muslim.

[marco]

1. Whether or not the Pope speaks ex cathedra, his words are influential, especially for Catholics.
2. It is NOT correct to say "all terrorists are Muslims" even with your qualification, unless you actually mean the tautological "all Muslim terrorists are Muslims."
3. "Donald Trump has a point?" So did Hitler. And the point they both made is the same: People of certain religious faiths, and people from certain countries should be banned.

Wise as you are in the legal ways of men and language, good Danmark, I am afraid we must part in our opinions.
1. Those who are cognisant with the refugee situation in Europe - that is, the Europeans - will not be influenced by the Pope on this issue any more than they listen to Christ's impossible dictum: Turn the other cheek. He is of course greatly respected but it is accepted that his words often relate to the behaviour of angels and higher order beings.


2. As soon as someone dares to use the word all, there is a great danger that a counterexample will have slipped by somewhere, rendering the statement false. I thought my qualification would get round this but it obviously hasn't. There may be in the present situation of cities being bombed and people murdered by suicide bombers (the area of atrocity I was referring to) some random guy who is not a Muslim, helping with the mischief. I don't know of any such.


3. The point I assumed Donald Trump was making is that when we have suicide bombers from a particular quarter - and we already had a major atrocity in New York, from that quarter - it would be prudent to pause for breath to allow an examination of what is going on and why. Perhaps someone may be able to appease those that want to kill us when we learn exactly why they feel drawn to murder. That can hardly be bad. Of course we must be careful that we don't slide into extermination camps and you are right to urge caution when an entire religious group is put in the spotlight. I don't think Trump put them there: drawings of Muhammad - murder followed; The Satanic Verses: murder followed; teddy bear named Muhammad: murder followed. And just last week in Glasgow a lovely Muslim shopkeeper was murdered because he wished Christians a happy Easter. Donald hasn't had anything to do with these slurs on Islam. Only a few, you may say? Watch the baying thousands who call for death to those who malign the Prophet.

Donald may not have been the best person to say it, but he is right in mentioning that there IS a problem. Acting with fairness is fine; the problem still has to be addressed. When the problem comes to one's doorstep, it has the effect of altering one's philanthropy - just a little. Perhaps the proximity of disaster alters my reasoned approach while a distance of thousands of miles makes for calmer consideration.
My best regards to you - we are normally of the same opinion.

[Danmark]

1. Whether or not the Pope speaks ex cathedra, his words are influential, especially for Catholics.
2. It is NOT correct to say "all terrorists are Muslims" even with your qualification, unless you actually mean the tautological "all Muslim terrorists are Muslims."
3. "Donald Trump has a point?" So did Hitler. And the point they both made is the same: People of certain religious faiths, and people from certain countries should be banned.

Wise as you are in the legal ways of men and language, good Danmark, I am afraid we must part in our opinions.
1. Those who are cognisant with the refugee situation in Europe - that is, the Europeans - will not be influenced by the Pope on this issue any more than they listen to Christ's impossible dictum: Turn the other cheek. He is of course greatly respected but it is accepted that his words often relate to the behaviour of angels and higher order beings.

I said Catholics may have some internal conflict between their personal feelings and the Pope's opinions on this issue.

2. As soon as someone dares to use the word all, there is a great danger that a counterexample will have slipped by somewhere, rendering the statement false. I thought my qualification would get round this but it obviously hasn't. There may be in the present situation of cities being bombed and people murdered by suicide bombers (the area of atrocity I was referring to) some random guy who is not a Muslim, helping with the mischief. I don't know of any such.


3. The point I assumed Donald Trump was making is that when we have suicide bombers from a particular quarter - and we already had a major atrocity in New York, from that quarter - it would be prudent to pause for breath to allow an examination of what is going on and why. Perhaps someone may be able to appease those that want to kill us when we learn exactly why they feel drawn to murder. That can hardly be bad. Of course we must be careful that we don't slide into extermination camps and you are right to urge caution when an entire religious group is put in the spotlight. I don't think Trump put them there: drawings of Muhammad - murder followed; The Satanic Verses: murder followed; teddy bear named Muhammad: murder followed. And just last week in Glasgow a lovely Muslim shopkeeper was murdered because he wished Christians a happy Easter. Donald hasn't had anything to do with these slurs on Islam. Only a few, you may say? Watch the baying thousands who call for death to those who malign the Prophet.

Donald may not have been the best person to say it, but he is right in mentioning that there IS a problem. Acting with fairness is fine; the problem still has to be addressed. When the problem comes to one's doorstep, it has the effect of altering one's philanthropy - just a little. Perhaps the proximity of disaster alters my reasoned approach while a distance of thousands of miles makes for calmer consideration.
My best regards to you - we are normally of the same opinion.

Thank you Marco.

I confess I find myself sharing some of the same concerns about Muslim emigration, or rather the emigration of any group to any country if the members of the immigrant group have beliefs and practices that are in conflict with those of the host country. Bringing anti democratic values with them when they move to a democratic country, and expecting to have such values honored and respected seems to show remarkable ingratitude, among other things. Expecting one's host to make unreasonable accommodations can bring out the worst of prejudice in me as well as others. When those contrary values or practices are inspired by religion, they are virtually ineradicable. It can be difficult to hold on to our own values about fairness, diversity, and not judging an entire group by the highly visible violent extremists.

[marco]

I confess I find myself sharing some of the same concerns about Muslim emigration, or rather the emigration of any group to any country if the members of the immigrant group have beliefs and practices that are in conflict with those of the host country. Bringing anti democratic values with them when they move to a democratic country, and expecting to have such values honored and respected seems to show remarkable ingratitude, among other things. Expecting one's host to make unreasonable accommodations can bring out the worst of prejudice in me as well as others. When those contrary values or practices are inspired by religion, they are virtually ineradicable. It can be difficult to hold on to our own values about fairness, diversity, and not judging an entire group by the highly visible violent extremists.

These concerns are well put but already many European countries ACCEPT these terms hoping that peaceful co-existence will result. It took the raping of German women in railway stations to nudge the Swedes into admitting they also had a problem. It may be that the position of women in other countries is not as high as in the West; there are plenty of anecdotes to suggest this and I need not use them.

We now know that some of the refugees were involved in the Paris and Brussels atrocities. It is common sense that ISIS will have spotted an opportunity for infiltration. All our concerns about the terrible face of religion are being tested in Europe. I have no idea what the solution is, but it is certainly not the one Angela Merkel came up with: Welcome everyone! Germany has been swamped and millions continue to move. The culture of Europe will necessarily change, and we can expect theocracies where democracy once flourished. It is a matter of time.

[Goat]

"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel," Pope Francis told journalists who asked his opinion on Trump's proposals to halt illegal immigration.

Trump immediately fired back, calling Francis' comments "disgraceful."

I'd guess that Roman Catholics who vote for Trump may have some internal conflict.

Not really, Danmark. Francis is speaking from his rather soft and impractical heart and not ex cathedra. There is a possibility that many of the European "refugees" are going to be our future bombers. The majority are able bodied young men. It is of course wrong to say that ALL Muslims are terrorists; but it is correct to say all terrorists are Muslims (as far as the present brand of terrorism is concerned). Trump - as I understand from a distance - simply suggested that you need time to assess the situation; who is good and who is bad. That is eminently sensible. In tolerant Britain our chief export has become terrorists. We are belatedly trying to close doors. So Donald has a point.

Betweeen 1980 and 2005, out of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, only 6% were from Muslims.

I question that statistic. What or who accounts for the other 94%? And anyone who follows my posts on these boards knows I am an Abrahamic harmony kind of guy, and not knee-jerk "anti-Muslim". But that very low statistic makes me wonder how you (or your source) defines "terrorism".

Although this is not the source I got that information from (I can't find that exact site again), here is an analysts http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslim ... ca/5333619

[marco]

Although this is not the source I got that information from (I can't find that exact site again), here is an analysts http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslim ... ca/5333619

Hello Goat, that's an interesting article. I see Gays and Mormons are a huge terrorist threat as well. There is terrorism and TERRORISM; obviously attacks on people are bad, but no one who witnessed the planes crashing into the Twin Towers would EVER put the Muslim threat as very low. Surely the numbers killed there add something to the magnitude of the threat, rather than the simple arithmetic of taking the number of acts of aggression and including 9/11 as just another one of these things. That act alone makes the threat VERY serious.

Tell those who were in Paris and Brussels in the past year that the threat is minimal. The only reason it was Paris and not Washington is distance; Paris was convenient. I suppose when eventually buildings explode around innocent people, statisticians will still add yet another atrocity to the list and raise the 6% to perhaps 8%. We can make miracles from statistics. The wonder is why people want to.

The other point is that Paris and Brussels ARE in a sense America; the threat here is a threat across the Atlantic. Hide the threat under spurious statistics and you pay the price.

[Goat]

Although this is not the source I got that information from (I can't find that exact site again), here is an analysts http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslim ... ca/5333619

Hello Goat, that's an interesting article. I see Gays and Mormons are a huge terrorist threat as well. There is terrorism and TERRORISM; obviously attacks on people are bad, but no one who witnessed the planes crashing into the Twin Towers would EVER put the Muslim threat as very low. Surely the numbers killed there add something to the magnitude of the threat, rather than the simple arithmetic of taking the number of acts of aggression and including 9/11 as just another one of these things. That act alone makes the threat VERY serious.

Tell those who were in Paris and Brussels in the past year that the threat is minimal. The only reason it was Paris and not Washington is distance; Paris was convenient. I suppose when eventually buildings explode around innocent people, statisticians will still add yet another atrocity to the list and raise the 6% to perhaps 8%. We can make miracles from statistics. The wonder is why people want to.

The other point is that Paris and Brussels ARE in a sense America; the threat here is a threat across the Atlantic. Hide the threat under spurious statistics and you pay the price.

There is a scewed number due ot one incident, but the second biggest incident on U.S. soil was the bomb that was set of by Timothy McVeigh. He was not a Muslim.

[Elijah John]

Although this is not the source I got that information from (I can't find that exact site again), here is an analysts http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslim ... ca/5333619

Hello Goat, that's an interesting article. I see Gays and Mormons are a huge terrorist threat as well. There is terrorism and TERRORISM; obviously attacks on people are bad, but no one who witnessed the planes crashing into the Twin Towers would EVER put the Muslim threat as very low. Surely the numbers killed there add something to the magnitude of the threat, rather than the simple arithmetic of taking the number of acts of aggression and including 9/11 as just another one of these things. That act alone makes the threat VERY serious.

Tell those who were in Paris and Brussels in the past year that the threat is minimal. The only reason it was Paris and not Washington is distance; Paris was convenient. I suppose when eventually buildings explode around innocent people, statisticians will still add yet another atrocity to the list and raise the 6% to perhaps 8%. We can make miracles from statistics. The wonder is why people want to.

The other point is that Paris and Brussels ARE in a sense America; the threat here is a threat across the Atlantic. Hide the threat under spurious statistics and you pay the price.

It is interesting too that the article Goat provided considers the Boston Marathon bombers "murderers and not terrorists".

Yup, if one wants to play games with definitions and statistics, one can support whatever agenda, no matter how absurd.

The absudity in this case is to minimize the threat from Islamic terrorism.

Getting back to Trump, yes he is somewhat adept at defining problems, but is often ridiculous in his solutions.

Banning ALL Muslims from the US is not the answer...putting a halt to mass Syrian refugee immigration may be, at least for the time being.

And no state should be forced by the Feds to accept them.

It is just common sense to want to restrict (if not eliminate) immigration from countries that have ISIS or Islamic extremist problems.

Doe the word inflitration ring a bell? (rhetorical question addressed to all)

Both Europe and the US are in the same boat here and need to take better precautions, even at the risk of being politically incorrect or hurting feelings and offending some.

[marco]

There is a scewed number due to one incident, but the second biggest incident on U.S. soil was the bomb that was set of by Timothy McVeigh. He was not a Muslim.

Obviously the human race contains evil people and I am not suggesting that Islam possesses them all. We started talking about threats and whether Trump was right in referring to the threat from Islamic terrorists. He is - and fortunately authorities here and over in America disregard your 6% statistic and in doing so uncover terrorists before they can blow us up.

The harsh fact is that, here in Britain, we EXPECT a terrorist attack and we are pretty sure from which direction it will come. Your statistics offer us little comfort. If America is free of such awful expectations, thank your lucky stars and continue to be vigilant. Listening to Donald might be a wise move.

[Elijah John]

There is a scewed number due to one incident, but the second biggest incident on U.S. soil was the bomb that was set of by Timothy McVeigh. He was not a Muslim.

Obviously the human race contains evil people and I am not suggesting that Islam possesses them all. We started talking about threats and whether Trump was right in referring to the threat from Islamic terrorists. He is - and fortunately authorities here and over in America disregard your 6% statistic and in doing so uncover terrorists before they can blow us up.

The harsh fact is that, here in Britain, we EXPECT a terrorist attack and we are pretty sure from which direction it will come. Your statistics offer us little comfort. If America is free of such awful expectations, thank your lucky stars and continue to be vigilant. Listening to Donald might be a wise move.

It's not just Trump who is aware of the problem, or put it in realistic perspective. ALL of the Republicans (except maybe isolationist Rand Paul) take the threat far more seriously than Obama, Hillary, Bernie, or the Democrats do.

And now Ted Cruz is perhaps the best, "non-Trump" bet to help secure the US from further terrorist attack.