Is this positive or negative for US society?

[Zzyzx]

.
Recent articles

White Evangelicals, This is Why People Are Through With You

“Your willingness to align yourself with cruelty is a costly marriage. Yes, you’ve gained a Supreme Court seat, a few months with the Presidency as a mouthpiece, and the cheap high of temporary power—but you’ve lost a whole lot more.

“You’ve lost an audience with millions of wise, decent, good-hearted, faithful people with eyes to see this ugliness.
You’ve lost any moral high ground or spiritual authority with a generation.
You’ve lost any semblance of Christlikeness.
You’ve lost the plot.
And most of all you’ve lost your soul.�

https://johnpavlovitz.com/2018/01/24/wh ... 7ugY67cjjo

And

‘Nones’ now as big as evangelicals, Catholics in the US

“In a shift that stands to impact both religion and politics, survey data suggests that the percentage of Americans who don’t affiliate with any specific religious tradition is now roughly the same as those who identify as evangelical or Catholic.�
https://religionnews.com/2019/03/21/non ... in-the-us/

Is this positive or negative for US society?
Why? (with reasoning and evidence to support positions)

[bjs]

.
Recent articles

White Evangelicals, This is Why People Are Through With You

“Your willingness to align yourself with cruelty is a costly marriage. Yes, you’ve gained a Supreme Court seat, a few months with the Presidency as a mouthpiece, and the cheap high of temporary power—but you’ve lost a whole lot more.

“You’ve lost an audience with millions of wise, decent, good-hearted, faithful people with eyes to see this ugliness.
You’ve lost any moral high ground or spiritual authority with a generation.
You’ve lost any semblance of Christlikeness.
You’ve lost the plot.
And most of all you’ve lost your soul.�

https://johnpavlovitz.com/2018/01/24/wh ... 7ugY67cjjo

I don’t think that there is any truth to this part. John disliked Evangelicals before Trump, and he dislikes Evangelicals now. He never thought Evangelicals had the moral high ground or that he was part of their audience.

That seems to be true for the country as a whole. People who liked Evangelicals before Trump might be concerned about the position Evangelicals are in, but they tend to recognize the more nuanced situation and haven’t changed their view of Evangelicals all that much.

People, like John, who disliked Evangelicals before Trump are using the fact that most Evangelicals who voted supported Trump as an excuse to express their bigotry toward Evangelicals more loudly.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Lot of opinion there, but where is John's evidence? And why bring up the race (white) Evangelicals. Is John attempting to divide us with race baiting? More blacks supported Trump than have supported Romney or McCain.

If one wants to point out the strangeness of the political alliance of Donald Trump with Christian conservatives due to Trump's past personal failings and character flaws, fair game. But considering the alternative, Catholics and Evangelicals had a clear choice in voting for the pro-life candidate, Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton, and the Democrat party favor abortion pretty much on demand, among other things.

Muslims are also pro-life and pro traditional marraige. And that begs the question, why would any Muslim vote Democrat?

And to equate Trump with "cruelty" is also sheer opinion, and I would say unfair.

And this from the Washington Times:

The Clinton campaign’s biggest problem may be its assault on Catholics. Prominent Catholic organizations called on Clinton campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri to resign after the surfacing of messages showing her making fun of the faith. The campaign of Republican nominee Donald Trump seized on the opportunity to appeal to religious voters.

Why wouldn't Catholics and Evangelicals vote for Trump when the Clinton campaign had contempt for them, and Trump embraced them?

[2ndRateMind]

Is this positive or negative for US society?
Why? (with reasoning and evidence to support positions)

Hmmmm. Good questions. I note that the UK, once a Christian monoculture, is now mostly secular. So far, the country has not fallen apart.

As an unashamed liberal, I don't don't have all that much sympathy with the politically right wing evangelical movement, either. Someone once said that all of political philosophy is about: 'Who gets what?' and: 'Says who?' I see no reason why the white male Christian hegemony of the US should legitimately decide that white male Christians should hog the the bulk of the world's wealth.

It is as if evangelical white male Christians want everyone to believe what they believe, because they know their claim to property rests on their ideology, and they want the rest of the world, out of their own evangelical insecurity, to agree with their politics. And thus they hope to avert any potential challenge to their allegedly moral right to their riches. It's a sad response to existential angst, because the route to happiness and fulfillment is not to persuade others you are right, but simply to satisfy your own conscience.

And if all proselytising evangelicals did only that, it might provide the example for the rest of the world to follow, voluntarily, without any need for persuasion.

I speak, of course, as a white male Christian, myself.

Best wishes, 2RM.