Evangelical Support for Trump Proves Religion is Tribal, not Principled

[Diogenes]

White Evangelicals were Trump's biggest voting block in 2016. We might give them a pass for that. But they again supported him in 2020 despite the proof he violated virtually every commandment and everything Jesus of Nazareth preached. Even now when he is charged with multiple felonies, including violating the espionage act and been convicted of fraud, "Christians still support him."

Does this prove Christianity, or at least white evangelical Christianity in the United States, is merely a tribal passion rather than a religion that believes in the principles and teachings of Jesus?

For eight years, Donald Trump has managed to secure the support of many evangelical and conservative Christians despite behavior that often seemed at odds with teachings espoused by Christ in the Gospels.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-evange ... b7344a0dd0

[historia]

If mainstream evangelical Christianity stands for anything resembling principle and the teachings of Jesus, they would repudiate Donald Trump and his Fascist messages . . . . Unfortunately they will fail to do so, again demonstrating how religion has become a corrupt tool of the State

The problem with your arguments in this thread, Diogenes, is that you are taking the actions of a particular religious group -- white evangelical Protestants, who only constitute 14% of the American population -- and from that making sweeping claims about "religion" as a whole. Surely you see the problem with that kind of analysis.

Where today in "Christian" America are the Martin Niemöllers?

There are many, especially outside of white Evangelical Protestants. You might want to crack open Christianity Today to see principled Evangelicals criticizing Trump.

I would think every Christian on this forum would be condemning Donald Trump for echoing the anti-Christian hate of Adolf Hitler.

Not everyone here has the time to publicly condemn everything Trump has to say, especially when some of us have done so repeatedly in the past.

[Diogenes]

If mainstream evangelical Christianity stands for anything resembling principle and the teachings of Jesus, they would repudiate Donald Trump and his Fascist messages . . . . Unfortunately they will fail to do so, again demonstrating how religion has become a corrupt tool of the State

The problem with your arguments in this thread, Diogenes, is that you are taking the actions of a particular religious group -- white evangelical Protestants, who only constitute 14% of the American population -- and from that making sweeping claims about "religion" as a whole. Surely you see the problem with that kind of analysis.

Where today in "Christian" America are the Martin Niemöllers?

There are many, especially outside of white Evangelical Protestants. You might want to crack open Christianity Today to see principled Evangelicals criticizing Trump.

I would think every Christian on this forum would be condemning Donald Trump for echoing the anti-Christian hate of Adolf Hitler.

Not everyone here has the time to publicly condemn everything Trump has to say, especially when some of us have done so repeatedly in the past.

You make a good point about no one having the time to repudiate every hateful thing he says.

I also agree that there are a few, a very few Christian voices that repudiate Trump, and not just in in Christianity Today. Peter Wehner, the brother of a friend and retired cop, has written excellent articles* condemning Trump (from a Christian's POV) in the Atlantic.. But those few, faint voices are thunderously drowned out by shouts of the rabble who cry, "Give us Barabbas!" This is what the mainstream and evangelical Republicans have become, crucifying what Jesus stood for while calling for their Golden Calf.



Your statistic about white evangelicals is inapposite. The better metric is their percentage within American Christianity, where White Evangelicals make up the single largest group of 'Christians.' Combined with 'mainline' protestants, they make up nearly 50% of Christians in America.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/re ... ion/white/

As a former Christian and one who still holds to moral principles of Jesus of Nazareth, I am sorely disappointed those values are tossed aside for an abomination and such an anti-Christian as Donald Trump.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... p-in-2020/

_______________________
*https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... cs/620469/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ce/674435/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... mp/581965/

[Clownboat]

I think too many (no one specific here) are ignoring the fact that when there are two choices. Finding one choice to be better than the other does not necessarily mean a person likes/supports that option option. Any person, Christian or not that supports Trump over another means just that, they support one over the other.

Imagine that they consider that Trump has 3 strikes against him, but they see the other option as having 5 strikes against them. Surely we can understand who they will vote for an why and Hitler would be irrelevant.

I usually agree with you, but not this time.

I'm confused. My claim that is if someone rightfully or wrongfully (added for clarification) views that Trump has 3 strikes against him, but the other option rightfully or wrongfully has 5 strikes against them, we should be able to understand who they will vote for. Pretty simple and something I would think you would agree with.

In place of addressing this, you went on to state how bad one of his strikes is (not something I'm disagreeing with).

Someone that gets there info form liberal news may see the Hitler comparison and count that as a strike, perhaps even a fatal one.
Someone that gets their info from a conservative church will likely never see this comparison and therefore this strikes (perhaps a fatal one) is non existent to them. If someone were to try to turn such a person into a Hitler supporter, that would be going to far for me personally as the strikes have more to do with where they source their info.

There is no moral relativity here. When a 'man' parrots Adolf Hitler and openly opposes the Constitution and has been convicted of running a fraudulent business, no sane, moral person could vote for him as the lesser of two choices. I understand not voting at all. But what you suggest is the equivalent of a German in 1932 voting for Hitler, because he didn't like the other guy, despite the fact Hitler put it in writing that he would exterminate the Jews, that he was a racist.

I only agree to the extent there are many, sadly, in America who cannot or will not read the obvious signals about who and what Trump is. The same could be said for "good Germans" in the 1930's who, out of ignorance or worse, didn't get it.

Trump has openly said if elected again, he will subvert the Constitution and prosecute his political enemies. I do not understand how anyone cannot see what he is saying. Every criticism he makes of others is an obvious projection of his own heart and intent. Chamberlain compromised with Hitler in Munich. We should not do the same with Trump.

We have been given a chance to learn from the tragic mistakes that put Hitler in power. Let us learn from from [/size]history rather than repeat it.

You don't need to convince me to not want Trump as president, but to address as to why you do not understand how anyone cannot see what he is saying... They are not seeing it and therefore it isn't counted as a strike against him.

[Purple Knight]

Does this prove Christianity, or at least white evangelical Christianity in the United States, is merely a tribal passion rather than a religion that believes in the principles and teachings of Jesus?

I would say the fact that any belief exists now after having been around for any length of time proves that it is tribal first, and everything else second.

If your beliefs are principled first, before tribal, or not tribal at all, everyone who believes them will just die out in a hundred years. Because the world is tribal. The world is still playing teams. And if you help the other team as much as your own you just lose.

The real dividing line between necessary tribal and vicious tribal is the simple question of whether we can be inclusive and not hurt ourselves. If we can, and thus we do, that's the LNT, Least Necessary Tribalism, and the only way to sustainably move toward a world that is less tribal, rather than one that is more tribal.

These people are the reason wars are lost, why humanity struggles to progress, why disease proliferates, why death is more common than it should be. These people are scum. They are the worst - yet think they are the best - which makes them the absolute worst. They are uneducated, ignorant, irrational, greedy, lustful... vile in almost every way. Even in their cowardice - since they actually don't do anything overtly. They always have others do their crimes: like making the State impose laws against their enemies.

What if both sides simply see the other as this, which is why it's actually true in both cases rather than neither? I mean, if this is how you see your enemies, it's justified to do anything to stop them, right?

[Diogenes]

This post is, sort of, related to the recent posts of both Clownboat and Purple Knight... and now that I think of it, an argument by Historia as well. It also argues against some ideas of mine. Struck recently by the seemingly eternal violence in the Middle East, I looked for ammunition to blame this on religion. What I found was an interesting essay that strikes against some of my own prejudices. Among them is my frequent railing against theists who claim atheism is a religion.

That claim rests upon the definition of "religion," a definition that may be much harder to postulate than I had thought. in Does Religion Cause Violence?, William T. Cavanaugh argues that the claim is a result of incoherent thinking.
https://bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/does-r ... -violence/

Another essay and book also addresses the issue, Religion without God
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/first ... ithout-god

These are long essays, so I doubt many (any?) will read them, but they shed some light on many of the debates we have on this forum. Suffice it to say, it may not be religion that is the problem, but rather what Eric Hoffer referred to in his book, The True Believer.

This is an over simplification, but it may be that fanaticism is the problem, whether it stems from Nationalism, Religion, or Political. Belief. It is the blind loyalty to a person or cause that causes religious and political conflict, that inspires wars and attempted insurrections like that of January 6.
One of the points Cavanaugh makes is that religion, culture, and politics are hard to separate.
I had a discussion years ago with a visiting Egyptian Muslim who suddenly erupted in violent emotion, claiming it was "INSANITY!" not to fuse God/Religion with government.

What are your definitions of religion?

[Purple Knight]

This post is, sort of, related to the recent posts of both Clownboat and Purple Knight... and now that I think of it, an argument by Historia as well. It also argues against some ideas of mine. Struck recently by the seemingly eternal violence in the Middle East, I looked for ammunition to blame this on religion. What I found was an interesting essay that strikes against some of my own prejudices. Among them is my frequent railing against theists who claim atheism is a religion.

That claim rests upon the definition of "religion," a definition that may be much harder to postulate than I had thought. in Does Religion Cause Violence?, William T. Cavanaugh argues that the claim is a result of incoherent thinking.
https://bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/does-r ... -violence/

Another essay and book also addresses the issue, Religion without God
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/first ... ithout-god

These are long essays, so I doubt many (any?) will read them, but they shed some light on many of the debates we have on this forum. Suffice it to say, it may not be religion that is the problem, but rather what Eric Hoffer referred to in his book, The True Believer.

This is an over simplification, but it may be that fanaticism is the problem, whether it stems from Nationalism, Religion, or Political. Belief. It is the blind loyalty to a person or cause that causes religious and political conflict, that inspires wars and attempted insurrections like that of January 6.
One of the points Cavanaugh makes is that religion, culture, and politics are hard to separate.
I had a discussion years ago with a visiting Egyptian Muslim who suddenly erupted in violent emotion, claiming it was "INSANITY!" not to fuse God/Religion with government.

What are your definitions of religion?

This is a lot like what I say that faith, not religion, is the problem. People can have faith in anything. They can have faith in a person and you get Jonestown. They can have faith in "science" and you get racism, phrenology, and trepanning. They can have faith in a political position and you get extreme liberals, or extreme conservatives. Any time the other side is just the bad guy, evil, needs to be dealt with by any means necessary, that's an example. You might be using bad means for a good purpose - wiping out evil - but to the evil person, you're just raining destruction down on him and there's not a whole lot he can do to make you stop.

[Diogenes]

....
... it may not be religion that is the problem, but rather what Eric Hoffer referred to in his book, The True Believer.

This is a lot like what I say that faith, not religion, is the problem. People can have faith in anything. They can have faith in a person and you get Jonestown. They can have faith in "science" and you get racism, phrenology, and trepanning. They can have faith in a political position and you get extreme liberals, or extreme conservatives. Any time the other side is just the bad guy, evil, needs to be dealt with by any means necessary, that's an example. You might be using bad means for a good purpose - wiping out evil - but to the evil person, you're just raining destruction down on him and there's not a whole lot he can do to make you stop.

Yes!
I think it is the passion that accompanies absolute beliefs that is the problem. This is part of why I return to the scientific method, to empirical observation as the most reliable way to ascertain knowledge. The scientist must maintain some dispassionate detachment from her/his claims, knowing that new data will inevitably be available, that conclusions may need revision.

It is only the "True Believer" who may yield to the fanaticism of religious or political extremism.

[Purple Knight]

I think it is the passion that accompanies absolute beliefs that is the problem. This is part of why I return to the scientific method, to empirical observation as the most reliable way to ascertain knowledge. The scientist must maintain some dispassionate detachment from her/his claims, knowing that new data will inevitably be available, that conclusions may need revision.

It is only the "True Believer" who may yield to the fanaticism of religious or political extremism.

That's why I made this topic about whether science should be guided by morality or not.

viewtopic.php?t=41264

I think it shouldn't. I'm in the minority, but I think science should be amoral, about gaining knowledge only, and what people do with that knowledge should be up to them.

But again, extreme, extreme, EXTREME minority. What? You want to help people learn about genes? They might make supermen. That would be evil. Don't look for that knowledge. Only look for knowledge that can only be used for good. Or, you know, keep the evil people ignorant.

That might have been a good way to think before gunpowder. But after that, the cat's kind of out of the bag already.

[Diogenes]

That's why I made this topic about whether science should be guided by morality or not.

viewtopic.php?t=41264

I think it shouldn't. I'm in the minority, but I think science should be amoral, about gaining knowledge only, and what people do with that knowledge should be up to them.

But again, extreme, extreme, EXTREME minority. What? You want to help people learn about genes? They might make supermen. That would be evil. Don't look for that knowledge. Only look for knowledge that can only be used for good. Or, you know, keep the evil people ignorant.

That might have been a good way to think before gunpowder. But after that, the cat's kind of out of the bag already.

I agree science should not be guided by morality. Thinking of science and morality is like asking the color of time or speed. the use of science ('technology' is prob'ly a better word) should certainly be guided by morality. It is difficult, if not impossible to control knowledge. Almost anything can be used for good or bad. I agree we should not intentionally seek knowledge that can only be used for evil, but the same knowledge that can kill can also save. Also, many of our greatest discoveries were accidents. AND many bits of knowledge when first gained, had no apparent use or were later used for something different, something not imagined at first.

I'll offer a homely example, the small, insulated cooler. It is generally used as a way to keep things cold, but I use one every day to make blocks of clear ice. I fill it with water and put it in the freezer without putting the lid on. The water freezes slowly from the top down, pushing air and impurities to the bottom instead of trapping them in the middle. Take it out before it freezes completely and you have a nice block of perfectly clear ice above the remaining water.



But that same innocent ice chest could be used to house a bomb.

[TRANSPONDER]

I usually avoid politics, but something is happening that history will look back on (assuming we get the chance) as a revelation about politics as stunning as the one that will come when we realise that morality is an evolved instinct.

And I have to say with all false modesty that I realised this back in the 70's and 80's when I saw China switch from marxist to capitalist and then to fasc..."One party Authoritarian" without blinking. Extreme Left and Right are almost the same,

Nobody said it and they wouldn't have believed me if I had said so. But it's smack in front of our faces now, whether we see it or not. What is the common ground between of all things, Muslim fundamentalist Iran, supposedly Communist China and Russia where Red Tsarism is clearly what we got and the Old Russian Empire is the aim, whether one uses Russian Imperial symbolism or Soviet. And never mind No Korea with its' whatever it isIsm. What do they have in common? One party dictatorship, and you may bet your national debt on it.

And where is the US on this?

Friends, I loved Star Trek and indeed LoR and I respect Star wars, Batman and Superman. So I am absolutely behind Overlord, Nedrotic and Az when they fume about the ruination brought about by Disney. Yet, do they have to throw themselves behind MAGA and Trump? Because History (if we get to write one) will look back back on massive...massive... political influence. Yes, from Brexit (pushed by Media propaganda which i would bet my pension came from Russia) through Trumps Win, right up to today, where I would bet that Trump is doing whatever Putin wants and he is taking his MAGA supporters with him, including Elon Musk who in an almost unbelievable way is doing all he can to see that Putin wins.

What is the matter with these people? Can't they see they are supporting Fascism? Is their hatred of anything Liberal so great that they are siding with China and N Korea because they are backing Putin, who is also supported by MAGA and Trump? (I am sure Putin has dirt on him)

Friends, the next election will be crucial and only a big win for the party that will control the White House, Senate and House of Representatives to stop Right wing Fascism, with the Christians going along with it, and even excusing Really Really bad representatives, so long as they make the right noises. Both side are Christian or pretend to be, but MAGA is willing to support science denialist, crackpot and Genesis - literalist Christianity, which Democrats don't. That's where religion comes into it.

I have long been aware of 'agnostics'or irreligious theists who are actually atheists but who hate and oppose Atheism with venom and hatred. Because they see atheism as Left wing and liberal and that is what they can't stand. They don't believe in Christianity or even God anymore, but they are opposed to atheism because of their Rightwing political views. No guesswork. I have debated those who are atheist in everything but loathing of 'Soicialism' which they see atheism as promoting.

I am sure of this, and have seen it. Some Rightwing Theists become liberal almost as soon as they deconvert. Others remain opposed to nothing but the idea that atheism represents an extreme leftwing politio -socio position, and that is really what it's all about, both in Religion and politics.

You- wall are at liberty to disagree and hammer me.I welcome the input, but I will risk my hope of eternal oblivion that history will be writing Books about what you heard first, Right here.