This part is actually true. It’s right there in one of Paul’s letters, 1 Ford:
For the Lord DID come to me and spake that automatic transmissions are works of Satan and so shalt thou not drive oxcarts nor chariots nor travois nor basterna nor quadriga nor any other such wheeled vehicle whatsoever that haveth an automatic transmission.
And God didst smite the automatic transmissions into tiny bits. And the people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and orangutans.
Exactly!
Not to interrupt a hijack or anything, but it appears that there is some movement toward a broader view of Christian principles (love thy neighbor, take care of the earth, etc) among younger and also female evangelicals that is available to be tapped by a Christian liberal politician who is comfortable talking their language.
A tiny ray of hope, maybe.
Well, yes, there are always minor differences between the House and Senate versions of a bill. Are you claiming that there was some other difference that was actually relevant to the Senate’s decisions? If so, what?
Probably she should have. However, I am constantly disappointed at how frankly gullible the evangelical, and other professed faithful, are when a politician sprinkles in a few Biblical references and publishes a few photo ops of attending church. Can’t the see through this nonsense?
Not talking about Hillary, specifically. I really don’t know her story on this subject. But we’ve no doubt had atheist politicians play the Jesus card. It’s sorta like the “brush clearing while wearing a plaid shirt” nonsense we always get, just another box to check.
It’s all about abortion. They see through it if the politician is pro-choice. They don’t see through it if the politician uses pro-life rhetoric.
I’m telling you, that’s the non-negotiable.
If Democrats allowed voters who are passionate about being anti-abortion to feel comfortable within their ranks, if they supported rather than ostracized pro-life Democratic candidates, they would win a very significant chunk of evangelical votes.
It’s not going to happen. The equivalent here would be asking Republican politicians to be more flexible on gun control in order to win over voters from the Democrats. They would alienate far more voters from their own party than they would get as converts.
In that case, the answer to the OP is “No”. /End thread 
Has it escaped your notice that there are, in fact, pro-life Democratic politicians?
They are an endangered species and are being increasingly ostracized.
Not being the speaker, I can’t be sure what he meant; but here’s my take.
There’s no question that the folks who wrote the Bible often thought of themselves as delivering moral truth from on high. If Jesus said that the widows and orphans were to be fed, well, by golly, that was a directive that a true Christian couldn’t ignore. Things are a little more complex with Christians and the Old Testament, because Jesus stated he was there to overturn unnecessary older laws, and you won’t find too many Christians today who accept the OT’s directive to enslave neighboring peoples, but “Thou shalt not steal” from the 10 Commandments, among many others, seems to have survived pretty well.
So it does stand to reason that the things that are hammered at again and again were of particular importance to the gospel writers and to Paul and the rest of them. When Jesus says, again and again, that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, we might get the idea that, you know, he really, really means it (or, if you prefer, that the people who were writing his story really, really meant it). When Jesus mentions something else, but only a couple of times, or not at all, it’s easy to get the impression that whatever it was just wasn’t so important, so central, to his message.
So, yeah: widows and orphans, widows and orphans, widows and orphans, and DON’T YOU FORGET IT. Homosexuality and abortion? If you don’t use your bully pulpit for it, it doesn’t sound like it’s such a big deal.
Not to be snarky, at all, but it’s interesting to me that you describe widows and orphan support as a “Christian” principle but abortion as “objectively” wrong and homosexuality as simply “disordered”…suggesting that your opinion on widows and orphans is highly informed by the Bible and your understanding of the teachings of Jesus, whereas your opposition to abortion and homosexual behavior is based on something else. I’d be curious to know if this is correct, and if so, what those "something else"s might be.
(My own Christian tradition (Episcopal) allows for influences other than scripture–we talk a TON about the ‘three legged footstool of scripture, reason, and tradition’ [and I’ll be honest I sometimes wish “tradition” would go away but that’s apparently just me]–but in general Protestants are more reliant on scripture for guidance than Catholics or Orthodox (think of Luther and his zeal for translating Bibles into the vernacular), and the evangelical wing more reliant on scripture than the Presbyterian-Methodist-Lutheran axis. Of course some, maybe even most, evangelicals do derive moral principles from non-Biblical sources…it’s just less common in the evangelical church than in other branches, is all.)
As a straight white male, when I am involved in conversations about race, gender, or sexual orientation, my best possible contribution is to shut up and listen.
I am not sure exactly what unique perspective or insight I could have about something I have no experience with. The only way for me to get a perspective or insight at all is to listen to those who do.
What are you thinking you have to contribute to such a conversation?
Protestants may say that they’re more based on scripture, but (especially in the more fundamentalist sects) a lot of them seem to base their beliefs mostly on what their pastor says.
I’m not an evangelical, far from it. You are not an evangelical I assume. The OP is about evangelicals. I think evangelicals would see this as anti white male in the context in which it is presented to them. You and I may not see it that way, but this thread is about evangelicals.
Have you heard?
This thread is about evangelicals.
This just in :
This thread is about evangelicals
In others news :
Surprising to almost no one, recent threads about evangelicals on the SDMB prompt posters who are not currently evangelicals and also never have been evangelicals to talk about themselves.
Then, I’m not sure how the Democrats could reach out to Evangelicals if their pastors and news sources are going to continue to tell them lies about the Democrats; for example, if their pastors and news sources are telling them that the Democrats are anti-white male, that’s a lie, but how can the Dems get through to them? There really is no channel to reach them with.
What about culturally conservative people in black churches that form a fairly large percentage of the Democratic base? Do we need them on board?
In the 2016 election, Mike Pence recorded a bunch of personalized videos for evangelical churches in Pennsylvania and, if I recall correctly, throughout the Rust Belt. What if Tim Kaine did the same and made the pitch to them? This past year, Pence also made a video address to the Southern Baptist Convention. What if Biden or Obama had done so during their terms? What if, as a PART of their pitch, Democratic candidates made a real play for a younger generation of evangelicals who might be reachable?
I think it would be difficult. I’m suggesting the Democrats use messaging that is a little more difficult to spin. But again, I’m the last person who would know if evengelicals would even be worth trying to reach out to, or, more directly to the point of the OP, if the democrats can realistically improve among that demographic.
I didn’t take this as snarky at all. It’s an excellent observation and a great question.
As for me, I’m Catholic, so my understanding is shaped by the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Jesus didn’t write or give us a book. He didn’t tell us to go to a book for guidance. He established a society (the Catholic Church) that he promised would guide us in all truth. The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, and the Bible exists primarily to be a part of the liturgy. Though the Bible does contain moral teachings, it is not comprehensive or all encompassing. There are many issues on which the Bible is silent or nearly silent. It is the job of the Church to use all possible tools (tradition, reason, etc) to teach truth regarding faith and morals in a consistent framework.