What was the broad brush attack? I specified Christians as a political group, not all Christians as someone said and was noted for. I can certainly expand on what I mean by Christians as a political group if anyone is interested in discussing the subject.
OK, fair enough. I and apparently others read that as an attack on all Christians. Maybe you should clarify what you mean by “Christians as a political group”.
As a political group Christians are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest.
Are you saying Joe Biden is sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest?
Because Catholics are a political group, and they largely voted for Joe.
Now, if you had added “Evangelical” as a modifier to Christian, I’d give you some slack and maybe even agree. But tarring all of American Christianity that participates in politics as “sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest” is bigoted.
Unless you are going for the very weak No True Scotsman out, since “as a politcal group”= well, Christianity is not one political group, it is many. Even there, even Evangelical Christians arent one political group.
ISTM the parsing that was should have beed inteded but was not used, would have been “The political group commonly known as ‘Christian Conservatives’ in the USA are…” and then that would be a more focused argument as to whether that is so.
O Lord, give me patience, and quickly. 
Catholics are NOT a political group. These days, it’s rather challenging to tell where “the Roman Catholic Church” stands on most issues, even the ones that seem to fall right into their sweet spot. I know where Pope Francis stands on a number of things, and yet there are conservative bishops and Catholic organizations in the U.S. that think they’re more Catholic than the Pope, and take stands accordingly. And then there’s the rank and file - we know Humanae Vitae, but we also know that the vast majority of Roman Catholics use birth control if they have a need for it. The RCC laity may be slightly more anti-abortion than the nation as a whole, but probably not much more so.
They’re way less of a political group than we Dopers are, and we collectively are not one.
True, but neither are Christians. I knew this was gonna go down the No True Scotsman route.
Look, here is a Christian Political group:
Tripolar is this what you meant when you said " As a political group Christians are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest. ?
How about https://notourfaith.com/ ?
"Donald Trump wants Christians to save his disastrous presidency at the polls this November. Instead, we will send a different message: Not this time, Mr. President. Not our Vote. Not our Faith. You can’t have it.
Every day between now and the election , we’ll be highlighting an aspect of President Trump’s record and the impact he’s had on this country. Share this information to explain to your friends, family AND those you influence WHY you will not be supporting Donald Trump this November. "
Tripolar is this what you meant when you said " As a political group Christians are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest.?
Or how about https://www.votecommongood.com/
#### Vote Common Good inspired, energized, and mobilized people of faith to make the common good their voting criteria by pursuing faith, hope, & love for a change on election day 2020 and thereby prevented the re-election of Donald Trump.
#### We will continue to work to provide alternatives to “Trumpism” for faith voters.
Maybe that’s what TriPolar meant.
But I dont know what he meant since he said " As a political group Christians…" tarring all Christians who are in a political group as " sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest".
Can we agree that aint no such thing as “As a political group Christians…”?
I can see that, certainly better than the vague, and IMHO bigoted statement that was actually given.
Agreed. The phrase “As a political group” adds nothing to excuse the broad-brush bigotry, because that phrase includes all Christians.
I assume if you expanded your meaning you’d have something specific to say about Black Christian organizations as a part of the “political group”?
What I see there that is another matter of concern is the way that we are expected to just know that saying “Christians as a political group” must to default to mean “the right-wing political factions self-described as Christian Conservatives”. I got that from context but the way it was written opened up the what do you mean, “Christians” line of refutation. For which I lay blame at the feet of those vocal RW factions and the way they have monopolized the discourse for 40 years to appropriate the name, but I see no need to surrender it.
All that said, still: The Christians who will push back and reject Trumpism will be accused of not being real Christians by the more fanatical. Which does not surprise me since when some Apostles were still alive there were already Christians telling other Christians they were Doing It Wrong.
(Heck, there are Catholics who are ticked off that because Francis is just nicer to people than Benedict when applying the exact same doctrines, so that means he’s some sort of commie.)
I didn’t want to limit myself to Evangelicals, they have a recognizable name these days, but there are plenty of people with a political identity that they state is based on their Christian identity. It’s usually a two part spec, specifying ‘Christian’, but associating some other philosophy, like Christian Conservative. It isn’t simply the label either, they will identify their politics as being Christian in nature, and then have some set of political values/causes/whatevers to go with it. And they are sneaky, they are hiding the details of their political philosophy. They use the ‘Christian’ as both a shield and a battering ram, but they rarely reveal a consistent christian philosophy in any detail. I believe underneath they are economic elitists, and moral elitists, and quite often white supremacists. They believe they are superior people morally and use Christianity as their justification. They also believe they are economically superior as well, believing they are due a better deal than others, and their representation among the wealthy and the upper middle class often unrecognized.
Sorry, I’ll try to be clearer. But I as you say, isn’t that the fault of those political factions appropriating the terms?
Deleted quote didn’t work
When you quote the entirety of the previous post, Discourse hides it.
And your point is…?
Oh, gimme a fucking break. This has nothing to do with that.
Which none of us had heard of before just now, and has, what, 137 members?
Did you feel TriPolar’s statement was aimed at you? (This is one of the things that really bugs me about evangelicals, FWIW: they’re the Eccentrica Gallumbits of persecution. Their persecution-sensing nerve endings extend many miles outside their bodies.) Speaking as an old Jesus freak, I didn’t feel that it was aimed at me in the least, and it seemed pretty clear who it was aimed at, even though he phrased it more broadly than he should have.
Let us put it this way- if the statement had been As a political group Jews are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest.- he’d not only been warned, but quite likely gone.
I explained what I meant. I apologize if anyone took it to mean something else. So what is your agenda in pursuing this now?
Your explanation didnt make any sense and came rather late. Nor did you apologize.
Others seem to understand it.
According to what schedule?
I just did.
I apologize if anyone took it to mean something else means you are sorry if we didnt understand you. Not that you are sorry for the original post.