It is not that any Democrats are regarded as good Christians, but for Republicans to be claimed as the “more christian party” is hypocrisy.
Donald Trump has been married 3 times, and he is insanely rich. He was insanely rich long before the election and has been rich all his life.
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." - Mathew 19:24
From what we see, they seem to think that as long as he’s their guy, he’s doing God’s Work.
Can you give me a cite to any conservative claiming that Trump is a “christian example”?
The Trump effect? A stunning number of evangelicals will now accept politicians’ ‘immoral’ acts.
I think Bill Clinton is owed an apology.
Why?
*Cut-a-check expendable interchangeable wives and marriages.
*Has Millions and Millions of dollars.
*Steals from the people by not paying taxes.
*Covets and ravishes famous women
*A long history of making humanity miserable via casinos.
*Hateful, vindictive, spiteful.
*Lies constantly.
*Has two sons who look like they are hiding leather wings.
*Has two daughters who he praises as sirens of men.
*Has talked about killing people at random on 5th Avenue for fun.
*Lives in a cold black onyx tower above a city rife with corruption and the smell of urine and feces.
*Takes sexual pleasure from urine and feces.
“You know, Caleb, there’s something very biblical in that somehow.”
“What would Jesus do?”
“Pray, of course.”
He has a R in front of his name, and GOP stands for G-d’s Own Party.
You nailed it.
None that I know of. Among conservative Christians that I know, none like Trump very much and none voted for him in the primary. But the November election was not asking anyone to vote on whether they personally liked Trump. The question was Trump, Hillary, pick one.
(Actually it wasn’t. All good Christians should have done what I did and voted for Gary Johnson, but oh well.)
Many of them ended up voting for Trump in November. Why? Judges. There have been many prominent court cases in which Democrats or liberal groups are trying to have the government punish various conservative Christian people or groups for their beliefs, speech, or actions, and many more such attempts can be expected in the years ahead. Given that fact, they’re going to vote for the candidate who promises to appoint judges that will uphold the First Amendment, regardless of how odious that person may be in other areas.
Of course if the Democrats had just said that they strongly support freedom of religion, speech, the press, etc… for everyone then this motivation for voting from Trump would have been removed, and at least a few conservatives would have moved to supporting Hillary, a third party candidate, or simply staying home on election day, and then Hillary in all probability would have won.
No sorry Freedom of religion means everyone is free to practise the religion they want without discrimination in employment or treatment by the courts etc. It does not mean that a religious school can violate labour laws. It also doesn’t mean that a company owner should be able to force their religious beliefs onto all of their employees (Hobby Lobby)
You don’t want religious freedom, you want freedom to impose your religion on others.
ISTM religious conservatives fall into four camps on the OP’s topic:
Those who oppose Trump and don’t think he’s a Christian example (the Never-Trump Republicans), and never thought he was good.
Those who don’t think he’s a Christian example, but are willing to tolerate his bad behavior in order to get their goals enacted (i.e., appointing Gorsuch to SCOTUS, defunding Planned Parenthood, religious liberty legislation, etc.)
Those who think his life is bad, but that he is a redemptive-work-in-progress (A portion of the message of Christianity, after all, is about bad people becoming good.) In other words, it doesn’t matter how bad you were in the past, what matters is whether you’re *currently *headed in the right direction.
Those who think that his life is and has been a good Christian example, and that it’s OK to be dishonest and a womanizer (the subset of religious conservatives who think this is probably vanishingly small, if it even exists at all.)
Serious question, which of his current actions do they think counts as “headed in the right direction” ???
First of all, I am not a member of any of the parties taking part in any of the five legal cases that I linked to in my thread, or in any legal case of any kind. You claim that I want to impose my religion on others. What’s your basis for that claim?
You claim that the Hobby Lobby case allows employers “to force their religious beliefs onto all of their employees”, which is false. Hobby Lobby is an employer who sells insurance to their employees, insurance which covers most but not all types of birth control. Nobody is forced to be an employee of Hobby Lobby, everyone who is an employee has chosen to be one, and thus it’s obviously false that they or any employer are forcing anyone to do anything. Further, an employee is not required to buy the insurance that the company offers. They can buy other insurance. Further, if an employee does buy insurance from their employer and it doesn’t cover birth control, that employee can just buy birth control directly or get it from the numerous places that give it away for free. Obviously any employee is free to have any or no religious beliefs. So your claim that the case allows employers to force their religious beliefs onto employees is false.
The First Amendment says that everyone in America can express their religion freely. It does not say that this applies any less to employers or business owners. Hobby Lobby sold its employees insurance in accordance with the owners’ religious beliefs. The Obama Administration tried to force them to sell insurance that violated those beliefs, in violation of the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court struck down the Obama Administration’s rule.
You say that a religious school cannot violate labor laws. That is true, but I wonder whether you know what the labor laws that apply to religious institutions are? Relgious institutions can discriminate when they hire, obviously. Episcopal churches can requires their priests to be Episcopalians who obey certain rules. Orthodox synagogues can require that Rabbis be Orthodox Jewish males. Etc… Labor law specifically says that certain laws applying to general employment do not apply to religious organizations, because of the First Amendment. In the Hosanna-Tabor vs EEOC case, the government sought to overturn that limitation, and in that case the Supreme Court rejected the government’s claim unanimously, with even the four liberal justices gawking at their ridiculous reasoning.
That’s silly. Given the animosity and hostility towards Hillary directly (which corresponded to a lesser geographically distributed hostility towards Trump directly), Trump voters would never have simply switched to Hillary if she had made a few statements or even entire speeches about her support for freedom of the press, religion, etc. Given Trump’s tendency to induce five minute hate sessions at his rallies towards any press in attendance, Hillary’s campaign or the Democrats in general were not any sources of concern during the campaign regarding freedom of speech or the press. A great many of Trump voters hated Hillary. It is nearly impossible to persuade someone out of hating someone else, particularly when that opinion has been formed over the course of a few decades.
Trump voters on the relative fence seemed to vote for him because he promised manufacturing and mining jobs back and people seemed to think he must be somewhat credible in being able to deliver on his promises because he is rich. For the people who thought freedom of religion was the biggest issue, they were extremely likely to be against gay marriage and abortion rights and Hillary or the Democrats were never going to win them over.
…This is silly. Looking through the cited cases, we have:
So: christian privilege, christian privilege, christian privilege, christian privilege and medical neglect, and christian privilege with a side-order of gaybashing and stupidity.
And in most of those cases, the Christians won.
This isn’t about protecting religious freedom. This is about protecting Christian privilege. And unless the democrats get on board with that, and start opposing things like legal abortions, legal contraception, and secular law, then there’s no way the religious right is ever going to vote for them.
I live in a red state so I know some religious people like this in real life, they like him beyond mercenary Supreme Court reasons. They think Trump will bring God back to American public life and were particularly enamored with his pandering statements about prayer in school, ending the war on Christmas, and protecting Middle East Christians. It doesn’t matter if he’s a racist POS who stiffs his workers or is a creeper around women, it’s what in his heart that counts, God works in mysterious ways, God uses a flawed vessels, and Jesus forgives. Can Hillary be forgiven? Haha, no. Democrats turned their backs on God, so God turned his back on them.
This isn’t particular to Trump, it’s the same old culture war backlash rhetoric. To see it applied to Trump is quite the trip, though.
Why?
Because it seems the breadth and depth of Christian hypocracy has literally no limits.
They feel it was worth selling out the morality they espouse, in exchange for political power.
I hope they enjoy it while it lasts. I don’t see how they’ll ever again reclaim the moral high ground after standing behind Mr, “I grab 'em by the pussy!”
A full on manifestation, for all to see, of exactly HOW low they will sink.
Says the guy who supports the party supported by Islamophobes.
Regarding Hobby Lobby- they were in the wrong. First of all, corporations are not people and they do not have religious beliefs. End of story. Just because the owners think that people shouldn’t have sex and “get away with it” should not mean they can deny basic women’s health care needs to their employees.
Back to the question at large: the Christian Right is rife with nut jobs. As an example, this group claims to dictate messages from God, Jesus, Mary, the Holy Spirit, whatever. Check out the Nov 9, 2016 “message” from God:
You read it right, God himself endorsed a confessed sexual predator, serial adulterer, and con man. That’s what these “Christians” believe.
Not one of those is a “christian example”.
So you get to disavow charlatans who profess Christianity while all Muslims are responsible for terrorists to profess Islam?