Evangelical Christianity and politics - the elephant in the room

[crazy canuck]

Trumpism revealed pretty starkly, to me at least, that when politicians claim to be religious, they usually mean it only in the most superficial of ways - as a sort of "team" identification. What is good for the "team" is good, ethics and morality be damned.

The proof: Trump single handedly represented the seven deadly sins in his own person - yet people who claimed to be "religious" supported him.

I would have no problems with some politician claiming that they derived their morality from their religion, assuming that was actually true - at least then, you would be able to predict what they would do in office concerning a given issue, and vote accordingly.

The problem lies more with those who are "religious" in the above-noted sense. They seem to be willing to jettison all notions of morality, including those preached by their own religion, to support the person who represents their "side". No matter that he or she is a selfish scumbag who breaks every moral commandment, and will do so in office.

Unfortunately, people who are genuinely guided by notions of religious morality appear to be in the minority. The extract from H. above is a case in point: everything can be summed up as 'do whatever it takes so my team wins', dressed up in fancier language about 'the lordship of Christ imposed on the nations' or whatever.

I think it naïve to think that evangelicals are not guided by their religious beliefs.


From the NYTimes article.

Christian nationalists' acceptance of President Trump's spectacular turpitude these past four years was a good measure of just how dire they think our situation is. Even a corrupt sociopath was better, in their eyes, than the horrifying freedom that religious moderates and liberals, along with the many Americans who don't happen to be religious, offer the world.

The point is that if  they are willing to support a corrupt sociopath, the content of those religious beliefs must be pretty simple - 'my group must win at all costs'.

This isn't unique to religion of course, but is practically characteristic of a "true belief" in anything: that winning is the most important thing, trumping the content of whatever that belief stood for in the first place.

You are doing what I think is the very problem - minimizing this version of Christianity as not being anything different.  This is not just about winning at all costs.  This is a coherent organized belief system.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

If you limit it to Christian politicians then I agree.

It'll be quite interesting to see how it's handled with Priti Patel (who I think has chance of being next PM which is a little underpriced) given that she has ties with the BJP and Modi. Hopefully the press will be able to handle her faith v her politics with some sense and not just slip into easy, kind of racist, anti-Hindu bigotry. Given the Guardian have already had to pull cartoons of her as a cow, I'm not hopeful.

somehow I doubt stuff like that would happen if she was muslim...

[Razgovory]

Yet, for some reason it's only white evangelicals that are the problem.

[Sheilbh]

somehow I doubt stuff like that would happen if she was muslim...

I don't - Sajid Javid (who may also be the next PM) has had more than a few dog-whistles about his Muslim heritage as has Baroness Warsi. Not to mention the open sewer that is the replies to any tweet by Sadiq Khan.

[Malthus]

You are doing what I think is the very problem - minimizing this version of Christianity as not being anything different.  This is not just about winning at all costs.  This is a coherent organized belief system.

I disagree that this is "the very problem".

The same problem appears to exist among Jewish politicians in, say, Israel, among Hindu politicians in for example India, and among Muslim politicians in, say, Turkey - support for scummy politicians by religious types just because they help your team to "win".

I don't see Christianity as being special in this respect.

[crazy canuck]

You are doing what I think is the very problem - minimizing this version of Christianity as not being anything different.  This is not just about winning at all costs.  This is a coherent organized belief system.

I disagree that this is "the very problem".

The same problem appears to exist among Jewish politicians in, say, Israel, among Hindu politicians in for example India, and among Muslim politicians in, say, Turkey - support for scummy politicians by religious types just because they help your team to "win".

I don't see Christianity as being special in this respect.

Right, I claimed the problem was not critically analyzing the religious beliefs of those wish to run for public office but merely giving it all a pass.

Thank you for confirming that very problem 

[Malthus]

You are doing what I think is the very problem - minimizing this version of Christianity as not being anything different.  This is not just about winning at all costs.  This is a coherent organized belief system.

I disagree that this is "the very problem".

The same problem appears to exist among Jewish politicians in, say, Israel, among Hindu politicians in for example India, and among Muslim politicians in, say, Turkey - support for scummy politicians by religious types just because they help your team to "win".

I don't see Christianity as being special in this respect.

Right, I claimed the problem was not critically analyzing the religious beliefs of those wish to run for public office but merely giving it all a pass.

Thank you for confirming that very problem 

Okay ... my point is that, if their beliefs boil down to "my group must win at all costs", there isn't any value in analyzing their beliefs any further. All you need to know is that they are true believers.

[crazy canuck]

You are doing what I think is the very problem - minimizing this version of Christianity as not being anything different.  This is not just about winning at all costs.  This is a coherent organized belief system.

I disagree that this is "the very problem".

The same problem appears to exist among Jewish politicians in, say, Israel, among Hindu politicians in for example India, and among Muslim politicians in, say, Turkey - support for scummy politicians by religious types just because they help your team to "win".

I don't see Christianity as being special in this respect.

Right, I claimed the problem was not critically analyzing the religious beliefs of those wish to run for public office but merely giving it all a pass.

Thank you for confirming that very problem 

Okay ... my point is that, if their beliefs boil down to "my group must win at all costs", there isn't any value in analyzing their beliefs any further. All you need to know is that they are true believers.

Ok , clear you are not responding to what I actually posted.  Their beliefs don't boil down to win at all costs, if you took the time to read what I posted...

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Yet, for some reason it's only white evangelicals that are the problem.

That's because you live in crazy christian land. Over here it's not christians that make our streets run red with blood.
Ideally al the crazy believers stay in their cellars and stop pestering the rest of us.

somehow I doubt stuff like that would happen if she was muslim...

I don't - Sajid Javid (who may also be the next PM) has had more than a few dog-whistles about his Muslim heritage as has Baroness Warsi. Not to mention the open sewer that is the replies to any tweet by Sadiq Khan.

Not quite on the same level as depicting him as a pig but it'll do for the purpose of the above.
That said: I'm pleasantly surprised. Either everyone gets heckled or no one is. No exceptions because a person just follows a certain ideology.

[Valmy]

A taboo in US (and Canada for that matter) is critically examining the religious beliefs of a politician.

I don't see how that is a taboo in the US. We have had articles just like the one you cited talking about the personal beliefs of figures like Dubya and Ted Cruz for years. People have been banging on about the dangers of the evangelical extremists for decades. I don't see how they are given a free pass. In what way should we do more than point out they are dangerous nuts? I mean you are quoting a pretty damning article in the New York Times, practically the definition of mainstream media, so where is this free pass? In the Right Wing media this kind of Christian religious fanaticism is, far from a taboo subject, celebrated in detail.

I mean I am well aware that these kinds of extremists beliefs are out there, but as Malthus said they don't really seem to point towards any kind of predictable behavior. Anything they need to do politically gets rationalized except when they don't. Maybe Hawley decided he would join Bernie Sanders to get direct cash relief out of Christian Charity, I don't know. But I don't think we can count on that kind of thing from Hawley on a consistent ideological basis.

Knowing Dubya was this big pious Christian didn't really prepare me for him instituting a torture regime...but maybe he was more about the Spanish Inquisition than he let on.

[Valmy]

Yet, for some reason it's only white evangelicals that are the problem.

Oh the black evangelicals get attacked for being dangerous extremists all the time...just by the other side.

[Barrister]

Back in 2016 they did a study and found that Trump's biggest supporters were self-described evangelicals who don't go to church.

I think any attempt to blame "evangelical Christianity" for the Trump phenomenon is extremely short-sighted.

[Valmy]

Back in 2016 they did a study and found that Trump's biggest supporters were self-described evangelicals who don't go to church.

Wow that concept kind of blows my mind.

That is probably Syt's relatives. From time to time they make noises about being Christians and thus OFFENSIVE TO LIBRULS!!!111 but I doubt they go to church much or are especially devout. Maybe Syt can correct me there.

[crazy canuck]

A taboo in US (and Canada for that matter) is critically examining the religious beliefs of a politician.

I don't see how that is a taboo in the US. We have had articles just like the one you cited talking about the personal beliefs of figures like Dubya and Ted Cruz for years. People have been banging on about the dangers of the evangelical extremists for decades. I don't see how they are given a free pass. In what way should we do more than point out they are dangerous nuts? I mean you are quoting a pretty damning article in the New York Times, practically the definition of mainstream media, so where is this free pass? In the Right Wing media this kind of Christian religious fanaticism is, far from a taboo subject, celebrated in detail.

I mean I am well aware that these kinds of extremists beliefs are out there, but as Malthus said they don't really seem to point towards any kind of predictable behavior. Anything they need to do politically gets rationalized except when they don't. Maybe Hawley decided he would join Bernie Sanders to get direct cash relief out of Christian Charity, I don't know. But I don't think we can count on that kind of thing from Hawley on a consistent ideological basis.

Knowing Dubya was this big pious Christian didn't really prepare me for him instituting a torture regime...but maybe he was more about the Spanish Inquisition than he let on.

did you read past the first line of the OP?

[crazy canuck]

Back in 2016 they did a study and found that Trump's biggest supporters were self-described evangelicals who don't go to church.

I think any attempt to blame "evangelical Christianity" for the Trump phenomenon is extremely short-sighted.

Did you read the OP at all?