Ship of Fools: Possible collapse of a church

Thread: Possible collapse of a church Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030188

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

And. no, it is not an engineering problem. I'm referring to the evangelicals who are causing a lot of stress by supporting Trump, despite said tiny-fingered one having almost NO character trait or behaviour that would qualify him as a practising Christian. (anyone else with his qualities would be laughed out of the room, ISTM)

Generations ago, the Roman Catholics controlled Quebec, with the support and collusion of the Union Nationale Party. There were strong elements of Nazi-type thinking in the hierarchy.

Jean Chretien, lately a Prime Minister of Canada, described how his father was denied communion by the priest, sometime around WW2, because said parent was known to be a Liberal Party organiser, for instance. And there are many other examples.

But that war changed things, and a different social outlook developed. There were writings and presentations by many thought-leaders (including Trudeau pere) which contributed to the Silent Revolution of the late 50s and the election of a Liberal government.

And the grip of the RC church on the people of the province was loosened, to the extent that the participation in religious activity dropped from the 90% range down to single digits.

Is the activity of the religious-right segment of the evangelical churches likely to have a similar effect, as people discuss this election? Is there anything the "calm" part of that group can do to avoid having their edifice crumble?

(There is a similar question about the GOP and their relationship to The Donald, but let's stick with the religious side)

Or is that kind of capitalism-worshipping redesigned fundamentalism so entrenched that it will continue to be a force in politics?

I note the existence of a significant number of (self-appointed) evangelicals who are rewriting theology to prove that The Donald is, in effect, the anointed one, see this write-up on Wayne Grudem . Is that going to make any difference over-all?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Any prominent person or denomination or church that has not spoken out against the prosperity gospel must accept a proportionate amount of the blame. Any who have not spoken out against Trump will similarly be blamed. Any who have preached against the poor, or who have preached praise of capitalism or any of its trappings (supply side economics, I'm looking at you), will be held accountable in the court of public opinion.

Those who are left may need to get another name.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Christianity has proved capable of morphing itself into just about anything in support prevailing circumstances.
Evangelicals like to be pumped and Donald's doing it. If he gets into power and helps the poor it will be seen as God's Will, likewise the same if he drops bombs on bad people.

Not much different from the last two millennia really.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Grudem's statement comes in for a bit of discussion on the US Presidential thread from here onwards.

Not all US evangelicals are Trump voters, but I know enough of them to be unnerved.

I think that for those that are, candidates' views on abortion and homosexuality are quite simply the only deal-makers or breakers. Unless the scope of the debate can be widened, these two issues will decide many US evangelical votes.

The second difficulty is the rather-too-quick shortcut in the rhetoric from the "nation" and the "land" in the Bible, especially in the OT, to the USA. Grudem's piece is full of this. It fuels isolationism. That's how Dead Horse issues somehow come higher up in such voters' priorities than the prospect of reneging on promises to NATO allies or pre-emptive nuclear strikes abroad. Add a firm conviction that one is in God's own country and a touch of Manifest Destiny, and there you have it.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I have attended my (Anglican) church in Northern VA for about thirty years now. No clergy has ever endorsed a candidate from the pulpit, nor spoken out about elections, a prudent policy in this region. (Although once, famously, our beloved rector prayed aloud, "And we trust, Lord, that it is Your will that the Redskins make it into the playoffs this afternoon." And the congregation said "Amen!" The answer on that one, BTW, was no.)

However, this summer for the very first time the rector spoke out against the Tiny Fingered One. He didn't name him specifically, but the callout against racism, against hate, against anti-immigrant demonizing, was absolutely clear. The congregation was too stunned to say 'Amen.'

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Your penultimate paragraph Horseman Bree. You know the answer. Social evolution has centuries, millennia to go. No cultural phenomenon lasts ten thousand years, so may be then. But I fear this is NOT a cultural phenomenon. Organized violent religion beyond the shamanistic has been with us for half that time at most, but it's a keeper if it's a function of social evolution. Conservatism is here to stay, the pursuit of social justice is shackled by its drag, its friction. In us all. There is something horribly human about it. I don't see ANY church confronting it, West or East. They're too afraid. It CANNOT collapse.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Any prominent person or denomination or church that has not spoken out against the prosperity gospel must accept a proportionate amount of the blame.

Oddly enough, our Rector did indeed preach against the prosperity gospel this morning. I don't remember him ever doing this before, but that may just say something about my memory.

Preaching specifically for or against a political candidate could cause a church to lose its tax-exempt status.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Preaching specifically for or against a political candidate could cause a church to lose its tax-exempt status.

One could wish. I've been in a number of churches that deserve to lose their tax-exempt status. One even published a voter's guide!

[ 08. August 2016, 00:28: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The Nons are now the largest voting block in the US now.

I see this as the last hurrah for the Baby Boom generation. The Mega Church phenomenon is a Baby Boom thing. So it is not surprising for evangelicals to try to influence this election.

Will it cause the church to collapse? No. But I think many millennials will begin to consider alternatives to the evangelical churches.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've been in a number of churches that deserve to lose their tax-exempt status. One even published a voter's guide!

The "voter's guides" that I've seen are usually very careful. They'll list the various candidates' stands on certain hot button issues. They won't say to vote for Candidate A, but they'll make it clear that Candidate A is pro-life, anti-immigration, pro gun rights, etc., whereas Candidate B has the wrong ideas on those issues. Some of them are indeed on very thin ice.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

What's the Donald's stand on abortion and homosexuality? My impression is that he doesn't care for the details.

Redskins is an offensive name for a team Brenda, no wonder God didn't intervene. They should change their name to the Obamas, after negotiating an acceptable licence fee of course.

Horseman Bree, are you the Apocalyptic rider that brings the cheese? [Smile]

Hmmm, have I said that before?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

"The Tiny-Fingered One" is a great name for a Dark Lord.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I went to my sister's East Bay mega church around the time of the first Obama election, and all over the gathering areas-- the outer waiting areas, the Bible study room, the coffee hour room-- a layer of playing card sized voter's guides had been scattered. I looked one over, and the language made it clear that this was a guide to Christian voting. The dictated choices, as you can guess, underlined uniformly conservative. RightWing dogma.

Before that, for the second GW Bush election, "The Lutheran Witness" had a cover article in October titled something like, "How does a Christian vote?" Again, the article gave strong support of a conservative, right wing stance, while giving a three sentence nod to more left wing concerns, like social services and an end to war. A rebuttal promptly followed each nod. Stacks of this magazine sat in the Parish hall entryway, on tables in the narthex, in the various Bible study areas of my former church.

It really unnerved me. The LCMS was pretty much telling people how to vote. And from what I knew of that particular congregation, a lot of the members would be quite happy to go to the polls with the Witness in one hand as they went down the voting list.

Yeah, American Conservative Christianity has a lot to answer for in this respect-- they taught people that their voting conscience is up for scrutiny, and politicians that, if you sweettalk the religious right just so, they will roll over for you.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've been in a number of churches that deserve to lose their tax-exempt status. One even published a voter's guide!
The "voter's guides" that I've seen are usually very careful. They'll list the various candidates' stands on certain hot button issues. They won't say to vote for Candidate A, but they'll make it clear that Candidate A is pro-life, anti-immigration, pro gun rights, etc., whereas Candidate B has the wrong ideas on those issues. Some of them are indeed on very thin ice.

The one I saw was very much like Kelly's. It had gone through the ice and was plumbing the depths.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Yes but look at all this from the other side.

I'm dead against getting our church mixed up in party politics or offering voting guidance, but faced with extremist politicians or policies merely arguing for a different stance is already effectively taking a political line.

Here, if we had Marine Le Pen from the Front National (a party I suspect of wooing Christian voters in general and not a few evangelicals, albeit not so outspokenly, as Trump) as a second-round presidential candidate, I think I'd have a really hard time not saying something.

Am I really to believe no Democrat-leaning congregations in the US are discouraging people from voting Trump?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Am I really to believe no Democrat-leaning congregations in the US are discouraging people from voting Trump?

1. If they were, how would that refute anything said on this page?

2. Do you appreciate how very, very different it is to counsel someone not to vote for John McCain or for George W. Bush, and to counsel someone not to vote for Donald Trump? Very very very different?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Of course, but you were the one protesting about voters' guides higher up. Did you mean that, or did you mean voters' guides that induced people to vote Republican only?

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

The Catholic Church in Australia has a proud history of telling people how to vote from the pulpit. Frankly, I see no problem with the fact of doing it, tax exempt status in the USA to one side. I see heaps of problems with telling people to vote for right wing candidates who reflect that churches views, from a partisan political perspective. I see heaps of problems with Churches telling people that Trump supports their agenda. There is no way of knowing if that's right, because you can't trust what the Donald says.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

In my limited experience on this side of the pond, right-wing politicians openly and cruedely court the Christian vote, whereas left-wing politicians do so more subtly.

Whatever your political stripe, the bottom line is that church leaders are seen as being able to mobilise lots of voters; church leaders need to be alive to this reality.

Evangelicals having enough mass to have real political impact is a relatively recent development (compared to, say, the Holy Roman Empire...) so they have a bit less experience in handling this kind of pressure.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think that for those that are, candidates' views on abortion and homosexuality are quite simply the only deal-makers or breakers.

But hasn't Trump flip-flopped over abortion? And I haven't really heard him campaigning over homosexuality. It seems to me the evangelical support for Trump is even more craven than that. It seems to be based on the fact that he hates liberals and political correctness and so do they.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Grudem's argument in this respect is that Clinton will stack the supreme court with evil liberal judges that will repeal Roe v. Wade, promote homosexuality, impose secularism, and facilitate intrusive government, whereas Trump can be relied on to stack it with conservative judges who won't.

[ 08. August 2016, 07:56: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

Tangent alert:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
...... The Mega Church phenomenon is a Baby Boom thing. ..... Will it cause the church to collapse? No. But I think many millennials will begin to consider alternatives to the evangelical churches.

Best thing I've read in a long time. Hope it's correct.

Edited to make clear: I hate the mega-church thing and believe it to be seriously damaging to many people. Baby-boomers cannot live for ever although they will outlive me by 6 or 7 years. [Biased]

[ 08. August 2016, 09:54: Message edited by: Mark Wuntoo ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Anyone who believes that it is only Christians of the so-called 'religious right" who try to influence how their fellow believers vote will believe anything.

As for downright sicko lunacy, that can occur anywhere on the politico-religious spectrum.

I am old enough to remember trendy Christians (including liberal evangelicals) back in the early Seventies adulating Mao, history's worst mass murderer.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Grudem's argument in this respect is that Clinton will stack the supreme court with evil liberal judges that will repeal Roe v. Wade . . . .

I think you mean liberal justices who will not overturn Roe v. Wade.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Grudem's argument in this respect is that Clinton will stack the supreme court with evil liberal judges that will repeal Roe v. Wade, promote homosexuality, impose secularism, and facilitate intrusive government, whereas Trump can be relied on to stack it with conservative judges who won't.

I don't think Trump can be relied on to do anything (except have a thin skin, a temper and a flair for narcissism). But I guess it is true that Hillary is unlikely to row back on Roe v Wade or SSM, so I guess if those are your litmus tests then yes I can see that Trump is a better bet.

(At the expense of a modest risk of destroying the free world of course).

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Anyone who believes that it is only Christians of the so-called 'religious right" who try to influence how their fellow believers vote will believe anything.

Of course other Christians will try to influence the political views and decisions of their fellow believers. Only a few weeks ago I was preaching, and made my opinions of the darker side of British life exposed by the Brexit campaign and vote very clear.

What seems to be the difference (from my possibly flawed perspective from the other side of the Atlantic) is that the US religious right forms a semi-coherent bloc that is appealed to by politicians, in particular Republicans who have become well-versed in saying the right things to gain the support of the leadership of Evangelical churches. I suppose the question is why politicians appeal to the religious right, and why there isn't a corresponding attempt to appeal to the more liberal churches and Christians from other politicians? Are the right more coherent in their theology and the political outworking of that?

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes but look at all this from the other side.

I'm dead against getting our church mixed up in party politics or offering voting guidance, but faced with extremist politicians or policies merely arguing for a different stance is already effectively taking a political line.

Here, if we had Marine Le Pen from the Front National (a party I suspect of wooing Christian voters in general and not a few evangelicals, albeit not so outspokenly, as Trump) as a second-round presidential candidate, I think I'd have a really hard time not saying something.

Am I really to believe no Democrat-leaning congregations in the US are discouraging people from voting Trump?

A few evangelicals have rebranded themselves as Bible Believing Christians as they believe the Evangelical label has become toxic. Partly because of the political views it’s become associated with. I'm not convinced by the new label as that implies a value judgement on the rest of us. I'm a Bible Believing Christian too! I just believe the Bible says different things. [Big Grin]

If Le Pen makes the ballot, you’d have to. It would be your Christian duty. In one of our previous churches, the BNP was really popular in the area. Rev T did pretty much everything during that election apart from telling people outright not to vote for them. There were sermons about “welcoming the stranger” etc.

In our current church, he provided a practical demonstration of how empty our church would be everyone who wasn’t born in the UK “went home” after the Kippers started carpet bombing the area with leaflets. It seemed to work. Some of the after church conversations at coffee were really thought provoking.

Tubbs

[ 08. August 2016, 12:52: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Grudem's argument in this respect is that Clinton will stack the supreme court with evil liberal judges that will repeal Roe v. Wade, promote homosexuality, impose secularism, and facilitate intrusive government, whereas Trump can be relied on to stack it with conservative judges who won't.
I don't think Trump can be relied on to do anything (except have a thin skin, a temper and a flair for narcissism). But I guess it is true that Hillary is unlikely to row back on Roe v Wade or SSM, so I guess if those are your litmus tests then yes I can see that Trump is a better bet.

(At the expense of a modest risk of destroying the free world of course).

Given that he's meant to have asked the military why we don't use the nukes we have, you could just omit the word "free" ... It's not like the fallout will discriminate.

He is a truly frightening prospect ... I'm not fan of Hilary, but given the choice ... [Eek!]

Tubbs

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Christianity vs. Hitler. That turned out well didn't it?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

IMO it is the tragedy of the evangelical church in our generation that they hitched their wagon so tightly to the right wing. They sacrificed the Gospel for a mess of pottage; there's a reason why the younger generation no longer goes to church.
Creatures like Pat Robertson or the Westboro Baptists are now the face of Jesus in the minds of vast swathes of the country.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Christianity vs. Hitler. That turned out well didn't it?

Some parts of the Church in Germany remained faithful to Christ and campaigned against Hitler and the Nazi government. How that turned out is irrelevant in regards to the question of whether or not they did the right thing.

The Church is called to be faithful to Christ, it is not called to be successful. It is when the Church seeks success (whether that is in terms of number of members, material wealth or political influence) that things invariably go wrong.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Grudem's argument in this respect is that Clinton will stack the supreme court with evil liberal judges that will repeal Roe v. Wade, promote homosexuality, impose secularism, and facilitate intrusive government, whereas Trump can be relied on to stack it with conservative judges who won't.

Can he? Won't his single selection criterion be whether the judge will support Mr T and all his deeds, i.e. do as he is told?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Why Trusting Trump on Judges is Folly. This is from the Atlantic, so it is not behind a paywall.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Grudem's argument in this respect is that Clinton will stack the supreme court with evil liberal judges that will repeal Roe v. Wade,

This is a mis-step. Roe v. Wade makes abortion legal; a liberal judge would not repeal it, a conservative judge would.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Of course, but you were the one protesting about voters' guides higher up. Did you mean that, or did you mean voters' guides that induced people to vote Republican only?

Okay at this point maybe you had better explain what your point was for saying that because you have lost me. What makes you think that I would only decry voters' guides that suggest Republican candidates? Is this just an attempt to twit me? I'm really confused.

[ 08. August 2016, 16:17: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think that for those that are, candidates' views on abortion and homosexuality are quite simply the only deal-makers or breakers.
But hasn't Trump flip-flopped over abortion? And I haven't really heard him campaigning over homosexuality.

Although his running mate is a well-known anti-gay demagogue.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As for downright sicko lunacy, that can occur anywhere on the politico-religious spectrum.

It could, but at the moment that's irrelevant. At the moment our sicko lunatic is on the right. And he must be defeated.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Church is called to be faithful to Christ, it is not called to be successful. It is when the Church seeks success (whether that is in terms of number of members, material wealth or political influence) that things invariably go wrong.

A thousand times this. Also the church trying to manipulate politics to protect its own rights, or the rights of its members. This is a new, and I think heretical, historical twist.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
A few evangelicals have rebranded themselves as Bible Believing Christians as they believe the Evangelical label has become toxic. Partly because of the political views it’s become associated with. I'm not convinced by the new label as that implies a value judgement on the rest of us. I'm a Bible Believing Christian too! I just believe the Bible says different things.

In the US those evangelicals who want to brand themselves as "Bible-believing" are not the left-wing ones trying to escape the problematic associations with right-wing fundies-- they ARE the right-wing fundies. "Bible-believing" is supposed to distinguish yourself from those awful Catholics or worse, liberals who supposedly never read their Bibles (the ironies abound).

In the US, evangelicals (in the strict definition of the term) who are left-wing and embarrassed by what the movement has become tend to use terms like "post-evangelical", emergent or postmodern (although those terms seems to have phased out), or simply to identify with an older liturgical church in a distinctly evangelical way (e.g. Rachel Held Evans). I'm an older left-wing evangelical so tend to want to hold on to the historic meaning of the term, continue to self-identify as "evangelical", but accept that the term may have become so tainted we'll simply have to abandon it and adopt something else.

As someone still desperately clinging to the "evangelical" label, let me point out that for every high-profile evangelical leader endorsing Trump, you'll find a high-profile evangelical leader denouncing him. For the most part those high-profile evangelical leaders that have endorsed Trump are older fundamentalists who are desperately trying to reclaim their now-dwindling empires (yes, Pat and Jerry Jr., I'm looking at you). I can't think of a single prominent evangelical of the younger gen supporting Trump (with the possible exception of Mark Driscoll-- haven't heard anything political from him for awhile, but Trump seems right up his alley). Those older leaders supporting Trump are also often prosperity gospel preachers, which is about the only quasi-Christian theology that can make sense (in a twisted sort of way) with the gospel Trump is trying to sell.

[ 08. August 2016, 16:30: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Alan Creswell:
I suppose the question is why politicians appeal to the religious right, and why there isn't a corresponding attempt to appeal to the more liberal churches and Christians from other politicians? Are the right more coherent in their theology and the political outworking of that?

Democrats have no reason to reach out to liberal churches because liberal churches readily embrace left wing causes de jour without question and argue that the gospel compels us to support the left wing cause de jour. For instance, my colleagues were all dutifully shocked and horrified at the way George W. Bush conducted the war on terror. They were dutifully shocked and horrified that Israel uses it's military to execute Palestinians without trial. Are they shocked and horrified about Obama's drone strikes? No...not really...they've moved on to other things.

For the record, I've preached sermons against the prosperity gospel and the excesses of capitalism.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Grudem's argument in this respect is that Clinton will stack the supreme court with evil liberal judges that will repeal Roe v. Wade,
This is a mis-step. Roe v. Wade makes abortion legal; a liberal judge would not repeal it, a conservative judge would.

Yes, I got this the wrong way round, as Nick Tamen has already helpfully pointed out.

quote:
What makes you think that I would only decry voters' guides that suggest Republican candidates?

You echoed Kelly's objection to voter guidance in the context of pro-Republican guidance. If your objection applies across the board, then so much the better.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Christianity vs. Hitler. That turned out well didn't it?
Some parts of the Church in Germany remained faithful to Christ and campaigned against Hitler and the Nazi government. How that turned out is irrelevant in regards to the question of whether or not they did the right thing.

The Church is called to be faithful to Christ, it is not called to be successful. It is when the Church seeks success (whether that is in terms of number of members, material wealth or political influence) that things invariably go wrong.

Agreed to the nth power Alan. So when we talk about the church being faithful to Christ in Nazi (democratically elected overwhelmingly by church goers) Germany or in November in the States, we're not talking the big monolithic denominations are we? We're talking 1% of those.

What is chilling upon chilling about us as obedient monkeys revealed by the Milgram experiment is that, "The participants [one third] who refused to administer the final shocks neither insisted that the experiment itself be terminated, nor left the room to check the health of the victim without requesting permission to leave.".

Without a clear, radical declaration of the gospel, requiring the courage of passive resistance shown by a handful of individuals in the last century, even the minority cannot stand against evil and even then, only the leadership of Dr. King comes to mind. A few others certainly stood, but alone.

The church collapsed 1700 years ago.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Have you ever preached a sermon against the 2nd Amendment, Beeswax Altar?

[Razz]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

No

Why would I?

The whole gun debate is one where I don't have much time for either side. Is the most pressing issue for my conservative friends and family their ability to own a relatively low powered semiautomatic rifle or to carry a handgun around like Wyatt Earp? Is the most pressing issue of justice for progressive friends and colleagues really gun violence for which even they admit that all of their "common sense" proposals will do little to stop? What about the greater number of lives lost to the prescription drug epidemic caused by the collective stupidity of doctors, pharmacists, and insurance companies that really could be addressed through common sense rules and regulations?

[ 08. August 2016, 19:40: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

When exactly did I admit that "common sense" proposals to limit gun violence wouldn't help?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

From the little island across the water, I suspect that the impact will depend on whether tiny-fingered-wig-disaster wins or not.

If he doesn't, I think it may signal the end of the fundamentalists in the US (they won't disappear immediately, of course, but it will be the fatal blow). I suspect those evangelicals who are left will find other names and descriptions, and continue but as a minor grouping, having a position more like the UK evangelicals - or those who are not following the US example.

If he wins, they will have a boost for a few years. I think it will delay their demise for a while. But they are still likely to lose the younger support, which may have an even bigger impact in the long term*.

*Assuming, under Trump, we have a long-term.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Evangelical support for Trump is exaggerated. The more person attends church the less likely they are to vote for Trump. Trump's support comes from areas where the local churches are evangelical and you get cultural evangelical Christians the same way you get any other kind of cultural Christian. Second, some conservative Christians are voting for Trump because he won't be as bad on the issues that are important to them as Clinton. I don't think Trump's candidacy says anything about the politics of Evangelical Christians. The failure of Cruz and Huckabee says more about the decline of the religious right than the fortunes of Donald Trump.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Schroedinger's cat - fundamentalism is human, a developmental cul-de-sac as old as mythos-logos, over 2,500 years with at least that many to go.

Until I & E Q evolve up a standard deviation or two, we're stuck with it.

Beeswax Altar. A nice antithesis. I'd like to see more on this.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Anyone who believes that it is only Christians of the so-called 'religious right" who try to influence how their fellow believers vote will believe anything.
Of course other Christians will try to influence the political views and decisions of their fellow believers. Only a few weeks ago I was preaching, and made my opinions of the darker side of British life exposed by the Brexit campaign and vote very clear.

What seems to be the difference (from my possibly flawed perspective from the other side of the Atlantic) is that the US religious right forms a semi-coherent bloc that is appealed to by politicians, in particular Republicans who have become well-versed in saying the right things to gain the support of the leadership of Evangelical churches.

Sounds about right to me, Alan. Basically the language of Christianity turns into a political Shibboleth, and evangelical leaders seem content with things remaining so.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Evangelical support for Trump is exaggerated. The more person attends church the less likely they are to vote for Trump.

With headlines like t h e s e it's easy to get the impression that there is a strong line of evangelical support for Trump. I appreciate that the picture might not be so simple once you get to pews, but that isn't making many headlines.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Evangelical support for Trump is exaggerated. The more person attends church the less likely they are to vote for Trump.
With headlines like t h e s e it's easy to get the impression that there is a strong line of evangelical support for Trump. I appreciate that the picture might not be so simple once you get to pews, but that isn't making many headlines.

I suspect that is part of the "cultural evangelical" problem. If you live in an area where the Christian faith is dominated by large, Evangelical churches (but, probably they actually represent a minority of church-goers, it's just that they are visible) and people still identify as Christian even if they don't regularly attend church, then you have a situation where people feel that they should support "Christian values", and they get those values from a combination of sound-bites from high-profile evangelical church leaders and from the media. Those values are unlikely to be challenged if they conform to the existing prejudices of the people who pick up on them.

If the support for Trump from "evangelicals" is more significantly coming from "cultural evangelicals" who only occasionally attend church, and hence are less likely to hear preaching that challenges their opinions which lead to supporting Trump, then it's difficult for the Evangelical churches to distance themselves from Trump - preaching on Sunday morning will have little difference on people who aren't there, press statements etc will only have an effect if the media choose to run them (and, still risk being considered "political" and hence not allowed under the tax status of churches, or being a liberal fringe view when there are lots of other big names saying something different).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Will it cause the church to collapse? No. But I think many millennials will begin to consider alternatives to the evangelical churches.

On reflection (on Alan's post as well as this one) I think there's something in this.

My own hunch where I am is that the prominent evangelicals for these kinds of soundbite are completely out of touch with where the under-35s in their own congregations are on ethical/political issues.

There is a rising generation of power-hungry guys (mostly) championing the same views as the leadership, but I think there's a silent majority that thinks (and perhaps votes) differently. Couple this with a decline in wanting to belong to any organisation much at all and it could be a watershed moment in evangelical expressions of church, at least.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My own hunch where I am is that the prominent evangelicals for these kinds of soundbite are completely out of touch with where the under-35s in their own congregations are on ethical/political issues.

I think this is shown in survey after survey, especially on DH issues. I know what my kids (brought up in a ConEvo CofE church, now attending a char-evo CofE church) think about those issues and they are simply non-issues to them.

None of that is reflected in sermons or literature. They don't even get outraged by it. They just think (rightly) that the leaders are old and are going to die soon, and that teaching will simply die with them.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Evangelical support for Trump is exaggerated. The more person attends church the less likely they are to vote for Trump.
With headlines like t h e s e it's easy to get the impression that there is a strong line of evangelical support for Trump. I appreciate that the picture might not be so simple once you get to pews, but that isn't making many headlines.
I suspect that is part of the "cultural evangelical" problem. If you live in an area where the Christian faith is dominated by large, Evangelical churches (but, probably they actually represent a minority of church-goers, it's just that they are visible) and people still identify as Christian even if they don't regularly attend church, then you have a situation where people feel that they should support "Christian values", and they get those values from a combination of sound-bites from high-profile evangelical church leaders and from the media. Those values are unlikely to be challenged if they conform to the existing prejudices of the people who pick up on them.

If the support for Trump from "evangelicals" is more significantly coming from "cultural evangelicals" who only occasionally attend church, and hence are less likely to hear preaching that challenges their opinions which lead to supporting Trump, then it's difficult for the Evangelical churches to distance themselves from Trump - preaching on Sunday morning will have little difference on people who aren't there, press statements etc will only have an effect if the media choose to run them (and, still risk being considered "political" and hence not allowed under the tax status of churches, or being a liberal fringe view when there are lots of other big names saying something different).

This. I mentioned upthread that, despite working, ministering and socializing almost entirely in an evangelical bubble, I don't know a single Trump supporter. Support for Trump seems to be concentrated in the Bible belt-- places where "cultural evangelicalism" is strong. Here in California, despite having a strong evangelical presence, many evangelical mega-churches and seminaries, not so much. In fact, I saw my very first "Trump" lawn sign this summer-- in rural Washington state. Haven't seen one anywhere here in Calif., even in the OC (ultra-conservative Orange County).

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Evangelical support for Trump is exaggerated. The more person attends church the less likely they are to vote for Trump.
With headlines like t h e s e it's easy to get the impression that there is a strong line of evangelical support for Trump. I appreciate that the picture might not be so simple once you get to pews, but that isn't making many headlines.

What do those articles actually say? Some evangelical leaders are supporting Trump mostly because he is the lesser of two evils. Other evangelicals like Russell Moore, Max Lucado, and Albert Mohler refuse to endorse Trump. Mohler is a genuine Christian fundamentalist. Social conservatives like Rod Dreher, Ross Douthat, and Michael Brendan Dogherty are truly worried about the prospect of a Trump presidency. Dogherty originally wrote some of the most eloquent and sympathetic articles in support of those who were voting for Trump if not for Trump himself. Here is as concise an explanation that I can find from Christianity Today.

5 reasons why evangelical support for Donald Trump is complicated.

The analysis from CT fits my experience with my friends and family who support Trump. I have a cousin who was a die hard Trump supporter. Never knew for sure. One time, he posted a letter his pastor had written about Trump. My cousin assumed the letter was supportive of Trump. Now, the church he attends is a Cowboy Church. Cowboy Churches are not known for their theological or political liberalism. And, yet, the letter was as clear a warning against voting for Donald Trump in the primary as he could of made without coming out and saying don't vote for Trump. Of course, this was the primary and no doubt my cousin's pastor is supporting Trump because he is the lesser of two evils.

I have another friend from college who is an evangelical Christian always posting conservative memes on Facebook. A few weeks ago, he posted saying that he wouldn't support either candidate. His mother responded saying that she was voting for Trump because he was better than Hillary on social conservative issues. He replied that you couldn't trust Trump to do what he said he would do. She replied that at least there was a chance Trump would be better than Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
-- in rural Washington state. Haven't seen one anywhere here in Calif., even in the OC (ultra-conservative Orange County).

Of course, cliffdweller, rich people with mansions on the beaches of Orange County hate Trump supporters just as much as rich people with mansions in the hills of Los Angeles. Trump presents a threat to both of them. They prefer elections fought over taxes (to cut or modestly increase), entitlements (to cut or modestly increase), and how many people to kill in support of their economic interests (some of theirs but none of ours versus sacrifice some ours to kill a whole mess load of theirs). Immigration? Do those bigots expect rich people to raise their own children, manicure their own lawns, and clean their own mansions? Perish the thought. Trade? Free trade is great for people living at the beach and on the hills. Can't Billy Bob stop being selfish and be content to spend his $10 an hour on cheap Chinese crap from Wal Mart. Yes, rich people in the Hills, I know you want Billy Bob to get $15. Here's the problem, Billy Bob can already get $15 working third shift at a place with frequent lay offs and the temptation to do meth or opiates to keep working. Says, the people in the Hills, unionize Billy Bob! Yeah, and then they'll close the place and move it overseas because of free trade and Billy Bob will be left with nothing but his drug addiction and no way to support it much less support his family. But...but...cheap i phones, Billy Bob, comes the cry from both the Hills and the Beaches. So, Billy Bob takes his cheap i phone and checks out of life.

Rich Beach people: Billy Bob is a loser who needs to stop mooching, get a job, and pull himself up by his bootstraps. Hey...what will you do if you can't carry a gun around your town of 6000 people? Huh? What about ISIS? Think of Israel Billy Bob. Are you so selfish that you don't care about the rights of Jews in Israel to build settlements in the occupied territory.

Rich Hill people: We are so much more compassionate than those Beach people, Billy Bob. We are OK with you spending the rest of your life on public assistance so long as you don't want too much. Heck, Billy Bob, we even want you to have nice things like a cheap i phone and maybe even a used video game system. Sorry, we can't offer circuses anymore because you know, PETA.

[ 09. August 2016, 15:41: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

well played. [Overused]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Schroedinger's cat - fundamentalism is human, a developmental cul-de-sac as old as mythos-logos, over 2,500 years with at least that many to go.

I don't doubt that it will return. I just think it might die in the current incarnation.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

'kinnell, Beeswax Altar. That sounds like something from another planet. But as the man said, 'I feel your pain ...':

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Nonbelievers are not fooled, you know. A callout of Evangelical hypocrisy in the Atlantic magazine. This is not behind a paywall.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Again, Trump wasn't their first choice. You assume they believe Hillary Clinton is of high moral character which they most certainly do not. At this point, Trump is playing Cyrus to the Democrats Babylonian Empire (Isaiah 45:1-3). Plus, if we going back to the 90's, will apologies be forthcoming to all the "bimbos" who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment and rape? Why weren't they believed? Aren't we supposed to believe any woman who claims to be a victim of rape and sexual harassment? Is this only true when accusations aren't made against a popular Democratic politician?

For the record, evangelical leaders who condemned Bill Clinton but supported Trump in the primary are hypocrites. Pat Robertson who supported Giulianni in the 2008 Republican primary is a hypocrite. Of course, you can't be a political partisan and avoid hypocrisy for very long.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Beeswax Altar, evangelicals ought, by definition, to be looking at what the Bible says about leadership.

The biblical criteria for civic leadership, inasmuch as there are any, are all about ensuring a peaceful society, not about individuals' moral character. To my mind that means they are all about ability to govern. Aside from policy issues, Trump appears to be uncontrollable and shows signs of being absolutely unfit for the job.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

But, if you believe that you are electing the leader of a Christian nation then it is not entirely illogical to claim that the Biblical standards for Christian leadership may apply. In which case, moral character is an important factor.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I suppose that's true. And looking at your sig., I'm reminded that from where I'm sitting, a lot of the con-evo Brexit voters entertained similar notions of the UK being a Christian nation. Perhaps these people never actually got further in their reading than the Old Testament?

[brick wall]

[ 10. August 2016, 15:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

One, in scripture, kings were called out for sexual sin. See Nathan and John the Baptist as examples of prophets doing so.

Second, Hillary Clinton has supported every war the United States has waged for the past 30 years. In her desire to be moderate and not weak on defense while still being acceptable to doves in her own party, she has managed to be wrong on nearly every single foreign policy issue of the last 30 years. Conducting foreign policy by poll is a horrible idea.

Third, the similarities between Trump and Barry Goldwater are interesting. Moderate Republicans opposed Goldwater. Democrats said he was unstable and would start a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Johnson won in 64. How many lives were lost due to Johnson's foreign policy? Moderate Republican opposition to Goldwater cost them dearly in the long run. If Trump is scary to you, just imagine the right wing populist version of Ronald Reagan.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
One, in scripture, kings were called out for sexual sin. See Nathan and John the Baptist as examples of prophets doing so.

I suppose that backs up my speculation that these evangelicals have not read any further than the Old Testament, or at least the Old Covenant...

And note that in neither of the cases you cite was the immorality grounds for disqualification from the office. Of course sexually immoral leaders set a bad example, but ability to govern is pretty critical too.

I'm too young to remember Goldwater, but I find it hard to believe that the US has seen such a maverick nominee as Trump in modern times. It's not just his sabre-rattling, it's his apparent refusal to countenance any viewpoint other than his own.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
One, in scripture, kings were called out for sexual sin. See Nathan and John the Baptist as examples of prophets doing so.

Second, Hillary Clinton has supported every war the United States has waged for the past 30 years.

How is Trump any different on either of these two issues?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The United States was not founded as a Christian nation. The Founding Fathers specifically excluded that possibility. If you want to retrofit the place with sharia law or something, it is un-american.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The facts don't negate that apparently some on the Christian right consider that the US is (or, maybe should be) a Christian Nation.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Second, Hillary Clinton has supported every war the United States has waged for the past 30 years.

If we're comparing this election to ancient Israel, then Yahweh should love her all the more for that. The LORD is a man of war. Jehovah hardly ever met a war he didn't like.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

If we're comparing things to ancient Israel ... then we have Samson - a man totally unfit to lead, driven by wild impulses to extreme actions, and a serious issue with his hair.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

That was pretty much the argument Pat Boone used (mentioned on the main election thread).

It looks like he's pulled the piece, but extracts are available in the link above:

quote:
If God can use an ass for His purpose … He can use a Donald Trump, for example.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
One, in scripture, kings were called out for sexual sin. See Nathan and John the Baptist as examples of prophets doing so.

Second, Hillary Clinton has supported every war the United States has waged for the past 30 years.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
How is Trump any different on either of these two issues?

His third wife says he is completely faithful and so does Playboy. Much more righteous than the wife of a serial adulterer.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
I suppose that backs up my speculation that these evangelicals have not read any further than the Old Testament, or at least the Old Covenant...

To the extent that the NT says much at all about the quality of leaders, sexual sin does disqualify somebody from leadership.

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm too young to remember Goldwater, but I find it hard to believe that the US has seen such a maverick nominee as Trump in modern times. It's not just his sabre-rattling, it's his apparent refusal to countenance any viewpoint other than his own.

I am too. However, the Daisy Ad. the Democrats ran against Goldwater is legendary. Also, the Republican establishment's loathing of Goldwater took place before a national audience. Richard Nixon campaigned for Goldwater in 64 and won the nomination in 68. Ted Cruz started out doing the same thing but didn't have the patience to follow through with it.

quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
How is Trump any different on either of these two issues?

Trump at least has the common sense to realize our foreign policy establishment is insane. They are insane because no matter which party we elect they keep doing variations of the same thing. That at least is something different. He also recognizes the absurdity of spending hundreds of billions of dollars defending our allies who refuse to spend their fair share on defense. Again, this is more than I can say for Hillary Clinton. Was there any legitimate reason to expand NATO to former Soviet states? Are they going to offer significant help militarily? Are we going to war with Russia over Estonia? No. So why was the alliance made?

Yes, for the record, asking about use of tactical nuclear weapons is a perfectly legitimate question. Keep in mind that during the 90's, those on the left criticized the Clinton administration for continuing sanctions of Iraq. There reaction was twofold. One, we were left with that problem because Bush elder didn't finish the job. When Bush II tried to do just that...well...see my earlier comment on hypocrisy. Second, Madeleine Albright said the purported deaths of Iraqi civilians caused by the sanctions was worth it. At the time, those on the left were claiming death tolls in the hundreds of thousands which is as much if not more than the number killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Who is Secretary Albright supporting?

quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
If we're comparing this election to ancient Israel, then Yahweh should love her all the more for that. The LORD is a man of war. Jehovah hardly ever met a war he didn't like.

Yes, but Jehovah decisively won Jehovah's wars.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Just interrupting the conversation for my customary reminder that Trump-supporters are certainly not *all* and possibly not even *most* evangelicals (see discussion upthread). The fact that old, white, fundamentalist has-been dinosaurs are trying to refurbish their fading celebrity with the dubious strategy of jumping on the Trump bandwagon should not drown out the hundreds of truly contemporary, thoughtful and more influential (especially among younger evangelicals) leaders who are providing thoughtful and intelligent arguments as to why a Trump vote is unthinkable for an evangelical.

Carry on.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Keep in mind that during the 90's, those on the left criticized the Clinton administration for continuing sanctions of Iraq. ... Second, Madeleine Albright said the purported deaths of Iraqi civilians caused by the sanctions was worth it.

For the record I think that Clinton's record on Iraq and on Israel as well as Turkey was shameful and Albright's "worth it" was one of the most chilling comments I've heard from a US politician. Apparently it turned out the hundreds of thousands of deaths weren't worth it because another few hundred thousand needed to die in a subsequent war.

I really hope that Hillary has learnt something from past mistakes about US meddling in the Middle-East, but history teaches me that that is rather hopeful.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
To the extent that the NT says much at all about the quality of leaders, sexual sin does disqualify somebody from leadership.

About church leaders, yes. About civic leaders, not at all that I know of.

That confusion appears central to the topic under discussion here.

quote:
However, the Daisy Ad. the Democrats ran against Goldwater is legendary.

That doesn't mean that Goldwater was manifestly incompetent to do the job, which Trump appears to be, at least from where I'm sitting.

quote:
Trump at least has the common sense to realize our foreign policy establishment is insane.

Perhaps (I don't know), but he has shown beyond all reasonable doubt that he is incapable of discussing foreign policy in any responsible fashion whatsoever. Threatening to renege on NATO promises is damaging to US foreign policy and global stability whoever wins. It's quite simply irresponsible.

quote:
Yes, for the record, asking about use of tactical nuclear weapons is a perfectly legitimate question.

I might just about concede that. MAD relies on the principle that someone might just push the button. Decrying his willingness to push it might just suggest the decriers never would. But that is pretty off topic for this thread.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by mdijon:
Much more righteous than the wife of a serial adulterer.

She supported her husband by slut shaming his sexual partners including those who accused him of rape and sexual harassment. This is the kind of behavior that encourages rape culture and the rape epidemic on our college campuses. Heck, if a male college student had as many accusers as Bill Clinton, the school would under all kinds of pressure to expel him even if a prosecutor failed to bring charges on a single one.

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
About church leaders, yes. About civic leaders, not at all that I know of.

That confusion appears central to the topic under discussion here.

John the Baptist was an NT figure who criticized a civic leader over sexual sin. True, John was technically the last of the OT prophets. Are you saying that Jesus and the apostles thought John was wrong to criticize Herod?

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
That doesn't mean that Goldwater was manifestly incompetent to do the job, which Trump appears to be, at least from where I'm sitting.

The political establishment made the same arguments about Goldwater then as they are now against Trump today.

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
Perhaps (I don't know), but he has shown beyond all reasonable doubt that he is incapable of discussing foreign policy in any responsible fashion whatsoever. Threatening to renege on NATO promises is damaging to US foreign policy and global stability whoever wins. It's quite simply irresponsible.

Let me know when all the members of NATO start spending 2% of GDP on defense and we can talk about US promises to NATO. If Germany doesn't see Russia as a military threat, why should the United States? The UK spends over 2% of GDP on defense and a recent report admitted that they wouldn't be a match for the Russians. From reading Ship of Fools, I get the impression that the British have little appetite for spending more on defense. If Europe doesn't want to spend money on defending Europe, why should the the United States? After all, we are in another hemisphere.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
John the Baptist was an NT figure who criticized a civic leader over sexual sin. True, John was technically the last of the OT prophets. Are you saying that Jesus and the apostles thought John was wrong to criticize Herod?

No, but there is absolutely no indication that John was suggesting Herod's sexual sin made him incompetent to govern.

quote:
The political establishment made the same arguments about Goldwater then as they are now against Trump today.

With the big difference that Goldwater already had an office-holding political career.

quote:
Let me know when all the members of NATO start spending 2% of GDP on defense and we can talk about US promises to NATO.

I'm not a specialist here, but let's assume this is a fair challenge. That's not the problem. The problem is mouthing off about it in a campaign instead of addressing issues like that through diplomacy. It betrays total naivety about how these issues are dealt with in the real world of geopolitics.

quote:
If Europe doesn't want to spend money on defending Europe, why should the the United States? After all, we are in another hemisphere.

This is the Brexit mentality. If you want isolationism, go for it, but I don't think you've really sat down and thought about what that really means in a globalised world.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Let me know when all the members of NATO start spending 2% of GDP on defense and we can talk about US promises to NATO. If Germany doesn't see Russia as a military threat, why should the United States? The UK spends over 2% of GDP on defense and a recent report admitted that they wouldn't be a match for the Russians. From reading Ship of Fools, I get the impression that the British have little appetite for spending more on defense. If Europe doesn't want to spend money on defending Europe, why should the the United States? After all, we are in another hemisphere.

The NATO members currently meeting the commitment to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defence are the US, UK, Poland, Estonia, and Greece. France is somewhere close. Most of the rest of Europe spends more like 1%.

[ 10. August 2016, 19:56: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by mdijon:
Much more righteous than the wife of a serial adulterer.

She supported her husband by slut shaming his sexual partners including those who accused him of rape and sexual harassment. This is the kind of behavior that encourages rape culture and the rape epidemic on our college campuses. Heck, if a male college student had as many accusers as Bill Clinton, the school would under all kinds of pressure to expel him even if a prosecutor failed to bring charges on a single one.

But would that disqualify his spouse from working at the institution?

This is the disconnect (one of many): somehow not divorcing a serial adulterer with some alleged assaults (Clinton) is determined to be far worse than being a serial adulterer with some alleged assaults (Trump). There is absolutely nothing Bill has been accused of that Trump has not also been accused of, with similar sorts of evidence. The difference is Hillary is not Bill, and Melania is not running for president.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
No, but there is absolutely no indication that John was suggesting Herod's sexual sin made him incompetent to govern.

Are you arguing that the Herods were competent rulers? Is there a passage in the NT calling for incompetent rulers to be removed from office? Do you think John or Jesus would have voted for Herod in an election?

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
With the big difference that Goldwater already had an office-holding political career.

Eisenhower did not.

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not a specialist here, but let's assume this is a fair challenge. That's not the problem. The problem is mouthing off about it in a campaign instead of addressing issues like that through diplomacy. It betrays total naivety about how these issues are dealt with in the real world of geopolitics.

Oh...it is a fair challenge. Germany, the largest nation in Europe with the largest economy, spends about 1.3% of GDP on defense. France and the UK spend a little over 2%. Of those three which is closest to Russia?

As to how you address the issue, the US has been trying to politely address the issue diplomatically for quite sometime. It hasn't worked. Trump is merely pointing out to voters that our allies are not pulling their own weight. If our allies are not prepared to spend their own money on their defense, why should the United States spend so much money on their defense? By one estimate, the US could save $100 billion a year if we untangled ourselves from all of our alliances. Germany has obviously put funding a welfare state over defense of Germany. Why shouldn't the United States put other priorities over defense of Germany?

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
This is the Brexit mentality. If you want isolationism, go for it, but I don't think you've really sat down and thought about what that really means in a globalised world.

How is refusing to fight other nations wars isolationism? The United States prospered for a long time staying out of other nations wars. How many nations in the world are capable of projecting enough force to fight a war on different continent? The UK last did it 35 years ago. France can if fighting in Africa but no place else. Germany can't at all. Are you all isolationist? Tell you what. We will hold down the whole Western hemisphere. Maybe, Europeans can handle...I don't know...Europe.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
There is absolutely nothing Bill has been accused of that Trump has not also been accused of, with similar sorts of evidence. The difference is Hillary is not Bill, and Melania is not running for president.

The difference is Melania didn't slut shame the women who slept with Trump. For years now, the rape culture narrative and war on women narrative has been going for sometime. It is hypocritical now not to demand accountability from Bill and Hillary Clinton for their actions in the past. This is especially true if you, like Hillary Clinton, are going to make it an issue the way Hillary Clinton does.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

All wars are America's wars.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

War wasn't invented in 1776.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Are you arguing that the Herods were competent rulers? Is there a passage in the NT calling for incompetent rulers to be removed from office? Do you think John or Jesus would have voted for Herod in an election?

I'm arguing that John's criticism of Herod's personal morality doesn't tell us anything at all about Herod's ability to govern.

And I said before, the NT passages about the civil authorities are geared to hoping for a peaceful and just society. They don't say anything about the authorities' private morals.

quote:

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
With the big difference that Goldwater already had an office-holding political career.
Eisenhower did not.

And your point is? Mine is that unlike Trump, Goldwater had a track record of political office (Eisenhower had had a senior military career, quite clearly demonstrating some relevant competencies). Trump has no such record.

quote:
Trump is merely pointing out to voters that our allies are not pulling their own weight.

No, if he had said that, that would be fine. What he actually said was that he would fulfil existing treaty obligations only after reviewing whether an attacked nation had fulfilled its obligations to the US. That isn't "merely pointing out" some shortcomings, it's stating an unprecedented policy intention with international ramifications. I don't care what policy he's promoting, that to me is a sign of rank incompetence.

quote:
How is refusing to fight other nations wars isolationism?

Upholding an existing international alliance is not the same thing as "fighting other nations' wars".

And again, all this is straying a long way from my claim here, which is that irrespective of party politics, it seems to me that Bible-reading evangelicals shouldn't be seeing Trump as the inevitable choice, as many of them appear to.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
There is absolutely nothing Bill has been accused of that Trump has not also been accused of, with similar sorts of evidence. The difference is Hillary is not Bill, and Melania is not running for president.

The difference is Melania didn't slut shame the women who slept with Trump. For years now, the rape culture narrative and war on women narrative has been going for sometime. It is hypocritical now not to demand accountability from Bill and Hillary Clinton for their actions in the past. This is especially true if you, like Hillary Clinton, are going to make it an issue the way Hillary Clinton does.

And again, if you had someone of good character to make that argument, it could be quite damning. But you don't. You have someone who is clearly guilty of the same things Bill did, has the same precise assault allegations against him Bill did, and has taken the objectification of women and misogynistic rhetoric to whole new levels. So for Trump to be the one to raise the notion of "hypocrisy" is, well, mind-blowingly hypocritical.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Melania didn't slut shame the women who slept with Trump.

Maybe because they began their relationship while he was still married to Marla Maples -- after they first met at a party where he was escorting another (non-Marla) date!

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Are you arguing that the Herods were competent rulers? Is there a passage in the NT calling for incompetent rulers to be removed from office? Do you think John or Jesus would have voted for Herod in an election?
I'm arguing that John's criticism of Herod's personal morality doesn't tell us anything at all about Herod's ability to govern.

That is strictly correct, of course. But it would be illogical to conclude from John's criticisms of Herod that John thought Herod a fit ruler for God's people, the Jews. John wasn't just having a go at some bloke who happened to put it about a bit. He was highlighting the sexual corruption of the leader of God's chosen people, and why that man wasn't pleasing God. Ajd as we know from the OT the kings who didn't 'walk in the way of the Lord' were usually called out as unfit to rule God's people.

Nathan did the same with David in the OT, who feeling his guilt, repented and kept his crown on his head.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Perhaps, but I think this logic simply falls apart when considering the secular leader of a secular state today.

The starting consideration should be whether they are fit to govern. Of course there might be more doubts about the suitability of a profligate than of an ascete, but there are many other factors.

Trump could have the most celibate of lifestyles, but his behaviour as a candidate in policy terms (again, irrespective of partisan politics) makes him unfit to govern in my view, whereas for many evangelicals he is apparently The One™ purely by virtue of being the GOP candidate, all other considerations aside.

It's this inability to see beyond partisan lines that I find particularly alarming.

[ 11. August 2016, 10:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Melania didn't slut shame the women who slept with Trump.

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Maybe because they began their relationship while he was still married to Marla Maples -- after they first met at a party where he was escorting another (non-Marla) date!

And then again how did the comparison switch from Hillary vs Trump to Hillary vs Melania? Isn't the more important characteristic being the candidate for president rather than gender?

I do not think slut-shaming or whatever its called is acceptable or excusable. Looking at stories like this it doesn't seem crystal clear to me that that's what Hillary did.

On the other hand we have Trump saying in public and boasting about the most rampantly misogynistic statements I've heard from a US politician.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

For pity's sake, Beeswax Altar, I thought you were a 'Piskie. You're arguing like a Protestant fundamentalist.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Besides, since when were 1st century Middle-Eastern kings like 20th or 21st century US Presidents?

[Help]

Sure, we need to refer to the scriptures but the way they're being cited here is causing me some brain-ache.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Indeed not Beeswax Altar (and by the way I admired your robust response on isolationism and was going to say so, but I just had to spoil it [Smile]

).

You and I are poles apart but I have been where you are and embrace it, encapsulate it, transcend it. Not that I've been a patrician American, but I've always admired such. I'm LOVING Homeland at the moment (not a patch on The Honourable Woman of course), half way through the second series. I want EVERYONE to win. But, believe it or not, above all, America right AND horribly wrong.

Although you lost a point on the Clintons vs. the Trumps although although I admire the venom which is in the ball park of James Elroy's impressively visceral loathing of Clinton. The best thing to come out of all that is Monica Lewinsky's Ted Talk.

America is the greatest warmonger since God. She can't not be. She was born in war and is internally at war, committing infanticide at a far higher rate than suffering casualties in her external wars, sustaining her privilege with internal race and class war with the meaningless war on drugs. And ALL external wars are hers now. As have been for over a century. She is drunk on blood. As Joe Mantegna said in Thinner, "Like it? I fucken love it".

She has utterly failed to endorse her first CinC's farewell address.

She's damned and so are we all my friend. Even on a quiet day, in a quiet presidential decade (he twitches his little finger in his sleep and Libya is trashed for a generation), who are the Reapers stalking 6000 miles from sea to shining sea? With their collateral children?

[ 11. August 2016, 10:42: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Besides, since when were 1st century Middle-Eastern kings like 20th or 21st century US Presidents?

There is some similarities between 1st century Middle-Eastern kings and late-Medieval European monarchs (someone like Charles with his claims based on a "divine right" to rule), which persisted in various forms into more recent history. Of course, the US rejected the British monarchy in favour of a Republic and an elected President. Fundamentally, a President is an elected term-limited monarch-like head of state. The US President already has some roles that late-Medieval European monarchs would recognise (commander in chief of the military, for example). The Founders explicitely rejected the roles of "Defender of the Faith" and similar religious roles from the office of President. Which doesn't stop a vocal minority of the religious right to expect the President to fulfill that role (while still managing to mouth the right words about separation of church and state). It's not that big a step back to the 1st century Middle-Eastern kings once you've assimilated a religious role for the President (even if against the clear written intention of the Constitution).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, I get all of that Alan Cresswell, but the whole thing is just so counter-intuitive to me.

It does not make sense.

I mean, I've come across US Episcopalians online (in Texas of all places) who'd make Charles I's Divine Right of Kings sound mealy-mouthed and liberal.

I kid you not.

Some of these dudes feel let down that the British Monarchy is a constitutional one and not an absolutist one - and yet, at the same time, they argue vehemently for the separation of Church and State and for small government, the 2nd Amendment and all the usual, familiar US conservative concerns.

Ok, I don't live in Texas but that makes no sense to me whatsoever.

You live in a Republic yet retain some kind of misty-eyed nostalgia for medieval-style monarchies and yet rant and rave about the citizen's right to bear arms and how Obama is some kind of Anti-Christ and so on and on and on and on.

I'm sorry, but it just sounds completely nuts to me.

What am I missing?

The same gun-toting Constitution-quoting drongos who wax lyrical about King Charles I and refuse to 'recognise' any European government that wasn't established as a monarchy - I kid you not - are up in arms as soon as anyone suggests they comply with any piece of Federal legislation no matter how anodyne.

Ok, I've exaggerated the last bit somewhat but I'm sure Beeswax Altar will know the sort of thing I'm referring to.

It must be hot out under the Texas sun.

On the one hand it's personal freedom, personal freedom yadda yadda yadda and on the other they bang on and on and on as if America is some kind of divinely-ordained Nirvana and some kind of theocracy whose every fart the rest of us have to imbide with delectation.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Melania didn't slut shame the women who slept with Trump.

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Maybe because they began their relationship while he was still married to Marla Maples -- after they first met at a party where he was escorting another (non-Marla) date!
And then again how did the comparison switch from Hillary vs Trump to Hillary vs Melania? Isn't the more important characteristic being the candidate for president rather than gender?

I do not think slut-shaming or whatever its called is acceptable or excusable. Looking at stories like this it doesn't seem crystal clear to me that that's what Hillary did.

On the other hand we have Trump saying in public and boasting about the most rampantly misogynistic statements I've heard from a US politician.

I was probably the one who shifted it from Hilary v Donald to Hilary v Melania. Because the whole crux of the argument about HIlary the "slut-shamer" seems ludicrous.

Hilary defended her adulterous husband to the point of denigrating other women. That was wrong,and hypocritical in the context of her overall repudiation of "rape culture." BUT... she was not the adulterer. She was not the alleged predator. Bill was. And... Donald is. So Hilary is more comparable to Melania in this situation than to Donald.

My point is that it seems really really odd and ludicrous and incredibly sexist that a spouse is more maligned for blindly supporting their adulterous husband than the adulterer himself is. Sure what Hilary did was wrong-- but isn't the core adultery and predatory/objectifying behavior far, far worse? And since Trump's behavior dwarfs Bill's (which is not an easy task), Trump's denouncing of Hilary is the height of hypocrisy. No surprise there-- Trump has been pulling this s**t since he was in diapers.

I've been the wronged spouse before. I consider myself an intelligent, confident, capable woman--- but I, too, was completely taken in, naively swallowing ridiculous excuses and implausible explanations for far too many years. I get Hilary's behavior. There are all sorts of reasons why a wronged spouse will enter into these states of denial- from fear to sheer convenience. And yes, there is collateral damage-- innocent bystanders or victims who are harmed by our inability to face a very harsh and unpleasant truth.

But that should not override the fact that the central issue here is not the foolishly supportive spouse but the adulterous/predatory spouse. The central crime is his. This is true of Bill, and it's true of Donald. To continue to harp on Hilary's crime is to ignore the murderer running thru the subway because you want to arrest the turnstile-jumper.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Cliffdweller, that's spot-on.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
To continue to harp on Hilary's crime is to ignore the murderer running thru the subway because you want to arrest the turnstile-jumper.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
His third wife says he is completely faithful and so does Playboy. Much more righteous than the wife of a serial adulterer.

1. Of course she thinks he's faithful. So what?
2. Playboy? Are you serious?
3. In what twisted, sordid moral universe are the adulteries of the husband the moral responsibility of the wife? (or v.v.)

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
If we're comparing this election to ancient Israel, then Yahweh should love her all the more for that. The LORD is a man of war. Jehovah hardly ever met a war he didn't like.
Yes, but Jehovah decisively won Jehovah's wars.

Except the ones he <kof Babylonian deportation kof> lost.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The fact that old, white, fundamentalist has-been dinosaurs are trying to refurbish their fading celebrity with the dubious strategy of jumping on the Trump bandwagon should not drown out the hundreds of truly contemporary, thoughtful and more influential (especially among younger evangelicals) leaders who are providing thoughtful and intelligent arguments as to why a Trump vote is unthinkable for an evangelical.

But the leaders are, in a sense, irrelevant. It's the rank-and-file who are supporting Trump in huge numbers, despite eloquent anti-Trump opinions from their more thoughtful "leaders".

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
All wars are America's wars.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
War wasn't invented in 1776.

He didn't say all wars WERE America's wars. Note the present tense. America hasn't always been the biggest bully on the block. But now that she is, she owns many, perhaps most ("all" is hyperbole) the world's warfare. Even if not as a provocateur or participant, then as a munitions supplier.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Anselmina:
That is strictly correct, of course. But it would be illogical to conclude from John's criticisms of Herod that John thought Herod a fit ruler for God's people, the Jews. John wasn't just having a go at some bloke who happened to put it about a bit. He was highlighting the sexual corruption of the leader of God's chosen people, and why that man wasn't pleasing God. Ajd as we know from the OT the kings who didn't 'walk in the way of the Lord' were usually called out as unfit to rule God's people.

Nathan did the same with David in the OT, who feeling his guilt, repented and kept his crown on his head.

This is the correct reading of scripture. How we should apply it to a secular democracy is another issue entirely. However, evangelicals were arguably following scripture in condemning Clinton the way they did. Frankly, I prefer to vote for a decent human being over scumbag. Can't remember the last time a decent human being was on the ballot at the state or national level. What can I say? Politicians disgust me.

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
The starting consideration should be whether they are fit to govern. Of course there might be more doubts about the suitability of a profligate than of an ascete, but there are many other factors.

Keep in mind that Bill Clinton ran against George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole. Nobody questioned the decency or integrity of either man. Ahhh...the day when politicians had a sense of honor and shame.

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
Trump could have the most celibate of lifestyles, but his behaviour as a candidate in policy terms (again, irrespective of partisan politics) makes him unfit to govern in my view, whereas for many evangelicals he is apparently The One™ purely by virtue of being the GOP candidate, all other considerations aside.

No, Trump is the one for many evangelicals because Trump is the lesser of two evils on the issues that are important to them. Hillary Clinton is morally no better than Donald Trump. She just has a different set of sins. All of them would like a better candidate than Donald Trump. Note that Mormon Mitt Romney received more support than Donald Trump from Evangelicals.

quote:
originally posted by mdijon:
I do not think slut-shaming or whatever its called is acceptable or excusable. Looking at stories like this it doesn't seem crystal clear to me that that's what Hillary did.

Really? Democrats admit that what the Clinton machine, headed by Hillary Clinton, did would not be acceptable today. If what she said and did was not slut shaming, then all the hipster feminists supporting Hillary Clinton have got some massive apologizing to do for the accusations of slut shaming they make on an hourly basis. Suppose a male college student was accused of rape by two women. Suppose his mother referred to those accusations as bimbo eruptions. Would she not be accused of slut shaming? Suppose his father said if you drag a dollar bill across that campus you never know what you will catch. Would he not be accused of slut shaming? Since you seem to somewhat unfamiliar with the concept, let me assure you the answer is yes.

quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
Hilary defended her adulterous husband to the point of denigrating other women. That was wrong,and hypocritical in the context of her overall repudiation of "rape culture." BUT... she was not the adulterer. She was not the alleged predator. Bill was. And... Donald is. So Hilary is more comparable to Melania in this situation than to Donald.

Trump isn't dog whistling to young women by talking about "rape culture" and the epidemic of rape on college campuses. Trump would've been seen as a feminist 50 years ago. Besides, this whole tangent was a response to Brenda Clough calling evangelicals hypocrites for supporting Trump after criticizing Clinton for his serial adultery among other things. However, if that is the case, all of the people including Hillary Clinton who defended Bill Clinton and denigrated his accusers and now talk about rape culture are also major hypocrites. Seems to me Hillary Clinton and all of Clinton's supporters should either publicly apologize to all of those women or shut up about rape culture. Sure, they can still talk about women's rights in the workplace. However, Trump has as good a record as any on that issue.

quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
But that should not override the fact that the central issue here is not the foolishly supportive spouse but the adulterous/predatory spouse. The central crime is his. This is true of Bill, and it's true of Donald. To continue to harp on Hilary's crime is to ignore the murderer running thru the subway because you want to arrest the turnstile-jumper.

Oh Please! Hillary knew who Bill was. Why do you think she was worried the same thing would happen to him as happened to Gary Hart? Those women were a threat to Bill Clinton's career. Because they were a threat to Bill Clinton's career, they were a threat to Hillary Clinton's career. Her going after them was as much about her own ambition as her support for Bill Clinton. Do you think Hillary would have been elected senator from New York if she hadn't been first lady for 8 years? Hillary Clinton is a feminist only if you think Camille Paglia is a feminist and most feminists going on about rape culture do not.

[ 11. August 2016, 15:59: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Trump would've been seen as a feminist 50 years ago.

You can't possibly believe that. Or perhaps you've just not seen or heard the things he says about women. Or you think feminists 50 years ago were idiots and didn't recognize sexism when they heard it. Get serious.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Sorry for the doublepost. This is on a separate broad topic.

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
And your point is? Mine is that unlike Trump, Goldwater had a track record of political office (Eisenhower had had a senior military career, quite clearly demonstrating some relevant competencies). Trump has no such record.

Trump has a lifetime experience in business. I fail to see how that makes him less qualified to be president than a general or a person who served a brief stint in congress as a steppingstone to running for president. Personally, I prefer qualified candidates with experience in multiple branches of government. Kasich had my support in the Republican primary and Webb had my support in the Democratic primary.

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
No, if he had said that, that would be fine. What he actually said was that he would fulfil existing treaty obligations only after reviewing whether an attacked nation had fulfilled its obligations to the US. That isn't "merely pointing out" some shortcomings, it's stating an unprecedented policy intention with international ramifications. I don't care what policy he's promoting, that to me is a sign of rank incompetence.

Most of NATO isn't living up to their treaty obligations. This includes Germany which has no problem lecturing the UK about their treaty obligations, Greece about their treaty obligations, and Eastern Europe about their treaty obligations. How arrogant do you have to be to lecture everybody else about treaty obligations and disregard your own treaty obligations? What Donald Trump said was common sense. If our NATO "allies" won't live up to their treaty obligations, then we won't live up to ours. The average Trump voter knows that if they sign a lease for an apartment and then stop paying rent their landlord will eventually evict them. What makes rich nations in Europe so special?

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
Upholding an existing international alliance is not the same thing as "fighting other nations' wars".

When Article 5 in invoked, every nation has the right to decide on what aid to offer. Why wouldn't the United States take into account how other nations honored their treaty obligations? Seems like common sense to me. Should Russia invade Germany why should the US feel compelled to contribute anymore to their defense than Germany contributed in Afghanistan.

In all honesty, Germany is shirking on their treaty obligations because they don't believe Russia is a threat. Germany is probably correct. So, let's not talk about Trump's risky statements. If Germany, Spain, and Italy are really worried about Russia, then let them start investing in defense. If not, then no worries. Either way, we know Clinton's approach was going to fail because it has failed when tried by both Democrats and Republicans including Hillary Clinton's state department.

quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
Except the ones he <kof Babylonian deportation kof> lost.

Jehovah didn't fight those wars. Will the Orthodox lectionary start Jeremiah in a couple of weeks?

quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
He didn't say all wars WERE America's wars. Note the present tense. America hasn't always been the biggest bully on the block. But now that she is, she owns many, perhaps most ("all" is hyperbole) the world's warfare. Even if not as a provocateur or participant, then as a munitions supplier.

We were talking about Europe. Europeans were fighting one another before there was a United States and managed to keep fighting each other for a 150 years without US involvement. Presumably, Europe could find reasons to go to war that didn't involve the United States. Russia had an interest in what is now the Ukraine and the Baltic States before the United States existed and would have it if the United States ceased to exist. Europeans are perfectly capable of making their own weapons as well.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
His third wife says he is completely faithful and so does Playboy. Much more righteous than the wife of a serial adulterer.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
1. Of course she thinks he's faithful. So what?
2. Playboy? Are you serious?
3. In what twisted, sordid moral universe are the adulteries of the husband the moral responsibility of the wife? (or v.v.)

1. Irony intended.
2. No
3. In a sarcastic one.

Poe's law. But surely you know my posting better than to take me for a Trump supporter?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
Except the ones he <kof Babylonian deportation kof> lost.
Jehovah didn't fight those wars. Will the Orthodox lectionary start Jeremiah in a couple of weeks?

Ah yes, he only fought the ones they won. And they won all the ones He fought. Circular reasoning much?

quote:
Europeans are perfectly capable of making their own weapons as well.

Irrelevant. Who supplies the vast majority of the world's munitions? You can answer in 3 initials.

quote:
We were talking about Europe. Europeans were fighting one another before there was a United States and managed to keep fighting each other for a 150 years without US involvement.

Quite irrelevant when talking about the 21st century. We were talking about Europe NOW, not Europe 300 years ago. You can't nullify the USA's complicity in the world's wars but narrowing your scope to the 17th century.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Poe's law. But surely you know my posting better than to take me for a Trump supporter?

Let's not even go down that road.

[ 11. August 2016, 16:44: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Trump has a lifetime experience in business. I fail to see how that makes him less qualified to be president than a general or a person who served a brief stint in congress as a steppingstone to running for president.

He has a lifetime experience running businesses into the ground, and reneging on contracts. Not the experience I want in a president, frankly; nor, I should imagine, not the experience any thinking person should want.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Question: is the 2% defence spending actually a treaty obligation? All the sources I can find refer to it as a 'goal' or a 'target'.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Technically no

This article explains the issue in depth and also why I think Trump's threat was needed.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The fact that old, white, fundamentalist has-been dinosaurs are trying to refurbish their fading celebrity with the dubious strategy of jumping on the Trump bandwagon should not drown out the hundreds of truly contemporary, thoughtful and more influential (especially among younger evangelicals) leaders who are providing thoughtful and intelligent arguments as to why a Trump vote is unthinkable for an evangelical.
But the leaders are, in a sense, irrelevant. It's the rank-and-file who are supporting Trump in huge numbers, despite eloquent anti-Trump opinions from their more thoughtful "leaders".

It remains to be seen if that is really the case, particularly if we separate out, say, church-going evangelicals from the "cultural evangelicals" described upthread.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

And, seriously, scare-quotes around "leaders"?!? Are you suggesting that the more thoughtful evangelical voices denouncing Trump are not really "leaders"??? [Mad]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel:
Some of these dudes feel let down that the British Monarchy is a constitutional one and not an absolutist one - and yet, at the same time, they argue vehemently for the separation of Church and State and for small government, the 2nd Amendment and all the usual, familiar US conservative concerns.

Ok, I don't live in Texas but that makes no sense to me whatsoever

Jacobites are few on the ground in Texas! Texas Episcopalians are mostly moderate to liberal politically. Texas conservatives don't want a king. In fact, should conservative Texans desire a king he would likely come from the House of Wayne not the House of Stuart. No doubt you've managed to find a few Anglo-Catholic eccentrics who fancy themselves the descendants of the Non Jurors and hold to the veneration of King Charles the Martyr. I'm sure the number of Anglican Jacobites living in Texas approaches 2 maybe 3 dozen.

quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel:
You live in a Republic yet retain some kind of misty-eyed nostalgia for medieval-style monarchies and yet rant and rave about the citizen's right to bear arms and how Obama is some kind of Anti-Christ and so on and on and on and on.

I'm sorry, but it just sounds completely nuts to me.

You are confusing several often unrelated fads in American culture. Royalty does interest Americans. Country homes and high tea fascinate Americans. Downton Abbey costumes fascinate Americans. The overlap of Americans fascinated by those things and obsessed with gun rights is not very great. Lesser still is the number both obsessed with gun rights and wanting to live in an absolute monarchy.

quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel:
The same gun-toting Constitution-quoting drongos who wax lyrical about King Charles I and refuse to 'recognise' any European government that wasn't established as a monarchy - I kid you not - are up in arms as soon as anyone suggests they comply with any piece of Federal legislation no matter how anodyne.

Ok, I've exaggerated the last bit somewhat but I'm sure Beeswax Altar will know the sort of thing I'm referring to.

I suspect you mean the Dark Enlightenment. The DE exists almost exclusively on the internet and have no particular stronghold in Texas. I believe Mencious Moldbug lives in Maryland or somewhere. While self identifying as a Jacobite, Moldbug seems to prefer the Hapsburgs to the Stuarts. How does he go from libertarian political beliefs to wanting a monarch? In a nutshell, Moldbug assumes that wise monarchs of the old order didn't interfere very much with the day to day lives of their subjects and allowed a great degree of local autonomy than a federal government that insists on ignoring the 10th Amendment. If you want to discuss that further, I'll provide you a link to Moldbug's collected works. My sense is the DE is primarily a thought experiment rather than a political manifesto.

quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the one hand it's personal freedom, personal freedom yadda yadda yadda and on the other they bang on and on and on as if America is some kind of divinely-ordained Nirvana and some kind of theocracy whose every fart the rest of us have to imbide with delectation.

No, this strand of conservatism isn't big on American exceptionalism. Not all are.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, seriously, scare-quotes around "leaders"?!? Are you suggesting that the more thoughtful evangelical voices denouncing Trump are not really "leaders"???

Exactly

The rank and file evangelicals are supporting Trump less than they did Romney. If the Democrats had nominated somebody other than Hillary Clinton and Scalia was still alive, support for Trump would be lower. Don't know why so many Democrats wanted to ensure that Hillary Clinton got her turn to be president.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Poe's law. But surely you know my posting better than to take me for a Trump supporter?

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Let's not even go down that road.

If you are talking about not wanting to go further into Poe's law then fine, but if you want to argue that I've ever said anything that suggests I might be a Trump supporter then rev the engine and show me where the road goes.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It remains to be seen if that is really the case, particularly if we separate out, say, church-going evangelicals from the "cultural evangelicals" described upthread.

But will non-Evangelicals, and in particular non-Christians, make that distinction? That's what this whole thread is about -- is this whole Trump thing going to drag the Evangelical church down with it? And in that department appearances matter perhaps even more than realities.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, seriously, scare-quotes around "leaders"?!? Are you suggesting that the more thoughtful evangelical voices denouncing Trump are not really "leaders"???

I'm saying that in a loosely organized coalition like the "Evangelical church" (which is of course in scare quotes here because it's not really a church but a bunch of churches, or a subset of The Church, depending on how you're using "church"), what counts as a leader is rather difficult to pin down.

Is James Dobson a leader of the Evangelical church? Is the president of Wheaton? The editor of Sojourners? I mean who decides these things? I know who the leader of the RCC is. I know who the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church is. I could easily find out who the leader of the American Presbyterian Church is. But the "Evangelical Church" has much fuzzier boundaries.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If you are talking about not wanting to go further into Poe's law then fine, but if you want to argue that I've ever said anything that suggests I might be a Trump supporter then rev the engine and show me where the road goes.

No, I just mean that the last time I got into a discussion on the ship about what I did or did not or should or should not know about another shippie's posting patterns, I had my arse handed to me on a rotating sawblade.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Really? Democrats admit that what the Clinton machine, headed by Hillary Clinton, did would not be acceptable today. If what she said and did was not slut shaming, then all the hipster feminists supporting Hillary Clinton have got some massive apologizing to do for the accusations of slut shaming they make on an hourly basis.

OK I should acknowledge that is true. I hadn't read much of the reports before and the few I'd read before replying seemed a bit he-said-she-said. But OK the balance of opinion from those who've followed this more closely is as you say, that what she did was unacceptable.

Clinton is not a candidate without weaknesses for sure. Nevertheless a guy with a hair-trigger, a temper and apparently no self-control and a penchant for misogyny doesn't seem a better choice to me, particularly on the two issues that you raise - foreign policy and women's rights.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It remains to be seen if that is really the case, particularly if we separate out, say, church-going evangelicals from the "cultural evangelicals" described upthread.
But will non-Evangelicals, and in particular non-Christians, make that distinction? That's what this whole thread is about -- is this whole Trump thing going to drag the Evangelical church down with it? And in that department appearances matter perhaps even more than realities.

True. Although there, the damage to the brand may already be done. Outsiders who would be scared off by the Trump associations would already have been weirded out by the various televangelists and other whackos we've got fluttering around the edges. But you still have (at least in the US and in the developing world) a large body of people who are already in evangelical churches-- many of which are NOT preaching support for Trump or anything remotely like his policies. So the fact that evangelicals are credited with Trump's success will befuddle them, as it does me, but it's not likely to make them switch churches.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, seriously, scare-quotes around "leaders"?!? Are you suggesting that the more thoughtful evangelical voices denouncing Trump are not really "leaders"???
I'm saying that in a loosely organized coalition like the "Evangelical church" (which is of course in scare quotes here because it's not really a church but a bunch of churches, or a subset of The Church, depending on how you're using "church"), what counts as a leader is rather difficult to pin down.

Is James Dobson a leader of the Evangelical church? Is the president of Wheaton? The editor of Sojourners? I mean who decides these things? I know who the leader of the RCC is. I know who the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church is. I could easily find out who the leader of the American Presbyterian Church is. But the "Evangelical Church" has much fuzzier boundaries.

That's a very narrow and non-standard definition of leadership. The term is generally used, both by academics and colloquially, to refer to anyone with any sort of influence-- whether or not they have positional authority or institutional titles. Within the Orthodox Church, you're going to of course have patriarchs, priests and other titled individuals who are automatically listed as "leaders". But you're also going to have plenty of congregants who are considered "leaders" not by virtue of their titles or positions, but because of other qualities-- wisdom, clear-thinking, good character-- that makes them someone who is listened to and influential in decision-making. That's true in every organization, including the evangelical church. So Dobson is an evangelical leader because people listen to him and follow his teachings-- but so are Shane Clairborn, Tony Campolo, Rachel Held Evans, Greg Boyd, and Ron Sider.

Similarly, there is no positional leader of the American Presbyterian Church because there is no denomination by that name. There is the Presbyterian Church, USA (PCUSA) and the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) and a couple of other variants. But one could be a a leader in "the American Presbyterian Church" if one is an influential person who is listened to and respected among American Presbyterians.

[ 12. August 2016, 05:09: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That's a very narrow and non-standard definition of leadership.

Then you have ignored my substantive point and are focusing on details that I may have gotten wrong. (ditto the names of the Presby denominations)

I asked of three people, none of which is actually in church administration at all, if they were leaders. James Dobson, the current president of Wheaton College (whoever that may be), and the editor of Sojourners Mag. Do they count as leaders of the "Evangelical Church" (whatever exactly that means)? How might one tell? Is mere fame or popularity enough? In what way is Rachel Held Evans, a very controversial and much-hated individual within Evangelicalism, a leader?

Is anyone with any influence a leader? Over how many people do they need to have influence?

This is as squishy and flaccid a definition as one could possibly ask for. It's hard to see what use it is.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
they argue vehemently for the separation of Church and State and for the 2nd Amendment

I have never heard of these people, who sound about as representative of anything significant as do the Phelps family.

Generally speaking, these two tendencies, both of which you say they espouse, usually exist at opposite ends of the spectrum.

It is usually conservatives who have a fundamentalist interpretation of the Second Amendment as regards the right to bear arms, and trendy lefties who have a fundamentalist interpretation of the First Amendment religion clause and want to ban any reference to Christianity (eg Happy Christmas) from the public square.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That's a very narrow and non-standard definition of leadership.
I asked of three people, none of which is actually in church administration at all, if they were leaders. James Dobson, the current president of Wheaton College (whoever that may be), and the editor of Sojourners Mag. Do they count as leaders of the "Evangelical Church" (whatever exactly that means)? How might one tell? Is mere fame or popularity enough? ...

Is anyone with any influence a leader? Over how many people do they need to have influence?

This is as squishy and flaccid a definition as one could possibly ask for. It's hard to see what use it is.

But that IS the definition-- both colloquially and in academia-- of leadership. I have taught leadership theory on the university level-- academics will talk about different types of leadership/ authority, only one of which is positional authority.

Fame is not the substantive quality, but neither is title or position. Influence is. Leaders are, by definition, people who lead-- i.e. others will follow them. They are able to influence people to change the direction of an organization. They may do this in a hierarchical way ("I'm the boss and this is the way it's going to be") thru positional authority, but far more often it's thru other qualities that build trust thru character, expertise, personality, etc. (As well as, unfortunately, things like gender, height, attractiveness, etc).

This is not just true of the evangelical church (which, btw, does have a definition, "squishy" though it may be). It's true of every organization, religious or otherwise, including the Orthodox church. There are persons with positional authority in the Orthodox church who demonstrate leadership, but there are also those within every congregation who are leaders by virtue of their skill, expertise, wisdom, or character. Others in the congregation will look up to them and follow their lead-- which indicates they are leaders.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then you have ignored my substantive point and are focusing on details that I may have gotten wrong. (ditto the names of the Presby denominations)

Sorry, that was an aside-- I should have indicated it as such. It was, however, an illustration of the difference between positional authority and other forms of leadership.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In what way is Rachel Held Evans, a very controversial and much-hated individual within Evangelicalism, a leader?

*aside* RHE certainly has her detractors-- ALL leaders do. And evangelicals can perhaps be more snarky and even demonizing about that than anyone, in part because of the influence of fundamentalism (a subset of evangelicalism), which focuses a lot of attention on doctrinal purity.

But RHE is also much loved. But more than that, to your point, she is influential. She has a voice that is heard, and it changes things. She has influenced the way (particularly younger) evangelicals believe and think about theology. And she has influenced the way that they act (e.g. increasing World Vision sponsorships in the midst of the SSM debacle). She has influence. Which again, is the standard definition of leadership.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I was thinking the same thing as Kaplan Corday. People on the right in this country generally decry the separation of church and state as something artificial and imposed by the godless Left. They take great pride in pointing out that phrase doesn't exist in the Constitution, and are always bemoaning how God is being removed from the public square, and embellishing on the fantasy that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Their more, um, fervent members even posit that the Constitution was divinely inspired.

These are not people who champion the separation of church and state.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0