Christians and Trump--two perspectives

[KingsGambit]

If you are referring to Gagnon's article here, ISTM that you are seriously misrepresenting it.

Yes, that particular article. I mean "overlook" in terms of being a deal-breaker for support. I maintain that's a fair summary, with the caveat that he adds the weight of the big two social issues to his calculation.

One interesting thing Gagnon says:

Nor do I know such a NeverTrumper who asserts that we should not honor the memory of MLK because he was a serial philanderer right up to the day of his death.]

I actually do lean in that direction.

[NorrinRadd]

Do you feel that you would have thought this way had Hillary won?

Her policy preferences give me more than enough to carp about.

It's so weird seeing Christians say that character doesn't matter anymore, when for years it used to almost be the Christian mantra. The idea went something like "how can we trust a man to be faithful to his country if he can't be faithful to his wife," or some such.

Right. That was in the days of Slick Willy. We may have focused too much on that. OTOH, his randy ways were not years in the past, which AFAWK is the case with Bad Orange Man, but were ongoing, bringing a stain on the office -- among other things.

And I think there's teeth to that. It a man can't be held trustworthy in the smaller or more personal things, how much more trustworthy can we expect him to be with the great or public things? It seems to me that the concern should be less on what a candidate promises to do, but what they actually do, and how they go about doing it.

Well, with a first-time politician, that track record doesn't exist.

Do you believe there are lines (ethically or legally) that President Trump should be able to cross if it means he gets the job done?

I want to say, "No," except that every week brings one or two more examples where a bunch of experts say Trump is breaking the law, and a bunch of others say he is not, or that he's violating ethical standards, while others claim he's breaking norms but not doing anything unethical.

[NorrinRadd]

I have a hard time seeing sincerity when a change of mind after decades of the status quo Adrift mentions suddenly changes when it's politically convenient, just like how I don't see any deep theological reflection in the Grahams removing Mormonism from the cult list of their website right before 2012. It will remain to be told what happens if in the future the Democrats nominate a libertine Hollywood actor. Somehow I feel that character will matter then again, just like how character seems to matter in the case of Pete Buttigieg being gay (Robert Gagnon wrote a long essay about how it's okay to overlook Trump's personality but not Buttigieg's homosexuality, which just strikes me as special pleading).

If you are referring to Gagnon's article here, ISTM that you are seriously misrepresenting it.


WRT Graham and Mormonism, that was shifty and sleazy. I made a slight Facebook stink about it at the time, even while backing Romney for POTUS. That is, I castigated Graham as a weasel, and characterized Mormons as nice, moral infidels in a pseudo-Christian cult, but still supported Mitt over Barry.

[Rushing Jaws]

I would simply prefer that Christians be consistent in how they approach the situation. Franklin Graham declaring that Bill Clinton's sexual immorality is impeachable, then that Trump's is "nobody's business", then that Peter Buttigieg's is a deal breaker, sends a clear message to the world that Christian morality is flexible.

It also sends the message that ethical judgements are based on partisan politics or on identity politics

[rogue06]

I think the problem is that both parties seem to be putting forth candidates who are unworthy. It's really a crying shame.

When have they ever? It's just that now they're even less worthy.

[demi-conservative]

Marital infidelity: we can deduce Trump hasn't had any affairs in the past few years, as the media would otherwise have 24/7 coverage on it. Trump is keeping it in his pants, which removes the most serious moral objection.

Character issues in general: many evangelicals are starting to take the culture war seriously. In a war some normal rules are suspended, therefore alliance with Trump is now thinkable.

[KingsGambit]

I have a hard time seeing sincerity when a change of mind after decades of the status quo Adrift mentions suddenly changes when it's politically convenient, just like how I don't see any deep theological reflection in the Grahams removing Mormonism from the cult list of their website right before 2012. It will remain to be told what happens if in the future the Democrats nominate a libertine Hollywood actor. Somehow I feel that character will matter then again, just like how character seems to matter in the case of Pete Buttigieg being gay (Robert Gagnon wrote a long essay about how it's okay to overlook Trump's personality but not Buttigieg's homosexuality, which just strikes me as special pleading).

[Cow Poke]

Do you feel that you would have thought this way had Hillary won? It's so weird seeing Christians say that character doesn't matter anymore, when for years it used to almost be the Christian mantra. The idea went something like "how can we trust a man to be faithful to his country if he can't be faithful to his wife," or some such. And I think there's teeth to that. It a man can't be held trustworthy in the smaller or more personal things, how much more trustworthy can we expect him to be with the great or public things? It seems to me that the concern should be less on what a candidate promises to do, but what they actually do, and how they go about doing it. Do you believe there are lines (ethically or legally) that President Trump should be able to cross if it means he gets the job done?

I think the problem is that both parties seem to be putting forth candidates who are unworthy. It's really a crying shame.

[Adrift]

I can understand if some Christians find their consciences don't permit them to vote for someone like Trump. I think it is unwise to follow that course if it has the effect of supporting or electing a pro-abortion, anti-Bill-of-Rights candidate. And I think their points about it being a "bad witness" are speculative and mostly irrelevant. But I'd hardly ever be inclined to suggest they are "bad Christians."

But ISTM they do not have the same attitude toward those of us who voted for Trump, and who are loath to criticize him, even when he may deserve it, because of the clamoring hordes denouncing him for anything and everything. They generally are a bunch of nattering self-righteous prigs. (So, ok, in that sense I *do* consider them "bad Christians.")

I certainly don't feel that way about those who voted Trump.

[Adrift]

Nor will I rule out a candidate on "character" grounds. I'll pray, of course, but as far as the "natural" realm is concerned, I'll vote based on what the candidate promises to DO.

Do you feel that you would have thought this way had Hillary won? It's so weird seeing Christians say that character doesn't matter anymore, when for years it used to almost be the Christian mantra. The idea went something like "how can we trust a man to be faithful to his country if he can't be faithful to his wife," or some such. And I think there's teeth to that. It a man can't be held trustworthy in the smaller or more personal things, how much more trustworthy can we expect him to be with the great or public things? It seems to me that the concern should be less on what a candidate promises to do, but what they actually do, and how they go about doing it. Do you believe there are lines (ethically or legally) that President Trump should be able to cross if it means he gets the job done?

[NorrinRadd]

I can understand if some Christians find their consciences don't permit them to vote for someone like Trump. I think it is unwise to follow that course if it has the effect of supporting or electing a pro-abortion, anti-Bill-of-Rights candidate. And I think their points about it being a "bad witness" are speculative and mostly irrelevant. But I'd hardly ever be inclined to suggest they are "bad Christians."

But ISTM they do not have the same attitude toward those of us who voted for Trump, and who are loath to criticize him, even when he may deserve it, because of the clamoring hordes denouncing him for anything and everything. They generally are a bunch of nattering self-righteous prigs. (So, ok, in that sense I *do* consider them "bad Christians.")

[demi-conservative]

Someone put their red hat on the coat rack so the first thing a person saw when entering Christ's church was Trump's name. As if he saved us. I didn't want to touch the filthy hat

Triggered.

Trump is no avowed Christian, but as the prostitutes and tax collectors, many of the 'unclean' will enter into the kingdom before the self-righteous sanctimonious folk.

[Cow Poke]

The "Moral Majority" played a big role in getting conservative Christians involved in politics in the first place, about 40 years ago. Before that, there was a tendency for some to consider politics "worldly," and therefore to be avoided, and for others to essentially erect a "wall of separation" between their religious convictions and their voting.

Getting conservative Christians participating was a good thing. Getting them/us to consider how our religious convictions impact our voting was a good thing. But things got way too muddled together.

Yes, we despised Clinton's gross immorality, and decried it loudly. And if Orange Man as POTUS were engaging in the kinds of activities for which he was (in)famous in years past, I'd be castigating him also.

But I will no longer base my vote on whether a candidate claims to be a Christian, or has fawning Evangelical celebrities puffing him or her up. Nor will I rule out a candidate on "character" grounds. I'll pray, of course, but as far as the "natural" realm is concerned, I'll vote based on what the candidate promises to DO.




There's a slim chance Orange Man will get "primaried." If so, I will almost certainly vote for him over other more "proper" and "respectable" Republican candidates. My preferences in 2016 were Lyin' Ted and Carly Fiorina, and I voted for Ted in the primary in my State. But now I'm glad Trump won. I don't believe Cruz would have even seriously *tried* to do most of the things Trump has done.

I would add that it's more than just "what they promise to DO", as all politicians promise to "DO" stuff. I would weigh heavily the track record of their ability to DO what they promised to DO. With regards to Religious Liberty, SCOTUS, the appointment of Federal Judges, etc... Orange Man has kept his promises.


ETA.... on the other hand, you have candidates like Beto who promises to take away your AR-15 and AK-47... Democrats are livid because he's showing their hand.

[NorrinRadd]

Let's think about 2020 for a moment.

In 2016, Christians had the choice between Trump whose morality is doubtful but he generally advocated conservative Christian positions and Clinton whose morality was also doubtful and she generally advocate non-conservative Christian positions. (At the risk of going off topic, I wonder if Trump could have been elected if Bill Clinton hadn't previously been elected and shown that the results matter more than character. I seem to remember the Republicans in the 1996 election tried to make character an issue and generally failed.)

The "Moral Majority" played a big role in getting conservative Christians involved in politics in the first place, about 40 years ago. Before that, there was a tendency for some to consider politics "worldly," and therefore to be avoided, and for others to essentially erect a "wall of separation" between their religious convictions and their voting.

Getting conservative Christians participating was a good thing. Getting them/us to consider how our religious convictions impact our voting was a good thing. But things got way too muddled together.

Yes, we despised Clinton's gross immorality, and decried it loudly. And if Orange Man as POTUS were engaging in the kinds of activities for which he was (in)famous in years past, I'd be castigating him also.

But I will no longer base my vote on whether a candidate claims to be a Christian, or has fawning Evangelical celebrities puffing him or her up. Nor will I rule out a candidate on "character" grounds. I'll pray, of course, but as far as the "natural" realm is concerned, I'll vote based on what the candidate promises to DO.

In 2020, Christians will most likely have to chose between Trump who hasn't really changed from 2016 and a Democrat who will probably have better morals than Trump but may be more anti-Christian (yes, I'm looking at you Sanders and Harris) than Clinton was.

I did not like my options in 2016. I'm liking my choices in 2020 even less.

There's a slim chance Orange Man will get "primaried." If so, I will almost certainly vote for him over other more "proper" and "respectable" Republican candidates. My preferences in 2016 were Lyin' Ted and Carly Fiorina, and I voted for Ted in the primary in my State. But now I'm glad Trump won. I don't believe Cruz would have even seriously *tried* to do most of the things Trump has done.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Let's think about 2020 for a moment.

In 2016, Christians had the choice between Trump whose morality is doubtful but he generally advocated conservative Christian positions and Clinton whose morality was also doubtful and she generally advocate non-conservative Christian positions. (At the risk of going off topic, I wonder if Trump could have been elected if Bill Clinton hadn't previously been elected and shown that the results matter more than character. I seem to remember the Republicans in the 1996 election tried to make character an issue and generally failed.)

In 2020, Christians will most likely have to chose between Trump who hasn't really changed from 2016 and a Democrat who will probably have better morals than Trump but may be more anti-Christian (yes, I'm looking at you Sanders and Harris) than Clinton was.

I did not like my options in 2016. I'm liking my choices in 2020 even less.