A month from now, 50 million Americans will vote for Trump

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

Despite endless religious propaganda here, Russia has some of the highest abortion rates in the world and abortion is literally not even an issue here, it's widely accepted and mostly people don't care. Humans are so confusing.

As far as I am aware, killing a fetus was not considered an issue in the Bible until the woman felt the quickening, which was at least at 14 weeks. Christianity has not up until recent times had issue with taking human lives, so I suspect it is more of humanist Western European ideology that is at play.

[millefleur 5,046]

As far as I am aware, killing a fetus was not considered an issue in the Bible until the woman felt the quickening, which was at least at 14 weeks. Christianity has not up until recent times had issue with taking human lives, so I suspect it is more of humanist Western European ideology that is at play.

Thank you! You're the first person who could provide a remotely good answer to me for this riddle. When I tried to ask people here, the reaction was "Well, it's bad but......it happens. Oh well."

But it is sad that issues like abortion end up being the turning point on which people vote, and then has a whole bunch of other implications politically that they probably don't even agree with/want as you said earlier. I'm not a deeply religious person, so I just can't understand their viewpoints when it ends up undermining other things they actually benefit from.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Did you know that the "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's in order to combat the USSR's state atheism?

Well, there is a difference here. I see you're from Canada (or maybe you're the USC) but believe me....it's worse in some other countries. It is. I also don't really like that it's on the money, but the church in the US doesn't have a central power and it's not directly in cahoots with the government like it is here.

Also, it's not just the US who is at fault here. Look at Angela Merkel's party in Germany...plenty of Western democracies still have religion lingering around as part of their ideologies. I honestly don't care what religion the leader has if they aren't corrupt and do a good job as a leader. What about the new Muslim mayor of London....do you have a problem with him since he's public about his faith?

yes, i do.

american. i disagree that evangelical christian interests have not been of great influence (cahoots) with the us government. more like one in the same but that's really another topic. if a local government is comprised of mostly hispanic catholic males you're going to see a local government that is partial to (and most comfortable with) hispanic catholic males. people don't consciously take their religious hats off when they partake in public service; without extra care as to why that hat needs to come off, the boundaries of church and state are trampled into a largely grey area that americans are mostly comfortable with so long as the grey area is christian.

i don't think it is a phenomenon that can be blamed on a particular country. but also, another topic. i don't have a problem with the mayor of london. i don't live there so it would be pretty pointless for me to care one way or the other. i do know that so long as i want to believe in what i believe without getting locked up or a round of sink or swim, i have to allow others that same right. pretty basic.

[millefleur 5,046]

yes, i do.

american. i disagree that evangelical christian interests have not been of great influence (cahoots) with the us government. more like one in the same but that's really another topic. if a local government is comprised of mostly hispanic catholic males you're going to see a local government that is partial to (and most comfortable with) hispanic catholic males. people don't consciously take their religious hats off when they partake in public service; without extra care as to why that hat needs to come off, the boundaries of church and state are trampled into a largely grey area that americans are mostly comfortable with so long as the grey area is christian.

i don't think it is a phenomenon that can be blamed on a particular country. but also, another topic. i don't have a problem with the mayor of london. i don't live there so it would be pretty pointless for me to care one way or the other. i do know that so long as i want to believe in what i believe without getting locked up or a round of sink or swim, i have to allow others that same right. pretty basic.

So, which areas of US government do you feel directly affect/limit you as a result of (evangelical or otherwise) Christianity? Let's put abortion aside because that's still federally allowed despite varying restrictions, and let's leave aside historical examples....I'm curious about nowadays USA.

[yuna628 9,676]

Did you know that the "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's in order to combat the USSR's state atheism?

Well, there is a difference here. I see you're from Canada (or maybe you're the USC) but believe me....it's worse in some other countries. It is. I also don't really like that it's on the money, but the church in the US doesn't have a central power and it's not directly in cahoots with the government like it is here.

Also, it's not just the US who is at fault here. Look at Angela Merkel's party in Germany...plenty of Western democracies still have religion lingering around as part of their ideologies. I honestly don't care what religion the leader has if they aren't corrupt and do a good job as a leader. What about the new Muslim mayor of London....do you have a problem with him since he's public about his faith?

It's hard comparing the US to the UK in terms of separation of church and state... because the UK still remains very much a church-state without separation at all in terms of government. Bishops sit in government. Religion is still fairly state-sponsored. There is the CoE, and schools still have religious education classes in the same way a person in the US would only have them in a church setting, the government more or less allows displays of state-sponsored public Christianity. The monarchy figurehead still technically derives her power from the godhead but is only so gracious enough to let the parliament reside. The mayor of London is a Muslim, certainly, but even he must abide by the status quo on public displays of a particular religion as the most prominent one. Attacks on those publically displaying other faiths still happen in the UK, and as of recently are statistically on the rise.

[millefleur 5,046]

It's hard comparing the US to the UK in terms of separation of church and state... because the UK still remains very much a church-state without separation at all in terms of government. Bishops sit in government. Religion is still fairly state-sponsored. There is the CoE, and schools still have religious education classes in the same way a person in the US would only have them in a church setting, the government more or less allows displays of state-sponsored public Christianity. The monarchy figurehead still technically derives her power from the godhead but is only so gracious enough to let the parliament reside. The mayor of London is a Muslim, certainly, but even he must abide by the status quo on public displays of a particular religion as the most prominent one. Attacks on those publically displaying other faiths still happen in the UK, and as of recently are statistically on the rise.

And therein lies my point.....which maybe wasn't that clear, sorry about that...but that we do tend to have separation of church and state (generally speaking!) in the US and it's a good thing. And our Supreme Court does a pretty darned good job of upholding it. Which is why I don't think it matters if an atheist is the president or not.

The religiosity of American culture is weird in terms of its prevalence/popularity, but I don't feel that (compared to other nations) it encroaches upon the law/government that much.

[smilesammich 10,727]

So, which areas of US government do you feel directly affect/limit you as a result of (evangelical or otherwise) Christianity? Let's put abortion aside because that's still federally allowed despite varying restrictions, and let's leave aside historical examples....I'm curious about nowadays USA.

i don't think i understand what you're asking. i never said i feel limited by christians in government. the religious affiliation of government is probably on par with the rest of the country - i dont know. would i like to see less christianity in my day to day life, yes. but, christianity is a yuuuuge part of american culture.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Far left means forcing people to follow what the government deems is right even if you believe in it or not. Remember the Soviet Union/Eastern block?

I do, but how is any of that relevant to today's America?

I feel like since the collapse of the USSR/Eastern block, people have forgotten that the far left really isn't that different from the far right in some ways.

I don't think anyone on Americans far left is advocating for the return of communism, certainly not in any meaningful numbers. Bernie according to Fox is far left, I can't recall him ever saying that he wants a Soviet style government here in America. America's right, now that's a completely different story. Lots of hate, calls for closing of borders, exclusion of members of an entire religion and has plenty of people going round saying what a lovely place America was before multi culturalism etc. The far right seems to hate anyone who is not a white, Anglo Saxon, christian.

The Soviet Union did have its pluses though, like free education, healthcare, everyone had a job (or else you went to prison)!

I mean, one could argue the pluses of the far right as well. They have pluses.....at a cost. That's what they have in common.

You need to evolve your thinking a little. Most left wingers I know have.

[yuna628 9,676]

And therein lies my point.....which maybe wasn't that clear, sorry about that...but that we do tend to have separation of church and state (generally speaking!) in the US and it's a good thing. And our Supreme Court does a pretty darned good job of upholding it. Which is why I don't think it matters if an atheist is the president or not.

The religiosity of American culture is weird in terms of its prevalence/popularity, but I don't feel that (compared to other nations) it encroaches upon the law/government that much.

Oh, yes separation of church and state is a good thing, and yes in general a good job is made of upholding it. Though there have been some times when it hasn't been upheld appropriately too.

To address the need for an atheist, or perhaps even anyone else in the White House of a faith or non-faith different from the atypical norm... we have to look at the reasons why an atheist hasn't been elected to that position, or more importantly why they never seem to run for office in the first place. The religious right in America is constantly telling its members that America and more importantly, Christianity at large, is under some sort of attack from atheism, Islam, or liberalism. They will not elect anyone who is from any of these groups... and to run for President, this voting bloc is important. Therefore, you can't run too successfully without being a Christian (or just saying you are and being a flake trying to look the part half-heartedly). Even then, a simple Christian may be scrutinized and called into question. It must be, the right sort of Christian. The pandering Christian. The type that is always church-going, cross-wearing, born again believing, end of days sort. The sort that is loud and wants to be noticed what a good Christian they are. You have to hit all the right notes to be electable. A politician would do well to extend themselves in being anti-abortion but not hardline. In support and yet not in support of gay rights. When voters elect or come close to electing a candidate that is different from the norm - be it JFK or Obama or even Bernie, there will be whispers. JFK is a Catholic can he support everyone that isn't? Obama might be a secret Muslim? Bernie is a Jew, must be a commie, or worse.. a heathen that ditched his faith, he can't be principled enough (some Hillary backers thought of going with this punchline).

While we have all these voices in our populace that help to elect parties into office... we also have others within powerful lobbying circles and mega-churches that are constantly seeking a return back to a different sort of 'originalism' in our government. They interpret the separation of church and state very differently. They eschew the deism of our founders, and look back even further to the time of the Puritans and the formation of the earliest type of government. I still have on my shelf a history education book, from around 10th grade. It speaks in glowing utopian terms of how wonderful these times were. Where America truly was 'under God', and there was no separation of church and state. The subversive message in the book is to teach children in evangelical circles that this is the future path America needs to head towards to be holy again. Kids who enter into similarly themed popular evangelical religious colleges and homeschools are being taught the very same thing as they go into adulthood, being pushed out into political, law, economics, and the internet and hell bent on conforming anyone who will listen to them with a passion. And there are still those who believe, we are merely in the end times, and by voting for 'bad agents', or individuals who are not moral or reflective of the type of Christianity popular right now - it will help further along these end times. I'm not kidding here.

So yes, we have separation of church and state and this is a good thing - but this is the thing that is consistently in danger of eroding away by politicians, pundits, lobbyists, and Christian movements that see themselves as leading the charge upon 'restoring' America to a different time and place. The Supreme Court cannot protect against this forever. The main argument for many republicans might be gun ownership, but to the religious right, it's about reframing the Constitution entirely. To say that religion in this country doesn't encroach upon our government is incorrect. They would say that government encroached upon them of course. Historically religion has driven much of what has been shameful paths to tread down in this country, dividing instead of uniting. Not that there is nothing wrong with religion itself, but it is often wielded by those who seek to cause great damage.

I think it is good that we continue growing and moving forward as a nation. I was proud that we elected our first African-American President, and I will be equally as proud that we elect a female one (despite any misgivings I have about her). But when it comes to safeguarding our Constitution against zealots, well... we have a long way to go. More than 40% of potential voters once polled said being an atheist should be an automatic dealbreaker for President. The mere suggestion of it, sends people into a tizzy.

As this says (and it's a good article on the subject):

Raising the atheist specter against presidential candidates has been a tried-and-true part of the attack apparatus in American politics from the beginning. The sometime Anglican, mostly deist Thomas Jefferson was relentlessly assailed as a howling atheist who would destroy the biblical and Christian foundations of the republic. For many American Christians, the election of Jefferson in 1800 was apocalyptic; the political and moral order was being entrusted to an infidel indifferent to whether his compatriots worshipped one god, twenty gods, or no god at all. To Federalist clergy, if Americans elected a freethinker like Jefferson, they might as well throw their Bibles into bonfires and teach their children to chant mockeries of God. http://religionandpolitics.org/2016/09/27/an-atheist-for-president/

Those who are currently attempting to pretend to stomach Trump as a 'godly' candidate are actually wanting Pence. Pence is again the person that hits all the correct notes for the religious right, perhaps even a little too zealously.. but no one doubts his seriousness in that regard. It's no surprise then that early on there were little hints dropped that Trump wanted Pence to have the actual decision-making pants in the Presidential relationship. A clear pandering message of hope to those voters I thought. There's a man they could count on who would indeed use his government to legislate his religion into all of our lives and erode the separating line away. We are forever one dumb movement from self-destruction. The UK manages under the system it does, but even the type of church-state system they have is not exactly what activist agents in the American religious movement want for this country. They'd like hardcore. Just my perspective. I've been observing these types of circles for a very long time.

[millefleur 5,046]

I grew up in the North Florida/South Georgia area....yes, there were a lot of religious people but there were also a lot of more secular-minded people as well. I went to public schools, we had a lot of minorities and even a few immigrants from the Middle East and everyone got along extremely well. Yes, it was a special school for the arts but the fact that such a school even exists in the Deep South is probably something you wouldn't guess. Religion was never, ever forced in my school....yes, we had religious students who had a Bible Club (it was organized by the students, it had nothing to do with the school's admin) after hours, but during study time none of my teachers or the administration of the school ever pushed religion. Some teachers were openly atheist, some were openly gay....and this was during W's presidency. In the South. We weren't even required to say The Pledge if we didn't want to. My family is not religious, but some of friends in school were. I went to their church services a couple times because they invited me. No one ever pushed on me or tried to convert me, ever.

It seems to me attitudes are changing for the opposite when it comes to law. Gay marriage is now legal nationwide. As mentioned, we've had a black president. Probably we will have a female president next. When I was growing up in the South, I did know a few groups of evangelical, crazy religious people but even they were fringe. It wasn't the majority. What was more common was attending a reform Protestant church where people are not that strict and crazy. I never heard anyone, not even Conservatives, talking about pushing for more religion into the government outside of the abortion debate. I don't know, maybe people have become crazier over the years and I grew up in a more tolerant time.

Not denying that there are crazy people out there, obviously they are. But are they masses and masses trying to push the US to become some kind of theocracy? I really don't think so. The churches within the South are already so disunified. Baptists hate the Mormons, the Catholics are considered weird, the really crazy born-again folks alienate almost everyone (especially the more liberal churches)....it's really disjointed.

I agree that it's stupid that there's an assumption that the president has to be Christian. I would've voted for Sanders but yeah...that didn't happen. While the US has it's share of really extremist religious people, they aren't going to topple the government and install some kind of state religion. Otherwise why would Trump be so popular? Trump is not remotely religious, he can BS and say he is but clearly he beat out more religious alternatives....and the Pence argument falls short because Trump was immensely popular before Pence was even in the picture.

By the way, allowing Fox News to determine what "far left" means? Odd. People can call whatever they want far left, but I don't consider Sanders far left at all. He's more of a New Dealer/FDR Dem. Left, yes, but "far"? The word "far" means some kind of "extremism" and I think an extremely strong central power is included in that. Fox News doesn't know what they're talking about. Far right would the opposite of that....conslidate the power into a smaller, strong central body, usually a strong leader plus a single-party rule. In other words, looking at the spectrum at its most extreme, far left would be Marxist-Leninism and far right would be Fascism. If Fox News wants to disagree, good for them.

And people going around dreaming of an America before multiculturalism are just delusional. The US has no organic culture (except for the Native Americans of course), it's always been a mix and an artificial cultural experient of people from different places. I agree that it's disturbing that Trump is so popular, but I think he's popular because people like entertainment and TV and they just believe his BS about being a good leader/businessman because that was his persona in public. If TV didn't exist, Trump would be a nobody....I'm sure of it. It's a cultural problem in a greater sense. The pop culture, TV, the endless entertainment element of our culture which has permeated politics. That scares me more than a few groups of religious crazies.

Edited October 25, 2016 by millefleur

[smilesammich 10,727]

I grew up in the North Florida/South Georgia area....yes, there were a lot of religious people but there were also a lot of more secular-minded people as well. I went to public schools, we had a lot of minorities and even a few immigrants from the Middle East and everyone got along extremely well. Yes, it was a special school for the arts but the fact that such a school even exists in the Deep South is probably something you wouldn't guess. Religion was never, ever forced in my school....yes, we had religious students who had a Bible Club (it was organized by the students, it had nothing to do with the school's admin) after hours, but during study time none of my teachers or the administration of the school ever pushed religion. Some teachers were openly atheist, some were openly gay....and this was during W's presidency. In the South. We weren't even required to say The Pledge if we didn't want to. My family is not religious, but some of friends in school were. I went to their church services a couple times because they invited me. No one ever pushed on me or tried to convert me, ever.

It seems to me attitudes are changing for the opposite when it comes to law. Gay marriage is now legal nationwide. As mentioned, we've had a black president. Probably we will have a female president next. When I was growing up in the South, I did know a few groups of evangelical, crazy religious people but even they were fringe. It wasn't the majority. What was more common was attending a reform Protestant church where people are not that strict and crazy. I never heard anyone, not even Conservatives, talking about pushing for more religion into the government outside of the abortion debate. I don't know, maybe people have become crazier over the years and I grew up in a more tolerant time.

Not denying that there are crazy people out there, obviously they are. But are they masses and masses trying to push the US to become some kind of theocracy? I really don't think so. The churches within the South are already so disunified. Baptists hate the Mormons, the Catholics are considered weird, the really crazy born-again folks alienate almost everyone (especially the more liberal churches)....it's really disjointed.

I agree that it's stupid that there's an assumption that the president has to be Christian. I would've voted for Sanders but yeah...that didn't happen. While the US has it's share of really extremist religious people, they aren't going to topple the government and install some kind of state religion. Otherwise why would Trump be so popular? Trump is not remotely religious, he can BS and say he is but clearly he beat out more religious alternatives....and the Pence argument falls short because Trump was immensely popular before Pence was even in the picture.

By the way, allowing Fox News to determine what "far left" means? Odd. People can call whatever they want far left, but I don't consider Sanders far left at all. He's more of a New Dealer/FDR Dem. Left, yes, but "far"? The word "far" means some kind of "extremism" and I think an extremely strong central power is included in that. Fox News doesn't know what they're talking about. Far right would the opposite of that....conslidate the power into a smaller, strong central body, usually a strong leader plus a single-party rule. In other words, looking at the spectrum at its most extreme, far left would be Marxist-Leninism and far right would be Fascism. If Fox News wants to disagree, good for them.

And people going around dreaming of an America before multiculturalism are just delusional. The US has no organic culture (except for the Native Americans of course), it's always been a mix and an artificial cultural experient of people from different places. I agree that it's disturbing that Trump is so popular, but I think he's popular because people like entertainment and TV and they just believe his BS about being a good leader/businessman because that was his persona in public. If TV didn't exist, Trump would be a nobody....I'm sure of it. It's a cultural problem in a greater sense. The pop culture, TV, the endless entertainment element of our culture which has permeated politics. That scares me more than a few groups of religious crazies.

the part in bold? i'm shocked.

[yuna628 9,676]

I grew up in the North Florida/South Georgia area....yes, there were a lot of religious people but there were also a lot of more secular-minded people as well. I went to public schools, we had a lot of minorities and even a few immigrants from the Middle East and everyone got along extremely well. Yes, it was a special school for the arts but the fact that such a school even exists in the Deep South is probably something you wouldn't guess. Religion was never, ever forced in my school....yes, we had religious students who had a Bible Club (it was organized by the students, it had nothing to do with the school's admin) after hours, but during study time none of my teachers or the administration of the school ever pushed religion. Some teachers were openly atheist, some were openly gay....and this was during W's presidency. In the South. We weren't even required to say The Pledge if we didn't want to. My family is not religious, but some of friends in school were. I went to their church services a couple times because they invited me. No one ever pushed on me or tried to convert me, ever.

It seems to me attitudes are changing for the opposite when it comes to law. Gay marriage is now legal nationwide. As mentioned, we've had a black president. Probably we will have a female president next. When I was growing up in the South, I did know a few groups of evangelical, crazy religious people but even they were fringe. It wasn't the majority. What was more common was attending a reform Protestant church where people are not that strict and crazy. I never heard anyone, not even Conservatives, talking about pushing for more religion into the government outside of the abortion debate. I don't know, maybe people have become crazier over the years and I grew up in a more tolerant time.

Not denying that there are crazy people out there, obviously they are. But are they masses and masses trying to push the US to become some kind of theocracy? I really don't think so. The churches within the South are already so disunified. Baptists hate the Mormons, the Catholics are considered weird, the really crazy born-again folks alienate almost everyone (especially the more liberal churches)....it's really disjointed.

I agree that it's stupid that there's an assumption that the president has to be Christian. I would've voted for Sanders but yeah...that didn't happen. While the US has it's share of really extremist religious people, they aren't going to topple the government and install some kind of state religion. Otherwise why would Trump be so popular? Trump is not remotely religious, he can BS and say he is but clearly he beat out more religious alternatives....and the Pence argument falls short because Trump was immensely popular before Pence was even in the picture.

By the way, allowing Fox News to determine what "far left" means? Odd. People can call whatever they want far left, but I don't consider Sanders far left at all. He's more of a New Dealer/FDR Dem. Left, yes, but "far"? The word "far" means some kind of "extremism" and I think an extremely strong central power is included in that. Fox News doesn't know what they're talking about. Far right would the opposite of that....conslidate the power into a smaller, strong central body, usually a strong leader plus a single-party rule. In other words, looking at the spectrum at its most extreme, far left would be Marxist-Leninism and far right would be Fascism. If Fox News wants to disagree, good for them.

And people going around dreaming of an America before multiculturalism are just delusional. The US has no organic culture (except for the Native Americans of course), it's always been a mix and an artificial cultural experient of people from different places. I agree that it's disturbing that Trump is so popular, but I think he's popular because people like entertainment and TV and they just believe his BS about being a good leader/businessman because that was his persona in public. If TV didn't exist, Trump would be a nobody....I'm sure of it. It's a cultural problem in a greater sense. The pop culture, TV, the endless entertainment element of our culture which has permeated politics. That scares me more than a few groups of religious crazies.

The type of individuals in the religious right movement and circles won't be the sort that sends their children to public schools, or goes to Protestant churches. It sounds like you had a varied and inclusive upbringing. A rather different experience than me, I'm afraid. For evangelicals of the variety I refer to, adherence is mandatory in all things - and the goal truly is changing America at it's core. It's a different sort of SJW. The major powerful religious leaders and players that currently support Trump (and have created somewhat of a schism within) are those that are at the forefront of the movement. Have you ever encountered the Falwells, the Robertsons, the Sekulows, the Dobsons, the Hagees, the Peales, the Crouches? The average Christian might just know them as names.. leaders of churches that have some sway. But those involved in the down and dirty, know what these men are, what they stand for, and what they mean to do. They are the televangelists.. the men who know the art of the con as well as Trump. Powerful people that have been draining the pocketbooks of followers with the 'prosperity doctrine'. Penecostal, Baptists, nondenominational, homechurch, Messianic, ATI, IBLP, and many more. Trump's own doctrine fits in surprisingly well to this theology; a hook to reel the sheep in. If Trump is rich, he therefore must be under the blessings of a god. He says all the things that they are afraid to say in public. And Trump's concept of ''if you believe it to be true, it must be true'' is like the slogan ''believing is seeing''. There is a reason Trump is a devotee of Peale. Even TV man Mark Burnett who helped market Trump for years is in the mix, and numerous other shills that appeared on the show, who continue to support him.

The religious alternatives such as Ted Cruz? Ted was supported by other types of Christians, and not the more powerful players I'm talking about. Doubts had been raised early on within those circles to undermine his 'street cred' so to speak. When he refused to support Trump, he got some brownie points back, and then quickly lost them when he realized he needed evangelical votes to continue furthering his career. Trump was popular before Pence, sure. The support of evangelicals then, was as I said everything that harkens back to the 'end times' doctrine, and electing someone to achieve that goal. It has evolved I've noticed, now that Pence has arrived (they will say this is a sure sign of God's hand in the picture), and the plan can now diverge into restoring America, in whatever means God wants to achieve that goal. I've seen all sorts of 'suggestions' as to what God's brilliant idea will be in bringing this about. It's not strange to hear this type of talk repeated in some of the local watering holes around here. There are a lot of mouthpiece shills for Trump these days, and they are all connected to this movement. These types of Christians were not always paid attention to by others in mainstream, or merely overlooked because the feeling was their heart was in the right place even if the message was wrong. A divide has grown over time, and support for Trump has caused trouble within Christianity. Those supporting Trump look upon Christian NeverTrumpers, as fluff Christians and elitists. The type that are big into more liberal stuff like inclusiveness and kumbaya. The sort that lost the concept of hell and firebrand because they were bleeding followers. Christians in name only who won't reap the benefits like 'true believers'.

In September, White invited several dozen prominent preachers to pray for Trump again at Trump Tower, including many Pentecostal preachers. Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, Trinity Broadcasting Network founder Jan Crouch, “Preachers of LA” reality star Clarence McClendon, Murdock, and newer ones like Burns prayed around a table with a “Make America Great Again” hat on it. Rabbi Kirt Schneider, a Jewish Christian televangelist who says he saw Jesus at age 20, prophesied, placing his fingers over Trump’s eyes.

Their reasons for supporting Trump are varied. Scott says Trump reminds him of Cyrus, a Persian king in the Bible who rebuilt Jerusalem’s walls. McClendon has said he feels called “to reach the up and out as well as the down and out,” and compares Trump to Zacchaeus, a reviled Jewish tax collector that Jesus saved. Murdock says he has sensed Trump’s spirit is “a phenomena” needed at a time when “we smell the odor of disrespect coming from the government.”

The more mainstream pastor Jentezen Franklin, who leads a 16,000-member congregation in Georgia and an international television ministry that reaches millions of people, says he sees his peers with large media ministries speaking out for the first time politically, especially for a candidate who can be pro-Israel, pro-life, and who can empower the middle class. “We need a radical change in this nation,” he says. “That has been the weakness of many of the right-wing evangelical community, they are quick to point out what they are for on social issues, but where is the compassion on the poor and the needy?”

The reach of such independent pastors is expansive, if often difficult to calculate. All have vast direct-to-consumer media networks, act autonomously, and many run for-profit ministries not just traditional churches. Copeland, who has also voiced support for Cruz, gained international attention when he met with Pope Francis at the Vatican in 2014, shortly after the pontiff met with Osteen. Leaders report their own numbers.

Osteen has said he reaches 20 million on television a month and brings in some $90 million a year. Scott says his radio station reaches 4.5 million homes in northeast Ohio alone, and he reports 150,000 listeners online every day. Burns, new to the scene, says he is available in 11 million homes in the U.S and Canada. http://time.com/donald-trump-prosperity-preachers/

But if half of white evangelicals believe Trump would make a good or great president, half do not, and the divide is threatening the GOP’s anchor base. Popular evangelical writer Max Lucado denounced Trump, and the editors of the Christian Post came out against him in their a first-ever political stand. The evangelical stars of Duck Dynasty are split—father Phil endorsed Cruz, son Willie supports Trump.

Evangelical leaders meanwhile have been trying to rev up their base after their presidential picks fell short in 2012 and 2008. Evangelist Franklin Graham, Billy’s son, is hosting prayer rallies in every state capital to get evangelicals to commit to vote Biblical values. Conservative activist David Lane’s American Renewal Project is training hundreds of pastors to run for political office. Johnnie Moore, a National Association of Evangelicals board member, is pushing the new MyFaithVotes initiative to get 25 million evangelicals to the polls in November. “There is a certain triumphalism in evangelical theology,” says Moore, 32, who has no relation to the Southern Baptist Convention’s Russell Moore. “Evangelicals like to win, it is one of the reasons they got into politics in the first place.” http://time.com/donald-trump-prosperity-preachers/

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/june-web-only/whos-who-of-trumps-tremendous-faith-advisors.html

You don't believe that the threat of some delusional zealots is a problem for America. I certainly do. Without their support Trump wouldn't have risen as far as he did. When he loses, I sincerely hope Christians will take a hard look at themselves, realize how low they stooped, and that for all these years they've sat by doing nothing to correct their fellow brethren's behavior. Bad apples spoil the basket. There's a lot of bad apples in the basket, and ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

[JayJayH 546]

I don't think anyone on Americans far left is advocating for the return of communism, certainly not in any meaningful numbers. Bernie according to Fox is far left, I can't recall him ever saying that he wants a Soviet style government here in America. America's right, now that's a completely different story. Lots of hate, calls for closing of borders, exclusion of members of an entire religion and has plenty of people going round saying what a lovely place America was before multi culturalism etc. The far right seems to hate anyone who is not a white, Anglo Saxon, christian.

The U.S. has never been a "multicultural" country in the European context of the term. But the melting pot vs. salad bowl debate is a different one.

As far as the far right hating on everyone - Perhaps some of this is fueled by the far left, which again is fueled by the far right.. And again by the far left.. And so on?

The far left nowadays seems to be more about hating some arbitrary ambiguous white boogeyman.

I'm all for discussing left-leaning economic policies, climate change, social policy etc. I just can't understand why we have to put out blanket statements and alienate 70% of the country in the process. I thought that's what the far right did. Seems to be a terrible way to win back the Democratic base.

Edited October 25, 2016 by JayJayH

[smilesammich 10,727]

The U.S. has never been a "multicultural" country in the European context of the term. But the melting pot vs. salad bowl debate is a different one.

As far as the far right hating on everyone - Perhaps some of this is fueled by the far left, which again is fueled by the far right.. And again by the far left.. And so on?

The far left nowadays seems to be more about hating some arbitrary ambiguous white boogeyman.

I'm all for discussing left-leaning economic policies, climate change, social policy etc. I just can't understand why we have to put out blanket statements and alienate 70% of the country in the process. I thought that's what the far right did. Seems to be a terrible way to win back the Democratic base.

i'm confused. are mtv documentary producers now 'the far left'?

cause i mean, i haven't watched the doc but a bunch of white kids giving their personal accounts on being white and race in their experience is no where close to 'some arbitrary ambiguous white boogeyman'. i watched a couple seconds in and one girl said something along the lines of 'if i talk to my parents about race they immediately assume that i'm demonizing them'.

sound familiar?

[JayJayH 546]

i'm confused. are mtv documentary producers now 'the far left'?

cause i mean, i haven't watched the doc but a bunch of white kids giving their personal accounts on being white and race in their experience is no where close to 'some arbitrary ambiguous white boogeyman'. i watched a couple seconds in and one girl said something along the lines of 'if i talk to my parents about race they immediately assume that i'm demonizing them'.

sound familiar?

The "far anything" is what you make it out to be. "Far right" to most Europeans will be anyone supporting the death penalty and opposed to single payer healthcare. By that standard, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both far right. Far right could mean being pro-life, anti-estate taxes, or it could mean, as pog mo stated, fascism. Likewise, far left could mean anything from 'Stalinism' to being pro same-sex marriage.

In American context, I guess I'm far left on a whole host of issues. But MTV has been on this race baiting bandwagon for a few years now. And race baiting has, sadly, become a staple of 21st century progressive rhetoric.

Headlines from some popular left-oriented publications I used to read before they turned themselves into pseudoscientific junk fuel for the Trump campaign and white nationalism:

The White Guy Problem

White Men Must be Stopped

I Don't Know What to do With Good White People

Ten Things White People Need to Stop Saying

Here's a List of Things We'd Wish White People Would Stop Doing

Edited October 25, 2016 by JayJayH