'Religious left' emerging as U.S. political force in Trump era

[Ms_Ann]

Abortion isn't evil. Abortion - and the full compliment of family planning services - is good for society, the family, women, children, the economy and society.

Abortion for family planning? Face palm.

 

[Wrong Element]

It's been a few months since the election and they've done some serious number crunching on voting blocs and demographics.

One of the most fascinating factoids was the relationship between Trump and the self-identified "evangelical Christian". It seems that, among evangelical Christians, the LESS you attended church, the MORE likely you were to vote for Trump. If you went to church on a weekly basis, far fewer (percentage wise) supported Trump, and if you were REALLY involved in church (2+ times a week or more), you sat out this election (or voted third party).

These "unchurched evangelicals" make me wonder: are they really accepting Christ or using Him as a convenient smokescreen to hide their authoritarian agenda?

Trump did better in areas where "evangelical" is more a cultural marker than it is a description of actual religious practice or even religious belief. One finding that came up quite a bit during the 2016 primaries was that the higher the percentage of regular churchgoers in the electorate, the more likely that state was to vote for Cruz (culminating in Cruz's blowout win in heavily Mormon Utah). Which makes sense. If you're more serious about your Christianity than you are your politics, supporting a thoroughly secular lowlife like Donald "Two Corinthians" Trump is going to be tough.

 

[RobDownSouth]

They should be aware of the Johnson Amendment to the tax code which prohibits PARTISAN political activities by 501c tax exempt organizations. The IRS is very clear on what constitutes an violation which can lead to removal of tax exempt status.



https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-p...n-by-section-501-c-3-tax-exempt-organizations

These churchs can educate their parishioners, but they can't advocate ANY ONE SIDED political position while doing so. It seems as if they are doing exactly that.

Yup, and they squeal CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION!!! if they get caught and the government tries to revoke their tax-exempt status
.

They've gotten quite good at "having their cake and eating it too".

 

[KingOrfeo]

Trump has promised to "totally destroy the Johnson Amendment."

Yeah, but he doesn't understand what "amendment" means, he thinks he promised a grave desecration.

 

[adrina]

Abortion for family planning? Face palm.

Yes. Abortion for family planning. No need for a face palm.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yeah, but he doesn't understand what "amendment" means, he thinks he promised a grave desecration.

Trump would never get his hands dirty desecrating a grave.
That's what he has his Vice President for....
http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/pence-cemetery.jpg

 

[HisArpy]

Trump has promised to "totally destroy the Johnson Amendment."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/politics/johnson-amendment-trump/

TRUMP cannot do that. It takes an act of Congress passed by both houses and sent to the Prez to sign. After which the Sup Ct will have to decide if their earlier decision stating that the prohibition against political religious activities by 501c charities is a 1st amendment thing or a tax status thing.

After which, you have to ask yourself if you really think that Congress will eliminate a tax code provision that subsequently allows churches to proselytize political positions at this point in time? The R's are in power and any such change could weaken that.

Then think what Sharia Law sympathizers could do with the ability to organize political groups to vote for a particular candidate through a captive audience by telling them that Allah will punish them if they don't do what they're told.

Middle east crisis in America anyone?

 

[LadyVer]

It's been a few months since the election and they've done some serious number crunching on voting blocs and demographics.

One of the most fascinating factoids was the relationship between Trump and the self-identified "evangelical Christian". It seems that, among evangelical Christians, the LESS you attended church, the MORE likely you were to vote for Trump. If you went to church on a weekly basis, far fewer (percentage wise) supported Trump, and if you were REALLY involved in church (2+ times a week or more), you sat out this election (or voted third party).

These "unchurched evangelicals" make me wonder: are they really accepting Christ or using Him as a convenient smokescreen to hide their authoritarian agenda?

Cite your sources.

 

[HisArpy]

Trump would never get his hands dirty desecrating a grave.
That's what he has his Vice President for....
http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/pence-cemetery.jpg

I believe Pence has a rake in his hands assisting in the cleanup of a Jewish cemetery where the headstones had been vandalized. Calling the cleanup and care taking of those grave sites "desecration" is beyond vulgar. Implying that Pence was involved in the vandalism is obscene.

You may think you were just being funny. Very few other people would agree with you.

 

[KingOrfeo]

TRUMP cannot do that.

That is true of a lot of things he promises to do.

 

[HisArpy]

That is true of a lot of things he promises to do.

Your point being...?

 

[Phelia]

If you think abortion is evil, you should want fewer of them in the world. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to provide access to birth control and sex education.

It's been a few months since the election and they've done some serious number crunching on voting blocs and demographics.

One of the most fascinating factoids was the relationship between Trump and the self-identified "evangelical Christian". It seems that, among evangelical Christians, the LESS you attended church, the MORE likely you were to vote for Trump. If you went to church on a weekly basis, far fewer (percentage wise) supported Trump, and if you were REALLY involved in church (2+ times a week or more), you sat out this election (or voted third party).

These "unchurched evangelicals" make me wonder: are they really accepting Christ or using Him as a convenient smokescreen to hide their authoritarian agenda?

Do you have a link for this? I searched, and found this from Pew that says the opposite.

Trump did better in areas where "evangelical" is more a cultural marker than it is a description of actual religious practice or even religious belief. One finding that came up quite a bit during the 2016 primaries was that the higher the percentage of regular churchgoers in the electorate, the more likely that state was to vote for Cruz (culminating in Cruz's blowout win in heavily Mormon Utah). Which makes sense. If you're more serious about your Christianity than you are your politics, supporting a thoroughly secular lowlife like Donald "Two Corinthians" Trump is going to be tough.

The cultural marker part makes me think of J.D. Vance (who has just moved back to Ohio, apparently!). I remember reading that interview with him before the election and then again after.

Another great article I read:
Growing up in a Trump Town. This part really stuck out to me (supporting links in the original).

Of the affected workers I knew, all of them were white and all of them attended my church, First Baptist Church of Kannapolis, which was granted a charter by the Cannon family in 1912 for a lot directly next to the factory. I was raised in a Southern Baptist environment for the first 18 years of my life. While this can’t speak to the nation at large, in North Carolina’s rural culture, the church continues to play a major role in determining how people vote in all elections, not just the presidential. That’s why Cannon Mills owners, who were charged by the National Labor Relations Board with unfair labor practices in 1995, were found to have cozied up to church pastors by giving them free vans and organs, according to the 1999 study; in return, the pastors agreed to convince their congregations to vote against unionization. But the church’s effects on the community’s politics were not felt solely through pastors politicking at the pulpit, but through encouraging sheer, clearcut groupthink.

Cite your sources.

http://i.imgur.com/jLCFPAt.gif

 

[HisArpy]

If you think abortion is evil, you should want fewer of them in the world. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to provide access to birth control and sex education.

The thing that bothers me about the abortion debate isn't what everyone seems to want to talk about. The part that no one talks about the issue of whether the GOVERNMENT should have ANY say in the matter. The question being: Should the government participate in the deaths/abortions/extinction/whatever term floats your boat/etc of it's citizenry?

If you say that the Gov should allow it but should also regulate it, then aren't you really saying that the Gov can say who lives or dies at a whim or according to some "committee approved standard" (ie; a death panel) that sets ever changing standards that no one can keep up with?

If you say that the Gov should outlaw it, aren't you really saying that the Gov can FORCE women to procreate even against their will?

If you allow exceptions, does that not violate equal protection (why some but not others)?

In my opinion, abortion should be like religion. The GOVERNMENT should not have a say one way or the other. Neither favoring nor disapproving and definitely NOT funding OR funding alternative orgs/services. The Gov should not be involved in creating situations where citizens live or die depending on Gov financing or grants.

The problem which seems to be driving the debate occurs whenever people decide to use the power of the government to compel adherence to the personally held beliefs of others regardless of the cause or effect. We are in the current political crisis situation because somehow we've started to believe that OUR PERSONAL VIEW is the 'one true way' and dammit everyone else WILL OBEY. Or else.

This applies to abortion, obscenity laws, alternative lifestyles, political ideology, climate change and so one. The list includes just about everything. It is time we stopped trying to force the world to be a narcissistic mirror of our individual selves.

#getthehelloutofmylife

 

[Ms_Ann]

There's already a plan in place for people that commit murder.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Without access to legal abortion women will try for illegal ones. Thousands of women died from illegal abortions. You can't stop women from getting abortions so you might as well ensure it is done with counselling and a proper doc in a proper facility.

 

[HisArpy]

There's already a plan in place for people that commit murder.

A perfect illustration of what I'm saying.

There is nothing in the legal definition of Homicide which authorizes abortions. Thus, an abortion of an unborn human is homicide (In California, the Penal Code specifically includes the killing of an unborn fetus as a homicide). Extending that to it's logical conclusion, a hysterectomy would be illegal because all those eggs are "unborn human beings".

Once you get past the emotional rhetoric, you get to the heart of the issue. Should the gov be involved in the abortion debate at all? if so, at what point should their involvement be limited? If it can be limited, can it not also be extended? Should we allow POLITICS to be the deciding factor? Or religion?

 

[Ms_Ann]

I mean...what's a condom cost? A buck? These abortionists can afford an abortion but can't afford a fucking rubber?

Paleese...

 

[Ms_Ann]

A perfect illustration of what I'm saying.

There is nothing in the legal definition of Homicide which authorizes abortions. Thus, an abortion of an unborn human is homicide (In California, the Penal Code specifically includes the killing of an unborn fetus as a homicide). Extending that to it's logical conclusion, a hysterectomy would be illegal because all those eggs are "unborn human beings".

Once you get past the emotional rhetoric, you get to the heart of the issue. Should the gov be involved in the abortion debate at all? if so, at what point should their involvement be limited? If it can be limited, can it not also be extended? Should we allow POLITICS to be the deciding factor? Or religion?

I don't suppose you've ever heard of feticide? It's semantics. Horrible semantics.

 

[KingOrfeo]

If you think abortion is evil, you should want fewer of them in the world. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to provide access to birth control and sex education.

Nah, the problem is women. They're the ones who get pregnant, after all. Kill all the women, and there will be no more abortions. Problem solved!

 

[HisArpy]

I mean...what's a condom cost? A buck? These abortionists can afford an abortion but can't afford a fucking rubber?

Paleese...

So, you advocate birth control in place of abortion. Ok, I'm good with that for debate purposes.

Do you also advocate the failure to use of easily available birth control with ineligibility for child support or welfare? I mean, what's a condom cost? A buck? They couldn't use a condom or birth control to prevent being a burden on the rest of the tax payers in the State? You can't afford a condom, and abortions aren't allowed but it's ok to give away hundred of thousands of taxpayer dollars to raise the kid? (Yes it's hundreds of thousands of dollars per kid according to one study I read several years ago. No, I didn't data mine the internet to find it.) Plus the costs of the government bureaucracy necessary to ensure that all those kids are being properly taken care of. And the courts necessary to ensure that the laws are being followed. And the... well you get the point I hope.

All that because no one had a buck to buy or use condom?

 

[Hard_Rom]

On capital punishment death certificates the reason for death is listed as homicide.

Abortion as just a convenient method of birth control is stupid. And even has medical risks. It is a waste of medical facility time and effort. Get a condom, IUD, the pill or just abstain.

But shit happens. Rape! Teenage pregnancy which can seriously fuck up a girls' life and that of her child. Teenage pregnancy is a leading cause of many first world nations not doing so well on female issues. Even married folk have oopsies and may be in no position to have another child.

Personally I would put it out as a referendum to be voted on by women only. And then stand by that result. The vast majority of women I know are pro choice even if they themselves would never contemplate an abortion.

 

[HisArpy]

I don't suppose you've ever heard of feticide? It's semantics. Horrible semantics.

I believe I mentioned that the California penal code includes this under the definition.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Your point being...?

That there was and is not much point in your backing Trump, which I presume you did and do. He has promised countless things he has no idea whatsoever how to deliver even if he really wanted to, which he doesn't. You have been had like a whore in a war zone. The only thing you have gained or will gain out of any of this is the tears of the "snowflakes," may they choke and poison you -- and they will.

 

[HisArpy]

That there was and is not much point in your backing Trump, which I presume you did and do. He has promised countless things he has no idea whatsoever how to deliver even if he really wanted to, which he doesn't. You have been had like a whore in a war zone. The only thing you have gained or will gain out of any of this is the tears of the "snowflakes," may they choke and poison you -- and they will.

Again, your point being what, exactly? That politicians who promise "the wide blue sky" are duplicitous scumbags?

May I remind you of "if you like your doctor..."

 

[Phelia]

It's been a few months since the election and they've done some serious number crunching on voting blocs and demographics.

One of the most fascinating factoids was the relationship between Trump and the self-identified "evangelical Christian". It seems that, among evangelical Christians, the LESS you attended church, the MORE likely you were to vote for Trump. If you went to church on a weekly basis, far fewer (percentage wise) supported Trump, and if you were REALLY involved in church (2+ times a week or more), you sat out this election (or voted third party).

These "unchurched evangelicals" make me wonder: are they really accepting Christ or using Him as a convenient smokescreen to hide their authoritarian agenda?

Cite your sources.

I found an article from a year ago, but it's relative to other republican candidates, which is in line with what Wrong Element said.