My guess is that those evangelicals did not much care for the policy decisions of then-President Clinton, and those concerns were only exacerbated by his amorality.
And I really do not have any reason to believe that most evangelicals think that the judges (and justices) appointed by President Trump are likely to “serve their interests.” These people are animated by a neutral set of principles–which are not modified by their ability (or inability, as the case may be) to serve anyone’s interests.
For some reason, however, you appear to hold evangelicals to an entirely different set of standards–really, a much higher set–than you hold the rest of us to.
And I find that enormously disturbing (and intellectually dishonest).
Well of course, and it’s no guess on your part, you know that to be. And the whole self righteousness of character and morality was just a bunch of bullshit they used to beat Clinton up. We all know that they don’t really care about morality and character and will overlock the lack thereof if there’s another shiny object that catches their attention. The only two American presidents to have been divorced is Reagan and Trump. The evangelicals have proven their hypocrisy again and again…
You make it sound as though you are not one. And given the fact that evangelicals are to hold themselves to a higher standard, I don’t know why you find it disturbing and intellectually dishonest…
That was just you wanting to take a swipe at me for stating the obvious.
You made a special effort to exclude the last part of my sentence–something which was quite pertinent–viz.: “and those concerns were only exacerbated by his amorality.”
Yes, Donald Trump is also amoral.
But to imagine that evangelicals vote exclusively–or even principally–upon a politician’s evident sense of morality, is downright silly.
If that were the case, evangelicals would almost never vote.
I do not “make it sound” any way other than the way that it is. I am not an evangelical–they often reject, out of hand, any theological theories that do not dovetail nicely with their sense of biblicism–but neither do I wish for the evangelical community to be bashed (and for nothing but the apparent reason of undermining President Trump, and his legitimacy).
I truly wonder why you cannot just adopt a live-and-let-live attitude toward evangelicals (unless it is because your attitude is actually useful in battering President Trump).
That’s irrelevant to my glaring point that character and morality (or the lack thereof in this case) was what the evangelical used to bludgeon Clinton with for 8 years, and the same evangelicals have put that in a box and shelved it to support Trump because they’re getting something from him that they want. THAT hypocrisy is glaring, despite your attempts to obfuscate it…
Trump himself presents ample reasons for battering him. The criticism of the evangelical is just that. You’re doing your best to excuse them, but they have hypocrisy branded on themselves for refusing to support Clinton due to his amorality while accepting Trump despite his own…
I have said previously–and you have chosen to ignore it, or, at the most, halfway recognize it, and then quickly brush it aside–evangelicals care deeply about the future (including unborn human life); and they are really not being hypocritical when they prefer an amoral person, who will place justices on the federal courts that will protect this life, over a person who will nominate judges and justices who will likely abrogate that life.
And Christians really do not much care about “moral” versus “amoral,” anyway. If a person does not actively and sincerely worship Jesus Christ, his (or her) sense of morality is entirely irrelevant, in any case.
I suppose there is really no point in arguing with you: Since you truly believe that the victim of this battering just…well, just brought it on himself…there is probably nothing I could say to change your mind.
(It is a bit like claiming that the victim of a rape was to blame, as she just dressed too sexily.)
Well they made a big enough stink about morality and character during the Clinton years, so I’d say that you don’t have a firm understanding of the community.
It’s clear, they are exercising situational ethics.
Btw, you chose to ignore something yourself. That being the fact that I pointed out to you that the evangelical is obliged to hold themselves to a higher standard than the rest of the world, which you found disturbing and criticized me for pointing out…
I think you are confusing something: There is really no reason to suppose that evangelicals should hew to “a higher [moral] standard” as regarding the selection of a president.
The “higher standard” reference that you made, earlier, clearly refers to something other than political selections. There is no reason to imagine that the evangelical is either incapable of doing some serious critical thinking (as concerning political analysis–or anything else, for that matter), or that he (or she) is indifferent to the matter.
I never suggested that they are incapable or indifferent to critical thinking, I merely pointed out, repeatedly now, and quite succinctly, that they shelved their high regard for morality and character when they embraced the most amoral, rude, condescending, sophomoric, mean spirited and nasty president we’ve ever seen, for what they thought/think they were going to get from him…
And again, I’m not the only one to have observed and commented on this hypocrisy…
