It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

From "The Hill" - Evangelical leader says Trump is ‘un-Christian,' endorses Clinton

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 10:46 AM

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: atomish

Honestly, I am an evangelical according to all the pollsters, based on their definition of evangelical. (I took part in some of their polls)

That said, most evangelicals are supportive of Trump, and honestly, Christianity is not a factor for most of us. I personally could care less how christian he says he is, most who say it are the farthest thing from it - just lies and smoke screens in order to take your eye of what really matters. We have separation of Church and State here, and that is what matters, not someone promising religious edicts for the masses. I'm not catholic..

Trump has the religious right, but most people don't understand what most of the religious right really think, because of the people who are in love with their idiotic smoke and mirrors. They are just the loudest, they are however, NOT the most numerous.

Thank you for your response, I appreciate the insight directly from the demographic in question.

I am merely making assumptions and speculating based on what I've seen. I wouldn't purport to know what MOST evangelicals are doing. I assumed there was some slippage in that demographic but perhaps it is not nearly as much as I had presumed.

I appreciate also that you are attempting to explain to me what a large majority of Evangelicals are feeling despite the fact that no one can speak for an entire group, obviously. That said, I am interested in your opinion on something.

Do you feel that Evangelicals like yourself are mostly in support of Trump due to his stances or due to him being the most plausible opposition to the Dem nominee? I would love your thoughts if you don't mind giving them but thanks in advance either way.

ETA: I agree with the assessment in your last paragraph edit, generally speaking.

edit on 6/22/2016 by atomish because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 11:07 AM
a reply to: atomish

I think everyone has their own reasons. For me and many in my family, friends, neighbors and church acquaintances, there are several top reasons. Top is globalism, it has done no one in any country any favors that we can see, outside of the extremely large multi national conglomerate corporations. But for people, regular citizens, it has only hurt all of us. NAFTA is a prime example, and what they have been wanting to push next will hurt us even more, and infringe upon our sovereignty as a nation. That is really the most important.

Second is economy, and although the globalist push is tied to our current economic condition, its other things as well that can be fixed, we see a good chance that Trump will do better in that respect, than what we know Hillary will.

Third is open borders, our country will falter if we don't control immigration. Hillary is all for open borders, and we would like to see someone who will work toward controlling immigration again so that we can deal with rates we can afford without hurting people who are already here. We see how much open borders is hurting nations like Germany, and don't want to see it here like that - and it doesn't matter the demographic coming in, a nation can only afford so many immigrants without hurting the native populations.

4th is Islamic terrorism actually being dealt with in an effective manner, rather than just policy that helps create it's breeding ground. Look how much better off Iraq, Syria, Libya and others would be, if we hadn't been doing this we get to decide what leaders lead what country thing. Look at how much less terrorism would be in the world right now. Trump has a chance at being better than Hillary, she will effectively only enforce and continue the policies of the Bush and Obama administrations, and neither was good. Plus, now we have a war that needs dealt with, sooner than later, effectively ending the worst of the problem anyway, one the other administrations have created.

So, really, its his stances on the most important topics. Would it be nice if his personality was different? Sure.. but you cannot have your cake and eat it too I suppose. Take the good with the bad, and at least with Trump the bad is out in the open instead of hiding behind layers of smoke and mirrors that you have to dig through to figure out.

Some people did like Cruz's personality better, but honestly, I think he would have been another globalist. I think he was the wolf in sheep's clothing. Many of us feel/felt, the same, he seemed so full of smoke and mirrors that many did not trust him.
edit on 22-6-2016 by Kitana because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 11:28 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

I saw a news report about Trump's attack on others' religions that pointed out that he's unaware of the basic affiliations of others and whether or not they go to church. Meanwhile, his own church attendance record is nonexistent. It could probably be argued that he's actually agnostic.

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 11:55 AM

originally posted by: Kitana

I appreciate the thoughtful response. This is why I asked the question because while I am not a Trump supporter, we are mostly in agreement over the major points you presented. These are all good reasons to oppose Clinton, in my opinion.

Where we may differ is in how much we feel Trump actually supports the positions he states. I tend to feel he is mostly paying lip service and pandering. You may feel the same to a degree, it sounds like you've certainly registered some distaste with his tone at times.

I do agree with the sentiment I believe you are presenting here, being that Hillary is a known liar and corrupt individual. Trump has his warts but we essentially don't know how he will operate in office. I can understand the gambling on one candidate when you know the other is complete trash.

I am pretty certain that at the very least, Clinton will continue the destructive policies of the last two decades and at worst, will do immense damage to our economy and civil liberties. I tend to think Trump would be much of the same but in a different way however he doesn't really have the record for me to say that with full confidence like with the former.

I think these kinds of discussions are incredibly important though because it is not WHO we support that matters but WHAT. And while we may not agree that Trump will be the answer to this, we can at least agree what some of the major problems are. From there, honest discussion can be had towards real solutions.

It's important for us to see that those of us from what may seem like opposite political spectrums at times actually have a lot more in common than those in charge would like us to believe.

Thanks again for your responses.
edit on 6/22/2016 by atomish because: Typos

posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 02:58 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

The WEA and Ms. Fikes is more along the lines of another type of Evangelical, the one not aligned politically with the American Religious Right Evangelical. The WEA is a worldwide body established 100 years before Falwell (Sr) and gang (of thieves).

I think that this particular (Reed etal) Evangelical support of Trump finally lays bare the political DNA that has been with the Religious Right all along.

the widespread feeling that America is weak and being pushed around and that Soviet power and communism threaten its freedom or its very existence. In a call for military superiority to the Soviet Union and for victory over communism -- rather than containment -- Falwell pulls out all stops in his superpatriotism. He sees the Soviet Union and communism as almost supernaturally evil entities in an apocalyptic drama. Among political issues this seems to be the one that arouses him most, partly because of the atheistic orientation of communism.

a prevalent frustration over the economy. The religious right strongly supports the secular right and advocates pure free-market capitalism liberated from big government. Its adherents are extreme in their opposition to socialism, and I doubt that they see very clearly the difference between democratic socialism and communism. Their celebration of free-market capitalism seems to be part of their uncritical Americanism.

The greatest moral error of the Moral Majority is its tendency toward a narrow, chauvinistic nationalism.... It shows no concern about nuclear war and would only encourage the provocative elements in foreign policy that make nuclear war more likely. Jerry Falwell regards foreign aid as another case of "welfare" for which he has no respect.

what it does say in applying moral doctrine to economics gives complete Christian sanction to the economic doctrine and policies of the secular right, for which economic policies are a major interest. It gives unqualified support to the economic doctrine and policies..... In his Listen America Falwell contends that "the free enterprise system is clearly outlined in the Book of Proverbs" and that "Jesus Christ made it clear that the work ethic was a part of His plan for man," that ownership of property is Biblical."

... a naïve view of what society would be like if there were no limits on free enterprise. He says that there are jobs enough for people if they are willing to work, and he would like the federal government to get rid of "welfare," leaving that to the states and private charity. How callous he is about these matters I do not know, but he gives much religious aid and comfort to those who are callous, and he provides political support for those who seek to solve our national problems at the expense of our most vulnerable people.

On all sides we hear that people in power believe in equal opportunity for all, and that they distinguish between equal opportunity and equality of results. What they neglect is the fact that inequalities in the conditions with which people start can be so extreme that equal opportunity is nonexistent. The victims whom our systems are most certain to neglect are the deserving children of those, believed by authorities to be the "undeserving poor." There are other people who also need attention, but if policies have in view these neglected people, including the young people in our cities who have never had hope for a job with a future, they are likely to be more just in relation to others in need.

"the fittest survive and prosper, and there is little room for public purpose since it interferes with private gain, . . . and government is at best a necessary evil which must be strong enough to protect privilege from assault but kept too weak to impose public responsibility on private prerogative." This is also a description of the vision of America held by the Moral Majority and the religious right.


IMO the Evangelicals who went for Cruz were more aligned with the religious Dominionism idea of the far right, but Cruz also espoused some of the same far right political ideas as Trump. While both candidates were male, IMO Trump trumped Cruz because he, Trump, was a white billionaire businessman who exuded an authoritarian power.

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in