48% of White Evangelicals Would Support Kavanaugh Even If He Assaulted Dr. Ford

[Copernicus]

...

I don't want to advance any particular variant of Christianity as "true"; I just think that I have a perfectly rational case to maked against the inclusion of rape and abuse as Christian doctrines. Surely, you can comprehend the difference between defining what is, and what is not, or should not?
...

Poli, I don't think that anyone is seriously calling rape and abuse Christian doctrines. The question is more whether a version of Christian doctrine can be used to justify behaviors of rape and abuse. We know that some Christians have historically used their version of it to justify all sorts of atrocities. Some atheists and religious skeptics like to use this fact to counter the claim that Christian doctrine or religious doctrine promotes good behavior. Some go further and claim that it promotes bad behavior. A better take on it, perhaps, is that Christian doctrine is inherently amoral and relative--i.e. dependent on the subjective interpretation of a particular community of Christians. People tend to use it as a means of justifying and rationalizing their moral judgments, not guiding them.

 

[Jobar]

Atheists are always butting into the internal debates within Christian circles and automatically taking the side of the most disgusting people imaginable, seemingly just because you think it will be easier to reject the positions of people who have turned themselves into ugly stereotypes.

Sigh. Politesse, NONE of us are "taking the side" of the monsters and morons who nevertheless name themselves 'Christian'.

I once said "Religion is the evil which wears a mask of good." I no longer think that's entirely accurate; there are those who try to internalize the good aspects which most faiths contain, and not just wear it as a mask, or use it as a weapon to satisfy their lust for wealth and power. But still, in the words of Frank Herbert, "Religion always leads to rhetorical despotism... It leads to self-fulfilling prophecy and justifications for all manner of obscenities... It shields evil behind walls of self-righteousness which are proof against all arguments against the evil."

I don't think you properly understand what the world will look like if they win.

I, personally, understand. I'd say most here do. I can only hope we as a species learn at least a little from history, lest we are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Politesse]

Atheists are always butting into the internal debates within Christian circles and automatically taking the side of the most disgusting people imaginable, seemingly just because you think it will be easier to reject the positions of people who have turned themselves into ugly stereotypes.

Sigh. Politesse, NONE of us are "taking the side" of the monsters and morons who nevertheless name themselves 'Christian'.

I once said "Religion is the evil which wears a mask of good." I no longer think that's entirely accurate; there are those who try to internalize the good aspects which most faiths contain, and not just wear it as a mask, or use it as a weapon to satisfy their lust for wealth and power. But still, in the words of Frank Herbert, "Religion always leads to rhetorical despotism... It leads to self-fulfilling prophecy and justifications for all manner of obscenities... It shields evil behind walls of self-righteousness which are proof against all arguments against the evil."

I don't think you properly understand what the world will look like if they win.

I, personally, understand. I'd say most here do. I can only hope we as a species learn at least a little from history, lest we are doomed to repeat it.

Phands very clearly named these guys the "true Christians" in the OP. I don't see how that could be anything other than an endorsement of their exclusivist demands. I think this foolish; they want both you and me equally dead or harassed.

 

[Copernicus]

Sigh. Politesse, NONE of us are "taking the side" of the monsters and morons who nevertheless name themselves 'Christian'.

I once said "Religion is the evil which wears a mask of good." I no longer think that's entirely accurate; there are those who try to internalize the good aspects which most faiths contain, and not just wear it as a mask, or use it as a weapon to satisfy their lust for wealth and power. But still, in the words of Frank Herbert, "Religion always leads to rhetorical despotism... It leads to self-fulfilling prophecy and justifications for all manner of obscenities... It shields evil behind walls of self-righteousness which are proof against all arguments against the evil."



I, personally, understand. I'd say most here do. I can only hope we as a species learn at least a little from history, lest we are doomed to repeat it.

Phands very clearly named these guys the "true Christians" in the OP. I don't see how that could be anything other than an endorsement of their exclusivist demands. I think this foolish; they want both you and me equally dead or harassed.

I think that the article quoted in the OP is clearly limited to a class of conservative or "evangelical" Christians, although I know some self-identified evangelicals who are not Kavanaugh or Trump supporters. I don't have a good sense of what the majority believe, but I suspect that they are far more diverse than they are portrayed in the popular media. The OP asks what this tells us about the morals and values of "true x-tians", but it really tells us a lot about the morals and values of a very large population of self-identified evangelicals. So it does appear that phands overgeneralized. In principle, there is no such thing as a "true Christian" to anyone but someone who thinks there is just one "correct" Christian doctrine and then a bunch of others that get it wrong in some way.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What does this tell us...

It tells us that many are willing to forgive.
It tells us that fighting against abortion on demand is more important than some alleged victim's belated definition of "rape".

Well, at least we know Kavanaugh has been picked because he's already made his mind up about any legal case involving abortion, no matter the merits.

Thomas insisted that he had no opinion, had never considered the question, was a completely blank slate with respect to abortion... After being nominated by a man whose campaign promise was to flood the court with justices who would overturn Roe Vs. Wade.

So, the evangelicals are feeling a desperate need to rig the deck, hiring a hit-man for specific prejudicial opinions (on abortion, on bringing the President into court), because the 'rule of law' has been singularly ineffective, as well as prayer.