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

[phands]

What does this tell us about true-xtian morals and values...?

As we speak, conservative Christians are working to discredit the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and students from Liberty University are protesting in defense of Brett Kavanaugh.


We know why they’re hell-bent on getting Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court: He would be a certain fifth vote to overturn abortion rights at the federal level, and no amount of bad behavior in his past is going to shake their conviction that the allegations against him are all part of some giant left-wing conspiracy.


Now we can put some numbers behind how many Americans are looking the other way in spite of the evidence against Kavanaugh. According to a NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll taken last week, 48% of white evangelical Christians say that Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court even if the charge of sexual assault is true.

http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...pport-kavanaugh-even-if-he-assaulted-dr-ford/

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Evangelicals sold their souls a long time ago - it's why they're winning.

 

[ideologyhunter]

So...if he assaulted her, and then committed multiple perjuries...are they now welcoming Bill Clinton back into the fold? You'd have to assume yes, yes, yes, Halle-friggin-lujah, yes!

 

[Keith&Co.]

So...if he assaulted her, and then committed multiple perjuries...are they now welcoming Bill Clinton back into the fold? You'd have to assume yes, yes, yes, Halle-friggin-lujah, yes!

No., but if Hillary had run convincingly on an end-abortion platform, say if some celebrity or relative bled out during an abortion and she appeared to take it hard, they'd have supported her.
Because they're single-topic voters and could give a toss about all this other shit.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

What does this tell us about true-xtian morals and values...?

As we speak, conservative Christians are working to discredit the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and students from Liberty University are protesting in defense of Brett Kavanaugh.


We know why they’re hell-bent on getting Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court: He would be a certain fifth vote to overturn abortion rights at the federal level, and no amount of bad behavior in his past is going to shake their conviction that the allegations against him are all part of some giant left-wing conspiracy.


Now we can put some numbers behind how many Americans are looking the other way in spite of the evidence against Kavanaugh. According to a NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll taken last week, 48% of white evangelical Christians say that Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court even if the charge of sexual assault is true.

http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...pport-kavanaugh-even-if-he-assaulted-dr-ford/

It tells us nothing we didn't learn when they turned out in force to vote Trump the Pussy-Grabber into office ... if not before.

 

[Politesse]

What does this tell us about true-xtian morals and values...?

As we speak, conservative Christians are working to discredit the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and students from Liberty University are protesting in defense of Brett Kavanaugh.


We know why they’re hell-bent on getting Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court: He would be a certain fifth vote to overturn abortion rights at the federal level, and no amount of bad behavior in his past is going to shake their conviction that the allegations against him are all part of some giant left-wing conspiracy.


Now we can put some numbers behind how many Americans are looking the other way in spite of the evidence against Kavanaugh. According to a NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll taken last week, 48% of white evangelical Christians say that Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court even if the charge of sexual assault is true.

http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...pport-kavanaugh-even-if-he-assaulted-dr-ford/

True Christian values? I get that this is a fight in which you have no figurative dog, but lets not go awarding the laurel crown to the fucking evangelicals if we don't want to be seen as taking sides. I will concede that approving of drunken violence and attempted rape is a "true Christian value" the same day that I concede my name is Rory and I travel through time in a magical blue box to fight aliens.

 

[phands]

I will concede that approving of drunken violence and attempted rape is a "true Christian value" the same day that I concede my name is Rory and I travel through time in a magical blue box to fight aliens.

I thought the Weeping Angels had got you?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

True Christian values? I get that this is a fight in which you have no figurative dog, but lets not go awarding the laurel crown to the fucking evangelicals if we don't want to be seen as taking sides. I will concede that approving of drunken violence and attempted rape is a "true Christian value" the same day that I concede my name is Rory and I travel through time in a magical blue box to fight aliens.

Hi, Rory.

A lot of the people doing this sort of thing do consider themselves to be True Christians and don't consider it a violation of their faith anymore than any other sin which they can ask forgiveness for and move on with their lives without worrying about any consequence from the behaviour. Being a True Christian or a True Muslim or a True Atheist or a True Buddhist doesn't stop anyone from being a violent rapist asshole if that's who they are as well.

 

[Politesse]

Believe me, I've noticed. That doesn't mean I am obliged to agree with them.

- - - Updated - - -

I will concede that approving of drunken violence and attempted rape is a "true Christian value" the same day that I concede my name is Rory and I travel through time in a magical blue box to fight aliens.

I thought the Weeping Angels had got you?

They did, but it turns out they don't kill you so much as send you backward in time and feed off your artron energy.

 

[phands]

and feed off your artron energy.

That explains the strange walk

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Believe me, I've noticed. That doesn't mean I am obliged to agree with them.

True, you don't have to agree with them. What I'm saying, however, is that you're in no position to tell them that they're wrong and that their definition of True Christian is incorrect because it includes the ability to do these things anymore than they'd be incorrect to say that you're not a True Christian because you're against slavery or because you think it's fine for women to work as teachers.

If a man stands in a rape line at a frat party on Saturday night and then goes into church the next morning and says "Oops. Sorry about that Big Guy. I promise to try and not do that again until at least next weekend. I'll say a couple of Hail Mary's on the way out as penance", he's as much a True Christian as someone who spends his free time helping and counselling rape victims because he thinks that's the example which Jesus set for him to follow. They can disagree with each other about whether or not one of those should be an interpretation of their shared faith, but they'd both be incorrect if they said that the other one wasn't actually a True Christian.

 

[J842P]

What does this tell us about true-xtian morals and values...?

As we speak, conservative Christians are working to discredit the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and students from Liberty University are protesting in defense of Brett Kavanaugh.


We know why they’re hell-bent on getting Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court: He would be a certain fifth vote to overturn abortion rights at the federal level, and no amount of bad behavior in his past is going to shake their conviction that the allegations against him are all part of some giant left-wing conspiracy.


Now we can put some numbers behind how many Americans are looking the other way in spite of the evidence against Kavanaugh. According to a NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll taken last week, 48% of white evangelical Christians say that Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court even if the charge of sexual assault is true.

http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...pport-kavanaugh-even-if-he-assaulted-dr-ford/

That they care much more about abortion than sexual assault?

 

[Politesse]

Believe me, I've noticed. That doesn't mean I am obliged to agree with them.

True, you don't have to agree with them. What I'm saying, however, is that you're in no position to tell them that they're wrong and that their definition of True Christian is incorrect because it includes the ability to do these things anymore than they'd be incorrect to say that you're not a True Christian because you're against slavery or because you think it's fine for women to work as teachers.

If a man stands in a rape line at a frat party on Saturday night and then goes into church the next morning and says "Oops. Sorry about that Big Guy. I promise to try and not do that again until at least next weekend. I'll say a couple of Hail Mary's on the way out as penance", he's as much a True Christian as someone who spends his free time helping and counselling rape victims because he thinks that's the example which Jesus set for him to follow. They can disagree with each other about whether or not one of those should be an interpretation of their shared faith, but they'd both be incorrect if they said that the other one wasn't actually a True Christian.

Why the hell not? There's a difference between telling someone they're not a Scotsman because they don't like haggis, and telling someone they aren't a Scotsman because they are not, in fact, holders of a Scottish passport nor any ancestry connecting them to that country. Some people are not, as it turns out, Scotsmen.

 

[Lion IRC]

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".
It tells us that we routinely vote for politians and judges we like despite their past mistakes, indiscretions, crimes.
It tells us that opinion polls can be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[phands]

Believe me, I've noticed. That doesn't mean I am obliged to agree with them.

True, you don't have to agree with them. What I'm saying, however, is that you're in no position to tell them that they're wrong and that their definition of True Christian is incorrect because it includes the ability to do these things anymore than they'd be incorrect to say that you're not a True Christian because you're against slavery or because you think it's fine for women to work as teachers.

If a man stands in a rape line at a frat party on Saturday night and then goes into church the next morning and says "Oops. Sorry about that Big Guy. I promise to try and not do that again until at least next weekend. I'll say a couple of Hail Mary's on the way out as penance", he's as much a True Christian as someone who spends his free time helping and counselling rape victims because he thinks that's the example which Jesus set for him to follow. They can disagree with each other about whether or not one of those should be an interpretation of their shared faith, but they'd both be incorrect if they said that the other one wasn't actually a True Christian.

Why the hell not? There's a difference between telling someone they're not a Scotsman because they don't like haggis, and telling someone they aren't a Scotsman because they are not, in fact, holders of a Scottish passport nor any ancestry connecting them to that country. Some people are not, as it turns out, Scotsmen.

There's no such thing as a Scottish passport - at least for now....Brexit could change that.

None of which has anything to do with the fact that evangelicals are lying, hypocritical scum who support a lying, hypocritical scum.

 

[Copernicus]

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".
It tells us that we routinely vote for politians and judges we like despite their past mistakes, indiscretions, crimes.
It tells us that opinion polls can be taken with a grain of salt.

I don't have any sympathy at all for people who try to reconcile their supposedly "objective" moral doctrine with these kinds of rationalizations. Such excuses strike me as a kind of special pleading for the political motivations that really govern their behavior. However, I value your answer, because it helps me to better understand the way such people process their information. It should also be noted that there are evangelicals who use religion to rationalize the opposite political judgments. Tom Sawyer made that point very nicely, I think.

What I think that this seemingly hypocritical behavior tells us about evangelicals (and others) is that religious faith is more of an afterthought when it comes to what drives people to make the moral choices that they do. Those choices usually come from the same place in evangelicals that they do in atheists--from personal values and patterns of behavior that were acquired over a lifetime of experiences. The family and community that raised us had a lot more to do with shaping those values than religious doctrine, but religious institutions can also play a role in shaping them by providing a set of pre-packaged explanations or rationalizations of our choices. There is often a discrepancy between what people claim motivated their thought processes in hindsight and what actually governed those processes at the time.

 

[RavenSky]

True Christian values? I get that this is a fight in which you have no figurative dog, but lets not go awarding the laurel crown to the fucking evangelicals if we don't want to be seen as taking sides. I will concede that approving of drunken violence and attempted rape is a "true Christian value" the same day that I concede my name is Rory and I travel through time in a magical blue box to fight aliens.

Ratty Burvil?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

What does this tell us...

It tells us that many are willing to forgive.

That's just another way of saying "willing to ignore a terrible act and sweep it under the rug."

 

[Jobar]

Believe me, I've noticed. That doesn't mean I am obliged to agree with them.

True, you don't have to agree with them. What I'm saying, however, is that you're in no position to tell them that they're wrong and that their definition of True Christian is incorrect because it includes the ability to do these things anymore than they'd be incorrect to say that you're not a True Christian because you're against slavery or because you think it's fine for women to work as teachers.

If a man stands in a rape line at a frat party on Saturday night and then goes into church the next morning and says "Oops. Sorry about that Big Guy. I promise to try and not do that again until at least next weekend. I'll say a couple of Hail Mary's on the way out as penance", he's as much a True Christian as someone who spends his free time helping and counselling rape victims because he thinks that's the example which Jesus set for him to follow. They can disagree with each other about whether or not one of those should be an interpretation of their shared faith, but they'd both be incorrect if they said that the other one wasn't actually a True Christian.

Why the hell not? There's a difference between telling someone they're not a Scotsman because they don't like haggis, and telling someone they aren't a Scotsman because they are not, in fact, holders of a Scottish passport nor any ancestry connecting them to that country. Some people are not, as it turns out, Scotsmen.

I agree concerning Scotsmen; although I have a few percent Scottish ancestry, that does not mean I can claim residency in that country, or properly wear a kilt, or speak with a genuine Scottish accent.

But Poli, identifying as a Christian (or most other faiths) is not like identifying as a Scot. It is, supposedly, 'in the heart', not in the genes, or the citizenship, or the accent.

Perhaps you could say that being a Christian lies in obeying the commandments of Jesus Christ, as expressed in the Bible. But, which ones? Should a Christian despise their non-Christian family and friends? Sell all they have and give it to the poor? Sell your cloak and buy a sword, or resist not evil?

Which of the hundreds or thousands of distinct sects should one follow? Many of them deny that any other sect is the true quill. Some claim that other sects are actually works of Satan.

Understand, I *wish* that there was some inarguable way to define a 'True Christian' which was in line with what you consider that to mean. From all I know of you, you are a decent and ethical person, and the moral guidelines you live by are good ones. I just don't see how you can gainsay Tom's points.

 

[Politesse]

Why the hell not? There's a difference between telling someone they're not a Scotsman because they don't like haggis, and telling someone they aren't a Scotsman because they are not, in fact, holders of a Scottish passport nor any ancestry connecting them to that country. Some people are not, as it turns out, Scotsmen.

I agree concerning Scotsmen; although I have a few percent Scottish ancestry, that does not mean I can claim residency in that country, or properly wear a kilt, or speak with a genuine Scottish accent.

But Poli, identifying as a Christian (or most other faiths) is not like identifying as a Scot. It is, supposedly, 'in the heart', not in the genes, or the citizenship, or the accent.

Perhaps you could say that being a Christian lies in obeying the commandments of Jesus Christ, as expressed in the Bible. But, which ones? Should a Christian despise their non-Christian family and friends? Sell all they have and give it to the poor? Sell your cloak and buy a sword, or resist not evil?

Which of the hundreds or thousands of distinct sects should one follow? Many of them deny that any other sect is the true quill. Some claim that other sects are actually works of Satan.

Understand, I *wish* that there was some inarguable way to define a 'True Christian' which was in line with what you consider that to mean. From all I know of you, you are a decent and ethical person, and the moral guidelines you live by are good ones. I just don't see how you can gainsay Tom's points.

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?

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.

I don't think you properly understand what the world will look like if they win. I'm not going to throw in my hat with the pro-rape crowd just because we happen to share a religious label. I have the right, even the responsibility, to argue against the rightness of their perspective. They think you should mindlessly follow whatever your pastor interprets the Bible to mean, not me. If something strikes me as wrong, I can and will say so. So should you, and you should support the efforts of those who also do, even if that means accepting that not all Christians or Muslims or Buddhists or what have you match the stereotypes that come from the most abhorrent individuals within those traditions. We don't just have as much right to speak, but more right, because having a conscionable perspective is much more important, to us and to the health of the society as a whole to which we mutually belong, than having a doctrinally "correct" one. Think critically about whose views you publically support, and the outcome of that support on all of us as a community.

EDIT: Sorry, felt the point needed more clarification rather than just being a hit and post.