|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Aug 22, 2018 1:16:47 GMT
...then why, when their religion collides with their politics, do they almost always choose their politics? Examples: Supporting the separation of children from their parents at the border, supporting cuts to the social safety net to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy (and general veneration of the wealthy), supporting a serial liar and adulterer like Trump, supporting an alleged pedophile like Roy Moore, Catholics hating on the Pope for saying we should take care of the poor and the environment, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 22, 2018 1:35:05 GMT
lol
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 22, 2018 2:04:51 GMT
*seriously*
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 22, 2018 9:56:30 GMT
...then why, when their religion collides with their politics, do they almost always choose their politics? Examples: One might indeed give the huge example of Trump where his evangelical Christian base conveniently ignore or overlook his moral character, whether in connection with women, financial probity, the mocking of the disabled, flattery of right wing extremists, thinking there is more than one truth when it hurts, or social policies. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 22, 2018 10:16:57 GMT
...then why, when their religion collides with their politics, do they almost always choose their politics? Examples: One might indeed give the huge example of Trump where his evangelical Christian base conveniently ignore or overlook his moral character, whether in connection with women, financial probity, the mocking of the disabled, flattery of right wing extremists, thinking there is more than one truth when it hurts, or social policies. One might also say that many people who identify with liberal values show very little consideration in advancing the case for corrupt leaders such as Hilary Clinton with proven record of advancing interventionist ideologies, capitalism and warmongering. And of course similar leaders world over. But of course you believe religious people preach religion so they have higher responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 22, 2018 10:27:54 GMT
One might indeed give the huge example of Trump where his evangelical Christian base conveniently ignore or overlook his moral character, whether in connection with women, financial probity, the mocking of the disabled, flattery of right wing extremists, thinking there is more than one truth when it hurts, or social policies. One might also say that many people who identify with liberal values show very little consideration in advancing the case for corrupt leaders such as Hilary Clinton ... This is true as far as it goes but it is hard to equate 'crooked Hilary' - who, despite Trump's campaign promises has not faced legal sanctions under his administration - and the current president, who faces an increasing number of legal perils, a process brought into greater focus by the verdicts of just yesterday. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 22, 2018 10:35:09 GMT
...then why, when their religion collides with their politics, do they almost always choose their politics? Examples: Supporting the separation of children from their parents at the border, supporting cuts to the social safety net to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy (and general veneration of the wealthy), supporting a serial liar and adulterer like Trump, supporting an alleged pedophile like Roy Moore, Catholics hating on the Pope for saying we should take care of the poor and the environment, etc. Maybe the people you mentioned don't take their religion too seriously. You only mentioned Christians. I'm pretty sure that when you look at some Muslims living in Islamic theocraties and elsewhere, you'll find people more in line with their religion than with politics. Case in point: FGM is illegal in many countries. But in reality... |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 22, 2018 10:41:34 GMT
One might also say that many people who identify with liberal values show very little consideration in advancing the case for corrupt leaders such as Hilary Clinton ... This is true as far as it goes but it is hard to equate 'crooked Hilary' - who, despite Trump's campaign promises has not faced legal sanctions under his administration - and the current president, who faces an increasing number of legal perils, a process brought into greater focus by the verdicts of just yesterday. While it is true that Hillary may not have faced any legal sanctions, it is not difficult to see that most of her acts before 2016 had already been against the liberal values. She played a pivotal role in Libya intervention. The consequences of which have been brutal for many people even far outside of Libya. She also supported Iraq war. Although she later alleged that she was cheated by Bush into doing so. She also affirmed that American intervention may be necessary and was even willing to go for intervention in Syria. She has also been allegedly called corporate Hillary. While right wingers can exaggerate such claims the claim itself is not totally ridiculous. Yes, she may not be facing legal sanctions but to any honest human being her principles and acts are seriously questionable and often at contrast with liberal values. As for Libya - She was pretty much the one championing the intervention all through. |
|
