Formal Impeachment Inquiry of Trump Begins

[Nightgaunt]

Christianity Today is not a conservative Evangelical magazine. It tries to be broadly ecumenical, but it tends to encapsulate the views of liberal mainline Protestantism.

Hooo-wee! I was mostly totally wrong about this. CT is an evangelical magazine. It was founded by Billy Graham, actually. But it is not generally speaking a politically conservative outlet.

[Timex]

There was once a time, prior to 1980, where evangelicals were generally considered a Democratic voting block.

[scottagibson]

Yes, he was known for always reminding everyone that the ends justify the means.

Which were the ends, and which the means again?

[magnet]

The end was keeping Trump out of office. The means was supporting a party that - in their mind - was composed of baby murderers.

But yeah, the First Commandment is “Support the lesser evil”, isn’t it?

[scottagibson]

The means was supporting a party that - in their mind - was composed of baby murderers.

If they’ve consistently rejected consequentialism, they can’t possibly be making that argument, can they? So is this their error, or yours?

[ravenight]

So they can refuse to vote for Trump out of principle and also refuse to vote for Democrats out of principle. Whether this would produce a suboptimal outcome is irrelevant to them.

If they can’t sit by and let other people get abortions, why can they sit by and let Trump run the country? Especially considering all of the morally awful things he does. Why are they not organizing a strong primary challenge? Why are they not threatening to stay home or vote 3rd party? Why are they writing only 1 article and not an article every day?

[RichVR]

There was once a time, prior to 1980, where evangelicals were generally considered a Democratic voting block.

Cite please. Seriously.

[magnet]

Oh, I was being facetious. Forgot the /s tag.

The traditional teaching is that the ends do not justify the means. And you shouldn’t support the lesser evil.

[Timex]

Cite please. Seriously.

I overstated it a bit, in that Nixon had already turned evangelicals toward the right. However, there is a history of progressive evangelicalism that used to exist in the US.

Jimmy Carter and the demise of progressive evangelicalism

[Thrag]

[Nightgaunt]

Good overview on the history of evangelicals and politics:
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/11/731664197/apocalypse-now

[scottagibson]

The traditional teaching is that the ends do not justify the means.

This isn’t any more compatible with the idea that they have consistently rejected consequentialism. Instead, it is…consequentialism.

[Calelari]

Yeah, and surprisingly (no, not really a surprise) it was all about racism. Because pretty much everything bad about this country traces back to racism.

The whole Civil Rights Act thing happened. The parties realigned. And good, God-fearing Christians couldn’t be all racist in public anymore.

Yeah, Politico, but still a decent overview:

The Real Origins of the Religious Right

[magnet]

Consequentialists justify actions by their outcomes. For example, they might support an odious cause if it is necessary to achieve a greater good.

If you believe that achieving a greater good does not justify supporting an odious cause, ie the ends do not justify the means, then you have rejected consequentialism.

[scottagibson]

If you believe that achieving a greater good does not justify supporting an odious cause, ie the ends do not justify the means, then you have rejected consequentialism.

On the other hand, saying I won’t support politician X, who is on balance less personally bad than politician Y, because if politician X wins then later some people might have abortions is consequentialism. How is it not? Or can one pick and choose one’s consequentialism while saying one has rejected consequentialism?

Put another way, if the ends don’t justify the means, then the ends can’t condemn the means either, can they?

Edit: Also, I don’t believe for one minute that Christians generally refrain from considering the avowed policies (the ends!) of politicians when considering who to support, and you don’t believe that either.

[WhollySchmidt]

I think the point was not that people who profess to be Christians who have supported Trump are rejecting consequentialism, but that Christianity previously, “traditionally” has rejected it.

Which is why it’s not crazy for Christianity Today to reject both Trump and Clinton, despite the views the population calling themselves Christians in contemporary US has adopted. They’re holding to the more orthodox view, not supporting the lesser of two evils, etc.

[magnet]

I won’t support politician X, who is on balance less personally bad than politician Y, because if politician X wins then later some people might have abortions is consequentialism

Yes, it is consequentialism.

On the other hand, “I won’t support politicians who support abortion regardless of whether my decision results in more abortions” is not consequentialism.

[scottagibson]

I think the point was not that people who profess to be Christians who have supported Trump are rejecting consequentialism, but that Christianity previously, “traditionally” has rejected it.

Perhaps some Christian intellectuals have done that, but in practice I don’t think actual Christians ever have. I can’t recall a time when Christians refrained from judging candidates by their objective policies, which is to say their ends. Certainly Christianity Today had a point of view on the ends, and can’t be defended on the grounds that they ‘reject consequentialism’.

[scottagibson]

On the other hand, “I won’t support politicians who support abortion regardless of whether my decision results in more abortions ” is not consequentialism.

Nor is it an actual view anyone holds, so there is that.

[magnet]

Sure it is.

You often even see variants, like “I won’t vote for a candidate who once worked for McKinsey, regardless of his policies”

Or for that matter, “I will vote, even though I am less likely to affect the outcome then die on my way to the poll.”