It’s not that we don’t look at the ends, it’s that we look at both (just keeping with this very simplified ends vs. means framing for convenience). If either is lacking, that’s a problem. The justifying one based on the other doesn’t work in either direction.
And we exist! Insert that Tobias Funke “dozens of us!” GIF.
Right here, personally holding that view. And I’m not unique. I don’t think this view represents much of the US population that identifies as Christian, but I do think it’s a lot more people than you think, and it’s not just some long dead intellectuals or a hypothetical position.
Fair enough, I didn’t mean to say that no one does that, only that it is very uncommon in practice.
As for Christianity Today:
- They ran a column endorsing Clinton on the grounds that the things she would do would be better than the things Trump would do, despite Clinton’s obvious badness (Ron Sider, 9/23/16)
- They ran a column endorsing Trump on the grounds that, despite his obvious awfulness, he would appoint the sort of justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade, protect religious freedom (i.e. permit discrimination against LBGT people), etc (James Dobson, 9/23/16)
If these views aren’t consequentialism, then nothing is consequentialism.
I’m not surprised that Christianity Today isn’t stridently anti-consequentialist.
I try to be and I certainly realize I’m not consistent.
And I hope I’m not derailing your discussion with magnet, I’m not trying to move goalposts if this doesn’t represent his point. I’m just saying it’s not crazy to me that anti-consequentialist views could also be represented in the magazine, because it is a real perspective that some people hold, even if not perfectly.
It is important to remember when talking about religion and politics that “Christianity” encompasses a pretty wide swath of the population. While Evangelical Christians are the group we tend to think of when we talk about religion and politics, usually because they are the most vocal (and idiotic, and hypocritical), there are other major groups in the United States that have a lot of political power at the polls. The article from Christianity Today is significant in that it is the first time a major Evangelical organization (CT was founded by the Rev. Billy Graham, and is still run by major Evangelical leaders) has come out with harsh criticism of Trump. Their directive to their readers that Trump should be removed from office isn’t going to cause Evangelicals to suddenly vote for Mayor Pete (or Warren, Biden or Sanders), but it may be enough to cause them to stay home in 2020, which is just as good for Democrats.
A recent article in the Catholic Telegraph shows a surprising rise in anti-Trump sentiment among Catholics since 2016 as well. Take a look at the polls where they asked whom Catholics would vote for if the election were held today…Trump doesn’t win ANY of them. Even Mayor Pete and Warren defeat him…among Catholics…talk about surprising. This actually tracks with some anecdotal evidence I’ve seen among suburban Catholic families that I am friends with. Some still worship Trump as the new messiah, but not nearly as many as in 2016, and those who have changed their stance have done so because they are having a hard time reconciling what he has done in the past 3 years with what they expected and what their faith teaches.
Now I would imagine that some of the erosion of support is also due to the #1 religious issue of the 2016 election being a moot point in 2020…SCOTUS. Religious conservative voters who pulled the lever for Trump-R in 2016 simply to change the balance on the Supreme Court got what they wanted, and it’s not going to change with the 2020 election no matter who wins. That means they’re free to vote based on other issues and/or candidate mertis, and many probably find Trump sorely lacking. Again, it may not necessarily translate to votes for Democratic candidates, but even if those voters simply sit this one out, Dems benefit.
There is also a religious shift happening in America. More and more people are leaving the traditional structures of religious worship, including Catholic, Protestant and Evangelical churches, and moving to the interdenominational churches that are more of a community effort than a rigid power structure. These “pop churches” are far more accepting and welcoming to people with lifestyles traditional religion has pushed away, and as a result they tend to get closer to the real teachings of Christianity including acceptance, forgiveness, faith and love for your fellow people. It’s therefore unsurprising that the political lean of many of these churchgoers is more liberal than their traditional counterparts, and that the congregations tend to be younger in average age. That bodes well for Democrats in years to come.
Nesrie
5276
That was… long.
Slavery, Civil Rights… desegregation. Every time one group gets a little more, as in a little more rights as actual humans, the evangelicals decided that was their battle ground. Yeah saying Trump is immoral will do nothing to combat that kind ingrained hate.
magnet
5277
This is not an endorsement of Trump. This is an interview with Dobson, questioning his support of Trump.
As for CT, my point was that if they refuse to support any candidate then they are practicing what they preach, so to speak. That does not mean that CT consistently does so. As others have pointed out, it is hard to consistently avoid consequentialism.
Clay
5278
It’s worth listening to the interview from NPR this morning with the CT editor:
Matt_W
5279
We had a discussion in another thread where a few posters here on this forum said exactly that: they’d never vote for a pro-choice politician even if that would result in fewer abortions. My family members and most of the people I grew up with would feel the same.
rowe33
5280
So you’d rather vote for the candidate that would result in more and less safe abortions? I don’t understand the goal here.
We covered it in other threads, we’re probably derailing this too far, but no, that’s not what I’d rather.
Mr.GRIM
5282
You guys really need more than 2 parties. That alone would go a long, long way towards fixing things.
Nesrie
5283
It would never work, even in the near future. Who ever gets their first third party, right or left, will just assuredly lose the election. And as you can see from the Republicans, they’ll swallow anything to keep that chair, including the Constitution.
That’s like saying Fox News doesn’t endorse Sean Hannity, they just give him airtime. If they’re giving column inches to consequentialism, they’re promoting consequentialism.
The recent election in the UK suggests not. The Conservatives were soundly defeated, but the coalition that defeated them was made up of multiple other parties with loyalist voters so the Conservatives actually won.
magnet
5286
Fox News pays Sean Hannity.
And Dobson surely profits by having his views featured prominently in Christianity Today. CT doesn’t do it for free! It costs them money to advertise that guy. They’re promoting him.
magnet
5288
That’s just silly.
Interviewing someone is not the same as endorsing them, even if the interviewee benefits from the interview.
When CBS interviewed Charles Manson they were not endorsing anything he said.
This is true, as long as we also get some other method of voting (like approval voting) and get rid of the electoral college.
Easier said than done but extremely worthwhile goals in my opinion.
