Holy shit.
I’d suggest dropping copies of ‘The Demon-Haunted World’ all over certain districts, but who’d read them?
Also, just 'cause:
Tim_N
4483
What a moron, but it’s actually really nice to see a video of a Republican genuinely asking a question of an expert, even if it is an absurd one, and appearing to take his advice on board. He even thanked at him at the end for doing a good job! He’s fast becoming my favourite republican congressman.
rowe33
4485
“I’d like to ask for just a minute for this question, if that’s ok. Now, there’s evidence of civilizations a few thousand years ago here on Earth. Is it possible that God created the Earth and all the animals in a week, then 6,000 years later, he chose President Donald J. Trump as its holy Christian caretaker?”
Also really appreciating the John Keel reference.
It’s an amendment to sunset the use of force authorization act of 2001, which we’ve been using to fight endless wars for 15 years without congressional declarations.
Barbara Lee has put forth the amendment every year, and it’s never made it past committee. This year, amazingly, it did, with nearly unanimous support from both parties. Then Ryan apparently quashed it, based on her tweet.
Oghier
4491
Moral Licensing (aka Self-Licensing) is certainly part of it. It’s an interesting phenomenon. It’s the same thought process as “I exercised yesterday, so I can eat all these Twinkies” or “I voted for a black guy once, so I can say whatever I want about those people now.”
My personal theory is that it’s both the leaders and the church-goers. In the US, churches are basically capitalist markets - you choose to attend one because you like the way it makes you feel and/or because you like the message it broadcasts. If you don’t like it, you move to another church or another sect or simply stop going.
And that’s pretty different from a couple generations ago. Back then you went to the closest church of your sect every Sunday. Maybe you went to the 7:00 AM service rather than the 10:00 AM service because you liked the preacher better, but you went pretty much because you HAD to go - it was expected of you and you’d get dark looks from your neighbors if you simply never attended any service. The preachers then ran the gamut in terms of personal politics and I suspect that most were pretty moderate compared to the population at large, with the typical exceptions on both sides of the curve.
Today, attendance is way, way down. Church leaders need a hook/gimmick/shtick to pull in parishioners, especially ones younger than 70. In this market, a moderate, gentle message doesn’t put butts-in-pews – you need loud, charismatic and/or somewhat radical messages to grow your church.
So you get church leaders who are espousing repugnant ideals because they attract a large number of people who want religious validation of repugnant ideals. This drives away the moderate, thoughtful religious types (who increasingly weren’t coming anyway), which simply strengthens the grip of the loonies. Vicious cycle.
Tman
4493
I’ll admit it’s been a while since I went to Church, but over my lifetime, I’ve visited a lot of churches with friends, family, etc of various arms of the christian churches (methodist, baptist, catholics) and I’ve personally known a few mormon bishops and never once came away with any thought that any church minister / priest preached any hateful repugnant ideals. It was always a good message.
What is the evidence the church leaders are doing this? This really feels like anecdotes and we’re ascribing to them based on the actions of their congregation.
I mean I have a pretty distinct recollection of all Catholics being described as “backwards shirt wearing pedophiles” at a Southwestern Freewill Baptist church I went to as a kid once. . .
Also, ya know, they encourage their congregations to vote for pro-Life candidates, which means voting for Republicans, which is pretty much the definition of repugnant ideals. . .
Tman
4495
I found this interesting article over at 538, selected quote:
One might expect a strong response in support of repealing the Johnson Amendment from those who are its object — clergy. The survey data we have does find a strong response, but in opposition. In 2009, the Cooperative Clergy Study, organized by Professor Corwin Smidt of Calvin College, asked nearly 3,000 Protestant clergy members in nine denominations whether they approved of or engaged in political activities, including endorsing candidates from the pulpit. The most support for endorsing candidates (16 percent) came from Southern Baptist Convention pastors, followed by Pentecostal Assemblies of God ministers (13 percent). The other groups of clergy gave mostly low single-digit support. Similarly, just 4 percent of the religious leaders surveyed said they had ever endorsed a candidate from the pulpit, with somewhat higher shares among Southern Baptist and Assemblies of God clergy (11 percent of each). Other surveys have shown that hearing an endorsement is much more common among black Protestants, although their clergy were not included in this survey. (Note: We don’t have data among other clerics, such as Catholic priests, imams or rabbis.)
So it still feels anecdotal. I’d welcome any fact based evidence.
The preachers at a bunch of church’s whose tax exempt status depends on their not endorsing specific politicians for office claimed in a nonbinding survey that they did not endorse specific politicians for office?
Shocking :P
Tman
4497
Here is another, more in depth article from Pew Research on congregation members.
While some of the more conservative tones are shown above, on the last election, actual promotion of candidates skewed far left:
Still, some Americans – 14% of those who attended religious
services in the spring and early summer – say their clergy have
spoken out in support of, or in opposition to, one of the
presidential candidates during this campaign season. One-in-ten
(9%) say they have heard clergy speak out in support of a
candidate, including 6% who say they heard support for Hillary
Clinton and 1% who heard support for Donald Trump. A similar
share of churchgoers (11%) say they have heard religious leaders
speak out against a candidate, including 7% who say their clergy
have come out in opposition to Trump and 4% who have heard
opposition to Clinton. These figures include some people (6%)
who have heard both types of arguments.
Compared with other groups, black Protestant churchgoers
report hearing more direct talk about candidates from church
leaders. They have heard much more support for Clinton (28%)
than for Trump (2%) and have heard clergy speak out against
Trump (20%) more often than against Clinton (7%).
I suspect that most of the major, hierarchical, religions have fairly well-defined boundaries that their priests are encouraged not to cross. Many of those also move their clergy around, so you get a decent rotation of views… or did, anyway: My parents’ rural Catholic parish was promised by the bishop that they would get a new priest every two years after their previous one embezzled about $1M from their church… and their current priest (the direct replacement) has been there for twelve years now.
Sure they’re anecdotes. I was careful to make “My personal theory” my first three words in that post.
There are some studies to back up that opinion, including the Pew study that you cite above. But I’d caution that the Pew study doesn’t really show the intensity of how the issues are presented. For instance, the graphic says that 22% of regular church-goers heard something against abortion in the last few months.
That makes sense: as a former Catholic, I can say with some certainty you could count on some Pro-Life statement in a mass every week or two back in the 70s or 80s… usually one of the items in the Prayer for the Faithful (“Lord, hear our prayer…”). But by the 90s or 2000s (when I left the Church) the anti-abortion message was very regularly the entire theme of homily, something that not typically the case before. My last parish (just down the street from me) may have been particularly bad - my attendance at mass was faltering, but I went six times in the final three months and four of those homilies were on abortion (I counted) and one was on the evils of contraception. It’s not like Catholicism had ever been pro-Choice, but the parishes I belonged to shifted from making it one part of the religion to making it the majority-focus.
A similar anecdote came from my buddy, formerly a staunch Southern Baptist. Opposing the “LGBT Agenda” was now the main focus of almost every Sunday’s sermon at his church when he stopped going. Again, it’s not like that church had ever been friendly to gays, but what had simply been one sin among many to warn against had suddenly become the primary focus of the congregation.
I hope those 300 Trump voters (I’d bet anything they all were) feel good about that vote now.
Scuzz
4501
Catholics, at least here are a kind of strange bunch. Very conservative in some ways, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage for the most part, but they are also into some very liberal causes with the “undocumented” and other social issues.
I have several Mormons for neighbors and to be honest I would have no problem with my daughters marrying one of them. But if they ask I didn’t say that.
I think people tend to gravitate to a church that represents what they think they believe in.
