Evangelical Trump supporters hark back to the good old days that werent

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

I am constantly asked why in last year’s presidential election 81 percent of white conservative Christians voted for Donald Trump, a thrice-married, self-proclaimed womanizer whose personal behavior, religious practices and lifestyle are far different than the majority of evangelical churchgoers. The answer is not hard to find.
Trump’s winning mantra — “Make America Great Again” — was congruent with a wishful return to the Protestant hegemony that once existed in the United States back in the Eden-like “good old days.”
In the recollections of many evangelicals, America was then a tranquil, moral land deeply rooted in a specific set of traditional Christian values: the shining city on the hill, an idyllic small-town nation dominated by a white male leadership group.

http://religionnews.com/2017/07/24/evangelical-trump-supporters-hark-back-to-the-good-old-days-that-werent/

Amazing how people can remember what never really existed.

[Cary]

1. Yes, typical nostalgia

And it's bad history.

[atreides1]

4. No!

It's deplorable history!!

[guillaumeb]

7. Similar to Reagan with his "morning in America" slogan.

With as much substance. But for the ones who can be fooled all of the time, a slogan is as good as a plan.

[Cary]

9. Cheney said something about creating his own reality

They believe that.

[trotsky]

2. "Amazing how people can remember what never really existed."

Posted in the Religion group. Fitting.

[guillaumeb]

6. Some here see the good and the bad. And post based on that.

Some here focus solely on the bad to the exclusion of the good and post on that.

[trotsky]

10. Who defines good? Who defines bad?

Is there a DU rule that requires us to post on each in equal proportions?

[guillaumeb]

15. Where do you find any of this in my post?

I was simply making an observation about posters.

[Act_of_Reparation]

17. The part where you intimated some see "the good" and "the bad", and that some do not.

Implying, ipso facto, that you have not considered that your view of what constitutes "good" might not be shared by others.

[guillaumeb]

21. We each define for ourselves what constitutes good and bad.

Society also defines it, obviously.

[Act_of_Reparation]

31. So it is inaccurate to say, then, that others do not see the good and the bad, correct?

Wanna walk that one back?

[guillaumeb]

38. Walk what back?

Do we really need to post treatise length arguments, and define each term used prior to posting?

So if any here characterize any action as bad, should we all jump on that characterization and demand a retraction?

Silliness.

[Act_of_Reparation]

41. The part where you groundlessly accused fellow posters of not seeing the good.

By your own admission, there could be other explanations. Perhaps they disagree that the good is good. Perhaps they believe the good is not outweighed by the bad. Perhaps they just don't like talking about the good. Whatever it may be, your position is simultaneously the most condescending and the most self-congratulatory. So perhaps that is why you put it forth in the first place.

[guillaumeb]

46. Not what I actually stated, but good luck with your framing.

Speaking of groundless accusations..........

[Act_of_Reparation]

51. This is a forum. Your words are preserved for all to see.

So thanks, but no thanks. I don't need your luck.

[guillaumeb]

56. Yes, the words are there.

And any neutral party can see how you and another are attempting to reframe and mischaracterize what I wrote.

[trotsky]

19. You used the words "good" and "bad."

Is it only you that gets to define them? And therefore are you alone the judge of who posts how much of what type of information, and therefore are you alone the only person who can pass judgment on everyone?

[guillaumeb]

22. I used them in this context:

Some here see the good and the bad. And post based on that.

Some here focus solely on the bad to the exclusion of the good and post on that.

And my second comment was based on observed behavior. Obviously each poster decides what is worthy of being posted, and editorializes on that. So my observation was based on observed behavior of posters and that observation entails also being aware of a poster's pattern.

So if I see a pattern of a poster always making negative comments about religion and believers, might I might be forgiven for seeing a behavioral pattern?

[trotsky]

24. "Some here see the good and the bad."

Thank you for admitting you used those words.

Now who gets to define them? Only you?

And then who gets to judge others based on that? Again, only you? Sure seems that way.

"Judge not lest ye be judged." - Ever heard of that?

[guillaumeb]

34. And the last shall be first:

I have read the Bible. In this context, we are talking about condemnation.

But in this case, I am making an observation about observed behavior. And the behavior that I am looking at is that of only posting negatives and only about religion. As if no other belief systems should be criticized.

If that observation makes you uncomfortable I am sorry for that, but the observation stands.

[trotsky]

39. You STILL have yet to answer my questions.

Why are you and you alone the judge of what is "good"/"bad", or "positive"/"negative"?

Who put you in charge? Why do you get to sit in judgment of others? And no, your judgment doesn't make me uncomfortable at all, though you clearly, desperately wish it would. You cannot respond to arguments, you have no defense of your statements, all you do is personally attack and distort.

AND FOR WHAT SEEMS LIKE THE FIVE HUNDREDTH TIME I'VE TOLD YOU NOW, THE REASON "BELIEF SYSTEMS" OTHER THAN RELIGION AREN'T CRITICIZED HERE IS BECAUSE THIS IS THE FUCKING RELIGION GROUP.

What the ever-living fuck, dude.

[guillaumeb]

45. Your questions have no relation whatsoever to what I actually posted.

As to attack and distort, interesting in light of your own tactics that you would bring it up. You are demanding that I defend myself against an accusation that you created. An accusation that in no way relates to what I have said. Good luck convincing.

[trotsky]

49. No, you actually posted those words. "Good" and "bad."

Who gets to define them? You are attacking me and other people based on what you alone judge. I'm asking for clarification on what exactly gives you the authority to decide what content should or should not be on this message board. Particularly since there is nothing whatsoever in the Religion forum's statement of purpose that coverage must be "fair and balanced" for you.

You may continue to further embarrass yourself if you wish by continuing to pretend as if anyone had even the tiniest obligation to fulfill your posting requirements. I guarantee you, this is a lot of fun.

[guillaumeb]

55. Again with the mischaracterization and attempted framing.

Oh well, so much for dialogue.

[trotsky]

59. So much for dialog, indeed.

If you won't even acknowledge the actual words that YOU typed, all others can do is laugh.

[guillaumeb]

66. You apparently cannot stop mischaracterizing.

I do not laugh because it is too bad.

[trotsky]

69. Oh, I understand.

When I ask for clarification on words that you yourself used, you call that "mischaracterizing." Got it. Thanks for clarifying the made-up definition of that word you are using.

[Lordquinton]

12. "Amazing how people can remember what never really existed."

Was the quote posted, and it's wholly appropriate, good or bad.

[still_one]

3. Ask Emmett Till about those "good ole days"

[guillaumeb]

5. The good old days that exist only in memory.

Safely sanitized of the darker parts.

[still_one]

8. right to the point guillaumeb as usual

[trotsky]

11. Yeah, like the good old days when Christians were totally about social justice?

Sanitizing the darker parts that it was Christians they were fighting against.

Will you allow people to talk about that here?

[guillaumeb]

14. Yes, that is part of this false narrative that GOP voters apparently believe.

[trotsky]

20. They believe that Christians were the champions of social justice,

and they ignore the fact it was Christians who created the status quo being rallied against?

Seems like a strange narrative for the GOP to embrace, but if you say so!

[guillaumeb]

23. Christians were among those fighters for social justice.

A nuance that contradicts the idea that religion is uniformly bad.

[trotsky]

25. It's great you are still beating up that straw man, I guess.

I haven't seen anyone on DU take the position that "religion is uniformly bad." Have you?

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. The religious have their own "Not all white people are racist" argument.

Privilege sure is nice, isn't it?

[trotsky]

33. Pretty freaking awesome when you've got it so good...

that you can go find people to bash who aren't spreading ENOUGH positive news about religion.

[Lordquinton]

13. It's an easy answer, Misogyny

Patriarchal institutions like most religions preach that women shouldn't lead. It's repeated several times in the bible, so it's an easy conclusion to draw.

[guillaumeb]

16. The easy and simple answer is not always correct. eom

[Lordquinton]

18. True, but it is in this case. nt

[sprinkleeninow]

29. Our tradition of Faith does not/will not ascribe to

females ordained as priests. And I for one am mighty fine with that. Who of any of our female adherents would hungrily put that on their heads. Not I. Females serve in deaconess capacities and other areas of ministry. Just sayin'...

[sprinkleeninow]

30. The 'dudes' are rockin' it (most of the time anyway). eom

[Lordquinton]

42. Did you forget the sarchasm tag?

Here, let me fix that for you...

[sprinkleeninow]

43. No need. Just speaking from my experience.

I like apostolic succession. And I am NOT of The Roman Rite or some derivative of that.

[Lordquinton]

44. So you actually do think women should not be priests?

Cause that's what it sounds like you're saying, and that can't be right...

[sprinkleeninow]

47. Ai Chihuahua!

I yam not saying females can not be priests. They can be if they are seemingly called in the belief system they are a part of and that belief system supports that.
I personally like my immersion in the tradition of faith the way it's been since 33 a.d.
Not casting aspersions on anyone else. I just personally am satisfied with the faith/belief system in which I voluntarily participate and like it the way it is.
Whatsa matter w/ dat? 🤗

[sprinkleeninow]

61. AFAIK most females in our Faith have no yen/hankerin' to 'wear'

the collar or 'raso'. It is what it is.

My mom was a female, as were my grams, as were my aunties, as I yam. I love females. Strong ones, weak ones. I love males also. My bros in humanity.

I don't feel that misogynistic appellation applied to the historical way of doing our Faith. 🤗

[appleannie1943]

26. How old are they? I am 74, hubby 82. We don't remember anything like that.

I remember girls getting pregnant and then either dying from abortions in basements if they had enough money for one or having disfigured, brain damaged babies if the knitting needle they used did not complete the job. I remember friends in braces from polio. Children dying every year from measles, chicken pox and flu. I remember eating free food without electricity when my dad was laid off in the fifties. I remember signs that said "no niggers allowed". I remember playing on the floor in front of the old Zenith radio while Roosevelt talked about something called war. I remember black blinds on the windows and duck and cover drills in school. None of those things were glorious.

[guillaumeb]

35. No, these things were not glorious, but they were not a concern of many GOP voters.

They remember a time when they had good jobs, but they do not know why they had those good jobs. They assume that all that they had was what they truly deserved.

[RKP5637]

53. Yep, that's the way I remember it too. And lots of bigotry and racism. I don't look back at

those days as a model of good times for all. Some yes, but there was severe desperation back in the supposedly "good old days."

[DBoon]

27. Fascists always try to recreate a glorious past

Mussolini wanted the Roman Empire, Hitler the pagan teutonic tribes, Franco a return to Baroque Spain

They all harken back to a purer, less corrupted time when people were united and unquestioningly obeyed their leaders, when everything was in its natural order

[guillaumeb]

36. And lesser peoples knew their place. (Sarcastic comment alert.)

[sprinkleeninow]

28. Oops, dint realize I was in the group of religion.

The kinder gentler days of old are just an illusion.

[guillaumeb]

37. But an illusion that persists.

Welcome to the religion group.

[sprinkleeninow]

40. 🙂

[sprinkleeninow]

48. Read this, your OP, to my other half this evening.

It makes sense. I've been attempting to make some semblance of reasoned thought as to the conditioning of the religious right and what makes them tick. And why they're so unbelievably dense or something.

They're indoctrinated in their place of worship, by tv 'preachers', etc. They are in our personal midst and one lives right smack next door! You can't distinguish them from ordinary everyday folk, until they open their mouths.

It is scary; they are so deceived. Adhering to words of destroyer personalities.

A climax is inevitable. What that'll look like, I do not know.

This environment is unsustainable.
?🗽

[trotsky]

50. You: "They're indoctrinated in their place of worship"

Also you: "Our tradition of Faith does not/will not ascribe to females ordained as priests. And I for one am mighty fine with that."

[sprinkleeninow]

62. You eliciting an Oy Veh Gefilte Fish outta me now!

Everything I put forth will be WRONG! 🙄

Oh, for dog's sake. We're not "preached at" from the solea that there'll never be female priests, so don't even think about it my dearies!

I thot the discussion was regarding what's this sentimental journey the rw's are on reminiscing about their good ole days minus radical boat rockin'.

Guillaume is right on when they say the doofy rw's are clueless as to why they had it so good. NOT thanks to their party of greed.

(Yer pushin' my buttons.....)

[trotsky]

64. You might not feel "preached at,"

but then again the people you are calling "indoctrinated" probably don't feel they are being "preached at" either. Food for thought.

[sprinkleeninow]

63. P.P.P.S. Had to go back a post to say this:

I am not a religious righty!

My participation in my Faith sustains me.

I'm a card carrying Democrat since 1968. I feel for the disenfranchised, the left-out, the forgotten, those kicked like a can down the avenue, the stepped-on, the down-trodden, the oppressed....

Some folks want it all--their way.

Stay safe. Be well.
I'm being done with this conversation. Inna nice way. 💖

[trotsky]

65. Sure, I understand that.

Didn't accuse you of being a "religious righty."

Just pointing out the irony, that's all.

[guillaumeb]

57. We are all, religious and non-religious, conditioned by our experiences.

And yes, as you noted, this conditioning is reinforced by others. SO how do we reach these people? Do we call them names, do we attack their faith, or do we attempt to persuade and let our example be an example?

[sprinkleeninow]

60. It ain't a small feat to 'walk the straight and narrow'

if you profess to be a Christian. As I well know.
The human nature part always wants to be boss.
The struggle to keep from falling into a trap.

I appreciate your insight and queries as to how to accomplish making 'those' see the light.

The repubs m.o. is to many times employ vile attacks, quite derogatory phrases and blatant lies against us. I get caught up in that, but something about that way of response troubles 'my' spirit.

I'm not geared to express myself in such deep and eloquent ways as many others on here. Was never a student of political science or law.

My thinking is if something's not working, try another way.

I findl myself having such animosity, shall we say, for a particular someone and his entourage, and it's a detriment to my well-being. It runs crosswise to how I really'd rather hold myself.

One rw in particular that works for the 'hub' is 'interestingly' but not surprisingly hushed up since all the rot coming down the pike via this (so-called) administration.

I guess speak the truth, with power. Then figuratively hit 'em where it'll hurt.

?🗽💪👊

[guillaumeb]

67. While Trump's actions are disgusting and mean-spirited, I feel sorry for him.

I feel he probably grew up enduring a constant stream of abuse from his father. Plus, his business career is filled with failure. Imagine how that must feel.

But as you say, we must resist what Trump stands for and still reach out to Trump supporters. The alternative is to write off 35% of the population.

[sprinkleeninow]

68. I understand that. What can mold someone into who they become.

However, my feelings for him and his cabal of destruction are quite abbreviated due to the damage they are inflicting on the undeserved masses of citizenry.

I really have no compunction for my lack of empathy for him, his family or the other contributors.

My father saw action in the Second World War and so did his brothers. I'm highly inflamed that this person who thinks he made 'sacrifices' of some crazy sort is taking a daily dump on our great nation, its Constitution/Democracy and its (undeserving) citizenry.

I'm doing my part of earthly capabilities, and then leaving what's NOT in my ability--to Heaven.

[RKP5637]

52. Magical thoughts again? Funny, I remember it as a very bigoted and racist society unless one was

in the "in" group.

[guillaumeb]

58. As do many of us.

But false memory is common. History is written by the winners.

[procon]

54. It was also the Mad Man era. I don't miss that. nt

[Angry Dragon]

70. kick

[guillaumeb]

71. Thank you. eom