Discussion
9 min
Right from wrong, but will back every kind of evil because he’s your “man”.
There’s something deeply wrong with belief systems that require unimaginable atrocity in order to achieve some kingdom of God afterwards
YouTube
The candidate is the Democratic one and I haven’t fully watched it yet, but I suspect that it’s going to point out that the dominance of the Republicans are coming under duress
The other thing that kills me about the evangelical pastor that they interview is his reference that they aren’t electing a priest or a pastor.
Evangelicals are willing to overlook Donald Trump and Republican politician moral abomination, but have no generosity for the people they decide to target. It’s like they’re willing to overlook any sort of horrifying behavior, pursing political power explicitly to defame And persecute the marginalized.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell One of the most horrifying conversations I had, back before 2020, was with an extremely, extremely religious woman, after I seriously asked her about the rape/grab-her-p*** episodes, and she was "god works in mysterious ways, he forgives those who sin". Anyway, I disengaged with that ridiculousness and will have nothing more to do with those people.
(which is a different flavor from the so-called Christian people who saw those kinds of those things as DESIRABLE in a leader, indicative of their power... i.e. in their mind, a GOOD leader for them is one who can rape/abuse women, etc. because it shows how much power they have... and they wanted to be on the side of that power. My read of some of the men was "oh, I wish I could be like that, abuse/have any woman I wanted, I'd do that if I were as powerful as this guy I am going to elect") 🤢
What I keep coming back to is the idea that they think about reality (truth) in a very different way than we do.
To them, "truth" is a binding force that makes your group powerful -- so it's important to always support the truths the group believes in, and the leaders who define those truths, even (or especially) in the face of contradictory evidence. TLDR: group cohesion is more important than reality or natural consequences
In the service of group cohesion, therefore, things they express in ways that sound to us like principles are actually just tools by which they justify group-beliefs -- a rallying cry, not a rule which must be followed.
To them, there is no hypocrisy in saying one thing and doing the opposite, as long as the end result is to strengthen group cohesion. (This is why "pro-life" advocates can also favor the death penalty and oppose free school lunches. It's never about protecting children; it's about control.)
...and yeah, demonstrations of "power" in a leader also support cohesion, because the leader will enforce cohesion and protect the group against outsiders.
It also "helps" that they tend to have a strong streak of sadism, and a belief that there's no such thing as coequal existence: you're either the boot doing the stomping, or the face being stomped on.
(Sorry, this turned into a bit of a ramble. I've always been very disturbed by that kind of thinking -- authoritarianism -- and it's increasingly looking like one of the Big Problems we need to face head-on if we're going to survive.)
@woozle @GhostOnTheHalfShell Yes, understood. Having grown up Christian, "faith" (ie aligning with the group, being part of the grou) is more important than anything.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell I can't even watch those