Hypocrisy Among American Fundamentalists

Terms are often used loosely and I think that the term evangelical is often used loosely misunderstood. Although the Atlantic article that I will link uses the term evangelical Christian, I think a more precise term for what they are describing is fundamentalist Christian.My contention is that American fundamentalists have a belief that is more than simply their version of Christianity. It is in reality a blend of their faith, politics and nationalism. As a Christian myself, I would consider myself evangelical even though my beliefs are a long way from the beliefs of fundamentalists such as Faith. it is my contention that in reality American fundamentalists use their faith to justify their politics and their brand of nationalism. They are quite prepared to ditch their Christian beliefs when necessary to support their politics and nationalism.The following is an article from The Atlantic and here is the link: Why Do Evangelicals Support Donald Trump?The point is that Christians of any stripe should be appalled a the idea of a President Donald Trump. As the article points out his life reeks of everything that Jesus condemned. He has gained power by accumulating wealth, he holds racist policies, he is pro-life when it suits him politically, and so on.His beliefs are not Christian. He claims to belong to a Presbyterian church but doesn't attend. The article had this to say about his faith. Trump knows this and has ramped up his religious rhetoric on the campaign trail. But he has had a difficult time convincing anyone that he is within gunshot of orthodoxy. On the matter of asking forgiveness for sinshardly an obscure Christian doctrineTrump says he’s never done it. I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right, hesaidrecently. I don't bring God into that picture. Trumpdeclaredthat his favorite book was the Bible, but when asked to name his favorite Bible verse, The Donalddeclined. And hespoke flippantly of the cornerstone Christian sacrament of communion, saying he feels cleansed when I drink my little wine and have my little cracker.The fundamentalists who trumpet their Christian faith are quite prepared to rationalize their faith when it comes to their politics or their sense of nationalism. In other words, their politics trumps, (pun intended ) their Christianity.Any forum you consider suitable.Edited by GDR, : Just really poorly written. I shouldn't post in a hurry. Thanks nwrEdited by GDR, : No reason given.Edited by GDR, : I'll get it sorted yet

<<

​

Hi GDR

​

I would love to move your topic proposal into a fitting forum and not just toss it into the Coffee House. It belongs somewhere within Social and Religious Issues but I'm not quite sure where.

​

I guess I'm looking for some additional input from the other admins.

None of them fit perfectly but I'd suggest "Comparative Religions".Obviously there are a wide variety of views on Christian theology. It is my view that Christian fundamentalism as is seen in the western world, although predominately in the US, is an aberration of the Christian faith.In this case it is a religion that combines the idea of an inerrant Bible, politics and American nationalism. My view is that we are comparing that with a Christianity based on Scripture, reason and tradition. (I view tradition as being the accumulated wisdom over time and particularly since the time of the resurrection.That is my rationale for putting it under "Comparative Religions"

Thread copied here from the Hypocrisy Among American Fundamentalists thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

First lets define a few terms, shall we?
Fundamentalist-(Urban Dictionary had the funniest response!

quote:

---

A person who takes their religion so literally and to such extremes that they contradict the very basis of their faith. They typically believe in a literal, verbatim interpretation of their scripture. They also have ridiculous, childish defenses to intelligent criticism of their beliefs that border on insanity.

---

I would say that Christians who do not consider themselves fundamentalists--or at least conservative--believe in scripture as inspired by God. This does not necessitate that it be word for word literal. I persionally lean towards a belief in thought for thought literalism. As a sidenote, our very own Ringo has a quote that bears repeating. To wit: I somewhat agree with you--as we discuss this more I will define my own position.

There's a dozen or so definitions of evangelical which sort of neutralises its use. Fundamental seems now to be associated with extreme violent beliefs so, with some exceptions, that's probably not much use either.Maybe ultra-conservative is closer? Or total bloody nutters?Whatever, they are, they don't seem to have the same understanding of Christ's message as I do. Not only are they right wing republicans, they seem to see Jesus as an open carry member of the NRA.

Inspired as it applies to Scripture seems to have taken on a new meaning. Here is the Webster definition:

quote:

---

1 [more inspired; most inspired] : very good or clever
She gave an inspired performance.
He was an inspired choice for the role.
an inspired guess
opposite uninspired
2: having a particular cause or influence
Her comments were politically inspired. [=they were made for political reasons]
often used in combination

---

So I agree that the Biblical authors were inspired. Luke at the beginning of that Gospel tells how he believed that he should consolidate previous sources concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. He was inspires just as was Beethoven who wrote inspired music.I believe that we are inspired to read the Scriptures, and through what others have written in the past God will inspire us. The longer time goes on, the more accumulated wisdom of the nature of God we gain.This does not mean that the Scriptures are inerrant, but as a Christian who believes that Jesus, as confirmed by His resurrection, did embody the true nature of God. With that in mind we can then use the lens of what Jesus taught as a lens in which we can understand the Bible. WE can for example know that God is not a god of genocide or public stonings, so that when we read that sort of thing in the Bible we can learn how easily and how far we can go off the rails and of the consequences of that.If we read the Scripture as inerrant we can come up with a deity that will condone pretty much anything in certain circumstances, or in other words a god of situational ethics. Remember in Jesus we see God as someone who is telling a first century Jew living under the Roman thumb that they are to love that enemy and turn the other cheek. Again, we learn through that the true enemy is evil itself and that in the end it is about changing hearts and not about overpowering a specific enemy.That comes back to my original point. American fundamentalists, (or whatever we want to define them as), are engaging in situational ethics in supporting Donald Trump, largely because of their faith being the a combination of their religion, their nationalism and theri politics.

Damn it! You made me agree with Donald Trump.

I think one problem is that fundamentalism is an evolving term that is at the current time pretty much the same as 'the belief system conservative, religious right'. The state of the union/constitution is such that many of the political goals of that part of the country are unobtainable. So often, it is not that fundamentalists do not embrace those issues, it is that they do not decide their vote on those issues.I could make a similar case about religious minorities who turned out in droves for Obama despite his stand on gay marriage and reproductive rights. Many of those people did so despite their own positions on immigration policy being more in line with the republican position.If such a thing is hypocritical, I submit that the hypocrisy is more widespread than just a bunch of people holding their noses and endorsing Trump. Quite frankly, I don't label such voting as hypocrisy. Religious affiliation is simply one factor in deciding who to vote for. Currently Trump leads all republican other candidates regardless of what factor (economy, foreign policy, security) in all subdivisions of likely republican voters (establishment, tea part, right leaning independents). Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

By the way. I see that Jerry Falwell Jr. has endorsed Trump.Trump was quoted last week as saying that he wasn't sure why evangelicals were so enamored with him. Pretty funny IMO.

I think that there are those on this forum who are happy to be called Christian fundamentalists, and I don't see them advocating for torching mosques or anything similar.Maybe we can just use fundamentalist and ultra-conservative as synonyms. That is my point. They compromise Christian belief in order to accommodate their politics and their nationalism.

...and so I'm sure that you are already signed up and contributing to the Kevin O'Leary for Prime Minister club.

Of course every time we vote we have to make compromises. We aren't going to find politicians that we will always agree with.My point though is that fundamentalists aren't evenly split between the various candidates. They seem like, as have Palin and Falwell, they have coalesced around Trump.My point is that what they believe to be their Christian beliefs are in fact coloured as much, and in this case more, by their political beliefs as well as their sense of nationalism. I have had the view expressed to me that the USA is God's chosen nation.This is not in any way meant to be taken as anti-American. Personally I am very pro-American and although I have always lived in Canada my immediate family is very much a cross border one, including my wife, one of my sons and 4 grand-kids. It isn't being anti-American to oppose the proliferation of guns, or even things like the idea of regime change in Iraq.Look at my signature. The fundamentalists who support Trump believe in an inerrant Bible. We have seen enough of Trump on television over the years that kind is not a word that would come to mind in describing him. What kind of justice is it to essentially treat all Muslims as potential terrorists. Certainly humility is not a term that anyone would use when it comes to Trump.So yes, we do have to take some water in our wine when it comes to our politics, but in this case I suggest that there is considerably more water than there is wine and that their politics have overwhelmed their Christianity which requires a degree of hypocrisy, when one considers their fundamentalist doctrine.

It is certainly possible to find material that can be used to portray Jesus as someone who was preaching "turning the other cheek" or "follow the laws" but that is really the same mistake the Fundamentalists, Biblical Christians, Bible Christians, authoritarian right make; the other side of the coin. And it also has absolutely nothing to do with what Christianity was or is.We need to understand and admit that Christianity has been and still is diverse with good and bad points and positions. It's up to us to pick how Christianity is expressed.

Trump knows his base is not rational, this is why he can insult anyone ( including them!) and get away with it.
Why would any Christian support a billionaire for president when there is nothing more Christian than preventing rich people from becoming rich? There's never been a single documented case of a camel passing through the eye of needle, that's a nice a way of saying "a snowball's chance in hell." After all, Trumps chance of going to heaven (as rich) is zero according to the Jesus myth.