Townhall: Why Evangelical Christians Should Not Support Donald Trump

Townhall is a very Conservative outlet:

http://townhall.com/columnists/mich...ians-should-not-support-donald-trump-n2086230

The author of the article, one Michael Brown, is a diehard Conservative Christian, whose short-bio reads like this:

So, it's not as if he's a "Liberal plant".

I created this thread because it shows that more and more unease about a possible Trump nomination is starting to appear in a number of places. Suffice it to say that without the strong backing of the Evangelicals, Trump would probably not get nominated.

My opinion is that Mr. Brown indeed raises a number of valid points worth talking about, points he backs up with scripture.

 

But if the choice is between Trump, and the serial liar and corrupt Hillary, intelligent people will vote for Trump.

 

You know there was no US Consulate in Benghazi, don't you?

 

??? You are arguing that voting should be based on "scripture?"

 

Render unto Caesar....

 

Uhm, no. I never said that. Good luck working on your reading comprehension.

 

Yes, Townhall is a conservative site. But Mr. Brown is establishment material which means he is anti-trump. Based on his criteria, Obama would be a better president. Certainly a man who makes speeches by reading well thought out words on a screen is just the guy this guy wants correct? Apparently he doesn't think people walking across the border is bringing a crime, and social problems. Sounds like Brown is in line with the Republican establishment. And his pick of Bible verses are hilarious. As a fundamental Christian---I can come up with better arguments against Trump. But he's the only one with courage and who seems to care truthfully for our country and understands what is making us vulnerable. So I will trust that God will lead him somehow if he wins. Because a Christian without courage who is concerned about his or her own self interests is worthless as a leader.

Republicans aren't cookie cutter like Democrats are---they can have different opinions and some of them can be wrong.

 

Thanks for posting.

I can get on board with most of what you said, but I strongly disagree with you on your last sentence.

 

"My opinion is that Mr. Brown indeed raises a number of valid points worth talking about, points he backs up with scripture."

Or prehaps you should be clearer in your writing when you praise points, and note that they are backed up with scripture. Sounds like you are trying to add legitimacy to those points by referencing the scriptural basis. So again, it sounds like you are arguing that voting should be based on scripture.

 

Then you would be dead wrong. I know many Conservatives that could care less about abortion or gays.

 

It's not. The choice is between Hillary and a range of Republican candidates, all of whom are less nutty than Trump. It's an easy choice for GOPers - pick someone who's not as bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy as Trump. Lots to pick from there.

 

That sentence does not say that I support voting based on scripture. You do realize that, right?

 

Perhaps you also know many Conservatives WHO are in command of the English language as well...

 

When you use scripture to give legitimacy to political points it's a legitimate question to ask. When you try to bring religion into politics I think your intentions deserve to be scrutinized.

 

No. "I" didn't use scripture to give legitimacy to any political points. I pointed out that another person did.
And since the topic is about Evangelicals and Trump, it is only logical that an Evangelical may just use scripture to illustrate his point.
Good luck to you in your quest to learn how to read for comprehension.

 

"My opinion is that Mr. Brown indeed raises a number of valid points worth talking about, points he backs up with scripture."

I suggest you hire an editor.

 

You have a deal.

We'll pick Ted Cruz then.

 

President Wacko Bird.

 

Evangelicals are the same people who go to mega churches and give money to a "pastor" so he can live as a multi-millionaire while telling them that they have to give money to be saved.

Trump has the same personality, which is why they would follow him. Evangelical pastors say random crazy non-fact based things to rile up their 'base', and so does Trump.

 

Scripture has no place in American politics. It is rather ironic that many of the same people who are crying wolf about us being subjected to Sharia Law are bible spouting fundamentalists themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

Trum has his own money unlike those snake oil selling TV evangelists.

 

It still does not mean that I support VOTING based on scripture, which was your original contention.
You get one final chance from me to prove that you can comprehend and are not just trolling:

Do you see that the word "voting" is nowhere in this sentence? :

"My opinion is that Mr. Brown indeed raises a number of valid points worth talking about, points he backs up with scripture."

If you can admit that the word "voting" is not in that sentence, then we can continue a discussion and I will assume that you are an adult.

If not, then I will put you on ignore and that will be the end of it.

Your call to decide whether to be honest, or dishonest. Words have meaning. Your orginal contention is patently, 100% false.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and BTW, I wrote "My opinion..." because PF rules say that there must be a justification for a thread and also that the writer of the OP should also give his or her opinion. Have you not read the PF rules?

 

I don't disagree with that statement at all, and I am actually very glad that you brought it up. Bravo.

I simply quoted the man, who is indeed an Evangelical and who uses scripture to back up his argument that Trump is the wrong candidate for Evangelicals to be supporting.

Whether or not I personally disagree with him is irrelevant to the actual jist of the OP. This is something that at least one member who has commented here fails to understand. I can disagree with a person's argument and still laud him for at least having made the argument. After all, the purpose of debate is ideas, not personalities.

I believe that Jefferson's references to a "wall of separation" between church and state could be very relevant to our discussion, for it clearly indicates that he, among many of our founders, were worried that extremist religion could also get the upper-hand in the fledgling Republic as it already had in Europe.

That being said, US-American Evangelicals are an influential block within the GOP and since at least 1980, no GOP candidate has won the nomination without receiving majority support from Evangelicals. The word "support" can taken on more than one dimension here as well.

 

Some evangelicals are already grousing that the PP terrorist murders were a righteous act by a true believer, so it's quite possible that they will support Trump since he panders to their prejudices.
Those people are not the sharpest tools in the box anyway. I saw one comment by some religious nutter that his comb-over looked like a halo when it flapped in the wind.

 

Evangelicals are not supporting Trump. They are supporting Carson, Cruz, and Huckabee primarily.

 

`
Actually, if it comes down to voting for the two worst presidential candidates in US history; intelligent and prudent people will vote for a third party.