Conservative evangelicals aren't hypocrites -- it's worse than that

[fleur-de-lisa]

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/conservative-evangelicals-arent-hypocrites-its-worse-than-that/

I understand why it’s hard for normal people to believe that white evangelical Christians are sadists. Normal people have never been, as I was a long time ago, on the inside of that shadowy religious world. But the sooner they understand this, the sooner normal people will see that white evangelical Christian support for Donald Trump isn’t rooted in hypocrisy, contradiction or merely straying from the straight and narrow. The reason they support a fascist president is simple: They’re sadists.

The word “sadist” is off-putting. I get that. But if you’re thinking of sex, you’re thinking in the wrong way. If you’re thinking of “pleasure,” as in sexual pleasure, you’re thinking the wrong way. The pleasure white evangelical Christians derive from the suffering of human beings deemed less human than they are is not about sex. It’s about the pain, humiliation or even violence out-groups deserve by dint of being out-groups. Gay men, for instance, deserve their punishment because they are gay. Punishment for being gay is “divine justice.” From such “justice” comes pleasure—which is sadism.

I didn’t come up with the term. Richard Rorty did. I’m only pushing it as far to the fore as I can, because I don’t think normal people understand what they are facing, and if they don’t understand, they will keep treating sadists as if they have a legitimate place in a liberal democracy. Cruelty is the point, as Adam Serwer powerfully and famously put it in The Atlantic. But normal people must understand the animating force behind that cruelty. Sadists are sadistic not because they are cruel. It’s much simpler than that. They are cruel because being cruel to people deserving cruelty feels good.

Rorty was expansive in his use of “sadism.” In Achieving Our Country, one of his final books, he characterized slavery, Southern apartheid, racism, misogyny and other ancient hatreds as “socially accepted sadism.” In this, he included not only efforts to harm people—humiliating, cheating, raping and murdering them—but also efforts to rationalize the harm. (For instance: not only is it OK to cheat women out of equal pay for equal work because they are women; women actually want to be cheated.) Though renowned as a philosopher and literary critic, Rorty was a life-long liberal. His goals were many, but key was making “socially accepted sadism” less socially acceptable.

[milestogo]

1. I have one in my family so I know this is true.

[chwaliszewski]

82. This video will explain how God works and why Evangelicals love Him.

Don't forget: You can't spell Evangelical without the letters E, V, I, and L.

[jberryhill]

2. To be fair, they reflect the character of their god

The Christian god is jealous, arbitrary and infinitely vindictive.

The "feel good" Christians simply ignore the bits that don't appeal to them and try to shoehorn the biblical deity into Santa Claus.

The evangelicals are just trying to be "Christlike". Jesus is a guy who walks into town, tells a woman to get him water, and then calls her a slut.

[vlyons]

4. The whole Christian ideology seems ridiculous to me

beginning with such nonsense as a virgin birth and ending with a Jesus, who escapes earth's gravity to ascend into heaven, wherever that is. Plenty of other silly beliefs in between those 2 points. No human being is an omnipotent god. Not the pharoahs of ancient Egypt, not the emperor of Japan, and not Jesus.

The question that I keep asking is why isn't enough just to be a good person with a kind and loving heart.

[jberryhill]

8. "why isn't enough just to be a good person with a kind and loving heart"

Because it is much simpler to have an invisible friend with the power to forgive you for every rotten thing you do.

Somehow, they believe that having this invisible forgiving friend makes them more trustworthy, but I'm not so sure I want to engage with people for whom there are no consequences, not even a troubled conscience, for doing harm to me.

In fact, just feeling guilty about something is a "bad thing" to them, because feelings of guilt are signs of inadequate faith.

Over time, realizing that the feeling of guilt is itself a sin, they become completely disconnected from any sense of conscience whatsoever.

[jberryhill]

98. That happens in "feel good" cults too

The Tony Robbins (and his clones) seminar attendees, for example, or New-Agey "you are wonderful" stuff.

I get it. People have self-esteem issues, and that's a drag. But there is such a thing as too much self-esteem too. Maybe you did some shitty things that you should feel guilty about and try to make amends for. Maybe guilt is the mechanism for spurring people to do better and try harder. Maybe fear of guilt will keep you from being a self-centered asshole once in a while.

But if you go around telling people that "guilt is bad" and your goal is to "free yourself from guilt", then you are going to wind up with a fair number of moral monsters.

[jberryhill]

104. Oh I like that

One of these days I'm finally going to get around to starting my own cult.

Reach your full potential without self reflection, empathy or change, for only $500 a month! I think Ima use that.

[CaptYossarian]

31. I don't know about Jesus defying gravity.

There was a book written in the 70s that Jesus was a space alien and all the magical stuff (Jonah, Noah, Moses, etc.) that other Biblical characters did was out of being aliens. After watching Star Trek the other night, maybe he was "beamed up" to the mother ship.

It makes more sense if you read Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee..." when he recalls the exact date and time of Halley's Comet and uses it to his advantage. Those simple people thought he was a god too.

It all sounds looney, but who's more looney than folks Hating for Jesus?

My theory on heaven and hell is this: If you've suffered, gone hungry on a daily basis, been bullied or beaten, or wrongly persecuted, you're going to heaven. If you're a bully, have inherited great wealth without emitting sweat, or have routinely victimized those going to heaven, you're headed "downward".

Trump digs coal, but he'd better start liking asbestos.

[vlyons]

45. Jesus ascending into heaven is a Christian belief

in Acts 1: 9-12, where Jesus is taken up by a cloud. That belief is part of the Apostle's creed that Christians recite in church every Sunday. A tornado can do that. A tornado destroyed my home and 2 barns in 2017. But I don't think that's quite what St Paul had in mind. Muhammed's ascent into heaven is even more miraculous. He is said to have traveled on a white winged horse, or mule, named Buraq, and ascended into heaven from the dome of the rock in Jerusalem.

There is no physical heaven or hell. Although in ancient times certain caves and maybe a lava lake in Africa might have been seen as an entrance to an underworld. Heaven and hell are states of mind, purely mental and emotional experiences. So a situation that is experienced as very painful or pleasurable, can be labeled as hell or heaven. Even so, I still admire Dante's "Inferno," which has no basis in reality, but is still damned good art.

[CaptYossarian]

50. Your posts on this subject are so complete and full of details.

I took the wrong electives, didn't I?

[vlyons]

64. Not too late to go to the library

and check out some history books, especially about ancient history. Let your curiosity be your guide. Right now, I'm interested in Graeco-Buddhism. Alexander the Great left several Greek philosophers in Ghandahar (Khandahar, Pakistan) in early 4th Century BC . Then a 150 years later, Zeno is teaching stoicism, which was probably influenced by Hinayana Buddhism. There are some love Ghandahar statues of Buddha draped in Grecian robes, assuming the Taliban didn't blow them all up. Once Alexander opened the silk route, there was a lot of cultural influence that flowed from Asia and India into the Levant, Egypt, and the Mediterranean. It's not surprising that a lot of Christian ideology was influenced by eastern occult Elysian religions, which were very popular with the Romans. Constantine the Great built a big gate in Constantinople to honor Apollo. He thought Jesus was the son of Apollo. The concept of the Trinity was created in 325 AD at the 1st Council of Nicea. Ancient history is quite fascinating. The reason Alexander went to Afghanistan was to secure the tin mines. And what is tin good for? When smelted with the soft metal copper, it makes the hard metal bronze. Ergo, the bronze age. The tin mines in Wales were also known to the ancient peoples.

Buddhism, especially Mahayana Buddhism, must surely have traveled into the Levant via the silk trade by the ime of Jesus. The Roman legions were very good at maintaining the silk trade, and the trade from the Nabateans. So where did Jesus get his ideas about compassion, tolerance, peace, patience, generosity, forgiveness? Surely not from the Jews, who were intolerant and legalistic to a fault, demanding punishment for breaking Judaic law. Might Jesus have been exposed to Mahayana teachings? I'm not saying that he was a Buddhist. Just that such ideas, and Greek stoicism, might have been discussion topics in certain circles.

You know all those pictures of Joseph the carpenter teaching his son Jesus to make a wood table or bench? More than likely Joseph and the men of Nazareth worked instead building the port and city of Caesarea Maritima for Herod the Great. It was to be an important trade depot and resort for rich patrician Romans. Wherever there is trade, there is some measure of culture exchange.

I haven't even discussed what the Jews picked up from the Persians, when they were in Babylon. I think of those old Bible stories as literature and morality tales, like Aesop's Fables or the Brothers Grimm -- not the inerrant word of god.

[CaptYossarian]

67. You always hear about how the major religions are so similar, but nobody ever spells it out the way

you just did.

I wish people would look at what we all have in common instead of trying to find a reason to hate another human being or group.

Thank you for your posts.

[vlyons]

69. The truth is that all humans

no matter the color, the language, or country of origen are 100% plug compatible. Humans have been moving around this old world for hundreds of thousands of years. We have been exchanging cultures and genes always. Some of us (white people) even carry about 3% Neanderthal genes. What is even more fundamental is that everyone wants to be happy and not suffer. Every culture has some version of the Golden Rule. It's not a difficult concept to comprehend.

[CaptYossarian]

71. So very true.

[not_the_one]

60. we have been taught to NOT have the ability for critical thinking

Any degree of critical thinking applied to the bible would expose it for the charade that it is...

The bible states that "in the beginning" was creation, and "at the end of time" is judgement.

That is completely disallowing the concept of infinity, which I totally believe in. Space does not end (if it did, what would replace it?...) and time does not start or stop. Scientists are now questioning what was happening seconds BEFORE the (so-called) Big Bang...

So the bible itself is telling us it is nothing more than (twisted) allegory, allegedly to give us directions on how to be good, but is really nothing more than an attempt at a control mechanism.

Think about critically. Could a star ACTUALLY park itself over a manger, so that the wise men could have something to lead them to the stable where the virgin birth occurred? First off, stars don't park.

Or could the virgin have been artificially inseminated by an extraterrestrial, and they were just keeping an eye on the birthing situation from their spaceship?

I believe that is MUCH more likely than what the so-called "christian religion" is feeding us about a "god" that can't be seen, in a place that can't be located, that "in the beginning" created the entire universe from nothing, and "at the end of time" is going to judge us all for not being good people, based on HIS examples put forth in the bible of vindictive, jealous behavior.

Cool beans!

Obviously I am a confirmed atheist.

[vlyons]

66. Yeah there is lot of illogical nonsense

that Christians are supposed to accept on "faith," because some authority said so. Ancient peoples didn't know about the scientific method. But as humans, they wanted to make some sort of sense out of the chaos of nature. So they told stories to try and explain causes and conditions. We can forgive their ignorance. A little harder to forgive present day people making that ignorance into the intolerant demand that everyone must buy into it, and go along with it. In that regard, not much difference between Evangelical and Trump thinking. I would hate to see the day, when there is a state religion. Yikes! That would be awful.

[3catwoman3]

17. "The Christian god is jealous, arbitrary and infinitely vindictive."

Just like his followers. God made in man's image, instead of the alleged reverse. Doesn't square at all with the "God is a loving parent" notion that is the other characterization given. And while we're at it, I detest the "We aren't meant to understand" notion. And, the "God will never give you anything you can't handle" crap. If that were true, no one would have a career in any of the mental health specialties.

I can suspend my intellect if I go to a science fiction movie. Not when I am choosing a philosophical framework by which to guide my life.

[jberryhill]

19. But you are missing the best part

You see, God is so much more infinitely wise than humans that what strikes us as crazy is really God’s wisdom in action. The crazier it is, the more godlike it is.

[spike jones]

22. "You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all th

“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” ― Anne Lamott

[Nature Man]

23. The more I read your posts,

the more I admire your intellect.

[calimary]

25. No wonder they think trump was sent by God.

That’s how trump is, too.

[LakeArenal]

44. He's been Effin' holding a grudge against "his" own creation for 2000 plus years.

Lighten up. Evan. God you’re blaming us. You made the bed. We just have to lie in it.


(For the record, I was forced to attend an evangelical cult for over two years. Including summer bible school).

[True Blue American]

54. No, those who accepted Christ

Live by the New Covenant, the New Testament, not the old.

Some how Evangelicals have twisted that into Old Testament of hate and revenge. If they really understood Christ’s teachings they would understand that.

The word sadist fits the angry, power hungry, mostly domineering old white men who are fading away.

[ProfessorPlum]

92. The New Testament is as twisted and evil in many ways as the old

Jesus was the one who introduced the concept of hell, where people would burn in eternal fire.

The New Testament's (and Paul's) post hoc explanation for Jesus's arrest and execution is that he died for all of us, meaning that all of us deserve to be burned in eternal fire.

Leading to the doctrine of original sin.

Which means that Christianity has to first convince you you are sick, and then offer you a cure.

And that Jehovah is such an evil prick that he can't just forgive people without there also being slaughter involved. Omnipotent indeed.

[jberryhill]

99. That whole "New Covenant" stuff....

God, apparently, changed His mind about how to run things.

Jesus, being the exclusive means to salvation, demonstrates that, certainly, the inhabitants of the New World didn't count. (Mormonism conveniently fills in that objection with yet further nonsense, but at least Jesus goes on an international tour)

Alternatively, you have various groups which waffle on whether Jesus is necessary or exclusive to salvation, in which case Christianity pretty much reduces to "Try to be a nice person".

So, what is it that we are "accepting Jesus" as, and what are the consequences for failing to do so?

[SidDithers]

59. This is an excellent post...

Sid

[rusty fender]

63. Forgive me for this off-topic question, jberryhill:

Somewhere, on Twitter perhaps or in this forum, a poster claimed that Trumpass cannot be pardoned if he is impeached. This claim sounds specious, but

[jberryhill]

68. I don't understand the question

Pardoned for what? The next president may choose to pardon Trump for any federal crimes for which the next president chooses to pardon him.

The exception to the pardon power - "in cases of impeachment" - means that the president may not restore an officer to the position from which he/she is impeached, and the president cannot simply put the brakes on an impeachment by issuing pardons to those persons being impeached. It is up to the Congress and Senate to impeach officers.

Impeachment extends to removal from office and disqualification from holding federal office again. That cannot be pardoned.

If there are any underlying or associated crimes which could be subject to federal criminal prosecution, sure, the next president can issue pardons for those.

[rusty fender]

72. Thanks for your reply!

As I understood the post about impeachment nullifying a pardon, it referred to an all encompassing presidential pardon like the one that Ford gave Nixon.

Many people, myself included, believe that if Trumpass is removed from office that Pence will give him a pardon that immunizes Trumpass against any federal charges. It seems that the person claiming that impeachment renders a POTUS ineligible for a presidential pardon misinterpreted the Constitution.

[vlyons]

3. Christianity has a very long history of cruelty,

punishment for sin, war, torture, oppression of many forms. Evangelicals do, afterall, worship a jealous god, who annihilates all gods and those who worship other gods.

[cwydro]

79. Many religions do.

Not just Christianity.

[True Blue American]

96. You are quite right.

Men have twisted Religion to fit what they wanted since the beginning.

And most was power, greed, revenge. We are seeing a resurgence here.

[dewsgirl]

5. The Family lays this out quite well, they are consolidating power.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

6. Bible sez the christians will be priests and kings

Evangelical christianity is all about narcissism. And getting away with hurting people. "Prayers" evangelicals direct to people they don't like ,are full of shit like make their lives full of suffering until they turn to Jesus type "prayers ". Ii is in fact the blackest of spells/magick.


Torture for jesus,how cute.
It's just wrong to curse people just for disagreeing or existing or doing legal the evangelicals call "sin".

Assemblies of God is a cult, I saw how awful they are myself after being involved in that cult as an adult.

[calimary]

93. We have an escapee like that in our Indivisible group.

By now, a truly good and cherished friend. Fully awakened and liberated. And VERY glad and even relieved to be out of that world.

[jberryhill]

100. And if you are Mormon, you get your own deity franchise!

Ever notice how popular Multi-Level-Marketing schemes are in Utah?

[handmade34]

7. K&R

excellent article!!

[RicROC]

9. Sado-Christians.

Very good article. Thank you for posting it.

[Initech]

10. Their current belief system puts them more in line with Satan than Jesus.

If they are out to harm people or trigger the snowflakes, they're satanists.

[bucolic_frolic]

11. To the Deplorables, Trump is a role model

I've talked to a few of them, and yeah, Trump is a role model. These people are batsh*t stupid.

[vlyons]

12. It's called "spiritual materialism"

Which is where religion and spirituality are used to enhance the ego, and grasp at the belief that one is making progress on a spiritual path to being better, more holy, more beloved by god. Spiritual materialism has lots of accoutrements as proof of one's superior holiness. Special robes and hats, rings, necklaces, special cups and plates of precious gold and encrusted with jewels, gold-embossed scripture books, big and extravagant places of worship, prayer and meditation beads, etc etc. None of which is really needed to just be a good person.

[defacto7]

26. Your post is more realistic and I think correct than the OP article.

Though I'm atheist and see the damage that religion can do, I think going as far as many here are posting is its own form of radicalism and doesn't keep us on the side of reason. Sure there are many believers who are living a life of sadistic behavior but the overall problem is ignorance and blind faith in a bronze age doctrine. Spiritual materialism is a very good description of its modern effect.

[vlyons]

35. Spiritual materialism was a phrase used by Chogyam Trungpa,

who was the first Tibetan Buddhist teacher to come to the West, after Tibetans fled the Chinese invasion. Buddhism has more than its share of people practicing spiritual materialism, but Buddha taught that we should examine our own thoughts and feelings and use our reason and logic and evidence to decide what to do, say, and think.

There is no invisible sky-god Daddy, who will wave a magic wand to suspend the laws of physics and make things all better. Only we can make things better through discerning insight and right effort.

Trungpa's book, "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" has become a classic. Every few years, I reread it to remind myself about using religion, or any false belief system, as an ego enhancer. We should not accepts beliefs just because some authority figure says so.

[meow2u3]

13. Conservative Christians are long on conservative and short on Christian

Christians are supposed to stick up for the outcast, the forgotten, the marginalized, etc., but those RW "Christians" act very un-Christlike. Their diabolical cruelty gives them away.

[vlyons]

14. Many, if not most, Evangelicals would be perfectly happy

to dump our tradition of separation of church and state. They would be delighted to have their religion be the state religion, and force all schools to teach their religion. And who would be better to help them realize that dream than an authoritarian POTUS, who must enforce his delusional beliefs?

[Leith]

15. Cruelty is the point

They live to pass judgment and punish others - and they define "other."

[packman]

21. I sincerely believe this - They feel they are in a "chosen" group

separate from the unclean and unworthy. Their feelings and belief that they are among the closest to God, they have a special right to condemn the heathens who question their faith.

[CaptYossarian]

36. That's fine. I choose to deport their asses and replace them with the families

that were unduly separated.

If they truly believe in "faith and good works", They can stay in an American territory and rebuild Puerto Rico.

[dchill]

16. "It's for your own good."

[no_hypocrisy]

18. Calvinism on steroids

[defacto7]

52. Calvanists were and are horrific but

what we are also dealing with now is Arminianism which is kind of anti Calvanist. Calvanists teach once you're saved you can do whatever you want and your salvation can't be lost. Arminianism says you have to always adhere to doctrine (holiness) or you can lose your salvation. The Calvanist can be arrogant with their teaching but Arminians have to keep saving souls and force their religion on others or go to hell.
This is a broad brush but in a nutshell that's what it comes down to.

[Botany]

20. They are evangelicals whose roots go back to L.A. in the 1930s when that form of Christianity was...

... invented and sold by the rich in order to stop FDR's very popular programs. You see Jesus was a
small government free market type of guy and he was against unions, social security, and the public
good.

BTW not only is Trump the biggest crook in America's history but his installation into the White House
and assorted rat fucking of out democracy and elections was the biggest crime in history and these
JAA Bezz USSSS fuckwads just don't care.


BTW part 2 How many abortions has trump paid for in his life? They have to know Trump has done that
along with porn stars, sex workers, underage girls, bribes, pay offs, threats, rapes, 5 kids w/three different
wives, and a shit load of cocaine too and these JAA Bezz USSSS fuckwads just don't care.

[CaptYossarian]

38. He had to be talked out of aborting Tiffany and

his maid's child with him still hasn't surfaced.

[defacto7]

56. The evangelicals go way earlier than that.

The holiness movements of the 1880s, the Azusa revivals of 1906-15, the Foursquare pentecostals of '28 and then the Assembly of God in the 1930s. That's if you overlook the early Calvanist and Arminian revivals of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries in Europe.

Is there a specific one you're talking about in the 1930s?

[Botany]

57. FYI

https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/how-los-angeles-helped-make-the-us-an-evangelical-nation

[shanti]

62. Right

Aimee Semple McPherson was one of the starters of this movement. I grew up in the OC and we got it too, with Calvary Chapel. It was HUGE in the late 60's and 70's. Lonnie Frisbee, Chuck Smith. My aunt and her husband are still part of it and very conservative xtians and Trumpers.

[defacto7]

70. Interesting info.

There was another revival of sorts from CA in the late 60s conneced to Asbury College if I remember correctly. It had something to do with the rise of the Jesus people in the early 70s.
It's strange to me that one thing most of these revivals, even the ones dating back hundreds of years had in common. They supposedly were ushering in the soon to appear second coming of Christ. Over and over. Add to it the Seventh Day Adventists spurred on by a woman named White who predicted Christ's arrival on a specific date. She was wrong, just like all the rest. But humans are so gullible to these things. They never learn. Ignorance and blind faith are weaknesses we have to overcome or it will destroy us.

[LiberalLovinLug]

84. thanks for the link. Interesting reading

Who woulda thunk it? From the land of Hollywood, LA the decadent sin city of the west, full of godless liberal actor celebrities, was a major incubation site for the birth of modern day evangelicalism? From a frontier mentality, where all kinds of cults were tried, the evangelical cult stuck best. Combine that with tax exemption savings invested in building and buying properties, just as the population was exploding. gave that movement a real foothold, and a credibility.

[spike jones]

24. And leaders can get rich preaching the hate and evil.

An interesting film about Hugh Marjoe Ross Gortner

"...He became a celebrity again during the 1970s when he starred in Marjoe (1972), a behind-the-scenes documentary about the lucrative business of Pentecostal preaching. This won the 1972 Academy Award for Best Documentary Film. This documentary now is noted as one of the most vehement criticisms of Pentecostal preaching.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjoe_Gortner

[StarryNite]

30. Thanks! Just looked it up on Amazon...

It looks very good!

[defacto7]

33. I remember going with high school friends to a Pentecostal faith healing service

back in '72. We sat on the first row to watch closely. None of us were serious; to us it was sceptical entertainment. It was a riot. We couldn't figure out how anyone could possibly believe this tripe. One person after another would get up and act the invalid. After one "miraculous" event the healed one came back down, looked at a friend and shrugged. When I had a chance I said to the guy "It's obvious you weren't ill. Why do you do this?" He said it helps promote faith in others who are really sick so they will believe and get their healing. What self-perpetuating shit. We got some good laughs though.

[CaptYossarian]

39. I only saw him in Earthquake when he tried to rape that woman.

I guess he was typecast.

[spike jones]

43. Thanks for the laugh.

[CaptYossarian]

47. Spike Jones? I hope you do the same thing to Trump's face.

[spike jones]

73. Another good laugh. It will be a sloppy laugh with lots of spit.

[link:

|

[CaptYossarian]

74. Yep. Got it on CD.

[spike jones]

77. Pal-Yat-chee

I can still sing Pal-Yat-Chee, which I learn as a young teenager, even though I have not heard it in over fifty years.

[TygrBright]

27. Most forms of cruelty are rooted in fear. Including religious sadism.

Maybe even "especially" religious sadism, because the gap between spiritual gratification and religious practice is so vast, and so dependent on doctrines hijacked to benefit the shaman class.

sadly,
Bright

[KY_EnviroGuy]

28. The justification for this behavior is that some people in most religions...

believe they are true soldiers of their god and they're doing its bidding. Therefore, like Republicans do when trying to govern, any means is justified to achieve an end. Plenty of charismatic, psychopathic individuals are always available to spread the word and profit from the chaos.

The problem with this belief structure and the undeniable truth is that the beliefs of what they should do are of human design and invariably are self-serving.

There are few things more repulsive to me than any person saying they know what some supreme deity wants or does not want, or what that deity does or has done. This is a solid point anyone can make to these people when they hit us with their bullshit.

No matter what the religion (or lack thereof), no human being on this planet can claim to know even if there may or may not be some superior power(s) existing in this universe, much less know why such a power might even bother with us at all or have some determination as to what we should or should not be doing.

KY.........

[StarryNite]

58. Exactly!

Nobody knows!

[KY_EnviroGuy]

61. That's the reason I say I'm agnostic.

The universe is far too vast and unknown and we are too insignificant to know.......

[Thomas Hurt]

29. My own personal thought on this has been...

that conservative christians look around them and see all these people who are their "lessers", and they are not suffering the consequences of their sins and they just have to step in for God and take care of it.

Lazy people should starve
Sluts should get pregnant and have their babies
Sluts should get STDs

so on and so on.

In short they think they should be able to judge and punish as if there were God.

[CaptYossarian]

40. Some lazy people are born rich, become president and are male sluts.

Go figure.

[Thomas Hurt]

48. yes but they are rich and therefore God's chosen...don't ya know.

[patphil]

32. The big problem people have with understanding God is related to our free will.

We have free will.
We can choose to be loving, or hateful, or anything in between.
We can choose to have compassion, or be utterly callous, or anything in between.
We can choose to be honest and truthful in our relationships, or be absolutely deceitful, or anything in between.
There are no limits in life with respect to how we choose to express ourselves.

When it comes to God, that free will is our test; to see if we have learned how to properly interact with each other.
Jesus said we should love God, love ourselves, and love each other.

You can choose to do this, or not.
God doesn't force you to be loving, it's your responsibility to decide to do it.
It's called becoming spiritually mature.
Mistakes will be made, that's how people learn.
We are expected to learn from our mistakes...to become better people over time.
It's always your choice.
Those who continue to choose a service to self path in life are not learning the basic principal of life; the fundamental truth that we are all God's children.
Jesus also said that whatever we do to the least of his brethren, that we do also unto him.
He then explained that all of us are family; all brethren to each other.

It's not hard to understand the teachings of Jesus.
But, all religions deliberately make it hard. All religions have been co-opted by dark forces; the service to self types who only love money, power, and control.
Many far right leaning Christians fall into this category.
They choose to follow the service to self path and thus make all sort of rules and conditions to control people, and use guilt, fear, and hatred to maintain control.
They are not spiritual people.
They don't know God.
They also don't understand life.
And, almost no one understands that it can take many lifetimes on the earth for a person to learn how to truly live a spiritual life.
That process would be much easier if religions were spiritual in nature, but they aren't.
Originally they all were.
All the major religions started with a spark of divine truth that was, over time, distorted and deformed into the garbage that goes for religious doctrine today.
Christian don't even know the real name of Jesus.
It's Yeshua ben Panther.
ben Panther translates to "Son of the Lion"
His family were the Lions of Judah.
Emperor Constantine perverted the teachings of Yeshua and created the Roman Catholic Church, and buried much of the message of Yeshua.

It's not the fault of God that this place is a mess, it is the fundamental failure of the human species that has done it.
We used our free will to reject God and follow our selfish, self interests.

All the pain and suffering of this world is self-inflicted wounds.
We live in a world that is failing the test of love.

God has sent many spiritually wise men and women to this planet, over and over again, to try and guide us back onto the path of love, but time and time again we choose the path of darkness and pervert the divine message.

I seriously doubt that humanity will ever choose love.

Patrick Phillips

[True Blue American]

55. Great post!:)

[LiberalLovinLug]

89. Thanks for that

A lot of thought went into it. But I do have a couple of my own thoughts.

I was brought up in an evangelical house. Its far behind me now, but of course my extended family still is following this cult and I still choose to bow for grace if we eat together, and I'll choose to attend a church service with my mother on occasion. But I know very well the power of a full church all worshipping in unison has on a child growing up. Being raised in a Sunday school learning how to be a good Christian lug. I began to doubt it in my late teens, but even as I slowly weened myself away, I wanted to still believe in a Christian God. On my own, away from any church. But even using the word Christian, bonds you to the whole religion, whomever and wherever it is practised. And its basic doctrine; that God is a trinity. That Jesus was born of a virgin and died and then ascended. If the Bible is God's word then one must believe it all, from water turned into wine to a virgin birth.

You opened your piece with "We have free will", and explain how no one is stopping us from making personal choices. Good or bad.
This is true.
But you infused your POV with religious dogma, when you followed that with...

"Jesus said we should love God, love ourselves, and love each other.

You can choose to do this, or not."

Firstly, this is a bit of a strawman you are creating. In that you are dragging any non religious person reading, into the assumption of Jesus Christ's existence in history. And then if he did exist, that he was a supernatural being who did supernatural things and then sacrificed himself in a bloody torturous way in exchange for a door to heaven for humans that follow his religion and go to their churches and donate.

But lets just assume He is both real and has the authority to say what all human beings "should" do. (not choose to). And to be clear, this is coming from a Guy that has the power to roast you for eternity if He fancies. Two of these suggestions I concur with though. Love ourselves, and love each other. But why is the number one thing on the list of who we should love, "God"? And which God? You would be asking us to presume again that its the Christian God of the Bible. And if he's also God, as part of the trinity, he's basically asking for a little TLC for Himself. Which isn't so bad really I guess.

Sorry. I just want to break this down. So we should love God, presumably the One defined through an ancient script called the Bible. Its our choice if we do what we should or not. But if we don't do what we should, there's going to be consequences.

After my own early brush with religion, I now think that religions themselves, are all cults. That includes even the most benign denominations of Christianity. They all require adherence to nonsensical suspension of disbelief. All it takes is hundreds more who are tempted into it as well to form a congregation. Who with a pastor, preacher, priest, to keep them indoctrinated, they support each others deluded view of existence. I don't really know why. To feel protected, to feel a part of something big. Something special. Something supernatural and euphoric. I can only guess. But I've witnessed this phenom in my life through my family. I don't get it.

Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you. I just like to argue. And this topic is personal to me.

[wnylib]

94. Pat was expressing and explaining a religious

point of view. So naturally that included reference to a deity. (Yes, I know that is not true about Buddhism, but the topic was Xtianity.)

Therefore the reference to a deity. And to the teachings of a religion about that deity, from Pat's perspective and understanding, as an alternative perspective to the one.
presented in the OP about evangelicals. As I understand Pat's post, it is saying that there are many different POV's within Xtianity and that the one followed by evangelicals is focused on self-centeredness and condemnation of 'the other' while Pat's view focuses on love, compassion, and personal responsibility.

In other words, different kinds of people and different kinds of approaches to religion.

It is not necessary, of course, to have a religion or belief in a deity to be a loving, compassionate, and personally responsible human being. Morality, ethics, and basic human decency exist among atheists and agnostics. Religions do not have a monopoly on those humsn qualities. Very often people use religion to justify feelings, actions, and behaviors that any decent human being would reject.

I thought your post was a thoughtful, reasoned, and considerate one in presenting your own views. Just as I
have known theists with different approaches to religion and to people who don't share their views, I've known atheists who have varying attitudes toward religion and
people who are religious.

I've met atheists who rejected a religious upbringing with such vehemence that they left behind all of their former religion except the proselytizing habit. One was so in-your-face about it that I backed away ftom her the same as I would from a Jehovah's Witness. I've known others who have respect for the role that religion played in the
history of philosophical reasoning, but simply cannot, on the basis of their own reasoning, accept or believe religious teachings.

I have slso known some who are so contemptuous of and hostile toward theists and religions that they hold and express ideas about some religions that are historical but outdated, indicating that they do not know what those religions actually teach and practice today.

IMO it is pointless for people to argue over belief or non
belief in either direction. Some people are inclined to beliefs and some are not. So what? It is what they DO about their belief or disbelief that matters.

[LiberalLovinLug]

107. You make a good point

Its all really about individuals.

The leaders could be a Prosperity doctrine pastor of a megachurch worth millions, and lives in a gold dripping mansion that Trump would be jealous of. And locks their doors against poor folks trying to escape a natural disaster. Or a humble nun that goes through life unknown but does more for other humans than a hundred other so-called Christians.

The followers could be a gay hating bigot member of the Westboro Baptist Church, a Trump worshipping asshole, or could be a pious do-gooder who gives to charity, and volunteers at the soup line, and can empathize, and truly loves, or tries to, everyone.

But that is the problem. They both use the same God to explain their actions or lifestyle. And by claiming Him as your deity of choice, you must include all flavours of that religion. Because unless God told you directly, how does one know that God isn't on the Westboro church's corner? They both claim the same Christian God's blessing.

I understand that there are rude people that are atheists. And nice people too. The same goes for Christians and Muslims for that matter. That does complicate things. I think that is a big draw, in people that feel they are not nice people, and want to improve themselves, and feel good. Or want to get off drugs or alcohol. Its a great support system. But yes, rude people can give a bad name to whatever belief or non-belief they adhere to.

[wnylib]

109. I disagree with your statement that belonging to

one "flavor" of religion requires someone to include all "flavors" that claim belief in a deity by the same name.

You can ask a variety of Xtians for a definition or description of the deity of their faith and get a variety of responses so different that they are not recognizable to each other. Same is true among Muslims and their understanding of Allah and Islam. Do you believe that all Muslims are responsible for terrorism? Same for Jews. Because some very conservative Jews hold restrictive views about women, are all Jews responsible for limitations imposed by the most conservative ones?

The official communism of the former Soviet Union rejected religion. But I am sure you would reject the notion that all atheists are communists. Atheists do not, by their own definition, subscribe to an ideology. They simply do not believe when it comes to religion. Also, not all communists and certainly not all socialists reject religion.

I have looked at theism and atheism literally from all sides. Or many sides, at least. I minored in anthropology and probably would have majored in it if I'd finished my degree in one piece, uninterrupted. I have looked at religions from a cultural, historical, and social science perspective -- their roles in various cultures, the syncretisms, the evolutions of belief systems, the
various types of religions (not all are ideologically based), etc. I am well aware of the various ancient dying and resurrecting gods of the ME andMediterranean region, and the gods and practices of other regions, including tribal religions.

I know that throughout time and place there have been people who simply could not literslly believe in the gods of their society just as there have been people who hold very literal beliefs. The literalists are often the most susceptible to accepting authoritarian leaders. Some leaders use religion for social unity..Some use it for absolute authority.

There have always been socially pragmatic followers and also people who take a metaphorical and philosophical view of religion as a spiritual guide in personal growth and development -- the whole gamut of human possibilities.

Some people want and need the framework of religion for their lives. Some do not.

Atheists who are "rude" as you put it, do not concern me any more than rudeness in anyone. What does concern me is when atheists -- or theists -- assert that their way of life is the only legitimate way of life for everyone.

[patphil]

97. Religion really has cause a mess hasn't it.

I was born and raised a Catholic. Did the altar boy thing, catholic grade school and high school.
I also went through a period of doubt starting in my early 20's and finally walked away from the church because it just didn't feel right.
Looking back now, I can see how the Catholic Church, and, for that matter, all the Christian sects, have played the same game with their members.
They created organizations that established rules that were to the church's benefit, but not so much for their "flock".
Both the Catholic and Christian Churches are at least as heavily invested in the Old Testament as they are in the New. For me, the Old Testament is too much a work of man, and not very much a work of God.
It was compiled, and "edited" by the Hebrew Babylonian captives with a little help from Egyptian captives with the purpose of creating a sense of nationalism within the captives to encourage them to rise up, free themselves, and return to Palestine to form a nation.
That said, it's no longer a reliable source of spiritual information.
So, for me, the bible is just the New Testament, which has also seen a lot of creative editing by Constantine.
I acknowledge the existence of Jesus (I'll use that name since that's how people know him) as an historical figure. It's also evident he was a great spiritual leader, and a Son of God.
He never started a church, regardless of the bible having Jesus tell Peter that he was the rock on which he would build his church.
The truth is that Jesus' teachings were spread under the guidance of his family...brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles; all those Lions of Judah. And it came to be known as the church of the Desposyni, a word that refers to the blood relatives of Jesus.
It was still a spiritual movement back then, and became a religion when Constantine took control and molded it to suit him.
So, my POV is on the original teachings, not the man-made hustle that exists today.
Actually, I was paraphrasing Jesus with his direction that we should love God, ourselves, and everyone else.
I'm not sure the bible can be use for exact quotes since it has been altered over time.
I see his words as more of a recommendation, not a command, and I'm not concerned about the order of his words. If you love yourself and others, but don't believe in God I see no problem. It's the concept of living a loving, compassionate life that is important.
I certainly don't see God as he is represented in the bible; not so much a deity as a super powerful being with lots of human failings.
Also, the trinity is not three people.
God the Father is the force of light. God the Mother (Holy Spirit) is the force of love.
God the Son is creation. Between creations they exist as one combined entity.
When a creation begins, the two great forces, love and light separate partially in a way that creates a vesica piscis from which a new creation flows outward. Each universe has a Son of God as its primary point of emergence; a Universal Sun/Son of God. There are many universes.
It would take me far too long to go into all of this here, but I wanted you to know that I'm a spiritual person, not a religious one.
I don't believe in God, I acknowledge the existence of God. For me it isn't a question of believing. I have spent the last 20 years on a spiritual path that has lifted me way above the stage of belief.
For me, God is not even a reality, God is actuality.

Patrick Phillips

[LiberalLovinLug]

106. Thanks for the response

I hesitated and now again, to approach this topic. '
Its easy to argue against, say, a supporter of the "Christian" Westboro Baptist Church. They are so extreme in their own interpretation of the Bible.
I feel a little dirty trying to pull the rug out under the opposite kind of Christian. My father, even though protestant, shared your focus on the love everyone, New Testament teachings. He really believed in being humble, treating everyone, no matter their station, equally as God's children.

He always voted Conservative (in Canada) of course. Which I had many arguments with him about. How Jesus threw out the money lenders, merchants, from the temple, said a rich man getting into heaven was more difficult that getting a camel through the eye of the needle, who defended the prostitute, who washed the feet of his followers, who fed the hungry, etc etc....To me, to be Christian meant to support the most left party I could. That just seemed natural if one wanted to follow Christ. Conservatives were the party of the money lenders, the NDP here, were the party of helping the poor. But I gave my dad and mom a bit of slack, both of their families fleeing communist USSR. They were very much against any party that even hinted at socialism/communism.

But getting back to topic, what triggered me about your post was that I think there is a quandry for many that really really want and need an external God to reassure them that someone somewhere is in control of the situation. And is available for comfort and strength whenever you need it. And that's fine. I am not a hard atheist. In fact, if I am in a bad situation as we all are in life, I may even send up a prayer request for help. Its how I was brought up, and I look at it as a "why not"?, can't hurt, even though I spend days badmouthing His religion on the net. So I'm not so sure, if He does exist, that He even picks it up from His inbox. But its ingrained into me.

I just think that its too easy to glob onto that huge religion, called Christianity, to define the deity of your choice. And adopting that one as your own, may be because it seems more stable knowing there are thousands that define the same name on God as you do. A kind of mob mentality. One can go to share company with others that all agree to use the same name from the Bible for their God. And that is a problem for me to take that person seriously. Because it seems they want their cake and eat it too. They support the Christian religion, financially, and verbally just by defining themselves that way. It seems partly to be included in a sanctioned, respected religious family. But they pick and choose what part of the Bible they agree with, and what they don't. And they call themselves the same name "Christian" as some rabid snake charmer, or some religious leaders in other countries that call for the death penalty for gays. Those that probably reject the same passages that a more lovey dovey Christian clings to.

You might say, personally that you think they are wrong in their interpretation of the Bible. and that that is on them. And your relationship with the same God is different. But that is so whack. If you support the same God, with the same name(s), then you are also, indirectly, supporting the Westboro Baptist Church, snake charmers, and gay execution. In fact, folks that cherry pick the most peace, love, mushy parts only, are more of a threat to a religious free humanity (....And no religion, too. Imagine all the people. Living life in peace...) than the ones that are obvious radically out to lunch. They give them cover.

It just seems like one is borrowing the name "Jesus" for instance, and redefining him in your own image, and block out the inconvenient truth that many other "Christians" invoke the same name to do and believe the most ugly racist sexist bigoted things. And another sticking point for me was that if the Christian God is real, why would He allow Christian leaders, like Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell, or Mike Huckabee ffs, to speak for the Christian faith? This started for me during the Iraq war when these Christian leaders, were screaming for blood and violence and killing. That God wanted war! Dubya said God told him so. I thought, if God was real, he'd not allow His reputation to be dragged throught he mud and be misrepresented that way. That or He actually approved of it all. Either way, it was the final nail. After the first nail was that my Dad, the humble puritan, who never even drank a drop of liquor in his life, was "rewarded" for that sacrifice by his life being taken away early from dementia. (While people like Cheney and Bush could financially benefit from pretending God told them to start a war)

At the same time I understand the desire to find some central focus, and an example to strive towards for those that really want to live the best life possible, that includes empathy and love. And that the entity of Jesus, as described inthe Bible, and all that comes with him, all the parables, is such a tempting God to adopt. And just picking, say The Great Spaghetti Monster, or ones own name for one's personal God, just doesn't have the same history or respected followers, or even personality as the Christ from Nazareth.

OMG, I don't even realize how much I am typing here. Sorry if you are offended by anything I wrote.

peace.

[wnylib]

110. Not all cases of mob mentality are due to

religious beliefs. Religion can certainly be used that way and we know from history that it has happened. And we see it still happening today. But people can be inspired to mob behavior for reasons not related to religion. Some sports examples come to mind.

I remember telling a philosophy professor once that, despite all the reasoned views of the world's thinkers, in the end, people usually make decisions in daily life based as much on their feelings as on their thoughts and generally offer reasoned explanations after the fact. He agreed. The goal of thinking things through and developing critical reasoning is to become more discerning and aware of what we think and feel.

Everyone has principles and values that we live by, whether we are consciously aware of it or not. We develop them from personal experience, from what we are taught and accept, what we are taught and reject, what temperament we are born with, etc.

Our values and principles amount to a personal philosophy of life - our perspective on things. For some people, their perspective, or window on themselves and the world, is through science, or philosophy, mathematics, expression and appreciation of the arts, politics, family, or various combinations of those and of other things.

Religion, in a broad definition, is a philosophy of life, a way of living by certain values and principles. For some, it is a way to grow in learning more about themselves and others through a sincere commitment to principles and values they accept as guidelines. It is full of symbolism and metaphor in stories that may or may not be literally true, or only partially true. The message is more important than the literal details. They teach ways of coping and living.

For others it is a literal blueprint to provide security in absolutes. But that's not possible because even literal understandings can vary. Literalists miss the forest for the trees.

Sometimes people who discount religion on the basis of objection to literal stories also seem to miss the forest for the trees. Do they do the same thing with simile and metaphor in poetry? Or is it because the stories are held as sacred? But sacred expresses the value of the message more than it does the literal truth of it.

Your idea that all people of a large religious body like Christianity are responsible for the beliefs and actions of others using the broader name is a binary all or nothing view that ignores the defined differences in sects.

Apply that to other humsn organizations. If you are liberal in politics, are you enabling and responsible for all varieties of left wing politics, including violent protesters for the environment as well as pacifist resisters on human rights? A supporter of state ownership of property and business as well as a supporter of individual freedoms? Does it mean that Elizabeth Warren really is economically a communist although she has declared herself a capitalist who favors regulations? Does it mean supporting totalitarianism of the left while opposing totalitarianism of the right? Are there no differences?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. There's a lot of truth to this, but I wouldn't limit it to evangelicals.

It seems to be the basic mind-set of a lot of Trump's MAGAts, whether or not they claim to be religious. I think there are plenty of people who do derive pleasure from degrading or harming other people they consider to be inferior in some way, but sometimes religion isn't what seems to be motivating them. I've heard remarks by secular conservatives (even a few who claim to be atheists) about how "those people" deserve whatever misfortune or punishment is inflicted on them, and they can be downright gleeful about it. Religion seems more often to be the motivation for anti-LGBT attitudes, but socially-sadistic racism, misogyny and other forms of bigotry don't seem to need religion. Some people are just plain mean; they know they're mean and they like it. And in some way that's even more disturbing than religiously-motivated meanness because those people can't even come up with a justification ("God's will"?) for being assholes. They're just assholes.

[CaptYossarian]

41. I'll just paraphrase your post: Archie Bunker avoided church.

Before you get mad, I reinforced your message using an example we're all familiar with.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

42. I'm not mad. That's a good example.

You don't have to be an evangelical Christian to be an asshole, though sometimes it helps.

[CaptYossarian]

46. I thought you'd be mad because it only took me 15 seconds to type.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

49. Are you suggesting that I'm verbose?

But, you know, Archie Bunker wasn't really mean; he was just ignorant.

[CaptYossarian]

51. It was absolutely meant as a compliment.

You cannot type inflection or facial expressions and gestures (yet). Emojis don't count.

[Garrett78]

75. Yeah, this is true for Republicans in general. Certainly not just evangelicals.

This is why some of us are so irritated by the "they're economically anxious and we need to win them over" nonsense that's been spewed by members of the media and people from all across the political spectrum.

It's the racism, stupid.

[StarryNite]

37. They have an answer for everything.

Somebody I know is very brainwashed by the radio and TV evangelical personalities. When riding with him the other day he had the radio tuned in to one of the programs. The preacher was telling his listeners that only the Jesus followers will go to Heaven. But don't worry that your non believing loved ones won't be there because you will be made to forget all about them so you won't miss them. LOL The first thing that came to my mind, and I told him this, was the Neuralyzer from Men in Black. LOL

[wendyb-NC]

53. So absolutely true.

[moondust]

65. 70 votes to repeal ACA

could be interpreted as attempted mass murder.

And the sadists still support that party.

[intrepidity]

76. The Inquisition proved exactly the same nt

[spike jones]

78. I read that years (Centuries?) ago a Pope was asked what people were going to do in heaven.

He said that everyone could enjoy hearing the screams and cries of the sinners being burnt in hell.

[jberryhill]

83. That's right out of one of Jesus' parables

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man paints a picture of heaven in which the torment of the damned can be viewed with whatever degree of concern one cares to feel.

[chwaliszewski]

80. Makes absolute sense.

It comes from the Bible. Divine punishment and its ilk. That mentality of 'If you don't want to be tazered, pepper sprayed, and/or shot while being pulled over for speeding, then don't speed.' is common amongst people like that.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

81. I agree with characterizing evangelicals as cruel

It can show in seemingly trivial matters. The ones I’ve met delighted in needling and retribution, on a mundane level. They seem to share a certain arrogance too.

I’m always trying to figure out these christofascists. Can’t say I’m making any progress, but I know that in large groups, they’re dangerous.

[lambchopp59]

85. Now join me in reverent prayer:

"Jeebus save us from your rabid followers. Amen".

[dustyscamp]

86. Maga

“People assembling in MAGA hats never leave a place more kind, less volatile, more diverse, or safer for historically marginalized people. They leave a trail of profanity, intimidation, and fear—and excuses on why they feel justified in doing so.” K. Roberts

[Captain Zero]

90. I've called extreme rightwingers sado-maoschists for 4-5 years.

The masochism comes in when they don't care if their own social security gets cut or when there is a dreadful effect on their group like farmers currently saying they still support it even if they and their neighbors have to suffer bankruptcy/

[milestogo]

95. Richard Rorty died in 2007.

So he never saw Trump or Obama become president.

[Hortensis]

103. Too much truth, but hideously overstated.

Psychologists who study these things say the overlap between us, what we have in common, is far greater than the differences.

Even though it may not seem like that when their leaders have used 40 years of increasingly sophisticated techniques to make some as close to the worst political versions of themselves as they can get them.

Always remember, a good majority of conservatives are not among the worst and most dangerous sorts and don't want fascism. Perhaps 20% (so something like 10% of the entire electorate) are always strongly vulnerable to calls of fascistic leaders. That percentage does rise in times of anxiety.

But as for embracing fascism, just as most Sanders supporters don't really know what socialism is, most conservatives have no idea what fascism is. Of those who think they know, most believe it's what happens when the Democratic party goes too far left and starts sending nice conservatives to death camps; they have absolutely no idea they need to focus their fear the other direction, just another, farther step or two right from the hard-core conservatism that's taken over their party. And when they find out, most are horrified.

So that's why all our good leaders are speaking not just to us but to those who are troubled by, even if not already firmly aligned against, the increasingly fascistic calls of their current leaders.

Electoral majority wins.

[walkingman]

105. I was on the fence for decades concerning religion. I didn't participate except for holidays with

parents or friends. Mostly Christmas ans Easter. Gradually over the years, I think beginning with Reagan it because less and less tolerable simply because of the political pandering. After Trump, I find the entire subject almost disgusting and not worthy of consideration. Almost all of my immediate family with the exception of MIL are constantly proclaiming Trump to be worthy of their support regardless of what he says and does and mostly around the idea of "I would never vote for a Democrat or Hilliary in particular. Their hatred of Obama (it has to be racial) was the springboard to Trump for them - I can't understand them to save my life. What has happened? Where is the end of this shit?