Fat hurts wrote:
Just sayin'... wrote:
Do you think his evangelical voters (EVs) will find that offensive or reprehensible? Those are BROWN babies (not "real" ones) being taken from their parents--an EV *loves* that, because "that's what they get."
I don't think it. I know it. Yes, they find it offensive and reprehensible. As long as they are confronted with it and believe it, they will react.
I have worshiped among evangelicals my whole life. In the true, historical sense of the word, I am an evangelical myself. (The definition of "evangelical" in the article is the modern, political one.)
Those of you who pretend to understand us need to pay more attention to who we are and how we really think. All you know is the caricature you have built up in your minds.
Evangelicals who are truly faithful already have misgivings about our president. You just have to get them thinking about his sins more than they think about the excuses for those sins. You can make a strong case that a lame-duck Trump can not be trusted. And if you frame it correctly, they will understand.
The whole argument can really be summed up in a familiar Bible verse: "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mark 8:36)" A vote to reach a political end like stopping abortion is not worth the support of such an unGodly man.
Like I said before, you don't have to convince them all. You just have to raise doubts and many will fall away from Trumpism.
(As a side note, the WaPo article relies heavily on Ralph Reed. Reed has been thoroughly discredited in the Christian community. Just look what happened when he tried to run for Lieutenant Governor in Georgia. This is further proof that evangelicals do turn against their leaders when they can no longer be trusted.)