Why White Evangelicals…

It is a well-publicised fact that 81% of white evangelicals voted to put the current occupant in the Oval Office. On that subject, I ran across this interesting book entitled Believe Me. It is written by one of the 19% who voted the other way.  Here is a small segment of an interview with the author:

2018-07-05_18-44-44.pngFinally, you dedicate your book to the 19 percent of white evangelicals who did not vote for Trump. What do you want to say to them with this book?

I dedicate the book to the 19 percent not because they’re my primary audience, but because they seem to have seen through Trump. They’ve made a decision that Trump is not good — not just for the nation, but also for the church. So I hope the book might provide some history and arguments that the 19 percent can offer to their evangelical friends who did vote for Donald Trump and are having second thoughts, or are at least open to further evidence and dialogue. But my main audience, I think, is those evangelicals who voted for Trump who are open to reason and evidence and historical arguments that may suggest electing Trump was a bad idea.

via Why White Evangelicals Voted for Trump: Fear, Power, and Nostalgia – Red Letter Christians

My basic premise here at RJsCorner that those who put #CO3 in office primarily did so because of fear of the unknown. While I was a member of an evangelical church not that long ago, I certainly saw that fear in a number of eyes. They are afraid of what is happening to their beloved country club. Due to pride and vanity, I doubt if they will ever admit the error of putting, at best, a totally unqualified person in the highest office in the land. It seems that they would rather go down in flames instead.

Cackle Footer Banner

Wk- About Humanists Part 2

There has been a very long-standing debate about the morality of man that I was not until recently totally aware of.  It has to do with where the goodness of man comes from. Is it an innate characteristic or one gleaned from our spiritual side?  That is the question of this post.  Who said I didn’t tackle the tough stuff here at RJsCorner (ha).

First, let’s see what the various Humanist organizations say about themselves:

2018-05-05_11-09-45.png

2018-05-05_11-11-26.png

I remember in my Evangelical days that humanists were not called humanist but instead secular humanists. I wondered what the difference was? Here is what Wikipedia says is the history of that:

2018-05-05_11-12-12.png

 

So, secular means those who reject or at least not concerned about religion. Given the current state of humanism, at least what I have come to learn so far, you can be a humanist without being secular. To make sure we are on the same level, there is the definition of secular:

2018-03-09_09-48-45

2018-05-05_11-12-37.png

 

Unlike my once Evangelical friends, I am not at all frightened by those who proclaim to be humanists. In fact, they sound like someone I would like to know more about.  I will be doing just that in future Squawks.

If you believe their words, and why shouldn’t I, then they are:

  • about adding to the greater good of humanity
  • we are all responsible for shaping our own lives.
  •  duty bound to oppose actions that violate human rights.
  • are not better or worse than others.

It sounds like a pretty good list to live by if you ask me.

Weekly Footer Banner

 

Toxic Evangelism

Sadly the word “Evangelical” has come to mean a very negative thing for many people but to see it deemed toxic is simply frightening. But that is what happens when you mix Christianity with politics.  As the old saying goes it is like mixing ice cream with horse manure. It doesn’t hurt the manure but it sure changes the flavor of ice cream.

My friends over at RedLetterChristians recently held a prayer vigil near Liberty University. Liberty’s president Jerry Falwell Jr said any if any in the praying group step on his property they would be arrested for trespassing.  That is not the expected greeting of one Christian to another but that is what you get in today’s most recognized brand of evangelical. It is nice to see at least some versions of Christianity are sticking to their foundations.  Far too many have abandoned their principles in order to condone their politics. That makes the word evangelical toxic indeed.

I want to close out this post with some thoughts from Will Rogers almost a hundred years ago. Can you even imagine what he would have to say about it today?

If some of these birds would follow His example instead of trying to figure out His mode of arrival and departure, they would come nearer getting confidence in their church.

If they are going to argue religion in the church instead of preaching it, no wonder you can see more people at a circus than a church.

Missionaries are going to reform the world whether it wants it or not.

Cackle Footer Banner