RBR - Roy Moore: The Ultimate Test For Evangelicals
It really is starting to feel like something supernatural and apocalyptic is at foot in our country during the Trump Era. So many secret sexual sins are being publicly exposed. It’s like God is testing his people, especially the sexual puritans, to see how far they have deviated from any semblance of integrity in their political proclivities so they can be crushed utterly by the wrathful exposure of God’s truth and then resurrected into an entirely new reality.
My people, the evangelical Christians, have not fared too well under God’s testing so far. More evangelicals supported Donald Trump than Ronald Reagan, even knowing that he openly bragged about sexual assaulting women. And now they face yet another test as the celebrity conservative evangelical Alabama ex-justice and senate candidate Roy Moore is confronted by allegations that he molested one fourteen year old girl and pursued three other teenage girls in the early 1980’s.
None of these women are connected to each other. They did not seek out the press with their stories, but they were sought out by an investigative journalist who had heard murmurs in Alabama Republican circles of Moore’s fondness for teenage girls. With the story hitting the news now, Moore’s name cannot be removed from the ballot for Alabama’s December special election, whose winner will serve through 2020. If Moore loses, the Senate could be in play for Democrats given a strong backlash against Trump in 2018, which would put a check on Trump’s ability to appoint ultra-conservative Supreme Court justices.
So Alabama evangelicals have to weigh whether it’s worth supporting a likely alleged pedophile for the Senate in order to pursue another Supreme Court nomination and hold onto Republican power. I suspect that many Alabama evangelicals will say Roy Moore is innocent until proven guilty and that these allegations are a vast left-wing conspiracy by the press (basically the mirror image of Hillary Clinton’s defense of her husband against his sexual assault and harassment allegations by multiple women).
Alabama State Auditor Jim Ziegler told the Washington Examiner. “There’s nothing to see here. The allegations are that a man in his early 30s dated teenage girls. Even the Washington Post report says that he never had sexual intercourse with any of the girls and never attempted sexual intercourse.” That’s truly one of the most remarkable quotes I’ve read in a year of remarkable quotes. At what point will the cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics finally collapse so that these culture warriors can experience the incomprehensible demoralization that leads to the sweet joy of complete repentance?
It’s no secret that I tend to be more progressive about political issues, but mostly my political views are secondary to my concern about the church’s witness. I would have been a reliable moderate if the culture wars hadn’t existed. The culture wars pushed me to the left because I hated the way that the religious right made Jesus look to my non-Christian friends. The culture wars have ruined evangelism for the American church with most of our country’s population for generations to come. The church will continue to draw strongly from the atrophying subset of the population who are wired for traditionalism whether through genetics or traumatizing life circumstances, but the dreamers and artists and seekers who make the body of Christ a rich and beautiful space are not going to settle for unthoughtful, reactionary traditionalism. They’ve moved over to the ranks of the Nones, the Dones, and the Exiles.
What I want desperately is for the church to stop embracing the identity of a refuge for traditionalists who are frightened by the pace of change in our society. Its growth and its vitality over the past three decades have been firmly rooted in this identity as a refuge for people seeking black and white answers in a world of too much grey. Yes, it’s true that much of the church decline in the past decades have been progressives leaving the church, but what if that’s as much a result of culture war toxicity as it is a result of uncompelling liberal theology (which I’m not a fan of)? I don’t understand why so many evangelicals seem to value the evangelism of half of our country so little that it has zero influence on the hills they choose to die on.
The good news is that Jesus can save us from our shame and fear so that those who live under his mercy can act boldly to transform the world into a place where everyone belongs. The truth of the Bible could actually be very compelling to progressive young adults today were it not smothered by the wet blanket of heteropatriarchal ideology. It’s become impossible to imagine that Christianity ever could have been a source of movements like abolitionism, women’s suffrage, labor rights, or civil rights. But it was! Even fifty years ago. It’s just that now the loudest and most powerful voices in Christianity today are defined almost entirely by their opposition to feminism and queer identity.
So whatever happens with the senatorial special election in Alabama this December, I hope that men like Roy Moore and Donald Trump will serve God the same way that the Egyptian Pharaoh Rameses II did: as a means of exorcising tremendously sinful powers and strongholds. I was given a prophecy in 2012 that God would exorcise the American church of its legion of demons by casting them into a herd of pigs who are racing furiously into the lake of fire. This was all before a President Donald Trump was at all imaginable.
Well the pigs are racing today. Who will stampede into the lake with them? And who will wake up in a graveyard like the Gerasene demoniac with new wisdom and sanity to rebuild the church that we’ve all but ruined?
=============================
There may be links in the Original Article that have not been reproduced here.
=============================
Red Rules apply:
- Read the article.
- Comment on the article... Stay on topic... Be constructive.
- Be polite.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
487 visitors
Red Rules apply:
- Read the article.
- Comment on the article... Stay on topic... Be constructive.
- Be polite.
The topic is the situation of evangelicalism.
Interesting that you just posted this-- I was thinking about the same issue just yesterday.
Most Evangelicals are supporters of Moore as well others with similar political views. I was thinking that that may pose a delemma for many of them-- are they going to continue to support a person who is a pederast (and lies about it?).
BTW-- here's what the Speaker of The House (Paul Ryan) has said on the subject of Moore:
Paul Ryan says Moore should 'step aside,' allegations 'are credible'
Here's what the Speaker of The House (Paul Ryan) has said on the subject of Moore:
Paul Ryan says Moore should 'step aside,' allegations 'are credible'
The Republican Majority Leader of The Senate has also weighed in:
Mitch McConnell says Roy Moore 'not fit' to serve in the Senate, won't rule out expulsion option
Moore is just the latest in a series.
I can understand a pastor... if he's more interested in manipulation of his flock than in Christ's message... but I don't understand the flock. Are they sheep?
Please, Krishna... The topic is evangelicals, not Moore.
Since evangelicalism requires a one to convert and believe / have faith in Jesus Christ for salvation ... I feel as though in this day and age there is a cult'ish aspect emerging. Ones faith needs to be devout in order to be tested.
So many advancements have taken place in the United States (as well as elsewhere in the world) evangelicalism is pulling back, wanting to stay in the safe space of Faith thus making these advancements the ultimate destruction of the the Nation and the bringing on of the end times. When that faith is opposed, the main topic of discussion becomes belief / this is what I was taught therefore I believe.
Sexual deviance has been an age old problem within most organized religions .. it is unrealistic to believe perfection can be obtained, therefore so many deep dark secrets are internalized .. yet at some point will be acted upon.. [speculatively stated]
Even if I did not like dark chocolate - as soon as I was told I cannot have it, I would crave it.....
I do not know if these thoughts are considered the situation of evangelicalism or not ... but I believe that the more liberal things become the stronger religion becomes ... the harder the push back, the stronger the faith (?)
That's utterly insane. So it's probably right.
Personally, I try to be intellectually coherent. Evangelicals are not (as demonstrated by Biblical inerrancy), so it is very hard to follow their "thinking".
Look at same sex marriage, hell even birth control having to be covered by insurance ... the evangelicals have fallen all over themselves making a religious stand against these advancements in society / the Nation
I believe in religious freedoms, it is any and every ones right to believe what they believe - and to an extent I feel it needs to be respected .. yet things have become so convoluted regarding the role of religion, any religion, as it is not just evangelicals that lean to the extreme...
There are so many branches of each major faith, each holding a slightly different view/interpretation of the Bible as it affects religion as a whole - ones head might explode trying to keep all the thought processes straight!
As a young person growing up, my parents attended a very conservative christian church .. as my brother and I got older, mom switched us to a more charismatic church (I think in hopes of keeping our interest in religion growing) .. my brother embraced it - I saw far too much denial, in order to follow a book that provides all the answers, yet those answers are subject to differing interpretation of/by every Pastor that ever stood behind the pulpit...
I attended a bible study on the old testament - the Pastor lost me when he said Dinosaurs were made up in order to shake the faith of believers in Christ!!!
Yup.
Fundies must twist themselves into pretzels because they are trying to reconcile ideas that are irreconcilable. In your pastor's case, he has to square a 6000-year-old creation with a 100-million-year-old animal. So the pastor says God is a trickster who embedded ancient fossils when He created the world. And then the pastor must explain why God plays tricks. And then...
A rationalist laughs or weeps. A True Believer abandons logic.
As far as I am concerned, evangelicals have lost any respect I might have had for them. They have clearly shown that political power is more important than morals or decency. They have become the same Pharisees that Jesus found wanting. As for why these women waited, there are many reasons. I'm sure most felt that they wouldn't be believed, look what happened to Anita Hill. Just recently, it appears that women are getting the benefit of the doubt, so they try now. OTOH, what do these women gain? Nothing.
Have you ever accused the most powerful member of a community of a crime? It takes serious cojone's knowing the reaction you will endure.
This article is really one man’s opinion of Evangelicals and most likely appeals more to those that are not Evangelicals than those that consider themselves to be. Rarely do people get to vote for candidates that represent all of their views 100%. Most are not one issue voters. They will have to weigh all of the issues and vote for who ever does the best job of representing their views. I doubt many will be voting for the Democratic.
When you choose power over religion, can you even claim to be religious?"
Does not the power encompass the religion?
This whole thing reminds me of a western movie with the sheriff standing in front of the jail trying to hold back the mob who want get on with the hanging.
I wasn't for Roy Moore in the first place. I was for Mo Brooks, but I don't live in Alabama and I won't be voting there. He'll either win or lose the election. Seems the Establishment has done all it can to see that he loses and I don't blame them for reporting the stories if everything is on the level, but with so much corruption these days coming from the Establishment, I have lost all faith in them and realize how important this election is to them and the Conservatives in Congress. Notice I didn't say Republicans in Congress, because there is a difference.
What I find interesting is when Bob Menendez was accused of hiring underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic, this same Establishment came to his aid immediately. I assume he has been cleared of that, but I think he has been in court for 3 or 4 years now and as soon as he was accused of hiring underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic, the New York Times, The Washington Post, numerous Liberal sites and even the FBI went to bat for him right from the beginning of the accusations. With Roy Moore they took the exact opposite approach and started using the bat on him as soon as the first accusation came to light.
The Establishment has done everything they could do and spent millions in defeating the Conservative candidates in this election right from the beginning. They thought they had their candidate Luther Strange in a winning position, but he lost to Roy Moore. The Mitch McConnell Establishment has spent millions in defeating any Conservative Republican candidate other than Mitch McConnell's lapdog Luther Strange.
The same people who are for electing the President by Popular vote are some of the same people who are standing in front of the Sheriff wanting to get on with the hanging. The man hasn't had his day in court like Menendez has for several years at this point. Roy Moore and any other Republican candidate has had to fight the Establishment from the beginning from both sides of the isle.
One person receives the support of the Establishment and all their MSM outlets who most people see everyday of the week and the other person receives condemnation from them as soon as both of them are accused of sickening criminal acts.
I don't even agree with many of Roy Moore's ideas, but I do agree in an election the public can be influenced and to that extent the election results will bear that out, but so far all we have is accusations and hearsay and nothing else, except the way the Establishment acts in situations like this is always predictable.
So you'll agree that the presidential election was influenced by the russians? Anyway....
.
There is a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle.... Just one example. The right complained for 8 years that Obama golfed too much, but trump golfed more in his first 6 months than Obama did in his first 4 years and the right said not ONE word about it.
As to Roy Moore/Evangelicals? Is Moore guilty? Like most people. I don't know for sure, but the accusations do seem to be credible. If they are credible, Moore should step down, address the accusations and perhaps run at a later date if he is found not guilty. Evangelicals seem to be a fairly bigoted/racist group. Not all of them, to be sure, but a good portion of them. Kim Davis comes to mind. It seems odd to me that they use the bible to justify their hate since Jesus never hated anyone. Christianity has been twisted and corrupted, and I find that incredibility sad.
Please!
The seed has nothing whatsoever to do with Russia.
Please stay on topic.
As you are so fond of saying, "you didn't read all of my post".
The topic is the evangelical movement's response to immoral behavior by politicians whom they have previously supported.
Please stay on topic.
Derail - Mod please delete
Derail - Mod please delete
You said it all for me.
The voters of Alabama will decide on his election and I am one of them.
BTW.....when has any liberal had respect for Evangelicals ? So, how can they lose it when they never had it in the first place?
I actually did have respect for evangelicals, because I thought they were sincere, if misguided.
I find it shocking (and I do not use the word lightly) that a religious movement should be identified with a political movement.
Unless politics suddenly becomes angelic, the two movements cannot remain synchronized. Then the religious must either protest against the political, or lose its soul.
That's where evangelism is now.
I think evangelicals have always been profoundly hypocritical and capable of great cognitive dissonance. After all the Southern Baptist cult was founded to promote slavery and white supremacy.........and while they're still concerned about teenagers dancing they have no real problem with a guy in his 30s dating a young teenage girl.
As far as the political angle it was a very bad idea on both sides for the GOP to marry the Christian extremists, but now there's no easy way for them to divorce.
To its great credit the Southern Baptist leadership both admitted to and renounced their role in slavery and Jim Crow. I suspect they lost a lot of hard core racists from among their ranks and who have now regrouped in various nests of hatred and continue to advocate for their horrid ideas.
True.
You'd think that after going through the trauma of a180° turn once, they'd avoid getting flypapered into another similar case.
True up to a point. Note that after the terrorist attack in Charlottesville the SBC felt it was necessary to reiterate their 1995 denunciation of their founding principles and to more explicitly condemn white supremacy. But.....and this is a very big but.....they still allow racist churches to be SBC members. In contrast any gay-friendly church gets immediately kicked out of the SBC, especially if they perform a religious wedding for a same-sex couple. So they tolerate racists but not the churches which support equal rights.
This would be horrifically hypocritical. Do you have a source? An article somewhere? It would be an excellent seed.
I don't know that it's worth a seed. I really don't care what the SBC believes but it is revealing that they value hate more than love. Here's a thread from a few years ago where I discussed part of the issue (doctrinal autonomy regarding racist churches) with an SBC deacon who supports marriage equality. You can search within that on my alias but the entire thread is worthwhile.
As far as the SBC's views on same-sex marriage, they've repeatedly ejected gay-friendly churches, pastors and military chaplains over the issue.
And regarding their tolerance for racist churches, don't forget that was the SBC's base until very very recently. So I don't find it surprising at all that the SBC doesn't want to take a firm stand on that.
Rhyferys, you have the religious or Christians mixed up with the ideal Christian who doesn't take a bite without blessing it or the ideal Jihadist Muslim who carries his or her prayer rug around with him or her so they can spread it out 6 times a day. It's not that way. Most people who attend church may play golf afterwards or have a beer for their afternoon ballgame. Don't get the idea all this talk about Christians means everyone is a fanatical religious zealot Hell, they may have the smell of alcohol on their breath from partying the night before or they may attend church, eat dinner with family, but they aren't sitting with their Bibles open every moment of the day.
I think the thing they are protesting by supporting Roy Moore has more to do with trial by media rather than trial by jury. It doesn't have anything to do with religion even though it's the perfect time for those who love to use Alinsky's rule # 4: Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”.
When they see Bob Menendez get accused of hiring underage prostitutes while in The Dominican Republic and The Washington Post (who went out of their way to make these accusations public) go to bat for him the first day he was accused of hiring underage prostitutes, The New York Times went to bat for him immediately, all the Liberal websites went to bat for him immediately and even the FBI went to bat for him and then see the same group of people start using the bat on Roy Moore who has only been accused of committing crimes, no worse than what Menendez was accused of being treated the way he has been treated. Menendez has been in court for at least 3 years it seems, although I do believe they found a way to stop looking at the underage prostitutes and after awhile with the obvious difference in the way the two have been treated these people aren't thinking about getting into heaven, they're thinking they are getting a raw deal and they are.
It's quite funny to hear someone say they have lost all respect for Evangelicals. You don't have to have any respect for them. I don't think they care whether you respect them or not and if you do what Roy Moore has been accused of doing to one of their daughters, you'd better look out for Daddy or one of her brothers and the last thing on their mind will be God.
So get over this hypocritical Christians and all this other BS.
Now the media has publicized a pretty good case against Roy Moore in my opinion. They testimonies of a couple of the girls, especially that last one with the yearbook is pretty convincing. I don't blame the media for publishing anything they can to prevent a pedophile from becoming a Senator, but I would expect the same treatment from them for the other sexual predators as well.
So get over this hypocritical Christians and all this other BS.
I may lean right, but I can see North Carolina from my boat in the Atlantic Ocean unlike Roy Moore who is too far right, but if that is what the people of Alabama want, then he is their candidate and I believe they should make the decision or Roy Moore should make it for them, but not any of us or any of the other news sites or papers.
E.A A twisting of the word " Love " is rather interesting, since when is it " Love " to inflict suffering and potentially Death, with the spread of pathogens, what a " weird weird WEIRD " World we have created! ( Do not Blame Evolution for MAN/Woman Stupidity )
Skrekk, don't allow prejudices and hate displace your normally warm and loving personality.
Thanks for the links.I'll see what can be put together.
Skrekk,
I've just read through the two articles, and especially the excellent conversation following Rev Morgan's piece.
Our society has come a very long way. Rev Morgan's piece feels almost quaint, rather like reading the arguments for and against declaring independence in the 1770s. I know that for some the debate is still vibrant, but society as a whole has moved on. The conversation was very helpful in understanding SBC dynamics.
I'm frustrated by the lack of follow-up on the ThinkProgress article. Google returns nothing later than the exclusion. The church itself is still functioning. The website is more "pro" than most. The pastor is the same. The message of inclusion is very strong.
WTF are you talking about?
I don't think he even knows. Skirting the CoC [ph]
I don't really keep track of what Southern Baptists do (nor do I want to) on a church by church basis. That's why I limited my comment to just those two admissions and apologies. It doesn't surprise me in the least that avid racism still exists throughout the churches at the local level.
So, you're happy to accept hypocrites. I am not. Why bother with all the bs when you don't intend on doing it anyway? In the end, why should I respect hypocrites, possibly my earlier giving of respect was wrong.
Al Sharpton? Jessie Jackson? Both refer to themselves as 'Reverend'. I'm sure you've heard of them....at least one of them tried to become president by wooing democrats......
Note that Morgan is in a very small liberal minority of the SBC and essentially in the Jimmy Carter camp of Baptists. There's a whole history there with the SBC becoming more and more progressive until the mid to late 1970s when the leadership was taken over by extremists. That was about when the SBC president famously said “God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew”. So most of the liberal members left and that's partly why the SBC is such an extremist cult today. The other reason of course is the political shift between the two parties over issues of race, labor rights, etc. That's why the SBC is both deep red today and no longer a labor rights advocate like it was for many decades. SBC members over a certain age seem to fall into one camp or the other, but the SBC itself faces a demographic problem since so many young folks are leaving due to the anti-LGBT policies.
.
You'll find the same problem on both the mixed-race and same-sex marriage issues because the SBC affiliation of the particular bigoted church in question usually isn't reported, nor are expulsions from the SBC normally reported in the national press. Also the associations to the SBC are often through a local or regional group like the "Madison Baptist Association" in Alabama, or a church might describe itself as independent Baptist despite being an SBC member. Some won't even post their affiliation on their website due to the negative rep of the SBC which is why the SBC has been considering changing its name.
Alabama (these links are about one church but several have been expelled recently):
California:
Texas:
.
This comment in the al.com link above discusses the difference between the traditional Baptist view of doctrinal autonomy and where the SBC is now:
.
On the mixed-race marriage issue, note that Southern Baptists were the state officials in both the infamous 1965 ruling in Virginia v Loving and the 2009 refusal by a Louisiana justice of the peace to marry a mixed-race couple.
Am I right to understand that the essential shift is from decentralized autonomy to centralized authoritarianism?
Previously, the Convention announced general policy, which each congregation might accept or refuse. Now, a congregation that refuses is excluded, despite the fundamental principle of "freedom".
At the same time, Convention leaders call on adherents to support authoritarian politicians.
Cognitive dissonance...
Good links
That's my take on it, and it's consistent given the SBC's ideological shift to the extreme right. They still pay lip service to doctrinal autonomy but violate that when it comes to gender and sex-related issues.
It's also interesting from an historical perspective where the core idea of secular government originated with Baptist Roger Williams who founded Rhode Island, and it's why Judaism was able to flourish there during the colonial era. Baptists were many of the plaintiffs in the early Establishment cases, and today advocacy groups like Americans United still have a number of Baptist and Southern Baptist board members.
But then we have the more recent history of the SBC and other evangelical churches which explicitly advocate that the state enforce their sharia laws against gays, women, Muslims and mixed-race couples. An Islamophobe and theocratic Southern Baptist like Roy Moore fits in perfectly with that, as do his closeted racist views (he's hosted meetings for the white supremacist "League of the South" while coyly denouncing racism in other venues). In fact Moore's so-called attorney, Trenton Garmon, has been caught making blatantly racist comments in just the past few days:
I also wonder whether the very high tolerance Southern Baptists have shown for Moore's predatory behavior is related to the profound misogyny inherent in the SBC's ideology? They still don't allow women to be pastors or have any position of authority over men in the cult. I can see why that was the last straw for Jimmy Carter because the SBC's 2000 update to their guidelines doubled down on the misogyny & homophobia and codified it.
Side note....one of my neighbors here in the great white north is a Baptist and he's always careful to say "....just not that kind of Baptist."
That's a fascinating / terrifying idea!
From the F&M: "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."
That's... amazing. Women held inferior status two thousand years ago, so we must not allow them anything more today. Amazing...
Yep, and while that had been their doctrine since the beginning I think what upset Carter was that they codified it in 2000 rather than opening a way for progress like most other non-Catholic cults have done. And the way they codified the family and pastoral requirements effectively dismissed women, gays and trans folks from having any role in the SBC.
By the way have you seen these?
Uh.... right...
Alabama, you got the weight on your shoulders
That's breaking your back
Your Cadillac, has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track
Please... The topic is the evangelicals' quandary. Moore is only an example. The Republican Party is off-topic.
Not trying to be a jerk here? But if you didn't want people talking about Moore, maybe you should not have put him in the title of the article. Just sayin..
It's a seed. The Original Article's title must be conserved.
The problem is that many members don't read the seed, just the title...
Not only his name in the title, but the big picture of him in the write up, then he discusses him in his article. And then, he deletes any right wing thought on Moore, but lets posts attacking Moore stand, it's just a bunch of hogwash, he's found a way to make his echo chamber is all.
Where did I mention or even refer to the Republican party? You're acting like a child. Just close your seed, take your ball, and go home.
Your post with "Alabama" came up immediately after Skrekk's "Alabama GOP". I assumed you were riffing off that. If not please accept my apology... and then I will add that Alabama isn't the subject, either (although your post is kinda cool as stand-alone poetry).
You haven't been here very long, so perhaps you haven't yet had the pleasure of watching your seeds/articles be ruined by intentional off-topic-derailing. We have specialists on NT. One of the preferred derail techniques is:
- post off-topic,
- get deleted,
- try to shift the topic to the way the seed/article is Moderated.
Example just above .
I don't put Red Rules on most political seeds. This seed is NOT political. It is about the Southern Baptist Convention. Unfortunately, many members don't bother to read beyond the headline.
The song was about the culture in Alabama, which plays a role in the hypocrisy you speak of. That's a little sketchy, perhaps. I tried to stay on topic with my next post, below, let me know if I succeeded. I have never, in my short time here, seen anyone try to control an article as narrowly as you are trying to with this one. You're going way overboard in my opinion.
My handling of what is or is not on-topic is... off-topic... Could we please stay on-topic. Thank you.
A few CoC sections that you are abusing and not complying with.
"3. Authors/seeders are expected to foster healthy, open discussions. They are responsible for the content they submit and must exercise impartiality if/when reporting abuse. If at any point in a discussion, an author cannot moderate, that author may close the article to comments. The author has the right to ask members to stay on topic and not disrupt the article."
"6. Please keep the names of articles and seeds accurate and non-inflammatory. Headlines must not be misleading and should fairly accurately reflect the content of the seeded or authored article."
You should, according to # 3 of the CoC, close this article as you, the author, can't stay on topic either.
Where, in the article, does it say it is about the Southern Baptist Convention? No where in the article does it even mention the Southern Baptist Convention.
The article specifically addresses the title given it, yet you refuse to discuss or allow discussion on the actual content of the thread about lambasting Moore and Trump, which the original author of the article discusses. Your links, which you did not include (with a caveat) discuss many of the church's failings/advances - but we are not given the links to discuss, we are/were given an article that specifically discusses Moore, Trump, Clinton, Ziegler, Reagan - but NOT the Southern Baptist Convention.
Off-topic. Mod please delete.
Off-topic. Mod ple1se delete.
Answer the question or is it too deep?
Bob, I'm going to leave the comment, because it has bearing on your abuse of the RBR. You have chosen an article about Moore, and narrowed the discussion to Evangelicals only. You are allowing comments about Evangelicals and Moore, yet you want any other comment about Moore deleted as off topic.
Now, you are within the letter of the RBR policy, but you are far from the spirit of the policy. If you continue this type of behavior with future seeds, they will be closed.
E.A Question::
In the Body of the seeded article is this :: " The allegations are that a man in his early 30s dated teenage girls. Even the Washington Post report says that he never had sexual intercourse with any of the girls and never attempted sexual intercourse.”"
Who is " He "? and since " He " is sited, then does it not follow that any one that wants to expand on the " He " is within the RBR?
Bob,
YOU may have wanted to talk about the evangelcals,
BUT you posted a seed about Roy Moore.....
I did something very similar once before and everyone jumped all over me and Perrie's ruling was that the objected to content was in the title and specifically in the article seeded also, it is fair game, on topic.
You should have been more careful in picking an article more in line of support for your discussion point.
Bruce is right on the money...... Given what Perrie said to me on my article.... (I finally would up deleting the seed cause everyone wanted to take it where I didn't want to go)
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.....
E.A Basted or Boiled?
You apparently did not read the seed.
You are participating here in a blatantly partisan manner... which does not surprise me. The preferred method for destroying a seed/article is to post off-topic, and then when deletion is requested, derail onto meta. You have done precisely that.
You have previously "covered" my Red Rules seeds with your own version, and here you interrupt the conversation to recommend to others that they do the same. So... someone has done as you (Moderator
) suggested.
Are you captain of Team Red?
The first of my Red Rules is "Read the article". Anyone who does so knows that the subject is evangelicals, with Moore being just an example. So... Those who insist on Moore either did not read the seed, or are acting in bad faith.
Lets see, just the first two paragraphs of your articles has Moore's name FOUR times! Mentions T-Rump twice, and even Reagan once. (doesn't sound like a religious article to me more like a political one) It even in the first two paragraphs discusses the democrats chances of picking up senate votes in the next midterm election cycle. Other paragraphs discuss the balance on the Supreme Court and other such things.....
How you can claim that the article is only about evangelicals is beyond me........
Like I said, Red Meat.....
Rinse, repeat.
The answer is that the personal morality of a politician is not nearly as relevant and important as the positions the politician takes on the issues. Evangelicals consider abortion to be 'murdering babies.' If a politician who gropes and sexually assaults women also fights against what the evangelical considers to be the systemic murder of babies, it's perfectly understandable, from their point of view, to support the pervert politician. This is especially true if the politician is running against someone who is pro-choice. [pro-murder to the evangelical] I hope this is on topic!
All of the GOP candidates were anti-abortion, so that was not a differentiator in the evangelicals' choice of Trump.
They plebiscited him for some other reason. My guess would be his "anti-others" stances, anti-Islam, anti-Latino, anti-Black, ...
This shocks me, since the essence of Christ's message is inclusion. Evangelical "Christians" make their political choices for reasons that are opposite Christ's teachings.
Oooh, nice ten cent word!
Pretty hard for many Christians to vote for anyone who actively promotes murder. It's one of the big ten.
It was really a simply choice in that regard.
For those who don’t read before Replying, I'll repeat:
As for ten-cent words... Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
That clearly wasn't the point i was making ..... as to the rest.
Off topic, moderator please delete
Allow me to point out to the new members, and old, that Bob has deemed this a Red Box Rules article. That means that Bob can set the tone and topic of the article as he see's fit. He can make it broad, or as is the case here paper thin. Stray from that, and he can have your comments deleted.
This is a feature of the RBR. Bob has erred in that he did not ID the article in the Headline as RBR, but that is being corrected.
When commenting here, you must follow Bob's demands for topic discussion. However, if you find this type of article too stifling, you may reseed the original article for a more broad discussion.
Nothing I posted is OPINION. It's all contained in the article concerning RBR. And the comment is directed at the new members who may not understand the RBR. It will remain.
Why do you think I haven't participated.....
Red meat articles seldom ever amount to much...
evangelical christianity failed 'the test' long ago when they demanded the Money Changers to petition Pilate to crucify Him.