Speaking of Power-Hungry Hypocrites

Another bleated Christmas post, this one via Joe.My.God: T

he Christian Post reports:

The Satanic Temple of Illinois displayed a sculpture of an infant version of Baphomet in the state Capitol rotunda in Springfield Tuesday, which can be seen as “just another very sad attempt” by the devil to destroy Christmas, Graham told Fox News today.

As Joe points out in his post, the Satanic Temple is satire, generated by a group of atheists. Their website says specificially that Satan does not exist. According to Joe, Graham knows this -- but you can bet he's not going to let his followersin on the secret.

On Morality

I ranacross this post by Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist and thought it was worth commenting on. For some reason, I can't copy and paste a quote, so I suggest you follow the link and read the post, or at least the first part of it, before reading my comments.

I've thought about the issue of morality a lot recently, and come to the conclusion hat our core moral value is a product of our existence as social primates: we take care of each other, because that benefits out group, and what beneits our group benefits the individuals in the group.

This core moral imperative is one that's shared by all religions, at least, all that I've run across. It's when you have priesthoods trying to control behaviors that it starts to get murky. (Think Leviticus, which in my opinion has nothing to do with any sort of real morality -- it's a tool for controlling the community.)

So the enext time yoou hear some preacher fulminating on the imoorality of such ahd such (send money), ask them if they are devoting resources to feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, comforting the afflicated.

The Quiet Part Out Loud

This story is from yeseterdaay, soI'm playing a little bit of catch-up. Via Joe.My.God.:

In his latest journey to the edge of extreme, Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser and felon Michael Flynn called on Saturday for a single religion in America.

“If we are going to have one nation under God — which we must — we have to have one religion,” Flynn said in San Antonio at a stop for the far-right “ReAwaken America” tour. “One nation under God, and one religion under God,” he added.

Such a vision is completely contrary to the Constitution’s guarantee of Freedom of Religion, and the separation of church and state

This, of course,is what the "religious" right has been aiming for since Reagan, and they've been very clever about it -- goig after local and sstate governments, stcking the courts and then puysing their "religious liberty" arguments as far as they could. (Consider the assault on local school boards and schools in light of stories such as this one and this one.

And lest yoou have any doubts, it's not just Christianity, it's their own nasty brand of "Christianity".

Image du Jour

With thanks to commenter duke of gibbon at Friendly Atheist:

The article is worth reading, on how evangelical"Christians" are really just power-hungry hypocriets. Thinking back, it occurs to me that the "Moral Majority", which Reagan's handlers enlisted to boost his election chances (Tail Wags Dog! Film at 11) was never a religious movement. It was always a political movement. And evangelical "Christianity" is still a political movement.

We Knew This Was Coming: Religion Über Alles

THe first "religious freedom" case decided by the new, ultra-conservative Supreme Court went as we should have expected:

In a preview of how much damage a conservative majority on the Supreme Court can cause, the justices ruled 5-4 late last night that religious institutions do not have to abide by a public health order in New York limiting how many people can gather in one place. . . .

Here’s the basic backstory: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an Executive Order earlier this year that created limits to how many people can gather in one spot depending on how serious the COVID outbreak was in that region. That was a responsible, science-based decision. In the most dangerous areas, that meant a maximum of 10 people could attend a religious event at one time, even with precautions, while slightly less dangerous areas allowed for a capacity of 25.

There were, however, exceptions to that rule. For example, more people could be inside a grocery store (with masks) since they’re not hanging around and chatting with each other. You’re in, you’re out, it’s essential.

The Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and a coalition of synagogues, individuals, and an Orthodox Jewish group sued Cuomo, saying the restrictions interfered with their religious freedom by limiting their attendance. They also said it was unfair that the “essential” exceptions to the rule didn’t apply to them.

Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberal wing, but super-Catholic Amy Cony Barrett voted predicatbly.

This follows a trend over recent years of conservatives, particularly "Christians", pushing the "religious freedom" argument as far as it will go. The courts have treaded gingerly -- too ginerly, in my opinion -- in allowing exceptions to the law, notably in regard to anti-discrimination laws. Here we see the beginnings of a wider application of the Free Exercise Clause, which is that they've been working toward.

There's much more at the link -- Justice GOrsuch wrote the majority opinion, which Justice Sotomayor eviscerated in her dissent. It's worth reading the whole article. (And the NYT article linked in the first paragraph of the quote has even more detail.)

Needless to say, the decision is being slammed by just about everyone.

It seems to me that these cases are really very simple: all rights have limits. So, if you want to do business with the general public, you have to abide by non-discrimination laws, no matter your religious beliefs. And Jesus had something to say about praying in public (Matthew 6:5-6):

5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

The name of the case, which no one seems to want to include in their stories, is Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo.

The Pope Puts His Foot in It

I'm doing a little catching up on this one (it's been one of those weeks). You may have run across a story on the Pope's comments on legalizing civil unions for same-sex couples:

Pope Francis is calling for same-sex couples to be “legally” protected by civil union laws.

“Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family,” the Pope says in a new documentary, Catholic News Agency reports. “They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.”

Later, Pope Francis defended his remarks in the film, saying, “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered.”

As you might imagine, the reaction has been less than positive among the "faithful".

Franklin Graham's response (not that anyone asked him to respond) is noteworthy for its lack of -- well, call it Christian compassoin:

Graham sees the Catholic Church’s new regard for supporting LGBTQ people in law – not religion – as so dangerous to the Christian faith he says it would mean Jesus died for nothing.

“For Pope Francis to attempt to normalize homosexuality is to say that Holy Scriptures are false, that our sins really don’t matter, and that we can continue living in them,” Graham told his nine million Facebook followers. “If that were true, then Jesus Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection wouldn’t have been needed. The cross would have been for nothing.”

Apparently, in Graham's eyes the whole point of Jesus' life was to deny gays and lesbians the right to live with dignity and self-respect -- to be treated like normal human beings.

The response from the Catholic hierarchy is no less scathing. Here's Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano:

Bergoglio is a candidate for ‘pontiff’ of a new religion, with new commandments, new morals, and new liturgies. He distances himself from the Catholic religion and from Christ, and consequently from the Hierarchy and the faithful, disavowing them and leaving them at the mercy of the globalist dictatorship. Those who do not adapt to this new code will therefore be ostracized by society and by this new ‘church’ as a foreign body.

Vigano doesn't seem to have twigged to the fact that the "faithful" are already being ostracized. (And as Joe notes in his comment, Vigano uses the Pope's birth name, not "Pope Francis" or any of the honorifics normally used to refer to the pontiff.

This one's choice. From Bishop Thomas Tobin:

“The Holy Father’s apparent support for the recognition of civil unions for same-sex couples needs to be clarified.

“The Pope’s statement clearly contradicts what has been the long-standing teaching of the Church about same-sex unions.

“The Church cannot support the acceptance of objectively immoral relationships. Individuals with same-sex attraction are beloved children of God and must have their personal human rights and civil rights recognized and protected by law.

“However, the legalization of their civil unions, which seek to simulate holy matrimony, is not admissible.”

The part about "objectively immoral" relationships is, as far as I'm concerned, a real howler. Given that the basic moral dictum is "take care of each other", all these arbitrary rules cherry-picked from the tribal taboos of Bronze Age Middle-Eastern nomads can hardly claim to be any sort of standard for moral behavior. (In that vein, Tobin is credibly accused of ignoring child sexual abuse complaints when he was auxiliary bishop of Pittsburgh.)

There are other resonses, of course. What's most noteworthy of the lot is that their reference is to Catholic dogma and not to the teaching of Christ -- who had nothing at all to say about homosexuality or same-sex relationships.

Commentary du Jour

With thanks to commenter Steven B at Joe.My.God.

It's not just the Episcopal church Trump is appropriating for his re-election campaign (via Towleroad):

.@WashArchbishop Gregory has released a statement on the president's visit to the Saint John Paul II National Shrine.https://t.co/46g9Ac8Wy5 pic.twitter.com/d1wERIoLVp

— DC Archdiocese (@WashArchdiocese) June 2, 2020

Read It and Weep

Pew has done another survey. This one should give you pause:

Today, about half of Americans (49%) say the Bible should have at least “some” influence on U.S. laws, including nearly a quarter (23%) who say it should have “a great deal” of influence, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. Among U.S. Christians, two-thirds (68%) want the Bible to influence U.S. laws at least some, and among white evangelical Protestants, this figure rises to about nine-in-ten (89%).

Here's the breakdown:

It gets worse:

All survey respondents who said the Bible should have at least “some” influence on U.S. laws were asked a follow-up question: When the Bible and the will of the people conflict, which should have more influence on U.S. laws?

The more common answer to this question is that the Bible should take priority over the will of the people. This view is expressed by more than a quarter of all Americans (28%). About one-in-five (19%) say the Bible should have at least some influence but that the will of the people should prevail.

Two religious groups stand out for being especially supportive of biblical influence in legislation, even if that means going against the will of the American people: Two-thirds of white evangelical Protestants (68%) say the Bible should take precedence over the people, and half of black Protestants say the same. Among Catholics (25%) and white Protestants who do not identify as born-again or evangelical (27%), only about a quarter share this perspective.

I've been saying for a while that evangelical Christians simply don't believe in democracy -- their whole religious philosophy is founded on authoritarianism.

However, all is not lost:

At the other end of the spectrum, there’s broad opposition to biblical influence on U.S. laws among religiously unaffiliated Americans, also known as religious “nones,” who identify as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.” Roughly three-quarters in this group (78%) say the Bible should hold little to no sway, including 86% of self-described atheists who say the Bible should not influence U.S. legislation at all. Two-thirds of U.S. Jews, as well, think the Bible should have not much or should have no influence on laws.

One thing that tends to get glossed over, if mentioned at all, in reporting on the doings of the "religious" right, is that they're a minority. Unfortunately, over the past couple of generations, the Republicans have managed to put too many of them into positions of influence.

Time to clean house.

Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Today in Disgusting People -- A Twofer

Franklin Graham and his minions move to the head of the line:

The group building a makeshift tent hospital for coronavirus patients in Manhattan’s Central Park is asking all volunteers to read and follow a “statement of faith,” including rejections of same-sex marriage and abortion.

As the toll of the outbreak on New York continues to increase dramatically, Mount Sinai Health System has been working with the relief group Samaritan’s Purse to open a 68-bed respiratory care unit that will begin treating patients as early as Tuesday.

Praised by Mayor Bill de Blasio (D), the tent facility is one of several efforts to expand medical capacity across the city: A 350-bed facility is set to be erected at the Queens tennis arena home of the U.S. Open, while a temporary hospital has been constructed inside a Manhattan convention center.

Yet unlike the other projects, Samaritan’s Purse has asked all volunteers working at the field hospital — including health workers — to pledge to 11 declarations, Gothamist reports, including one that defines marriage as “exclusively the union of one genetic male and one genetic female” and another that says “human life is sacred from conception to its natural end.”

The Christian group was founded by Franklin Graham, a minister with a famous preacher as a father and a history of making incendiary comments, and has specifically sought out Christian medical staff for the tent hospital.

I'm surprised they haven't demanded that patients sign the same pledge.

And then there's this:

As some local lawmakers questioned whether LGBTQ patients would receive equal treatment, a spokesperson for de Blasio told Gothamist that the field hospital must adhere to Mount Sinai’s nondiscrimination policy.

“Our record on human rights is clear; and we are confident that the joint effort by Mt. Sinai and Samaritan’s Purse will save New Yorkers’ lives while adhering to the values we hold dear by providing care to anyone who needs it, regardless of background,” she wrote to the news blog.

I think it's telling that the statement came from de Blasio's office and not Samaritan's Purse.

Things like this are, I think, one of the elements that differentiate the loudly religious from normal people: they can't even follow the teachings of Jesus (see Matthew 25:31-46 for a good summary) without attaching strings, on the order of "you must belief what we believe" -- even to volunteer to help those in need.

Add in Jerry Falwell, Jr., who decided to re-open Liberty University:

As Liberty University’s spring break was drawing to a close this month, Jerry Falwell Jr., its president, spoke with the physician who runs Liberty’s student health

service about the rampaging coronavirus.

“We’ve lost the ability to corral this thing,” Dr. Thomas W. Eppes Jr. said he told Mr. Falwell. But he did not urge him to close the school. “I just am not going to be so presumptuous as to say, ‘This is what you should do and this is what you shouldn’t do,’” Dr. Eppes said in an interview.

So Mr. Falwell — a staunch ally of President Trump and an influential voice in the evangelical world — reopened the university last week, igniting a firestorm. As of Friday, Dr. Eppes said, nearly a dozen Liberty students were sick with symptoms that suggested Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus. Three were referred to local hospital centers for testing. An additional eight were told to self-isolate.

What did anyone expect?

Once again,that unique combination of arrogance and self-importance that marks the blatantly religious.

Quote of the Day

Embedded in a post from Digby about Trump's campaign rally at an evangelical mega-church in Florida was this choise tidbit:

“I really believe he was sent to us,” she said. “From one to ten, he’s a ten. He lives in a Christian world and we needed a strong Christian, somebody who is not afraid. He speaks for us, has the guts and courage to speak what we want to say. His actions, his intentions, are Christian.”

Given what "Christianity" has become in the last forty years, I can't dispute her -- but this is a case of "that doesn't mean what she thinks it means".

And I'm sure in her daily life she passes as a perfectly normal, sane person. To any rational, moral person, she's obviously delusional. But she votes -- which in itself should scare you.

And do read the whole post -- it really looks as though the Trump team is running scared.

Religious Freedom!!1!

This is about the most bone-headed thing I've seen coming from the "religious" right:

Ohio lawmakers are weighing in on how public schools can teach things like evolution.

The Ohio House on Wednesday passed the "Student Religious Liberties Act." Under the law, students can't be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs.

Instead, students are graded on substance and relevance.

Every Republican in the House supported the bill. It now moves to the Republican-controlled Senate.

OK -- it's a given that Republicans, especially the evangelical variety, don't like education anyway, especially science -- which relies more than most fields on critical thinking and evidence -- but to adopt something like this is far out, even for them.

I wonder who will have standing to sue.

There's more detail here.

Via Joe.My.God., who notes that the bill's sponsor, Rep. Tim Ginter, "is primarily known for anti-abortion stunts such as reading bible verses aloud and demanding that they be made into law."

Can you say "anti-American"?

Today's Must-Read: Am I Surprised?

Not really: The "Christian" right is turning Americans off to religion:

A few weeks ago, the Democratic National Committee formally acknowledged what has been evident for quite some time: Nonreligious voters are a critical part of the party’s base. In a one-page resolution passed at its annual summer meeting, the DNC called on Democratic politicians to recognize and celebrate the contributions of nonreligious Americans, who make up one-third of Democrats. In response, Robert Jeffress, a Dallas pastor with close ties to Trump, appeared on Fox News, saying the Democrats were finally admitting they are a “godless party.”

This was hardly a new argument. Conservative Christian leaders have been repeating some version of this claim for years, and have often called on religious conservatives and Republican politicians to defend the country against a growing wave of liberal secularism. And it’s true that liberals have been leaving organized religion in high numbers over the past few decades. But blaming the Democrats, as Jeffress and others are wont to do, doesn’t capture the profound role that conservative Christian activists have played in transforming the country’s religious landscape, and the role they appear to have played in liberals’ rejection of organized religion.

It's beyond hope that someone as arrogant and self-absorbed as Robert Jeffress would confess to being the problem, if he could even entertain the notion. However:

Social scientists were initially reluctant to entertain the idea that a political backlash was somehow responsible, because it challenged long-standing assumptions about how flexible our religious identities really are. Even now, the idea that partisanship could shape something as personal and profound as our relationship with God might seem radical, or maybe even a little offensive.

But when two sociologists, Michael Hout and Claude Fischer, began to look at possible explanations for why so many Americans were suddenly becoming secular, those conventional reasons couldn’t explain why religious affiliation started to fall in the mid-1990s. Demographic and generational shifts also couldn’t fully account for why liberals and moderates were leaving in larger numbers than conservatives. In a paper published in 2002, they offered a new theory: Distaste for the Christian right’s involvement with politics was prompting some left-leaning Americans to walk away from religion.

I suspect that it has something to do with the fact that most Americans at least in theory believe in traditional American values: equality under the law, welcoming immigrants (and unless you're a pureblooded American Indian, your ancestors were immigrants -- although, taking a somewhat longer view, every human being in the Americas is descended from immigrants, given that there were no humans here until about 15,000 years ago), generosity, a government that actually does provide for the common welfare, those sorts of things, all of which are diametrically opposed to the Republican-evangelical program.

Do take the time to read the whole report -- it's pretty interesting, if a little soft-pedaled.

Via The New Civil Rights Movement.

Today in Disgusting People

I realize that the last post was on the same theme, but it seems as though disgusting people make the news a lot more than they used to. This story is really appalling on a number of fronts:

Sean Cormie, 23, came out as gay in the spring. Since then, he said his family has asked him to go to church and bring his partner, Gary Gardner.

On Sunday, Sept. 8, the two joined family and friends for a service at a church Cormie had already attended many times.

“I wanted to go to church to make my mom proud and make her happy,” Cormie said.

The service was normal but at the end, something unexpected happened. Cormie said as 12 to 15 congregants circled around Gardner and himself, their prayer growing louder. Meanwhile, they said the pastor began making statements against homosexuality.

“‘It’s a sin, it’s an abomination, you need to realize, wake up, and see it for a sin,’” Cormie said.

The prayer got louder and louder until the two men felt so humiliated, they got up to leave. But Gardner was shuffled out of the building alone.

"They hold me down, pin me down, and I’m crying, and the Holy Spirit just comes through me, and they keep speaking in tongues, praying over me." Cormie said he was even punched in the face. "I was just crying 'mercy, mercy.'"

First off, the behavior of the congregation is beyond reprehensible. Fortunately, Cormie had sense enough to file a police report: this is assault, at the very least, and probably a few other crimes on top of that. Of course, he's now being threatened.

And it really looks as though his parents set him up.

What stopped me cold is this:

He said he does believe homosexuality is a sin, but he can't be forced to be something he's not.

"I’m full fledged gay, you can’t change it," Cormie said. "It’s my nature. I’m born that way, so let it be."

He obviously has conflicts. I really think he should drop this church -- there are denominations that are accepting of homosexuality, if he insists on remaining a Christian. There's no need to put yourself through this kind of torture for the sake of religion. He should also do what so many of the rest of us have had to do: if your family can't accept you as you are, make your own family. And get some professional counseling.

I have a lot of objections to Christianity, particularly those fundamentalist sects that are more grounded in the Old Testament than in the Gospels. (Which includes the most prominent "Christian" spokesmen so much in the news these days -- they really are nothing more than power-hungry hypocrites.) And the doctrine of Original Sin is thoroughly repellent -- it's nothing more than a tool to enforce obedience through guilt. The idea that the way you were born is sinful springs from that, and it paints a picture of a thoroughly disgusting idea of the divine.

Via Joe.My.God.

Saturday Science: Darwin Who?

A new poll from Gallup that has some sobering implications:

Forty percent of U.S. adults ascribe to a strictly creationist view of human origins, believing that God created them in their present form within roughly the past 10,000 years. However, more Americans continue to think that humans evolved over millions of years -- either with God's guidance (33%) or, increasingly, without God's involvement at all (22%).

The latest findings, from a June 3-16 Gallup poll, have not changed significantly from the last reading in 2017. However, the 22% of Americans today who do not believe God had any role in human evolution marks a record high dating back to 1982. This figure has changed more than the other two have over the years and coincides with an increasing number of Americans saying they have no religious identification.

My first reaction is to think that this is a result of the "dumbing of America" due to the right's attacks on public education, but if you look at the timeline, the only significant change is the increase in those who believe that man evolved without divine interference.

And of course, it's tied to religious belief and education:

As has been the case historically, Americans' views on evolution and creationism vary sharply based on their religious identification, how often they attend church and their education level.

Majorities of Protestants (56%) and those who attend church at least once a week (68%) believe that God created humans in their present form. Meanwhile, 59% of those who do not identify with any religion believe in evolution without any intervention from God.

Those with a college degree are much more likely to believe in evolution than creationism, while the opposite is true of those without a college degree. However, even among adults with a college degree, more believe God had a role in evolution than say it occurred without God.

Unfortunately, the report doesn't include any information on methodology -- where and how the survey was taken, the actual questions asked (particularly a more precise identification of religious affiliation: were there any responses from non-Christians? I.e., Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Apparently, Gallup believes there is only one religion in this country.)

I will note, however, that according this survey, the more Christian you are, the less likely you are to live in the real world.

Empty Pews

The decline in church membership continues:

In a shift that stands to impact both religion and politics, survey data suggests that the percentage of Americans who don’t affiliate with any specific religious tradition is now roughly the same as those who identify as evangelical or Catholic.

According to newly released General Social Survey data analyzed by Ryan P. Burge of Eastern Illinois University, Americans claiming “no religion” — sometimes referred to as “nones” because of how they answer the question “what is your religious tradition?” — now represent about 23.1 percent of the population, up from 21.6 percent in 2016. People claiming evangelicalism, by contrast, now represent 22.5 percent of Americans, a slight dip from 23.9 percent in 2016.

That makes the two groups statistically tied with Catholics (23 percent) as the largest religious — or nonreligious — groupings in the country.

Some context vis-a-vis other groups:

The 2018 GSS was just released and there's some big news. Those of "no religion" (23.1%) are statistically the same size as evangelicals (22.8%). There was also a small resurgence of mainline Protestants, while Catholics are down 3% in the last four years. pic.twitter.com/uiyDSe7M6f

— Ryan Burge 📊 (@ryanburge) March 20, 2019

Two points: evangelicals are a major portion of Trump's base, and they along with Catholics are the two most stridently anti-gay factions in the country.

Read the article -- it's fairly brief and pretty interesting.

Via Joe.My.God.

Parting thought:

Today in Disgusting People, Part II: Rewriting History Edition

Robert Jeffress is perhaps one of the most shameless "Christian" hucksters out there. Today he's come out (again) in support of our own fascist dictator wannabe, citing the rise of Hitler:

“We cannot afford to be like German Christians who, in the rise of the evil reign of Adolf Hitler, just remained neutered. They remained silent. And you saw what happened there,” Jeffress said. “I think there’s a similar wave of godlessness that is rising in our country right now and we must push back against that tide.”

What Jeffress refuses to note, of course, is that Hitler rose to power with the support of the German churches. In fact, he made a big deal about how his movement was all about religious freedom:

"We demand the freedom of all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not jeopardize the state's existence or conflict with the manners and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The Party as such upholds the point of view of a positive Christianity without tying itself confessionally to any one confession. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit at home and abroad and is convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only be achieved from within on the basis of the common good before individual good."

Sound familiar?

Another Must-Read: Brain Damage and Religious Fundamentalism

It appears that there is a link:

A study published in the journal Neuropsychologia has shown that religious fundamentalism is, in part, the result of a functional impairment in a brain region known as the prefrontal cortex. The findings suggest that damage to particular areas of the prefrontal cortex indirectly promotes religious fundamentalism by diminishing cognitive flexibility and openness—a psychology term that describes a personality trait which involves dimensions like curiosity, creativity, and open-mindedness.

I don't really have to say anything, do I? Read the whole thing.

Today's Must-Read: Exodus

It seems that conservatism, as it is constituted today, and evangelical Christianity -- the real stuff, not the "religious right" -- aren't such a good fit after all:

Since the 1970s, white evangelicals have formed the backbone of the Republican base. But as younger members reject the vitriolic partisanship of the Trump era and leave the church, that base is getting smaller and older. The numbers are stark: Twenty years ago, just 46 percent of white evangelical Protestants were older than 50; now, 62 percent are above 50. The median age of white evangelicals is 55. Only 10 percent of Americans under 30 identify as white evangelicals. The exodus of youth is so swift that demographers now predict that evangelicals will likely cease being a major political force in presidential elections by 2024.

And the cracks are already showing.

In the 2018 midterms, exit polls showed, white evangelicals backed Republicans by 75 to 22 percent, while the rest of the voting population favored Democrats 66 to 32 percent. But evangelicals were slightly less likely to support House Republicans in 2018 than they were to support Trump in 2016—which may have contributed to the Democrats’ pickup of House seats. Trump’s support actually declined more among white evangelical men than women. The 11-point gender gap between evangelical men and women from 2016 shrank to 6 in the midterms.

Here's what seems to me to be the real issue:

To be sure, evangelical Christians have been rewarded for their support of Trump after enduring eight years wandering in Barack Obama’s political desert. They have two new conservative Supreme Court justices, and there have been nine self-professed evangelical Cabinet members, plus a flurry of laws and executive orders clamping down on gender roles, abortion and LGBTQ rights. But experts say this may represent the last bounty for a waning political power. Unlike their parents, the younger generation is not animated by the culture wars; many are pushing for social justice for migrants and LGBTQ people and campaigning against mass incarceration—positions more in line with the Democratic Party.

And, to paraphrase: It's the hypocrisy, stupid!

“The fact is that leaders like [Dallas megachurch leader and Trump supporter] Robert Jeffress and Jerry Falwell Jr. are blatantly power hungry and willing to make these alliances, providing a theology that supports white nationalism.”

It's worth reading the whole thing, which provides some good historical background on the whole movement.

Via NCRM.

Today's Must-Read: Digby on Modern Conservatism

A fairly lengthy article by Digby at DAME magazine on how Republicans got that way:

Conventional wisdom says that Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States is a gift to the rabidly anti-abortion conservative evangelicals who have revealed themselves to be the most coldly cynical transactional voters in the country, throwing their loyalty behind the crude, fascist brute in the White House. It’s tempting to see this nihilistic lust for power as a symptom of Trumpism. But this goes much further back than that. Trump’s 2016 victory has simply brought GOP officials and the conservative movement leadership out in the open, and forced them to admit that they are not organized on the basis of a long intellectual tradition, but are, instead, a cynical political faction that uses propaganda and unscrupulous tactics to obtain and hold power.

Conservatives have long insisted on a fatuous conceit that they are “the party of ideas” driven by an intellectually rigorous adherence to a strict set of principles metaphorically defined as resting on an ideological three-legged stool of family values, small government, and patriotism. They used this framework to justify state-mandated conservative religious morality and patriarchy, laissez-faire economics to uphold white supremacy and an ever-growing global military empire. Academics and writers worked through these issues and they were quite successful in creating an ideological schema that politicians honed into poll-tested catchphrases and symbols designed to signal tribal affinity to American voters.

The article is pretty much in line with my thinking: Trump is merely a visible sign of where the GOP has been going for a couple of generations, if not longer. I suspect, however, that the roots are far deeper than Nixon (not to discount his cynical misuse of power to further his own ends): There's an element of retrograde "conservatism" -- racist, isolationist, jingoist, religious extremist, authoritarian -- that goes back to the founding of this country. The GOP has quite deliberately aligned itself with that element as a means of gaining and maintaining power -- the much-touted "permanent majority" -- by an means necessary.

At any rate, read it. It's Digby at her best.

Today in Right-Wing Civility

Fromo "Pastor" Rick Wiles, one of the leading lights of the unhinged "Christian" right:

We’re in for the fight of our lives. If these people get power in this country again, you and I are toast, we’re done. Do you understand that? If they regain power, you and I are history. They’re coming after us. They will exterminate all opposition. Take my word for it. These people are ruthless. They’re murderers, they’re perverts, they’re pedophiles, they’re the worst scum that’s ever crawled on this planet and they’re dangerous. They will do anything to hold on to power, including exterminating their domestic opponents because they’re driven with madness, total madness. When you reject God, you’re opening your mind to madness. And these people have rejected God, they rejected God decades ago and madness has taken over.”

And of course, he has a TV show -- and, one assumes, an audience.

Via Joe.My.God.