The double standards of progressives in the West

[conon394]

Do you think that if a black girl put up posters of "Black Lives Matter" in the halls without permission she would be suspended? I am not sure.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7216436.html

[TheLeft]

Just give the Far Left a little power and their inner Stalinist always comes out.

Firstly, what power does the far left actually have? Really?

Secondly, religion is nonsense. Apart from yours obviously. Because out of the thousands of different religions out there, you just happened to pick both the correct God and the only way of worshipping him/her/it.

[Prodromos]

Consider the Evangelicals who support Trump: in 2011, 32% believed that "an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties." Yet in 2016, this number rose to 72%, the biggest turnaround of any group.

That's probably a function of partisanship. That survey's actually of white evangelicals only (self-described, natch), who are predominately Republican and thus more likely to try to accommodate a Republican politician. Break it down by partisan affiliation, ethnicity or devoutness, however, and you won't find this type of radical change in opinion among evangelicals.

In the 20 states where primary or caucus exit polls have been conducted so far, Trump has won an average of 36 percent of the vote from white “born-again or evangelical Christians,” good for a plurality in 12 states and only slightly lower than his support (38 percent) among all other Republican voters. Many in the evangelical community have wondered how their religious brethren could possibly back a twice-divorced candidate whose commitment to moral and cultural conservatism appears shaky at best.

The key to understanding Trump’s support among evangelicals is to realize that some evangelicals’ commitment to the faith is shaky, too. Trump does best among evangelicals with one key trait: They don’t really go to church. In short, the evangelicals supporting Trump are not the same evangelicals who have traditionally comprised the Christian Right and supported cultural warriors such as Rick Santorum and Ted Cruz...

But evangelical support for Cruz and Carson, who are grouped because of their close association with evangelicalism and moral conservatism, was higher among those who attend church more frequently. In contrast, Trump did best among evangelicals who are never, almost never or only occasionally in the pews...

Why is this? A considerable literature on religion and politics suggests that evangelicals who attend worship services irregularly tend to have less formal education and lower incomes than more devout evangelicals. They tend to care less about moral and cultural issues and vote more on the basis of economic concerns. In some cases, they are less tolerant of religious and racial minority groups...

Infrequent church attenders cared less about the traditional Christian Right policy agenda and more about Trump’s agenda of creating jobs, improving Americans’ economic welfare and stemming the tide on immigration. The graph below shows that infrequent church attenders were less likely to prioritize two “moral and cultural” issues (abortion and “morality and religion in society”) as one of their four most important issues. But they cared much more about jobs and economic welfare.

Similarly, evangelicals who attend church less frequently are also less socially conservative. They are less likely to favor religious exemptions to the federal requirement that employers cover prescription birth control in their health-insurance plans. They also are less enthusiastic about allowing business owners to refuse on religious grounds to provide services for same-sex weddings. Trump’s lack of commitment to social conservatism may not bother these less-observant evangelicals very much.

In brief, the evangelicals who couldn't care less about moral matters are probably not actually evangelical. Their religion is closer to the Deism or liberal "Christianity" of the Left than to, say, the evangelicalism of William Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect. Evangelicalism is little more than a cultural affiliation to them, which is weird because combating that sort of lukewarm religion is the entire point of evangelicalism.

Most evangelicals and Christians in general view Trump as useful and preferable to most Democratic alternatives, but few accept his immorality.

Firstly, what power does the far left actually have? Really?

Secondly, religion is nonsense. Apart from yours obviously. Because out of the thousands of different religions out there, you just happened to pick both the correct God and the only way of worshipping him/her/it.

If you really want a serious discussion about religion, you can just start a thread in the EMM.

[TheLeft]

If you really want a serious discussion about religion, you can just start a thread in the EMM.

Translation: Damn! It seems the far-left don't have any power at all, thus rendering my earlier statement to be complete and utter nonsense. What do I do? I know!! I'll ignore that part of the post and deflect the second part claiming it's the wrong forum to be discussing religion, despite the fact that I've spent ages wittering on about Evangelicalism. Good job!!

[Katsumoto]

That's probably a function of partisanship. That survey's actually of white evangelicals only (self-described, natch), who are predominately Republican and thus more likely to try to accommodate a Republican politician. Break it down by partisan affiliation, ethnicity or devoutness, however, and you won't find this type of radical change in opinion among evangelicals.

In brief, the evangelicals who couldn't care less about moral matters are probably not actually evangelical. Their religion is closer to the Deism or liberal "Christianity" of the Left than to, say, the evangelicalism of William Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect. Evangelicalism is little more than a cultural affiliation to them, which is weird because combating that sort of lukewarm religion is the entire point of evangelicalism.

I'm not sure why you've linked an article from March 2016. According to exit polls, up to 80% of White Evangelicals voted for Trump. Are you saying most of these weren't real Evangelicals?

Most evangelicals and Christians in general view Trump as useful and preferable to most Democratic alternatives, but few accept his immorality.

Is this not hypocrisy? Trump goes against their sense of morality yet they support him because they don't like Democrats?

[conon394]

Is this not hypocrisy? Trump goes against their sense of morality yet they support him because they don't like Democrats?

No they like him because he still has a senate that will seat all his judicial nominees straight off the Federalist society list.

[Katsumoto]

That's another double standard - supporting individual and state rights yet wanting to pass federal legislation if it favours conservative views.

[Prodromos]

I'm not sure why you've linked an article from March 2016. According to exit polls, up to 80% of White Evangelicals voted for Trump. Are you saying most of these weren't real Evangelicals?

Is this not hypocrisy? Trump goes against their sense of morality yet they support him because they don't like Democrats?

Not necessarily, since 2016 was a Flight 93 election; most people were voting more against the other candidate than for their own, and Clinton was viewed as infinitely worse than Trump. According to one Pew survey, only 30% of self-identified white evangelicals were casting their vote mainly for Trump.

Looking at the data from the primaries allows us to see whether evangelicals actually wanted Trump, or would have preferred another candidate instead. The data shows that the evangelicals who went for Trump were, to a large extent, a different group from the "Christian Right", whose views on morality haven't changed over the years. So if there is any "hypocrisy" it doesn't involve evangelicals in general, but simply less religious partisans and ideologues who self-identify as evangelical.

But in the interest of being charitable, it could be that these evangelicals are just becoming more politically mature. As Democrats become increasingly more radical and anti-Christian, Christians may choose to tolerate imperfect Republican politicians to keep the Democrats at bay. These days you can't afford to be picky in politics.

[alhoon]

There's a valid argument to be made that in some respects progressives or 'liberals' are hypocritical in their approach, most notably in my opinion when they call for the banning of speakers they disagree with. But if we're going to talk about the hypocrisies of political sides, I think the double standards of conservatives are far more jarring. Consider the Evangelicals who support Trump: in 2011, 32% believed that "an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties." Yet in 2016, this number rose to 72%, the biggest turnaround of any group. Likewise, conservatives were all for law enforcement, until the FBI began investigating one of their own, becoming the Deep State. To top it off, Republicans passed a tax bill that would increase the deficit for years to come, despite consistently arguing that the deficit should be reduced - fiscal responsibility indeed being a key pillar of conservatism.

In my opinion, these are far more significant instances of political hypocrisy than some girl allegedly being suspended for putting up bible verses.

I agree with everything (except labeling progressives as liberals which means pro-freedom of speech even to the people I disagree with).
I would like to say thought that: Two wrongs don't make a right.

But since we are on that, and I can't resist it, it is hilarious how Commey was a hero of the Republicans in November and December for seriously undermining Clinton's chances to win in the last days of the election and a representative of the deep state and Clinton crony less than 6 months later.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7216436.html

I don't disagree that such things happen, but do you see the difference in explaining the narrative here? The black girl is portrayed in much different light than the biblethumper girl with the verses.
That's the double standards I am talking about. Although what a journalist or even newspaper writes is not that much politics - they cater to different people and they have the right to say and write whatever they want.

Regardless, when I said that such a girl wouldn't be suspended, I meant in that progressive Ohio district, where the officials making the rules and appointing directors have made their statement that putting up pride flags is not offending but bible verses target and organization called Gay Straight Alliance.

That's probably a function of partisanship. That survey's actually of white evangelicals only (self-described, natch), who are predominately Republican and thus more likely to try to accommodate a Republican politician.

Still disgusting and inexcusable hypocrisy and definition of double standards.
Don't get me started on Christians that preach the good Samaritan and then scream for immigrants to get out and how dangerous their neighbor is. There's a looooot of things there that I don't want to get into.

That's another double standard - supporting individual and state rights yet wanting to pass federal legislation if it favours conservative views.

That's a dangerous double standard as it undermines the judicial process based on poisonous political affiliation.
However most of the screaming and hair-tearing and "OMG!!!! Democracy's in peril!!!!" shrills in the lower-ranks of the politician's spectrum would happily do the same with their candidate.
Progressive double standards matching the conservative double standards.

[sumskilz]

That's another double standard - supporting individual and state rights yet wanting to pass federal legislation if it favours conservative views.

Conon wasn't talking about legislation. He was talking judicial nominees. The supreme court alone is reason enough for evangelicals to have supported Trump's candidacy, since the make up of the supreme court has a much more significant impact on their concerns long term than anything else during a single presidential term.

[Heathen Hammer]

Alhoon never claimed Hillary said that, he said the Democrat politicians have double standards. He also said Hillary said "We need to work together" but did nothing to calm the "Not my president" crowd. He also mentioned how one of Obama's high-ranks, Eric Hodler, while he applaud Michele Obama's words started singing a completely different tune after the elections.



Seriously? Do you want me to start providing links about the double standards of Conservatives, the traditional ones?
What do you think would have happened to a deeply devout school district in the Bible Belt if a gay kid put up posters about a pride parade? What about all the conservatives including Trump that said Trump should accept the results in election night only if he wins and then 5 days later where throwing vitriol on those that said "Not My President"?


Hypocrisy and Double Standards, as Abdulmecid said, are the stapple of politics and go both ways. Since progressives also annoy me and they are far more widespread than conservatives, holding majorities in most of the West, I chose to ask about them, but it's not that the conservatives are better. It's just that the conservatives are few and older so they make less waves.

My question is simply: Why do the voters keep ignoring such things and vote for clear Hypocrites. Again, as Abdulmecid said, even a child knows politicians include large numbers of liars and cheats.
Why do we vote for those instead of the good ones?

There are good progressive politicians for those with progressive ideas. They don't have to support the rabble-rousers that their morals don't stand the test of time.
Sure, being progressive means your morals change, but they don't have to go down the drain.

Depends on your definition of "traditional" ones.
As I said, the key difference is that neocons are disliked by the right as much as their neoliberal counter-parts are.
I don't recall Trump suppressing anti-Trump protests in any way whatsoever.
As for the main question, people vote for candidates that represent their stance on certain issues. The problem has more to do with inherent flaws of representative democracy itself.

[alhoon]

The problem has more to do with inherent flaws of representative democracy itself.

Now we're getting somewhere. Please explain. (I am not sarcastic, I am not trolling, I really want to read your opinion. And not as ammunition to attack conservatives or progressives or neocons or neoliberals or martians or Venusites but because I want to see what you think and perhaps enrich my own opinions and ideas).

[z3n]

Firstly, what power does the far left actually have? Really?

Secondly, religion is nonsense. Apart from yours obviously. Because out of the thousands of different religions out there, you just happened to pick both the correct God and the only way of worshipping him/her/it.

In what context are you asking the first question? Information is power for example?

If you meant that within academic environments, here is one very entertaining article for you to read:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/1575219002/

[NorseThing]

Pretty sure the US has separation of church and state, and religion is generally kept out of schools. But by all means get angry and post about weird false equivalences in other people's countries to fire up your own political disagreements.

Perhaps what is needed in the USA is a separation of school and state. And the current separation of church and state is a horrible misconception in any case. It is being used to deny government funding to groups that are religious and not to keep religion separated from government. So the nonreligious can do all they want with a school lunch program for the sake of diversity, but deny the religious school to do the same with government funds is somehow against the constitution.

[conon394]

Perhaps what is needed in the USA is a separation of school and state. And the current separation of church and state is a horrible misconception in any case. It is being used to deny government funding to groups that are religious and not to keep religion separated from government. So the nonreligious can do all they want with a school lunch program for the sake of diversity, but deny the religious school to do the same with government funds is somehow against the constitution.

I dunno I don't see how 'for the sake of diversity' quite describes Kosher And Halal Meals. If your local district in question is in NY City or Dearborn 2/3rds or more of you population might be kids would need that. As a public policy the Federal government is interested is providing by subsidies meals and in low income cases free meals to kids who will not be getting nutritious balanced breakfast or lunch. I have no problem also requiring the school too work around a food allergy for a child. The compelling public interest is the health of the children who are from the time they walk into a public school wards of the state. Private schools are well private. If a private religious school wants to apply for federal money than it comes with federal strings I don't see why that is a problem. Maybe they should be pointing out the duty of giving to the flock a bit more if they don't like federal rules.

[NorseThing]

I have no problem with the meals being provided. I have a problem with the schools as government owned and operated institutions making what are deemed appropriate decisions being based on religion. Separation of church and state is to keep the government out of making laws in support or in opposition to religion and not to keep religion out of debates about government policy. Ths is just as silly as Blasio making the schools 'greener' by having meatless Mondays. [New York public schools to have 'Meatless Mondays' starting this fall ... In economics we decry picking winners and losers by policy, but it seems perfectly correct to do so with publicly owned and publicly administered schools.

[conon394]

In economics we decry picking winners and losers by policy,

Ha that's funny. some conservatives might mouth that ideal. But in reality every level of government does that all the time. For god sake lets Blasio does not really loose his head and add solar panels and better insulation to schools - the horror. If meatless Monday results in a more creative set choices more power two it. Hopefully Kosher/ Halal options will allow Americans to enjoy a nice Falafel or Sabich sandwich.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I take those over a hot dog and not feel oppressed by state religion...

[Sir Adrian]

Hardline conservative Christianity is absolutely seen as regressive and harmful. Liberal Christianity is seen (by anyone who knows anything at all about it, which admittedly excludes a lot of young people these days) as a staunch ally of progressive and socialist movements, albeit with a very different role to play. There are many examples of liberal Christian progressives throughout Western countries. Of course in the USA, because of the prevalence of Bible bashing hardliners, a lot of progressives (themselves in many cases raised in conservative Christian communities) are understandably quite opposed to the communities which treated them badly. It's not such a big thing in Western Europe though.

There is no such thing as hardlinr conservative Christianity. The bible bashers in the deep US don't speak for christianity and most of them are not exactly christians.

[PointOfViewGun]

So, no true Scotsman fallacy?

[alhoon]

I take those over a hot dog and not feel oppressed by state religion...

And that's your preference and your choice. For others to have that choice made for them by the government is not ideal.