I'll be sure to join #MightybooshFanClub and respond to every comment of his anyways!

Religious can be be applied too narrowly as a generalization. Kind of novel so long as more details are added to qualify where the elements connect with religion.

I listen to local conservatives in Alabama, who openly contest non-religious people as credible. It's not just nostalgia where the angers lies, but it also anger for those who contest and reject that religious viewpoint of having some Godly authority over others. Which can translate into a more general disposition as appeal to take charge over people as sinners or outsiders or somebody to be afraid of.

Hence the authoritarian mentality, fear and anger, is nondenominational, but we can point to details and influences that call the question of a relationship with religion.

I agree that this is true for some (and it would be interesting if any of these voted for Trump). You see similar echoes of authoritarianism in the FLDS areas. You've almost got mob rule in some of those groups:

http://q13fox.com/2016/03/08/crackdo...-blow-to-flds/

But I don't believe that either the subset of "local conservatives" you're listening to or the FLDS is representative of the larger population. (Also, are you listening to radio call-in shows to hear those "local conservatives"? That would be a strong sign of a biased sampling happening.)

Here's something you can say that would not bother me: I'm surprised that Trump is getting as much support from evangelical voters as he is.

But you didn't say that. Instead, you suggested that Trump's potential nomination was "thanks mainly to religion." You were using this as an example of the negative effects of religion. But imagine this. Let's say that 95% of religious people voted for Cloned Abraham Lincoln and only 5% voted for Donald Trump, but yet Donald Trump won with a narrow enough margin that if that last 5% had voted for Cloned Abraham Lincoln, Trump would have lost.

This doesn't show a negative effect of religion. The solution here would clearly be more religion, not less (that is, if more people were religious, there is less chance of Trump being elected in this hypothetical). These are exaggerated numbers, but something like this is probably true of the GOP race as well--that the more religious a person is the less likely they are to vote for Trump. Thus, if voting for Trump is bad, then more religion would be good.

But yet you used this as an example of the negative effects of religion. Perhaps you should understand why people are having difficulty understanding what you are trying to say here--and think what you seemed to say is wrong.

Okay.

I'll just point out that evangelical voters supported Romney in the 2012 general election even though he is not an evangelical Christian.

Huh? How am I supposed to comment on something you didn't say? And yes, the black vote is one of the most monolithic voting blocs in American politics. And, it has been a major topic of conversation on the Democratic side, with Bernie's inability to appeal to African-Americans being cited by many as the one of the main reasons he will likely lose.

Sure, and it would make for no presupposition towards the amount of people of which I have listened as well. I have no statistical claim to make here of a qualified influenced by demagogic or pundit type speech behavior that is most certainly happening towards various audiences.

I am saying that listening to people reveals there is a range of thinking behind why they are mad or afraid and some of that thinking connects to religious dogma, some of that thinking connects with authoritarian qualities, some of that thinking connects with both.

A very critical distinction has been missed in all of this discussion. Party platforms are a litmus test for the candidates, not a way to encourage people to vote for a particular candidate. Actually, the only power of the litmus test to find out who the Party is not going to give the nomination. Everyone on this forum understands that both Parties have a list of Commandments that have to be adhered to before a candidate can be considered.
So, is Trump going to win the nomination “because” of evangelists?… no. Is Trump a viable Republican candidate without a connection to evangelism (whether genuine or not)?… no. Trump is garnering votes because of the platform that he has that is unique amongst the Republican candidates, but that does not mean that he will have any chance for nomination or election if he did not conform to views of the evangelist sector of the Republican party.

President of Liberty University Jerry Falwell Jr Endorses The Donald. This has stirred some controversy I believe.

Jerry Falwell Jr. endorses trump

Indeed:

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/...rsement-trump/

I don't think there's lot of value for creating a second thread specifically for Trump and Mormons, so I'm just putting these links here:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...-donald-trump/

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins...why#.sedD6DmaD

I tend to view this as the same type of effect as what religious Evangelicals. We just have a much cleaner labeling game with Mormons. You simply don't have the same "culturally Christian" effect with Mormons (self-identifying as Christian without necessarily holding beliefs consistent with Christian statements of faith), so that you get much cleaner data that points to the connection between religiosity and voting patterns.

Also, more data on Mormons: http://www.pewforum.org/2012/01/12/m...utive-summary/

Note: Utah caucuses close at 10 PM Pacific time. We'll see how strongly this analysis and polling play out.

Where I come from, when you come after one religion, you come after them all. Having a religion is a human right as mental freedom is an inherent right from attribute of a conscious capable thinker.

Does this justify treating Trump and Cruz (and their followers) as a cult, rather than legitimate religion?

Ok, but I think it's more significant than that, that there's an effect from that support.

It's actually more like 33% and that's a distinction that matters to my point. What I meant when I used the word 'mainly' was that religion is the the main reason that the evangelicals who are voting for Trump, the ones who could swing the election for him, and who really oughtn't to be voting for him, are doing so, i.e. for the protection they believe he will offer their beliefs. I'll agree that the wording was confusing.

I don't think the evangelicals are alone in this, I think most of Trump's supporters see in him an authoritarian figure who will protect their special interests, and that's his primary appeal, but where he appeals directly to racists, xenophobes and the anti-Islamic, the anti-PC block etc etc, his appeal to the religious is indirect. He doesn't share their views or values necessarily, but he's promised to protect them.

Could have sworn that I said something about this but can't find it now. Thought I said it to Batair but it may have been something I typed but then removed before posting my comments. Apologies.

Mormons are a pretty odd group demographically. Sometimes they are fairly similar to evangelicals with similar religiosity and other times they are very differnet (trump I suppose is one example as they seem to just abhor him). I've never quite followed closely enough to know what the explanation for the big differences are, but I think part of it might be that Mormons have always a been a bit of an awkward inclusion in the GOP big tent, have never felt entirely welcome, and as such are more willing to shed elements of republican orthodoxy if their socioeconomic status, education and the like pushes them away.

You can say this as many times as you want, but that doesn't make it true.

Interesting take on the response of Mormons to Trump in The Atlantic

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/utah

At 14%, Trump outperformed expectations.

Fivethirtyeight.com had Trump's expectation at 13.8% in their polls-only forecast.

Ya this is the kind of thing I was referencing where, perhaps some of the more xenophobic threads aren't as amped up among mormons as they have experienced the other side of that more directly

And he was at 9.9% in the polls-plus forecast and fell from about 20% to 10% in polling in the last week or so.

How many ways is targeting Muslims a sin or transgression ?

With regard to Ted Cruz and Trump evangelical supporters, how is it not sinful?

I follow a lot of Christian (and Muslim) websites on facebook and I'm increasingly seeing, in light of Trump's success, arguments from devout Christians that are some version of 'Trump is a despicable man but we have a pretty bad record of discerning god's purpose so maybe he has a reason why Trump is doing so well, he has often used despicable men in the past to achieve his purpose, perhaps that's what's happening now'.

I'll admit that I didn't see that one coming but it's another reason why Trump might get elected, not because everybody who votes for him actually thinks him fit to be president, but because of some justification that they've come up based on their religious views. Living, as I do, in a country where religion and politics are almost never mixed (we've seen a bit of it from Cameron recently, and that's extremely worrying), I find this astonishing, and frightening.

He just hired a committed 'pro-lifer' as his policy director. For someone so stupid, he's not stupid.

Just a warning to the reader: Having seen MightyBoosh's work in the RGT forum, I would caution that you can't really take his version of what Christians believe at face value. It's an ongoing battle in RGT, where he either misunderstands or mischaracterizes their positions, not sure which. But in either case, one can't rely on his statement of their positions.

For some reason I thought this thread was in Politics or Politics Unchained. But it's RGT, so my warning was unnecessary.

Wow, what a spectacularly offensive post. You don't need to accept my word for it, spend a little time yourself in places where Christians are discussing what to do about Trump.

I'm sure there are times where I misunderstand or inadvertently misrepresent a position, but to imply that I do that purposely or that I'm untrustworthy is both wrong and uncalled for. And to actually feel the need to patronisingly 'warn' people rather than letting them judge for themselves? How presumptious of you. genuinely astonished and offended. And you weren't even in the right forum, nice work.

I specifically stated that I wasn't sure whether it's misunderstanding or mischaracterization, and said nothing about your trustworthiness.

I don't read the threads by forum, so that was my mistake. As I said, in RGT you are well-known.

So what are Christian conservative republicans doing these days?

Everything has changed with the defacto/presumptive nomination. What of the "team player" narrative from partisans who say to vote for the party nominees no matter what. It seems to put Christian republicans who think Trump is a politically convenient or fake Christian in a tough spot. How does one justify supporting some one they find fake to their religion?