The religious right abandoned all claim to moral or ethical "authority" when it embraced the anti-people policies of the political right.

In order to insert some holiday cheer into the proceedings, let’s talk about the recent religious controversies via competing Christian publication editorials. First came the Mark Galli editorial in Christianity Today, a publication whose stated mission is to “help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith,” in which he not only backed the impeachment of Donald Trump but his removal from office, and decried the “moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.” In response, the “real” evangelical “Christians,” apparently represented in the Christian Post, hit back with a pro-Trump editorial, which blasted Galli as an “elitist,” attacked Trump’s impeachment as “unconstitutional,” and praised its readers’ “prudential” support for Trump and his policies—presumably including his lying 15,000 times, using foul, “unchristian” language constantly, caging children in concentration camps, and other “Christian” activities. One of Christian Post’s editors, Napp Nazworth, resigned in protest over the editorial’s partisan agenda, having previously noted that “evangelicals who rationalize Donald Trump’s misbehavior are sacrificing their moral authority at the altar of politics.” 

I don’t pretend to be any “expert” on religion; I was born and raised a Roman Catholic, and attended a Catholic grammar school for eight years. Attending mass six days a week during the school year didn’t make me anymore “devout,” probably the opposite. Every week you had to go to confession, even if you hadn’t actually done anything wrong; I always wondered what the priest who heard my confessions thought, since it was the same one every time: I lied three times, took the Lord’s name in vain twice, and talked back to my parents once. And I always received the same “penance” for lying about lying. When I joined the Army I quit going to church, because I had a choice. Still, my dog tags continued to denote my religious affiliation as “Roman Catholic,” and I guess I’m just too lazy to call myself anything else, especially since I feel contempt for people who have the left the church for the “evangelical” crowd because they don’t like feeling “shamed” for not following traditional teachings.

Outside the “established” Christian sects (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, the Church of England, Lutheranism), most Protestant denominations fall under the “evangelical” umbrella. As to whose moral “system” is “superior,” between Catholic and Protestant beliefs,  a  post on a website called The Library of Economics and Liberty, written by some guy named Bryan Caplan,  states that “As a moral realist, I think the most important question is ‘Which ethical view is correct?’  And as a moral institutionalist, I judge the Protestant approach plainly superior.  The moral case against adultery is easy to grasp; the moral case for celibacy (!), not so much.  The moral case against hating people who have done you no wrong is easy to grasp; the moral case for loving (!?) total strangers, not so much.  And if an action is wrong merits condemnation, not pity for the “human weakness” that many humans habitually overcome.” I find it particularly despicable here the lie that Protestants—at least of the religious right sort—do not hate certain people or groups regardless, or lack thereof, of reason (Barack Obama, Hispanic  migrants), and that they somehow believe that practicing dehumanizing bigotry doesn’t constitute “human weakness” in themselves.

And, of course, there is that little thing about the hypocrisy of what merits  condemnation in regard to Trump. Apparently for evangelicals of the religious right, there is nothing to complain about.

We can add to that belief system the assertion that people are born either “good” or “bad,” that people of “faith”  have no sins to confess (well, unless your name is Bakker or Swaggart), and whether someone is rich or poor is their “predetermined” lot in life. Furthermore, in order to be welcomed as an the evangelical, one must “prove” that they have washed away all shred of sinful doubt about the “true” version of the Christian faith, which frankly implies that as long as you have “faith,” nothing evil done in the name of said “faith” is “wrong.” Naturally, the Republican Party since at least 1980 fits right into this “ethos” and “moral order.” And of course it was the “religious leaders” the likes of Pat Robertson, Billy Graham (“America’s pastor”) and Jerry Falwell who began the far-right politicization of religion. The self-consciousness about the obvious un-Christlike moral and ethical beliefs of the religious right can ascertained by Falwell’s denunciation of Christians like Galli who “think they are more moral and smarter than the rest of us,” apparently in defense of the kind of ignorant bigots Trump attracts at his rallies. 

The religious right obviously has no need for the part of the New Testament that describes the Sermon on the Mount, which spells out the “new” standards of morality and ethics of the new religion.  Jesus tells the gathering that the old laws of “retribution” are out, and “in” is the law of “love,” even for one’s enemies. It makes you wonder if evangelicals on the religious right actually have the “right” to call themselves “Christians” at all.  Some of the Beatitudes as transcribed in Mathew uttered in the sermon can clearly be abused by hypocrites, but others are less open to “interpretation”: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy; Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God; Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Right-wing evangelicals tend to be none of these things.

Unfortunately, the religious right and evangelicals have been too closely aligned with far-right politics, meaning anti-people, anti-labor, anti-environment, pro-corruption, pro-moral and ethical “confusion”—and of course racist and nativist. Perhaps for white nationalist types, evangelicalism provides a so-called “moral order” that keeps the “others” at arms-length so that they can pursue their vision of white “purity.” To people or groups who are the victims of prejudice, “moral order” as defined by the religious right means nothing more than a “system” to perpetuate prejudice and discrimination. The Christian Post worries that the “credibility” of religion is “endangered” if it abandons Trump even when confronted with his moral and ethical outrages; the truth is, those it speaks for on the religious right long lost their credibility in mainstream society when they decided to abandon Christ for political power.