I appreciate the explanations given for the “un-explainable” support for an undeserving character! It gives me much to think about as I seek answers for the behavior of members of my inherited religion.

Scholars Say Trump’s Religious Right Followers Believe He Will Usher In A ‘Christian Nation’AU
March 27, 2018
I’ve monitored Religious Right groups for more than three decades, and I have to say, I’ve seen nothing like what's unfolding these days.
Over the years, I’ve attended meetings of the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council’s annual “Values Voter Summit.” I once sat through a “Reclaiming America for Christ” conference held by the late TV preacher D. James Kennedy in Florida, and I’ve been to gatherings sponsored by smaller or regional Religious Right groups.
Without exception, at every one of these meetings, I’ve heard the same message over and over again: character counts. America’s political leaders, speakers at these meetings would thunder, must model moral behavior. They set the standard, so don’t follow a leader who comes up short when it comes to “morals” and “values.”
Apparently, that’s all been tossed out the window. On Sunday night, an adult-entertainment film star named Stormy Daniels was interviewed by Anderson Cooper on “60 Minutes” to discuss her alleged affair with President Donald Trump. She provided salacious detailsof her time with Trump in 2006 and asserted that she was later threatened and told not to talk about it.
Leaders of the Religious Right have responded to this by making it clear they’re sticking with Trump.
Daniels isn’t the only one speaking out. Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, has asserted that she too had an affair with Trump in 2006. Summer Zervos, a former contestant on Trump’s reality show TV “The Apprentice,” is suing Trump for defamation, asserting that he sexually assaulted her in 2007. (A New York court recently ruled that her lawsuit can go forward.)
Again, leaders of Religious Right group either ignore or deny these charges – even though the allegations are in no way implausible. In Daniels’ case, we know that a lawyer for Trump just before Election Day 2016 gave her $130,000 to keep quiet. The allegations also track with Trump’s behavior. After all, Trump himself was caught on tape boasting about how easy it is to sexually assault women when you’re rich and famous.
A progressive president facing this tawdry combination of allegations by porn stars and centerfold models would be under constant fire from Religious Right groups. In Trump’s case, they’re simply shrugging their shoulders.
This isn’t just simple hypocrisy; something else is afoot.
Writing in The Washington Post, three university professors try to make sense of it. Andrew L. Whitehead, Joseph O. Baker and Samuel L. Perry assert thatconservative evangelical support for Trump is driven by Christian nationalism, that is, the belief that the United States is, or ought to be, a “Christian nation.” (Of course, for the people who believe this, “Christianity” equates with far-right, fundamentalist versions of that faith.)
Analyzing data from a Baylor University survey on religion, the trio wrote, “The more someone believed the United States is – and should be – a Christian nation, the more likely they were to vote for Trump.”
Whitehead, Baker and Perry go on to assert, “Many voters believed, and presumably still believe, that regardless of his personal piety (or lack thereof), Trump would defend what they saw as the country’s Christian heritage – and would help move the nation toward a distinctly Christian future. Ironically, Christian nationalism is focused on preserving a perceived Christian identity for America irrespective of the means by which such a project would be achieved. Hence, many white Christians believe Trump may be an effective instrument in God’s plan for America, even if he is not particularly religious himself.”
This line of thinking echoes the mental gymnastics on display in a new book titled, The Faith of Donald J. Trump: A Spiritual Biography, by David Brody, a reporter for TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network, and Scott Lamb, a vice president at Liberty University. Brody and Lamb assert that Trump is among the “elect,” a figure chosen by God to do divine work in the realm of politics.
So it’s official: The Religious Right no longer cares about character. If the movement’s followers must discard principle and twist themselves into knots to appoint Trump a kind of latter-day prophet, they’re willing to do it.
How did the moral majoritarians, “values voters” and neo-Puritans of the Religious Right arrive at such a strange place? The armchair psychologist in me attributes it to fear.
America is changing. Far-right Christian fundamentalist supremacists have been forced to cede power and acknowledge the rights of those who believe differently. They’re seeing women, LGBTQ people, non-believers and others assert their rights, and they don’t like it. They’ve watched as Americans rejected their views on issues like marriage equality, and they are frightened. They see a future America that is more diverse than ever. It scares them. In response, they cling to a vision of an officially “Christian America” that never was and never will be – and they’ll even latch on to a guy like Trump if they think he can deliver it.
Now, there’s a slight possibility that a serial philanderer and petulant Twitter addict who can’t muster the moral courage to denounce evil when it’s staring him in the face will somehow manage to lead the Religious Right (and drag the rest of us) to the Christian nation of the theocrats’ dreams – but it looks like a longshot.
It’s not just that the quest for a Christian nation has historically been a fool’s errand – though it has been, as many zealots have learned over the years. Rather, what’s undermining the new crusade is the irony-rich realization that the Religious Right was correct about one thing after all: Character does still count for something.
And when your leader has amply demonstrated time after time that he’s utterly devoid of character but you choose to blindly follow him anyway, the odds that he’ll eventually lead you over a cliff are very good

My affirmation 4 2day:

"I am safe in the world and loved and supported by Life."

We are God manifesting.

"Sociologists reveal why people are done with church but not their faithRise of the Dones".

They’re called The Dones.

After devoting a lifetime to their churches,they’re walking away. Why? Sociologists Josh Packard and Ashleigh Hope reveal the results of a major study about the exodus from the American church. And what they’ve discovered may surprise you...
Church refugees aren’t who you’d expect. Among those scrambling for the exits are the church’s staunchest supporters and leaders. Leaving the church doesn’t mean abandoning the faith. Some who are done with church report they’ve never felt spiritually stronger.

Craig Cable -

https://vimeo.com/125063313

These are trying times for so many of us. I am recording my life into recovery and wellness. And with that, I am passing along things I did as self-help. For one thing, I sought out ways to change my thought-life. Louise Hay and others feed me with nourishment I desperately needed when I needed it.

Positive thoughts gave me my life back, transformed.

Best wishes for you and the life you desire . . .

http://youtu.be/3LMaE2EWgDM

In my reinterpretation of the popular interpretation of the Bible theme, I provide the reader a way to hold their faith and yet use it in a positive, affirming, and all inclusive manner.The good news was never intended to bash others and do harm.

Birth Of A (Christian) Nation: Scholars Debate The Genesis Of A Popular Myth

The New York Times over the weekend ran a provocative column by Kevin M. Kruse, a history professor at Princeton University, on the origins of the “Christian nation” myth.

Kruse, author of the book One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America, argues that the “Christian nation” idea really took off in the early 1930s when a band of business leaders endorsed the concept as a way of fighting back against President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.

I haven’t read Kruse’s book, but his Timescolumn is thought-provoking and well argued. It’s worth your time. I was especially interested in Kruse’s use of the term “Christian libertarian” to describe some of the prominent corporate leaders of the “Christian nation” crusade. I’ve had the same thought while attending meetings of Religious Right organizations. At the annual Values Voter Summit sponsored by the Family Research Council (FRC) there’s very little talk these days about religion and theology. Rather, the events have the feel of Heritage Foundation briefings. (In fact, the Heritage Foundation co-sponsors the Summit.)

These events are essentially primers of libertarian economic theory, with the main idea of the FRC these days being not that Jesus is good but that government is always bad. God is still part of their trinity, but the other two figures are President Ronald W. Reagan and Ayn Rand. (Ironically, Rand was an atheist.) At the Summit, Reagan’s name is dropped constantly – Jesus’s, not so much.

Kruse’s ideas are interesting and worth exploring in more detail, but I think there may be more to the story. This July, former Americans United Legal Director Steven K. Green will publish a new book titled Inventing a Christian America: The Myth of the Religious Founding. I received an early copy and read it a few weeks ago. Green, who is now a professor of law at Willamette University in Oregon, argues that the “Christian nation” myth springs from the 1820s, during a time of growing religious piety when a generation that rose up after the Founding Fathers began to cast about for a foundational myth that would link the still-new nation with the Almighty in a profound way.

I think Kruse and Green are both right. The “Christian nation” thesis, it seems to me, rears its head most powerfully during times of change and tension. It’s not surprising that the concept first appeared early in the 19th century. As the growing nation struggled to find its place on the world stage, a belief that the United States was God’s holy experiment and somehow favored by the hand of Providence provided comfort and assurance that what the country and its leaders did was right and good because it was ordained by God. (Even when it wasn’t right – such as our treatment of the Native peoples.)

The concept arose again powerfully during the Civil War (with both sides claiming God’s support) and its aftermath. The belief was that a “Christian nation” would sort through the chaos and secure its destiny and build a new American empire from sea to sea.

During the Great Depression, obviously a time of great upheaval, the “Christian nation” concept flared anew. If Kruse is right, this time it was pressed into service to fend off the rise of centralized, activist government and the “socialism” of the New Deal.

The nation saw a flicker of the concept again during World War II, with some pastors arguing that only a unified “Christian nation” could defeat the Axis Powers. But the idea went into fairly steep decline for many years after that. Kruse notes that President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s religious concepts were much more non-sectarian. Thus, it was blandly ecumenical phrases like “In God We Trust” and “under God” that were pressed into service against the Communists. America’s “civil religion” was born, a concept that is itself not without problems.  

One thing is clear: The “Christian nation” concept does not belong to the Founders. The idea has surfaced from time to time throughout our history, but it can’t be pinned on the men who wrote the Constitution.

For proof of that, we need only read the text of the document itself.

There were tough times with life's setbacks when I needed a good friend. In a group of our peers, a group for support,we can "practice" being a good friend.

Today, I slowdown . . . I ask to be made aware of all the abundance in my life. And with humility of heart, I express my deep, heartfelt gratitude.