So his behaviour and his candidacy (eligibility really) are unrelated?
Obviously. Personal behavior is one thing, the job that one decides to apply for is another thing entirely.
That is quite the pill. I daresay his behavior in the public forum is the only criterion one should use to assess his eligibility, particularly if your worldview is based on religious mores used to dictate behavior.
Several thoughts come to mind. First is that you’re expressing exactly what I mentioned before — that people outside of the religious community want to dictate how the religious community should have viewed the Trump candidacy. The second is that the same people who are now criticizing the religious community for separating the behavior from the candidacy did the exact same thing themselves when Mr. Clinton ran for President. The third is that the religious community teaches the depravity of man as a constant, so they’re not as repelled by it as others seem to thing they should.
I do not conflate his sins with his candidacy, I am saying they should have rendered him ineligible…
There’s the other point the OP made, the one he considered “weak”, that a part of Trump’s support came from people who viewed Mrs. Clinton as unacceptable for one reason or another. I was in no hurry to vote for Mr. Trump by any means, but Mrs. Clinton had removed herself from eligibility in my view by her hijinks in the Middle East during her tenure at State, due to an abject lack of common sense on her part in thinking it was a good idea to remove dictators from Libya and Egypt, the result in the former case being a failed state and in the latter, a military dictatorship. So I was left with Mr. Trump or abstain completely. I considered the latter option very seriously.
It is ironic, that those who aim to impose their religious values (through a secular government no less), should be immune to criticism by virtue of their beliefs… that is a circular argument. Nobody is telling them what to think, beyond that their religious beliefs have no place in determining secular law, and that the candidate they elected contradicts their faith in egregious ways.
Hm. I’m not sure how to respond to that, because I don’t see anyone wanting to impose their religious values on anyone else. I see them wanting to insure that nobody is forced to violate their own deeply held religious values, but not to impose anything on anyone else.
Perhaps, to avoid hypocrisy (as no politician is perfect), religious officials should refrain from supporting political candidates and leave congregations to form their own opinions, lest their faith in God be conflated with a Presidency.
Well, that’s a thought. Unfortunately, there are all sorts of areas where people of religion feel like their ability to exercise their faith would be swept away in a moment if they did not fight for that right politically.
I cannot speak for the 62m people that voted for Trump, but what they think does not change what he is. Willful ignorance is (once again) no excuse.
“What he is” is your opinion, of course. Unless you’ve found some way to peer into the hearts of men, you’re stuck with evaluating words and deeds. And like no President ever before him that I can remember, Trump’s words and deeds are constantly conflicting with each other.