Show all postsI used to think that religion, on the whole, was a force for good. How does one find fault with folk who believe they should “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”? You can’t. But, do Christians put their words into action? In the past, I would have said, yes. Today, I am not so sure.
The other two, I believe, see Trump as a King David kinda guy, deeply flawed but being used by God to accomplish godly ends. Me? I don’t see Trump as a tool of God but as a spiritual danger. Christ himself warned, “False messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive . . .”
These thoughts rekindled thoughts I had as a child in the early ‘50s. I wondered how Christians could join the Crusades or to take part in the Spanish inquisition? I decided to revisit this question and others and find an answer.
The First Crusade was a Church creation. Announced at the Council of Clermont in 1095, Pope Urban II appealed to European Christians to go to war with the infidels and reclaim Jerusalem. And who were the infidels? They were "the other": Muslims, Jews, pagans and heretical Christians.
Between 1095 and 1272 there were at least nine major crusades. As many as 3 million people, soldiers and civilians, died in these holy wars. Not all died by the sword. Many succumbed to disease and starvation. It was ugly.
The above does not include the 1212 Children's Crusade which was not sanctioned by the Church. From 5,000 to 30,000--the exact number is unknown--children, adolescents and poor peasants marched off to war under the protection of Jesus Christ. They never reached the Holy Land. Many were sold into slavery. Others died of hunger and disease. Very few returned home. So much for the protection of God.
Wholesale Christian sanctioned violence reappeared in 1478 with the start of the Spanish Inquisition. The Spanish Crown was the power behind the Spanish Inquisition but the Church, true to form, gave its support. The Vatican had been running smaller, more focused, inquisitions for years.
A Dominican friar, Bernard Gui, wrote the book on how to conduct a proper inquisition. Gui was not as vicious nor as brutal as his reputation would have us believe. He only had about 40 people burned at the stake. Sadly, other inquisitors were not as strict at adhering to the guidelines.
The Inquisition lasted centuries, not wrapping up until 1834. Three and a half centuries of hatred hidden under a patina of Christian piety. Jews and Muslims who converted to Christianity, often under duress, were early targets. Later, Protestants were victims.
A preferred methods of extracting the "truth" was "water torture." Waterboarding, similar to water torture, was used by the CIA and military interrogators at American run detention centers such as Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and black sites. As they say, what is old is new again.
I was learning that openly evil conduct by Christians is not an aberration but a feature of Christianity and of religion in general. Believers rarely acknowledge the hate within but it is feature never-the-less of many, if not most, religions
In writing this blog post, I learned there is a common connection between holding religious views and supporting some damn ugly policies. For instance, a Pew Research Center survey, completed about three months into President Donald Trump’s second term, found that among his evangelical followers,
72% approved of the way Trump is currently handling his job as president.
69% rated the ethics of top Trump administration officials as excellent or good.
57% said they trust what Trump says more than what previous presidents said.
For folk like me, these are jaw-dropping numbers, but not to others. Today, my relatives are finding it difficult to drop their support for Trump. I see them as wearing blinders. They think I am the one wearing the blinders. Maybe, to a certain extent, we all are wearing blinders.
I find it interesting that all these relatives are deep into extreme religious views. I'd call them evangelicals even though they might protest. Evangelicals frighten me and their God creeps me out. This is the God of "Its my way or the highway" beliefs. I asked AI for its take on this. It said:
"That’s a really insightful observation! It’s true that some strands of evangelical theology can definitely give off that "my way or the highway" vibe. This is especially evident in the way certain evangelical groups or leaders present the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus Christ. For many evangelicals, salvation is only found through faith in Jesus, and the stakes are often presented as incredibly high—either you accept Christ and follow the path to salvation, or you face eternal separation from God (commonly referred to as hell)."
Looking deeper into this, I discovered there are psychological and sociological factors at play here. These forces reinforce a rigid worldview and encourage resistance to accepting the beliefs of others.
Cognitive Closure: Many extreme evangelicals want certainty and clarity, especially about complex social issues. This is why they turn to religious doctrines and authoritarian rhetoric. The clear, black-and-white nature of these beliefs simplifies complicated matters.
Moral Absolutism: The belief in moral absolutes (e.g., abortion is wrong under any circumstances, marriage is only between a man and a woman) is a defining feature of religious extremism. Inflexibility and intolerance soon follow, making it easier to justify extreme actions—like enacting restrictive laws—framed as being in service of a higher moral law.
Authoritarianism: Many people who exhibit evangelical beliefs also exhibit authoritarian tendencies, favouring strong leaders who promise to restore order and protect traditional values.
Group Dynamics: Religious extremists often draw very strict lines between those who share their faith and those who do not. They view those who do not conform to their religious or political views as dangerous or immoral. This encourages extremism when the group feels threatened.
This bring us to my next childhood question: "How did Christian Germany embrace Nazism and commit the most unchristian acts?" I found some of the answer in "Facing History and Ourselves" and the post "Protestant Churches and the Nazi State."
Some German Christians called themselves “storm troopers of Jesus Christ.” The Nazi leadership urged Protestants to unite into a national church under the centralized leadership of Ludwig Müller, a well-known pastor and Nazi Party member. Many German Protestants embraced these changes. By supporting the German Christian movement and Müller, they could continue to practice their faith while showing support for Hitler. In a national vote by Protestants taken in July 1933, the German Christians were supported by two-thirds of voters, and Müller won the national election to lead them.
Christ is not an antidote for political poison but instead a strong belief in Christ can be a marker for those most at risk. Being among the strongest, most vocal of the faithful appears to confer no protection.
And what is divine destiny, you ask. Divine destiny is the concept that a person, group, or even a nation can have a preordained purpose or fate set by God. Believers think God has a specific plan for them, or humanity. People follow God's will to fulfill that destiny.
Sermons given by German clergy frequently praised the government, and church announcements expressed not just support but “joyous cooperation” with the Nazi Party. It seems religious piety among German Protestants was a strong predictor of support for the Nazi Party.
Scholarly Sources To Consult:
"The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945" by Richard Steigmann-Gall – explores how both elites and ordinary Nazis integrated Christian ideas.
"Between God and Hitler: German Protestantism and the Nazi State" by Matthew D. Hockenos – covers Christian responses to the Nazi regime.
"Letters from the Wehrmacht" (various collections) – contains firsthand expressions of faith, duty, and nationalism.
Turning our attention to the United States, we quickly find ourselves immersed in a complex story of protestant religious extremism going back decades. During the time of the slave trade and later during the era of segregation, Christian beliefs were invoked to justify and defend both the slave trade and segregation.
But, you don't have to go back decades to find movements supported by protestant religious extremism. Think of the Christian nationalism movement so popular today. This is the belief that the United States is fundamentally a Christian country and that the laws and political policies should reflect Christian values.
Christian nationalists believe in moral absolutism—there is a divinely ordained moral code that must govern our Christian society. This leads to intolerance. For example, opponents of abortion, right-to-life groups, are not expressing a religious or personal view but a fundamental belief, a core belief that must be enforced at all political levels, municipal, state and national.
Donald Trump courted the evangelical vote: In the United States, Donald Trump used promises to protect Christian values, such as addressing the moral problem of abortion. He said he would protect the country from liberal or progressives and woke social policies.
Trump's authoritarian tendencies, such as his contempt for the press, his disregard for the separation of powers, and his push for Christian nationalist policies, point to a troubling trend to merge religious extremism with political extremism. It has happened in the past and it never ends well.
Political and religious extremists share some goals. They both want to restore what they see as lost greatness and both want to end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. After President Donald Trump gave his victory speech, dozens of his loyal supporters filled the lobby at the Palm Beach Convention Center to sing "How Great Thou Art."
On the campaign trail, Trump encouraged the mixing of religion and politics. He proclaimed that he would “protect Christians in our schools and in our military and our government” and in “our public square.”
If you are religious but not evangelical, you may think you are getting off scot-free. Absolutely not. According to the AP, 6 in 10 white Catholics voted for Donald Trump as did 6 in 10 Mormons. Trump's support rises to 8 in 10 when one polls white evangelical Christian voters. This is an absolutely staggering margin of support.
In Canada, evangelicals have shown strong support for Pierre Poilievre over Mark Carney. A 2024 Angus Reid poll indicated that 73% of evangelical Christians planned to vote for Poilievre's Conservative Party, compared to just 5% for Justin Trudeau's Liberals. During the 2025 federal election, Poilievre visited multiple churches in Liberal-held ridings.
In contrast, Mark Carney, despite being a former central banker with a reputation for steady leadership, did not have a significant evangelical base. His campaign focused more on economic stability and national unity, particularly in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's trade threats, rather than on religious or social conservative issues. Carney won but just barely.
Mark Carney and his wife, Diana Fox Carney, have been prominent figures in the global environmental movement, leveraging their expertise and platforms to advocate for sustainable policies and practices. Mark and Diana Carney are greens and believe it is possible to be both green and financially successful.
On the other hand, Pierre Poilievre is not green and proud of it. If elected, he promised to bring back plastic bags and drinking straws. He argued for recycling rather than banning. In truth, many plastic bags and straws are not recyclable due to contamination, size and material type (usually polypropylene). Both take centuries to degrade during which time they shed and breakdown into the microplastics now found in the human body.
Why do evangelicals choose Poilievre over Carney? I found more reasons than I care to list. I would bore you. Let’s examine only two controversial subjects: the carbon tax and the banning of plastic bags and straws.
-- The carbon tax is an act of government intervention associated with progressive Liberal Party policy and anti-capitalist climate activism penalizing targeted industries.
-- Even if the carbon tax is rebated, people perceive only the upfront cost, not the long-term climate or economic offsets. They go with their common sense which is more accurately called common nonsense.
-- Approximately 80% of Canadians got more back in rebates than they paid out in carbon tax costs. Conservative politicians (like Poilievre) framed the carbon tax as a "tax on everything", heightening misconceptions that it disproportionately harms working-class families.
-- Climate policy is sometimes seen as part of a "secular" or globalist agenda, conflicting with their world view.
-- The ban on plastic straws and bags is seen as another example of government overreach. Bringing back plastic straws and bags is a common sense move to restore personal choice.
-- Environmental bans are associated with urban elites, bureaucracy, and "woke" values.
Poilievre's messaging around freedom, anti-tax, and individual responsibility aligns strongly with evangelical political values. For many evangelicals it is the economy first and the environment second.
I am getting a glimpse into why Trump and Poilievre do so well with evangelicals and other religious folk. It is not reassuring.
