opinion

Swarens: Evangelicals follow Trump, Moore into moral swamp

If Alabama Republican and accused child molester Roy Moore is elected to the U.S. Senate this month -- three recent polls indicate he's on track to win -- it will be largely because of support from voters who say that following Jesus is their highest calling in life.

How can that be?

Well, conservatives' distrust of the news media can't be discounted. Many simply don't trust reports, no matter how well documented, that Moore may have sexually abused a 14-year-old and assaulted a 16-year-old girl in the 1970s.

But a bigger factor is the adoption by many conservative Christians of an "end justifies the means" approach to politics.

It's why many Alabama voters are sticking with Moore now. And why many evangelicals across the country stuck with Donald Trump last year, despite multiple accusations of sexual harassment and too many other disqualifying actions and traits to list here.

Back in the day, say 2012, evangelicals concerned themselves with standing up for moral behavior and against moral relativism. The "end justifies the means" was seen as a decidedly unbiblical approach to decision-making.

These days, for far too many believers, such principles are deemed secondary to the overriding importance of winning a U.S. Senate seat or controlling the White House.

In one of the more morally tortured pieces I've read of late, Tully Borland, an associate professor of philosophy at Ouachita Baptist University, tried to make a case in The Federalist as for "Why Alabamians Should Vote for Roy Moore."

Borland's position boils down to this: It's better to elect an accused child molester (Moore) than a candidate who supports legalized abortion (Democrat Doug Jones).

Columnist and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan made the same argument this week. "Why would Christian conservatives in good conscience go to the polls Dec. 12 and vote for Judge Roy Moore, despite the charges of sexual misconduct with teenagers leveled against him?" Buchanan wrote. "Answer: That Alabama Senate race could determine whether Roe v. Wade is overturned. The lives of millions of unborn may be the stakes."

As a pro-life evangelical, I find Borland and Buchanan's "excuse evil for the greater good" approach appalling.

If credible allegations of sexual abuse aren't enough to knock out a candidate, what crime would be disqualifying in their eyes? How low must a pro-life Republican sink before they and other evangelicals would withdraw their support? Is any transgression, short of wearing an "I'm With Her" button, acceptable as long as a candidate promises to somehow overturn Roe v. Wade?

Speaking of which, Buchanan stretches credibility with his assertion that the outcome of the Alabama Senate race might be a deciding factor in the Supreme Court overturning its nearly 45-year precedent on abortion. It's the type of over-hyped rhetoric that political fund-raisers on both sides of the issue toss out to rouse the rabble.

In reality, even if Moore loses, Republicans will still hold a 51-seat Senate majority, along with retaining Vice President Mike Pence's tie-breaking vote in reserve, for at least the next year. The conservative transform of the federal judiciary that Buchanan longs for will continue unless voters in much of the nation say otherwise in 2018.

Besides, if such considerations really were of highest priority for evangelicals, they would've thrown their support behind Moore's primary opponent, sitting Sen. Luther Strange, who would be cruising to election today. As it stands, Moore may lose a seat that a reliably conservative Strange could have worn out for many years.

Instead, they followed Roy Moore into a moral swamp. Just as many evangelicals followed Donald Trump down the same twisted path a year ago.

That swamp doesn't lead to higher ground. It only sucks the lost and reckless deeper into the muck.

Contact Swarens at tim.swarens@indystar.com. Friend him on Facebook at Tim Swarens; follow him on Twitter @tswarens.