This is the one part of your comment I’ve (anecdotally) found to be untrue. The Catholics, Evangelical Protestants and Mormons I know consider ministering to the poor to be a serious priority and are critical of their religions’ embrace of Mammonism. The problem is that that’s almost all the only part they’re critical of, and they’re still willing to support Mammonists like Trump as long as he caters to all their other fears and hatreds. I’m as critical of Xtians as the next atheist, but even they are complex human beings. Manichean narratives of the lot of them as the sort of anti-human demons they tend to caricature others as doesn’t track for me, even though a sizeable fraction of them like this minister come very close to fitting that bill.
The following portion of my reply is in conversation but not contention with your comment. It’s an argument not against you, but against even playing Robertson’s rhetorical game.
The problem for me with even seriously engaging characterizations such as Robertson’s is that it’s a strawman from start to finish.
He and most of his followers have a farcically distorted understanding of socialism viewed through the lens of their own utopian mythologies about capitalism.
The left isn’t anti-family. It’s anti-patriarchy, but that doesn’t scare his followers as much as fever dreams of Huxleyan breeding programs and softly-tyrannical state creches.
Women aren’t all out to leave their husbands (they had reasons for making the emotional commitment and temporal investment in a spouse and that reason isn’t always needs-based). They’re after autonomy including the right to leave their husbands and the right to workforce equality so they aren’t second-class citizens because, again, patriarchy is oppressive by design.
They don’t want to kill their children. They want the sovereignty over their bodies and reproductive rights the patriarchy seeks to deprive them of and exercise itself to maintain them as broodmares.
Wiccans, other neo-pagans and even most types of soi-dissant Satanists bare little to no resemblance to the panicked lies promulgated by Robertson, et al, which are nothing more than banal repeats of the delusional moral panics Christendom has relied on to drum up fear since the Roman Empire.
The form of capitalism they worship is destroying itself and people are trying to survive its immolation, but blaming the poor is Mammonism 101.
While whether people discover or decide they no longer want to be heterosexual or cisgendered is immaterial to the immorality of opposing their right to do so, most people report their orientation not as a choice they make, but something they learn about themselves necessarily in opposition to the patriarchy if their personal truth doesn’t happen to coincide with the pigeonholing it uses to enforce its dominion. Here once again Robertson’s statement is just about inducing fear of straight Evangelical men that women will have leverage and may choose not to, as you so succinctly put it, be their doormats.
