I'm sure this has been covered elsewhere but.....

[umjewman]

I wonder how hard it would be to find people who are less worthy than our current president. I guess we could start with death row, then the child abuser list, but after that it starts to get difficult.

Ted Cruz?

Giggle....

[Sour Masher]

I wonder how hard it would be to find people who are less worthy than our current president. I guess we could start with death row, then the child abuser list, but after that it starts to get difficult.

Yes, I meant to compliment itc, but really, saying he is better than Trump is no compliment.

[chancellor]

And I'll provide the respectfully disagreeing view to ITC.

Princeton professor, Robert George, summed it up best, when he noted: "Their [Evangelicals and Catholics] support for him [Trump] is based on a prudential judgment that the overall situation for the common good would be made much worse if he were to lose to one of the Democrats. And they fear--with justification--that the consequences for themselves and their religious institutions would be dire if such a thing were to happen."

Sour Masher is absolutely correct about abortion, and I'll again respectfully disagree with ITC here. I do not find it short-sighted to support a politician - no matter how flawed - that will best protect the defenseless souls slain by the tens of thousands - possibly hundreds of thousands - on a grisly yearly basis. For Christians who believe life begins at conception, that God knows us even in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16, Jer. 1:4-5), choosing a more imperfect leader versus a more apocalyptic death toll from abortion is easy calculus. In my personal case, abortion is not a sole litmus test for my vote, but for many Christians it is, and I certainly respect and appreciate their view. That's not short-sighted. That's preventing grisly murder against those wholly unable to defend themselves. Short of sowing the seeds of salvation, I can think of little that is more Christian than attempting to save those unable to protect themselves.

Keeping it relatively brief, if there was any doubt that Christians should be concerned about themselves and their religious institutions, I'll simply point to two relatively recent instances where the mask has come off should Trump lose. The first is Elizabeth Bartholet's anti-homeschooling treatise coming out in Harvard Magazine's May/June edition. Dr. Bartholet condemns the "conservative Christian wing" of homeschoolers in particular, and recommends that homeschooling ought to be banned, or at least so heavily regulated that only an extreme few would be able to qualify.

The second, and most telling, was the CNN town hall event where Don Lemon asked Beto O'Rourke if churches and religious institutions should lose their tax-exempt status if they opposed same-sex marriage, his answer was: "Yes. There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us. And so as president, we're going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans."

Beto is a Democrat who falls much closer to Joe Biden on the ideological spectrum than Bernie Sanders. It's no great jump of logic to realize that a significant part of the party that opposes Donald Trump will fervently attempt to strip away freedoms and benefits that churches have had for as long as memory serves in our country.

[nots]

And I'll provide the respectfully disagreeing view to ITC.

Princeton professor, Robert George, summed it up best, when he noted: "Their [Evangelicals and Catholics] support for him [Trump] is based on a prudential judgment that the overall situation for the common good would be made much worse if he were to lose to one of the Democrats. And they fear--with justification--that the consequences for themselves and their religious institutions would be dire if such a thing were to happen."

Sour Masher is absolutely correct about abortion, and I'll again respectfully disagree with ITC here. I do not find it short-sighted to support a politician - no matter how flawed - that will best protect the defenseless souls slain by the tens of thousands - possibly hundreds of thousands - on a grisly yearly basis. For Christians who believe life begins at conception, that God knows us even in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16, Jer. 1:4-5), choosing a more imperfect leader versus a more apocalyptic death toll from abortion is easy calculus. In my personal case, abortion is not a sole litmus test for my vote, but for many Christians it is, and I certainly respect and appreciate their view. That's not short-sighted. That's preventing grisly murder against those wholly unable to defend themselves. Short of sowing the seeds of salvation, I can think of little that is more Christian than attempting to save those unable to protect themselves.

Keeping it relatively brief, if there was any doubt that Christians should be concerned about themselves and their religious institutions, I'll simply point to two relatively recent instances where the mask has come off should Trump lose. The first is Elizabeth Bartholet's anti-homeschooling treatise coming out in Harvard Magazine's May/June edition. Dr. Bartholet condemns the "conservative Christian wing" of homeschoolers in particular, and recommends that homeschooling ought to be banned, or at least so heavily regulated that only an extreme few would be able to qualify.

The second, and most telling, was the CNN town hall event where Don Lemon asked Beto O'Rourke if churches and religious institutions should lose their tax-exempt status if they opposed same-sex marriage, his answer was: "Yes. There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us. And so as president, we're going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans."

Beto is a Democrat who falls much closer to Joe Biden on the ideological spectrum than Bernie Sanders. It's no great jump of logic to realize that a significant part of the party that opposes Donald Trump will fervently attempt to strip away freedoms and benefits that churches have had for as long as memory serves in our country.

Good post Chance.
I also think this quote would give Catholics (and I guess by extension Evangelicals) some concern as well:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4688154/user-clip-dianne-feinsteins-dogma-quote

[Sour Masher]

Chance, since you've decided to come back into the muck with us (welcome back!), and while you are on the topic, let's revisit the issue you don't address in your post--what about the overwhelming support from Evangelicals for Trump in the GOP primaries? He had to get through a whole host of better Christians that would have also stacked the SC. Most evangelicals didn't choose the lesser of two evils in the general. They supported a morally bankrupt man all the way to the nomination. You can continue to try to focus on Trump vs the evil left, but the irrefutable fact is that Trump vs the GOP field was the first battle, and most evangelicals showed great hypocrisy in choosing Trump over a field filled with better men living lives and promoting values more aligned with Christian dogma than Donald Trump.

[Sour Masher]

Also, the principle behind making churches tax exempt had merit, but in practice, it is an unfair practice that is often abused and needs major revision, just like the policies giving tax breaks to the riches private colleges in the country need revision, to use an example I agree with on the right.

[nullnor]

i am conflicted as i am a roman catholic and an alter boy for 4 years, i even served a bishop in church once. when i was a toddler i used to carry a fake rabbit to church every day. i carried it with me every where until i was like 5 or 6 years old.

we all want to save something. i don't know or am afraid to wade into this, but that's my religious credentials. it's might not be enough but.

hey look UFO'S

[nullnor]

you know Utah is like the youngest state. the mormons are pumping out the babies.

[nots]

you know Utah is like the youngest state. the mormons are pumping out the babies.

I was surprised to learn Maine is the oldest. Would not have guessed that.

https://www.infoplease.com/us/states/oldest-states

[Sour Masher]

Good post Chance.
I also think this quote would give Catholics (and I guess by extension Evangelicals) some concern as well:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c46881...ns-dogma-quote

If all of them have these concerns and don't want to be hypocrites, they should all vote for your man Amash. As a voting block, they have the power to make a 3rd party candidate viable, or hell, they could have forced Trump out of the GOP and replaced him by supporting an in-party challenger. None of this is a defense for their initial and continued support of Donald Trump specifically.

[nullnor]

Also, the principle behind making churches tax exempt had merit, but in practice, it is an unfair practice that is often abused and needs major revision, just like the policies giving tax breaks to the riches private colleges in the country need revision, to use an example I agree with on the right.

in the last tax bill they actually charge people tax that park in church parking lots. i could find the reference, but i think i misspelled it. lol. so, greed knows no bounds eventually, the people in power will start going after churches for money. that's why you want to keep churches tax exempt. in the end, when the shit hit's the fan, they will be the last ones you can count on.

[nullnor]

I was surprised to learn Maine is the oldest. Would not have guessed that.
https://www.infoplease.com/us/states/oldest-states

i didn't know that either. but i saw that too.

[nullnor]

Florida isn't a a surprise either, but Kentucky is. i've been trying to tell people for years that endorsing these kind economic bubble's and recessions, and to be sure, it's economics, it's completely related to inequality. it decreases birth rates. no-one wants to have children if they can't afford it or during a recession. so if you want to prosper and create life, you have to do something to improve the conditions that will make us successful. i don't know what Utah is doing but, they are doing something right.

[chancellor]

Chance, since you've decided to come back into the muck with us (welcome back!), and while you are on the topic, let's revisit the issue you don't address in your post--what about the overwhelming support from Evangelicals for Trump in the GOP primaries? He had to get through a whole host of better Christians that would have also stacked the SC. Most evangelicals didn't choose the lesser of two evils in the general. They supported a morally bankrupt man all the way to the nomination. You can continue to try to focus on Trump vs the evil left, but the irrefutable fact is that Trump vs the GOP field was the first battle, and most evangelicals showed great hypocrisy in choosing Trump over a field filled with better men living lives and promoting values more aligned with Christian dogma than Donald Trump.

Pass. I appreciated Steve’s question, as well as ITC’s point of view. I wanted to take the time to explain the counter point to ITCs post to fully answer Steve’s question. Anything else has pretty much been hashed through in gory detail previously. Back to baseball and food for me.

[Ken]

Pass. I appreciated Steve’s question, as well as ITC’s point of view. I wanted to take the time to explain the counter point to ITCs post to fully answer Steve’s question. Anything else has pretty much been hashed through in gory detail previously. Back to baseball and food for me.

I'll disagree - I thought ITC's post was good, and your retort was good as well. But SourMasher's followup is valid, and it hasn't been "hashed through in gory detail". If the rest of the morality question is put to the side for the sake of the abortion issue that's one thing, but it doesn't apply in the primary. So Steve's question is still lacking an answer for that case - why would the evangelical right get behind a guy who was so obviously morally bankrupt when there were other options (who would be similar on the abortion issue)