Tweet
Originally posted by chancellor
View Post
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.
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.
Comment