Thanks for writing this. I hope it gets read with the thoughtfulness it deserves.
I know that the mods have forbidden accusing others of being Russian bots but I wonder if there is a rule against accusing others of being 19th century Russian novelists.
I know that during election season Manicheanism stalks the land and my fellow evangelicals are as susceptible as anyone. I stand by the idea that a mere observation of someone for a day or two would be enough. I have no doubt if they were to be able to see a highlight film of all Trump’s worst actions over his life it would have the desired effect, but that is true for almost anyone, thought much truer in Trump’s case.
You say that evangelicals want people to live under their values, but that you don’t want evangelicals to live under yours. However then you say in a pluralist society everyone must choose between serving everyone or no one. You seem to see a contradiction in evangelical’s position but not the same one in yours. I think people should be free to do what they want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other people. You may believe the same. However, abortion involves two people, the mother and the child. They have competing rights. The child has a right to life and the woman has a right to control her own body. Their rights are in competition. You can pretend it is not true by defining abortion as a medical procedure but euphemism is not reality. You say that you oppose abortion as birth control but support it in cases where the mother’s life is in danger like your mother’s was. The likelihood that abortion laws would ever bar abortions that would save the life of the mother is nil, but millions of abortions are done for birth control every year. If Roe v Wade was overturned abortion laws would likely look like the rest of the industrialized world where it is highly restricted in late pregnancy and allowed in early pregnancy and in cases of potential harm to the mother. That would be a huge improvement over the status quo, but your side is willing to stack the Supreme Court in order to prevent that from happening.
Abortion is a case where I would impose my values on others but I would likewise do so in cases such as murder, rape, theft, assault, and several other cases. There is no one who is taken seriously that does not likewise want to impose their values on others in all those cases except abortion. In all those cases it is not possible for society to not impose values on people and still protect the rights of others.
Gay wedding cakes are a different story. Once again rights are in competition, the baker’s right to practice their religion and the gay couples right not to have to shop around. Except those rights are not equal. Freedom of religion is one of the building blocks of our society after the religious wars in Europe threatened to destroy our civilization.I have no desire to tell gay people or anyone else that they have to serve evangelicals and all I want is to be afforded the same right. If you read the stories of those cases it is obvious what is happening. The couple who sued did not have their hearts set on that bakery because they thought it was the only place who could do the job, they chose it because they heard the baker was a christian and hoped he would refuse so they could have his business shut down. People went to muslim bakeries and tried to get them to bake a similar cake and they refused. People went to a gay baker and asked them to bake a cake with a bible verse condemning homosexuality on it and they refused. The Obama administration could have written the rules so that Catholic schools are exempt from birth control mandates in health insurance but they did not. Christians are being targeted. Biden may be a better person than Trump but he is standing with those targeting us and Trump is attempting to defend us.
You claim by valuing effectiveness over personal propriety we have conceded the moral high ground. No more than choosing which restaurant to eat at because of the food and not the morality of the chef, or a roofing company on the quality of its work and not the quality of the worker’s marriages. It is not surprising to me that an atheist would seek to fulfill their religious needs via politics but I have no need. God is so powerful that he can use the wicked as well as the righteous to fulfill his will. If Trump were a better man he would likely be a better president but a good effective candidate is not on offer at the moment so I am forced to choose the bad effective one.
Miles Taylor is a self described opponent of Donald Trump, so it is very likely that he puts the most prejudicial spin on things he can. He said that Trump wants migrants to be electrocuted, gassed, and shot. It seems likely that Trump was speaking about the wall he wants to build and that it would be more effective if it was electric, used gas, or had armed guards on it. Taylor’s description is like saying every business owner who uses barbed wire on their fence wants to stab local youths. I have a hard time believing anything worse because the reporting on border issues has been mostly hyperbole.
As I understand it, no one in American politics is openly for open borders. However, the US is treaty bound to accept refugees. Therefore, there must be a way to screen refugees from illegal immigrants. There are hearings available to all asylum claimants so that can be done. If you allow anyone who claims asylum to walk away before their hearing it becomes open borders with an extra step. So asylum seekers are detained until their hearing. Some asylum seekers come with kids and the court has rules about how long they can be kept in detainment. The choice is either to separate the families temporarily or have open borders to whoever comes across with a kid. Given coyotes know this it would mean them finding kids to bring across with every group putting thousands of kids in danger. The families are temporarily separated while the government searches for family members to house the kids until the hearings are finished. While they wait to go to the children’s housing facilities they are separated from the adults by wire fencing. This is reported as kids being thrown into cages. I can see that people can disagree with the policy but everyone should agree that “kids thrown into cages” is a dishonest framing of what is happening. That is why I don’t take the testimony of Trump’s enemies at face value. As to the cruise ship story, I can think of more than one reason to keep a ship full of people with a deadly contagious disease out of our country.
Biden says he wants to heal and unite, but if bromides and cliches could unite our country it would never have been divided. If Biden wants to unite our country, let him announce that his good friend Mitch McConnell will get to pick the next Supreme Court nominee and that he will zealously enforce the RFRA in places christian businesses are being persecuted. If he did that I would support him and many evangelicals would as well. But I will not be bought off by lip service and empty rhetoric.
Biden may want to be a MORAL leader of this country but if he does he should become a preacher instead of a politician. We agree with the lesson of the Israelites wanting a king, but you are the one who wants the president to be a MORAL leader. I have no king but Jesus, I don’t want America to have one as president either, just a politician who advances good policy.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply, I will reply and try to keep it shorter than a Russian novel. But I put off several things for the last few weeks so I could focus on the election and those items are demanding my attention for the next two days.
I do look forward to these discussions with you because you CAN challenge my views on an intellectual basis while other Trump voters I interact with cannot. That being said, as I wrote this I just noticed this sentence in your post. Without going back and re-reading right now for context, and without any insult intended toward you (Trump- well, fair game for insults).
I have to admit that sentence sounds comically ironic to me when coming from a Trump supporter. (But it didn’t attract my attention when I read it originally so it must make more sense in context. It was just the sentence that was right above my reply screen and it caught my eye.) In other news, how is Trump’s comprehensive healthcare plan coming along? Guess we will know in two weeks.
Serious reply soon. (soon-ish)
That’s a lot of words to get the point across that you don’t care about morality.
I find the entire premise of this thread smacks of religious bigotry. Once common among the right, it has now become fashionable on the left. It is fairly loathsome in both cases.
Easy to say that when you’re not someone who is existentially threatened by the religious people in question.
I see. So it is OK when you do it? Now I understand.
I believe that puddleglum is more nuanced and sincere than perhaps you are giving him credit for being. He is coming from a place of real life experience and I do not believe his response is an exercise in justification even though it might look or sound that way from other points of view. Unfortunately writing a response of more than a few sentences is very difficult for me right now (I hope to be caught up soon). I do intend to address his points when I can.
I have admitted that I painted with too broad a brush when I first posted this. I can tell you there are some people of my first person acquaintance who sincerely believe patently false narratives and intentional misinformation. That is the focus of this thought exercise and the people it is intended for. I have no illusion of influencing non believing hard right militia types. Nor do I include thinking and sincere believers like puddleglum; the target of this exercise is now reduced to those who know they are being misinformed but prefer that wrong but comfortable view to the harsh reality they are desperate to avoid.
One more thing, before you accuse me of bigotry again, why don’t you go back and read that I am still a registered Republican (far from a voice of the left), that I have served in churches across the Southwest, attended a Bible College and still occasionally do work with and for Christian churches. This thread is not about being fashionably progressive.
I do hope to touch on this if not address it fully when I have more time for a comprehensive reply to puddleglum. I do apologize for any part I have played during my past lifetime for potentially questioning your right to exist.
This just showed up and I have to attend to other matters soon. But I can’t spend much time addressing it anyway because I do not understand the comment. It seems Paul, that you are offended, but I am not sure what this comment refers to specifically. I have admitted some errors above, without adding to any confessed errors - I am sorry you are offended. If you have some specific question, observation, or critique please state it and I will address it as best I can.
If you just want to start a fight, feel free to start your own thread.
I don’t want to start a fight with anyone at all. I am simply pointing out that the entire premise of the thread is based on religious bigotry.
Further, I can prove it. If you find it OK to have all the Evangelical voters do something, would you be cool with forcing all the Jewish voters to do something? If so, you can see where your path leads. If not, why not?
Try reading before posting.
Now, read the whole thread, be informed and contribute. Or read a headline, jump to a conclusion and ignore a reply addressed specifically to you (and previously to others). Please catch up before you add additional comments.
I am going to repeat that: Please catch up before you add additional comments. I welcome any comments you want to make after you have read what everyone else has written first.
It seems obvious to me that you are trying to pick a fight. What I am cool with is you reading the thread and understanding it before posting anything further.
You seen to be into making other people do things. Would you like to talk about that?
Okay, I have finally managed to put some thoughts down on paper, deep and sincere apologies for the delay. I will not bore any of you with my excuses.
I want to start by posting something that kind of puts my original intent into perspective. As I was trying to understand why some from my circle were so very dedicated to their views, I would ask where they go their information. The question was always avoided; the closest to a direct answer I received was “It isn’t just FOX News.”
Things became tense and I have been staying separate from those who tend to stir up bad feelings. But one of them sent me this link after the election was completed and a call had been made. I was watching the video while the news was on in the background and one of the people being referred to in the video was on the TV screen with a tag stating the name, role, and party affiliation and the video was wrong. I don’t even recall who it was, and there is a lot of factually wrong information in the video.
But the point is, the people I wanted to have to view the candidates for a week each were the people who would believe this:
More reply to come soon.
Okay, I finally have some time to give this the attention it deserves and I apologize for the delay. I have started to respond a couple of times and just canceled the reply until I could be more comprehensive in my response. In the time I have been silent the election has been called but things are not fully resolved, and even once they are – this discussion will not be moot because the underlying conflict and positions will persist. I believe it is worth understanding each other better so we can find agreement – or even define disagreements so we can politely agree to disagree like gentlemen, not disparage as enemies.
First of all, comparing anything I write to a 19th century Russian novelist is likely the most complimentary comparison anything I have ever written has ever received. So thank you (even though I am sure you referring to the length rather than the content I will still accept the compliment and I do appreciate it). I will try to make this response shorter than a Russian novel, but I do want to address everything you brought up, I try to never be dismissive of any good man’s point of view.
I am not familiar with Manicheanism, but a quick search suggests it might be the hybrid of beliefs that Mani of Persia developed in the Third Century which contains elements of Dualism. I do admit that my views of the two presidential candidates for the purpose of this thread is quite simplistic assigning one candidate (Donald Trump) an evil and hypocritical nature, and the other candidate (Joe Biden) a sincere, inclusive, and uplifting character. The purpose of introducing the topic is that many of my acquaintances have the entirely opposite view and that the views are mutually exclusive. You make a good point that a few days observation will likely not reveal a person’s entire character; I concede that point in general. But in this specific case, I believe it would be a valuable use of time and change views – just not for a group as large as I first imagined.
The reason I launched this thread was based upon the belief that many of the believers in my circle (none of the orthodox, liturgical crowd – but most of the evangelicals) have such a specific and OPPOSITE view, that a week of observation would be enough to challenge their beliefs. I continually asked them where these views came from, what their news sources were and the question was always avoided. After the election was called, one of them I stopped interacting with previously sent the link I posted above with the note that he or she did not want to discuss it – but THIS is why he or she held those views and it was likely why others held those views too. If you will take a few moments to view the video, I believe you will see that the views expressed do not represent your point of view, nor the views of most believers. However, I hear a view of Biden that is almost exclusively a characterization of the Mr. Burns character from The Simpson’s. He sits with his hands steepled while he plans evil and mutters “Excelllllent”.
Despite the widely available evidence of Donald Trump’s . . . . less than ideally moral lifestyle, the argument is that Robert Jeffries, and Paula White (well, Paula White!), and SO many other Christian leaders would not support him if he were not basically good and moral! Why would he appoint these moral, Christian judges and justices if he were not a believer himself? When I mention Biden has attended Mass, that is seen as a political move to hide his immorality. Meanwhile, Trump’s photo in front of St. John’s is never viewed with cynicism and the events that led up to the photo are defended. There is no doubt that my family, friends, and I are watching an old western where the good guys are all good and the bad guys are all bad – we just have a very strong disagreement over who is wearing the white hat and who is wearing the black hat. But you have more substantive points that deserve attention and we should move on to those now. I hope once you see the influences of my circle, and the level of dissonance their views hold with reality you can understand why I want to force them to see reality. I no longer hold a great deal of belief it would change their votes - but it would open their eyes I still believe. I realized some time ago that you have a much more realistic view of the world, and I hope you can see that the original rant was aimed at those who held those specific beliefs and is a “for their own good” sort of thing. We can discuss further in the future if you desire.
You and I seem to agree in principle as to freedom and limits to freedom, but disagree on how to implement the freedoms. Like you, I completely believe all should be free to act according their beliefs as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Let’s carve that in stone – we do agree fully. The question then becomes what happens when the actions of two citizens are in conflict? NOT when their beliefs are in conflict – when their acts are in conflict. You give an example we will discuss momentarily, but let’s make it more theoretical: the right of someone to sacrifice a virgin to appease the gods ends when the virgin doesn’t want to be thrown into the volcano, we agree. It is commonly stated as you are free to swing your fists around, but that freedom ends where my jaw starts.
I do NOT agree that pluralism means serving everyone or no one. I believe pluralism means the individual is assigned the responsibility- and granted the right, to make their own choices; to find their own foundation, their own moral stances – and then to live by those values. I believe it includes leaving others to make their own moral stances and to live by – or in some cases to contradict their stance as they see fit (until their actions bump into the freedom of others). It does not mean any individual is forbidden to INFLUENCE others, but it does mean they are forbidden to make those decisions for them. You as a Christian believer are free to live as you see fit. Period. No one can tell you otherwise. But so are non believers free to decide things for themselves, to live by their decisions until those decisions impact others (but specifically you in this example).
This is where I see a contradiction with not just Evangelicals, but many, many believers of all traditions. We will discuss your examples below, and you and I might agree more than you expect. You make good points in some cases and I do agree with some points. But here is where we disagree: If you are against abortion, as long as no one forces you to have an abortion – your freedoms are not being impeded. You are against abortion on a moral basis – and you are perfectly free to live by that and never have an abortion. Someone who does not believe life starts at conception, and that the biological entity that will become a baby eventually is just part of the mother for now are also free to live by THAT belief. You are claiming that abortion is always immoral because the unborn baby cannot speak for itself (and it cannot). You get to decide for your own unborn child, but not for anyone else’s unborn child. Pure and simple; this is pluralism, those at the “age of reason” decide for themselves. As a matter of civil law any other conclusion is imposing your morality upon others. The same applies with all of your religious views. That does not mean you have no moral voice at all, you can do much, you just don’t get to make the final decision for anyone else by passing laws that negate their freedoms. (As I said, you made some good points and we will address them specifically momentarily. This paragraph is about plurality, and here I believe I hold the high ground as a concept. We will discuss applying the concept soon.) If you are against gay marriage, you are 100% free to live by your moral stance in this country. I promise you even the most liberal minded among us will not insist you marry a same sex partner. (Again, you and I will discuss Christian businesses and civil rights soon but I don’t see how you could disagree with you being allowed to make choices for yourself and others being allowed to make choices for themselves.) There are many other policies which plurality addresses only indirectly, I am not sure how ones stand on immigration affects personal freedom, but let’s talk about education. You are free to send your kids to a private school or to home school them, you are not free to introduce Christian doctrine into public school curriculum or to insist upon a Christian prayer as part of the morning announcements. Surely you can see why, are you willing to allow Muslim prayers be a part of the morning announcements for all students? In all these cases YOU and your family are free to do as you see fit, but often Christians want to extend their freedoms so their views, doctrine, and morality are imposed upon others who do not share them. I would not be surprised to learn you are not guilty of that (or not as guilty of that), but there may be some places where your personal views overreach your personal life. If I am guilty of this as you claimed in your post, I am unaware of it. I may need your help to realize where I am contradicting myself; I do not want to be a hypocrite so I invite you to show me my error.
[NOTE: Concerning private school, it is my belief that children too young to know any better or choose for themselves are often victims of their parent’s faith. Watch any one of dozens of Seth Andrews’s videos where he discusses his upbringing and schooling. He claims what he endured amounted to child abuse. I do not expect you to agree, but he told of the extreme emotional trauma of watching ‘end times’ movies where people were beheaded when he was a child as young as eight or nine years old.]
Finally we get to the point, let’s talk about abortion. I do agree the unborn child has rights, and that they conflict with the mother’s rights. I even believe the sanctity of life supersedes the right of the mother to control her body. Where I disagree, is when the unborn child is a viable life form with full right and privileges. Many believers have adopted the Church of Rome’s position that they scoffed at seventy years ago. (Again, please read Franky Schaffer’s book CRAZY FOR GOD. He describes in detail going around with his father to various American Christian leaders to drum up support for the anti-abortion cause and being rebuffed time and time again being told by most of these leaders that abortion is a solely Catholic issue and an outdated one at that.)
At any rate many believers hold the belief that life begins at conception. I do not agree with that, and neither do most non believers. We can discuss at what point an unborn child becomes a separate being, a life vs. being a potential life and we will not agree. But you are free to decide for yourself as you should be, and you are free to act according to your beliefs. So am I free to believe and to act according to my decisions, as are all Americans. But in a free society you do not get to decide for anyone else. You ARE free to discuss, to persuade, to influence the beliefs of others – but you do not get to decide for them (more later).
I am going to interrupt my thoughts to suggest something that sounds very much like your own pragmatic solution to me. I have posted it previously somewhere on this board and I will summarize it briefly. I was once friends with a woman who was for a time the youngest living prematurely delivered baby to grow up and have a full life. She did have some medical problems, and there were limits (like most lives have limits), but she married, held a job, paid taxes, sang in her church choir, and was very helpful to my now ex-wife (probably still is). I have forgotten the particulars of how many weeks along she was when delivered, but she was for damn sure a viable and separate life by then. (I have a vague notion she was born about the end of the second, beginning of the third trimester, but whenever it was – other, younger preemies have now grown into highly functioning adulthood also.)
I suggest that without making it a moral issue, and without even discussing what defines life, we say that after that number of weeks (or even a week or two earlier) the child has full rights and privileges, and that the rights of any mother to have an abortion after that time is limited and extraordinary circumstances are required. It is a fair and medically provable moral stance that applies without regard to religious belief. (Liberals might be reluctant to do this however because so many religiously motivated voters would be pushing the number of weeks earlier and earlier until it reaches point of ‘before conception’ when the mother first has an impure thought. They might also object to letting anyone else tell them when their child’s life begins.)
Now, a couple of clarifications please. First, abortion is a medical procedure pure and simple. Any woman who has to endure an abortion which is not conducted primarily as a medical procedure has my sincere sympathy and who ever performed such a nonmedical abortion needs to be brought to justice. Medical procedure is not a euphemism for anything – it is a denotation of an event pure and simple. That does not mean there is not any moral aspects to the event – but it is a medical event THAT IS reality. Period. Next, I did not say I supported abortion to save the life of the mother (necessarily). In the case of my family, the decision to NOT abort was a religious and tortured one, and one upon which I was, thank goodness, not consulted. I do think if the mother’s life is at risk then that should be a consideration. My mother was offered the option to terminate, her and my father decided to “trust in the Lord”. It had nothing to do with legality or availability – it had everything to do with being moral. But what I am mostly saying is that the belief “all abortion is Murder” is false from an objective and medical perspective. There are times when it might the least harmful option, there are times when denying an abortion on moral grounds might ruin a fully formed life for a theoretical potential life that never materializes, and other options I thankfully do not have to face or even think about. I am not asking you to disregard all moral aspects of the act of abortion and view it ONLY as a medical procedure. I am asking you to view it as more complex and more involved than simply medical murder in all cases.
And here is where we disagree about applying the freedoms of plurality: I will never force you or your partner to have an abortion. You are free to believe life starts at conception, or at the third trimester, or at the time of birth – and you are free to live by that belief. You and I agree very late term abortions are wrong and immoral; it is unlikely we will agree what abortions are moral, or when life does start. My point in the previous post about plurality is that others have beliefs that are different from either yours or mine. You are free to live your life as you see fit, to have/not have – perform/not perform abortions as you see fit. So am I free to live by my standards and have/not have, perform/not perform abortions. Right now, even those you and I disagree with have the same freedoms. You (and more than you, most evangelical believers) seem to miss the point that you also have choice. You may choose to NOT have an abortion! Just because it is available does not mean it HAS to be practiced. It would be unfair to you if you were forced to have an abortion by government decree (and China’s one child policy did amount to government forced abortions). But no one is forcing you or any believer to receive an abortion against your (or their) will. Others have different beliefs about when life starts and they are entitled to their views as much as you are entitled to yours. Your view of the beginning of life is not informed by your medical studies – it is informed by your religious beliefs. You seem to think that whatever your default setting is should be the default setting for all of America. You see it as protecting innocent lives; others see it as the mother controlling a part of her body that is NOT YET A LIFE FORM. Both views are valid and must be respected. I am not faulting you for your compassion for the unborn; I am saying there are other ways to view things and others are free to reach different conclusions than you have reached and they should not be limited to the options that many Christians try to pass as the law of the land no matter how good and sincere their intentions may be. YOU live by YOUR standards – let others live by theirs.
I am going to go even further. While I no longer self describe as a theist, I do believe encouraging the highest level of morality is a virtue. I would say that encouraging one young, troubled mother to go to term, deliver her baby and put it up for adoption is better than outlawing abortion for everyone for all but extreme medical considerations. If you are against abortions, especially late term abortions – then do good by working with pregnant women and explaining their option to choose life. Give them options; allow them to make the same moral choice you would make. Even if you are a strict Calvinist and believe in predestination (or some other version of predeterminism), I have never met a believer who did not believe in free will. According to Genesis, the entire reason the world is not an ideal garden is because of free will, because of Adam’s original sin. If you outlaw abortion, at least to some degree you are cheating people of the opportunity to make the moral choice on their own for the right reasons. Please be open to respecting the free will of other people who are created in God’s image.
We could go on and on. We could discuss spirits and souls and heartbeats and pain. The point of pluralism is you may decide for yourself when you think life begins. I am free to make a different decision as is everyone else in America. We should also all have the freedom to act upon those beliefs. The Godly moral way to stop abortions is not to outlaw them; it is to convince people to not get them because they themselves believe they are wrong. It is really the only reason any law works. Mostly people do not avoid committing murder because they are afraid of breaking the law, it is because they know it is wrong to kill anyone - - - even an asshole like [insert hated individual here].
One more point I have to make before moving on. I am not going to speculate about what might happen if Roe V Wade is overturned. Neither you nor I are policy wonks or (as far as I know) law clerks for Supreme Court Justices. Rather than discussing policy, why don’t we both examine what our own views are and why we hold those views? Doesn’t that make more sense, isn’t our first responsibility to ourselves? To making a good and defensible decision we are proud to champion and to live by? In the end, we only get to control ourselves – never others. So live your life in a way that Jesus would approve of and encourage others to do the same. Please try to understand that passing laws that codify your beliefs at the cost of the freedom of others is not what Jesus would endorse. (Perhaps Old Testament God the Father would, but Jesus would not.)
Also, I don’t have a side in this. I am a registered Republican and have been for decades. My personal opinions on the topic of abortion have changed wildly over that time. One thing I have always found to be true is that it is never a waste of time to examine myself, my views, and my motivations; or to question others and try to understand their views. There is no such thing as too informed, but there is such a thing as being over informed on only one side of an issue.
Although I am not a Democrat, the ones stacking the judiciary are the Republicans. They not only held up confirmation of Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee; they did not allow any of his judicial nominees to be seated. Then they filled all those lower court Judgeships along with openings that happened during Trump’s term with very conservative judges. I don’t know what will happen after Biden is inaugurated (he has stated he is opposed to adding Justices), but court stacking has only happened by one party in this country in recent times. Since I am a conservative (although a mild one) and a Republican – you are technically correct, it was my side which is guilty of court stacking. But I do not believe that is what you meant at all, is it? Joe Biden has stated he is reluctant to add Justices to the Supreme Court. But for the last six years Mitch McConnell has used every dirty trick available to seat conservative judges and Justices. To claim that as a moral victory is just wrong, it is what Jesus accused the religious right of doing in his day (the Pharisees and the Sadducees were the religious right in the time of Jesus, and he did not approve of them at all!) If you believe Mitch McConnell cheating to seat conservatives is even okay let alone positive, in my opinion you need to go back and read your Gospels again because Jesus was never about us against them. He was about forgiving people despite their evil deeds, and he was against the powerful abusing their power
I neither can, nor would impose my will on others. But in the case of rape and murder and other capital crimes I would certainly intervene. I would not insist the perpetrators of the crimes adopt my views – but I sure as hell would stop them from doing those things if I was able and work to retain them under my custody until more proper authorities could take over. In other words, my actions would be aimed at stopping any inhumane acts of violence, but not to impose my will – to stop the harm. My will would not be an issue. My will is to stop all victimization; you believe by opposing abortion you are trying to stop the victimization of unborn babies. Can you temper that desire to protect life with the right of others to describe life slightly differently? I will grant that partial birth abortion is almost infanticide; can you agree there is a time when early stage abortions are not murder?
As far as Christian businesses, I believe you have missed the point entirely. You said something to the effect of I don’t want gays serving Evangelicals, nor Evangelicals serving gays. What a gross over simplification, which does not even begin to address the main issue. If you are a Christian businessman or businesswoman, you are entitled to your own views, but your business is not entitled to treat any citizen differently than any other citizen. You are not expressing your personal view – you (as a business) are a part of society. You are part of the fabric of society in a way that an individual is not. This is the most absurd and misguided argument I have ever heard. Your personal views are not at issue UNLESS: they want you to A) Marry a same sex partner yourself, or B) Conduct a same sex marriage as a minister. In every other case, it does not threaten your beliefs one bit to be slightly involved in something you do not personally support.
I do not like smokers; I ask people to not smoke in my shop. But I do NOT refuse to service smokers!! Should a restaurant that caters to The Ohio State fans have the right to refuse service to Michigan fans? Serving a guy in a Michigan jersey is not going to make the cook abandon the Buckeyes and root for the Wolverines. You give the guy a sandwich and a beer and put up with his impolite comments. You also don’t turn away blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Women or anyone else. Without regard to who is or who is not a member of a protected group – treat everyone with the same respect with which you want to be treated. It seems Jesus had something to say about that. For damn sure Confucius did, as did many other religious leaders. You are granted a business license to conduct business in a jurisdiction and you MUST treat all customers fairly – the exact same. Your personal views are not part of the equation. Those views (which are prejudicial by any standard), are not under attack, they are incidental.
One last thing before I start chapter two, most churches hold to the belief that we are to hate the sin, but love the sinner. I do not happen to think being gay is a sin, but if you do fine; dislike the act, disagree with the concept - - but for God’s sake accept the person as a whole person created in God’s image. And remember this: when they brought the adulteress to Jesus and asked him if they should stone her to death as the law demanded, do you recall what he did? He played in the dirt and told them that if any of them were without sin they should throw the first stone. When the crowd had shuffled away he asked the woman where her accusers were. After she replied he said: “If they do not condemn you, neither do I condemn you”. If you thought you knew better than Jesus how to treat others, you would not be listening to me. Live up to the goodness in yourself puddleglum, it is quite evident. You are just being distracted by social issues.
As for trolls of any stripe who want to hire you or your business just to mess with you – so what, take their money (up front), bake the cake, and move on. If they have enough money to do it again, do it again. Endure their shit with a smile on your face and they will drop it. Do the epistles say to count it all joy when you suffer for your faith? Jesus said take up your cross and follow me – then he went to his death after suffering unimaginable pain and humiliation. But American Christians get the vapors when asked to bake an effin cake?? Are you serious? If you show it bothers you they will be back every time they are bored. If they do it often enough, build yourself a vacation home and name it: Gay Wedding Cake. Baking a cake for someone, or photographing a wedding, or providing flowers does NOT mean you endorse the event the cake was baked for. If you live in a town with two high schools and the school your kids go to lose the championship to the other school, would you refuse to bake a cake for the other school that actually won the championship? If that is the case, it reveals more about the baker’s faith than it does about the people asking for the cake.
You are not being asked to violate your morals, you are being asked to overcome you bias (I would say your prejudice) as a cost of holding a business license. You get to go home and believe whatever you want to believe. But you do not get to treat certain customers differently than other customers. Fighting the trolls is a pointless exercise. Convert them to your views by bearing spiritual fruit. How can you not grasp that baking a cake for, or taking photographs of, or providing flowers for a wedding of a gay couple DOES NOT MAKE YOU GAY!! IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU ENDORSE GAY MARRIAGES EITHER!! I can’t imagine why you care who anyone else marries anyway. But if you have any business in America, you do not get to refuse service to Blacks, or Jews, or women, or Muslims, or Catholics, or members of the LGBQT community. Or anyone else for that matter; if that is beyond your ability to grasp – then go open your business in Christianistan (wherever the hell that might be). I am sorry, but being a white, heterosexual male, I just can’t understand this weak, illogical, unbiblical point of view, it makes me angry because it diminishes Christendom itself. How can I care more about this then true believers?
The thing about Obama Care and the Catholic Church is an old and meaningless argument. It should not have been written the way it was. It is hard to imagine anyone from Chicago does not know the long standing position of the church which predates the formation of the U.S.A. by at least twelve hundred years. It was poorly constructed and it was corrected at the time the law was adopted. There is no attack on Christendom; it is just that Christians are so used to having their way in every circumstance they feel persecuted when they are treated fairly or whenever anyone disagrees with their view of the world. And by fairly I mean how all other religious groups are treated. To you and too many other Christians, not being favored amounts to persecution. How jittery I get when I think about having to say ‘Happy Holidays’ rather than ‘Merry Christmas’ – will the torture ever end?!?
I suggest before you make the case that Being Christian in America is fraught with persecution – you go spend some time in a foreign mission field on the other side of the globe. You are mistaking slight inconvenience for purposeful persecution. Please crack open the first chapter of the Epistle of James and read verses 2-4. (I find it pretty ironic that Christians by nature cut anyone who does not fully agree with their views out of the herd, but when they are told their views are not accepted then they become indignant. Often that double standard is based upon the false belief that America was founded as a Christian nation and therefore Christians have a favored status. But all of this is only a side point; true and applicable, but not the main point.)
And by the way, Biden has been to Mass several times since the election has been called to give thanks and to ask for guidance. Trump has mostly golfed and complained. I am not sure you are well qualified to determine who is Godly, and who stands against Christians. Your narrow view of the world seems to boil down to Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice. Your view of Christianity seems devoid of any morality and instead has a check list of political positions. Pro-life? Check! Pro conservative Justices? Check! Pro Second Amendment? Check! Your view of Christianity’s role in American politics is too small and too limited. The personal morality of the candidates matter not at all. Paying off at least two women to cover up extra marital affairs is fine as long as he nominates conservative justices??? Your views of Presidential politics seem to be more informed by your personal preferences than by any Christian belief. Please show me I am incorrect, I do not wish to believe this in the least.
NOTE: I assumed everyone would know this concept is in the Bible. Just to be sure everyone is on board, it is in two of the synoptic Gospels: in Matthew 7:12 and in Luke 6:31.
Leaving that topic and moving on to your contention that you are choosing efficiency, not morality. I am claiming you have surrendered and sacrificed the high moral ground because you have climbed into bed with an immoral man to get items. That is not effectiveness that is prostitution. Your contention that choosing the leader of a nation is the same as choosing a restaurant is absurd to say the least. They are in no means comparable and I believe you are missing the larger point. I understand your point that you get the judges you want and that is enough for you. What I am saying is: that whole view is just wrong. It is wrong the way that compromising your values to get temporal rewards cheapens your faith. (Have you ever read Bonhoeffer? Study up on “Costly Grace”, it cost God his son, and Jesus his life and it continue to cost true disciples devotion to their faith – but that is just a side point.)
I am going to interrupt this discussion to make a different point – but an important one about a similar topic. You think you are using Trump to get Judges, Justices, Proclamations, and laws. Skipping over the morality of using someone to get something, you have it backwards – he is using you. He didn’t get many laws passed that I am aware of, but he did give you three Justices and a load of judges. He also suspended enforcement of the Johnson Amendment. But he took from you. He got you to betray your faith, he got you to support an immoral administration, he took power and wealth on a scale that you and I can only imagine in its vastness. He gave you something he cares about not at all (and it isn’t even your own specific desire if you are willing to learn[I mean by this that you didn’t come up with this view, it was taught to you by the Religious Right and we can discuss this later if you would like]) and took much more value from you. Do you think he refuses to leave office because cares about serving you and the other believers who elevated him like a Golden Calf? No, he is refusing to leave because when he leaves office he will be prosecuted and revealed as a fraud.
I spent most of yesterday in a waiting room, away from my computer, and I thought about this thread and you often puddleglum. I would say to myself, I wish he could read just these two pages! Then I would flip the page and read some more and then think, “No, THESE two pages”. I am going to ask you to do something for both of us. Please, please read chapter 2 (God’s Strongman) from Sarah Posner’s book UNHOLY. It details Donald Trump’s relationship with Christianity and who his “spiritual advisors” are. I am sure you know about Paula White and Robert Jeffries, but learn the whole story with footnotes and references.
But wait, there is more! Also, please read the first chapter of Katherine Stewart’s book THE POWER WORSHIPERS. It is a firsthand account of a pastor’s conference she attended in 2018. Once you have heard her account of the conference, go ahead and read the Introduction. I hope you read both books cover to cover, but I am asking you to see the view of these two women after hours of interviews and research, and even firsthand experience. The first book I recommended (UNHOLY) tells the story from the believer’s point of view. It is an examination of why Trump appeals from a bottoms-up, grassroots perspective. The second book tells the story from a top down perspective. It demonstrates in unavoidable details of how political operatives use pastors and churches to accomplish their goals. It is scary how organized, how efficient, and how cold blooded they are about raising what amounts to a zombie army that thinks it is serving THE Master, but is also (or possibly primarily) serving earthly masters. It is chilling and you should be aware of how they coerce you into caring about what they want you to care about.
To make it a Trinity, I will also recommend Kristin Kobes DuMez’s book JESUS AND JOHN WAYNE. She is a true believer and has researched how Christianity went from a meek, turn the other cheek kind of church into a militant, macho kind of church. It is an insider’s view of similar ground to the other two books, but it kind of states: “Congratulations modern church, you have gained the world, but lost your soul.” As I read it I could sort of hear her thinking: “Oh, come on guys! Are you serious?”
I mention these three books because they are well written, well researched books on the very subject I am trying to relate. But they are better writers, better informed, and kinder than I am. They also have more and better perspective. I am asking for a few chapters so you and I can discuss this more fully and with a better understanding. I hope you will give at least the first recommendation your attention. The second is almost better because it shows the overarching strategy and effort and how it is not the congregants themselves pushing this agenda – it is paid political operators. But for now I will go back to my own points.
I believe it is in James where we read: not hearers only, but doers of the Word will be saved. (I looked it up and I was right – but I got it a bit wrong.) Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says (James 1:22 NIV).
When you say God can use the wicked to accomplish his will, I think you miss the point. (Or maybe you see only the point you want to see – which I do not mean as an insult, we all have blind spots.) You seem to see the presidency as a task oriented job like laying shingles or sautéing vegetables. It is not anything like that if it is done right. It is primarily a moral job filled with vital decisions constantly and the occasional ceremonial photo op or meet and greet. It is making decisions that impact millions of lives, it is setting policies that determine the quality of life for not only Americans – but for our allies (if we have any left by January) and by extension the entire world. It is possibly deciding to send young Americans to kill or be killed. It is fighting against foreign enemies and domestic oppression, and a thousand other moral decisions that impact the lives of real people. Everything the POTUS does has a moral aspect to it. Not the simple and overt morality of being pro or anti anything. If you build a school to help underprivileged kids, it means you don’t have money to build a fighter plane. If you launch a spy satellite to keep us safer, it means you cannot build much needed bridges and roads. You like Trump because he gives you what you want, look at what he has sacrificed to give you those trinkets. You say God is strong enough to use a bad man?? I say if that is your God’s chosen man – then I can never respect your God.
I am sure you and I have different narratives concerning the novel Corona Virus. I have little idea of what you believe concerning that issue. But it seems obvious to me that Trump was more concerned about having a booming economy than in shutting anything down for the sake of health and potentially hindering the economy. I can understand that – and even before reopening I have believed it was possible to control the virus spread without tanking the economy. But then Trump made an immoral decision; to keep the economy booming, he denied the virus and its danger (going so far as to ridicule the wearing of masks). He knew it was dangerous and airborne. He just believed if a few thousand Americans had to die that is better than our whole economy dying. That is not necessarily immoral, in some circumstances a few thousand may have to be sacrificed to save millions from total financial ruin. (That is why being a military commander is a moral job. It isn’t about having great tactics or strategies, they can all do that – it is about being able to ascertain what the cost in human life and suffering an objective is and if it is worth people who count upon you losing their lives for that objective. If the cost is worth the reward because the cost is not just fuel and ammunition – it is life and death, and we now know a permanent scar on the soul of the survivors. It is not moving little figures around a Risk! Board; it is about real people risking real suffering for an unknowable reward at the end of the battle or war. That is moral responsibility and how a U.S. President does his job is every bit as much of a moral endeavor.)
But back to the virus, here is the thing though – it was first of all a false dichotomy. He could have saved lives AND kept the economy afloat. If he listened to the experts he could have done both. But he panicked and chose the one that benefitted him personally at the expense of the lives of innocent Americans. But then he went even further – in order to keep the economy booming he downplayed the danger and made fun of mask wearing. If instead he had said we need to wear masks and socially distance, we could have opened up much sooner than we did and fewer people would have died. I didn’t lose any close loved ones fortunately, have you? I hope not, but you know what—someone did. Lots of someone’s did and those loses were mostly unnecessary. Yes, no matter what some were going to die. But rather than make a hard choice and save the lives of his own people – he sacrificed those lives so he would have a big economy and win reelection. That was a moral decision and he chose to sacrifice lives to enrich his chances of reelection. The whole refusal to encourage mask wearing (even though he know damned well it would have saved lives!) because then HE would have to wear a mask sometimes and he thinks he looks silly in a mask was NOT a moral decision. That was an IMMORAL DECISION!!
He could have made many moral choices and he failed in most cases. In every single case he chose personal power and personal profit over the well being of American citizens. He has been weighed, he has been measured, and he has been found wanting.*** The presidency is ALL moral choices; it is nothing BUT moral choices. Every dollar you spend, every single thing you build, every initiative you back takes away from others. I certainly do not believe Joe Biden will make only ideal decisions, but he will make many, many better moral decisions than Donald Trump has made. Do you know why? Because he will be trying to do the right thing, the best thing, the MORAL thing. If you do not think that is important then you should maybe rethink identifying as a Bible believing Christian because I have read that book and know what the Christ is – and it sure is more than who sits on the Supreme Court! I am sorry because that got personal, but I am kinda not sorry because it is true and based upon a respect I have for your reason and intellect. I have shown above the kind of nonsense my family is apt to believe; surely you can see through that nonsense! That guy doesn’t even get the parties of the player’s right.
(*** If you know this from the Heath Ledger movie A Knight’s Tale, it is a quote from the Prophet Daniel in the Old Testament, chapter 5, verse 27.)
Your illustration of selecting a restaurant would be more accurate if you told it that there is a great place with tasty food, fine ambiance, soothing music, good service, and all the rest. The only problem with the place is that four to six percent (4-6%) of the people who dine there every month die from food poisoning. The other restaurant in town is boring and drab – the food is okay at best and the service is hit and miss. The only thing that makes it superior is that no one ever dies from eating there. If those are the restaurants you are talking about then – well it still doesn’t make sense. But how can you claim being president is not a job with a moral imperative? I give up; if you can’t understand that we will just talk passed each other forever. There is a real morality, a lifestyle of living sincerely and honestly, doing your best and caring for the needy. The entire book of James (along with much of the New Testament) is ONLY about that kind of life and lifestyle. And in my view, that level of morality is VASTLY superior to choosing conservative judges or having to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
The entire basis for the power of Jesus to forgive and to save, was based upon his humility and willingness to suffer and die for a greater cause. How are you so out of touch with your faith that Donald Trump seems like a good choice to you??? May I humbly suggest you try to look at morality as more than a list of items, more than certain positions or laws? From where I sit the morality you are describing (and I do believe you are good and sincere but somewhat misguided) seems shallow and superficial. It sure doesn’t seem like a deep moral conviction that is worth dying for, or sacrificing for. I am trying to phase this kindly, but directly. I cannot avoid the fact that I am being judgmental. I am sorry for that; I want to be honest and fair in the kindest of ways. (I am told kindness is not my strong suit.)
I have made the most sincere and honest argument I can make (in the sense of describing my side of things, my view – not looking to argue). But I feel like I have completely failed to convey anything coherent or persuasive. I have been doing this in fits and starts because so many other things need my attention here and there. If I have been unnecessarily unkind, I apologize. If I have been blind and misguided I am saddened. I want to come to agreement with you puddleglum because I believe we are both bright enough and sincere enough to look at things honestly and completely and I believe that should usually (almost always) lead to agreement or at least mutual respect. I hope we get there.
I will concede Miles Taylor is an enemy of Trump, so are the other two, Elisabeth Neumann and Olivia Troye. But they all worked with Trump and they all said the very same thing. I saw an interview with all three of them and they all said the same thing, that they were thrilled to be in the room doing their dream jobs but that Trump was such a horse’s ass they had to quit. The point of my use of the three of them was exactly the point you are making. They are all enemies of Trump, but they didn’t start that way. They were Trump supporters until they had to work with him. I believe you are making justifications and the idea that putting up barbed wire is hoping injury on another is absurd and beneath you. Anyone breaking into a business creates the risk if they are cut by the barbed wire. It is not the same with refugees seeking asylum, all three of them claim Trump wanted to stop asylum seekers from reaching the border to the point of killing them (actually Taylor made the claim and the host asked the two women if that was true and they both agreed).
Your version sounds like: “Well, shit happens sometimes” with a shrug and a frown. We set the policy, and the policy of the United States has always been that no one should suffer or be victimized – and that surely they should not be sent back where their lives would be in danger. Do non-victims sometimes game the system and try to gain access to the US? Of course, so we hold trials. But Trump doesn’t want ANY refugees no matter how desperate they actually are, or how real their need may be. Again this is a moral issue and again Trump fails by every measure.
The end of the Gospel of Matthew, the 25th chapter (starting at verse 35 – if you are not conversant with that part of scripture you may want to review it before reading the following) is about sheep and goats. Jesus talks about coming naked and hungry and being fed and clothed. In verse 41 he speaks about how Trump handled the situation: * “Then he will say to those on His left, ‘depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.”*
Then Trump says: “I looked after you bigly! Believe me, I have done more for the immigrant than any other president.”
And Jesus replies: “Whatever you did not do for the least of these, you did not do for me.” It goes on, but the point is made. Being President of the United States is so important, the power and the responsibility is so massive that everything is a matter of morality. If you think it is okay to treat starving, desperate people that way, but getting anti-abortion judges is more important? Boy, I don’t know. I think you should read your Gospels more often. Last thing on this topic; all refugees and asylum seekers are illegal aliens. There is no separating them, there is only deciding to take them in or turn them away. No one has done it well; Trump did it worse than anyone ever.
Oh yea, the cruise ship. Trump himself said on camera he didn’t want the ship to dock because the numbers would be counted. There is no debate about this one – he said it on camera. Here it is, and this is after trying for days to keep it from even docking. Here it has docked (or is in the act of docking) and they are discussing keeping the passengers on the ship or bringing them to hospitals.
I have no idea what the RFRA is. I do not believe any Christian businesses are being persecuted. I believe Christians are so used to having extraordinary privilege that just being treated fairly seems like persecution to them. Let anyone of those Christians go serve in a foreign mission field for a couple of years and then come back and complain about having to serve gays. It is so homophobic (and I know, lots of my old friends and family are just as bad) that I feel sorry for them. I mentioned this above, try loving the people without endorsing their manner of being. That is far more Christian and far more fair, and it is still short of how Jesus himself would treat them. (Try to remember that Jesus hung out with the tax collectors and prostitutes and that he had nothing but scorn for the powerful religious right [the Pharisees and Sadducee’s]).
You don’t think Mitch McConnell has packed the court enough already? He denied Obama’s pick, stacked all the lower courts, then stole Ginsburg’s seat. Trump should have picked ONE (1), a single Supreme Court Justice (and about half of the lower court judges he did). He got three, it is time for Mitch McConnell to stop being a hypocritical tyrant. I have no respect for Trump, but genuine disdain for McConnell. You have no king but Jesus?? You serve Mitch McConnell, you just can’t see it! Everything you have said so far reminds me of the Sadducees and the Pharisees, they know the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law.
Biden is already, and will continue to be a moral leader. I am afraid people who think like you do are likely to oppose and deny his morality, but already he has done more for the country than Trump has in his whole term. It will take a lot more than pretty speeches, but I am glad there is a guy there who wants to be fair and honest and moral. One way or another, someday you will likely regret supporting Trump. You may never acknowledge his immorality and his utter contempt for you and other believers. But that is the confidence game; the mark can never know he has been taken.
Here is my last word (for now – if you have questions or comments I will be happy to discuss further).
I have bad news for you on this matter; as a supporter of Donald Trump you have received nothing except lip service and empty rhetoric. At least the contemptible Mitch McConnell accomplished things over the last four years. Trump just ran up his profits at our expense and threw temper tantrums and absolutely everything he ever said was a lie, a self serving lie. That is not my opinion, those are the cold, hard facts.
And yes, I very much want the president to be a moral leader. Not a spiritual leader, and certainly not a Christian leader; but a good, secular, moral leader. One who knows how to care for the American people before himself.
What we could use from the current leader is enough humility to admit he lost and stop obstructing Biden’s administration. Certainly you can see he is clutching at straws and doomed to failure. Without any evidece or hope, he is trying to cheat and steal his way into a second term and if that is the kind of character your God selects – well wow, I pity you AND your God. Sorry to be so blunt, but man Trump is just so pathetic. Please tell me you can see through his nonsense in this case! He lost the popular vote by over four-million votes while the Republican party picked up seats all over the place. He lost multiple states all (or all but one) by at least five digits, and he is claiming complete and utter bullshit while his staff and family tell him it is over. I don’t know what to say.
Thank you for your pledge. In return I pledge that I will not force you to rape anyone, beat your kids, or let your dog starve. I am for laws against rape, child abuse, and animal cruelty, despite the fact that I am unlikely to be raped, and neither a child nor a dog. I believe all of those things wrong and sinful. There are disappointingly many who disagree with me. Despite being a tolerant person I am willing to force those people to abide by the laws against those things which come out of the values I have and are shared by almost everyone.
Abortion is like those. They carry a harm not to me but to a vulnerable person. By seeking to ban abortions I acknowledge that it imposes on the pregnant woman but the harm is so great to the baby that that must be the overriding consideration.
You acknowledge that partial birth abortion is nigh to infanticide, hopefully that means you would like it outlawed. I acknowledge that in the early days of pregnancy abortion would not be murder. At some point between 1 week and 40 weeks the baby goes from being a clump of cells to being a person. No one knows when that exactly happens, so we should look at it probabilisticly.
If I had a coin and said heads and you get something nice and tails a baby dies, would it be okay to flip that coin? Obviously not, I don’t think it would be okay to roll a die and say if it lands on 1 a baby dies and if it does not then you get something nice. How many sides does that die need to have before it becomes okay to roll that die? Since being wrong about being too early in pregnancy means thousands of women are inconvenienced and being wrong about being too late means thousands of babies killed, we should be much more concerned about being too late than too early.