OR, they think that 1M [del]abortions[/del] murders a year trumps everything else, and so vote for the person who says they’ll actually try to end abortions. What’s a little pussy grabbing when 1M unborn baby’s lives are at stake?
Or, you can just say they’re deplorable and dismiss them. That will probably work out OK.
While I don’t agree with Grudem’s support of Trump, I don’t think it was arduous mental gymnastics. It’s basically a “Lesser of two evils” argument: Many politicians are morally flawed, and so if you get to the point where your only 2 two electable voting options are two morally flawed candidates, then it’s OK to vote for a morally flawed candidate since …that’s what you’ve got.
Had Grudem been able to hand-pick any of the 17 Republican primary candidates, I think he would have wanted someone other than Trump, too.
Perhaps it’s just a case of “Can’t get any worse”.
Actually about 700,000 in 2013
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
Of course, the main justification the religious use to claim that that is an abomination is that then America will be cursed; however, leaving aside the issue of the [del]7 deadly sins[/del] Trump being elected :), the data actually shows a nation with less risks, violence and injustice as in past days.
It should always be noted that many of the ones demanding abortion bans are also going for the extremes of not allowing exceptions to rape incest or even the health of the woman, unless they get to say that they will allow an exception to a doctor.
Yes, I will call those deplorables.
Reclaim the moral high ground? They never had it. The moral high ground and the American right, Christers included, are on different planets.
Yep, but our friend won’t ever concede that point until a cite using the “magic words” is found. The three I included in my original post were found with less than 20 minutes of effort. I’m working quite a lot this weekend so I haven’t really had time to look further. Plus, it’s clear our friend will just continue his denials no matter what is found so I question how much further effort would be worth.
Except for Obama and his status as a “secret muslim.” And the popularity of the muslim ban with Trump voters during the campaign, despite its blatent unconstitutionality.
You kid, but I do think she should have pushed her Christianity. And that Kaine should have even more. I also think that Obama should have explicitly stated himself to be a Christian, too.
I think the national narrative needs to actually say “I’m a pro-choice Christian.” and “The Bible doesn’t actually say anything about abortion” and “Even if abortion is wrong, it’s not the government’s place to interfere.”
I think there needed to be huge lists of every non-Christian thing Trump has done, sponsored by Clinton supporters.
And, I think that, for the non-religious, they really needed to push that Democrats actually have a plan for the white working class, while Republicans have nothing.
Clinton is a feminist. She fought for women’s rights all the time. Someone doesn’t have to be perfect or completely align with your beliefs. They just can be heading in the same direction. Like how a Baptist can vote for a Catholic.
And, as a Christian yourself, you should know the answer to your question. Voting to be ruled by an evil man and anti-Christ puts your soul at risk of eternal damnation. If these people* don’t repent and turn from their wicked ways, they go to Hell.
No feminist risks their afterlife if they support someone who isn’t a “true feminist.”
*Those who genuinely support Trump, not those who were ignorant due to all the fake news. They could still be okay, but repenting wouldn’t hurt.
Abortion is not mentioned in the Bible, so no. And we’ve already covered over and over how they don’t actually believe it is murder. They don’t treat it like murder.
If they put something not in the Bible over the myriad of violations that are in the Bible, then they are participating in idolatry and worshiping a false God. So, yes, I will call them deplorable.
No, we can’t dismiss them. But nothing in this thread says we are. On the contrary, we’re promoting calling them out on the carpet to defend themselves. How did they choose to vote for an anti-Christ when they claim to be Christians?
And I still do allow that some people were taken in by fake news and genuinely did not believe that Trump was as bad as he seemed and that Clinton was worse than she seemed.
I know a pastor’s wife who was happy her kid was praying for Trump to win the election, and posted a video on Facebook. I flat out told her that I didn’t think it was a good thing for her kid to be praying that such an evil man should win. Sure, I sugar coated it with stuff about how “you don’t have to like Hillary” and such, but I did say it.
This idea where we pretend different morality are equivalent has to stop. Those people you described did something morally wrong, even by their own stated religion. It shows how little religion actually plays a role in the “Religious Right.” These weren’t mostly Catholics who actually have a law saying abortion is wrong, but Christians who claim to be sola scriptura.
Catholics actually did better, closer to a 50/50 split.
I almost added "Oh, and another good idea would be to tell them “they don’t ‘really’ believe what they believe. That always works well.”
I can see now that I was remiss in not doing so.
After the whole Rev. Wright blow-up, I don’t think Obama wanted too much focus on his religion.
Hillary did that, but very badly. She started out with “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business” and everyone kind of stopped listening after that.
Cite for both, please - that (1) voting for a bad person puts one in risk of Hell and that (2) Trump is the antiChrist…
Considering that abortion technology as we know it today didn’t exist in the day, why would it be mentioned?
What’s next - Scripture says nothing about voter ID laws or the usage of nuclear weapons?
The First Amendment prohibits the government from passing any law that interferes with anyone’s free exercise of religion, Christian or otherwise. That includes “reasonable, secular law”. This has been used many times by many religious groups, including some Christian and some non-Christian, to fight in court and overturn laws and regulations that interfere with the free exercise of religion. So when the Hobby Lobby Corp. or the Little Sisters of the Poor ask the court for protection against government intrusion, they are asking for the same thing that a Jewish butcher shop asked for in Schechter Brothers Poultry Corp vs United States, or that a Muslim asked for in Holt vs Hobb, or that Native American Robert Soto asked for in his case concerning eagle feathers. The First Amendment equally protects the rights of all Americans to practice their religion free from government interference. How is that “Christian privilege”?
You are flat wrong about this. In American law, corporations are persons and courts have ruled on this fact clearly numerous times going back centuries. On the specific question of whether corporations have First Amendment rights, the answer again is yes and there’s a long history of courts ruling that way as well. For example, in the case New York Times vs United States, the Nixon administration was attempting to block the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon papers. The New York Times is a corporation and the Supreme Court ruled that the New York Times has First Amendment rights. (And most Democrats, I imagine, would agree with this.)
The cases cited were all cases of Christian privilege. Attempts by christian groups to avoid laws they didn’t like specifically because of religious doctrine. The same privilege is not accorded to various non-religious groups, and the difference seems to be “my invisible friend said so” vs “my conscience didn’t say so”. If a law has a clear secular purpose and has no intention of intermingling with religion, there should not be any special exemption. If your religion thinks “I should be allowed to torture animals as part of our religious rites”, the response should be, “tough shit, you can’t do that”.
Just to take Hobby Lobby as an example. We instituted a law stating that health care plans had to cover certain crucial health requirements. We farmed out what those requirements are to the most qualified people available - medical doctors. It turns out that among those requirements is the coverage of birth control. This makes sense - this is valuable and crucial medicine for many women. In response, this corporation argued that it shouldn’t have to follow that law, because of the religious beliefs of the owner of the corporation. That’s asinine. You don’t get to just ignore the law when you don’t like it simply because your invisible friend said so. It is not an attempt to uphold the free exercise of religion. It is an attempt to carve out specific privileges for religious entities. “No, you don’t have to follow all the laws, just the ones your religion agrees with.” That’s nonsense.
A better indication through action rather than words is that the Christian (right wing evangelical) leaders of Liberty University in Virginia invited Trump to give the commencement address this weekend. Given that there is no indication that they made this invitatiion to Obama, it seems likely that this is not a invitation given to any U.S. president but one in particular that they wish to endorse, explicitly or implicitly, as a role model in their Christian worldview.
Actually, quoting from the link you provided from Holt vs Hobb:
The employees of a large corporation do not need to have their corporation’s owners’s religious beliefs forced upon them. They have a right to religious liberty too, and that includes liberty from religious zealots. This is particularly true because people who form corporations gain a lot of benefits by doing so and the public has the right to ask for things in return, such as not to have the religious zealotry of their owners forced upon them.
No corporation forbids employees from buying whatever contraception they want. You are conflating “you didn’t give me X” with “you forbade me to buy X”. No religion is being forced on anyone. That might (and I emphasize might) be true if employees were fired for buying contraception, but that’s not what is happening.
Bernie Sanders has spoken at Liberty before.