Christianity Today (the preeminent Evangelical magazine in the country) calls for the removal of the President... (1 Viewer)

[crosswatt]

Trump Should Be Removed from Office

It’s time to say what we said 20 years ago when a president’s character was revealed for what it was.

www.christianitytoday.com

Just wow. This paragraph perfectly sums up my opinion since day one, and the opinion of so many believers who don't feel comfortable losing fellowship over the misguided support the Christian community has undeservedly offered this man. I honestly cannot believe that an organization is finally saying it.

To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come?

 

[MT15]

I don’t think anyone ever claimed to be speaking for all of Christianity, but it’s obvious that the majority of white evangelicals have decided the ends justify the means. That they will compromise their faith in order to curry political power. I don’t see how it could be argued otherwise.

 

[samiam5211]

I wonder how many of these people believe that the Bible speaks for Christianity?

 

[SystemShock]

I wonder how many of these people believe that the Bible speaks for Christianity?

Just the parts that are convenient and agreeable to them. That's why there are so many denominations (some 41,000 according to Center for the Study of Global Christianity, although many overlap)

 

[SystemShock]

No, it's 100% being dismissed as the editor of a magazine not speaking for all of Christianity.

He is not speaking for all who call themselves Christian, but his message is consistent with what the Bible teaches.

 

[crosswatt]

No, it's 100% being dismissed as the editor of a magazine not speaking for all of Christianity.

Which is a pathetic joke because he never claimed to speak for all of Christianity. He was actually speaking TO Christianity, and their abject failure to take it as something that could be prayerfully considered, they instead attacked. Instead of following the scriptural admonishment to "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling", they decided to throw stones at anyone who was a threat to their power like Pharisees.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You mean the JFK/Catholicism thing? That was bad, but I felt he redeemed himself a bit with his efforts to mend that fence afterwards. But I get it.

And his stance on homosexuality and same sex marriage, as well as the whole "women don't get to have careers" thing. It's disgusting misogyny, but nobody says much of anything because it's biblical misogyny.

 

[Optimus Prime]

One of the comments for this video:

Evangelicals having been ranting about the coming of the anti-Christ for centuries, when he finally showed up, they elected him President.

 

[Optimus Prime]

......Journalist Napp Nazworth, who has worked for the Christian Post website since 2011, said he quit his job Monday because the website was planning to publish a pro-Trump editorialthat would slam Christianity Today. Nazworth, who sits on the editorial board as politics editor, said the website has sought to represent both sides and published both pro- and anti-Trump stories.

“I never got the gist they were gung-ho Trumpian types,” Nazworth said. “Everything has escalated with the Christianity Today editorial.”
Nazworth, who has been critical of Trump and suggested leaders who supported him have “traded their moral authority,” said he doesn’t know what he will do next.

“I said, if you post this, you’re saying, you’re now on team Trump,” he said. He said he was told that’s what the news outlet wanted to do........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/12/23/christianity-today-called-trumps-impeachment-why-it-could-cost-magazine/

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

And many false prophets will appear and deceive many people

 

[samiam5211]

And many false prophets will appear and deceive many people

It seems that as long as the false prophet promises profit, it's all good.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Article about why evangelicals should support a Trump, for the judges he has/will appoint

In an ends supports the means or the messenger

Side note: is it me or are a lot of these religious freedom cases really about the freedom to force your religious views and values on others?
=================================

Evangelicals who minimize the importance of President Trump’s judicial appointments betray a naivete about the perils to religious liberty in the United States, perils that have been growing over the past decade.

Many people, outside of the relatively small group of constitutional law professors and Supreme Court and appeals courts practitioners, may not grasp the sheer number of cases on the religious clauses of the First Amendment that have reached the high court in recent years.

Six of these cases illustrate the stakes. (There are scores more religious liberty cases that are resolved in federal district and circuit courts, as clashes between the world of faith and the vast administrative state in the United States accelerate.)

In 2014, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court decided, by a 5-to-4 vote, that the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that for-profit corporations supply their employees with contraceptives — even forms of contraception violating the corporations’ owners’ beliefs — was barred by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Had the court majority gone the other way, there is no doubt that Hobby Lobby, a company employing 32,000, would have closed. The Green family, who owns that company, was not going to “bend the knee” to the demands of the government had they lost.

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia sided with the company’s religious liberty interests...........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/26/evangelicals-should-thank-trump-protecting-their-religious-liberty/

 

[Archies Ghost]

Article about why evangelicals should support a Trump, for the judges he has/will appoint

In an ends supports the means or the messenger

Side note: is it me or are a lot of these religious freedom cases really about the freedom to force your religious views and values on others?
=================================

Evangelicals who minimize the importance of President Trump’s judicial appointments betray a naivete about the perils to religious liberty in the United States, perils that have been growing over the past decade.

Many people, outside of the relatively small group of constitutional law professors and Supreme Court and appeals courts practitioners, may not grasp the sheer number of cases on the religious clauses of the First Amendment that have reached the high court in recent years.

Six of these cases illustrate the stakes. (There are scores more religious liberty cases that are resolved in federal district and circuit courts, as clashes between the world of faith and the vast administrative state in the United States accelerate.)

In 2014, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court decided, by a 5-to-4 vote, that the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that for-profit corporations supply their employees with contraceptives — even forms of contraception violating the corporations’ owners’ beliefs — was barred by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Had the court majority gone the other way, there is no doubt that Hobby Lobby, a company employing 32,000, would have closed. The Green family, who owns that company, was not going to “bend the knee” to the demands of the government had they lost.

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia sided with the company’s religious liberty interests...........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/26/evangelicals-should-thank-trump-protecting-their-religious-liberty/

How is this , wanting the freedom to not be forced to provide something to your employees that you do not believe in, forcing religious views on someone?

 

[SystemShock]

In 2014, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court decided, by a 5-to-4 vote, that the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that for-profit corporations supply their employees with contraceptives — even forms of contraception violating the corporations’ owners’ beliefs — was barred by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Oh, those silly evangelicals.

The irony is, the Bible says nothing about contraception. The opposition to contraceptives is based on the interpretation of a couple of passages from the Old Testament: God telling Adam and Eve "multiply and be fruitful", and what happens when a man refuses to impregnate his dead brother's widow (spoiler alert: God kills you).

That, and the disdain Abrahamic religions have for anything sex related.

 

[Optimus Prime]

How is this , wanting the freedom to not be forced to provide something to your employees that you do not believe in, forcing religious views on someone?

If I have no issues with birth control, want to take birth control, need birth control (doctors do prescribe it for other medical reasons) but can’t have it because my employer doesn’t believe in birth control how is the employer NOT forcing their values on me?

What if some employers decide that they are against treatment for any “ailments of sin”?

If you have lung disease because you’ve smoked for 30 years, liver disease from drinking, heart disease because you’re obese, STDs for having unmarried sex, etc. it’s your own fault and deserve what happens to you and our insurance will no longer cover any treatment, medication or surgeries

That would be okay?

Also, how is hobby lobby having to offer birth control to their employees restricting the owners of hobby lobby from practicing their religion however they see fit in their own personal lives?

 

[coldseat]

How is this , wanting the freedom to not be forced to provide something to your employees that you do not believe in, forcing religious views on someone?

Why is it an employers right, religious or otherwise, to decide what an individuals health insurance should cover? This really is a problem with our system, because employers should not have that power, nor should they have the power to force their employees to conform to their (the employers) religious criteria in any personal matter. An employees health and health insurance coverage is a personal matter.

This is more of a case of employees being forced to conform to their employers religious beliefs by accepting whatever religious exemptions the employers deems moral and worthy in a personal matter. Why is that okay?

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Archies Ghost]

If I have no issues with birth control, want to take birth control, need birth control (doctors do prescribe it for other medical reasons) but can’t have it because my employer doesn’t believe in birth control how is the employer NOT forcing their values on me?

What if some employers decide that they are against treatment for any “ailments of sin”?

If you have lung disease because you’ve smoked for 30 years, liver disease from drinking, heart disease because you’re obese, STDs for having unmarried sex, etc. it’s your own fault and deserve what happens to you and our insurance will no longer cover any treatment, medication or surgeries

That would be okay?

Also, how is hobby lobby having to offer birth control to their employees restricting the owners of hobby lobby from practicing their religion however they see fit in their own personal lives?

You are not prohibited from birth control. You are free to buy it yourself or purchase supplemental health insurance that does provide it.

If you decide to be employed by a company, you are responsible to know what that company believes and how they will behave.

I don't think you understand freedom on any level.

I worked for a company that tested for nicotine on annual physicals and during random screening. Test positive and you were fired. The company provided excellent health insurance at no cost to the employee. It acquired its largest competitor and those employees complained bitterly about having to choose between nicotine and their jobs.

And if you cannot see how forcing the ownership of a business to purchase something they are opposed to on a religious basis is an infringement of constitutionally guaranteed rights, we really have no need to discuss this.

If you are an atheist business owner who the government forced to buy bibles for every employee, would you also agree that is no problem?

 

[Archies Ghost]

Why is it an employers right, religious or otherwise, to decide what an individuals health insurance should cover? This really is a problem with our system, because employers should not have that power, nor should they have the power to force their employees to conform to their (the employers) religious criteria in any personal matter. An employees health and health insurance coverage is a personal matter.

This is more of a case of employees being forced to conform to their employers religious beliefs by accepting whatever religious exemptions the employers deems moral and worthy in a personal matter. Why is that okay?

I agree that employer provided health insurance is a disaster but as long as the employer is paying for it, the employer should be free to choose what is covered, make rules for the employee to abide by in terms of employment (in order to lower insurance costs) and be free to fire employees who do not conform to those rules.