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?

 

[brandon]

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/

This whole argument is dismantled by the fact that ANY republican president would accomplish for evangelicals what Trump does. If he were impeached, it might be even more beneficial to evangelical causes to have Pence as president.

Failing to impeach Trump is a moral failing by evangelicals, full stop.

 

[samiam5211]

An employer should be free to choose how he wants to structure a compensation package, whether the choice is bibles, condoms, coconuts or stock options.

Do you believe that an employer should have the right to control how their employee's spend their salary or vacation?

How is an employee choosing how to spend their health insurance benefit any different from choosing how to spend their salary? They are both earned compensation.

The employer is choosing to purchase health insurance for their employees, not specific medical procedures.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Do you believe that an employer should have the right to control how their employee's spend their salary or vacation?

How is an employee choosing how to spend their health insurance benefit any different from choosing how to spend their salary? They are both earned compensation.

The employer is choosing to purchase health insurance for their employees, not specific medical procedures.

If the employer is free to choose which health insurance to provide, there would be no court case.

The government is mandating what health insurance plans must cover and then forcing employers to pay for that coverage.

 

[samiam5211]

If the employer is free to choose which health insurance to provide, there would be no court case.

The government is mandating what health insurance plans must cover and then forcing employers to pay for that coverage.

The employer does not have to purchase anything, they can pay the penalty (around 200 per month per employee) which is most likely much lower than the cost of providing health care. Employers with less than 50 employees don't have to deal with any of it.

If there hadn't been the erosion of labor unions, we likely wouldn't have this problem, but employers currently have control over the power dynamic, and employees have almost no power because they aren't organized.

 

[dtc]

If the employer is free to choose which health insurance to provide, there would be no court case.

The government is mandating what health insurance plans must cover and then forcing employers to pay for that coverage.

Nobody is forcing them to pay for it though.

They can close their doors if they don't like it and go worship in a cave. They can refuse to provide insurance altogether if they like.

It's as if you think an employer ought to be able to tell you that you can't spend your paycheck on Saints tickets if the employer is a Failcons fan.

 

[coldseat]

I would absolutely prefer to remove all incentive for employers to provide insurance. If individuals shopped and wrote checks monthly for health coverage we would have a much better system. Government incentives for employers to provide insurance are why we are in this mess.

We are in essential agreement on that point. However, I do not want the government involved either, other than to regulate the insurers themselves. Forcing people to pay for health insurance they do not need, want or cannot afford is a non-starter.

Are you comfortable with the inequality and vastly different health care outcomes (based on economice status and ability to afford) this type of free market system would create? As bad as it is now, this type of system would only make that much worse.

What happens when people chose to vastly underestimate their health care insurance needs and don't get coverage for health emergencies and conditions they develop that is outside of their capacity to pay for treatment for? Do we just let them die?

What do we do about people who are special needs, are disabled, can't work or retired? All of those people fall into categories where their necessary care would far outpace their ability to pay for that care.

I've long sought and asked for examples of how such a free market system would actually be beneficial to a society and work, but nobody has ever been able to provide one. Which has led me to believe that this is just an ideological stance and not one that is actually practical and could function and work for a society.

 

[samiam5211]

Are you comfortable with the inequality and vastly different health care outcomes (based on economice status and ability to afford) this type of free market system would create? As bad as it is now, this type of system would only make that much worse.

What happens when people chose to vastly underestimate their health care insurance needs and don't get coverage for health emergencies and conditions they develop that is outside of their capacity to pay for treatment for? Do we just let them die?

What do we do about people who are special needs, are disabled, can't work or retired? All of those people fall into categories where their necessary care would far outpace their ability to pay for that care.

I've long sought and asked for examples of how such a free market system would actually be beneficial to a society and work, but nobody has ever been able to provide one. Which has led me to believe that this is just an ideological stance and not one that is actually practical and could function and work for a society.

The free market is great at making sure we have enough variety of tooth paste. It is not so good at providing critical services, like health care, prisons, education, and media.

 

[SystemShock]

An object only has religious significance if a person attaches that significance to it. A bible is only a book as a condom is only a bit of latex.

Ok? And?

Forcing a person to purchase a specific item or service for another person should always be unconstitutional and religious objections are only one of a multitude of reasons why.

Well, a business. We are talking about Hobby Lobby Inc.

OSHA regulations require businesses to pay for employees' personal protective equipment. Is that unconstitutional?

The idea that claiming a business expense on a tax return gives the “people” the right to determine how that money was spent is ludicrous.

If you are going to claim a tax deduction from the people, you have to follow the rules of the people.

An employer should be free to choose how he wants to structure a compensation package, whether the choice is bibles, condoms, coconuts or stock options.

Sure. HP used to give a 50 kilo sack of rice to their employees in the Philippines every year as part of their compensation package. And they can deduct it from their taxes as long as they follow the rules of the people.[/QUOTE]

 

[dtc]

Are you comfortable with the inequality and vastly different health care outcomes (based on economice status and ability to afford) this type of free market system would create? As bad as it is now, this type of system would only make that much worse.

What happens when people chose to vastly underestimate their health care insurance needs and don't get coverage for health emergencies and conditions they develop that is outside of their capacity to pay for treatment for? Do we just let them die?

What do we do about people who are special needs, are disabled, can't work or retired? All of those people fall into categories where their necessary care would far outpace their ability to pay for that care.

I've long sought and asked for examples of how such a free market system would actually be beneficial to a society and work, but nobody has ever been able to provide one. Which has led me to believe that this is just an ideological stance and not one that is actually practical and could function and work for a society.

A free market system would work fine just like Obamacare would have worked.

All it requires is a legal definition of what health insurance is that includes regulation that prevents people from being scammed into buying crap that doesn't cover actual health care.

In an ideal world, where Republicans actually cared about Americans, Obamacare would have been a very reasonable solution. It still works today in Massachusetts, but removing health insurance from the employer/employee relationship would be another good idea.

 

[coldseat]

Last call for aging white evangelicals: The political marriage to Trump will collapse. What then? – Baptist News Global

Some species of evangelical religion will ultimately rise from the rubble of American conservatism, but it will be greatly curtailed, politically irrelevant and, I pray, more recognizably Christian.

baptistnews.com

Another excellent opinion piece on the ties between Trump and aging white evangelicals. A couple of excerpts:

Though Trump works hard to earn the votes of aging white evangelicals, they are hardly his companions of choice. Close associates report that the commander in chief goes in for risqué humor and cusses like a marine, so he can’t really be himself when preachers come to call. Trump bows to the aging white evangelical agenda but, historically, he has held pro-choice and pro-LGBTQ positions.

Likewise, even Trump’s biggest fans in the aging white evangelical community wish he would break his Twitter finger and tone down the rhetoric. They love his toughness but detest his style.

In short, the Trump-evangelical relationship is a marriage of convenience. In fact, it’s more a hook-up than a marriage.

Everybody dislikes the aging white evangelicals except the folks who need them – the president, Fox News and the Republican Party. Trump has melded with his base. “They just impeached us,” he bellowed at a recent rally. Conversely, when Trump is mocked his followers take it personally.

And who doesn’t mock Trump? Late night comics like Stephen Colbert are merciless. SNL skewers politicians of every stripe, but it is particularly tough on Trump. Mainstream journalists (moderate, liberal and conservative) no longer conceal their contempt for the man. Even Christianity Today is appalled by his antics.

And every time Trump is mocked, aging white evangelicals feel belittled.

Conservative evangelicals punch above their weight because they are custodians of American civil religion, a vision of America as God’s beacon in a dark world. Civil religion enjoyed bipartisan support during the Eisenhower years. For generations, American history and civics classes were exercises in self-congratulation.

For the past half century, however, our civil religion has been “deconstructed” by academics who see it as little more than a mask for white supremacy and the oppression of women and racial and sexual minorities. America, in this view, has a lot of explaining to do. College educated whites broke decisively for Hillary Clinton in 2016, the only white demographic to do so.

In response, aging white evangelicals have doubled down on the myth of American righteousness. In the hands of evangelical faux historians like David Barton, the old civil religion has become a great, sprawling story of God’s providential love for America with footnotes a mile long. Trump’s promise to make America great again dovetails perfectly with American civil religion in both its classic and expanded iterations.

In defending Trump, aging white evangelicals are fighting for their identity. The liberals have transformed a gleaming army of Christian soldiers into a rabble of bigots and fools. Evangelicals won’t take this demotion lying down, especially with Donald John Trump emerging as their champion. A civil religion designed to unify a nation now serves as a dividing line.

 

[crosswatt]

What I feel this all boils down to is that, in 1976, Jerry Falwell decided to marry his pulpit to his opinions on social ills, or as he called it the "decay of the nation's morality". In doing so, he went against Biblical direction and the traditional stanch of the Baptist church to keep politics and the chosen vehicle of your souls' salvation separate. He officially formed the Moral Majority, which like the other Christian/conservative advocacy groups formed around the same time, was essentially an anti-homosexual and anti-pornographic movement that, in response to a marked decline in their pastoral influence, took the calculated risk that they could restore their proper place as arbiters of right and wrong through legal means instead. They succeeded, but the cost to Christendom as a whole was devastating, and we're really only seeing the clear effects today.

For some scriptural background, the old testament had a law against sewing two different types of fabric together, or blending different breed of cattle together, or planting different crops in the same field (Leviticus 19:19). It had really no practical benefit for the Israelites, so it must be interpreted as a law designed to be a spiritual schoolmaster. And it is important to note that there was no commentary on not using any specific fabric or planting any specific seed, or raising any particular breed of cattle. You just didn't mix them. White supremacists have used this in the past to justify racial separation in relationships, but that's not the purpose of this scripture. (God had already told them not to marry outside of the Israelite nation, but specifically for religious purposes. And had given Aaron and Miriam leprosy when they criticized Moses for taking and Ethiopian (dark skinned) wife. So God don't care about color, and that's pretty clear in his word.) What it was a direction to was to keep the other parts of your life separate from your spiritual one, so as not to let them butt area your walk with God. Important to note that he was not indicating that the regular parts of our lives would not be influenced by our spiritual life, but that we act within the influence on a daily basis. But not let our daily duties influence our spiritual ones.

What Falwell and the other ministers did in directly connecting them was to allow political influence to flow freely back into the church, essentially contaminating the preaching of the gospel with political expediency. The end result is an amalgam of political/religious beliefs that are untenable. The number of Americans who identify as "Christian" is down 12% in the last decade. And almost inconceivably drops under 50% among those under 40 years old. Less people attend religious services at least once a month than don't, a complete flip of the scale. Only 51% of people under that age of 30 profess a unquestioned belief in God.

I think future generations will look back on this period and learn about the time when the Evangelical movement officially sold its collective soul for political influence and power. And in doing so, turned their back on the original core message of redemption and salvation for "whosoever will" in favor of the more discriminatory "only if you agree with me".

 

[JimEverett]

What I feel this all boils down to is that, in 1976, Jerry Falwell decided to marry his pulpit to his opinions on social ills, or as he called it the "decay of the nation's morality". In doing so, he went against Biblical direction and the traditional stanch of the Baptist church to keep politics and the chosen vehicle of your souls' salvation separate. He officially formed the Moral Majority, which like the other Christian/conservative advocacy groups formed around the same time, was essentially an anti-homosexual and anti-pornographic movement that, in response to a marked decline in their pastoral influence, took the calculated risk that they could restore their proper place as arbiters of right and wrong through legal means instead. They succeeded, but the cost to Christendom as a whole was devastating, and we're really only seeing the clear effects today.

For some scriptural background, the old testament had a law against sewing two different types of fabric together, or blending different breed of cattle together, or planting different crops in the same field (Leviticus 19:19). It had really no practical benefit for the Israelites, so it must be interpreted as a law designed to be a spiritual schoolmaster. And it is important to note that there was no commentary on not using any specific fabric or planting any specific seed, or raising any particular breed of cattle. You just didn't mix them. White supremacists have used this in the past to justify racial separation in relationships, but that's not the purpose of this scripture. (God had already told them not to marry outside of the Israelite nation, but specifically for religious purposes. And had given Aaron and Miriam leprosy when they criticized Moses for taking and Ethiopian (dark skinned) wife. So God don't care about color, and that's pretty clear in his word.) What it was a direction to was to keep the other parts of your life separate from your spiritual one, so as not to let them butt area your walk with God. Important to note that he was not indicating that the regular parts of our lives would not be influenced by our spiritual life, but that we act within the influence on a daily basis. But not let our daily duties influence our spiritual ones.

What Falwell and the other ministers did in directly connecting them was to allow political influence to flow freely back into the church, essentially contaminating the preaching of the gospel with political expediency. The end result is an amalgam of political/religious beliefs that are untenable. The number of Americans who identify as "Christian" is down 12% in the last decade. And almost inconceivably drops under 50% among those under 40 years old. Less people attend religious services at least once a month than don't, a complete flip of the scale. Only 51% of people under that age of 30 profess a unquestioned belief in God.

I think future generations will look back on this period and learn about the time when the Evangelical movement officially sold its collective soul for political influence and power. And in doing so, turned their back on the original core message of redemption and salvation for "whosoever will" in favor of the more discriminatory "only if you agree with me".

What I feel this all boils down to is that, in 1976, Jerry Falwell decided to marry his pulpit to his opinions on social ills, or as he called it the "decay of the nation's morality". In doing so, he went against Biblical direction and the traditional stanch of the Baptist church to keep politics and the chosen vehicle of your souls' salvation separate. He officially formed the Moral Majority, which like the other Christian/conservative advocacy groups formed around the same time, was essentially an anti-homosexual and anti-pornographic movement that, in response to a marked decline in their pastoral influence, took the calculated risk that they could restore their proper place as arbiters of right and wrong through legal means instead. They succeeded, but the cost to Christendom as a whole was devastating, and we're really only seeing the clear effects today.

For some scriptural background, the old testament had a law against sewing two different types of fabric together, or blending different breed of cattle together, or planting different crops in the same field (Leviticus 19:19). It had really no practical benefit for the Israelites, so it must be interpreted as a law designed to be a spiritual schoolmaster. And it is important to note that there was no commentary on not using any specific fabric or planting any specific seed, or raising any particular breed of cattle. You just didn't mix them. White supremacists have used this in the past to justify racial separation in relationships, but that's not the purpose of this scripture. (God had already told them not to marry outside of the Israelite nation, but specifically for religious purposes. And had given Aaron and Miriam leprosy when they criticized Moses for taking and Ethiopian (dark skinned) wife. So God don't care about color, and that's pretty clear in his word.) What it was a direction to was to keep the other parts of your life separate from your spiritual one, so as not to let them butt area your walk with God. Important to note that he was not indicating that the regular parts of our lives would not be influenced by our spiritual life, but that we act within the influence on a daily basis. But not let our daily duties influence our spiritual ones.

What Falwell and the other ministers did in directly connecting them was to allow political influence to flow freely back into the church, essentially contaminating the preaching of the gospel with political expediency. The end result is an amalgam of political/religious beliefs that are untenable. The number of Americans who identify as "Christian" is down 12% in the last decade. And almost inconceivably drops under 50% among those under 40 years old. Less people attend religious services at least once a month than don't, a complete flip of the scale. Only 51% of people under that age of 30 profess a unquestioned belief in God.

I think future generations will look back on this period and learn about the time when the Evangelical movement officially sold its collective soul for political influence and power. And in doing so, turned their back on the original core message of redemption and salvation for "whosoever will" in favor of the more discriminatory "only if you agree with me".

Yet, depending on sources and how you count - conservative Christian churches are growing, holding steady, or - at worst - declining at a small fraction of what mainline, progressive denominations are seeing.
Perhaps the argument is that this melding of ministry and political clout amongst conservative Christians has turned what would otherwise be liberal Christians away?

 

[crosswatt]

Yet, depending on sources and how you count - conservative Christian churches are growing, holding steady, or - at worst - declining at a small fraction of what mainline, progressive denominations are seeing.
Perhaps the argument is that this melding of ministry and political clout amongst conservative Christians has turned what would otherwise be liberal Christians away?

Not really. At least in my experience. Except in case of the super mega event style churches like Hillsong and Elevation. And attendance is a bit of a dated metric these days anyway, as sitting in a pew listening to badly sung music and the same preacher each Sunday is just not appealing to people anymore.

Some mega church pastors like Francis Chan are shifting to small house meeting style congregational Bible study ministries to get away from the pomp and circumstance and money influence and staleness that plague modern churches currently. There's even an Episcopal diocese in Houston that takes the annual allotment given to each church and spends it on everything but a building. It's a people aren't going to church so we will take church to the people type of shift. Similar to what most mainline organizations did during the emergent church era, and what missionaries do still in unfamiliar settings.

There was a massive bloodletting of moderate and liberal believers led by a network of bloggers, most notably the late Rachel Held Evans, that was looking to modernize the church to a more inclusive and less discriminatory entity. And many left when they saw it wasn't happening. And some organizations are separating over the efforts, such as sme of the more conservative Methodist congregations are leaving the united Methodist Church with a multi-million dollar buyout because they won't budge on the marriage equality that the more progressive congregations want. So all of that plays a role.

But honestly, I see an ugliness in too many Christians right now. In my wife's Facebook feed. In group discussions. It's a dedication to politically charged issues over any vestiges of the love of God far too often. It's an arrogance and self importance that flies directly in the face of the humility and deference the Bible explicitly commands believers conduct themselves with. And the "love the sinner hate the sin" tactic has been bumped And that just doesn't come from adhering to God's holy word. And I feel it's really the root cause of the decline in church interest across the board.

 

[MotorCityMod]

Not really. At least in my experience. Except in case of the super mega event style churches like Hillsong and Elevation. And attendance is a bit of a dated metric these days anyway, as sitting in a pew listening to badly sung music and the same preacher each Sunday is just not appealing to people anymore.

Some mega church pastors like Francis Chan are shifting to small house meeting style congregational Bible study ministries to get away from the pomp and circumstance and money influence and staleness that plague modern churches currently. There's even an Episcopal diocese in Houston that takes the annual allotment given to each church and spends it on everything but a building. It's a people aren't going to church so we will take church to the people type of shift. Similar to what most mainline organizations did during the emergent church era, and what missionaries do still in unfamiliar settings.

There was a massive bloodletting of moderate and liberal believers led by a network of bloggers, most notably the late Rachel Held Evans, that was looking to modernize the church to a more inclusive and less discriminatory entity. And many left when they saw it wasn't happening. And some organizations are separating over the efforts, such as sme of the more conservative Methodist congregations are leaving the united Methodist Church with a multi-million dollar buyout because they won't budge on the marriage equality that the more progressive congregations want. So all of that plays a role.

But honestly, I see an ugliness in too many Christians right now. In my wife's Facebook feed. In group discussions. It's a dedication to politically charged issues over any vestiges of the love of God far too often. It's an arrogance and self importance that flies directly in the face of the humility and deference the Bible explicitly commands believers conduct themselves with. And the "love the sinner hate the sin" tactic has been bumped And that just doesn't come from adhering to God's holy word. And I feel it's really the root cause of the decline in church interest across the board.

I'm not super churchy but my wife dragged me to that Elevation one around Christmas. It was actually cool! like a concert or something. I think more churches would be full if they followed that model. I don't think its politics as much as boring and asking for money that turns people off of god.