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?

 

[wardorican]

I thought it was in very poor taste for Billy Graham's son to reveal who he had voted for in 2016. If Billy Graham wanted people to know, he would have said so publicly at the time.

I agree.
I'll go further. Franklin Graham is being a total partisan hack, just like he's accusing CT of acting. By stating,

"
For Christianity Today to side with the Democrat Party in a totally partisan attack on the President of the United States is unfathomable. Christianity Today failed to acknowledge that not one single Republican voted with the Democrats to impeach the President. I know a number of Republicans in Congress, and many of them are strong Christians. If the President were guilty of what the Democrats claimed, these Republicans would have joined with the Democrats to impeach him. But the Democrats were not even unanimous—two voted against impeachment and one voted present. This impeachment was politically motivated, 100% partisan. Why would Christianity Today choose to take the side of the Democrat left whose only goal is to discredit and smear the name of a sitting president? They want readers to believe the Democrat leadership rather than believe the President of the United States.

Look at all the President has accomplished in a very short time. The economy of our nation is the strongest it has been in 50 years, ISIS & the caliphate have been defeated, and the President has renegotiated trade deals to benefit all Americans. The list of accomplishments is long, but for me as a Christian, the fact that he is the most pro-life president in modern history is extremely important—and Christianity Today wants us to ignore that, to say it doesn’t count? The President has been a staunch defender of religious freedom at home and around the world—and Christianity Today wants us to ignore that? Also the President has appointed conservative judges in record number—and Christianity today wants us to ignore that? Christianity Today feels he should be removed from office because of false accusations that the President emphatically denies.

Christianity Today said it’s time to call a spade a spade. The spade is this—Christianity Today has been used by the left for their political agenda. It’s obvious that Christianity Today has moved to the left and is representing the elitist liberal wing of evangelicalism.

"

He is completely being partisan. He's not even talking about religion. He's not talking about faith. Why is his assumption that the "left" isn't religious?

I'd also state that just because you voted for someone, doesn't mean you'll support everything they do, especially if you think they violated the law. So, since Billy can't give us his opinion today (not that I cared much about opinion, as I'm not a fan of most Evangelical faiths), who he voted for isn't terribly relevant.

What does "he's the most pro-life president in modern history" even mean? What data is there to suggest any of that? What has he done?

I mean, his whole argument is basically Dave Chappelle's comedic routine about "he rapes, but he saves". (when dealing with how to view people like Bill Cosby).

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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?

Do you genuinely believe that this is an apt analogy?

 

[wardorican]

I do think religious groups are going to have a hard time reaching out the population, since so many of the religious (right or left) aren't really defined. So many don't go to a service. They aren't a part of anything organized, so they get their beliefs mixed up and comingled with bad information. Agree or disagree with a particular faith, like Catholicism, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.. at least they have a history, scholars, thoughtful reasoning.

Reminds me I need to finish this book someday.

 

[coldseat]

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.

So an employer has the right to decide if health insurance will cover transplants either in the interest of lowering health insurance cost or because that employer is a Jehovah's witness and doesn't believe they are moral and acceptable in the eyes of God. Should they be allowed to not cover any and all blood transfusions in their health plan because of their personal religious beliefs?

Where does that line exactly get drawn?

 

[Archies Ghost]

So an employer has the right to decide if health insurance will cover transplants either in the interest of lowering health insurance cost or because that employer is a Jehovah's witness and doesn't believe they moral and acceptable in the eyes of God. Should they be allowed to not cover any and all blood transfusions in their health plan because of their personal religious beliefs?

Where does that line exactly get drawn?

There is no need for a line. Employers offer insurance as part of a compensation package. How they structure that should be up to them.

 

[samiam5211]

There is no need for a line. Employers offer insurance as part of a compensation package. How they structure that should be up to them.

Would it be fine with you if employers controlled how their employees used other parts of their compensation package?

To use your vacation time any trips have to be approved by management?

Employees can be fired if they use their pay to pay for an abortion?

 

[coldseat]

There is no need for a line. Employers offer insurance as part of a compensation package. How they structure that should be up to them.

We completely and fundamentally disagree then. If we're going to have employer provided health care coverage (like we do), then I want rules and regulations in place to mandate minimum coverage and requirements (similar to what we have with the ACA, but better) to offer protections for employees. Employees should not be at the whims of their employers over something that is so important, basic and necessary as health care coverage.

Otherwise, get health care insurance out of the hands of employers, and lets get create a system that gives individuals more control over their own health care coverage and choices.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The real answer of course is to get rid of the link between employment and health care. It's both anti-free market, and anti-socialist... we should all hate it.

 

[Optimus Prime]

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?

This is really a question for system shock

And it’s a bit of a false equivalency, the government wouldn’t be forcing me to give every employee a Bible

The owners would have to provide a Bible to those who want one (which are two different scenarios)

But if I were an atheist business owner and the government said I needed to give a Bible to those who wanted one then they would get a Bible
It would be no problem for me. If I’m an atheist then to me the Bible is no different than a book of grimms fairy tales then what’s the big deal?

If an employee says “I’d like a Bible” I open my cabinet hand it to them and say “here you go” and I’d give it no more thought than that

The government is not saying I must hold an hour long bible study every day, it’s not saying I have to preach or pray or believe.

My right and freedom to be an atheist is not limited in any way

They’d get a Bible from their job at little or no cost. But if I refused to offer my employees bibles at work yes they can still get one but it would cost them hundreds or thousands of dollars you don’t think that my atheism is affecting them and their ability to get a Bible?

 

[Optimus Prime]

General insurance question:

Employers don’t have access to individual health info from the insurance carrier do they?

A business owner can’t see who’s getting birth control, who had an AIDS test, who was diagnosed with cancer or who hasn’t had a physical in ten years can they?

 

[dtc]

There is no need for a line. Employers offer insurance as part of a compensation package. How they structure that should be up to them.

How about the legislature enact laws regulating what is acceptable as a tax qualifying insurance policy and business owners simply decide whether to comply or not? If they choose not to provide an acceptable policy then they can close up shop and folks like Hobby Lobby's owners can take their billions in ill-gotten gains from selling the products of Chinese slaves and move on down the road.

 

[Archies Ghost]

We completely and fundamentally disagree then. If we're going to have employer provided health care coverage (like we do), then I want rules and regulations in place to mandate minimum coverage and requirements (similar to what we have with the ACA, but better) to offer protections for employees. Employees should not be at the whims of their employers over something that is so important, basic and necessary as health care coverage.

Otherwise, get health care insurance out of the hands of employers, and lets get create a system that gives individuals more control over their own health care coverage and choices.

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.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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.

Should health insurers be forced to accept people with pre-existing conditions?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Should health insurers be forced to accept people with pre-existing conditions?

Actually scratch that... that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

More germane question. If, as part of my religion, I believe that executions are wrong, can I refuse to pay taxes? What about war? Is a standing army a violation of my first amendment rights?

 

[V Chip]

If there is a minimum standard of healthcare that is decided upon and must be met, and you as an employer are not willing to meet those standards for whatever reason, then you as an employer should get the heck out of the health insurance business, pass on the savings on premiums to your employees, and be done with it, not cry and force an exception for your specific objection to the minimum standards.

 

[SystemShock]

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?

Apples to broccoli, but the first thing that comes to mind, it'd be unconstitutional, as it'd violate the 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", as forcing to buy Bibles for every would constitute "establishment of religion".

Second, I agree in general with what @Optimus Prime posted.

And third, heck, if I had a business in an area where the job market is tight and giving away Bibles would give me a leg up in hiring the qualified people I need, giving away Bibles would be spelled right there in the benefits package.

... as long as the employer is paying for it, the employer should be free to choose what is covered

I agree in principle, however, once the employer posts their healthcare costs as a liability on their tax return and gets tax credits, then it becomes a matter of the people.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Apples to broccoli, but the first thing that comes to mind, it'd be unconstitutional, as it'd violate the 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", as forcing to buy Bibles for every would constitute "establishment of religion".

Second, I agree in general with what @Optimus Prime posted.

And third, heck, if I had a business in an area where the job market is tight and giving away Bibles would give me a leg up in hiring the qualified people I need, giving away Bibles would be spelled right there in the benefits package.



I agree in principle, however, once the employer posts their healthcare costs as a liability on their tax return and gets tax credits, then it becomes a matter of the people.

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.

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.

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.

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.