Democrats Are Always Better For the Economy and Now is No Different

The stock market has reached record territory.  Economic policy of the current administration has led to the quickest, and deepest recovery from the inflation that affected the global economy, and has managed it well, with interest rates and a careful balance of spending which has kept a recession completely out of the conversation.  In spite of the fact that we went through the inflation experience, and did see a rise in fuel prices, we also experienced wage growth, once we went through the COVID fluctuations, that topped out at 6.9% and has managed to stay relatively high, compared to the Trump administrations figures on the same economic measure.  

And we've had steady, GNP growth at 3% or higher.  Sustained.  

And of course, we have had the longest period of sustained job growth and low unemployment in literally decades.  The last three Democrats in the White House have combined for the creation of 51.3 million jobs, while Republicans in the White House since then have accounted for 1.3 million.  Of course, Republicans have tried to convolute and twist those facts a thousand ways from Sunday, with no luck, because they are facts that can't be disputed.  The last Republican in the White House accounted for the loss of 2.7 million jobs, another indisputable fact.  And while there was a pandemic going on, mismanagement of it from the White House, inept and incompetent by the nicest of possible descriptions, was a major cause of the loss of jobs and the high unemployment inherited by the Biden administration. 

Unemployment, being one of the most important factors in American economic health, has been something Democrats have been incredibly successful at generating and protecting, not just since Clinton entered the White House, but going all the way back to World War 2. During the 14 Presidencies since the end of that war, seven Republican, seven Democrat, the Democrats added 88 million jobs to the American economy, compared to just 32 million under Republicans.  Wage growth also fares better under Democratic party Presidents.  Those are facts.  

The unemployment and job creation rates are front line signs of economic health.  The healthier the economy, the more jobs it creates, the lower the unemployment rate.  

Trump Economy vs. Harris Economy

The fact that Trump is a rich man, an alleged billionaire, is not an indication that he knows what's best for the economy.  He sure knows what's best for his economy, as far as the rest of the country, he's never acted like he cared.  And what did we get with Trump?  Four years, riding on the success of his predecessor, who led the economic recovery from the Bush Recession, the worst economic downturn in the United States since the Great Depression.  Nothing new or innovative, tariffs which created inflation double what it had been, modest growth in the GNP, nothing you'd expect from a self-proclaimed genius.  

And we got trillions added to the national debt, telling us that all the Republican caterwauling we've heard about increasing the debt being impossible to sustain was meaningless.  Trump did it and so they were OK with it.  I mean, he really did it, not only such a gigantic number, but making a tax increase for 80% of American wage earners, and a tax cut for the top 5% the order of the day.  It was pretty deceptive, too, cutting out the exemption for the working class, giving them less than a 1% cut, and then taking away their ability to deduct an additional 7% of their wages.  

What we will be getting from Harris is a guarantee of no tax increases, up to a wage earned of $400,000.  We won't get that from Trump, who is proposing another tax increase for those who aren't already wealthy.  Along with that, economists have estimated his tariff regulations would add almost $4,000 a year to current American's living expenses.   

Harris has been part of an administration that thinks of ways to bring down costs for Americans, not how to make money off raising them.  Biden sold off a nice chunk of our national oil reserves, at a premium price, only to buy the oil to re-fill the reserve at a much lower price, insuring the strategic oil reserves are at their highest level in decades while adding several billion dollars to the plus side of the revenue.  That drove gas prices down, along with some of the pressure that competition is generating now among oil producing countries.  The Saudis need some cash flow, so they're willing to increase production which drops the price of gas.  That's yet to come, by the way.  

I'm sure willing to vote for four more years of this economy.  

Discerning the "Lesser of Two Evils" Requires Defining "Evil" First

"I'm voting for the lesser of two evils."  

O.K., so tell me, exactly what does that mean?  

My personal interpretation of the use of this statement by a voter is that it is an expression of ignorance.  They are patriotic enough to realize voting is a citizen's obligation, something that is a privilege and a right that shouldn't be wasted, but they're too lazy and uninformed to really know much about the candidates so they are depending on bits and pieces of news media sound bytes, probably a lot of podcasts and private sources, not a lot of reliable journalistic sources, and they know the talking points.  

Having been raised in a conservative, Evangelical church and denomination, I was taught that everything, by default, is evil.  Yes, that does seem to be a very pessimistic, negative way of looking at the world, I agree.  It explains the cultural and social restrictions that constitute what they believe is genuine Christian practice, based on a literal reading of a text more than 2,000 years old, without applying much in the way of historical, cultural and language contexts to the interpretation.  

But "evil" is a simplistic way to reject political candidates, particularly on a partisan basis, without having to put much effort into finding out where they stand on the issues or whether or not they are qualified to do the job.  It's a dismissive way of deciding for whom one will vote.  It's an argument that doesn't leave room for reasoning, since it's personal and subjective.  In this way of looking at things, what makes a candidate "evil," by definition, is that they do not see the world, resolve problems or think the same way that the voter does.  It has nothing to do with what is truly evil, as opposed to what is truly good.  

It's a Figure of Speech, Not a Religious Concept

Much of Christianity, the more conservative branches of it, including Evangelicals, believe that human beings are totally depraved, and therefore are inherently evil.  It's a complicated doctrine that rests heavily on the Genesis account of creation in the Bible, so it's not useful in defining a political expression such as the lesser of two evils, primarily because no Bible writer allows for any variation in degrees of evil.  Evil is evil, there's not some kinds of evil that is better than other kinds.  

Any other definition of evil would be a subjective matter of opinion.  I think that inciting an insurrection that led to the attack on the Capitol building in Washington on January 6, 2021 is an example of evil.  Rhetoric full of vengeful threats against personal enemies is evil.  Lying, which is intentional deceit, and which comes from a lack of respect for one's fellow human beings, is inherently evil.  Elevating one's self above others, and seeing one's self as better than others because of acquired or inherited wealth is evil.  And since all of those things apply to Trump, I see him as a much greater evil than I do those things which Vice President Harris supports, but with which I disagree.  

And frankly, I find it hard to disagree with much of anything she promotes as a political candidate for office.  

I have thought long and hard about the issue of abortion, and just what steps government can, and should take, involving the practice.  And as hard an argument that many Christians, especially conservative Evangelicals and Catholics, make against the practice, the Bible on which they rely for their information doesn't actually apply the doctrine of the sanctity of human life to every human in the womb.  And the practice itself, which often involves a life-saving procedure rather than a birth control procedure, isn't covered in scripture when the decision involves saving the life of a mother.  

I do have a problem with the gross misinformation that is spread regarding the practice, in order for those opposed to it to try and convince others they're right, including the lack of ethics involved in making the accusation that Democrats want abortion legal through the entire pregnancy and in the third trimester, which is patently false, and that the governor of Virginia, [medical doctor Ralph Northam, for reference to whom Trump is falsely accusing] never advocated for setting babies aside after birth in order to "decide what to do."  That's a known Republican fabrication, and it's evil to make that statement. 

Trump is the Greater Evil by Any Standard Definition of the Term

By any commonly accepted definition of the term "evil," it's clear that Trump is the worst.  From a personal perspective, I find nothing in Kamala Harris or her campaign that would fit the description.  Try to point it out, at least, if the use of the term is to be applied correctly.  

With Trump, I can use just about any standard definition.  If I take the religious definition, Trump has defined himself, with his refusal to acknowledge and accept any form of Christian conversion.  His character, his behavior, all fall within the biblical descriptions of, and definition of, evil, right down to his organization and incitement of an insurrection aimed at overturning a legitimate election, an act the Bible defines as a rebellion against the authority of God.  

If I use a personal definition, Trump is a tyrant.  He's a control freak, and his lack of humanity bears all of the marks of a sociopath.  He is openly stating that he intends to use the power of the Presidency to avenge himself and the perceived wrongs others have done to him, without an acknowledgement of the fact that the others he wants to persecute were being honest, doing their job and following the law.

Trump is clearly the most evil candidate.  So those who are supporting him cannot be using the argument that they are voting for the lesser of two evils.  There's something else behind their vote, and their position tells me that evil isn't a consideration for them, one way or another, nor is it a real concern.  

  

 

Evangelicals Must "Clean House" and Rid Themselves of the Trump Intrusion, or "Have Their Lampstand Removed"

There are still some conservative, Evangelical readers here, so I'm putting this in terms that some of those within that particular theological and doctrinal interpretation will understand.  Please note that I am not claiming that the Bible is predicting these specifics, as some of those preachers who have sold out to Trump as their savior are doing.  I'm simply pointing out that the Bible's writers did address the intrusion of lies and false doctrine into the church as well as the fact that its members were capable of being deceived by them and blinded by misplaced loyalty.  

For those of you who are not familiar with biblical analogies, I'll try to help provide some information along the way when I use them.  

A Church That Has Lost its First Love

But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love that you had at first.  Remember then from what you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first.  If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent...Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit says to the churches.  Revelation 2:4-7a, NRSV 

This passage from the book of Revelation, an often misunderstood and misused prophetic word from one of Jesus' apostles, John, to a group of Christians in churches where he served and worked during the early first century, in and around the city of Ephesus, on the west coast "bulge" of the Asia Minor peninsula, was both a warning and encouragement to what was the largest and most prosperous of seven churches addressed in this particular book.  Ephesus was a large, prosperous city, a seaport on the Mediterranean coast, and also a hotbed of Christian evangelism.  

It was the headquarters of the Apostle John, and the other churches addressed in the book, scattered around the province in the same general area of the southwestern part of Asia Minor, were part of his ministry.  Paul also addressed the church there with an epistle, Ephesians.  It was the location of the temple of Artemis, and a riot which occurred there, which occurred because Paul was accused of winning converts among the pagan worshippers of Artemis, which took them away as customers of the silversmiths who made her statues.  

It became the subject of John's revelation as a result of having lost its first love, a statement that reflects the turn this congregation was making toward its own self-satisfaction and complacency, allowing worldly success, including a strong relationship with the local pagan government, a political infiltration if you will, replace their love for Jesus Christ and the practice of the Christian gospel.  I'm using it as an example, because it is exactly what I observe among conservative, Evangelical churches which have become nothing more than political action committees for Trump.  Unable, or somehow unwilling, to do their evangelistic ministry, these churches have turned to secular political power to work for them in achieving their mission and purpose.  

There's no question that Trump's words and deeds are antithetical to the Christian gospel.  His lies have become his personal and political trademark, to the point where even his own supporters never actually believe what he says anymore.  His open denial of his own sinful nature, and refusal to acknowledge spiritual conviction, claiming that he hasn't done anything requiring God's forgiveness is a hostile position against Christianity and the church.  But many Christian pastors and church leaders have chosen to continue to support him, most of them greedy for the same worldly success he expects, and they've lost sight of their first love, Jesus, and his gospel.  

The language of having their lampstand removed is symbolic.  What John meant was that the continued failure of the Ephesian church to turn back to the priorities of loving Christ and using spiritual help from God to practice the Christian gospel, instead of depending on the worldly power they'd discovered, would result in the church ceasing to exist, which it certainly did.  In this prophetic book, addressed to seven specific churches, this warning was given to five of them, while two of them, Philadelphia and Smyrna, were commended for their commitment and assured of spiritual protection.  

Bowing the knee and giving loyalty to Trump has caused the churches whose pastors and members who have done it to be guilty of many of the things John mentions in his warning to these seven churches in Asia.  This also includes idolatry and false doctrine, sexual immorality, being spiritually dead and disconnected, and having spiritual fervor tempered by secular politics into lukewarm apathy.  All of those things are part of any church that has raised Trump up to the point where they are willing to make him a political leader, and it has led them into sheer hypocrisy, and apostasy.  

And there is evidence that lampstands are being removed, so to speak.  Evangelical Christian churches and denominations in the United States have lost 16 million members and have seen their attendance plummet, by almost 10%, over the time that Trump has been the nominee of the GOP for the Presidency.  I want to make it clear that this prophecy is not literally applied to today's church, but it is a prophetic word.  Trumpism is a non-Christian, perhaps by definition an anti-Christian intrusion into the Christian churches of this country, a huge distraction from their mission and purpose.  

Keep it up and see what happens.  The Bible is giving a big hint, and it might be time to stop merely proclaiming belief in its infallibility and inerrancy, and actually take seriously what it says about Trump's hate-filled rhetoric.  

Character Matters, and That's the Issue

It is possible for Christians, including those who have been elevated to leadership positions, to be deceived, not being able to accurately discern the character of individuals whose selfish ambition is intended to deceive, in order to personally benefit.  The Bible's writers provided multiple warnings for their fellow Christians to avoid being taken in by deceivers, an indication that not only could such deception occur, but that it would occur.  

"For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.  And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an Angel of light.  It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness.  Their end will be what their actions deserve."  I Corinthians 11:13-15, NIV

Is it possible for people to get themselves into positions of leadership among the Christian community in order to deliberately be deceitful, with some kind of personal benefit, say money, as the motivation?  That is absolutely possible, considering the apostle's words in the above reference.  I'm saying some of the leaders are the spiritually insincere imposters, keeping people from seeing the truth and doing so because this is their source of money.  Paul is saying that it is possible for someone who is not Christian to put themselves in a position of church leadership in order to "deceive the very elect," as the Apostle Matthew says, for political purposes.  

Even Democrats who have never had any religious affiliation or practice can recognize the nature of evil present in the rhetoric of Trump.  There is nothing in anything this man says, and virtually nothing in what he has promised politically, that can be considered to be supportive of a "Christian worldview," which is the standard position taken by religious conservatives when it comes to the election.   

Navigating the Divide Between Religious Liberty and Constitutionally Guaranteed Individual Rights 

The immovable rock on which the extremist religious right rests all of its politics is a doctrine they refer to as the Sanctity of Human Life.  This doctrine, which, like almost all of the rest of conservative, Evangelical doctrine and theology, is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, which is a faulty way of looking at a text more than 2,000 years old.  In their way of thinking, the Democratic party support for reproductive rights for women, which includes giving them the ability to choose to have an abortion, is the "evil" that disqualifies all Democratic party candidates from office and renders the entire platform useless in their eyes. 

I'm just wondering how many Evangelical leaders have paid attention to Trump's words, and to how his position has shifted on the issue as it has become clear that the Dobbs decision activated a political alliance with the kind of voter support capable of defeating him.  Trump made an astounding statement in that debate, stating openly that "six weeks is not long enough" when it comes to abortion bans put in place by some states.  He also made it very clear that he does not see abortion as either evil or as a problem, provided the majority of voters in a state have approved it.  

"That's all we were trying to do," he said, "with overturning Roe."  And he also made it very clear that he did not believe Congress would ever come up with a national abortion ban, and so he would never have to worry about signing it, because "we got it into the states, that's what everybody wanted."  He's now supportive of abortion rights as long as a state has let the voters approve of it.  

In other words, he's either shifted his position away from the anti-abortion rights position of the GOP, or he is lying through his teeth.  Either way, any Christians supporting him are going to have to be accountable for this sin of lying, like they must accept all of his other character failures and his immoral baggage.  My guess is that he's lying about this, and if, by some chance, he does become President, he will forget what he promised, as is always the case with him.  

Apart from abortion rights, conservatives share nothing else in common with Trump, except, perhaps, his racism and his hatred of immigrants.  That, they share.  But that's not a Christian value. When it comes to LGBTQ rights, Trump's never been on board with his conservative, Evangelical constituency.  He wants their favor and their votes.  He's left it up to his conservative, Evangelical supporters to figure out how to handle his duplicity while still supporting him.  So, they ignore it and deny their own convictions.

Trump has been almost as emphatic in his repudiation of the Heritage Foundation and its draconian, Christian nationalist agenda characterized by Project 2025 as Democrats have been.  Apparently, there's been a lot of deception going on here.  It's much more likely, in my own opinion, that Trump indicated his full support for everything in Project 2025, read it, discussed it and agreed to make it the basis of his 2025 campaign, until he saw reports of how unpopular it was after news of its existence and its potential use leaked out.  Then, not wanting to lose the votes support for this would cost him, he backed away and told another lie.  I think he fully intends to help it get implemented, regardless of what he says.  He's lying about not knowing about it, and about it not being part of his political agenda. 

The Standard Bearer of the Republican Party, and of Conservative Evangelicals is a Liar, an Adulterer, a Fraud and a Grifter

To stand with Trump, as a conservative Evangelical, is an open denial and repudiation of the Christian gospel.  

There, I said it.  

He's a convicted felon, a lawbreaker, with more than 60 indictments still pending, and the argument that these are just politically motivated won't fly.  He called together and organized the January 6th insurrection aimed at overturning a legitimate, provably accurate election and subverting the Constitution's peaceful transfer of power.  That's a sin, according to scripture.  And it's accompanied by a host of crimes he committed, evidence provided, under the law.  

He is a duplicitous liar who believes the conservative Christians in his own base are too ignorant and stupid to think for themselves, and too cowardly to speak up to his face when he is in error.  He has no convictions, his perspective blows with the winds of whatever he thinks will get him the most votes.  His rhetoric, in his rally speeches, news conferences, and public appearances, shows a man full of vitriol and hatred, a divider, someone who doesn't understand that loving one's neighbor is a demonstration of loving God.  

He does not believe in the sanctity of human life, he believes in using the emotion and convictions people have over the issue of abortion rights as a means to get votes, whichever side he must take, both if he can depend on his Evangelical base to be blinded by masquerading as an angel of light, deceiving the very elect [see Matthew 24:24].  

His hatred of Americans who aren't Caucasian, and who have come here for the same reasons all of our immigrant ancestors did, which is to build a better life for their families, children and descendants, is also a denial of the Christian gospel.  His lies about the Haitian families living in Springfield, Ohio are a demonstration of a spirit of antichrist [I John 4:1-3].  

It doesn't matter that Trump is theoretically a secular leader, and that, as so many conservative Evangelicals have used to wrongly excuse support for people with bad character, the excuse that "we aren't voting for a pastor-in-chief, but a commander-in-chief," is not plausible.  Standing with Trump means standing with a liar, a deceiver, a fraud, a sexually immoral adulterer and with one who has even rebuffed the conviction of the Holy Spirit by publicly proclaiming that he has committed no sin which God needs to forgive.  

And so, the choice is clear.  Keep the lampstand in its place, or support Trump and have it removed.

 

An Opportunity Missed by American Conservative Evangelical Leaders

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.  Matthew 5:9 NIV 

Texas Baptist Standard: Springfield Faith Leaders Stand With Embattled Migrants

Texas Baptist Standard Editor Eric Black: Condemn False Claims About Haitian Immigrants

It has been heartwarming to see local pastors and church leaders in Springfield, Ohio, step up to help defend and protect their neighbors from attacks that are the result of lies, and there is nothing else to call them but that, lies told by the Republican party's nominees for President and Vice-President, to try and gather support for a political issue.  After all, many of these people, who were invited into the community to fill jobs that are helping support the economic revitalization of the town, are also in the church pews on Sunday, and actively engaging in the church ministry during the week.  

What an awful thing it has been, and continues to be, to see Americans, all of whom are the descendants of immigrants ourselves, either stand idly by while this happens, and not call it out, or join in to help terrorize this community with threats of violence and bomb threats, disrupting the life of the community and spreading fear that helps push hatred of people who were completely innocent of what they were accused of doing, and who have done nothing but contribute to the betterment of the entire community.  

Telling this lie, having it proven to be a lie, seeing the terror that it caused and then seeing both Trump and Vance, a fellow Ohioan, continue to defend it and continue to lie tells me that neither of these men have the moral character to serve in public office, and that they have absolutely no understanding of, or respect for the core values that make America the great nation that it is.  They don't know that the true "blood" of America can't be corrupted or "poisoned" by immigrants, because the blood of America that built this nation is the blood of immigrants, of all races, ethnicities and cultures. 

The fact that there is not a flood of criticism and repudiation of this from Christians of all brands, stripes and varieties in this country is very telling about how much real Christianity actually exists among these sects, and how much the people who belong to them actually know about who Jesus Christ was, what he taught and the values and character traits by which he set an example for his followers to live out.   

Christians who openly support this candidate, his running mate and his party really need to do some sincere, deep, self-evaluation of their own faith.  

My friends, this can't go on.  A spring doesn't gush fresh water one day and brackish water the next, does it?  Apple trees don't bear strawberries, do they?  Raspberry bushes don't bear apples, do they?  You're not going to dip into a polluted mud hole and get a cup of clear, cool water, are you?  James 3:11-12, MSG  

The fact that some of the big names of self-proclaimed Christian "leaders" among conservative Evangelicals have not spoken up to condemn this clearly anti-Christian lie, and the threats that it has caused, as well as condemning those politicians who are defending it and continuing to spread it, is legitimate cause to question their Christian maturity and the depth of their spiritual commitment to the Christian gospel, and to Jesus Christ.  It's not my place to judge their conversion experience, but as a fellow Christian, it is my place to call out this obvious sinful behavior.  And it is also legitimate to call them out for continuing to support politicians who are so obviously anti-Christian in their values and morals, and anti-patriotic in their commitment to America's Constitution and its founding principles. 

I would expect to see Christians who do have sincere convictions and a living, active faith step up and put themselves in a place to be of service to both the people of Springfield, and specifically, to the Haitians who are being terrorized and will wind up bearing the brunt of the threats.  So far, it looks like those stepping up to defend what is right and true, and to help out are more of what the conservatives like to criticize as being liberal, progressive and woke.  I am not surprised that they are the ones who are demonstrating a sincere and committed Christian faith.  

How is it possible, after seeing something like this happen, for people who claim to follow the teachings of the Christian gospel, continue to support a politician who is so much the opposite of what they claim to believe?  And what kind of testimony is it showing to the people of Springfield, especially to those who share a commitment to the same Christian gospel?     

Baptist News Global: Greg Garrett, "Who is my Neighbor?"

An Honest Question: How Much of the History of the Modern Middle Eastern Conflict Involving Israel Do Most Americans Know?

If I put myself on the sidewalk outside a busy intersection in any of America's large cities, and asked passersby to answer this one question, I doubt there would be one in 50 who would be able to answer the question accurately.  

"What is the root cause behind the conflict between Israel and the Arab world that has led to multiple wars, multiple acts of terrorism and to the development of specific terrorist organizations with the goal of Israel's destruction?"  

I've asked a similar question, by the way, of high school students and of adults in a Sunday School class.  Some of the students, who were studying or had recently studied World History, were able to point to the post World War 1 chaos that led to a couple of treaties and a military occupation of the Middle East by Great Britain, which eventually opened up Palestine to a flood of Jewish immigration, as the catalyst for the conflict.  That's an A minus answer.  

The Sunday School class, on the other hand, based their answers on the Biblical text, written before the siege of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The conflict, according to that version, has its roots in the ancient hatreds of the people who lived around Palestine who are the ancestors of the modern Arabic population, not an accurate historical fact, and one that leaves out the complete destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and the expulsion of the Jewish population from Jerusalem.  The Old Testament prophets don't cover this later conquest and destruction, though many Christian Bible teachers incorrectly make inferences to the restoration of Jerusalem after the Babylonian conquest in 585 B.C. as pertaining to the Roman destruction and exile.  

The unique combination of Judaism with the racial identity of being Jewish and the shift which occurred in Jewish cultural, religious and political life after Jerusalem's destruction kept alive the hope of a return to their homeland in Palestine, which is at the core of their religious identity and existence, even as it led groups of Jewish people scattered all over the Roman Empire to remain together and avoid cultural disintegration by intermarriage and by remaining in separate communities which did not assimilate into the local culture.   This separation, and distance kept from native populations is a contributing factor in the anti-Semitism that has been aimed at the Jewish diaspora everywhere it exists. And the resulting persecution they experienced led to maintaining their ethnic and religious identity because they kept their distance from their persecutors, and that kept the hope of a "messianic return" to the ancient homeland alive for almost 2,000 years.   

"Messianic Hopes" of a Jewish Return to Palestine Are Unsuccessful for Almost 2000 Years

After the Roman general Titus sacked and destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and sent the population scattering to different parts of the Roman Empire, all Jewish cultural and religious life had to make a complete shift, as communities of Jews who left Jerusalem and Palestine built their own separate communities among the pagan population of the Roman Empire.  Many of them were taken as slaves and wound up in Rome, but the majority of Jews fleeing from Jerusalem and Judea wound up in Asia Minor and Greece, and over time, gradually went north into Eastern Europe.  

Jerusalem, rebuilt under Roman rule, was a pagan city, the Jewish population kept out of the province of Judea.  When the Roman empire split, and the eastern part became the Byzantine Empire, Jerusalem was transformed into a Christian city, with churches built to commemorate specific ministry events of the life of Jesus Christ.  Jews were still forbidden access, however, except for once a year to mourn the destruction of the Temple.  The Byzantine rulers were Christian, but granted citizenship to Jewish people in the empire in an attempt to convert and assimilate them into the culture.  There were outbreaks of anti-Semitic violence when that didn't happen.  

It was a prelude to future events such as the Spanish Inquisition for the Jews, many of whom took the side of the Sassanid Persian conquerors of Jerusalem in 616 to try and re-establish a sovereign Jewish state.   That never happened, but there was tremendous animosity created among the Christian population because of the Jewish support for the conquest, in which 90,000 of Jerusalem's Christian inhabitants died.  

There was never a possibility for the re-establishment of a Jewish state with Jerusalem as its capital after that. Various Muslim-controlled empires sweeping through the region made that impossible, and when Christians briefly conquered Jerusalem during the crusades, and established Christian rule, they were just as insistent on keeping the Jewish population out, and just as brutal in their treatment of Jewish subjects under their rule.  The region around Jerusalem and in Palestine, mostly under Islamic rule, politically volatile and unstable, was not safe for the Jewish population, much of which migrated further north, into Eastern Europe.   

World War I provided the Zionist movement, mainly European Jews who, after centuries of enduring persecution and second-class citizen status in Eastern Europe, where the largest groups of Jewish communities were located, the opportunity to consider the possibility of Jewish resettlement into Palestine, and the establishment of a Jewish state there.  The Balfour Declaration was Britain's official recognition of the Jews as a separate people and gave backing to the Zionists, the European Jews who were pushing for establishment of a Jewish political state in Palestine.  

Issues Surrounding Modern Resettlement of a Large Jewish Population in Palestine and the Establishment of a Political State of Israel are the Root Causes of Israeli-Arab Conflict

The defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War 1 led to British control of the whole area known as the Middle East.  Their main interest, economic gain for their empire, superseded the political, religious, cultural and political interests of the people who lived in the area and the "protectorates" that they created were mainly for their own benefit and ability to control the region.  

The idea of creating a Jewish state in Palestine, and opening up that part of this area to Jewish immigration which would largely come from Eastern Europe, is the source of beginnings of the current state of conflict that has eventually led to the development of Islamic-based terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, to multiple skirmishes and outright wars, and to the displacement of several million Arabs who once lived in the area of Palestine now occupied by the Jewish state of Israel.  

Between 1918 and 1939, n spite of the Balfour Declaration, there were tight restrictions on the number of Jews allowed to emigrate to Palestine.  There was also a lot of tension as some of the Zionists ignored the restrictions and encouraged and supported Jewish immigration by helping people sneak into the region.  Anti-Semitism was a fact of life in Eastern Europe and many Jews were willing to risk the dangers of life in Palestine to escape the dangers of life in Poland and the Soviet Union.  The British, who needed Arab support and cooperation when World War 2 broke out, clamped down on the illegal and legal immigration of Jews into Palestine.  

But of course, the sweeping of the Holocaust across Eastern Europe, and the wiping out of over six million European Jews, most of them in Poland and Ukraine, only intensified the pressure to create a Jewish political state in Palestine, with or without the support of the Western Allies, and when that happened in 1948, that's when trouble broke out.  It was one thing to see Jewish people moving in, claiming land and building communities in limited numbers, in empty areas separated from the Arabic population.  It was something entirely different to see hundreds of thousands of Jews arriving regularly, and establishing Jewish political control over the Arabic, Muslim population of Palestine.  

The British lost control of their ability to implement a planned establishment of what we now refer to as a "two state solution."  Military conquests by the military forces built and trained largely by the Zionists, out of their partisan World War 2 experience, established the boundaries of the political state of Israel by conquest and by treaty, which brought several million Arabic Palestinians under their political control.  It wasn't the "two state solution" that had been originally envisioned.  The choice for the Arabic population of Palestine, whose ancestors had lived there for centuries, was to live under control of the Jewish state, or leave a homeland their ancestors had lived on for 16 centuries and become refugees in one of the neighboring countries.  

There hasn't been a peaceful resolution to this problem.  Displacing several million people from the only homes and lands they had ever known as their own, and where their ancestors had lived for 13 centuries, isn't an easy problem to resolve.  Since its establishment, Israel hasn't permitted autonomous areas to exist within its borders for the Palestinian population, which would be the way a "two state solution" would work out, and they have conquered and taken the land that was initially proposed for this purpose.  And while some Arabic Palestinians did choose to remain, and become citizens of the Jewish state, the majority became refugees in neighboring countries, including Jordan, which controlled the West Bank, and what was known as the United Arab Republic, made up of Syria and Egypt, which controlled Gaza.  The Gaza strip was established in a treaty in 1950, which is why there are some two million Arabic Palestinians living there now.  

Most of the people now living in Gaza are the second and third generation descendants of the displaced Arabic Palestinian population that once lived further north and east, in what is now Israel.  The economic depravity and poverty that develops as a result of losing the place and the resources that came with it off of which one once earned a living is what creates the kind of atmosphere among the community sharing this circumstance that sometimes, out of a sense of futility and desperation, produces the kind of violence we saw on October 7th.  Groups like Hamas, which develop among communities like this, have support because they claim that their aim is to get that lost land and life back for these people.  

How Does This Get Resolved? 

Americans, really, have very little idea of what it would take to resolve the problem, and because of the influence of right wing conservative Christian perspectives, see the failure to resolve it as the fault of the Arabs, because we are influenced by our dislike for Islam and Muslim people.  Most have no idea that prior to 1948, no independent, autonomous Jewish state had existed in Palestine since 587 B.C. and no Jewish province under subject rule of an empire had existed there since 70 A.D.  

Israel's establishment as an independent state in 1948 stems from its recognition, largely by the "Western Allies," the British Empire combined with the United States and support of the United Nations following World War 2.  The legitimacy includes the fact that the former political powers in the region allied themselves with the Axis, and that "protectorate" status of the population of the region shifted from Islamic control to British control.  Self-determination of these subject people was demanded as the British Empire dissolved at the end of World War 2, and the agreements with the Zionists and which allowed for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine were recognized by the United Nations, along with the independence of other states in the region, including Iraq and Syria. That established Israel's right to exist.  

Personally, I have not observed the kind of application of things that we value, and that we also take for granted, as Americans, in any way that would lead to a resolution of the issues that have created the conflicts we see in the Middle East, like the Israeli-Gaza war that is the most recent eruption of almost continuous violence.  What needs to happen now is a cease fire to end the violence, the sanctity of human life being the greatest consideration at this point, and then, a period which allows for some reflection and thought about where to go next.  

What Happens After a Cease Fire

The population of the Gaza strip is mostly made up of displaced refugees.  Setting it up as a sovereign state without providing the basic resources it needed to survive was a guarantee of failure, and of the fact that the place would become an incubator of Anti-Israeli hatred. Displaced people leave behind all of their assets and resources on which they depended to create jobs and build an economy.  That's the first problem Gaza faces, building an economy.  Who is willing to replace the resources left behind when the people were displaced, and invest in the development of a sustainable economy that will be the biggest key to preventing Hamas taking root and getting hold of the population?  Or should I say, who should be responsible for doing so?  It seems that those who were most responsible for creating the situation should be obligated to do this.

And what would a two-state solution actually look like?  The West Bank still has a majority Arabic-Palestinian population.  Do we have two states in three locations, with Gaza and the West Bank, separated by Israeli territory, or is there a possible way to make it so that its citizens do not have to cross through Israel to transit the state?  

All of that must be negotiated with the Palestinian population represented, not by Hamas, but by those within that community that have a realistic perspective of the politics of the situation and desire to see it come about, recognizing Israel's right to exist, as Israel recognizes their right to their own sovereignty and to have lost economic and political opportunity restored, as best as it can be, as well as providing for the rebuilding of the infrastructure that has been destroyed. Threats from Syria, and Iran, must also be neutralized, not by military might, but by satisfactory resolution of the issues.  And the solution to the problem has to be effective to the point where it neutralizes Hamas and Hezbollah, leaving them without the support of those in the Arabic Palestinian community who now see them as their only hope.  

It should not surprise us, as Americans, that we have little influence and have not earned the trust of the Arabic Palestinians.  Our involvement in the situation has basically led to an outcome not unlike the fate to which we condemned the native population of North America, during our westward expansion.  We have very little understanding of the politics and culture of the region.  We've done nothing to earn the trust of the people.  A two state solution requires two states being made equal and that starts by treating the people who are involved as equals.  It requires Israel being made secure.  And it requires the Arabic Palestinians, in their own sovereign state, to be secure.  

The best perspective any American has ever brought to the table with regard to Middle Eastern issues, including what is necessary for a two-state solution, fair and equitable to everyone involved, to work and to result in real peace, came from President Jimmy Carter.  He was obviously viewed as a peacemaker, and he was close enough to getting everyone to agree to sit down and talk that the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini, in Iran, felt the need to sabotage his re-election.  

Religion is a Factor in the 2024 Election, Protecting Freedom of Conscience and Religious Liberty is a Priority

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States eliminates any doubt related to whether or not the United States is a "Christian" nation, or whether it ever can be a Christian nation, depending on how any form of Christian nationalism interprets that term.  It was not the intention of the founders, clearly, to establish a "Christian" nation, even by allowing a state church to attach itself to the government and then have influence over the religious practice of American citizens, which was the case in several of the states when the Constitution was written and ratified.  

In fact, it was the presence of a state church in Virginia, the Church of England, and its attempt to control the religious practice of dissident Christian denominations, most notably the Baptists, through use of the law, and by persecution of their members and ministers, that convinced James Madison of the need for the Constitution to protect freedom of conscience, and religious practice and belief was at the top of his list of protections.  A church, vested with government authority to enforce its own doctrine, theology and practice was not consistent with the vision of America's founding fathers.  

There's no argument that Christianity, and more specifically, Protestant Christianity, has been an overwhelming Christian influence over American society and culture, and over its politics, too.  Even now, Protestant church members make up a majority of the members of Congress.  A majority of Americans claim affiliation with one of several branches of Protestant Christianity, or they are Catholic or Orthodox.  

But this has all been the result of that first amendment right to freedom of conscience.  In fact, Christian evangelism, which involves a ministry of convincing individuals they are sinners in need of a Christian conversion experience in order to be reconciled to the God who created them, through Jesus Christ, the incarnation of God in the flesh, has never enjoyed the kind of success it has experienced in those places in the world where it is free from control of the state, and required to exercise its faith spiritually, rather than enforce doctrine and practice by government edict.  

State enforced Christianity is not Christianity, and it has never been successful in achieving anything but bloodshed and destruction resulting from the hatred it generates.

Any Form of Christian Nationalism is Restricted by the Constitution

Of the several brands of Christian nationalism that exist, including the racist and misogynistic varieties which subjugate people of color and women, none is compatible with the Constitution.  Religious liberty means that those who choose not to believe or practice any religion have rights that are equal to others and protected under the law.  

Christian nationalism is not based on the Christian gospel, which are the teachings of Jesus Christ and the interpretations of them by his apostles.  It's based on a false, literal reading and interpretation of the Bible that elevates and mis-interprets passages from the Old Covenant, selectively adding them to Christian practice, something that was anticipated as possible by the writer of Hebrews, and completely refuted.  Jesus also refutes the idea of a political, worldly "kingdom" led by Christians in the same way that Israel was once led by judges and then monarchs believed to be appointed by God. 

Christian nationalism is pushing its way into this election through Trump's candidacy.  He can deny his approval of, or association with the Heritage Foundation and their authorship of Project 2025, but they wrote it anticipating his third run for the White House, and until word got out about what was inside, where it came from, and it became one of the most unpopular issue proposals in politics, Trump fully embraced it.  Consider his denial of it one more of his lies, he will implement it if elected and deny he denied it.  He believes his base is pathetic and bottomless in their stupidity and ignorance.   

Muslim Voters and the Israeli-Gaza War

Muslims have been part of American history since the beginning, and religious liberty guaranteed by the Constitution guarantees the practice of Islam is protected freedom of conscience in the United States.  The social structure of Islam and the politics associated with the places and cultures in the world where Islam is predominant are not conducive to democracy.  And that may have something to do with the difficulties they sometimes experience in American democracy.  

In spite of the fact that Muslims are socially and culturally conservative, their best political ally in the United States is the Democratic party.  The right wing, white, Christian influence on the Republican party sees Muslim Americans as outsiders, foreigners, pagans and anti-American.  In recent years, because of political developments in the Middle East, and because of the 9-11 attacks, there is an increased perception that they are also subversive, though there is no evidence of that at all.  

There is also an element of self-sabotage and self-defeat among Muslims engaged in politics.  Those who are politically engaged are also highly educated, and yet they sometimes do not seem to grasp exactly how political influence works in a constitutional democracy.  The positions they've taken on the Israeli-Gaza war are evidence of this political naivete.  

The approach has been to speak up, gain attention, make unreasonable, unrealistic demands and then defeat their own cause by threatening to withdraw support when the demands are not met.  It's an "all or nothing" approach that winds up diminishing their voice and diffusing their influence when they can't support their demand or their threat.  

The one politician running for President of the United States with the power, influence and ability to bring about a cease fire in Gaza, ending the misery of the people there, and then use that same power and influence to bring about a resolution that is agreeable to all parties, or at least liveable, is Kamala Harris.  Trump is the enemy of American Muslims, has done everything possible to irritate them and minimize their influence, has threatened to once again ban the immigration of Muslims into the United States and if possible, would deport even the American citizens among this group if he thought he could get away with it.  

Support by Muslim voters and leaders for Harris during the election will go a long way toward their getting some of what they're asking for.  That's really how it works.  An immediate cease fire in Gaza his high on the Vice-President's list of priorities, and that's what Muslims need to realize, and support right now.  Long term, if they want their influence to be part of future discussion about where things go, they need to be supportive now.  Using the threat of throwing their support to Stein gets them nothing.  And the fact of the matter is that a lot of Muslim Americans won't support Stein because she is Jewish.  

My guess is that most American Muslims know that a United States under President Kamala Harris will be much more friendly, hospitable and safe for their continued existence than a United States under Trump.  And when it comes to the privacy of the voting booth, that's who they'll choose, regardless of what their political leadership says.  

A Republican-Led America is an Anti-Semitic America

Conservative Evangelicalism is a hotbed of anti-Semitism.  Ideologically, a fundamental point of a more populist view of Christianity, that element of the Christian faith separated from its theological and doctrinal experts in the divinity schools and seminaries, is that the Jews guessed wrong on Christ and their exclusion from the blessings and benefits of the faith is punishment for that.  There are some Christians whose Armageddon view of the "end times" includes a point of redemption for a small remnant of Jews, but this is the point from where American anti-Semitism arises and takes over.  

Some branches of Christian nationalism have a philosophy of government that allows people of different religions their life, and maybe allows them, within their own community, the ability to practice their own faith.  They are "subject peoples," with few rights, and no protected freedoms.  There are others who see their role as "chosen" by God and he's going to stand behind them, holding their coat-tails and cheering them on as they cleanse the country of its anti-Christian, anti-American, non-white elements.  Listen to their rhetoric.  Pick up a few books and read about it.  It's all there.  

The effective Jewish politicians in the United States, those who have been able to contribute to the party's success, those who have vision and energy for achieving it, are all Democrats. Jamie Raskin, Congressman from Maryland, can give a very good rundown of the reasons why this is the case. There's a reason for that.  They can sense that they're not welcome in the other party, and now, the rise of anti-Semitic sentiment is so visible in the MAGA party, it is causing some Jewish Americans to put resources toward emigrating elsewhere, if it comes down to it.  

Now, we have Trump claiming that if he doesn't win the election, it will be because of the Jewish Americans.  Does he not realize what kind of a target that puts on the backs of Jewish people?  This man, who has used his words to incite deadly violence, actually made that statement.  And the media in this country sits silent, not calling him out.  

Religious Diversity Makes America Great

Neither the Democratic party, nor any of its candidates, pose any threat to Americans who have religious beliefs and convictions.  From the Democratic party we get protection of the right to a free conscience, and the full benefit of the separation of church and state that our founding fathers desired to give us as a gift.  

The Republicans label themselves as the "party of God," and yet, they have allowed themselves to be taken over by a man who exhibits no moral values or ethical practices, whose character is known more for its lying, adultery and philandering, and for its love of money and power above protecting individual rights.  They have let this man, who has openly rejected the very premise of Christian conversion, become the nominee of their party for the Presidency three times.  Among the many American ideals this anti-American bigot proclaims and promotes is a hatred for America's religious diversity, something he reflects from his conservative Evangelical constituency.  

I'm not much of a shopper, but I will frequently go with my wife to the big box discount department store where she likes to shop, because every time I go in there, it's an experience that is unique not only to America, but to the part of the city of Chicago where I live.  It's a busy store, and walking through the door puts us in a group of shoppers who are as culturally and religiously diverse as could be found anywhere on this planet.  

There are Muslims with their traditional dress, including women wearing Burkas, Orthodox Jews with their black clothing, hats, beards and curling earlocks, Hindus, some in very bright traditional colored clothing, there are Sikhs, and there are Latinos, Blacks and whites.  If it wasn't an obvious intrusion, I'd be taking pictures of this place, where people come together, shop together, and live in the same general neighborhood.  We greet each other, smile at each other, sometimes engage in conversation.  

Because that's America.  

A vote for Democrats is a vote for the United States Constitution, and for the freedom of conscience it provides.

 

Why Kamala Harris Will Win This Election

It's become tiresome, really, reading and listening to political pundits go over the same statistics, look at the same trends, and come up with the same, tired, run-of-the-mill, traditional reasoning as to why their math and their predictions about the upcoming election have it on the nose.  

"It's a razor thin margin," they say.  "It's as close as any we have ever had."  "We're basing our predictions on the odds combined with the numbers," is the answer to the question as to where this election will go.  And right now, as the pollsters and the pundits see it, it's a toss up.  

That might be the best way to characterize it, in terms of keeping voter enthusiasm for Harris on a high note.  Post-debate, with polls coming out now showing her leading nationally by as much as 6 points, in the most recent ABC News poll, her volunteers, their enthusiasm and the general upbeat tone she has brought to this campaign seems to be working in her favor.  

Harris Will Win on the Issues

The primary job of the Vice President is to be prepared and ready to assume office at a moment's notice.  We rarely get to see how well prepared a Vice President is, because it is rare for them to have to step into the Presidency.  The last time that happened, it was Gerald Ford, who had not been Vice President for very long.  Opinions are varied on how well prepared he was.  

But it's been clear from the start that Kamala Harris was ready to go.  She didn't have to step into the Presidency, but she had to organize and run a political campaign on very short notice.  She was obviously well prepared to do that.  And I think that's one of the biggest advantages she brings into this campaign.  She is familiar with the role of President of the United States, understands that responsibility and demonstrates the ability to provide the kind of leadership necessary to be the President.  

Vice President Harris has been part of an administration that has had to deal with a viral pandemic, assume responsibility for the nation's recovery, maintain economic growth while dealing with global inflation, and take the blame for something they didn't cause, put the NATO alliance back together in order to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression, continue to protect Taiwan's independence and get us out of an expensive, pointless war in Afghanistan.  They were successful in dealing with all of this.  

There are those who want to place blame on the administration, and include Harris, for the problem we've had with inflation.  I could go into a discussion of how blaming the President is economic ignorance, but that doesn't really make the point.  The point is that this administration has been on the ball as far as this particular economic issue is concerned, and in this period of inflation that has affected the entire global economic market, which is evidence that no policy or practice of the Biden administration caused it, the administration has actually put policies in place which have made the effects of global inflation affect consumers in the United States far less than it has almost anywhere else in the world.  

According to the New York Times  "the price of gas has fallen below $3 in most of the south and Midwest, and is nearing a three year low nationally.  Spiking grocery prices have slowed to a crawl.  Mortgage rates are down nearly a percentage point from their peak.  The Census Bureau reported last week that the typical household income rose faster than prices last year for the first time since the pandemic."  

Let's see.  Gas prices falling.  Grocery price hikes halted.  Mortgage rates declining.  Wages and personal income growing faster than prices are increasing.  Stock market achieving record highs. Unemployment staying at record lows not seen in 60 years.  Sustained economic growth at 3% with no recession in sight.  

That's all good news economically, for an administration in which Harris serves as Vice-President.  Add to that her tax policy, which doesn't add a penny to the taxes of the working and middle class, and I think we have one of the reasons why Harris will win.  We always have those who simply complain, cite the cliches and never pay attention to the facts, but Harris and Walz have both underlined an economic policy and plan that helps the vast majority of Americans.  And they are getting the word out.  I love explaining, to those on the extreme right, how this President sold off oil from the strategic reserves at premium prices, and then refilled at a significant savings which helped keep our gas prices lower than almost all of the rest of the world. 

And Trump and Vance have a concept of a plan. Basically, giving billionaires a tax break and placing high tariffs on imported goods, which will increase prices dramatically.  

The fact that women's reproductive rights referendums are on several state ballots is a distinct advantage for the Harris-Walz campaign.  Yes, it's popular, but not for the reasons that the far right argues against it.  It's popular because it takes decisions about all aspects of a woman's health care out of the hands of the government.  Since the Roe v. Wade decision was overturned, and there are now states banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, there are multiple examples of women whose lives have been put in danger because doctors will not perform procedures that would save their life, but violate the law.  And yes, that's a sanctity of human life issue, too.  

If these religious right wing conservatives were really interested in the sanctity of human life, they'd be passing laws to keep kids from being slaughtered in schools. Why would a religious conservative be in favor of anyone owning a weapon built for the sole purpose of destroying a life?  That's just as contrary to their religious teaching as an abortion performed for birth control purposes.  

Their plan, "it goes back to the states," is unworkable.  And it contradicts the position of Evangelicals in the GOP, who want a nationwide ban on abortion.  If their whole point is banning all abortion to protect the sanctity of life, then Trump's "it goes back to the states" position is also contradictory to that.  

Harris Will Win on the Realities

Trump was President for four years, and other than pandering to his Evangelical base, and nominating some of the most unqualified judges to the federal bench and to the Supreme Court, achieved absolutely nothing as President.  He pandered to dictators who used flattery to get everything they wanted out of him.  He practically disbanded the NATO alliance, opening up Europe to Russian aggression, resulting in the attack on Ukraine, planned while Trump was still in office.  His billionaire tax cut created the largest budget deficit and added more to the debt than virtually all other presidents before him combined, which led to the dollar's instability.  He handed Afghanistan right back to the Taliban, undermining the democratically elected government.  His mishandling of the COVID pandemic is a classic example of the total collapse of ineffective, failed leadership. 

And on top of all of that, he showed his disloyalty to the Constitution, broke the oath he took to defend and protect it, and betrayed the American people by inciting an insurrection aimed at disrupting the peaceful transfer of power.  It's really beyond comprehension, to me, that there is not any constitutional provision to disqualify someone who is so unpatriotic and hostile to America and its constitution from ever running for office.  So it is up to us, the American people, those of us who love this country and are willing to fight for it, to enforce such a provision.  

Trump's age and his inability to gather and communicate coherent thoughts, which appears to be the result of dementia, are also realities we need to deal with.  Only two years younger than Joe Biden, and in worse shape as far as his health and stamina are concerned, I suspect that his being kept from making anywhere close to the number of public appearances he once did while campaigning is an effort to keep the public from seeing, up close, what bad shape he is in. I thought he might stroke out on the stage in Las Vegas this past week, sweating profusely, stumbling over words, no longer allowing the speaker stand to be placed on a platform where he must climb steps to get to.  We can certainly hear it in his voice, and in his confusing, jumbled, stumbling conversation.  

I cannot recall, in my lifetime, any candidate of one major party getting so much support from people who once held positions of influence and importance in the other, including Senators and members of the House and former cabinet.  They represent a percentage of Republican voters who seem committed to Trump's defeat.  Having been among those who have supported him in his last two runs for the Presidency, the percentage of Republicans he is losing along the margins will be decisive in his defeat.  

Oh, the Polls, the Polls, the Polls

While it seems the polling data is catching up with the reality of where things are headed, I honestly don't think the pollsters have a model for predicting, and determining how to analyze the data they're receiving, to adequately and accurately tell us what the voters who are likely to cast ballots actually will do. The contrast between the fresh vision and enthusiasm, and the positive, upbeat message Harris has brought to the campaign, and Trump's anger, thirst for revenge and negativity is astounding.  There are hints, in polls and in other data, including from some deep red states, showing him losing significant support.  

And whether or not some of them are fairly accurate, she's now hovering around the 50% threshold, which shows substantial gains over the time she's been running, and the trends keep moving forward, as her lead grows every day.  

I believe Biden would have won this election.  There's a solid 55% of the electorate that wasn't ever going to vote for Trump, and isn't now, and getting most of them to the polls won't be easy, but it has to be done.  Trump just doesn't have the ability, as an indicted insurrectionist and a convicted felon, to command the kind of votes he needs to win.  

Harris is sharp, well educated, politically experienced and she's genuine, sincere, and doesn't need to be fact checked because she tells the truth.  Electing her and giving her a Congress in which she can get things done will be a far better way to improve this country than electing a demented, immoral, dishonest, duplicitous, lying scam artist and convict.  

 

Something About Fruit, Intruders, Commandments, Good Samaritans, Neighbors, Sheep, Goats, and Liberals in Northern, "Godless" Democratic Cities

Watch out for false prophets.  They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.  You will know them by their fruits.  Matthew 7:14-15.  

I can't get behind someone based on possible, incidental agreement with some of his policies, but whose character is atrocious, lacking any moral or ethical guidance, and the complete opposite of what Jesus Christ taught about character to his followers.  I'm one of them, and that makes it difficult for me to even listen when Trump speaks, and impossible for me to even think about voting for him for President of the United States, a country whose constitution, laws, and government his actions show that he despises and hates, and a Christian faith, it's confession, repentance and grace, which he absolutely refuses to acknowledge. 

Apparently Jesus did not think that the church he was establishing, based on the gospel he preached and taught during the three years of his public ministry in the Jewish provinces of Galilee and Judea, was immune to the intrusion of false prophets.  He spoke multiple warnings against them, and his Apostles, who wrote this all down, helped Christians identify false prophets intruding into the congregations of Christians.  

For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who, long ago, were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness, and deny our only Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.  [Jude, v. 4]  

That's a pretty clear warning, and way of identifying ungodly intruders in the church.  Politics has most definitely intruded into some elements of the American church, most notably into conservative Evangelicalism.  This is not a new thing, it became an organized, deliberate effort on behalf of partisan, Republican politics prior to Reagan's election in 1980, when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson set up organizations to divert money from church mission causes into right wing political campaigns.  

It became licentious when Trump, bragging about his ability to sexually humiliate and assault women because he was a celebrity and could get away with it, became the political inamorata of the religious right.  When some Evangelical leaders, and some of their followers, embraced Trumpism, and Trump, ignoring or giving him a pass on his openly immoral worldliness, they opened the door to an intrusion of ungodly perversion of their church's mission and purpose.  In spite of their best efforts, Trump has refused to follow their doctrine of conversion, failing to acknowledge his sinful nature and recognize Christ's sacrificial death on the cross by denying his sinful nature and his need to have God's forgiveness.  

The Apostle John, in his first church epistle, chapter 4, verses 2 and 3 labels this kind of denial of one's sinful nature, and refusal to acknowledge the grace received as a result of Christ's death on the cross, as the spirit of the Antichrist.  I'll let that sink in before moving on.  

Matthew, the former tax collector and outcast, who was one of the original twelve apostles, says that false prophets can be identified by their "fruits." meaning by the outcome of their works or their lifestyle.  At one point, he records a conversation Jesus had with a lawyer who was a member of the Pharisee party, what amounted to a theological "test" of his knowledge of the scriptures. 

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together.  One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:  "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?"

Jesus replied, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.  This is the first and the greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments."  [Matthew 22:34-40, NIV] 

I put the emphasis in bold on those words, because in this short passage, Jesus is actually equating these two commandments, tying them together, and literally making one of the core theological points of the Christian faith.  He's saying that loving one's neighbor as one's self is the way that one demonstrates that they love God with all their heart, soul and mind.  And he says that the essence of one's faith, "all the law and the prophets," hang on these two commandments.  

At another point, recorded in Luke 10:25-37, Jesus relates a parable to illustrate the answer to the legal expert's question, "And who is my neighbor?"  The parable, known as the Good Samaritan, goes to a very dramatic length to show that Samaritans were included in that definition, and that God expected a demonstration of love for the Samaritans as a demonstration of love for himself.  

Samaritans, sort of like the Haitian immigrants who have come to the United States after a series of natural and political disasters left their country in a state of anarchy, were actually hated by their neighbors, the Jewish residents of Palestine in the provinces north and south of theirs.  They were of mixed racial and ethnic heritage, a remnant of the poor inhabitants of the land left behind when the Babylonians conquered in 586 B.C.  They were pagans, isolated from the restored Jerusalem temple.  They were so despised and hated, that Jewish people who were traveling from Jerusalem to Galilee would take a much longer route, going east of the Jordan River then north through desert country, in order to bypass Samaria, adding dozens of extra miles to an already difficult trip.    

Jesus, by intentionally making the Samaritan the example of the neighbor, against two other characters who were both Jewish religious leaders, also made the point that he did not consider any ethnic, religious, racial or social boundaries as barriers between human beings.  And when Jesus traveled from Jerusalem to Galilee, he took his disciples through Samaria, deliberately encountering and engaging with the people.   

In Considering What is the "Lesser" of Two Evils, Note That Jesus Says Failing to Love Your Neighbor is the Greater Evil 

There are a couple of things to catch here.  One, this is not an optional virtue, or a choice for Christian practice, it is a commandment.  Christians are to love God with all of their heart, soul and mind, in other words, all of their being, and they are to demonstrate this by loving their neighbor, who is, by Jesus' definition, all of their fellow human beings, most particularly all those with whom they come in contact with and with whom they share community.  

So it's a correct conclusion to call what Trump and Vance are doing to the Haitian community in Springfield, Ohio evil.  Clearly, they are not loving their neighbor, and that means they are showing contempt and disrespect to God as well.  How does that sit with hypocritical Evangelical leadership?  

And if you're considering the Pope's remarks, calling the election a choice between the "lesser" of two evils, then it is very clear, by this Biblically supported doctrine, that Trump and Vance are guilty of being the greater evil.  

"They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."  

You Will Know Them by Their Fruits

The lies being spread about the Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, obviously prepared talking points by Trump, an outright lie brought up in the debate, and being promoted through social media tells us everything we need to know about Trump and Vance, and the hypocrisy of their entire political platform.  If what Jesus said was true, and loving one's neighbor as one's self is truly a mark of the genuine sincerity of one's Christian faith, then this despicable incident, the spin they've tried to put on it and the callous and inconsiderate way they have continued to treat the Haitian people in Springfield is an example of hating one's neighbors.  

The "fruit" they are bearing is certainly not compatible with true Christian faith and practice.  Telling that kind of lie, bringing that kind of terror into the lives of people who are actually contributing to the revival of a dying community has nothing to do with Christianity, it's purely evil.  

Is that the kind of hatred and bigotry Evangelicals want as their own image?  Because that's what standing with Trump is going to get you.  

The kind of hatred they are fomenting against this Haitian community in Springfield, many of whom are Christians themselves and who attend local churches, is the same sort of hatred against multiple ethnic and racial populations found in their Project 2025, their blueprint for taking over the United States and making it a "Christian nation."  As the Bible says, you will know them by their fruits.  Well, the fruits of Trump and Vance involve perpetrating the same kind of hatred on anyone they deem not to be part of a white, Christian America.  Read the plan.  Though it was developed by the Heritage Foundation, there's nothing Christian in it, in the biblical sense of that term.  It's not Christian at all, it's Satanic.  

We've Been Through All This Before

All the nations will be gathered before him and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.  He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 

Then the King will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my father, take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.  For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick, and you looked after me, I was in prison, and you visited me.  

Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you, thirsty, and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger, and invite you in, or needing clothes and we clothed you?  When did we see you sick or in prison and go visit you?" 

The King will reply, "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."  [Matthew 25:32-40 NIV, emphasis mine] 

Last year, busses from Texas would roll into downtown Chicago and discharge their passengers, 50 or 60 at a time, people who had managed to cross the border and apply as an asylum seeker, having escaped some kind of terror or oppression at home, only to have to face being  forced on to a bus headed somewhere up north, to one of those "liberal, Democratic" cities.  

Maybe Governor Abbott, and those nice, conservative politicians down there in Texas do deserve some credit for showing a little bit of humanity.  At least they didn't separate parents from their children, mothers from their babies, such as the Trump administration did.  Putting them on a bus to an unknown destination, in the winter, without warm clothing or other provision seems more hostility to me than hospitality.  

So they began arriving up here, in this northern city full of liberal, "godless," Democrats.  Even though it was a surprise at first, and no one ever really knew what each day would hold, in terms of how many would show up, they were welcomed here.  All kinds of community groups, churches (yes, even in this "godless" northern city full of Democrats we have churches, lots of them, some of them liberal, too) came out to help the city and county officials tasked with finding places for these people to sleep, food to eat, medical care, things they needed for their children, all those things that Matthew mentioned in his gospel narrative.  

It was a little overwhelming at first.  There were people sleeping on the floor in most of the police stations, many churches had multiple overnight guests, and we worked things out as best as we could.  People brought food, tons of it, and clothing, shoes, coats, blankets, cleaning supplies, in large quantities.  Gosh, how is it that the people in this northern, "godless," Democratic city were that generous.  And when the city and county were running low on funds, people stepped up to help with that, too.  

I'm not sure how many of these people we cared for here in Chicago and in the surrounding area, but I've heard estimates at 100,000.  It took a couple of weeks, but once the effort got organized, housing was located, empty apartments, empty school buildings, the Catholic church did some arranging in several of their closed schools to house people, and slowly, the floors of police stations and hotel rooms rented by the city and county emptied out, and people found places to live.  The influx of asylum seekers also helped with a shortage of labor in the area, not all of the available jobs were filled but there were enough to help most of these people become much more self-sufficient as they wait for word on their asylum status.  

Remarkably, the crime rate in Chicago has continued on its downward trend, something that began several years ago, and the influx of asylum seeking immigrants has not had any affect on it at all.  Children have been accommodated in local schools, and best of all, none of the people who came here as refugees have had to experience the violence and brutality they were exposed to before they left home.  Whether they are able to return home or not, is unknown, but in this northern, liberal, "godless", Democratic city, they are welcome and safe.  

"Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

The Christian thing to do, according to the Bible, which Evangelicals claim as inerrant, infallible and the "sole authority for the faith and practice of the Christian church," is not to vilify, frighten, arrest or deport these people, who are also, by biblical definition, our neighbors.  It is to do exactly what those "godless" liberal Democrats did in those northern, Democratic cities did.  It is doing for the Lord by doing for the least of these, whom he calls his brothers and sisters.  So that would make those godless, liberal, Democrats in that northern liberal city, by biblical definition, the sheep on the right.  

The goats are still in Texas.  

As Trump Lied His Way Through the Debate, False Evangelical Prophets Lie to Continue Their Loyalty

Baptist News Global: Trump Prophets Ratchet Up Attacks After Debate Against Harris 

It's a joke, to insist that standing with Trump is standing with truth.  It is also a condemnation of anyone who makes that claim.  It makes them liars, too.  

To anyone who has the ability to use a computer, read a book, or listen and understand a speech, the lies Trump told during his debate performance, which triggered even the debate moderators to make note of a fact check when he started in on the lie about immigrants kidnapping and eating the pets of people in Springfield, Ohio and Aurora, Colorado, makes his complete lack of honesty pretty obvious.  For anyone claiming to be Christian, and thus standing for truth in that way, Trump's incessant, obvious lying is disqualifying.  

Evangelical Christianity, especially its Pentecostal/Charismatic branch as represented by most of the men who were subjects of the BNG article that is linked above, is full of liars, cheats and deceivers.  We have some outstanding examples in this country of religious imposters, mainly for the purpose of profiteering off gullible people.  That seems to go hand in hand with Trump politics.  Everything that Trump said last Tuesday was a lie.  Everything.  And now we have these religious imposters proving that they, too, are liars, by their claim that they are standing with Trump, "because he stands for truth."  

Watch out for false prophets.  They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.  You will know them by their fruits.  Matthew 7:14-15.  

The "fruits" these men produce are what comes of following a fraudulent and lying politician, like Trump.  He doesn't tell the truth and their defense of his lies makes them liars. Most of these so-called Evangelical "leaders" are after the same things Trump pursues, power and money.  So they are willing to ignore his immorality, his lies and his corruption and crimes, to continue to deceive their followers into supporting him.  And they are willing to ignore his open denial of the Christian gospel itself, in his refusal to admit that he has done anything requiring God's forgiveness.  

That, according to the early church Apostle John, is the spirit of antichrist.  

"..but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.  This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.  I John 4:2-3, NIV

Refusing to acknowledge one's sinful condition, in Evangelical doctrine, is a denial of Jesus' atonement for human sin, which Christians believe was accomplished when he was crucified.  That they see as a sacrifice for human sin.  To deny that is to deny the whole of the Christian gospel.  And that's exactly what Trump has done. 

Political Issues verses the Character of the Politician 

Back in 1996, the late Dr. Adrian Rogers, pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee and a former President of the Southern Baptist Convention, preached a sermon that was titled, "Does Character Count?"  His argument was that the character of a politician, their morality and their ethics, being someone who considered that they represented the will of "the people" rather than "some people," and above all, the ability to trust their truthfulness and honesty, weighed above the benefits of, and agreement with their policy.  Dr. Rogers argued that character should be placed above all, and that issues and policy weigh a distant second as a Christian determines how they exercise their vote in an election.  

Of course, Dr. Rogers was aiming his sermon at President Clinton, following revelations of his alleged sexual misconduct with Monica Lewinsky, as a means of discouraging Christians from voting for him.  According to Rogers, Clinton's immorality was his disqualifying factor.  But Dr. Roger's words hold true when applied to Trump as well, though many of his congregation are loath to acknowledge that Trump's immorality, cheating, and lying, disqualify him from office in exactly the same way Dr. Rogers insisted Clinton did. Truth, if that's what you believe it is, is still truth.  And that makes Trump as reprehensible as his Evangelical base thinks Clinton was.  

Evangelical "Leaders" Standing in Support of Racist Bigotry and Hatred of Their Neighbor, Which is Equal to Hatred for God

If they're standing for Trump, then they're standing for racist bigotry and hatred.  Look at the way they have disrupted people's lives in Springfield, Ohio, taking something good, the economic and financial revival of a community, and dumping their hatred right on top of it.  Claiming to stand with Trump means claiming to stand with his racist bigotry and hatred, a direct and serious contradiction of the Christian gospel.  

Since we're talking about Evangelicals, let's talk about Jesus again.  

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Saducees, the Pharisees got together.  One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:  "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?"

Jesus replied, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.  This is the first and the greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments."  [Matthew 22:34-40, NIV] 

So, by equating these two commandments, Jesus is saying that the way someone who claims to be a Christian, following him, demonstrates his or her obedience to the first and greatest commandment, to love God with all your heart, soul and mind, is by loving one's neighbor as one's self.  So all of that hatred poured out on the Haitian community in Springfield, Ohio, by Trump and Vance is their public testimony that they also have no love or respect for God.  And that also applies to each of these so-called Evangelical leaders who claim to be standing with Trump.  

Landon Schott, pastor of the multi-campus Mercy Culture Church in the Dallas-Ft Worth area, said during the Democratic National Convention, "You are not a Bible-believing, Jesus following Christian if you support the godless Romans 1 evil of the Democratic party!"   

Well, Landon, it seems that Jesus is saying, in Matthew  22:34-40, that those who hate some of their neighbors in Springfield, Ohio, which would include both Donald Trump and J. D. Vance, who are spreading vicious lies about them and subjecting them to terror as a result, are clearly demonstrating their hatred for God by showing their hatred for their neighbors.  And if you're standing with them, then, well, take that for exactly what it means, or make a choice, between your loyalty to Trump and your loyalty to Jesus, because you can't do both.  

From a personal perspective, I can't support a morally and ethically reprehensible candidate for President of the United States on the basis of some kind of incidental agreement with a few of his policies, though frankly, I find Trump to have few real policies and none with which I find any agreement.  I can't in good conscience, vote to elect someone who doesn't have the character, the discernment, the common sense or the mental and emotional stability to provide leadership to this nation, and whose words demonstrate a complete disconnection from reality.  And I would not, under any circumstances, vote for a man who incited, and led, an insurrection against the United States Government, on the basis of what was conclusively proven to be a lie.  

And the fact that this particular group of Evangelical leaders, advocating for the heretical views of Christian nationalism, which are completely antithetical to the Christian gospel and to the words of Jesus Christ as recorded in the gospels of the New Testament, think Trump represents truth, makes them as antipatriotic, and as un-Christian as he is.  

Evangelicals Have Been Beguiled and Deceived and They're Blind to the Realities of Trump's Agenda

I can't get behind someone based on incidental agreement with some of his policies, but whose character is atrocious, lacking any moral or ethical guidance, and the complete opposite of what Jesus Christ taught about character to his followers.  I'm one of them, and that makes it difficult for me to even listen when Trump speaks, and impossible for me to even think about voting for him for President of the United States, a country whose constitution, laws, and government his actions show that he despises and hates, and a Christian faith, it's confession, repentance and grace, which he absolutely refuses to acknowledge. 

For those who read this who were not raised in, or have never been a member of an Evangelical church in the United States, some of what you may read here will be difficult to understand.  I was raised in an Evangelical church, a small, conservative, Southern Baptist congregation of 50 people, and I received most of my higher education in a university and graduate school affiliated with the same denomination.  

I'm going to put this in the kind of terminology, using interpretations of passages of the New Testament, that Evangelicals will understand.  Those who are not Evangelical, or who are not Christian, can still figure out the message that is being communicated.  In one sentence, it is this:  Following the guidance provided in the Bible about what it means to be a Christian, committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ, Trump's worldly character and lifestyle are completely inconsistent with Christian faith and practice and voting to put him in the Presidency of the United States would be antithetical to the kind of commitment and loyalty required to be faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Loyalty is to Christ, or to Trump, But It Can't be to Both

Evangelicals have been deceived by Trump, and they have been spiritually blinded.  Most of them are single-issue voters, they get all of their information inside a closed bubble of their own biased sources, they have believed provable lies, listened to his rhetoric, and given him the loyalty that they once reserved only for Jesus Christ.   He's become a political messiah, and their support is based on imagery, and on lies.  They've become radicalized in their support of him, seeing an image of him that does not exist in reality.  They are blind to his corruption, dismissive of his blatant immorality, including his objectivization and sexual abuse of women and his fraudulent business practices.  They ignore his refusal to even take the first step toward a genuine Christian faith, which is acknowledging conviction of one's sinful nature.  He claims he is sinless.  Yes, he does.  Openly.  

The Bible's authors warn Christians about being beguiled and deceived into idolatry.  The problem here is that, because they stand to benefit from the political power that Trump will get if he is elected to the Presidency once again, they are unable to see the truth.  

For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.  And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.  It is not surprising then if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness.  Their end will be what their actions deserve.  2 Corinthians 11:13-15, NIV  

Trump's masquerade of himself to conservative Evangelicals is rooted in the abortion issue.  This is something they've been after for decades, going all the way back to Jimmy Carter's term in office, when Jerry Falwell, James Roberson and Pat Robertson first formed their organizations to support Reagan, because President Carter's interpretation of the establishment clause didn't open the door for them to try and get judges on the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe.  

Since then, that's been a single issue to which most conservative Evangelicals tie their votes, not only for President, but for other offices.  It has distorted their perspective, allowed politicians to play on their convictions, using this issue to get support for their own agenda, often leaving this one behind for someone else to try to pick up.  Reagan didn't apply the litmus test of abortion to his SCOTUS nominees.  Bush Sr., ignored the religious right and nominated pro-choice justices based on their financial and business convictions.  Dubya kept the swing "balance" in place to avoid having Roe overturned while he was in office, sensing that it could bring political disaster to the GOP.  

And that left Trump, a man who loved having his immoral sexual escapades become the front page headlines of the gossip columns and social media outlets.  Trump has never been opposed to abortion, at one point openly stating his support for it, and being the subject of multiple rumors at times when an affair he had may have resulted in an abortion or two, especially after he already had all the heirs he wanted to leave behind.  Nor is he opposed to it now, as he clearly stated in Tuesday night's debate.  He's just interested in the political effect supporting the pro-life Evangelical position has on his ability to win Presidential elections.  

He claimed he was a "deal maker." And so, he made a deal with the political structure of the far Evangelical right, through groups like the Heritage Foundation.

They made a deal with the devil.  And he deceived them to get what he wanted.  

He made it pretty clear during the debate on Tuesday that he doesn't think the six week limit on when an abortion can be performed is long enough.  It's a short statement, but he said that clearly.  And he doesn't think a woman's right to an abortion should be restricted.  He only supported the overturning of Roe because "everyone, Democrats, Republicans, everyone wanted it to go to the states."  That's a direct quote.  

So he deceived his Evangelical supporters into believing he was pro-life, when he was only using that as a means of getting their vote.  And now, he's trying to get the votes of those he thinks are pro-choice liberals.  His duplicity is simply a sign of something that we knew all along, Trump cannot be trusted.

Trump Rejects Basic Christian Doctrine, Including Conversion or Salvation

For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.  Jude, V. 4, NASB 

From an Evangelical perspective, Trump is "not one of us."  

He is an intruder, whose gateway into American conservative Evangelicalism was political power, not spiritual leadership.  His morality precludes his being able to get in on the latter basis. His open denial of having had a genuine conversion experience means his Evangelical supporters can' even claim that his bad behavior, including his incessant lying, pushing for violence on his behalf and the whole string of crimes he has committed, have been washed away with all his other sins, because he claims he doesn't have any sins that need to be washed away.  

Among Evangelicals, "salvation," or the conversion experience that leads to forgiveness of one's sin and restoration to a right relationship with God, is a core and essential doctrine.  It is not possible to be Christian, by the Evangelical definition of the word, without being converted, and it is impossible to be converted without first experiencing conviction for one's sinful nature, and the sins that have been committed in their life, and then recognizing that receiving God's grace through the sacrifice Jesus made, his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection, is how that grace is received and applied.   

The first step toward conversion is conviction and confession of one's sin.  This, Trump has publicly refused to do.  Even when directly confronted by well known conservative religious leaders, Trump denies that he has ever done anything requiring God's forgiveness.  

By this you know the Spirit of God.  Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.  I John 4:2-3, NRSV[emphasis mine]

Those are the words of the Apostle, John.  The confession of Christ is essential to a salvation or conversion or confirmation experience in every Christian tradition, including the Evangelical one.  

There are those who are critical of Evangelicals who sometimes try to "baptize" politicians or political views that are not consistent with Christian doctrine and practice.  Trump has made it impossible for them to run around accountability on that bypass.  And this separates Trump from Christianity.  Failing to acknowledge this on the part of many Evangelical leaders separates them from Christianity, too.  

The Dilemma Associated With Project 2025

And the Devil took him up and showed him all of the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will.  If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours."  

And Jesus answered him, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve."  Luke 4:5-8, ESV  

The Christian church has been tempted with the bait of political power to advance its ends since Constantine issued the Edict of Milan and declared he saw a vision of a cross with the words, "By this sign, conquer."  The only problem with all of this is that establishing a "Christian nation", a theocracy similar to the Old Testament covenant relationship with Israel, has no basis in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  And that's clearly illustrated in the symbolism of this particular temptation of Christ.  

The end result of seventeen centuries of the church being subjugated and merged with the political power of the state was centuries of warfare and bloodshed, the virtual death of any real evangelistic or spiritual Christian faith, and a church which became an unrecognizable institution when compared with the one Jesus envisioned and inspired the Bible's writers to describe, explain and instruct.  

The principles, practices and virtues taught by Jesus, found in the gospel, are antithetical to violence and bloodshed which resulted from forcing a pseudo-Christian, false gospel on people using the political power and authority of the state.  It was tyranny, and the various versions of Christian nationalism being advanced by far right Evangelicalism contradicts every precept and principle taught by Jesus, commanded by Jesus and every example set by Jesus.  It is not Christianity, it is antichrist.  

And on top of all of the tyranny that the 900 some odd pages of Project 2025 would impose on the American people, including the threat of the use of violence and bloodshed against those who resist, someone on one side of the issue or the other is lying through their teeth.  It's either the Heritage Foundation, which authored this draconian, heretical, tyrannical political platform with Trump's approval, blessing and input, according to them, promising he would implement every point of it if they helped him back into the White House, or it is Trump lying about not ever having anything to do with it, and trying to distance himself from it because his campaign team told him supporting it would guarantee his defeat in November.  

This is yet another dilemma for a narcissistic politician who is playing one side against the other in the hope that neither one will notice while they are voting for him.  He's a two faced liar.  And I can't be any more clear than that.  To conservative Evangelicals, he's pro-life and the killer of the Roe decision.  To moderate, pro-choice voters, he's the guy who did what "everyone" wanted, by letting the states vote on abortion, but keeping it legal outside the six week ban now imposed by some conservative states.  To conservative Evangelicals, he's the reason Project 2025 exists, and they wrote it for him to implement.  To everyone else who is alarmed by its extremism, its pandering to billionaires and stripping the American middle class of the last vestiges of their wealth, and this is something someone else came up with that he's never heard of.  

We don't need that kind of mess.  That's a disaster waiting to happen.  We need leadership, not equivocation, truth, not lies, character, not corruption.  

Yes, Character Does Count, for a Whole Lot

For a branch of the Christian church that claims such a high level of doctrinal integrity, theological accuracy, and spiritual superiority for itself, Evangelical support of Trump is an astounding display of ignorance and gullibility.  

For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.  Matthew 24:24, NRSV 

Even while Jesus was alive, he was warning his followers of the consequences of being deceived.  All of the theological and doctrinal accuracy, and belief in the inerrancy of scripture is worthless if those who claim to believe it fail to recognize its message and cannot discern the absence of any kind of the visible values and character the Christian gospel says are the visible signs of belief and commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  I don't think it is that difficult to discern the lack of character in someone who lives a licentious, worldly, lifestyle centered on the acquisition of power and money, determine that he embodies the spirit of antichrist (I John 4:2-3), and to avoid putting that person in any kind of leadership position on which our country depends.   

Policies are the product of the kind of give and take required in a free society where the people are empowered by democratic values.  Politicians must understand they are the servants of all, not just obligated to favor those who agree with their particular preferences and stance on the issues.  The character of a candidate is a much different matter.  Leaders must be trusted and their character tells us they can be trusted.  No leader is going to get 100% agreement on policy from 100% of the people they are responsible to lead.  But they do need to get 100% of the trust of those people who are depending on them for the nation's security and prosperity.  

Dr. Adrian Rogers, the late pastor of the Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee, preached a sermon back in 1996 entitled "Does Character Count?"  In it, he used biblical principles to affirm that the character of a leader, even in a secular democracy, is of far more importance than a platform of issues, and he laid out some specific evaluations of character for his listeners to apply to candidates for which they were planning to vote.  Of course, Dr. Rogers was aiming to steer Christians away from voting for Bill Clinton, and his bias is duly noted.  But his biblical principles are still valid points, and they haven't changed.  If Bill Clinton, by those standards, did not have the character to be the President of the United States, then I would submit, by those same standards, neither does Donald Trump.