Pro-Choice, Pro-Life and LGBTQ Rights Explained For Those Right Wingers Who Don't Get It

Before you pass over this article and move on to something else, give this a few minutes of your time and consideration.  For progressive, liberal, woke, Democrats, this is a perspective you can use when those Evangelical family or friends in your live back themselves into the corner of defending all of Trump's anti-Christian, anti-Patriotic, lying, cheating immorality because they are pro-life, and they stand for morality "against the onslaught of LGBTQ proliferation into our culture and society."  

And so does Trump.  And by eliminating abortion rights, and stopping the proliferation of LGBTQ intrusion into our culture, he will "make America great again."  

Get ready for what will be part rant, part sermon, part Bible lesson, part common sense.  That's all coming.

A Faulty Perception of "Abortion Rights" With Hot Button Words Like "Baby Killer" Applied

I'll get back to the "proliferation of LGBTQ intrusion" in a few paragraphs.  But let's start with the elimination of abortion rights.  I hope we can clear up a lot of ignorance. 

Most Evangelicals who have made this their top political issue have almost no understanding at all of what happens medically when a law is written that essentially dictates how a medical procedure can be performed.  The only thing that comes to their mind is that an abortion is murdering the life of an infant, because life begins at conception, and abortion is nothing more than birth control.  

Does life begin at conception?  

That would be an exclusively religious perception, if it is true. However, in Evangelical doctrine, any assertion of the truth of a statement must be supported by a correctly interpreted scripture, applied according to its context.  And there is no specific place anywhere in the Bible that makes this statement and declares it to be true.  There are, in fact, very few places where there is any kind of teaching on when human life actually begins.  There are a couple of examples where a child in the womb was identified, or, in the case of John the Baptist, "leapt" for joy when Mary came into the presence of her cousin Elizabeth, John's mother.  But there is no conclusive support for a doctrine stating that human life begins at conception.  It is inferred, but inference is not authoritative in Evangelical theology.  So they have come to a doctrinal conclusion without sufficient evidence to support their claim.  

Is all abortion performed exclusively for the purpose of birth control?  

This would be so much easier if that actually were the case.  Unfortunately, it's not, and that's why the simplistic "ban" of abortion that most Evangelicals are seeking is an impossible issue.  

Abortion is an invasive medical procedure.  And any time such a procedure is regulated by law, it removes all of the medical benefits the procedure was developed to deal with.  That's exactly the aspect of this that Harris' campaign has been demonstrating, by their use of examples.  They're not showing mothers who wanted to get an abortion because the pregnancy was unplanned and unwanted.  They're showing examples of women who couldn't get the medical care they needed to save their life because doing so involved removing the fetus to stop the spread of sepsis or some other potentially fatal infection.  But the restrictive abortion bans in the states that passed them since the Roe v. Wade decision was made have not taken that into consideration.

This occurs in about one out of every four pregnancies, not an insignificant number.  That's way too many women to put at risk for the government to control how, or if, a medical procedure can be performed.  It should be up to the family members, husband and wife, to make the decision about what happens at this point, not the government.  As long as there is a necessity for an abortion to save the life of the mother, in a grave and tragic situation, then it cannot be legislatively restricted, even if this kind of decision only represents a fourth of all abortions.  If just one mother's life is at risk, then a ban is not worth the cost of a life.  

And while smart-ass retorts are not the point here, the fact that the mortality rate among women with pregnancies gone wrong in these states has soared since the bans were put into place makes those legislators and governors "mother murderers," right? 

A More Thoughtful Approach Which Takes Constitutionally Guaranteed Freedom of Conscience Into Consideration

Kamala Harris is exactly right when she claims that putting a mother in a situation where her life is in danger, and a doctor will not provide life-saving care for fear of being sentenced to life in prison is immoral.  She's also right in saying that this is a choice which is a matter of conscience, involving the mother, and her pastor, rabbi, priest or imam, not the government.  Determining at what point life begins is a matter of individual conscience.  Believing that life begins at conception is solely a religious belief, not a scientific conclusion, nor something on which everyone agrees.  

Personally, I believe an abortion should not be used as birth control, but should only be performed in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. That's based on my own convictions, which are derived from my Christian faith.  But, as a male, I'll never be in position to have to make that kind of decision.  And when I have been involved in decisions about my wife's health, I've left those up to her, since she is the one who must live with whatever consequences result.  The complications of the presence of a reproductive system in a woman's body make her health care more complicated.  That is not the domain of government. 

And the fact of the matter is that the life of the mother doesn't really appear to be a consideration at all, as women have been denied care altogether when reproductive health is at stake in many of these states, left to bleed out and die in hospital parking lots because no choice is offered, as doctors fear being imprisoned for life under the penalties.  That's not a pro-life position.  

Trump's Position is Not Pro-Life

Those who hang on to their support for Trump because, well in spite of all of his immorality, lying, cheating and general worldliness, he's still pro-life are going to be sorely disappointed by this information they have been deliberately side-stepping.  Trump is not pro-life.  

His position is that abortion legislation should be decided "in the states."  Falsely claiming that "everyone wanted this to go to the states, that's what they said, the Democrats, the Republicans, wanted the people in the states to decide," he said first of all that he was "fine with it" if a state wanted to make abortion legal, as long as the people had a chance to vote for it.  

"We were kind of surprised at some of the conservative states," he said, referencing pro-choice referendums that have overwhelmingly passed everywhere, including Ohio, Kansas and Kentucky, among others.  "But that's OK, if that's what they want."  

And during the debate with Harris, when the subject of a six-weeks limit on the window for getting an abortion for birth control purposes, he said "six weeks is not long enough."  That's exactly what he said, and it's just as clear as a bell right there on video. 

Trump's abrupt shift in position, while at the same time duplicitously lying to his core followers about his choice of three justices on the Supreme Court who did overturn Roe, which he takes credit for, is just one more example of the man's dishonesty and lack of integrity.  He's been told by his campaign managers that his support for overturning Roe v. Wade is at the top of the list of reasons why a clear majority of voters, over 67% in the cases where it's been on the ballot, are opposed to his re-election.  So he had to come up with this "they wanted it in the states" nonsense to try and counter that, and in so doing, he was willing to throw his Evangelical supporters under the bus, because he thinks they're losers and suckers.  

And frankly, if any of them keep supporting Trump after this, it would be difficult to deny that.  

LGBTQ "Rights" Are Not Being Forced Down Anyone's Throat

After we clear out some ridiculous conspiracy theories, such as your little boy going to his kindergarten class in the morning, returning in the afternoon as a little girl, because he got a sex change operation at school, is not true.  That's really very understated.  Believing something like that is beyond stupid and ignorant, but I want to keep this civil, and it's hard not to just come apart at the seams over the ignorance a statement like that represents.  No wonder people think conservatives, many of them also Christians, are gullible and feather headed idiots.  

Every American's personal freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution.  That includes those who are of a different race or ethnicity, religion or denomination, level of income, level of education, whose family doesn't have one white dad, mom and two kids.  It means that an atheist has the same rights as the pastor of the country's largest megachurch.  

No one is forcing anything down anyone's throat.  The Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That does not have to occur within your personal frame of reference or convictions to be legitimate.  But I have a word here for my Evangelical friends, to read, and to apply as they would something they believe to be divinely inspired, inerrant, infallible, and the written "word of God."  

"Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?"  

He said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your mind.  This is the greatest and first commandment.  And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments, hang all the law and the prophets."  Matthew 22:36-40 

"You have heard that it was said, 'love your neighbor and hate your enemies.'  But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your father in heaven."  Matthew 5:43-44

It might be kind of difficult to love both your neighbors and your enemies, and then advocate for taking their rights away because their life is lived in a different way than yours is, or their skin color is darker, or they are lesbian, gay or transgender.  I don't see any exceptions to this principle anywhere in the Bible.  If there's something sinful about the way they've chosen to live their life, they need to resolve that between themselves and God.  It seems that our responsibility, which is actually a demonstration of the sincerity of our own faith, is to love them the same way we love ourselves.  

Whether a person is gay, lesbian, transgender or bi is, frankly none of anyone else's business.  If that's sinful, it's not anyone's place to determine whether it is or to pronounce judgment on them, according to Matthew 7:1-5.  To step into their life, or to advocate for some kind of persecution as a result of their life is tyranny.  They answer to no one, out of their free will, other than God.  But however they decide to live their life, that has no effect on anyone else.  We are all free to live the life we choose, and whether or not others are gay, lesbian, or transgender is not tyranny to us.  

It's a fact that religious liberty and the constitutional provisions for a free conscience benefit white, conservative Christians more than any other group of Americans.  There's no persecution or tyranny at all, and any claim that there is should be accompanied by proof.  

There is no Christian Justification For Casting a Ballot For Trump

In 1998, a prominent, well known Evangelical pastor, Dr Adrian Rogers, went to his pulpit and preached a sermon he called, "Does Character Count?"  It was a Christian argument, using the scriptures, against casting a ballot for Bill Clinton, basically disqualifying him based on his immoral behavior more than on his positions on issues, such as health care, which many Christians supported.  

If those statements and arguments applied to, and disqualified Clinton as a viable President, then they haven't changed, and they apply to, and disqualify Trump as a viable Presidential candidate.  

It's because of Trump's lack of character that this Christian won't vote for him or support his run for office.  Along with that, his incitement of the January 6th attack on the Capitol, his opposition to Constitutional democracy, his openly immoral behavior, including multiple adulterous affairs and his rape of E. Jean Carroll, just about everything he did in his first, failed term in office, his insistence on maintaining worldliness and immorality as his "brand," his claim that he hasn't done anything requiring God's forgiveness because he "doesn't see God that way," his current tariff and economic policies, his intention to cut Social Security and Medicare, his flip flop on abortion from pro-life to pro-choice and his horrendous lack of knowledge of women's reproductive health care, and his racist bigotry and misogyny, are the main reasons this author, who considers himself Christian, has not in the past and will not now cast a ballot for Trump, or for any other Republican who supports him.  

When Evangelicals Endorse Trump With Their Support and Their Vote, They Are Also Endorsing Everything That Goes With Him

For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.  And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.  So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness.  Their end will match their deeds.  2 Corinthians 11:13-15, NRSV

Trump has made no real effort to hide his bigotry and his hatred for persons of color, lumping all of them into a category of people he considers outsiders in a white, Christian nationalist America.  I was a little bit shocked, however, when one of the speakers at his rally in Madison Square Garden, billed as a "comedian", Tony Hinchcliffe, came out spewing all of that vitriol and hatred at people of color so openly, and in such terms.  There's no hiding behind excuses for this, Trump approved booking the guy, knowing exactly what he was going to say and now is making the ridiculous claim that he didn't have anything to do with it.  

Liar.  And those who are Evangelical supporters of Trump own the lies, approve of lies, and are liars themselves. 

Most pundit comments about the MSG rally suggest that Trump's campaign management senses the base might need a little shoring up, and lumping all black and brown Americans together makes it actually seem like immigrants are all over the place everywhere, and telling vulgar jokes, like a lot of bigots do when they think they're in the company of other bigots, deliberately offensive, insulting and crude, including some off color sexual innuendo, is just a lighthearted way to address the "problem."  And, of course, there's that idea Trump has in his head that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes.  When he says that, he is showing what contempt he has for every one who supports him, that they have no conscience and no ability to think critically.  He's laughing up his sleeve at the ignorance of his own supporters on which he is depending to win him votes.  

Every Evangelical--and I'll stop short of using the word "Christian" because that has a definition that doesn't accurately characterize most Evangelical Trump supporters--whose posts I see on the two social media sites where I visit has provided a typical response today to the crude, disgusting vulgarity he invited to speak at his rally.  It's silence.  What could they say?  They cannot openly support something that is so clearly anti-Christian in its degradation of fellow human beings, equal creations of God in Evangelical theology.  

These same people will not avoid speaking up and speaking out at anything they judge to be a departure from the orthodoxy they claim to follow when a politician from the left takes a position they consider to be out of step with Christian faith and practice.  They are harsh in their criticism, willing to consign their "godless soul" to hell over simple infractions.  Many of their criticisms are based on their own perceptions, not on the factual reality of the position the more liberal, Democratic politician has taken, and I went ahead and said it because that's really the dividing line, not an actual evaluation of the rightness or wrongness, biblically, of the position taken. 

Trump Can't Be "God's Anointed" if He's Not Converted, and He Isn't   

Their "out," from a spiritual perspective in Christian practice, is their very subjective belief that "God's hand" is on Trump, mainly because they were willing to bargain off their unqualified support for a few political bones he threw their way, is characterized in some Evangelical circles as an "anointing," and in others, as a conversion experience.  Their problem with this is that Trump gives absolutely no evidence at all of having had a conversion experience, nor an "anointing," which is, among the Pentecostal and Charismatic branches of Evangelicalism, accompanied by the visible sign of speaking in tongues.  

Sometimes Trump's words are unintelligible, but that's more due to dementia than to a demonstration of Pentecostal glossolalia.  He denies having confessed Christ, because he denies having committed any sins requiring forgiveness from God, and he claims he "doesn't see God that way."  That makes him, by definition, found in I John 4:2-3, antichrist.  

So, without this "out" being in effect, these Evangelicals are endorsing and owning everything that goes with Trump and who he is, an worldly, corrupt fraudster and grifter, accused of sexually assaulting 39 women, convicted of assaulting at least one, as well as convicted on 35 counts of fraud in the Stormy Daniels case, where he bedded a porn star while his third wife was pregnant with their son, and then tried to use business transactions to launder the money he paid her to be quiet about the affair.  

It sends a very inconsistent message to claim from the pulpit of a church, which is supposed to be a sacred desk from which the word of God is preached, that the Bible is a true revelation of the Christian gospel to humanity, and at the same time, with an action like a political endorsement, or the claim that one is voting for a man like Donald Trump, whose public life exemplifies the diametric opposite of the Christian gospel.  As the Apostle James wrote, "Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and brackish water?" [James 3:11]  

The answer of course, is no.  And that explains why, at a political event that is supposed to represent the closing argument of a political campaign, there was not a single mention of anything having to do with Christianity, or American Evangelicalism, through the whole event.  And the clearer message from yesterday's event, in spite of the insults hurled at Latinos, Blacks, Jews and Muslims, was that choosing Trump means abandoning Christ.  Because the hatred and bigotry directed at all of these people by Trump, and by his cult of followers, is all clearly labelled as sinful behavior in the Bible, and it goes against one of the core principles of the Christian gospel, which is the equality of all humanity.

The Christian gospel is focused on spiritual transformation, though some of the more Calvinist branches of the conservative and Evangelical movements think Christianity is a system of intellectual assent and conformity to a set of doctrines put together by removing the historical, literary and cultural contexts in which various parts of the New Testament were written.  Trump is still the same licentious, immoral liar that he was before he ever engaged in far right wing Christian nationalist politics.  

So, bottom line, what every Evangelical endorsing Trump with their vote is saying is that their faith is not a priority, and not as important to them as their politics.  

Those Specific "Issues" Involving Abortion Rights and LGBTQ Rights Will Be Addressed in the Next Post, "So How Can a Christian vote for Kamala Harris, who Favors Abortion?"

A Very Wise and Correct Decision as Arab American Leaders Endorse Harris for President

New Republic: Stunning Endorsement of Harris by Arab American Leadership

We've been saying it here ever since Israel began bombing Gaza.  The best chance the people of Gaza have to see this bombardment and destruction end is the election of Kamala Harris to the Presidency.  

Protest votes, in critical times, never achieve their intended outcome.  Israel is at war with Gaza right now, a war that, in spite of it being prompted by a very evil, destructive, tragic, Hamas terrorist attack on October 7, 2023, has gone beyond acceptable boundaries when it comes to civilian casualties.  Even though it is Hamas that uses the tactic of embedding itself among the civilian population, there is a measure of responsibility for a military with the technological advances of the IDF when it comes to deciding to go ahead and accept collateral damage among civilians and civilian infrastructure in order to achieve a military objective.  

The idea here is simple, really.  One is a cease fire, immediately, and then an assessment of the military situation.  The second is to make sure that humanitarian aid, including sufficient food, water, shelter and all kinds of medical supplies make it into Gaza and relieve the suffering population.  They are no less deserving, no less worthy and no less human than Israelis or Americans.  The time for political negotiation is later, this is the time for all of us to stop being political asses and racial and religious bigots and start showing some of the humanity that we claim as our own.  

Political Options for Arab Americans

Please pick up a copy of Project 2025 and give it a good, thorough read through.  

Project 2025 is the Trump agenda.  It is a thorough blue print for the establishment of a Christian nationalist dictatorship in the United States, and its authors, who are far right wing Evangelical Christians, representing an extremist faction that, if Trump succeeds in winning the White House, will enact its agenda to turn the country away from constitutional democracy into a living hell of tyrannical assault on anyone who is not white, Christian and lined up with the idea of a Christian nation.  

Individual constitutional rights will be removed, and the first people to be attacked, vilified, deported if possible, or pushed out if that's the case, will be Arab American supporters of the Palestinian people.  

Jill Stein cannot protect you from this.  Stein has never been able to deliver on a single promise she has ever made politically, because she has never exhibited anything close to the kind of leadership necessary to attract more than a tiny handful of supporters.  Her political understanding is dubious, she is not a patriotic American, but she is a dupe of Vladimir Putin.  She exhibits no leadership qualities and doesn't attract anyone to lead except a political party that doesn't seem very motivated to achieve its own objectives, because it never really tries.  

Donald Trump is your enemy.  He's the one who is going to push you out, more than likely in some illegal way, like turning his army of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers loose in your communities.  Hamtramck will resemble Gaza in more ways than one.  The restraint Arabs desire to see on American participation in this war, in its supply of ammunition for the Israelis, will not materialize.  The Christian nation that is part of the vision of Project 2025 has no room for an Islamic minority.  And since a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump, and a vote for Trump is a vote for the destruction of  the American Muslim community, this is not a wise choice.  

I certainly understand the reluctance to support Harris and exercise a political option that might get more attention from the administration.  But here's the reality of the situation.  The United States was one of the major world powers which used its influence to help create the state of Israel, and has been its biggest supporter.  Few Americans have any idea of the history of the Middle East and many of them have no concern about something happening on the other side of the world.  It's not possible to reverse a major foreign policy position in one single move.  And unfortunately, the political posture being taken by the Arab American community, a protest vote, is a weak gesture, probably futile since there are not enough Arab American votes on the same side to pull this off.  

But Harris is the best chance the people of Gaza have for a cease fire, which they need to survive, and to ensure that the humanitarian aid reaches the people without the interference of Israelis.  She is also the best chance for a full, workable solution to the problem.  Read that Project 2025 narrative again if you need to, the resolution they provide is to push Palestinians out of Gaza and off the West Bank and give the land to Israel, making 2.5 million Palestinians take to the road, become refugees and try to get help from the Arabs in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Egypt, never to return to their homes.  Harris stands for something much more substantial, realistic and beneficial for all involved.  She's the one with whom you should be taking your chances.

Don't Defeat Your Own Cause

Politicians are not always able to act on all of their convictions.  Learning how to win elections means learning how to negotiate, how to balance issues of character and leadership with political ambitions and actual, achievable goals that are empowered, not by the office for which one runs, but by the people who put them there.  For example, has Harris actually changed her personal convictions about fracking?  Not likely, but she is sending the signal that she is willing to negotiate, recognizing what others think along with those working in the field, and then making an attempt to balance those needs with those of the other side.  That's how politics in a democracy works.  

Neither Islam nor Judaism lend themselves to the empowerment of their people.  They are not democratic, they are theocratic and there is a strong belief that God's will is a specific end to which no compromise or negotiation must be made.  We need to recognize non-negotiables with the understanding that, in a democracy, our rights are only equal to all the other rights of the people.  And in this democracy, religion is a separate matter from politics entirely, which is exactly the opposite of the way it is in most Islamic-run countries.  The boundary of one's religious practice cannot be imposed on that of another, regardless of their religious belief.  

Palestinians have the right to self-determination and self rule.  But the Israelis have the same rights, and that has been affirmed by recognition of multiple world powers, including the United States.  That cannot be reversed or turned back, and that's a fact that everyone must recognize before there is peace. Arab Americans need to understand this and work from this framework, because there is no way to change it.  And those who are in the position to negotiate and have the power to enforce solutions, which includes the United States, must make the decision to enforce, and not cut corners or look the other way when there are violations, such as permitting Israeli settlement in the West Bank.  

It is obvious that there are elements on both sides who do not want peace, or who only want it on their own terms.  When those breakouts occur, they need to be handled accordingly, not by over-reacting or taking advantage of the opening, but quickly, sending the message and making it clear that this will not be tolerated.  Politicians who negotiate this must be fair, willing to listen and willing to take the kind of steps necessary for a resolution.  In Kamala Harris, we have this.  In Trump, all the Arab American population has is an enemy.  His mind and his position will never be friendly toward Islam.  

Let's Talk Honestly About the Fear We Are Facing in This Election

In the morning, I will get up, feed the dog, take her for her walk while the coffee is brewing, and then, if its not too cold, I'll sit out on my balcony and drink my coffee and read the news.  I used to love thumbing through a print copy of the Chicago Tribune, and could get through the news and sports section before I had to leave for work.  Now, the print copy only takes about 15 minutes to look through and read, so the rest of the time I read some other news sources on the internet.  

I'll make the 30 minute, six mile drive to work, listening to Richard Chew, on the morning talk show on WCPT, the progressive radio station in Chicago.  All the time that I'm driving, I'm passing people in the traffic, walking along the sidewalk, riding buses.  I'll be nervous, increasingly nervous, about the upcoming election and all of the implications related to the fact that in this government of, by and for the people, we have allowed a demagogue who showed nothing but contempt for the country and its constitution by trashing it when he incited an insurrection against the Capitol for the purpose of disrupting the peaceful transfer of power, to run for the office again.  

He should be in prison, and would have been if we had cared enough to make sure the justice department prosecuted him in a timely manner.  They didn't we didn't and here we are.  

But, I'll be aware of the fact that half of the people driving by, walking by or riding by do not have a clue about what is going on, aren't paying any attention, and while many of them are of Latino and Puerto Rican descent, have no idea at all that Trump insulted their ethnicity by inviting a surrogate to speak, making vulgar, racist jokes about them at Trump's rally in Madison Square Garden in New York this afternoon.  Insult is really not strong enough of a word.  This guy called them trash and labelled them subhuman.  At Trump's rally.  His name was on it. 

Yet half of the people all around, in their cars or houses, already at work, or on the bus or train on the way, are not even registered to vote, and will not take the time or have the inclination to do so.  They know little about politics, democracy or what it means to them, and they don't really care.  So while I am wondering if I am living in the last months of the freedom I have really taken for granted all of my life, and have supported by being a registered voter, contributor, volunteer and writer, and worried about what it might look like come January 20th, half of the people I encounter have absolutely no idea of what is going on, and they really don't care.  

Not only that, but even among those who do know what's transpiring, who are registered to vote and planning to do so, the level of information about the real issues, the character of the politicians and what is at stake is very low.  Add to that the fact that relatively few people are really concerned, or care, about how many women have accused Trump of sexual assault, now up to 39 by the way, or who his dictator friends are, or his morality or his dementia, which is getting increasingly worse, or his fascist politics, and it's clear that preserving democracy in America is taken for granted.  

I usually go to church on Sunday, but this morning, I just didn't feel like worshipping in a room where half the people are too apathetic to even be thinking about where the country is headed, and don't want to make the effort to bother with it by voting, and where another fourth have been deceived into believing that this man is somehow anointed and chosen by God to be president and believe that God's will was overturned by a stolen election in 2020.  Personally, I see nothing in the vulgar, potty-mouthed, lying, immorality and open denial of any need for confession of sin by Trump that warrants the support of Christians and supports the belief that he is somehow anointed by God.  He doesn't meet the first qualification for such an anointing, God doesn't anoint such unrepentant immorality, at least, not if we trust what the Bible has to say about it.  He's just using their ignorance for his own benefit.  

We're losing our free press to the billionaire corporate culture that buys whatever it needs to preserve its own interests.  When two major daily newspapers shut their editorial staff off from making an endorsement based on their conscience, because that endorsement bothers the owner, then the model of ownership of the newspaper, as a business, is wrong for democracy.  One of those papers, the Washington Post, has, as its motto, "Democracy dies in darkness."  But the owner of the paper is the one who is turning out the lights.  

We may have, after 235 years of constitutional democracy, come to the end of a government of, by and for the people.   Intolerance, bigotry and hatred are running rampant.  When what's billed as a political rally starts off with a disgusting, sickening, vulgar, hate filled spew that people let pass as "comedy," if that's not a wake up call, then it is a death knell.  The problem is that 250 million Americans will never hear or be aware of that whole disgusting scene in MSG Sunday afternoon.  

And that's why we're in trouble.  If we do wind up saving the country for four more years, by electing Kamala Harris and a Democratic Congress on Tuesday, reform must be the first item on the agenda.  It starts with doing whatever it takes to re-educate a nation that is basically ignorant and uninformed about its democratic government, and which takes it completely for granted.  

I hope we have that opportunity.   

To Those Evangelicals Who Lurk and Read Here: Heed the Warning

There's been a litany of things said, actions taken, statements made and behavior coming out of all of the Trump campaign that has clearly identified both the candidate, and those who are in his campaign, and potentially in his administration, who are clearly, openly and in some cases defiantly anti-Christian.  This is so visible, it is impossible to look at what is happening and not draw the conclusion that those who continue to support him share his racist, anti-Christian, anti-American, fascist views and attitude.  

Casting a ballot for him and demonstrating support for him destroys any Christian testimony.  Even secretly, in the ballot box, support for this man fits the definition of the spirit of the anti-Christ found in I John 4:2-3.  

The vulgarity and open racism, bigotry and hatred that filled Madison Square Garden today, the Lord's day, was open blasphemy toward God.  People who claim to be followers of Christ, and yet still participate in, and support that, are kidding themselves.  They've been deceived by evil, masquerading as an angel of light.  

It is not possible to support Trump and claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ.  The two things are diametrically opposite each other.  So make your choice.  Stick with Trump and that is abandoning Christ.

And live with it.  

Democracy Dies in Darkness, and We're in the Twilight

We, the people of the United States of America, have just over a week to save our Democracy.  That's what this election is about, it's never been more clear than that, and we have lost much of our free press in a way that is crippling our ability to use our votes to save our country.  

When the Washington Post ownership censors its editorial department, and stops a political endorsement, that's a sign that we are very much in the twilight, and the sun is about to go down on our freedoms.  The newspaper of our nation's capital has a motto, "Democracy dies in darkness."  The Post, owned by a billionaire, has been censored by him, and is no longer able to live up to its motto.  And that's the biggest sign, among others, that we have lost our free press.  It happened to the Los Angeles Times as well, but the Post, among what were once the big American daily newspapers that were the primary source of information, especially on politics, is the biggest symbol of America's free press.  

Any American with even the smallest understanding of constitutional democracy and the individual liberties it guarantees should be in mourning.  And, we should also be afraid. 

Hindsight Is Always 20-20 Vision 

The undermining of democracy is never as obvious when it is actually happening as it is in hindsight.  We can look back at history now, and say, "Oh, they should have seen this coming."  And in fact, there are signs that are visible, and there are many people who are issuing warnings and pointing to examples of the erosion of our freedom with evidence of its effect.  But its only after the effect becomes obvious, and we're looking back, that we see what we should have done, and didn't do, and we wound up paying the price for it..  

People like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, for example, were very open in their discussion of how far right wing conservatives could amplify their political power when they weren't able to win elections consistently at the statewide level, or at the national level, after their apparent invincibility evaporated in the defeat of George H. W. Bush's bid for a second term.  They aimed at winning at the state legislative level, by putting resources into those state legislative elections, and then, once they had majorities, in using their power to gerrymander congressional districts to gain congressional majorities, and then, when they did  have the power in those states, to appoint judges to the bench that would not call their efforts "gerrymandering" or take legal action.  

They told us they were going to do this.  Limbaugh talked about it regularly.  Democrats were warned, but even after it started, it seemed like this caught the party leadership unaware.  The winner-take-all attitude exhibited by these extremists, as opposed to the old line "negotiate and compromise" politics that Democrats still followed, cost us dearly, and we are still paying for it in lost congressional seats and in states where hard line conservatives have a lock on the state legislature.  

We are still fearful, as this election approaches, that the legislators they have put in many of those state houses will try to find a way to overturn a Presidential election they don't want to lose.  We see this clearly now, but didn't pay much attention to it when it was happening.  The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, in 2000, is still haunting us.  We didn't see it coming. 

How Do We Respond? 

In the obscured and hazy manner in which we now get our news, the response at WAPO has been internal turmoil, and the resignations of editorial staff, and an apparent surge in cancellation of both advertising contracts and subscriptions.  Whether that prompts a reversal of the decision of its owner remains to be seen.  I tend to think it will take a little more than that, like a major boycott of his main business interest, to make a difference.  It takes a lot to have an affect on the bottom line of a billionaire, though the response to this might just be big enough to do it.  

Newspapers, even though they have expanded into the electronic age, and have far more subscribers on-line than they do in print, are still pretty much dinosaurs.  The shift in emphasis in American education away from long-term development of communication skills in language, to a more technical style of reading means that there are increasingly fewer people who spend more than a few minutes scanning photos and pictures online, or even clicking and watching a video report of something.  

I find it very satisfying to get up early enough to pick up my daily print copy of the Chicago Tribune, and sit on my balcony with a mug of hot coffee, reading through the news and sports sections before finishing my routine of getting ready for work.  It's a half hour of intellectual stimulation at the beginning of the day, prompting thoughts, sometimes worth jotting down.  I also have the luxury of reading through the electronic version at various other times, especially to get updates of something during the day in which I'm interested.  But I wonder, really, how many people actually look through a newspaper, understand the journalistic standards behind it, and make that their preference over some online tabloid that appeals to sensation.  

And that poses just as big a danger to American free press as the bridling of editors at a major daily newspaper.  Reading junk is one thing, relying on it for accurate information is quite another.  That's frightening, if you ask me.  

The Bottom Line is to go Vote

There may be a bit of a reverse effect from this now highly publicized censorship of the editorial board of the Washington Post, a negative response that triggers some additional votes for Kamala Harris.  I hope so.  I'm still somewhat surprised that the New York Times has endorsed her, with the headline that she is the only "patriotic" choice.  The failure of the Post and of the L.A. Times to do so will cost them more than it will her  

We have a long list of election issues, judicial issues and political issues, including determining that a convicted felon is not eligible to run for public office, ethical standards for the Supreme Court, that must be resolved once Harris is elected, and has a Congress that is workable.  and other reforms that will set us back on the road to a workable democracy, if that's possible.  For now, regardless of what happens or does not happen anywhere else, Democrats must focus on getting Kamala Harris in the White House in a way that precludes any possible post-election fight over certification of electors.  

I certainly hope Democratic party leadership is on top of this, has anticipated every possible angle that the opposition can take, including violence, and is prepared to meet the challenge.  

One thing is for sure.  Our media cannot fall under the control of a few billionaires, especially those who are looking out for their own interests.  Democracy does indeed die in darkness, and as close as we are now coming to the very edge of a blackout, we need to do something to pull ourselves back from the precipice.  

 

Evangelicals Discredit Their Faith and Their Convictions By Supporting Trump

 Newsweek: "I'm Billy Graham's Granddaughter, and I'm Voting for Kamala Harris"

Trump's words and actions are fundamentally incompatible with Evangelical principles.  Contrary to some who claim he has been anointed by God to lead; Trump cannot return the U.S. to faithfulness.  Sadly, by embracing such a megalomaniac, Christians have been turning away from those who are curious about the Lord.  We lose credibility when we say that God is love, but then rally, and sometimes riot, in support of an individual whose entire worldview centers on himself.  Jerushah Duford, Granddaugher of Evangelist Billy Graham, October 2024.  

The idea that Trump has somehow been "anointed" by God to be President of the United States is antithetical to any biblical doctrine of Christianity.  That's a concept that has been produced by the false connection made by faulty interpretation of passages from the Old and New Testament, unrelated in context but used as prooftexts to justify political ambition.  The idea that "God sometimes uses evil men to achieve his purposes," is neither Christian, nor even biblical in any correctly discerned context of any part of the Bible.  

Trump openly denies any need for confession of his sin, which effectively separates him from the Christian conversion experience that Evangelicals specifically have determined is required in order to be Christian by their definition.  

"For example," said Jerushah Duford, grand-daughter of Evangelist Billy Graham, "one of my grandfather's favorite Bible verses was Micah 6:8, which requires us to love kindness and mercy and walk humbly.  For Trump, however, his wealth and notoriety fuels his ego. While he puts on a facade of religion, he rejects the fundamentals of Christianity.  We have seen the ways he treats those who are marginalized, women, and anyone who disagrees with him.  Yet, Jesus told us that 'people will know we are disciples by your love. [John 13:35]  Furthermore, he himself has admitted that he does not ask forgiveness from anyone."  

Not asking for forgiveness, in an Evangelical interpretation of biblical doctrine, is an open defiance and denial of God's Holy Spirit, "blasphemy" being the old fashioned term for it.  The Apostle John, in his first epistle, says this constitutes the "spirit of antichrist."  

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 is already in the world. [I John 4:2-3, NRSV]

If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us." [I John 1:9-10, NRSV]  

So, for Evangelical Trump supporters, there it is, laid out in scripture which, according to Evangelical belief and interpretation, is without error and infallible.  Trump's claim that he does not need to confess would make him antichrist, a liar, and certainly not anointed for anything related to the Christian gospel or God's purposes, if those are beliefs one claims as essential and of importance to their faith.  

I'd add to that the fact that he is also not worthy of your vote for a secular political office. 

But Harris Supports Abortion Rights and ...

Abortion is no longer the single issue for which Evangelicals once worked to elect politicians.  Now, the opposition has grown to the idea that extending rights to persons because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is somehow an attack on their own rights, or an attempt to force the acceptance of these lifestyles on people.  That's an untrue and unfair characterization of Harris' position. 

The fact of the matter is that the constitution guarantees individual rights to all Americans without discrimination.  And that includes protecting the rights of LGBTQ persons to live the life they choose, and make the decisions they are free to make without being discriminated against, or worse, being cruelly and viciously attacked and threatened by people who claim to be Christians.  No one is forcing anyone to change their mind or accept anything they choose not to accept.  Those who don't accept or don't agree with the life these people have chosen don't have to.  But they cannot subject those who have to torment or persecution because of who they've chosen to be.  To do that is neither patriotic American nor Christian.  

Some of the lies that are being spread, such as the one about gender-altering surgeries being performed on kids at school, genuinely make me question the intelligence, honesty and integrity of someone who would spread them, let alone believe them.  

As we have seen, there's quite a bit of difference in the simplistic position taken by conservatives that abortion is indiscriminate birth control and can simply be banned by legislation.  Abortion is a medical procedure, and whether it is performed for the purpose of birth control, or whether there are complications with the pregnancy or other health issues requiring a decision to be made to perform one in order to save the life of the mother, it is a moral, ethnical and medical decision in which the government has no business interfering.  

What Harris supports is leaving the decision regarding whether or not to perform an abortion up to the mother, her doctor, and if she chooses, her pastor, priest, rabbi or imam.  And she has not, and does not support late term abortions, unless there is a medical decision, made by a doctor, that it is necessary to save the life of the mother.  

While I might have personal convictions, based on my faith, regarding the morality of the decision of a woman to have an abortion for birth control reasons, I'm in no position to judge or to condemn because of my faith [Matthew 7:1-3].  And because medical decisions most often require professional observation and information on the spot, regardless of the reason for the procedure being performed, the government is neither qualified nor capable of the ability to make a decision in which the mother's life may be at stake.  

I'm a man.  And a husband.  I'll never be in a position to ever even know what facing such a decision is like.  And for that reason, I don't have the right to make it for anyone else, and neither does the government.  

That is how I interpret the Vice President's position.  She is, by her own testimony, and confession, a Christian, one who understands the context of the Constitution's first amendment protection of individual rights and restrictions of the government's imposition.  She is able, as am I, to distinguish between what is right and wrong according to individual conscience guided by faith principles, and a fair application of the law in matters involving personal choices. She is not making a statement on her convictions about whether abortion is a right or wrong decision, she is applying the Constitution as she sees it, to a situation where respect for individual conscience is protected by law. 

There Are Moral Implications in Supporting Trump

Going beyond the Evangelical interpretation of steps to Christian conversion, which Trump flatly rejects, there are a lot of other moral implications for Christians who support, and give their loyalty to, a worldly, immoral, corrupt person who lives that way by choice.  

Trump instigated an insurrection aimed at overturning a free and fair election, the will of the people, and subverting the Constitution and the peaceful transfer of power.  He is no patriot, has no respect for the ideals and principles upon which America was founded, nor does he respect most of those who follow him loyally, including Christians.  That one incident should have been disqualifying, and if there were enough Republicans in their party that had any measure of patriotism and respect for American ideals, they would have prevented him from being their nominee.  

Trump is a pathological liar.  Any Christian that gets behind him and supports his political candidacy is setting aside their values, and their faith to own this worldly immorality and licentiousness that is what Trump stands for and in which he glories, to his own delight.  He has been credibly accused and convicted of rape, and of 34 counts of business fraud related to his attempt to cover up an affair he had with porn star Stormy Daniels while his wife was pregnant with his fifth child.  And he can't be excused by some late in life conversion experience, since he's denied ever having been through one, and in fact, denies the need to confess his sins to God because, "I don't see God that way," he says.

Somewhere along the line, there are leaders within the church who have deceptively led their congregations to believe that the moral and social problems they perceive as existing within the United States are the result of political policy and government fiat.  That's as patently false as the belief that electing the right President and government will fix it, and open the door to revival.  Even if that were true, choosing a leader whose personal morality is as worldly and immoral as anything these people are complaining about happening in society would be counterproductive to any kind of revival of faith.  

In fact, looking at the shape most Evangelical churches and denominations find themselves in at this point, the support and loyalty they've given to this immoral, worldly, licentious imposter might just do the trick and extinguish their influence in this country for good.  It's almost gone as it is.  Membership losses and financial decline due to the exit of thousands of members over the past decade is taking a huge toll.  They've thrown out the gospel and they've thrown Jesus under the bus.  

 

Arizona County Supervisor Pleads Guilty, Then Claims Her Prosecution Was "Political"

 Judd alleges political prosecution after being sentenced for failure to perform duty of an election officer

Peggy Judd, a Republican county supervisor in Cochise County, Arizona, was indicted by the Arizona Attorney General for failure to perform the duties of an election officer in actions she took to attempt to prevent the certification of the county's ballots in the 2022 mid-term election.  Judd's responses when asked about her refusal, were a mish-mash of Trump conspiracy theories and distrust of vote counting machines.  When asked to produce evidence of her allegations, she spouted more conspiracy theories and mis-trust of the counting machines, even though an audit had shown they were 100% accurate.  

Just minutes after agreeing to the plea deal in which she admitted to guilt, and accepted a downgrading of the felony charges to a misdemeanor to avoid a possible prison sentence, she accused the state attorney general of playing politics in having her arrested for a crime she committed, claiming that if the attorney general were Republican, she would never have been charged.  

She was probably right about that last statement.  If the attorney general had been a republican, a different set of rules of law enforcement would have been in place.  Breaking the law by Republicans, especially election laws that certify results they don't like, would not be considered a crime, because Republicans generally only care about the rule of law when it applies to people they don't like, or who aren't in their party.  

And she's lucky the attorney general has been merciful and generous with her, allowing her to plea bargain.  Standing there, making accusations and attempting to justify what she had done instead of being grateful for the mercy she had just been shown is deplorable behavior.  Her very public reaction could have nullified her plea, on grounds that she was not sincere, and sent her to prison for breaking the law and trying to disenfranchise voters.  With that statement following her plea and sentencing, Peggy Judd told the whole world she has no respect for the rule of law, and is completely unqualified to serve in any public office.  That should have been the result of her sentencing at any rate.  

She and her partner in crime, who rejected the plea bargain and is likely to serve prison time for a felony upon his certain conviction, tried to stop the certification of about 55,000 ballots in the 2022 mid-term election.  A veteran county elections supervisor had performed all of the necessary audits and checks to assure the accuracy of the vote count, and there was no reason not to certify the ballots.  In fact, the law did not permit county supervisors to question the count or fail to certify.  But Judd and Tom Crosby, the other Republican on the board of supervisors, wanted to support Kari Lake, who had lost the election by about 16,000 votes.  

Ultimately, Judd and Ann English, the Democrat on the board of supervisors, did vote to certify the ballots, after being ordered to do so by a state judge.  Crosby never made an appearance at that meeting. 

Even though this case was related to ballot counting, it has nothing to do with politics.  The fact of the matter is that Judd conspired with a fellow county supervisor to break the law, based on her belief in a lie.  It's obvious, through the whole process, that she was aware what she was doing was illegal and she chose to do it anyway.  Even though she voted to certify, under pressure, she had already broken the law by refusing to do so when it was required.  

She got off easy, and did not get prosecuted and sentenced to prison.  She should be grateful, not a whiner.  

A Vote For Jill Stein is a Vote to Starve the People of Gaza

 And don't even think of it as anything else.  A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Donald Trump.  And if Trump wins the election, on the strength of the tiny fraction of votes Stein is able to secure, then the pressure that President Biden is putting on Israel to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza will cease, and his "not an ounce" of aid policy will cause Gaza's starvation.  And Stein will be responsible for that.  

So a vote for Jill Stein is a vote to ensure the starvation and destruction of Gaza, and of any hope at all for a two state solution in Palestine.  

So, to all of those Arab American voters who the media keeps mentioning as being such a large voting bloc in Michigan, and perhaps, in a really close election, the difference between Harris winning enough electoral votes to win, or losing enough votes to lose, you have a choice.  

Do You Really Care About the Palestinian People of Gaza?  

Let's settle this issue first.  Do you really care about Gaza and the Palestinian people, or is this just a convenient political issue to use as a power grab?  If you really care, then you know for certain that Trump's election equals Gaza's demise.  

Though I believe most American Arabs, including those of Palestinian origin, understand that America's position in foreign policy toward Israel is that it is our ally in the Middle East, and that it has the right to exist and defend itself, there are some who do not understand that a Vice President cannot unilaterally make foreign policy alone.  It is unrealistic to make demands and expect them to be explicitly met in exchange for political support.  A democracy doesn't work that way.  A President cannot alone dissolve an alliance with a foreign power, that requires an act of Congress, through the Senate.  And the United States is not going to dissolve its alliance with Israel, or endanger its ability to defend itself by embargoing arms, at least, not in the wake of the horrific October 7th attacks on Israel, they're not.  

Making that demand, and expecting it to be carried out or else is unrealistic.  But it is very clear that the United States is opposed to continued bombardment and destruction in Gaza.  As it was reported by Lawrence O'Donnell, on his October 21st show, the President and Vice President are daily putting pressure on Israel and Hamas to negotiate a cease fire, and it has been US pressure on Netanyahu to force him to back away from his "not one drop of water, not one ounce" of aid and actually deliver humanitarian relief to Gaza.  

And the course for the future, from the perspective of the United States, is a permanent cease fire in Gaza, negotiating the release of the remaining hostages, along with a two state solution.  Biden, and Harris, both support the creation of a Palestinian state free from Hamas control, able to provide for the needs of its people.  Getting there requires patience.  

Jill Stein has no resources, no inclination and no ability to do one thing to benefit the people of Gaza.  She could be organizing aid, instead of wasting resources on running for an office she has zero chance of winning.  A vote for Jill Stein is a vote to condemn the people of Gaza to starvation, because it will have the same effect as a vote for Trump.  And if Trump is elected, Gaza is doomed to destruction.  Netanyahu will raze it, and he's already said he plans to turn the population into refugees and empty the Gaza strip.  Trump will support that 100%. 

Jill Stein has absolutely no ability to achieve anything on behalf of the people of Gaza except more suffering.  

So, if you really do care about the suffering of the people of Gaza, then you will help provide the resources for humanitarian aid, and you will support the one politician running for President who not only will have the power, but will use it in the best way possible to relieve the suffering of the people of Gaza.  And that's Kamala Harris.  

Michigan Pastor, a Big Time Trumper, Arrested on Sex Crimes Charges

Saline [MI] Post: Local Worship Director, Christian Musician Faces Sex Crime Charges 

Every time I hear how bad things are in this country, and in the world, and all of the moaning and complaining that conservative Evangelicals have made the mantra of their mission, I want to ask, "Well, if it's so bad, then what are you doing about it?"  They moan and complain, and blame politicians--to be specific, Democratic party politicians, for all of the problems.  

And one of the most common remarks that follows this moaning and bellyaching, "Oh, Jesus must be about to come soon!"  

The Bible certainly does address sexual immorality, and puts it in the category of human sinfulness, along with a lot of other sins, like deceit and dishonesty, hate, and violence.  But I would suggest that before moaning and complaining about liberals, Democrats and anyone else with whom they disagree or don't like, they should clean up their own house, first. 

This kind of thing happens much more frequently in churches than most people realize.  The Catholic church has dealt with a massive sexual abuse scandal among its ordained priesthood that extends back several generations and in which there have been tens of thousands of victims, mostly children and teenagers.  The church has paid out untold millions of dollars to settle lawsuits, and instead of removing the perpetrators, in many cases they simply reassigned them to another parish where no one knew about the abuse until it happened there.  

Southern Baptists, the nation's largest Evangelical Protestant denomination, were the subject of an expose published by the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express News in 2018, regarding sexual abuse being committed by pastors, paid church staff members and even denominational officers and employees.  The expose, called Abuse of Faith [click on the title for the link] uncovered hundreds of cases of sexual abuse by pastors and church staff members, mainly of women, but in some cases, teenagers and young children, that had occurred in churches over an extended period of time.  The Chronicle/Express News investigation covered only a limited number of cases in a limited number of jurisdictions.  

It turned out to be just the tip of the iceberg, as delegates to its annual convention meeting in 2019, angry over the abuse and attempts by denominational officers to cover it up, ordered an independent investigation be conducted by an outside firm that none of the denomination's insider elites could control or alter.  The investigation found cases where pastors had been exposed as abusers in one congregation and would move on to another church without their knowledge, under the guise of church independence and autonomy.  The investigation even uncovered abuse by a former SBC President, and vice-president of one of its mission boards, and buy multiple missionaries and staff members of the denomination's entities, including two of its theological seminaries.  

So it would seem that a student attending youth group in a Catholic or Southern Baptist church stands a better chance of being sexually abused or exploited by a youth pastor or priest than they do in their local public high school, or at a community dance or private party.  They're safer at a drag queen show than in their own church.  

And Of Course, In This Most Recent Case in Michigan, The Abuser is a Worship Leader, Youth Pastor and Big Time Trumper and Political Conservative

Of course there's a right wing political connection.  These right wingers are emboldened by the fact that their political inamorata, Trump, "can shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue and not lose a single voter."  Trump built a good part of his personal and professional reputation on his sexual immorality.  This man, that Evangelicals honor as their savior more than they do Jesus Christ, once had his sexual exploits, including moments that should have been kept private between himself and his wife, printed on the front page of New York tabloids.  

So what do you expect?  These guys think they can get away with their deviant, immoral, illegal sexual exploitation because he gets away with it.  

There's a picture of this particular worship leader playing a guitar and singing with a band at CPAC.  How ironic is that?  What a wonderful photo op!  

And according to the article in the Saline Post, the investigation into his activity included his solicitation of illicit videos and photos from youth, presumably at his church.  One of the commentors notes that the activity dates back to 2014.  So it had been going on for 11 years.  The article notes that the worship director is also the son of the senior pastor of the church.  That opens the door to some questions.  Did this prevent the church from conducting a background check?  How much of this activity was ignored or swept under the rug because his father was pastor?  How could something like this go on for 11 years and be undetected?  

Any sexual exploitation or abuse is tragic, especially when kids are involved.  It shouldn't be a political issue, but the arrogance of conservative accusations of people whose sexual preferences don't line up with their interpretation of morality makes it political.  If the world is a dark place, think of how much darker it is for a kid whose youth pastor at church is encouraging them to take illicit photos or participate in illicit videos.  That's stealing a part of who they are that belongs to them, and no one else.  And it sure does undermine any religious teaching of the church.  If the pastor's son can do this and get away with it, what does that say about his own father's preaching? 

And this kind of thing happens a lot more frequently than people think.  Kids are safer going to the mall or a movie theater or a music concert in public than they are going to youth group at their church.  It nullifies the moaning and complaining of Christian political conservatives about the dark world in which we live.  They're the ones who are turning off the lights and pulling down the blinds.

Many Conservative, Evangelical Pastors and Leaders Have Disgraced Themselves and Destroyed Their Testimony Because of Their Support for Trump

The Daily Hatch comments on Adrian Rogers' sermon, "Does Character Count?" 

In 1998, Dr. Adrian Rogers, pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church, in the suburbs of Memphis, Tennessee, made the character and morality of one serving in public office in the United States, specifically President of the United States, the priority for Christians when exercising their right to vote as citizens of the United States.  Rogers specifically addressed President Clinton's morality, pointing to allegations of an improper sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky as evidence of his disqualification for office.  Rogers claimed that it was the responsibility of Christians to influence elections with their faith by voting for candidates who exhibited a higher standard of morality, compatible with Christianity, because this was evidence of their capability of moral leadership.  

Rogers didn't mince words or cut any corners in his condemnation of President Clinton.  Of course the President was a Democrat, and even in 1998, conservative, white, Evangelical Christians, including most of the Southern Baptists who make up the nation's largest Evangelical denomination, were opposed to President Clinton, not only because there were concerns about his morality and possible marital infidelity, but because of his stance on women's reproductive rights.  

Ironically, President Clinton had made a "profession of faith," the Baptist interpretation of Christian conversion, was baptized in a Southern Baptist Church in Hope, Arkansas, and had been an active member of a Southern Baptist church all his life.  And personally, I think that might have also been the motivation behind some of Roger's tone and message.  President Carter had also been Southern Baptist, and made his Christian faith the center of his identity.  Discouraging those who shared a common denominational affiliation from supporting a fellow Baptist on that basis alone was also the point of Roger's sermon.  It was aimed at damping down any Baptist support for Vice President Al Gore, also a Southern Baptist and fellow Tennessean.  

Fast forward to 2016.  Consider Trump's worldly lifestyle, including his personal promotion of his own sexual promiscuity that led to two highly publicized divorces and marriages to "the other woman," along with claims of having bedded "hundreds" of women, along with all sorts of business and tax fraud, incessant lying and a host of other indulgences in sinful living that would have set Roger's hair on fire if he had been alive.  

But Rogers died on November 15, 2005, long before Trump became a politician aimed at winning the GOP nomination and the Presidency.  I can't say whether Rogers, who was one of the hard line conservatives involved in the Southern Baptist's internal squabble with a more moderate doctrinal and theological element in the denomination, would have stood by the words in his sermon and also encouraged Christians not to vote for Trump, based on making character the top priority for choosing a candidate.  But it's pretty clear that a majority of his fellow Southern Baptists, and of the wider white, Evangelical community, have basically ignored his words.  No matter his standing and reputation among Southern Baptist conservatives, and conservative, Evangelical Christians, they've completely defied virtually everything he said on the subject in giving their support and loyalty to a man who has far less moral character than anyone who has ever run for President of the United States.  

It Got a Hearty "Amen!" in 1998, Now, It's Contradicted in Practice and Ignored in Principle

When Evangelicals want to support a Republican politician who doesn't necessarily reflect their interpretation of the Bible's moral values, there is an "out" for that politician to keep their credibility with the easily led sheep who occupy pews in churches on Sunday morning.  It's what they refer to as a "salvation experience."  That's the Evangelical version of the Christian conversion experience.  By selecting a few Bible verses that touch on the subject, they have developed a process by which any politician needing a boost can claim to be "saved," and that allows the supporters to excuse all of his or her behavior that may not meet moral standards,  Things like extra-marital affairs, divorces, drunken driving incidents, and even a generally bad attitude can be overlooked if the person is Republican, by simply claiming they believe they have had a spiritual experience similar to what Evangelicals describe as salvation.  

Ronald Reagan was the first Presidential candidate to benefit from this process. By the time Reagan got around to running for President, what religious beliefs he had would better be characterized as "New Age" rather than anything resembling some form of Christianity.  But he had some advisors who were Evangelicals, and realized he needed to express some kind of sympathy or support for their position.  So, when asked whether he had ever had a "salvation experience," which he had to have described to him, because he'd never been to church, he said, "As you have described it to me, yes, I have."  

The problem Trump presents to Evangelical supporters is that he won't confess to any kind of conversion experience requiring him to acknowledge guilt for his sin, repentance and acceptance of God's forgiveness, which, according to Evangelical doctrine, is an absolute necessity to be Christian.  The other side of this doctrine of salvation is transformation.  People who become Christians through this process are visibly changed, when it comes to their moral choices and their lifestyle.  Trump is still the same immoral, worldly, vile, depraved, licentious, corrupt liar that he always was.  His Evangelical followers can't use this to pass by his immorality.  

Trumpism Can't be Baptized, He's Clearly Not One Of Them, But Their Support For Him Makes Them Own His Immoral, Corrupt, anti-Christian Attitude

I hear so many people from within the Evangelical political right make the argument that you can't be a Christian and support a politician who supports abortion rights.  If that's where you want your argument to rest, I'll go there with you, and point out that Trump has fully declared his support for abortion rights.  That's right, he most certainly has.  He has gotten testy at times when reporters claim that his follow up to selecting justices to overturn Roe v. Wade would be to sign a national ban on abortion rights passed by Congress.  He insists that he would absolutely not do that, and that the only thing he intended, by appointing judges to overturn Roe, was to give the issue to the states.  

"That's what everyone, Democrats, Republicans, all wanted to do, let the people vote on it," were his exact words.  That's not true, of course. But he continues to deny supporting a national ban, and he has openly said that he supports abortion with restrictions on when it can be performed, and supports a state's right to ban it.  When asked about a six week abortion ban his response, during the debate with Harris, was "six months is not long enough."  

So you've lost that argument.  But that's a political issue.  And while there isn't anything else at all in Trump's agenda that a Christian either could, or should support, by their own words, the issue starts with his character.  

I'll turn the argument back the other way.  How can someone who claims to be a professing Christian support a politician who is an adulterer, publicly proclaiming his high profile affairs, then divorcing his wife to marry the other women, and who not only has not ever shown a shred of repentance toward his ex-wives, or regarding his behavior, and hasn't stopped having affairs right up to the present day?  Remember the attitude and the condemnation heaped on Bill Clinton by Evangelicals, including their rejection of his very public repentance.  Trump openly denies that there's anything wrong with this behavior.  

How can someone who claims to be a professing Christian support a politician who instigated an insurrection against the Capitol and Congress of the United States, unleashing ungodly violence that led to the deaths of six people, including five police officers?  That violates apostolic interpretation of the Christian gospel by two of the most prominent early Apostles, Peter and Paul, along with the very words of Christ himself, in the Sermon on the Mount.  

One thing is clear.  Christians who support Trump are ignorant of who he is and what he does, and they are even more ignorant of the principles of the Bible they claim to believe.  

These same licentious, immoral, ungodly actions are what led him to commit the 34 felonies for which he was indicted and convicted in a Manhattan court.  That's not the justice department or the Biden administration "going after him politically," as he claimed.  That's the result of one of his more recent affairs with porn actress Stormy Daniels, and his attempt to cover it up with bribes disguised as business transactions, which are highly illegal.  That also gets added to his civil conviction on rape charges involving his assault on E. Jean Carroll.  His response to that was just to deny it, but when Trump does something that immoral, and that worldly, he cannot keep silence.  He did enough talking to give prosecutors all the evidence they needed to match Carroll's story.  And that came from people he considered friends. 

So, Christians, you support an unrepentant adulterer and rapist. His third wife was pregnant with his fifth child when he had the affair with Daniels.  

No wonder Americans no longer take your preaching and teaching seriously, and your church members are heading out of the exits, never to return.   

The fraudulent business dealings he's been involved with, a trail of grifting, breaking the law, tax evasion, not paying debts, and the fact that he's a pathological liar, is all part of the kind of immoral, worldly lack of character that Adrian Rogers says the Bible "clearly" instructs Christians to avoid themselves, and also to protect their reputation and their witness by not supporting those public figures who build their reputation of worldliness for their own personal gain.  And if he felt justified to apply those Biblical principles to Bill Clinton, then they also apply to Donald Trump, and the conclusion is that Christians, who live in a country with the privilege of choosing their own leaders, should not choose leaders who do not exhibit character that contradicts the moral principles of their faith, because that constitutes a denial of their faith.  

I'll make it simple for those who need clarity.  If you wouldn't have voted for Bill Clinton because of his immoral behavior, including extra-marital affairs, then you are a hypocrite if you are casting a ballot for Donald Trump, according to Roger's interpretation of the Bible.  

Do you really want to elect, as your leader, and support, as a Christian, a man who claims immigrants to our country are "poisoning the blood", who calls them vermin, falsely claiming they are drug dealers, murderers, gang members and pet eaters.  Those are all lies, and there's nothing consistent with Biblical truth in all of that, not one thing.  

Do you want to take ownership of his treats against Americans who have every right to express the opinions that he doesn't like, and wants to attack and use the power of government for his own personal vengeance?  That flies in the face of Jesus' commands to "love your neighbor as yourself," which is one of the greatest commandments, according to his own testimony, and also to "love your enemies, and pray for those who spitefully use you."  Trump hasn't been spitefully used, he's deserved everything he's got and has not faced real justice for his crimes.  Do you really want to stand on the side of this ungodly, anti-American, anti-Christian rhetoric?  

How can you reconcile your Christian faith and practice with support for a man who exhibits a spirit of falsehood, anger, negativity, resentment, and grievance without cause?  One who denigrates women, demonizes anyone whose politics he doesn't agree with, affirmed tyrants and instigated a violent insurrection against the sitting Congress.

For Christians, This Should Go Well Beyond Trump's Unrepentant Lack of Moral Character

Trump's rhetoric, spewed out in random bursts and off-track remarks made during his endless rally speeches, is dangerous to American constitutional democracy and to every ideal or principle on which this country was founded.  Trump's language, and the things he says he plans to do, is a plan to completely dismantle the Constitution.  He has declared he will be a "dictator on day one," and he has put in place a Supreme Court who has already given the office of President immunity for crimes committed while performing official duties, something that completely undoes every safeguard the founders wrote into the constitution to prevent the President from becoming a dictator.  

He has said that he would use the military and the national guard against American citizens, not for violating the law, but for disagreeing with him.  That's the destruction of the Constitution itself, and any American who would vote for a candidate who says that is not only completely ignorant of their own history and values, but they have made themselves an enemy of this country and its people.  

When an American politician cites Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, and builds relationships with world leaders who are the heirs to their legacy, like Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin, every American should step up and make sure their candidacy is short-lived and dies when exposed to the light.  Those Christians who are supporting Trump, especially those who are enthusiastic about it, have abandoned their faith, if they ever had it in the first place.  

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.  No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds. [2 Corinthians 11:13-15 NASB]  

For false messiahs and false prophets will appear, and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.  [Matthew 24:24] 

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you.  They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only sovereign and Lord. [Jude v. 4] 

This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God:  Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 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] 

And even as he depends on the support of Evangelicals politically, he holds contempt for what they claim to believe by openly denying the very basic principle leading to a Christian conversion experience, from their perspective, by shifting his position on abortion, which was at the top of their list of political priorities, and he ridicules them with the echoes of his statement that he could shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue and not lose any voters.  

Dr. Rogers very likely never imagined, in his safe megachurch bubble, that his words would soon apply to a Republican Presidential candidate whose immorality and worldliness would make Bill Clinton's problems look like a Sunday School picnic.  A whole lot of conservative, Evangelical leaders have been willing to abandon their reputation, and make their own Christian testimony look insincere, abandoned and worthless in their pursuit of worldly power.  And they are certainly paying for it.  

High Stakes and Past Experience Makes Fear About This Election Run High, But This Isn't 2016

 2016 was a shock.  But there were some issues then that we don't have now.  There was too much confidence from the Clinton campaign in the "Blue wall," and clearly not enough effort made by the Clinton campaign to shore it up when a week's worth of campaign appearances across those three states would clearly have been enough to eke out wins.  We're not making that mistake, the Harris campaign has the money and they are using a multi-faceted strategy to reach voters on the margins.  Evidence?  She's now leading among independent voters and her lead is trending her direction.  

If you want some re-assurance, go to the website for WCPT Radio 820 in Chicago, and listen to yesterday's Joan Esposito show.  She had a guest host, a political analyst who made some observations about the campaign much clearer, including pointing out clues about what the internal data is showing, the strategies used, how effective they are and what Harris' money advantage is doing for her, compared to the scatter shooting, "do what we want" approach that Trump's PAC supporters take.  This included a reminder that Harris has a large pack of billionaire donors on her side.  Citizens United is terrible,  but if those are the rules you want to play by, the other side can use it to their advantage, too.  And we are. 

Trump's second attempt at an election, his re-election, was a failure.  And his run through the GOP primaries this time around, having already been in the White House once, can also be considered a failure.  He had opponents, and with all of the face time he's had in the media, and all of the attention focused on him as the potential nominee from the day he left Washington, he got around 72% of the primary voters' support.  Considering the absolute nobodies who ran against him, and the money he spent, that's a sub-standard performance.  

So of course the fear of 2016 is there, as is the "fear" generated by what the media emphasizes was a narrow victory for Biden in 2020, electoral college-wise.  Trump has always been a huge threat, and he did a lot of damage when he was President.  But a lot of people saw that, and I think that led to Biden getting the win in 2020.  Harris has not only made that a campaign issue, but she has rounded up and organized the conservative Republican opposition.  And many of those people have a lot of influence, and some of them still have their credibility.  

There is evidence, from credible sources, that Trump is weaponizing polling data, not only to boost his ego, but as a strategy to try and spread discouragement and fear, prompt pressure on the campaign from those who feel the fear, and maybe even cause resources and time to be allocated differently and less effectively.  It has also become increasingly difficult to distinguish between solid journalists and journalism, and Trump infused propagandists and propaganda.  

So your fear is justified.  

But be confident.  There's a lot of strong evidence to indicate that Harris is going to win the election, the Democrats are more than prepared for an onslaught of election-related legal challenges, some of which have already achieved rulings clearly in our favor, and there are an equal number of eyes on our side watching out for any potential messing with votes and election outcomes.  

And I believe a majority of Americans know what's at stake, and are not blinded by prejudice, religious bigotry or influenced by propaganda posing as the free press.  I feel fearful of being too optimistic and then being hugely disappointed, but I also have some confidence that the positive direction Harris has given to her campaign, and the obvious contrast between her good character, as well as that of Tim Walz, with a convicted rapist, criminal, insurrectionist liar and J.D. Vance, an opportunist who has proven to be a duplicitous liar like Trump, is a highly visible factor.  Because of that, Harris will become Madame President-Elect whenever the election results are finalized.  

One of Southern Baptist's Most Influential, Prominent Pastors is Suing the Denomination, a Source of Much of His Personal Income

 Settlement Talks Between Johnny Hunt, SBC, Fail

Johnny Hunt is Head of a Family Empire That Feeds Off the Southern Baptist Convention

A Long Standing, Good-Ole-Boy Practice Brought to you by Southern Baptists

The Southern Baptist Convention bills itself as America's largest Protestant, Evangelical denomination.  Over the past decade, it has shrunk from a peak membership of 16.2 million, down to 12.8 million, caused, from its own perspective by "we don't really know," from outside perspectives, by a long drought in evangelistic activity caused by too much engagement in secular politics, and too much infighting among the big dawgs in the house over who gets to be the chief, and who must remain the rest of the tribe.  

The structure of the denomination itself rests on the principle of local church autonomy.  This is the idea that a denominational organization is not a biblically sanctioned structure, and therefore does not have any ecclesiastical authority, but is a voluntary structure based on the cooperation of its member congregations together, each of which is independent and autonomous with regard to its doctrine and theology, and who it calls to serve as its pastor.  The "convention" is actually an annual, two day meeting where elected delegates from the individual churches, called "messengers," meet to handle the business matters of the denomination.  An executive director with a small staff actually conducts the business, mainly financial coordination, which supports two mission boards, a publishing house, six theological seminaries and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, all supported by a funding mechanism known as the "Cooperative Program."  It is based in a small headquarters building on the corner of Ninth Avenue and Commerce Street in downtown Nashville. 

It has a democratic convention structure to facilitate business, which is the cooperation of its 45,000 or so local churches contributing funds to operate its entities, including supporting missionaries both overseas and in North America.  But it is really a fief of a small group of individuals, mostly mega-church pastors sprinkled with some high powered business people and those who have the time, inclination and ability to be "influencers," or the more old fashioned term, "king-makers," facilitating the climb of some well-connected friends or relatives into high dollar, big salary denominational executive positions.  It's a large denomination, but the group that runs the business, the messengers who attend the meetings, is small.  A convention meeting rarely gathers more than 10,000, most run about 8,000 and 75% of them are the same people who come every year.  

What winds up happening is that someone who works at it and finds a way to have their voice heard in the cliquish Baptist media, a collection of news journals operated by state-level denominational groups, can put themselves in position to gather, and use, a lot of power, focused on advancing their own career within the denomination, and resulting in a well-enhanced checkbook. 

In the denomination's most recent history, two men, Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler, managed to turn themselves into denominational royalty and pillaged the convention to use it for their own ends.  Patterson, to elevate himself from the administrator position at broken down Criswell College to become president of both Southeastern and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminaries, two of the six operated by the convention.  The late Paul Pressler, a former Texas appeals court judge and Republican mover and shaker, to bring the denomination straight into the world of right wing extremist politics.  Both were successful in achieving their goal.  Both have since been disgraced and put out to pasture, Patterson for not handling sexual abuse accusations at both seminaries in a professional and Christian manner, Pressler for accusations of having been a gay sexual predator.  

Having the Right Friends and Being in the Right Place at the Right Time

Being pastor of a megachurch is always a good launching pad for being an "influencer," i.e. a "good-ole-boy" in the Southern Baptist Convention.  For some reason, there's a small group of these big shots in this Christian denomination who seem to love getting themselves on denominational boards and committees, where they can network to further their advantage.  They're on so many different boards and committees, they have little time to actually pastor their own church.  

Johnny Hunt was pastor of one of the largest churches in a denomination intoxicated by numbers.  First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Georgia, grew into this mega congregation under his pastoral leadership.  After thirty-three years as pastor, and multiple terms of service in various places in the SBC, including being elected as its President twice, Hunt got a denominational job as a Senior Vice President at the North American Mission Board, which was convenient since he already lived in the Atlanta area, where it was located.  He had previously served as one of NAMB's trustees, which helped land him the job.  

As a result of his extensive contacts in the SBC, and his service as a pastor, Hunt had several side businesses, all connected to his pastorate and denominational service, that made him some money.  He created a "ministry" which packaged and sold his sermons, since he was a speaker in demand.  As a result of his speaking enterprise, he authored several books.  This is all part of his corporate ministry.  

His transition to NAMB came with more ties to his family businesses.  Although NAMB does have a conflict of interest policy, much of Hunt's family income occurred while he was Senior VP at NAMB, and directed NAMB business into several of the "ministry" businesses operated by himself and his family, this while also drawing a hefty salary and benefits from NAMB.  If you read the second linked article, you can see all of the complicated ties between Hunt's businesses, his family's businesses, to which he directed NAMB business.  

So Why Sue the SBC? 

Hunt became one of the names included in the Guidepost investigation and report into sexual abuse by pastors and church staff in the Southern Baptist Convention, released in May of 2022.  The investigation, ordered by the messengers of a Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in 2019 as the result of an expose into multiple cases of sexual abuse by pastors and church staff members of Southern Baptist churches published by the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express News.  

Initially, Hunt denied the accusations against him, but eventually admitted to them, and expressed sorrow and repentance.  He organized a restoration process for himself, with four pastors who were close friends, and though he had resigned from his position at NAMB, returned to his speaking ministry and family businesses.  The church he had pastored for 33 years, and where he was serving at the time the alleged sexual incident occurred, was not included in his restoration process.  

Hunt eventually sued the Southern Baptist Convention in 2023, a denomination largely responsible for the prosperity of his personal business enterprises and his family's businesses.  He charged the convention with defamation, for revealing information included in the Guidepost investigation.  

Lawsuits against the convention related to the Guidepost investigation have resulted in the executive committee's decision to sell their office building in Nashville.  I guess there's still a few more dollars left to squeeze out of the SBC for Hunt, and for a few others who have done the same as a result of the investigation.  

The Apostle Paul makes it quite clear, in his first epistle to the church in Corinth, that lawsuits among Christians are ill-advised, because they set a poor example for the church, and he closes out that part of his narrative by saying, "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?"  

What Does This Lawsuit, and Sexual Abuse Scandal, Say About the Southern Baptist Convention? 

I don't know whether Johnny Hunt is guilty of the sexual "abuse" he was accused of, or whether his version of events is more accurate than that of his accuser. Megan Basham did not do him any favors by weighing in and "outing" the pastor's wife who was the alleged victim.  Basham's total lack of credibility, and her butting into something that's none of her business gives a lot of weight to the honesty and credibility of the victim's version.  

Southern Baptists are, indeed, independent and autonomous.  However, for one of their big shots accused of a specific incident of sexual misconduct, supported by the evidence produced by a credible investigator, the "restoration process," prescribed in the Bible would have been much better served, and much more credible itself, if he had allowed his former church, where he was still pastor when the alleged abuse occurred, to conduct the process.  Going out and picking four of his good friend, pastors whom he had mentored in the ministry, and getting them to affirm his restoration doesn't quite follow that Biblical process, and unfortunately, in a denomination where such connections commonly bypass protocols and processes designed to be fair, it failed to achieve its desired result, at least as far as I am concerned. 

Clearly, there are instructional parts of the New Testament that are being deliberately ignored.  This is not a good look for someone in a denomination that claims belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible is a major doctrine required for correct interpretation of scripture, and for fellowship with the denomination.  When the literal reading and application insisted upon as an interpretive standard by Southern Baptists is applied, I Corinthians 6:1-9 clearly forbids church members to settle differences by the use of lawsuits in the secular courts.  And it comes just after the Apostle Paul also addresses sexual immorality and how the church is to handle that.  

There's some real inconsistency here in the messaging.  The denomination has found multiple ways to force churches to closely follow their inerrancy and infallibility doctrine, and more recently, it has included specific, literal interpretations of that doctrine to enforce a ban on women serving in churches in pastoral ministry roles.  But it seems powerless to stop a lawsuit brought by a prominent, prestigious pastor who ignored their rules and charted his own course to resolve a sexual abuse allegation and a restoration process.  

The rules don't apply equally to all.