Christianity Today Op Ed

[Cow Poke]

Am I wrong in remembering your support or participation in the group of pastors purposefully violating the Johnson Amendment back in 2016?

Yes.

[mossrose]

Indeed, that's because I find very few worthwhile discussions. Your posts are a perfect example. No substance, just trivial and spiteful.

I'm glad to see you, lm.

[seanD]

It will be interesting... I guess... what their opinion will be when/if he's exonerated by the Senate. We know the left will have a meltdown because it's the partisan thing to do. But what we'll CT think?

[Mountain Man]

No MM - you have created an imaginary version of what I have said and then argued against that 'strawman' as they say.

We are not talking about those things. We are talking about not supporting an immoral leader, not throwing the name of the Church, of Christ, behind a man willing to do what Trump has done and completely unrepentant.

When John the Baptist rebuked Herod for his immorality, he was rebuking a government leader. A person in Politics. But he was not taking a political side, nor was the rebuke aimed at changing or directing politics or policy. He was rebuking the man for his immoral acts, in reality an abuse of power by violating moral law with impunity because of his office.

And that is all the editor at CT is saying. With the caveat that it is impossible to stand vigorously against impeachment without at the same time standing with Trump in his immoral activity. Implying the Church should stand with the idea of removing him from office. Because what he has done goes too far for the church to be behind him, with him, for him in the impeachment process.

No, Jim, I wasn't attacking a straw man. But nice try.

[JimL]

It will be interesting... I guess... what their opinion will be when/if he's exonerated by the Senate. We know the left will have a meltdown because it's the partisan thing to do. But what we'll CT think?

Actually we already know he's guilty, the evidence is indisputable. But he deserves a trial and a chance to exhibit any esculpatory evidence, witnesses or documents that he's been withholding, which might possibly change some minds. At this point, if he's exonerated, then, as Moscow Mitch has already indicated, the fix is in, the cover-up will have succeeded, and the autocrat will reign. Then it'll be up to the voters. If they re-elect him, then unfortunately we will all get what they deserve.

[Cow Poke]

Actually we already know he's guilty, the evidence is indisputable. But he deserves a trial and a chance to exhibit any esculpatory evidence, witnesses or documents that he's been withholding, which might possibly change some minds. At this point, if he's exonerated, then, as Moscow Mitch has already indicated, the fix is in, the cover-up will have succeeded, and the autocrat will reign. Then it'll be up to the voters. If they re-elect him, then unfortunately we will all get what they deserve.

It sounds like you're trying to prepare yourself for the inevitable, Jim. This is good. It won't be such a shock when Trump gets reelected.

[oxmixmudd]

Not how I read it, Jim. And not how JimL read it either, apparently.

Fair enough. Nevertheless that is what I was doing as I raised the issue, and I did the best I know how to make that clear in the post itself.

[oxmixmudd]

Do you think that any of the Democratic contenders are clearly worse than Trump?

Nope. Trump represents an existential thread to the basic elements of government and the integrity of our nation as a whole. The democrats represent policy issues I disagree with and that can be changed through the legitimate processes of that same government, provided ideas like "the president is not above the law" and the emoluments clause and so forth have not been abandoned by the careless and opportunistic narcissists that are currently in power.

[oxmixmudd]

Wow.... so all I have to do is find ONE of them to blow you out of the water?


Warren Calls for Federal Abortion-on-Demand Laws


Elizabeth Warren Says She Supports Abortions Up to Birth

During last night’s Democrat presidential debate, pro-abortion candidate Elizabeth Warren defended her position supporting abortions up to birth – even on fully-formed, healthy, viable babies. She claimed the right to abortion — ending the lives of unborn children — is a “basic human right.”

In answering a question on abortion, Warren said she would not support any limits on abortions at all — placing her squarely in support of abortion on demand up to birth.

HOLT: Senator Warren, would you put limits on — any limits on abortion?

WARREN: I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health care services, and that includes birth control, it includes abortion, it includes everything for a woman. And I want to add on that. It’s not enough for us to expect the courts to protect us. Forty-seven years ago, Roe v. Wade was decided, and we’ve all looked to the courts all that time, as state after state has undermined Roe, has put in exceptions, has come right up to the edge of taking away protections…

Don't worry, Warren is likely not getting my vote ... unless she's running against Trump. And that WILL be a rock and a hard place decision.

[oxmixmudd]

Either this editor votes for no presidents or in each case has chosen not to pay attention to these attributes found among all the politicians. I believe that most anyone here is concerned for the welfare of the people of this nation. So, it doesn't seem that the writer has some greater claim to defending this. There just wasn't anything of substance -- nothing to build an argument upon.

The idea Trump is somehow the equivalent morally of others that have come before him is simply and completely false. He represents a step at least 1 of not 2 orders of magnitude down, and his utter disrespect for the fundamental ideals of our republic coupled with his capacity to rally large numbers of people behind him represents a very serious threat to our form of government.

[Cow Poke]

Don't worry, Warren is likely not getting my vote ... unless she's running against Trump. And that WILL be a rock and a hard place decision.

You might could explain to JimL that Warren is, indeed, very much pro abortion, and that "abortion on demand" is simply a term to express that.

[Cow Poke]

Don't worry, Warren is likely not getting my vote ... unless she's running against Trump. And that WILL be a rock and a hard place decision.

So, could you actually vote for her (assuming she was running against Trump)? Or would you choose to sit this one out.

[oxmixmudd]

You may be interested in Brian Carroll.

Thanks. I'm always a bit reluctant to go outside the two primary parties just because they have zero chance of winning and a vote for them is a forfeited vote against whoever would be the worse from the two parties that will likely fill the office. But I appreciate the information.

[seanD]

The idea Trump is somehow the equivalent morally of others that have come before him is simply and completely false. He represents a step at least 1 of not 2 orders of magnitude down, and his utter disrespect for the fundamental ideals of our republic coupled with his capacity to rally large numbers of people behind him represents a very serious threat to our form of government.

You're playing down systemic corruption in government way too much here, and it's either your TDS blinding you or your naivety (or denial) about how corrupt the system is.

[JimL]

You might could explain to JimL that Warren is, indeed, very much pro abortion, and that "abortion on demand" is simply a term to express that.

She's pro abortion according to the Supreme court ruling, Roe v Wade, not abortion on demand or abortion up until birth as you asserted.