The Christian's relation to politics?

[5 point Gillinist]

Something that I have been curious about since the last presidential election is how does the Christian factor into the country's politics?
I believe that our duty is to be a preservative to a decaying world through Christian ministry, but also through electing officials that carry out righteous policies, and make righteous laws.
Some say; "to vote for the lesser of two evils is to still vote for evil." Usually though they use this as a cop out to not vote in that specific election. But if that is a true statement then realistically we couldn't vote for any leader.

So let's say we have candidate A and B, both have personal lives that are morally reprehensible, and their campaigns are both run on reprehensible promises and policies.
But candidate A has a policy or two let's say; slightly tighter restrictions on abortion, or getting rid of child sex changes etc.
I believe that in spite of Candidate A being a degenerate we still have a God given opportunity to vote, and I believe it should be for the one whose policies are a step in a biblical direction no matter how small.
What are some other opinions?

 

[Salty]

Well, when it comes to the Presidential and Senate races - generally there will be only 2 real choices. Sure, a few times in history there have been a few execptions - ie in 1970, Sen Buckley won the NY US senate seat - on the Conservative party because the Republican was a big liberal. Now, Us Reps, State offices as well as local - there just might be a chance for a person to win who is not an R or D.
I contend that as Christians, we should be involved! And I mean get involved with your local political party. That way, you can have an active say in who does represent your party.

For the most part, we do need to deal with the R or D as a third party normally will not get enough support. IT is possible - but lets not re-invent the wheel.

Now, in NY, we are an exception, as we have the fusion ballot. That means that a person can be on the ballot with more than one party endorsement - actually, there have been some candidates that will run on 4 or even 5 party lines.

Otherwise - there are dozens if not hundreds of minor partys - many which are splits from each other - often over just a few issues - much like a Baptist church! Folks - the way to win is to compromise - not everything - - sure some things we should not. A good example is abortion. If asked, if a bill came up to end all abortion execpt for the liff of the mother, rape or incest - yes I would vote for that bill - now some would say if I did vote for that I am compromising my position - NO- I am not -I would rather end 98% of all abortions - then get nothing. - one other thing - a candidate does have to be careful how he says things - For example - do not mention - that abortion is a religious issue - rather make it a MORAL issues - (keep religion out of it) and mention that groups such as "Atheists against Abortion and "Feminists for Life" will be more acceptable than saying you agree with the SBC!.

I would stay away from an fringe group - it could actually cause you to get less votes.
Get out meet people - join different groups - the Chamber of Commerce, veterans groups. Rotary, ect....

Take action!

And yes, I have run for office - did not win - but I did learn a lot.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Well, when it comes to the Presidential and Senate races - generally there will be only 2 real choices. Sure, a few times in history there have been a few execptions - ie in 1970, Sen Buckley won the NY US senate seat - on the Conservative party because the Republican was a big liberal. Now, Us Reps, State offices as well as local - there just might be a chance for a person to win who is not an R or D.
I contend that as Christians, we should be involved! And I mean get involved with your local political party. That way, you can have an active say in who does represent your party.

For the most part, we do need to deal with the R or D as a third party normally will not get enough support. IT is possible - but lets not re-invent the wheel.

Now, in NY, we are an exception, as we have the fusion ballot. That means that a person can be on the ballot with more than one party endorsement - actually, there have been some candidates that will run on 4 or even 5 party lines.

Otherwise - there are dozens if not hundreds of minor partys - many which are splits from each other - often over just a few issues - much like a Baptist church! Folks - the way to win is to compromise - not everything - - sure some things we should not. A good example is abortion. If asked, if a bill came up to end all abortion execpt for the liff of the mother, rape or incest - yes I would vote for that bill - now some would say if I did vote for that I am compromising my position - NO- I am not -I would rather end 98% of all abortions - then get nothing. - one other thing - a candidate does have to be careful how he says things - For example - do not mention - that abortion is a religious issue - rather make it a MORAL issues - (keep religion out of it) and mention that groups such as "Atheists against Abortion and "Feminists for Life" will be more acceptable than saying you agree with the SBC!.

I would stay away from an fringe group - it could actually cause you to get less votes.
Get out meet people - join different groups - the Chamber of Commerce, veterans groups. Rotary, ect....

Take action!

And yes, I have run for office - did not win - but I did learn a lot.

I agree with your sentiment on abortion, ultimately my goal is abolition, but like you say I'll take what we can get until we arrive at that. It would be foolish in said situation to say it's all or nothing.

 

[Salty]

I agree with your sentiment on abortion, ultimately my goal is abolition, but like you say I'll take what we can get until we arrive at that. It would be foolish in said situation to say it's all or nothing.

I think that has been a pitfall in the past for the Right to Life movement.
IT was all or nothing. - and they got nothing.

Look at the anti-cancer stick folks
about 60 years ago - all they wanted was a short statement on the package "May be hazards to your health"

And NOW - many, many restrictions on smoking -

Moral of the story - - Baby Steps!!!

 

[Salty]

I agree with your sentiment on abortion, ultimately my goal is abolition, but like you say I'll take what we can get until we arrive at that. It would be foolish in said situation to say it's all or nothing.

When I ran for State Assembly - the Constitution Party (all 10 of them) of NY - considered endorsing me; until I said that I would take what I could get. They finally decided to endorse me - but reluctantly.
and now - I don't think they even have an organization in NY anymore.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

I think that has been a pitfall in the past for the Right to Life movement.
IT was all or nothing. - and they got nothing.

Look at the anti-cancer stick folks
about 60 years ago - all they wanted was a short statement on the package "May be hazards to your health"

And NOW - many, many restrictions on smoking -

Moral of the story - - Baby Steps!!!

Unfortunately, the right to life movement leadership, as well as many pro-life politicians, don't seemingly want to abolish abortion (there is a wonderful documentary on youtube about this called "babies are still murdered here"), one such example is a piece of legislation that stated mothers aren't allowed to abort their children if it's due to a mental disorder, which just results in them giving a different reason, not an effective effort at all. It doesn't seem like since I was a kid there has been much if any headway made in the effort until recently. Fortunately, there is a lot more effective legislation being proposed and passed at the state level so that is a win.

 

[JonC]

My view is that Christians are to abstain from politics.

My reasoning is not the individual candidate but the nature of politics itself.

Let's look at the issue of abortion. If there is a positive move in politics against abortion, who gets the glory? God? No. The political party (here the GOP).

At the same time the GOP has no interest in ending abortion. It is all a show to gain votes (abortion was never illegal in the US on a federal level, and overturning Roe vs Wade would not make a difference given the nature of our nation).

If abortion is made illegal then the GOP looses power. The DNC is the same way. Their anti-discrimination platform crumbled decades ago, so they have to create the illusion of oppression and create social injustice in order to maintain power.

The work of a Christian is not about making the World moral but rather is about transforming the world by spreading the gospel.

 

[KenH]

David Lipscomb quoting B.U. Watkins in Lipscomb’s book, "On Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny, and the Christian's Relation to It".

“One of the signs of the great Apostacy, was the union of Church and State. Its chosen symbol was a woman upon the back of a seven headed and ten horned beast. It is almost uniformly admitted, among American Protestants, that this is a well chosen symbol to represent the absurd, and unnatural union of Church and State. It is generally conceded, that the woman represents the Church, and the beast the old Roman civil government. This being true, it would appear far more natural for her to be riding the beast, than for him to have his locomotion promoted by the help of the woman! When the State comes forward and proffers its assistance, and the Church voluntarily accepts of such help, it might be a question, which would be the most to blame; the Church for accepting, or the State for offering such assistance. But when the Church gives, unasked, her power to the beast, no excuse can reasonably be pleaded. If the State supporting the Church, is called an adulterous union, I am unable to see, why the union is not equally intimate, and criminal, when the Church supports the State, by participating in all its responsibilities. When the Church offers her fellowship, and co-operation in framing all the laws of the land, and in choosing its judicial and executive officers - when even her members refuse not to become legislators, and are even forward to fill all the offices of human governments, I cannot see, but the relation between church and State, is as intimate as ever, and just as illegal. Ezekiel chided the ancient Hebrews for seeking such union with the nations; and he compares Israel to a woman of the lowest infamy. It is exceedingly painful to me, to see how aptly these symbols of John and Ezekiel apply to modern professors. But how greatly would I rejoice, if the reformation of the 19th century would arise and put on her beautiful garments, and show herself to be the true spouse of Christ. May the good Lord grant that this noble brotherhood, that I so dearly love, may soon see the whole truth! But here, I am met with the objection, that these institutions are ordained of God. And he who resists them resists an ordinance of God, and shall receive punishment. Let me here pause, and remark, that I would sooner be understood as taking the popular view of this passage, rather than appear to countenance any kind of war. Nothing is further from my intention. But the fact of civil government being ordained of God, is no proof of Divine approbation. So long as it can be clearly shown that he has ordained that one sinner should punish another, so long as we read in Isaiah, that Cyrus was sent against Babylon, although he knew not God, so long as we find it not difficult to admit the application of the above passage, to civil government, whether such be its meaning or not. To make the admission saves much time, and leaves the argument much more compact. Something is gained and nothing lost by granting all we can to our opponents. That God can overrule sin, without being responsible for its commission, and without having any complicity with it, is a thing so plain, that to turn aside to explain it would almost be an insult to those for whom these columns are written. Let a hint suffice. Pharaoh was raised up by God for a certain purpose, although his behavior was far from being approved of God. With a few axioms I will close this article. Axiom 1st, No man has the right of making laws for his own government. For such a right would include the double absurdity of making him independent of God, and responsible only to himself! Axiom 2nd. A republican government is one in which power is thought to be delegated by the people to their rulers, in their act of voting. Axiom 3rd. But a man cannot delegate a power he himself does not possess. Hence, INFERENCE 1st. As man has no inherent legislative power, he cannot transfer it to another. Hence, INFERENCE 2nd. Voting is therefore a deception, and a sham, making a deceiver of him who votes, and a dupe of him who fancies himself the recipient of delegated power.” (emphasis mine)

 

[5 point Gillinist]

My view is that Christians are to abstain from politics.

My reasoning is not the individual candidate but the nature of politics itself.

Let's look at the issue of abortion. If there is a positive move in politics against abortion, who gets the glory? God? No. The political party (here the GOP).

At the same time the GOP has no interest in ending abortion. It is all a show to gain votes (abortion was never illegal in the US on a federal level, and overturning Roe vs Wade would not make a difference given the nature of our nation).

If abortion is made illegal then the GOP looses power. The DNC is the same way. Their anti-discrimination platform crumbled decades ago, so they have to create the illusion of oppression and create social injustice in order to maintain power.

The work of a Christian is not about making the World moral but rather is about transforming the world by spreading the gospel.

I agree with much of what you say, abortion in the US dates back to it's founding unfortunately. However I believe that overturning Roe would be a massive step in the right direction, and I believe that it is a godly endeavor to do so by the political means that God has given us. If someone was running for the presidency that was wanting to make pedophilia legal there is no doubt that both you and I would be out there voting - because in so doing we would be loving our neighbor by keeping someone that depraved out of office.
However, no matter what good things happen in the world unbelievers (and sadly many Christians too) will always credit someone or something other than God. But when we take part in these matters we recognize God as the giver of said good things.
But I very much agree with your latter point, most in the GOP have no intention of abolishing abortion - it is a campaign platform that continues to get them reelected, as with many other hot button issues.
Our primary mission is to preach the gospel, but I think we have a place in politics, part of loving our neighbor (as I mentioned above) is trying to do what we can to preserve what godly morals we can.
Thank you for your input!

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

So let's say we have candidate A and B, both have personal lives that are morally reprehensible, and their campaigns are both run on reprehensible promises and policies.
But candidate A has a policy or two let's say; slightly tighter restrictions on abortion, or getting rid of child sex changes etc.
I believe that in spite of Candidate A being a degenerate we still have a God given opportunity to vote, and I believe it should be for the one whose policies are a step in a biblical direction no matter how small.
What are some other opinions?

I also take into account the office they're running for, not just their positions. The office combined with positions yields what I call "IMPACT". I choose the candidate with the most impact.

For example, in 2020 we had state races here in NC as well as national. I voted REP downballot with a couple exceptions:
1. Ag Commissioner - Voted for the Democrat, BLM, Pro-abortion kook because she promised to advance the cause of small farms. The Rep candidates was big ag through and through. What impact does the Ag Commissioner have on abortion? 0 impact

2. Senator Thom Tillis was up for reelection. I watched what he did with Jan 6th, with Trump and his votes and other comments. I concluded he was a spineless RINO and voted for the Constitution party.

3. School Board Commissioner - There was a Republican that just moved into our community from up North. He knew nothing about our system and his message was to change it to be like Northern systems. There was a Democrat who has lived in our community all her life and knows what our kids need. I also work with her personally at the Farmers Market. I voted for the Democrat in this instance.

As far as National Dems go, I could potentially vote for a couple of them. Tulsi Gabbard, Jim Webb, or Joe Manchin if they were paired up against Mitt Romney, or Susan Collins. However by and large the Nat'l Dems are total nutjobs.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Something that I have been curious about since the last presidential election is how does the Christian factor into the country's politics?
I believe that our duty is to be a preservative to a decaying world through Christian ministry, but also through electing officials that carry out righteous policies, and make righteous laws.
Some say; "to vote for the lesser of two evils is to still vote for evil." Usually though they use this as a cop out to not vote in that specific election. But if that is a true statement then realistically we couldn't vote for any leader.

So let's say we have candidate A and B, both have personal lives that are morally reprehensible, and their campaigns are both run on reprehensible promises and policies.
But candidate A has a policy or two let's say; slightly tighter restrictions on abortion, or getting rid of child sex changes etc.
I believe that in spite of Candidate A being a degenerate we still have a God given opportunity to vote, and I believe it should be for the one whose policies are a step in a biblical direction no matter how small.
What are some other opinions?

"The ends justify the means" is NOT a Christian belief. The Republicans fielded a candidate who was an inveterate liar, a racist, a tax cheat and a womanizer. Beyond that he was perhaps the worst president in U.S. history.I believe the SBC has taken a real beating because of their undying support for a man whom I consider to be the best example of the AntiChrist I've ever seen in American politics. This is borne out in dropping attendance and baptisms. Soul winning is what Christianity is all about not winning elections.

 

[JonC]

"The ends justify the means" is NOT a Christian belief. The Republicans fielded a candidate who was an inveterate liar, a racist, a tax cheat and a womanizer. Beyond that he was perhaps the worst president in U.S. history.I believe the SBC has taken a real beating because of their undying support for a man whom I consider to be the best example of the AntiChrist I've ever seen in American politics. This is borne out in dropping attendance and baptisms. Soul winning is what Christianity is all about not winning elections.

I'd say the problem is larger. It is easy to condemn the DNC as an anti-Christ and anti-Christian platform simply because the DNC is overtly ungodly. But the GOP platform, at least on the surface, often mimics what is important to Christians insofar as a few pet issues.

Once you scratch the surface, however, it is very easy to see neither party is on greater moral ground than the other. Worldly politics is, by definition, against God. Sometimes agendas may align, but Christ never said an enemy of a few ungodly issues is a friend of God. He said you are for Him or against Him.

Again....Christianity + politics = politics

 

[Salty]

"The ends justify the means" is NOT a Christian belief. The Republicans fielded a candidate who was an inveterate liar, a racist, a tax cheat and a womanizer. ...

Which election are you talking about - and that goes for the other party as well!

 

[5 point Gillinist]

"The ends justify the means" is NOT a Christian belief. The Republicans fielded a candidate who was an inveterate liar, a racist, a tax cheat and a womanizer. Beyond that he was perhaps the worst president in U.S. history.I believe the SBC has taken a real beating because of their undying support for a man whom I consider to be the best example of the AntiChrist I've ever seen in American politics. This is borne out in dropping attendance and baptisms. Soul winning is what Christianity is all about not winning elections.

I don't believe I stated that the GOP is the morally upright party, I absolutely believe that by and large the dems have thrown their hand in with anti-christ platforms, but the GOP isn't much better as they have compromised for years, as well as telling outright lies in order to get elected.

But what it seems that you're saying (if pushed to consistency) is we should never vote for anyone due to their own personal sin, not even if they are running on the promise of either tightening abortion regulations or outright abolishing it? This is a hypothetical situation btw and does not take into account the party.

A fatalistic worldview is also unbiblical, and part of loving our neighbor is voting for someone who will potentially bring back a modicum of morality that would benefit fellow neighbors. Again if pushed to consistency would your worldview allow you to vote for a lying, racist, womanizing, tax cheat, if he wanted to abolish child sex changes, drag queen story hour, and all other sexualization of children?

 

[Lodic]

Something that I have been curious about since the last presidential election is how does the Christian factor into the country's politics?
I believe that our duty is to be a preservative to a decaying world through Christian ministry, but also through electing officials that carry out righteous policies, and make righteous laws.
Some say; "to vote for the lesser of two evils is to still vote for evil." Usually though they use this as a cop out to not vote in that specific election. But if that is a true statement then realistically we couldn't vote for any leader.

So let's say we have candidate A and B, both have personal lives that are morally reprehensible, and their campaigns are both run on reprehensible promises and policies.
But candidate A has a policy or two let's say; slightly tighter restrictions on abortion, or getting rid of child sex changes etc.
I believe that in spite of Candidate A being a degenerate we still have a God given opportunity to vote, and I believe it should be for the one whose policies are a step in a biblical direction no matter how small.
What are some other opinions?

Scripture tells us that all have sinned, so we will not find a perfectly moral candidate. However, I would hope to find one that shares Christian values. The more important issue is how they will represent their voters. The candidate who truly promotes Biblical values gets my vote.

I get it that many Christians do not vote for reasons stated above. My own brother shares that view. I personally believe we have a responsibility to vote and to be involved in politics. It's a dirty business, but who else is going to bring in the soap?

 

[FollowTheWay]

I don't believe I stated that the GOP is the morally upright party, I absolutely believe that by and large the dems have thrown their hand in with anti-christ platforms, but the GOP isn't much better as they have compromised for years, as well as telling outright lies in order to get elected.

But what it seems that you're saying (if pushed to consistency) is we should never vote for anyone due to their own personal sin, not even if they are running on the promise of either tightening abortion regulations or outright abolishing it? This is a hypothetical situation btw and does not take into account the party.

A fatalistic worldview is also unbiblical, and part of loving our neighbor is voting for someone who will potentially bring back a modicum of morality that would benefit fellow neighbors. Again if pushed to consistency would your worldview allow you to vote for a lying, racist, womanizing, tax cheat, if he wanted to abolish child sex changes, drag queen story hour, and all other sexualization of children?

The Republican party decided to use abortion as their central theme in attracting the so-called Christian Right to their party at the GOP convention that nominated G Ford to run against Jimmy Carter. This tactic was emphasized by R Reagan and all Republican candidates since. It's a political tool not a moral objective for the GOP. Abortions have always taken place in America and the rest of the world. Illegal ones are riskier than legal ones. One thing that actually reduces the number of abortions is the availability of birth control measures and sex education. By making these more available, the number of abortions has been steadily going down and is now less than when Roe vs. Wade was ruled on by the Supreme Court in 1973.This is not the only political issue and there are other significant sanctity of life issues that Republicans ignore like unnecessary war, capital punishment, and providing the poor with adequate food, shelter and medical care. So you're claiming that supporting a candidate like Trump is the "Christian thing to do" despite the very negative impact that has had on the southern Baptist denomination? Reducing the appeal of the gospel for today's younger generation and thereby reducing church attendance and decisions made to follow Jesus is much more important than following the Republican party.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

The Republican party decided to use abortion as their central theme in attracting the so-called Christian Right to their party at the GOP convention that nominated G Ford to run against Jimmy Carter. This tactic was emphasized by R Reagan and all Republican candidates since. It's a political tool not a moral objective for the GOP. Abortions have always taken place in America and the rest of the world. Illegal ones are riskier than legal ones. One thing that actually reduces the number of abortions is the availability of birth control measures and sex education. By making these more available, the number of abortions has been steadily going down and is now less than when Roe vs. Wade was ruled on by the Supreme Court in 1973.This is not the only political issue and there are other significant sanctity of life issues that Republicans ignore like unnecessary war, capital punishment, and providing the poor with adequate food, shelter and medical care. So you're claiming that supporting a candidate like Trump is the "Christian thing to do" despite the very negative impact that has had on the southern Baptist denomination? Reducing the appeal of the gospel for today's younger generation and thereby reducing church attendance and decisions made to follow Jesus is much more important than following the Republican party.

You seem to be coming at this from the perspective that I am a republican. I am not, I hold biblical values that some republicans may hold to (or claim to hold to) therefore if I deem it a worthy cause to vote for them I will. I've been quite frank about the GOP in these comments. So it confuses me as to why you want to paint me into that corner - is everything black and white to you, or is it just easier for you to strawman me?

The fact that abortions have always taken place is irrelevant, I want to work to abolish them. So then are you for "legal abortion?" Because it is safer? If someone is looking to murder their child in the womb I don't want to facilitate a nice safe environment to do that - in fact I believe that the doctors that perform said acts, and the women who seek them out should receive the death penalty for murder. But from your comment it seems that you don't believe life is sacred as you oppose capital punishment - which God decrees for murderers.

Birth control induces miscarriage, and is and of itself an abortion, known as an abortifacient. I don't believe in making these available at all.

The democrats are interestingly enough for unnecessary wars as well. Desert storm 2 (or the more patriotic sounding "Iraqi freedom"), and now this Ukraine debacle. The DEMS care nothing for the poor, that is a joke, their cities are filled with the homeless, as well as rampant crime. As well as being for capital punishment for the innocent and helpless.

I never mentioned Trump, that was you. It's easier to attack a strawman, isn't it? I perceive that JonC isn't exactly conservative (I could be wrong on that), but he was able to actually engage with me and make his points without reading Trump into my comments, or misrepresenting me. I made my initial comment politically ambiguous so as to avoid this kind of ridiculous Trump witch hunt that you are conducting.

The SBC is failing because of the increasing "wokeness" aka liberalism that is invading it, and all the ungodly doctrines that come with it - CRT being the flavor of the decade so far.

I wonder if you hold the same disgust for Biden's degenerate personal (and political) life as you do for Trump's? Or maybe you don't actually care about that, you just don't like Trump - which is fine, just be honest about it.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

I also take into account the office they're running for, not just their positions. The office combined with positions yields what I call "IMPACT". I choose the candidate with the most impact.

For example, in 2020 we had state races here in NC as well as national. I voted REP downballot with a couple exceptions:
1. Ag Commissioner - Voted for the Democrat, BLM, Pro-abortion kook because she promised to advance the cause of small farms. The Rep candidates was big ag through and through. What impact does the Ag Commissioner have on abortion? 0 impact

2. Senator Thom Tillis was up for reelection. I watched what he did with Jan 6th, with Trump and his votes and other comments. I concluded he was a spineless RINO and voted for the Constitution party.

3. School Board Commissioner - There was a Republican that just moved into our community from up North. He knew nothing about our system and his message was to change it to be like Northern systems. There was a Democrat who has lived in our community all her life and knows what our kids need. I also work with her personally at the Farmers Market. I voted for the Democrat in this instance.

As far as National Dems go, I could potentially vote for a couple of them. Tulsi Gabbard, Jim Webb, or Joe Manchin if they were paired up against Mitt Romney, or Susan Collins. However by and large the Nat'l Dems are total nutjobs.

Voting for a candidate, or not voting for a candidate because of the letter next to their name is not a wise choice, you are right in exercising wisdom in this, not just voting straight R or D, but weighing what they stand for.

 

[DaveXR650]

Which election are you talking about - and that goes for the other party as well!

Salty, that's a good point. I read the guys like Russell Moore and Tim Keller and it always amazes me the double standard that they follow. Article after article talks about the horrible situation of white evangelicals voting 80 percent for a Republican and never a word about another group of people who always vote over 90% Democrat.

 

[FollowTheWay]

You seem to be coming at this from the perspective that I am a republican. I am not, I hold biblical values that some republicans may hold to (or claim to hold to) therefore if I deem it a worthy cause to vote for them I will. I've been quite frank about the GOP in these comments. So it confuses me as to why you want to paint me into that corner - is everything black and white to you, or is it just easier for you to strawman me?

The fact that abortions have always taken place is irrelevant, I want to work to abolish them. So then are you for "legal abortion?" Because it is safer? If someone is looking to murder their child in the womb I don't want to facilitate a nice safe environment to do that - in fact I believe that the doctors that perform said acts, and the women who seek them out should receive the death penalty for murder. But from your comment it seems that you don't believe life is sacred as you oppose capital punishment - which God decrees for murderers.

Birth control induces miscarriage, and is and of itself an abortion, known as an abortifacient. I don't believe in making these available at all.

The democrats are interestingly enough for unnecessary wars as well. Desert storm 2 (or the more patriotic sounding "Iraqi freedom"), and now this Ukraine debacle. The DEMS care nothing for the poor, that is a joke, their cities are filled with the homeless, as well as rampant crime. As well as being for capital punishment for the innocent and helpless.

I never mentioned Trump, that was you. It's easier to attack a strawman, isn't it? I perceive that JonC isn't exactly conservative (I could be wrong on that), but he was able to actually engage with me and make his points without reading Trump into my comments, or misrepresenting me. I made my initial comment politically ambiguous so as to avoid this kind of ridiculous Trump witch hunt that you are conducting.

The SBC is failing because of the increasing "wokeness" aka liberalism that is invading it, and all the ungodly doctrines that come with it - CRT being the flavor of the decade so far.

I wonder if you hold the same disgust for Biden's degenerate personal (and political) life as you do for Trump's? Or maybe you don't actually care about that, you just don't like Trump - which is fine, just be honest about it.

I'm for saving life. It's not just about abortion. Millions of lives are lost in unnecessary wars. What was gained on either side by the Vietnam war, the Iraq war or the War in Afghanistan. Why do so-called pro-life people reject plans to provide food, shelter and medical care for the poor and needy? Do y7ou support capital punishment? that is the taking of a human life.