I can understand voting for Donald Trump

I voted sticker

We may be less inclined than usual to wear the proud sticker this November

I can understand voting for Donald Trump… if you are xenophobic. The world can be a scary place. You might go to watch a friend’s child in a play in Knoxville, and a man with a shotgun might come in and start shooting. It happens. OR, you might be dropping off your child at daycare in the federal building where you work in Oklahoma City and a truck bomb goes off, creating a crater thirty feet wide and eight feet deep, an earthquake that registered a 3.0 on the Richter scale, and could be heard and felt fifty-five miles away. It happens. OR you might have to work for the IRS in Austin and a suicide pilot flies into your building. It happens. Maybe Mr. Trump can stop these things from happening. After all, he wants to close our borders. But wait… these incidents, and there are others, were perpetrated by white natural born citizens of the United States so that would not have helped.


I can understand voting for Donald Trump… if you are so angry with American politics that absolutely anything will be better than what we have now. It couldn’t possibly get any worse. You may think that at least he will do SOMETHING, even if it’s wrong.

I can understand voting for Donald Trump if ethics, integrity, thoughtfulness, and consistency are not important to you or if you disagree with the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights.


I expect my President to be qualified for the office, to understand the Constitution, to possess true leadership ability (a tyrant is not a leader), and not to be vulgar, offensive, or coarse. I expect my President to understand that people on both sides of an issue can have legitimate reasons for thinking as they do and be able to develop ways to bring them together.

Voting for Donald Trump

I cannot understand a parent voting for Donald Trump.

Is this a man we want our children to emulate?

A President is an example to our children whether we intend it or not. How can we teach them that it is wrong to belittle, bully, and trash others when he is doing it? What is a President Trump going to contribute to the moral fiber of our society? It hasn’t been so long ago that we were pounding President Bill Clinton for having an extra-marital affair. What has happened to us that we are now willing to put a man in office that is more concerned with the size of his hands than with the practicability of his policies. Christian women, how would you feel if your husband spoke to you or about you the way this man speaks to and about women?



I cannot understand a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ voting for Donald Trump.

picture of Donald Trump


Blessed [favored by God] are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.


Does Jesus’ teaching mean nothing to us? Does it no longer hold any sway over our behavior? I’m not talking about the behavior of the general population; I’m talking about the behavior of the people who are supposed to be the hands and feet of Jesus in our world. Where in the Bible does it say that if our opposition is pressing in, that we may ignore what Jesus says and do what it takes to get our way?

loose cannon – n – a person who cannot be controlled and who does or says things that cause problems, embarrassment, etc., for others: a dangerously uncontrollable person or thing


Donald Trump is a loose cannon. We don’t really know what he will do when he gets into office. When the proverbial stuff hits the fan, it will settle and certainly run downhill. If the world is lucky, the citizens of the United States will be the only ones affected, and it will be our fault. It won’t be Mr. Trump’s. He’s just being who he is. We can’t blame the dog for killing the chickens when we let him into the hen house.

We are not being who we are, God’s people, purchased at a great price to be His representatives on earth, set apart as different because of our love and compassion for the world. We are being something ugly and fearful.

It will be ALL. OUR. FAULT.



Do character, kindness, and morality still matter? This article by Randy Alcorn is long. Count the paragraphs as you scroll down and start at number 12. Imagine having a guest for dinner with your family…


RFRA is not Christian versus Gay

RFRAThe Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is not Christian versus Gay. I have said before that regardless of anyone’s feelings the morality of gay marriage, I feel that it would be unconstitutional to deny the LGBT population that right. However, matters of conscience can be tricky things and should not be ignored. For my own (and hopefully your) edification, I would like to give a brief history of the law and discuss Christian reactions to it that have come across my Facebook feed.

The original RFRA was passed in 1993 by Congress, unanimously in the house and 97-3 in the Senate. It states, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” So even if a law was not intentionally a burden to the free practice of religion, it could still be a burden and thus would be illegal. The exception to the rule would be if it were unavoidable for the furthering of a compelling government interest. Compelling government interests are things that refer to public good, law and order, and constitutionality. A friend of mine explained it to me like this.

The upshot is that if the government unduly interferes in the religious practice of a person (the law above was passed in response to the Employment Division v Smith, in which a couple of Native American men were denied employment based on their use of peyote in long-standing religious rituals) that person or those persons have the right to sue for damages. It makes an exception for government “interests” or activities that we expect the government to enforce or uphold, regardless of religious beliefs.

There was an instance in which a Muslim man in prison wasn’t permitted to wear a beard, although his religion required him to have a beard at least half an inch long. There were exceptions for medical reasons but not for religious reasons. In that instance, because it didn’t interfere with the compelling interest of the government, which was to keep him in prison for the duration of his sentence, it was considered a violation of RFRA. If he had argued that he should be released so that he could make a pilgrimage to Mecca, that would have been ignored as it went counter to the government’s compelling interest to keep him incarcerated for the duration of his sentence.

This applied only to violations by the Federal government. Thirty-one states now have RFRA protections either by legislation or by state court decisions. From the Washing Post blog of April 1:

“These state RFRAs were enacted in response to Supreme Court decisions that had nothing to do with gay rights or same-sex marriage,” explained University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock in an e-mail. “And the state court decisions interpreting their state constitutions arose in all sorts of contexts, mostly far removed from gay rights or same-sex marriage. There were cases about Amish buggies, hunting moose for native Alaskan funeral rituals, an attempt to take a church building by eminent domain, landmark laws that prohibited churches from modifying their buildings – all sorts of diverse conflicts between religious practice and pervasive regulation.”

Why is there such an uproar about Indiana? Indiana, unlike most other states, allowed any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion,” and any individual could assert a violation whether or not any government entity was a party to the proceeding. This was seen as a license to refuse service to members of the LGBT. community. There has been such a backlash against Indiana and their law that they hastily passed an amendment. In Mike Pence’s own words on April 2:

Hoosiers deserve to know, that even with this legislation, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act enhances protections for every church, non-profit religious organization or society, religious school, rabbi, priest, preacher, minister or pastor in the review of government action where their religious liberty is infringed. The law also enhances protection in religious liberty cases for groups of individuals and businesses in conscience decisions that do not involve provision of goods and services, employment and housing.


Crisis in Conscience

Comments on a Facebook Christian page showed that these Christians had no problem with serving gay customers in a store or selling them a birthday cake. But they feel that coercing them to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, however, is forcing them to participate in an event which they believe to be wrong. Serving gays in general is not the problem but the specific event. One person said,

I have asked a gay friend, “What if gay bakers were asked to make cupcakes for an anti-gay marriage rally? Should they be compelled to serve that event?” When the shoe is on the other foot it makes sense to them (sometimes). My friend replied that the gay bakers should in fact “comply,” but it I think it gave him some good perspective. They would obviously be serving an event they disagree with, and I wouldn’t want them to be compelled to do such a thing. Honestly, i can’t even believe we have to ask these questions; it seems so obvious to me that one should not have to burden one’s conscience that way, especially when there are alternative providers willing to serve such an event.

Randall Smith wrote a good post commenting that there is a difference between having to tolerate things with which you disagree; it is another entirely to force someone to participate in those things. This can create a crisis in conscience.

Another person pointed out a potential hypocrisy wondering how many Christian businesses refuse to serve bachelor parties or baby showers for unwed cohabitants. On another page, a Christian commenter took this one step further and said that because no one refused to serve these events, to refuse to serve a gay wedding was blatant and purposeful discrimination. Some expressed reservations about giving special powers of refusal to certain jobs or vocations: pastor vs wedding planner. Some took the capitalistic approach.

I’m of the opinion that businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone they please for any reason they like.
“Are those the new Jordans?”
“No soup for you!”
Can’t believe is even a debate.
If you think the business owner’s a bigot… don’t hire them.

I would like everyone to understand that while there are undoubtedly some Christians who are bigots and discriminatory, that is not the norm. Many of the comments talked about how to go about acting in love without compromising the conscience. We have differences of opinion but can discuss them with civility. People have different experiences and histories that affect their consciences and how they think about political and cultural issues. Our country should maintain the right of every citizen to act or not act, on matters of conscience. RFRA isn’t just for Christians.

I had copied the legal summary of the RFRA law onto my FB status and asked, “What does this mean exactly?” I got the following comment.

This law allows idiot, ill-informed, bigoted Religion and Faith Needers to exercise their right to be just that without any hope of litigation and or restitution. It allows discriminatory practices, legal snow-blowing as well as Character Assassination if it fits within the religious framework of the defendant. It’s a right to be insane without any actual consequences. It’s the first step in a violation of Church and State Separation, and I told you it was coming. It’s like Med-Fair, only the idiots here who dress up are supposed to be taken seriously when it comes to your rights as an American Citizen and not a citizen of a Theocracy. It’s Nazi and It’s Christian in its inception. Welcome to the world that Faith (STUPIDITY) can provide.

“Religious” people do not have a monopoly on hate and vitriol.


What have we to do with judging outsiders?

Why do we as Christians feel as though non-believers should behave as we do? Non-Christians have no reason to adhere to the moral laws of the Judeo-Christian Bible and trying to make them do so is not only counterproductive, it is putting things in the wrong order.

Matthew 28:19-20 tells us to go and make disciples, baptize them, THEN teach them to observe all that He taught. The first step is to make them disciples.  If we could outlaw homosexuality, promiscuity, and drunkenness, if we could manage to enforce those laws, if we could eradicate all immoral, criminal, and addictive behaviors, if everyone went to church every Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday night, would we have made them Christians?


Jesus had scathing comments to those who appeared clean and beautiful on the outside but were “whitewashed tombs” filled with death and decay. Creating a whitewashed environment does not accomplish our goal. What we would accomplish is making ourselves comfortable. We would no longer have to be confronted with the different. I am afraid that being comfortable is not what Jesus had in mind for us. Jesus befriended the different, those that made the religious establishment of the day cringe. Now we have set ourselves up as the religious establishment and are  doing the exact same things. We have become modern day Pharisees, glued to the letter of the law while ignoring the the main point. We have become Caiaphas, more interested in maintaining power and tradition than in the lives and souls of our neighbors.

We are supposed to love our neighbors as ourselves. Who are our neighbors? They are the group of rowdy young college kids that rented the house down the street and block the street with cars on Friday and Saturday nights for their parties. They are the elderly that can’t get out of the house and have to have food delivered. No one visits them. They are the lesbian couple that just moved in next door that you try very hard to ignore.

“..Even as I have loved you,” Jesus said. He died for us. I think that is what God is telling us to do, to love our neighbors so much that we would die for them if necessary. Our love should be that blinding. It should be attractive, not repelling. We are God’s representatives on earth. When people see us, do they say, “I want what that person has,” or do they say, “I want no part of that!”?

The point of this ramble is that I think we are making a serious mistake when we use politics to coerce non-believers into a system that does not belong to them, AND it is not constitutional.  What the religious wing of conservative politics is doing is wrong, both morally and constitutionally and I think the fight will lead to the end of our religious freedom.

His name is Dennis Ingolfsland. I had never heard of him before I found this but his logic is sound. I don’t agree with the idea that it is a compromise. I just believe it is the right thing to do and the consequences he predicts are probable.

For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Paul in First Corinthians 5:12-13

Beating everyone into submission by law builds barriers between them and God.

If any non-believers are reading this, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience is constitutional. Do not force a doctor to perform an abortion if she/he feels it is wrong. Do not force the Catholic Church to pay for things they have been against for centuries. They did not come up with this idea just to spite women of 21st century America. God gives you the right to accept or reject Him so I do too. I am giving you the freedom to be right or wrong. Do the same for me.

I don’t expect everyone to agree with me but I do hope people will start thinking in a different paradigm. I want to hear what you think, respectfully of course. Please leave a comment.