Second, the Washington Post only did one side of the story. They didn't bother to find evangelicals who are voting for Trump, don't believe Trump is a racist, and believe that a pro-life President is paramount in fighting abortion. The evangelicals that the Washington Compost located generally seem to think that abortion is important, BUT Trump is a misogynist, racist bigot and that should be of equal or more importance. These evangelicals believe that gives them a pass to support Hillary.
The first person they quote is an African American pastor concerned that Trump is a racist. However, Trump has been in business for many, many years. The Trump Org is well known, and Trump was a public figure long before running for President. If Trump was a racist, don't you think that would have been known? Continuing on, though, African Americans overwhelmingly vote Democrat even if they are socially conservative. This is why people like Hillary will go speak at black churches. Therefore, my suspicion is whether or not this pastor voted Republican in the past and changed because of Trump or if he was always Democrat. Citing someone who was always Democrat in an article which implies normally Republican voting, pro-life evangelicals are considering switching to the Democrat party because Trump is a racist is disingenuous.
The second person they interview is the president of Students For Life who says that young people, unlike older pro-lifers, are "turned off by politics and partisanship" surrounding the abortion issue. She says you don't have to vote for Trump to be pro-life. Some people think you do, but it's a disagreement on "strategy." She says,
“They aren’t fans of Hillary Clinton but they look on the other side and see these divisive statements [by Trump], that many would say are racist or misogynist, what do you do? And morally what’s the best decision for you?”
I'm finding it hard to believe an evangelical who is conservative is going to think that Trump is racist. I would presume that most conservatives knew what Trump was referring to in his comments about the judge, even though said comments were poorly articulated. Second, the Muslim ban is in order to ensure that the Muslims who come into the country aren't affiliated with radical Islam. There appears to be a bit of confusion with the Muslim ban anyway because Trump said in his foreign policy speech that he would be not allowing in people from countries with ties to terrorism.
The managing editor of Christianity Today is the third person quoted who says there are pro-lifers who ration they can work to end abortion by volunteering at places like Crisis Pregnancy centers. It doesn't need to be made illegal. This shows, to me, that they truly don't understand the issue. If they believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, then it absolutely is unconstitutional and should not be legal. The 5th and 14th Amendments make clear that states have a duty to protect the lives of all persons.
Now we hit person number four, an actual evangelical who has come out and endorsed Hillary. Deborah Fikes from the National Association of Evangelicals and the World Evangelical Alliance is offended over Trump's Muslim comments. She thinks "Trump’s comments on Muslims in particular could “unravel” American advances on religious freedom overseas." I suppose she isn't concerned with the threat of radical Islam and what that will do to religious freedom of Christians.
She also believes that abortion doesn't have to be made illegal. She says:
“the more you dig into the real facts and factors of what makes abortion rates go up and down, evangelicals are finding ways to approach that differently [rather than automatically voting for the GOP nominee] without feeling their conscience is violated.”
Once again, if you are pro-life, you believe that it is the legalized killing of a human being. If it were legal to kill toddlers or senior citizens, would she be trying to justify finding ways to approach the issue without voting for a candidate that will make it illegal or at least legally reduce abortion?
The article then talks about how there are less white evangelicals, with 25% of the people now being minority. Therefore, there is concern about white privilege the article says. It talks about how a leader in the Black Lives Matter movement addressed the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship.
We reach the 5th person, Eric Teetsel. Eric Teetsel is a former faith advisor for Rubio who clearly wants to be liked by the liberals. Our side is willing to do dumb stuff like the stuff Eric did to try to appeal to the media and liberals. "Look," they say, "I'm not like them. I'm not like how you portray us to be. Please like us." This tactic was tried by prominent Republicans McCain and Romney. It served them well. Anyway, Eric Teetsel, who claims to be pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, decided to stand outside of Trump's meeting with evangelicals with a sign saying, “'Racism is not pro-life. Misogyny is not pro-life,' among other lines."
Seeing our side use liberal talking points and shooting ourselves in the foot to spite our face is ridiculous. This guy is willing to allow Roe vs. Wade to continue over liberal talking points against Trump.
Up next is person number six, Denny Burk, a guy who in addition to being an author and blogger is a teacher at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He says abortion IS as important as ever, BUT there are moral problems in voting for Trump because he appeals to racists and wants to commit war crimes. God forbid, of course, that we waterboard the sort of monsters who would shoot up a nightclub, blow up/shoot up and airport, bomb/shoot up Paris, etc. Burk then announces he's voting for... Well, we don't know because Mr. Burk refuses to say.
Lastly, we head to Bethlehem Baptist Church with pastor Kenny Piper. He hosts a pro-life Sunday in January and a racial harmony Sunday. He said in his "sphere" people are "waking up" to racial injustice causing a "political crisis." Because of this, it's more complicating than someone just automatically voting for a pro-life candidate when that pro-life candidate doesn't care about racial justice (presumably like a Democrat candidate).
Here's some racial injustice for you, though, Mr. Piper and others who say they are pro-life and anti-racist. Hillary Clinton supports Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist. Planned Parenthood puts the majority of its centers in minority neighborhoods. Black people make up 13% of population but get 36% of abortions. Margaret Sanger would be pleased.
We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
~Margaret Sanger
Now we have finished the article. The article set up a premise that Trump is racist. It didn't seek to counter that. Hence, "conflicted" evangelicals are now dealing with a Sophie's Choice of racism vs. abortion. Even if we state that premise is true, everyone interviewed by the article seems to lean towards (if they aren't already there) the notion that racism is worse than abortion or at least a valid reason to vote for Hillary. Putting them on that equal playing field with the premise set up by the article, there isn't a person interviewed who is openly supporting Trump because abortion is worse. Back to my point, there is no one interviewed that questions or counters the premise of the article which is that Trump is a racist.
What crap. Abortion. A racist has the possibility to change. Cant bring back the dead.
Lets talk about the tens of millions of black racists in this country presently.
If Trump is a racist why did he give money to the non-politician Al Sharpton?
Mexican is not a race, it is a nationality.
God Himself established the institution of nationality. It may be a blessing for believers and unbelievers alike, provided they respect the legitimate authority within the institution.
Trump merely identifies the authority of our nation is not being respected by our neighbors and proposes to enforce our borders. Such is not a policy of racism, but of national defense.
Opposition to radical Islam is not racist. It is a common sensical approach to national defense, without ignoring the threats posed and expressed by Islamic leaders against the West. Refusal to recognize the threat to our national security posed by radical Islam is ignorant of Muslim theology, as well as what God provides in His Word.
Evangelicals support both positions by Trump to defend our borders from Islamic invasion and illegal immigration from Mexico.
Christians aren’t absorbed by types of sin. All personal sins, past, present, and future were judged at the Cross.
Sin is no longer the issue in regards to our ability to be forgiven and have fellowship with God. This is why sin may be forgiven in an instant, when we simply face Him and confess our sin to Him. They have already been judged. We all are condemned prior to salvation.
Good and evil have not been so judged. They will be dealt with in time. The Puritans and Congregationalists have written tomes regarding these topics and were foundational for our forefathers in preparing the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
A non-Christian liberal writing about evangelical Christians is completely clueless? Color me surprised.
I guess they think if they keep shouting “Trump is racist!” over and over again, people will believe it, even though Trump’s policies would objectively benefit minorities. And the unfortunate thing is, they may be right. Since the left has a near-monopoly on media talking heads all singing the same tune.
That said, taking her straw man at face value, murdering babies is indeed worse than having impolite opinions. But I doubt she’d agree.
Once again the compost throws a turd in the salad
and expects people to chow down....what a waste of paper
The headline is a load. I doubt the scribbler spoke to more than ten grass roots evangelicals.
It is true, I think, that the YOUTH in evangelical churches are more prone to think about race issues, but that is more a product of the culture at LARGE lying to them than the truth they’re taught (hopefully) in the church.
All Christians ( not just evangelicals) despise the religion of Molech and the idea of racism. Jesus and the disciples loved and witnessed the truth to all men.
I grant the history of Christianity has not always been one of racial integration. Some Americans adopted religious arguments to justify slavery and other bad acts (I would note they wear generally Democrats). The argument is strong, though, that those were, in the end, ECONOMIC prejudices and not part and parcel of Judeo-Christian morals.
Chelsea Clinton walked out of a Southern Baptist Church and left her daddy—the racist—singing in the choir after hearing about the “abortion” term being used while present there. The early socialists were mostly racists and Margaret Sanger didn’t have to deal with the subject. No evangelical wants his/her tax dollars to pay for any abortions at all. It is a color blind issue.
Oh BS. Abortion by a 1000 miles
If we challenge the premise that Trump’s policies are racist (they are not) and the false choice between racism and abortion, we enter the realm of logic and truth.
This article is outside that realm.
Where in the Bible is racism condemned as a sin?
They don’t understand that sin is sin, one is not worse than the other, and it all has the same sentence, separation from God forever in the lake of fire.
The only cure for the sin that separates us from God is through Jesus, Gods’s son who gave himself in our place of judgment to give us life.
There is no other way.
I believe abortion is murder, but also hatred. They are both pretty bad.
1 John 3:15: Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
If I recall correctly, minorities as a group have the highest abortion rate.
At least racism has a chance of healing over time. Abortion is final.
You do not "believe" that abortion is killing; you know that it is killing because all of the scientific evidence shows that it is the killing of a human being.
Using the word "believe" to describe your pro-life position casts the issue of life as a matter of opinion. It is not. Those who are pro-abortion can believe that the unborn fetus is not a living human being all they want; there is not a shred of evidence to support that belief. The evidence is on our side. Let us not be afraid to be assertive about it. We know that abortion kills human infants.
Where in hell do these people get off describing everyone they don’t like or agree with.... racist? I keep hearing this about Trump and I keep wondering where in the world did they get that idea... it’s a lie from the beginning when they tried to label him over immigration, and the label stuck with those who don’t have any sense. illegals being dumped here for sinister reasons, is finally becoming obvious that it’s wrong... Trump is not racist and the political correct police are the ones to blame.
Hillary is the racist and the one who hates anyone and everyone who isn’t the elite of the world. What she has done is beyond the pale, and they don’t mind how bad she is... for they are of the same cloth. Trump brought all the bad dudes out in the open .... surprising the deep pit they are in... of their own making and they do not know how steeped in corruption they all are. To let it go on unabated just for the sake of being able to kill little babies... They have no conscience.
This is quite a biased article. Agenda driven, clearly.
As far as the supposed premise, the Old Testament is overwhelmingly the story of worshipping God as opposed to killing babies.
Oh,brother.
Racism has not killed 60 million innocent children since 1973 in America.
Since Trump is not a racist and Evangelicals and every other honest person will say that, this is a rhetorical question.
Actually, he was accusing the judge of race-based bias.
There appears to be a bit of confusion with the Muslim ban anyway because Trump said in his foreign policy speech that he would be not allowing in people from countries with ties to terrorism.
Who are overwhelmingly muslim.
It isn't recognized that our current policy is to exclude Christians from those countries. How is it racist to exclude muslims from the war zone, but not racist to exclude Christians from those very same countries?
If you support Al Qaeda or Isis you are considered a refugee, because you are under attack by the government. If you are a Christian, facing attack by Isis and Al Qaeda, you are by the rules not a refugee, because your attackers are not in the government.
And so the only real refugees are excluded by State Department policy. And anyone who wants to change the policy is a bigot, according to them.