Donald Trump and the Coming Christian Political Realignment

As Donald Trump has maintained strong leads in primary states like South Carolina, some observers like Matt Lewis have begun to speculate about what it would be like if this guy actually became president. I still believe (and fervently hope, for the sake of the republic) that Trump has no chance of becoming president, but I am reluctantly starting to realize that he could indeed win the Republican nomination. If that is the case, “Republicans” (whomever they may be) will have squandered any shot at the presidency for 2016. I still like to think that people of good sense will unite and stop Trump’s reality show from relocating to the White House.

What is more interesting to me than the unlikely prospect of a Trump presidency, is what his nomination might do to the already-fragile links between the GOP and the people whom I have often called “paleo evangelicals.” These folks are not liberals in any sense, but they have been disheartened by the paltry results produced by the thirty-five year alliance between white evangelicals and the GOP. They have squirmed as the GOP has repeatedly nominated candidates (like Mitt Romney) with weak credentials on issues that matter most, such as the right to life for unborn children.

It is hard to say how badly a Trump nomination would damage the Reagan-era union between evangelicals and the GOP. I know that polls suggest that Trump has strong “evangelical” support, but polls also suggest that “churchgoing” evangelicals (as if there is such a thing as a non-churchgoing evangelical!) don’t support Trump as much. I hope that a Trump nomination would lead to a significant defection of Christian voters from the GOP, at least for the 2016 presidential race. Most defectors would simply not vote for one of the two major parties’ nominees, while others would vote for the Democrat. There was not nearly as much disaffection from John McCain and Mitt Romney as you would see with a Trump nomination.

For what it is worth, here’s the bottom line for me, a conservative Christian who typically votes Republican, but has never been all that enamored with the GOP. I will not support Trump under any circumstances, and I would use what little influence I have to stop him from being elected president. If that means that Hillary Clinton or another Democrat gets elected by default, I am fine with that. How many other “evangelicals” there are like me, I don’t really know. Anecdotal information from WORLD Magazine’s survey of evangelical insiders (in which I have participated) suggests that he has virtually no support among the people WORLD is asking.

I held my nose and voted for McCain and Romney – but Trump is an entirely different question. I will not vote for someone so boorish, who has no clue about most basic political issues, much less those most important to Christian conservatives (including religious liberty and abortion). I will not vote for a misogynist reality tv star whose campaign is based on starting stupid fights. I won’t do it, and I hope that millions within the supposed GOP “base” would join me.

[Friends, you can sign up here for my Thomas S. Kidd author newsletter. Each newsletter will update you on what’s happening in my writing and in the world of American religious and political history. It will contain unique material available only to subscribers, and each will help you keep up with my blog posts, books, and other writings from around the web. Your e-mail information will never be shared. Thanks!]

God and the 2016 Presidential Debates
Hey White Evangelicals, Welcome to Anabaptism
The Culture Wars and Evangelical "Evangelism"
The Bonhoeffer Effect, "Unpleasant Parallels," and the 2016 Election
  • GeeJohn

    Count me with you on this. I’m nearly 50, cast my first vote for Reagan, and never have voted for a Democrat. The damage he would do to the social fabric with his demeanor would exceed the damage Hillary’s socialism would do people’s lives.

  • kierkegaard71

    It is clear to me that you are a conservative. One who has little problem with warmongers like John McCain who gleefully speak of “bomb..bomb…bombing” Iran. You are uncompromisingly turned off by personal boorishness in Donald Trump, yet you have not had much problem supporting advocates of policies which have helped to ignite the “powder keg” of the Middle East and have helped to rapidly extinguish Christian presence and testimony in Iraq, Libya, and beyond. Donald Trump is, in fact, when you get past the bluster, doing a great service. He is advocating for a more non-interventionist foreign policy when it comes to Syria, whereas the rest of the Republican pack, including Rand Paul, are, in reality, rushing us toward war with Iran. So, I share your distaste for Trump at a personal level. However, I disagree with your priorities. I find Trump preferable to any in the GOP pack, especially with regard to foreign policy, where the President has the most sway. However, I probably won’t vote for President again. I am resigned to hopelessness. Whatever figurehead you put at the top of Leviathan will have little influence in re-directing or restraining the beast.

  • cken

    Sadly I think your last three sentences are right. However, it is those who stay at home and don’t vote for the lesser of two evils that allowed Obama to win the last election. Certainly if Romney had won we would be headed in a different direction than we now are. As it turns out all the bad or negative things Romney predicted would happen under Obama have in fact come to pass. The latest being failing Coops and an Obamacare which is failing miserably.

  • John Hutchinson

    “vote for the lesser of two evils”

    So if there was a plebiscite in 1939 Poland as to whether the Poles wished to be governed henceforth under Hitler or under Stalin, you would advocate the lesser of the two evils, as if the Pole in foresight could really tell, first of all. But if the person that the Pole voted for got to rule and do their “thing”, the Pole’s credibility would take a little tumble for having brought about whatever atrocities happened under his “lesser of two evils” choice. The hypothetical argument by the Pole that the other guy would have been worse would probably fall on deaf ears.

    There is sound basis for scratched ballots.

  • cken

    You are right we can never know in hindsight which of the two evils were lesser because one never came into power. That doesn’t excuse us from trying to predetermine which would be the lesser.

  • hamous

    I think we would be heading in the same direction just at a slower velocity. Bush gave us Medicare part D and NCLB.

  • cken

    Trump and Carson represent America’s disdain for politics as usual. Obama to his credit did in fact keep his promise to fundamentally transform America. Unfortunately the transformation was in all the wrong ways. To elect Hillary would be to exacerbate a fundamentally wrong even unconstitutional transformation. Perhaps we need a radical like Trump to right the ship. Could he really be any worse than the current president or for that matter any of them in the last 50 years. At least he says what is on his mind. Right now he needs to get our attention because he is not part of the good ole boy, continue as usual politician. He will likely moderate his rhetoric as we get well into the primaries. I think he, perhaps better than any, understands the cause and effect of government actions.

  • sg

    I just don’t get the feeling that Hillary cares about people. Her reaction to the death of the ambassador to Libya seemed terribly cold. Now I don’t share her political positions, so I have never felt too warmly towards her, but I would say she was a run of the mill self serving politician until the way she handled Stevens death.

  • Scott Judd


    This is perhaps the most negligent article you have written. To advocate for Americans not to vote for anyone is in actuality voting for someone. You made no attempt to give any reasoning to not support Trump, only writing, “I will not vote for someone so boorish, who has no clue about most basic
    political issues, much less those most important to Christian
    conservatives (including religious liberty and abortion).” These are personal opinions and caricatures.

    Trump is not my first choice, but he is the better choice between Clinton, Sanders or Biden. Trump has made a stance on abortion, and religious liberty. Trump recently hosted many conservative Christians in his office for feedback, advice and prayer. Of course Baptists dismiss those in attendance who do not support the establishment, or their brand of Christianity. I would rather have a boorish President than a man or woman who openly support same-sex marriage, abortion, socialism, gun restrictions, and flirt with religious discrimination.

    If you do not want to vote, then please turn in your citizenship and move to a country that will make the decisions for you. This is a democracy built upon the citizen’s right to vote for our representatives. You will also need to turn in your right to complain when left-wing radicals take office and remove any religious freedom we have.

    Evangelicals like you who promote not voting when your candidate is not chosen are like the little boy who takes his ball home when the game is not going his way. Or the little boy who turns off the Playstation when he is losing. Unfortunately, the rest of us grown-ups have to continue to play while you go home to cry and complain.

    You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting people to not vote at all. This is negligence of the highest order. We have been given the right to vote and we should use that privilege each chance we get. This is how our voice is heard. As a historian you should be ashamed of yourself and perhaps you should look into the annals of history and see what it looks like when people are not allowed to vote.

  • Rick Heidenger

    Sorry, but I’ll go with George Carlin. If you don’t vote, you have every right to complain. If you do vote, and your candidate does something awful, you have blood on your hands. This is a judgement call, obviously–no political candidate will ever be perfect–but I have never voted in my adult life because of the poverty of the various options–in my view, the two main political parties / coalitions both represent very serious opposing evils. I could be wrong, but this is my serious assessment. If I lived in a country with a more parliamentarian system, I am sure that there would be candidates / parties that I could responsibly support–not so in America, for the reasons this author broadly describes. *You* should be ashamed of yourself for advocating for an incoherent ethical position that relies on a false binary. One might as well say, “You have a mouth–therefore, not speaking is negligence. Let your voice be heard!” “You have fists–hit people!” “You have sexual organs–have sex!” This is antithetical to Christianity, or even basic decency / common sense. Life is not a power play. There are times when refraining from speech is the only wise course.

  • Scott Judd


    You lost me at, “I have never voted in my adult life…”

  • hamous

    Hogwash. Negligence is the party establishment stacking the deck to continually nominate milquetoast candidates who are just slightly smaller big government toadies than their Democrat counterparts. Trump is all on them. And I will not vote for him. I also will not vote for another Bush. Let the dems burn the house down and hopefully the adults left can rebuild our once-great Republic on the ashes.

  • Tom Van Dyke

    I agree with every word you write here, Tommy, except I think you’re misunderestimating Mrs. Clinton’s horridness.

    Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious Beliefs Have to Be Changed’ to Accommodate Abortion

  • Brian

    Religious beliefs have changed on all sorts of social issues, don’t see why it’s so horrid to suggest that it might happen again some time.

  • David Junk

    I agree that not voting is not being responsible. Think about it, would you prefer JOBS and a strong ECONOMY (ie Trump Plan) and then say a prayer of thanks to God for it OR just keep complaining, and keep waiting for the most “ideal” candidate ? Keep praying for jobs that will never come ? The vote is NOT for a “Pastor”, it is for a “President”.

  • A_T_T

    Is there anyone who is against jobs and a strong economy?
    Everybody has a “plan”.

  • David Junk

    Ya too bad not everyone actually employs people like TRUMP ? Most of them (politicians) are instead “employed” by SuperPACs or “Special Interest Groups. The way I see it, the only one that is “self employed” is Trump. And Who else has said he won’t be taking a salary from the White house ? Only Trump. He not in it for the money. Now that being said, who is better position to implement a economic “plan” that is in the interest of the USA? Those that have to report to Foreign linked SuperPACS ? Think about it ?

  • Pennybird

    You understand, of course, that Trump is a self-described social liberal who is pandering to you for your vote. Not unlike legions of other Republican politicians who don’t give a rat’s a$$ about Christianity, unborn babies or their mothers, but need to get you on board to secure their tax gimmes.

  • Brian

    “Trump is not my first choice, but he is the better choice between Clinton, Sanders or Biden.”

    No, he’s objectively worse. They are at least serious candidates. He’s an obnoxious, bullying reality show host with a fourth grade vocabulary, he has no positions, no real views, and no reason for wanting to be president other than that he feels like it. If you’re willing to vote for a snide, bloviating celebrity whose only claim to fame is being rich and mean, if you’re fine with casting that vote over an actual, sincere candidate just because he has an R after his name, you are happily admitting that ideology is more important than America. I’d be saying the same thing if the Democrats tried to nominate, I don’t know, Alec Baldwin or something. Though he, at least, has some talent.

  • HematitePersuasion

    is Trump a worse candidate? Certainly, he’s taken a postmodernist approach to campaigning which makes his actions as President unknowable … ah, never mind, answered my own question there …

  • calhou

    Joe Biden has his own views? Hillary Clinton has her own views? Hell no. Their views rest solely on opinion polls……not from any deep seated convictions. Furthermore Hillary is a liar and Biden is a gaffe master and buffoon (at least he is not running anymore). Bernie Sanders on the other hand has views…….dangerous ones…..but at least ones he believes in.

  • Christine Guthrie

    To suggest not voting is to give up a privilege the vast majority of people on earth have never had. We are blessed to live in this country and blessed to have any say (even if it’s very small) in who runs things.

    If you decide not to vote, you become like so many other complainers who simply whine about what they don’t like, but can’t even be bothered to take a few minutes to stroll over to their local polling place once every couple years. There is no “I won’t choose” option. (Just ask the Ghostbusters!)

    Trump is where he because he is not afraid of complainers. I don’t want him as president, but I do find that aspect of his personality somewhat refreshing. So if you don’t like Trump – try working for the candidate who most closely aligns with your views. Send him or her a check, volunteer in a get-the-vote-out campaign, whatever. Advocate – but please stop whining!

  • Rick Heidenger

    Not voting out of principle is obviously different from not voting out of laziness. We do not have a responsibility to vote–we have a responsibility to do the right thing. Supporting an evil system (or a state of affairs that only allows us a choice between two evils) is not ok. Period.

  • sg

    So, what did you think of candidates like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich? They both seemed principled to me. I am not saying I agreed with them on everything, obviously. But I would prefer either of them to Bush or Clinton.

  • Rick Heidenger

    and yes, we do have a responsibility to advocate for the good. But I don’t think the author was arguing against this.

  • RustbeltRick

    I think if you ask a conservative and a liberal to list the Top Five Issues Facing the Country, the lists will vary drastically. In fact, there’s a good chance that you will dismiss most or all of the things on the other guy’s list; if I list Economic Inequality, Climate Change, Student Debt, Racism, and Looming Retirement Crisis, there’s a good chance you will dismiss most or all of these things as either non-problems, or just non-priorities. Just as I might scratch my head over “religious liberty” when I look around and don’t see anyone having problems getting to the church of their choice every Sunday (or Saturday). There are, as they say, Two Americas, and we operate in two entirely different realities, trying to solve problems that only half of us agree are even problems in the first place.

    That being said, I see Trump as inevitable in one of the two Americas. Conservatives have long enjoyed bombast and controversy (that’s why talk radio is so popular), they idolize the aggressive CEO, they think immigration is out of control, and they favor the kind of flat taxation that makes people like Trump richer and richer every year. Conservatives are unyieldingly pro-life, but they’ll allow people like George HW Bush or Mitt Romney to convert to that stance late in life. And they’ll throw their support behind the non-religious and the divorced (Reagan, McCain) or those with odd faiths (Romney) when it suits them. In other words, Trump isn’t much different than those who have gone before. Why then is he so problematic?

    I think it would be great if Trump’s ascension would cause religious people to question the very essence of conservatism, and perhaps find common ground with some liberals on key issues, but that’s a bit of a pipe dream. We’re so far apart on so much.

  • Mike Ward

    If we reach tthe point were having religious liberty means nothing more than being free to go the church of your choice on Sundays than we will have already lost religious liberty.

  • BillYeager

    Well, given that your personal religious rights end where the civil rights of US citizens begins, I’d be interested to know what additional ‘liberty’ you feel is necessary for religion in America.

    You are free to practice your religion. You are not free to impose it on other people.

    Are you saying you need more?

  • hamous

    When your religion is the latest sexually deviant alphabet group’s “rights” you are already imposing your religion on my rights. You’re no different than any other fascist, just different fashion choices.

  • Vision_From_Afar

    No one is forcing you to do anything in your church or your home. The rights secured by minorities in this country are due to them by right of being human and citizens of this country, nothing more.
    My religion is at least partly based on respect, too bad yours doesn’t appear to be.

  • hamous

    Ah, separate but equal. That sounds familiar. Your inalienable rights do not include forcing me to bake you a cake or take your picture. That’s fascism.

  • HematitePersuasion

    That’s correct. Unless, of course, you offer cake-baking or photography as a commercial service, in which case you must obey laws regulating commerce and discrimination.

    This approach stems from our historical experience: letting a vendor of public services discriminate creates a community in which those discriminated against cannot conduct commerce, and are thus marginalized, impoverished, and destroyed.

    I’m sure you have no wish to marginalize, impoverish or destroy anyone — but that is what your alleged “liberty” would lead to. In turn, that removes other citizen’s liberty. Your rights stop when they conflict with the rights of others.

  • sg

    Nah, there are plenty of groups willing to sell x, y, or z items to a, b, or c groups.

  • hamous

    Unless, of course, you’re a homosexual hairdresser, and you refuse to style the NM governor’s hair. No one will say a word. Fascist.

    Are you seriously suggesting there are no homosexual bakers, photographers? Bwahaha.

  • hamous

    “Your rights stop when they conflict with the rights of others.”

    That is a one way street for fascists.

  • Ian Ryder

    Hermie: Your sentiment is a truly fascist sentiment.

    You also seriously misunderstand the economics of discrimination. Markets are the best known protection against harmful discrimination. That’s why Jim Crow & apartheid laws were necessary: to prevent the market from overcoming discrimination.

  • axelbeingcivil

    The market cuts both ways; if popular sentiment is discriminatory, it’s profitable to be discriminatory. If popular sentiment is opposed, it’s profitable to be opposed. Jim Crow Laws served to reinforce those sentiments, but they didn’t cut against popular sentiment for almost a century. It took a Supreme Court ruling to bring down “separate but equal”.

  • Ian Ryder

    I said “harmful discrimination.”

    Nobel laureate Gary Becker explained mathematically & analytically that discrimination by individual firms does not automatically result in “market discrimination.” That is, markets tend to minimize or negate the impact on wages.

    Thomas Sowell has demonstrated the validity of Becker’s analysis with hundreds upon hundreds of real world examples, both historical & contemporary. As Sowell summarizes the evidence, “Discrimination has been pervasive, but not pervasively effective.”

    Again, markets are the best protection against harmful discrimination.

  • calhou

    Free People, Free Markets, Free Enterprise. General prosperity reduces discrimination. Poverty magnifies it.

  • axelbeingcivil

    There are a lot of problems with taking Becker’s work and carte blanche saying “This will always happen this way”. Economists make a lot of assumptions about how people will weigh costs that don’t necessarily pan out in reality and, even if Becker is/was correct, his assumptions don’t account for questions of time.

    For example, Becker assumes an exceptionally fluid and unified marketplace; his arguments on wage discrimination center on the idea that an oppressed population will naturally shift to areas where there is less oppression and that this action, in turn, will provide an economic benefit to that area and, in turn, enforce competition against more discriminatory areas that will induce them to be less biased.

    In areas where discrimination is exceptionally high, though, the areas that will be fled to will almost certainly either be in minority communities or outside said area. This eliminates this economic pressure, or at least greatly distances it.

    Becker himself acknowledges this; in areas where minorities are just that, in the minority, there is no hope of the market correcting for it. They have to be a sizable portion of the work force before discrimination actively becomes an economic impediment. In small towns and cities, discrimination would not only be uncorrected by the market but can be outright beneficial.

    Likewise, none of this accounts for speed; just because there is an economic impact, that impact’s effects will vary by proximity. In a truly dense urban setting, such as large cities, it will spread fast, but in more rural regions, the effects will move much more slowly because of, again, economic distance.

    Furthermore, this doesn’t take into account the effects of other market forces, like trade unions, the effects of low wages on education access, etc. Many trade unions were quite avowedly racist throughout the 50s and 60s (and others weren’t, of course; everyone was a mixed bag at that time), and thus effectively raised the cost of non-discrimination by employers. Low wages kept many out of higher education, too, which kept large numbers of non-whites from entering the work force outside of basic labour. This, in turn, prevents any economic cost of discrimination in skilled labour and, indeed, raises the cost of non-discrimination.

    Markets aren’t a cure-all; there is no panacea. Free markets can be wonderfully constructive or terribly destructive in equal measure, depending entirely on circumstance and goal.

  • Ian Ryder

    Markets are not perfect. Neither is government. Milton Friedman used to remind his students to compare real to real. And in the real world, markets work better than government at protecting minorities.

    I think evidence gathered by Thomas Sowell demonstrates just how robust Becker’s model is. Any one of his race-related books gives numerous examples of ethnic minorities overcoming significant racism.

    We can also look at evidence from South Africa as summarized by Merle Lipton in Capitalism & Apartheid. White unions supported economic apartheid policies because employers didn’t discriminate as much as they wanted. “Market-based” discrimination was inadequate for their purposes.

    Likewise, Jennifer Roback (“The Political Economy of Streetcar Segregation”) has shown that Jim Crow laws were passed by numerous Southern cities because the market tended to minimize discrimination.

    I am confused by your discussion of geographic mobility. Geographic mobility is not required for Becker’s model to work. I don’t recall The Economics of Discrimination even discussing geographic mobility.

    In any case, consumer mobility is more than adequate to handle cases where businessmen do not want to actively participate in offensive rituals. In today’s America, how hard is it to find a photographer or florist or caterer who doesn’t discriminate between weddings & faux weddings? From the standpoint of sustaining our civilization: Not hard enough, I am afraid.

  • axelbeingcivil

    Becker doesn’t directly talk about mobility, but he does talk about it when he talks about movement of labour.

    Likewise, if you want to compare real to real, South Africa, which had an oppressive minority over an oppressed majority, is a pretty awful example to start with. It’s not a useful analogy to other states where the majority is usually the oppressive one.

    Government action can, like market action, cut both ways. By mandating desegregation, it effectively shortens the duration necessary for what the market would ideally do.

  • HematitePersuasion

    Your comment is interesting, and in terms of a perfect market, correct. The issue I take is with all of the assumptions that go into analyzing a perfect market: Perfect information. Perfect pricing (including potentially unknown externalities). Rational actors. ( I’m sure there are more, but I’m not writing an economic treatise.)

    None of those things are actually true in the real world. Nobody has ‘perfect information’ about markets. Prices are not perfectly set. And study after study concludes that economic actors do not act rationally.

    Because of that, I think your statement that the market would adjust and correct for discrimination is not true for the market that actually exists. Just as an example, consider the historical struggle of black persons attempting to purchase houses and the deep, subtle, pervasive rascism of redlining. Jim Crow sentiments, not Jim Crow laws, led to this kind of market discrimination, and it was this exactly this kind of discrimination that led to existing laws against discrimination in providing public services.

    Sidenote: I greatly appreciate your civility in referring to my
    “fascist sentiment” rather than calling me

    I don’t agree that regulating markets and requiring equal access to publicly provided services is totalitarian to the extent of fascism; it does not involve nationalizing services, nor the direction of what services are offered (one is free to offer what one wishes, within other boundaries), nor even how those services are provided — merely that products and services are offered equally to all comers. That’s not fascism, that’s an attempt at equity of access.

  • Vision_From_Afar

    Do your inalienable rights include killing me because your holy book says to? Do they include converting and preaching to my children in government schools because your holy book says to?
    That’s theocracy. No thanks.

  • hamous

    Did you really just compare me not baking you a cake with killing you? You’re insane, and a fascist.

  • Vision_From_Afar

    Your holy book won’t apparently let you bake a cake. I’m offering up another issue from your holy book. If you aren’t holding the two equal, the question lies with you, not with me.
    Why is it okay to quibble about a rule about cakes, but ignore a line so serious it advocates killing?

  • hamous

    My Holy Book doesn’t allow me to murder. It’s very clear about that.

  • Vision_From_Afar

    Exodus 22:18

  • hamous

    I’m not going to get into a theological debate with an Alinsky troll. Your arms are too short to box with God.

  • Vision_From_Afar

    I’m not boxing God, I’m debating you. Unless you’re God, in which case I have a lot of questions.

    Your attempt at “Alinsky” whitewashing is very humorous, though. Childish, but humorous.

  • hamous

    Sorry, you’ve outed yourself. Buh bye, troll.

  • Vision_From_Afar

    Whatever. Quitter.

  • AndrewDowling

    You need therapy.

  • Vision_From_Afar

    Huh. Diagnosed in a combox. Size me up for a straitjacket, Doc.

  • Ian Ryder

    Vision: You are quite wrong about yourself (and others).

  • Vision_From_Afar

    Citation needed

  • Mike Ward

    A right that is only enjoyed in a church or a home is no right at all.

  • axelbeingcivil

    I dunno, I have a right to strip naked and dance the hula in my home, but not in a public street. I think if the police broke into my home to keep me from following that Hawaiian fantasy or put cameras in place to keep me from doing so, it’d be a rather serious violation. Just like how I have a right to my own thoughts and opinions and can share them in my own way as I see fit, but am restricted from following people around to shout my opinions on the latest Mel Gibson movie in their ear.

    Turns out that public space is shared space, and hence owned by everyone, rendering it subject to regulation. Who’da thunkit?

  • hamous

    Unless you’re homosexual. Then you can shimmy nekkid through the pubic square singing Its Raining Men and if anyone dares to object you’ll scream “Homophobe!”

  • axelbeingcivil

    You can do it if you’re straight at a Mardi Gras parade; people have sex in the street at those things and the cops don’t really like to intervene unless it’s getting too obvious.

  • Mike Ward

    You don’t understand rights.

    You dont have a right to strip naked and hulu hoop. You do have a right to privacy which has been interpreted to allow you to strip naked and hulu hoop in the privacy of your home, but if you had a direct right to strip naked and hulu hoop you could do it anywhere so long as it did not conflict with anyone else’s rights.

    This is not complicated. Do you think that your right to free speech exist only in private? Do you think your right to peaceably assembly exist only in private. These rights like all rights do have limits, but they are very narrow limits. A right that is completed taken away in public simply because of the rationale that the public space should be controlled by the government in the name of the people collectively is no right at all. We call those societies fascist states and the people who support them fascists.

  • axelbeingcivil

    It’s far more complicated than you’re trying to portray it to be; conflicts between rights and how those rights are defined litter history like so much confetti. Which right is considered more important, the right to property or the right to free speech? Ostensibly, if I spray-tagged my neighbour’s property in such a way as to express my political views, I’ve engaged in my right to free speech, but I’ve also infringed on my neighbour’s property rights. If he paints over the graffiti, he’s interfering with a manifestation of my self-expression; my speech.

    One of the most foundational rights in almost any schema of rights is a foundational right to self-determination (“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, “La liberté consiste à pouvoir faire tout ce qui ne nuit pas à autrui”, etc.), inclusive to which is the right to do with oneself as one pleases within the boundaries of law. The right to privacy is not why, when hidden from public view, people may largely do as they see fit; it is a right to self-determination absent any contradictory law, and an assumed right to privacy is invoked as one of many reasons why surveillance should not extend into private residences.

    It’s for this reason that the aforementioned licentious dancing may take place. The problem arises, though, when such actions take place on public land. Public land and public space are held as communally owned; what is owned in common cannot be treated like a private space. It should ostensibly exist to maximize the freedoms of the people, but exceptions are made to try and ensure ease of mutual cooperation. This is why public spaces are not clothing optional; why littering is illegal in public spaces; why we have noise ordinances; why permits are required for mass gatherings, etc.

    If nothing else, Rousseau was right when he said that man is born free and everywhere he is in chains; societies do not make us free, they are all yokes of bondage, but they are, ideally, ones we agree to and accept because they facilitate mutual cooperation and the enhancement of life for all.

    In short, it’s more complex than you’re making it out to be, and disagreeing with you is not an automatic sign that people don’t understand a topic.

  • Vision_From_Afar

    So where do you “deserve” your right that you can’t do it now?

  • BillYeager

    Yeah, you already did this one, I’m still waiting to hear what religious ‘liberty’ you think you are being denied that isn’t simply going to be you protesting at other people doing harmless things you personally don’t approve of.

  • Sven2547

    When your religion is the latest sexually deviant alphabet group’s “rights” you are already imposing your religion on my rights.

    This statement is incoherent. Can you clarify or elaborate?

  • Hollif50

    You are free to practice your secular beliefs. You are not free to impose them on other people.

  • Ian Ryder

    Bill: progressives have weird ideas about what counts as “imposing” one’s religion on other people– ideas that are at odds with the world-view that actually gave us our freedoms.

  • Bo Grimes

    your personal religious rights end where the civil rights of US citizens begins

    Religious liberty is a civil right, as hardwired into the Constitution as other civil rights like freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. This meme is ahistorical and ignorant and I’m tried of seeing it turn up in every discussion like it’s some meta-slogan combox nuclear option for ending a discussion.

    Please enlighten us as to precisely how the first sentence of the “Bill of Rights” does not guarantee a civil right? One that needs to be balanced against other civil rights, yes, but black letter law, nonetheless, not some appeal to vague, squishy subtext elucidated by the Gnostic masters of the Supreme Court and then mindlessly drilled into the minds of the people with “peace, land bread” sloganeering.

  • BillYeager

    By all means, please explain to me what religious ‘liberty’ you are being denied which isn’t simply you wanting to discriminate against people you don’t approve of?

    Civil Rights>Discrimination

  • Bo Grimes

    I asked a question. You ignored it. The way this works is if you make an assertion and someone asks you to support it you do; you don’t insinuate, project and digress.

    I didn’t make a claim that any of my religious liberties were being denied, so I don’t have to support an assertion I didn’t make. You claimed civil rights trumped religious liberty. I asked you to explain how religious liberty is not a civil right.

    If you can avoid slogans and equations and explain that, we can have a discussion. Otherwise, I’ll assume you’re a troll and stop feeding.

  • BillYeager

    Fine, let’s play the game of semantics then, a typical Xtian approach to handling argument against their long-standing cultural privilege.

    I asked you to explain how religious liberty is not a civil right.

    I didn’t say religious ‘liberty’ wasn’t a civil right, but there is a tangible difference between ‘rights’ which confer equality to all citizens, regardless of race, gender, or religion, and those which allow citizens the freedom to be the biggest, most hateful, assholes they care to be.

    The latter ‘right’ applies to all equally as much as the former, but ends at the point where your hatred for other people who are not like you drives you to attempt to prevent them from enjoying the same secular freedoms and rights as you simply on the basis of your personal opinion of them and their lawful activities.

  • Bo Grimes

    So, you are a troll. The declaration of which will likely increase your conviction otherwise. It’s one of the paradoxes of forums that those who make the best trolls do not do so intentionally. You might want to reassess your definitions and distinctions because if they had any basis whatsoever in law, your right to free speech has allowed you “the freedom to be the biggest, most hateful, asshole [you] care to be.”

    Your post would be a wonderful exercise in irony, but in what I’ve read you haven’t demonstrated the capacity to understand or intentionally use it. I’m out, which you will of course take as victory, but there’s nothing I can do about that. I neither feed trolls nor bash my head against brick walls.

  • BillYeager

    What? An intellectually dishonest theist being intellectually dishonest by citing tone complaint in order to avoid rebutting the cogent points raised?

    I am shocked, *shocked* I tell you!

  • sg

    I think a lot could be accomplished if both sides were willing to actually work towards win win deals. But then they could not go back to their constituents and boast how they beat the other team.

    As for climate change, I think many people who may be skeptical would be willing to do some stuff to err on the side of caution. Immigration greatly increases per capita energy consumption of the individuals who move to the USA by like 5x-20x. Enforcing immigration laws and deporting more illegal aliens more quickly and lowering immigration by 10% would be a win win compromise for both sides. However, that means giving something to the other side in order to get something, and how can a politician brag about that.

    More importantly small business likes illegals they can exploit with impunity, and big business likes H1-b workers that are significantly cheaper. They also increase profits because they consume much more once they get here. More consumption equals more energy usage and more profits for those who give to political campaigns.

  • axelbeingcivil

    The problem is, when one side has an issue and the other doesn’t even acknowledge it exists or is valid, you can’t really come to a compromise. Plus, quite often, half-measure compromises can hurt both “sides” by being inefficient. While I thoroughly disagree with your immigrant example, let’s just pretend I do for a moment and suggest the effects of a compromise deal: If we only lower the numbers by five percent, it may be insufficient to reduce those numbers to a threshold where we see any impact on the problems you bring up; there may simply remain too many illegal immigrants to put a damper on their effects on wages. At the same time, the cost of border enforcement goes up, draining resources that could have gone into other programs (such as providing more renewable energy). As such, the result is that we ultimately get no benefit for a great cost and are worse off than where we began.

    Compromise isn’t easy; it’s exceptionally difficult. There’s far more to it all than just clashing egos, and it takes serious bipartisan agreement that an issue is important before it can have any hope of having a solution generated.

    This is before we even get to discussing the notion of a problem where one side doesn’t even acknowledge a problem exists… It’s a lot harder to be a politician than people realize.

  • sg

    “The problem is, when one side has an issue and the other doesn’t even
    acknowledge it exists or is valid, you can’t really come to a

    Oh sure you can. In fact it may even be easier. The point in a compromise is that you are getting something you want, and they are getting something they want. A compromise does not include convincing the other party that you are right. A compromise also does not include getting everything you want.

  • Ian Ryder

    Rick: You don’t understand conservatives. Stop pretending you do.

  • Phil Weingart

    Your caricature of conservatives is part of the separate universe that you inhabit. It bears little resemblance to any part of reality that I have inhabited since leaving the Democratic (Marxist) party and becoming a conservative back in the 1970s.

  • kzarley

    Count me with you concerning Trump who toots his own trumpet. See my posts.

  • Joe Monte

    You’re a little late, Thomas. You are also partly to blame. Trump is your problem now. You are right about one thing: he may win the primary but he won’t win the White House. Four years from now the ascendant nominee will be worse than the Donald and you will be pining for the halcyon days when Paul Ryan wasn’t considered a RINO. I’d laugh at you if it weren’t for my living on the same planet.

  • kierkegaard71

    One more thing…finally glad to see Dr. Kidd fired up about something enough to go all bold type! He comes as pretty moderate in most of his writings. Now he seems like an angry moderate!

  • Random Ami

    I’m not trump fan, and my current standards for the US president have gone down significantly.

    But that said, I can’t find any reason to have justified or supported a guy like Obama to be president that Donald trump lacks, except of course the media adoration that Obama got.

    Obama was inexperienced in all aspects, political, public, private. He was considered antiamerican , un American, and for some even nonamerican. That right there should have disqualified him. The guy with the most atypical past and most dubious acquentancies. Non representative at all of America or Americans. And still won.

    So what valid argument or moral standing have all these pundits now to disqualified a well known American, who’s life is an open book vs the guy who was all mystery, even his most casual and accessible info, like the famous birth certificate and school records that were hidden until trump insisted him to show.

    Technically and according to the law, only two qualifications are absolutely required to be POTUS: be 35 years or older, and be US natural born citizen. Everything else (experience, diploma, clean record, etc) is just desirable. So technically, both Obama and trump are eligible. If anything the only difference between the two is that there were doubts about the former’s compliance. Not of the latter.

    So what in the world disqualifies a civilian and business man from the POTUS position that did make the other one qualified?

    The answer, nothing. Just partisanship and caprice. That’s all.

  • Sven2547

    Obama was inexperienced in all aspects, political, public, private.

    Pay no attention to the fact that he had been a legislator for a decade.

    He was considered antiamerican , un American, and for some even nonamerican. That right there should have disqualified him.

    Why should unfounded conspiracy theories “disqualify” anybody?

  • sg

    Most would say that governor is more qualified than legislator because it has more in common with the duties of the office.

  • Sven2547

    Most would say that governor is more qualified than legislator because it has more in common with the duties of the office.

    Donald Trump was never a Governor. What point do you think you are making?

  • Andrew Dowling

    All of the governors in the GOP primary are doing horribly. A reality show businessman and a religious extremist surgeon are leading the polls.

  • Andrew Dowling

    “He was considered antiamerican , un American, and for some even nonamerican”

    By a bunch of fringe nutters who are a small minority of the population of the United States.

  • Greg Paley

    And you wish to deprive a minority of a voice in government? That’s called “tyranny.”

    Abolitionists were also considered “fringe nutters.” Truth is not poll-driven.

    You’re a typical liberal – you talk tolerance but never practice it. Major hypocrisy. The religious left hates whatever the secular left hates, making themselves the willing patsies of people who have no faith at all.

  • Andrew Dowling

    Lol who is “depriving” anyone a voice? Governments from local to federal are full of nuts who support the same conspiracy theories you do.

    The president was elected comfortably by the public, twice.

  • Greg Paley

    Yes, “Sven,” whatever you say.

  • Sven2547

    You’re a typical liberal

    This is a case of mistaken identity. Andrew Dowling is a conservative – one who desperately wants to downplay the scale and influence that the lunatics have within modern conservative thought.

  • Greg Paley

    You’re right, it is a case of mistaken identity. It’s a case of an atheist troll with various sock puppets, including some that pose as Christians. You bozos really think people don’t see through you? Spew your atheist hokum on Christian blogs, then set up faux-Christian sock puppets who agree with everything the atheist posts? Just as a general rule of thumb, someone who constantly bashes Christians, like “Andrew,” is obviously not a Christian.

    Enjoy your multiple personality disorder. It’s probably a useful thing for someone with no friends.

  • Andrew Dowling

    Well, while I consider myself fairly moderate, do know I am not some Breitbart troll who copied my name without a space who has been hanging around Patheos lately (AndrewDowling) . . .who knew someone cared so much.

  • Sven2547

    Ach – maybe I’m the one who is mistaken?

  • danainnyc

    The big difference between Obama and Trump. One can win elections because he’s been in the game. You know, like Trump would have been a great soldier. If he had ever served.

  • axelbeingcivil

    You could always write in a candidate of your choice. Find a politician who does stand for what you believe in, no need to compromise. It sends a message. Plus, maybe it’ll help show you don’t need to be a one-issue voter. If the Republicans keep abandoning/using you, find someone new.

  • Maine_Skeptic

    “…How many other “evangelicals” there are like me, I don’t really know…”

    It’s very possible that it’s too late for the Evangelical Movement to recover its political strength. In exchange for blind loyalty to the GOP, evangelical churches have adopted the corporate model of church growth, in which people matter less than numbers. The resulting economic darwinism has led to the rise of the “let them die” generation of the GOP. Meanwhile, having gained all the power they could hope for, the libertarian wing of the party will soon be in a position to discard those whose loyalty made them rich.

  • HematitePersuasion

    … are you suggesting they have not already done so?

  • Phil Weingart

    Every word of this is delusion from within the fantasy universe of the progressives. There is no “Evangelical Movement, no church would admit to the model you claim (and they tend to work hard not to be that way,) no part of the GOP says “Let them die,” and to what the heck does “discard those whose loyalty made them rich” refer?

  • Maine_Skeptic

    I’m not sure how you can deny those things exist. Are we talking about the same things?

    “There is no “Evangelical Movement…”;,

    “…no church would admit to the model
    you claim (and they tend to work hard not to be that way,)…”

    Their not admitting it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.,,,,

    “…no part of the GOP says “Let them die,” …”,

    “…and to what the heck does “discard those whose loyalty made them rich” refer?…”
    All of the religious right’s persecution fantasies center around the idea that the separation of Church and State is an assault on religious liberty, and they live in terror of nonconservatives. But it isn’t nonconservatives that are the real enemy of the religious right: it’s the libertarians they’ve enabled. At some point, the religious right will have behaved so badly that they won’t make good political allies, and when the libertarians turn on them, *that’s* when their dark fantasies about persecution may no longer be completely fantastic.

  • Phil Weingart

    It’s a shame that the length of your post doesn’t parallel the soundness of your arguments. I would have hoped that something so long would have more substance.

    1) Regarding the Evangelical “movement”: Did you notice the title on the book in the Christianity Today article you linked to? ” The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys.” Those are figures from the 18th century. It’s kinda tough to characterize as a “movement” a group of denominations that’s been a major force for 3 centuries, isn’t it? Or are you also concerned about the effects of the “Catholic Movement,” and the effect it will have on the “Western Civilization Movement?”

    2) Re business models: undoubtedly some churches take advantage of practices that are also used in some businesses, and for the same reasons: they have to manage a large budget and a large physical plant, and the techniques that do that well tend to look similar. But that fact does not justify the conclusion that they no longer care about their parishioners, which was your point. So simply pointing to the business practices is a Red Herring. That was my point, and you did not address it.

    3) Re “let them die,” I think you know you’re painting an absurd caricature of the GOP, and the fact that your “support” came from Think Progress and Addicting Info merely reinforces that. But if you really think it’s somehow evil that a wealthy individual who chooses not to obtain medical insurance should be refused access to state charity (which is the premise of that video you posted,) consider that (aside from the fact that Ron Paul is a Republican by convenience only, and the fact that “let them die” was a single voice from the crowd,) the position he takes is not a position recently arrived at by attendees of jaded megachurches as you claim, but would have been the uniform opinion of Scottish Reformed clerics from the 18th century–and really, of any sane adult from that period.

    You can support your caricatures by Wolf Blitzer’s gotcha questions all day long if you like, but reasonable intellects understand what that is–and it’s not truth.

    4) Ah. The Libertarians. They were a tiny minority, they are a tiny minority, and they will remain a tiny minority. Sorry, it’s just a fact.

  • Sven2547

    I think you know you’re painting an absurd caricature of the GOP

    An “absurd caricature” backed by video evidence. How would you have answered the question posed to the bumbling Congressman? When he answered “that’s what freedom is all about”, is that not tantamount to saying that ‘yes, the man took a risk and now society has no obligation to help’?

  • Phil Weingart

    Yes, an absurd caricature, produced by an absurd, unrealistic “gotcha” question from an absurd, bigoted media leftist.

    Sorry, it’s not a fact, no matter how much Kool-Aid you drink.

  • Sven2547

    An uninsured man requiring urgent medical care is “an absurd, unrealistic, ‘gotcha’ question”?! What planet do you live on, dude?

  • calduncan

    Dip, uninsured people WERE getting health care before your Obamessiah arrived to save the universe.

    In fact, we were getting it cheaper. Only a leftist zombie repeats the line about “millions of people without health care.” They are fools.

  • Sven2547

    The ER isn’t a one-size-fits all solution and you know it. If you needed a specialist, you were S.O.L.

    As a rule, people who use the term “Obamessiah” are not to be taken seriously. You are only reinforcing that.

  • calduncan

    You babbling nitwit, as always you spout nonsense and lies.

    See if your teensy brain can follow some facts:
    1. I’m self-employed
    2. I went 11 years with no insurance.
    3. During that 11 years, I had a general practicioner less than a mile from my house. He charged me $45 per office visit.
    4. He referred me to 2 specialists – a dermatologist and a gastroenterologist. Both accepted self-pay.
    5. The gastroenterologist did a colonoscopy and charged me $750.
    6. I’ve never been to an ER in my whole life.
    7. So you are full of it. Silly and stupid. People without insurance do NOT have to go to an ER for medical care. Many doctors, including many specialists, accepted self-pays, and still do.
    8. Your side relies on lying – Obamadon’tcare was passed based on the lie that uninsured people had no access to health care. It was a LIE. I know lots of self-employed people beside myself who did just fine. We paid out of our pockets.

    Lay off the drugs, learn to deal with facts, not your silly propaganda.

    I’m glad “Obamessiah” upset you. Like any atheist, you get peeved when your godlings get dissed. Good.

  • Sven2547

    We paid out of our pockets.

    And that’s the rub, isn’t it? You could afford it. You were also fairly healthy. Your most expensive medical issue in 11 years cost $750? You are lucky. Not everyone is.

    You’re so dense you don’t even realize how many people can’t afford it. And it’s not always as low as $750. I paid thousands in deductables for a foot infection a few years ago. If someone gets cancer while uninsured, that’s tens of thousands of dollars.

    And that’s the fallacy of so much right-wing thinking. You assume everyone is as lucky as you are. You assume everyone can afford what you can afford. You assume everyone is as healthy as you are. Which is why you couldn’t comprehend the very realistic (and all too frequent) scenario of an uninsured person needing intensive care.

  • calduncan

    You moron.
    We paid LESS money as self-pays than we now do when we are FORCED to buy insurance. You see, dunce, we have to PAY for Obamadon’tcare, it is not a gift from the Obamessiah, we PAY for it from our pockets. The government is giving us nothing. As a self-pay, I paid for medical care when I needed it. Now I have to buy insurance, so I’m paying for nothing. Does that strike a leftard as doing citizens a favor – imposing an additional cost – a very large cost for the poorest people?

    The HIV demographic were all pushing for Obamadon’tcare, because their plagues had rendered them uninsurable. We healthy people with no vices have been paying for the medical care of degenerates for a long time. As a self-pay, I was paying my own way, which I think is pretty darn fair. Now I’m forced to pay for I don’t need so that AIDS-spreaders can live longer and infect the maximum number of people – doesn’t that just work out great for everyone? Force decent people who behave ourselves to support the dregs of society. That’s what the Unaffordable Care Act was all about – it was not about making sure people got health care, we HAD health care before, and it was CHEAPER. All that matters is that the guys spreading lethal STDs can pass their medical costs on to healthy people. Sick. The gays love it – force Christians so subsidize people with the morals of an alleycat.

  • Sven2547

    You’ve lapsed into frothing-at-the-mouth bigotry. Can’t say I’m surprised.

  • Andrew Dowling

    You mean go to the ER, not pay their bills, and then increase the premiums of everyone who actually had insurance?? What a great system LOL . . . .

  • Phil Weingart

    Oh, my God, what a liar you are.

    The question in the video was an absurd hypothetical about a WEALTHY man who CHOSE not to insure himself, and then had an accident and fell into a coma.

    Do you anybody like that? I sure don’t.

    You need to go back and read my longish answer to Maine Skeptic, as well. The truth is that you’re a vicious, disgusting guilt manipulator, and that in an earlier, saner era, nobody with a brain would have imagined that it could EVER be appropriate for a wealthy man who made his own, stupid choices to become a ward of the state.

    And of course, the assumption of every vicious fool (including you) is that if the state doesn’t help, nobody will. That’s even more ridiculous. If there ever were such a man as was described in that hypothetical, his family would take responsibility for him, or his friends, or his church, or his employer.

  • Sven2547

    I don’t remember “wealthy” being part of the question.

    There have been countless people who have, indeed, NOT been helped by their church or their family of their friends or their employer. Many thousands of Americans have gone bankrupt from medical bills. Do you deny it?

    And the fact that you constantly need to fling insults and invective really says more about you than it does about me.

  • Phil Weingart

    Rigged question, predetermined sound bite goal, false accusations of “invective,” can’t read, etc. Nothing but the usual insanity. Not interested. Go waste somebody else’s time. Bye.

  • Sven2547

    Do you deny it?

  • friendly_hedgehog

    I try not to get sucked in to internet arguments like these (and I’ll probably regret it in ten minutes or so), but is “invective” *really* such an inappropriate description for comments like “you’re a vicious, disgusting guilt manipulator”? Do you not see how this might be considered in some way rude or insulting?

  • Donalbain

    We live in a world where asking someone what they read is considered a “gotcha question”! It is crazy all the way down!

  • Maine_Skeptic

    Lying seems to be a faith-based initiative now. Keep it up, and see how far it gets you.

  • Phil Weingart

    I lied about nothing. I’m pretty sure I kicked your ass, in fact. But since you seem to be one of those trained, paid prog comment generators, I’m no longer interested in the discussion. I’m not sure how guys like you live with yourselves, but you will be paid back in full for your evil conduct, be assured.

  • Maine_Skeptic

    Nope, not a paid commenter. Or even a volunteer. With regard to lying, your insistence that there isn’t an evangelical movement is a lie, and it’s difficult to believe you’re serious regarding the business model issue. I don’t expect you to agree that the GOP could ever cut Evangelicals loose– and I may be wrong that it will happen– but the Evangelical sense of entitlement to special treatment is going to end sooner or later.

  • Phil Weingart

    Of course, a paid commenter would say nothing different, so your denial means nothing. But no matter… you’re attempting to gain some rhetorical advantage by calling me names, which is out of bounds, not to mention that you don’t seem capable of distinguishing between a lie and a disagreement.

    You haven’t even responded to the point I made, namely that calling something a movement that is 3 centuries old is an abuse of the word “movement.” Got anything to say about that, specifically? If not, conversationem finitus.

    Evangelicals ask for nothing but the same liberty accorded every other citizen.

  • Liberal Kuhn

    So many words to express your abysmal ignorance.

  • Maine_Skeptic

    That isn’t an argument.

  • fjsteve

    Can you explain how the church-growth movement is the outgrowth of a deal for loyalty to the GOP and how this lead to the rise of a so-called “let them die” movement? That just makes no sense to me. Keep in mind, you won’t hear a defense of CG from me. I’m just trying to figure out how you got from A to B.

  • Maine_Skeptic

    I can understand the confusion, because it was worded clumsily. I wasn’t talking about the terms of a deal as much as the result of the movement prostituting itself to the GOP and its corporate donors. Most Evangelicals act like they think Jesus was a blend of Rambo and Donald Trump.

  • Steve W,

    Thanks for the article, Thomas. I find you and I have very similar thoughts on the situation.

    I’m a conservative Christian, and a political conservative who is a registered Republican. I do believe that conservative principles are generally best for everyone in our country. I also believe voting is an incredible privilege and responsibility and have voted in every election since I turned 18.

    That said, if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, I will not vote in the 2016 election. It’s not just that I don’t trust his conservative credentials (which I definitely don’t), but more so that I question both his character and leadership. Frankly I think he is borderline racist, misogynistic, and completely amoral. And his business dealings have been more than a little questionable, regardless of how much money he claims to have.

    In all honesty, if the Republicans nominate Donald Trump for president, it will just show that the party has drifted too far into an extreme territory that I simply cannot be a part of.

    Not only will I abstain from voting, I will also change my voter registration to Independent. It won’t be me leaving the party, it will be the party leaving me.

  • Mike D’Virgilio

    What Trump is doing to conservatives is priceless, and I’m a conservative! You think most apolitical Americans would prefer four years of Hillary to four years of Trump? I don’t think so, but I also thought the first Clinton and Obama would never get elected. I wouldn’t vote for him in a primary with the other choices available, hopefully, by the time our state does it, but if he’s the nominee he will most certainly get my vote. I just don’t think he’s at all the clown many conservatives seem to think he is. My two cents.

  • Hollif50

    “Misogynist?” Who actually uses that word? And how do you translate giving a couple of women a rough time on the campaign trail into hating all of them? I suspect you are really a liberal in sheep’s clothing.

  • Vision_From_Afar

    If the toxic masculine shoe fits…

  • Hollif50

    As opposed to the lesbian feminist misfit toys who can only grab any kind of so-called “equality” (what the fuck is that anyway?) by using the immense power of the federal government;? You bet I’ll wear those shoes…. and revel in it. You make it so easy to hate.

  • Vision_From_Afar

    Wallowing in vitriolic emotions is a bad sign, dude. Get help.

  • Hollif50

    Somebody on the totally emotion based Left giving advice about vitriolic emotions; when that is what drives the entire movement.. very interesting…

  • Vision_From_Afar

    Oh, and “The Sky Is Falling on Christians and It’s All The Government’s Fault” Right is based solely on logic.
    Emotions run high on both sides, kiddo.

  • Hollif50

    So, pal… Was it the Christians or people like you who: Virtually built this country, developed it’s universities and other social structures and made it’s traditions other and cultural norms… People like you have done more to damage this country than any earthly army…. PS: Love your new devil statue in Detroit! (sacasm)

  • Vision_From_Afar

    I dunno “pal.”
    Was it the “Christians” or people “like me” who: Took over a century to end slavery, which actually built this country, developed it’s exploitative market that took blatant advantage of the poor and destitute, and made it’s restrictive and guilt-ridden cultural norms? Take off your rose-colored glasses.
    PS: I’m not a Satanist, I’m a Heathen.

  • Hollif50

    Slavery was ended by Christians. Wilberforce in England in 1833, and the abolitionists in this country leading up to the Civil war. You and people like you had nothing to do with it; since you didn’t exist as a group at that time.. Get off your high horse and quit foolishly thinking that you “coulda, shoulda, woulda” change history; with your “superior” 21st century social mores, technology and “supposed” superior moral hindsight/insight. It’s a empty intellectual exercise….

  • Vision_From_Afar

    Says the one lumping “Christians” into some historical collective like they did no wrong.

  • Hollif50

    Atheists and heathens (lumped into a historical collective that did GREAT WRONG) killed off over 100 million people in the 20th century; the accused pot says to kettle.. You’re world class wrong-doers.

  • Vision_From_Afar
  • Hollif50

    Obviously. Why would anyone listen to a Leftist crackpot like you? Don’t bother me again, no-nothing.

  • Sven2547

    Slavery was ended by Christians.

    Yes, Christians finally stopped owning slaves.

    Secularists beat you to the punch on that one by centuries.

  • philipjenkins

    I have to ask. Can you give me the names of some of these “secularists” who (you think) preached or practiced abolitionism some centuries before Christians? I don’t begin to understand what you mean.

    One name would be fine.

  • Sven2547

    In the United States, the early critics of slavery – Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams – were all either atheists or deists.
    Later, the abolitionist cause was taken up by Ralph Waldo Emerson, a Unitarian minister turned atheist; William Lloyd Garrison, an atheist; and Robert Ingersoll, the “Great Agnostic.” Indeed, the “Great Emancipator” himself, Abraham Lincoln, never acknowledged being a Christian and was (at the very least) thought to be a freethinker in matters of religion. In England, atheists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were leading abolitionists.

    In contrast, all of the major supporters of slavery in America were proudly, openly, Christian.

  • philipjenkins

    Oh THAT’S what you mean. You said “Secularists beat you to the punch on that one by centuries.” From the context, that suggested centuries before the anti-slavery reformers of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, like Wilberforce, which is what the thread was discussing .

    You mention “Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams.” None of them was in any sense a secularist. Washington and Jefferson were slave owners. Also, all were roughly contemporaries of Wilberforce (1759-1833), not “centuries” before.

    All the important early critics of slavery in America before that date were Quakers, ie Christians, and certainly not secularists.

    You also mention some people in the nineteenth century,
    after slavery had been abolished by evangelical campaigns in the British Empire. Why you think they are relevant I have no idea.

    So the reason you write that “Secularists beat you to the punch on that one by centuries” is because you have no clue about chronology.

  • Sven2547

    You mention “Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams.” None of them was in any sense a secularist.

    Attended the David Barton school of historical revisionism, I see.

    Heck: it was Jefferson who coined the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” when describing the 1st Amendment. This is the very definition of secularism.

    You don’t get to pat yourselves on the back for abolishing slavery when the defenders of slavery were overwhelmingly Christian (and wielding Biblical arguments to boot). Secularists, in contrast, were overwhelmingly abolitionist.

  • philipjenkins

    Here we see a familiar high school rhetorical tactic of taking your opponent’s view and reducing it to a lunatic extreme in order to discredit it. Comparing to Hitler is a common tactic, but for American historians, David Barton can be used profitably. Reductio ad Bartonum….

    I said they were not secularists, insofar as that word has
    any meaning in 1800. That does not mean I believe they were orthodox Christians, as Barton proposes. Washington maybe, Jefferson and Franklin certainly not. I am just arguing with the anachronistic word “secularist.” You would look long and hard to find any historian who would apply the word “secularist” to US debates in this era. If what you say here is your definition of secularism, be aware it is not that of any historian looking at that era.

    As I say, you have no idea of chronology, or which centuries follow which. Some would consider that a drawback in someone trying to write about history.

    So you don’t know the basic terminology, or the order in which centuries appear. And you are writing about this topic… why exactly?

    And an equally good question, why am I bothering to try and argue with you? Here endeth my comments on this post.

    So you get the last word! Over to you for your last crushing riposte:

  • Sven2547

    I said they were not secularists, insofar as that word has any meaning in 1800.

    Well, that’s not how definitions work. I call them secularists because they meet the very definition of secularism to a T. You might as well claim that St. Luke was not a Christian.

    Over and over again, Christians tend to be behind-the-curve when it comes to civil rights. Slavery was defended using the Bible. So were anti-miscegenation laws. So was women’s suffrage. So is opposition to marriage equality. This is an unbroken trend throughout American history. Figures like Dr. MLK were very much the exception, not the rule. In contrast, throughout American history, secular progressives have been ahead-of-the curve.

    So you don’t know the basic terminology, or the order in which centuries appear.

    Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson all predate the abolition of American slavery, so I’m not sure why you keep saying that.

  • David Junk

    Well, then, how about this : Both “some good christians and some good secularist, did end slavery in the USA in “the past” but WHO will END modern day slavery, medieval religious ruling that chop off heads of both christians and secularist or even Moderate Muslims ? Say in Syria, Sudan, Iraq ? So really guys ? are you guys gonna go on and on who did what in the past only? or UNITE for the future ?

  • Andrew Dowling

    Are you equating secularism with atheism? Jefferson, Adams, Franklin were not atheists, but they did support a government based on Enlightenment notions of reason over and against any religious constructs. That is secularism by my definition. A secularist need not be areligious or find religion to be an overall negative influence, but they do believe religion’s influence needs to be put in check.

    I would disagree with Sven’s bipolar “secularist vs Christian” divide (Enlightenment secularism is actually highly influenced by what would be later called liberal Christianity) but I don’t think one can say Jefferson and co. were not secularists.

  • Jljlmjlmn_Prprsprst

    A lot of slander in this comment…


  • Greg Paley

    No, LIES.
    Everything in his post was false, including the periods and commas. Atheists have no scruples about lying.

  • Asemodevs


  • lady_black

    Yes, Christians did put an end to slavery, and more recently, segregation. Unfortunately, the opposition was other Christians and still is today.

  • RCPreader

    I have withheld my vote from GOP candidates (such as McCain) in the past. But the “reasoning” of this article is nonexistent. Mr. Kidd won’t vote for Trump because he’s…”boorish.” Yeah, better a liberal Democrat than a “boor.” (As if Hillary Clinton were so much less boorish!) And he won’t vote for him because he “doesn’t understand” “religious liberty and abortion.” Precisely what does Trump not “understand” about these issues? This is unexplained. I don’t like the fact that Trump only became pro-life a few years ago, and has refused to speak against gay marriage (but has spoken out on religious liberty), but that is dramatically better than a candidate who is openly committed to promoting abortion and destroying religious freedom.

    Trump is far from an ideal candidate. But who, precisely, is your ideal candidate? Cruz, who stormed out of a meeting with Middle East Christians declaring that he won’t stand with them, and who, along with Rubio, promises to get the US into as many wars as possible, and to facilitate corporations bringing in more and more ‘guest workers’ with H1B visas? (Trump is the only notable candidate who has pledged to reduce H1B visas and who has preached restraint in foreign policy.)

    Presidents govern with Congress, and one must consider the overall equation, not just the candidate. If we keep a Republican Congress, Trump would probably let it take the lead on policy. If we got a Democratic Congress, we’d be far better off with Trump than with Hillary, no matter how imperfect he may be. The GOP candidates are a sad lot, but not so sad that my conscience would permit me to fail to try to block four more years of destructive Democratic rule. If the author’s biggest complaint about Trump is that he is “boorish,” and that overrides every substantive issue for him, I suggest that he examine his own conscience.

  • David Junk

    Hi RCPreader, I like your logic.

    Given the alternatives, Trump may still be the best we have got now.

    Besides, there are more urgent issues that need to be address first.
    Like Christian heads are being chopped off ? (includes all non-islamist ie freethinkers, other muslims, non-religious) So yes, those without any religion you should be worried too and its not just the heads of “christians”.

    As for Abortion and “Gay Marriage”, even if one day there, it totally banned, will it stop people from “doing it”? I mean just cross the border right ? The “LAW” wont stop them, these shouldn’t be politicise, we should focus on helping them on a spiritual side, Didn’t God try to give the LAW to us and that was improved by the new testament of grace and mercy? So are we barking up the wrong tree ? (by insisting on the LAW to stop these stuff – only God can compel not the LAW).

    So these so called, main issues that has been politicise are a distraction, a method to “divide and rule” the USA.

    As an example, in a deep forest, if your leg is broken with blood gushing out (ie. USA is being bled to death by its debts), and will DIE soon (ie. USA goes bankrupt, currency becomes worthless, as China replaces the green back and Islamic Countries implement Sharia, Islamic Banking throughout the world)

    but instead of focusing on fixing it, we argue with the Doctor (ie. say in this case so happen this Doctor is neutral on the gay and abortion issue) and

    INSIST we get a Doctor that is pro-anti-gay and pro-anti-abortion but that “ideal” doctor is not in that forest now ? yes, maybe 100 miles away ?

    Shall we bleed to death ? or fix the URGENT issue first ? Whether you’re democrat, republican, pro life pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro anti gay marriage, ALL these WON’T make ANY difference, when the USA continue to DIE economically, flooded with illegals, Politicians that are “INDEBTED” to their “Masters”. Do remember only TRUMP is self funded (self employed and actually providing jobs), and the rest well they are mostly “Employees” only at best and at worst work for bosses that will continue to destroy the USA, the USA of both the democrats and Republicans.

  • Warren Throckmorton

    Throughout 2007, Rudy Giuliani was the GOP front runner. He eventually faded as I believe Trump will. At some point, voters will realize that nominating Trump means electing Hillary. For most GOP voters, that is the worst possible scenario imaginable.

    However, if I am wrong, I will join you in whatever small effort we can make to prevent a Trump presidency.

  • Houndentenor

    I was saying that months ago but it keeps not happening. I also thought the GOP leadership would find a way to take him down. If they knew how to do that they’d have done it already. Giuliani wasn’t that well known outside NYC and once the rest of the country got to know him they didn’t like him that much. (Very liberal on social issues, 3 marriages, etc. were all things that people who only knew him in the days after 9/11 weren’t aware of.) I agree that early polls are meaningless, but the Trump supporters do not seem bored with him and really, who else is running that they’d support instead?

  • Andrew Dowling

    Your last sentence is the big question mark. I fail to see a large contingent of the Trump voters voting for Bush or Rubio, but at the same time the far right ended up backing McCain and Romney last time.

  • Houndentenor

    We are still over a year away from the 2016 general election. (We should talk about why we drag out our presidential races. No other countries take even 1/4 of this amount of time.) At this point people in both parties like to do a lot of big talk that if they don’t get their candidate they’ll stay home. That’s rarely what happens. In 2008 there was a lot of that kind of talk from both the Obama and Clinton supporters. That’s not what happened that fall. So I don’t think there’s any point in taking any poll or any big talk from anyone at this point all that seriously.

  • lady_black

    The best thing that could happen is if Trump’s ego and following is large enough that he runs as an independent and pulls off another Ross Perot.

  • lady_black

    I think the GOP is scared witless that Trump might actually be the nominee.

  • David Junk

    Hi Thomas,

    Appreciate your viewpoint.

    However, we do need to also be practical while soul searching and understand what is a stake here.

    For example, if there was an emergency (ie. pilot had a heart attack) in an aeroplane, does it matter what “religion” or “style” the person most qualified to fly it ? (the answer is only yes if that particular religion (extreme side) promotes suicide or something, other than that, almost all other religions shouldn’t be a factor.

    As long a generally he a “good” person that will be able to land safely, is that the MOST important ? Or shall we argue over who’s more “spiritual” and keep that most qualified person from the plane controls? Or shall we just pray that the plane fly itself ? or a “correct particular type of christian” be miraculously able learn up “how to fly” in that few minutes of time left before the plane crashes ? In the above example, God gives us an answer, right in front of us, but we get distracted.

    The US is a huge mega plane with HUGE 19 Trillion Debt. If its not already too late, pray that it can recover.

    Not voting is not being responsible. Think about it, would you prefer JOBS and a strong ECONOMY (ie Trump Plan) and then say a prayer of thanks to God for it OR just keep complaining, and keep waiting for the most “ideal” candidate ? Keep praying for jobs that will never come ? The vote is NOT for a “Pastor”, it is for a “President”.

    Who wants to bring back CHRISTMAS instead of Happy Holidays ?
    Who is speaking out against Syrians Christians being slaughter like lambs ?
    Who is speaking against uncontrolled illegal immigration and welcoming legal immigration ?
    Who has a track record of actually creating JOBS?
    Who has not received millions of dollars just to be a puppet of the donors?

    In the last election, Mitt was not voted in due to his “Mormon” faith, well what happen ? If given a choice, to choose the between the plane “flying at level flight” (to vote for the better of the “worst”) while to NOT TO VOTE equals just NOSE DIVING the plane into the ground directly.

    Just THINK which is better ? If we say doesn’t matter then why not just commit suicide right ? At least, in a level flight, there is still time to buy while awaiting for the right one right ? THINK, VOTE, PRAY, you are stronger and more important than you think even if you can’t see it now.

  • Phil Weingart

    Thomas Kidd wrote: “If that means that Hillary Clinton or another Democrat gets elected by default, I am fine with that.”

    So, he doesn’t mind at all if the United States aligns with the rancid ideology that murdered 200 million innocent citizens during the 20th century, and sank a third of the world into misery, poverty, and tyranny?

    I completely agree with Mr. Kidd regarding Donald Trump. I’m not going to vote for that boor either, under any circumstance. I’ll write someone in who’s worthwhile.

    But what I can’t figure out is why he is not equally agitated about the possibility of Hillary the Harridan from Hell sitting in the White House, or Bernie the Doddering Commie.

  • Sven2547

    So, he doesn’t mind at all if the United States aligns with the rancid ideology that murdered 200 million innocent citizens during the 20th century, and sank a third of the world into misery, poverty, and tyranny?

    Oh wow, you can’t tell the difference between center-left Democrats and Stalin or Mao. That’s… impressive.

  • Phil Weingart

    There is no substantial difference. But I do know that none of you who are dupes of this crap understand where it came from, or what effect it had. So be as snarky as you like, it just illustrates your low character and even lower intellect.

    End of discussion. Bye.

  • Sven2547

    There is no substantial difference.

    Well, Stalin and Mao massacred millions of their own countrymen, abolished all dissent, and established absolute dictatorships.

    Have ANY of the Democratic candidates EVER suggested ANYTHING like that in their ENTIRE LIVES?

    Or maybe, -maybe-, you’re being a bit hyperbolic here?

  • Andrew Dowling

    You’re proof Trump voters are low-information voters.

  • lady_black

    I literally have no idea what you’re talking about, and sadly, neither do you.

  • calhou

    So…..let me get this straight… claim to be a conservative Republican and an evangelical Christian who would not vote for Trump under any circumstances because he is not….Christian enough and had a few reality TV shows…….yet you would happily vote for Hillary whose only religion is power, who is a complete criminal and who despises the core beliefs of Christians, evangelical and otherwise……REALLY? Either you are really a Democrat………or you are just not the sharpest tool in the shed.

  • Seth

    The author didn’t say he’s a “conservative Republican and an evangelical Christian”, he said he’s “a conservative Christian who typically votes Republican.” The whole point of the article is that Trump is such a poor candidate that he’s not going to be voting for Trump, even though it sounds like he’d like to support the GOP.

  • Bo Grimes

    Fifteen odd years ago I wrote an entry in my journal along the lines of: “The Left keeps insisting the GOP is hostage to the so-called ‘Religious Right,’ but in fact it is orthodox Christians who are hostage to the GOP. The problem is the Democrat party forced us there.”

    If it weren’t for his stand on abortion, I would be (or would have been) a Jim Webb supporter. Gone are the days of the Blue Dogs. Last year I left the ELCA for the LCMS, but there’s no where to go politically. I agree with you. I could not cast a vote for Trump, but nor could I cast a vote for Hillary. I won’t stay home. I’ll just be one of the point 27% who did a “write in” in my state in 2012.

    It will make a difference to no one but me, but that’s not noone. Not when it’s I alone who will stand before my Maker to account for myself.

  • David Junk

    TRUMP : X-Democrat ? Is he now a “Real” Republican ? A Democrat in Disguise ? Or perhaps a Republican disguise as an X-Democrat ?

    Who Cares with all these Stupid Labels ? When you have the Tatanic about to sink ? Hello ? 19 Trillion Credit Card Bill. Your Masters will be knocking on your door steps soon if you don’t pay up buddy.

    BOTH Democrats and Republicans NEED a businessman now, when there enough food on the table, then we can start fighting again on the seating position on the dining table. Without Food on the table, Who Cares which side of the table you are seating in ?

    Seat on the left or right or centre (politically), if there’s no food, everyone will still DIE of hunger. Hello ? Anyone Home ?

    (by the way all the food on your table (USA) has just been transferred to the other locked and secure room (ie. China ) and others are throwing a party while you were arguing on the seating positions).

    Batman Billionaire Playboy Philanthropist.

    He is for everyone, jobs, fair trade, lower taxes, improved borders all are the basics of a “country”. A rare opportunity for people to bring the US forward into the future.

    All around the world, Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia (Search Wikipedia to check on the developments there, their airports, their tallest towers puts the US to shame.)

    Will Gotham City have a hero ? or will it be “politics” as usual.

    Look at it another way, if you wanna vote for a “politician” that “may” have already been “owned” why not place that vote in the 2020 election ?

    I mean politicians are here with us, anytime, all the time.

    How often do you get a chance to say YES to Batman ? What’s the worst that could happen ? (compared to now in terms of the Debt ?)

    Take a risk, the reward maybe GREAT, if it doesn’t work out, it can be back to “politics as usual” in 2020. Plenty of politicians, there are NOT going ANYWHERE.

    Maybe the MOST important questions to ask any politician or wannabe president would be:-

    1) Do you have any BUSINESS experience and Created Real Jobs in a Real Economy before coming into office?
    2) Do you have CONSTRUCTION experience ?

    For example, BEST BUILDER MEANS:-
    1) People on Pro Life = More Adoption Centres built within time within budget. Means more babies can be saved.
    2) Pro Choice = Better World Class Airports and you can GO for a long Holiday, Stay 5 star Hotels Overseas, World Class Hospitals that Out Do the US, Do your abortion (Sorry Pro Life its not your jurisdiction here) at HALF the COST !

    If there are no Builders that Build a Country you WONT have $ to Donate to that BABY u wanna Save.
    = JOBS = More $ = Donate to Church/Charity=Save more Babies.
    = If you don’t vote less 1 baby will be saved !
    = By NOT voting you are indirectly killing a BABY.

    If there’s No $ (ie country goes bankrupt) means no ProChoice for you too !

    So why based your vote on stupid labels such as Pro whatever ?
    Can you see that even if there is a TOTAL Ban on Abortion in the US, hop on a plane and abortion still can be done ? Then are you going wait for another idea candidate that will have a Global Pro Life “Position” ? and if he fails to globally force pro life on people globally, you not going vote because the person is not “Godly” enough ?

    I understand the predicament, but you got to think out of the box.
    GO Vote ! for the one that can bring economic strength.

    If Trump did it just for the “money” he would have migrated and transferred all his wealth to China or Singapore, where taxes are so much lower. If you don’t want him, I am sure you will see the TRUMP HQ transfer to one of these almost TAX FREE heavens.

    If America doesn’t want him, other countries will take him, just like Jim Rogers.
    Probably Gotham City doesn’t deserve a hero.

    The choice is yours. Bye Bye USA, Hello Singapore !

    Singapore City Of the Future:-

  • lady_black

    Forget about abortion. Nobody will stop abortion, ever. And your “maker” (as you view it) is the biggest abortionist, ever.
    Try to pick someone who won’t squander US lives and treasure on more wars, because abortion is simply not within your reach.

  • Bo Grimes

    I am also anti-war. Why would you assume I wasn’t? Also anti-capital punishment.

  • Houndentenor

    Yes, there are non-churchgoing Evangelicals. I am surrounded by them here in Texas. They don’t go to church and they do whatever they want but they use the religious right talking points to demean people they disapprove of. That sounds exactly like both Trump and most Trump supporters I have met.

  • SamHamilton

    I am pretty conservative politically and theologically, and would consider myself an evangelical if pressed. I will not, regardless of who the Democrats nominate, vote for Donald Trump. I wouldn’t vote for Hillary, but I’d find a third party candidate. Heck, I’d write in my neighbor rather than vote for Trump.

  • CPT

    If you vote for HIllary, you’re voting for the best ally of the abortion industry, a firm supporter of the LGBT agenda, a staunch puppet of Wall Street’s greed, and a warmonger scarcely less than John McCain who has played a big role in further destabilizing the Middle East, opening the door for jihadists to spread and allowing the slaughter and rape of all sorts of people, particularly Christians. She literally checks NONE of the boxes that Christians. Oh, and character-wise, she’s a consummate liar, thoroughly corrupt, and a reflexive friend to the powerful.

    Character-wise, Trump isn’t much better than Hillary. HOWEVER, he at least will be more friendly to religious liberty, is mildly pro-life, and is a war skeptic (yes, he’s actually less interventionist than Hillary!). Just voting to send a message that you’d like the GOP to care more about politeness and courtesy is incredibly short-sighted with these stakes.

  • Andrew Dowling

    Wall Street greed? What party continually tries to repeal any Wall Street regulation? Warmonger? . . what party wants to start new land wars in Syria and Iran?

  • Monique Lynn

    (as if there is such a thing as a non-churchgoing evangelical!) – That’s judgemental he hell, bro. not cool.

  • Naro narosky

    The author? what is his real name. Sidney Blumenthal? ahahahahahah. Democrat style Socialism has hurt the poor the most in every country it has been tried.

  • Matthew

    Have you ever even studied the success social democracy has had in most Western European countries?

  • danainnyc

    Yes, the Scandinavian countries are really in trouble. They can’t find enough poor people to hurt with their “socialism”.

  • Naro narosky

    Scandinavia is in bad shape now.

  • lady_black

    Citation needed.

  • mintap

    Highest rape rates in the world.

  • lady_black

    What does THAT have to do with socialism? You must have thought I was just asking for any old citation.
    No, I want a citation for how socialism has affected the poor in Scandinavia in a bad way. Not citations for men behaving very badly.

  • mintap

    Social health and economic health are not entirely separate. The large-scale breakdown of the family in Scandinavia is linked in someways to economic policy. For example, the government replacement of the father role: women (especially those with children) who ditch their husbands can make some good money.

  • lady_black

    So, you have nothing. I thought so.
    Oh, and by the way, a lot of husbands and fathers really NEED to be “replaced.”

  • mintap

    And a lot of governments are simply a bunch of those same “husbands and fathers” but with military power.

  • Andrew Dowling

    The funny thing is the conservatives are saying Trump is a bridge too far, but they proudly rally behind Ben Carson, a man who said the Geneva Convention on torture should be ignored by the U.S., who said no body ridden with bullets was worth any regulations on guns, and who is willing to trample the 1st Amendment for non-Christians.

    Very Jesus-like positions! You evangelicals sure know how to pick ’em . . . .

  • Wild Child

    Leftist stooges support pond scum like the Clintons.

  • Matthew

    What´s absolutely amazing to me is that the world´s foremost superpower (for now at least) cannot produce better, more qualified republican candidates for arguably the most important role on the global stage.

  • Steve Hosfield

    You my friend are not a conservative at any stretch of the imagination. Are you on Hillary’s payroll?

  • candide

    Evangelicals will have to decide whether their religion is really religion or just a defense of certain social and economic positions. Trump is no Christian and Carson is a peculiar sort of Christian. I always doubted that evangelical voted for Romney whose religion is anathema to them. But I have no evidence. I am not one to trust evangelicals to be sincere. I find their sort of Christianity no more orthodox or traditional than Carson’s or Trump’s. Would it not be wonderful if religion could be expelled from the political scene?

  • lady_black

    Yes. It’s too divisive.

  • Brad F

    No, it would not be good at all.
    We vote, we pay taxes – our views count as much as those of an atheist. You’re OK with the nonreligious tyrannizing the religious. Worked out great in the USSR, didn’t it?

  • lady_black

    I’m not OK with anyone tyrannizing anyone. In this country, there is freedom of, and from, religion.

  • Jon Sellers

    You would rather live under that which is destructive than that which is less than your ideal. If you think Hillary would be less objectionable to Christians and anyone who values the American principles and Constitution, you are deluded. I sincerely hope you are the only one who thinks and acts this way.

    Trump is not my favorite. I don’t like him. But the reality is that the office of President is more than just the person holding the title. It is also the appointment of scores of administrative heads. It influences agency policies. It can control legislation. It appoints judges on many levels. Trump may be a horrible President and a faux conservative, but as a Republican he would be more likely to work favorably with a Republican Congress. Even at his worst Trump is not as horrible, deceptive and destructive as Hillary Clinton.

    This kind of thinking caused many to not vote for Romney and we got Obama the anti-Constitutionalist. How did that work out for Christians in America and around the world???

  • Christian Talour

    I completely disagree with this article. The reason evangelicals are supporting Trump is because of immigration . . . plain and simple.

    There will be no more America or American evangelical Christianity if the United States is overrun with invaders. Evangelicals know this to be true. At this point, immigration is almost the only issue that even matters.

    As a young evangelical Christian from the Millennial generation I had completely abandoned the Republican party, but seeing my country invaded by the third world and seeing a strong candidate like Trump who opposes immigration on all fronts has reengaged me. If Rubio or Jeb is the nominee I will stay home. If Trump is the nominee I’ll vote and donate money to his campaign. We have to fight the invasion.

  • Defensor

    I thought the whole history of the United States was being “overrun with invaders”? And the only issue that matters? What about preserving religious freedom? Abortion? Traditional marriage? Foreign policy and conflict? Economic disparity?

    Furthermore as Christians shouldn’t we desire to take in those who seek refuge?

  • Christian Talour

    If our country is erased by third world invasion and our people completely displaced abortion and gay marriage wont even matter because we wont be around to care. When your fighting for survival you don’t have the luxury to complain about legal theory.
    Look at South Africa. That place used by a thriving country until the fall of Apartheid. Now its a violent backwater with plummeting standards of living and open anti-White lynching.

  • lady_black

    Apartheid-loving racist dim-bulb.

  • Defensor

    So you are saying Apartheid was a good thing?

  • Christian Talour

    When our people are erased by mass invasion from the third world we wont be around to complain about legal theory and the legislation of abortion or gay marriage. At this point immigration represents an existential struggle for America. All other issues appear almost irrelevant. America is about to erased from existence. Wake up.

  • socialchild

    With respect, if you are afraid that the things you believe in–the things you value–can be destroyed by the presence of people who are different from you, it seems to me that you have put your faith in the wrong place.

  • Christian Talour

    Christianity dominated the Middle East for centuries . . . until Islamic conquest virtually erased its existence.

    You might think your values will magically survive invasion, but they wont. You’re world is the product of men who gave their lives to preserve it. You’re comfort was bought by wiser people than you. I won’t leave my future children and grandchildren to live in a land of third world criminal thuggery.

  • mintap

    The history of the U.S. is a land under the rule of law. It is not one people, but a diverse set of people all under the law. When now diversity is also supposed to include those above the law as well that is fake and destructive diversity.

  • Defensor

    What if the current law is faulty? What if we need to amend the laws because as Christian Americans, we recognize the general well-being is more important than strictly adhering to the current rule of law?

  • mintap

    If the current law is faulty, either go through the constitutional means to change that law, move to a jurisdiction with less faulty law or rebel and overthrow the government.

    What exactly do you find faulty with the law? Do enough other people agree with your assessment?

  • Defensor

    So how about I continue to support those who would seek to grant lawful amnesty?

    And I find plenty faulty with the law, however it is a man made institution therefore perfection is not to be expected.

    And I suppose there are many who do agree and many who don’t. Perhaps that is what voting is for.

    In the meantime, let us stop asking questions which do not actually get to the heart of the matter asserted which is ought we or ought we not allow illegal immigrants. This is a debate, not a facilitated discussion on understanding the legal/political process.

    I mean really you’re just asking irrelevant questions here, though I’ve answered them nonetheless.

  • lady_black

    What are you babbling about? My ancestors were invaders, and unless you are an indigenous Native American, so were yours.

  • mintap

    pre-legal colonists ≠ illegal immigrants

  • lady_black

    Worse than illegal immigrants. They stole land from the rightful owners.

  • mintap

    Which rightful owners? Which tribes specifically? What were their official borders?

  • jrb16915

    The sad reality is that is unlikely any President is going to see Roe V. Wade overturned, roll back gay marriage, fix immigration problems and fix trade problems. It is 100% certain that a Democrat president will appoint pro-abortion judges, and pro-homosexual judges. Again this a 100% certainty.

    If Trump were to win the presidency, he would have a clear mandate on immigration and trade issues. These are his top priorities. If he were to win, he has no particular reason to appoint pro-leftist agenda judges when given the opportunity. In this regard Trump is probably less likely than Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum to appoint a left leaning judging, but he is just as likely to appoint a conservative judge as Bush, Cruz, Carson, Fiorina, Rubio or Kasich.

    Trumps career isn’t politics. If he wins, it wouldn’t make sense for him to turn on those who voted him in. He isn’t in it for the post-presidency speech fees or book fees. He doesn’t seem to require third party affirmation from the Press.

    It would be literally insane for a pro-life voter to support the democrat nominee, simply because they don’t like Mr. Trumps personality.

  • lady_black

    It would be worth noting that nobody, even the author, has any “right to life” that rests on the backs of anyone other than himself.

  • Brad F

    That’s true.
    Most people in nursing homes should be killed.
    And infants.
    And people in comas.
    Heck, trolls too.

  • lady_black

    If a person in a nursing home, or an infant, or a person in a coma was dependent upon being tethered to my bloodstream to survive, they might find themselves out of luck. I don’t have to allow that.
    And as someone who has spent an entire career caring for people in nursing homes (including those in a coma), I think you have a hell of a nerve, buddy-boy.
    How much have YOU done for people in nursing homes? Are you there feeding them, changing their clothing and bedding, and washing them? How dare you.

  • Travis Monroe

    Mr. Kidd, may your next rant be that you are going to leave the county if Mr. Trump is elected President! Thank you very much.

  • mintap

    Trump with all his faults is still about 100 miles past any of the Democrats on policy morality scales.

  • Allison Durdevich Smith

    I don’t understand how you claim to be a conservative Christian, yet believe it would be better if Hillary or Bernie were in office, both of which are anti-life. I vote life in EVERY election because of defending the innocent lives of babies. I do not vote based on my wallet. I find this site to be extremely liberal and anti-Word of God. Think I need to go spend my time somewhere else. Can’t believe I wasted time reading this.

  • Zaoldyeck

    Do you vote to support providing contraceptives, and sexual education? Those things demonstrably reduce the number of abortions had. People like Bernie or Hillary support those policies. In practice, the policies limit abortions.

    So, if all you care about is saving the lives of the unborn, that seems a good strategy. If you don’t support those things, and want abortion to be illegal, all you’ll accomplish is making abortions more dangerous, legally punishable, and yet, more common.

    You can try to address the real problem, or you can just want to punish people. I prefer to support politicians who care about providing realistic solutions to underlying problems.

  • stefanstackhouse

    I’m a registered independent and I’ll vote for the best candidate, if I can possibly stomach them. There have been times when I have cast a write-in vote for “None of the above” because I just couldn’t stomach either of them. I am quite prepared to do that this time as well if our choice comes down to Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton. “The lesser of two evils” is still evil. Better to stand in defiant prophetic witness against a system that has lost its way and is heading in the wrong direction.

  • Tom

    I’m with you. I will not vote for anyone if Trump is the Republican nominee. Unfortunately, too many evangelicals mistake Americanism for Christianity.