“It is illegal for clergy to support or oppose political candidates from the pulpit. Houses of worship can host candidate forums and voter-registration drives; pastors and rabbis and imams can even bend the rules a little to advocate “as individuals” at conventions or other events. But for more than 60 years, religious groups have been forbidden from electioneering.
Apparently, a lot of pastors don’t pay attention to this rule. According to a new survey from Pew Research Center, roughly 9 percent of people who have attended religious services in the last few months have heard clergy speak out in favor of a political candidate, and roughly 11 percent have heard clergy speak in opposition. What’s remarkable, though, is how much this is apparently happening at one particular kind of church: those run by black Protestants.
Fully 28 percent of those who have attended black Protestant churches in the last few months heard their pastor support Hillary Clinton. Seven percent experienced the opposite—their leaders opposed the U.S. Democratic presidential nominee. On the whole, though, black pastors are much more opposed to Donald Trump: 20 percent of recent attendees said they’ve heard comments against Trump at church. This kind of political advocacy apparently extends to down-ballot races, too: 9 percent of black-church attendees heard clergy speak in favor of a candidate who wasn’t Trump or Clinton, while 6 percent heard their pastors speak in opposition.
To be clear, political speech is not punishable by jail time; the worst possible consequence for a house of worship is losing its status as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization. The IRS has the authority to audit and fine congregations if they suspect them of campaigning or lobbying. The agency rarely exercises this right, though; in recent years, low on budget and increasingly facing public criticism, it has emphasized education, rather than enforcement.”
———————————–
That last line is BS. They were too focused on conservative Republican groups to care. Plus, these are reliable Dem voters, so Barry won’t sick the IRS on them. He reserves that for his political opponents only.
Donna, it does make you wonder. Those Republicans are afraid of losing the status quo AKA their gravy train. If Trump or a 3rd Party Candidate is elected who doesn’t owe anything to the lobbyists then who will pay for the trips and other perks that congress critters enjoy?
If you REALLY want the bejeezus scared out of you go on Netflix and binge watch House of Cards.
I am becoming more cynical by the day
Should Trump win (it’s unlikely, but so has everything else been this cycle), it will be fascinating to watch what happens to the Republican party such as we’ve known it.
The ‘never trump’ bunch will almost have to launch their own conservative party, I’d think, as they’ll be shut out in a very serious way (Trump appears to hold grudges, no?).
I’ve never watched House of Cards but may give it a try. I’ve been pretty cynical about politicians for a long time now (so it’s not all that much of a stretch for me to vote for the proverbial ‘lesser of two evils’)
Richard Samuelson’s essay, “Who’s Afraid of Religious Liberty?,” offers a sobering look at how religious liberty has come to be devalued by American liberals, especially when it conflicts with the liberal attachment to anti-discrimination law. Progressives see adherence to many traditional religious teachings, particular those concerning sexual morality and the status of women, as mere bigotry to be stamped out by government authorities.
In what follows, I’ll address three issues raised by the essay. How did we get here? Is the situation as dire as Samuelson suggests? And, finally, what does it all mean for the future of Jews and Judaism in the United States? …
__________________
… The rise and spread of anti-Israel agitation, particularly on the nation’s campuses, is the most common case. Such agitation, expressed in the form of defamatory graffiti, “Israel Apartheid” demonstrations, and the verbal or physical abuse of pro-Israel students, feeds into and is increasingly indistinguishable from outright anti-Semitism. Even the most zealously “progressive” young Jews are targeted as accomplices-by-definition with the alleged crimes of Zionism. As one student who has fallen afoul of his campus’s orthodoxies has lamented, “because I am Jewish, I cannot be an activist who supports Black Lives Matter or the LGBTQ community. . . . [A]mong my peers, Jews are oppressors and murderers.” Such is the progressive doctrine of “intersectionality,” according to which all approved causes are interconnected and must be mutually supported, no exceptions and no tradeoffs allowed.
Lately, this brand of wholesale anti-Semitic vilification under the guise of anti-Zionism has leapt beyond the precincts of the academy to infiltrate American political discourse, becoming vocally evident on both the political left and the political right and insidiously infecting this year’s presidential campaign and party maneuverings. For an analysis of the campus assault’s underlying mechanisms and wider effects, Ruth Wisse’s Mosaic essay, “Anti-Semitism Goes to School,” is unsurpassed. So far, the trend shows no sign of abating.
But there is another danger, equally grave though as yet less open and less remarked upon. It is connected with longer-term shifts in Americans’ fundamental understanding of themselves and of their liberty, and consequently with the laws that embody and reflect that understanding: in particular, the laws enshrining America’s commitment to religious liberty and, relatedly, liberty of association or, as the Constitution has it, assembly. Coming to the fore over issues of personal identity, most saliently in relation to the gay-rights movement, same-sex marriage, and transgender rights, it has resulted in a legal battle in which the radioactive charge of “discrimination,” borrowed from the civil-rights movement of the 1960s, is wielded as a weapon to isolate, impugn, and penalize dissenting views held by Americans of faith and informing the conduct of their religious lives.
Jews are hardly the only group at risk from developments in this area of progressive agitation; up till now, its main targets have been believing Christians. Perhaps for that same reason, Jews have also not been in the front ranks of those raising an alarm. Nevertheless, the threat to them, and to the practice of Judaism, especially by Orthodox Jews, is very real. Unlike in the past, the threat comes not from private initiatives; it comes from government. …
__________________________
Ricky — trump and sanders aren’t in the same corner. Trump isnt even in the same ring.
Not surprised Bush and Kaisch supporters are supporting Clinton. They’re all corporatist. Some Republicans may have a grudge against Clinton but the elites know she’s in their corner. The economic policies of the two parties are quite similar.
Much ado over the Orlando shooter’s father being in the Clinton audience. In all liklihood, they truly didnt know who he was and as for his seating ‘– its where organizers put spectators who increase the diversity of supporters on TV. If her staff tighten security to learn the idenity of each audience member, theur social media profile etc., some would say she’s screening her audience.
Although after Trumps latest speech, perhaps she should. Trump will shrug it of but suggesting Second Ammendment people do something if Clinton appointed judges who favored gun control is a nod and wink away from advocating direct action.
HRW, Trump, Sanders and Chavez are/were all protectionists. Chavez got to try his theories out with terrible results. If Trump, Sanders or another protectionist gains power in the US, we will all see how things really can get much worse. I know you think Hillary won’t go protectionist, but I think she will do anything to stay in power.
We all know that Trump’s positions are very ‘flexible’, but I think protectionism may be one of his core values along with adultery, lying and bankruptcy
I’ve attended churches all over the country for the last 35 years. I have NEVER heard a political speech from the pulpit.
I’ve rarely heard pro-life speeches, if you want to call them political.
It genuinely grieves me that there are churches out there focusing on something other than Jesus. I know it’s true, you can’t be in Christian publishing and NOT know it’s true, but it’s so troublesome.
It’s also the reason Evangleicals have no credibility in the culture anymore.
My wonderful relative just got back from an internship in China and he looked me in the eye and said, “I’m confused by what I’ve been reading. Why would Evangelicals support a man who’s been married three times?”
I shook my head. “They don’t. Listen to me closely. I do not know a single Evangelical in the United States who supports Trump.”
“That’s not what the media says.”
“Are you going to listen to the media or someone who is an actual Evangelical?”
He had no answer, but sadly, I don’t think he was convinced. 😦
DJ, The 50 Republican national security professionals endorsed Hillary because:
A. They tend to make national security a higher priority than domestic issues.
B. They believe Trump would endanger our traditional alliances, putting our interests at risk.
C. They think Trump lacks the knowledge, experience, judgment, self-control and sanity to be President.
Many business leaders are supporting Hillary because Trump is; A. A protectionist and B. A lunatic.
I think most conservative intellectuals actually agree that Trump would probably be worse than Hillary. They will never endorse Hillary because A. She is not only liberal, but also corrupt and unfit; and B. Such an act could ruin their careers.
Michelle, If this election doesn’t cause pastors to pull back from political involvement, nothing will. We are used to the Jeremiah Wrights of the world focusing on politics, but this year many ‘evangelicals’ led by Robert Jeffress and Little Jerry Falwell have also made fools of themselves.
Pastors have no business endorsing politicians IMO. There’s a pretty wide line to walk between speaking to issues like abortion, and what God would say about the preciousness of life, and naming names and endorsing candidates from the pulpit. You can do the former without the latter and let folks make their own decision. Like all citizens our pastors have the right to their personal opinion. But they should share it as such, and not from the pulpit.
Protectionism isn’t a central part of Sander’s platform. Targeted tariffs perhaps and definitely a prohibition of so-called free trade agreements which should more accurately be referred to as pro-corporatist agreements (i.e. the current TPP has very little to do with free trade and more to do with corporate rights against domestic political policy). Trump is a reactionary in the sense he wants tariffs to protect industry no matter how inefficient or ill-managed they are — neither Sanders and nor Clinton especially want that.
There’s a lot of reasons why Chavez and his successors had problems, protectionism is only a minor issue — try the decline of petroleum prices.
Trump has no economic values/policy other than to ensure he doesn’t actually pay for his own bankruptcies.
The only churches I’ve attended regularly are Southern Baptist churches.
The closest thing to politics from the pulpit was several years ago when the pastor said, “You don’t have to be Republican to be a Christian.”
Polls after the convention indicate just over 75% of “self identified” white evangelicals will vote for Trump. Now we can argue what makes somebody a “true” evangelical as opposed to “self identified”
Interesting for me is the primary results in Iowa and Michigan. Trump did not win in north west (Sioux) and central (Pella) Iowa nor did he win in south west Michigan (Grand Rapids). It seems the Reformed community has denied not to vote for Trump (now will they vote for Clinton is another question). This matters in Iowa and Michigan where the Reformed community is a large dependable Republican vote. Sioux County, Iowa vote for Bush by a larger percentage than any county in the US. Without the Iowa Reformed vote, Trump will lose Iowa and make it even more difficult for him to gain Michigan.
Attending church in the US, I was always struck by the presence of a US flag somewhere in the sanctuary. I never seen a Canadian flag in a church. I know this doesn’t indicate a mix of church and state but I do think it indicates a willingness to bring politics into the service.
Protectionism is to simply enact a tariff or policy to protect an industry. Almost all OECD countries do this with agriculture. Sanders and his supporters argue that the rules need to be changed to take into account “fair” wages, labour rights, environmental protection, etc. Its a reasonably and ethical position. Enacting rules to protect labour and the environment is different than simply enacting a tariff to protect an industry. The latter is open to corruption, the former ensures a level playing field.
Declining oil prices have played havoc with resource dependent economies in Russia, Alberta, Venezuela, etc. The Texas economy is slowing but is better off than the jurisdictions listed because it is diversified with aeronautics, technology, insurance etc all provided a cushion from the ups and down of a resource economy. Most oil economies don’t have that cushion.
hwesseli, Flags in the sanctuary grieve my husband and me. I grew up with it and didn’t think anything of it then, but today it would distress me, and my husband as an elder wouldn’t allow it in ours.
Michelle, I know an evangelical who supports Trump. She supported Carson until he dropped out and endorsed Trump, and that was enough for her to support him, too.
I spent a lot of time in Chicago among black Christians (my church was 60% black and Chicago at that time has 38% black and 38% white–I don’t know the numbers today–and so I also worked with a lot of black Christians, and my entire neighborhood for seven or eight years was black, with my household the only non-black household on the street, so any of my neighbors who were Christians were black Christians). And I can tell you that politics from the pulpit, and blacks being Democrats, was absolutely the norm.
One of my co-workers attended a very large black church on the South Side of Chicago. The Democrat running for the state senate was disqualified, thrown into prison I believe, but legally it was too late to replace him with another person on the ballot. That would mean a Republican in an all-black district would win by default, and that was so anathema that this pastor ran, ran as a wink-wink “Independent” (everyone knew he was really a Democrat) just so the Republican couldn’t win. He kept his church, but billboards went up quickly to let people know he was in the race and all was not lost. To me, that was a very vulgar entry of politics into the church, but no one blinked an eye. It is politics/church as normal.
Sanders says he is going to protect workers and trees. Trump says he will bring back jobs. Once a country starts imposing tariffs it is on its way to becoming another Venezuela.
We have a Yankee flag in our church. I have assigned a close friend to replace the Yankee flag with an ANV battle flag for my funeral.
Trade has been a very important component of the Texas economic success story. NAFTA has really helped us. We would like to continue trading with Yankee states. We must be allowed to continue to trade with Mexico and other Latin American countries.
Wandering Views 
Hillary fought Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Monica Lewinsky from the White House.
Trump fought to avoid venereal diseases, alimony and his creditors in New York City.
Evan McMullin fought Muslim terrorists as a CIA agent in the Middle East.
LikeLike
On one side of trade are Hayek, Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell.
On the other side are Bernie Sanders and Trump.
Choose your side.
LikeLike
I forgot. Hugo Chavez was with Trump and Sanders.
LikeLike
I’m beginning to suspect that Ricky isn’t in Trump’s corner.
😆
LikeLiked by 7 people
What I don’t get are the “Republicans” coming out FOR Clinton. I mean, seriously?
That I just don’t get — at all.
Abstain, go 3rd party, whatever. But Clinton? shaking my head
LikeLiked by 3 people
Chas,
Is that your Capt. Obvious impression?
If so, it’s good. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nothing gets past Chas
LikeLike
And they’re just now noticing this? It’s been going on for at least the last 5 election cycles.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/black-pastors-pulpit-hillary-clinton/494876/?utm_source=atltw
“It is illegal for clergy to support or oppose political candidates from the pulpit. Houses of worship can host candidate forums and voter-registration drives; pastors and rabbis and imams can even bend the rules a little to advocate “as individuals” at conventions or other events. But for more than 60 years, religious groups have been forbidden from electioneering.
Apparently, a lot of pastors don’t pay attention to this rule. According to a new survey from Pew Research Center, roughly 9 percent of people who have attended religious services in the last few months have heard clergy speak out in favor of a political candidate, and roughly 11 percent have heard clergy speak in opposition. What’s remarkable, though, is how much this is apparently happening at one particular kind of church: those run by black Protestants.
Fully 28 percent of those who have attended black Protestant churches in the last few months heard their pastor support Hillary Clinton. Seven percent experienced the opposite—their leaders opposed the U.S. Democratic presidential nominee. On the whole, though, black pastors are much more opposed to Donald Trump: 20 percent of recent attendees said they’ve heard comments against Trump at church. This kind of political advocacy apparently extends to down-ballot races, too: 9 percent of black-church attendees heard clergy speak in favor of a candidate who wasn’t Trump or Clinton, while 6 percent heard their pastors speak in opposition.
To be clear, political speech is not punishable by jail time; the worst possible consequence for a house of worship is losing its status as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization. The IRS has the authority to audit and fine congregations if they suspect them of campaigning or lobbying. The agency rarely exercises this right, though; in recent years, low on budget and increasingly facing public criticism, it has emphasized education, rather than enforcement.”
———————————–
That last line is BS. They were too focused on conservative Republican groups to care. Plus, these are reliable Dem voters, so Barry won’t sick the IRS on them. He reserves that for his political opponents only.
LikeLike
Donna, it does make you wonder. Those Republicans are afraid of losing the status quo AKA their gravy train. If Trump or a 3rd Party Candidate is elected who doesn’t owe anything to the lobbyists then who will pay for the trips and other perks that congress critters enjoy?
If you REALLY want the bejeezus scared out of you go on Netflix and binge watch House of Cards.
I am becoming more cynical by the day
LikeLiked by 1 person
Should Trump win (it’s unlikely, but so has everything else been this cycle), it will be fascinating to watch what happens to the Republican party such as we’ve known it.
The ‘never trump’ bunch will almost have to launch their own conservative party, I’d think, as they’ll be shut out in a very serious way (Trump appears to hold grudges, no?).
I’ve never watched House of Cards but may give it a try. I’ve been pretty cynical about politicians for a long time now (so it’s not all that much of a stretch for me to vote for the proverbial ‘lesser of two evils’)
LikeLike
Interesting read
http://mosaicmagazine.com/response/2016/08/how-anti-discrimination-became-a-religion-and-what-it-means-for-judaism/
__________________
Richard Samuelson’s essay, “Who’s Afraid of Religious Liberty?,” offers a sobering look at how religious liberty has come to be devalued by American liberals, especially when it conflicts with the liberal attachment to anti-discrimination law. Progressives see adherence to many traditional religious teachings, particular those concerning sexual morality and the status of women, as mere bigotry to be stamped out by government authorities.
In what follows, I’ll address three issues raised by the essay. How did we get here? Is the situation as dire as Samuelson suggests? And, finally, what does it all mean for the future of Jews and Judaism in the United States? …
__________________
LikeLike
And the original piece:
http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2016/08/whos-afraid-of-religious-liberty/
__________________
… The rise and spread of anti-Israel agitation, particularly on the nation’s campuses, is the most common case. Such agitation, expressed in the form of defamatory graffiti, “Israel Apartheid” demonstrations, and the verbal or physical abuse of pro-Israel students, feeds into and is increasingly indistinguishable from outright anti-Semitism. Even the most zealously “progressive” young Jews are targeted as accomplices-by-definition with the alleged crimes of Zionism. As one student who has fallen afoul of his campus’s orthodoxies has lamented, “because I am Jewish, I cannot be an activist who supports Black Lives Matter or the LGBTQ community. . . . [A]mong my peers, Jews are oppressors and murderers.” Such is the progressive doctrine of “intersectionality,” according to which all approved causes are interconnected and must be mutually supported, no exceptions and no tradeoffs allowed.
Lately, this brand of wholesale anti-Semitic vilification under the guise of anti-Zionism has leapt beyond the precincts of the academy to infiltrate American political discourse, becoming vocally evident on both the political left and the political right and insidiously infecting this year’s presidential campaign and party maneuverings. For an analysis of the campus assault’s underlying mechanisms and wider effects, Ruth Wisse’s Mosaic essay, “Anti-Semitism Goes to School,” is unsurpassed. So far, the trend shows no sign of abating.
But there is another danger, equally grave though as yet less open and less remarked upon. It is connected with longer-term shifts in Americans’ fundamental understanding of themselves and of their liberty, and consequently with the laws that embody and reflect that understanding: in particular, the laws enshrining America’s commitment to religious liberty and, relatedly, liberty of association or, as the Constitution has it, assembly. Coming to the fore over issues of personal identity, most saliently in relation to the gay-rights movement, same-sex marriage, and transgender rights, it has resulted in a legal battle in which the radioactive charge of “discrimination,” borrowed from the civil-rights movement of the 1960s, is wielded as a weapon to isolate, impugn, and penalize dissenting views held by Americans of faith and informing the conduct of their religious lives.
Jews are hardly the only group at risk from developments in this area of progressive agitation; up till now, its main targets have been believing Christians. Perhaps for that same reason, Jews have also not been in the front ranks of those raising an alarm. Nevertheless, the threat to them, and to the practice of Judaism, especially by Orthodox Jews, is very real. Unlike in the past, the threat comes not from private initiatives; it comes from government. …
__________________________
LikeLike
Ricky — trump and sanders aren’t in the same corner. Trump isnt even in the same ring.
Not surprised Bush and Kaisch supporters are supporting Clinton. They’re all corporatist. Some Republicans may have a grudge against Clinton but the elites know she’s in their corner. The economic policies of the two parties are quite similar.
Much ado over the Orlando shooter’s father being in the Clinton audience. In all liklihood, they truly didnt know who he was and as for his seating ‘– its where organizers put spectators who increase the diversity of supporters on TV. If her staff tighten security to learn the idenity of each audience member, theur social media profile etc., some would say she’s screening her audience.
Although after Trumps latest speech, perhaps she should. Trump will shrug it of but suggesting Second Ammendment people do something if Clinton appointed judges who favored gun control is a nod and wink away from advocating direct action.
LikeLike
HRW, Trump, Sanders and Chavez are/were all protectionists. Chavez got to try his theories out with terrible results. If Trump, Sanders or another protectionist gains power in the US, we will all see how things really can get much worse. I know you think Hillary won’t go protectionist, but I think she will do anything to stay in power.
We all know that Trump’s positions are very ‘flexible’, but I think protectionism may be one of his core values along with adultery, lying and bankruptcy
LikeLike
I’ve attended churches all over the country for the last 35 years. I have NEVER heard a political speech from the pulpit.
I’ve rarely heard pro-life speeches, if you want to call them political.
It genuinely grieves me that there are churches out there focusing on something other than Jesus. I know it’s true, you can’t be in Christian publishing and NOT know it’s true, but it’s so troublesome.
It’s also the reason Evangleicals have no credibility in the culture anymore.
My wonderful relative just got back from an internship in China and he looked me in the eye and said, “I’m confused by what I’ve been reading. Why would Evangelicals support a man who’s been married three times?”
I shook my head. “They don’t. Listen to me closely. I do not know a single Evangelical in the United States who supports Trump.”
“That’s not what the media says.”
“Are you going to listen to the media or someone who is an actual Evangelical?”
He had no answer, but sadly, I don’t think he was convinced. 😦
LikeLiked by 2 people
You ask yourself, how did Joseph’s family end up enslaved in Egypt after only a few generations? Look at our country.
LikeLike
DJ, The 50 Republican national security professionals endorsed Hillary because:
A. They tend to make national security a higher priority than domestic issues.
B. They believe Trump would endanger our traditional alliances, putting our interests at risk.
C. They think Trump lacks the knowledge, experience, judgment, self-control and sanity to be President.
Many business leaders are supporting Hillary because Trump is; A. A protectionist and B. A lunatic.
I think most conservative intellectuals actually agree that Trump would probably be worse than Hillary. They will never endorse Hillary because A. She is not only liberal, but also corrupt and unfit; and B. Such an act could ruin their careers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michelle, If this election doesn’t cause pastors to pull back from political involvement, nothing will. We are used to the Jeremiah Wrights of the world focusing on politics, but this year many ‘evangelicals’ led by Robert Jeffress and Little Jerry Falwell have also made fools of themselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pastors have no business endorsing politicians IMO. There’s a pretty wide line to walk between speaking to issues like abortion, and what God would say about the preciousness of life, and naming names and endorsing candidates from the pulpit. You can do the former without the latter and let folks make their own decision. Like all citizens our pastors have the right to their personal opinion. But they should share it as such, and not from the pulpit.
LikeLike
Protectionism isn’t a central part of Sander’s platform. Targeted tariffs perhaps and definitely a prohibition of so-called free trade agreements which should more accurately be referred to as pro-corporatist agreements (i.e. the current TPP has very little to do with free trade and more to do with corporate rights against domestic political policy). Trump is a reactionary in the sense he wants tariffs to protect industry no matter how inefficient or ill-managed they are — neither Sanders and nor Clinton especially want that.
There’s a lot of reasons why Chavez and his successors had problems, protectionism is only a minor issue — try the decline of petroleum prices.
Trump has no economic values/policy other than to ensure he doesn’t actually pay for his own bankruptcies.
LikeLike
The only churches I’ve attended regularly are Southern Baptist churches.
The closest thing to politics from the pulpit was several years ago when the pastor said, “You don’t have to be Republican to be a Christian.”
😉
LikeLike
Oil prices went down. Texas isn’t bankrupt.
Neither Chavez nor Trump nor Sanders call their policies “protectionism”. They call it “fair trade” or some other euphemism.
LikeLike
Who targets protectionism? Who decides if an industry is poorly managed or inefficient? Trump? Sanders? Some bureaucrat?
LikeLike
Polls after the convention indicate just over 75% of “self identified” white evangelicals will vote for Trump. Now we can argue what makes somebody a “true” evangelical as opposed to “self identified”
Interesting for me is the primary results in Iowa and Michigan. Trump did not win in north west (Sioux) and central (Pella) Iowa nor did he win in south west Michigan (Grand Rapids). It seems the Reformed community has denied not to vote for Trump (now will they vote for Clinton is another question). This matters in Iowa and Michigan where the Reformed community is a large dependable Republican vote. Sioux County, Iowa vote for Bush by a larger percentage than any county in the US. Without the Iowa Reformed vote, Trump will lose Iowa and make it even more difficult for him to gain Michigan.
Attending church in the US, I was always struck by the presence of a US flag somewhere in the sanctuary. I never seen a Canadian flag in a church. I know this doesn’t indicate a mix of church and state but I do think it indicates a willingness to bring politics into the service.
LikeLike
Protectionism is to simply enact a tariff or policy to protect an industry. Almost all OECD countries do this with agriculture. Sanders and his supporters argue that the rules need to be changed to take into account “fair” wages, labour rights, environmental protection, etc. Its a reasonably and ethical position. Enacting rules to protect labour and the environment is different than simply enacting a tariff to protect an industry. The latter is open to corruption, the former ensures a level playing field.
Declining oil prices have played havoc with resource dependent economies in Russia, Alberta, Venezuela, etc. The Texas economy is slowing but is better off than the jurisdictions listed because it is diversified with aeronautics, technology, insurance etc all provided a cushion from the ups and down of a resource economy. Most oil economies don’t have that cushion.
LikeLike
hwesseli, Flags in the sanctuary grieve my husband and me. I grew up with it and didn’t think anything of it then, but today it would distress me, and my husband as an elder wouldn’t allow it in ours.
Michelle, I know an evangelical who supports Trump. She supported Carson until he dropped out and endorsed Trump, and that was enough for her to support him, too.
I spent a lot of time in Chicago among black Christians (my church was 60% black and Chicago at that time has 38% black and 38% white–I don’t know the numbers today–and so I also worked with a lot of black Christians, and my entire neighborhood for seven or eight years was black, with my household the only non-black household on the street, so any of my neighbors who were Christians were black Christians). And I can tell you that politics from the pulpit, and blacks being Democrats, was absolutely the norm.
One of my co-workers attended a very large black church on the South Side of Chicago. The Democrat running for the state senate was disqualified, thrown into prison I believe, but legally it was too late to replace him with another person on the ballot. That would mean a Republican in an all-black district would win by default, and that was so anathema that this pastor ran, ran as a wink-wink “Independent” (everyone knew he was really a Democrat) just so the Republican couldn’t win. He kept his church, but billboards went up quickly to let people know he was in the race and all was not lost. To me, that was a very vulgar entry of politics into the church, but no one blinked an eye. It is politics/church as normal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sanders says he is going to protect workers and trees. Trump says he will bring back jobs. Once a country starts imposing tariffs it is on its way to becoming another Venezuela.
We have a Yankee flag in our church. I have assigned a close friend to replace the Yankee flag with an ANV battle flag for my funeral.
LikeLike
Trade has been a very important component of the Texas economic success story. NAFTA has really helped us. We would like to continue trading with Yankee states. We must be allowed to continue to trade with Mexico and other Latin American countries.
LikeLike
No political comments from our pulpit, no U.S. Flag (on purpose)
‘Self-identified’ is the key phrase in evangelicals who favor Trump. There was a survey that showed most of those people did not go to church
LikeLiked by 1 person