Life, Family, and Religion
About current events and general interest related to family, religion, and philosophy.
Welcome to Life, Family, and Religion
Thanks for visiting my blog. I will ponder issues and disscuss events related to living life as a Christian with a family. This is a broad topic, of course, so just about anything is fair game. Check back or suggest topics for discussion.
Thursday, August 28, 2025
Tuesday, February 4, 2020
Response to “Why Evangelicals Should Oppose Trump and Vote Democrat”
Response to “Why Evangelicals Should Oppose Trump and Vote
Democrat,” an article by Robb Ryerse dated January 31, 2020, by Wade Rutland
Howell Jr. Ph. D.
In this sort article Robb Ryerse claims that Republicans,
and more specifically Evangelical Christians, should abandon their party and
support democrats to defeat President Trump. The article itself is short and I encourage
anyone who has not read it to do so. There is no heavy lifting to be done, it
is simply an appeal to elect Democrats over Republicans because Trump is the devil.
I am only partially joking with that summary.
As best I can determine Mr. Ryerse provides about six
reasons for Evangelicals to redirect support from Trump and Republicans this
year. He also notes he only needs about five percent of Evangelicals to ensure
Trump does not win. By the way, he also notes that he works with a group called
Vote Common Good against Republicans. I also visited this group’s website and
read what they are about. The group seems to think Democrats don’t know how to
speak to religious people effectively and desire to have religious people agree
that they should vote for the common good, rather than their own self interests.
What the common good is, however, is not explicitly stated. So, while the
website does not tell us what the common good is, it does tell us that voting
for democrats is how we get it. It is interesting that Mr. Ryerse argues people
should not blindly support Trump and Republicans but should vote for “common
good” which means voting for Democrats, apparently without regard for who the
candidate is, or as others might call this, to vote blindly for Democrats. My
Ryerse himself, in his article, defines the common good as “getting Trump and
his enablers out of office.”
What about those six reasons to redirect support away from
Trump. I will list them and address them now. First, Trump does not believe
what Evangelicals believe (about abortion) and only supports it publicly so
that Evangelicals will vote for him. I am not sure why this is a problem.
Voters may prefer someone who believes as they do on issues (I certainly would).
The next best situation would be to have someone who will promote policy that
aligns with issues of the voters even though they might not agree with it personally
(what Mr. Ryerse accuses Trump of this). It would be much worse have someone
who promotes policies contrary to the voter’s ideals, whether they say they
agree with you or not. Trump’s inner convictions about abortion (for or
against) are greatly overshadowed by the public actions he has taken. If, as Evangelicals,
we believe that the common good includes (at least in part) opposition to
acceptance or normalization of abortion, then I fail to find Mr. Ryerse’s reason
to redirect support from Trump to a Democrat convincing. Especially since
Democratic candidates actively seek to promote the acceptance and normalization
of abortion.
Second, the common good is advanced by defeating Trump
and Republicans. I suppose this claim must be self evident, because Mr. Ryerse
simply asserts this claim without argument. I suppose I must be blinded to the clear
evidence of Trump’s malice and the Republicans who are falling all over themselves
to do whatever the president wants. Mr. Ryerse asserts that the President has
disdain for decency, disrespect toward right and wrong, and disregard for the vulnerable
(his alliteration shows his Seminary Training is paying off). Unfortunately,
Mr. Ryerse did not provide me with examples detailing the issues, so I will
have to await this clear evidence to show up so I can evaluate it. I could just
take him at his word, he is a Pastor after all. The only problem with that is
that I am also a Pastor and have been serving in Churches for almost twenty
years. I am afraid I will have to wait for Mr. Ryerse or others to provide
evidence and argument that will show me that my own assessment of the public
record is in need of amendment.
Third, supporting President Trump because of his
position on abortion is a deal with the devil. Evidence offered for this position
is that Evangelical support of Refugee resettlement programs has shifted among
Evangelicals and he ties this to allegiance to The President. The question we
have to ask about Evangelical support for Refugee resettlement is why the
shift. Mr. Ryerse infers the reason as related to supporting the president. Could
it be that greater examination of the program has caused people to reevaluate their
positions? If so, that would be similar to what Mr. Ryerse is asking Republicans
to do. I do not know why Evangelical support for a particular program has
shifted, or even that it has shifted, but I am confident it is not because
Evangelicals were told to change their position
of the President will no longer hold to a pro-life public policy. If it was, I
never got the memo.
Forth, a procedural vote in the Senate impeachment trial
of President Trump against calling witnesses is the exaltation of the Executive
branch over the Legislative branch. Here we have our first argument. Mr. Ryerse
claims the following: either Republican Senators vote to allow witnesses or they
abandon their responsibility as a co-equal branch of government. It is nice to
read an argument on page five of six of my printout of Mr. Ryerse’s article. Unfortunately,
this argument, which is presented as a constructive dilemma, turns out to be a
false dilemma. A third alternative to the motivation for the vote of Republican
Senators is that they believed that the impeachment charges, even if true, were
not sufficient to remove a president. Maybe they thought what Trump was accused
of was not wrong, or that the entire impeachment from the house was only
political, or that what President Trump did was wrong but did not rise to the
level of impeachment (think back to the Clinton impeachment), or that there may
have been something there but that the House of Representatives should have
done a more thorough job with fact finding before sending the articles to the
Senate. I just provided four other possible reasons (I am sure there are many
more also) which makes Mr. Ryerse’s (with only two choices) dilemma a false one.
Fifth, Evangelical support to President Trump is blind
and abandons previously held values. Instead of another argument, with this
point we only get another assertion. But we can ask the question, do Evangelicals
support the President blindly? I don’t think so. Do they support him robustly? Yes,
I think they do. Do Evangelicals think the President can do no wrong? No,
certainly not. As an Evangelical, a Pastor, a Philosopher and Theologian, I
believe the president is no moral exemplar, but he was far better (on the whole) than the alternative in 2016. I suspect that he will be far better than the 2020 alternative also.
Sixth, Republicans should vote for the Democrats
(just this one time) for the greater good. Here we get a final argument. Mr. Ryerse
writes Republicans should support Democrat candidates this election “Because a
deal with the Democrats is better than a deal with the devil.” I actually agree
that a deal with the Democrats would be better than a deal with the devil. I disagree
that Trump is the devil. In this final sentence of the article Mr. Ryerse steps
into the open and states outright what the tone of the article hinted. Mr. Ryerse
does not view the President and the members of the Republican party as good faith
actors who disagree with him. He sees them as enemies of the good. While this
can be an effective rhetorical tactic, it commits another logical fallacy. It
is an ad hominem attack. Here we see that Mr. Ryerse thinks to highly (or
lowly) of the President. President Trump is a man, not a demon or supernatural entity
of evil. He is a fallen human, who needs salvation only found in Jesus Christ,
just like every other human.
A vote to re-elect President Trump is not a vote for Satan. Votes
for Republican candidates in other races are not votes for the hordes of hell. Likewise,
votes for the Democratic candidates are not votes for Satan and the hordes of
hell either. This is not to say that the votes are not consequential, because
they are.
I believe that the Democrats believe that what they support
is good for our country. I do not question their patriotism. I simply cannot
understand how they could possibly think what they are proposing would be good
for the USA, Americans, or the world. I can, however, see how the agenda pushed
by Democrats candidates is good for Democrat candidates.
I suppose Mr. Ryerse would simply see me as a blind follower
of President Trump. Just another Evangelical who can’t see past myself to the “greater
good” which he has such a great apprehension of. Maybe that is it. Maybe my
instance on logic, argument, evidence, and public policies that do not further consolidate
power in the hands of the few means I can’t see this greater good he is pointing
to. Maybe if he is so inclined, he can spit in some clay and rub it in my eyes
like Jesus did in John 9:6, then maybe I will be able see truth of his words. Till
then, I guess I will just go on until I can be healed of my blindness.
Monday, June 17, 2019
Saturday, April 27, 2019
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Thoughts on Star Wars Episode VII
As some of you may know, I was not
excited about Disney's New Pop-Star Wars. There has been a lot of
hype and some people are going quite batty over it, so I have held my
comments close. I very rarely go to the movies and I expected to see
it some time later after it was out of theaters. Two things to keep
in mind as you read this. 1) The Star Trek franchise is far superior
to the Star Wars franchise. 2) I am in the minority that think
episodes 1, 2, and 3 of Star Wars are much better than episodes 4, 5,
and 6.
and the Jedi Academy of North Florida won't allow me
to be trained (much cynicism in me, they sense). All that is fine. I
must speak (or rather type) the truth, and if that truth is painful,
well then, suck it up buttercup.
So the movie exceeded my expectations, but only barely.

I know people are fixated on size, but give me a break.
![]() |
One Direction Logo |
![]() |
First Order Logo |
Once again the military industrial
complex (First Order this time...what an awful name, I could not
help thinking One Direction every time they said First Order) is
looking for a small cute droid on a desert planet because it has
information that could be dangerous in the hands of the Rebels
(sorry
Resistance). The droid ends up with someone who does not know they
can use the force and this person decides to help get the droid back
to those who need it. (This plot line is completely different from a
droid taking a message from Princess Leia to an old man in robes on a
desert planet, because this is an old man in robes on a desert planet
trying to get a message to Princess/General Leia....totally
different.)Also the droid and the new
force wielder end up leaving the desert planet on the Millennium Falcon while being hunted by the military industrial complex.




In this movie, however, the
Rebels.....(Resistance) fights back and the much awaited X-Wing
fighters who chase away the bad people. Who shows up on the scene but Princess, or General, Leia who is committed to eating better and no
longer carries her cinnamon buns with her on set.

Now that the Senate is out of the
way....which, by the way, who is funding these guys...The Empire
funded the Imperial Army, which would have become the Republic's army
again after Palpatine's death. How do we still have either the
remnant of the Imperial Army re-branded and hostile to the Senate and
have a Rebellion (sorry, Resistance) that is not the Republic's
army...Is there no army for the Republic and the Senate? Do we really
have just two rogue factions with the Senate in the middle? How do
you fund planet sized super weapons without a stable tax base and a
strong, growing middle class? Seems fishy.
But, now the real challenge. How to
you destroy the SPSEDS before it can eat a star and recharge and blow
you up? And this time they fixed all the flaws of the previous Death
Stars. You can't blow up the shield generators on the planet, because
the planet is the Death Star. They already eradicated the Ewoks so
you can't get stone age technology to beat back the defenses. They
built buildings over the exhaust ports, so you can't just shoot into
it with the force to blow it up. How do you overcome this? Send Han
and Chewy (along with Fin, the ex Storm Trooper Janitor) and plant a
few IEDs (like any good Resistance fighter) and blow up the building
before the SPSEDS finishes its star lunch and rescue Ren in the
process.
Ren, is not a weak character to be
pushed around by Emo Solo and his interrogation of her AWAKENS the
force within her. So the big bad, overly emotional, Sith gets scared
of a young girl in restraints. Ren quickly uses Jedi mind tricks to
get free and runs into her rescue party as they are trying to figure
out how to blow up the SPSEDS.

Meanwhile, back at the Death Star
trench scene from episode IV, the explosion does not do the job so a
new Rebel (Resistance) star pilot has to fly through a trench

between a star and a planet. It only looks like a small disk in the sky from here on Earth. From the perspective of a star the size of our sun planet is very small. So now all the gravitational pull in the surrounding systems are out of whack because One Direction's concert hall blew up and moved a star.
Now for the celebration...or not.
Returning to the Rebel base (er...Resistance headquarters) and we
tell everyone Han is dead. But R2D2, who has been so depressed at
losing Luke that he has been catatonic, wakes up and has the larger
map that the small piece held by the cute new droid fits into
seamlessly. Now the Resistance knows where Luke is. They have been
looking for him since he left the note telling them where he went.
How could Luke know that C3PO would knock over a glass of java juice
and ruin the instructions of how to get to where he was going.
Everyone this entire movie has been looking for the map to Luke. We
assumed it was so that they could go and get Luke to battle One
Direction and Emo Solo. But, that is not the case. Apparently it was
just so they could have a completed map. Whew...what a relief, our
map is complete.
The only person interested in actually finding Luke
is the newly awakened Ren and she takes Chewy along as copilot of the
Falcon.Will Ren find Luke? What will she do
when she finds him? What does the original Jedi temple look like?
Will we find out. Yes we find out. The Jedi originated in, wait for
it...Ireland. Yes it is Ireland, Skellig Michael to be precise. Just
in case you want to go there for vacation. If you do, watch out for
the puffins. At long last, Luke Skywalker is found and Ren gets to
meet the Jedi legend. What suspense. What drama. What will he say.
Will it be a wise “I've been waiting for you.” Or an inquisitive,
“why have you come?” Or even a sarcastic “What is the airspeed
velocity of an unladen swallow?”

My young girls liked the movie. I thought it was yet another in the series that doesn't offer much except cool special effects. Not sure where things go from here. I hope they get better.
Friday, July 17, 2015
Friday, June 26, 2015
The Day the World Changed
Not very often does the world change
overnight. I suppose that a fundamental change in the fabric of the
world only happens on very rare occasions. But it has happened. One
day the world was a certain way and when people woke up the next
morning things were radically different. But I will come back to this
in a moment.
On June 26, 2015 the
Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that same sex
marriage is a constitutional right (or something to that effect).
Some rejoice while others mourn. This ruling will be debated and
discussed without end for some time to come.
Many people are concerned
about what effect this decision will have on the Church. Now that the
United States has accepted a definition of marriage that is contrary
to a biblical view of marriage, what will happen to the church? To
seek to provide an answer to that question, I will ask a few more
questions.
First, now that the Supreme
Court has ruled, are there still people in the United States who do
not have a relationship with Jesus Christ? Did the ruling somehow
eliminate those who need the Gospel from our shores? The reality is
that there are still millions of people in our country who are
outside of God's family and who need a savior. The church should not
panic, we still have the same work to do today that we had yesterday.
Second, now that nine
justices have voted five to four that same sex marriage is
constitutional, did that ruling remove God from his throne? Is God no
longer sovereign because of this ruling? God is the same today as he
was yesterday. Overthrowing thousands of years of historical
precedence by the Supreme Court of the United States has not
overthrown the King of the Universe. The Alpha and Omega is not
threatened by our country and its laws. The church should not wring
its hands in fear, God is still as much in control as he has always
been.
Third, has the judicial
ruling taken away the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Are lives
no longer able to be reconciled to God because of the votes of five
judges? The power of the Gospel to change the heart of a human has
not been diminished. The atoning work of Jesus is still the only hope
for the world and still has the power to transform rebellious people
into God's family. We should be about the same thing we should have
always been about, sharing the good news of Jesus Christ.
Although many Americans are
upset about the change in direction of our country, I suspect that
the Sun will still rise in the morning. People who are living in
rebellion to God will still need the Gospel tomorrow as they did
yesterday. The fields are still ready to be harvested and workers are
still needed to bring in the harvest.
One thing this ruling may
do is show people that the United States of America is not the savior
of the world. Sometimes I think we forget that. Jesus saves people,
not the good ole USA. People may be concerned that our country is
getting farther away from God, but we have many laws in our country
that allow for sin. Marriage is a high profile issue, but it is not
the only issue that departs from God's will.
The United States, however
bad we might think things are getting, is still not as hostile to
Christianity as Rome was. (At least we are not crucifying Christians,
well not yet anyway). The Church survived Rome and will survive the
United States of America also.
Will things change in our
country as a result of this ruling? It seems so. It seems that same
sex couples will be treated the same way that opposite sex couples
are treated in the eyes of the law. This ruling may mean that our
churches may face legal challenges in the future. This may mean that
people and organizations might try to force Christians to replace the
understanding of marriage, derived from scripture, with a legal
definition declared by the court. There will be challenges, but there
have always been challenges.
There was a day that
changed the world, but it was not this day. The day that changed the
world was not June 26, 2015, it was a day a little over two thousand
years ago. On that day a cosmic event signaled the birth of the King
of Kings. On that day God took on humanity and lived among his
people. Jesus was born so that he could die to save us from our sins.
He accomplished his mission and left us work to do. We carry on,
hoping in him and knowing that he has overcome the world.
Labels:
Church,
church and state,
marriage,
same sex marriage,
supreme court
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)