If Donald Trump has done anything, he has snuffed out the Religious Right

The religious right as an entity with political clout pretty much stupided itself to death.

Absolutely correct. Either a candidate has both conviction of Christian ethics and mores and the ability to communicate and articulate them, or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, he is not to be a standard bearer. The mindset of supporting the GOP nominee because he is not as bad as the Democrat nominee is misguided. This thinking has gotten the religious right, in succession -

Dole
W.Bush
McCain
Romney
Trump

That Trump has no conviction of Christian values has always been evident. That Christians have even considered placing their trust in him is a shame to the discernment of the body of Christ in America.

Speaking for myself, JBL, the reason I voted for Dole, GW Bush, McCain, Romney and will likely vote for Trump is BECAUSE THE ONLY OTHER OPTION was to let WJ Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, HR Clinton be president with all of its power and influence.

Whether you like it or not, these elections were all binary, A or B. I picked the less bad option many times and I am not ashamed of it. I never pretended any of them were wonderful Christian examples, though I am told GW is in his own life.

Mark is right. Although we all wish we could vote for a candidate who exemplifies Christian beliefs and lifestyle, the sad truth is that we have two possibilities for the next president, and only two, and neither manifests Christian beliefs. So the question becomes, which of these two is most likely to protect and preserve Christian liberty and public morality? Or, which is most likely to erode religious freedom and continue the moral decline we have experienced? The courts, as much as anything, will decide these issues. So, the primary question becomes, who is most likely to appoint judges who will uphold the Constitution, and who is most likely to appoint judges who will further erode the Constitution? Upon that basis, I will cast my vote for Trump. (And hold my nose while so doing.)

In the primaries of each of these elections, I usually did not support the ultimate nominee. I don’t remember who I voted for in the 1996 primary… it wasn’t Dole because I personally despise him as a politically spineless coward and weak with constituents (I am from Kansas and had a few interactions with him on a trip and with his office staff…they weren’t helpful but rather ignored us). In 2000 and 04 I voted for Bush in the primary, but in 08 I voted for Huckabee and in 12 Santorum.

But when the primaries are over, I backed the Republican nominee for president because that was the best I could do. FTR, in state and local elections I have voted Democrat in a few occasions because I thought they were the best for the job.

Agreed with Mark. As things stand, we need to choose, prayerfully and with wisdom, the least damaging candidate. We may differ on who that is.

And really, there is a certain point where Christians who want to be in politics need to heed Aaron’s comment and think about how we ought to be participating. All too often, we envision a goal that will resonate in “our own circles”, but we simply don’t consider how it’ll resonate outside.

Hence, people that in a more measured world would have gotten some office—even school board or township trustee—sit on the sidelines and the stereotype of Christians as unsuitable for any office is worsened. And when the time comes for a higher office, nobody is on the bench to take the field. We need to heed, really, the example of countless baseball teams (like my Cubbies historically) who neglected their farm teams and found to their horror that there was nobody when the star center fielder got injured.

I understand the feeling that has been expressed here that a two-party system leaves voters a binary choice when it comes to national presidential elections.

But I believe that the Religious Right’s (RR) thesis that every presidential election has to be framed in the context that America as a Christian nation will be destroyed if “A” wins, and that “B”, regardless of qualification, charisma, or integrity is preferrable to “A” is shortsighted and flawed.

Here are my thoughts regarding why this thesis is short-sighted:

1) Under a two-party system, a single race election outcome is admittedly pragmatically binary. However, it is incorrect to say that the choice at the electorate level is binary. There (usually) are third-party candidates, and there is also the choice to not vote for either candidate of a particular race (different from complete voting abstention).

2) The RR’s decision to support “B” regardless of intrinsic candidate qualities has allowed the propagation of increasingly poorer candidates over time. This has occurred because no incentive exists for the party at large to select candidates who can effectively articulate the RR’s needs and concerns.

3) I believe that abstaining a vote for “B” in the short term will create much more leverage for the RR in the long-term. If the RR refuses support for candidate “B” in a Presidential cycle, his share of the popular vote will drop in the 40s% range to the 20s% range. “B’s” party will immediately be crushed to minority status and have to recalibrate its branding and message, or die. The RR should consider the possibility of enduring short term election losses in favor of potential longer term benefit. As it is, it has already endured the election of Obama (twice) and will shortly endure the election of Clinton. The RR’s current strategy of supporting any Republican candidate ad absurdum exposes it to the fate of having supported decidedly weak or despicable candidates AND enduring short term-loss with nothing to show for it.

My thoughts as to why the thesis is flawed:

1) It assumes that the nation would be “more” Christian should certain practices not be legally permissable (homosexual marriage, abortion, etc.).
There is no doubt that these activities are Biblically against God’s plan for his creation, and are sin. The question is - does the regulation against them make the nation “more” Christian? If yes, can Christians articulate a clear biblical argument for why this is the case?

2) The expression of obedient, godly Christian faith is not predicated on the existence or absence of statutory liberty or sanction.

3) It uses the same “irreversible effect” argument that the global warmists use - basically, unless “X” is deterred, “Y” will be inevitable and irreversible. In 2008, we heard that Obama would destroy America. It’s still here and worth fighting for. We’re hearing the same argument today with Clinton.

Those who believe that a Hilliary presidency would be the end of freedom need to be reminded that it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment. Are we to believe that we cannot find 13 states to retain, say, the 1st or 2nd Amendment?

Hilliary can do some short and long term damage, that’s for sure, and clawing back freedom is going to take some mature judges who are willing to say “the precedent is so out of line with the Constitution that we can safely disregard it”. It might even require the impeachment and removal of some judges whose decisions are particularly egregious. But that said, gun rights advocates have done so since the misconstrual of the 1930s Miller decision—it took 70 years to get to Heller and McDonald, but they got there.

The biggest danger I see, and it is a huge danger with both candidates, is that out of control spending will relegate the Constitution to history not by a legal move, but by fiscal reality. You move the interest rate we’re paying a point or two, and things will get very, very ugly.

but I am “fighting” not to “keep America a Christian nation”, but so that I can keep my job and not be fired for being a bigot just because I don’t support same-sex marriage, or because I won’t attend a homosexual “ALLY” support training class. So that pastors won’t be jailed for preaching on Romans 1, and so that deacon business owners won’t be shut down by the state because they don’t support homosexuality.

These are all very real and likely consequences of a Hillary administration.

As for amendments, in theory you need 3/4 of the states. In reality, things like this will happen. Hillary’s choice gets on the SCOTUS. Homosexuality is made a protected civil rights class like race and religion. Anti-extreme violence decision of SCOTUS is passed where any speech against homosexuals is called a hate crime. Next thing you know, and opposition to homosexuality is illegal. All of this happened without one single law being passed!!

Do you think that is far-fetched?

Mark Smith understands the realities of the present situation. Don’t be distracted by ineffectual loftiness. Politics has always been more pragmatic than principled. We need to understand how the system works, and use it to best advantage for our goals. That’s what good stewardship entails in this situation. The Lord commended the unjust steward because he had performed wisely (not righteously). “The children of this world, are in their generation wiser than children of light.”