Democrats/Liberals it is not the end of the world!

One of my good friends, a lifelong Democrat has texted me several times since the election asking if I still thought it was going to be alright.  I think he expresses the fears of many in our country after a stunning upset victory by Donald Trump, a victory that surprised even many of his own supporters.  I was and still am a supporter of President Donald Trump, although I did tell my friend a few days prior to the election that I really did not think he had a chance to win.

Forty-eight percent of voters are happy with the results of the election.  Many felt disenfranchised, fearful or frustrated over the last eight years.  Many, like me, felt we have been headed in the wrong direction as a nation for a long time.  To us this election brings the hope that Donald Trump can in fact, “make America great again.”

The other half of our country are still confused, disappointed, angry or hurt.   I realize many women are disappointed.  I am all for a woman to become President, but I want the right woman and I definitely do not believe Hillary Clinton was the right woman. 

There were many, like my friend, who saw the last eight years as a time of positive change and of course they are disappointed.  This is where the divide came between conservatives and liberals. Regardless of the number of times Hannity on Fox News reported all the negatives of the Obama Administration the Liberals did not and will not ever get it. The celebrities will continue to ridicule our elected President instead of getting behind him in an attempt to improve our country.  They are full of criticism and offer no solutions and I understand why.  The Democratic Party has always solicited the support of celebrities and put them on a pedestal while in office.  It has always seem to me that Republicans in general are more willing to live in the real world than a fantasy world.  That is why I left the Democrat Party during the Nixon campaign.

The pundits and politicians will continue to analyze the election results and the Trump Administration, seeking to tell us what they mean in the hours, days and years ahead.  But the questions for me are, Where do we go from here?  How does our nation come together?  And, to my friend’s point, Will it be okay?  It will be okay only if the media returns to journalism and presenting facts instead of personal opinions and the celebrities go back to being overpaid entertainers and stop attempting to be pseudo politicians.

I think it will be okay.  I liked Donald Trump’s acceptance speech and the spirit it conveyed; a lofty vision, a humility, a willingness to work together and a desire to represent all Americans.  I also appreciated Hillary Clinton’s concession speech, which was moving and which reflected, despite the disappointment and pain of loss, a hopefulness and confidence in America’s future.

I am willing to give President Trump a chance and unlike my friend I am not expressing disappointment that he has not performed miracles in less than a month.  Those opposing President Trump were willing to give Obama four more years to correct all his mistakes, but are not willing to give President Trump even his first one hundred days before condemning him.

It will be okay because we live in a democracy whose founding fathers wisely created a system of checks and balances in government that are meant to spread power across the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Presidents do not rule by decree, although some like Obama try, the majority seek to lead and influence, and if they are ineffective, they and their party are voted out.  It’s a good system that has served us well for more than two centuries.

It will be okay because, despite his shortcomings and unsettling rhetoric, Donald Trump has strengths that he brings to the presidency.  Strengths that to my knowledge NO president has ever brought to that office in our past.  We need to always remember no candidates are as bad as their opponents paint them, nor as good as they believe themselves to be.  I do believe President Trumps strengths in negotiating deals will serve him well in Washington and perhaps help find win-win solutions to challenging issues we face.

I believe it will be okay because my hope and faith has never been primarily in politicians and political parties, but in Jesus Christ.  You may think that is naïve, but I think it is far more naïve to listen and put faith in the bias media and the celebrities.

I personally am praying today for Donald Trump and his team. I pray that God will enable them, and prepare them and guide them as they prepare to lead our country.  Finally, I’m praying that we as Christians can be instrumental in bringing healing to the divisions in our country today, rather than making the divisions even wider.  We have a mandate to forgive, to love, and also to “speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves” and “to do justice, and practice loving kindness and walk humbly with God.”  This is a personal opinion I will give all for FREE - many including Christians have become to judgemental of others and have come to believe they have all the answers.

There are challenges and opportunities ahead of us.  But, the sooner we come together as Americans to face the challenges, to seize upon the opportunities and together, find a way to help our country live up to its potential the better it will be for us all. 

I honestly believe by 2018 we will experience the worse recession we have ever had since the Great Depression.  I pray not, but the wrong path has been traveled too long for any correction to be made to prevent it in just one year.  It is more important now than ever that we work together as one people and one nation seeking God’s guidance. 

We are divided as a Country and as Christians.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  Abraham Lincoln is most known for that quote, but actually Jesus Christ said if before Abraham Lincoln even thought of it.  

Our Nation is more divided today than I have ever seen it in my lifetime. It is worse than during the turmoil of the 60’s when Vietnam and Love-Ins were festering topics.

How are we divided well let us count the ways: 

We do not listen to one another any longer. If someone does not agree with us we question their motivation. Immediately anyone who does not agree with our religion or our politics or our views in general are judged stupid and evil. We are no longer willing to have reasonable discussions and reach a consensus on what we have in common and work from there.

There was a time when Republicans and Democrats had difference in opinions on how the country should be run. But, we did not hate one another and try to destroy one another. We had political differences and that was it – simple.  The elections came and went and the losers accepted their loss and we moved on as one supporting the elected candidates. What is ironic is there are far fewer differences in the two parties than ever before and we do our best to destroy each other before and after the election and nothing productive is ever accomplished.

One only has to follow social media to see that we no longer have thoughtful, and respectful discussions. We no longer are interested in trying to win anyone over to our way of thinking, instead with our words we do all we can to turn them away by attacking their sincerity, intelligence and faith.

What happen to LOVE!  Mention homosexuality to some Christians and you will see the most vicious, vile rhetoric come from their heart and their mouths. The Orlando massacre shined a light on the bigotry of some lay and some ministers within the church. For example, “I wish one Saturday night a group of people would organize all around the country and go to every gay bar in America and kill ever single queer in there and that would stop them from leading our children and grandchildren astray”, “They were not afraid in that restroom in that queer bar in Orlando. They were too busy having sex to be afraid”, “My only problem with the dumb terrorist in Orlando was he did not kill them all.”  The list goes on and on and on and the people vow up and down they are CHRISTIANS.

I think some Christians are going to be shocked when they reach the Pearly Gates and find them padlocked. I do not think the words some Christians are using in speaking of homosexuals are the words God wants them to use.  

I realize some Christians say they are  tired of being made into the bad guys. They’re tired of being called the bigots, the haters, etc. I was told by one Christian,  “If I do not speak out loud and clear now to stop the homosexuals one day I may lose my right to do so.” I do not think it is the agenda of homosexuals to prevent Christians from believing as they wish or to take away their right to free speech, but it is their agenda to be able to speak and live as they believe. There are bigots on both sides of the issue and if you do not want to be called a bigot then do not act like one.

At the Indiana Statehouse, Rev. Ron Johnson Jr. of the Indiana Pastors Alliance addressed a roaring crowd: “We’re not here today because we’re angry. We’re not here because we hate people. “We’re actually here,” he said, “because we love Jesus.” He went on to say, “How can government force people to act against their religious consciences — against an unshakable belief that marriage is between a man and a woman?” Has the government ask any Christian to do that?  There are laws about discriminating in a PUBLIC business. The government has only ask that we respect the rights of others to believe as they want, just as the Christians opposed to homosexuality do. 

I heard similar arguments at my Grandmothers church, First Baptist Church of Pratt City, Alabama against integration and interracial marriages. The only words coming from his mouth that I agreed with was, “I’m not asking for special protected class status. I’m asking to be left alone, for crying out loud.” Rev. Ron Johnson that is all the gay community really wants.

For some evangelical Christians, who are led by ministers like the Indiana Pastors Alliance there is no compromise. Expanding the state civil rights law to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes would effectively feel like a betrayal of their constitutional rights.

Not all Christians share their views. Some Christians agree with enacting nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people, including a coalition of mainline Christian denominations and a group of 141 faith leaders who signed onto a letter of support. Bishop William Gafkjen, who oversees Indiana and Kentucky congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, said he doesn’t feel that adding to the civil rights law threatens his religious freedom.

Christian’s are more divided today than ever before in my lifetime. There has always been some that thought if you did not belong to their church or denomination you could not go to heaven. There has always been some that thought they were the only ones that knew how to interpret scripture. But, there are some Christians today that are nearly or they are militant about their opinions.

If you believe me to be wrong then next Sunday after church start a conversation with those you just worshiped God with about immigration.  If one person does not explode like a stick of dynamite has been ignited in them - I would be shocked.  A recent National Public Radio report noted, “Immigration is shaping up to be one of the most contentious and emotional topics in the 2016 presidential race.”  Even among us Christians.

We seem to forget that all Americans have immigrants in their genealogy if they take time to go back far enough.  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned racial criteria for immigration. From that time on, people would be admitted “on the basis of their skills and their relationship to those already here” and to find refuge from oppression. The problem is not immigration the problem is that our immigration laws are not being following by our politicians. The law never intended to allow illegal immigration into our country.

 There are approximately 11.3 million persons in the U.S. today without authorization—without some kind of Visa or Green Card. Of these, roughly half came here on a Visa or Green Card that has now expired, and half came into our country by crossing the border without authorization. The problem is not all immigrants the problem is illegal immigrants and whose fault is that they have freely crossed our borders and overstayed their visa’s without any repercussion. If I was from a depressed country and could get to the Promised Land legally or illegally I would. I would especially do so when the President of that country encouraged it. Now this is the question that will set fire under some - would it be legal or illegal today for the Jewish people to take the land of the Canaanites, which is now Palestine? Would the Jewish people at that time be consider illegal aliens today?

The Bible has many references to immigrants—in fact, foreigners, strangers, and aliens are mentioned more than 150 times.

In Leviticus, God says: “When immigrants live in your land with you, you must not cheat them. Any immigrant who lives with you must be treated as if they were one of your citizens. You must love them as yourself, because you were immigrants in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:33-34).

The question of immigrants is complicated today by the extreme radical Muslims. I think the main solution to that problem is strict enforcement of our Immigration Laws. I am not convinced discrimination against any one particular group of people is the answer.

All people that desire to enter our country should be vetted and required to meet stringent guidelines regardless of their religion or country of origin.  I think people should prove they can contribute to the betterment of the United States in the future in order to enter and that seems harsh to a lot of liberal thinking Christians. I think there should be set time limits as to when they must demonstrate they have a command of the English language.  But, I am no longer for discrimination against a certain group of people.  I once was because I feared radical Islamic Muslims.

I disagree with many other Christians on taking in refugees. I am for HELPING and protecting refugees in their own homeland. I do not think as Christians we can stand by and not offer assistance, but to bring their problems to our shores when we already face so many problems I simply cannot support it. If we do allow them to enter the United States I think we have a Christian obligation to treat then as  fellow citizens of the United States.

TO BE CONTINUED

Questions for Pope Francis

Pope Francis I love you, but who are you to judge the convictions of Donald Trump's heart when it come to his being a follower of Christ or not. I wish I could ask you if it is Christian for men of the cloth to rape children. Is it Christian for the leaders of my church, the church I have devoted my life to, to cover up those sins? Is it Christian for Bishops to live in mansions while people starve around the world? Is it Christian for priest to take personal money from the collections and you know they do? If we are going to judge we need to judge our own before we start judging others.

Cruz should have the majority of evangelical votes - but he doesn't - why?

Donald Trump is a mainline Protestant who hardly goes to church. Ben Carson’s 15 minutes of fame is over. Marco Rubio’s faith journey has taken him from Catholicism to Mormonism to evangelicalism and back to Catholicism. If Rubio has as difficult time making political decisions as he has making religious decisions I question his loyalty to any principle.

Cruz is supposed to be the real deal. A true evangelical Christian, loyal to the U.S. Constitution, Southern Baptist, a preacher’s kid and yet he has not sewed up the evangelical vote – why? He announced his candidacy at Liberty University, founded by Jerry Falwell, but Jerry Falwell’s son who is head of Liberty University supports Trump – why? No one has a better record in Congress on the social issues that “Old style” conservatives embrace, but he still does not have the evangelical vote in the basket – why?

Trump all but matches Cruz for evangelical support in Iowa. Trump’s refusal to participate in the FOX debate may change that. Cruz is going to twist the truth and out and out lie to use Trump’s refusal against him. I noticed since Trump announced he would not participate in the debate Sean Hannity who has had his head up Trumps backside has pulled it out and stuck it up Cruz’s backside. That may hurt Trump in Iowa.

Could it be that evangelicals know Cruz is a hypocrite? Southern Baptist teaches tithing ten percent of your gross income to the church is essential to your faith and according to public records Cruz contributes LESS than ONE percent. He claims to be against Wall Street, yet his wife is an executive of one of the largest Wall Street firms and even borrowed one million dollars from Wall Street banks to help finance his campaign. There’s got to be something more that’s made a lot of evangelicals wary of throwing their support to Cruz, and I think I know what it is. Evangelicals hate hypocrites.

In the last Republican presidential debate, Cruz gave his testimony, and (as he notes) he gives it all the time. But the conversion story he tells is his father’s, not his own. Cruz was born in a Christian home and has always been a Christian and was raised in the church.

I have not decided to support Trump because to be honest I do not like his fight with Megyn Kelly and FOX, Carly Fiorina (face), and Marco Rubio (sweat) or his more serious attacks on Mexican immigrants (accusing the many of what the few do), his character assault on Ben Carson, comparing him to a child molester who has pathological problems and, most recently his apparent mocking of the disability of a New York Times journalist. It bothers me he does not apologize for his remarks. I do not like his extra-large ego and pettiness, but I am convinced he can do more to help the economy and foreign affairs than any of the other candidates – he would be a strong leader. 

The warnings in Proverbs are strong: “Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him” (Proverbs 29:20). “A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back” (Proverbs 29:11). I really think this applies to anyone, but especially to anyone who wants to be President of the United States.

Do you think white evangelicals are recalling an earlier election and are looking more for a candidate that is better for the country, rather than better for the church? The year of the evangelical was the Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter. President Carter brought millions of evangelicals into the political process — on behalf of the Democratic ticket. The list of white evangelicals who supported Carter that year reads like a who’s who of the religious right, including Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham. That fall, Carter won nearly half the evangelical vote. No Democrat has even come close to that in the decades since. Few people today would deny Carter was the worse U.S. President in our lifetime. I personally think Obama took that title from Carter.

I think the Rev. James Linzey, a retired Army chaplain and vocal leader among some conservative Evangelicals, sums up his support for Donald Trump and it applies to me and many evangelicals, “Because he tells it like it is, and he exudes honesty and transparency, and he’s the kind of person who is not going to deceive us. Evangelicals are tired of being deceived by wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

I do not think any of the political pundits or media elitist’s or Republican establishment realized how deep the voter’s frustration with the GOP really was. The Republican Party has failed to take care of even one major issue that concerns conservatives and evangelicals over the past many years.

I am not impressed with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council endorsement of Cruz. He has for a long time urged Christian conservatives to pick a consensus presidential candidate early in the nomination process, but remember he early on endorsed the nominations of John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012. I do think Cruz will gain strength among evangelicals and the only one in the end that will share in those votes is Rubio, but I believe Tony Perkins is wrong again and Cruz is not the candidate to beat a Democrat candidate.

Political Party Platforms are a joke!

The political parties’ official platforms, written at the national conventions, mean very little or even nothing. These are not things that individual candidates must follow and they are given essentially no attention in the campaigns and certainly not after the votes are cast.

It is very difficult for political parties to maintain discipline over their members.  The people who run for Congress are not picked by the party leadership. They are picked by the voters in primary elections. If the candidates do not want to follow the party platform, there is very little that the party can do about it. We have seen in recent years many examples of “tea party” insurgents defeating Republican incumbents in the primaries even though the party supported the incumbents.

The party cannot force elected officials to follow the party platform and candidates tend to ignore them.  Candidate’s campaign on whatever issues they think will be most effective in getting them elected. Party platforms are no longer important.

Read the 2008 platforms of both parties carefully and you will see they are well-crafted documents that really mean nothing. I am going to use the Democrat Party Platform as an example to prove my point.  

In 2008 the Democratic Party called tax increases ‘investments in America’. They obviously did a good job of making it appear that increasing taxes would increase jobs. Normally voter run from parties that espouse tax increases, but Obama won.   

The Democratic Party stated in the 2008 platform they would provide an immediate energy rebate to American families struggling with the record price of gasoline. Were the rebates for the purpose of helping American families or friends and contributors of Democrat candidates?

The 789 billion dollar ‘Stimulus Package’ they were proud of in 2008 was no longer called the ‘Stimulus Package’ after it failed to stimulate anything, but the bank accounts of Obama’s friends and supporters. The ‘Stimulus Package’ of the 2008 platform became the’ Recover Act’. Stimulus became a dirty word in Washington. Obama joked about ‘shovel ready jobs’ the stimulus money was invested in that turned out not to be not so ‘shovel ready’ after all. I guess it is easy to make jokes about losing money when it is not your money you are losing.

The Democrats in 2008 promised affordable health care, but did we get it. No we did not. Insurance premiums sky rocketed and continues to increase. We cannot keep our doctor as promised or the health insurance policy we had if we were happy with it as promised. In order to have health insurance coverage policy holders had to be satisfied with high deductibles. If you do not have insurance coverage you have to pay a penalty each year. I live in the Philippine and last year I had to pay over $800 in penalties for not having a health insurance policy. I could not afford a U.S. health insurance policy that would pay hospital expenses abroad and Medicare and government insurance policies do not cover anyone outside the continental United States.

Be careful of the word ‘We’ in platforms. You will find the ‘We’ is ‘You’. They write the platform and the legislation and pass the cost on to ‘You’.

Democrat platforms are always committed to an economic policy that produces good jobs with good pay and benefits. That is why they claim they support unions. In reality they support unions in order to get the union bosses to put pressure on union members to vote for them. In 2008 they claimed when unions are allowed to do their job of making sure that workers get their fair share, they pull people out of poverty and create a stronger middle class. Did that happen – wages are stagnated, the middle class is weaker than it has been since the Great Depression. Higher wages are good and needed, but keep in mind higher wages mean higher cost of living. An x-ray in the Philippines cost $7 how much do they cost in the United States? I by no means endorse the low wages paid in the Philippines.

In 2008 the Democrats promised to cut poverty in half within ten year- is that happening? They promised to provide all our children a world-class education, from early childhood through college – college is more expensive now than ever. We will develop innovative transitional job programs that place unemployed people into temporary jobs and train them for permanent ones – are welfare recipients required to participate in work programs or go to school - NO. To help workers share in our country’s productivity, we’ll expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, and raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation – they made sure illegal aliens got Earned Income Tax Credit.  The majority of adults in poverty are women, and to combat poverty we must work for fair pay, support for mothers, and policies that promote responsible fatherhood – more homes are without fathers today than ever before.

The Democrats said higher taxes would lower gas prices and they would solve the problem of four-dollar a gallon gas with a comprehensive plan and investment in clean energy. How many of Obama’s investment in cleaner energy went bankrupt costing tax payer? Do you really believe higher taxes and bankrupt clean energy companies brought gas prices down to where they are today?

The Democrats promised to make quality, affordable early childhood care and education available to every American child from the day he or she is born. Their Our Children’s First Agenda, including increases in Head Start and Early Head Start, and investments in high-quality Pre-K, were supposed to improve quality of education and provide learning and support to families with children ages zero to five. Their Our Presidential Early Learning Council was supposed to coordinate these efforts. Regardless of the money the government throws at education we are ranked 27 in education worldwide. The Constitution does not provide for such programs. It is my opinion public school education suffers because of teachers unions the very thing the Democrats support. What incentive does a person have to do a good job if they cannot be fired?

The Democrat platform stated “We will invest in American jobs and finally end the tax breaks that ship jobs overseas. We will create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to provide for our next generation of innovators and job creators; we will expand the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships and create new job training programs for clean technologies. We will bring together government, private industry, workers, and academia to turn around the manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy and provide assistance to automakers and parts companies to encourage retooling of facilities in this country to produce advanced technology vehicles and their key components.” General Motors is moving plants to Mexico as I write this. How many manufacturing jobs have return to America, especially from China? How many trillions of dollars remain in banks abroad because manufacturers will not bring the funds back to America because of high Corporate Taxes? This money being kept abroad could boost United States investment in manufacturing jobs.

The Democrats promised to seek a world with no nuclear weapons and take concrete actions to move in this direction. Do you really believe the Iran deal will do that? Their goal was to eliminate nuclear weapons worldwide. They did a good job of trying to weaken our ability to respond militarily to a crisis, but fail to tell Iran, North Korea and Russia they were supposed to do the same.

A promise they kept was to not develop new nuclear weapons.  But, they failed to get Russia and Putin on board with their plan. Hillary’s ‘restart button’ plan failed.

The Democrats promised to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future – NO COMMENT!

In 2008 the Democrats promised to support our friends and participate in their stability. I wonder how Israel feels about that platform promise.

They also kept their promise to eliminate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Program and replace it with a system allowing Individual Soldiers to express their sexual preferences openly. I will give them credit for doing that.

The list goes on and on of failed promises in the Democrat 2008 platform. If you took the Republican platform you would find as many failed promises.  Do you still believe a wise voter votes based on what is in either parties platform. They promise during campaigns and do what they want when elected. 

Can you distinguish between a religious leader and politician today - I can't.

Americans have lost respect for our religious leaders not God. I personally would prefer religious leaders to stay out of politics and in the pulpits. I am tired of turning on the news and listening to religious leaders acting like political pundits.

Religious leaders should not try to influence how the American public votes in elections. Religious leaders should not try to use their power to influence political leaders. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, disagrees with me and claims, "There's no definition for 'religious leaders,' there's no definition for 'involved,' there's no definition for 'politics.' So people are left to their own interpretation." Perhaps the lack of definitions is the problem.

I believe religious leaders should offer help and support to the people that share their religious beliefs through spiritual and moral guidance. He or she leads public worship and other religious ceremonies not political rallies. They are involved in teaching the Word of God, charity work or social work. Jesus Christ should be the model religious leaders follow and they should take note He did not get involved in politics. Perhaps religious leaders should return to the belief that their profession is a ‘calling’ from God and not a career path to fame and fortune.

Politics is about gaining power or authority and I do not think that is what our religious leaders should be seeking. Politics is about managing public affairs in a way that benefit all people regardless of their religious beliefs.  How can a religious leader be true to his or her ‘calling’ and support legislation that may benefit the majority of citizens, but violates their religious beliefs – birth control, homosexuality, divorce, etc? It is impossible to keep your oath to both offices or serve two masters.

Religious leaders and Christians should vote on Election Day. Religious leaders should be involved in teaching their members the importance of voting and should instruct them in Biblical moral teaching so they can make informed decision when it comes to voting.  They should not become publicly involved in actually campaigning to get legislation passed, become publicly involved in foreign affairs or publicly campaign for a particular candidate.

Involvement is one issue Richard Land and I disagree on he believes that “religious leaders ought to deal with what the Bible has to say with public policy issues, and we should be looking for candidates who endorse us." He makes it an ‘us against them’ issue and that is not what a democracy should be about. That is divisive and is Obama politics which Richard Land probably does not agree with. Catholic religious leaders believe a good candidate would be one that would prevent artificial birth control. I do not believe that and I am Catholic and Richard Land who is Baptist should not believe that to be criteria for a person to be a good candidate.

Richard Land plays with words he says, religious leaders should not endorse candidates, but then he says religious leaders should endorse candidates that endorse us. Is that a way of expressing endorsement of religious leaders to get around Federal laws which govern such things. I frankly do not get the difference you endorse me and I will endorse you; I endorse you if you will endorse me.

Richard Land is against the Republican Party taking a hard right stance on immigration. He is against deporting large number of illegal aliens. He is for bringing in the refugees from Syria. These are issues that the majority of Americans are not for, but he is trying to use his religious influence to influence the Republican leadership and the Republican Party Platform.  I call that too much involvement in politics for a religious leader, obviously he does not.

The 1970s and 1980s brought about changes in the amount of involvement religious leaders had in politics with the rise of new conservative religious leaders such as Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority and Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition. "Get saved, get baptized and get registered to vote," Falwell urged his evangelical audiences. Falwell has passed on, but that mentality continues to resonate in this year's elections, especially with Republican Primary candidate Ted Cruz.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan appeared on Face the Nation and said, “…religion and politics cannot be separated.” If you want to get a good picture of mixing politics and religion just take a look at the Philippines. The Catholic Church leadership fought the people of the Philippines over birth control. The people got a Reproductive Bill passed that called for artificial birth control, but specified that it could not cause abortion. Everyone thought the issue was resolved until the 2016 Budget was approved and the people discovered the Catholic Church leadership had persuaded enough politicians not to allocate any funds for birth control thus ending the Reproduction Bill that the people fought for and got passed.

Cardinal Dolan thinks religious leaders must be involved in politics since it was politicians that executed Jesus. He claims that was a “blatant political move” a blatant political move of Jewish religious leaders and Roman politicians. I really cannot determine which were the most guilty religious leaders or Roman politicians.  

Where does faith end and political loyalty begin? Can we reasonably expect religious leaders not to bring their deepest convictions, which should always be religious in nature, to the political arena? Under no circumstances should religious leaders ever be given political power merely because they are part of a religious hierarchy. Some religious leaders have gone too far when it comes to their involvement in politics.

I support the involvement of religious leader’s in issues pertaining to family matters, morality, crime, poverty, discrimination, prejudices, racism, and charity from the PULPIT, but not in the media trying to influence politicians with block votes.  

I will not get into the details of the extravagant lavish lifestyles of many religious leaders that have caused some of us to lose respect for them.  Private jets, million dollar vacation homes and luxury cars have become the norm for religious leaders. 

If the CEO of your favorite charity was enjoying these perks, you would probably be outraged and never donate to it again. Fortunately, the IRS requires most charities to file financial statements that show they are spending the public's money for charitable purposes, not private gain. This financial disclosure is the cornerstone of wise giving. Without it, the public would have no idea how charities are spending donor money.

Churches, synagogues, and mosques, however, do not have to follow these same rules. They do not have to file annual reports with the IRS or state charity regulators, which allows them to avoid being rated by AIP. They receive the same tax benefits as other charities, including tax-exempt status and the ability to accept tax-deductible contributions with none of the reporting obligations or oversight.

The advent of televangelism has changed everything for the worse. Mega-churches run by televangelist have huge followings. Through television, radio, Internet and appearances in public arenas they can reach millions of people around the world. Because televangelists have such large followings it can be difficult for their members to hold them accountable.

One of the tax benefits bestowed on ministers is the "parsonage allowance," which allows ministers to exclude the rental value of their homes from their taxable income. This statute was adopted in 1954 out of concern for clergy, most of whom were making less than $2,500 annually, according to the Legislative Committee. Although a lot has changed since 1954, this tax provision has not, and today's millionaire and billionaire televangelists are still able to take advantage of it. 

Senator Grassley's Committee reported that some churches allegedly ordain friends, family members, and employees solely for the purpose of getting them the income tax exclusion. Currently, there is no limit on the number of residences for which a minister can receive a parsonage allowance, meaning a minister can exclude the rental value of a second home or a vacation home from his or her taxable income. One of Kenneth Copeland’s tax free homes was valued at $8 million in 2008.

Senator Chuck Grassley, who spearheaded the Committee's review of six evangelical televangelists, wrote in his final report, “"The challenge is to encourage good governance and best practices and so preserve confidence in the tax-exempt sector without imposing regulations that inhibit religious freedom or are functionally ineffective." They remain self-regulated to this day. For many politicians, the idea of taking a strong stance on reform is too risky because they do not want to be perceived as anti-religion by voters. I think expecting churches to be accountable and their leaders not to live extravagant and lavishly off of tax-exempt funds should not be perceived as anti-religion.

People have not lost respect for God they have lost respect for our religious leaders!

Catholic Hierarchy - Double Talk.

 The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) on Tuesday urged voters not to support candidates in the 2016 elections who are pushing for divorce, death penalty and other measures that it said are against the Church's doctrines.

CBCP President Archbishop Socrates Villegas issued some guidelines for Catholic voters to follow in choosing their candidates in 2016. According to Villegas, a Catholic voter should not support a candidate "who’s legislative or executive programs include initiatives diametrically opposed to (Catholic) Church moral teachings on such vital issues as abortion, euthanasia, the return of the death penalty, divorce and the dilution of the character of Christian marriage," even if the candidate is honest, qualified and the best candidate. We all know there are NO Catholics in the Philippines that are violating their marriage vows taking Communion every Sunday in the Philippines. 

"While we expect every public officer to give life to the constitutional posture of 'benevolent neutrality' in respect to the attitude of the State towards religion, the Catholic voter cannot and should not lend his support to any candidate whose ideology binds him or her to make of the Philippines a secular state that has no tolerance for religion in its public life," Villegas said.

"It has never been the practice of the Catholic Church to hold out a candidate to the faithful as the 'chosen' candidate of the Church," he said. "Church doctrine has remained consistent: Partisanship is an arena into which the Church should not venture."

Villegas also urged the voters to consider political aspirants from other religions. "A Catholic is not closed to the candidacy of a non-Catholic," he said. "In fact, there are worthy candidates from other Christian communities and other religions." "Their qualifications and aspirations must be given serious heed by our Catholic voters, their truly helpful plans and visions must be supported,” Villegas said. As long as they uphold Catholic teachings!

There are an estimated 75,594,148 Catholics in the Philippines according to the latest statistics. The population of the Philippines was estimated at 100,096,496 as of July 1, 2014. The total registered voters in the Philippines as of January 22, 2013 were 52,014,648. Roughly 75% plus (85%) Filipinos are Catholic. That is enough to control any election if 75% (85%) of registered voters are Catholic. I know it is said that Catholics tend not to block vote. But, any time the hierarchy of the Catholic Church speaks out about an election it has to have some influence on the election and to pretend they do not try to choose candidates in my opinion is not entirely honest.

The Philippines is the only country in the world, aside from Vatican City, which lacks divorce laws. How could anyone deny that is not due to the influence of the Catholic Church hierarchy in the Philippines? The Catholic Church does get involved in the political arena in the Philippines the recent battle over artificial birth control is evidence of that. They have a strong influence over any and all laws passed in the Philippines. To my knowledge the only time they have lost a political battle was the one over artificial birth control.

UPDATE: THE BISHOPS LOST THE WAR, BUT WON THE BATTLE THEY MANAGE TO GET THE PHILIPPINE CONGRESS NOT TO FUND THE REPRODUCTIVE BILL IN THE 2016 BUDGET - FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSE NO FUNDS MEANS NO REPRODUCTIVE BILL. 

Any non-Catholic candidate would need to adhere to Catholic doctrine, even if his or her denomination or religion did not support Catholic doctrine, if they wanted the support of the Catholic hierarchy. In other words a non-Catholic candidate might have to go against his or her religious beliefs to satisfy the Catholic hierarchy of the Philippines in order to be elected. Most mainstream Protestant denominations support divorce and artificial birth control.  Many Protestant denominations are not opposed to the death penalty.

I cannot reconcile in my mind how the Catholic hierarchy can maintain they do not demonstrate some partisanship when they dictate what a candidate must believe or support in order to get the Catholic vote.

For a country to have tolerance for  religion in its public life is one thing, but to dictate religious doctrine in public life is quite another. Is the Philippines a secular state where freedom of religion is allowed or is it a religious run state?

While the Philippine law does not permit divorce it does permit Legal separation which allows a couple to live apart and separate their assets, but they are not free to marry again. In fact, they face being charged with adultery if caught with another partner. I wonder how many Filipinos are forced to violate the law because of the Catholic hierarchy’s position on divorce.

Banning divorce in my opinion has not stopped couples from separating and starting new families. Banning divorce appears to me to have contributed to illegitimate births which may cause inheritance problems and certainly could cause emotional stigma for a child.  I have absolutely no problem with Catholic hierarchy requiring Catholics to follow their doctrine, but to attempt to impose their religious beliefs on non-Catholics is unjust to me. 

I have heard obtaining a civil and church annulment can take up to four years and $4000. That would likely be more than a years’ worth of income for the average mall worker. I wonder when forced to choose are they going to choose annulment or to ignore the law. In addition a married couple must have lived separately for five years or had a legal separation for two years before an annulment can be granted.

In 2012 there were only 10,528 people who applied for annulments in the Philippines. There were 476,408 marriages registered in 2011. I find it impossible to believe that only a little over 2% of the marriage ended. It is estimated 40 to 50% of marriages end in divorce/separation in First World countries and I do not believe that number would be much different in any country.

Could it be possible that divorce laws may make couples think twice before walking out on their marriages? Statistics show that the divorce rate in the U.S. in 1981 was 5.3 per 1000 people and in 2012 it had fallen to 3.6 per 1000 people.

The Catholic hierarchy in the Philippines does get involved in politics and governance in the Philippines. When the clergy called for civil unrest and even threatened to excommunicate President Aquino over contraception how can they say they do not. There is no proof that Catholic doctrine pertaining to separation and artificial birth control is even being followed by Catholics and to attempt to impose that on non-Catholics is unjust. 

I would not be surprised if sometime prior to the 2016 election there is a list floating around with the names of candidate that the Catholic hierarchy is supporting.  Of course the Catholic hierarchy will deny having anything to do with it like they did the banner flying from a Catholic church in one of the previous elections.

Is it just for religious leaders in a country that is supposed to have a democratic form of government to use threats of excommunication against any elected official, elected to represent ALL the people, in order to get what they want? 

The Church’s influence in the Philippines is diminishing. The power of social media is taking its toll. It might help the country if they put their devout Catholic past behind them and move toward a more secular state. Politics needs to go beyond religious groups and be more concerned with the needs of all the people regardless of religious affiliation. But, keep in mind no group gives up power without a fight and the Catholic hierarchy will not either.

Protestant denominations are growing in the Philippines and other predominantly Catholic nations like Mexico. How much of that growth could be contributed to the Catholic hierarchy’s desire for influence and control in the political arena. 

What do you think of politicians who use religion to try and win elections?

Donald Trump knew exactly what he was doing when he said, “I’m Presbyterian, boy, that’s down the middle of the road, folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don’t know about. I just don’t know about.” He was attempting to alienate evangelical Christian voters in Iowa, who like Dr. Ben Carson. In painting a religion as unknown, Trump seems to me to be suggesting there must be something wrong with Carson’s faith. Trump or his advisors knew that Evangelical Christian’s are a bit suspicious of the Mormon and Seven-day Adventist faith.

The church of Carson’s choice has already touched and will continue to touch the lives of millions of faithful followers around the world, even if Trump is ignorant of the denomination. They own and operate hospitals and clinics. In fact The Adventist lifestyle, which encourages abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and meat, is credited with extending lifespan. Studies have proven that those that follow the Adventist lifestyle live on average seven years longer.

In addition to providing excellent medical care the Adventists maintain a large education system, from kindergarten through postgraduate. They train approximately 1.8 million students around the world at any given time.  The low-cost, high-quality Adventist education is often a way up to escape poverty, especially in Third World countries.

Adventism is a Protestant Christian faith granted somewhat different from Trump’s Presbyterian religion. They worship on Saturday instead of Sunday as all Christians did until the Catholic Church selected Sunday as the Sabbath. They use the same Bible as all other Protestant denominations. They strongly believe that religious liberty belongs to all people, everywhere. They do not believe any writings should take preference over the Bible.

Donald Trump’s comment demonstrated his ignorance, but I am sure there are millions of Adventist that would like to inform him about their faith.  Donald Trump is not the first nor will he be the last who will try to use religion to win elections or destroy opponents. Politicians in Singapore created racial and religious riots in the 1960s. The religious issue is used often in Malaysia in an attempt to win elections. I am Republican, but I have to be honest it seems to me that the Republicans play the God card more than the Democrats. Most politicians would use almost anything, God included, to win elections and to maintain power.

Instead of using God and religion to divide us, I would like to see politicians use religion to unite us.  Christianity according to Jesus is to be used to unite and not divide. I am tired of politicians who have probably never studied the Bible using O.T. scriptures to try and influence voters. My party the Republican Party has been cherry-picking from the Old Testament for years to bash gays and justify capital punishment. If I am not mistaken Christianity began with the words, actions and life of Jesus, not Leviticus and Exodus. The use of Old Testament Biblical scripture to justify a "moral agenda" for America is clearly wrong.

A general lack of Biblical and Christian understanding on the part of Americans has allowed the GOP to present itself as "God's Official Party." The reality is that any reading and interpretation of the New Testament will show that Jesus was not conservative, nor Republican.

Our Founders were correct when they proclaimed that the separation of church and state is paramount for our government. The invoking of God and Jesus Christ by our elected representatives is shameful, but not as shameful as Americans who believe that Jesus-God would take sides in a political debate.