Tag Archives: trump
About a year ago former president Obama announced that transgender people could serve openly in the military. The decision was criticized by many saying it would affect unit cohesion and military readiness. Others panned the decision as a drain on tax dollars that would be needed to fund hormone treatments and sex-reassignment surgeries. And of course there were plenty of privacy discussions.
One thing to be clear about in our “everything is a right” culture is that serving in the military is not a right. There’s nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that says a person has the right to serve in the military. It is a privilege. If serving in the military were a right there would be no entrance requirements and people could not be disqualified based on bad eyesight, diabetes, or any other physical limitation. But, people are disqualified for any number of reasons, which is further evidence that military service is a privilege and not a right.
These comments were made on an MSNBC show by the pastor and NAACP leader much to the surprise of many that saw the photo as something to be encouraged by. After all, many presidents in history have asked for prayer for wisdom and courage during their time as president. Apparently Barber is not one of those that is encouraged.
I’m trying to figure out why a “pastor” is so vocally opposed to the world’s most powerful leader being prayed over by faith leaders. What could possibly be so offensive to a “pastor” about our president seeking and receiving spiritual direction? What am I missing about this image of the President of the United States and his Vice President seeking prayer and wisdom from God that is so problematic?
My first thought was, “how can Christians think biblically about this issue?”
As I conversed with Christians about this topic it was clear that many are in the same boat I am. We want to be biblical, we want to prioritize the Gospel, and we want to be loving to foreigners coming to America. But, we also want to protect our families and the lives of those around us from people that would seek to do harm.
Let’s establish some basic thoughts and then we can discuss the issue and hopefully come to some conclusions.
The newly reinstated Mexico City policy is being expanded to include many more U.S. agencies and a greater pool of funds.
One of the firsts actions President Trump took after taking office in January was to reinstate the Mexico City policy. This policy says that funds given to organizations for international health care efforts cannot be used to promote or perform abortions. These nongovernment organizations must agree not to promote or perform abortion or support coercive and forced sterilization efforts in the countries they provide health care aid.
The Obama administration barred states from withholding federal funding from Planned Parenthood with a rule issued by the Department of Health and Human Services in December of 2016, just a few weeks before Obama left office. This is not terribly surprising, as Obama stands as the most pro-abortion president in American history.
But in his first few weeks in office, President Donald Trump has already made a pro-life impact with several actions, which, according to a recent article include:
The previous administration refused to even consider defunding Planned Parenthood, despite bi-partisan support. The Trump administration has said, however, that it is willing to cut funding. That seems like a no-brainer considering the bi-partisan support and overall common sense it makes.
In case you aren’t aware that a majority of people want to see Planned Parenthood defunded, a recent article reports:
“A recent survey found that community health centers not only provide more comprehensive health care than Planned Parenthood, excluding abortions, they also outnumber the abortion group’s facilities by 20 to one.”
Democrats in Maryland have responded by saying they will take the tax dollars of Maryland residents approximately, $2.7 million annually, and send it to Planned Parenthood.
In a stunning case of injustice, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled against Barronelle Stutzman, a florist that has been a pillar in her community for decades. Her crime: living out her Christian faith in public.
As the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, Stutzman served everyone in her community. She served people without prejudice and built relationships with the people she served, including homosexuals. When one of her long-time customers asked her to create floral art for his same-sex wedding, Stutzman politely declined, saying it would violate her religious convictions. Stutzman did exactly the same thing as designer Theallat, she refused to associate with something she found to be wrong.
One of the very first actions of President Trump surprised me, in a good way. If more actions like this follow I am very hopeful for the unborn in our country.
I will admit that I am cautiously optimistic concerning the “pro-life” claims of President Trump. He has supported abortion in various ways throughout his lifetime and never been considered a pro-life advocate. So when he claimed, on the campaign trail, to be pro-life, I was skeptical.
But you know what they say: actions speak louder than words.
Within the first few hours of his administration, President Trump reinstated the Mexico City policy, much to my surprised and the delight of many pro-life Americans. In case you are not familiar with this policy, it is a policy that prohibits the federal government from sending any taxpayer money to a foreign organization that performs abortions. In other words, not one penny of your hard-earned money, or mine, will be used to perform abortions overseas.
People should be free to live and do business according to their convictions, even if that means refusing to serve food to Donald Trump supporters.
After the election of Donald Trump a number of CEO’s made it clear that Trump-supporters are not welcome at their companies. This article shares the reactions by several CEO’s at various companies’ that decided it was a good idea to tell Trump supporters that they are not welcome at their company.
Now, I’m all for the first amendment rights of these owners making it clear where they stand. And, I fully support their right to do business with whomever they choose. I’m also supportive of their right to refuse to do business with anyone they want. Business owners should have the right to adhere to their conscience and convictions, and should not be forced to conduct business that would violate those convictions.