Pope Francis Weighs in on the U.S. Presidential Election: One Principle, Several Issues

A week ago, Pope Francis wrapped up an eleven-day pastoral visit to Southeast Asia and Oceania. On the plane trip home to the Vatican, he held a press conference for the reporters who accompanied him on the plane. One reporter asked the Pontiff for his opinion on the presidential election in the United States. Although he did not mention Donald Trump or Kamala Harris by name, it was obvious who he was referring to. “Sending migrants away, not allowing them to grow, not letting them have life is something wrong; it is cruelty. Sending a child away from the womb of the mother is murder because there is life. And we must speak clearly about things.”

After denouncing the sinful policies of both Trump and Harris, he stilled affirmed that it is a Christian’s responsibility to vote. He was asked whether it would be morally admissible to vote for someone who favored the right to abortion, he responded: “One must vote. And one must choose the lesser evil. Which is the lesser evil? That lady or that gentleman? I don’t know. Each person must think and decide according to his or her own conscience.”

Although I strive to follow Christ, I am not a Roman Catholic. I do not agree with Pope Francis on every issue, but I acknowledge him as a fellow traveler who advocates for the most vulnerable in our society (according to the Bible, the orphan, the widow, and the stranger). His ethical principle is fairly simple and echoes the teaching of Jesus. All of our actions, including voting and other political acts, should seek to enhance the lives of our neighbors, to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. He urges us to apply this Golden Rule to all aspects of human life, what Catholic ethicists call the “Seamless Garment”. Therefore, all government policies should be evaluated according to how they enhance humanity’s wellbeing: policies regarding marriage and family, healthcare, education, employment, care of creation, abortion, immigration and other issues. He does not think that people should evaluate political candidates by only one issue. People are fallen creatures and political policies exemplify their flaws. That should not lead us to political apathy. We should evaluate these options and vote for the “lesser of the evils”, that is, those that achieve the greatest good in the world.

This papal advice might affect the U.S. election in unexpected ways. Not all people of faith agree with the Pope that human life should be legally protected from the moment of conception. Many place that point at the moment of the viability of the fetus outside the womb, while others believe it should begin at birth. Many of these people will vote for Harris. Even those pro-lifers who agree with the Pope’s position on abortion might vote for Harris, because Trump’s immigration policy is equally evil.

May people in the U.S. seek the truth, evaluate the options and vote as their conscience leads them.

Dear Donald and Kamala, You can Run (for President), but You cannot Hide (from Our Questions)

Dear Donald and Kamala,

The conventions are over and you are your respective party’s nominee for president. Nevertheless, many important questions remain unanswered. I am not a member of the “press”, but I will press each of you with a significant question that my fellow citizens and I want answered.

Donald, what are your positions regarding the issues raised in Project 2025? (Project 2025 is a 922 page strategy document published by the Heritage Foundation and includes many conservative authors who served in your previous administration.) On the one hand, I believe you when you admit that you have not read such a lengthy volume. On the other hand, you are familiar enough with its contents to acknowledge that you think some of its positions are too “extreme” and that you do not agree with them. It would help voters to know your positions on the following recommendations:

Project 2025 recommends cutting Medicare and Medicaid. Do you agree?
It suggests eliminating the Department of Education. If elected, would you eliminate this Department?
It supports enforcing the Comstock Act which prosecutes those who send or receive contraception products. Are you in favor of the Comstock Act?

Kamala, you have made economic promises that would benefit the middle class. For example, you want to make home ownership more affordable, which is a lofty goal. To achieve this, you propose offering a credit of up to $25,000 for first-time home buyers. You also promise to increase the child tax credit (which enjoys broad bipartisan support). Nevertheless, these economic benefits must be paid for. You claim that you can raise enough revenue to pay for these programs by raising taxes on the very rich, those who have an annual income of over $400,000. The wealthy citizens in our country are infamous for being able to avoid paying their tax obligations. They hire expert lawyers who find numerous “loopholes” in our tax system. In fact, they pay a lower percentage of their income than the majority of middle-class citizens. So, Kamala, what would you do, if tax revenues do not meet expectations? Would you renege on your economic promises, or would you increase the national debt? (Trump increased the national debt more in his four-year presidency than any previous four-year administration). Why should we believe that you would not increase the debt?

Donald and Kamala, earn our votes by answering these questions.

Trump’s Recent Comments are Confusing: Is He Following in Biden’s Footsteps?

Those who know me acknowledge that I call them as I see them. I strive to apply the same ethical principles across the board. If we are going to be fair, we need to apply the same standards to the political candidates that we prefer as well as to the candidates we don’t like. Two months ago, I suggested that Biden would not be mentally “fit” to be re-elected. Today I explore Trump’s mental/emotional “fitness” to be elected.

Trump’s feud with Georgia Governor Brian Kemp

Georgia is now a swing state that Trump must win if he wants to return to the White House. Earlier this month, Trump campaigned there to appeal to voters in the Peach state. When he stayed on script, he was somewhat coherent. But then he strayed from his teleprompter. He blasted Georgia’s popular conservative Republic governor, Brian Kemp. “He is a bad guy. He’s a disloyal guy. And he’s a very average governor.” Then he described him with an adjective that he has used against other rivals: “Little Brian Kemp”. Feuding with a popular Republican does not help Trump at all. It is not that Trump has a poor memory. It is that he emotionally just can’t let go of the past.

Trump’s Claim that Replacing Biden with Harris is “Unconstitutional”

For the last four years, Trump has prepared to run against Joe Biden. Up until a month ago, the polls showed Trump with a lead against the current president. But then, Biden stepped aside, and Harris appeared at the top of the Democrat ticket. This knocked Trump off his plan. He hasn’t seemed to know how to attack Harris. Therefore, he has claimed that this change of candidates is “unconstitutional”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Constitution does not indicate how political parties should select their candidates. Trump is lobbing complaints against the wall to see if any might stick.

Trump’s Claim that More than 100% of New Created Jobs have gone to Immigrants

Last Thursday, Trump held a “press event” in New Jersey. He tried to bring together two of his favorite criticisms of the Biden administration: the economy and immigration. He affirmed, “Virtually 100% of the net job creation in the last year has gone to migrants. You know that? Most of the job creation has gone to migrants. In fact, I’ve heard that substantially more than — beyond, actually beyond that number 100%. It’s a much higher number than that, but the government has not caught up with that yet.” Although Trump claims to have been a good businessman, he is not good with numbers. His job creation statement is a mathematical impossibility! You can’t have more jobs going to immigrants than the total jobs created! It is ridiculously impossible.

Two months ago, I wrote that Biden did not have the “mental acuity” to serve four more years as president. Today I write that Trump does not have the “emotional stability” to return to the presidency. As we approach the election in November, in addition to their policies, we need to evaluate the emotional and mental “fitness” of the candidates.

The Evangelical Pro-life Movement: Its early history, Its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 2)

Evangelicals claim that their main convictions on all issues are (and should be) shaped by the Bible. It is appropriate, therefore, to explore the most relevant Biblical passages regarding the value of humanity and in particular, abortion. These texts come from the Hebrew Scriptures which are shared by the three largest monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree that “Every human being is created in the image of God, and therefore, has immense value” (Genesis 1:26-27). Being created in God’s image is precisely the reason why people’s lives are to be protected from the threat of murder (Genesis 9:6). This foundational truth is repeated and emphasized in the Ten Commandments: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) and in numerous additional passages in the Hebrew, Christian, and Islamic Scriptures. Nevertheless, they are not limited to their religious communities. They have influenced contemporary legislation prohibiting murder in every country in the world.

Today, there is an almost universal consensus regarding basic human rights and against murder. There is no such agreement regarding abortion. When does a fetus acquire the basic legal right to life? Theologians and ethicists generally land at three possible moments: at conception, at viability (about the beginning of the third trimester), or at birth. Sadly, the Bible does not directly address the topic of the human rights of a fetus. Nevertheless, here are two Biblical texts that provide some insights: Psalm 139:13-15 and Exodus 21:22-23.

Psalm 139:13-15

¹³For you created my inmost being;
    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
¹⁴I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
¹⁵My frame was not hidden from you
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. (NIV=New International Version of the Bible)

This passage is the most cited by the Christian pro-life movement. The entire psalm emphasizes that God knows us very well. God is all knowing and omnipresent. God knew the psalmist (and us, by implication) when we were in our mother’s womb (verse 13). Pro-lifers conclude that the fetus, who is known by God, must have full legal rights. It is not quite so simple. Every verse needs to be interpreted in its context. This passage utilizes Hebrew parallelism, where a second phrase repeats and clarifies a first phrase. In the passage before us, “in the depths of the earth” (verse 15) clarifies that God knows us not merely when we were fetuses, but God also knows us from the creation of the world. This cannot mean that my individual human rights began at creation. The psalmist’s purpose was not to address the legal status of the fetus, but he wrote to emphasize the foreknowledge of God. We should respect his purpose and not force his words to mean something the psalmist did not intend.

Exodus 21:22-23

²²When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shallbe fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. ²³If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life. (RSV=Revised Standard Version of the Bible)

There are some diverse meanings of these two verses. The more accepted scenario is that there is fight between a couple of men. A bystanding pregnant woman is accidentally hurt. The result is that she miscarriages and her fetus dies, but there is no additional harm caused to her. The punishment is a fine to be determined by judges in discussion with the husband. If the woman were to die (verse 23), then capital punishment could be considered. In this scenario, the woman has full human legal rights, but the fetus does not.

A second scenario describes a situation where the woman gives birth prematurely, but the baby and the mother are both ok. Punishment would be a monetary fine. If there were additional harm to the woman (or to her baby), the penalty could be greater (a life for a life).

I wish there wasn’t so much ambiguity on this passage. The first scenario suggests that a fetus does not have the same legal status as a born person. In the second scenario, the fetus does not die, so little light is shed on the abortion debate. Where Scripture is not dogmatic, we should not be dogmatic. A bit of humility would be most welcome for this vital debate. I hope that pro-lifers would be more compassionate and that pro-choice advocates would be less flippant about abortions. We need respectful discussion on such a serious topic.

The Evangelical Pro-Life Movement: Its early history, its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 1)

In my posts this week, I will address the Evangelical Pro-Life Movement. Today I will look at its early history. In Part 2, I will analyze some pertinent Biblical passages and in Part 3 I will explore the role abortion politics might play in the upcoming election.

History – We all know that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision took place in 1973 and essentially legalized abortions during the first two trimesters all across the country. Prior to that, states had their own policies. In my state of Ohio which prohibited abortions, those women who wanted an abortion would usually go to New York. Although most evangelicals are today in the pro-life camp, that was not the situation in the 1960s and 1970s.

In 1968 the evangelical flagship magazine Christianity Today (CT) co-sponsored a conference with the Christian Medical Society to analyze the ethical aspects regarding abortion. The final resolution illustrates a lack of consensus. “Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed, but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.”

Carl Henry, the founder and first editor of Christianity Today (and one of my professors at Trinity) stated, “a woman’s body is not the domain and property of others”. The second editor of CT was Harold Lindsell. He also took a somewhat pro-choice position. He affirmed, “if there are compelling psychiatric reasons from a Christian point of view, mercy and prudence may favor a therapeutic abortion.”

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is not only the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, it is also one of the most conservative. Therefore, a look at the history of its stance on abortion reveals some surprises. At their 1971 Convention, the SBC delegates passed a resolution calling for the national legalization of abortion. They reaffirmed this pro-choice position in their 1974 and 1976 conventions.

W.A. Criswell was the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas (the largest SBC congregation). Shortly after the Roe decision was announced, Criswell issued the following statement. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person, and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family who later became a staunch anti-abortionist, admitted in 1973 that the Holy Scriptures did not address the issue of abortion and therefore it was acceptable for a sincere evangelical Christian to believe that “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being.”

Francis Schaeffer and other leaders of the Religious Right, tried to enlist Billy Graham in their antiabortion crusade in the late 1970s, but Graham, the most famous evangelical of the last century, turned them down. Graham affirmed, “I’m for morality, but morality goes beyond sex to human freedom and social justice…. Evangelists cannot be closely identified with any particular party or person. We have to stand in the middle to preach to all people, right and left.” (I believe that his son, Franklin Graham, should have listened to his father’s words of wisdom).

The quotes mentioned above should not be interpreted as necessarily justifying either a pro-choice or a pro-life position. Here they illustrate that followers of Jesus can and do disagree on important issues, including abortion. In Part 2, we will explore the most pertinent Biblical passages.

Trump is Unbelievable! (Part 5) On abortion, choose which Trump you want to believe.

Former president Donald Trump has not had a consistent position regarding abortion. So, what is his position? It depends on the year and the context. In his earlier years as a real estate mogul, he had adopted a pro-choice position on abortion, although as a salesman, he didn’t want to turn off potential clients who might have a pro-life posture. Therefore, he waffled. Here is what he said back in October 1996 in an interview with Meet the Press

Quote #1 – “I’m very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. But still—I just believe in choice.”

As Trump began to become a politician, especially within the Republican Party, he was forced to work on his abortion stance. Since Reagan, every Republican presidential candidate has promised to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade. For four decades, the Republican National Platform contained a plank advocating for a national ban on abortion. Trump, therefore, “evolved” and became pro-life (apparently for political reasons more than moral convictions). He alternated between a pro-life hardline position (including criminal punishment for a woman who had an abortion) and trying to appease both sides in this statement about Planned Parenthood in 2016.

Quote #2 – “Planned Parenthood has done very good work for millions of women, but we’re not going to allow and we’re not going to fund, as long as you have abortions going on at Planned Parenthood. We understand that, and I’ve said it loud and clear.”

During his presidency, Trump appointed three conservative justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett) to the Supreme Court. In June 2022, they joined the other three conservative justices and overturned Roe with their Dobbs decision. Trump took credit for this change. Some state legislatures have enacted strict restrictions on abortions. In several states (Kansas, Ohio, etc.) abortion has been on the ballot, and in every election, the pro-choice position has won. Noting that his stance which worked in his favor in 2016 but contributed to Republican losses in the 2022 midterms, Trump blamed others.

Quote #3 – “It wasn’t my fault that the Republicans didn’t live up to expectations in the midterms. It was the ‘abortion issue,’ poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that firmly insisted on no exceptions, even in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother, that lost large numbers of voters.”

Given that it has now become an electoral liability, Trump has moved away from a national abortion ban. Most recently, he has maneuvered the Republicans to change their platform from a national abortion ban to a position of letting the states decide. Many pro-lifers are not very happy with this change, but will probably still vote for Republicans or not vote at all.

Trump has not been known as a person with strong ethical convictions. What will be his position on abortion tomorrow? He will probably stick a figure in the air and see how the political winds are blowing.

Harris is the Democrat nominee for president. Who will be her running mate?

I interrupt my series on “the Unbelievable Trump” to take a first glance at Kamala Harris’ next important decision. On Sunday afternoon, Biden announced that he was no longer running for the presidency in the November elections. He then announced he was endorsing his Vice-President, Kamala Harris, to run for president. Somewhat surprisingly, all her potential rivals (Newsome, Whitmer, Buttigieg) also endorsed her and she has had a quite smooth beginning to her campaign. Harris raised over 84 million dollars in the first twenty-four hours, with 62% from new donors. She has recruited over 74,000 new volunteers for her campaign. She has obtained the support of well over half of the delegates to the Democratic Convention in Chicago next month, so for all practical purposes, she is the nominee.

Her next important decision is to choose a running mate. The selection process itself could be a valuable opportunity for Harris to (re) introduce herself to the electorate. Usually, a Vice-President is selected to bring “balance” to the ticket: perhaps regional or ideological balance, someone with strengths that neutralize the weaknesses of the presidential candidate, or perhaps someone from a battleground state. Legally, this person cannot be from the same state as the presidential nominee, thus excluding Newsome. I don’t think the U.S. is ready to have two women on the ticket, so Whitmer or another capable woman will probably not be selected. Here are the top four candidates….in my not so humble opinion.

Josh Shapiro is the popular governor of Pennsylvania. He defeated a Trump endorsed candidate in the governor race two years ago in a landslide. He is considered “centrist-left” for his support of both abortion and school vouchers. He would probably enable the Democratic ticket to counter the GOP arguments that Harris is too liberal. Shapiro’s appeal would probably be enough to keep “must-win” Pennsylvania in the Democrat column.

Mark Kelly is a popular senator from Arizona. He is a former NASA astronaut and a Navy veteran. Given that Republicans attack Democrats on immigration policies, Kelly would be helpful on this issue. He has also criticized Biden’s immigration policies, but he has offered strong, wise suggestions for immigration reform. His wife, Gabby Giffords, was a Representative in the U.S. Congress and then became a gun-control activist after she survived being shot in 2011. She would be a strong asset in the campaign. Mark Kelly on the ticket would probably keep battleground Arizona on the Democrat side.

Probably the candidate that Harris knows best is Roy Cooper, the Democrat governor of the red state of North Carolina. Their paths frequently crossed when they served as their state’s Attorney General. He is appreciated for his pragmatism. If he were her running mate, it is an open question whether North Carolina and its electors would come into the Democrat column in November.

Kentucky’s governor, Andy Beshear, is an interesting option. In 2020, Trump won Kentucky by 26 percentage points. Nevertheless, Beshear has been elected governor of the “Blue Grass” state… twice! He is a deacon in his church and Is well regarded for his compassion and for his skill in handling Covid and other natural disasters. In his previous races, he won a considerable portion of the evangelical vote, and perhaps earn votes from one of Trump’s main constituencies.

Who will Harris select? Watch and see!

Trump is Unbelievable! (Part 2) The facts won’t allow us to believe his promises about the budget

In my post yesterday, I addressed Trump’s failed attempt to resolve the “border crisis”. In his 2016 presidential campaign, he promised to build a wall along the 2000-mile U.S. border with Mexico. In fact, he only constructed 52 miles of new wall.

Today I will shine the light on his grandiose claims for the U.S. economy. He affirmed that during his presidency (2017-2021), our country’s economy was the most successful in the history of the world. He promised that during a second term, he would unleash the economy and it would grow even faster. He promised to cut taxes for the wealthy, just like he did in his first term. Although he has made these fantastic, unbelievable affirmations, he has conveniently chosen to omit talking about the budget. What happened to our national budget and our national debt during Trump’s presidency? What happens when you cut your income (via tax breaks for the rich) and continue to spend like a drunken sailor? Here is the sad truth.

Fact #1 – The national debt increased more under Trump than in any other four-year presidential term (Source – The U.S. Department of the Treasury). The debt under Trump increased by 8.18 trillion dollars (Trillion with a T). By comparison, let’s look at the debt increase under the three previous presidencies. These presidents each served two terms for a total of 8 years. Therefore, a four-year average needs to be calculated for comparison purposes.

Bill Clinton (1993-2001) total increase 1.4 trillion dollars. Four-year average 0.7 trillion dollars.

George W. Bush (2001-2009) total increase 6.1 trillion dollars. Four-year average 3.05 trillion dollars.

Barack Obama (2009-2017) total increase 8.34 trillion dollars. Four-year average 4.17 trillion dollars.

Joe Biden (2021 to the present) total increase 6.17 trillion dollars. Extrapolating to four years would lead to about 7.2 trillion dollars. Increases in our debt have happened under both Republican and Democrat administrations. None have been especially good at living within a budget. All have claimed extenuating circumstances (wars, Covid, etc.).

Fact #2 – Trump’s businesses have not generally been successful. Trump University failed and was a disaster. His real estate deals were kept afloat by overestimating properties’ worth to obtain loans and underestimating their value for tax purposes. As a result of this tax evasion, Trump is now barred from doing business in New York.

I invite my readers to check out these figures.

In my post on Monday, I will continue my series on the unbelievable Trump. I will analyze Trump’s affirmations about crime in the United States, especially about crimes allegedly committed by undocumented immigrants.

Which J. D. Vance should we Believe? The Author of Hillbilly Elegy or the Republican Vice-President Nominee?

Several years ago, I belonged to a reading club. Our group read J. D. Vance’s famous little book Hillbilly Elegy which came out in 2016. It was an excellent book! Vance compelling told his family’s story against the backdrop of people from Kentucky (my dad’s home state) who, for economic reasons, migrated to Ohio (where I was born and raised). His book was intensely personal and factually accurate.

At that time, he also made several sharp criticisms of Donald Trump who was running for president. Given Trump’s comments about immigrants who came from “sh.thole” countries, Vance correctly denounced Trump as a racist. Given Trump’s daily and dangerous lies, Vance said he was “unfit” for office. Vance affirmed, “I am a never-Trump guy” and “I never liked him”.

Somewhere along the way, Vance had a “political conversion”. He retracted all of his criticisms of Trump. Without a shred of credible evidence, he seconded Trump’s claim of a stolen 2020 election. (Remember, Trump appealed to dozens of courts, as was his right, but lost every appeal, even with judges that he had appointed). Vance has changed his positions to match Trump’s on all major issues (the border, Ukraine, abortion, etc.). For Vance’s newly discovered support of Trump, Donald supported him in the 2022 Senate race in Ohio which Vance won. Vance is now Trump’s VP nominee.

I believe that people can, and should, change their minds and their positions when the factual evidence compels them to do so. That is why I write these posts on my blog. Nevertheless, our changes should always be towards greater truth, not towards greater falsehoods. I fear Vance’s changes have been made due to his political ambitions.

So, who should we believe? The younger Vance who wrote and spoke with integrity and with a concern for truthfulness, or the more recent nominee who peddles “stolen elections” due to his personal and political ambition? I prefer the earlier, more honest version.

Dear Joe…. Thank you for your service. It is time to step aside.

Dear Joe,

First of all, thank you for your service in public office, as a Senator for 36 years, as Vice-President under Obama, and now as President. You have served well and have a strong legacy. Even when they disagree with you, in their heart of hearts, even your critics acknowledge your concern for the most vulnerable in our society. Your wisdom in international challenges has been welcomed and appreciated. You have stabilized our economy with growth and job creation, and you have lowered inflation.

Nevertheless, I think it is time for you to step aside and give the next generation their opportunity. The main reason is not your diminishing physical ability and mental acuity. (That happens to many of us.) I believe you would serve well if you had four more years in the White House. The problem is that so much attention is given to your occasional verbal gaffes, that the unethical character and flawed actions of ex-President Trump receive little attention. For example, in the “Debate”, Trump told more than 30 serious lies, but these are hardly mentioned.

I believe that Trump is very dangerous for our country (he is a convicted felon who is guilty of sexual assault, trying to steal the 2020 election, invoking a riot in our Capitol, and supporting autocrats around the world, including Putin in his invasion and war against Ukraine. The most consistent aspect of his character are his lies.) In “normal” courts he would become convicted again and again, but due to the actions of the stacked Supreme Court, Trump will not be tried again before the election. The best scenario for the country is that Trump loses the election in November. Joe, you are no longer the best candidate to beat Trump. Other Democrats (Whitmer, Harris, Newsome, and others) are now better prepared. For the good of our country and the world, step aside.