I'm not going into the disastrous night had been the Democrats last night, nor how sad it is that as the greatest country in the world, we have Donald Trump and Joe Biden to choose from.

I want to mainly focus on the moral conundrum Catholics face with voting for a candidate who is solidly pro-choice (Donald Trump) and one who is solidly pro-abortion (Joe Biden). From a moral standpoint this case reminds me of the issue faced at the beginning of Covid, where you had vaccines that were initially developed or tested using the aborted remains of children, BUT were not used in the subsequent manufacturing of the vaccines. Given that an evil has been done or is a foregone conclusion, can a Christian morally vote for a pro-choice candidate like Donald Trump? I have zero questions about whether a Catholic can morally vote for President Biden, that answer is "no"

I am unsure to be honest. The principle of Double Effect states that an action can be morally permissible even if it leads to or permits evil provided that certain conditions are met. I'm paraphrasing but the conditions are usually that the action itself is no worse than morally neutral, that the bad result not be a direct intention, that the good result not be a direct cause of the possible bad result, and that the good outweighs any possible bad that could arise.

Trump stated pretty clearly last night that he wants abortion to be left up to the states, he made some hemming and hawing about politicians "having to say that to get elected" but I do not delude myself into thinking that Donald Trump is a pro-life advocate, except as it suits him.

My question is: Is giving people the decision to do a great evil a morally neutral act? You're not intending the evil be done, you're merely giving people the opportunity to vote on whether an evil is legal. This in and of itself would not be a morally neutral act, except when compared to the alternative which is a gross expansion of abortion everywhere and in areas where it is currently illegal (as championed by President Biden). The good would outweigh any possible bad, because you'd be forced to choose between the current number of abortions; or more abortions, with fewer abortions obviously being preferable.

Interested to see your thoughts.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

My question is: Is giving people the decision to do a great evil a morally neutral act? You're not intending the evil be done, you're merely giving people the opportunity to vote on whether an evil is legal. This in and of itself would not be a morally neutral act, except when compared to the alternative which is a gross expansion of abortion everywhere and in areas where it is currently illegal (as championed by President Biden). The good would outweigh any possible bad, because you'd be forced to choose between the current number of abortions; or more abortions, with fewer abortions obviously being preferable.

---

Great question! I think you have to say that giving people the decision to do great evil isn't just morally neutral. In fact, it is unquestionably good. Why do I say that? Just look at the relationship between God and men. God created men with free will. We have the ability to do great good and the ability to do great evil. Good could have made us without free will, and since God is only good we would have been only good. Yet it was even better for God to give us the ability to do wonderful or terrible things and the ability to choose which. So on the largest possible scale, the ability to choose between good and evil is an undeniably good thing.

Regarding the idea of letting people in a society do horrible things without punishment or limitation, I think that clearly leads to a breakdown of order and stability in any society.

---

It's very messy which is good, because this isn't a laboratory setting, this is real life where you don't get to control all the variables and change one and see what happens. I know I don't agree with you totally, but I also don't disagree with you totally, I think there's a standard deviation or so of evil that should be permitted, but further than that you risk becoming culpable in aiding and abetting the proliferation of evil. For example; a serial killer needs to be locked away for the rest of his life, at minimum. Letting him free to engage his free will to decide whether or not to kill more people is a bridge too far.

This question has all sorts of weighty baggage including the role of society in the development of the body of Christ, the nature of freedom, where politicians derive their power, and so on and so forth.

It's a tough one.

EDIT: I didn't see your 2nd paragraph the first time, which is practically the same thing I said about the serial killer.

Howdy Dammit said:

---

This isn't difficult? Lesser of two evils when only two options.

---

Unfortunately true. At least the evils we are currently aware of. Its a Hobson's choice really. From a Christian perspective, I don't try to fit either neatly into being a good representative for Christians, but rather which one is worse for us.

Its ironic that the 10 commandments were mentioned when I guarantee neither could name them. It bothers me when politicians use Christianity for their own ends....but from these two it bothers me even more.

I'd love for a dark horse to appear in the race, but I don't think the support would be there. All we can do is pray and pucker up.

Serviam said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

This isn't difficult? Lesser of two evils when only two options.

---

Unfortunately true. At least the evils we are currently aware of. Its a Hobson's choice really. From a Christian perspective, I don't try to fit either neatly into being a good representative for Christians, but rather which one is worse for us.

Its ironic that the 10 commandments were mentioned when I guarantee neither could name them. It bothers me when politicians use Christianity for their own ends....but from these two it bothers me even more.

I'd love for a dark horse to appear in the race, but I don't think the support would be there. All we can do is pray and pucker up.

---

I think President Biden can probably name the 10 commandments, I think he's familiar with Catholic Social teaching, the Gospel, and the core tenets of our faith. That's what makes his material cooperation with evil so damning, and why I wish Cdl Wilton Gregory would do something except purse his lips and mumble about cafeteria Catholicism.

---

I think he probably could a couple of years ago....Certainly it doesn't seem if you put him on the spot today that he'd be able to list them off in quick succession.

On a side note, I am curious which version of the 10 Commandments LA is requiring be posted in the schools....Or which bible Oklahoma is requiring be used for required instruction in all public schools (of latest news report).

Howdy Dammit said:

---

This isn't difficult? Lesser of two evils when only two options.

---

Not a biblical position.

94chem said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

This isn't difficult? Lesser of two evils when only two options.

---

Not a biblical position.

---

Let me guess. You don't know the answer to the trolley car problem either.

Howdy Dammit said:

---

94chem said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

This isn't difficult? Lesser of two evils when only two options.

---

Not a biblical position.

---

Let me guess. You don't know the answer to the trolley car problem either.

---

The trolley car problem has a simple answer, it's just not appealing. You do nothing. Otherwise You make yourself into a murderer.

Remote material cooperation

Don't you just love our two party system?

Right wing and left wing part of the same bird

You always have the option to throw away your vote by voting 3rd party (or write-in).

yeah, I know. that's the point i'm making. it shouldn't be a throw away vote. the fact that so many Americans tolerate this "lesser of two evils" BS and accept it as normal is really sad. people don't seem to understand that it really does not have to be this way.

RAB91 said:

---

This isn't hard....
- Which one supports abortion up to birth?
- Which one appointed SC judges who overturned RvW?
- Which one supports religious freedoms?
- Which one sends the DOJ after Christians who go to Latin Mass, who protest at abortion clinics, etc?

No need to overthink this one. It's easy....

---

Technically, both do if Trump leaves it up to the states with no effort toward a national ban.
Trump appointed conservative judges and that was good. But its a past event and a he's demonstrated and the conundrum the OP poses...He will change with the wind of his supporters. Although not at all likely, Trump would go full one pro abortion if he thought it would keep him in office. His goal is to remain in power... Anyone who believes he is anti abortion has drank the kool aid. Chances are high he's paid for some.
I think both support religious freedom as they define it. However I think Biden and the left go about it wrong by creating safe spaces that won't offend other religions (almost like DEI for other religions at the expense of Christians)...which seems silly to be offended by the 10 commandments.
I think what you mean is that Trump claims to support religious freedom, but he is only telegraphing what his supporters want which is to make Christianity the national religion. Personally I don't have a probably with that, but Trump would easily sic the DOJ on Muslims or other religions so its not religious freedom that Trump advocates. Its protections for Christians.

So there is what I believe would be better for the nation and what goes against how our nation was set up...which is not to have the government force a religion on the people. That is exactly what they were trying to escape.

The interesting thing is that Ok. is requiring the bible be taught in all public schools. I am good with that and would vote for that ....except....Which version of the bible? At some point your going to have protestants demand a shortened version be taught over the Catholic version.

So while it may be easy to pick what we hope will be the lesser of the two evils...The are both, none the less, evils that we have to choose from...or just not vote.

aggietony2010 said:

---

Has there ever been a more perfect dialectical tool for moving a nation toward Satanism than the two party system?

You get some victories, at the price of more defeats. Shallow wins, at the cost of deep losses. Moderating and compromising all the way to Hell.

And at the hands… https://t.co/KqZaaHcSEg

— Joshua Charles (@JoshuaTCharles) July 8, 2024

I'm getting awfully close to feeling unable to vote for even the "lesser of two evils"

---

Ditto

BluHorseShu said:

---

The interesting thing is that Ok. is requiring the bible be taught in all public schools. I am good with that and would vote for that ....except....Which version of the bible? At some point your going to have protestants demand a shortened version be taught over the Catholic version.

---

It is curious to me that the main conflict you've identified is in which version of the Bible is taught. Wouldn't Christians be more concerned about the Bible being taught to children by atheist teachers? or Muslim teachers? Or a teacher that openly rejects or has bias against Christianity? Unless teaching the Bible in public schools is accompanied by another law that bans non Christians from being school teachers, I'd say this ought to be a bigger concern from a Christian perspective.

The concern you brought up about which version of the Bible is used and the concern I added about 'who' is doing the teaching are really the same concern. At the end of the day, we are talking about having publicly funded state employees randomly assigned to children to provide moral and religious education. Do Christians actually want this???? If I were Christian, this would terrify me. Don't you want a child's religious education to come from parents and the religious community and religious leaders chosen by the parents?

Putting aside the substantive religious issues, the Bible is the most culturally significant work in the Western world by far. It's a bit ridiculous that our public schools don't teach it. Between morality, laws, common stories, idioms, and ideas, it's the single most important piece of literature in the Western world and probably the entire world. I learned Aesop's fables, Shakespeare, and the Declaration of Independence in school, but I didn't learn the Bible. By the time I read through it the first time as a teenager, so many things in our society starting making sense for the first time ever. And I say this as someone who went to church on a more or less regular basis growing up. Not teaching our culture's most important and influential piece of literature in school is straight neglegence.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

The interesting thing is that Ok. is requiring the bible be taught in all public schools. I am good with that and would vote for that ....except....Which version of the bible? At some point your going to have protestants demand a shortened version be taught over the Catholic version.

---

It is curious to me that the main conflict you've identified is in which version of the Bible is taught. Wouldn't Christians be more concerned about the Bible being taught to children by atheist teachers? or Muslim teachers? Or a teacher that openly rejects or has bias against Christianity? Unless teaching the Bible in public schools is accompanied by another law that bans non Christians from being school teachers, I'd say this ought to be a bigger concern from a Christian perspective.

The concern you brought up about which version of the Bible is used and the concern I added about 'who' is doing the teaching are really the same concern. At the end of the day, we are talking about having publicly funded state employees randomly assigned to children to provide moral and religious education. Do Christians actually want this???? If I were Christian, this would terrify me. Don't you want a child's religious education to come from parents and the religious community and religious leaders chosen by the parents?

---

Those are valid concerns but that wasn't my point. It was that its ridiculous they are claiming to go down this path because beyond the obvious pitfalls in dealing with other non Christians, it will eventually lead to disagreements among Christians. Yes, I get all those things you mention. We send our kids to a private Christian school for these reasons.

The OK case is just political rhetoric by the State Ed Super. He's jockeying for a political appointment and using Christianity to benefit himself. That's my opinion, but unfortunately I think there are many people with political ambitions that have no qualms about using scripture and the Christian faith as a means to advance themselves.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Putting aside the substantive religious issues, the Bible is the most culturally significant work in the Western world by far. It's a bit ridiculous that our public schools don't teach it. Between morality, laws, common stories, idioms, and ideas, it's the single most important piece of literature in the Western world and probably the entire world. I learned Aesop's fables, Shakespeare, and the Declaration of Independence in school, but I didn't learn the Bible. By the time I read through it the first time as a teenager, so many things in our society starting making sense for the first time ever. And I say this as someone who went to church on a more or less regular basis growing up. Not teaching our culture's most important and influential piece of literature in school is straight neglegence.

---

I think it's important to draw some distinctions between teaching and teaching.

Teaching kids the Bible can involve discussing when it was written, by whom, its history, the basic messages and tenants, its influence, which people practice it, etc.

Teaching kids about the Bible could also involve instruction that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, that it contains objective moral truth, that it is a guideline for our lives that we ought to adhere to, and teacher guided prayer.

Obviously these are different types of 'teaching'. And to be clear, I have precisely zero objection to the former introduction to the Bible and Christianity in a public school setting. However, a religious studies course in public school that only teaches the Bible is a bit like a government class that only teaches representative democracy. Or an economics class that only teaches capitalism.

I would expect an American school to spent more time on our relevant system of government, but to exclude other forms would also be negligent. Similarly, a school in America may spend more time on Christianity, but to ignore other religions and philosophies would be equally negligent. And this leads to our problem . . . . Too many people are comfortable with only 'their' beliefs being taught. Will the Christians clamoring for the Bible to be taught in public schools lose their minds when next week the religious studies of classroom instruction covers Bertrand Russell, religious skepticism, and materialism?

I think the answer is certainly yes . . . . Generally our options are to a) introduce kids to all religions and philosophies, b) only pick our favorite and ignore the rest, or c) avoid the topic where possible. The people that want 'a' tend to be very opposed to 'b' and those in support of 'b' hate the idea of 'a'. And so we sorta ended up with option 'c'.

BluHorseShu said:

---

The OK case is just political rhetoric by the State Ed Super. He's jockeying for a political appointment and using Christianity to benefit himself. That's my opinion, but unfortunately I think there are many people with political ambitions that have no qualms about using scripture and the Christian faith as a means to advance themselves.

---

I tend to agree with this.

As often as I can, I try to put myself in Christian shoes when looking at these things. So, when I put my Christian shoes on . . . .

The idea of a politician using something sacred and holy for the purposes of political positioning, power, or control . . . . How can this be seen as anything other than a mockery of the sacred and as the most offensive of blasphemy?

I recognize my own actual bias has the ability to override some of my attempts to wear your shoes. . . .maybe I overstate the severity of the 'sin'. Nevertheless, I wonder why Christians put up with the political weaponization of their faith the way they do.

That sounds harsh, maybe more than I want it to. Maybe not.

Quote:

---

Teaching kids the Bible can involve discussing when it was written, by whom, its history, the basic messages and tenants, its influence, which people practice it, etc.

Teaching kids about the Bible could also involve instruction that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, that it contains objective moral truth, that it is a guideline for our lives that we ought to adhere to, and teacher guided prayer.

Obviously these are different types of 'teaching'. And to be clear, I have precisely zero objection to the former introduction to the Bible and Christianity in a public school setting. However, a religious studies course in public school that only teaches the Bible is a bit like a government class that only teaches representative democracy. Or an economics class that only teaches capitalism.

---

I agree except that teaching the historical and cultural impact of the Bible on Western Civilization isn't "religious studies". It's straight up fundamental to history, art, law, government, and literature. From 400 AD to 1700 AD it was pretty much the only document that mattered in Western thought, and since then it is still is all 10 of the top 10 documents that matter in Western thought. Western civilization from 400 AD to now makes no sense if you don't understand the Bible. It would be like trying to teach history of Arab culture and never mentioning the Koran. Or teaching the history of Jewish culture and never mentioning the Tanakh. Yes there are lot of secular Arabs and Jews, and there are a lot of secular societies created by Arabs and Jews. But even then, understanding the impact of those works on those societies is essential. It's the same with the Bible and Western civilization. Treating the Bible as taboo in American schools is just dumb and counterproductive.

As an aside, we already have very good laws about the establishment of state religion, and anyone would agree that using the Bible for religious instruction directly violates those laws. We'd also get into the messy situation of exactly who is teaching the Bible and how, and that has no good answers. But in my mind, the pendulum has swung way too far the other way. We completely ignore the Bible when teaching about our civilization and culture, and without it we can't even understand how we got here

kurt vonnegut said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

The OK case is just political rhetoric by the State Ed Super. He's jockeying for a political appointment and using Christianity to benefit himself. That's my opinion, but unfortunately I think there are many people with political ambitions that have no qualms about using scripture and the Christian faith as a means to advance themselves.

---

I tend to agree with this.

As often as I can, I try to put myself in Christian shoes when looking at these things. So, when I put my Christian shoes on . . . .

The idea of a politician using something sacred and holy for the purposes of political positioning, power, or control . . . . How can this be seen as anything other than a mockery of the sacred and as the most offensive of blasphemy?

I recognize my own actual bias has the ability to override some of my attempts to wear your shoes. . . .maybe I overstate the severity of the 'sin'. Nevertheless, I wonder why Christians put up with the political weaponization of their faith the way they do.

That sounds harsh, maybe more than I want it to. Maybe not.

---

Well, I personally don't care about sounding harsh, so here goes.

As I've gotten older (I'm in my 30s) and became more and more disillusioned with my Christian faith (and religion in general), I came to realize that Christianity (in the USA at least) is partly a matter of personal faith, and more so a political doctrine and a means of controlling people.

On one hand, this is partly expected. Church and religion are less of a factor in everyday life as they were in the past, society is more liberal, Christian denominations become more fringe. I think this threat of shrinking relevance of Christianity in public life has made evangelicals more vocal and aggressive. I think many people, myself included, severely underestimated how powerful evangelical Christians still are in America, in the 2020s.

So when you say this:

Quote:

---

The idea of a politician using something sacred and holy for the purposes of political positioning, power, or control . . . . How can this be seen as anything other than a mockery of the sacred and as the most offensive of blasphemy?

---

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Because everything you say there is precisely the point they are trying to make. At this point we're beyond discussing whether Donald Trump is a sincere Christian. Everyone knows he is not, including all the religious leaders who are his most vocal supporters. That's not the point. The point is, he gets **** done for them. He aggressively pushes Christian nationalist policies and will work to accomplish anything and everything on the evangelical wishlist because it will get him votes. He's that "imperfect person God uses to further God's kingdom" or whatever cope Republicans use to support one of the most immoral, flawed, and unchristlike people to ever hold office in the United States.

Trump can hem and haw about how he doesn't want to ban abortion nationwide, but we all know the second Congress passes it and it hits his desk, he'll sign it without thinking twice. Same can be said for evangelical Republican governors like Abbott, who already have done so.

So, we've reached a point where we aren't sure where Christianity ends and Christian nationalism begins. We can point to the First Amendment and how the founders explicitly ruled out a state religion. The response to that has moved from long-winded explanations about how "well actually Christianity is part of our founding so it's an exception" to "**** you, I don't care if it's unconstitutional. we're doing it."

Like I've had this frustrating conversation on these forums and in person. So when we say obvious things like "you can live out your own beliefs, but you should acknowledge that not everyone is Christian and not everyone wishes to do the same." IT LITERALLY DOES NOT MATTER. It falls on deaf ears. Statements like these do not compute. Because when someone subscribes to Christian nationalism, God's law reigns supreme and anyone who doesn't fall in line is a sinner who needs to be corrected.

And then using that to justify any other unconstitutional or otherwise immoral laws, like anti-LGBT laws, laws discriminating against non Christians, or even more dark and cruel policies based on prosperity gospel

e.g. "the poor deserve to be poor because they're lazy, and these are their consequences from God. Let's punish them by taking away their healthcare, SNAP benefits, and whatnot to teach them a tough life lesson." or

"God has blessed me with good fortune and health, so why should my taxes go to provide underprivileged people with housing and food? Maybe if they'd just work a little harder they'd be blessed like me"

or even more dangerously, "I was elected to serve God's kingdom, which means God must want all my beliefs implemented and enforced any means necessary. Anyone standing in my way must be destroyed." Ken Paxton comes to mind.

And yes, I've actually heard a poster say that a poor person dying in the hospital deserves it because he/she should have been more responsible with their money to afford treatment. These are not exaggerated statements at all, and go back to the mentality of "God blessed me, and not you, and there's a reason for that."

Just a ****ed up way of thinking that is completely antithetical to what Christ actually taught. BUT they justify it because they see their faith as a weapon and political tool to get what they want. Even if it's at the expense of others.

So yeah, I realize i've long surpassed TL;DR territory here. But that's where we are in America. In the context of politics, Christianity is a political tool that is a means to an end. Oftentimes, that end is self-interested. I'm not even saying these people aren't sincere believers. They very well may be. They've just twisted their faith into a weapon.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I agree except that teaching the historical and cultural impact of the Bible on Western Civilization isn't "religious studies". It's straight up fundamental to history, art, law, government, and literature. From 400 AD to 1700 AD it was pretty much the only document that mattered in Western thought, and since then it is still is all 10 of the top 10 documents that matter in Western thought. Western civilization from 400 AD to now makes no sense if you don't understand the Bible. It would be like trying to teach history of Arab culture and never mentioning the Koran. Or teaching the history of Jewish culture and never mentioning the Tanakh. Yes there are lot of secular Arabs and Jews, and there are a lot of secular societies created by Arabs and Jews. But even then, understanding the impact of those works on those societies is essential. It's the same with the Bible and Western civilization. Treating the Bible as taboo in American schools is just dumb and counterproductive.

As an aside, we already have very good laws about the establishment of state religion, and anyone would agree that using the Bible for religious instruction directly violates those laws. We'd also get into the messy situation of exactly who is teaching the Bible and how, and that has no good answers. But in my mind, the pendulum has swung way too far the other way. We completely ignore the Bible when teaching about our civilization and culture, and without it we can't even understand how we got here

---

I think we are generally in agreement here. I tried to make a distinction between different types of 'teaching' because I think it is relevant to what I was responding to. Like I said before, I am all for teaching a general understanding of Christianity and the Bible, basic tenants, history, culture, etc.

Recall that my original post in this thread came on the heels of, and in response to, Blu saying that he would be in favor of posting the 10 Commandments in public schools. I am taking the position that the intentions behind posting the 10 Commandments in every classroom is not in line with the Christian / Biblical curriculum you and I are both in favor of. Do you agree / disagree?