I ran a column at The Hill about Jill Stein’s futile recount efforts earlier this week. The Hillary Clinton supporters who have enabled her have taken a vacation from reality.
I just cast my vote for the Tuesday, November 8th election via mail. While this blog isn’t about politics (and even my columns at The Hill should shift more to religion over politics once this election is over), I thought I would share who I voted for and why.
Voting by mail at all is new for me this year. From 2012 to 2015, I served as an election judge for the Republican party and generally took advantage of early voting so I could remain at my polling station. However, I left the Republican party earlier this year due to Republican leaders like Mike Huckabee telling us that if we weren’t going to support Donald Trump, we should just leave the party (k. bye!). I now consider myself an independent and a “conservatarian.” You have to declare one party or the other to serve as an election judge in Illinois, so I opted not to serve anymore.
Prior to becoming an election judge, I enjoyed going to the polls. However, with my lack of enthusiasm for the candidates this year, I have no desire to be anywhere near the polls on election day. As an Illinois government employee, November 8th will be a paid holiday for me, so I am going to enjoy the day off with my kids and try not to think about this horrible election.
Without further ado, here is how I voted:
Or, at least, demand an open marriage.
My latest at The Hill.
I am writing for The Hill contributors’ section every two weeks now. Here is this week’s column:
“The Hypocrisy of Hillary’s Feminists”
This entry isn’t directly related to religion, although I do mention some famous religious leaders with shadows over their legacies.
Yesterday I published an op-ed on pro-life feminism and Donald Trump’s recent paid maternity leave + childcare assistance proposals at The Hill.
Boundaries: When to Say Yes, How to Say No to Take Control of Your Life by Henry Cloud and John Townsend [1992; OverDrive MP3 Audiobook, 2001]
“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian.” — Pope Francis, February 18, 2016
A friend mentioned that this book had been very helpful and eye-opening in the wake of his divorce and what had gone wrong in his marriage, so I decided to check it out. I’m glad that I did.
I think the idea of boundaries is a nebulous one for most people. Consider the following scenarios:
- A friend at church without a car asks you to drive him on an extended trip to pick up something he needs in another city
- Your child is angry at you because you missed an arts & crafts event at her school
- Your spouse frequently stays late at work, forcing you to wait until dinner is cold in order to include her at the table
- Your ex regularly tries to cancel visitation at the last minute, even when he knows you’ve made other plans that depend on him taking the kids
Do we normally look at situations like those and think, “this person is encroaching on my boundaries”? Probably not. Yet Cloud and Townsend would contend that these are all boundary issues, places where Christians need to learn when it’s appropriate to say “no.” This can be difficult for us because we Christians are socialized to be self-sacrificing and agreeable. There’s a strong sense that being kind means never saying “no” to others when we can say “yes,” and when we do say “no,” we run the risk of being accused of not being Christian. I’ve had men accuse me of being un-Christian because I didn’t respond favorably to their advances on dating sites. That’s how far off the reservation the “Christians must always say YES” mentality goes.
Cloud and Townsend make the point that Christians are not supposed to be exhausted, reluctant, resentful givers; we’re supposed to be cheerful, deliberate givers. We can’t do that when we’re wearing ourselves out saying “yes” to everyone. We have to possess a sense of ourselves, our responsibilities, and our capacity to help others, then we have to know when someone is trying to shuffle their responsibilities onto us, or when our capacity for helping others has been tapped out. In doing so, we assert ourselves and can make focused, deliberate choices on whom we help.
Let me get this straight:
– Hillary Clinton told a child rape victim she was “emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing”
– Bill Clinton “allegedly” raped a woman
– Bill Clinton “allegedly” sexually assaulted another woman
– Bill Clinton is a known womanizer who has had multiple extramarital affairs and was impeached because of one of them
– One of Bill Clinton’s lovers was “patient zero” for the modern-day slut-shaming movement; her life was ruined while Bill remains a hero
– Hillary Clinton has worked to discredit her husband’s “alleged” victims
– A victim of workplace sexual abuse tried to contact the Hillary Clinton campaign with information about how Clinton’s donor had abused her; the Clinton campaign returned her information marked “Will not Accept”
And with all that, feminists are enthusiastically supporting Hillary Clinton for President and adulating her with artwork and stuff?
Go home, feminism. You’re drunk.
I don’t normally use Weighted Glory to discuss local Illinois politics, but this is a matter that affects me and my family personally.
I am a Republican and a person who voted for Bruce Rauner for Governor. I have voted for the Republican presidential candidate in every presidential race since I turned 18 in 2000, and unless Donald Trump is the GOP nominee, I will be voting Republican in the next presidential race. I have faithfully served the Illinois GOP as a Republican election judge and administrative election judge in four elections since 2012.
I bring this up because it may seem at odds with what I am asking now: I am asking my friends and family in Illinois to please call their local state representative and urge him/her to vote in favor of overriding Governor Rauner’s veto of Senate Bill 1229.
Unless you recently dropped your smart phone into a toilet and took off to live in a cave (in which case–how are you reading this blog post?!), you’ve probably heard by now that Planned Parenthood just had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week. The viral sting video featuring a top PP doctor sipping wine and eating a gourmet salad while cavalierly discussing the wee babies she “crushes” has moved the abortion debate back into the public eye.
This post isn’t about the video though, or even about the abortion debate per se. It’s about what it means to be pro-life.
Many seem to think that being pro-life means wanting abortion to be illegal. While I applaud those who value human life enough to fight for legal protections for the most vulnerable of humanity, I’m here to tell you that’s not enough. That alone does not make you pro-life; it just makes you pro-laws.
If you think you are pro-life…
Friday’s SCOTUS decision on gay marriage sent powerful reverberations through the evangelical Christian and Republican communities. Evangelical leader Franklin Graham prayed that God would spare America after the ruling. GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee vowed to not “acquiesce to an imperial court.” Social media lit up with cheers from the Left and cries of disappointment and concern from the Right. I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing, to some extent, with both sides.
I am an evangelical Christian and a Republican. I affirm what the Bible teaches about homosexual relationships being a sin  … and I’ve been in favor of the legalization of same-sex marriage for at least six years now.
Yes, that’s right, this right-wing nut-job was pro-SSM years before the much-vaunted harbinger of Hope ‘n’ Change. He “evolved” on the subject in 2012. I beat him to it.
Once upon a time, I did stand arm-in-arm with the bulk of my conservative religious peers (and the Clintons) in opposing same-sex marriage. I admit that I voted against it when I was living in Utah in 2004. I admit that, when Proposition 8 passed, I believed the voters of California had made the right call.
Yet today I am relieved that the federal government now offers recognition of binding, life-long unions to all consenting adult couples in every state in our nation. How did I come to hold such seemingly disparate beliefs? What caused me to reverse my political position on SSM six years ago, even as I’ve stood firm in my religious convictions?