In the primary season passions can flare, and otherwise likeminded people can, and often do, disagree on which candidate to support. This leads to collective ill will and the need for the winners and losers alike to make reconciliatory measures to bring about party unity. Each person’s vote in their own, and if someone elects to sit out the election rather than vote for the party nominee that is their right.
However, choosing to exercise that right, especially in the current crossroads we are facing as a nation, is ill advised for the next President will shape the judiciary for years to come. It’s not hyperbole to suggest that we could see the Supreme Court return to a Warren Court mindset if Clinton wins the election. To that end, everyone must decide is sitting out worth the risk, and for a Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich supporter ask how can I hold my nose and vote for Trump in the absence of any reconciliatory actions?
It’s no secret that I supported Trump in the primary. One question asked, or piece of “advice” given, was how can you, as a Christian, support Trump when other candidates more closely align with your religious beliefs? That question was difficult to answer in the primary. It’s a much easier question to answer now since the contrast between the two candidates is clear, and Trump has given indications he will appoint conservative SCOTUS Justices and protect religious liberty.
To begin with, viewed through the prism of faith both candidates are flawed. Not only that, they are both flawed in a similar manner. They both express a sincere desire to act in a manner that is aligned with some Catholic positions of social issues. They also both vehemently oppose some of the positions. The areas of agreement and disagreement are diametrically opposed – what Trump supports Clinton opposes and visa versa.
With this clear set of opposing views the analysis is simple, though by no means an easy task. Just look at the areas of difference and see where they align in the Hierarchy of Truths. Since this post presupposes everyone is familiar with the Hierarchy, and some may not be, an explanation can be found in the link above. To sum it up,
“When comparing doctrines with one another, [] [theologians] should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith” (Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 11)… [t]his hierarchy does not mean that some truths pertain to faith itself less than others, but rather that some truths are based on others as of a higher priority, and are illumined by them.”
In essence the Hierarchy means while all teachings are important some hold a position of greater importance. Whichever candidate’s positions support the higher position in the Hierarchy is the candidate whose beliefs more closely align with the Church’s teachings and is the one to vote for.
In terms of relevant core beliefs the candidates hold diametrically opposed views in three areas: abortion, religious liberty, and immigration. Trump has indicated he had a conversion and no longer supports abortions. Clinton supports abortions. Trump has indicated he will protect religious liberties. Clinton favors policies that directly attack religious liberties. Trump has indicated he will expel all illegal immigrants and build a wall on the southern border as well as banning Muslims from entering the country. Clinton has indicated she will follow President Obama’s footsteps on immigration. So how do these differences align with Church teachings? The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has set forth Seven Themes of Catholic Social Teaching that can be used as guidance to answer the question.
Abortion is the easiest of the three to categorize and answer. It’s well known that the Church opposes abortion and this can be found in both the “Life and Dignity of the Human Person” and in the “Rights and Responsibilities” teaching. This is a basic teaching, “human life is sacred and [] the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. This belief is the foundation of all the principles of our social teaching.” A teaching that is the “foundation of all the principles of our social teaching” appears to take the top position on the Hierarchy. On this issue, Trump clearly follows Church teaching more closely than Clinton does.
Protecting religious liberty isn’t as clean of an assessment. Religious liberty isn’t directly assessed in the list of social teachings. On a basic level it seems self evident that attacking the Church through an attack on religious liberty is an action against the Church, and indeed it is. However, the mechanics of the attacks is how the differences between the candidates becomes clear. Clinton wants to force individuals and organizations with sincerely held religious beliefs to act in a manner contrary to the beliefs. Not only that, but the method of enticing action isn’t through enticement, but rather it comes in the form of monetary and legal liability. In the Hobby Lobby case, as well as the group of plaintiffs in the Little Sisters case significant penalties were going to be applied. They are designed to be painful enough that the organizations cannot afford the penalty and will be forced out of business. Similarly, the baking a homosexual wedding cake issue subjects a business owner to choose between holding true to their religious liberty to being subject to suit and monetary award which will end up making ongoing business operations impossible.
This bears on the “Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers” teaching. For those who are able, work is an obligation. As such, “[t]he obligation to earn one’s bread by the sweat of one’s brow also presumes the right to do so. A society in which this right is systematically denied, in which economic policies do not allow workers to reach satisfactory levels of employment, cannot be justified from an ethical point of view.”
This situation is one where the difference isn’t one that directly contradicts the Church’s teachings. It does, however, lead in an inescapable course of action where the teaching is violated. Trump will protect the exercise of religious freedom. Clinton’s policies will prevent the worker with deeply held religious beliefs from being able to maintain employment while holding to those beliefs. The area of difference isn’t directly contradictory to a teaching, but it manifests in a way that prevents compliance with a teaching. Since compliance is impossible the teaching is violated. Although the analysis is more complex, the answer is the same as with abortion. Trump more closely follows the Church’s teachings than Clinton does.
The last area is immigration. Here the two candidate’s beliefs relative to Church teaching appear to be reversed with Clinton more closely following Church teaching. In the “Solidiarity” teaching the Church proclaims, “[w]e are one human family whatever our national, racial, ethnic, economic, and ideological differences. We are our brothers and sisters keepers, wherever they may be. Loving our neighbor has global dimensions in a shrinking world.” Taking a closer look at the specifics of the teaching shows, “[t]hrough the eyes of faith, the starving child, the believer in jail, and the woman without clean water or health care are not issues, but Jesus in disguise. The human and moral costs of the arms trade, international debt, environmental neglect, and ethnic violence are not abstractions, but tests of our faith. Violence in the Holy Land, tribal combat in Africa, religious persecution, and starvation around the world are not just headlines, but a call to action. As Catholics, we are called to renew the earth, not escape its challenge.”
Viewed in this light, Trump’s divergence from the Church’s teaching isn’t as far as it first appears. Regarding the Muslim refugees a prohibition of entry is neither directly contrary to the Church’s teachings, nor does it preclude following the teachings. The refugee crisis needs attention, and failure to do so violates the prohibition against escaping the challenge. However, the challenge can be addressed in ways that do not require the mass immigration of refugees within our borders. Chaos has already manifested in the wake of refugee actions in Europe. This establishes that simply laying out the welcome mat doesn’t solve the problem. It merely exchanges problems.
In conflicts past the UN has established refugee camps. This would appear to be a solution that complies with the Church’s teachings. The end goal of a refugee crisis should be to have the displaced population return to their homeland and renew the land once peace has taken hold. It would be more accurate to state that Trump deviates from the Church’s position rather than the Church’s teaching.
Illegal immigration also has a similar analysis. Trump indicates he wants to deport all illegal immigrants. On it’s face, there’s nothing impermissible about deporting illegal immigrants, for no harm comes in deporting the serial criminal. The issue isn’t with deportation per se, but is rather with the scope of the proposed deportations. Mass deportations will have a significant negative impact on the families both here and in the country of origin for the deported individual. The lack of remittance will place a strain on the economic well being of the families in the country of origin, and if the deported individual was the main breadwinner for the family also for the remaining family here. While on a micro scale this is a devastating course of action it’s not devastating on a macro scale. The call isn’t to end immigration, it’s a call to end illegal immigration. As workers are deported others can be granted admission to replace the deported workers. It balances out on a macro scale.
The harm and area to be addressed is what happens on the micro scale to those impacted by the deportations. For those who remain, social services can, and should, be setup to deal with the after effects of the deportations. For those who are departed the situation is more difficult. Adjustments in foreign aid could be made to ease the adjustment, assuming that the country of origin has a stable and honest enough government to use the aid for the intended purposes. If the illegal immigrant can make a showing of his life being in danger by deportation the case can be one where the status is kicked into asylum seeking and that process play out before deportation potentially occurs. No solution is perfect, but it also isn’t a call that makes compliance with Church teaching impossible. Once again, it’s a matter of deviating from position rather than teaching.
In the final analysis, Trump deviates from the Church’s positions, but doesn’t espouse an action that violates Church teachings. Clinton violates Church teaching in regards to abortion. While her position on religious liberty doesn’t directly violate Church teaching it does leave complying with the teaching impossible. In the Hierarchy it’s a clear decision.
Greg,
abortion.
If one believes that life begins at conception, it hypocrisy to make any exceptions. Therefore arguing that there is a difference between Hillary and Trump on this issue becomes moot. Also, women as voters support safe accessible abortions. Advantage Hillary.
religious liberty
The president is the president of all people, not just evangelical Christians. Trump is less tolerant of certain religions. That is a big difference between them on this one. Advantage Hillary.
immigration
It is ironic that Trump would be the first president with an immigrant wife. His notion that deporting 13,000 illegals is ridiculous and a sure loser with the Hispanics this fall. What kind of economy would we have if all illegals were sent home? Silly and not very Christian like. Advantage Hillary.
Trump will lose badly to Hillary in November. You are correct that the prism of this election helps us see their differences more clearly.
I am no Trump enthusiast but Lorensmith’s analysis of this post to declare advantage Hillary on all these issues is pure nonsense.
Greg, since your posts are lengthy, please consider a “take home” paragraph or two for those readers, such as me, that don’t want to walk through all the grass. .
Nonsense? Want to bet?
Oh come on Don, put your money where your mouth is. If you lose you can…wait for it…make check payable to Loren Smith. Haha!
Interesting question loren. Lets’ turn it around. How much are you willing to wager on the first presidential candidate to be ineligible for a security clearance? (Even with the help of our most preeminent socialist – B.S.)
$100 says
Hillary wins. You in Fat?
Fat, I’ll play. $28.64 says she will be eligible for security briefings. Put your money where your mouth is and bet.
How did you come up with that amount?
Loren, the only way that Hillary will ever have a security clearance again is if she’s elected President. So, your offer of $28.64 is not only silly, but redundant.
As for your $100.00 wager – I’ll be happy to take your money. If our country has reduced itself to the point that we’re willing to elect someone who’s either resoundingly stupid or staggeringly corrupt, then losing a hundred bucks will be the least kind of problem.
I will say this Loren: the Democrats have gotten the very best candidate money can buy. . . . the only question is whether it’s Saudi money, or Russian money, or Chinese money, or. . . . . .
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/clapper-wont-deny-intelligence-briefings-clinton
Of course an Obama administration official is going to give her intelligence briefings. . . . Given that they’ve been carrying her water all along, they’re certainly not going to stop now. I do think it’s interesting that Clapper acknowledges that she can’t get an actual security clearance – he says that she gets the briefings because she’s a candidate and doesn’t need a clearance.
Greg,
Haha! Just a ‘gut’ feeling. Good on ya.
OK Fat it’s a bet
lorensmith,
Hypocrisy.
Please explain the term “Safe Abortion”
Advantage, Absolute truth with basis in biblical truth.
Huh? Why are you asking me this. My point is that if you believe that life begins at conception then it follows that any exceptions would be hypocrisy. I am ok with abortions of a zygote and others prior the viability of the fetus outside the womb. I’m not much on third trimester unless the life of the mother is in danger. You can’t put a diaper on a zygote. And now a question for you: Would you put Doctors in jail for performing any abortion? It’s murder, right Adrian…
Thanks for Asking.
You are correct. All Abortion is murder.
And yes any Doctor that deliberately takes a the life of a mother or baby is committing murder which should be a capital offense in Texas.
You are an honest man Adrian. I disagree wholeheartedly with you about banning all abortions, but I respect you because you are not a hypocrite like so many others. I could say that this is insidious government intrusion in people’s lives, or I could go on about some mentally ill father that raped his daughter and got her pregnant or I could mention that there would many more Dr. Gosnells resulting in many more harmed women but, hopefully you have thought about these things. My suspicion however, is that your decision is based solely upon your interpretation of God’s Law which in your mind trumps these arguments. I have a problem with that because many others who don’t believe in your interpretation of God’s Law would suffer if the election in November goes badly for Dems.. But that ain’t gonna happen, so I’m not worried.
I assume by extension that you also support putting the woman who had the abortion in prison, since, she hired the alleged murderer.
When you say capital offense, does that mean you support execution of the involved parties as a punishment?
I am also curious as to why you think it is any of your business what medical procedure a woman and her doctor decide is appropriate.
Thinking about these candidates, and their differences, using this election as a prism. I may have to throw in a little faith too. red, orange, yellow, green blue, indigo, violet
Hillary
red- If one believes that life begins at conception, it is hypocrisy to make any exceptions. Therefore arguing that there is a difference between Hillary and Trump on this issue becomes moot. Also, women as voters support safe accessible abortions.
orange- Hillary helped bring peace to Northern Ireland. We just returned from three weeks there including Belfast and Derry/Londonderry and let me tell you, they love the Clintons in Ireland and Northern Ireland.. “They do not have kind things to say about Trump. Her visits to the Falls and Shankill Roads in Belfast to meet working-class women from both communities were especially important. She helped empower key women at a time in the conflict when women’s voices were hardly heard. She played a major role in setting the groundwork for the formation of parties such as the Women’s Coalition, which was to play an essential role in cross-community bridge building in the vital years when the peace process was being bedded down.”http://irishamerica.com/2015/03/when-it-comes-to-irish-peace-hillary-and-history-rhyme/
yellow- The president is the president of all people, not just evangelical Christians. Trump is less tolerant of certain religions. That is a big difference between them on this one.
green- “American energy policy is about more than a single pipeline to transport Canada’s dirtiest fuel across our country,” Clinton wrote. “It’s about building our future — a future where the United States will once again lead the world by constructing state-of-the-art infrastructure, creating new jobs and new markets, accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy, and improving the health, safety, and security of all Americans.”
blue= It is ironic that Trump would be the first president with an immigrant wife. His notion that deporting 13,000 illegals is ridiculous and a sure loser with the Hispanics this fall. What kind of economy would we have if all illegals were sent home?
indigo- Thinking about Hillary and Ireland…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXKLkLcdtjI
violet – Lots of violence these days. .
Trump
Still thinking
.
Trump through that same prism
red- President Trump would hand the world to China. “Hong Kong television commentator Wu Jun observed recently that despite Donald Trump’s anti-Beijing rhetoric, he “could in fact be the best president for China.” The Chinese analyst is right: A Trump presidency could open the way for China’s strategic dominance in Asia and elsewhere.
Wu’s comment was focused on Trump’s mercantilist style, evoking a world in which Trump and President Xi Jinping, two “big guys,” might sit around a table at Mar-a-Lago and cut deals without worrying about human rights. “The Republican Party is more practical and Trump is a businessman who puts his commercial interests above everything else,” Wu said .
But there’s a deeper, more dangerous way in which Trump might be an enabler for Chinese ascendancy. His policies would play into China’s narrative about the world — and undermine the foundations of U.S. power in Asia, even as they are bolstering a rising China.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-trump-would-hand-china-the-world/2016/05/31/e4d1b1f8-2771-11e6-ae4a-3cdd5fe74204_story.html
Is this really the guy you want making deals with China?
orange- Trump is orange. Look at him, the man is orange.. Hillary is what she is in a pant suit, but… Trump is orange.
yellow- Trump would roll back environmental regulations including requesting that TransCanada reapply for the construction of the X L pipeline. “Trump also promised he would invite Canadian pipeline company TransCanada (TRP.TO) to reapply to build the Keystone XL pipeline into the United States, reversing a decision by Obama to block the project over environmental concerns.
“I want it built, but I want a piece of the profits,” Trump said. “That’s how we’re going to make our country rich again.”
Trump’s pledge briefly sent TransCanada’s shares 29 Canadian cents higher to C$54.13 on the Toronto Stock Exchange, but the stock quickly leveled back off and close up 2 Canadian cents at C$53.86.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-energy-idUSKCN0YH2D9
Is the X L pipeline really a good idea?
green- Trump says he would deport 13, 000,000 mostly Hispanic illegals. He either knows that is impossible and is therefore a liar, which is what I believe, or he is delusional. Which would be worse?..
blue- We heard John Spillane in Ireland. Magical. When I am feeling blue about the world I listen to this. He wrote this song about his daughter. I’ll bet Donald Trump would like this song. song.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5fkNR1O6tY
indigo- Trump devoured the others in the Repub primaryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpUUgOUReoU
violet- I don’t see how Trump would bring about less violence given what he would do with nukes, guns, illegals and possible Martial Law..
Hmmmm. . . . . Lets try a different spin:
Red: Given Hillary’s proclivity for soliciting money from any foreign agency she can lay her hands on, I’d say she’s at least as likely to sell the US out to a foreign power – at least Trump would drive a harder bargain.
Orange: Really?? You’re criticizing a person for his skin color?? Where did you hang your white hood?
Yellow: So you would rather continue to buy oil from the middle east? From countries who’s interests, goals and philosophies are at cross purposes to ours?
Green: Much has been made of Trumps immigrant wife. A lot of people completely miss the point. Melania was a legal immigrant who followed the law and ended up a US citizen. Every single person I’ve talked to is excited about immigrants who come to our country and embrace, wholeheartedly, the American dream. Contrast that with the people who sneak across the border illegally, while continuing to retain their allegiance to their home country. I don’t know that Trump can actually deport 13,000,000 people (probably only a fraction of those who are actually here illegally) but at least he acknowledges the problem. Hillary, on the other hand, seems to think that we should continue to welcome all comers – regardless of country of origin, or political creed. As far as the delusional part – I remember 8 years ago when a certain candidate told us that electing him would heal the environment, cause the rising sea waters to recede and cure our racial problems. . . .
Blue: I Ireland loves Hillary so much, then I think she should move there and run for office. Seriously, why should voters here in the US care what people in Ireland think?
violet: Given the amount of violence that Hillary and the Obama administration has precipitated, both internationally and domestically, I hardly think Trump could be worse.
eeeeewwwwwww YEAH! Btw. I need to give you my address so you can mail me a check November 9.