Dr. Wayne Grudem: I am a socially and economically progressive Episcopalian who grew up disenchanted by the prevailing sense of conservatism of the deep south. No controversial issue was ever deeply discussed by either my family or my denomination, so I was (thankfully) given plenty of room to do my own research and form my own opinions on topics concerning gender, sexuality, and the like. As a result, I developed a wildly "live and let live" mindset on most things, which is very much reflected in my place on the political spectrum. I love the Obama family with all my heart, voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary election, and plan to vote for Hillary come November.
I recently read your article, "Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice," and, as you probably assume, found many points of dissent within it: I, like many other Christians I know, find Trump's platform to be hateful and, in many respects, frightening. Aside from the fact that he doesn't understand how the 98 percent lives, his platform is based on the systemic exclusion and villainization of many demographics in our society.
That, Dr. Grudem, leads me to why I wrote this response. Not to start an argument or rant about my beliefs, but to at least publish why I think electing Donald Trump into office is the opposite of "morally good."
Good Candidate with Flaws
Dr. Grudem, we agree that Mr. Trump is egotistical and vindictive. We agree that he doesn’t think before he speaks, that much of what he says is unrefined and crude, and that he is very, very flawed, both as a candidate and as a human being. We don’t, however, see eye to eye on the effects that all of these characteristics have on the people of our country. The remarks that Trump and his supporters have asserted, publicly and without shame, about womenand minorities are more than just “careless statements” unfairly exaggerated by a “hostile press”; they are generalized, discriminatory, and wildly dehumanizing, and they have real emotional and social consequences on a great deal of the United States population.
Trump makes these comments because he can afford to; every word that comes out of his mouth perpetuates centuries of systemic oppression that he personally has never had to endure. These statements seem careless to you, and many other cisgender, heterosexual, white, Christian citizens, because you don’t have to deal with the vicious interpersonal and structural repercussions of his words. And maybe that’s not your fault — it’s beyond the scope of your experiences, and there’s nothing wrong with that — but it’s important to step outside your immediate world and try to understand that Trump’s ignorant statements have more impact than merely making some of us cringe.
A huge part of Trump’s fan base is united by their candidate’s racist, sexist, xenophobic rhetoric — they identify with his fear of Muslims, refugees, and immigrants, and they latch onto him because the hate he spews is not found (so explicitly, at least) in the platforms of many other candidates. There are those precious few who claim to disagree with much of what he says and give their support based on his anti-establishment views, but their choice to align themselves with a candidate that has expressed such prejudice only serves to preserve his violent, unfounded antipathy.
Trump may very well be a devout patriot and want what is best for this country, but what he thinks is best would set back decades of fighting for the right of the suppressed; he would continue to step on the stepped on, and the voices of millions would be silenced like never before.
Seek the Good of the Nation
Though I agree, Dr. Grudem, that Christians should seek the welfare of the nation, I believe that this sentiment applies to everyone else as well, regardless of religion. I believe we owe it to ourselves and each other to fight for our fellow man, and I believe that seeking the welfare of the nation does not mean, necessarily, seeking a Christian nation. A country can be morally and structurally sound while maintaining its secularity, which is integral to the incredible, diverse, melting pot that is the United States of America. Not everyone in our nation is of the Christian faith, and excluding and ostracizing their interests from the “national welfare” umbrella term is not at all a way of exemplifying true Christian values.
I also agree that left-wing governments have more influence in our lives, but that’s only to better ensure equal opportunity for all. We live in a country where money is king, a country writhe with poverty and greed, a country in which 10 percent of the population holds over 75 percent of the wealth. The Democratic Party isn’t perfect, but it does more to fight for the welfare of the working man, the common man, than Trump ever will. He fights for the corporation, the wealthy, the top 10 percent, himself — while the rest of us are left to his mercy.
Supreme Court
First of all, Sen. Sanders was the only far-left candidate on the ballot. Secretary Clinton is moderate at best, and there is no way in hell she is going to champion some socialist agenda through the appointment of new Supreme Court judges, especially given the fact that the Senate has to approve her nominees anyway.
Besides, whether the judges any president appoints are assumed to be conservative or progressive, they aren’t elected by the people or, once on the bench, accountable to public interest. Justices dictate what they interpret as constitutional or otherwise, and political affiliation is nowhere to be found in their job description.
Your exact argument against a liberal Supreme Court applies in the exact same manner against a conservative one — Trump’s appointees could undo decades of progress in the assurance of civil liberties and freedom for the individual. The still-prevalent discrimination would be legal on paper.
Religious Liberty
The current liberal agenda is not suppressing Christian opposition — it’s acting in the best interests of the nation as a whole. The United States has been, historically, a religious refuge, and it was founded on the freedom of and from religion; this means that Christians are free to practice their doctrine, as are members of every other faith and lack thereof. Two men in love or a woman who feels as if her body is not her own do not compromise your freedom to practice your religion, just as your faith shouldn’t stop other people from living into their best selves.
Regardless, Christians are generally not oppressed in the United States of America. We get time off for our religious holidays while members of other faiths are expected to go to work or school on theirs. We aren’t fired or kick out of our homes or killed for being Christian, but that happens to LGBTQ+ people all the time, often at the hands of evangelicals. There are no hate groups (that I know of; do correct me if I'm wrong) protesting Christianity, but there are too many Christian-affiliated groups (Westboro and the KKK, to name a few) who protest literally every religion, sexuality, gender identity, etc. with which they disagree.
People (Christian are otherwise) are not fired or blackballed merely because they express their views, but because the views they express have (and I find myself saying this once again!) severe emotional and social repercussions on a group of people that have been historically marginalized by the Christian majority. And I know that this doesn’t reflect the attitude of Christianity as a whole, but it’s here and it’s widely excused — we have the proverbial upper hand, and we can’t abuse it at the expense of others.
Christian Business Owners, Colleges, and Churches
Christians in the Western world have never experienced systemic exclusion based on their religious beliefs. There are Christians who are women, LGBT+, people of color, immigrants, and/or below the poverty line who have been and are marginalized, but none of this is because of their faith.
With regard to Christian business, colleges, and churches who are targeted because of policies or parish legislation: they are not being punished because they follow Christian doctrine, they are punished because (here we go again) the way they express these beliefs perpetuates a system of exclusion and discrimination against people who have been politically, economically, and socially marginalized throughout history.
Free Speech
Unpopular opinion: Free speech means literally nothing. At least, not unless the only aspect of it you value is the speaking itself. Content is what matters, and content has real repercussions. Though it’s important that we are allowed to express our ideas and hold our own beliefs, it’s important that we consider the struggles and experiences of others before valuing our right to speak over their right to feel safe within their own circumstances — prayers are of the best intentions, but not everyone believes the same way. We need to respect that.
Criminalizing Dissent
The groups threatened with prosecution for disagreeing with climate change are tobacco and fossil fuel companies who continue to pump noxious waste into our atmosphere despite overwhelming evidence that our carbon emissions are through the roof (fun fact: we recently passed the threshold of no return). Any one individual is perfectly allowed to disagree with climate change, but no one individual has the power to make it worse — corporations are not individuals.
To Dr. Grudem and anyone who agrees with "Why Voting for Donald Trump is a Morally Good Choice": I realize that this article may not have changed your mind, but I hope, in any case, that it opened it. A "President Trump" would mean horrible consequences for people of all different races, genders, religions, and socioeconomic backgrounds; we cannot stand idly by and let this happen. Regardless of your opinion of Hillary, whatever she does for this nation would pale in comparison to the havoc her opponent could wreak.
