Where Do the Remaining Presidential Candidates Stand on Religious Liberty?

Craig Huey2016 Presidential Election, Church, Religious Liberty, Social Issues2 Comments

Where Do the Remaining Presidential Candidates Stand on Religious Liberty?

Religious Liberty in the United States (Credit: DD Hope)

With six candidates remaining in the race for the Presidency this year, here is everything you need to know about the candidates’ diverse stances on religious liberty:

Republicans:

Ted Cruz:

On the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act: Support

The incarceration of Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis: Opposed it, and rallied to her side

John Kasich:

The incarceration of Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis: Kasich believed that she should have issued the licenses, or resigned.

On the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act: Did Not Seek One for Ohio

Has stated that he opposes it. He believes that religious liberty belongs to clergymen or within churches. Regardless of whether participating in certain activities violates the personal conscience of an individual, a business owner must sell a wedding cake to a gay couple if they so choose.

Basically, in church you can believe what you want. In life, you must violate your conscience.

Donald Trump:

On the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act: Unclear

The incarceration of Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis: She should have issued the licenses, or resigned.

Democrats:

Hillary Clinton:

On the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act: Oppose

The incarceration of Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis: She should have issued the licenses, or resigned.

Bernie Sanders:

On the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act: Oppose

The incarceration of Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis: No Comment

If you have not voted in our Election 2016 Presidential Poll, please click here.

Tell me your thoughts. Email me at craig@electionforum.org

2 Comments on “Where Do the Remaining Presidential Candidates Stand on Religious Liberty?”

  1. JAMES 2:14 — What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

    JAMES 2:17 — Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

    JAMES 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

    JAMES:20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?

    JAMES 2:24 — You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

    JAMES 2:25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

    JAMES 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

    And what specific categories of ‘works’ does the Bible make clear we will engage in, in order of priority, if our faith is true and not assume? 1) Personal relationship with Christ. 2) Christ represented within the family. 3) Christ brought to those not knowing Him. 4) Christ reflected by the Church aiding the needy — to the exclusion of government doing so thereby precluding Government from being perceived as ‘the savior of the needy.’ 5) Oppose evildoers (Psalms 82:4 — Deliver the poor and needy; free them from the hand of the wicked).

    The ‘Religious Freedom and Restoration Act’ treats the symptoms and not the disease. This legislation exists as an attempt to remedy the ever increasing post-1800s ‘Christ-avoid’ our ‘works-phobic’ version of Christianity has created in society and government.

    Religious liberty will never be restored or maintained by legislation, when 78 million Catholics and 20 million evangelicals go to churches where the Word of God is edited to exclude the obligation to represent Christ in society and government to the exclusion of competing world views and unconstitutional government.

    They fact of The matter is that, the pulpits of America applying the Word of God to society and government pre-1900s resulted in the fights to cast-out European tyrants, end slavery, and maintain constitutional government. Conversely, the post-1800s version of Christianity increasing editing of the Word of God by minimizing teachings regarding the fact that “Faith without works is dead” along with the biblical specification for required ‘works,’ has brought America to its existing God offending, governmentally deconstructed, and economically emaciated state.

    Why did the Apostles and not engage in politics? Because they lived in a transition period between old and new testament, in an Old Testament period tyranny established by God to pressure Jews back into old testament compliance. The apostles did not live in an ‘America type’ constitutional-republic where ‘the biblical version of Cesar’ Christ spoke of when Christ said, “…give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s…”, is today the “original intent of America’s amended constitution.” This as evidenced by the fact that America’s government, military, and law-enforcement personnel, take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution — much like in the time of Cesar where a loyalty-oath was taken by those in government and the military to Caesar. Moreover, the rule of law in America is ultimately the original intent of America’s amended constitution — much as the functional rule of law at the time of Caesar was Caesar.

    The past century of religious liberties increasingly being deconstructed and attacked in America is not a result of Democrat-socialist, cultural-Marxists, ‘new world order’ global-engineers, or the like. It is purely a result of a post-1800s hundreds version of ‘works-phobic’ Christianity that finds Christ worth reading and talking about, emotionalizing, and experiencing, but not worth representing in society and government to the exclusion of anti-christian worldviews and governance.

Leave a Reply