Why this Evangelical Christian Voted for Trump (and Will Again)

See the source image

Why this Evangelical Christian Voted for Trump

James R. Aist

“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” – Jesus

I rarely write about politics, although those of you who follow me on social media know that I am, one way or another, regularly outspoken on this topic. But, this is a presidential election year again, and once again the very soul, core values and identity of our nation are at a crossroads. Many in the world of Christian evangelicalism are still staunchly opposed to President Trump, primarily because of his past sexual sins and his continuing, coarsely worded and often harsh, comments and tweets. Those who support Trump can’t understand why any Christian would not vote for him, while others can’t understand why any Christian would vote for him. It is my assumption that both of these opposing positions are based, ultimately, on the biblical instruction to not be condemned by what you approve (Romans 14:22b; see also Romans 1:28-32).  In addition, it appears to me that many evangelical Christians who oppose Trump have embraced false narratives (e.g., racism and misogyny) promulgated by the anti-Trump Main stream media (MSM) concerning some of Trumps actions as President. Perhaps the most egregious of these lies is the accusation that Trump created the policies of separating families and caging children at our southern border. The truth is that children were already being caged there in 2014, during the first Obama administration (click HERE), and the Trump administration was forced to separate and hold immigrant children, temporarily, for their own safety until parental relationships could be confirmed (click HERE). Now, I am not naive enough to believe that I can win anyone over to my way of thinking on the matter, but some of you might, nonetheless, be interested to know what my perspective is, and why. The following is the short version, trust me.

At first, my support for Donald Trump was more of a disdain for Hillary Clinton than anything else. She promised to continue the legacy of Barack Obama, which we conservatives had suffered through for eight long years: a militarily weak, apologetic America, animosity toward the Bible, Christianity and Christian values, high praise of Islam, overt support of sexual perversions, open borders and endorsement of the globalist end game (one-world government), etc.  Moreover, I was familiar with the several scandals Clinton was involved with and did not believe that she possessed sufficient good character to handle the power of the presidency appropriately. Then, I compared the political platforms of the Democrat and Republican parties, and I quickly realized that the Republican platform was much more aligned with my Christian beliefs and patriotic values than was the Democrat platform. Next, I began to listen carefully to the positions Trump was taking on key issues, such as lower taxes, religious freedom, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, abortion, regulated legal immigration, voter registration and a strong America, and it became clear to me that Trump was the clear choice, despite his past moral failures and ongoing coarse and harsh language.

But then, the infamous videotape surfaced of Trump speaking very crudely and offensively about his sexual exploits of women that occurred more than 10 years earlier. I believe that it was primarily this revelation that caused many evangelical Christians to become firmly anti-Trump. At first, Trump proclaimed that he had nothing to apologize for, which served to solidify the anti-Trump stance of these evangelicals, and for good reason. Meanwhile the liberal MSM was having a field day, feeding the public frenzy over this scandal. They were eager to report and replay this videotape in an effort to convince evangelicals to abandon support of Trump, on the basis of moral failure. They were also eager to perpetuate the false narrative that Trump is a racist, because he opposes open borders. But, predictably, they were far less eager to publicize what happened next.

Donald Trump confessed and apologized publicly for his despicable, past treatment of women (click HERE). He also made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ (click HERE). And, the conservative press began to point out Trump’s more recent attitudes and actions toward women, which were anything but misogynist. Sadly, those who were depending on the MSM to cover the whole truth heard only a steady barrage of the liberal, anti-Trump narrative.

So, Trump did, in fact, confess and apologize for his past moral failures and has subsequently demonstrated appropriate respect for women. Moreover, he did make a profession of Christian faith, contrary to the anti-Trump narrative which even some evangelical Christians continue to believe. And he has strongly and consistently supported many Christian values and practices as President. What more can any evangelical Christian fairly demand of a political candidate? After all, Trump ran for President, not Pastor, of the United States! And what would the genealogy of Jesus Christ look like today if God had not forgiven King David’s adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband, Uriah (2 Samuel 11)? Surely we can all agree that Trump’s past moral failures were despicable, but can we not agree also that he has upheld many Christian and conservative values in his actions as President? Isn’t it Christian to forgive past sins and move on? And didn’t Jesus say, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone…” (John 8:7)?

Since Trump was first elected, the Democrat party has drifted much farther to the left than it was before, calling for higher taxes, a socialist government, forced governmental funding of abortions, legal abortions of even babies born alive, open borders with unregulated immigration, confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens, governmental control of religious speech and practice, surrender of U.S. sovereignty to globalist ideologues and overt governmental support of sexual and gender perversions, to name a few. In view of the fact that our next President will be either Donald Trump or a Democrat, I have this question for evangelical Christians who still refuse to vote for Donald Trump, in 2020: “How can you, in good conscience, not vote for Trump?” In my view, to vote Democrat has become unthinkable, all things considered, especially for an evangelical Christian. And please, look beyond the now ultra-liberal MSM to inform your political views! You’re apparently missing a lot of relevant and important truths and facts. That said, I will staunchly support your right to see these things differently than I do, and I refuse to cause division in the body of Christ by accusing you of failing to demonstrate the love of God to an unbelieving world by opposing Trump.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t remind us all of a much higher calling than the one to “not be condemned by what you approve” (Romans 14:22b). That higher calling is to love one another, no matter what our differences may be. In fact, there are no less than 20 New Testament verses that command us to love one another! It is by this love for one another that unbelievers will know that we are truly disciples of Christ (John 13:35)! So, let’s not compromise our Christian testimony over something as worldly as who to vote for in 2020. Far more important than that is who or what we are putting our faith and trust in: is it Jesus, or is it worldly governments? The Apostle Paul gave us a clear and practical instruction in this regard when he wrote, “If it is possible, as much as it depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:19, italics mine). Certainly “all men” includes all evangelical Christians!

Along these same lines, you may also be interested in recent articles appearing in christianpost.com (click HERE) and americanthinker.com (click HERE).

(To read more of my articles with a biblical viewpoint, click HERE)

The “Science” of Homosexuality

See the source image

The “Science” of Homosexuality

James R. Aist

“…the “science” of homosexuality is considered to be one of the “softest” of all the sciences.”

In order for one to get a grasp on the overall quality of homosexuality research, it is necessary to put the “science” of homosexuality into perspective. In the world of science, there are at least three categories based on the precision and reliability of the results obtained by scientific inquiry. Roughly speaking, the natural sciences are considered “hard” while the social sciences are usually described as “soft”. Features often cited as characteristic of hard science include: producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity and applying a purer form of the scientific method. Scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard to soft, with physics and chemistry typically at the top, biology in an intermediate position and the social sciences at the bottom (click HERE). The “science” of homosexuality is squarely at the bottom of this hierarchy, being within the social sciences.

Let me illustrate briefly, with examples, how these three categories of scientific inquiry can produce different degrees of precision, accuracy, objectivity and reliability. The freezing point of water in a glass can be determined with a great deal of precision, reproducibility and objectivity (physics). The water has no control over the experimental result, and objective measurements are obtained. The effect of temperature on the growth rate of a fungus in a Petri dish can be measured with considerable precision, reproducibility and objectivity as well (biology). Although there is always some “biological variation” from one measurement to the next, the fungus just reacts as it must to its environment; it has no control over the result, and objective measurements are obtained. But to study homosexual behavior (social science), one must deal with a myriad of uncontrollable variables, many of which are not even known to the scientist, because people can think, emote, forget, imagine, interpret, lie and decline to answer when they are being interviewed or completing questionnaires related to their sexuality, and they may bring their own personal agenda (bias) to the process as well. Almost all of the “science” of homosexuality is plagued by this problem, because objective data are almost impossible to obtain in this soft science. The human subject has a great deal of influence on the reliability and accuracy of the data, and, therefore, the outcome is necessarily “subjective” and often highly variable. This subjectivity and relative lack of control of the variables, which is characteristic of the “science” of homosexuality, can make it difficult or impossible to draw scientifically valid inferences and conclusions. And that is why the “science” of homosexuality is considered to be one of the “softest” of all the sciences. (See ADDENDUM)

The manner in which homosexuality research is designed, executed, analyzed and interpreted by the researcher is also germane to the issue of the quality of the science and the accuracy and dependability of the conclusions. Marks (2012) discussed some of these issues as they relate to research on homosexual parenting, but the principles of sound scientific inquiry presented are applicable to the “science” of homosexuality in general. Of particular interest is what is called “Type II error.” This type of error occurs when the researcher concludes that there is no difference between two comparison groups when there is, in fact, a difference. There are several aspects of a study that can lead to Type II error, including small sample size, random variation, unreliable measures, imprecise methodology and unaccounted for variables. The difficulty of obtaining objective and reliable information from human subjects, discussed above, would be an example of what can lead to Type II error. Another example would be the sparseness of the homosexual population compared to the heterosexual population, which usually makes it difficult at best to obtain large, representative sample sizes for comparison.

Homosexuality is an emotionally charged research area, and it may be difficult for some scientists to be entirely objective in how they conduct and report their research. The researcher may have a personal, social agenda apart from conducting objective, scientifically sound research. In many cases, it would be easy to manipulate the outcomes of a study by omitting certain questions, crafting questions in a particular way, using biased sampling procedures, omitting selected demographics, and/or going prematurely to press with data sets that are so small that a real difference may appear to be no difference.

However, when the “science” of homosexuality is done objectively and competently, I believe that it can produce results and conclusions that are both reliable and useful, within the limits of a “soft science.” But, more so than with the other sciences, with the “science” of homosexuality one must constantly be on the lookout for “limitations” and “confounding factors” in the research that often make scientifically sound conclusions impossible. When that happens, one is left with the original hypothesis still untested.

Finally, because homosexuality is a prominent and emotionally charged social and political issue, there is all too often a disconnect between what the results of a particular study and did not conclude and/or infer and the version of it that is peddled to the public by the predominately liberal, pro-gay press. For example, a correlation of social stigmas with higher rates of mental health problems in homosexuals may be reported in the popular press as a scientific conclusion that social stigmas cause higher rates of mental health problems in homosexuals, despite the fact that the scientific report itself was careful to point out that the study did not show a cause-and-effect relationship at all. One can easily be led astray by popular reports of scientific studies, especially when the “science” of homosexuality is involved.


Here are two glaring examples of just how bad the “science” of homosexuality can be:

Landess, T. The Evelyn Hooker Study and the Normalization of Homosexuality. (click HERE)

Marks, L. 2012. Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Social Science Research 41:735-751. (click HERE to download article)

Reference Cited

Marks, L. 2012. Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Social Science Research 41:735-751. (click HERE to download article)

(For more of my articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)


Mental Health Organizations: Political Slaves of the Homosexual Movement

APA "gender identity disorder" prote...Mental Health Organizations: Political Slaves of the Homosexual Movement

James R. Aist

(Note: the numbers in parentheses refer to specific references listed at the end of the article)

 “It was never a medical decision — and that’s why I think the action came so fast… It was a political move.” “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.” — Barbara Gittings, Pro-homosexual Activist


Homosexuality advocates like to appeal to position statements published by American mental health organizations to fortify their bogus claims concerning homosexuality issues. One would expect such professional groups to be a reliable source of unbiased information on such matters and that their official positions would be based on the most up-to-date and scientifically sound and objective research available. Unfortunately, where matters of homosexuality are concerned, this is not the case. Let’s take a look at how our mental health organizations have become political slaves of the homosexual movement.

The Take-over of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)

Beginning in the 1960s and continuing through the 1980s, radical homosexual activists (including both gays and straights sympathetic to the “gay agenda”), from within the organization and from without, conducted an organized campaign to transform the APA from a relatively open-minded, objective professional organization to a demonstrably biased, political mouthpiece for the homosexual movement (3, 7, 10). The most comprehensive and heavily documented record of these events — including numerous first-hand, published accounts — is a book (11) written by Ronald Bayer, a psychiatrist who is sympathetic with everything the homosexual activists did and applauded the ultimate outcome of their activities (3); these are published, historical facts. I will mention here a few of the most important developments in this campaign.

Using verbal bullying, physical violence, disruption and commandeering of meetings, and vicious verbal threats, they forced the APA to form a special committee to represent their radical political agenda and populated the committee with only like-minded, pro-homosexual members (3, 7, 8, 10, 11). They then proceeded to get homosexuality removed from the APA’s list of mental disorders, even though most of the APA members did not agree with that change. There were no new, scientific or clinical findings that precipitated this change; rather, it was predicated solely on the political agenda of the homosexuality activists. Witness, for example, the quote at the beginning of this article by Barbara Gittings, a pro-homosexual activist who was involved in the process: “It was never a medical decision — and that’s why I think the action came so fast… It was a political move.” “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.” (10). This campaign was an essential element of their scheme to remove the stigma that was associated with the designation of homosexuality as a mental disorder (3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11). Despite the mounds of published, historical documentation to the contrary, the APA still claims that the decision to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders was based solely on the results of scientific studies showing that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. This is nothing short of a transparent attempt to re-write the history of that decision-making process in order to make it appear that the decision was scientifically objective and medically appropriate. Homosexuality advocates, and the APA itself, most often cite a research article published by Evelyn Hooker in 1957 as proof that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but that article has been exposed as a blatant example of pseudo-science at its worst (9); the research breaks almost every standard of proper scientific process and inquiry that can produce reliable and valid conclusions. This is a good example of the disregard that the APA has for properly conducted, objective scientific research where homosexuality is concerned.

The Campaign Mushrooms

Having accomplished this first major milestone in their campaign, the homosexual activists then proceeded to other objectives within the APA. They began to develop pro-homosexual position statements that they forced the APA to endorse and publish over the succeeding years, without regard to published scientific and clinical studies to the contrary (1, 2, 3, 7, 8). They developed and carried out a related campaign to threaten, intimidate, disenfranchise and even bring lawsuits against APA members and their institutions who provided therapy and counseling treatment to dissatisfied homosexual people who came to them seeking help to change their sexual preference (6). Eventually, they managed to limit officially approved professional therapy for homosexuals to only those approaches that affirm the homosexual orientation of their clients and help them to feel good about it. And, using overt threats to repeat their treatment of the APA, they forced other mental health organizations, such as the American Psychological Association, to give in to their demands and follow the political path taken by the APA (3, 5, 7, 8, 10). Needless to say, it didn’t take long for our other medical and health organizations to fall into line and adopt similar positions regarding homosexuality (7, 8, 10).

The End Result

Now let’s fast-forward to 2013. Where matters of homosexuality are concerned, both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association are controlled and dominated by radical, extremely biased, homosexual activists, many, if not most, of whom are openly practicing homosexuals themselves. Objectivity, scientific principles, factual evidence and honesty have taken a back seat to pro-homosexual political objectives (3, 4, 5, 9).

My point

It is fair to say that, at this point in time, one cannot rely on either of these professional societies to provide objective, scientifically sound and up-to-date viewpoints concerning many aspects of homosexuality. So, don’t be fooled when homosexuality advocates appeal to position statements of either of these organizations to support their pro-homosexual arguments; their sources are politically motivated, radical homosexual activists who simply cannot be trusted to be either objective or truthful.

(For more of my articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

References Cited

1. Aist, J.R. 2012. Are Homosexual People Really “Born Gay”?  (click HERE)

2. Aist, J.R. 2012. Homosexuality: Good News!  (click HERE)

3. Dannemeyer, W. 1989. Shadow in the Land, Homosexuality in America. Ignatius Press, San Francisco. Pp. 21-39.

4. Hale, M. 2012. CORRECTED: APA considers eliminating gender identity disorder, replace with ‘gender dysphoria’.  (click HERE)

5. Hoffman, M.C. 2012. Former President of APA Says Organization Controlled by ‘Gay Rights’ Movement. (click HERE)

6. Sorba, R. 2007. The Born Gay Hoax. Chapter 13. Intimidating Reparative Therapists. Pp. 80-87. (click HERE)

7. Sorba, R. 2012. Homosexuality and Mental Health. (click HERE)

8. Whitehead, N.E. and B.K. Whitehead. 2012. My Genes Made Me Do It. Introduction. (click HERE)

9. Landess, T. The Evelyn Hooker Study and the Normalization of Homosexuality. (click HERE)

10. Sorba, R. 2007. The Intimidation of the American Psychiatric Association. The “Born Gay” Hoax. Chapter 7. Pp. 20-27.  (click HERE)

11. Bayer, R. 1981. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis.  Basic Books, Inc., New York. Pp. 101-154.