Evangelicals place Trump's policies over their own moral values.

Jump to Last Post 1-9 of 9 discussions (138 posts)
  1. peoplepower73 profile image94
    peoplepower73posted 10 months ago

    I have heard several Evangelical leaders say they are willing to overlook Trump's immoral behavior including cursing, adultery, and lying, because his policies and toughness are more important to them than his behavior.

    But yet, if I were to exhibit the same behavior to them, I would be chastised seven days to Sunday.  Talk about a double standard!  They are willing to overlook all of their values and beliefs, just because he is the president and they like his toughness and  pollcies.  That is what you call real faith.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Or perhaps, just maybe, that when setting priorities for the nation actions are bigger than words?  Yes, I know - his actions can't be used to demonize him like his language can, but I really do think most people are more interested in results than in chastising bad language at every opportunity.  Even evangelicals.

      (If cursing, adultery and lying are so immoral I'd have to say the nation has to be at the bottom of the barrel.  Far worse, isn't it, than slavery, murder, genocide, child abuse, etc.?  You people must be getting really desperate!)

      1. peoplepower73 profile image94
        peoplepower73posted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Wilderness: 

        W: Far worse, isn't it, than slavery, murder, genocide, child abuse, etc.?  You people must be getting really desperate!)

        M:  You are using a propaganda technique called false equivalence. You are comparing  several orders of  magnitude of universal evil to a group of people who are  giving up their moral values because of blind faith they are placing on a president...Sorry, it's apples and oranges.

        We are not the ones who are desperate, but the Trumpsters and  self-righteous Evangelicals must be if they have to give up their moral values and beliefs to put faith in Trump

        What if Obama did the same thing?  How would you and they feel about that?

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Absolutely I did NOT compare "several orders of  magnitude of universal evil to a group of people who are  giving up their moral values..."  There was zero mention of people at all; only the relative "immorality level" of two subsets of the larger set of immoral behavior.  The subset you mentioned (cursing, adultery, and lying,) as compared to the subset I mentioned: (slavery, murder, genocide, child abuse).  The point was that the things you are so upset about - that is all you can find to whine about re: President Trump - are nothing compared to what is common in other parts of the world or even what was accepted as moral in our past.  To use a curse word is not even in the same list as child abuse, but it's all you can find.

          What if Obama did the same thing (here comes the false equivalence, doesn't it, as Obama has nothing to do with the question)?  Well as Obama's basic thrust was to damage the country rather than help it, I would still demonize his attitudes and opinions.  Not the man himself, but then I never did - only his insistence that the US was a "shithole country" (but without using those words) and that a nanny state is necessary along with massive income redistribution.  All three are, IMHO, quite false and quite harmful to America.  I'll leave the character assassination to you and your buddies and do my best to stick to what actual events and changes in the country.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Where did all the redistribution go to, Dan? The top 1% seems to have gotten wealthier under Donnie with his tax breaks. I suppose they got their rightful money back, correct?

      2. wba108@yahoo.com profile image80
        wba108@yahoo.composted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Excellent points, Trump is no angel but loves the country and has the guts to do the right thing. My hats off to you, often debating the left is like trying to reason with the egocentric, irrational or infantile, you just have to hope that those listening will see what the arguments are really about.

    2. Onusonus profile image78
      Onusonusposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Unlike liberals, conservatives don't believe the government is our moral guide. That's Jesus' job.

      On the other hand liberals wanted our moral guidance to fall on Hillary...

      1. peoplepower73 profile image94
        peoplepower73posted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Onusonus: 

        "Unlike liberals, conservatives don't believe the government is our moral guide. That's Jesus' job."



        So now you are placing the blame on Jesus for not doing his job?  He must not be doing a very good job, if his people are willing to give up their moral values for a person who has none.

        1. Onusonus profile image78
          Onusonusposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          No, conservatives believe government is inherently evil which is why it should be small.
          Liberals believe government is here to take care of everyone and for some reason think Hillary could do it without being completely corrupt.

      2. jonnycomelately profile image83
        jonnycomelatelyposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Would that guy Jesus agree with you carrying a gun? hmm

    3. promisem profile image97
      promisemposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      I struggle to understand how any Christian can support someone who:

      1. Wants to put great wealth in the hands of a few people.
      2. At the same time, takes away help for people in need.
      3. Endorses weapons of death with lax gun control and a huge military.

      That hardly sounds Christian to me. Leadership is not just about policies. It's also about character.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image83
        PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        It seems that many modern U.S Christians only care about overturning Roe v Wade.

        1. IslandBites profile image86
          IslandBitesposted 10 months agoin reply to this
          1. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Ha! Another Samantha Bee fan. They were enjoyable links IslandBites. Thanks.

            GA

        2. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          I get your point. I think it's a difference between fake Christians and real ones.

    4. crankalicious profile image92
      crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      I think we liberals need to be really careful trying to take the moral high road when it comes to politicians because, ultimately, it does just really come down to politics.

      I will cite the example of Bill Clinton, although there are many others. We overlooked somebody who appears to be and quite probably was, a serial sexual harasser, if not worse. We liked him because of his politics and we overlooked the rest. At the very least, he cheated on his wife, right?

      So if you didn't care too much about Clinton, it's pretty hypocritical to care about Donald Trump sleeping with a porn star.

      The evangelicals who support Trump are hypocrites, sure, but they're merely showing support of the policies and ignoring the person who puts the policies into place.

      We've all done that.

      1. Live to Learn profile image77
        Live to Learnposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        +1

    5. dianetrotter profile image71
      dianetrotterposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      What is not being noticed is that there are evangelicals that have a real problem with those who are sucking up to DJT.  They don't get a lot of press but they do make statements.  Dr. Russell Moore with Southern Baptist Convention is notable.  Churches threatened to stop giving money to SBC.

      Russell Moore Still Has a Job, Though 100 Churches Have Threatened to Pull SBC Funds
      http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2 … trump.html  From time to time I send him a note of encouragement.

      Churches are divided within themselves about DJT. 

      There are others leaders who have real concern about him.  We, as Christians, must put our hope in Jesus Christ, not in a man.

      1.  When he is right about an issue, support the issue.
      2.  when he is wrong about an issue, speak God's truth.  This is where Robert Jeffress, Franklin Graham, and the sycophants are failing.  God doesn't give mulligans.  He gives grace when we ask for forgiveness.

      Make no mistake, this is an issue that divides Christians.

      1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image80
        wba108@yahoo.composted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Were you just as concerned When Obama and Hillary lied about Benghazi for weeks for purely political reasons. When Hillary directly lied to the father of one of the brave soldiers defending the Benghazi compound?

          Did it bother you that Obama switched his position on Gay married once he sensed the political winds weren't blowing in his direction, he strongly supported abortion policies that dis proportionally targeted minority communities, that he circumvented the rule of law by changing Obamacare numerous times, that he knowing lied about Obamacare provisions (that you could keep your doctor ect...). He went out of his way to deny America's Christian heritage while trumpeting how Islam was and is prominent in America's founding and in America now.

        He surrounded himself with America hating racists like Rev Wright. And began his career hanging around America Hating terrorists like Bill Ayers. Surrounded himself and was mentored by America hating leftist agitators and communists.

        Did it bother you that the sycophantic media gave cover to numerous high profile democrats like Bill Clinton for rape allegations, using his power to sexually molest women on a fairly regular basis, molesting an impressionable young 23 year old women in the oval office. Did it bother you that that Hillary Clinton's most likely sold out America by supporting a measure to  sign over the rights to 20% of the worlds uranium to the Russians, so they could collect more donations for their foundation. That Hillary sold out America by exchanging donations for political influence while she was secretary of state. And that she deleted thousands of emails and had servers destroyed to hide the evidence?

        I could write a book about this but I doubt it would change minds.

        1. dianetrotter profile image71
          dianetrotterposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          You obviously don't know me.  I'm not defending anything anyone did.  The subject is Evangelicals place Trump's policies over their own moral values.  That's what I am addressing.

          1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image80
            wba108@yahoo.composted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Fair enough, but what's wrong with forgiving the past provided someone has changed and is now championing policies that favor religious freedom and Christian values? Or at least give him the benefit of the doubt? You're saying that I don't know you, which is true but how well do you know Trump or his evangelical supporters?

            You know that the media has declared war on Trump, I don't think he's implying that he's flawless, its just that the unscrupulous  media has consistently lied and distorted Trump's record? Why should Christian leaders focus on his flaws when the media is bashing him non stop?

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              What part of Trump's past has the media distorted? That he's been married several times, ran around with a porn star while Melania just had Baron? That he's filed bankruptcy several times and workers only got pennies on the dollar for their labor? That he's an embarrassment to our country and our allies? How many you want me to list? Or better yet, you tell me!

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Is it "distortion" to tell only half the story - the half that makes news and promotes division and hate? 

                Specifically, did the media mention as a general rule that Trump has not filed bankruptcy at all, just some of his businesses?  That those businesses were not alone, and often accompanied by others in the same geographical area and involved in the same business?  That most entrepreneurs have filed bankruptcy at some time in their lives?  That in spite of those bankruptcies he has been tremendously successful as a businessman? 

                Recognizing that none of those things can be used to make Trump look bad, and that that was the goal, is it considered "distortion" or just "useful" to present such a spun and twisted picture of a pretty innocuous and common event?

            2. dianetrotter profile image71
              dianetrotterposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              You:  Fair enough, but what's wrong with forgiving the past provided someone has changed

              Response:  How do we know that he is changed?  What has changed about his behavior?

              You:  and is now championing policies that favor religious freedom and Christian values?

              Response:  God knows the motives of our hearts.  Bible-believing Christian know that repentance is a) acknowleding the unacceptable, b) confessing that it is not acceptable to God, c) and asking forgiveness of God, and d) Planning to forsake the sin.  1 John 1:9

              You: Or at least give him the benefit of the doubt?

              Response:  What is the process of giving him the benefit of the doubt.  He hasn't said he has done anything wrong.  That stupid mulligan thing is not Biblical.

              You:  You're saying that I don't know you, which is true but how well do you know Trump or his evangelical supporters?

              Response:   1) True I don't know you and have not made any comments about you.
                                   2) DJT - Everybody knows about him.  He thrives on publicity.  I've know about him since he had Marla Maples at a ski lodge where he had his family.  You can Google many things on him.  He can't deny any of them.
                                   3) Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham - I supported him financial with Samaritan's Purse until I realized he was tricking me into sending money to support DJT.  His father is well known and well loved in the Christian community.  No scandals in his life.  He has been compassionate, loving and not wishing that anyone should perish.
                                   4) Robert Jeffress - I knew nothing until he support DJT  A good friend was telling me about it.  He is pastor of a mega church in Texas.  He has been known to be very Biblically sound until getting hooked up with DJT.
                                   5) Falwell, Jr. - I knew nothing about him.  I know his father started/founded Moral Majority.

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                "You can Google many things on him.  He can't deny any of them."

                A little care is normally used when posting for posterity.  Yes, you can google many things about DJT: a great many of which are outright lies, more are unsupported insinuations and accusations and a few of which are actually true with supporting proof.

                So when you add "He can't deny any of them." you might want to re-think that just a wee bit.

        2. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          LOL  I really don't think "molesting" is quite the proper term for the actions of Clinton and Lewinsky.  At least it's not the one I would choose...

          1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image80
            wba108@yahoo.composted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Poor use of words on my part smile

      2. Live to Learn profile image77
        Live to Learnposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        I would point out that Jesus didn't interfere in politics. Christians should take note and ponder the why.

      3. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        What does it say about Trump when he creates conflict even in places of worship?

        1. dianetrotter profile image71
          dianetrotterposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          No one is perfect.  The problem is that the people I named operate under the assumption that DJT is and will right all wrongs.  That is a horrible testimony and a stumbling block for many.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            I've never met a true Christian who would support DT, but then, there's only a very few of those in existence.

            1. dianetrotter profile image71
              dianetrotterposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Randy I don't disagree with everything DJT has done.  We are all complex beings and no one is 100% right 100% of the time.

              As Christians, we should use God's perfect standard as our guideline for our lives.  The only way we know that DJT is a Christian is that his "followers" keep telling us this.  Humility is a Christian value.  DJT is never wrong and never apologizes.  He is never penitent about anything.  That is hardness of the heart.  I won't go in depth on this for various reasons.

              Melania's values are the antithesis of his.  I tweet her a word of encouragement every now and then.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                I have more sympathy for Melania than Donnie, although I suspect her marriage was more one of economy than love on her part. Still, it must be terribly embarrassing for her to see Stormy Daniels in the news again and some sources said she was seething with anger at hubby and refused to attend the Davos conference with him.

                I suspect his other wives could tell you a few things about the Christian Donnie. Yes he seems to be a changed man.........lol

                1. GA Anderson profile image87
                  GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Well Damn Randy, After my last few responses to you I was feeling a bit guilty, and had chastened myself to be more tolerant.

                  And then you come along with this:
                  "...although I suspect her marriage was more one of economy than love on her part."

                  Now how would you have any clue about that? Are you so jaded, (or just so anti-Trump), that you would diminish the possibility of love - without having any knowledge or foundation for your conjecture, just because it is associated with Trump? Do you know something about Melania the rest of us don't?

                  I have as little grounds for my opinion as you have for yours, yet my opinion is that the lady has a bit of class. I like her. Now why would our perspectives be so different? I recall one of our forum members, ( I can't remember the name, but the initials might be R.G.), attributing positions like this being due to "projection." Which of us is projecting what Randy?

                  GA

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    I suggest you do a bit of searching about Melania's pre-Trump life, GA. It takes a bit of looking because of all of the porn stuff she's alleged to be involved in--not saying I believe any of that--but there's other things which caused me to make that remark. I still sympathize with her nevertheless.

              2. wba108@yahoo.com profile image80
                wba108@yahoo.composted 10 months agoin reply to this

                I respect your position and humility, I was a Ben Carson supporter and also spent about a year bashing Trump and his supporters. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about Trump for now!

                1. dianetrotter profile image71
                  dianetrotterposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Praise God!  Thank you! and No problem!  This is America!

                  1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image80
                    wba108@yahoo.composted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    +1

              3. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Do all Christians have a perfect record of having 100% of "Christian values" (as defined by dianetrotter, I assume) 100% of the time?  Or do they all have faults, including not exhibiting some specific Christian values some, most or all the time?

                Excluding Trump from the list of "Christians" because he isn't in perfect compliance with what you define as a Christian doesn't seem like the Christian thing to do...according to my definition of what Christians do.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, but when you step in dog crap, you usually don't have to look to verify it. tongue

                2. dianetrotter profile image71
                  dianetrotterposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Look back through my comments Wilderness.  I said it is impossible to be 100% right/good 100% of the time.  That is the basis of John 3:16.  I'm not making up my own thoughts.  i use the Bible as my reference. 

                  For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  There are none who are righteous - no not one.

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    Then it seems unreasonable to insinuate that DJT isn't a Christian because he doesn't fit with 100% of what you think Christians should be or do.  Right?

    6. dianetrotter profile image71
      dianetrotterposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Pastor Miguel de la Torre article

      Christianity has died in the hands of Evangelicals. Evangelicalism ceased being a religious faith tradition following Jesus’ teachings concerning justice for the betterment of humanity when it made a Faustian bargain for the sake of political influence. The beauty of the gospel message — of love, of peace and of fraternity — has been murdered by the ambitions of Trumpish flimflammers who have sold their souls for expediency. No greater proof is needed of the death of Christianity than the rush to defend a child molester in order to maintain a majority in the U.S. Senate.

      read full article
      The death of Christianity in the U.S.
      https://baptistnews.com/article/death-c … nDzv6inFgT

    7. dianetrotter profile image71
      dianetrotterposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Another excellent article

      Christianity as a “Religion”, may be on perilous footing, but Christianity as a faith, is enduring.  It is sustained by those quiet, but consistent souls who follow the direction of Jesus, in not making a spectacle of themselves, but giving alms, doing good work and spending time in personal devotion – not publicly as the Pharisees, but in communion with and to please the Lord.

      Are Evangelicals And The Religious Right Damaging Christianity With Their Trump Worship?
      January 29, 2018 Richard Cameron

      http://www.nationalcompass.net/author/admin/

      comments from the article about DJT followers:
      The contradiction that eludes the Christian Right, is that Talibanism is one of the very oppressions they typically point to as an example of suffocating tribalism.  They claim to abhor religion as a political movement, but they betray themselves when they embrace Trumpism and his narratives that the free press, when he describes them as the “lying media” are the enemy of the American people.

      Remarkable in this environment  is the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins’ apologetic on behalf of evangelicals that follow Trump, in the manner of the demonically infected Gadarene swine.

      Perkins argued recently that Trump has been given a “mulligan”, despite his indecency, because, Evangelical Christians, says Perkins, “were tired of being kicked around by Barack Obama and his leftists. And I think they are finally glad that there’s somebody on the playground that is willing to punch the bully.”  This comports with the sentiment among the alt-Right, that everyone who in any way is not in agreement with them, is “the enemy”.

      But Perkins didn’t stop there.  When asked by Politico, whether Trump is really the sort of person evangelicals want in the White House?  “Doesn’t he do damage to their reputation (or at least the reputation they want to project)?”   Perkins answered,  “I think the president is providing the leadership we need at this time, in our country and in our culture.”  The translation of that is that evangelicals are willing to suspend established standards of dignity and virtue in exchange for political advantage.

      Those familiar with the late Christian thinker and philosopher Francis Schaeffer, will sit up and take notice of what his son, Frank has to say in summation regarding the unequal yoking of evangelicals and Trump:

      … evangelicals switched from being people who advocated for traditional morality to the chief American defenders of, not only relativistic morality, but all that used to be considered sacred being trash. They’re defending a man who has trashed fidelity in his own life and with the words he speaks nationally. They have trashed truth-telling and have embraced this idea of everything being “fake news” that they disagree with. They have even trashed common decency.

      In contradiction to the inheritors of the Moral Majority mantle – Franklin Graham, Tony Perkins, James Dobson – and the televangelist con men (and women) like Paula White and Kenneth Copland, Billy Graham’s own granddaughter, Jerushah Armfield  told CNN’s Jim Sciutto, that Trump needs to repent of his indecency and illicit sexual behavior.

      Another prominent Evangelical that has declared his independence from the prevailing Trumpism within the Southern Baptist denomination, is Southern Baptist Convention’s  Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission  head  Russell Moore.  Moore unmistakably referred to Trump, in his book, “Onward: Engaging the Culture Without Losing the Gospel”, published during the 2016 election, when he noted that , “The church of Jesus Christ ought to be the last people to fall for hucksters and demagogues. But too often we do.”

      It didn’t set well with a lot of the vocal supporters of Trump’s presidency.  Last February, over 100 Southern Baptist churches including the Prestonwood Baptist Church in Texas announced they would defund the Convention’s cooperative mission programs, because of Moore’s refusal to swallow the contradictions of Trump’s worldview and mode of behavior.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        You seem to be trying to defend the indefensible. 

        "...evangelicals switched from being people who advocated for traditional morality to the chief American defenders of, not only relativistic morality, but all that used to be considered sacred being trash."

        First, that's not true.  Evangelicals were there to convert people to Christianity first (or at least tied for first with getting money from the plebes) and to convince them that the most modern "interpretation" of God's instructions or wants in the matter of morality are the only ones that are correct.  Lately they've looked down on slavery, torture, murder, child abuse, spouse abuse and other things that were quite moral and right for Christians in years past.  And they've done it as long as evangelicals have existed; it is always only the latest (or whatever form the specific evangelical prefers) that is the "right" one.

        1. dianetrotter profile image71
          dianetrotterposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          ?  I'm supporting the point that I originally made.  There is division among evangelicals about DJt.  Same about Christians in general.  As a matter of fact, when I first heard the evangelicals are supporting DJT, i asked myself, "Do you consider yourself evangelical."  When I'm asked in the hospital or wherever I'm asked, I respond, "I'm Christian."  They are looking for baptist, methodist, etc.  None of that is important to me. 

          Evangelical seems to have a different meaning for different people.

    8. dianetrotter profile image71
      dianetrotterposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Dr. Russel Moore article on Fake Christianity

      AVOID DENIAL.
      For years many have warned about “moral relativism,” about the dangers of an eclipse of objective morality. These warnings were right, and moral relativism is now visible almost everywhere, including in the rhetoric of some who spent a lifetime warning about its dangers. Notice how, inside and outside the church, people are loudly denunciatory of the evil behavior of their political, religious, or cultural opponents, and yet, when the same thing is true of their allies, they are muted or even found attempting justifications for the behavior. Whenever this is the case, you can be sure that these people don’t believe in morality or truth or justice, but in their allies. They believe in power. They believe in themselves.

      Many who come in Jesus’ name are frauds. Jesus is not.

      That’s not the way of Christ. We should not cover over dangerous injustice out of some desire to protect “the cause,” whatever that cause is. The way of Christ does not advance by deceit or by hypocrisy, but by bearing witness to the truth—even when that truth is ugly. If you make apologies for predatory behavior because the predator is “one of us,” then you are not standing for truth, and you are potentially sacrificing countless other lives, no matter what you tell yourself.

      https://www.russellmoore.com/2018/01/30 … isgusting/

    9. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      It's good to know that Peoplepower is so perfect, so pristine in his behavior in this world he is fit to judge others and their faith.  I wonder if Peoplepower has issues with the many Orthodox Jews who support Trump, or Hindus I actually know members of the Sikh religion who support Trump.  If Peoplepower or anyone voted for Hillary Clinton, they have had to overlook far more than any Trump supporter has had to over look.  What is the definition of "Self Righteous?...."having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior."  Think about it.

      1. Onusonus profile image78
        Onusonusposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        It's selective outrage. Trump saying mean things is unacceptable, but somehow Hillary's​ criminal actions are okay.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Got a list of Hillary's convictions, Onus? tongue Of course you don't as there aren't any. Fake news?

          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            As usual Randy, you've missed the point.  I doubt you even understand what is being discussed.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Guess again Mike, I know fake claims when I see them. We'll see if Onus puts his money where his mouth is. Or you can explain for him if you wish. I keep hearing about Hillary's crimes from you Trump fans, but you  dislike others doing the same about your guy. So...do tell!

              1. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                As with all people on the left...you have no idea what is being discussed or what is the topic.  You are so far gone you can't even comprehend what is happening.  I can't respond, because you are that far gone.  Stay in your world Randy, the realm of reality is not a place you want to visit.

  2. Live to Learn profile image77
    Live to Learnposted 10 months ago

    I would point out that, in the recent election, we all (those on both sides) had to overlook quite a lot in order to vote for either candidate.

    The left simply has the luxury of not having to make excuses for the behavior of their candidate. Since she lost.

    If the shoes were on different feet we'd be listening to similar conversations.

  3. PrettyPanther profile image83
    PrettyPantherposted 10 months ago

    I think these people should stop commenting on politics from their position within the church or start paying taxes.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      A fine answer the evangelical right cannot understand.

    2. Live to Learn profile image77
      Live to Learnposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      +1 on that PP.

  4. mom101 profile image61
    mom101posted 10 months ago

    Could it be that our churches have become political?

    1. dianetrotter profile image71
      dianetrotterposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Some of them, absolutely.  Some have always been political.

    2. jonnycomelately profile image83
      jonnycomelatelyposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Were they never?

  5. Kathleen Cochran profile image82
    Kathleen Cochranposted 10 months ago

    I'll tell you where evangelicals lost me a long time ago.Pro Life.  The number of abortions have remained pretty consistent over the past 40+ years since the procedure was legalized.  That number has actually gone down slightly.  It's hard to get stats on the number of abortions done each year when it was against the law.  But the consistency of the annual numbers for 40 years implies that the number of abortions hasn't changed drastically with its legalization.
    What has changed is the number of women who die from abortion.  Prior to legalization, the number has been conservatively estimated at 200,000 a year.  Do you know how many women died last year from complications from having an abortion?  According to the CDC, ten.  So tell me, who is Pro Life on this issue?
    Google "Evangelicals have lost their gag reflex" in a major newspaper this week then ask yourself:  Just how much can be overlooked before you've sold your soul?

    1. crankalicious profile image92
      crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Kathleen,

      You nailed that one. Kudos. I hate it when "pro-lifers" argue the abortion issue incorrectly (talking about when a fetus is a baby and such). Not the issue.

      Nobody wants anyone to have an abortion. It should be avoided. However, it happens. So how will it happen is the question. In a back alley or in a hospital? That's why it's legal.

      If it's illegal, women who can afford to go out of the country will go there while poor women will die.

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Should a woman be able to terminate their child's life once it is born?  It happens.  Shouldn't it happen in a clean and safe environment rather than getting the police and others involved? Maternal Filicide happens regularly. 

        "A 1999 United States Department of Justice study concluded that between 1976 and 1997 in the United States, mothers were responsible for a higher share of children killed during infancy, while fathers were more likely to have been responsible for the murders of children age 8 or older.[1]

        Furthermore, 52% of the children killed by their mothers (maternal filicide) were male, while 57% of the children killed by their fathers (paternal filicide) were male. Parents were responsible for 61% of child murders under the age of five. Sometimes, there is a combination of murder and suicide in filicide cases. On average, according to FBI statistics, 450 children are murdered by their parents each year in the United States." 
        If it's going to happen anyway, why not make it legal?
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filicide

        1. crankalicious profile image92
          crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          That's actually a pretty good argument. Again though, abortion is legal for precisely the reasons Kathleen stated.

          I'm supportive of a discussion about limiting abortions as the fetus gets to a point where it can survive outside the mother (though these births are extraordinarily expensive and not supportable by our health care system).

          It's not really relevant to take the most extreme situations as we're mostly discussing abortions that occur prior to 20 weeks - that's the vast majority of abortions. The ones that occur after 20 weeks are extreme cases and generally quite rare.

          Ultimately, the key to reducing abortions is free birth control and sex education.

          1. jonnycomelately profile image83
            jonnycomelatelyposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Ask a doctor who performs abortions, how he or she feels about the fetus, whatever its age, having to removed that child-like form from that safe warm place in its mother's body; sorry for this - sometimes having to mutilate it!  What is the on-going psychological cost to the doctor, having to put all the natural revulsion into out-of-sight recesses of the mind, just so he/she can get on with life.  I know it's highly distasteful to even talk about this, but sanitising the subject leads no where useful.
            I am not adamantly pro- or anti-abortion.  It all depends on individual circumstances.  But when anyone talks of the needs of humanity, we are not justified in considering just one easy, convenient side of the argument.
            IMHO.

            1. dianetrotter profile image71
              dianetrotterposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              You are keeping it real Jonny!

            2. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Sanitizing the subject does indeed lead nowhere useful.  Neither does emotionalizing it, or examining the feelings or emotions of the operating physician.  I can look at a group of half a dozen cells, for instance, and say that it is absolutely ridiculous and disgusting that anyone would call it a human being, a person with rights, but that doesn't do anything to change the mind of those that claim it is.  My feelings are irrelevant to them.

    2. PrettyPanther profile image83
      PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      This is exactly right. Of course, many of these evangelicals judge women who get pregnant as getting what they deserve for spreading their legs. In my opinion, that's really what this is mostly about.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        You reject the idea that some people view abortion as taking human life?  Not whether they are right or wrong, but that that's how it is viewed?

        1. Live to Learn profile image77
          Live to Learnposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          I think the bone of contention remains with the prolife side having little regard for humanity, in general. It's fine to want to end abortions but the fetus is the tip of the iceberg of things to consider on a compassionate solution. If you limit your interest to only the fetus you turn your back on millions of already living,breathing, human beings.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image83
            PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Thank you, that is exactly how I was going to respond.  It seems we agree on at least one thing.  :-)

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              I assume that's a "Yes".  This is (coupled with the opposite, from the opposite side) exactly why I think we've not put this to bed as a nation and never will.  A simple refusal to listen and respond to the complaints from the other side of the argument.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                But, wilderness, if pro-life people only cared about saving the lives of the unborn, they would be willing to hand out free birth control to teenagers.  It has consistently been shown to be more effective than abstinence education.  But, no, they think that encourages teen sex, even though that has never been shown to be true.  They would rather have more abortions than let teens have free and easy access to birth control.  That tells me this is more about sex than protecting the unborn, for many of these Christians.

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Either that or it is two completely separate problems to them.  You cannot put your opinions, thoughts and attitudes onto someone that doesn't think at all like you do.

                  I just see it as a real problem when a lifer says "You're killing little children - I'm all they've got to save their lives!" and the reply is "You're lying - you don't care about people at all!".  It just doesn't even address the problem, let alone work to solve it - all it can do is (correctly) indicate that you haven't heard a word of what was said.

                  And, of course, when you say "Killing a fetus isn't murder as it isn't a person at all" the reply is "But you're killing babies!  It's Murder!".  They haven't listened, either, as it is obvious (to them) that it IS murder.  What they hear is you saying the sky is green so therefore you can kill a baby just as what you hear is them saying "I don't care about women and they have no right to their own bodies".

                  "...if pro-life people only cared about saving the lives of the unborn, they would be willing to hand out free birth control to teenagers." 

                  Have you considered that that saves no baby's lives at all?  Without a pregnancy there is no life to save, after all.  You're looking at it as a way to prevent abortions; they look at it as a way to save lives and without a life there is nothing to save.  The only lives to be saved are those of babies being carried to an abortion clinic - not one that never happened.  Just a thought, but that might be why the two are considered such separate things to a lifer.  I certainly can't profess to understand the ins and outs of a lifer's arguments, not really, but have heard the primary ones (and the replies) enough to know that no one is listening...except another lifer.  At most the reply might be "It's not a baby", which flies straight into the face of what the lifer knows to be true.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                    PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    Well, I can agree with you that I have a hard time understanding the position of a pro-lifer. No argument here. I prioritize the life of the already-born over the unborn. I know a few women who have had abortions. Each of them had their reasons. One was raped and impregnated at the asge of 13.  I cannot think of a 13- year-old who doesn't want to give birth to a child conceived in tape as a murderer. Just can't do it.

            2. Live to Learn profile image77
              Live to Learnposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              LOL. I was going to +1 your comment but thought it would freak you out.

          2. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Obviously untrue (playing devil's advocate here).  First, being female and pregnant does not imply a right to murder anyone.  And second they propose teaching abstinence, which will absolutely prevent unwanted pregnancies -  100% of the time - if followed.  It's not about compassion, then, it's about murder of innocent, helpless people when it is never necessary at all and that cannot possibly show little regard for humanity.  On the contrary, it is obviously the pro-"choice" crowd, that chooses to murder helpless infants, that are showing little regard for human life.

            1. Live to Learn profile image77
              Live to Learnposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Well, they can attest to the fact that abstinence is never going to be an option. Them helping financially raise the child is never going to be an option. Them adopting all of these kids will never be an option.

              Which is why I roll my eyes at their empty comments. Loving the unborn is like loving God. You get to say you love,with no proof you do. No action to back up empty words.

      2. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        I wish the liberals on the left would have the courage to answer the question.  If a woman makes a mistake and gets pregnant she can legally terminate the child. Should a woman have the same right if she makes a mistake and gives birth to a child?  Mothers kill their born children every year.  Why not make it legal and safe?

        1. crankalicious profile image92
          crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Again, I'll say, a reasonable line of thought.

          It's just we're really talking about abortions that occur before 20 weeks. Should they happen? It would be nice if they didn't.

          How do we work collectively to stop them? Free birth control and sex education are a good solution. There's no doubt that providing free birth control is a small price to pay to lower the abortion rate.

          The other way to lower the abortion rate is to criminalize fatherhood (stay with me). Abortion is often the result of an unplanned pregnancy. Should the criminalization of abortion fall entirely on the woman? If it also falls on the father, then you'd see less abortion and more parenthood.

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            You're talking about criminalizing sex, right?  Just for the male, or would be female be jailed as well?  And while the female is easy to find, how do you find the male?

            1. crankalicious profile image92
              crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              They'd both be jailed.

              I'm talking about the hypothetical scenario of illegal abortion. People want to make abortion illegal to stop abortions and make the woman solely responsible for it. Well, how about making the man equally responsible if he's unwilling to provide equal support for the child?

              Mike was discussing legalizing infanticide because it's the same as abortion. Well, I'm talking about criminalizing abortion so that both responsible parties share the same penalty.

              And incidentally, what should the penalty be? Well, that's easy. Execution. Abortion is murder and murder is punished by life in prison or execution. There can be no worse murder than the murder of an innocent child.

              I'm just being hyperbolic, but might as well consider these things.

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Got it.  Makes sense to me.  If abortion is infanticide then the same penalties apply, although finding Dad is a little tough.  And the excuses of rape, incest, etc. are just that; excuses, not acceptable reasons.

                Of course, that's a rather big "if"...

          2. jonnycomelately profile image83
            jonnycomelatelyposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            If you were to legalise voluntary euthanasia for us Oldies, then we could choose to depart earlier than 85, freeing up medical resources, food supplies, family incomes and community funds, allowing every young Mum to receive community support for her un-planned for Bub.  Abortion would become obsolete, Happy bedroom sport would become the rage, even featured on free-air tv.  Evangelists could turn away from the morality of sex and concentrate on the other Commandments listed in the Ten, for example, covetousness, sloth (but I know that’s one of the Deadly Sins, not a Commandment),  lying,  cheating, blaspheming, etc.  There are plenty of experts around whom you can approach for advice.

            Or, instead of that, make up a new set of laws that will allow us much more fun without so many penalties.  Currently, it seems very unfair to me.  God made all these things for fun and enjoyment, then puts a ban on the most juicy ones.

        2. Aime F profile image83
          Aime Fposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          This is a really simple answer and you’re being intentionally obtuse by ignoring it.

          It is not widely accepted that a zygote or a fetus at any stage is the same as a fully formed child. You know that hypothetical - if a building was on fire and you only had time to save a newborn baby or an embryo in a petri dish, which one are you gonna save? The answer for most people would of course be the baby. But why, if there is no difference?

          1. crankalicious profile image92
            crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            The right-wing is incredibly focused on the idea that millions of women are aborting babies the day before they're due.

            1. Aime F profile image83
              Aime Fposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Of course. I’m sure they think late-term abortions are just for funsies, too.

            2. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Not at all.  But a great many will declare that a zygote (a fertilized egg) is a baby - a child - a miniature human being.  And demand that everyone else accept that opinion as gospel.

              This, of course, results in all abortions (even the "Plan B" ill) being murder of a baby.

          2. jonnycomelately profile image83
            jonnycomelatelyposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            A fetus at 30 weeks, immediately prior to a caesarian section, is a child.  At what in-utero age do you suggest the fetus is not a child?

            1. Aime F profile image83
              Aime Fposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              I don’t know and I’m not going to pretend to know.

              I would agree that 30 weeks is a pretty well-formed little human and am personally uncomfortable with the idea of an abortion (other than for medical or extenuating circumstances) at that stage.

              But looking at the time when a vast majority of abortions occur (first trimester), I personally don’t feel the same level of discomfort. At <12 weeks the fetus is not even close to being able to survive or function on its own as a human being outside the womb, even with the best medical intervention.

              All of that is of course just my opinion. Many disagree. Many have similar ideas that differ slightly. I don’t know what the “right answer” is... but that’s why I believe every woman has the right to make a decision based on what she believes.

            2. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              What is your reasoning?  What differentiates a "child" from "flesh" in your opinion and what is the reasoning behind that differentiation?  And you're not implying that if there is not to be a caesarian that a 30 week fetus is not a child, are you?

              1. jonnycomelately profile image83
                jonnycomelatelyposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                I lean more towards Aime F's position: I don't know the answers,  thus most of my posts here are in the form of questions. 

                I respect that some make their judgment and decision on the basis of belief(s).  Some are much more knowledgeable regarding the scientific facts than I am. 

                Yet, when I see strong opinionated statements put out as "...you just got to believe this..."  or "...it's ridiculous to think that..." then I look with doubt upon that opinion.  It's unlikely to be open to the other opinion, regardless of truth one way or another.  Presumption of moral/intellectual/religious superiority is anathema to finding sound reason and consensus.

                Again, IMHO.

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  LOL That's exactly why I asked, for I agree with her too - I find it very difficult to have a specific opinion on the matter of personhood vs chunk of flesh and hoped you might have reasoning I could use.

                  But unlike Aime, I'm not sanguine at all at saying that a newborn is "able to survive or function on its own as a human being outside the womb" - that seems just a cop out; a false reasoning that bears little connection with reality.  (Which is an indication of just how badly I'm confused with the whole question). 

                  It IS, however, the central question to abortion, the only one that truly matters.  IMHO.  And I can't answer it, can't even give a rational opinion.

                  1. Aime F profile image83
                    Aime Fposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    It is a very oversimplified point that I made. But in the very early stages of development it seems like the easiest observation. If it can’t survive/function on its own and it doesn’t resemble what we know and recognize as “a person” then it is distinctly different, in some inexplicable way, from a developed newborn baby or fetus further along in development.

              2. dianetrotter profile image71
                dianetrotterposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Vital Systems – The Beating Heart
                Only 3 weeks and 1 day after fertilization - the heart begins to beat.1 By 4 weeks, the heart typically beats between 105 and 121 times per minute.2

                http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit4.php

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  If a beating heart is what determines if an organism is a person or not we're in big trouble.

      3. gmwilliams profile image81
        gmwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- Evangelicals & other conservative religionists view sex as somehow evil unless it is for procreative purposes.   Conservative, dogmatic, fanatical, & traditional religionists furthermore assert that women are responsible for the "downfall" of humanity via the Adam & Eve mythos.  Such religionists subconsciously hate women & are against any form of reproductive choice for women. 

        They adhere to the notion of good women i.e. women who know their "place" & act according to so-called biblical dates & bad women i.e. women who are independent & won't submit to the societal paradigm of what women "should" be.   They feel that women who are independent should be punished for their independence & be "put in line."  The sexual woman has always & is still viewed as evil, even demonic by conservative, dogmatic, fanatical, & traditional religionists.

        1. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Principal: Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

          Billy Madison

          1. gmwilliams profile image81
            gmwilliamsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            You don't get it, do you.  Evangelicals & other conservative religionists have a deep psychological issue when it comes to women, sexuality, & reproductive freedom.  They believe that "decent" women aren't sexual unless it is for reproductive reasons while "indecent" women are sexual, even wildly, unapologetically so & don't view sex as solely reproductive.   The latter type of women threaten Evangelicals & other conservative religionists because these women believe in, demand, & practice reproductive freedom.  Evangelicals & conservative religionists believe that women should be in their sexual place & if they deviate, they deserve what they get!    Understand now?  Good.......

    3. promisem profile image97
      promisemposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      I'm also curious how someone who claims to cherish life can be anti abortion and pro death penalty at the same time.

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Promisem, so, you see no difference between an innocent life created without its consent and someone who had taken the life of others?  Yeah, I guess the answer will be a bit beyond you.

        1. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Thanks, Mike. Peace be with you.

  6. profile image57
    nick12345678posted 10 months ago

    deez nutsssssssssss

  7. Kathleen Cochran profile image82
    Kathleen Cochranposted 10 months ago

    "As with all people on the left"  Herein lies the problem.  You can't say all of any category on any subject.  "All" these generalizations are what are dividing our country.

    1. promisem profile image97
      promisemposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Absolutely correct!

    2. dianetrotter profile image71
      dianetrotterposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      10 thumbs up!

    3. mrpopo profile image72
      mrpopoposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Sure you can. All people are made up of carbon. Boom, all of a category on a given subject wink

  8. jonnycomelately profile image83
    jonnycomelatelyposted 10 months ago

    Have you not sanitised the picture for your mind?  Just so you can handle the argument?  Area quick D&C  the only version of abortion you think happens?  You have used the expression "ridiculous and disgusting."  Emotional and reactive, hardly reasonable.  Mine was an honest statement of opinion.

  9. Aime F profile image83
    Aime Fposted 10 months ago

    I feel awful killing anything. I once let a mosquito live in my room until he died of natural causes (or until I accidentally starved him to death, I’m not really clear on how that works). I named him Edgar, we were pals. My mom walked in on me watching tv in bed one night and said “you know there’s a mosquito on the wall right by your head” to which I replied, “oh that’s Edgar, he wouldn’t leave and I didn’t want to squish him so he lives here now.” Ah, Edgar. Such fond memories. lol

    But I have no problem if someone else wants to smack them dead. Sort of sums up my feelings on abortion:  I could never do it myself but I’m not offended if someone else wants to make that choice.

    1. jonnycomelately profile image83
      jonnycomelatelyposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Aime, thank you so much for that lighter note!
      Would you say it's one of our human characteristics we need to value?  That respect for the "other," whether the other is a person, an opinion or just another example of life itself?  We cannot like every person in the world but:
      A tiny bit of respect can be the beginnings of an unexpected relationship.

      PS, I think Nimrod would be a better name for a pet mosquito.  Edgar is too swish.  But I was thinking of Elgar, and that’s crazy too.

    2. mrpopo profile image72
      mrpopoposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      That's really funny. I don't like killing either mosquitoes either. I remember I used to let fruit flies off with a warning. But they reproduce like crazy, soon enough there's dozens of them and it gets out of control.

      Gnats are even worse. I used to spare them like fruit flies but these are by far the worst "critters" I've ever had the displease of having in my home. They are kamikaze fliers - they fly right into your food, your drink, your face. They earned "kill-on-sight" status. At least the fruit flies were decent enough to respect personal boundaries.

      I'd probably be really annoyed if I had a pal mosquito and someone smacked them dead though!

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)