By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Cycling Frog is gaining popularity with its hemp-derived cannabidiol products such as gummies, softgels, and THC seltzers, which are vegan, gluten-free, and non-GMO. The company is adding two new flavors to its seltzer range: raspberry lemonade with 50mg of THC and CBD, aimed at experienced users; and cran razz with 10mg of THC and CBD, suitable for those seeking a more balanced effect. Cycling Frog’s award-winning black currant flavor, with 5mg of THC and 10mg of CBD, is an ideal pick for beginners or those desiring a milder high.
Read the original article here
A conservative Texas megachurch pastor endorsing Harris in a last-minute op-ed is a moment that I can’t help but dissect, primarily for what it signals about our current political landscape and the evolving dialogue within evangelical communities. The pastor’s choice cuts against the grain of what we are conditioned to expect from the religious right in this country. It pushes the narrative that character and integrity matter, even when it comes from a place that still clings to antiquated social beliefs.
The simple act of voting based on character, as articulated by Pastor McKissic, who is known for his staunch opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion, is noteworthy. It highlights a moral quandary that has plagued many within the evangelical community for years—how do you reconcile personal convictions with the actions and character of the political leaders you support? In a world where Trump’s behavior has been scrutinized and condemned by the very same religious leaders who once supported him, McKissic’s endorsement is a bellwether. It’s telling that he acknowledges Trump’s repeated moral failings while still affirming his own conservative views.
I find a certain irony in this situation. Here is a pastor whose values remain rooted in traditional conservative ideals, yet he recognizes the need to draw the line at character. This is a fascinating twist—one that causes a ripple effect throughout the conservative base. Such endorsements suggest a palpable frustration with the GOP, which seems more invested in narrow power grabs than in the foundational principles that once underpinned the party’s identity. His decision to support Harris, despite their differing views on key social issues, shows that even entrenched ideologies can shift when faced with ethical dilemmas.
The backlash against McKissic’s op-ed from both sides is a testament to the polarization that currently characterizes our political landscape. While I readily admit that I share little in alignment with his views, particularly on LGBTQ+ issues and reproductive rights, I have to respect his stance on prioritizing character over party loyalty. It paves the way for discussions that most of us had long assumed were off-limits in evangelical pulpits. It raises the uncomfortable question—should religious leaders be endorsing any candidate at all, regardless of their character?
This pastor’s op-ed doesn’t just reflect individual dissent; it’s indicative of a bigger shift within our political fabric. I can’t shake the feeling that this is just the beginning of a shift toward more frank conversations about political morality within religious communities. At the same time, I grapple with the underlying hypocrisy; applauding his character-driven choice while still vehemently disagreeing with his rigid stance on social issues feels contradictory. Can we really applaud a gesture while still disapproving of the underlying beliefs?
The op-ed also begs us to revisit the separation of church and state. Many of us have rallied against the very notion of religious endorsements for political candidates, arguing that churches, with their tax-exempt status, should remain neutral. If we’re uncomfortable with faith-based figures endorsing a political agenda, should it matter whether they are supporting a Democrat or a Republican? The fundamental principle remains the same; however, the emotional weight of this endorsement complicates the situation. It forces us to confront whether we are willing to adapt our beliefs about church influence in politics, particularly when there could be potential benefits to democracy.
Signs of shifting allegiances provoke a sense of hope amidst despair, even if the path is fraught with inconsistency. The belief that a pastor can aid in pushing the political dialogue toward civility and decency, even if only partially, feels almost revolutionary in today’s context. Yet, I still can’t help but assert that churches should remain steadfastly nonpartisan. Embracing a candidate should not come at the expense of involving religious institutions in political machinations.
While I welcome the pastor’s vote and the discourse surrounding it, a fundamental line must be drawn to ensure that we preserve the mission of spirituality. Engaging in politics on a character basis is admirable, but involving the church in political endorsements is where I draw my stakes. It underscores a big reality: Harris’ support from unexpected grounds is a signal of political fatigue with the current state of affairs, and it reflects the complexities of navigating a deeply divided electorate. Whether these shifting movements lead to lasting change in how faith intersects with politics remains to be seen, but it certainly keeps the conversation alive.