A Fight in the Leper Colony

Show Outline with Links

Introduction

It is easy to treat the spectacle that is presidential politics in 2016 as though we were dismayed spectators, but we are not spectators at all. We are all participants. We are not watching a movie that contains a food fight in a junior high cafeteria; we are in the cafeteria. And if it is not too jarring to use the phrase casus belli about such a fracas, the causes for all of this lie deep within ourselves.dont-vote

To change my metaphor, this whole thing is a three-layer hypocrite cake.

The First Layer

The bottom layer is the Donald himself, the least hypocritical in this entire business. He has never made much of a secret of the fact that he is a boorish pig, and that he likes being a boorish pig, and so he at least has the virtue of largely being himself, to whatever extent that might be called a virtue. Anybody who was surprised by this recent fiasco is a person who could probably have written Gullible’s Travels in one sitting. There are traces of hypocrisy in his behavior, but for the most part Trump gained the Republican nomination as a known quantity.

This is why the feckless Republican distancing from Trump is so grimly amusing. Republicans who were reluctant to endorse Trump in the first place because of what everybody already knew are now jumping overboard because somebody produced proof of what everybody already knew. “The pope is Catholic? Talk about a bridge too far. I’m outta here.”

Now I don’t mind qualified prophets speaking a word of righteousness to Trump. He needs it, and the religious hacks he has surrounded himself with do not appear to be interested in fulfilling that duty. And the political hacks are not rats deserting a sinking ship. They are rats deserting a ship that some polls indicate might be sinking sometime soon, but there is nothing here that a few polls running the other direction couldn’t fix. If the polls run the other way, so will the rats.

The Second Layer

The second layer is the high-indignation of the Hillary forces. How many bimbos has Bill Clinton—the Wilt Chamberlain of politics—actually been with? How many flights did he take to Underage Island on the Lolita Express with his good buddy Jeffrey Epstein? And when Bill Clinton behaved in exactly the way Trump talked, how did Hillary Clinton treat the resultant and plausible allegations made by women like Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones? Right. She did whatever she could to destroy the victims of what might be called—but only after a fair trial that wasn’t going to happen—the Bill & Donald Entitlement Syndrome.

So we are now in the position where the most indefensible comments imaginable are going to be attacked by the most indefensible challenger imaginable. What we have is quite the spectacle—two lepers in a leper colony throwing contaminated bandages at one another.

The Third Layer

The third layer of hypocrisy is the monumental one. We have met the enemy, and he is us. Donald J. Trump is in big trouble (we think) because he acts like an accurate representative of the nation he is seeking to lead. I have said several times that Trump is a boorish pig, but that fits right in, because he is running for the presidency of what has pretty much become a sty.

The third group of hypocrites is that large bundle that we call the American public—simultaneously indignant and titillated. This is what it has come down to. We all pretend to be shocked, shocked, by something that we have allowed to become an acceptable mainstream standard. “I am sick of that reprehensible Trump on the news every night. What’s on HBO?”

I am not talking about the presence of double-standards—those have always been with us. That was the world that Trump tried to evoke when he said that this tape was “locker room banter.” There was a day when boors and pigs snuck off to certain designated places in order to talk the way boors and pigs like to do. That was a time when such hypocrisy was possible. You could go off and talk that way with your friends, and then go home and talk with your mother with that same mouth. But you had to pretend in order to be able to do it. You had to live a double life to do it. You had to keep two sets of books.

But that wall—let us call it the wall of public decency—has long since been battered down. Did we really think we could outlaw decency, and yet somehow still have decency? Did we really think that we could routinely entertain ourselves on the kind of vice-ridden fare that Hollywood churns out, and not have it make us vice-ridden? Did we really believe we could blow a hole in the hull of decent discourse and still have the ship stay on the surface?

This is the point where, once again, C.S. Lewis provides the much needed prophetic voice.

“And all the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more ‘drive’, or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or ‘creativity’. In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”[1]

So Trump bragged about abusing his position as a man of power and influence, and said that he could just “grab them by the p***y” and they would let him get away with it because he was a star. A pretty grimy star, but a star. And the society that has for decades been hell-bent on glorifying just this kind of thing, all together now, puts on its shocked face.

You think I overstate things? A multi-million dollar hip hop industry revolves around boasting of exactly the same kind of misogynistic bile that Trump brags about—only much filthier than Trump. That explains all the accolades and awards. The porn industry is mainstreamed—every hotel chain sells you porn if you want it, every gas station sells you porn if you want it, your phone delivers porn to your pocket if you want it. And Fifty Shades of Grey was a mega-bestseller, creating the new mommy porn genre, selling million after million at a pretty rapid clip.

Suppose we lined up every last person online who is demanding that Trump step down now, pronto, and then we required anyone to depart from the discussion if they had used porn within the last year, how much of a firestorm would there still be? There was a reason why the Lord said that the one without complicity in the sin under discussion should cast the first stone. “And they all, beginning with the eldest, remembering their own browser history, crept quietly away.”

You cannot create a society where standards of common decency are laughed to scorn, but because you have to have some standards, substitute in the insane, contradictory, and impossible standards of political correctness, and then arbitrarily keep the corruptions from creeping into the lives of all our candidates for the presidency. That is like allowing black mold to grow up all the walls of your house, and then show the first signs of alarm when it threatens to get into the attic. Oh, no, not the attic!

If the standards are not the standards grounded ultimately in the nature and character of God, then the standards are not standards of common decency at all, but rather arbitrary rules made by arrogant and hypocritical relativists—bureaucrats at the Bureau of Weights and Measures who change the length of the yardstick every few days.

So it turns out that when we finally get God out of the public square, the end result is not a quiet academic seminar moderated by John Stuart Mill. When we get Christ banished from all public consideration, the end result is not a multi-ethnic and diverse crowd holding hands and singing, imagining there’s no heaven. When we banish the ten standards that God graciously wrote for us in stone, the end result is not a bunch of cheerful people looking out on us from a warm and accepting United Colors of Benetton ad. I hate to break it to you, but that’s not what happens. What happens is . . .  what is happening.

No, what we get is a vile woman running against a vile man, and we must choose between them, God says, because we are a vile people. We get a presidential campaign between a corruptocrat and a clown, and this is because God has now narrowed our choice down to what would best represent this stiff-necked generation.

A couple hours after the Entirely Predictable dropped, Wikileaks released some of Hillary’s musings behind closed bank doors. She has, and I quote, “both a public and a private position” on her coziness with the banks. I bring this up, not as an instance of her being a hypocrite, although she is, but to point out that we the people are doing exactly the same thing. We, the American people, have a private position on morality and a public position on morality, and we are just now starting to notice that the two together are incoherent.

We want a private position on sex and sexuality, where your private wishes dictate what pronouns may be applied to you, and where rappers can brag about slapping their bitches all they want, and alpha CEOs can grab what they want, and at the same time we want a public position where the marble colonnades of Washington retain all their Augustan shine, polished with that special kind of bright marble wax made out of integrity, honor, and core values. Of course, integrity, honor and core values are not backed by gold anymore, but rather are pegged to the wild fluctuations of the world currency markets. Today’s integrity might not look very much like your grandfather’s integrity. Today’s integrity might want to grab some p***y.

There is no God. Or, if there is, He may not be invoked in any matter involving the public square. You demanded it—and so now you have it. God’s existence, if there is such existence, gives us no direction whatever on the differences that may exist between Donald Trump and Lil Wayne. We have to figure that out for ourselves, which means that we are entirely nonplussed.

Why is Trump in our doghouse when Lil Wayne is in our playlists? The answer is that this presidential election is our dumpster fire. Hypocrisy is flammable, and this is what it smells like when burning.

One other thing should be mentioned, which I hope to get to tomorrow. Russell Moore has declared that this entire debacle means the end of the religious right. In this he is partially correct—but there is an important qualification to be made.

[1] C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man or Reflections on Education with Special Reference to the Teaching of English in the Upper Forms of Schools (HarperOne, 2001), 26.

318
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
34 Comment threads
284 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
54 Comment authors
Rob SteelemissjayJohn F. KennedyKrychek_2Christopher Casey Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ilíon
Member

No, you’re not the only one around here who doesn’t want to vote for any of these people. But, these are the choices.

Moreover — AND JUST AS IMPORTANTLY — the man for whom you were (and still are) shilling is Constitutionally prohibited. When you admit that, I’ll take your concerns seriously … not that either of us can change the choices available to us.

Nate
Guest
Nate

Why is it that every comment section on the Internet seems to have at least one loudmouth who talks a big game but clearly doesn’t know the definition of “natural born” citizen?

ashv
Guest
ashv

Natural Born Commenters

Ilíon
Member

Maybe for the same reason that people like you, who don’t *care* to know the meaning of the Constitution, are always around, engaging their disingenuous concern-trolling.

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

Why is it that every comment section on the Internet seems to have at
least one loudmouth who talks a big game but clearly doesn’t know the
definition of “natural born” citizen?

Great. Now I have to block Ilion again.

Ilíon
Member

I urge you to do so. After all, we can’t risk exposing you to truth and sound reason.

duellsquimby
Member

If there was an internet gold star to give for comments, you’d have just earned it.

lady_black
Guest
lady_black

Who do you believe isn’t a natural born citizen?

duellsquimby
Member

Ahh, our dear constitutional scholar is back! Did I miss your nomination to the Supreme Court while you were away?

Ilíon
Member

So, this particular fool, Duells Quimby, is either:
1) a hypocrite;
2) a supporter of abortion and homosexual “marriage” (and other abominations of the recent court)

duellsquimby
Member

You’re not going to do well during your confirmation hearings if you don’t study hard. I think you can do better.

Ilíon
Member

You should be more worried about the state of your soul.

duellsquimby
Member

Maybe you should spend time reading and not chatting with your friends. Confirmation hearings are no mid-week quiz.

Ilíon
Member

Maybe you should consider the eternal fate of murderers and the approvers of murder (and of “gay” “marriage”).

duellsquimby
Member

How do you know I’m not your brother?

Ilíon
Member

How odd you would think that matters.

duellsquimby
Member

How long have you had your little pet project? You really seem invested in it.

Ilíon
Member

Well, yes, your sort is always mystified that anyone could be “invested” in truth.

duellsquimby
Member

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Capndweeb
Guest
Capndweeb

‘In late-breaking news, Donald Trump is a filthy swine. And now, a word from our sponsor, Victoria’s Secret.”

adad0
Member

Now you’ve done it Cap’n!
How dare you trigger the thought of “Hillary’s secret”!
????

Capndweeb
Guest
Capndweeb

What are the symptoms of an irony overdose? I’m currently looking for prices on a giant NONE OF THE ABOVE sign for my yard. https://www.planetdoomed.com/products/none-of-the-above-bumper-sticker-decal

adad0
Member

“Hillary for Prison”
Will do in a pinch!
‘Might even cure an irony overdose!????????

Capndweeb
Guest
Capndweeb

Ahhhh, but while I agree with the sentiment, it is but half the sentiment.

adad0
Member

Well,….ok,

“Bill for prison” too!

????

Capndweeb
Guest
Capndweeb

Bwaaahahhahah!

duellsquimby
Member

That about nails it! You’re on a roll.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

While I actually agree with much of what you wrote, there’s a fairly significant point that I think you’re overlooking. Yes, everyone has always known that the Donald is a swine, but what is different here is that he essentially admitted to being an actual sexual predator. It’s one thing to be consensually promiscuous with anything willing to sleep with you; it’s another thing entirely to admit that you force yourself on the unwilling. That’s a pretty big distinction, and it’s also the reason Trump will now be lucky to carry 10 states.

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

If I understand the tone of his words, and I only read them and didn’t hear them, it’s that he was surprised his moves didn’t work like they usually do. That means they didn’t work. That means he acted like a pig but not like a rapist, if that distinction still matters.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

What he said is that he kisses women without even asking, and because he’s a celebrity he can get away with it. That sounds like predation to me.

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

He admits to assault and battery but not rape. At least in this instance. “Pig” fits better than “predator” imho.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Rob, if a gay man kissed you on the lips without your permission, would you consider it predation? I think any unwanted sexual advance is predation, whether or not it’s actual rape.

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

Ack phtf. Thanks for that image. Now I consider you a mental predator.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

The point is, though, that as a male you don’t really have to think about what is, and is not, sexual predation because you’re almost never at the receiving end of it. Try to imagine what it’s like to be a good looking woman and spend your entire life being catcalled, ogled, and touched against your wishes. If you can do that, then you’ll realize just why Trump’s remarks resonated so deeply with women, and why they are so deeply offensive.

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

Hey, I used to be cute and got hit on by pervs. No imagination required. And I never disputed that Trump is deeply offensive. You seem to be minimizing the distinction between being merely a pig and being a rapist, as if the actual act doesn’t matter. Why?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

It’s a continuum, and I suppose reasonable minds may differ as to where the lines get drawn. I think actual physical contact is a pretty big dividing line. Granted, an unwelcome kiss on the lips is not the same as being raped, but they are both unwelcome physical contact. And of course, drawing one line at physical contact doesn’t preclude drawing other lines as well. Going back to my earlier question, back when you were young and cute and getting hit on by “pervs”, given a choice, would you have preferred a kiss or a rape? Obviously, if those are… Read more »

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

Reasonable minds gave us the definitions of battery and rape and insisted on distinguishing between them. Conflating them is unreasonable despite their obvious similarities.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

But I haven’t conflated them. I understand the difference. In this case, I don’t think it’s a difference that matters.

Jane
Member

I’d rather say it’s a difference that matters, but not one that eliminates the issue. By analogy, robbery is still a violent crime and considered an attack on a person, even if it isn’t aggravated assault or murder.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

The question is whether it’s a difference in kind or in degree. If the category is violent crime, then murder and robbery (and for that matter rape) all fit under that heading, but I agree with you that one is somewhat less odious than the other. I think the relevant category here is sexual battery. (My fingers got ahead of my brain in an earlier response and I said sexual assault, but it’s actually sexual battery.) A forced kiss on the lips is less odious than raping someone, but they do both fit under the same general heading.

Jane
Member

Yes, that’s what I mean. I am agreeing with you here (mark your calendar). :-)

I think they are both predatory, even if one is less heinous — I would say a lot less heinous — but still wrong and a different species of the same thing.

missjay
Guest
Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

So… he’s a pig? Is anyone disputing that?

missjay
Guest
missjay

No, I think no one is disputing he is a pig. The link refers to women that have accused him of sexual assault. He didn’t just talk about grabbing women, he actually did it. That’s what is upsetting people. That he touched women against their will. Which is acting like a rapist as well as a pig.

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

It’s true that a rapist touches his victims against their will but absent penetration that’s battery, not rape. Know the difference–it’s important.

missjay
Guest
missjay

He was discussing sexual assault. Yes, I understand. Are you saying because he wasn’t bragging about penetrating women against their will it’s no biggie?

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

Far from it. I agree he’s a pig. I’m saying rape is a much bigger deal than not rape.

Christopher
Member

“It’s one thing to be consensually promiscuous with anything willing to sleep with you; it’s another thing entirely to admit that you force yourself on the unwilling.”

But who would expect anything else from Trump?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Of course that’s what one expects from Trump. What was unexpected is that he would brag about it while wearing a microphone. That, too, takes it to a new level.

Christopher
Member

“What was unexpected is that he would brag about it while wearing a microphone.”

That sounds like an unreasonably high expectation for Trump.

wendyt
Guest
wendyt

Well, in hindsight, yes… LOL. *sigh*

SoGrits
Guest
SoGrits

LOL!!

Nick E
Guest
Nick E

Actually, I don’t know if there’s much of a difference though. I mean the power dynamic between the POTUS and a much younger intern is as extreme as it gets.

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

Three words: Slick Willie Clinton.

Sauce for the gander is sauce for the… gander. >_>

Or is the difference that Slick Willie admitted nothing?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

No, the difference is that Slick Willie isn’t running for office this year; his wife is. And how is she culpable for her cheating husband?

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

Did you have the same scruples when he was running for office?

How is she culpable? I shudder to imagine.

No, she’s culpable for covering up for him and trying to intimidate-into-recanting, the women he debauched .

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

I voted for Clinton in 1992 but not in 1996, in part because of those issues, which were not as well known in 1992. But be that as it may, same answer I gave “A” dad. You dislike Mrs. Clinton intently because of her political views so you’re not willing to give her the benefit of any doubt, and here, there is doubt aplenty. Consider: 1. She may have believed her husband was a philanderer but not a rapist, and she simply did not believe the accusers. 2. She may have believed that keeping her family together was more important.… Read more »

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

She could have divorced him at any time over the last 50 years. (we have no fault divorce, you know, and infidelity was perfectly reasonable ground for divorce before no-fault was a thing)

That she hasn’t implies that she is perfectly content with the situation as it is.

If she is content, then she needs no sympathy.

If she is not content, then her continued and persistent inaction means there is no cause for sympathy.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Or it could mean that she stays for any of the reasons other people stay in unhappy marriages. There are unhappy marriages, you know.

But at any rate, thank you for proving my earlier statement that your hostility toward Mrs. Clinton is so intense that you’ll demonize her no matter what.

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

Of course. She’s a Clinton.

holmegm
Guest
holmegm

While I confess to not having followed every word of the October Surprise, the impression I had was that he bragged he could touch certain women (I’m assuming he didn’t really mean every woman on earth) and that they “wouldn’t mind”, which is pretty much the opposite of “without their consent”.

Good? Certainly not. Admitting sexual assault? Not that either.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

What he actually said was that when he sees a beautiful woman, he just starts kissing her without asking if it’s ok. So now it’s a little hard for him to claim that all of these women are lying when they are accusing him of doing what he himself bragged about doing. And if you are kissed by someone you don’t wish to be kissed by, that is a sexual battery. I myself would not even give someone an affectionate pat on the shoulder unless I were reasonably certain the other person would be ok with it; you don’t just… Read more »

John F. Kennedy
Guest
John F. Kennedy

“And in other news, you may have also heard that a judge decided there is sufficient evidence to allow a trial to go forward in which he is accused of having sex with a 13 year old girl.”

Do you have a link for this?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

I googled “Trump lawsuit 13-year-old” and got close to a million hits. Here’s a recent news article about it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3836969/Lawsuit-alleging-Donald-Trump-forcibly-raped-girl-13-gets-pre-trial-date-despite-firm-denial-claims.html

John F. Kennedy
Guest
John F. Kennedy

Yes, I found that. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know all the implications of this. Does a judge ordering a status conference equate to “a judge decided there is sufficient evidence to allow a trial to go forward?” I think it’s also important to know that the judge who ordered this was appointed by Barack Obama; that, and since we know that all lawyers are rats (except my daughter) we need to wonder if politics are involved. :)

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

It means that Trump’s lawyers filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the case was so weak it should immediately be thrown out. The judge denied the motion and set a status conference to set deadlines for depositions and paper discovery. After that has been done, there will most likely be another hearing on whether enough evidence has been produced to justify having a trial. But for now, it’s going forward. Does this mean that Trump is absolutely guilty? No, it means a lawsuit has been filed. However, again, this is in the context of Trump having bragged about being in… Read more »

John F. Kennedy
Guest
John F. Kennedy

“Then ask if there’s any reason to treat Trump any differently.”

I certainly would not argue that he should be treated differently. If he is guilty, I’ll build the gallows, and supply the rope.

Matt
Guest
Matt

Neither Trump nor Clinton are parading their indiscretions around ala Lil Wayne though. Clinton did everything possible to keep under wraps that he was basically LBJ II, and Trump seems suitably embarrassed that anyone ever heard this tape. Along with that, I wonder what time period you have in mind as better when you deride our own as worse. I’d wager the history of the human race is one of rich and famous people acting like asses. And even Trump doesn’t openly keep a harem of concubines or anything like that. The important thing about the tape is not the… Read more »

Eagle_Eyed
Guest
Eagle_Eyed

It’s quite true that wherever you find powerful men, you find them engaging in infidelity and general licentiousness. King Solomon, despite his wisdom and godly insight, had how many concubines? Still one can point to the last Republican nominee to find someone who–despite his wealth and power–is by all accounts an honest husband married to his first wife in a successful marriage that has lasted almost fifty years. The call for virtue isn’t unwarranted. What makes Romney relevant is that he was accused of insidious sexism too–not for his adultery or crude language–but for oafishly talking about having a “binder… Read more »

Matt
Guest
Matt

Romney is an interesting case, in that his example seems to belie the importance of private virtue. Whatever his virtues in his personal life, he was (and is) famously duplicitous and opportunistic in his public persona. If personal strength of character doesn’t lead to public strength of character, then why should anyone care about it?

Of course it’s possible that Romney just hid his infidelities very well.

ashv
Guest
ashv

Most of the evidence points to this being a hit job from inside the Republican party.

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

Fiat morality–great metaphor! Feels like hyperinflation coming on.

Sam Nelson
Guest
Sam Nelson

Bravo!

PerfectHold
Guest
PerfectHold

“… United Colors of Benetton ad”

Did this rise out of a recent listen to Jacob Silverman interviewed by Ken Myers?

Eagle_Eyed
Guest
Eagle_Eyed

“There are traces of hypocrisy in his behavior, but for the most part Trump gained the Republican nomination as a known quantity.” Which is why the tape did nothing to sway committed Trump supporters–the only ones pretended to be gaslighted by the “revelation” of Trump’s caddishness are those conservatives who endorse on the whims of sentiment and popularity. He won the primary in spite of his lack of virtue or moral uprightness. He won the nomination because he dared to defend our nation’s sovereignty and attack the cultural Marxist forces operating under the euphemism of political correctness. This is something… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

And when he gets clobbered in the electoral college, as he’s going to, that will be the end of any further candidacies that take those positions. Like it or not, the messenger does matter.

Eagle_Eyed
Guest
Eagle_Eyed

Haha there’s no going back you wuss. No Republican candidate is going to win the nomination without going hard to the right on immigration and trade. The game is changed forever.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Then look for the GOP to split into smaller parties or just disappear. Yes, those positions appeal to 30-40% of the electorate, but that’s not enough to win a national election.

Frank_in_Spokane
Guest
Frank_in_Spokane

“Then look for the GOP to split into smaller parties or just disappear.”

From your lips to God’s ears.

Billtownphysics
Guest
Billtownphysics

You’re exactly right. The two major party candidates are mirror reflections of who we have become as a society. God help us (or judge us).

Capndweeb
Guest
Capndweeb

Oh He will.

insanitybytes22
Member

Like a bunch of teen agers caught in the midst of keg party who fear our parents return at any moment, could we just try to tidy the place up a bit first? Perhaps pick up the beer cans, empty a few ashtrays?

Capndweeb
Guest
Capndweeb

We could probably clean up the puke in azaleas, but I don’t think there’s time to wash and dry the sheets from mom and dad’s bed.

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

And there’s the small matter of the fire in the kitchen but it will probably be out soon.

Jane
Member

I’d say He is.

adad0
Member

“…means the end of the religious right.” ????

The religious right never existed in the first place. Everyone thought there was a religious right, but no one thought they themselves were in it!????
What with Ted Kennedy being counted as a “devout catholic”,
He could be counted as “religious right” as well. ????

Ben
Guest
Ben

Doug, as a brother in Christ I feel it necessary to admonish you for the use of such terms as “boorish pig,” “clown,” “vile,” and “corruptocrat” to describe Trump and Clinton. The apostles Peter and Paul both exhorted us to honor the emperor (1 Peter 2:17 and Romans 13:7, respectively). No qualification is made for whether we like them or think they’re Christians. The plain fact is that one of these two people will become emperor, and although I think it’s perfectly honorable and honoring to disagree with and criticize them, calling them names, as far as I understand Scripture,… Read more »

Jane
Member

Luke 13:31. Fox was not a term of endearment, foxes were despised.

So whatever “honor the king” means, it doesn’t mean you can’t use colorful negative language if done soberly. Honoring the king means a minimum not being flippantly disrespectful; beyond that, we have to be bounded by scripture as to how much outward respect is required when criticism is called for.

Ben
Guest
Ben

So calling the emperor a “boorish pig” is honoring the emperor? Seems like the burden of proof is on you. Did Paul or Jesus ever use that kind of language about Caesar, who was much worse than Trump?

PerfectHold
Guest
PerfectHold

Calling the synagogue brothers a brood of vipers seems less than honoring, don’t you think?

Ben
Guest
Ben

He wasn’t talking about the secular authorities, i.e. the emperor, but rather religious hypocrites.

PerfectHold
Guest
PerfectHold

Ah … so shouldn’t diss the secular hypocrites the same way you can diss the religiocrats?!

Why is that, Ben?

Ben
Guest
Ben

Correct, because 1) the Bible explicitly says to honor them and 2) secular people are to be held to a lower standard. Pagans will do what pagans will do.

insanitybytes22
Member

Again, I agree with that concept.

PerfectHold
Guest
PerfectHold

Your position is that Jesus calling Herod a crafty fox = (a) not a dishonoring epithet, or (b) is an allowable diss because he can & does hold Herod to a higher standard (being somewhat of a religious leader or person of the flock)?

Ben
Guest
Ben

No, Christ is speaking prophetically. It was common for prophets to use harsh language against kings, and this is how Christ chose to exercise that role in this instance. But for common people to use such language in common discourse, there does not appear to be any warrant. But I could be wrong. Can you give an example in the Bible in which godly people use such language in common discourse in a righteous way?

PerfectHold
Guest
PerfectHold

Ben — you’re saying Doug is a common person engaged in common discourse here?!

Ben
Guest
Ben

You’re saying he’s a prophet speaking the very words of God?

PerfectHold
Guest
PerfectHold

Ben — Approximately! — at least in the 7 ring.
Maybe even the 9 ring.

Is your position that one must be speaking the “very words” of God to be speaking prophetically?
(Surely you’ve found folks even in the context of the Very-Words-Of-God book you recognize as such speaking an evil, ungodly paragraph within which, Surprise!, they zing an unintended truth-recognized-by-God-as-prophecy? Or you’ve read of Paul urging us all to speak prophetically?)

Jane
Member

So….the clear example of Jesus calling a king the name of a despised animal does not answer for you the question of whether a person can righteously call a king the name of a despised animal? Why do you need further examples? How is the burden of proof not met by showing that the Sinless One did just that? Now it may be that Doug was not properly honoring those to whom honor is due, but the burden of proof is adequately met for the assertion that one can potentially call a ruler the named of a hated animal, without… Read more »

Jane
Member

So in short, I can say that using such an epithet can be within the bounds of what the verses you refer to require — in fact, one way we can understand what “Honor the king” and “give honor to those to whom it is due” mean, is by looking at how Jesus related to people in authority. Apparently while you’re honoring them, you can still call them certain kinds of names in certain circumstances, given the proper attitude and intention.

Katecho
Member

Dunsworth wrote: … you can still call them certain kinds of names in certain circumstances, given the proper attitude and intention. … and proper office. I don’t think everyone is called to an office for imprecation, just as not everyone is called to deliver civil judgment. There is a principle for making way for God’s appointed means. There is a principle of representation through lesser magistrates. I think it is possible to be an imprecatory vigilante if we don’t know what spirit we are of. I think a king, like David, or a pastor, like Doug Wilson, carries such an… Read more »

Ben
Guest
Ben

I disagree, for Christ was speaking as a prophet. There are many examples in the OT of prophets harshly rebuking kings. There are even examples of prophets rebuking secular pagan kings. But nowhere do we find such talk on the part of Jesus, Paul, or anyone else in common discourse.

So no, the burden of proof is not met unless Christ was not speaking as a prophet in that moment.

Jane
Member

Pastors fulfill the non-revelatory role of prophet in the church age by speaking forth the word of God with authority. “But nowhere do we find such talk on the part of Jesus, Paul, or anyone else in common discourse.” We don’t have any common discourse recorded on the part of Jesus or Paul or any of the authors of scripture. By definition none of it is common. Rather, I’d like your source for the position that you can dishonor the king in “prophetic speech.” I believe the position is much more tenable that the context and content of the speech… Read more »

Dave
Guest
Dave

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.” Matthew 23:27
Said to the rulers of the day by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Dave
Guest
Dave

I hit enter too quickly while trying out new glasses.
The scribes and Pharisees were both religious and political rulers. There was nothing prophetical about this comment. Yes, the Romans chopped off heads and such, but the day in and day out business was conducted by those whom Jesus condemned.

Ben
Guest
Ben

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not he was speaking prophetically. All the commentators I’ve read on that passage (who address the propriety of Christ’s epithet) agree that he was, and therefore had more liberty to use such language.

Ben
Guest
Ben

As I’ve said earlier – 1) He was speaking to the religious leaders, which were to be dealt with differently than the secular authorities. 2) He was speaking prophetically, i.e. the very words of God, and therefore had the right to say such things, even to secular leaders, as the OT prophets often did.

Dave
Guest
Dave

Ben, this was not prophetic speech, it was real time in your face talking. You forget that at that point in history, the very ones Jesus spoke to were both religious and secular leaders. The Jews didn’t run to the Romans for disputes but settled them according to scripture with the same scribes and leaders that Jesus condemned. That was the day in and day out workings of Israel then. Why was Jesus taken to the Roman authorities? Because the Jewish authorities, those same ones Jesus said were full of all sorts of uncleanness, did not have authority for capital… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Jesus said not to call a man a fool. And Jesus also called people fools. So there must be some subtlety here about what we say, and why, and how.

insanitybytes22
Member

I think you have hit on a good point about the subtlety there. In the US we would call that respecting the office, praying for our leaders, something we really are called to do, with some biblical precedent to be found. So our words have real power, we can speak blessings or curses, and as such create divisions, hostility, tribalism. Contrast that with the kind of unity we all felt on 911, a much stronger stance. United we stand, divided we fall. In a democracy there is the added burden of having chosen our leaders, they serve at our pleasure,… Read more »

Jennie
Member

I’m not sure the text is about Christ showing his disdain for Herod. I think it’s more likely that he is recognizing that Herod is a sly one trying to subvert God’s plan.

adad0
Member

Eph. 5:11,
Have nothing to do with fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

Study up on the Word Ben, it’s always a good thing!????

Nate
Guest
Nate

Even if I were to grant your point (which I don’t) about honoring the emperor, it doesn’t apply here, as neither of them are the emperor yet. They’re not even senators or secretaries of state at the moment.

Ben
Guest
Ben

I understand that, but one of them will be in a few months, and so we should take that time to re-orient how we speak about them so that, when Trump or Clinton does become emperor, we are not in the habit of dishonoring them, thereby becoming hypocrites ourselves.

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

Point of order: Obama’s pretensions to the contrary, this is the United States, and we still have a president that we can fire from his job at any time. No emperors allowed.

insanitybytes22
Member

I really think Ben is onto something here. We try to separate ourselves from these two parties, from these two candidates, as if they are not a reflection of the precise electorate they represent. So, rather than taking responsibility for what we have created and repenting to God for having wrecked the cultural train, we just point fingers and call them boorish pigs. It reminds me a bit of a plea bargain, or standing next to the fat people for a family photo, as if to say, “look Lord, thankfully I am not nearly as awful as those who represent… Read more »

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

You do an excellent imitation of a concern troll. Bravo!

Pro-tip: if you want people to know that you are making a joke, end your comment with a closing tag like /sarc or /prog, or in this case /evangellyfish

Ben
Guest
Ben

I’m actually not imitating. It seems pretty clear what the Bible says about this matter. Ironically these are the same verses that a lot of the people on here used to throw at me when I advocated a voluntarist society, and now they don’t seem to want to adhere to them themselves.

AMA
Guest
AMA

There is a rich kind of irony in the fact that Russell Moore is currently crowing about the hypocrisy of the Religious Right when he spent most of last year trying to prop up his own two favorite Roman Catholic candidates, Bush and Rubio. Someone else said it better than I could: https://twitter.com/JoeBancks/status/784866652433158145

ashv
Guest
ashv

Again, who’s this “we”? You still want to pretend that the subjects of the USA are a single people, or that the actions of its rulers actually reflect their desires?

insanitybytes22
Member

“You still want to pretend that the subjects of the USA are a single people, or that the actions of its rulers actually reflect their desires?”

It’s the truth. These are our representatives. They are a reflection of us.

Now if that doesn’t scare the crap out of you, nothing will.

ashv
Guest
ashv

Easy to say. Why should I believe that?

Capndweeb
Guest
Capndweeb

I will give you credit for referring to the citizenry as “subjects.”
And the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls.

ashv
Guest
ashv

I could easily believe they’re a reflection of y’all. But what’s that have to do with me?

Jennie
Member

The whole “the leaders reflect the will of the people” argument is fallacious. How many here would say they have been voting for the lesser of two evils for years, people who are not their ideal candidate? How many people have refused to vote at all because the choices were so poor? Yet, somehow the politicians are a reflection of us?

The argument does nothing but make us feel superior for not falling into that commoner’s trap. It’s a lazy lazy depiction and argument.

insanitybytes22
Member

“The whole “the leaders reflect the will of the people” argument is fallacious.” No, I really believe it is quite true. In a democracy we are called to win hearts and minds, to herd cats in the right direction. We, the collective we, have allowed our country to fall away from faith, and invested years in grooming these candidates for such a time as this. So while we may all feel baffled about how things got this bad, they got this bad because we let them get this bad. “How many people have refused to vote at all because the… Read more »

Jennie
Member

I absolutely agree that we, all Americans, are responsible for where we are. This is different though from saying that our government reflects our will. These two statements are not related. It would be correct to say that because Christians have not stood up for truth en masse that the culture has fallen, which has lead to the government we have today. I’ve been pondering so much lately all the times when God says, “If my people would repent …” He’s not speaking of people in general, but his people. This is why I chastise the leadership, for they could… Read more »

ashv
Guest
ashv

So… who’s included in that “we”?

insanitybytes22
Member

Such a cruel irony, ash, but you’re going to get to go down with the rest of us little people. Unless you have a tropical island waiting for you or something.

ashv
Guest
ashv

What fellowship hath Alabama with New York?

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Plenty, in all kinds of ways. College football not being one of them.

Jane
Member

Does the name Obergefell mean anything to you? I can’t fathom how you think you’re insulated from this stuff because you have the “right” thoughts in your head.

Capndweeb
Guest
Capndweeb

So, remember when that nut-case guy on here posted that it almost seems as Trump is a plant? That his candidacy was deliberately arranged so Hillary would be running against someone eminently defeatable? Remember that?

insanitybytes22
Member

I do remember. I have worn that tin foil hat a few times myself. Worse, I often wonder if Russian social engineering didn’t get their hands on the alt right and brainwash them into believing Trump is their anti establishment candidate,the weird science invention of all their alpha dreams.

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

They figure that Trump will destroy the GOP. Anything useful he does beyond that is gravy.

Eagle_Eyed
Guest
Eagle_Eyed

Did you not watch last night’s debate? The one where he literally said she should be in jail? And you still think he’s a plant sent to enabler her to win?

Capndweeb
Guest
Capndweeb

Point taken, Eagle-Eyed, but the show would need some drama and a few zingy one-liners if theatre is to sell tickets, now wouldn’t it?

Jane
Member

And what happened? The media narrative today is “That’s banana republic stuff, what an idiot.” It didn’t hurt her a bit with those not already violently opposed to her. You can’t throw a fight without making it look good, but if you’re really good, your feints will actually help you throw it.

I’m agnostic on the question of whether Trump’s there to lose, but I don’t find it remotely preposterous.

insanitybytes22
Member

“And they all, beginning with the eldest, remembering their own browser history, crept quietly away.”

Ha! I’ll have you all know I cruise the internet incognito mode, ip concealed, where surely God himself cannot see me. :)

I jest, but I often wonder what the NSA thinks watching me flit from the far right to the far left, easily distracted by cat pictures and forever stalking Jack Sparrow.

David
Guest
David

“And they all, beginning with the eldest, remembering their own browser history, crept quietly away.” I admit I would “creep quietly away.”

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Two minor points.

First, if Pence had any smarts, he would quietly go back to Indiana and just stay there. As an evangelical, he should have known how deals with the devil usually work out.

Second, someone said last January that if Trump won the GOP nomination it would be God’s judgment on the Republican Party, and if he won the presidency, it would be God’s judgment on America. Looks like we know who is currently out of favor.

adad0
Member

“Someone”?

Is there any way to connect that “someone” back to the “enlightenment”? ????

What’s the deal ‘check? Your appeal to “authority” game is a bit off here! ????

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

You don’t recognize tongue in cheek when you see it?

adad0
Member

Where Clintons are involved, did you really have to mention tongues and cheeks? ????

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

I don’t see the Clintons anywhere in any of my posts in this thread.

adad0
Member

And yet, the Clintons are still involved in this thread! So goes the turn of the blind eye. Anyway, to reiterate a previous point:
Q: “How would a president Trump compare to a president Clinton?”

A: Close, but no cigar. ????

Uh oh! That joke might have been …….,

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

The Clintons are in this thread because of blind, deaf and dumb commenters who actually think her unethical molehills are equivalent to his unethical Himalayas. She is the spouse of a serial adulterer who has cheated on her repeatedly probably for as long as they’ve been married. She could have left him; she chose not to. And now, in addition to being the victim of his infidelities, she is for political reasons being tarred with his brush. How about some sympathy for a wife whose husband won’t stop cheating on her, no matter how much public shame and humiliation it… Read more »

adad0
Member

Wow! False naïveté and name calling.
That’s not very enlightened ‘check. Anyway, HRCs theft of govt. records is a mountain, not a mole hill. HRC’s pay to prey “donation” scheme to the Clinton foundation is a mountain as well. As far as “injured wife” syndrome goes, HRC may be about as injured as Jezebel was. In any case ‘check, I don’t think you are dispicable, just blind. I hope you see the light some day, but even then, there is a lot of darkness to behold, and it has to be exposed for what it is.????

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

What theft of government records? What pay to play donation scheme? Those were both debunked already. In addition to being dragged through the mud of her husband’s infidelities, she has also been the subject of 25 years of non-stop GOP investigations that have turned up nothing (except, of course, that Bill lied about sex). The practical problem this creates for her, however, is that there is this nonstop meme that she’s being investigated, and the fact that the investigations never come up with anything mostly gets lost in the noise. If you don’t want to vote for her because you… Read more »

adad0
Member

Benghazi:
Fake smoldering ruin?
4 Fake KIA?

HRC’s fake “protest story” was one thing that was actually “debunked” by the investigations.

This is a glaring example of HRC’s “public vs. private ” positions, and precisely why HRC is incompetent to be Commander on Chief of US Forces.

Also ‘check, don’t try “the Republicans cut finding lie”. That lie is false also.

But please do loft “the vast right wing conspiracy” line. The comic potential is huge!????????????

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

What should she have done differently that would have made a difference in Benghazi? Do you similarly hold George Bush culpable for 9/11 since it happened on his watch? Sometimes stuff happens.

adad0
Member

HRC should have ignored the flase, political, re-election narrative of BHO, that “Alqaeda is on the run”, and provided the security increase requests for all mid-east Embassies. As if we would have known anyway. Over flights of any Allied aircraft should have been ordered, as the militants would have considered themselves becoming targets since they had no air cover.
I am from a military family ‘check, don’t get further out of your depth.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

And I’ve got two brothers who are mechanics, but that doesn’t mean I know the first thing about cars. The idea that a woman as smart as HRC is would believe that Al Quaeda was on the run is frankly insulting, when there was no evidence for that proposition, and neither did the President say any such thing. You really need to take another look at that Ninth Commandment, because slander is all you’ve been doing tonight. Here’s a clue: If something is so obviously stupid that you don’t see how any rational human can believe it, then why would… Read more »

adad0
Member

‘Obama has stated that al Qaeda is “on the run” or “has been decimated” or “is on the path to defeat” or some other variation thirty two times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Obama has also said repeatedly that Osama bin Laden is dead. That may be true, but al Qaeda certainly isn’t. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/al_qaeda_is_on_the_run.html ‘check, just to summarize, you lie like a Clinton. Exodus 20:16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.” Finally, Benghazi was in a deteriorrating war zone, which called for more robust security, which was not provided. The 9/11 attack… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

I would be more impressed if your citation weren’t to a right wing propaganda piece. But let’s make this simple. Even if your version of Benghazi is correct in every respect, it proves nothing more than that a strategic mistake was made, and a strategic mistake is not a character issue, though obviously it’s best not to make too many of them. You may recall that Churchill’s strategic mistake at Galipoli in WWI cost thousands of lives and was a major defeat for the British, but somehow he managed to come back and do a respectable job as PM during… Read more »

adad0
Member

‘check, you still lie like a Clinton, and moving the goal posts is not “enlightened”, although the “enlightened thing to do would be for you to retract your previous lies. How “impressed” you may be has no bearing on facts that you deny.

So anyway:
“Beyond that, the terrorists were training in the USA at the end of the Clinton administration.”

So no, GWB was not individually culpable for 9/11, anymore than FDR was “culpable” for Pearl Harbor, and I am not suggesting that FDR was.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

9/11 happened almost 8 months into Bush’s term, so even if the terrorists were training during the Clinton years, he had 8 months to discover it and stop them. And my point is that if you’re going to blame Clinton for Benghazi simply because it happened on her watch, then the same applies to Bush and 9/11.

adad0
Member

The original 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US happened during peace time. The Benghazi attack happened in a war zone, on 9/11, to “celebrate” the original 9/11 attack. Security should be on high alert everywhere, on 9/11. post 9/11. HRC failed to have Benghazi properly protected. Even you are capable of seeing that difference.

But anyway:
“And I’ve got two brothers who are mechanics, but that doesn’t mean I know the first thing about cars.” ‘check

HRC had a husband who was President, “but that doesn’t mean (she) knows the first thing about being president.” ; – )

Dude.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Oh, she’s not running on her husband’s resume; after eight years in the Senate, four as Secretary of State, and multiple projects Bill put her in charge of when he was president, plus as former legal counsel to a Senate committee, she’s arguably the best qualified presidential candidate we’ve seen in years. Certainly that’s true when you compare that to The Donald’s resume, which seems mostly to consist of driving businesses into bankruptcy and ripping off his investors and employees and being a reality show host. There was pre-9/11 intelligence that indicated an attack was imminent. And while, in hindsight,… Read more »

adad0
Member

Peace time and war time are two different security footings. You are wrong to call them the same, but call them the same at your own peril.
With HRC, you will get more of the same. ????

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

The question is whether there was enough reason to think an attack would happen that a reasonably prudent president/secretary of state would have taken action. In both cases, the answer is the same, and remains the same whether it’s war time or peace time. You don’t like Hillary Clinton so you blame her for everything (including being the victim of an unfaithful husband), but if you’re going to apply the reasonably prudent standard to her, then it gets applied to Bush as well. Al Quaeda had constantly and repeatedly said it was going to launch an attack. The Bush administration… Read more »

adad0
Member

The “answer” in each situation was not the same.
The price of liberty is constant vigilance.

Jane
Member

“I would be more impressed if your citation weren’t to a right wing propaganda piece.”

That attempt to poison the well was well below what I’ve come to expect from you. Do direct quotes now change their meaning because of where they’re linked from?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Jane, I actually did click on the link. The problem is not with the quotation marks; the problem is the context that was left out of the quotation marks.

Left wing propaganda pieces, which do exist, are guilty of the same thing so this is not just a right-wing problem. But it is a problem. Which is why I’m far more inclined to trust sources that aren’t advocacy journalism.

Matt
Guest
Matt

Gonna have to disagree with the last sentence, in large part because no one deserves to be president. It’s akin to winning the lottery.

I do agree though that the constant banging on about Hillary’s scandals has become tiresome. The media portrays Trump’s taunt of “you’d be in jail” as some dangerous crypto-dictatorship in the making, but to me it was just eyeroll worthy. You need a new line, Donald.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Actually, I don’t understand Christians condemning HRC for staying with an adulterous husband. Many Christians would expect a wife to stay with a cheating husband, especially if he professes remorse and promises to change his ways…however often it may happen.

It is inconsistent to have no problem whatsoever with Trump tossing his wives away when they reached their shelf expiration date (35, he said once) yet to blame Clinton for honoring the death-till-us-part section of her marriage vows.

soylentg
Member

I don’t know any Christian that has ever condemned Hillary for staying with her adulterous husband, but some have condemned her for attempting to destroy her husband’s many victims via slander. At some point it moves from the fidelity column to the enabling one.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Attacking victims was wrong, I do agree. I have unfortunately been in HRC’s situation, and I never saw the other women as the enemy. But I have been told by Christians that I have a duty to tolerate the adultery.

adad0
Member

Jilly, Here is what Jesus said about your situation: Luke 17 Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. 2 It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. 3 So watch yourselves. “If your brother or sister[a] sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. 4 Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

But remember, this is a woman whose entire life has been about corruption, ill-gotten gains, deceit and revenge. She also seems to think Roe v. Wade and Obergefell are the most wonderful things our country has accomplished. Their marriage has stayed intact for political purposes only…not due to a spirit of forgiveness or amazing commitment to wedding vows.

adad0
Member

Well Jilly, here goes. We are all sinners. We are against our own sin, we are against the sin of others, and still, at best we manage to blow it sometimes. On the other hand, some people are not even trying to fight their own faults or the faults of others. I am not the judge, though my opinion is that HRC and WJC are like Ahab and Jezebel, or Bonnie and Clyde. They corrupt each other, on an on going basis. By the same token, Trump is evil, to love and leave his wives. So we have infidelity expressed… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

The cold, hard politics of it is that she’s been far better for him than he has been for her; she has demonstrated the ability to be elected president on her own, whereas I doubt he would have made it to the White House without her. So I doubt her decision to stay with him was a political calculation.

And even if she were Jezebel, even Jezebels are sometimes sinned against, and saying, “Oh, she’s Jezebel, she deserves it,” strikes me as just about the least Christian response imaginable.

adad0
Member

‘Check, I thought you were an “enlightenment dude”, not a “christian”? Anyway, good thing I did not say “she deserves it”

I did say that they appear to corrupt each other, and I stand by that opinion based on the fact of their behavior.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

What I find sad and depressing is that at the time they found each other and discovered a mutual passion for politics, they probably intended it to achieve great things. I’m sure they started out with high ideals and a vision for creating a better future. We all felt that way in 1968. And it has come to this.

adad0
Member

I was 8 in 1968! I liked summer, winter, bike riding and our dog sport.

As for then vs. now, I always trusted my parents, my Grand parents and respected their traditions, because they loved me. That is why I did not go over to “the dark side” in terms of personal indulgence. I would not be surprized if personal, Godly morality made a comeback, even among our political classless. ; – )

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

It sounds like a lovely childhood. I was 18 and on fire to change the world–in a ladylike way that stressed literacy and good manners. I mostly dated American draft dodgers of whom there were hundreds. They had a drop-in center where I played guitar and, I am embarrassed to say, sang drippy songs like Where have all the flowers gone. My father disapproved of draft dodgers on general principles (which now I share to a large extent; I admire the ones who went to jail rather than Vietnam), so I had to be careful whom I brought home. The… Read more »

Jane
Member

I was three. :-)

adad0
Member

Hey Lady Dunsworth! Wouldn’t Jilly make the ultimate hippy babysitter?
She probably still does!
And what’s the deal with Krycheck? I am just not used to people lying out of the box like that, even if it is on a blog. I have to suspend disbelief!
I have a hard time believing that he even believes himself! ; – )

Dave
Guest
Dave

Scripture commands us to shun murders so why should we have sympathy for Hillary?

adad0
Member

Chapter and verse please. Where was that said?

Dave
Guest
Dave

“If one is burdened with the blood of another, he will be a fugitive until death; let no one help him.” Proverbs 28:17

adad0
Member

Thanks, nice job! And the verse in front of it was good too!

Proverbs 28
16 A tyrannical ruler practices extortion,
but one who hates ill-gotten gain will enjoy a long reign.
17 Anyone tormented by the guilt of murder
will seek refuge in the grave;
let no one hold them back.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Dave, are you referring to HRC’s abortion position or to something else?

Dave
Guest
Dave

Hi Jillybean, abortion is one issue that she shows her heart. Benghazi is another. If you want to have some fun, just look at the various lists online showing her associates who have been bumped off.

insanitybytes22
Member

Sadly Krychek, you are correct. Here we have a woman who has remained true to her marriage vows, no matter how much public humiliation she has had to endure from her adulterous husband, versus a thrice married, adulterous cad, who at least is not a hypocrite about it.

The religious right choses to endorse the adulterous cad instead, and then wonders why they have lost the moral upper hand in their sanctity of marriage platform.

adad0
Member

Memi, the point of the original post which ‘check agrees with, is that this situation is a three layer hypocrite cake. No one has moral high ground.

“While I actually agree with much of what you wrote, there’s a fairly significant point that I think you’re overlooking. Yes, everyone has always known that the Donald is a swine,…” Krychek_2

insanitybytes22
Member

Well, I think “to whom much is given, much is expected.” So our expectations and standards for those claiming authority, for those professing to hold the moral upper hand, is much higher. That would be the religious right and conservative Christians.

We did indeed make a deal with the devil, well not me personally, but we did. Like it or not, pride goes before a fall and this whole imbroglio has been so wrapped in hubris it’s darkly comical. We’re now overdue a proper face plant.

adad0
Member

As you can tell, I find the darkness quite commical!
Not to mention that the Blood of Christ is just the thing for my darkness and everyone else’s!

Also, God has the moral high ground, us not so much. That is why I repeat The Word so much. No one says things any better than God!

; – )

John F. Kennedy
Guest
John F. Kennedy

Yes, of course. I believe that. Hillary has been a faithful, long-suffering wife. I also believe that the earth is flat, stationary and at the center of the universe.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Is it the faithful part that you doubt?

ashv
Guest
ashv

Let’s just say that electing Hillary would give America the historic milestone of having a Muslim first lady.

JP Stewart
Member

She rejoices over a law that’s killed millions of babies, thinks gay marriage is the greatest thing since sliced bread, has been involved in more scandals than any living politician, has a mysterious trail of dead people who tried getting in her way….but doggone it, she’s a faithful wife. Maybe we should add her name to Heb. 11 in the next SJW Bible?

Once again, their marriage has remained intact for political reasons only. That’s as clear as day.

Oh, and Bill tried to lie and cover up his many affairs. He’s most certainly a hypocrite.

BooneCtyBeek
Guest
BooneCtyBeek

Sorry. This Hoosier is glad to see him gone. After he folded on the RFRA law he was done in my book. He had his Daniel moment and failed.

Now even with the last Trump abomination he has showed that he has no core Christian conviction which will enable him to stand and be the man in the gap.

adad0
Member

1 Kings 18
Now the famine was severe in Samaria, 3 and Ahab had summoned Obadiah, his palace administrator. (Obadiah was a devout believer in the Lord. 4 While Jezebel was killing off the Lord’s prophets, Obadiah had taken a hundred prophets and hidden them in two caves, fifty in each, and had supplied them with food and water.)

Booney, ever wonder how Obadiah ended up with Ahab and Jezebel?
I don’t know how that happened.
Good thing he was there huh?

I was an American while Bill Clinton was President. What was I supposed to do? Move to Cuba? ; – )

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Only for the cigars.

BooneCtyBeek
Guest
BooneCtyBeek

That’s Mr. Boone to you, A daddy. ;-)

I was alive and cast my first vote ever for Ronald Reagan in ’80.

Anne Gull
Guest
Anne Gull

THIS IS AN EXCELLENT PIECE!

ialinger
Guest
ialinger

This was humorous at times and overall, a really good read. I just wish you wouldn’t have used the word “bimbos,” even if you were making reference to comments of the Clintons, Colin Powell, etc. Regardless of context, the term is disrespectful and seemed unnecessary to make the point of that particular part of your post. “Women” would have sufficed.

Ilíon
Member

Well! Thank you Miss Grundy.

ialinger
Guest
ialinger

I probably don’t need
to wonder to which version of her you are referring. ????

ial
Guest
ial

*as to which

Jennie
Member

Why are we so quick to condemn society at large and not our own house? Why not hold Christ’s body accountable for surely judgment will come first to us. The ugly truth is that had there been a Christian politician running for president, he would have surely failed. My main contention with this article is that it has such a narrow view of the American public, as though we are crows, captivated and interested only in shiny things. The truth is the vast majority know we are held captive by an insatiable oroborous government who exists only to feed itself,… Read more »

jonmnoel
Member

What is the responsibility that we have that we are neglecting?

Jennie
Member

See the above reply to the sorely misnamed Capndweeb.

I will add here though that there seems to be an attitude among the Evangelical community that because things are going to get a lot worse (pre-millennialism influence) that all we can do is sit back and watch. I’ve spent considerable time coming to grips with the idea that this slippery slope is a continuum that started for America a long time ago. I keep praying that this can be averted, but as Capn pointed out, it will play out as our Lord chooses.

ashv
Guest
ashv

It’s going to get better. But it’s going to get worse first. If you’re in a car headed off a cliff, there’s no point making a plan to slowly drive back up the cliff face.

Capndweeb
Guest
Capndweeb

Thank you for your kind words, JL. (I chose the name when I used to comment on the Dilbert page. It’s better than using something like GODSHOLYMESSENGER when you’re trying to be a subversive Jesus dude in the land of humanist nihilism.)

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I like you, your name, and your hat.

Capndweeb
Guest
Capndweeb

Ditto on all three for you, also Jilly.

Jennie
Member

Good point. Thanks for the first laugh of the day.

Capndweeb
Guest
Capndweeb

No charge, sistah. :)

Capndweeb
Guest
Capndweeb

Respect, JL. And yes, many of us do see the majority of America as crows captivated by shiny things, but crows also feed on carrion. We can wait for someone strong enough to tear down this temple (Sampson) but the probability is that it will collapse under its own weight because it was flawed in its very conception (Babel) or invaders will ransack it and leave not one stone on top of another (70AD). Whatever the case, we may have gone so far that none of this can take place without considerable weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. Nonetheless, God… Read more »

Jennie
Member

I meant no disrespect, Cap’n. I agree with you. God is sovereign in all things and may His will be done always on earth as in heaven. Yet we are humans and must do our best with only partial sight. I just have a strong sense from Pastor Wilson and many here and elsewhere that they have taken their moral marbles and gone to their ivory towers. Then when it falls they will point a finger of contempt and sneer, “See, I told you.” I would hate to see good people who do have a strong sense of Godly morality… Read more »

Capndweeb
Guest
Capndweeb

JL, when I typed “Respect” I meant, “I respect you” not that more respect was due me. Apparently, I’m not so good at street lingo and I should just stop. As for taking their moral marbles to their ivory towers, in terms of the election, I can’t say I blame them. I cannot in good conscience vote for either candidate. And it’s not because of this “October Surprise” tape either. (Which, even though it existed for 11 years just “happened” to come out now.) Trump’s just not competent. For all his talk and bluster, its all just sound bites. It’s… Read more »

Jennie
Member

Cap’n, the problem is not with the writer but with the reader. The only street lingo I know is, “Would you jump out and switch the hubs?” As my black boss once said to me, “You are so white.” I elicited that comment from him when I asked him why he limped. It was something called a pimp roll. Hot dish anyone? ???? I understand not voting. That has been my choice for years for the exact same reason many of these folks have just recently and perhaps conveniently discovered. I’m a nobody though. They have public voices. While they… Read more »

Capndweeb
Guest
Capndweeb

Well said JL.
You are not a nobody. You are a child of the One True King, with His seal upon you and a guarantee of eternal life, to the praise of His glory. (Ephesians 1:13-14)
Far from a nobody.

Jennie
Member

Amen! By nobody I meant that for all anyone knows I could be a skinny Chinese kid or a Russian working for Trump. Ha!

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

JL, it is a rare day that somebody sends me hunting for a dictionary, but you did with oroborous. Wow!

insanitybytes22
Member

“….it has such a narrow view of the American public, as though we are crows, captivated and interested only in shiny things.”

I’m afraid we really are crows, easily distracted by the shiny things. I’m sorry.

But amen to not forgetting our responsibilities as Christians! This election is not the cure for what ails us and there is tremendous work to be done.

Jennie
Member

It’s a trap, ME, of Biblical proportions!

Tell me, were the lowly Jews of Jesus time, the downtrodden that he served and preached to and healed, crows?

insanitybytes22
Member

LOL! Well actually, crows are pretty intelligent. I may be giving us too much credit. This struck me as interesting, “The truth is the vast majority know we are held captive by an insatiable oroborous government who exists only to feed itself, and we have been waiting for someone strong enough to tear it down and lead us back to the right path.” Isn’t that pretty much what those crows during the time of Jesus were thinking? They were all looking for the King of the Jews in the literal sense, someone to save them from Roman reign. Christ did… Read more »

Jennie
Member

Beautifully said. What is man that He should think of us?

There is such a strong parallel between the first century and now. I have thought of it often, and it scares me more than a little.

Christopher
Member

Some on them, yes.

Jennie
Member

Perzactly. Yet Christ fed them all, healed them all. He knew the people were trapped in a situation which led them into sin by their leadership, and he didn’t blame them for it.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I think Katecho said something like that the other day. That we are looking a political solution, and there isn’t one. Nothing so easy.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Have you ever wondered why it is called a murder of crows, but a parliament of owls? It sounds rather judgmental toward the poor crows.

adad0
Member

I know for a fact that a murder of Crows can put up a mighty squak!

Ilíon
Member

In the late autumn and winter, they congregate by the thousands in the trees around my house. There are so many that at night the trees look like they’ve regrown their leaves.

adad0
Member

Hundreds here in mass. But the flock has thinned for some reason.

Ilíon
Member

I startle them at night with sharp noises and shining beams of light at them. After they settle down, I do it again a couple more times. After a few nights of this, they tend to find someplace else to camp. But, they always come back the next year.

These was a newspaper article once (about 30 years ago) noting that there were records of crows congregating in that area all the way back to when the settlers arrived over 200 years ago.

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

The tour guides at Hammond Castle tell a fun story about the wacky inventor who built the place. He hated crows so he baited a spot, waited for the birds to congregate, and blew them up with dynamite. They say crows still avoid the area.

Ilíon
Member

If only such an idea would work for raccoons.

Jennie
Member

Around here they shriek when a deer has been killed. Redrum! Redrum!

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

That scene still gives me nightmares.

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

Eh, that’s what they get for being carrion birds, and not necessarily bothered if the carrion isn’t quite dead.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

As long as they don’t become carrion luggage.

Ken De Vries
Guest
Ken De Vries

The position we are in today is the result of decades of voting for the lesser of two evils (LO2E). Decades ago, when we could have begun rejecting RINO candidates without much damage, we refused. Instead, we voted out of fear of the Democrat Bogey Man and elected the RINO Republican. None of the Democrats back then were any where near as bad as Obama and Clinton are today. Back then, we could have turned the Republican Party around by holding the line, but we took the cowardly way out. Now the GOP has devolved into nothing but a herd… Read more »

jonmnoel
Member

Doing what is right? Loving your wife is right. Bringing your children up in the instruction of the Lord is right. Singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs is right. Casting a meaningless vote? Not so much. Pick which one seems better to you and cast it. Then go throw a nickel in a fountain.

Ken De Vries
Guest
Ken De Vries

If you view your vote as meaningless, then don’t vote. While I neglected that option, it is just as valid as the others.

ashv
Guest
ashv

Voting makes you powerful and responsible just like buying a lottery ticket makes you rich.

Capndweeb
Guest
Capndweeb

My conscience says to write NONE OF THE ABOVE on the ballot. In red. With the biggest Magic Marker I can find.

Ken De Vries
Guest
Ken De Vries

Be my guest. No condemnation from me.

Matt
Guest
Matt

Selah…

Jeff
Guest
Jeff

Well stated.

Jennie
Member

For your viewing pleasure …

https://youtu.be/Fq_ZosSy_9I

Shiny!

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

Another good title for this post would have been Clutching Pearls Before Swine.

Qodesmith
Guest
Qodesmith

“If the standards are not the standards grounded ultimately in the nature and character of God, then the standards are not standards of common decency at all, but rather arbitrary rules made by arrogant and hypocritical relativists—bureaucrats at the Bureau of Weights and Measures who change the length of the yardstick every few days.” <– THIS.

Ken Griffith
Guest
Ken Griffith

Well said.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Sometimes I despair. I just picked up from the mailbox my daughter’s General Voter Guide from the state of California. I’ve lived in towns with smaller phone books. Taking up most of the space is the text of 17 ballot propositions, most of which made my eyes glaze over, but my attention was caught by the following, cheek by jowl: Shall California abolish the death penalty and set the 900 people on death row to honest labor behind bars? Shall we legalize weed immediately? Instead of abolishing the death penalty, shall we instead fast-track the appeals process while setting the… Read more »

adad0
Member

So how does Canada look?
Please sponsor me if it looks better! ; – )

Or should I assume an open border? ; – )

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

There are things you would like, I expect, and things you wouldn’t. It is socially very liberal and there is not a strong religious right. Catholics make up 40% of the population, and Protestants of all sorts only around 20%. People are nowhere near as religious as here. Public school kids test in the top five around the world in reading and math, and I think that is probably due to a different philosophy of education as well as tending to attract Asian immigrants. There is no poor, permanent underclass. Out of 35 million Canadians, three million attended the Toronto… Read more »

adad0
Member

Bob and Doug would be a big attraction for me! ; – )

Not to mention, that in the US Virgin Islands, there seemed to be a preponderance of Canadians.

Any chance Canada would take back its’ geese? ; – )

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

We consider them traitors to their native land, those who came looking for a soft life and easy pickings. A bunch of weaklings who couldn’t tough out the sub-Arctic winter even with all those feathers. We view them, in fact, exactly the way the Canadian immigration officers view me when I show them my passport. “So, you couldn’t take it anymore, eh? Hope you’re enjoying the race riots and the earthquakes. Put your handgun in the bin and hand over the ammo. And welcome home…I guess.”

adad0
Member

Well,.. sounds like Canada will not take them back. ; – (
Those geese poop like brazen dogs! Everywhere!

(for a second there I thought you were talking about Bob and Doug!)

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

No, but I might have had Justin Bieber in mind. The geese are disgusting. There was a proposal to allow homeless people (yes, there are some) to shoot them and have them for dinner, but wiser heads prevailed. Not even the down and out could be expected to eat the greasy innards of a Canada goose.

Christopher
Member
Jennie
Member

Of course not, silly. They didn’t have plastic back then. ????

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I guess the death row prisoners could sew carryout bags in their cells.

Jennie
Member

Nah. They’re on death row because they got carried away already. Maybe they could sew just-stay-where-you-are bags instead.

ashv
Guest
ashv

You say Americans are getting the presidential candidates it ought to have.

Do Americans have the pastors they ought to have?

Ilíon
Member

Of course. Though, as with the rulers we get, the pastors we get have an influence on the pastors we deserve.

Jennie
Member

ashv, I wonder about that. When God brought judgement against a nation in the Old Testament, did he not indicate the greater responsibility for the downfall of the nation was on the leaders because they led their people into the ditch? I wonder if our common generalized understanding is actually backwards. We, the nation, are who we are because of the leaders who guide us. I’m not saying individuals don’t have personal responsibility for our actions. We are judged individually at the great white throne after all. I’m just saying we act as though the falling of our nation is… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith
chevas
Guest

This post is so good, but few actually get it. Everyone’s boiling over still itching to say their piece about the candidates. The rebuke is biting and necessary, but it falls on deaf ears and dim eyes.

Chuck Stone
Guest
Chuck Stone

Rome did not fall because of the governing body, it fell because the people indulged in the decay of worldly morales and not following the commandments God and his son, Jesus, gave us. Guess what? We are there again! Just like the Israelites did and other nations. Leaving Gods word and slipping into the morales of the world and satan. Its easy to point out the obvious. What do we do as his people though? There is no magic pill. “Don’t vote for Trump” some say. “Don’t vote for Clinton” some say. “Don’t vote “some say. How will we explain… Read more »

adad0
Member

The rocks and stones themselves began to sing!

Marla Helseth
Guest
Marla Helseth

Excellent pulling back of the curtain, Mr. Wilson!

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Taking a random shot at the hip hop industry seems a bit unjustified. Trump is a 70-year-old White man. The large majority of his defenders on this issues are White people in their 40s and 50s and 60s and 70s. I have a hard time believing most any of them are the least bit influenced by hip hop. But there’s another industry, quite similar to hip hop, that does have an influence in those people’s lives. It’s called Rock. There are lots of rock bands who have glorified profoundly sinful sexual behavior far past what Trump did. And they’ve been… Read more »

Christopher
Member

That is a good point, but I think he used hip hop because it’s more popular with the cool kids these days.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I doubt many of those “cool kids” read Blog and Mablog. Which makes it just another way to casually say “It’s them” even as he’s pretending to say, “It’s us.” This is the paragraph that led into his mention of hip hop: So Trump bragged about abusing his position as a man of power and influence, and said that he could just “grab them by the p***y” and they would let him get away with it because he was a star. A pretty grimy star, but a star. And the society that has for decades been hell-bent on glorifying just… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member

“Heck, in the 1990s Clinton was attacking hip hop left and right for its evil lyrics”

When? Are you thinking of Tipper Gore? As far as I know, Clinton only interaction was to Sister Souljah’s vile statement about the L.A. riots “Why not have a week and kill white people?” Clinton, in probably his best moment ever, responded “If you took the words ‘white’ and ‘black,’ and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment

The only thing wrong with Clinton’s quote is that Duke never advocated violence in the way Souljah did.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Yeah, you nailed it. I was conflating Tipper Gore’s campaign with Clinton’s Sister Soulja statements. I was still pretty young when Clinton said his Sister Soulja bit – I’d always heard it simply as “Clinton and Sister Soulja” rather than knowing the full background.

Christopher
Member

“I doubt many of those “cool kids” read Blog and Mablog. Which makes it just another way to casually say “It’s them” even as he’s pretending to say, “It’s us.” ”

Yes, he’s more interested in sticking it to the cool kids than his readers.

Christopher
Member

“Whereas rock stars were already this powerful, and this decrepit, in the 1960s and 1970s when Trump was a young man first learning how easy it was to do whatever he wished to women.”

Even as far back as the 50s.