Introduction
Important elections are those in which you are deciding whether to go north by northeast or south by southwest. Important elections are the ones in which you decide whether to go thissaway or thattaway. Important elections are held on Mount Carmel, with the candidates being Jehovah and Baal.
Important elections are not elections in which millions of people are deciding how to pick up the only available turd, and their dispute is over which end is the cleaner end. Ours is the kind of election that only occurs when all the crucial decisions have been made decades before.
Important elections, in other words, are elections in which decisions are actually made. This election is nothing more than a slow motion manifestation of the decisions we have already made, decisions we began making many decades ago. Trying to come up with a “responsible choice” at this stage in our cultural devolution is trying to choreograph a judgment, trying to turn a full-blown riot into West Side Story.
So in one sense, this is the least important election in our lifetime. When it comes to elections, we have already made our decisions. In another sense, this is a crucial time in the life of our nation.
Maws What He Saws
As the Scots Bible puts it i the Buik, God is not mocked. There is nae begowkin God. A man maws what he saws. A man reaps what he sows. A man reaps now the very same thing he sowed back then, back when the lies were a lot shinier. The lies were that shimmery gauze that covered up the festering pit we have now fallen in.
You cannot sow disobedience, pride, insolence, mammon worship, lust, relativism, and confusion for half a century, and then reap a government filled with modesty and decorum. If we wanted a harvest of barley, we shouldn’t have—and this is just a thought—planted all those mutant thistles.
Now this is going to be dismissed as a form of quietist despair, but it is nothing of the kind. It will be said that I am saying there is nothing we can do—don’t bother voting—and this is also false. There is plenty we can do. But the only truly potent thing we are called upon to do at this juncture is repent. And like I said, with the mountains of iniquity we have accumulated, do we really think there is nothing for us to do?
I dare say there is plenty we don’t want to do, but there is plenty to do. When a generation repents, that is not retreatist quietism.
The Fact of Antithesis:
At the very beginning of cultural history, God established a deep antipathy between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. There is nothing you can do that will erase this antipathy. It undergirds everything we do, and it explains why our public discourse has become so toxic.
“An unjust man is an abomination to the just: And he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked” (Prov. 29:27). We are loathsome to them, and they are loathsome to us. There is not much that can be done about that. The one thing we believers should stop trying to do is pretending that this is not the fundamental reality.
Up to God:
When God delivers His people, He uses them in that deliverance, but He does not need them for it. Everything that is currently happening to us is from the hand of God. He uses the secularists to chastise us, but it is their delusion that they are in control of this business. He uses the wicked to chastise His people, but He doesn’t need them. He could, if he wanted, chastise us with crashing asteroids full of aliens scorpions, but has decided to do it instead with bloviating politicians. He uses certain men called from among His people as agents of deliverance, but He doesn’t need His people to have their act together before He delivers them. If they had their act together, they wouldn’t need deliverance.
Think about it for a moment. When Jochebed disobeyed Pharaoh’s edict through her technical compliance, the way the story is told indicates that many of the Israelites, if not most of them, were complying with the infanticidal order. It was under duress, but they were complying. They did not deserve the deliverance that was coming, but it was coming nonetheless. Year later, when Moses was going in to confront Pharaoh, he was met by Israelite officers coming out who were angry with him (Ex. 5:21). The Exodus was not a parade drill deliverance. The whole thing was a glorious mess.
This brings us down to our plight. John Calvin put it well. “When God wants to judge a nation, He gives them wicked rulers.” Whether or not a people have righteous rule is a function of whether or not they are righteous. And whether or not they are righteous is a function of what God has decided to do with us. He could grant us full repentance as an encouragement to others, or He could allow us to choke on our own follies as a warning and example for others.
“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: But when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn” (Prov. 29:2).
“Righteousness exalteth a nation: But sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).
“The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever he will” (Prov. 21:1).
Note that in Scripture, righteous is an adjective that can used appropriately as applied to kings, generations, nations, peoples, or societies.
We currently have wicked rulers because we are wicked. The only one with complete control over whether or not this will continue is the great Jehovah. He could nod His head, and the king’s heart could simply turn and go in the opposite direction. He could simply give His assent, and what future historians would call the great Reformation would immediately occur.
But make no mistake about it. The future plans that God has for this planet do not require the United States. We are not the essential nation; we are, like every great power, the superfluous nation. If God restores us and uses us wonderfully, it is nothing but His great mercy. If God sets us aside, and accomplishes His purposes through others,
And the People Cried Out
So then, what are we supposed to do? I will get to the practical side of it in a moment, but let us start with what the Bible teaches. What should a people do when they are in great distress? What should they do when the choices before them are simply appalling?
One thing they should not do is kick the can down the road in order to find out if the choices before us four years from now are even more appalling.
“And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them; and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel cried out unto the Lord” (Ex. 14:10).
“And when we cried unto the Lord, he heard our voice, and sent an angel, and hath brought us forth out of Egypt: and, behold, we are in Kadesh, a city in the uttermost of thy border” (Numbers 20:16).
“When Jacob was come into Egypt, and your fathers cried unto the Lord, then the Lord sent Moses and Aaron, which brought forth your fathers out of Egypt, and made them dwell in this place” (1 Sam. 12:8).
“And they cried unto the Lord, and said, We have sinned, because we have forsaken the Lord, and have served Baalim and Ashtaroth: but now deliver us out of the hand of our enemies, and we will serve thee” (1 Sam. 12:10).
“Therefore thou deliveredst them into the hand of their enemies, who vexed them: and in the time of their trouble, when they cried unto thee, thou heardest them from heaven; and according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies” (Neh. 9:27).
As we should all well know, such passages could be multiplied many times over. So when you go into the voting booth in a few weeks, whatever else we do, we must cry out to the Lord. We must tell Him that we acknowledge that our own folly and wickedness is what has brought us to this point, and we must cry out to Him in the name of Jesus.
If you go into the polling place, and you do not cry out to the Lord, but rather simply mark up your ballot, you are performing what your secularist masters are telling you is a most important task. You are exercising your right to vote so you know who to be angry with when absolutely nothing changes. Do not go in there and pray to a deaf and dumb idol.
Register to Vote in Heaven
Practitioners of realpolitik tell us that we should make sure that our vote is counted. I do believe that voting is important, and that believers should vote. Despite the circus maximus at the top, there are many important issues and candidates down ballot. But even with the more sober races, do not make the mistake the democratic idolaters always make.
Do not vote in a way that you think will “work.” Do not vote so that your vote will be “counted.” Do not vote in any way that would seem to indicate that you believe that massive generational repentance is somehow unnecessary. You cannot go into the voting booth and manipulate anything. It won’t bend that far.
So you should vote in a way that you can in good conscience ask God to bless. The actual vote you cast at the top of the ticket might vary, and I am not here to bind anyone’s conscience. But I am planning on writing in Ben Sasse because that is a vote I could in good conscience ask God to bless. I don’t expect anyone to count it, but I do want to ask God to bless it.
And that blessing is what matters—because without His blessing we will continue that slow counterclockwise circling of the drain that goes down to what we call the sewer of empires.
This is an aside, but Calvin didn’t actually say that. It’s a decent paraphrase. https://billmuehlenberg.com/2016/02/27/calvin-on-wicked-rulers-and-gods-judgment/
I the Buick? Is that about the car Papaw had before he got his Cadillac?
Vote for Sennacherib?
God’s servant.
Did Elija deserve Ahab?
Curious here, Doug, why not McMullin?
“Curious here, Doug, why not McMullin?”
… or Darrell Castle?
If you want to see some serious antithesis laid out, just compare the preambles of the Republican and Constitution Party platforms.
GOP: https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/
Constitution Party: http://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/platform-and-resolutions/
I want to see just how many people who are voting “third party” out of conviction will, once this election is over, get off their duffs and do the hard work of actually building a viable third party in this country and doing it realistically–like starting at the local level and running a candidate for….I don’t know….the local school board instead of immediately going for the highest elected office in the land? But I guess its easier playing spoiler every four odd years.
Yeah, there’s probably something to that. But be aware that, when I vote for a third party presidential candidate every four years (since, what … 1992, I think?), it’s NOT because I think that avenue — Pennsylvania Avenue — is THE way to political reform in this country. It’s really just to let the PTB know that I’m out here, and I’m not satisfied with the “candidates” they keep giving us every four years. That said, I want to dive into Joel McDurmon’s book, “Restoring America One County at a Time.” It’s available to read for free online, plus he… Read more »
Thank you for this resource! I shall dive in and give it a read!
Doug,
Is Ben Sasse registered as a write-in candidate in Idaho? I didn’t think he was getting registered. Without registration (in registration states) the vote doesn’t count for him, but goes in some “Other” category.
Still don’t get it. I have tremendous respect for you and (some) other never-Trumpers. I agree that he is a horrible man. But how is that even relevant when the only other viable candidate is twenty times worse? You say we’re trying to manage God’s judgment like that’s a bad thing. How is it different from ordinary sowing and reaping? From planting poison ivy instead of thistle?
Wait, which candidate is 20 times worse?
Thistle.
” If God restores us and uses us wonderfully, it is nothing but His great mercy. If God sets us aside, and accomplishes His purposes through others,”
I feel like there should be something more there :)
I’ve been thinking all afternoon how I would finish that sentence… Something like, “If God sets us aside and accomplishes His purposes through others, we surely would have no grounds for chastising Him because He ought rather to have used us.”
Thoughts on Darrel Castle?
He certainly seems to be a worthy candidate.
If you want to see some serious antithesis on parade, just compare the preambles of the Republican and Constitution Party platforms.
GOP: https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/
Constitution Party: http://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/platform-and-resolutions/
Great article overall, but…
I don’t agree with your interpretation that the Israelites were obeying the infanticide order. The context of Exodus 1:15-20 indicates that the Israelitest did not obey the order, were blessed for it, and grew in numbers. Pharaoh’s order in vs. 22 was to “his people”, which seems to indicate the Egyptians.
Thank you for pointing this out. You are right in your understanding of it. Praise God, and continue the work of a Berean.
It all sounds very nice, but I have this niggling feeling that it all just reduces to be more conservative. Liberals are to repent of their liberalism and become conservatives. Conservatives are to repent of their liberalism and be conservatives even harder. It’s like when the boss comes in and tells you “we need to…” We all know who he means by we, and it ain’t him.
Exactly. Now repent.
We need to repent of what the Bible defines as sin, and that involves repenting of the sacred cows of both conservatives and liberals. Don’t use political designations as your standard – use the words of God.
Can you be specific?
Galatians 5:19-21 is a good place to start: “Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Or the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. Or the seven thrings that are abominable to the Lord in Proverbs 6:16-19: “There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and… Read more »
So… no. Oh well.
Sorry my Bible references don’t suit whatever your silly vendetta happens to be this time, ashv :)
What do you mean, specifically, by “the sacred cows of both conservatives and liberals”?
Wealth creation and wealth squandering?
????
There are many. The most obvious liberal sacred cows would be abortion and celebration of sodomy. The most obvious conservative sacred cows would be prideful American imperialism and support of unjust war.
I’d add in free market utopianism, but I appreciate your evenhandedness.
I would agree that many in our nation and our nation as a whole needs to repent of these sins. I know that it is often noted how people like Daniel or Nehemiah prayed identifying with the sins of their nation. But isn’t that unique, identifying with the covenant people of God? Am I supposed to imitate that identification as an American? I certainly don’t have audience to call all of them to repentance, or license to go and start pulling people’s beards out like Nehemiah.
Absolutely we identify with our nation as we pray. I pray as an American, and Americans are under judgement. We must pray for widespread repentance and faith in America and across the globe. And we must do so knowing that God judges hypocrisy, which means we must confess our own sins as we confess those of our nation.
Hey Matt, you need to……. ; – )
I know, right? Is there a twelve step plan out there to get to Reagan?
Whatever we do, don’t bother with the witch of endor. That didn’t work out for Saul. ????
So why don’t we begin by repenting for promoting and advocating for that antipathy between the woman and the serpent? Why don’t we repent of our rubbish over the alleged curse of eve? Rubbish that denies the curse was broken, through a woman who gave birth our savior? This is an important election, perhaps the most important election of all, because it has revealed the hypocrisy that lurks in much of the evangelical heart, the pure hatred so many men harbor towards women. In Christ`s name, we’ve done this in Christ’s name and we aren’t even ashamed of ourselves. I… Read more »
Your piano seems to only have one key on it.
It is a piano that will push any key necessary to keep you and those who endorse hatred and bigotry as far away from public office as possible.
How about doing the honorable thing and removing yourself (a hate-filled misandrist) from this blog?
I will, because I realize people like you have no where else to go. Enjoy your victory.
Bye!
birds of a feather
This can’t be the most important election of all. 2012 was. And 2008 before that. And so on… and so on…
When I was a child, I thought that verse meant that women were naturally afraid of snakes. And I am. Bigly, as Trump would say. But doesn’t it mean that God will use the Woman’s seed to vanquish Satan through Jesus? So isn’t the antipathy between the Woman’s seed and Satan’s seed a good thing? I read this passage as Satan being cursed, not Eve.
That’s sort of what I thought. Memi seems to be thinking Wilson’s comment was about women being treated as cursed. I don’t think that is what Wilson meant.
Repent of advocating antipathy between the woman and the serpent? You mean we’re supposed to encourage women to love the works of the devil, and not take the side of salvation? I really don’t get what you’re saying here.
If, as the US Declaration of Independence states, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, then maybe another appropriate response to the current mess is for thoughtful, God-fearing, law-abiding citizens to temporarily withhold their consent. When the “powers that be” have mocked, scorned, and trampled the moral order of the universe (and also simple common sense) as brazenly as this bunch has, we need to consider that even our protest votes will be viewed by them as grants of legitimacy. I once heard Doug say, with tongue clearly in cheek, “don’t vote… it only encourages them.”… Read more »
There can be something to the idea — but you have to figure out what you’re going to do instead.
If one views voting as some kind of “sacred act” or, more likely, an important “civic duty,” then I agree that our best response is probably a protest vote. But voting can also be viewed as a grant of legitimacy or “consent.” At this point in US history, some of us should consider that we may have a civic duty to withhold our consent. That means not voting — not from apathy or abandonment or rebellion, but as a thoughtful and deliberate act of conscience. Besides, if we believe that all authority has been given to the risen Christ and… Read more »
I’m going to post this link again because it’s still funny and insightful: https://arkansasreactionary.wordpress.com/2015/11/22/the-solemnity-of-christ-the-president/
I saw this when you posted it earlier. It is funny and insightful, and I like the site. Thanks.
From this post 4. Democracy – rule by the many – is morally degenerate as a governmental form, and so voting at all is just supporting evil. This argument is completely wrong. It’s premise is wrong: rule by the many is by nature one of the naturally licit forms of government. We can see as much from the testimony of St. Thomas (no democrat himself): “In like manner we must divide just governments. If the government is administered by many, it is given the name common to all forms of government, viz. polity, as for instance when a group of… Read more »
Well, they tried. I think we’re in a position to judge the results now.
We’re in a position to judge the result of abandoning the Constitution they gave us. And we (being displaced Englishmen) have 1500 years of history of monarchy to teach us that, on average, Prince Charles is the best you can hope to get.
When do you think the Constitution was abandoned? 1803? 1861?
If the USA has abandoned the Constitution, then England abandoned monarchy in 1688.
Do some people think it was abandoned with the establishment of the national bank? Or was it with the suppression of Shays Rebellion?
We’ve tried the divine right of popes, and the divine right of kings, and now the divine right of “we the people”. None of those turned out too well. It’s time to try the divine right of Christ, in order to finally put man in his place as decidedly under authority, subordinate, and not autocratic in any form.
LOL. You’re amazing.
This divine right of “we the people” of which you speak (*) is itself an aspect of the abandonment of the Constitution.
(*) in truth, the Progressives promotion of “democracy” was a deliberate ruse and deception to overturn the Constitution by stealth, and install themselves as the “divine right” masters.
Agreed. The founders wanted a republic, rather than a democracy, but, to be fair, they did leave the barn door wide open for humanism to enter. They did not establish the Constitution with specific acknowledgement of, and submission to, Christ’s Lordship. They were coming from a background of religious turmoil in Europe, which left them open to a fond dream of the possibility of religious neutrality (contrary to Psalm 2).
Oh dear, what a depressing thought. I want to be an American citizen before I ever meet him in the flesh so that I have a legitimate reason not to curtsy. I will stand proudly and call him “Sir.”
My wife is currently hoping for the lowest voter turnout in history, hoping that it might call the entire system into question.
But then, we’re also voting.
We may be circling the drain, but we are the drain-circling is big enough to have the Coriolis effect spin us counter-clockwise. Not like the clock-wise spinning around the drain that would happen in the Southern Hemisphere. That, my friends, is Northern Hemisphere Exceptionalism.
All wry comments aside, this is very trenchant. Or incisive. Either will probably work.
I will take it to heart. Thank you.
The reason why any hemisphere has drains,…….,
(Oh bleep!)
Is remarkably unexceptional,
Regardless of which direction the drain circles.????
“A” dad..Sorry you missed the point. I believe most positions of
exceptionalism, particularly American–at least as held by some these
days–exceptionalism, is badly misplaced. I was misplacing something
rather more obvious. But as they say if you have to explain it loses
its humor, assuming it ever had any. I just broke one of “MY” Dad’s
cardinal rules: never explain….
Double D, I think we are on the same page. In a fallen universe, everything is headed down the same drain, no matter how “exceptional” a thing may have been, when it first dropped. ????
Like your dad, Mary Poppins never explained anything either!
I really appreciate this call for repentance. I plan to kneel down and repent 15 mins every day before I go to sleep. I don’t know if I can be successful in this plan. But I should try.
I’m assuming you’re being ironic, in which case this is funny. Unless you’re not, but then it’s even funnier. I am all for calling people to repent, but who is supposed to repent and of what? And if we’re not speaking to the people who need to repent, then who are we calling to repent? Jonah called for the Ninevites to repent after calling the Israelites to repent. But he didn’t call Nineveh to repent of Israel’s sin or vice versa. I am not a fan of being called to repent of general badness and things I haven’t done, but… Read more »
I read Doug’s post to mean we, collectively, are wicked and we (including me) need to repent. No, I’m not being ironic.
I realized this could sound hypocritical, but that’s me.
I think the question about irony is raised because repenting isn’t in any way something you do 15 minutes every night, so it sounds like that might not be a serious comment. It’s how you live, it’s about an orientation of realizing your immediate need to turn away from certain sins and evils and toward faithfulness, moment by moment.
Spending 15 minutes every night in confession of your own sins is a worthy practice indeed but that’s not what’s meant here by repenting.
I think it is a little too long to be spiritually healthy. If I gave it 15 minutes, I would either have wandered away into thinking about how other people’s sins kind of gave me an excuse for my own, or be busy sewing a hairshirt out of burlap bag.
Jon, many agree with you that apologizing for events before our time and those that we objected to is not a correct path to take. In fact, it is silly to do so. Consider the corporate sins of America though when you pray. How many of the Big 10 do we violate in America as a nation because our laws and our messed up culture say it’s OK? -How many idols are above God in America? Our political system is one of them. -Don’t use the Lord’s name in vain. OM_ is quite popular even among Christians. -Remember the Sabbath… Read more »
Who’s “we”? I can see who’s responsible for that, but don’t see why I should be grouped with them.
ashv wrote:
Why should Jesus be grouped in with us sinners? Why should He intercede to take our sins on Himself? Why should Daniel intercede to take the sins of wayward Israel on himself? What could such an act of identification with sin possibly accomplish?
Ashv seems to be saying that he would not have done such a thing, were he in Jesus’ place.
Complete non sequitur.
If it is a non sequitur, then ashv should have no reservation about answering the questions.
Let me pose a question in return first: Should Daniel have interceded to take the sins of Babylon on himself?
Ashv’s question to me actually demonstrates that my original questions to him were directly on point, and require more than his flippant dismissal. To answer ashv’s question, Daniel was a captive of Babylon. His national and covenantal identity was with Israel, so he interceded for Israel’s deliverance. Now ashv may respond that he is prepared to renounce his relationship with the U.S., but even God requires a certificate of divorce, not just a loud bluster. There may be a time when Christians have to repudiate all association with the U.S., but if that time comes, it won’t be through an… Read more »
So… why didn’t Daniel “renounce his relationship with Babylon”? He was as much a Babylonian as my family is American. Calling my response a “flippant dismissal” indicates you missed the point entirely.
ashv wrote: So… why didn’t Daniel “renounce his relationship with Babylon”? Perhaps ashv doesn’t grasp what captivity means. ashv wrote: He was as much a Babylonian as my family is American. This is just what I predicted. Assuming ashv was born in the U.S. then he is just pretending not to be an American now, so that he can disclaim any connection to the sins of this nation. It’s cute, but dishonest. One does not renounce one’s relationship and responsibilities by blustering anonymously on a comment blog. Does ashv still pay taxes? Is he still going to vote for Trump… Read more »
The USA conquered my country 150 years ago. I’m a USA citizen. Was Paul a Roman?
ashv wrote: The USA conquered my country 150 years ago. I’m a USA citizen. Was Paul a Roman? Yes, Paul was a free Roman citizen (not a Roman slave), and Paul took advantage of that citizenship in appealing to the Roman justice system to try his case. After a long sidetrack, ashv acknowledges that he is a USA citizen, and that he is even going to exercise his privilege of citizenship to vote in the upcoming Presidential election, which will influence government and policy for at least the next four years. Presumably ashv has exercised this privilege in the past… Read more »
What sins are you asking him to identify with? You’re saying that because he has voted before that he shares in the responsibility for our current governance?
I’m saying that ashv is not as free of association and responsibility as he thinks he is. For at least this reason he is therefore eligible to repent, corporately, on behalf of the nation. Ashv cannot claim to be sitting innocently on the sidelines while at the same time engaged in voting within the system. One can’t just participate in the benefits of our nation’s policies while renouncing the consequences of them.
“Our nation”? You’re begging the question: what are the boundaries of this “we” and “our” you’re referring to? Are you suggesting that political power is the only factor in identity? (I won’t deny it’s a major one.)
My ancestors “voted” to have nothing to do with the current enormities sent forth from Washington. What fellowship hath Alabama with New York, or Massachusetts with Virginia?
Ashv’s rejection of relationship to the U.S. is wearing thinner and thinner. He is being quite obtuse and slippery. I thought he was going for some claim to be a purebred American Indian, but this latest, and his mention of 150 years, suggests that he is claiming some sort of imagined Southern Confederate national identity. Combined with his views on white supremacy, it all just seems increasingly skin-head to me. What spoils the deal is that, by his own admission, ashv will be out exercising his U.S.A. civic privilege to vote to influence the direction of policy in this nation.… Read more »
Skin-head? No, just slightly balding.
“Southern Confederate national identity” is certainly imagined — but so is “American”.
(Benedict Anderson’s _Imagined Communities_ is an interesting perspective on this stuff.)
Paul exercised his civic privileges as a Roman citizen. Was he corporately responsible for the idolatry of Rome?
ashv wrote: Paul exercised his civic privileges as a Roman citizen. Was he corporately responsible for the idolatry of Rome? Yes, Paul exercised his civic privileges as a Roman citizen, and he owned his relationship in that appeal. While in the safety of their protection, Paul would not have pranced around saying that, as a citizen of Rome, he had no relationship to what they were doing. Likewise, as a Pharisee, Paul did not prance around claiming no relationship to what the Pharisees were doing either. He continued to own and identify himself as a Pharisee, with all that this… Read more »
Does it seem to you, then, that Paul used to pray and confess Rome’s sins of idolatry as his own? As sins in which, as Roman citizen, he participated in some mystical fashion? Is that the sort of “collective repentance” to which you think unwilling Americans like Ashv are being called?
Corporate responsibility is a thouroughly un-American concept, at odds with the American ‘virtues’ of pride and self actualization.
If you have no part of American corporate sins what groups sins are you corporatly identified with?
CC corporate sins (not responsibility) are American as apple pie. They are also German, Russian and just about every country or group of people that gather together. All of us own America’s corporate sins just as much as those Christians who allowed them to be placed into law years ago. It is easy to say “I don’t support abortion or I didn’t get an abortion” but all of us own the sin of abortion because it is a corporate American sin. Grandma in Iowa is forced to pay taxes to support abortions and military transsexual sex changes even though she… Read more »
Alabama white trash. (Our faults are legion, but somewhat different from our Harvard-spawned overlords.)
I certainly agree that ashv is not individually guilty of the particular sins of the Harvard-spawned overlords. I also agree that the sins of Alabama white trash, as a group, can be distinguished from the sins of the Harvard-spawned overlords. I’m not trying to be blind to the ability to make such distinctions. God certainly will make them. However, we in the U.S. also share a national representation (established by God as much as parental representation), and we corporately share in the responsibility for how things are going with the nation. Though we may hate that organic, corporate relationship and… Read more »
Should the Jews have identified themselves with Rome? You seem to want to make a conquered people responsible for the actions of their conquerors.
ashv wrote: Should the Jews have identified themselves with Rome? You seem to want to make a conquered people responsible for the actions of their conquerors. How have I seemed to do this? Ashv already asked about Paul and Daniel, and I suggested no such automatic responsibility. Instead, I pointed to a principle of separation versus assimilation, refusing the king’s meat versus participating in civic privileges. These are all factors in how we begin to share in the responsibility for the condition of a nation. Ashv was the one who implied that Daniel voluntarily “teamed up” with Nebuchadnezzar, but I… Read more »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso
Never thought I would ‘like’ (90%) of a comment of yours. But credit where due.
The first chapter of Nehemiah would answer ashv’s question well too.
“We” Christians is who. You and I crucified Christ just as much as the leaders and the mobs years ago. Christ shed His blood for the sins of “we” and we are all in this together. That’s why I keep asking my Christian friends to pray for Godly leaders and that God will protect his children here just as he did from the plagues in Egypt.
Yes, of course. No one is disputing (or discussing) that.
“Yes, we are the ones called to repentance and reformation.” Dave
“Who’s “we”? I can see who’s responsible for that, but don’t see why I should be grouped with them.” ASHV
“”We” Christians is who.” Dave
“Yes, of course. No one is disputing (or discussing) that.” ASHV
Sometimes I can’t follow your thinking at all and this is one of those times.
The topic is collective responsibility and national repentance. The topic being discussed is: what’s a nation? Who’s in it? What leads to collective responsibility?
2 Chronicles 7:14 “if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” I keep coming back to this verse and wondering how this applies today. When God spoke this to Israel, they were both his covenant people and a nation. Clearly now his covenant people are only a minority of the USA, but do you think He is speaking to His covenant people or to the entire US?… Read more »
Yes, we are the ones called to repentance and reformation. As we change, those around us will see that change. The end result of America turning to Christ may take a few days — or years, or centuries — but if we humble ourselves and call out to God in our prayers, God will heal the land.
Of course, God does the work. We just have to get up in the morning and get out of bed.
What do you think of Nehemiah’s repentance for the nation in Nehemiah 1?
Israel finally got the point that they were wrong, after they got ass kicked and exiled?
Again, it seems to me that Nehemiah is identifying with the people of God who have been unfaithful and wandered away. He’s not repenting for the sins of the Medes and Persians. I do think it is a Biblical truth that God uses the world to discipline the people of God. And I think the fact that though Nehemiah and Daniel were faithful Israelites they confessed the sins of identified with the sins of the people of God is instructive to us. But it is hard to know how to apply that. I don’t think identifying with and confessing the… Read more »
Less important than Obama vs Romney or McCain? I can only believe that this is something other than wishful thinking if you’re ready to reject the Americanist paradigm entirely. (Which the laughable suggestion of voting for Ben Sasse doesn’t accord with.)
Yes less important than Obama vs. Romney There was a chance of stopping some of the Obama agenda in 2012. The next president will be Obama’s bag holder. If we were gonna elect a GOP President this time if it would happen to be a man of an absolute principle. Something the serial liar and flip-flopper that secured the GOP nomination. I mean McCain at least backed Reagan in 1980 when Trump not only backed Jimmy Carter but was Trashing Reagan foreign policy from a Democratic perspective in 1987. His whole political career (and if he has a rather extensive… Read more »
LOL
How was “the Obama agenda” significantly different from “the Romney agenda”? At least Trump isn’t a Mormon.
Wow. The comments below show a lot of wedges have been driven between us, who should be brothers and sisters in Christ. Wilson is right. The stage for this was set long ago. But, I have noticed something odd. Here in liberal la-la land of the north (Minnesota) I am seeing almost no Hillary yard signs. This is very unusual. I don’t believe the media. They are known liars. As Doug so accurately pointed out last week, we can step in the dog poo or we can step in the cow pie. Can I ask God to bless the dog… Read more »
I was in northern Minnesota a week ago for a few days of grouse hunting, lead re-distribution, and general male bonding with my son and grandsons.
I noticed the same thing… many Trump signs, only a couple Hillary signs.
Which is very, very odd as northern Minnesota is heavily Democrat. They may be lulled.
Here in Massachusetts, the typically vocal libs are remarkably circumspect! Few HRC signs, almost as many DJT signs. I don’t have either.
The only sign I would fly is hillary for prison!????
Would it be worth voting for Trump (Yes, I know, “Horrors!”) just to see the look on Hillary’s face if she lost?
Of the two, which would you rather pray for to be truly saved? Or, put another way, is either one of them the swine we should not cast our pearls before? Or the dog that will turn and tear us to pieces?
Cap’n, the problem is, only human beings run for president. I am an architect, and know a bit about what it takes to bring ideas in to reality. The Donald knows how to do that as a real estate developer. He presumably knows how to play by the rules, and likely knows how to bend them. By comparison, I don’t think HRC knows how to do anything “real”, and we know she breaks the rules. They both are, or have been lounge lizards. King David was a lounge lizard, but he got over it. DJT is a bit like Sennacherib,… Read more »
AFrameDad: Do you work residential or commercial?
Mostly institutional. Schools and Colleges.
1960’s A-frame houses sure looked cool didn’t they?!????
Someday, God willing, I would love to build an A-frame on a lake. I have the floor plan and construction details in my head. What I do not have is enormous piles of cash.
????
Just save the $2,500.00 a year you “saved” with Obamacare.
????
When I was a kid, I used to draw floor plans of houses to entertain myself. I even had an “A” frame phase.
And, as an adult, I’ve spent the past 30 years (off and on, not continuously), rebuilding this old house
I used to do that, too. Being a girl, I also cut out the little shapes that used to come in furniture catalogs (e.g. Ethan Allen) to let you place and fit the furniture into rooms. I think I first got into it when my parents designed and built a house, so I had some idea (probably not very accurate) how it was done.
I may have done that, too.
Wasn’t it great to have girls and have a second chance at paper dolls? I used to cut them out by the hour.
One of my boys even made paper dolls – army guys and knights.
Yeah, they looked cool … but I don’t think I’d want to live in one.
“A” frame vacation houses are giant pup tents made out of wood. For a few weeks in the summer, living in one should be great. All year, not so much.
In the mountains with a stream nearby and a view of the peaks.
Thanks.
Yup.
Hillary has clearly stated an opposition to God and his principles. I could easily imagine her speaking in favor of Molech or using Christians as torches in her garden.
Donald, although shady, seedy, and suspicious is far more likely in my mind to at least be friendly to Christians.
HRC denies when she gets busted.
DJT will at least apologize when he gets busted.
Better yet: “Prison for Hillary!”
Or conned…
I’m not seeing many signs period in Los Angeles compared to previous elections. But I have no doubt it will go Democrat.
Pfffffffff.
I saw a poll yesterday that said that the 8th district in Minnesota has Trump winning by 12. In the 2nd and 3rd districts Clinton is leading by 8 and 13 respectively. It looks like your observations about northern Minnesota are in keeping with some polls.
link: https://goo.gl/gVpbLv
Amazing. Thanks, JL.
As I’ve seen quipped elsewhere, there are no Hilary supporters. Just a lot of people afraid of giving Trump access to nuclear weapons. I doubt that “my own subjective observation of yard signs in the place I happen to live” is a valid indicator of anything. Every person in America with a Trump yard sign almost certainly adds up to no more than 10% of the vote, probably not even that. The election isn’t decided by the ultra-faithful on either side, but by the turning of the muddy middle. Considering that there are literally hundreds of different organizations which do… Read more »
And these are all better indicators than yard signs?
????
I don’t know how this election will go, however, the recent brexit vote was one where polls were grossly wrong. ‘Don’t know if yard signs were involved.
????
Yes. :) Here were the actual Brexit polls. As you can see, they were actually all over the place. While there were more that predicted “stay”, there were plenty of polls that showed a big win for “leave”. ?_ga=1.1959287.776080754.1476341762 Brexit was an unprecedented event for the pollsters. They didn’t really know who was going to show up, what the demographics would look like, etc. On top of that, Jo Cox getting assassinated leading up to the election probably made some “leave” people not really want to express their opinion to pollsters for a while out of respect for her death… Read more »
Let’s just go back to subjective interpretations of yard signs!????
Although, on a similar metric, I see that T. Kaine drew about 30 to 50 people in Florida where DJT drew 20,000 people.
I think this would more accurately be called “the embarrassment gap”.
????
(As opposed to “the enthusiasm gap”.)
I think significant numbers of people voting on November 8 will see Tim Kaine’s name on the ballot and think, “Who is that?”
I was just relating an observed phenomenon. At no point in my ramblings did I claim to be a prophet. (The Bible is very clear on the dangers of doing that.)
Hey wait! Is that a camel hair hat you are wearing?
That sounds suspiciously like Elija!????
Hyrax.
????????????
Doug, I really enjoy your blog, and I work hard to avoid the politics business you do here. But this approach is indefensible. I am honestly not sure what is driving you in this direction. As Christians, the nature of federal level politics is such that we must either eschew it completely because of its corrupting and unethical nature come what may, or we must be willing to join teams with those whose lifestyle and positions we abhor in order to make strategic gains or reduce strategic losses. Faithful Christians in history have done both. If given the chance to… Read more »
I can’t imagine the apostle Paul voting for Nero even if someone worse was running against him. I don’t think he would have ( I know this isn’t how it worked back then). ” or we must be willing to join teams with those whose lifestyle and positions we abhor in order to make strategic gains or reduce strategic losses.” Firstly: what bible verse is that? I don’t remember reading that in my bible, and secondly would you be saying the same thing if it was Hillary vs someone worse? Would you team up with Hillary to take down her… Read more »
David was with philistine King Acish where King Saul was being murderous.
When did it end?
After a year and 4 months in that case.
How long was Jesus living in Egypt?
Even that ended after a while.
Right?
Would you team up with Nebuchadnezzar or Xerxes? Were Daniel and Mordecai wrong to do so?
ashv wrote:
and ashv also wrote:
Thanks to ashv for “teaming up with” the USA?
Note that working with someone, on your own terms, is not the same as casting your vote for them in a free election; just as eating meat that was sacrificed to idols is not the same as worshiping down at the temple of Artemis.
Joseph joined the ranks of the Egyptians who eventually enslaved them. Mordecai worked with the Persian King to avoid being slaughtered by Haman. Daniel worked closely with Nebuchadnezzar. And even Paul himself appealed to Caesar for a strategic advantage. Christian history is filled with Christians using the system with which they were affiliated to their advantage and the advantage of spreading the gospel. There is ample precedent for this in Scripture and Christian history. I do think I would vote for Hillary over many other evil leaders. I would take her over Pharaoh, Haman, Nebuchadnezzar, and Nero. I would take… Read more »
Well said, as was your initial comment. One upvote isn’t enough.
And far from being corrupted by associating with such rulers, the Biblical narrative gives us reason to believe that certainly the first Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar and perhaps Darius/Ahasuerus were converted. We fret about the coming persecution of Christians in America and the complete dissolving of Christian witness in our country, but in Esther, the Jews went from being persecuted/exterminated to slaughtering their enemies and gaining great influence in the Persian empire because they were willing to bear faithful witness and the consequent favor of God.
God promised to preserve the Jews and Mordecai knew this. He told Esther that God will save the Jews even if she fails. He has not promised to preserve the United States.
Durden wrote:
There is someone else watching that Durden doesn’t seem to be considering.
The claim of “virtue signalling”, seems to be cheap rhetoric. Anyone who stands up for principles of virtue, over against a populist movement, can be accused of virtue signalling, right? Jesus was just virtue signalling against the Pharisees, right? If not, then what makes the difference, and has Durden actually made his case that Wilson is just virtue signalling?
Katecho, If the issue is one of principle over pragmatism, then I wonder whether Christians should even be participating in this corrupt system at all. Democracy in the form that America currently holds it is not a biblical position at all, despite the centuries of propaganda. If you are truly going to make a claim of virtuous principle, then please be serious about it. You ought to be calling people to something far more biblical and far more virtuous than throwing out a vote for a non-starter candidate. To do so is nothing but virtue signalling, because real virtue would… Read more »
So Paul would have proudly supported Nero to oppose someone worse? Gimme a break. What Paul did was nothing like what you are talking about. Proudly voting for a man who brags about his adulteries is the only indefensible thing here. It’s shameful. I understand reluctantly voting for him, but it’s nothing to be proud about. I am with Dr James white when I say that I believe these terrible candidates are judgement from God. This country deserves these two candidates, and the fact that you are proud about supporting a vile, sexist, blowhard like Trump says something about your… Read more »
Trump is shameful. He is a pagan. He is licentious. He will go to Hell to the glory of God and deservedly so, though I pray that he would repent and find forgiveness. I am not proud of his lifestyle, and yes this country is clearly under the judgment of God. However, I think that finding a way to mitigate those judgments rather than enhance them would be a better choice. What I am proud of is choosing pragmatism for the sake of my covenantal brothers in the US over self-righteous virtue signalling that will get us much worse. If… Read more »
Well said, Mr. Knox.
You don’t know if he is the lesser of two evils. What makes you think he will stand by anything he has said? The man has continuously flip flopped on nearly every issue. This isn’t because he is evolving as a person, it’s because Trump has no principles. He is basing his decisions solely on what will garner him support. Open your eyes man. You may know exactly what you’re getting with Hillary but the truth is you have no idea what you are getting with Trump. He doesn’t share your concerns. He doesn’t care about conservative values. Trump cares… Read more »
I know I’m the slow child in the class. But how is voting for someone who has no chance of winning — some third party, or Ben Sasse, or that National Review blogger, or Egg McMuffin — better than not voting? What’s praiseworthy about it? (I voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 primaries, so I understand the emotional appeal. But that’s not what’s being discussed here.)
If you don’t vote it doesn’t tell anyone anything. If egg mcmuffin starts pulling 10% then the message is clear.
That’s a message that no one will get and no one will care about.
They would care if it were a consistent trend across multiple elections. For a one-off like Perot you’re probably right.
Is the message “Mormons in the CIA are a bigger problem than we thought”?
The message is: the masses have accepted meaningless voting as their opiate.
You know your U.S. history much better than I know mine. Has there ever been a president in U.S. history who was regarded by the majority of his contemporaries as a virtuous Christian? If so, was he also considered to be a good president, both then and now?
Jimmy Carter, of course.
Well, there is Jimmy Carter — mind you, *I* never thought he was a “virtuous Christian” — and we all know that he was the worst (*)
And, there was Reagan.
(*) Carter would be the second worse if Obama were legally president.
Granting your position that he’s illegally president, he’s still president, albeit illegally. Just like money that’s stolen from you can’t be used by you anymore, and usurpers really rule countries. It’s rather silly to say he doesn’t count in the list of presidents now that he’s been in office for eight years and has seen his presidential powers put into action.
Usurpers really rule countries; but they are still usurpers, and their rule is still illegal.
Real money stolen from me is a different thing from counterfeit money paid me, albeit that in both cases I am robbed.
If I am paid in counterfeit money, and if I learn before I have spent it that it is counterfeit, am I not in my turn committing theft and fraud if I try to spend it?
Yes, but the counterfeiting and placing the money in your possession has really happened, and if you spend it, it’s really spent. None of it not-happens because of the fraud, just as Barack Obama really has been sworn in and serving as president for the last eight years, regardless of what anyone thinks about the legality of that. He’s “really president,” unless all those laws and EOs he signed didn’t really result in people being taxed, fined, jailed, whatever.
When have I even implied that these things didn’t happen? They happened; they nevertheless were and are illegal, unlawful. And, because we have become an unlawful people — which is *why* we are under God’s condemnation — no one wants to admit and correct the problem of the unlawfulness. As witness yourself here.
Yes. By your estimation, they were unlawful. By your estimation, the person who did them was unlawfully president.
And he is president, unlawfully, by your estimation, because a thing can be both unlawful and real.
God gives us the qualifications of civil rulers (judges at the time). Voting for a sure loser who qualifies in front of Him in the face of the victory of a candidate who doesn’t qualify seems a worthy act of faithful contrition to me. But I learned it from Doug a couple elections back.
Just mind boggling!!! Every last one of these “write-in” candidates mentioned on this comment thread is not a threat so they have not had the benefit of having the full force of the Clinton machine and their sycophants in the corporate media come down hard upon them. I guarantee you ANY Republican you name, any third party “conservative” (whom you don’t know that well, I might add), any one of those other also rans for the Republican nomination, INCLUDING Ted Cruz, once the Clintons, the drive-by media, and their assorted lefty allies got through with them you’d be hard pressed… Read more »
FrJ+ wrote:
Political cool-shaming won’t work. There are things more important than winning in politics. For an example of this, consider Jesus, the long expected Messiah of Israel, as He headed toward the cross.
God’s power is demonstrated through our weakness. He’s not worried about the election, and we shouldn’t be concerned about being perceived by the world as losers.
As a poet of this age put it: “Winning isn’t everything, but losing isn’t anything.”
Jesus achieved victory over sin and death, in His own way. He didn’t lose.
I agree that winning elections is the wrong thing to focus on. But there’s nothing good or noble or principled about losing them.
ashv wrote: I agree that winning elections is the wrong thing to focus on. But there’s nothing good or noble or principled about losing them. Didn’t ashv inform us awhile back that he wasn’t voting for Trump anyway? As such, I’m not sure that ashv is in a good position to lecture anyone on the nobility of losing. Ashv may suppose that by not voting at all, he can send a message, but someone who votes for a faithful candidate can send a similar message that is no more losing than ashv’s approach. Voting for a faithful candidate may, at… Read more »
I did tell you that, but you convinced me to vote for Trump.
Speaking of Daniel, ashv wrote:
If ashv is not American, how can he vote for Trump?
Do you consider everyone eligible to vote in USA elections to be American? Interesting.
ashv wrote:
Yes. American can refer to nationality, or, less commonly, to ethnicity, but in order to be eligible to vote in the U.S., one must be an American (in the sense of nationality and citizenship).
Are these people Americans? http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-pastor-voter-registration-rates-of-newly-naturalized-citizens-20160926-snap-story.html
Apparently soon to be, if not already.
But back to Katecho’s original question: “If ashv is not American, how can he vote for Trump?” You didn’t answer that.
If de-naturalization were an option, would you apply? In fact, I think it is an option, though it’s not an easy thing to do. Mind you it doesn’t come with any claim to real estate, it just means you could officially call yourself not-American. You wouldn’t be able to vote, but you wouldn’t have to explain why you don’t either.
My family was here before the USA existed and it’ll be here after it’s gone. I see no reason to treat it as anything other than a burden to be borne for the present. How can I vote? Well, they’ll let me. What did you expect?
None of ashv’s family has ever interbred since its conquest by the USA 150 years ago? Then he truly is pure and undefiled.
However, it does raise the question of what he thinks he is doing exercising influence by voting in a system that he claims to want no responsibility for. Something doesn’t add up there.
Spell it out for me, please. What doesn’t add up?
For once, I’d like ashv to answer one of my questions first. It wasn’t rhetorical. If ashv was 100% purebred, from a conquered American Indian tribe, who stayed on his reservation and never participated in any civic privileges of the U.S., then I could understand a claim to have no responsibility for the doings of the U.S.A, and therefore no duty of corporate repentance for its national sins. But I suspect ashv’s native lineage is significantly diluted, and he simply chooses to identify with the family heritage of least responsibility (while he ascends the voting booth to punch the chad… Read more »
But I am glad that the Navajo code-talkers didn’t take that attitude!
Isn’t it amazing that, at a time when the government did comparatively little for its citizens, they were so willing to lay down their lives defending it? I look back in mute admiration at the unselfishness of the Great Generation.
The national government also showed a little more restraint back then — it was overall much more worthy of loyalty. It was also a lot stronger and more difficult to fight effectively than it is today. (My admiration for the “Greatest Generation” is rather subdued, though – chiefly due to how their leadership used WW2 to make the world safe for communism, both domestically and internationally.)
True, but the people who fought didn’t know that. My father, who fought with the Canadian army, has told me he took for granted that once they had polished off Germany, they would take on Stalin next.
Sure. If Patton had lived and Eisenhower wasn’t a communist sympathiser, they might well have.
My father and I were at political loggerheads during my adolescence. One time, in what I thought was a rare moment of amity, he told me he had wanted to fight in the Spanish Civil War. I said in honest amazement and admiration, “You were going to join the Abraham Lincoln Brigade?” “No,” he said in offended dignity, “I was going to fight for Franco!”
Fantastic!
Ashv was being so vague that I thought he was going a different direction. It seems more likely, at this point, that ashv is referring to an imagined Southern Confederate national identity, rather than to any American Indian heritage.
I guessed that it was the Civil War (excuse me, the War Between the States), but I don’t understand how his state, whatever that may be, was not part of the union prior to the war. Because I am sure he does not live in Colorado, Nebraska, or Oklahoma!
There wasn’t a “union” before the war. The pre-war and post-war USA were different governments, much as the USA under the Articles of Confederation was different from the government created along with the Constitution.
Yes, naturalized citizens are American (U.S.) citizens, and are eligible to vote. This fact has nothing to do with whether mass immigration and accelerated naturalization are wise.
Still trying to get a handle on how you think this national identity/collective responsibility thing works. Are those people (newly naturalised citizens) obligated to national repentance of American sins in the same manner as, say, Theodore Roosevelt V? Is there any level of distinction you think is meaningful or is mere legal membership in the citizenry the criterion?
Can I answer that as someone who will be newly naturalized? (I dig the British spelling, but having been at some pains to lose mine, I dare not revert to it.) I think of my part in national repentance as similar to my part in the crucifixion of our Lord. I have no reason to think that I, had I lived here at that time, would have done any differently than the people who acted sinfully. Cowardice makes people cruel, and I am not very brave.
Good parallel. Adam and Eve also represented us well when they fell. If we are honest, we must claim our portion of that disobedience to God as well.
As American as I will be when I take the oath of citizenship next year. As American as Cary Grant or Alexander Graham Bell or John Muir or Placido Domingo or Andrew Carnegie or Knut Rockne.
So… how does this make you feel?
I like it a lot. I like it as much as I like the flag lowering at Disneyland where they honor all the vets who are back from service overseas and everyone belts out the national anthem at the top of their lungs. This is kind of funny. If I tend to a character flaw (she said modestly), it might be a tendency to show off. So, in preparation for the citizenship interview, I memorized the entire book, including the preamble, all the amendments, 25 famous cases, all the wars and who won them (although Canadians dispute the outcome of… Read more »
ashv has suggested in the past that he doesn’t consider an American citizen to be an American if they, or their parents, or perhaps by extension their parents’ parents’ parents, originally came from the wrong country. According to him, descendants of immigrants aren’t people “actually from here”, though I assume that descendants of European immigrants must be somehow excluded from that rhetoric. And descendants of Africans in particular are people that Whites should be ruling over to keep them under control, because Africans aren’t actually capable of living as free men.
This is a fair answer to the sort of people who think the Presidency is basically equivalent to the Messiah. It doesn’t say much to those of us who think of it as Jack Kennedy’s old job.
The question is whether we should concede Jack Kennedy as the standard, I guess. I’m sure there are many on the NeverTrump side who believe that a good enough man as President will be transformative. For the rest of us, we simply believe that a bad enough man is beyond the pale.
But if “bad enough” in this sense mostly means “lacks sexual continence” then you are ruling out almost everyone who’s ever run. The objections to Trump I have seen are almost always to his manners, not his morals – that rather than conducting discrete affairs and sneaking around, he wants to parade his trophy wife like Xerxes at the feast. I agree it’s indecorous, and it’s not my favorite thing. But if it is the sin, rather than the manners, to which you object, then who remains within this pale of yours? I suppose Carter would be on the list,… Read more »
It doesn’t mostly mean that. But I’ve made my points on this so many times I’m not going to get drawn into the argument again. I’m speaking of the principle of the thing — having a basement for how low you go does not logically imply that you have inordinate expectations of virtue. Nor do comparisons with who got voted for before I was born have a lot to do with why I vote or do not vote the way I do.
If your “basement” is only six inches deep, that is exactly what it implies. Ditto if your moral standard tends to make citizen government impossible through disqualifying most potential candidates. On the other hand, it could serve as a tu quoque. Trump shouldn’t be subject to greater scrutiny than normal presidential candidates, simply because unscrupulous powerful men hope to ruin him. Apply your standard across the board; if a reasonable sampling of worthy candidates remains (as distinct from “candidates whose dirty laundry we have not yet entirely inspected”), then the objection is defeated. I do not say your particular standard… Read more »
“. . . if your moral standard tends to make citizen government impossible through disqualifying most potential candidates. FDU American Christians having deep, deep, deep basements concerning politics is exactly why we are messed up today. Most of our candidates should be disqualified because they are crooked or Christians in name only. Look at just about any local, state or any portion of elected federal officials and you find deep corruption. That is caused because American Christians did not promote candidates who were good solid Christians with a good solid background in our affairs. Instead they continually fall for the… Read more »
So is it your view that good rulers must be good Christians? Do you see that as a biblical requirement, or for some other reason?
FDU, most pagans don’t rule well. Are there some who actually act justly? Yes, but they are numbered to be statistically insignificant. Do the majority of pagans in government rule well? No!
We need to step away from supporting candidates who are thought to be electable and support candidates who are rooted and grounded in the Word.
If preachers actually preached the Word as hard as hucksters promote sports, TV shows, movies and the nightly news, we would have extremely good Christian rulers and the pagans in positions of authority would be cautious about violating God’s laws.
An interesting view. I don’t know how you can defend it, unless by “rule well” you intend “behave as a good Christian in private life”. In which case, sure, but it’s a tautology and also false.
Rulers in most of the world have all been Christians, at least officially, for most of modern history. So our sample size is pretty thin. But of course Trump calls himself a Christian, so that wouldn’t exclude him. I suppose you mean “a good Christian”? That’s a pretty slippery term. I suppose you have some examples in mind?
“Rulers in most of the world have all been Christians, at least officially, for most of modern history.” FDU Right! Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Che Guevara, Fidel and Raul Castro, Tojo, Ida Amin, and the like were Christian rulers by your definition. We all know that is not true. Good Christians are those who actually live out Biblical standards in private and public life. Good leaders follow Biblical standards and do unjustly punish their citizens or violate God’s laws. It is only slippery if you don’t understand scripture or if you are a modern American Christian who hasn’t really… Read more »
Modern history…as in not ancient history. Generally scholars start talking about “early modern history” around the time of the European Renaissance. Soon after which time, with the dawning of the Age of Exploration, nominally Christian European civilization started running basically the entire world, a situation that persisted until at least the world wars. Don’t be obtuse. So which leaders can you think of who “lived out Biblical standards in private and public life”? I can think of a few US presidents who might have met that definition, but mostly the examples go the other way. At very best, the bag… Read more »
What would you think of William Gladstone?
Don’t know the first thing about him. My thesis is that if you are looking for good Christian leaders, you can generally pick two. I admit exceptions, of which perhaps he’s one, but if he’s the rule then I’m pleasantly surprised.
Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah were prophets not stand up preachers. They called leaders and the nation to repentance or to acknowledge God’s judgement for national sins. Qualifications for public office: “Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens.” Exodus 18:21 This is a straightforward direction men of truth and who hate dishonest gain which would include stealing through taxes, moving boundary stones, graft, corruption, crony capitalization and the like.… Read more »
The Bible is clear… as a promise to Israel in the Old Testament. Is it your contention that America inherited Israel’s special place in God’s economy? Why on earth would you think that? If not, why assume the promises apply to America?
See here: you can’t just take a Biblical promise willy-nilly and apply it wherever you like. If God promises to punish Babylon, we can’t just turn around and apply that language to France – tempting as that is. That exegesis makes a mockery of Scripture.
Mocking scripture is when you deny the Canon of the Word. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16 “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule, the people mourn.” Proverbs 29:2 “When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices, And when the wicked perish, there is joyful shouting.” Proverbs 11:10 Like a roaring lion and a rushing bear is a wicked ruler over a poor people.” Proverbs 28:15 “A ruler who lacks understanding is a… Read more »
You have cited two kinds of passages: banal statements of fact (tyrants are awful, good rulers are nice), and specific promises made to the political entity Israel. You acknowledge that the latter do not apply, as such, to America. The obvious alternative is that they are Messianic and prophetic in character: the healed land in which we, true Israel are to dwell is a reference to the spiritual community of the church.
No, I said some passages were specific to Israel. The passages are not prophetic. Proverbs tells how to apply Biblical principles on a daily basis in our daily lives. That is today rather than in some pie in the sky future or in old Israel.
The obvious alternative is that the Bible applies to us today as 2 Timothy instructs us.
I don’t see the connection between this answer and my point. Are you responding to me?
FDU: i was not typing to the wind. Scripture is given for us to use today in our daily lives. That is the point in 2 Timothy 3. All scripture. Not some scripture. Please do not deny 2 Timothy. If we Christians apply scripture to our daily lives, we turn toward righteousness and away from sin. As we turn away away from sin and toward righteousness others will also. The Bible is not full of pie in the sky promises but promises and doctrine to apply to our daily life. 2 Chronicles 7 is just as valid today as it… Read more »
Perhaps we could meet halfway: I’ll agree not to deny Second Timothy – which is easy because that is not among my many sins. For your part, you can make an effort to refrain from dismissing Jesus’ messianic work as some kind of “pie in the sky” irrelevancy. Fair enough?
Yes, I understand it as a possibility. But that is precisely my point — inordinate standard of virtue is not a necessary logical consequence of having a basement in principle, so I think your reacting to me on the assumption that it is, requires more justification than you gave, and than you could get from what I have said.
IOW, I don’t hold my position because I’m stupid or haven’t thought through the implications, and I don’t assume that about those who disagree with me. We simply analyze differently and come to different conclusions.
Please don’t take offense – none was intended. I have no wish to suggest that you are stupid, nor that you haven’t thought it through – see my final two sentences. My interest is in drawing out the implications of your view – e.g. can we only vote for Christians in good standing with their local churches in a conservative denomination, or are we permitted to pick and choose disqualifying sins? An implication of my view, for instance (that we can vote for Trump in good conscience, even though he’s clearly unfit to be an elder) is that the secular… Read more »
Which wicked ally? Harry Dexter White?
All of them, really, but I mostly intended Stalin.
(and an upvote for the infogalactic link)
I see choosing an ally where the choice is forced on you because the other guy already declared war on you, as different from saying, “Let us have this man to rule over us.”
I concur, and see the current state of things as much closer to the first alternative. I call Trump a necessary evil, emphasis on both.
My major qualifications, which strangely appear to be rarely discussed, are, “To what degree does supporting this candidate harm our Christian witness” and “To what degree does supporting this candidate lead Christians into greater sin.” The first should be obvious. If James Dobson claims in 1998 that character matters in a leader and Clinton is disqualified, and uses lying and adultery and sexual harassment as the main disqualifying criteria, then turns around and supports a different candidate with the same issues, then both he and Christians at large are seen as hypocrites and the gospel witness is damaged. But more… Read more »
I agree with your qualifications in principle. I expect they are rarely discussed because they’re extremely vague. “Hurting one’s witness” is not a matter to which the Bible speaks in any detail – some in my denomination would include things like frequenting restaurants that serve alcohol. While there are obvious cases where a believer is simply in sin, I submit that supporting Trump for the office of President (as opposed, let us say, to the office of elder) is not that kind of thing. For instance, what does it mean to lead people into sin? If Trump were running on… Read more »
I agree that “hurting one’s witness”, which could also be termed being “above reproach”, is vague. But I think there can be clear examples that are difficult to deny: * Hypocrisy would count, as Jesus was extremely critical of hypocrites in leadership and hypocrisy is something often visible to others. What many people have done in tolerating behavior in Trump that they had declared untolerable in previous leaders looks like hypocrisy. * Failure to maintain a commitment to truth is important here. People will trust us to speak words of truth on one matter if they have heard us speaking… Read more »
Sure, some of those things are sins. People shouldn’t be hypocrites. Note, however, that the definition of hypocrisy is not “having a different opinion twenty years later”. We shouldn’t downplay sins… but we absolutely should be skeptical of coordinated media smear campaigns. This election is astonishingly bad in that regard. I have no idea what you mean by “constantly denying the truth”. I thought we were talking about Trump, not Hillary. *Zing.* I also don’t know what you think it means to “hold someone to truth”, when the someone is not among my acquaintances. Like I have to call Mr… Read more »
Trump has not done well with fact checkers. One carefully documented site estimated that 77% of his statements are not accurate. His current disregard for truth and accuracy bothers me more than his past sexual behavior. And, yes, I agree that Hillary is not always truthful. For example, this from the Orange County Register: “In response to a question about Muslim-Americans, Trump said: “In San Bernardino, many people saw the bombs all over the apartment,” a reference to reports that neighbors saw suspicious activity at the apartment of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik before the attack but did not… Read more »
“And, yes, I agree that Hillary is not always truthful.”
Most “fact-checking” sites are biased. It’s not just the facts they check, but what they don’t (e.g, many of Hillary’s statements about her foundation), how they spin and frame things, how they determine what “is” is, etc. Remember that no is neutral, no matter what they say.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans
I understand that there is no neutrality, and it seems to me, little regard for truth. The fact checker I rely on most also seems to be hard on Clinton, which reassures me a little.
Do you read fact checkers? As a genre, they’re absurd, and obviously biased toward left-wing candidates. Trump makes some obvious polemical statement like “Hillary Clinton is the MVP of ISIS”, which inspires some fellow at the Post to explain, in measured tone, that because ISIS is not a professional sports team, and does not bestow an annual MVP award, this claim merits four Pinocchios. At this point I’ve read enough nonsense that I feel justified assuming that the truth is the opposite of whatever they say. This is corollary to a larger point. Trump has inspired unprecedented levels of panic… Read more »
So can we dismiss fact-checker critiques of Clinton as well? Shall we also assume “every possible piece of dirt available” on the gal – and their seems to be a lot – is likewise something that has been “magnified by eight hundred percent, give or take”? Or do fact-checkers and the media switch to honest and accurate mode when they present anything negative regarding Clinton?
For the record, again, in case you missed the record, I’m not for either of the two.
The leaked emails and O’Keefe videos suggest that pretty much every rumour about corruption and lawbreaking by Clinton and her campaign is true. “Fact-checking” by media whores needn’t enter into it.
Don’t mistake me for a defender of Clinton, but it’s kind of the way every word ever out of the mouth of Trump pretty much confirms the worst that is supposed about him. Biased or not, it’s not as if the media has to put all that much effort into it.
The things you think are “worst” may be what the rest of us like best about him.
Well, the “rest of us” obviously don’t find “best” in him, but I’m sure you have a narrower subset in mind. You might better ask what I find worst about him before you declare that you like that sort of thing.
Don’t know, don’t care. Trump has fought my enemies more boldly and effectively than any other public figure in my lifetime. Every other detail is less important than this.
I assume that your “enemies” would have included Trump and his associates prior to his decision to begin courting your demographic?
Assume what you like. Your opinions aren’t relevant.
You don’t care, fair enough. But in that case, there was no point in your comment. Is there anything you would not do to strike at those you perceive to be your enemies?
Of course. But surely voting falls within just means of warfare.
Glad to hear it. Fighting your enemies isn’t everything to you. If there is a point beyond which you would not go to strike at your enemies then other details about a candidate can be and should be more important to you than your perception that he has effectively fought your enemies. After consideration of other details you might decide there are none existing that matter so much, but that is a different thing than categorically not caring what they might be.
Your assessment that “every word ever out of the mouth of Trump pretty much confirms the worst that is supposed about him” indicates that the worst about him isn’t particularly bad. (Especially for the role he’s being chosen for — a general, not a chaplain.)
He’s not running for general or chaplain but for President. It’s not as if we are talking about a job for which task competence can entirely make up for all other short comings, but in any case he so manifestly demonstrates incompetence for the job that it would be funny if it could be funny. What his words (not to mention actions) do manifest (besides babbling ignorance) are deceit, malice (his own, or willingness to use other’s), narcissism, vindictiveness, arrogance and greed, all in measure beyond the average person or even the average politician. What, did you think I was… Read more »
Why not?
Again, what you dislike about him may be exactly what other people value in him. Malice and vindictiveness are subjective, based on how much empathy you have for the targets of his actions. I certainly don’t see any evidence of narcissism. (I don’t regard “arrogance and greed” as interesting complaints, because people lacking those traits never become president.)
Leading a government is qualitatively different than, say plumbing or dentistry, where we don’t ask for much more than technical competence, except perhaps a sense of professional responsibility. Moot, because as I said, Trump lacks even basic competence. Or any sense of responsibility. Malice and vindictiveness are not subjective, and along with arrogance and greed, are, as Paul tells us, in Romans 1:29-30, among the results when people are given over to depravity, something to consider before you dismiss those traits as matters of no consequence. Your lack of empathy for victims (your word) does not make malice other than… Read more »
LOL. How did he become a billionaire with no competence or responsibility?
(Corruption isn’t the most important problem with Clinton.)
What makes you think that takes any kind of competence relevant to governing, or any kind of responsibility at all?
No, the most important problem with Clinton is what she actually does believe. But the conniving ruthless ambition matters too. Speaking of malice, I’m under no illusion as to where the malice of the old feminists who are among her few genuine fans is aimed. The one upside to Trump winning would be that Clinton doesn’t, but this time it works the other way around too.
Good job not answering the question.
What downsides do you see to a Trump administration?
I assumed it was rhetorical, and my rhetorical question was in fact was an answer. It seems he prospered through a combination of Daddy’s seed money, some shrewd chicanery which shouldn’t be confused with any ability relevant to sound government, cheating the little guy, conspiring with people who are as greedy as he is and piggybacking on their talent at actually managing anything. The downside would be government “led” by a man who gained notoriety via a combination of what I described above and capitalizing on a juvenilized society’s fixation with celebrity; a man whose singular talent is shrewd showmanship;… Read more »
Racism! Now we get to the real complaint.
My problem with Trump is that he’s not racist enough.
How are you defineing racist here?
“Racist” is a rhetorical term, so I primarily mean “acting in such a way as to be called racist”.
Now the question was, what downside do I see to a Trump administration, so don’t ask me to answer that but then tell me what my real complaint is as if the rest isn’t really an objection, my answer is my answer. As Jillybean said, one of many reasons.
I’m sure Trump isn’t racist enough for you. I’m not sure if he personally cares about race at all, it’s just, he knows you obsess with it.
Explain to me why a man whose only interest is self-aggrandisement goes to the Al Smith dinner and needlessly makes enemies of a large swath of the upper crust rather than play the game with them. Self-aggrandising narcissists don’t put themselves in situations where they get booed and heckled for ten minutes straight by people who have the means to become significant enemies. (Compare, of course, to Obama.)
Maybe he knows he’s long since burned certain bridges anyway. Maybe he knows what the upper crust finds outrageous is what gains him the notoriety he craves. He has decided to play the part of demagogue and he’s not playing to the high-brow crowd because there’s not enough of them.
Up until he did that, he probably could have quit this campaigning thing and gone back to being a playboy billionaire. Now, if he loses, he’s likely to lose his entire business.
Can you think of another example of someone else who’s done something like that for completely venal reasons?
That’s completely ridiculous. He has tens of millions of supporters who are absolutely devoted to him now, a good proportion of which claim he is all that could save America. There is a fantastic number of ways he could profit off of that.
Not to mention, of course, that being a narcissistic doesn’t mean you will be logical, strategic, or self-controlled. Trump has undertaken several actions during this campaign that were irrational and self-defeating no matter what his internal long-term aims.
Starting to think that all this talk of narcissism might just be projection. Yes, Trump has made various mistakes. But he’s certainly no Perot.
Even if it were true that he is likely to lose his entire business he’s hardly going to be poor and he knows that; he’s lost control of businesses before and his businesses have failed before with little personal consequence to him. He hasn’t gotten rich by making friends.
Anyway, Trump seems to figure he is beyond consequences. Or it is also possible he has lost all ability to consider consequences, and I don’t just mean to himself. I’m not able to say if his mind has literally slipped over the edge, but listening to him I wonder.
Well, this sort of speculation is rather idle anyway since he’s almost certain to win at this point.
I asked what problems you expected from a Trump presidency and got a lot of words conveying negative emotions about the man. What concrete problems do you foresee?
Many of the things you hope for. In foreign policy, where I actually come closest to finding points of agreement with Trump on anything, I would not expect anything consistent – policy would probably swing between apathetic neglect and reckless overreaction – all of which would alienate even would be friendly nations and make war more likely rather than less. Economically I would expect probably inflation, assuming Trump would really approach doing anything like he has said, possibly severe recession, certainly a continued, if not accelerated, ballooning of the national debt, possibly serious shortages of many products. The rich will… Read more »
Economic collapse and civil strife cannot be avoided at this point, regardless of who gets elected — as you say, the permanent government controls most of those goings-on. The alternatives (I wont say choices) at this point are a speed bump that reduces or delays these things by a few years, or acceleration of it.
No, they’re liars. I thought I said that already? So when we turn to the candidate that they support, the opposite principle is comes into play. If you see anything negative in the public media about Hillary, it’s undoubtedly been minimized to the greatest possible degree. I was exaggerating with the 800 percent (“Politifact says: mostly false!”); I generally assume that Hillary’s misdeeds are only five or six times worse than whatever makes it to press.
It seems you start with an assumption and work from there.
No, I have lots of empirical data to support my view. Downright scientific, dontcha know.
Farinata claims that Trump just “exaggerated” when he said that a neighbor saw bombs all over and didn’t report it, when in fact all he had seen was that a lot of packages had been delivered. That’s quite an exaggeration. But Trump actually has said even worse: “In San Bernardino, people knew what was going on, they knew exactly, but they used the excuse of racial profiling for not reporting it,” That’s really a despicable claim. It’s a lie that only exists in Trump’s head. And he followed it with: We need to make sure every single person involved in… Read more »
Jonathan, I think your cause is hopeless. I think that if the Archangel Gabriel himself came down and testified that Muslems in New Jersey weren’t celebrating as the towers came down, people who want Trump to be president would still have no issue with his statement. It would be seen as a factual error in service of a greater truth. Or even a deliberate misstatement, but still inoculated from any charge of lying because it was a harmless fiction in service of making true Americans realize that all Muslims are No Good. And if the Archangel Gabriel insisted on sticking… Read more »
You know, some people say they saw this. Not just Trump. I wasn’t there; I suspect you weren’t either. Apparently there is a difference of opinion. I am okay with this – it’s hard to be certain about controversial situations like this, where both sides have an incentive to be less that perfectly straightforward. There’s the possibility of misunderstandings – the people who said they saw something could be mistaken, and not liars. Yet rather than accept that, you act like the only possibility is that those who disagree with you are totally irrational. I find that disappointing.
http://www.infowars.com/i-live-in-jersey-and-trump-is-right-muslims-did-celebrate-on-911-in-nj-we-saw-it/
But Trump didn’t say he was there. Trump said that he saw it on television. He said he saw thousands of people celebrating on television and that it was widely covered at the time. THAT has to be a lie, there’s no possible way to deny it. The video does not exist, and in 2010, network video broadcasted out to the country can’t simply be disappeared.
That’s odd. I seeing footage of celebrating Palestinians, but nothing explicitly from New Jersey. There are also credible reports of the muslim community in Jersey celebrating. Is it possible Trump simply conflated the two?
I am happy acknowledge, though, going on what I know now, that this appears to be a lie – at least a mistake that he doesn’t have an excuse to make. Surely Trump must employ researchers who could tell him he mixed up the facts. Perhaps he doesn’t listen to them? Or they don’t want to bother him over what is basically a detail?
To watch people cheering on a street in Palestine, and then later believe that you were watching literally “thousands and thousands of people cheering on rooftops” very specifically in “Jersey City, New Jersey”….that’s a pretty big error. But, I can still see how it’s a “possible” error to make. However, as you yourself just admitted, it’s not an error that can hold up the moment someone checks it. But that interview I posted above was the day AFTER he had made the claim at a rally, after everyone had clearly debunked it. Yet he insists over and over again to… Read more »
Where you see “no respect for truth” I see “extremely careless and arrogant”. As a lie, his claim to have seen a video that no-one can find would be totally irrational – liars are a calculating breed. It makes no sense. Trump would have to be a moron. And nobody who is a moron becomes a billionaire and stays that way for decades. You might think this is a distinction without a difference. But when you compare it to what happens with real liars – cf. the Clintons – I think the differences come into stark relief. I do agree… Read more »
How does an obvious lie make him a moron, when he never pays any significant price for lying? You’re assuming that he cares if he gets caught, and that it will hurt him. But when has he shown that he cares if he gets caught? When have his supporters shown that they care if he gets caught? When have any of his lies caused him political or financial damage in any significant way? The lie about the Muslims in Jersey City HELPED Trump’s campaign. So it’s not moronic. It’s just evil. There are several things that have hurt Trump at… Read more »
Let me ask you this: do you also acknowledge that Trump has been lied about, or is any stick good enough to beat him with?
Of course, but what does that have anything to do with anything? If I saw someone here lying about Trump in a sufficiently obnoxious manner, I would call them to task no matter how bad Trump is. Not being trustable to speak in truth at all times harms our witness as Christians, even if it’s for a supposed “good cause”. I work hard to only repeat things that I have strong receipts for.
I certainly agree that as Christians we shouldn’t be a party to lies. I bring the matter up to explain my skepticism about this, and other accusations.
I don’t think this was the intention, but that business insider article seems if anything rather exculpatory. Trump’s underlings arranged a business deal, then shafted some people; the people who got shafted never had any dealings with Trump personally, and when Trump got involved (via the court case) he settled the case by buying them off. Not the work of a saint – it would have been more honorable to have stuck with the deal determined by his “team” – but also not quite the tale of double-crossing sneakiness I was expecting.
Trump personally went to Indiana and spent extensive time telling them that casinos would hurt Gary and were a bad idea for the city. Then, the second the offered licenses, he tried to get one. That’s a rather ridiculous level of hypocrisy. Yes, he shafted his business partners and clearly double-crossed them. But he also double-crossed the charities. That deal ONLY got approved because he promised 7.5% of proceeds to go to Gary charities chosen from a specific list he made up and submitted*, along with the other 7.5% ownership by those local business partners he shafted. If you read… Read more »
Look, Gary mayor said (in the IndyStar article) “Trump met his commitments” to the city. He said he would open a casino and he did. There were some people who felt that he had let them down; there were others who seemed to feel like he was a man of his word. It’s a complicated world, real estate development is a speculative business, and i don’t see any obvious malfeasance there. Which goes back to my point. Trump has these soundbites people throw at him, but when you look into it, it’s more like “Well he was kind of right… Read more »
I point out that he managed to push his stuff by basically bribing the mayor, and then you quote the mayor as proof that Trump fulfilled his obligations? You’re not reading very well. Trump promised millions of dollars a year to Gary charities, 7.5% of all casino proceeds. He listed the exact charities that would receive that money. Not a single one got a cent, ever. Trump promised another 7.5% share of the casino to seven local investors. He listed the exact investors. Not a single one got a sent until they sued Trump for millions. Trump promised that 60%… Read more »
“Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering,” Trump said at a campaign rally in Birmingham, Alabama on Nov. 19. The next morning on ABC News, Trump defended the claim to “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos, saying, “It was on television. I saw it… It was well covered at the time, George.” Trump has continued this week to defend his claim that he saw thousands celebrating, telling New Hampshire television… Read more »
I’ve never understood this rush to identify things as “sins” or not. We’re looking at trying to be a witness, not at just trying to “avoid sin”. I think every believer should aim a lot higher than that. If you have an example of the media making a “coordinated smear campaign” that turns something that was not wrong into something that appears wrong, feel free to defend. Otherwise, it’s pretty meaningless. Russia and wikileaks are obviously coordinating the email releases to try to hurt Clinton’s campaign – does that mean we should ignore what’s in them? Of course not. We… Read more »
Jonathan, most American Christians have difficulty differentiating between sin and man’s law. What is sinful is not always unlawful and what is lawful is not always sin free. Abortion is lawful but it is murder and many American Christians think nothing about abortion being sinful. So being able to identify sin, God’s laws and man’s laws is important.
Unfortunately, the inability to understand and apply Biblical principles in our public and private daily lives has plagued us for decades and now America is in a real mess. Pray that God will deliver us from our wicked ways.
You are the one standing in judgment. I think if you are going to go around playing at being Jeremiah, you ought to do your targets the courtesy of accusing them by God’s authority, rather than your own. And the way you do that is by pointing out where their behavior violates God’s commandments (i.e. sins). Sure, how about when Trump told the winner of his beauty pageant that she had to continue looking pretty to keep her job, and everyone attacked him for misogyny? This nutcase from Venezuela became a famous person for like a week – I, who… Read more »
Why do you need to recast Trump’s statements to make them look better? Why can’t you just describe them for what they are? Why not say, “He called an employee “Miss Piggy” because she had gained weight and “Miss Housekeeping” because she was Latin American, then publicly tweeted, “Check out her sex tape”, because she criticized him”? If you like truth, mentioning the actual things he was criticized for would help a lot. If you really think Trump’s reputation for lying is a case of leftist projection, I don’t know what to say. Do you really believe that Trump does… Read more »
I get really tired of this argument that everything that happened before the tender sensibilities of the Current Year developed was reprehensible. In the 1970s I expect Trump talked and acted more or less like a normal person. I see no need to defend him doing so. I can tell you that the modern examples are pretty silly. Trump complained about Mexican rapists. You know, people who do bad things? He didn’t say “all Mexicans are rapists”, he didn’t say he didn’t like all Mexicans. Ditto with the judge – given Trumps unrelenting demonization in the press, the widespread, hysterical… Read more »
You ignored the racist statement about Black people he made to the president of Trump Plaza, the racist things he did to please Robert Libutti, the Central Park 5, the anti-Indian casino testimony, the Gary casino deal, the anti-Indian gambling campaign, the Birther campaign, his lies about Black people and Black crime, and the retweeting and courting of the White Nationalist movement. Trump has created a racist image for himself, to the degree that plenty of racist people strongly identify with his campaign. You can’t claim that’s a media creation and that the racists just haven’t been able to see… Read more »
It takes less time to sling twenty accusations than to answer them. I don’t expect I’ll be able to keep up with you if this is a race, so I went for the incidents I already knew something about. Let’s focus on the comment about Mexicans, which you still seem to feel is egregious. I don’t see that at all. If you set aside the lunatic notion that everyone in the world has the right to live in America, then the question re: immigration is how to choose. Most countries select immigrants on the basis of what will benefit their… Read more »
As I pointed out already, immigrants (both illegal and not) have lower crime rates than native-born Americans. So Trump’s claim is obviously misdirected. You still haven’t told me why his claim is okay, but my hypothetical regarding Christ Church would not be. Your only defense is that those who immigrate are poor, and therefore aren’t likely to be good. Well, that’s a strange defense, because do you want to hazard a guess at the socioeconomic demographic of a lot of Trump’s audience? If the main deficiency of Mexican immigrants is that they come from the poorer sector of society, then… Read more »
The crime rate of illegal immigrants is fair game because the crime rate among all immigrants should be zero. It’s like the crime rate of houseguests – these are people who want to live in our place. It’s not theirs. We should be picking awesome people who make us happy. Not those whose qualification is “not quite as bad as our domestic underclass”. At any rate, that’s not a racist comment. It’s based on very straightforward facts. Illegal immigrants are criminals by definition; they clearly don’t respect our laws. Americans can be criminals too. Fine – we have to deal… Read more »
p.s. – what did you think of Trump kicking that elderly Black man out of his rally the other day and calling him a thug?
Okay, two more. Would you expect a Jewish judge to be impartial if he were judging a boundary dispute involving the local Nazi party? Trump being judged by this man, and is well within his rights to make an issue of his putative impartiality. He may be wrong as a matter of fact, but I don’t see why raising the issue is out of bounds. Even Mexican-heritage judges are human, so I hear. I see a lot of spin in your attacks on Trump. The woman he insulted was not just”a woman” or “an employee”. She was a beauty queen… Read more »
Yes, I would expect a Jewish judge to be impartial. That’s what judges do. I do appreciate that you think Trump’s relationship with Mexicans is reaching a level that makes the relationship between Nazis and Jews your go-to comparison. Now, let’s go back to the question I asked. Would you expect a White judge to be impartial in a case where a Black person had targeted a White person due to their race? Do you believe that racist Black criminals should be able to request that any White judge be removed from their case? How is that not an exact… Read more »
I don’t think he is necessarily a hard-core racist. He would not have survived on the NYC cocktail party circuit if he were. Had he talked there the way he has talked through this campaign, he would have been seen as white trash–and that is the kiss of death. But I think he is a man of limited ideas, outside his own particular expertise. I think he possibly thinks in a kind of shorthand in which women are either “hot” or “dogs”, good Mexicans have long siestas when they’re not eating rice and beans while bad Mexicans rape little girls… Read more »
I think your explanation is quite likely to be true.
Well sure, he ought to be impartial. But even the idea that a Jewish judge might be a teensy bit inclined to dislike Nazis, and that that might have some effect on his evaluation of the evidence… that doesn’t even seem possible to you? Because judges are magic, or what? I can’t accept that you’re so naive. Trump’s putative antipathy to other races is portrayed in hyperbolic terms, by you among many others. I don’t think that is an accurate description. But you can read op-ed columns all day explaining why Trump is literally Hitler, and the candidate of racial… Read more »
Sorry, I didn’t see the rest of this. In answer to your question, re: a white judge and a black panther, I frankly don’t know for certain. I can easily imagine a case where the defendant’s racism could seem like a prejudicial factor – even if a judge is, in fact, impartial, even the appearance of partiality is bad for the rule of law. I think judges are human, and that the failure of equality before the law is a necessary casualty of our general slide toward identity and tribal politics. I’ve heard complaints about white judges and all-white juries… Read more »
Would you have questioned Scalia’s partiality in hearing a dispute about between a pizza conglomerate and a Kosher hot dog company? Should Clarence Thomas recuse himself from any issue involving affirmative action or race relations? Getting down to actual cases, should Chief Justice Warren Burger, the child of German parents, have recused himself from ruling on whether Nazi Americans had the right to march through Skokie, Illinois? (He ruled that they could–should we think his German ancestry tainted his vote?) Should Judge Kaufman have been prevented from hearing the Rosenberg trial (even though he sentenced them to death)? Justice Sotomayor… Read more »
I am not arguing that Trump is right that his Mexican judge would be biased against him. I just don’t think it should be out of bounds to raise the question. After all, haven’t you heard complaints from the left about white juries sentencing black men? Have you not heard about systemic racism? I don’t think tribalism and racial identity politics are good for America. But if that is the world we’re going to live in, then I do object to getting huffy only when one side engages in that kind of thing. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the… Read more »
Uberti wrote: This is a fair answer to the sort of people who think the Presidency is basically equivalent to the Messiah. Wilson’s argument was that this was the least important election in our lifetime, not the most important. Those who are in a panic against the #NeverTrumpers seem to be the ones who have invested their trust in horses and chariots. If the President is not our Messiah, then Uberti shouldn’t mind if I don’t vote for Trump. Voting for someone who is a faithful Christian does not mean that I think they are my savior, it simply describes… Read more »
I don’t mind – it’s a free country, for the moment. But I object to you drawing support for your view from Jesus. Jesus didn’t instruct his disciples with respect to electing a secular democratic government, because that wasn’t an option at the time. So your comment about choosing between pharisees and saduccees is irrelevant. Of course we prioritize Christ and his kingdom over America and both candidates. But that doesn’t settle the question of this election in the country of America.
Uberti wrote: But I object to you drawing support for your view from Jesus. Jesus didn’t instruct his disciples with respect to electing a secular democratic government, because that wasn’t an option at the time. So your comment about choosing between pharisees and saduccees is irrelevant. With respect to deciding among powerful factions, this is just not true. Just because it wasn’t conducted in a ballot booth doesn’t mean there wasn’t a great deal of pressure to align with the major parties of the day. Sectarianism between established factions was all around. There were Jews, like Matthew, collecting taxes for… Read more »
The trouble is that you are making an argument from silence. “Jesus didn’t say this or that, hence we should do the following.” That’s pretty weak sauce. Jesus made almost no comment whatsoever, and took virtually no action, with regard to earthly politics. He didn’t support the collaborationists, nor the zealots. Nor, to my knowledge, did he condemn the Roman side in the border wars with Parthia, even though these struggles were nearly continuous in his day, and funded in part by the tax he consented to pay. By this, presumably, we are instructed that great-power proxy struggles are legitimate… Read more »
Uberti wrote: The trouble is that you are making an argument from silence. “Jesus didn’t say this or that, hence we should do the following.” That’s pretty weak sauce. I’m not sure that Uberti established my burden of proof. My position is stronger sauce than what I’ve heard from the lesser-of-two-evils crowd. It is the lesser-of-two evils crowd that is advocating that we are bound to weigh the major factions and align pragmatically with one of them by voluntarily voting for it. Where is the Scriptural argument for this mandate? Jesus had the opportunity to use pragmatic or self-interested reasoning… Read more »
If you are only trying to defend the proposition that the Bible does not constrain you to choose between two candidates, neither of whom you prefer, then you have no argument from me. I understood you to be making a stronger claim than that.
Uberti wrote: Christ had bigger fish to fry – the kingdom that is not of this world. So while it is fair enough to call on Christians to avoid making an idol of political success, you don’t get to say “Jesus broke completely from he major parties of his day” in order to suggest that he founded some new and different political order. That just ain’t so. Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world, it is of Heaven, but the realm of Christ’s Kingdom is this world; His will being done here as it is in Heaven. Jesus is King… Read more »
I never suggested that Christ is indifferent to the character of earthly rulers. I also think that wicked rulers, when they do wickedness, should be opposed. But those premises we hold in common do not imply that a man who is not a Christian, may not hold office, nor that Christians cannot vote for or support such a man.
My view is that, as with all matters to which the Bible does not speak, either directly, or by good and necessary consequence, this is a matter of conscience. If you grant that we are agreed.
Right, if you really can’t figure out which candidate is better than don’t vote. But as long as we’re voting, writing in a candidate has even less value than voting. It doesn’t mean anything except that it makes some people feel better.
I thought it was, “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” (Red Sanders, UCLA Bruins Coach)
I got my version from Charles Schulz, if I remember correctly.
I only know mine from Trivial Pursuit which I played competitively, i.e., for money. This necessitated me memorizing the sports sections of almanacs, which was painful in the extreme,
I always acted quintessentially blonde during the warm up rounds while people placed their bets. Then POW!
Political cool-shaming was not attempted in my posting. Sorry that you took it that way.
Reminds me of a quote from Babylon5… “When the avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote”.
How much of the election hysteria goes away if you remove the Supreme Court from the equation? No matter how lackluster the R, voting for them is inevitably urged due to SC appointments. And it makes sense, because with 9 justices a single president can effect a large swing, say from 5-4 liberal to 5-4 conservative, or from 5-4 either to 6-3, locking in the majority for a potential long time. This seems degenerate: a single presidential election should not have this kind of enormous impact on another branch of government. What if we then raised the number of justices… Read more »
What we should do is realize that the supreme (*) Court is exercising powers the Constitution does not grant it. And, further, we should realize that the federal courts — including the supreme Court — are Constitutionally subservient to the Congress.
(*) that capitalization is intentional, and follows that used in the Constitution
Umm no. You do know that the 3 branches of the Government are equal, and perform checks and balances on each other?
Why is it that people who are about the expose their ignorance — and, generally, ignorance that *will not* be corrected — so often start off with that stupid “umm” meme?
Why don’t you *read* the Constitution, and then get back with us?
Gee that’s funny the very same thought came to me when I read your comment. I say “umm” cause you seem like a smart guy, but then start espousing theories of law that were outdated, or over-ruled, or considered on the fringe. See your comments on Natural Born Citizens.
The three branches of our government are equal and separate. They check and balance each other. Look up separation of powers, I mean really, this is law 101.
Your understanding of how USG works is about as accurate as the tale of Washington chopping down the cherry tree.
Thanks! How you figure?
Oh, please don’t shatter the illusions of the immigrant. Why else would I have come here if not for that? Next you will be telling me that Lincoln did not get up in the middle of the night and trudge through the snow to return a library book, or that Franklin did not say that “all cats are grey in the dark.”
My favorite is Lincoln building the log cabin he was born in.
Also, the turning point of WW2 was that time Captain America punched Hitler in the face.
Oh no, it was Captain Canuck.
Be gentle with me, remembering that I am a stranger to your shores and still learning. I was taught, in my handy guide to becoming a citizen, that Marbury v. Madison established the right for the Supreme Court to decide whether a law conflicted with the Constitution. Do you dispute this? If so, what did the framers intend the court to be and do?
I’m always gentle. Well, except with people who refuse to reason. “I was taught, in my handy guide to becoming a citizen, that Marbury v. Madison established the right for the Supreme Court to decide whether a law conflicted with the Constitution.” I’m sure you were taught that. I’m sure you were also taught that the US Constitution establishes three co-equal branches of government. Both statements are false, and the second is false in two ways: 1) it is false de jure: the Constitution does not establish three co-equal branches of government; it establishes a Congress, comprised of two Houses,… Read more »
Were we supposed to notice that Pedro is a donkey?
In Texas, I am voting for Tom Hoefling.
https://www.facebook.com/tom.hoefling?fref=ts
https://www.facebook.com/TomHoefling2016/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/americasparty/
Below are excepts from Donald Trump’s speech in Gettyrburg, PA. This is the most courageous and conservative platform we have heard from a Republican nominee in 50 years. Ben Sasse would never make this speech. The NeverTrumpers would never make this speech. They don’t have the freedom to do it. When I look at the list of nevertrumpers, I honestly can’t think of a better enemies list in modern politics. The nevertrumpers, a petty and spiteful bunch of moralists and globalists, remind me of the scene from the movie The Hunt for Red October. After the Soviet torpedo guy is… Read more »
You nevertrumpers enjoy your HRC/GOPe upcoming war with Russia.
Steve Schlissel: “Grump for Trump” (30 mins)
www[dot]youtube[dot]com/watch?v=MGDQv6h465o
Jame’s White: “My Personal Response to Steve Schlissel’s Pronouncements” (11 mins)
www[dot]youtube[dot]com/watch?v=GUUxQtTBuYU
A man died and arrived at the pearly gates in impeccable white robes. As he was about to walk through the gates, Saint Peter called to him and said, “I have some questions for you before you can enter.” The man looked at the line of people going in, many of them with spotted and besmirched robes and just knew that he was going to be rewarded for keeping his robes so pristine. He sauntered up to Saint Peter, and said, “Here I am.” Saint Peter looked down at a clipboard and said, “It says here that in 2016 you… Read more »
I still maintain that Trump is the most american candidate.
If by american you are including American Christians, then I totally agree.
I’m certainly not excluding them.
This is still poignant nearly eight years after its writing as we go into yet another election cycle.
Except I don’t think your upholding of Ben Sasse as a noble figure has aged well. Haven’t heard his name in a while, but last I checked he was pretty far down the road that leads to David French.