Monday, November 28, 2016

Christian concerns about Trump

Here. 

If you’re a Christian who voted for Trump, I understand your concerns — jobs, the economy, health care, national security, frustration with the political status quo. What I don’t understand is your heart. All factors considered, were Trump’s calls for massive deportation of immigrants, along with his anti-Semitic dog whistling, racist commentary, documented history of misogyny and his mocking of the vulnerable, worth overlooking in favor of his shaky promises to make things better in your world? If, as Christians, we’re supposed to love our neighbor, a vote for Trump seems a little suspect. Am I wrong? If so, tell me how.

33 comments:

oozzielionel said...

I would assume that anyone voting for a candidate is trying to do the right thing. When I voted, I did not vote fore the weaknesses of the candidate, I voted for strengths. I also voted against the weaknesses of the other candidate. Do not assume that my vote is an endorsement of the weaknesses of one candidate and a repudiation of the strengths of another candidate. That is not my intent. However, we will all live with the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate we get. There was no clear Christian way to vote this time or any other time.

B. Prokop said...

Ever since I've been eligible, I've had an unbroken record of voting for the candidate and not for the party. I voted for both Barry Goldwater and George McGovern. I voted for Gerald Ford, John Anderson, and Ronald Reagan. I voted for Barack Obama (twice), and I desperately wanted to vote for a Republican this year
(8 years in office is enough for any party, no matter which one).

But Donald Trump was a non-starter for me from the get-go. I could not support a candidate who:

- insults prisoners of war
- blasphemes against the Holy Eucharist (all by itself, a deal-breaker for me)
- mocks disabled persons
- picks a fight with the Pope
- demonstrates a complete disregard for facts
- embraces every batshit conspiracy theory to come down the pike
- boasts of his multiple marital infidelities
- engages in so-called "locker room talk" (I've been in plenty of locker rooms in my time. Heck, I've been in the Army. Never have I heard language even remotely resembling the rancid bilge that flowed out of Trump's mouth on that bus.)
- Fat-shames people (I say this as a fat person.)
- threatens to jail his political opponent
- is a total narcissist
- refers to people as "losers"
- apparently has no self-control whatsoever (and we want to give the nuclear codes to this man?)
- contradicts himself every third sentence, and then denies he ever said things which are clearly recorded for all to hear
- consorts with white nationalists and anti-Semites
- has the endorsement of the KKK
- puts his own business interests ahead of the country's

And as I said, I really, really wanted to support a Republican candidate this year. Too bad I wasn't given the chance.

To hell with party, ideology, left vs. right, partisanship - the person is what counts, not the label. Trump was/is a totally unacceptable choice.

Victor Reppert said...

Something I forgot to point out when this came up a couple of weeks ago. A person, not a party, has its finger on the nuclear button.

B. Prokop said...

And I forgot one item for my list:

- Who admires and praises the world's worst dictators, while threatening our allies

SteveK said...

You could say something similar about every candidate, Victor. Every candidate has a list of personal shortcomings. I don't vote FOR the list of personal shortcomings. I vote FOR policy issues. Voting for the enforcement of the law - immigration law, specifically - isn't anything to be ashamed of.

B. Prokop said...

"Every candidate has a list of personal shortcomings."

But surely some "personal shortcomings" ought to be deal breakers for a conscientious voter? If a candidate took the identical stance on every last policy issue as you, but was also a pedophile or a serial killer, could you still vote for him? So the question is, where does one draw the line (for lines will be drawn)? At what point do the "shortcomings" outweigh issues?

Steve says he votes for issues, and not for the candidate. I can understand that, but like Victor I would like to know just how far one can do so without going a bridge too far. Does character then mean nothing? And if it does, just how much weight ought it be given?

SteveK said...

The line in the sand varies with each person, Bob. We are free to decide.

steve said...

I didn't vote for Trump. However, the problem with the post is that it's one-sided. Is it not Christian to vote for Trump but Christian to vote for Hillary? It would be trivially easy to generate a long list of negatives regarding Hillary.

B. Prokop said...

" It would be trivially easy to generate a long list of negatives regarding Hillary."

I totally agree. The biggest for me was her unapologetic pro-abortion (going far beyond "pro-choice") stance, especially her insistence that the Hyde Amendment be overturned. She was also throwing out red flags all over the place with her use of the phrase "freedom of worship" rather than the Constitution's "freedom of religion".

Indeed a conscientious Christian was in a genuine bind this year, with no good choices. The whole election sickened me. Can this nation of 350,000,000 people not come up with 2 better candidates than these "deplorables" (both of them)?

Gyan said...

"calls for massive deportation of immigrants"

False. And shows argument is in bad faith.
Replace "immigrants" by "illegal immigrants" and what he called for is nothing very exceptional.

John Moore said...

Maybe the candidate's character only matters insofar as it makes you trust (or not trust) that they will honestly try to carry out the policies they have advocated.

In Trump's case, his character is a secondary concern because he didn't seriously advocate any policies. He said a lot of things, but most of that was clearly untrue, impractical or contradictory. It all seems to have been just bluster.

Now we have no clear idea what he'll do at all. He's a black box.

SteveK said...

Geez, John Moore. You might want to do some reading.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/22/trump-lays-out-policies-for-first-100-days-of-white-house/

SteveK said...

Or, if you prefer, a video from Trump himself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waiwbE7OpE8

B. Prokop said...

SteveK,

You haven't answered the question yet. Does character play a part in your voting decision? And if so, where do you draw the line between what you can overlook, and what is a deal breaker?

I'll go first. I've discussed this already at (great) length over on Crude's blog. For me, Trump disqualified himself with his "my little cracker" comment. That was the point at which I wrote him off for good - unless he apologized. He never did, and I never budged from my position that until he did, he was anathema to me. He still is.

So do you draw any lines, or are you OK with voting for a child molester because he agrees with you politically?

Joe Hinman said...

John Moore


"Now we have no clear idea what he'll do at all. He's a black box."

bet I wont like it.

Joe Hinman said...

Gyan

False. And shows argument is in bad faith.
Replace "immigrants" by "illegal immigrants" and what he called for is nothing very exceptional.

on what planet? deporting 11 m people is sure as hell exceptional.

Joe Hinman said...

But Donald Trump was a non-starter for me from the get-go. I could not support a candidate who:

- insults prisoners of war
- blasphemes against the Holy Eucharist (all by itself, a deal-breaker for me)
- mocks disabled persons
- picks a fight with the Pope
- demonstrates a complete disregard for facts
- embraces every batshit conspiracy theory to come down the pike
- boasts of his multiple marital infidelities
- engages in so-called "locker room talk" (I've been in plenty of locker rooms in my time. Heck, I've been in the Army. Never have I heard language even remotely resembling the rancid bilge that flowed out of Trump's mouth on that bus.)
- Fat-shames people (I say this as a fat person.)
- threatens to jail his political opponent
- is a total narcissist
- refers to people as "losers"
- apparently has no self-control whatsoever (and we want to give the nuclear codes to this man?)
- contradicts himself every third sentence, and then denies he ever said things which are clearly recorded for all to hear
- consorts with white nationalists and anti-Semites
- has the endorsement of the KKK
- puts his own business interests ahead of the country's


but other than that...

Joe Hinman said...

gee nob one listed agent of a foreign power, you would think that would a deal breaker but hey, he's the nominee of God's own party.

SteveK said...

Bob,
Between a child molester wanting to enforce existing laws and a serial murderer wanting to ignore them, I'll take Chester the molester. I expect neither character flaw to make its way into the US system of government as a matter of policy or law. Yes, character matters. No, name calling and crude language aren't a deal breaker. You do the best you can.

Joe Hinman said...

the idea that Hillary murdered people is sheer stupidity.

SteveK said...

Who said that?

SteveK said...

I wasn't referring to any actual candidate.

SteveK said...

Joe
What's exceptional to me is a government that allows however many people to live here illegally.

TheCharles said...

I voted for Trump and thought a lot about this before the election.

I disagree about the characterization of his character, at least on a few points. He is for the deportation of illegal immigrants, not immigrants in general. They are breaking the law and no non-citizen has a right to become a resident of the US.

I don't think that Trump is a racist (his Mara-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach was the first in the city to accept Jewish people and African Americans) and I don't think that he is anti-Semitic (he has a Jewish daughter and grandchildren.)

This is a longish article about the coverage of Trump being a racist/anti-LGBT/anti-Jewish by someone who endorsed Clinton.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/

The way that he talks is ugly, but as far as I can tell, Clinton is just as ugly, but is better at not doing it in public. It was a wash from my perspective if we are using language to judge character.

Dave Duffy said...

From the link:

"Still, to put it in theological terms, I’m pissed. I can’t stand the postelection suffering around me — more than one person I know has broken out in shingles from stress. Migraines and insomnia are the norm. Virtually everyone I know is walking around in a state of panic, dread and low-level rage. Including me."

"I'm pissed" there's theology for you passed on by a philosophy professor.

Grow up. The world is a messy place. Endure some real suffering and you will find how insignificant an election that doesn't go your way is. We live in a fallen world. Serving others in the name of Christ since I've been a Christian has taught me who the manipulators are. She's a manipulator.

Victor Reppert said...

Political leaders can, and sometimes do, do a great deal of harm, and some people can get badly hurt by bad decisions by political leaders.

But politics in America is cyclical, almost by nature. After the two term limit was passed after FDR, on only one occasion has a single party won three consecutive elections, when two terms of Reagan was followed by one of Bush Sr.

I do think she overlooks some of the things that concern Christians about Democrats, particularly the failure to defend religious freedom and slippage from pro-choice to pro-abortion.

People assume that a President can execute their programme, when it's very difficult to do. When the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House after the 2008 election Obama was able to get Obamacare enacted, but he proposed it with a public option, which he never got.

Joe Hinman said...

Grow up. The world is a messy place. Endure some real suffering and you will find how insignificant an election that doesn't go your way is. We live in a fallen world. Serving others in the name of Christ since I've been a Christian has taught me who the manipulators are. She's a manipulator.

Bull shit,84,000 Salvadorans, 60,000 Guatemalans and 70,000 Nicaraguans died in the 809 who would nit have died had 'Reagan not won in 80. God how I wish Reagan was in now. Trump is going to be Much worse.No such thing as just an election

Joe Hinman said...

The way that he talks is ugly, but as far as I can tell, Clinton is just as ugly, but is better at not doing it in public. It was a wash from my perspective if we are using language to judge character.

sorry but that is glossing over the content, don't minimize
Trump's BS with labeling it just ugly talk,. it's indicative of his racism and sexism and anti-democratic tendencies Hillary has no such problems

Joe Hinman said...

I don't think that Trump is a racist (his Mara-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach was the first in the city to accept Jewish people and African Americans) and I don't think that he is anti-Semitic (he has a Jewish daughter and grandchildren.)

he accepted then as paying costumers, all racists do that, Besides racism is no necessarily anti-seitism,."look at my African american over there he's got those big eyes O he doesn't like it" and "I do get on so with the black people." all the black people I know are offended by these comments,

Joe Hinman said...

Joe
What's exceptional to me is a government that allows however many people to live here illegally.

If other countries want to jump off a cliff will you jump off a cliff? it's declined 85% since 2007. Since Trump's candidacy it;s comeback up.

TheCharles said...

Besides racism is no necessarily anti-seitism

Glad we can drop the contention that Trump is anti-Semitic.

he accepted then as paying costumers, all racists do that,

Right, that is why there were all those "Whites Only" signs during the Jim Crow era. Look at this image and tell me that Trump is a racist.

http://bit.ly/2gknBeO

The message of his campaign was the same pro-diversity, inclusive rhetoric that we get from all national politicians, including outreach efforts (see below). Did Clinton do any outreach to white evangelicals? Mormons? Didn't think so.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/03/politics/donald-trump-black-voters-detroit/index.html

Dave Duffy said...

"Political leaders can, and sometimes do, do a great deal of harm, and some people can get badly hurt by bad decisions by political leaders."

Yes, especially if you are in the military. I don't remember seeing her level of stress (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/shingles/basics/causes/con-20019574) over bad decisions that directly effected people in harms way.

She's a manipulator.

Agreed that the president is one branch of government and each branch is minor in comparison to the vast federal bureaucracy. Sadly.

Jo F said...

Dr. Report, the choice between a lesser of two evils is one of the most basic moral choices there are. It's necessary, and would be immature to chose otherwise, wouldn't it? To suggest I have a heart problem will allow me to be a bit more confrontational:

By voting for Trump, I did not condone his actions, I did not say "racism is what I want for my country," I did not say that I think he deserves to be president. I voted for Trump because it was the best option, and I'd rather choose than not, which would have let Hillary win in my state if everyone took the view that we should abstain from voting altogether. I did this because Hillary's actually tried to cheat her way into the presidency, and I'm simply not going to let that happen. I did this because, had I or you or anyone else dealt with classified information to the level of criminality that Hillary Clinton has, we'd be in jail. You better believe it. A vote for Hillary is irresponsible, given our power as US citizens, so my I suggest there is a heart problem with voting *for* her in spite of the judges she would appoint to the supreme court, the money she has allotted from our foreign enemies, the awful leadership decisions she has made which lead to the death of US soldiers, the genocide of the unborn?

I voted *against* Hillary, not *for* Trump. As did many, many of his followers. And no, even his voters who did think he deserves the presidency, even those who think highly of him: this does not make them bad people. They have likely not realized what he has done wrong. The question of whether Trump's voters are morally good or not is one of whether they fully support his sins, and given that most of them do not, the real question is one of factuality, not morality: do they know just how bad Trump is? And even if they realize just how unfit he is, they are still in the right for voting for him, given the indubitable evils that would entail a vote for Hillary.