This is not about Megyn Kelley after the first Republican debate where Trump said, “There was blood coming out of her.” It is not about Carly Florina about whom Trump said, “look at that face.” Nor does it concern Governor Jindal who was the brunt of the Trump retort, “I don’t respond to anyone not polling above 1%.” It is not about Jeb Bush, Illegal Immigrants, China, Mexico, or Nabisco. Trump appears to always be misunderstood. He is always the victim, or so it seems.
Victims As Supporters
Maybe it is an audacious claim. It could be a desperate search for a reasonable, or not so reasonable, explanation that Trump now polls above 30% among Republican voters. The same poll reports Trump is drawing more women. And, there is still the head-shaking statistic that Trump is polling stronger among Evangelicals. Though, Ben Carson appears to be drawing away many as his numbers rise.
What is Trump’s draw? What is his secret? Yes, Trump is plain-spoken if you mean he pulls few punches. But, try to pin him down on specifics, of say his immigration plan, and you find he offers as much gobbledygook as any career politician.
What if the answer is that Trump appeals to the feeling among his supporters that they are victims? Remember, Trump is the victim of trap questions, of misunderstanding, and of bad hair jokes. Google Trump Hair. That Trump has his victims is not a reference to the long list of people he has offended. Instead we may be witnessing a group of people who feel victimized identifying with someone who knows how to play the victim.
Evangelical Victims
A recent NPR story illustrates something of Donald Trump’s appeal. Many people have not heard what Russell Moore and others have been saying. It also seems they have not paid careful attention to Trump according to the NPR piece.
Here is Moore’s analysis, “Trump has made his living as a casino mogul in an industry that preys on the poor and incentivizes immoral and often criminal behavior,” said Dr. Russell Moore, head of the influential Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
Moore offered a searingly blunt assessment of the current GOP front-runner in an interview with NPR. “He’s someone who is an unrepentant serial adulterer who has abandoned two wives for other women,” he added. “He’s someone who has spoken in vulgar and harsh terms about women, as well as in ugly and hateful ways about immigrants and other minorities. I don’t think this is someone who represents the values that evangelicals in this country aspire to.”
No matter what Moore might say, or for that matter any other leading Evangelical, it appears there is a deeper appeal than what once stood as the criterion for Value’s Voters. Instead of choosing someone who allies with core Christian values it appears Evangelicals being polled find it more important that Trump speaks boldly. We preachers and Evangelicals like boldness. And, when we can boldly claim we are victims of a run amok system we like it even better.
If boldness is the trump card, why not write in Kanye West ahead of 2020?
Lowering the Bar
In all my years as a Southern Baptist pastor/minister/minister-to-be, more than 30 years, the slippery slope has been a staple in the bag of those fear mongering the future. Imagine my surprise when the pastor of what was once considered THE flagship Southern Baptist Church makes these remarks,
Robert Jeffress, pastor of the megachurch First Baptist Dallas, wrote that evangelical voters aren’t under any delusion that Trump believes the same as them. Instead, they’re just glad he’s closer to their beliefs than President Obama:
“No Evangelical I know is expecting Trump to lead our nation in a spiritual revival. But seven years of Barack Obama have drastically lowered the threshold of spiritual expectations Evangelicals have of their president. No longer do they require their president to be one of them. Evangelicals will settle for someone who doesn’t HATE them like the current occupant of the Oval Office appears to.”
Lowering the threshold was always reported as a Liberal move. Our denomination had a Conservative Resurgence to ward off Liberal Drift. Now because we feel we have been victimized by the occupant of the White House, we lower the threshold? Of course it is because President Obama is not their kind of Christian. Even more, most still believe President Obama is a closet(ed) Muslim. The narrative plays out that President Obama deliberately slights Evangelicals, makes them victims, persecutes them. So, it justifies lowering the threshold, lowering the bar.
My what we do with Jesus’ words when we feel the victim, those among the persecuted. Maybe it is the Blood Moon.
Todd, I saw a poll yesterday (I think someone referenced it here, or was it Facebook?) indicating that support for Trump among committed evangelicals is much lower than the media depicts. I watched a question being asked in an interview the other day and was amazed at the laziness and inaccuracy of the question. Trump is in the high 20s in some polls, low 30s in others. He’s never gotten above that number (never will, I think). His numbers among committed evangelicals are much lower. Self-identified evangelicals (which includes a lot of people who wouldn’t know one of the Four Spiritual Laws if it tried to arrest them) give Trump support, but among those with strong commitment to Christ and biblical values, his support wanes considerably.
I did see a poll that included evangelical leaders. Hillary actually had more support than Trump among evangelical leaders.
Dave, I agree the whole charade is a media induced frenzy. That said, I cannot fathom Pastor Jeffress’s lower threshold in light of Russ Moore’s scathing analysis of Trump. So, using your comment, I suspect Jeffress is either an anomaly or proof there is more to the numbers than we like to think. Based on my FB feed, it is a toss up.
Not being disrespectful here, and not supporting Trump, but 98% of Americans have never heard of Russell Moore, probably 85-90 % of Southern Baptists couldn’t pick him out of a line up or tell you what he does. He may be right, but he has little real clout as a voice except among preachers. Same could be said maybe in. Slightly different percentage about Mohler, Akin and many more.
Jeffress is on multiple channels preaching weekly and FOX News regularly. Far more know him and right or wrong, he’s more of a face for the SBC than Moore, Mohler or many others we make look at to the average pew sitter or American.
Jeff,
I wrote this with the SBC in mind. Maybe there are quite a few in the SBC who do not know who Moore is. I presume fewer SBC folks know about Jeffress outside of Texas.
People know Jeffress because he’s on TV. I doubt the know the church he pastors but they know his face, at least far more than know Moore. One of the issues we have is we really have no face for getting a message to the masses. Best known SB today is probably Huckabee or Cruz but they aren’t seen as SBC. We really could use a prominent spokesman who could garner some attention via name recognition
Todd, a lot more folks will know who Russell Moore is after his article in today’s New York Times, called, “Have Evangelicals who Support Trump Lost their Values?” Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/opinion/have-evangelicals-who-support-trump-lost-their-values.html?ref=opinion&_r=1
His specific comment is pretty strong when he says:
“To back Mr. Trump, these voters must repudiate everything they believe.”
My problem with his comment is that I didn’t see Moore saying this about evangelicals who supported Barack Obama in the past and I don’t see him making such a strong statement today about Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders who received a warm welcome at Liberty University. Does anyone else think if you’re going to make a comment like this it should apply to all candidates for whom it applies, not just those that Pastor Robert Jeffess happened to support.
Dave Miller, if your comment is true that “Hillary actually had more support than Trump among evangelical leaders.” this is appalling. How can evangelicals of any sort support Hillary when she is the most enthusiastic supporter of the unfettered right of a woman to have an abortion throughout the term of a pregnancy. Her husband vetoed the first law that was passed by Congress to ban late term, Partial Birth Abortions. If he had not vetoed that law, such procedures (which have been exposed in the recent videos by the Center for Medical Progress) would not be occurring now.
I am not a Trump supporter, but my concern is if the election is a race between Hillary and Trump, many evangelicals may either not vote or vote for Hillary because they have been told by Russell Moore (in scathing his New York Times op-ed piece today) not to vote for Trump because of his personal sins and the fact he has made his wealth though gambling which takes money from the poor.
Trump has said that he is now Pro-Life and that he would appoint South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy as his Attorney General. Gowdy is Southern Baptist and would be a tremendous improvement over Eric Holder.
Can someone please explain to me how these so called “Evangelical Leaders” can support Hillary Clinton. I realize that there have been Evangelical leaders in the past who have shown some degree of support to Obama like Orland pastor, Joel Hunter and Willow Creek’s Bill Hybels. It is hard to understand their implicit support given the policy positions of this administration and I am afraid that we are seeing a similar situation with all of the Trump bashing so intensely that some evangelicals will migrate to Hillary’s camp in 2016.
Personally, I thought Carly Fiorina trounced Trump last night and she would make Hillary “mop the floor is the two of them were in a debate. I thought Rubio did well, too.
David, Here’s a shot at an explanation. Evangelicals (SBC and a host of others who believe the term applies to them) have adopted a Catholic-type form of “religion.” They’re just trying to get their ticket punched for the after life. One would think that the recent SCOTUS decision on SSM and the PP videos would jump start their religious hearts, but it apparently has not.
The Evangelical vote tipped the scale for Clinton in his re-election. This was AFTER the blue dress.
If that is the case the term “evangelical” is way too broad if it includes some of the people on that video.
Trump is merely a megalomaniac that is feeding off of the ‘outrage media’ swamp we all now swim in. A loud mouth, chest-beating misogynist with little respect outside those who feed from his trough will not make it as any kind of leader. To say that Trump is better than Obama is akin to saying opium is better than heroin.
The bottle rocket will soon come back to earth. In the mean time we get to be entertained by a clown act in the middle of the circus.
I am no supporter of Trump. But, I would vote for Trump 100 times out of 100, before I would vote for Obama, or Hillary.
David
I think this is really interesting, but I think there’s more to it. Right now a lot of evangelicals are avid (some might say rabid) followers of the talking heads in conservative talk radio, and right now they are schilling for Trump big time. What Hannity thinks today, many Christians will think tomorrow. One of the things these talking heads have been very successful at is painting illegal immigrants as sort of the North American wing of ISIS. So Trump’s wild-eyed idea of turning America into a gated community is gaining traction. They haven’t given a thought to the amount of private property the government will have to seize to make a wall a reality.
” They haven’t given a thought to the amount of private property the government will have to seize to make a wall a reality.”
I support a wall of some sort – but you are right – an to be honest I had no considered that either.
We know that Trump is a BIG BIG time supporter of eminent domain.
A study came out today that reported CNN coverage of the republican presidential race Trump had 75% of the air time. 15 other candidates split the rest of the 25% of the coverage.
I am sure the other networks score about the same.
Free press helps poll numbers. I am more concerned why coverage is so out of balance. What is the press up to?
As far as your victim hood theory goes. I don’t see it being true, but I don’t support Trump.
How can Bernie Sanders be leading in Iowa and New Hampshire a devout self proclaimed Socialist. How can Hillary even be free on bail. Her own state department had DOJ bring charges against people at state that did far less in the way of improper securing of data.
When you figure out whats really going on, write that article I would love to read it.
John,
The CNN numbers out are similar to what was reported on Fox weeks ago. I think you are correctd. Maybe the issue is how much coverage Trump is getting.
My interest in this race has been what it means that Trump polls well among Evangelicals. I don’t support him either. But, when Pastor Jeffress comes out and defends those who are supporting Trump that means something. Add the fact that he just led the prayer at a Trump rally in Dallas. He noted in one of the videos linked that he had been invited to meet with Trump. This is not a fringe supporter, at least to many.
The Democratic side of this race is, I think, easier to explain. It’s the anti-Hillary thing. Should Biden enter the race, I don’t think Bernie can defeat him, much less Clinton.
Should I move from speculation and interesting connections to definitive conclusions, I will see if Dave will carry that post. Until then, I will likely spend some time thinking about how poor discipleship and the insatiable desire to have political influence is clouding the minds and interests of those Evangelicals supporting Trump.
Ecclesiastes and Vanity may be the best way to explain what we are witnessing. If I may be so vane in proposing this. For all is vanity.
John,
There is little doubt some of what we see is vain. But it does expose the how the cultural winds are blowing the religious vane.
I think the post is spot on in many respects, at least in what is being said at many levels. However, it seems to me that we are over thinking this. The central concern for conservative voters seems to be who can beat Clinton. At this point it seems that Trump has the best chance in the minds of many voters. I don’t like Trump but I am not sure anyone else can take the election from her.
DL: I think just the opposite. I think a Trump nomination hands the election to Clinton. In fact, I think part of Trump’s popularity is the way the media is handling him, and I think for some in the media, it’s a kind of joke or prank, to verify in their minds what idiots Republicans really are. I, for one, will never vote for Trump.
The guy is a birther, last night he revealed he was (at least partially) an anti-vaccer. Seriously, how low does this guy have to go before people wake up? It’s entertaining in a way, but it makes me despair for the judgement of the country.
Bill Mac
Who do you think can beat Clinton…assuming she is not in jail.
I don’t think I would see the media in that way. Covering Trump brings viewers, viewers bring ratings, ratings brings advertisement, advertisement brings money. The media chases the money and Trump is the cash cow right now for them.
I think any of the other top tier candidates can beat her. I don’t think she’s as invulnerable as a lot do. But there are more democrats in this country than republicans, so a successful republican candidate has to draw independents and perhaps some conservative democrats, and I don’t think Trump can do that. I think (hope)(pray) that soon people supporting Trump will wake up from their collective insanity and drop him like a hot rock.
D.L.,
Somewhere along the way don’t you think we will have to stop choosing one candidate to avoid the other?
Frankly I would prefer to write in a candidate if I thought voting for a person was my only means to vote against another.
Todd
I certainly don’t disagree. It would be nice to actually for FOR somebody for a change. However there are two pieces of reality as I see it. First a write in vote may express a protest but it is a wasted vote. Second any of the three Democrats running would be a tremendous disaster for the nation after 8 years of Obama. Personally I would vote for Mickey Mouse before any of the Democrats.
Todd,
Because many times writing in a candidate rather than voting for the opponent for all intents and purposes would be voting for the person you wanted to vote against. An example, all the people who voted for Perot in 1992 essentially voted for Clinton.
I would hope that most people recognize that whatever they might ordinarily think of Clinton, she would undoubtedly make a better president than Trump. I don’t expect people with strong ideological differences to vote for her, but I would hope there wouldn’t be a lot of people voting for Trump just to avoid Clinton. Four years of president Trump? I can’t think of many realistic scenarios that would be worse (though I grant that when Trump entered, I did not consider him a remotely realistic possibility, so what I consider unrealistic might yet be possible).
Would Trump be a good businessman in the oval office? Not sure yet, …budgeting for and spending tax dollars is a bit different than protecting and improving capital expenditures relative to a private business.
Would Trump be the pristine model for morality and virtue in America? SBC Pastors may hold this as a litmus test, the world does not. Trump will never set any bar for morality or love for the church. Maybe that is an opportunity for his Elders to pursue at the church he serves?? Could be lots of good questions there…..
Does Trump align with a gospel that is different from the current President? Yes, Trump confesses that the Word of God is the most valuable book, and the convention to which he assigns himself preaches the real gospel. The current President rejects the gospel by his own admission, and preaches another gospel. At least at this point, Trump is not preaching another gospel, although his actions are deviating from basic Christian value in his dealings with those that engage him in the political game.
Bottom line,….its way too early to be concerned. I was encouraged to see such a good slate of conservative views last night. The group on stage last night is increasingly refreshing when compared to a Hillary/Sanders.
As far as Moore and Jeffress ….I’m not sure what their goals are, and if what they are saying is even effective. Making a distinction between Trump and moral values based upon Trumps past is about as easy as it gets! That’s like saying…Did you know that President Obama is a uber left wing socialist, and thinks he is right on every issue?…..Duh!
Chris,
I agree it is way to early. But, my point has little to do with what will eventually happen next November. These cultural/religious/political moments say something about all of us. How we respond to these events, be they characterized as circus sideshows or whatever, says something about us.
My larger contention is that for Trump to be considered by anyone in America tells us more about our Country that we realize. Add in the particularities of his Evangelical support and it points up some real issues for Evangelical Christianity even if the majority of Evangelicals would rather not vote that check their ballots for Trump.
It is not enough to do as some have and simply dismiss that segment of Evangelical Christianity as nominally Christian at best. That ignores the larger role Evangelicalism plays among the plurality of cultures in America. So, when I see people respond dismissively suggesting, “It will all be over soon,” I am disheartened that we do not take the time to ask what is it really saying about us. It is too easy to respond with what it says about “them.”
Todd, No doubt that this political cycle is peculiar in that the entertainment factor has somehow risen above substance, and at a new level. If one follows Trump though, he is simply playing the most effect entertainment game while holding out on policy. Once policy begins to become the central theme, then Trump will either live or die.
The fabric or how Trump engages the conversation garners from him the most attention. So, why would he do anything any different?
Evangelicals should take this opportunity to get familiar with the real policies that make a difference in the lives of each and every American, and not focus on the sideshow. There is always a give and take, a risk / reward in this type of approach that Trump is defining. I believe that it will cause, or create a more open dialogue on the real issues. For that…I am glad Trump is in the race. Yet, I only have little evidence on any policy that is ruminating with the electorate at the moment.
As for me….I’m very curious what the next two months with bring as to policy targets.
I’m not at all concerned about the Evangelical mission in America, …that is squarely a white field for harvesting.
Chris,
I made not reference to the Evangelical mission. My only angle on that point would be the farce created by those Evangelicals supporting trump sullying the harvest field.
IF (and I say if) Trump gets the nomination…some true conservative will run third party (not necessarily one in the race now – probably not actually) and Hillary just like her husband (both times) will walk into the white house with a win and well less than 50%.
Tarheel, you took the words out of my mouth: Because of the intense campaign by Russell Moore and others against Trump, the unintended consequence could be a third party candidate (besides Trump) with a Hillary Clinton victory. This would be a replay of 1992 when Ross Perot played spoiler, splitting the Republican vote, and Bill Clinton walked into the White House with 42% of the vote.
I watched the debate last night. Trump lacked substance, Carly was the big winner, this lady is going somewhere. I think Rubio is too radical, he scares me when he talks about foreign policy. I also liked Kasic.
Rubio radical? Really?
I think thats a pretty uncommon moniker for him.
I do agree with your other analysis though. Trump ALWAYS lacks substance.
Kasic is OK on some things but he is a little too left leaning for me on others. Little too pragmatic, IMO.
Carly the winner? Yes, she is the first woman CEO, but as one Townhall columnist added, she was as bad at being a CEO as Obama is at being President. Furthermore, when she became CEO of HP the stock was at $50 a share and when she was FIRED it was $25 a share.
Not only that, did you hear her indignant answer to whether she would even talk to Putin? Look, as the President you ALWAYS talk to other leaders (unless you’re ready to go to war). Presidents spoke with the Soviet Leaders during the Cold War, etc. To say you won’t even speak with him because of what he has already done is a ridiculous answer for someone who wants to be President.
Everything has been fine in the GOP debates, so far. There is still a long way to go.
There was one question about Social Security to one candidate last night and I wanted to hear from all candidates about the subject. There was no racial issues discussed, there was nothing about poverty nor childhood hunger, there was nothing about climate change. Maybe, in the future these issues will be brought up.
I’m a Centrist and proud of it. I want to make a comment followed by a question. We have abortion which is the law of the land, so is same sex marriage. All the deniers can say it’s the Democrats fault all they want but the fact is in both cases the Republican Supreme Court decided yes to both of these issues. There has been a couple of times that the hard right Supreme Court could have changed the abortion law, but didn’t. These laws will not be changed.
With this said, what do Evangelicals have left to complain about or be against. I read some here on Voices are against the Affordable Health Care Act. This act is one of the best things that has ever happened to this nation, and some of you preachers are against health insurance for millions, this is a God thing, and there aren’t many God things left. This is why I fault Evangelicals and the talk about SSM and Abortion. I’m against SSM and Abortion, why should I allow the country go down the drain over something that is not going to change.
We hear all the talk from the GOP candidates, but when the rubber meets the highway what they say will not work. They are there to mention God and sucker the Evangelicals into voting for them. That game will not work for me. I believe in helping people and the nation. God in in this.
God is not in SSM and Abortion. This is why I will probably never vote another Republican vote as long as I live. I cannot forgive Republicans for what they have done. I cannot forgive the church for voting Republican in the elections.
I think the Republicans and the Democrats are to blame for SSM and Abortion. The Republicans say they are against these issues and yet the R Supreme court allow them. The Democrats say they for these issues and has never been the deciding factor. This is the truth. There is no disputing these facts.
Both parties are evil, this also is a fact, and we are content with the lesser. For me as a Christian I have to look at which party will help the most people. Sorry for getting away from the Trump issue, right now Carly is the one to beat.
Which way did the Democrat court justices vote on those issues?
Good question John –
Here are a few more for Jess,
….. wasn’t is a singular “Centrist Republican” justice who sided with liberal democrat ones in the recent SSM fiat?
….and which way do almost all the democrats in the house (save a few) and senate (save like 2) vote on ending federal taxpayer abortion funding and restrictions on abortions every time the issue comes up for a vote (if the Dems even even let that happen at all)!?
….and over what singular issue has the President (a democrat) and again almost all the democrat members of Senate willing to shut down the govt….hint it involves the federal funding of infanticide!
The mind boggles at your incessant reluctance/inability to understand the reality of the situation regarding which party supports abortion and which does not.
Tarheel,
You are just seeing this one way, yours. I am making a judgment of both sides.
Tarheel,
Please do not start with your nonsense. If you cannot have a civil conversation with me, please do; not say anything.
What exactly did I say that was non civil…I asked you questions….ones that get to the root of the matter and await your answers.
Abortion-Democrats and Republican voted it in with a Republican Majority.
Sodomy issue- The most Conservative Supreme Court in decades said it was no longer against the law. The Republican Justices again had the majority with the Democrats voting with them.
Same Sex Marriage- The Republicans again had the majority of Justices, but Kennedy voted with the Democrats to make SSM legal.
John Wylie, you cannot tell me with a straight face that the Republican party is holy. I cannot tell you with a straight face that the Democratic party is holy. I am simply saying the Republican Justices decided on these issues.
I think the Republican politicians has the church sucked in, and has for many years.
The President had a 1.2 Trillion dollar deficit when he took office, now it’s down to 450 billion, and expected to be down to zero by the time he leaves office.
I shared I was a Centrist, I can’t see how these United States can handle another Republican president right now. I personally pray that we do not get one. May God help us if we do.
The figures I gave about the deficit was on CNN. If CNN told the truth or not, I don’t know. The President, so far is doing a great job, but morally not so much. I believe the President is as much a Christian as anyone on the debate team last night.
Jess, I am not being uncivil – but you are either not being true to the facts or you really just do not get it….I am not sure which.
Please think about these questions…
….. wasn’t is a singular “Centrist Republican” (Kennedy) justice who sided with liberal democrat ones in the recent SSM fiat?
….and which way do almost all the democrats in the house (save a few) and senate (save like 2) vote on ending federal taxpayer abortion funding and restrictions on abortions every time the issue comes up for a vote (if the Dems even even let that happen at all)!?
….and over what singular issue has the President (a democrat) and again almost all the democrat members of Senate willing to shut down the govt….hint it involves the federal funding of infanticide!
Tarheel,
Look up the facts for yourself and check out what I have said. I think if you have read what I have written you would see where I said both parties are evil. I personally choose what I think is the lesser. If we do not get term limits and soon this whole nation can never pull it’s self out of the drain.
Jess,
Did more Democratic or Republican justices vote for these measures? Did ALL the Republican justices vote in same sex marriage? Did ALL Democratic justice vote for same sex marriage?
Jess,
I will promise you that the budget deficit will not be down to zero by the time the president leaves office. Secondly, it won’t matter, because the national debt will exceed 20 Trillion dollars by then. The President will have doubled the national debt by the time he leaves office.
Jess, you are absolutely wrong about the “Affordable Care Act”. You say….”This act is one of the best things that has ever happened to this nation, and some of you preachers are against health insurance for millions, this is a God thing, and there aren’t many God things left.” This law only has the illusion of access for those millions. It was a smoke and mirror campaign to increase the cost of insurance for everyone in America, and create a higher threshold for getting access to healthcare, not health insurance. Healthcare requires that a deductible be paid.
Americans in effect have decreased the possibility of access to healthcare, because of the lack of ability to pay for health insurance, and and now higher deductible required by the new plans from the insurance companies. By in large, the only winners in this were a narrow few indigents that were getting free healthcare anyway and the Health Insurance companies. All you have to do is go see who was lobbying the government two years before the AHCA came into being. Lobby money by Healthcare companies was at an all time historical high, and for good reason. They were buying their next raise and increase in actuarially rate standards.
Some believe they got access to healthcare, when they actually got access to an increase in healthcare insurance rates that might lead to some sort of healthcare, if they can afford to by the “Affordable Plan”.
Horrible deal and sinful approach that has misapplied trillions of dollars and has put poor people at more risk.
Chris,
Sounds as if you watch Fox News. I believe it was Fact Checkers said that Fox News was only 18% true and 8% of that was only partial truth. MSNBC is around 35% truth and CNN is 62% truth. I’m not sure where you are getting your information but I know that people beg for the Affordable Health Care. To do away with it would be wrong. The Republican politicians yells repeal it. That is a good indication to keep it.
I would be for something better, but if the Republicans are involved in it folks had better look out because Republicans are for the rich, and always have been.
Chris, I’m not ready for another war.
I’m not saying the Democrats are the good ones in this discussion. I am saying I trust them more.
Chris, you may be right, but I know making 11 million people lose their health insurance would be wrong.
Chris,
Health insurance was going up every year anyway, big time. The Republicans got the benefit of the lobbyists. This is why they are so fired up against the Affordable Care Act.
Jess my friend…. I do not mean to be demeaning, but this one statement you make is evidence that you do not have any clue as to how these things go down.
Both Democrats and Republicans formed their alliances within the insurance companies to increase rates over years. You act as they someone was surprised and that someone (or anyone in the political class) lost. There were no surprises and there were no losers in the political class (That was just media fodder for you and me to think we had a part..thats the game). Unfortunately, It was you and me that lost, and especially the poor (through increased rates, and increased taxes, over time, to pay for a poorly constructed overinflated bill.)
Jess: Is forcibly taking money from some people to give it to other people a “God thing”? That is essentially what you are advocating. Some people got free healthcare, but nothing is free. What really happened is that some people got healthcare paid for by someone else. Is that a “God thing”?
You and your democratic heroes live by this rule: People without money deserve everything that people with money have, therefore we will take money from the people who earn it and give it to people who haven’t. That doesn’t sound like a “God thing” to me.
Bill Mac,
My friend, that is called taxes which pay for social programs for those who need it. Jesus himself loved the poor. Yes it’s a God thing!
So we don’t need to give to the poor, correct? Since the government takes care of it for us?
Jess,
Christians giving is voluntary giving. It’s giving freely and generously from the heart.
The Govt. taxing people is not something Jesus promoted. Now, Jesus did say to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s. But, that was just Jesus teaching us to obey the laws of the land we live in… unless they go against the laws of God.
But, taxing people, who work, and who earn their money, to give it to people, who don’t work, or who drink all their money away, or who gamble all of their money away, is not what the Bible teaches, at all.
The Bible teaches Christians to give….freely….Not be forced to give by the govt.
David
Bill Mac,
Giving to the poor is a good thing. The church should give. The church cannot take on such a huge undertaking.What the church gives would be like a grain of sand on a beach. This is why the government has to take care of the poor.
I think Paul said if a man does not work, he should not eat.
Also, the Govt. is not the Church, Jess.
David
Jess,
I don’t have any issue whatsoever with digging into the numbers of Healthcare Insurance companies and how that Obama used “their” money (hush) to increase the fees for all Americans because he (Obama) precisely negotiated for Insurance contracts to increase in cost for you and me….that “was” the “Act” he put forward. All that you are seeing is the smoke and advertising.
In other words the Insurance companies would not have went along with the “Act” if the deal did not include a steep increase in rates for everyone. You said it earlier…. Insurance rates were going up long before the “Act” was signed….and why? Because the deal was being made years before it was signed. Of course the rates were going up….that too was part of the deal. A gradual increase over time, until the inflection point of the signing of the deal. Why do you think that the VP made it extremely inappropriate comment (on camera, as if he didn’t know he would be heard)…”Its a big F’n deal.”…explained our illustrious VP. Yes, for the already powerful insurance companies. Again, access is easy….people paying for insurance, and paying for deductibles, and paying for healthcare is hard, and remains so today, but now with even greater insurance charges.
But you don’t understand the deal. Getting access is the easy part!! Anyone could write a bill to obtain access for all Americans. That absolutely means very little. The part that is hard and where lobby money is required (in the political classes), is who will get paid for “going along” with the bill.
Along with being a Pastor, I am also in the business world. Yesterday, I was sitting on the Virginia side of the Potomac, on the 23rd floor roof, overlooking the White House, the Capitol, etc. 100s of Thousands of acres of Government buildings, 10 to 15 stories deep lay before me….and I’m working with a firm to help them increase their capabilities to manage billions and billions of dollars for companies that mingle down below. That is the reality of Washington DC. It is those type businesses that determine what you say is a good deal. That’s also the reason that Trump will most likely not survive the political system. He is not welcome there politically…”yet”, unless he brings along the cash and the ability to speak their language. I’m not sure that he has enough money to make a dent in the thick wall that surrounds our Nations capitol and its culture.
As far as the “Affordable Healthcare Act”…it is one of the biggest shams in American history, and it will cause great harm for just about everyone, except the rich, and the Insurance institutions that bought into the charade. Obama is simply their clown, willing to wear the garb for a season.
Chris,
I don’t claim to be a big business man, I have only operated a few coal mines in my time. The thing I am saying, smoking mirrors or no, folks are getting health insurance and it’s saving lives.
The Republicans are saying repeal and replace, but they haven’t mentioned a single thing to replace the Affordable Care with. That is what I call smoking mirrors.
Jess, you said “folks are getting health insurance and it’s saving lives.”
Again, getting access is easy. How much it costs is important and much more difficult, especially to the ones that cannot pay for the healthcare procedures that matter, not the access. Everyone in America had access to Healthcare before the “Act”. Access, before and after is not the question. To put it bluntly,….It is sinful to place additional cost burden on the poor, middle class, and all taxpayers to simply pay for increases in Insurance premiums.
Obama can always pick out those one or two individuals that have benefited from any program…… again, thats not the point, but it is the message he wants you to gobble up. The harsh reality is that he has decreased the efficiency of healthcare access through the increase of premiums across the board. That is why insurance companies have artificial actuarial systems to prop up the inflated costs.
In other words, a supporter of the “Act” has to agree that it was worth putting 7 dollars on the table, instead of the previous 1 dollar on the table to guarantee “access” to a policy that “may or may not” pay for part of the cost of a healthcare procedure. The Insurance companies are willing to take the additional 6 dollars monthly to “burden” the risk as people get sick. That 6 dollar spread is what you believe went to the people….when all along it goes to the Insurance company. So, supporters of the “Act” trust the Insurance companies to then craft up policies that pay for actual healthcare procedures…..where deductibles are then delivered to mitigate their risk. Are you beginning to get the picture?
You say the Republicans, Independents, or whatever party have yet to forge a deal that is any better. To truth is….there are many, many better deals. The rhetoric of “show me a better plan” is just pure bait and switch talking points. You see,…other parties were not willing to draft a bill that would pay the Insurance companies the same rate that the Democratic plans were willing to pay. And that payment comes right out of your pocket, and now goes to those companies. Congratulations!
Jess, don’t want to fight, but your trust of the Democrats on these issues is something most of us simply will never understand.
They have embraced PASSIONATELY the murder of babies in their mothers’ wombs. They enthusiastically support it. They LIKE it as a good thing. The Republican platform has been pro-life for decades. While many GOPers have been disappointing and some are pro-choice, there is a distinct difference between the radical LOVE for abortion rights among Democrats and the views of the GOP.
The push for Same Sex Marriage has come almost entirely from the Democrats. Obama led in this when he made his famous flip-flop on the issue.
The idea that Obamacare is “a God thing” is something most of us will have to just see as a ridiculous assertion. It is a morass of confusing regulations and has made healthcare nearly unaffordable for many of us. My church has had so much trouble as a direct result of this AWFUL law. So, pardon me if I consider this as anything but a “God thing.”
You can continue to argue in favor of Democrats, but you will never succeed on that. I do not believe you have the truth on your side. I do not know why you are so passionately in favor of the Democrats – that is your right and your choice. But when you argue against the facts people are going to answer that.
Dave,
I respect your opinion and your passion for the Republican party. I believe I mentioned and proved both parties are evil. We have to separate politics from the facts. I think folks on both sides of the issues have problems doing that.
Allow me to give some more facts.
In 1974, Republicans voted against allowing women to obtain a mortgage or a credit without a man.
In1978, Republicans voted that employers could fire women for becoming pregnant.
In 2012, Republicans voted against equal pay for equal work. This was another sad day for women.
Why the Republican party is so scared to death of women, I’ll never know. I pray for the day women will be equal to a man in the work place.
Dave, with all due respect, anything that will help the middleclass the Republicans are against.Those are the facts, just look up the Republican voting records.
Republicans gave us abortion, struck down the sodomy laws, and gave us SSM. Those are all the facts I need. I doubt I will ever vote another Republican vote. Politics is a very deceiving animal. I will vote for who I think the lesser might be. I am sick of the lies on both sides. The Republicans tell more of them.
I do not have a passion for the Republican party. I’m pretty disappointed by it much of the time. The only reason I’m still GOP is because the alternative – the Democratic Party – is so morally and spiritually heinous, ungodly, and morally reprobate that I would never consider it.
“In 2012, Republicans voted against equal pay for equal work. This was another sad day for women.”
There are many reasons that many republicans oppose this and NONE of those reasons are because they hate or fear or whatever women.
One, many believe that the federal government should have nothing to do with setting wages.
Many believe that it is impossible to determine equal pay for equal work given the fact that it’s impossible to determine what equal work is because of the working at different companies the work by definition is not equal.
There’s also the fact of experience – whether a man or a woman – experience should be included and festered in when determining pay.
I could go on and on explaining this and other issues to you but my head hurts from being in against the wall.
*factored (not festered)
Walker’s star is falling. Of course, when he floats the idea of a wall between us and Canada, it probably ought to. Honestly I think some of these guys hope something like “Under the Dome” happens to the U.S.
Bill Mac, I think you said it very well about wishing for the Dome.
Have you ever read the Chronicles of Narnia? “the dwarves are for the dwarves” about sums it up.
Volfan007.
Two things we have to do, die and pay taxes. I agree with everything else you said. I will make one point, there are those who need assistance who have worked and paid taxes, there are the crippled, there are those with mental disease, and this goes on and on.
I think the church needs to have more compassion. I have noticed that some of you are totally against the poor being helped by the government. At least that is what you indicated in your comment. I’m totally against anything that will take away from the poor.
I don’t think lazy people should receive anything, nor drunks or dope addicts. I think drug tests should be given, and if they are positive cut them off. The overwhelming majority that receives public assistance is receiving it legitimately.
I think we have to know the whole story.
That’s the problem. The people who actually need help are far fewer than those living off the government. The government has bled working people so dry there is little left over for Christian charity. Democrats never think the government is doing enough, so the only recourse is to extort more and more from people who actually earn money.
Bill Mac,
I don’t believe you can prove that, but to be fair, I can’t either.
I was making reference to the overwhelming majority you said didn’t deserve public assistance.
Bill Mac,
I agree with you, a lazy person shouldn’t eat.
I’m thinking that Trump will fizzle out, after the field gets smaller, and there’s not so many candidates to split the votes. I could be wrong, but I really think Trump has about all the votes he’s going to get. So, whoever goes to the end with him will probably win the Republican ticket.
David
volfan007,
Sir, I think you are 100% correct.
Jess: How much of the money people earn is enough for the government, do you think? Is there no upper limit? Is 30% enough, or should we just accept it as it goes higher?
You have compassion on those who have gained access to healthcare but you don’t seem to care about those who lost their insurance plans because of Obamacare. You don’t seem to have compassion on those who have less money for food, clothing, or childcare because their premiums have skyrocketed.
There’s always a downside when you take money from someone to give to someone else. But people like you don’t think about that. Hurting people to help people is not a “God thing”.
Bill Mac,
People like me, really! That is funny stuff, right there. I’m not ready to take insurance away from 11 million people.
Bill, I used to dread how much my insurance would go up each year. It would hurt me each time it hiked. Especially, since it didn’t use it but very little. My raises never did cover the hike in insurance premiums.
At one point I had to go to a $5,000 deductible in order to save money.
My wife had to have surgery, and I had to look at things differently. I discovered the fine print is very important in insurance policies. All of this was going on several years before Obama Care was ever thought of. I have always had to take out the cheapest plans possible.
Through this whole mess I have always wanted the poor to have Health Insurance, even if it cost me more.
The Democrats are not my hero’s, the Republicans are definitely not. I wish more than anything we had a couple more parties to choose from with term limits for congress. Eight years is long enough for anyone to be in congress.
I would “NOT” tell anyone to vote Republican or Democrat. I’m only defending my views here on Voices. Bill, I respect your choices, and your feelings on the subject.I’ll even go out on a limb here, and say I respect Dave Miller’s choices and opinions. I think you all are wrong, but I respect your choices. I believe with all my heart that you all are trying to do what you think is right in the upcoming election. I am doing the same thing.
This is my last comment on this thread.
Jess: This is America and we value freedom. We were more free before Obamacare. It used to be that healthy, young people could go without insurance if they wished, or less well off people could buy low cost, catastrophic health insurance. But no more. Your beloved President decreed that not only did people have to have health insurance, but that they had to have a government approved plan. Did he do this because he was concerned about the people who chose not to have health insurance, or those with catastrophic plans? Of course not! He does not see them as free Americans making their own decisions about healthcare. He sees them as sources of revenue. So because of Obamacare millions are poorer and we are all less free. Yes, some people got a government hand-out and that’s great for them. Why not just raise taxes to do it? Why not set up government hospitals where people can go for free? There are lots of less painful ways of doing this without the national whiplash that Obama put us through.
For the record, I don’t think repealing Obamacare is realistic. Taking away a government handout is far harder than not giving one in the first place. It’s a Republican sound bite. But I think it can be dismantled and replaced /fixed piece by piece. The trouble is I’m not convinced Republicans are smart enough to do it.
“””Taking away a government handout is far harder than not giving one in the first place.”””
This is Hegelian philosophy at its finest. Democrats have mastered it. They know that any gain leads to a further gain, especially when pushing something down a slippery slope.
Recall that abortion was extremely limited under Roe v. Wade–just as evil but limited. Had someone mentioned partial birth procedures during the Roe arguments, abortion on demand would never have gotten out of the box.
Incremental change is the the primary tool of secularists. Satan is patient.
Jess, I don’t believe your story is indicative of the norm in any way, but I’ll assume it is true in your case.
I would like to know how you feel about taking money out of my pocket, against my will, to meet your needs? I am not a rich man by any stretch but my premiums skyrocketed under Obamacare.
I try to help any person that comes across my path with a need. I just don’t understand why you would think it is appropriate–as a professing believer–to take my money and put it in your pocket without so much as asking, let alone a thank you.
I think this is an important aspect of Obamacare. It is not health reform, it is economic tyranny. In the end, you won’t have anybody to take money from.
Jack,
I have to respond to this. First of all, I do not have the Affordable Care Insurance. Second, I don’t take any money out of your pocket. To the rest, I have already answered in previous comments.
Todd, I apologize for going off track a bit from your post. So to finish my thoughts on Trump. I simply believe that the SBC and our agencies are paying way too much attention to something that will go away in 3-5 months. IMHO Trump will not be the nominee.
The most likely options for Republicans seem to be: (and not in any order of priority)
Marco Rubio
Ben Carson
Jeb Bush (only because of the machine)
The rest of the bunch probably has too much ground to make up, and no real separation of issues.
I would love to see Marco or Ben (possibly Jeb) rise to the top, so that the SBC could begin to pay attention to things that matter politically to the SBC crowd.
I just really don’t have the problem with Trump that some of you guys have…
That is kind of my point as well Donald. I think the leaders of the SBC paying attention to Trump is a bit over the top at this point. There are more areas of politics that should demand the attention of the leaders. Not sure why all the fuss at this point.
Jess,
All votes in support of a bill that would impose legal penalties on those who do not render medical aid to babies born alive in botched abortion’s – came from the same party. Which party is that?
Hint – ALL Republicans voted for the bill – and every Democrat (except 5) voted against it.
So which party is it that supports abortion 100% -.always in every case even to the point of not supporting a bill requiring the rendering medical aid to a baby born alive in a botched abortion – in other words allowing them to just die. Hint it’s not the Republicans who almost (again all but 5) universally refuse to protect babies born alive in botched abortions? Hint – it’s the democrats.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h506?utm_content=buffer13280&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
On Monday, Trump met with about 40 Evangelical leaders in his office at the Trump Tower. The group included Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, conservative evangelical Christian Pastor David Jeremiah, TBN religious broadcaster Jan Crouch, Pastor Paula White, Jews For Jesus Rabbi Kirt Schneider and Pastor Darrell Scott.
“The meeting lasted roughly two and a half hours and ended with pastors gathering around Trump and laying their hands on him in prayer.Kenneth Copeland, Paula White, and Rabbi Schneider prayed during that time, asking the Lord to give the GOP presidential frontrunner wisdom, stability and knowledge necessary to pursue this endeavor. They also prayed for America and for God’s will to be done.”
For those with concerns about Trump’s harsh rhetoric:
“During the meeting, he talked about his Christian faith. At one point he admitted that he may not have read the Bible as much as the pastors in the room. As the conversation continued, a few of the ministers implored Trump to tone done some of his harsh rhetoric.”
Here is the link to the article from the CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network)website: http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2015/09/29/only-on-the-brody-file-religious-leaders-meet-pray-with.aspx
For those who want to write this off as a group of Prosperity Gospel, false teachers, keep in mind that Dr. David Jeremiah is not – in fact he is pastor of a large SBC church in San Diego and has authored a number of books. Pastor Darrel Scott is an African American pastor.
Two comments:
1. Name me any other candidate running for President who is having a laying on of hands prayer time with pastors.
2. What will Russell Moore’s response be to this event when he is adamantly opposed to Trump’s candidacy (because of his stance on immigration). Will he contact David Jeremiah and question him for traveling across the country to NY for this meeting?
https://www.facebook.com/tomarra.burns/videos/10200880103162632/
Sickening.
I am hoping this comment is a joke.
If it’s not then my question to you becomes, at what point did we conclude that the mark of a candidates Christian bonafides were based on having a group of pastors publicly pray over him/her?
If you are so easily duped, then you are part of the problem and the reason why Christians get used by conservative politicians to get elected.
Might I suggest educating yourself about what Trump has DONE rather than what he SAYS. Jesus said we will know them by their fruits.
Trump is a man in need of a Savior. Not a Savior for the Christian Right in America. His fruit demonstrates that.
First of all, I am not for Trump, but am supporting Marco Rubio. The reason I made the comment and the link is to show that not all Southern Baptists are marching in lock step with whatever pronouncements which Russell Moore or any other leader makes. The fact that David Jeremiah and Robert Jeffress, pastors of some of the largest churches in the SBC were right beside Trump laying on their hands and Jeremiah was giving the prayer shows that.
I question the appropriateness of Moore singling out one candidate for a personal attack on his character. The reality is that Moore has never criticized other candidates for the adultery – what about Newt Gingrich who is also a serial adulterer on his third marriage? What about Bill Clinton or his wife who has verbally assaulted women who have exposed his adultery. Not to mention that she is an enthusiastic proponent of the unfettered right of a woman to an abortion throughout the term of a pregnancy and is a staunch supporter of Planned Parenthood regardless of the videos form the Center for Medical Progress.
I have no issue with Russell Moore commenting on this Presidential Campaign as long as he speaks on the issues and the policies the candidates espouse. The reality is that Moore is opposed to Trump because of his opposition to illegal immigration whereas Moore is for amnesty. However, instead of being up front and stating that, he chooses to criticize Trump on moral issues because he knows that many Southern Baptists are opposed to amnesty, too.
There are plenty of policy issues on which to be opposed to Trump – in the past, he has been strongly for abortion and on Monday came out for Universal Health care which would probably go beyond Obamacare.
My concern is that if Trump does eventually become the Republican nominee (which I pray will not happen), Hillary Clinton will win the election because there has been such an intense barrage of character criticism by Moore and others.
The bottom line is I think the people in the pews (and the pulpit in the case of Jeremiah and Jeffress) can do their own research on the policy positions of the various candidates and come to a conclusion of who will be best for leading our country without having someone else tell them who or who not to vote for. By showing a link to the group of pastors in Trump’s office, I was showing that there isn’t a lock step conformity, at least when it comes to Donald Trump.
I, personally, wasn’t happy to see Bernie Sanders at Liberty University and was disappointed in the somewhat enthusiastic support he received, because he has had a long history of being strongly prochoice and pro gay marriage. However, they are a private institution and can choose to invite whom they please. (I doubt Jerry Falwell would have done so back in his time).
“The reality is that Moore is opposed to Trump because of his opposition to illegal immigration whereas Moore is for amnesty. However, instead of being up front and stating that, he chooses to criticize Trump on moral issues because he knows that many Southern Baptists are opposed to amnesty, too.”
You know Russell Moore’s motivations? You can question the wisdom of him openly criticizing a political candidate without questioning his character. I imagine there are a host of issues that Russell Moore disagrees with Donald Trump on, and yes immigration is one. Evangelicals in the circles I run in are not easily led astray by Hilary Clinton. But Donald Trump has some of them drooling at the mouth for some very strange reason. Russell Moore speaking out against a candidate who says the disgusting and ridiculous things that Donald Trump says is fine with me.
Disclaimer: I do not always agree with Russell Moore. Inviting political candidates to a missions conference was one such issue. I only bring that up to demonstrate that I am not a Moore apologist.
If you follow the logic in my argument, never in the past has Moore criticized a candidate on personal character grounds, yet all of a sudden Moore starts criticizing Trump (when there are plenty of other adulterers in Washington). Why else can I conclude that give the following:
1. Moore is adamantly for amnesty – He mentions the harsh words Trump has said about illegals in his NPR interview.
2. Trump is the strongest and most vocal opponent of illegal immigration with plans to build a wall on the border.
What other reason can I come up with for him singling Trump out for adultery and gambling? As far as gambling goes, there are thousands of SBC members who have received a college education which was funded by state sponsored lotteries, so they have certainly benefited from gambling. Their actions belie any opposition they may have to gambling.
Given the history of southern voting patterns (where most SBC members reside), there is a good chance that Trump could sweep the South and it would be interpreted by the mainstream media, “There go those white Southern evangelical racists voting for Trump just like they voted for George Wallace in 1968.” Moore who is challenging the SBC to be more open to minorities may certainly fear that interpretation and desire to avoid that.
Because Moore has made amnesty a major policy priority, that is the reason that I state as his primary motivation for picking Trump out as one who doesn’t hold evangelical values. Do we say that the many Catholic candidates hold evangelical values, too?
BTW: I agree with you that it wasn’t a wise decision to have candidates speak at the SEND Conference. I don’t think it’s wise for any pastor or denominational official to support a candidate. The question always comes, what do you say when they have a moral failing and there you have put your stamp of approval on them.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I just think it is wrong to question Moore’s character in this instance as you clearly did. You accused him of having a hidden agenda for opposing Trump. To do so you mentioned Newt Gingrich. Pretty interesting since Gingrich does not currently hold elected office nor is he running for it. Nor has he held elected office or run for it since Moore has been ERLC President.
Trump does sound like a racist when he talks about immigration. The reason his message resonates with some (notice that I said “some”) of the people it resonates with is because they are racist.
Trump is morally bankrupt in every way and many evangelicals are flocking to him like he is the savior of the United States. I can see why Moore would think that is an important thing to address.
I don’t see how I am questioning his character.
These are the facts:
1. Russell Moore is strongly for amnesty for illegal immigrants.
2. This position is at odds with the views of many Southern Baptists and is the opposite of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and many of the Republican members of Congress. Many conservatives (amongst whom are many Baptists) listen to them.
3. At the same time, there is universal agreement that Trump has not lived his life by Biblical principles.
4. Therefore, why not criticize Trump on the moral issues for which he is undeniably guilty. You will have agreement on those points, whereas you wouldn’t if your attacks were just on his immigration position.
Actually, I admire his wisdom – attack the person on the points where there is a concensus.
Let’s face it. Moore has an agenda to see a Comprehensive Immigration Bill passed. If Donald Trump is elected President, it’s not going to happen. By making the statement on NPR, he is accomplishing his purpose and I have to give him credit for his political instincts.
How you can say this is a character attack is beyond me. It is just stating the obvious.
I think it is more concerning that Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Barak Obama and the whole Democratic Party have an unabated enthusiasm for abortion on demand, yet we are instead talking about how awful Trump is.
My whole point was to make the conversation about issues and not get deflected by personalities. Let’s face it Trump is as arrogant and egotistical as they come, however, I would prefer to have an egotistical pro-life President than a “sensitive, caring”, politically correct pro abortion person like Hillary Clinton in the White House. But, as I have said before, I am not a Trump supporter – I find very concerning his past pro choice position and now support for universal health care.
As far as the evangelicals you know who see Trump as the “Savior of America”, I think they are seriously wrong if that is there perception of any human being running for office.
And as far as attacking a person’s character what about your saying “Sickening” in response to my initial post about the group praying in Trump’s office…
We are told to pray for our leaders..
You said, “The reality is that Moore is opposed to Trump because of his opposition to illegal immigration whereas Moore is for amnesty. However, instead of being up front and stating that, he chooses to criticize Trump on moral issues because he knows that many Southern Baptists are opposed to amnesty, too.”
You clearly accused Moore of having a hidden agenda and not being “up front” about his reasons for opposing Trump. Perhaps you did not mean to accuse Moore of being deceptive with those statements.
As far as me calling your post sickening, I was referring to the video that I posted. And yes it is sickening to see Robert Jeffress and David Jeremiah locking arms with prosperity gospel preachers to pray for “the next president of the Unites States.” And while they prayed, Trump didn’t look like he was the least bit interested. But who am I to judge? He was holding a copy of his favorite book.
There were two SBC pastors in a room full of prosperity gospel false teachers praying over a publicity hog.
I could not care less, except to say that I am disappointed and perplexed as to Dr. Jeremiah’s involvement. None of the others whom I am familiar with – surprise me at all.
David – This is the first presidential race since Russell more became president of the ethics and religious liberty commission – so to castigate him for not calling out Newt Gingrich when he ran before defies logic – yet you implore Adam to follow your logic – I must say that Is Illogical.
Also – I’m not going looking for it – because honestly the onus is on you to prove your contentions – but I feel pretty confident that Russell Moore has spoken about the immorality of abortion and the legnths that people will go to to defend it.
Tarheel, I don’t recall Moore’s predecessor, Dr. Richard Land, specifically singling out one candidate in a primary. In fact, I don’t ever recall one candidate in the past being specifically targeted by ERLC because of their personal sins.
Maybe Moore would be better off following the example set by Land and avoid the personal attacks. Sticking to the issues would be best.
Therefore, I came to the conclusion that the basis for Moore’s staunch opposition to Trump was over immi
I am not a Trump supporter and am concerned that he could be a disaster in a general election – a new poll has him loosing to Biden by 20 points. However, I think that Moore could have made a much better argument against voting for Trump had he stuck to the issues.
It is ironic that if Moore laid into the President with a blistering attack on his morals, much of the SBC would be cheering.
But that is an “IF”. He has not attacked the President for his position changes. To David’s point, why not? Is Trump the only one Moore thinks is deserving of his castigation? Seems so.
Thank you for the support. I felt like I was being triple teamed and tried to argue with facts. As far as I know this criticism of Trump is the first time that the ERLC has singled out one Presidential candidate because of his morals. This begs the question, “Why is Trump being singled out?” The logical explanation is that it is over a policy difference.
There are plenty of issues and past policy positions where Trump is vulnerable to criticism, however, Moore chose to focus on Trump’s morals instead.
I don’t get it. Is supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants somehow anti-Christian? Is there an official “Christian” position on immigration? I didn’t get the memo.
I can see Christians legitimately coming down on either side of the issue, but I fear many Southern Baptists are unwilling or incapable of separating their identity as Christians from their identity as political conservatives. I find it too much of a coincidence that Christians are lopsidedly adamant about things like immigration, healthcare, and climate change.
There isn’t an official Christian position on immigration, therefore is it wise for Moore to take such a strong stand for amnesty when there are a variety of opinions on it?
However, if you were to look at the elected officials from the south where the overwhelming majority of SB’s are located, the Congressman have voted against amnesty, reflecting the opinions of their constituents. We would have amnesty now if it weren’t for the southern Republicans in the House. So, in a sense the ERLC is taking a position which could be argued is contrary to that of a good portion of those who fund it.
I think historically we have seen that “what a majority of Southerners think” doesn’t necessarily stake out the moral high ground.
In his piece on Immigration, Moore clearly says that he personally supports a path to legalization for long term illegal immigrants, but that others have valid disagreements. Hardly an ex cathedra statement of an official Southern Baptist position.
Also – I think reasonable people understand that mass deportation is not practical nor is it in keeping with American principles.
From a Christian perspective – I’m not sure a case can be made for much of trumps rhetoric being in keeping with loving your neighbor or even basic kindness.
A path to citizenship can take many forms – some I can support – others make me recoil – but it ( in some form) is the only possible solution.
Secure the border first. Gotta turn the water off before fixing the pipe and repairing the damage – to use a plumbing analogy.
I thought people got upset over Richard Land not being more focused on the Gospel, and now we’ve got Russell Moore wailing on a single candidate….Trump? Where’s the Gospel in that?
And, is it really somehow immoral and wrong for a Christian to vote for Trump, anymore than any other candidate? Why? Why would voting for Trump be somehow unChristian, or immoral? I mean, I’m not voting for Trump. I would certainly hope that he’s not the Republican nominee…..but, should our ERLC Leader be wailing against a candidate running for office? Would this not be just as bad as the leader of our ERLC publicly endorsing a candidate? Does this not make the SBC look like we’re playing politics…..as in the days of the Moral Majority?
David
David, (with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek)
You mean you were led to believe the ERLC (a lobbyist organization) doesn’t play politics, or its leader, doesn’t speak politically? I can’t believe that either! And Dr. Moore doesn’t have any intentions whatsoever to persuade politicians to hear from “Southern Baptists” on what is near and dear to their heart. Never in a million years would that be the purpose of the ERLC. I simply can’t believe people would think that.
By the way, and this is a reply to Bill Mac, Land got fired for making a personal “political” statement, therefore it was seen as Land speaking “ex cathedra” for Southen Baptists. Dr. Moore speaks for the Convention on political matters. He needs to quit his personal attacks on Trump, and it is personal, because he doesn’t speak to any of the other candidates flaws. Do we really believe all the other candidates are perfect?
He is not “wailing on Trump” in a vacuum. He is responding to evangelicals aligning themselves with Trump because of strong Christian principles.
I know the media picks and chooses who they interview, but I was dumbfounded at people interviewed at a recent Trump event that stated he was a fine Christian gentleman.
“He says his favorite book is the Bible, so he must be a good Christian.”
That is what is so concerning to Moore.
If you want to follow Trump, go ahead. Just don’t slap a I love Jesus bumper sticker on his campaign bus.
“He is not “wailing on Trump” in a vacuum. He is responding to evangelicals aligning themselves with Trump because of strong Christian principles.”
Who authorized Moore to respond to evangelicals (or Southern Baptists) if they find themselves agreeing with Trump on some of his campaign ideas (i.e Immigration). I don’t personally care what his personal political opinion is, but He speaks for the Convention and he needs to keep his personal politics to himself. Or, he needs to go out and address the other candidates lack of “faith” or their stances on the environment, etc.
Moore doesn’t speak for me politically and neither does the SBC. If he does want to speak politically (say over the issue of immigration) he needs to keep Candidates out of it. Cruz wants to build a wall also, and Cruz insinuates he would want to expel (at least a portion) of the illegals. Where is Moore’s attack on Ted Cruz?
By the way, Trump isn’t my guy, but that’s nobody’s business, and nobody is slapping an “I Love Jesus” bumper-sticker to Trump or any other candidate. Last time I looked they were all saying “God Bless America” at the end of their speeches so let’s bring out the Inquisitioner for the rest of them as well.
You haven’t been paying attention if you don’t think people are slapping the I Love Jesus bumper sticker to Trump. That was the only reason NPR asked Moore’s opinion.
Pragmatically, who really cares what the junior varsity (Republicans 6-12) stand for? There’s a reason they are irrelevant.
As soon as Cruz gets in the top 5, he will get the tougher critique that all candidates need to get to actually, you know, win in November 2016.
So you think NPR only wanted Moore’s opinion on Trump b/c of that? Really! And you think Moore only castigated on Trump b/c of his comments on the bible? Please!
As for the comment about the JV, until an actual Primary (and probably not until Super Tuesday) we won’t really know who is and who isn’t the JV.
I think no matter who is for what candidate, the Republican party is defeating themselves. When we have a guy that suppose to take John Boehner’s place say on public television that we formed a Benghazi committee just to hurt Hillary in the election, and it is just a political ploy that is working, says a lot about the Republican Party. I think he has handed the Presidency to Hillary.
The Republican Party is in disarray, the Teahadist’s are destroying the party. We need someone who will work more toward the center and not the extreme right.
I understand that SSM and abortion needs done away with, I would love to see the day. Here is the problem, Religious Conservatism doesn’t stop with SSM and abortion, no, Religious Conservatism wants to do away with aid to the poor, cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Food Stamps and other social programs.
I think the things I mentioned above is what is turning the Nation against Religious Conservatism. I think we can do better. When we draw our battle lines in the sand we have to be careful and not claim too much territory or we will not have enough of an army to defend it.
Never Fear! Wiley Drake is here to save us from the Democrat and Republican parties!
https://baptistnews.com/ministry/people/item/30547-wiley-drake-running-for-president
Shew – just when I thought the 2016 race couldn’t get any more cray cray.
I guess he decided to run himself since he couldn’t get Ronnie Floyd to do it.
Lol – well Dr. Floyd ruled him out of order when he suggested it at Columbus – but Floyd didn’t rule out a later run. 😉