Christian Trump loyalists undermine Christianity's witness to the culture

[TitanTiger 20,499]

 

Quote

 

Christians, Sign the Petition. Condemn . . . Me?

David FrenchMay 7, 2019 3:03 PM

David French

One of the natural consequences of spending your entire professional life opposing abortion and defending religious freedom is that you find yourself on the email list of virtually every Christian conservative group of any size or consequence. Normally, you receive a fount of press releases and petition requests, mainly aimed at Planned Parenthood, Democrats in Congress, or various leftist universities. So imagine my surprise when I received a series of emails from the American Family Association aimed at your humble correspondent.

If you want, you can go to the AFA website and join more than 35,000 of your fellow citizens who’ve signed a petition condemning my “character assassination” and deploring my “yellow journalism.” My sin was writing a piece last month critiquing Franklin Graham for his selective moral outrage. In 1998, Graham wrote an essay in the Wall Street Journal arguing that even Bill Clinton’s private sins can have serious, public consequences. He rightfully asked the key question: “If [Clinton] will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter, those with whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public?”

But in 2018 he reversed course. When the philandering Democrat Bill Clinton was out of office, and the philandering Republican Donald Trump occupied the White House, Graham told the Associated Press that the Republican pursuit of Clinton was a “great mistake that should never have happened.” He resurrected the old Clinton defense — that adultery is an entirely private matter. Graham said, “This thing with Stormy Daniels and so forth is nobody’s business.”

Then, this year, he changed course yet again, this time publicly tweeting his opposition to Pete Buttigieg’s gay marriage.

Here was my central point — the “yellow journalism” that the AFA condemns:

The proper Evangelical position toward any president is not hard to articulate, though it is exceedingly difficult to hold to, especially in polarized times when one party seems set on limiting religious liberty and zealously defending abortion: We should pray for presidents, critique them when they’re wrong, praise them when they’re right, and never, ever impose partisan double standards. We can’t ever forget the importance of character, the necessity of our own integrity, and the power of the prophetic witness.

And:

In other words, Evangelicals can never take a purely transactional approach to politics. We are never divorced from our transcendent purpose, which always trumps political expediency. In scripture, prophets confronted leaders about their sin. They understood a core truth, one clearly articulated in the Southern Baptist Convention’s 1998 Resolution on Moral Character of Public Officials: “Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment.”

The AFA, of course, can’t quite defend the president’s conduct, but it sure can minimize it. “Certainly, no one would agree that President Trump’s past is a perfect model of morality,” says the AFA. Not ‘perfect’ is one way to characterize marrying one woman, having an affair, marrying his mistress, marrying a third woman, and then having an affair with a porn star while that third woman is pregnant with his child. But so what? The AFA says that since taking the oath of office, Trump has come “nowhere near” the “glaring moral indecencies of Clinton.”

Well, even by the AFA’s made-up standard, their argument fails. While president, Trump has lied to the public about his porn-star affair and there is strong evidence that he paid hush money as part of Michael Cohen’s criminal scheme to conceal the affair during a crucial phase of the presidential campaign. I think that’s a pretty glaring moral (and potentially criminal) indecency, but your mileage may vary. And those lies and deceptions are but a few of the torrent of untruths that have poured from the president’s mouth throughout his first term. It turns out that the answer to Graham’s 1998 question is clear — if a man will “lie to or mislead his wife and daughter” there is nothingthat will stop him from “doing the same to the American public.”

Finally, as the AFA knows very well, one of the most common secular leftist critiques of American Evangelicals is that our professed moral standards — especially on matters of human sexuality — aren’t truly heartfelt convictions but rather convenient pretexts. They say that they’re prudish and homophobic hammers used to pound our political enemies rather than advance eternal values. I can think of few better ways to vindicate that critique than to behave exactly the way your critics expect you to behave.

As I stated in my original piece, Graham’s double standard should not define him. He has done much good and preached the Gospel faithfully for many years. But his double standard is still a serious mistake, and it’s a mistake the AFA compounds when it uses my critique to raise money and collect new names for its email list. The Southern Baptist Convention’s 1998 resolution was correct. “Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders” does in fact “sear the conscience of the culture.” It has certainly seared the conscience of the AFA.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/christians-sign-the-petition-condemn-me/

 

I'm not sure what else I could add to this.  But those who think that conservative Christian's slavish and vocal support of Trump hasn't done anything to hinder the Gospel in this country have their heads in the sand.  The damage done to Christian witness in this culture is incalculable.

[homersapien 11,388]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

 

I'm not sure what else I could add to this.  But those who think that conservative Christian's slavish and vocal support of Trump hasn't done anything to hinder the Gospel in this country have their heads in the sand.  The damage done to Christian witness in this culture is incalculable.

Actually, you could say that about anyone and everyone who slavishly and vocally supports Trump, but I take your point and agree.  Its particularly corrupting to groups who fancy themselves as setting a moral standard.  Mr. French obviously understands this. 

And even though I have a low regard for Graham,  he appears shockingly oblivious to what should be obvious. 

 

[Grumps 3,704]

Thanks for posting the article. He makes some really good points. Graham and Christians like him have absolutely diluted the Gospel message. The only thing I may not agree with y'all on is the lumping of conservative Christians into one big group. I STILL think that the country is better off with Trump as POTUS than if Mrs. Clinton had one. It's not because I think that Trump is not a despicable person, it is because I prioritize the promotion of capitalism and a strong economy and liberty from our government higher than I prioritize the promotion of fairness  and equality and compassion from our government.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

The only thing I may not agree with y'all on is the lumping of conservative Christians into one big group.

Spot on. As an initial matter, there is a plainly broad, over-inclusive sweep. The only heads in the sand are those attached to the bodies of the neo-fundamentalist evangelicals who make these assertions on the basis of such overbreadth generalizations (such as the original poster, and no that’s not a derogatory label). One need not even dispute the merits of the assertion when the underlying characterization which it rests is facially invalid.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

8 hours ago, Grumps said:

Thanks for posting the article. He makes some really good points. Graham and Christians like him have absolutely diluted the Gospel message. The only thing I may not agree with y'all on is the lumping of conservative Christians into one big group. I STILL think that the country is better off with Trump as POTUS than if Mrs. Clinton had one. It's not because I think that Trump is not a despicable person, it is because I prioritize the promotion of capitalism and a strong economy and liberty from our government higher than I prioritize the promotion of fairness  and equality and compassion from our government.

Here's the problem:  every conservative Christian that defends, ignores, minimizes, or rationalizes Trump's behavior follows in Graham's footsteps and undermines the Gospel in the culture.  And the rest of conservative Christians get placed in the same category whether you or I think it's fair or not.  And thus it is made that much harder for the message of Christ to be heard and received by those who need it.  Even if you only voted for Trump as truly (in your mind at least) the lesser of two evils.  Even if you didn't vote for Trump - there is friction and resistance that is far greater because of the massive evangelical support for someone that they would be raking over the coals for the same stuff if there was a (D) behind his name. But it’s made 1000x worse when people follow in the footsteps of Graham and explain away sinful behavior for their guy and pound the pulpit when the guy from the other team does it. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

6 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Spot on. As an initial matter, there is a plainly broad, over-inclusive sweep. The only heads in the sand are those attached to the bodies of the neo-fundamentalist evangelicals who make these assertions on the basis of such overbreadth generalizations (such as the original poster, and no that’s not a derogatory label). One need not even dispute the merits of the assertion when the underlying characterization which it rests is facially invalid.

Not even close.  You seem to think the article is making an argument different from the one it's actually making.

People who think that conservative Christian support and hypocrisy on Trump's behavior hasn't hurt the Gospel in this culture are deluding themselves.  Graham's actions have hurt the Gospel.  So have Falwell, Jr.'s.  It is harder to get people who need to hear Christ's message to receive it because of such actions.  And not just their actions, but the similar actions of every conservative Christian who minimizes, rationalizes and ignores Trump's behavior (often while pillorying Democrats such as Bill Clinton over the same kinds of things).

The key passages are the ones I highlighted and they are indisputable:

The proper Evangelical position toward any president is not hard to articulate, though it is exceedingly difficult to hold to, especially in polarized times when one party seems set on limiting religious liberty and zealously defending abortion: We should pray for presidents, critique them when they’re wrong, praise them when they’re right, and never, ever impose partisan double standards. We can’t ever forget the importance of character, the necessity of our own integrity, and the power of the prophetic witness.

In other words, Evangelicals can never take a purely transactional approach to politics. We are never divorced from our transcendent purpose, which always trumps political expediency. In scripture, prophets confronted leaders about their sin. They understood a core truth, one clearly articulated in the Southern Baptist Convention’s 1998 Resolution on Moral Character of Public Officials: “Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment.”

Finally, as the AFA knows very well, one of the most common secular leftist critiques of American Evangelicals is that our professed moral standards — especially on matters of human sexuality — aren’t truly heartfelt convictions but rather convenient pretexts. They say that they’re prudish and homophobic hammers used to pound our political enemies rather than advance eternal values. I can think of few better ways to vindicate that critique than to behave exactly the way your critics expect you to behave.

This employs no broad generalizations and the original writer (nor I) crafted them.  They are largely drawn directly from the words of some of the very people who are Trump's most ardent rationalizers now.

So, you don't have to engage the merits of the argument if you don't have the time, don't feel like it, wish to hone your Fortnight skills, or what have you.  But don't try to pretend that it's because of some 'generalization' red herring that makes the premise invalid.  That's just dodging.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Not even close.  You seem to think the article is making an argument different from the one it's actually making.

People who think that conservative Christian support and hypocrisy on Trump's behavior hasn't hurt the Gospel in this culture are deluding themselves.  Graham's actions have hurt the Gospel.  So have Falwell, Jr.'s.  It is harder to get people who need to hear Christ's message to receive it because of such actions.  And not just their actions, but the similar actions of every conservative Christian who minimizes, rationalizes and ignores Trump's behavior (often while pillorying Democrats such as Bill Clinton over the same kinds of things).

The key passages are the ones I highlighted and they are indisputable:

The proper Evangelical position toward any president is not hard to articulate, though it is exceedingly difficult to hold to, especially in polarized times when one party seems set on limiting religious liberty and zealously defending abortion: We should pray for presidents, critique them when they’re wrong, praise them when they’re right, and never, ever impose partisan double standards. We can’t ever forget the importance of character, the necessity of our own integrity, and the power of the prophetic witness.

In other words, Evangelicals can never take a purely transactional approach to politics. We are never divorced from our transcendent purpose, which always trumps political expediency. In scripture, prophets confronted leaders about their sin. They understood a core truth, one clearly articulated in the Southern Baptist Convention’s 1998 Resolution on Moral Character of Public Officials: “Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment.”

Finally, as the AFA knows very well, one of the most common secular leftist critiques of American Evangelicals is that our professed moral standards — especially on matters of human sexuality — aren’t truly heartfelt convictions but rather convenient pretexts. They say that they’re prudish and homophobic hammers used to pound our political enemies rather than advance eternal values. I can think of few better ways to vindicate that critique than to behave exactly the way your critics expect you to behave.

This employs no broad generalizations and the original writer (nor I) crafted them.  They are largely drawn directly from the words of some of the very people who are Trump's most ardent rationalizers now.

So, you don't have to engage the merits of the argument if you don't have the time, don't feel like it, wish to hone your Fortnight skills, or what have you.  But don't try to pretend that it's because of some 'generalization' red herring that makes the premise invalid.  That's just dodging.

You’re spot on. I’ve seen it right before me. Gross Hypocrisy and over politicization of the spiritual, particularly in service of one man is extremely damaging.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Not even close.  You seem to think the article is making an argument different from the one it's actually making.

People who think that conservative Christian support and hypocrisy on Trump's behavior hasn't hurt the Gospel in this culture are deluding themselves.  Graham's actions have hurt the Gospel.  So have Falwell, Jr.'s.  It is harder to get people who need to hear Christ's message to receive it because of such actions.  And not just their actions, but the similar actions of every conservative Christian who minimizes, rationalizes and ignores Trump's behavior (often while pillorying Democrats such as Bill Clinton over the same kinds of things).

The key passages are the ones I highlighted and they are indisputable:

The proper Evangelical position toward any president is not hard to articulate, though it is exceedingly difficult to hold to, especially in polarized times when one party seems set on limiting religious liberty and zealously defending abortion: We should pray for presidents, critique them when they’re wrong, praise them when they’re right, and never, ever impose partisan double standards. We can’t ever forget the importance of character, the necessity of our own integrity, and the power of the prophetic witness.

In other words, Evangelicals can never take a purely transactional approach to politics. We are never divorced from our transcendent purpose, which always trumps political expediency. In scripture, prophets confronted leaders about their sin. They understood a core truth, one clearly articulated in the Southern Baptist Convention’s 1998 Resolution on Moral Character of Public Officials: “Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment.”

Finally, as the AFA knows very well, one of the most common secular leftist critiques of American Evangelicals is that our professed moral standards — especially on matters of human sexuality — aren’t truly heartfelt convictions but rather convenient pretexts. They say that they’re prudish and homophobic hammers used to pound our political enemies rather than advance eternal values. I can think of few better ways to vindicate that critique than to behave exactly the way your critics expect you to behave.

This employs no broad generalizations and the original writer (nor I) crafted them.  They are largely drawn directly from the words of some of the very people who are Trump's most ardent rationalizers now.

So, you don't have to engage the merits of the argument if you don't have the time, don't feel like it, wish to hone your Fortnight skills, or what have you.  But don't try to pretend that it's because of some 'generalization' red herring that makes the premise invalid.  That's just dodging.

Not even close. You either miss the point or are too uncomfortable to acknowledge it, as further evidenced in your response to Grumps. You fail to recognize that the names you appeal to (such as Graham) are not representative of evangelicalism, as this whole notion is far more complex than you’re willing or capable to admit. For example, it is preposterous to argue that leaders such as Albert Mohler and Russel Moore - and other neo-fundamentalist evangelicals - are somehow lumped into this “category” irrespective of the vocal platforms upon which they’ve stood. “Conservative Christians” are not monolithic, no matter how bad you want to argue that they are. 

[DKW 86 7,426]

Either you hold on to your core beliefs or you do not. I could not support HRC for her very poor choices with the Clinton Foundation, Wall Street Support for $$, and her egregiously bad decisions concerning email servers, etc. She has more baggage than any nominee I can name in my lifetime. Trump,is a clown. He was born a wealthy clown and he will die a clown. I can no more support him than any other candidate. 2016 was a lose-lose election. HRC was just drowning in bad baggage and DJT manufactures bad baggage. I truly biblically "Marvel" at those who 'call' themselves Christians and support Trump. I didnt support WJC when he was just taking a dump on morals, etc. I believe he sexually harassed many women and likely assaulted several. His proclivities concerning Jeffrey Epstein and Lolita Island shows he has learned exactly nothing over the course of his life. DJT is just the Republican version of WJC, except WJC was good president. DJT hasnt harassed or assaulted anyone while in the WH as yet, but wait, it could happen tomorrow. I think anyone that believes that DJT has submitted himself to God, is just deluding himself. DJT is paying lip service to placate just enough people to win election., nothing more. I would bet the house that he will be in trouble with another porn star 90 days out of office. He is a total package douche. 

I cant support Trump, sorry, dont waste my time. He is a business con man and clown, and sexual predator. I reject that he has any knowledge of God other than that he can use to further is always narcissistic lifestyle. IOW, he knows just barely enough to fool some that want to be fooled.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

9 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Not even close. You either miss the point or are too uncomfortable to acknowledge it, as further evidenced in your response to Grumps. You fail to recognize that the names you appeal to (such as Graham) are not representative of evangelicalism,

I'm not uncomfortable at all, because there's literally zilch for me to be uncomfortable about.  And in the minds of people outside of evangelicalism, people like Graham are representative of evangelicalism, whether you like it or not.

 

Quote

as this whole notion is far more complex than your willing or capable to admit. For example, it is preposterous to argue that leaders such as Albert Mohler and Russel Moore - and other neo-fundamentalist evangelicals - are somehow lumped into this “category” irrespective of the vocal platforms upon which they’ve stood.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.  Please refresh your memory here:

People who think that conservative Christian support and hypocrisy on Trump's behavior hasn't hurt the Gospel in this culture are deluding themselves.  Graham's actions have hurt the Gospel.  So have Falwell, Jr.'s.  It is harder to get people who need to hear Christ's message to receive it because of such actions.  And not just their actions, but the similar actions of every conservative Christian who minimizes, rationalizes and ignores Trump's behavior (often while pillorying Democrats such as Bill Clinton over the same kinds of things).

Russell Moore has been an outspoken critic of Trump's behavior, both in his past and in the present.  I believe Mohler has too.  Neither have done any of the minimizing, rationalizing or ignoring of his sinful actions.  So no, I am not lumping them in with Graham, Falwell Jr., and those who follow their lead on this kind of fecklessness.

That said, the actions of Graham, Falwell Jr. and every conservative, evangelical Christian who employs similar arguments in favor of Trump DO affect the rest of us, even if we ourselves haven't joined them in their hypocrisy - because it erects massive obstacles to the Gospel in the hearts and minds of those who need to hear and receive it.  It makes all of our jobs harder.  And I bet if you asked Russell Moore point blank, he'd tell you that it's even made it harder for him to be heard properly.

 

Quote

“Conservative Christians” are not monolithic, no matter how bad you want to argue that they are. 

Again, arguing a point no one is making.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

24 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

If that’s true and we’re allowed to keep going down this road, then logic isn’t one of yours. 

25 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm not uncomfortable at all, because there's literally zilch for me to be uncomfortable about.  And in the minds of people outside of evangelicalism, people like Graham are representative of evangelicalism, whether you like it or not.

 

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.  Please refresh your memory here:

People who think that conservative Christian support and hypocrisy on Trump's behavior hasn't hurt the Gospel in this culture are deluding themselves.  Graham's actions have hurt the Gospel.  So have Falwell, Jr.'s.  It is harder to get people who need to hear Christ's message to receive it because of such actions.  And not just their actions, but the similar actions of every conservative Christian who minimizes, rationalizes and ignores Trump's behavior (often while pillorying Democrats such as Bill Clinton over the same kinds of things).

Russell Moore has been an outspoken critic of Trump's behavior, both in his past and in the present.  I believe Mohler has too.  Neither have done any of the minimizing, rationalizing or ignoring of his sinful actions.  So no, I am not lumping them in with Graham, Falwell Jr., and those who follow their lead on this kind of fecklessness.

That said, the actions of Graham, Falwell Jr. and every conservative, evangelical Christian who employs similar arguments in favor of Trump DO affect the rest of us, even if we ourselves haven't joined them in their hypocrisy - because it erects massive obstacles to the Gospel in the hearts and minds of those who need to hear and receive it.  It makes all of our jobs harder.  And I bet if you asked Russell Moore point blank, he'd tell you that it's even made it harder for him to be heard properly.

 

Again, arguing a point no one is making.

Otherwise, thanks for the responses. I fully understand the position you hold and ardently disagree, as it rests on what I (and many others) think is a plainly broad, illegitimate sweep. I apologize if that’s upsetting.

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Otherwise, thanks for the responses. I fully understand the position you hold and ardently disagree, as it rests on what I (and many others) think is a plainly broad, illegitimate sweep. I apologize if that’s upsetting.

You are asserting something as fact that you've yet to show evidence for.  First explain this supposed "sweep," then we can discuss whether it's true or not and thus whether what I'm saying actually rests on it.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You are asserting something as fact that you've yet to show evidence for.  First explain this supposed "sweep," then we can discuss whether it's true or not and thus whether what I'm saying actually rests on it.

May we start with a few stipulations? I will name them and you can either accept or reject them. I think that will be helpful for the discussion.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

May we start with a few stipulations? I will name them and you can either accept or reject them. I think that will be helpful for the discussion.

Not sure what this has to do with simply showing where this supposed "sweep" is, but list them.

[homersapien 11,388]

15 hours ago, Grumps said:

Thanks for posting the article. He makes some really good points. Graham and Christians like him have absolutely diluted the Gospel message. The only thing I may not agree with y'all on is the lumping of conservative Christians into one big group. I STILL think that the country is better off with Trump as POTUS than if Mrs. Clinton had one. It's not because I think that Trump is not a despicable person, it is because I prioritize the promotion of capitalism and a strong economy and liberty from our government higher than I prioritize the promotion of fairness  and equality and compassion from our government.

There's absolutely no reason to imply "capitalism, a strong economy and liberty" constitute a zero sum equation with "fairness, equality and compassion".  Just the opposite in fact.

That's a perverted perspective that is antithetical to Christian values.

 

[homersapien 11,388]

6 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Not even close. You either miss the point or are too uncomfortable to acknowledge it, as further evidenced in your response to Grumps. You fail to recognize that the names you appeal to (such as Graham) are not representative of evangelicalism, as this whole notion is far more complex than you’re willing or capable to admit. For example, it is preposterous to argue that leaders such as Albert Mohler and Russel Moore - and other neo-fundamentalist evangelicals - are somehow lumped into this “category” irrespective of the vocal platforms upon which they’ve stood. “Conservative Christians” are not monolithic, no matter how bad you want to argue that they are. 

No Nola, you are parsing a red herring.   It is you who is missing the point.

This is not about whether or not the author's criticism applies to all Christians. It's about what the Christians to whom he is addressing his message are doing to the image and message of Christianity.

Like it or not Nola, but generalizations of any identifiable group are attached to the behavior of subgroups within that main group.  The most obvious examples are probably related to race.  Other examples might include the police, liberals, conservatives, etc. Even Dear Leader has gone out of his way to promote unfair generalizations regarding immigrants seeking asylum (rapists, drug smugglers, gang members).

I am not saying that's a good thing, it's not.  But the point is the author - and Titan - is making is that, in this case, a subgroup consisting of Graham and like-minded evangelicals - should rethink their hypocritical behavior regarding their support of Trump, because it reflects poorly on evangelicals, as well as Christians as a whole.

(And you need to back off on the snark.  Titan is not a dolt and you shouldn't imply that he is "too uncomfortable to acknowledge the point".   Such a statement is both arrogant and unfounded.  If you have an argument to make, it's your responsibility to make it clear instead of making vague comments about the ability of others to understand it.)

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Not sure what this has to do with simply showing where this supposed "sweep" is, but list them.

Ok then, forget it. 

I re-read your opinions. Basically, the "flaw" of one evangelical group, purportedly manifested in its support of President Trump, dictates (for whatever reason) the overall perception of Christianity, thereby undermining the witness of all evangelicals and thus negating the witness of each evangelical group to the extent reasonable arrays can be deduced (and for that matter, the individual's witness as well). And apparently, the purported flaw of this group nullifies the credibility of the witness' of even the most pro-liberal, anti-trump, neo-fundamentalist, politically detached, etc. evangelical groups out there.

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I’m sorry that I continually expect more of you than you are able or (more likely) willing to give.  I’ll adjust my expectations accordingly going forward. 

[PUB78 1,358]

I don't condone many of Trump's faults, but he get things done and has shaken the political establishment to its very core.  Still get up every morning  with a smile on my face that HRC is not President.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I’m sorry that I continually expect more of you than you are able or (more likely) willing to give.  I’ll adjust my expectations accordingly going forward. 

Ok??

No need to apologize. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

12 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

I don't condone many of Trump's faults, but he get things done and has shaken the political establishment to its very core.  Still get up every morning  with a smile on my face that HRC is not President.

I think more people might take that view more seriously if people had been more forthcoming in the past about why they really opposed Clinton. It wasn’t because he was morally unfit for office, it was because they didn’t like his political views and he belonged to the wrong party. The concern about Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and other women was just a pretext, as is Graham’s concern over Buttigieg. 

Hell, at least it’s honest. 

So, we’re the Southern Baptists wrong when they said this?

“Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment.”

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

 

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

And you need to back off on the snark.  Titan is not a dolt and you shouldn't imply that he is "too uncomfortable to acknowledge the point".   Such a statement is both arrogant and unfounded.  If you have an argument to make, it's your responsibility to make it clear instead of making vague comments about the ability of others to understand it.

 

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

That's a perverted perspective that is antithetical to Christian values.

(And maybe you should practice what you preach)

[PUB78 1,358]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think more people might take that view more seriously if people had been more forthcoming in the past about why they really opposed Clinton. It wasn’t because he was morally unfit for office, it was because they didn’t like his political views and he belonged to the wrong party. The concern about Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and other women was just a pretext, as is Graham’s concern over Buttigieg. 

Hell, at least it’s honest. 

So, we’re the Southern Baptists wrong when they said this?

“Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment.”

I don’t know about the SBC, I am a PCA.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

3 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

I don’t know about the SBC, I am a PCA.

You don’t need to be SBC to answer. Were they wrong?

[PUB78 1,358]

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You don’t need to be SBC to answer. Were they wrong?

No, I would agree with the statement. However, what has Trump done morally wrong since becoming President? His “sins” seemed to have occurred before he became President as opposed to WJC who had a long history, including when he was President, of chasing women. Trump may be too direct and blunt at times, but he has the country headed in the right direction, despite the Democrats, to correct the disastrous 8 years of the Obama administration.