Posted on 11/29/2015 6:12:20 AM PST by Kaslin
I understand the tremendous popularity of Donald Trump in America in 2015.
He is a larger than life reality TV star; he is incredibly rich and not beholden to anyone; he is fearless and speaks his mind; he articulates the frustrations and anger of millions of his countrymen; he gives the impression that he can fix our economy and will put an end to illegal immigration; he is not a Washington insider; he could be a strong leader who could face down our global enemies; he can even be winsome and self-effacing at times.
Yes, I do understand all this to the point that, for some weeks, I wondered to myself if I could get behind Trump as a candidate. And the question still remains, if the presidential race was between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, could I cast a vote for Trump? (I could not possibly vote for Hillary Clinton.)
But let's not deal in hypotheticals now. The immediate question is: Should evangelical Christians support Donald Trump as the Republican candidate? I do not see how we can if the Word of God is to be our guide and if it's important to us that a candidate have a solid moral compass and a biblically based worldview and I mean to be our president, not our spiritual leader, since we are electing a president, not a pastor or priest.
The Scriptures teach that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Luke 6:45), and so Trump's consistent pattern of reckless speech points to deeper issues which could make him unfit for the office of the presidency.
I'm not just talking about his silly attacks on Megyn Kelly (blood), Carly Fiorina (face), and Marco Rubio (sweat) or his more serious attacks on Mexican immigrants (accusing the many of what the few do) and others. I'm talking about his character assault on Ben Carson, comparing him to a child molester who has pathological problems and, most recently, his apparent mocking of the disability of New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski.
Worse still, rather than apologizing for his most recent remarks, he claims he is being unfairly attacked for his comments and alleges that he doesn't even know what Kovaleski looks like. Is he lying?
Notice that he referred to Kovaleski, who suffers from arthrogryposis, which visibly limits flexibility in his arms, as a "nice reporter," before saying, "Now the poor guy, you've got to see this guy," flailing his arms as he pretended to be Kovaleski.
Is this the man you want to be our president? The warnings in Proverbs are strong: "Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him" (Proverbs 29:20). And, "A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back" (Proverbs 29:11).
We need a statesman, not an irresponsible flame thrower, and one can be a strong political leader who is cutting and fearless with words think of Winston Churchill without making a fool of oneself.
What of Trump's claim that, "I have no idea who this reporter, Serge Kovalski is, what he looks like or his level of intelligence," and, "Despite having one of the all-time great memories, I certainly do not remember him"?
If this is true, why did he refer to him as a "nice reporter" and what did he mean when he said, "Now the poor guy, you've got to see this guy"? And did he merely flail his arms mocking someone who, he claimed, couldn't quite remember things correctly this was Trump's defense or was he making fun of Kovaleski's arms? (Watch for yourself and you be the judge as to whether he is telling the truth.)
Kovaleski, for his part, states that, "Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years. I've interviewed him in his office. I've talked to him at press conferences. All in all, I would say around a dozen times, I've interacted with him as a reporter while I was at the Daily News."
How could Trump have forgotten someone with Kovaleski's condition?
Trump pointed to the large sums he has given to help people with disabilities, and I don't doubt that he has, nor do I doubt that he cares about the disabled and handicapped.
But what is undeniable is that he is often irresponsible and reckless in his speech, something that could be utterly disastrous for the president of the United States of America. As noted by Jay Ruderman, an advocate for the disabled, "It is unacceptable for a child to mock another child's disability on the playground, never mind a presidential candidate mocking someone's disability as part of a national political discourse."
Yet there's something that concerns me even more when it comes to evangelicals supporting Donald Trump and that is the issue of pride, the sin that is often at the root of a host of other sins (Isaiah 14:11-15), the sin which God resists (James 4:6), the sin which leads to destruction (Proverbs 16:18).
Trump seems to have little understanding of what it means to ask God for forgiveness, while his very open, unashamed boastfulness is part and parcel of his persona. Trump and pride seem to walk hand in hand, quite comfortably at that.
So, while I do understand why many Americans are behind Donald Trump and while I do believe he could do some things well as president, I cannot understand how evangelicals can back him, especially when we have a number of solid, God-fearing, capable alternatives.
(For my video commentary on this, with the relevant clips from Trump, click here. The ugly comments from Trump supporters are quite telling.)
The genius of Trump is that those, from all sides of the political spectrum, only see his attributes that agree with their own. They are like a guy that sees a girl that is HOT, HOT, HOT and a wildcat in bed and wants to marry her, in spite of the fact that she is also a narcissistic pole dancer in the first year of Meth usage.
If he marries her it will not end well, though it might be a lot of fun the first week.
Who, here wants to be on the “enemy’s list” of Trump, because on some issues you are, and will be even more if he becomes president.
People really need to think this through.
I think Trump has never in his life known shame. And honestly, that scares me.
Trump Can't Mock Disability, But Obama Did, and Media Yawned
BFL.
Honestly, whenever anyone writes about “Evangelical Christians should not support __X Candidate that the writer doesn’t support__” I tend to dismiss it completely as just a cheap, transparent attempt to use “religion” to tell me how I should vote.
Well Michael, let me say it like this, “Donald ain’t part of GOPe.”
Your grammar sucks; Winston Churchill is not among the candidates for this office; and,Winston Churchill was also noteworthy for dealing for his swift, biting, personal put-downs of those who attacked him.
The border is THE only issue that counts. We have over 40 MILLION people living here illegally and 75% of them will vote for socialists until they die. They will not assimilate and are bent on erasing our American Christian cukture! Wake up! Soon we will not even be allowed to pray to God while the remnants of our once great Christian nation are cut up and redistributed to all of the third world $hitholes.
The other candidates don’t care about deporting people and will break under pressure of the media even if they tried it. Trump won’t break!
I share Brown’s concerns.
>>Yet there’s something that concerns me even more when it comes to evangelicals...is the issue of pride
A columnist/commentator is a person who is immensely prideful. After all, what is their job? It is to take their opinion and convince others that they should have the same opinion. They all share one common thing, regardless of their politics or their subject: that they know better than the reader. If they thought the reader knew better, then why would they even write?
These aren’t journalists who report facts most of the time and then write an opinion piece from time to time. They are nothing but a bloated bag of ego and opinions. In essence, they are Trump, but with a small “t” because Trump actually builds things in addition to having an ego and an opinion.
So the real question is, “why should an evangelical Christian listen to a person who makes a living pridefully writing his opinions to share with others?”
“[W]e are electing a president, not a pastor” and the author is selling the main-stream media narrative. I’m not on the Trump bandwagon, but I can recognize the stink of a false flag operation. Note the phrase “which could make him unfit for the office of the presidency” - which is it? Say what you mean. Oh, now I get it - divide and conquer - “I cannot understand how evangelicals can back him.” No thanks.
We don’t always get to choose between poor and great, and compared to anyone the Rat party is fielding I know whom I would vote for.
“especially when we have a number of solid, God-fearing, capable alternatives.”
Except that we don’t... We don’t have any other that could even possibly win against the democrat in the general.
And, Michael, you have a right to be wrong in your opinions, but you don’t have a right to be wrong in your facts.
Well, to this NYer, The Donald was a hell of a lot more than a “reality tv star.” Using that is a way to minimize his importance as a captain of industry for over 40 years. And to keep up the obvious lie that he was imitating a disabled journalist lost me by the 2nd or 3rd paragraph.
Ok who is the perfect candidate.
Too may time I seen conservatives and Evangelical Christian’s sit on the side lines and we end up with the likes of Clinton and Obama.
LOL
The author needs to consider Trump in relation to the alternatives.
What you think is what you think. Don’t try to sell it as fact to others.
You should really be more afraid if Hillary wins. There are actual facts to support your scary premise regarding her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.