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.)
I think ‘cuban leaf’ has been indulging too much in that ‘leaf’. Good points as always D1. Have a great week.
I don’t know what the deal is with him. Oh well.
You have a great week too.
>> all NY jerks talk tough <<
Exactly. And my experience with them is that when you stand up to them and “talk tough” back to them, they often will wilt like last week’s daisy.
Therefore, I gotta think that tough talk isn’t necessarily correlated with tough action.
Sale fail and reading-comprehension fail.
Read the conversation again, which had nothing to do with the spirituality of Trump and Simon Peter.
Instead Kaslin said Trump’s alleged foot-in-mouth problem disqualifies him, all within the context of a thread urging evangelicals to vote against him.
And I countered that Simon Peter said worst things, one of which prompted the top evangelical — Jesus Himself — to castigate Simon Peter with the words “Get behind me, Satan!”
Despite this, Jesus stuck with His first pick, Simon Peter.
So Kaslin’s criticism against Trump’s alleged mouth problems does not work.
LOL! All the liberal religious talking points, right in a row!
It doesn't matter what you think. In the context of the OP, what matters is what the Christians think - And I guarantee that by and large, they DO have a religious litmus test, and like all Conservatives, they are becoming MORE adamant about their principles...
>> every person in the cast will tell you that he is gracious, welcoming, considerate and self-deprecating . . . when the camera is off <<
So Trump’s tough-guy political image is totally phony?
I guess Putin, Assad, the illegal aliens and the Mexican government will be pleased to learn that he is very unlikely to carry thru on his big threats.
Nope.
The Christian Right will not be impressed by his PresbyterianUSA credz, and are not impressed by his understanding... You may not be aware of it, but most Conservative Christians believe PresbyterianUSA is completely off the rails. It is decidedly liberal.
You don't amass a billion without being tough.
Tough guys can be compassionate.
Please quit exposing you inner queer.
OMG...did I just offend you.
‘’It just kills me how Evangelicals can sit out election after election,’’
“Amen!” to that.
‘’because they heard on TeeVee “He’s a Christian†and “he’s a good man‒’
Or, like my MIL said, “Why don’t we give that nice young black man a chance?” I had to leave the room. To puke.
Almost all the Protestants I have known personally have been pro-lifers, and I never encountered this notion that politics is “dirty” and something keep away from, lest one become “impure.” But I hear Steve Deace talk about it quite often. What is going on (if anything) in these people’s heads? Apparently some of them think that Romans 13 says that if those running the government want to kill babies and old people, gas people, levy confiscatory taxes, etc., no one has the right to object.
I certainly do not support Trump, for many of the reasons cited in the article, and more besides. I definitely will not vote for him in the primary.
There’s a whole lot of “Christian” judging going on here about who other Christians should vote for.
There is no self-declared Christian candidate who is “holier” than the other self-declared Christian candidate. All of us are human and have sin in our lives. Only God can see our hearts and judge if He thinks we are Christian.
Here’s the deal: You look around, assess the immediate threat, and vote for the candidate that you think will best vanquish it.
IMO, these are what I consider to be immediate threats. Christians are being beheaded, our nation has essentially been invaded, and our country is on the brink of economic and moral collapse.
Who best to deal with these imminent threats? A politician beholden to his donors, or a character-flawed self-professed Christian who is strong, confident, has a track record of accomplishments, and is beholden to no one.
This is a matter of survival, survival as a nation, survival as Christians.
My ancestors on both sides of my family were murdered by the crazies, for being Christian.
I’ll vote for who I think will best protect me and fellow Christians= DONALD J. TRUMP.
P.S.
BTW, 69 years ago, the Presbyterian USA church was much less liberal than it is now.
Same here.
I agree totally, and don’t give a tinker’s damn about what Michael Brown has to say on any topic.
GOT IT?
Trump earned his.
Do you beg to differ?
Agreed.
Your words:
“The problem with Trump is that he doesn’t engage his brain before he opens his mouth.”
And I paraphrased you with:
“Instead Kaslin said Trump’s alleged foot-in-mouth problem disqualifies him, all within the context of a thread urging evangelicals to vote against him.”
My paraphrase is faithful to your statement and its context.
So do you want to censor me and take away my First Amendment political free speech?
Constitutional scholar Ted Cruz would just shake his head at you.
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.