Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Reluctant Trump Christians, Where Is Your Confounding Love?
Consider this an exhortation. I hear things from Trump-ump David French (“calling balls and strikes,” but never tallying RBIs) and read articles from Christians anguished over the President’s ugly, New York Americanism, and I have trouble finding the Spirit in it. Rather than digging a channel to God’s ocean of mercy, it seems some Christians are trying to dispense it with a teaspoon. It’s all so pinched and joyless and, well, unfamiliar to me as “Christian.”
Donald Trump is a sinner. Christians should not be surprised by this. What is astonishing is the good he’s done and is continuing to do, which must, by necessity, originate with God, who is the source of all goodness. “Oh, but he’s not really Christian, he just mouths the right words about the preciousness of all human life as made in the image and likeness of God,” some say. The subtext of this criticism is he’s hopelessly irredeemable no matter what he says or does! Is that Christian love? Is it even recognizable as faith in God’s ability to work in and through Donald Trump’s life?
A reading from morning prayers from the book of James:
Do not speak evil of one another, brothers. Whoever speaks evil of a brother or judges his brother speaks evil of the law and judges the law. If you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save or to destroy. Who then are you to judge your neighbor?
And from Romans:
Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
“Yes, but affiliating with Donald Trump gives Christians and Christianity a bad reputation.” With whom? Are you really concerned about ingratiating yourself with the worshipers of Moloch?
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
In case you haven’t noticed, apologizing and making excuses to the Left is just chumming the water. Donald Trump gets this. Never apologize. You should not attempt to reconcile with evil or evil ideologies.
“But his tweets are embarrassingly juvenile and crass.” Maybe my response isn’t so much about my Christian faith and is more about my family genetics. My family of origin has ornery in its DNA. We like sassy and get a lot of laughs out of each other’s antics. I like to think of us as little lambs frolicking in the Lord’s pasture, and get the feeling He gets a good laugh, too.
It’s not that I don’t believe we’re all called to holiness, it’s just that these are minor infractions against the calling and I do believe we’ll all get there by the grace of God — eventually. And “holiness” doesn’t mean boring. Even Saint Augustine prayed, “Lord, make me holy, but not yet.” Father Michael Gaitley likes to say, “Make me a saint, but be gentle.” Our Good Shepherd is gentleness personified. Mercy Himself. We should strive to be imitators of Him.
And finally, “But Donald Trump once said he doesn’t need God’s forgiveness, even though he’s been an adulterer, a fornicator, a liar . . .” Were you born knowing you need a Savior? When did you figure it out? Have you never failed to ask for forgiveness when you should have? Have you come to know God better than you did 20 years ago? Why would all these things not also be true of Donald Trump? Whose timetable is he on anyway? Yours or God’s?
Frankly, I see a lot of ego and pride sneaking into the Christian angst over Donald Trump. And we all know where that leads. Will you be a joyful, loving, merciful disciple of Christ? Or a joyless scold, attracting no one to the faith? God gives us free will to choose.Published in General
Not a war crime. Weapons-grade stupid, but not a war crime.
Blago strong-armed a hospital for a campaign donation. A children’s hospital. He’s so slimy that he repulsed Democrats. Illinois Democrats.
Rod and Patty should move to New York. The average IQ of both places would go up.
Have you seen Drew’s Christmas cards?
Some have speculated that Blogo has inside Obama info on the sale of that senate seat.
If so , he now loves Trump.
Blago didn’t suicide himself.
Here’s my take on this:
After Clinton got caught, the country had a long, drawn-out “discussion” about whether or not moral failings of that type were disqualifying for office, and whether it was a requirement of the office of POTUS to be a person of good character. The Republican/conservative/evangelical types argued that they were. The Democrats and their side argued they were not.
The Democrats won that argument, and the Conservative/evangelicals lost.
Given that outcome, there is far greater hypocrisy (in my view) on the part of the Democrats/left to now argue that character matters. They won the argument. They have to live with it.
I’m fine with people on the right criticizing Trump – just come up with something NEW!
We get it. He’s loud, he’s vulgar, he tweets too much, he treats people badly. We’ve been hearing the same thing over and and over and over and over (and over, and over) for the better part of four years now. It’s boring.
They need to get over themselves and come up with new arguments. The ones they’re making have been made (over and over and over…) and have been rejected!
Blago wasn’t pardoned – he had his sentence commuted. There’s a difference.
Well, this is where the metaphor breaks down. Since this isn’t really a war, things aren’t really war crimes, per se. Or I should say, the threshold for being one, in this metaphorical war, is lower than in a real shooting war. It appears to me that Trump pardoned Blago in order to lend some credibility the Justice departments actions regarding Stone. If that is true, he ought not have done so. He didn’t need to justify the Roger Stone stuff. But again, these metaphors are problematic, because they are imperfect.
Twitter is the mustard gas of the trench warfare of the ideological battle.
I’m all for lightsabers, of course.
But I know nothing of the sort. You seriously think these sentences mean the same thing?
I guess you could think so if you insist on reading the second question in an extremely contextual manner so that you assume that “President” is synonymous with “Trump” and that all discussions of a President are in the context of policy discussions.
But if that’s what you’re thinking I have no way of knowing that. (And me–I would have thought that discussions of everything ranging from presidential haircuts to Twitter and personal life are not in the context of policy discussions.)
And what do you think is the analogue?
What is it that is to not critiquing the Left and to properly critiquing the Left what war crimes are to pacifism and just war?
It’s actually more your job than mine to name something. You’re the one who thinks an effective ally against the Left can do next to nothing warranting our criticism. Where do you draw the line? What sort of hypothetical failing would you be willing to publicly criticize Trump for?
I already gave two answers.
But my initial point in # 252 is that the fact that the struggle against the Left has similarities to a just war does not justify any possible action against the Left. To extend that point very slightly–nor does it justify silence over just any moral failing of an ally.
Well said. Right on.
Now as for the rest of us, the Klavan approach is to go along with the Democrats’ earlier position; he’d advise us to change our minds if we used to beat up Clinton on it–not a double standard, but an honest change of opinion.
That’s a respectable position. It’s not quite mine. But I sure don’t agree with French that character issues like Trump’s justify not voting for his good judges–two more coming next week!–over Bernie’s socialism.
A very respectable reason for silence–as I said earlier–is if you think critiquing Trump might influence the election in a bad way.
This is another good reason for silence–if you’ve already registered your objections and the voters have decided it doesn’t matter! Move on to other issues!
I’m not convinced the first of these reasons is even correct, and I’m not convinced these reasons would together outweigh all reasons to critique Trump’s behavior problems.
But I think these are great reasons for a conservative to decide to critique Trump little or not at all.
I’m just explaining how we got here. It’s my fault. Again.
True to your name–DrewInWisconsin, Influencer!
What is a right-wing war crime analogous to threatening and corrupting women and children? To actually shooting our representatives? I don’t know, but it ain’t insulting tweets.
I criticize Trump for friendly fire (attacks on Cruz and Carson and Fiorina). I would consider it a war crime in the battle against the Left if he actually investigated and prosecuted the press as opposed to (sneer quote) “attacking the free press” as he is so often accused. Think Obama vs James Rosen.
I would consider it a war crime if he actually was racist and his policies were targeted to benefit whites and hurt blacks and Latinos.
Actually, I would consider it a war crime if he enlisted the FBI to exaggerate and fabricate evidence to obtain FISA warrants to spy on minor members of the Democrat presidential campaign’s staff so as to obtain access to people higher up.
I could go on. But, the fact is, DJT has done none of those things and, instead, has fully complied with investigators and has tried to enforce the law.
You’re addressing a question no one asked. The question is:
What is it that is to not critiquing the Left what war crimes are to pacifism? Or, what is it that is to properly critiquing the Left what war crimes are to just war?
Well, that’s a good start!
One is more general than the other, but both have the same meaning in this discussion.
First I’ve heard of it. I would have thought that discussions of matters ranging from presidential haircuts to Twitter and personal life are not in the context of policy discussions. Even in this thread.
On to lightsabers?
It’s time for you to do some pushups. Knock ’em out!
But some are less worthy than others.
Statism is evil and they are all unabashed statists.
Much anger in this one there is.
Same as the rest of the Internet, feeding the troll. The Internet is always the Internet.
Same thing I want from he-who-shall-not-be-named, to knock it off already. Tend his own house, and engage in a bit of self reflection as to why he might be wrong.
I like it when he uses sarcasm and ridicule too.
I didn’t LOL, but I chuckled.
I’m down with sarcasm. Even ridicule of a sort might be ok–if that’s what Elijah is doing to the prophets of Baal.
Actually, I’ve even wondered if even political insults might be ok sometimes. They have their place in rap battles, which are not inherently evil.
I think a rap battle should replace the first round of debates.