Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Ok, so there’s this thing going on in the NFL, a gesture of disapprobation for something some players view as a national problem.  The phenomenon is actually in other sports, too.  I’ve seen it in the WNBA, and heard quotes from an NBA player in support of the right to protest.  It takes the form of kneeling during the national anthem or standing with arms linked as an expression of solidarity for a cause.  The cause, as I understand it, is racial equality and justice, with the related concern of police brutality.  And a lot of fans don’t appreciate these protests.  I have observed several reasons that people object.  First, people object to the means of the protest, that it is not showing traditional honor to the United States during the national anthem.  Second, they believe the context, sports/entertainment should be free from political statements (but usually these same people want the political statement of the national anthem being played and honored to remain).  Third, they disagree with the cause for which the players are protesting – not necessarily that they don’t believe it is an important principle, but because they don’t believe the problem is as pervasive as some consider it to be.

 

On some level, I agree with each of these reasons to oppose what these athletes are doing.  However, I have some concerns with the ways people like me are responding.  These concerns are what this post is about.

 

There are three instances I have in mind, which I have encountered this week, that are at the top of my list of reasons to be concerned.  I don’t feel comfortable repeating the language used in these responses, so I will summarize them.  President Trump used profanity to describe people who, as he and many others perceive it, disrespect the national anthem, flag, and country by protesting in this way.  A caller to a talk radio program suggested that those who want to “take a knee” should get a knee, in a way that would cause them pain or injury.  A Facebook post “liked” by a friend used a few different curse words to curse the athletes who were kneeling during the national anthem.  This Facebook user also specifically identified one athlete and hoped he would, in the course of the game, have to be taken off the field on a stretcher.  To this I say, Whoa.  Some people are doing things we don’t agree with and don’t like.  Since when is the correct response to use profanity to describe or curse them?  It is morally inferior to wish violence on peaceful protesters.  There isn’t a lot more to say.  I can’t believe this isn’t obvious common decency.  I can’t believe the people who agree with me are wishing violence on those we disagree with.

 

While I’m on the subject of peaceful protesting, let me make my next point.  A lot of people whose views I mostly share on the subject of race in America are concerned at the escalating violence committed by the malcontents, however legitimate their grievances.  It has been pointed out that Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t burn buildings, overturn cars, or get into street fights with the white supremacists and segregationists he was campaigning against.  There are peaceful ways of raising awareness for your cause, and pursuing the changes you believe are necessary.  I find it disheartening that when a movement arises that is peacefully trying to draw attention to the same issues, it is squashed with as much indignation (and, as mentioned above, threat of force) as the violent movements are.  Let me just say, that while I don’t advocate violence, I know history and humanity well enough to recognize that when people feel desperate, like there is no other way to be heard, they tend to resort to violence.  Should we really be silencing their peaceful statements?

 

On the other hand, at this point, the NFL players who have been protesting ought to recognize that their message has been lost in their method.  Whatever their actual reasons for kneeling, and whatever cause they hoped to highlight, the only thing people who didn’t already know and agree with them are getting from their protests now is a provoking perception that these people hate America.  And honestly, however unintended, the way their actions are being received was not unforeseeable.  I understand that it feels a little like giving in, but as one commentator mentioned, a real protest doesn’t plan to go on forever; it has goals and engages in a process.  So I believe that now, at the very least, they should switch methods.

 

Let’s talk, for a minute, though, about how unfair it is to assign motives to people, in direct disregard for their testimonies about their own motives.  I can think of a lot of more disrespectful actions one could take if they intended to communicate the disrespect ascribed to them.  I have not seen any of these players spitting in veterans’ faces or stomping on the flag.  I have not heard a single athlete say that what they are protesting is the United States’ stand for freedom, nor that they are protesting the soldiers who have served to protect those freedoms they enjoy.  To consistently characterize their protest as against these things is pretty dishonest and egocentric (that is, behaving as though our own perceptions are the most valid).  Let’s not be angry about what they’re not even saying.

 

That said, if their method offends you because of its unintended belittling of things you hold dear, I have a couple of recommendations.  I suggest you recognize that these people are not injuring you, nor encouraging others to do so.  They’re not preventing anyone else from showing honor to the anthem or flag.  If you wanted, you could change the channel and not even see whether they’re kneeling or not.  You could calmly and humbly admit to them that the effect their actions has on your feelings is to irritate you. (This is known as an “I statement”.  It defuses tension because it comes across as less judgmental and more open to their side of the matter, while still inviting them to show consideration to you.)  In that case, rather than believing that all things that irritate us should be forced to go away, you could attempt to engage those with whom you disagree (a little tricky with celebrities, I admit) in respectful dialogue in order to persuade them of your way of thinking.  I advocate for this because one of the great things about people is that they can change.  Even if they haven’t shown an inclination to change, God can change them.  Or, we might be surprised and change a bit ourselves.

 

Another option is to suggest alternative methods of getting the word out or taking a conscientious stand.  This could be challenging.  I’ve tried to consider how I would abstain from showing an honor I don’t believe is presently justified, without being disrespectful?  What if the cause was something nearer to my heart than that which we’re discussing?  If some current and distressing aspect of the USA (abortion, international aggression, government mandating immorality, [insert your pet concern here]) was the most prominent thing to me, so eclipsing the things I value and honor in America besides (sacrificial soldiers and officers, unique freedoms, Christian history, etc.) that I could not in good conscience risk communicating that I’m showing honor for the dishonorable things about our country, yet I still want to respect those things that I sincerely value – how would I act during the national anthem?  I saw a player this weekend, who was participating in the kneeling, but who still placed his hand over his heart.  Is that a good way to communicate both?  Or would it fail to satisfy the outrage many are feeling?  Is it necessary to hold a press conference ahead of time to explain the complex motives informing the decision?  Anyway, I personally am not offended by their method, so it is not for me to say what tactics would be less offensive.  I’d love to hear feedback on this question if you have constructive ideas!

 

Aside from how to handle the expectation of honoring our country before each game, there are some more obvious alternatives for using the platform they have as professional sports stars to engage the public on behalf of their communities and the causes that are they prioritize: They can use social media.  They can call press conferences.  They can organize events.  They can donate to organizations.  They can serve in their communities.  They can meet with influential people who disagree with them, and start a dialogue.

 

When this topic resurfaced this week (months after Colin Kaepernick initiated his kneeling protests), one thing I thought of was the historical abolitionists.  They incorporated their causes into their private businesses.  In an industry that didn’t have much to do with slavery directly, the Wedgwood company wanted to be involved in ending slavery.  So they printed abolitionist symbols on their ceramic medallions, to raise awareness, to bring the cause from the fringes to the mainstream.  The image from the medallion came to be also put on vases and snuff boxes and bracelets.  I think this is an excellent means of promoting social justice, and that the NFL, if it so chooses, could employ such methods for causes they believe in.

 

That said, if their customers or employees don’t believe in their cause, the NFL may find themselves with a choice between profits and activism.  I believe it ought to be any private business’s right to put any (non-sinful) condition on their employees for keeping their jobs.  So if the NFL wants to demand that players stand for the national anthem, they can.  If they want to demand that they kneel, they can.  If they want to allow their employees the option of joining either cause (pro-patriotism or pro-reform), they can.  And we, as the patrons, can decide not only if we like the product, but if we want to indirectly support the causes the companies are promoting, and these conditions for their employees.  I really value this aspect of free markets, and for that reason, I’m reluctant to discourage the boycott that many are engaging in since the NFL declined to take disciplinary measures against players who kneel.

 

But I do.  I discourage the boycott because of the following four reasons:  First, the boycott has the unintended consequence of drawing more attention to the protest, a protest whose whole point, from what I can tell, is to garner attention.  Second, if a bunch of people with mostly conservative values stop watching the NFL, and if the NFL doesn’t comply with their wishes, football will become a smaller part of our culture, but it won’t go away, and it will be left to people who don’t share our values.  Not that this would be a huge tragedy, but there are too many parts of our society that we retreat from.  Do we really want to give over news media, storytelling industries, arts, higher education, the medical fields, cake-making, counseling, and charity to people whose values we oppose?  It is hard work, surely, to keep them and keep them well, but I hope some things are worth it to us.  Third, really? The national anthem and the players standing for it is an integral part of the experience of being a football fan to you?  I don’t even know why we have the national anthem at sports games, and most of the time I don’t get around to tuning in or paying attention until kick off anyway.  And what the players do during the anthem is not affecting the actual game, which is what I want to see.  Finally, while I’m proud of Americans for being able to eschew the conventional obsession with football, I’m disappointed that this is what provokes people to boycott – not scantily clad cheerleaders or players who sleep around or whatever other, more demonstrably wicked behaviors the sport tolerates in its employees.  In addition to football, there are many other businesses whose employees promote all sorts of ungodliness, yet most Americans still patronize them.  Is patriotism such a superior cause?

 

What would you do if the president of the United States said that you or your coworkers should be fired for declining to participate in some morally significant activity?  Would you feel threatened?  Would you relent in fear, or take a stand against a dangerous use of the bully pulpit to compel patriotic uniformity?

 

Some people think these players should be fired, among them President Trump, according to a statement he made last week.  Fellow athletes who may not agree with the cause of the protest, nevertheless respect their teammates’ views and believe they should not be forced to make a political statement they aren’t presently sincere about, just to keep their jobs.  In order to deter their organizations from firing them, these additional players join the protest, because it is much harder to fire half a team than one or two members.

 

Even before President Trump’s comments, to teammates and coaches and owners, the question was not so simple as whether or not they love their country.  The represented cause matters to a lot of the football players and – though you may not be aware, from being in a bubble of likeminded people – a lot of fans.  They had to consider what message it would send to those teammates and fans, to not join in their protest.  If they valued unity and peace – like I do! – they had to make an attempt at a choice that had potential to bring people together, or to demonstrate an example of unity, at least.  I believe this is why some teams chose to stand together with linked elbows, and even why some people joined the protest, who wouldn’t have started it on their own.  They don’t want to be seen to say that they don’t care about things that matter to others.  And even if we disagree with their conclusions, I don’t want ordinary people, myself included, to disregard the things that are inspiring people to take these bold stands.

 

I’m disillusioned enough to realize that some of the participants in these protests are just doing it because it’s popular, or because they’re emotional.  But I also believe that many of them hope for good things for their country.  They see problems.  Not as bad as they have been at some points in our history, and not as bad as the problems in other parts of the world, but they care about what is theirs, their country, here and now.  And they want to contributed to improvement.  That’s why I was disheartened to read that some, even among my friends, suggest that dissenters should expatriate.  If you don’t think America is perfect, move somewhere else?!  If I believed that, I’d have to be living in another country!  And if everyone believed that, no one would have anywhere to live, because every country on earth has problems, and every country on earth has the gift of citizens who haven’t given up on seeing them overcome.

 

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

The following are not endorsements, but according to my research, these are the more qualified candidates running for election (in Colorado, at least): Tom Hoefling, Darrel Castle, Evan McMullin, Mike Smith, and Michael Maturen. There are a few others who seem like good people, but probably couldn’t handle being president. I have objections to some of the policies of each of these candidates, some more than others. If you are from another state, and would like help finding out whether any of these men are qualified to receive votes in your state, please contact me.

Of the ones on this list, only Castle and McMullin, I believe are on enough ballots to, by some miracle, win the election in the Electoral College (get to 270 votes). Hoefling could win outright via ballots and write-in’s (he’s registered as a qualified write-in in enough states). But the rest of them are on enough ballots to force the election to go to the US House of Representatives for a decision between the top three recipients of electoral votes (per the Twelfth Amendment). Also, Hoefling, Castle, and Maturen represent parties that could be built for the future, whereas McMullin and Smith are essentially** Republicans who would just be sending a message to the GOP for the future to nominate such candidates rather than a man of doubtful conservative credentials like Donald Trump.

Tom Hoefling (America’s Party, but running as a write-in in most states) is my favorite candidate. I’m not endorsing* this man, and I’m not sure whether I will vote for him or someone else or no one else. His website has a basic summary of his “plan for America” and on the right sidebar, a list of categories or topics in blog format which you can click on if you are interested in a particular issue. That site is: http://www.TomHoefling.com There is also a site for America’s Party, with a platform and constitution that goes into more detail: http://www.selfgovernment.us/platform.html

I have appreciated the access this candidate grants to the general public. He has a teleconference townhall that anyone can join every Tuesday and Thursday evening, and he is quite responsive to questions on Facebook. He is well-read on the founding fathers and other philosophy of government type books. I believe he is a Christian, and a God-fearing man. He believes the US President should/legally can use his office to enforce the 5th and 14th Amendments in the case of abortion (I think he calls this his “Equal Protection for Posterity” position). Even if he doesn’t win anything, and even if I don’t vote for him, I believe his candidacy is educating many people on some important issues, particularly the debate over “judicial supremacy”.

Darrel Castle (Constitution Party, American Constitution Party) also seems like a good Christian man. His running mate, Scott Bradley is a Mormon. The Constitution Party’s Platform is the best commentary on the US Constitution that I’ve ever read. I’m not sure Castle is as genius as the platform, and I’m not sure he holds to it all, either. He was in the Marines during the Vietnam War. He’s had his own website (www.DarrelCastle.com) for years, on which can be found audio files explaining many of his positions. I don’t think I ever got around to listening to any of them. It seems to me that, like most Americans, Castle’s belief in the Declaration of Independence and the “rights” claimed in the US Constitution are blended with his religious worldview to shape his understanding of government. As I understand it, he is big on states’ rights. For more information on the issues he’s running on, you can see his campaign website:www.Castle2016.com/home

Evan McMullin I list next because of his ballot access and popularity. All along I’ve understood McMullin to be a Republican’s Republican. If you have believed in the party and its platform, and if you trust them to act on these issues, he’s probably the man for you. He has a background in the CIA, with Goldman Sachs, and also as an advisor to the United States Congress. Most of his policies are straight down the line status quo (see his website:https://www.evanmcmullin.com/issues), with the possible exception of his belief in global warming. He wants to replace Obamacare and keep our military involved in policing the world. He is a Mormon, polling competitively in Utah.

Mike Smith I first discovered when showing my sister-in-law the long list of people in the United States running for president, and he was from Colorado, so I looked up his website,http://www.mikesmith2016.org/issues.html. I was pleasantly surprised that he wasn’t some crazy (because there are some of those running). He, like McMullin, is pretty typically Republican, but likely for slightly more limited government (balanced budgets, reduced spending, simplified tax code), and has an educated understanding of “apocalyptic Islam” and the threat it poses to American interests. A highlight from his social policy is, “I will not nominate any Justice to the Supreme Court who believes that the Constitution provides unenumerated rights to abortion.”

Michael Maturen is running with the Solidarity Party, which I first heard about from a Catholic blog. As such, the party’s values are very Catholic, including matters of abortion, marriage, and war. Maturen has the potential to appeal to Christians who were attracted to Bernie Sanders. His economic policies and beliefs about the size and scope of government are far more socialist than I believe in or want to support. For example, “The [American Solidarity Party] advocates the replacement of privately-funded health insurance with a decentralized ‘single-payer’ system.” Such programs would be unconstitutional, unless our Constitution is amended. Their energy and environmental policies are a moderated take on the environmentalism that may appeal to Green Party constituents. If you are Libertarian only because you think the government is wasting its resources fighting the war on drugs, the Solidarity Party is for “decriminalization (not the legalization) of recreational drusgs.” This party presents the most complete synthesis of Democrat and Republican ideals that I’ve ever encountered. The Solidarity Party’s website (http://www.solidarity-party.org/complete-platform) presents a thoughtful approach to government, and I believe Maturen constitutes a more worthy candidacy than Trump, Clinton, Johnson, or Stein.

* Tom Hoefling believes, with the Declaration of Independence, that government ought to be of the people, by the people, and for the people; and that governments are instituted to secure the rights of the people to life, liberty, and happiness; and that when a government establishes for itself a pattern of tyranny, lawlessness, or disregard for God’s righteousness, it is the right of the people to throw off such government. Whereas I believe that God ordains governments to carry out justice, and that the citizens do not have the right, before God, to rebel against their governments. I believe that submission is a lost virtue in our society, and I am not sure that in good conscience I can endorse someone who promotes philosophies of unsubmission. But in that case, I do not know if there would be any candidate in America for whom I could vote. So. That’s my crazy hang-up this election season.

**Evan McMullin is associated with a few parties, including “Better for America”. He is still essentially a Republican.

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

Read Full Post »

Response to Dr. Wayne Grudem’s Endorsement of Donald Trump, July 2016

A missionary I know, Cal Zastrow, said, “If the primary goal of voting is winning, instead of being a faithful witness for Christ, then all kinds of evil grows.” I believe that as Christians, more than being patriotic to our nation, we are called to be faithful ambassadors of the Kingdom of God, and to further that kingdom.  We do this, in part, through involvement in earthly matters like grocery shopping, like changing diapers, like giving food to the poor, and like voting.

This week, respected theologian Wayne Grudem endorsed Donald Trump for president in an article, “Why Voting for Donald Trump is a Morally Good Choice”.  A friend shared the article on Facebook.  I admit that I was shocked at how much I disagree with such an influential evangelical Christian.  I was overwhelmed by how many things seemed 1) unsubstantiated; 2) rational leaps; and most grievingly, 3) misinterpretations of Scripture.  There were other things that may be qualified as more differences of opinion. These do not surprise me; I am used to being in a minority in what I believe about how government should function.  For a brief discussion of these things, see Footnote [1].

The first category of concern, things that seem to me to be unsubstantiated, mostly fall into three subsections.  They are either wild speculations or what I believe to be delusions of fear.  Most of these have to do with the future.  The third subsection is ignoring relevant truths.

The treatment of third parties at least excludes some truth: the truth of why our political system allows third parties; the truth of what some third party candidates (with far more demonstrable integrity and intelligence than Trump or Hillary) have said they will do as president[2],[3]; the truth of history, that parties have fallen and risen[4], including the Republican Party which was a new, third party when Lincoln was elected president[5]; the truth that the reason we don’t presently see third parties as viable is because we have consistently refused to vote for third party candidates who better represent us; and the truth that votes for third parties have impacts on future elections.

This year’s election is not an unusual opportunity.  Every year there is an evil candidate, or rather many evil candidates (for many third parties put forward evil candidates), which we the people have an opportunity of defeating.  Sort of:  I can try to persuade you to help me to defeat evil.  I can pray.  And I can vote.  It may not actually be within my power to defeat the Democrat or any other candidate.

Grudem believes that Trump sincerely wants what is best for America.  I am not in a position to say that this is false.  I don’t have evidence that Trump is plotting the demise of the United States.  I get a different impression, though, that Trump actually wants to further his own interests and to build his own ego.  I am wondering what evidence Dr. Grudem has for his belief in Trump’s motives.

Will the election be close?  (If he didn’t believe the election will be close, would the arguments in his article be the same?)  We’re three months from Election Day.  Polls of the popular vote, even when factoring in the Libertarian and Green Party candidates, show Hillary Clinton neck and neck with Donald Trump[6].  But elections in the United States are not decided by the popular vote.  They are decided by electors in each state.  News outlets[7],[8], analyzing polling data and voting patterns in previous cycles, have Hillary in the lead by about 50 electoral votes likely to go to her.  Estimates have her with around 200, Trump with around 150, and around 180 votes from a number of states too close to guess.  But if you look at the breakdown of how strong each candidate is in the votes analysts think they are likely to get, you can see that Hillary has far more votes in the “almost certain” and “very likely” categories, whereas about half of Trump’s fall into the “leans towards” Trump description.  If third party campaigns are somewhat successful, as many Republicans fear, more of the independent voters will go to the Libertarian or other conservative parties than would be persuaded to vote Republican, and Hillary’s lead could be even bigger.

Given the extent of the criminal behavior already documented on Hillary Clinton, without producing prosecution or sufficient public outrage[9], it is very unlikely that “additional shocking email disclosures” would have any new effect.  Obama has endorsed her[10] and has nothing to lose (except before God) from standing behind her and abstaining from prosecution.

The article gives a description of liberalism, “pro-abortion, pro-gender-confusion, anti-religious liberty, tax-and-spend, big government…”  The author applies it to Clinton and Obama, but the definition can just as honestly be applied to Trump[11]Therefore, we will not defeat “that kind of liberalism” by voting for Trump.  He is that kind of liberal.  He may practice it to a different degree, but the essence is the same.

The judicial supremacy described in this article may be a dominant theory, but it is not true, constitutionally speaking.  We should hold judges accountable for the subversion they commit by usurping the rule of law (the US Constitution) and exceeding their jurisdiction.  Impeachment could moderate their extremism.  And it could remove actual vigilante judges from office.  Then the activism wouldn’t be locked-in.  States and presidents, especially, are obligated to obey the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution, and there is an argument to be made for states and executives to defy broad applications of specific decisions by the courts.  That is, Obergefell, for example, wouldn’t have to apply to any actual laws (court rulings are not laws) or states or cities or policies that were not included in the original case being brought.  This is the position that Alabama Justice Roy Moore seems to be most recently in trouble for[12].  There are also third party presidential candidates[13], [14] in the current election who agree with at least some of these answers to the Supreme Court argument, and would be willing to act accordingly.  I do appreciate Grudem bringing these problems to light, even if I disagree with his submit-to-the-corrupt-system solution.

Grudem mentions several close votes on the Supreme Court over the past 30 years, such as the Partial-Birth Abortion Act[15] and Hobby Lobby’s conscience and religious freedom case against being forced by Obamacare to pay for employees’ abortifacient contraceptives.  Some of these have gone in ways we agree with, submitting to the clear language of the Constitution and upholding liberty.  Many significant others have not.  Republican-appointed judges have a long history of assenting to egregious Supreme Court decisions.  Four of five Supreme Court justices giving us the decision in Utah v. Strieff[16], weakening the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution’s protections against unreasonable searches[17], were Republican-appointed[18].  Republican justices have given us Roe v. Wade[19], upheld Obamacare[20], and decided Obergefell[21] (attempting to mandate homosexual marriage).

I don’t see how a “right to abortion” could be found in the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, nor how it would be substantially different from the Supreme Court rulings already dominating our political climate.  Groups seeking to end abortion are seeking to have Roe v. Wade overturned.  Some are doing this, not by increasing laws that would regulate abortion[16], but by using the wording of the Constitution, including the Equal Protection Clause.  These laws include so-called “Personhood” legislation[22] and the “Sanctity of Life Act”[23].  With an unaccountable judiciary, the court is likely to strike such laws down.  They are, perhaps, slightly more likely to “with one decision” remove all abortion-regulating laws from our country, as Dr. Grudem fears.  I don’t see how a more liberal court would be much more likely to do this than the court we already have, or the one we had when Roe was decided.

In the history of our country, few significant Supreme Court decisions have been overturned by that court[24].  Fashions have shifted.  The Constitution has been amended.  Wars have been fought.  These have affected the application of some rulings.  Christians want Roe v. Wade to be overturned.  We want justices who uphold justice and the rule of law.  Republicans have not given us such radically righteous justices.  It is an extremely unlikely hope that Donald Trump (who is more liberal than previous Republican presidents) would appoint enough justices who would oppose the trend of popular opinion (our country is more liberal than ever) on abortion, and overturn Roe v. Wade.  I cannot find such a wild speculation to be even a considerable justification for voting for a man who disregards morality (unashamed adultery[25], owning a strip club[26], lying[11], essentially stealing[11]) and justice and the rule of law (promotion of unconstitutional laws, executive orders[27], and policies) himself.

At multiple points, Dr. Grudem indicates that he is a proponent of state-regulation of things like marriage and abortion.  On both of these issues I believe he is wrong.  Under the United States Constitution, Article IV: Section 1[28], separate states must honor the laws of other states.  If Massachusetts “marries” same-sex partners, then Connecticut is obligated to consider the couple married if they visit or even relocate there.  Thus marriage ought not to be excluded from the jurisdiction of the federal government.  Regarding abortion, the Constitution requires[29], “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  Thus the federal government also has a responsibility to enforce this part of the Constitution, taking only an oversight role if the states are in compliance.  States allowing abortion are not in compliance.  The solution to the immoral and unjust status of our laws is not just to have Supreme Court decisions return authority to the states.  We have a bigger problem.

Many of the threats to our religious liberty are not coming from courts, but from private businesses or from other branches of government.  Trump, if he were to be elected as our executive, is sympathetic to the homosexual agenda[30], at least, and would no doubt be influenced by that perspective when “executing” his office.  That is, we wouldn’t need a liberal Supreme Court to infringe our rights; the president (whose power via executive order has gone basically unchallenged for decades) would be committing the very trespasses we’re afraid of the court for.

Even if I prove so wrong, and Trump is electable, and Trump does nominate an honest and wise and selfless judge, and the judge passes the scrutiny of the Senate to have the appointment confirmed, and if the court can hear and rule on cases in such a way as to reign in the courts – we will still have the problem of a lazy, impotent Congress and a largely-unchecked executive branch (the latter of which would likely be exacerbated by a Trump presidency as by a Clinton one – Trump has promised to use executive orders to accomplish his will[27]).

While the argument that historically, politicians have not “gone back on most of what [they have] promised to do, especially on issues that are crucially important in the election,” might be accurate (and I have doubts even about this), it would be hard to apply to Donald Trump for two reasons.  The first is that he is demonstrably a liar[11].  And the second is that he has, in this one campaign, made many contradictory “promises” about what he will do.  It actually seems incredibly gullible to let a politician take many possible positions that could appeal to different constituencies, and to assume the one he’ll actually faithfully come through on is the position that you prefer.

Since the article focuses on the issue of the Supreme Court, let me here briefly address the things that Trump has said about the court during this presidential campaign.  Early on, Trump suggested that his sister would make a “phenomenal” appointment to the Supreme Court.  She’s already a federal judge, and she’s not a conservative[31].  Afterward, he said he was joking[32].  Then, he said he would release a list of 5-10 names of potential Supreme Court appointees, and guarantee that, if president, he would pick from that list[33].  Then he released a list of 11 names[34].  Within days of publishing this heralded list, he said he was not guaranteeing that he would appoint a judge from the list[35].  There is also the chance that he would attempt to appoint one, and then back down at the least resistance from the Senate, and appoint someone else.

Trump has also taken confusing positions on Israel.  Dr. Grudem says that Trump has promised to vigorously defend Israel.  In this same campaign, he has also said that he will remain neutral[36] on Israel’s dispute with Palestine.  But a top advisor has also said that Trump might be against a two-state solution[37].  On the other hand, and in contradiction to the fearful portrayal of “facts” that Grudem’s article gives, we have decades of speeches and actions by Hillary[38],[39] that, even if we don’t fully trust or agree with them, distance her from Obama’s snubbing of Israel.  Grudem’s only evidence that Hillary would be worse than Donald on Israel is that Hillary worked for and is of the same political party as Obama.  She is, however, also married to President Bill Clinton, of the same party, whose treatment of Israel[40],[41] was very different from Obama’s[42].

My second concern was about Wayne Grudem’s reasoning.  If he has a way of connecting principles to his applications, he is not including them in the article.  He asserts that it is OK to vote for someone bad (he calls them “flawed”) because he will do more good for the nation than his opponent.  But he doesn’t justify why he believes this is OK.  This is pragmatism.  I am not opposed to we humans evaluating the world in order to figure out what would be most effective – so long as, in the flow-chart of decision-making, we consider those things after we have determined if we could do them without committing an unrighteous act.  A good end does not make the “means” moral.

Grudem believes Trump will do the most good for the nation.  Some of this is founded in conservative policies.  Some is founded in speculation (particularly on the power and goodness of the Supreme Court under Trump).  Some is based on subjective consideration of some things as more important than others.  That is, if Trump is too busy doing harm to this nation to do it the good that his supporters hope, this reasoning might turn out to be inaccurate.  I see potential, especially in foreign relations, for Trump to do great harm to our country, including getting us into wars resulting in American casualties.  And in this one area, I believe that he may be likely to get us into bigger wars than Clinton would.  There are also the more abstract ideas of the good or harm of having such a man as Trump represent conservatives and Christians in this country.  What does that mean for the future of the Church here?  What about the future of the Republican Party?  What influence are conservatives and Christians left when we have demonstrated that we are willing to compromise – or worse, been led to justify the wickedness we are endorsing?

I am just as horrified that a vote may help Trump as I am that a vote may help Clinton.  This whole line of reasoning, that a vote for a third party is actually helping the slightly-leading candidate, has redefined what a vote[43] means.  A vote, to my mind, ought to be viewed as a contribution to collectively making a choice.  Like every choice, one choice excludes another.  If I say that my favorite flavor is chocolate, then I am automatically stating that vanilla and strawberry are not my favorites.  A vote is an endorsement, approval, help.  I am helping whom I vote for.  And there will be all sorts of indirect consequences for what I choose.

Some sure indirect consequences of Christians not voting either Trump or Clinton are: Republicans will receive less votes than they believed themselves entitled to.  The influence of third parties will be increased for the future.  Speculating now, Republicans in the future may feel less confident that the liberal candidates they’ve been putting forward are electable.  They may begin to reform, to shift to the more conservative end.  Or the system might be too corrupt already.  The powers behind the GOP may be too ideologically against justice, righteousness, the Constitution, economic liberty, and limited government to nominate conservative candidates, even if it might help the Republicans to gain power.  In which case, enter speculation category number two: third parties.  If lesser parties collectively get more attention and votes this election cycle, it strengthens the chances of any third party to gain momentum for the future.  If one third party gets a lot more attention and votes, it makes that one all the more powerful for future elections.  There are federal laws that give campaign money[44] to political parties based on if they reached a certain threshold of the popular vote in the previous election cycle.  There are state laws that grant ballot access based on thresholds of votes in that state[45].  (In Colorado[46], I’m not sure if votes for president apply.  The legal language is confusing to me.)  There is market pressure for websites and television and radio to give attention to things their audiences care about.  And votes indicate that we care.  The whole election paradigm in the United States could be shifting. 

Grudem suggests that we should see Trump’s vice presidential pick as an indicator of the trend of his policy shifts.  Trump is, the author says, moving towards the conservative.  While it is possible for a politician’s choice for vice president to reflect one’s values, in a man famed for “closing the deal”, I have a different hypothesis: that he picked someone who would appeal to a demographic that Trump hadn’t secured by his own personality and variously-contradicting policies.  Maybe he picked Pence to lure conservative Republicans to vote for Trump.  This would also be a tactic seemingly consistent with those of past presidential candidates.

The third point I raised is – coming from a theologian, seminary professor, and author of a much-used systematic theology – by far the most concerning.  This is his use of Scripture in his argument.  I am certainly interested in learning how the Bible applies to the decisions that we make in this life.  So I am not objecting to a Christian leader making a statement about politics, or bringing the Bible into it.  Rather, I am concerned by the hermeneutics he uses.

The first, general subject of biblical relevance is whether we can classify such a man as Donald Trump as “evil” or “wicked”, or if we should just remind ourselves that “nobody’s perfect” and consider him “flawed”, but decent as statesmen go.  I will agree with Wayne Grudem when he says that Trump is flawed.  I probably see more flaws than Dr. Grudem does, given the differences I have with him on policy issues.  And I agree with Dr. Grudem’s list of character flaws in Donald Trump.  I have some to add, as well[11]He is a liar and an adulterer.  He has, under cover of law (eminent domain for private use and intentional bankruptcy), stolen for his own gain.  For such things the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience[47], and we are commanded to have nothing to do with these things[48].

I’m sure, like every evil dictator in history, that Trump has his good points.  The Bible acknowledges that no one is righteous[49].  We have all fallen short[50]But the Bible also categorizes people into righteous[51] and wicked[52], and warns against associating with the wicked.  I especially commend to you the Proverbs[53] for a study of which type of people fall into which category.

Christians have been cleansed from the unfruitful works of darkness, and are therefore not classified as evil.  Trump, by his own testimony[54], has not repented, has not sought God’s forgiveness.  He has not been made clean by Jesus’ blood.  So, he remains where his enumerated sins have put him, in the category of an evil man.

The Bible records what Moses’ father-in-law advised the Israelites about what kind of men to appoint to their government: “Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness….” – Exodus 18:21[55]  Wayne Grudem does not mention this verse when he declares that despite the wicked character of Trump, voting for him is a morally good choice.  Instead, he uses a passage from Jeremiah[56], about the Israelites seeking the welfare of the nation in which they are exiled.  He then goes on to expound what he believes is meant by “welfare”: that which is most likely to bring the best results.  And from there, he says that to vote for anyone who doesn’t have the best chance of beating evil and liberal and full of bad-policies Hillary is disobeying this instruction.  He claims that this command to Israel is to give us the “overriding question” we must ask ourselves when voting.  I wonder why the overriding question does not come from Exodus 18:21 that I quoted above, or Proverbs, or Romans[57]?

Perhaps the verse could be better interpreted as exhorting the Israelites to pray or warning the Jews against insurrection?  Something like Timothy’s exhortation[58] for Christians to “pray for… all who are in authority, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence”?

How would we actually foretell what will be “most likely to bring the best results”?  It is far less arrogant to decide things based on truth and what is morally good in itself – and maybe on direction straight from God – than to weigh out pros and cons of policies and possibilities and contingencies.  Which items hold more weight as we’re weighing?  National security?  Jobs and taxes?  Civil rights? Abortion?  Marriage? Education?  Good Christians can argue all day long on which should be weightier.  But when we vote for president, I contend that is not what we are being asked to do.  We are being asked to choose a leader (specifically one who will carry out the laws in existence, including the Constitution, to command our military in time of war, and to be the head of our foreign relations).  And a nation is blessed when the ruler is righteous[59].

Which brings up an interesting point.  What about God’s blessing?  What about God’s power to deliver and guide and reform?  If we’re being pragmatic about what is possible from a human standpoint, the way our government is in the habit of functioning (not even trying to exert ourselves to reign it in towards how it should, under the Constitution, be functioning) – then we’re leaving out part of the picture.  Is God more likely to do good to a people who choose evil individuals for rulers?  Or is God able to do much good with our faithful choices?  If a remnant of Christians abides by its conscience and votes for actually good, actually qualified candidates – don’t you think God is more likely to show our whole nation mercy for our sakes? 

Next, Wayne Grudem says that defeating Hillary would be a good thing to do, and that since supporting Trump is a way to do that, it is a good thing to do.  According to James 4:17[60], he says, if we know a good thing to do and don’t do it, we’re sinning.  But what is the intended application of the verse?  It is good to do my dishes.  It is good to do my friend’s dishes.  It is good to be a sidewalk counselor outside abortion clinics.  It is good to perform ultrasounds at a pregnancy center.  It is good to pray.  It is good to write books.  It is good to preach the gospel.  It is good to teach doctrine.  It is good to rest.  It is good to feast.  It is good to fast.  We cannot possibly do every good thing, all at once.  Is defeating the Democrats the only good thing to do?  In a given situation, we need to discern the good thing that God wants us to do.  If we don’t do the good thing that God wants us to do, more so if we know what it is, it is sin.

But, as we’re discerning about the “right thing to do”, let’s take into consideration this other Scripture: “And why not do evil that good may come?–as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.” – Romans 3:8[61]  So even if some good things could possibly result from our choices, the end does not justify the means.  We have to figure out if the choice itself is evil or good.

There is a quote going around, attributed to C.H. Spurgeon, “Of two evils, choose neither.”  To some Christians, what seems best to them is to not vote at all in this presidential election.  Wayne Grudem believes this is also sin, citing Obadiah 1:11.  The verse he quotes could be taken to mean that the Edomites did nothing at all, if it weren’t for the context[62], which describes them cheering for evil and aiding those who were attacking Israel.  Cross reference to Psalm 137:7[63].

I don’t believe that abstaining from voting is inherently wrong.  There are some times in the Bible where abstaining from something “good” is advised.  Take, for example, Ecclesiastes 5:5: “It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay.” Or, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” – James 3:1 Or, “The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.” – Matthew 19:10-11  Or, “And the LORD said to Gideon, “With the 300 men who lapped I will save you and give the Midianites into your hand, and let all the others go every man to his home.”” – Judges 7:7 Or, “The LORD will fight for you, and you have only to be silent.”” – Exodus 14:14

So the questions we need to ask are: Has God given us the obligation to vote? Are we responsible for the outcome of the election even if we chose a morally acceptable but arguably less strategic vote?  Is it wrong to choose an evil person as our ruler? 

I would exhort everyone, especially Christians, to do all things out of faith and not out of fear.  Or, at least, that we would fear God alone.  Fearing Him, may we be diligent to find out the truth, to seek His perspective on these matters, and follow His will for us personally.

Update, October 9, 2016: Wayne Grudem removed his endorsement and published this apology, in light of recent revelations about Trump’s previous moral corruption: Trump’s Moral Character and the Election.

Footnotes:

[1] I disagreed with some of Grudem’s approvals of Trump’s policies and what he considers “most likely”.  Below I mention some.

Lower taxes are good.  They do not in themselves constitute a more just or more limited government.  In fact, if unaccompanied by a budget a fraction the size of what it has been, lower taxes will only mean more borrowing, which is a hidden tax on the future[i].  It is also debatable whether graduated tax rates are just[ii].

I am not convinced that Trump would be good at diplomacy[iii],[iv],[v],[vi],[vii].  He may be convinced that he will not be manipulated, deceived, or out-strategized by Russia, Mexico, or Middle-Eastern nations, but I am not.  Trump’s “tough guy” persona may be useful in standing up to bullies, or it may make our international representative into a bully himself.  He has said that he would be in favor of having our military “go after the families of terrorists”[viii],[ix], and to, when fighting them, match the level of violence terrorists and ISIS use[x].  Victory at the cost of virtue is an unacceptable goal for me to support.  I am also concerned that it would not be so easy to win a war (without making many more enemies globally) as Trump seems to think.

My personal belief is that Hillary is rather smart, and rather interested in maintaining whatever power she can get her hands on.  Therefore, I think that she is actually less likely than Trump to get us into a big war or to alienate our allies.  (And if she does, she’ll probably do it behind the scenes where no one will be able to verify it was her doing it.)

Both Trump and Hillary have taken contradictory positions on fracking during this campaign, which perhaps could be characterized at this time by saying that they believe in local decision-making about fracking[xi].  I would find it impossible, without prophetic revelation, to determine what each candidate will actually do for or against this energy issue.

Trump’s words about health insurance have not always sounded like they are entirely free-market solutions, even during this campaign season[xii].  Like many Republicans this year, he does support repealing – and replacing – Obamacare, apparently with a mixture of free market solutions and with some sort of forced “safety net” for the poorer people.  Does this mean retaining an expansion of Medicaid?  Something else?  I believe there is a substantial difference between Hillary Clinton’s intentions for the health care industry, and that of Donald Trump.  But it may be a difference of degree only.  There are manifold problems with Obamacare.  One of them is the individual mandate, what I still believe to be an unconstitutional imposition on our liberties (whatever the Supreme Court says about the penalty being a tax).  The second is that the government funding for these programs is unconstitutional.  They have no enumerated jurisdiction to be spending money on a private citizen’s health care.  Trump’s plan would, presumably, deal with only one of these objections (the individual mandate). 

From what I have read and heard, there seems to be some debate about whether Trump owes his so-called business success to his own abilities[xiii] to “solve problems and get things done.”  Commentators have pointed out that Trump started with a substantial sum of money inherited from his father.  They say that his fortune, if invested in mutual funds back in 1982, and left there, accruing, would be twice what he claims to have made it today through business acumen[xiv].  They mention that more than one of his business ventures has gone bankrupt.  Some of them bring up his wielding of eminent domain for personal gain (abetted by corrupt politicians)[xv]; his use of bankruptcy (not paying bills) to pass off the risk of his investments to those providing the actual goods and services[xvi]; and that he is defendant in a lawsuit for fraud[xvii] in the case of Trump University.  There is even some question as to whether Trump is as wealthy as he claims.  All of these things cast doubt on the prudence of employing Trump to use his reputed problem-solving skills to tackle the big, nuanced problems the United States is facing.

[i] Mises Institute, “Tax Cuts Without Spending Cuts Are Pointless” https://mises.org/blog/tax-cuts-without-spending-cuts-are-pointless

[ii] Capitalism.org, “What About a Progressive Tax?” http://capitalism.org/taxation/what-about-the-fair-tax/

[iii] The New York Times, “Transcript: Donald Trump on Nato, Turkey’s Coup Attempt and the World” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy-interview.html?_r=0

[iv] Talking Points Memo, “How Donald Trump Is Already Doing a World of Damage Abroad” http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/no-election-necessary-trump-already-doing-damage-abroad

[v] The Boston Globe, “The Day Trump Trashed US Diplomacy” https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/21/the-day-trump-trashed-diplomacy/gXunS1AcEhkSKGdpiErVvL/story.html

[vi] War on the Rocks, “Open Letter on Donald Trump from GOP National Security Leaders” http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/

[vii] The Chicago Tribune, “Column: On Foreign Policy, Hillary Clinton is Bad. Trump is Worse.” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-trump-perspec-0605-md-20160603-column.html

[viii] CNN, “Donald Trump on Terrorists: ‘Take Out their Families’ ” http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/

[ix] The video clip here is important. Mediaite, “Trump: The Military Would Not Refuse My Orders Even If They Consider them Illegal” http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-the-military-would-not-refuse-my-orders-even-if-they-consider-them-illegal/

[x] YouTube CNN, “Donald Trump Anderson Cooper CNN Interview (part 3)” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5NGbI3snZg

[xi] OilPrice.com, “Is Trump Flip-Flopping on Fracking?” http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Is-Trump-Flip-Flopping-On-Fracking4276.html

[xii] Originally compiled and published on Facebook January 2016, this is my own research on “Donald Trump’s Similarities to Democrats”.  It is a list of sources about various positions Trump has taken, with a section of sources also demonstrating that he is a liar.  https://www.facebook.com/notes/lisa-cress/donald-trumps-similarities-to-democrats/10153386583390954

[xiii] Alternet, “Exposing How Donald Trump Really Made His Furtune: Inheritance from Dad and the Government’s Protection Mostly Did the Trick” http://www.alternet.org/story/156234/exposing_how_donald_trump_really_made_his_fortune%3A_inheritance_from_dad_and_the_government’s_protection_mostly_did_the_trick

[xiv] Money Talks News, “Trump Worth $10 Billion Less Than If He’d Simply Invested in Index Funds” http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/

[xv] National Review, “Trump and Eminent Domain” http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431005/trump-eminent-domain

[xvi] Forbes, “Fourth Time’s a Charm: How Donald Trump Made Bankruptcy Work for Him” http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/04/29/fourth-times-a-charm-how-donald-trump-made-bankruptcy-work-for-him/#3fae39ec6f7a

[xvii] The New Yorker, “Trump University: It’s Worse Than You Think” http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-university-its-worse-than-you-think

[2] Tom Hoefling for President 2016, “Platform” http://www.tomhoefling.com/platform.html

[3] Darrell Castle for President 2016, Constitution Party, issues page http://castle2016.com/issues/

[4] Wikipedia, “Political Parties in the United States”, history and early political parties section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States#History_and_early_political_parties

[5] Great American History, “How Lincoln Won the 1860 Republican Nomination” http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/nomination.htm

[6] Real Clear Politics, Polls, “Election 2016 Presidential Polls”  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

[7] Real Clear Politics, Polls, “Battle for White House” http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

[8] 270 to Win, “2016 Election: Clinton vs. Trump”  http://www.270towin.com/maps/clinton-trump-electoral-map

[9] Huffington Post, “5 Reasons the Comey Hearing was the Worst Education in Criminal Justice the American Public has Ever Had” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5-reasons-the-comey-hearing-was-the-worst-education_us_577ee999e4b05b4c02fbdcd5

[10] Politico, “President Obama Endorses Hillary Clinton” http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/president-obama-endorses-hillary-clinton-224130

[11] Originally compiled and published on Facebook January 2016, this is my own research on “Donald Trump’s Similarities to Democrats”.  It is a list of sources about various positions Trump has taken, with a section of sources also demonstrating that he is a liar.  https://www.facebook.com/notes/lisa-cress/donald-trumps-similarities-to-democrats/10153386583390954

[12] Liberty Counsel Connect, “Chief Justice Roy Moore Counters Politically Motivated Complaints on Marriage” http://libertycounsel.com/chief-justice-roy-moore-counters-politically-motivated-complaints-on-marriage/

[13] Tom Hoefling for President 2016, “Tom Hoefling: Judges, and politicians, behaving badly” http://www.tomhoefling.com/home/tom-hoefling-judges-and-politicians-behaving-badly

[14] The Castle Report, “Original Intent” http://www.castlereport.us/original-intent-2/

[15] Some people who oppose abortion also oppose these incremental or compromise regulations.  Some of these people believe all regulations are wrong or counterproductive[a], while others only oppose language in laws that implies that if you follow the regulations, “then you can kill the baby”[b].

[a] Abolish Human Abortion, position paper on “immediatism” http://abolishhumanabortion.com/immediatism/

[b] American Right to Life, position paper on abortion regulations http://americanrtl.org/abortion-regulations

[16] The Washington Post, “Supreme Court construes the exclusionary rule narrowly in Utah v. Strieffhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/21/supreme-court-construes-the-exclusionary-rule-narrowly-in-utah-v-strieff/

[17] Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, “U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment” https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

[18] A 5-3 decision, given in October 2015 by Justices Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy, Alito (these four were appointed by Republicans), and Breyer (appointed by a Democrat). Supreme Court of the United States Blog, “Utah v. Strieffhttp://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/utah-v-strieff/

[19] Ironton Tribune, “Republican Nominees have Upheld Roe v. Wadehttp://www.irontontribune.com/2008/09/30/republican-nominees-have-upheld-roe-v-wade/

[20] The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was upheld 5-4, with Chief Justice Roberts being the only Republican-appointed Justice to vote in favor.  The National Law Review, “Analysis: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds the Affordable Care Act: Roberts Rules?” http://www.natlawreview.com/article/analysis-us-supreme-court-upholds-affordable-care-act-roberts-rules

[21] Obergefell v. Hodges was another 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court in 2015, all 4 Democrat-appointed judges voting in favor, and Republican-appointed Justice Kennedy joining them.  Wikipedia, “Obergefell v. Hodges” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

[22] Personhood, Education page, “A Right to Life” section http://www.personhood.com/education

[23] Legislators who support the Sanctity of Human Life Act reintroduce it frequently.  Here is 2015’s bill.  Congress.gov “H.R. 426 – Sanctity of Human Life Act” https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/426

[24] Wikipedia, “List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

[25] The Washington Post, “GOP Senator Calls Out Donald Trump’s ‘Many Affairs’ in Lengthy Tweetstorm” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/25/gop-senator-calls-out-donald-trumps-affair-in-lengthy-tweetstorm/

[26] Life Site News, “ ‘Anyone But Donald Trump’: Here’s His Record on Life, Marriage, and Religious Liberty” https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/anyone-but-donald-trump-heres-his-record-on-life-marriage-and-religious-lib

[27] Bloomberg, “Trump Embraces Executive Orders to Avoid Congressional Gridlock” http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-27/trump-eyes-executive-orders-to-sidestep-congressional-gridlock

[28] Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, “U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv

[29] Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, “U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment” https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

[30] PBS NewsHour, “Donald Trump May Support Gay Rights, but Does the Republican Party?” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/donald-trump-may-support-gay-rights-republican-party/

[31] National Review, “Trump Praises His Sister, a Pro-Abortion Extremist Judge” http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423196/trump-praises-his-sister-pro-abortion-extremist-judge-ramesh-ponnuru

[32] The New York Times, “Trump Says He Was Kidding in Suggesting His Sister for the Court” http://www.nytimes.com/live/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/trump-says-he-was-kidding-when-he-suggested-his-sister-for-the-court/

[33] Fox News, “Trump Says He’ll Release List of Potential Supreme Court Justices” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/21/trump-says-hell-release-list-potential-supreme-court-justices.html

[34] Politico, “Trump Unveils 11 Potential Supreme Court Nominees” http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trumps-supreme-court-nominees-223331

[35] The Washington Examiner, “Trump Might Not Stick to Supreme Court Nominees on His List” http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-might-not-stick-to-supreme-court-nominees-on-his-list/article/2591733

[36] Commentary Magazine, “Is Trump Really Pro-Israel?” https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/trump-really-pro-israel/

[37] The Jerusalem Post, “Top Trump Advisor to ‘Post’: Settlement Annexation  Legitimate If PA Continues to Avoid Real Peace” http://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/Top-Trump-advisor-to-Post-Settlement-annexation-legitimate-if-PA-continues-to-avoid-real-peace-460856

[38] The Intercept, “Hillary Clinton Wasn’t Always This One-Sided on Israel” https://theintercept.com/2016/05/17/hillary-clinton-wasnt-always-this-one-sided-on-israel/

[39] Truth Out, “What We Can Expect From  Hillary Clinton on Israel/Palestine http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33868-what-we-can-expect-from-hillary-clinton-on-israel-palestine

[40] It is very difficult to find somewhat neutral historical summaries of the Bill Clinton administration’s relationship with Israel.  This source has almost a more social take on it. The Washington Post, “What Bill Clinton Can Teach Obama About Israelis”   https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-bill-clinton-can-teach-obama-about-israelis/2012/11/23/e654ef34-334d-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_story.html

[41] This one is more political and historical regarding Bill Clinton’s interactions with Israel. Gale Student Resources in Context, 2011 “Bill Clinton’s Role in Israeli Peace Accords” http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/suic/ReferenceDetailsPage/DocumentToolsPortletWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&jsid=874b6aa16ce31d9be921dfffb8e9df12&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ2181500121&u=sand55832&zid=24730bc50ec2547e7f8807b03925dbb2

[42] The Wall Street Journal, “How Obama Abandoned Israel” http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-obama-abandoned-israel-1434409772

[43] Dictionary.com, “vote” http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vote

[44] Federal Election Commission, “Public Funding of Presidential Elections”, General Election Funding section http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#General

[45] Ballotpedia, “Ballot Access for Major and Minor Parties” https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_major_and_minor_party_candidates

[46] Ballotpedia, “Ballot Access Requirements for Presidential Candidates in Colorado” https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_Colorado

[47] ESV Bible, Colossians 3:6 http://www.esvbible.org/Colossians%203/

[48] ESV Bible, Ephesians 5 http://www.esvbible.org/Ephesians+5/

[49] ESV Bible, Romans 3:10 http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+3:10/

[50] ESV Bible, Romans 3:23 http://www.esvbible.org/Romans%203%3A23/

[51] Blue Letter Bible, KJV occurrences of “righteous” in Proverbs https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=righteous&t=KJV&csr=Pro#s=s_primary_0_1

[52] Blue Letter Bible, KJV occurrences of “wicked” in Psalms and Proverbs https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=wicked&t=KJV&csrf=Psa&csrt=Pro#s=s_primary_0_1

[53] ESV Bible, Proverbs http://www.esvbible.org/Proverbs%201/

[54] CNN, “Trump Believes in God, but Hasn’t Sought Forgiveness” http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/trump-has-never-sought-forgiveness/

[55] ESV Bible, Exodus 18:21 http://www.esvbible.org/Exodus+18/

[56] ESV Bible, Jeremiah 29:7 http://www.esvbible.org/Jeremiah%2029/

[57] ESV Bible, Romans 13 http://www.esvbible.org/Romans%2013/

[58] ESV Bible, 1 Timothy 2:2 http://www.esvbible.org/1%20Timothy%202/

[59] ESV Bible, Proverbs 29:2 http://www.esvbible.org/Proverbs%2029%3A2/

[60] ESV Bible, James 4:17 http://www.esvbible.org/James%204%3A17/

[61] ESV Bible, Romans 3:8 http://www.esvbible.org/Romans%203%3A7/

[62] ESV Bible, Obadiah http://www.esvbible.org/Obadiah/

[63] ESV Bible, Psalm 137:7 http://www.esvbible.org/Psalm%20137%3A7/

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

Read Full Post »

Last week after a prayer meeting I usually attend, a few of us got to talking about the Declaration of Independence.  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,Libertyand the pursuit of Happiness.”  One says he doesn’t believe in the right to life, but in the right to property.  Another agrees with the declaration.  I say, “Um, what does ‘rights’ mean?”  And it sounds like a silly question, but we struggle with it.  If God gives a right, is it irrevocable, even by Him, even if we do something to deserve ourselves out of it?  If our right to liberty is limited – by nature, by moral laws, or by civil laws – what does liberty even mean?  When you die, do you lose your rights?  If your rights aren’t enforced, are you stripped of them or are they merely violated?  Does having inalienable rights just mean that the rules are consistent throughout your lifetime?

Some things, besides confusion, that I came away with, are: Libertydoes not mean either the ability or the permission to make the world the way you want it – even regarding yourself.  God owns the rights to life.  God sometimes delegates His authority over the rights of others.  The Old Testament emphasizes property rights in a way that exalts land ownership higher than I am accustomed.  Israelites could sell their land, but they got it back at Jubilee.  And fathering an heir to the land, to carry on the family name and almost to own the land, was very important.  Basically, a right that furthered our dominion responsibility given by God, is much more important than some right of self-determination.

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

Read Full Post »

Fifteen adults and ten kids filled the house of my friends and long time fellow Pigfesters for a Pigfest of their own this weekend.  There was a craft project (pig masks) for the kids, and plenty of farm-fare for our feast.  Lasting about four hours total, we covered five full-length debates and two miniature ones (something introduced last year at the Pigfest of June 2010).  The three guests who had never before participated in a Pigfest all jumped in with the appropriate gusto.

 

The so-named “Great Commission” applies only to the 11 original apostles, and as it is poor hermeneutics to force its expansion to all Christians, we ought to demote its greatness.  (Mark 16:14-18) was read.  Evangelism would still not be out of order, but it is not – as is commonly preached to believers – commanded to everyone.  “Those who believe” in Mark’s account of Jesus’ final command would then refer not to all who are likewise preaching the gospel, but to those who have received the apostles’ message with faith (certain signs are predicted to “follow those who believe.”)  Both Matthew and Mark specify that Jesus was speaking to the eleven apostles when He gave the commission.  Did Jesus expect only those eleven men to reach the whole world, as the commission instructs?  The biblical concept of “whole world” could have meant merely Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles (everyone else).  Also it could have meant the known world – evidence is that Paul (an apostle who was not one of the eleven) was seeking to take the gospel to Spain because it was one of the ends of the earth.  Christians with callings besides evangelism are not failing when they don’t preach the gospel, if this commission does not apply to them.  Are we exalting the command we’ve appropriated and exaggerated over other commands or callings?  Did the “Great Commission” apply to Matthias, who was selected to return the number of apostles to twelve; and if so, does that mean the command and promises applies to all who, by authority of or recognition by the original apostles, succeed them – or even to all who have the calling or gifting to apostleship?  Does not the command itself, to make disciples, indicate that the converts are to become like the apostles and thus inherit their mission?  When Jesus says “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you,” is this very instruction exempt?  Essentially, whatever is preached today in evangelism is the apostles’ very teachings (or at least those recorded in Scripture) so that in a way it is still those men who are being used by God to fulfill this commission.

 

Fathers should work outside the home, because it is more efficient.  Not all dads, though, are inefficient working in the home.  Different occupations and different house layouts and different family styles would change the efficiency of working from home.  For example, working at home would function better if the work was done in the downstairs shop or in the smithy across the yard or the fields behind the house.  If women and children would leave the men alone while they’re working, instead of taking advantage of their presence as though the men had nothing else to do, more work could be done.  However, women have much work to do around the house that they manage to get done despite the presence of children – and, where applicable, of husbands (who sometimes by their proximity can cause as much distraction and hindrance as children).  When men are home they have the advantage of not missing out on their families.  If some milestone is reached, he can witness it or participate in it.  But he would be sacrificing socialization with other workers, other fathers and husbands, that he would typically get at work.  Also the possibility of distraction – and distance from the other people working on the same project or employing the man – does make his work less efficient.  There is value in kids seeing dad work.  Are they going to be brought “out of the home” to witness that – or even to participate in it?  It seems to be assumed that more is better in time spent with family, but there can be a limit reached after which it is healthier for the family relationships for each member to get out, to be around other people who have nothing to do with their family.  Working outside the home is an opportunity for that.  (It was interjected that the same could apply to women, needing breaks, and a weekly activity like MOPS was suggested – though that usually involves considerably less time away from the family than a man’s career would.  Maybe men should get out of the house only once a week, like the women?)  It is a concern that the children of men working from home are getting used to an unrealistic world that will not always be available to them (Mommy and Daddy won’t always be around to give them attention and help, and it is not likely they will be able to find jobs with such flexibility to allow them to be home with their families most of the time either.)  Agrarian societies are more ideal, a blend of working as a family and having access to home but also getting out of the domestic environment.  Are we going to revolutionize society back to a work structure that would be more ideal?  Is it worth it to try to live like agrarians when the jobs we have are technology- and information- based?  How much does the marriage relationship of wife as helper apply to a husband’s work?  Could he benefit from having his wife’s help in his work?  Or is the wife’s help limited to raising the kids and keeping the house for him?  Can she help him with his job once he comes home from an away job?  Fathers are given the responsibility of teaching their children, and being at home more often is the best way to do that.  They can also, then, emotionally support their wives who would be crazy being home alone with young children so much.

 

5 Minutes:

We should stockpile chocolate for trading during hyper-inflation emergencies, rather than precious metals.  Chocolate would be difficult to store and transport since it melts.  Are higher chocolate concentrations better, like gold over silver?  (You can always add milk and sugar later, right?)  Maybe we shouldn’t bother, because if hyper-inflation comes, we’ll all be in big trouble and won’t be able to protect our stockpile.  So perhaps it would be better to invest in a non-precious metal: lead, like John Wayne.  It would be tempting to eat your chocolate currency yourself.  Then again, this could be seen as an advantage.  This trade good, unlike precious metals, is useful for something.  It has some nutritional value: protein, iron, sugars – along with being an aphrodisiac.  As people consume the chocolate, the amounts remaining become increasingly valuable.  Now is a good time to pursue a chocolate investment as the world’s chocolate supply is being threatened by war in Libya (one of the world’s largest chocolate producers).  It could be to our advantage to employ a community effort to invest in chocolate, choosing carefully who is to be in charge of “loss prevention.”  As a short-term measure, which is unlikely for a hyper-inflation scenario, it might actually work.

 

Practical Christianity is more important for knowing (pleasing and trusting) God than reading Scripture for oneself.  For most of history 75 percent of the Christian world has been illiterate, so this is the only reasonable conclusion.  Examples of practical Christianity are: the sacraments (including penance/confession of sin, baptism, communion, confirmation/laying on of hands and praying for a believer to receive the Holy Spirit, marriage, praying for the sick, holy orders including Christian ministry and missions and monasticism), evangelism, testimony/sharing what Christ has done for us, oral Scripture reading/hearing, almsgiving, listening to God, rest in Christ/finding out what it means that Christ fulfills the Sabbath for us, peace-making/judging disputes.  Also suggested was James’ instruction to care for widows and orphans.  If someone is able to read, reading Scripture is the most important way to know about God.  What about pleasing Him or trusting Him?  Life experiences or examples leave us all to assumptions about the character of God, and to doubts when faced with discouraging events – lacking the assurance of a clear description of God from the Bible.  People with different experiences from one another could wind up believing in a different God.  We also run the risk of worshiping traditions, the rituals of the religion (similar to pagan religions), and our own works rather than worshiping a worthy God.  What differentiates us from the other religions is the revelation of God in His book.  But are we equating reading Scripture with understanding God?  Who is to say that by reading we get an accurate interpretation or comprehension?  The disciples were recognized as unschooled men whose power came because they had been with Jesus.  Perhaps the most important thing is to spend time with Christ – but how is that done?  Christians have always had access to some Scripture (even if it was only passages different members had memorized).  Originally most Christians had a familiarity with the Old Testament, at least.  In the Old Testament, Israel was commanded to write the words of God in prominent places where it would always be in their way, so God must have seen it as important.  David also highly valued his ability to “meditate” on the Law or the word of God.  When the temple was finished, this great practical work of faith, it was culminated with the reading of Scripture, with reminding the people of the precept-style truths.  Public reading could substitute for private reading in most of these instances.  Scripture itself tells us to do what we hear.  But how do we know what to do if we don’t read Scripture?  So certainly personal Bible reading comes first.  Do we feel like we can get all we need to please God by private reading – as personal as Christianity is – so that we are missing out on better ways (taking advantage of the community, the Church, that God has given us)?  To know God you have to heed His word.  Scripture has been written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit so that God is not limited to what we have read in the Bible to guide us for our daily lives or to reveal Himself to us.  The Bible says “Don’t be ignorant” four times: spiritual gifts, the return of Christ, and two other things – possibly one of them is Scripture?  (Addendum: List of verses about not being ignorant, in addition to 1 Corinthians 12:1 )

 

5 minutes:

Unicorns have existed, will exist, and appear throughout the Bible.  Scriptures in Numbers, Job, Psalms, the prophets (esp. Isaiah), and Deuteronomy use a unique Hebrew word translated in the King James as “unicorn.”  It may not mean the mythical beast we think of: a horse with wings and a horn and magical powers, but it does not mean “wild ox” as other versions translate it, including NKJV.  The very context rules out an “ox” interpretation.  Also there are 7 other words that actually refer to oxen; the Old Testament authors weren’t lacking such a word to use; they obviously meant something else.  What did they mean?  When the Western (Christian) world first encountered rhinos in Africa, they called them unicorns because of the single horn on a rhinoceros’ nose.  Also we have discovered fossils of extinct deer with one horn on the head.  However, a deer would not likely be strong enough to fit the Bible’s descriptions.  On the other hand, one of the passages describes the unicorn as “skipping,” an unlikely activity for rhinos.  Usually the animal is associated with strength and not being able to be tamed for domestic purposes like plowing.  Isaiah’s mention of unicorns is in an as yet unfulfilled prophecy, so unicorns, whatever they are, must also exist in the future.  (Addendum: Blue Letter Bible entry for the word “unicorn” including occurrences and Hebrew dictionary  This scene from The Gods Must Be Crazy was also referenced. )

 

Scripture is what has been traditionally and historically what the people of God have accepted as Scripture, not what the authors originally wrote.  (Example the passage in John 8 that “earliest and most reliable manuscripts” do not contain would be considered Scripture.)  The miraculous preservation of Scripture has been a doctrine taught by the Church and used as a defense of the authority of the Bible.  Basically it is taught that God has guarded the Bible, the words He wanted His church to have, throughout the centuries.  How long does something have to be unchanged or accepted in order to count as “preserved”?  Are we talking about translations, too, or texts based on the translations – especially the Septuagint?  If preservation is God’s miraculous way, and He intended for us to accept as Scripture the books as originally written, why didn’t God preserve the original manuscripts themselves?  Does this proposition increase the necessity of historical analysis – or decrease – and what does that say about the centuries of people who did not have access to the archaeological information we are uncovering today?  Is the preservation doctrine even biblical?  “Not one jot or tittle will pass away.”  It seems historical that there has been a miraculous preservation of the Bible – compare to Homer or even Shakespeare.  Isn’t a changed text, as the resolution suggests has happened, evidence against preservation having fully happened?  Are we allowed to start “affirming” or “accepting” some new parts to books or entirely new books now?  The original process of canonization included checking for authorship of passages.  But the number one rule was “Has it been accepted by the Church as Scripture?”  The texts we have received have been the Byzantine versions because they were more organized about copying and spreading their texts.

 

Due to the amount of corruption in our current government system, we should exploit technology to make representatives accountable.  Democracy is possible, not too unwieldy, with technology today.  All citizens could have a voice in the way they want their representatives to vote if we set up some computerized system for tallying input.  Then if congressmen and senators do not follow the will of their constituents, we could vote them out of office next term.  The object would also be to reduce the influence of lobbyists: the loud minority.  Apathy, now and after a technological system is established, would be at least as great a problem as corruption.  But perhaps people would be less apathetic if they were given new hope that their voice mattered.  As the system stands today, to have any impact we the little people would have to start at the lower levels of primaries – it is very unlikely that the candidate that we really want is making it to the full election, and then who wants to vote for the lesser or slower of two evils?  Technology could make it easier to participate in small ways, easing citizens into involvement.  Most people who are eligible to vote shouldn’t, because the bills being considered – even if they were read in their hundreds of pages entirety – are too complicated to be comprehensible to the layperson.  In a more accountable, participation-oriented system, the bills would be necessarily written in the language of the citizen, which could be a huge advantage.  But most people who can vote shouldn’t because people are selfish, and a more democratic system like this being proposed would turn into a war of personal interests rather than the representative ideal of good men making decisions for the common good, seeing the big picture.  Technology could potentially eliminate the party system by giving voters more access to information about candidates.  Then we could vote based on character, actions, and positions instead of on affiliation.  However the party system does make the election process less cumbersome.  It is assumed that candidates identifying themselves with a certain party adhere to its platform positions on issues.  Also rather than going through each of a thousand candidates, you can seek for the ones in the party that most represents you – although we may need more than two parties to accomplish that.  However, if your attempt is to defeat the lobbyists, even in a technological system like this, they can be louder than the majority because they will participate whereas the average man still doesn’t think it’s worth it.  The way to stop lobbyists is to make it criminal for a citizen not to vote.  We could still use the technology to inform the legislators of the ideas and opinions of those whom they represent – but not in a way so directly affecting voting.  And the communication could go both ways fairly easily.  Christians are becoming a minority voice, similar to lobbyists.  If we empower the majority, what risks will that have for us and our children?  Persecution strengthens individual faith and the Church as a whole.  But should we pursue persecution, vote it into being?  Even increasing the voice of the people won’t fix corruption because the majority will be wicked, or tends to be.  And every vote continues the slide away from righteousness.  Monarchy, as archaic as it sounds, has the best chance of a truly righteous government (though you run the risk of occasional or even frequent tyrannical rulers as well) because while the whole people will very likely never be God-fearing, one king here and there might.

 

Also suggested, though not debated:

Caffeine and alcohol ought to be regulated, only consumed by prescription.

 

People don’t say what they mean, either, so you don’t know any more about them than you do about a dog’s dream. (quote from Get Low)

 

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

Read Full Post »

Today I was having a gyro near the Colorado capitol in downtown Denver, and a policeman all in black with “HOMELAND SECURITY” written across his chest in grayish white was wandering around our restaurant.  I didn’t think much of it until I realized he was carrying a little black box the size of a deck of cards that was ticking erratically.  My friend I was with said he was looking for something, investigating.  And I’m a little silly, but I didn’t think so, and I ignored it.  My friend, she has more experience than I do.  She was right.  A little later he explained to the owner – a round-headed short man with silver hair and kind eyes and an apron – that the radiation levels weren’t high enough to be anything serious (a bomb like those in nightmares).

 

I suppose the owner was worried that there was something wrong with his shop, or that someone was plotting terror from one of his tables, and he hovered just behind the officer’s shoulders.  The all in black man was very calm, telling the man that his sensor had sounded an alarm as he drove by…  My friend asked people if they’d recently been though those out of control full body scanners at the airports.  Probably someone eating there must have had something medical done that day, said the man with the little black ticking box. And he didn’t ask all of us sitting there, but he also didn’t look like he was going away.  So the lady in the corner raised her hand half way and confessed to having had a PET scan that morning. And apologetically, “My doctor said I should be fine to go out.” People look around kind of nervously. Some joke. Some are puzzled.  Ms. Radiating wants to know if he really could sense her from all the way outside.  The officer (who was probably wearing a lead vest, himself) reassured the rest of us that we weren’t in danger.  Then he shows the woman his Geiger counter (how frightening) to prove to her that yes, the numbers were quite high enough for him to have detected.

 

The officer was DRIVING BY and his radiation detector picked up the woman’s aftereffects of the PET scan. (I always wondered what our law enforcement actually did to try to keep dirty bombs from going off.)  Most likely following protocol, he reported the mildly increased radiation. The report went straight to Washington, DC. We’re talking Pentagon and Homeland Security. Probably not Obama, since he has much more important things to worry about than nuclear scares at home and abroad.  The woman cooperatively provided the officer with her name and contact info in case anyone needed to follow up on his report and confirm that she wasn’t a terrorist, just a patient in the tech-y US of A.

 

True story.

 

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

 

Read Full Post »

Really, I’m going to try to summarize and make a few points.  But Joel Rosenberg has a lot better idea what’s going on, and will give you much more information.  Use his links in this post on the Flotilla Crisis.

If you catch the news at all, you’ve probably heard that a week or two ago Israel boarded some aid ships off the coast of Gaza, which eventually resulted in the death of several of those on board (10) and the injuries of several Israeli Defense Soldiers (5).  Perhaps like me you did not know until this even that there was a blockade of Gaza.  Though I’m not surprised.  There’s always something happening in Israel.  If they’re not fighting, they’re containing, and if they’re not containing, they’re appeasing.  Both appeasing and containing lead to fighting.  It’s the way things go in Israel.

So Israel is surrounded by enemies.  Some are official nations and others are terrorist organizations or individuals.  Many work for the UN.

The closest of Israel’s enemies spend a lot of time and money shooting missiles at Israel, hitting the peaceful civilian population.  This is supplemented by the occasional explosive terrorist attack at a wedding or a bus station or some well-populated place (similar to huge office buildings in downtown New York City).  Citizens of Palestine, and the terrorist armies on the northern border of Israel, too, are supplied with weapons, training, men, and propaganda support by such do-gooders as Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Al-Qaeda, the PLO…  All of these groups have stated that it is their mission to kill Jews and eradicate Israel.

So Israel has tried a lot of things.  Several years ago they ceded whole tracts of land to the Palestinians as a means of appeasement.  Rather, they used this land to train terrorists and stage their attacks.  The democratic elections put the terrorist group Hamas in control of the Palestinian territory, and anarchy in varying levels ensued.  Bombs keep getting shot into Israeli territory.  This is so commonplace that we in America almost never hear about it.

Recently, Israel got fed up.  They, together with Egypt, announced a blockade of Gaza.  The purpose, of course, is to prevent any more terrorists and their vicious weapons from getting to Israel’s neighbors who keep swearing to blow them to kingdom come.  Israel made it clear that they would allow food and medical supplies, all the humanitarian necessities, into Gaza, as long as the shipments went through Israel so they could be inspected for contraband.  Such deliveries have been made regularly to Gaza since the blockade began.  There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.  Ships were invited to make berth at an Israeli port (not Gaza ones) to deliver the aid.

Without speculating about the motives behind the move, a Flotilla set out from Turkey to run the blockade of Gaza.  This was their open and stated goal.  Passengers on board believed they were going to martyrdom.  But only 10 of them died.

As their “aid ships” neared the coast, Israel sent them a warning.  But the ships proceeded, so Israeli troops boarded them.  One fact mentioned in most accounts is that this took place in international waters, which to the uninformed news connoisseur sounds illegal.  It isn’t.  International laws governing naval blockades read like a manual of Israel’s actions in this confrontation.

Israel brought pistols but didn’t use them until they feared for their lives.  Instead they greeted with paint guns the weapon-holding “peace activists” who waited for them on deck.  All this is on video.  After the peaceful anti-Israelis took the soldiers and began beating them with pipes, throwing them three stories overboard, etc. the troops enforcing the blockade either fled or defended themselves with pistols.  Ten died.  The rest of the 600 activists were arrested, their goods confiscated and searched.  (All but two activists have been released.  The goods were shipped to the border of Gaza where Hamas refused to accept the aid unless Israel would release the final 2 prisoners – citizens of Israel.)

What do the Palestinians want?  If they’re fighting for a homeland, what do they call what they’ve had the past several years, and why expect anyone to trust them with a country of their own now?

Those who condemn Israel are refusing to believe Israel and at the same time accusing Hamas of lying.  Hamas has said what they want.  They want to kill Jews.  They want Israel’s existence to cease.  I believe them.  I just disapprove.

Israel’s peers in the world, friends and enemies, condemned her for her actions.  What would make the world happy?  (Turns out Charles Krauthammer made my exact points.  PLEASE read his article!)

1. They did not want Israel to kill people.

2.  They did not want Israel to prevent the Flotilla from reaching Gaza.

3.  They did not want Israel to blockade Gaza in the first place.

4.  They do not want Israel to wage open war on their enemies.

5.  They want Israel to offer more land for not even promises of peace.

6.  They want Israel to not defend themselves against the terrorists and surrounding nations who have stated a desire to wipe them out.

7.  They want Israel to give all its land to Islamic Terrorists and accept the promised slaughter.

If you put yourself in Israel’s place, I think you’ll have to realize they don’t want to do this.

Biblically speaking, it is in every other person’s and country’s best interests to bless Israel.  To stand against the Jews has a track record of bringing hard times and destruction.  In biblical language, this is called curses.

Genesis 12:1-3, “Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

Finally, many prophecy scholars think that the events taking place these days, particularly world opinion turning against Israel, sounds familiar.  Like maybe these things were predicted in Ezekiel, in Revelation… If that’s true, this would be the worst time ever to be on Israel’s bad side.

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »