Christians and Trump--two perspectives

[RumTumTugger]

He already stopped, RTT.

ok

[Teallaura]

He already stopped, RTT.

[RumTumTugger]

Whatever. We both know that I don't approve of murdering children. And we both know that you refuse to apologize, and what will happen as a result of that.

then you agree that CP and the rest of us DO NOT SUPPORT IMMORALITY apologize for that Timothy before you ask for an apology from Telllaura. and stop harassing her in PMs.

[Teallaura]

Okay, I kinda dropped out because I wasn't feeling well enough to tackle this properly (and I have a backlog of reading to do). I'm not ready to debate yet but the first speaker on this panel hits an excellent point (awesome question, too) and I wanted to post it.

For consideration only; feel free to ignore:

[KingsGambit]

If you were within reach, I'd smack you with... I dunno... probably something from my cat's litter box.

I already had his Partners in Christ on my "books to get" list. It was the only time I'd even heard of him. Now I see he has a whole page full of books that sound interesting.

I have that one too and it's not really one of his better offerings, though to be fair it's at a popular level while not all his other work is. It's very short and doesn't really bring much else to the table if you're already familiar with the basic arguments for egalitarianism.

But, yeah, he writes and blogs a lot on ethics from a Christian perspective, and even appears a lot on secular media to give his take. He probably largely gets away with his opposition to Trump without losing any evangelical credibility because he's Canadian.

[NorrinRadd]

If you're ever up for reading something you disagree with on the outset, John Stackhouse's Making The Best Of It outlines a view of Christian realism that does involve getting one's hands dirty. It may be the most personally influential book to my own view of theology outside the Bible. (Admittedly, the first half of the book is slow with his painstaking looks at the views of Yoder, Lewis, and Niebuhr, but the second half is provocative in a good way.) He even takes his view so far as to argue that Bonhoeffer was right to try to kill Hitler, which I'm not convinced of (and his logic would seem to justify abortion clinic violence), but it is what it is.

If you were within reach, I'd smack you with... I dunno... probably something from my cat's litter box.

I already had his Partners in Christ on my "books to get" list. It was the only time I'd even heard of him. Now I see he has a whole page full of books that sound interesting.

[KingsGambit]

Allowing a less great evil (so perceived) so that an even greater evil may not prevail seems to me to be antithetical to the Christian worldview. Jesus didn't teach his disciples to be for lesser evils so that even greater evils don't occur. That sounds much more like Islam where one is allowed to lie to people or spread the message with the sword so that the world might come to better appreciate the "religion of peace." I think when Christians are stuck between the rock and the hard place of lesser evils, it's often wiser to disengage. Let the world do its worldly things, and keep our heads above the water by focusing on spiritual things, perhaps directly in our local communities, and the places we can still make a positive impact without feeling we're selling out. I understand it's an incredibly difficult choice, and easier said than done, but sometimes maybe we should be less afraid of those who destroy the body, and more concerned about the one who is able to destroy both the body and the soul.

.

If you're ever up for reading something you disagree with on the outset, John Stackhouse's Making The Best Of It outlines a view of Christian realism that does involve getting one's hands dirty. It may be the most personally influential book to my own view of theology outside the Bible. (Admittedly, the first half of the book is slow with his painstaking looks at the views of Yoder, Lewis, and Niebuhr, but the second half is provocative in a good way.) He even takes his view so far as to argue that Bonhoeffer was right to try to kill Hitler, which I'm not convinced of (and his logic would seem to justify abortion clinic violence), but it is what it is.

[KingsGambit]

I disagree that voting third party as a means of protest is some kind of violation of "civic duty" (which is a concept I don't even believe in). My point of doing so when I do is to lower the percentages of both major party candidates to send an implicit message to both that they need to nominate better candidates.

[Littlejoe]

I think it's possible to reason this way. If you are pro-life, you would not want Hillary in office because you believe that she will further the pro-abortion agenda. However, in order to stop her, you could put into place a man of questionable/low integrity and morality, who had, until recently, also been pro-abortion, but upon announcing his desire for office on the Republican ticket, tepidly declared himself a pro-lifer (for instance, declaring as late as 2013 on Howard Stern's show that it "wasn't a big issue for him," and even more recently, asserting that Alabama went too far on the subject).

A Christian may reason that voting Trump president comes with consequences far greater than the immediate now. Yes, you may win the battle on abortion today, but what will it cost you in the long run? A concern may arise among some Christians that if people see us as hypocrites for choosing an otherwise corrupt leader, that we will lose the opportunity for evangelism. That when the tables flip, and a new president is in office, we may eventually lose our gains, and then some. That we will have traded the one who destroys the body for the one who destroys the body and the soul.

Now that isn't to say that I believe that people were WRONG for feeling they had no choice but Trump. I fully sympathize with the predicament a lot of people felt they were in there, but I also think that there are justifiable reasons for people to have chosen a third party candidate that they felt better aligned with their own values, or to have chosen not to be a part of the process altogether.

Since I was reasonably certain Trump would carry Texas, I looked at the 3rd party candidates...I didn't see any that were any better TBH.

[Adrift]

By the way, all of the above is besides my original point, which was simply that moral perfection isn't the bar that is being set. None of us are sinless, but there are gradients of moral failure, and it's isn't improper to expect those with great authority to be principled and to act with integrity.

[Adrift]

When you believe the third party candidate is best I agree. When you're using it as a way to avoid a difficult choice, no, it's not a conscientious choice.

In this case we have Casanova and Mao - and not voting means possibly putting a killer in power versus having a Lothario in charge.

I think it's possible to reason this way. If you are pro-life, you would not want Hillary in office because you believe that she will further the pro-abortion agenda. However, in order to stop her, you could put into place a man of questionable/low integrity and morality, who had, until recently, also been pro-abortion, but upon announcing his desire for office on the Republican ticket, tepidly declared himself a pro-lifer (for instance, declaring as late as 2013 on Howard Stern's show that it "wasn't a big issue for him," and even more recently, asserting that Alabama went too far on the subject).

A Christian may reason that voting Trump president comes with consequences far greater than the immediate now. Yes, you may win the battle on abortion today, but what will it cost you in the long run? A concern may arise among some Christians that if people see us as hypocrites for choosing an otherwise corrupt leader, that we will lose the opportunity for evangelism. That when the tables flip, and a new president is in office, we may eventually lose our gains, and then some. That we will have traded the one who destroys the body for the one who destroys the body and the soul.

Now that isn't to say that I believe that people were WRONG for feeling they had no choice but Trump. I fully sympathize with the predicament a lot of people felt they were in there, but I also think that there are justifiable reasons for people to have chosen a third party candidate that they felt better aligned with their own values, or to have chosen not to be a part of the process altogether.

[Adrift]

One thing that's kinda being overlooked -- when you go to vote, it's not just POTUS on the line. In most communities there are local officials on the ballot, ballot initiatives, tax levies, judges, county commissioners, and matters that actually do affect you "at home".

In many of these small town elections, a candidate can win by 15 or 20 -- or even 1 or 2 -- votes.

Of course, it's possible to vote for the local issues and candidates and NOT vote for POTUS, but, hey, while I'm there...

I think if you believe the entire process is corrupt from top to bottom it's fine to abstain. But there are different rules for federal elections than there are for local elections, so, again, I think it's possible to abstain from one and not the other and feel you haven't worked against your personal convictions.

[Teallaura]

I disagree. In a hypothetical world where you are given the option of voting between Stalin or Mao, your choice not to vote, your choice to NOT be part of a system you believe to be unfair, or unjust, or where the candidates are non-starters, is a perfectly valid choice. In nations where voting is non-compulsory, voting is a right, but not a civic duty.

Personally I side with Henry David Thoreau who stated,
But I think that goes too far for most people. I believe that if you feel it your duty to vote, then vote your conscience, and voting your conscience can and does include third party candidates.

When you believe the third party candidate is best I agree. When you're using it as a way to avoid a difficult choice, no, it's not a conscientious choice.

In this case we have Casanova and Mao - and not voting means possibly putting a killer in power versus having a Lothario in charge.

[Cow Poke]

I disagree. In a hypothetical world where you are given the option of voting between Stalin or Mao, your choice not to vote, your choice to NOT be part of a system you believe to be unfair, or unjust, or where the candidates are non-starters, is a perfectly valid choice. In nations where voting is non-compulsory, voting is a right, but not a civic duty.

Personally I side with Henry David Thoreau who stated,

But I think that goes too far for most people. I believe that if you feel it your duty to vote, then vote your conscience, and voting your conscience can and does include those third party participants candidates.

One thing that's kinda being overlooked -- when you go to vote, it's not just POTUS on the line. In most communities there are local officials on the ballot, ballot initiatives, tax levies, judges, county commissioners, and matters that actually do affect you "at home".

In many of these small town elections, a candidate can win by 15 or 20 -- or even 1 or 2 -- votes.

Of course, it's possible to vote for the local issues and candidates and NOT vote for POTUS, but, hey, while I'm there...

[Adrift]

Just don't vote - in a democratic republic voting isn't just a right - it's a civic duty. I don't recall any Scripture that says neglect your civic duties absent a clear violation of God's law.
Vote third party - also an abdication of civic duty when done as a mere token.

A former womanizer who credibly claims to have reformed (which also describes B. Clinton in 1992). A lifelong advocate of killing the unborn. Some name on a ballot that won't even get a single electoral vote. Stay home and browse Netflix.

There's only one moral choice on that list - and it ain't Netflix.

I disagree. In a hypothetical world where you are given the option of voting between Stalin or Mao, your choice not to vote, your choice to NOT be part of a system you believe to be unfair, or unjust, or where the candidates are non-starters, is a perfectly valid choice. In nations where voting is non-compulsory, voting is a right, but not a civic duty.

Personally I side with Henry David Thoreau who stated,

But I think that goes too far for most people. I believe that if you feel it your duty to vote, then vote your conscience, and voting your conscience can and does include third party candidates.