I Didn't Know This

Filed under "I didn't know this." Apparently, last year, the IRS reinterpreted the decades-old tax code that prohibits churches from direct political engagement. Can you imagine? In response to a lawsuit from a Christian media group and a couple of churches, the IRS has challenged the provision under the Johnson Amendment, arguing that it infringed upon the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Now ... churches are legally free to "speak their minds" on political matters inside their doors, so to speak. I mean, a pastor can tell his congregation from the pulpit, "You should vote for this candidate" freely. What churches can't do is make a public campaign of it. They can't spend money on it, form a political group under the church's auspices, start an advertising campaign ... that sort of thing. This is a major event, freeing pastors to follow God's leading in their preaching.

Having said that ... I'm not sure how much of that I think is relevant. Yes, when a government entity enforces sin on a society or a church, it can and should be addressed. Endorsing a political candidate? That seems less ... biblical than political. I think Christians are already more immersed in politics than Scripture and this might aggravate that condition. On the other hand, the government has had its hand on the church's mouth over this, holding the purse strings as it were ... very much like blackmail. In fact, I wrote about it here.It's interesting, though, because the ruling came and went so quietly. You see, because it was judicial and not legislative, it flew under the radar for the most part ... as if they didn't want us to know about it. No ... that can't be.

Political Speech

I didn't write this. It actually came from Mad Magazine back in 1970. But I really like it, and this seems like the perfect time amidst not merely the campaigns, but the hatred being fed to us, to have this little moment of fun. Please be aware. This is a lot of wordplay. You may need a dictionary if wordplay isn't your thing.

I can hardly stomach the political ads and the nonsense that is classified "political speech" these days. Most of it is nonsense. "Don't vote for my opponent; he/she is a jerk." Practically nothing about why I should vote for you. Just all the reasons I shouldn't vote against you. Oddly, your opponent told me the same thing about you! Years ago I read this absolutely marvelous All-Occasion Non-Slanderous Political Smear Speech. Loved it. Turns out it's still available! So here it is for your enjoyment.

Guaranteed Effective All-Occasion Non-Slanderous Political Smear Speech
By Bill Garvin
MAD #139, December 1970

My fellow citizens, it is an honor and a pleasure to be here today. My opponent has openly admitted he feels an affinity toward your city, but I happen to like this area. It might be a salubrious place to him, but to me it is one of the nation's most delightful garden spots.

When I embarked upon this political campaign I hoped that it could be conducted on a high level and that my opponent would be willing to stick to the issues. Unfortunately, he has decided to be tractable instead -- to indulge in unequivocal language, to eschew the use of outright lies in his speeches, and even to make repeated veracious statements about me.

At first, I tried to ignore these scrupulous, unvarnished fidelities. Now I do so no longer. If my opponent wants a fight, he's going to get one!

It might be instructive to start with his background. My friends, have you ever accidentally dislodged a rock on the ground and seen what was underneath? Well, exploring my opponent's background is dissimilar. All the slime and filth and corruption you could possibly imagine, even in your wildest dreams, are glaringly nonexistent in this man's life. And even during his childhood!

Let us take a very quick look at that childhood: It is a known fact that, on a number of occasions, he emulated older boys at a certain playground. It is also known that his parents not only permitted him to masticate excessively in their presence, but even urged him to do so. Most explicable of all, this man who poses as a paragon of virtue, exacerbated his own sister while they were both teenagers!

I ask you, my fellow Americans: Is this the kind of person we want in public office to set an example for our youth? Of course, it's not surprising that he should have such a typically pristine background -- no, not when you consider the other members of his family:

* His female relatives put on a constant pose of purity and innocence, and claim they are inscrutable, yet every one of them has taken part in hortatory activities.
* The men in the family are likewise completely amenable to moral suasion.
* His second cousin is an admitted Mormon.
* His uncle was a flagrant heterosexual.
* His sister, who has always been obsessed by sects, once worked as a proselyte ... outside a church!
* His father was secretly chagrined at least a dozen times by matters of a pecuniary nature.
* His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a homosapien.
* His great-aunt expired from a degenerative disease.
* His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine.
* His wife was a thespian before their marriage and even performed the act in front of paying customers!
* And his own mother had to resign from a women's organization in her later years because she was an admitted sexagenarian.

Now what shall we say of the man himself?

I can tell you in solemn truth that he is the very antithesis of political radicalism, economic irresponsibility, and personal depravity. His own record proves that he has frequently discountenanced treasonable, un-American philosophies and has perpetrated many overt acts as well.

* He perambulated his infant son on the street.
* He practiced nepotism with his uncle and first cousin.
* He attempted to interest a 13-year-old girl in philately.
* He has declared himself in favor of more homogeneity on college campuses.
* He has advocated social intercourse in mixed company -- and has taken part in such gatherings himself.
* He has been deliberately averse to crime in our streets.
* He has urged our Protestant and Jewish citizens to develop more catholic tastes.
* Last summer he committed a piscatorial act on a boat that was flying the American flag.
* Finally, at a time when we must be on our guard against all foreign "isms", he has coolly announced his belief in altruism -- and his fervent hope that some day this entire nation will be altruistic!

I beg you, my friends, to oppose this man whose life and work and ideas are so openly and avowedly compatible with our American way of life. A vote for him would be a vote for the perpetuation of everything we hold dear.

The facts are clear; the record speaks for itself.

Do your duty.

Ironic?

Politics is often a touchy subject. Take, for instance, the Trump. In the campaign season of 2016, I earned a lot of ire from friends and family because I spoke about and even blogged about what I considered to be the danger of Trump. I was so clear then that even the dreaded Dan T. linked to an entry and concurred wholeheartedly with my disavowal of my party's candidate. I remember in July, 2016, my wife and I were on a trip with my parents and were visiting my dad's brother and family. The topic of politics came up around the table and I held my peace until someone asked me directly. For the sake of honesty, I told them, "No, I won't be voting for Trump." My father was shocked and my uncle was actually angry. You see, what we knew about Trump was that he was a womanizer and bragged about feeling up women. Sure, he probably had some good economic sense and other ideas, but he had what I considered to be a deranged morality. To my family, at least, he wasn't Hillary, so any vote that was not for Trump was a vote for evil. My father said, "Sure, Trump's not a paragon of virtue, but his VP is going to be Mike Pence, and he's a Christian." "Dad," I said, "are you suggesting I vote for Trump hoping he'll get assassinated?" Isn't it interesting, then, that Trump won without my vote? Isn't it interesting, now, that nearly every Trump fan, Christian or otherwise, presented with the name, "Pence," turns up their nose in disgust? Trump castigated his own VP for failing to bend to Trump's will and hoped the mob would hang him. And his devoted fans agreed ... one of the warnings I had given about Trump. I warned that he would normalize the unthinkable for the Right and, even, for Christians, and he did.

I didn't shift in 2020. His record was mixed and he had done some good things, but any president can do some good things. His character hadn't changed and his supposed "conversion to Christianity" looked to be misinformation and I didn't think he would uphold my concerns for the nation, so I voted against him again. In neither case did I vote for the Left. My conscience wouldn't allow that, either. It didn't matter. My own friends and family were outraged again and I was the bad guy for voting my conscience. But here is the irony. While my friends were kicking me to the curb, as it were, for violating their sacred cow, the Left was kicking me to the other curb for ... being conscientious. They accused me of supporting Trump and loving Trump and still do to this day. My friends were mad at me for failing to do what my enemies are sure I did. And none of them are shifting today. I'm conversely a Trump-hater or I'm a Trump-lover (and certainly not a patriot or even a good guy). I can't win.

Can I let you in on a secret? I know, it's not fair. They won't admit it and it won't stop ... on either side ... but it's not an issue for me. I don't believe that the ends justify the means. I don't believe that it's okay to encourage wrong in the hopes of gaining something right. I don't believe that I should run my life on the lies of other people. And gaining the approval of others is not my aim in life. Let's face it, I've not been too successful at that this far in my life. Why bother now? So I will, once again, vote my conscience this year and live with the consequences ... from both sides. I'm only a little sad that voting my conscience so rarely gets anyone elected. That's either a sad commentary on my conscience or a sad commentary on my nation.

Threat to Democracy

It seems as if this presidential race has run on the "threat to democracy" platform. The left has pounded the drum that Trump is an "existential threat to democracy" for most of this year (and before) (and they were startled when "patriots" tried to eliminate that "existential threat" with assassination). Why? Primarily because Trump questioned the results of the 2020 election. Now, I wouldn't think questioning the results of an election was a "threat to democracy." I mean, Gore did it in 2000 and Hillary did it in 2016 and ... well, a lot of people are doing it ... without being an "existential threat." I would think verifying election results would be in support of democracy. But, no, Trump kept (I think still) saying that the election was rigged. The media (primarily) declared, "There is no evidence for widespread election fraud." Look at that a moment. First, it does not claim "Election fraud was proven false." No, they claim "no evidence." They do it despite the evidence, but the claim is not "proof," but the lack thereof. And then there are those "weasel words." "No evidence" (in their book) of "widespread" (undefined) election fraud. I didn't think anyone was claiming "widespread" fraud. In the 2020 election 3 swing states had a small gap between Trump and Biden. Three states decided the outcome. That's not "widespread" but neither is it insignificant. But they swept the evidence and the question under the rug and call Trump the "threat to democracy."

I'll tell you what is a threat to democracy. Fascism or a monarchy or a dictatorship or an oligarchy or the like -- those are threats to democracy. An overbearing, over-controlling, over-stepping government -- that's a threat to democracy. You know what else? A republic. You see, America is not a democracy; it is a republic. We vote in representatives and they make the rules ... without concern for the voters'. Their only accountability is "Can I get reelected?", and folks like AOC have demonstrated that that's not an issue. The American political system is a threat to democracy. We have a two-party system. Each party offers a candidate before we decide who will be our leader. So we end up with so many goofballs, none of which should be in office. A democracy would give us a list of names and we vote and the one with the highest number wins, but we don't do that. We don't even want to do that. So we eliminate actual democracy, substitute a two-party system, and then fold in a Republic ... and complain about Trump.

The founding fathers of this nation revolted against their government because, as an example, "No taxation without representation." Well, I can't think of the last time I voted in a representative who represented my views. For most of my life it has been "hold your nose and vote" elections, some slightly better than others. For the 21st century, it seems it has been "Never them" votes, where you're not voting for a candidate, but against an opponent. That's not democracy. It's not even a representative government. So, fine, you want to call Trump an "existential threat to democracy"? Go ahead. I'm no Trump fan. But keep in mind that you are perpetrating "an existential threat to truth" when you do. And that's on you.

From Principled to Pragmatic

The Atlantic in 2016 offered a political commentary from Jonathan Merritt that claimed that "Trump-loving Christians" owed Bill Clinton an apology. His premise was that Christians refused Clinton forgiveness even though he asked for it, but offered it to Trump who didn't. "Character counts!" was the cry over Vince Foster's death, Paula Jones's harassment claims, and, of course, the Monica Lewinsky debacle to name a few. "Character counts!" they cried and, clearly, Mr. Clinton was lacking. Odd, then, that today's version is coming from the Dems. Kamala Harris threw out the very same line after Trump was recently convicted. Mind you, Biden has his character issues (think hair-sniffing just off the top of my head) (Yes, that was a joke -- "hair," "off the top of my head"), but most people are keenly aware of Trump's issues with his adultery, his questionable business dealings, his crude remarks about grabbing women in ... well, you know ... and so forth, so it's Trump's character in the spotlight.

It hurts to watch. The Atlantic (Jonathan Merritt) was right. Conservatives in general and Christians in particular have done a peculiar 180° spin on the issue of character. We held the high ground back then. Now we hold the pragmatic ground. The Left said, "It doesn't matter about his character. What matters is what he accomplishes." And I'm hearing the same from Christians today. What does it matter what kind of man he is if he gets it done? Well, I guess I get stuck on the last part of the question. Gets what done? He's certainly not going to restore a sense of decorum and cooperation to the Executive Branch. He's already indicated that he has no dog in the pro-life hunt. He has suggested that he'll "hunt down his opposition" (my words, not his). Is that what we want done? What I want done is to have a president I can trust, and he won't get that done. One who will defend life. That's not him. One who will defend my values. Not gonna happen. But, of course, I didn't expect it ... from him or any other current politician.

So now we've removed Dems and Republicans from the principled position -- "Character counts" -- and into the purely pragmatic. They wanted the political outcomes that they wanted, character notwithstanding. Now so do we. What do we want? Maybe what we want done is simply to prevent Biden from doing 4 more years of damage. Maybe all we want is someone -- anyone -- in the White House that is not our current president. Now, that could be just about anybody, but obviously it would require someone who could beat Biden in an election. So maybe, from a purely pragmatic view, it will be necessary to vote for a man without significant character in whom I have little trust or expectations just to keep Biden out of office. What kind of a miserable option is that? Clearly from a low (but not necessarily faulty) view of American politics. When I consider these things, I call to mind, as the hymn says,

This is my Father’s world.
Oh, let me ne'er forget
That though the wrong seems oft so strong,
God is the ruler yet.

The Attack on Democracy and American Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court today will hear arguments on whether or not states can keep Trump off their primary ballots. The rationale is the prohibition in the 14th Amendment that prevents those guilty of insurrection from being president. Admittedly, that amendment was part of a Civil War response, but the language is what the language is, so without rescinding the law, it's still the law. Here's the problem. Trump has not been convicted of insurrection. He hasn't even been formally accused of insurrection. He's not on trial for insurrection. So ...?

Consider the facts. In February of 2021, the Senate voted to acquit Trump for inciting an insurrection. In August of 2021 the FBI reported "scant evidence" of a coordinated attack. Now, the Cambridge Dictionary defines "insurrection" as "an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence." Britannica says it is "an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects." No "organized," no "insurrection." The FBI also reported no guns were found in the Capitol building (except, of course, for the Capitol police, who were the only ones to shoot anyone during the riot). No "armed," no "insurrection." And no evidence that Trump or his allies were directly involved. All the reports indicate no organization, no guns, and no evidence of Trump's direct involvement. That means no insurrection and, even if you stretch it to an insurrection (because we're so fond of stretching words to brand new definitions these days), Trump, without direct involvement, was not guilty of it. So ... why are we still debating whether or not he can be on the primary ballots? He isn't even being tried for insurrection in the courts. No such charge has been made. How can he be guilty of insurrection when it violates all the facts? The ruling from SCOTUS will not be on whether or not they can block Trump for insurrection. The ruling will be whether or not Trump is guilty of a crime he has not been officially accused of or tried for. The ruling will be whether or not a man can be regarded as guilty until proven innocent.

Now, anyone who has read this blog over the last couple of elections would know that I'm no Trump fan. It's my opinion and I'm free to have it. I'm not a Trump-hater, but neither am I a Trump-lover. I don't say this in favor of "my guy." I say this because facts are facts, justice is justice, and eliminating candidates you don't like on an illegal basis is just as much an assault on democracy as what they complain Trump did. It's not justice; it's not democracy. And as little as I want to have to come to a Trump vote again, I am still against this assault on democracy and American jurisprudence. If we can consider Trump guilty of insurrection without a trial or conviction, what's next?

Democratsy

In the 2020 election we saw an unliked incumbent president (Is "unliked" too mild?) get slaughtered by an old white guy that no one likes. But it was a strange slaughter. All the first reports showed the incumbent leading handily, but the media was calling it for the old guy. Strange. But, hey, that's the way the politics bounces, right? Okay, no. Something was ... strange. This led to the "election fraud!" cries and the subsequent easiest dismissals in history. First, "Dominion, did you do this?" "No." "Well, then, there it is!" Then the media and its followers (which is mostly everyone else) hung the term "misinformation" on the claim and it was all over. Pay no attention to the fact that "misinformation" in this application merely means "doesn't align with the approved narrative." If "we" (media, Democrats, whomever has the loudest voice) deem it "misinformation," no further discussion or investigation is needed ... nay, allowed. It's a good way to get yourself banned from social media sites. Besides, we're too busy digging into an insurrection that wasn't and the tax records of a president who isn't anymore. We've got important matters to attend to.

In the subsequent year many states worked to "clean up" their act ... their election act. While the Left complained about the right "hating democracy" because they protested something, some sought to eliminate the question of election fraud. Simple measures like requiring ID (which, as far as I recall, was always the case) and verifying signatures on mail-in ballots and removing people from voter registration rolls that shouldn't be there¹. These, of course, are "racist" and "anti-democratic" and whatever other terms they can provide to make you not ask, "Hey, are these steps making voting more reliable?" Whatever you do, don't ask things like that. That would mean you're succumbing to "misinformation," likely a "racist" (because everyone knows black people can't get ID) (seriously, who hates black people so much to believe they can't get ID?), and certainly "anti-democratic."

They aren't called "Democrats" for nothing. They've simply bought their own line. They define "democracy" as "democratsy" -- that which the Democrat Party believes. Every reasonable, caring, thinking person will agree with the Democrats and those who don't are "anti-Democratic." I mean, it's in the name, right? They are Democrats, so anything they do is preserving democratsy. Their enemies are the enemies of democratsy. They are Democrats, so whatever they want is, by definition, democratic. Democratsy does not exist outside of the Democratic party.

There's a book out there that lays it all out neatly and completely. It is titled Rigged by Mollie Hemingway. It tells how the 2020 election was rigged ... beginning way back in 2016. But don't worry. You won't see it. It won't be talked about. It won't be discussed, debated, reviewed, examined. I'm actually surprised it's there on Amazon since, like all Big Tech and media, they're not averse to hiding this kind of stuff from the public. No, it will be labeled appropriately -- "misinformation"² -- and set aside. "Nothing to see here. Go to your cells ... I mean, go home." Because we are nothing in this country these days if not led by the nose by government, Big Tech, Big Pharma, and the media who all have their own our best interests at heart.

I am really not a conspiracy fan. I think people that see conspiracies around every corner are a bit over the top. It's just that with all this election stuff and now all this COVID stuff that all just doesn't jibe with the reality that is patently obvious, it doesn't appear to be "around every corner." It appears to be in your face.
________

¹ Just a note ... an opinion here. Many (most?) (all?) states have mail-in voting. In my state (Arizona) we registered to vote (providing the proper ID) and signed up for mail-in voting and every election they send us a mail-in ballot. Sometimes they send us a note: "If you'd like to stop, send this in." But we keep getting these ballots and that's okay. Just my opinion here, however. If they opted to send out a registration renewal request every election that required us to reaffirm our status and mail-in option, I wouldn't consider that a hardship. If the default was, "If you don't let us know you still want to vote this way, we'll take you off the mail-in list," I'd think that was reasonable. But, I suppose, that's apparently only because I'm anti-Democratic.

² Not because it is actually appropriate, but because "misinformation" now means "whatever we don't want you to consider."

The Problem of the Evangelical Party

It doesn't make sense. I don't really know how it happened. I'm really baffled how it has become such a "thing." Still, it is undeniable. In many circles "Evangelical," "right wing," and "white" are irrevocably linked, and not in a good way. That is, the tag of "Evangelical" -- a purely religious term -- has become thoroughly equated with things like "Trump" and "QAnon" and other conspiracy theories and even "white supremacy."

First, what do I mean by "Evangelical"? I'm not talking about evangelistic. I'm talking about those who classify themselves as "Evangelicals," a term defined by adherence to the authority of Scripture and a firm belief in salvation by faith in Christ. So this seems ludicrous on its face. Since a prime defining concept for the term is an absolute belief in the authority of Scripture, how do we end up linked to politics at all? If Evangelicals believe that Jesus is "the Truth" (John 14:6) and that the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth (John 16:13), how do we end up pulling truth from the lips of Trump or favored political conspiracy theories? If Evangelicals believe that salvation is only found in Christ, how could we possibly be expecting salvation in a political party or perspective? And don't even get me started on any supposed connection between "Christian" and racial bias.

So, I'm baffled. We are routinely connected with "that political view" when our source authority warns us not to put our trust in princes -- in earthly authorities (Psa 146:3). We cannot put our faith in Christ and in "our guy" any more than we can trust in God and riches. Jesus told us, "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." (Matt 6:24) And, yet, here we are, apparently trying to straddle the line. We are told to submit to government (Rom 13:1-2; 1 Peter 2:13-15) and pray for those in authority (1 Tim 2:1-4) and we are moaning and complaining about the "current administration." Some are even seeking to figure out how to eliminate it. How do we lay these two -- "Evangelicals" dedicated to the authority of the Word and trust in Christ and right-wing politics -- side by side and consider them equivalent?

It might be a shock to many American Evangelicals, but America is not God's chosen people. The Bible does not classify democracy as the best choice for government. There is nothing in Scripture that makes capitalism the "Christian" choice. The Republican party is not mentioned in the Bible anywhere. Instead, it looks a lot like the link between "Evangelicals" and "right wing" is a lie, perhaps even idolatry, putting trust in politics rather than Christ. The evidence I would cite for this is the fervor and heat applied by those in the "Evangelical Party" for all things political over all things Christ. I would argue that the anger we see among many who consider themselves "Evangelicals" is in direct opposition to biblical warnings like "the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God" (James 1:20) and commands like "Love your neighbor as yourself." On the other side, too many "Evangelicals" are scared and worried about the future of America under the "current regime" as if God was bound to human whim (Eph 1:11) and worry was biblical (Php 4:6). And the Bible is abundantly clear that racial bias has no place in the faith (e.g., Gal 3:28; Rom 2:11; Acts 17:26; Rom 10:12-13; Acts 10:34-35; Col 3:11). Brothers and sisters, if that's where we are, "we do not well."-

The Media Propaganda Machine

It's all over the Internet ... again. In October Relevant reported that "61% of Evangelicals plan to vote for Trump." After the election The Guardian reported that 75% of white Evangelicals voted for Trump. And Politico reported that Trump only got 76 to 78% of the white, born-again, Christian vote.

Except ... it's just not true. It's interesting how the media is using this to paint "white Evangelicals" in a negative light rather than a truthful representation of the facts.

In truth, barely 60% of Evangelicals were registered to vote. According to estimates, white Evangelicals make up 25% of the nation. That is, 25% (or so) of Americans identify as Evangelicals. Subtract the non-whites. Subtract the non-voters. What are you left with? Well, if 1 in 4 claim to be Evangelicals and 1 in 3 of them didn't vote, you're quickly losing ground. Put another way, if 75% of those who claim to be Evangelicals and are white constitute only 60% of white Evangelicals, then only 45% of self-identified white Evangelicals voted for Trump this election. Now, subtract the "actual" Evangelicals from the "self-identified" and you're going to end up with a smaller number.

As it turns out, then, the under-story is clear. it's not about how many white Evangelicals voted for Trump. The point of the constant chatter is that whites in general (Why didn't they report the number of minority Evangelicals?) are evil and Evangelicals in particular are particularly evil. They're dangerous. They support the wrong side. They're not your friend. Don't you forget it. We'll have to do something about that someday. Maybe not yet, but ...

Making the Illegal Retroactively Legal

We here in Arizona are voting (again) on the question of whether or not to legalize recreational marijuana. Of course, medical marijuana was the gateway they legalized a few years back. Now they're hoping we'll just take the short step to the dark side. "Come on in; the water's fine."

Now, I don't get it. Colorado reported increases in DWI, emergency room visits, etc. -- the kinds of things you'd expect if you legalize a drug that modifies your brain. We all know it's not safe to drive while intoxicated, only now it is less problematic because, after all, we'll have legalized the substance, right?

But the part I really don't get is this clause that says they will "expunge law enforcement and court records relating to arrests, charges, adjudications, convictions, and sentences" for this stuff. I guess that means that when you were arrested, tried, and found guilty you really weren't and it's our mistake, right? I guess it means they didn't really break the law back when it was illegal, right?

Well, obviously that's not true. It was illegal, people were caught, tried, and legally convicted, all within the law. But truth is not at issue here. And I don't mean "here in Arizona." I mean "here in our world today."

But, look, I don't understand. If we can legalize something and, in the process, legalize its past, why not do it? This would be a great way to decrease prison crowding. Legalize other drugs. Poof! The drug war is over. And, hey, we get the added bonus of all those tax funds going into our coffers. Win-win, right? Legalize murder. Why not? It is already legal to kill the most vulnerable. Why stop there? In fact, if we dropped all those nasty ol' laws, we could drop all those nasty ol' police and it would be a bit of a paradise, right? Well, no, of course not. But people aren't interested in truth or logic or rules. They're only interested in being allowed to do what they want. Oh, not you. No. You don't get to do what you want. You only get to do what they want. Come on; try to keep up. Here, have a puff on this and let's make what was illegal legal retroactively. Why not? We've made people who were respected dishonorable retroactively.

Thinking It Through

It's an election year. I'm sorry. Politics has to come up sometimes. I don't like it any better than you do. But, look, maybe you can help me think this through.

So, we have two competing perspectives here. No, not the two that first come to your mind -- Biden or Trump. On one hand, we believe that "there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." (Rom 13:1) But we also believe that we ought to vote, where "ought to" is intended to express a moral obligation rather than a mere suggestion.

These appear to be opposite sides. I mean, if God establishes all authority, then why vote? On the other hand, if our voting is important to God (because calling it a moral obligation suggests it is), how does He establish all authority? I mean, do we do it and Paul was mistaken or do we fool ourselves by voting and it's all Him?

As in so many of these types of questions, I think there is a "yes" on both sides of the question. We do need to vote as citizens of the country in which we've been placed by God -- as God's appointed representatives here -- and, yes, God establishes all authority. He does it in our case using the tool of our voting, but He is not limited to our voting.

Here's the thing I'm trying to puzzle through. We like to think that God has good plans for our country. We vote as if God's plans depend on it. While we know "You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2), we seem to think that God won't be able to accomplish His good plans for America if we don't get this thing right. If we don't vote correctly, God's plans fail and it won't be a good thing.

So, how does that work? Like the Arminian that prays earnestly that God will change people's hearts (like a Calvinist), Christians agree that all authority comes from God and then panic because "What if we don't vote the right guy in?!" How does that work? How are we to make sense out of it? I intend to vote my conscience and trust God, but I've been told that's naive, stupid, and possibly even sinful. So I should not trust God and vote their conscience? That's what they told me four years ago. That's what they're telling me now. I don't get this at all.

What's a President to Do?

The Democratic National Convention struck out hard at the current president. (Don't take that the wrong way; it's what these conventions do. "Elect our folks because their folks are bad for the country.") Apparently the current president is responsible for the deaths of more than 170,000 Americans apparently because he didn't prevent the COVID-19 virus from entering the country or something like that. If Hillary had been president, no one would have died ... right? (Again, I'm not casting this as "Trump vs Hillary" or anything of the sort. It's what politicians do.) Obama brought prosperity and Trump famine. They said that Obama and Biden brought overtime pay to more than 4 million workers. Well, no, they didn't. The rule never went into effect. "Ah," you say, "now you're demeaning Obama and Biden." No, not my point. All of this (and so much more) makes me wonder. What exactly is a president to do? Candidates make all sorts of claims and promises. "I'll put two chickens in every pot!" and the like. But can they? Should they? No!

We are a gullible bunch of voters. We listen to the wild claims from both sides and decide which wild claims we prefer and vote. We don't understand the nature of political advertising. (Did you know that political ads are exempt from "truth in advertising" laws? Political ads fall under "free speech" protection and the FCC does nothing about them.) We don't understand the government. Ours is an intentionally divided government -- "separation of powers" is the term. The executive branch can only do this and the legislative branch can only do that and then, of course, there is the judicial branch which is only supposed to keep the other two in line. Now, to our defense, it's understandable why we don't get that. When Iraq was trying to put together their new Constitution, comedian George Carlin quipped, "They can use ours. We're not using it." Funny, but true; we're not. So the president (most presidents, not just the current one) makes rules that the Constitution says he can't and the Congress fails to make the decisions the Constitution requires and the Supreme Court (all the judicial branch, actually) passes laws from the bench. It's not really that hard to see why we're confused.

So what is a president to do? He can make treaties ... with the approval of the Senate. (Not alone.) He can sign or veto bills ... approved by Congress. (Not alone.) He can act as Commander-in-Chief ... during a war declared by Congress. Things he can do without permission? He can make suggestions for new laws, grant pardons, appoint ambassadors, enforce laws passed by Congress, things like that. He can issue executive orders, but those are limited. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was such an order. But they must be constitutional. For instance, the Supreme Court overturned five of FDR's executive orders in 1935. Now, Biden, for instance, is promising to ban the ownership and manufacture of assault weapons. Mind you, we still don't have a firm definition of "assault weapons" and nothing in the Constitution allows for such a ban. Perhaps Congress could do it (theoretically), but not a president. (I say "theoretically" because it seems like Congress as a whole has a hard time accomplishing anything anymore.) Kamala Harris promised the same thing during her campaign -- comprehensive gun control by executive order. Is it constitutional? Who knows anymore?

Again, I'm' not pointing any fingers at any individuals, parties, or even positions. It is the nature of the beast for politicians to make promises ... that they can't keep. And we, like sheep, just follow along. "Well, I like what they're promising, so let's vote 'em in." What was the line from Top Gun? "Your ego is writing checks your body can't cash." Something like that. They're making promises they don't have the authority to deliver and we're angry when they don't. But who's at fault here? Maybe it's the sheep who are so easily deceived by the sheep's clothing?

Without a Vision

I try not to follow the news too closely. Too depressing, frankly. Politics, especially in an election year like this, are the worst. You can't ignore it, but it's worse than watching a train wreck ... on all sides. Lately, though, I've become aware of a trend that probably should have been obvious years ago. Donald Trump is a child in big-boy pants.

No, that's not it. But close. One of the things that should distinguish an adult from a child is vision. Children cannot see beyond the here and now. Children can't think that eating the whole cake will give them a tummy ache. All they can see is the whole cake and they want it; they want it now. That kind of short-term thinking. Teenagers aren't much better. Premarital sex and drugs and alcohol are all symptoms of immediate gratification rather than delayed gratification. Childishness. Adults are supposed to see beyond that. Adults are supposed to be able to save for a rainy day or take steps now to make the future better or to make sacrifices for a greater good. It looks like Trump lacks that ability.

It's been there all along, I guess, but the story that finally clicked that over in my head was the one where Trump wanted to make new showerhead rules. Why? "Because my hair — I don't know about you, but it has to be perfect. Perfect." Seriously? Areas of this nation are in water crisis that will only get worse and your primary concern is your hair? Seriously?? Look back, though, and it was always there. Just look at his Twitter feed, strewn with childish tweets and remarks, embarrassing to adults that supported him. Look at the rule changes he's made giving business new liberties for making money at the cost of the public and the environment. Look at the tariffs he's imposed that alter the here and now of business without a care for the long-term effects. Everyone knows he's brash and volatile and lots of people like him for that, but it looks to me like he's more of an angry kid -- "I want my way!" -- than an adult president. "I will allow the post office to fail so I can block mail-in voting" was his recent ploy followed by, "Oh, can I get a mail-in ballot so I can vote?" It's a running-but-sad joke about how the Clintons (especially the wife) had opponents rubbed out; Trump's legacy is a battlefield of civil servants whom he fired when they disagreed with him, supporters and opponents alike. And on and on it goes.

This is it. This is the only choice for Republicans. This is the only option we have to ensure that Biden and his socialist-denying socialist running mate don't get into office. (She denies that she's a socialist -- even a Democratic Socialist -- but if it quacks like a duck ... well, you know.) So I have to decide. Will I vote for a big baby for the next four years in the White House who, perhaps, is helping big business and, therefore, by trickle down, the rest of our pocketbooks, while shredding future resources for the rest of us or vote for a pair that enjoy killing babies, running our lives, and taking our money for "equality"? Someone will call for "the lesser evil." As in 2016, I don't know what that means in this case. Because a child in power can run this country into the ground just as easily as a leftist in power; just not as clearly and as obviously, perhaps. As in 2016, at some point some of us will need to stand on principle rather than stark pragmatism and believe, against all belief (Christian or otherwise), that all authority is from God and God is actually in control. Silly, I know, but that's just me, right? That Christians find this approach offensive makes me deeply sad.

A Representative Government

Arizona elected a bisexual, atheist (she classifies herself as "religiously unaffiliated") member of the Communist Party that favors open borders. How does that happen in Arizona, a big "close our borders" state? Kyrsten Sinema opted to swear in on a copy of the Constitution rather than the Bible. Not to be outdone, Rashida Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American woman to serve in Congress, planned to use Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Quran, stating ""Islam has been part of American history for a long time.." She ignored the fact that Jefferson had the Quran because he wanted to understand the Islamic pirates he intended to fight on the Barbary Coast. She's the one that cursed about the president and also plans to boycott and sanction Israel. New York put a Democratic Socialist into office. Just this year.

So?

In countries like China, their government does not reflect their people. Their government is imposed on them and it is what it is apart from who the people are. In America we have a representative government. We vote them in. In general, the person elected represents a majority of the people who vote. As such, our government reflects who we are. And the trend continues. More and more radical people make it into our government by popular vote from your Donald Trumps to your "We're just here to disrupt your American values" types. We put them there. They aren't foisted on us. Arizona elected an open-borders type. What does that say about Arizona? New York elected a socialist. What does that say about New York? What do California's elected representatives say about California? You get the idea. And it's not looking good.

The New Politicism

The Hill reported on the swearing in of 35 children from 22 countries who recited the Oath of Allegiance to become U.S. citizens. Now, I'm a little confused because I didn't think that children were legally allowed to swear oaths or decide to be citizens, but that's okay. Merely a curiosity on my part. What I found disappointing was the conversation in the comments. A character who bore the unfortunate moniker of "Ronald Reagan" boldly and confidently stated,

Sane people see this and are happy for these children and wish them a bright future

Trump supporters see this and the first thing that goes through their mind is they want to kill people

Why do we go there? The attack is huge. "Sane people agree with me. Trump supporters are insane." "All Trump supporters wish to kill people." "If you're not on my side, you're not sane." You may think that I'm overstating it, but if you flip through the thread of comments that follow, I think I'm being lenient. "If you're a Trump supporter, you're a hateful racist." "Anyone connected to Trump is a traitor and a terrorist." "If you're sane you're in favor of freely admitting the thousands of illegal aliens marching from Central America; anyone who doesn't is a racist hater." "Most Americans agree with the comment." "If you have a problem with it, it's because these are non-white children." These are the kinds of sentiments offered in the comments.

Hate speech is communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially if it is likely to provoke violence. How does this not qualify as "hate speech"? Why is it that people who merely share the same political party affiliation are deemed insane, and that is not hate speech? When Hillary tells CNN, "You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for," how is that not an incitement to incivility, to hate, to violence? Why, when unkind and far-right-GOP types said the same kinds of thing against Obama and were castigated for it, is that not "hate speech"? If racism is disdain on the basis of race and sexism is disdain on the basis of sex and ageism is disdain on the basis of age, what do we call this blanket disdain for people purely on the basis of political party?

I'm not a Trump supporter, but neither am I a rabid Trump hater. And I'm deeply saddened by the hateful climate of American politics today. It leaves no room for dialogue or compromise. The term "politicism" has a definition, but it seems to me that disdain for the members of an entire political party simply on the basis of their political affiliation would be the new "politicism" today. Maybe someone else has a better term for it. I'm not expecting a solution.
________
(Note: Disagreeing with the views of a particular political party is not the same as hatred for their members.)

The Donkey in the Room

We continue to haggle over the Russian hacking of last year's presidential election. By that we do not mean that the Russians hacked into the voting system and modified the actual votes cast or any such thing. Not at all. No such allegation. The "hacking of the election" refers instead to an apparent work by Russians to hack into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails and obtain nearly 20,000 emails including some 891 documents and 175 spreadsheets giving information about what the DNC was up to. They released that information through WikiLeaks ... and "the crowd went wild".

What did the hack reveal? It revealed efforts by the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to scuttle Bernie Sanders' campaign and forward Hillary Clinton's. She was forced to resign. There were racist comments, efforts to release false information about Trump, attempts to manipulate the media, efforts toward manufacturing fake protests against the RNC, assaults on Sanders' religion (a Jewish atheist, apparently), collusion with the media (where, for instance, a Politico writer cleared his stories with the DNC before he sent them to his editor), that kind of stuff. It's all pretty seedy although, perhaps, not particular surprising. I mean, it seems like this would be "business as usual" for a lot of campaigns, except, of course, for the "let's shoot down this candidate of ours for that one" thing. That one kind of makes the "Democrats" and "democracy" as distant relations.

Well, of course, none of this will fly. We will not have some foreign government muddling about in our elections. We will find out who did the hack and for whom even if we have to make it up. Heads will roll ... and with any luck, it will be the president's head first ... even though so far no facts have suggested any connection between President Trump himself and the Russians.

Perhaps the Russians did do it. In fact, they apparently hacked the RNC as well. No one is in a snit over that. So everyone is in an uproar over the Russians "hacking our election" by which we mean "the Russians illegally obtained information that made the DNC look bad." I mean, you all know that "interfering with elections" is the norm, right? Government authorities comment all the time about elections in other countries. "We want this guy elected; we don't want that one." "Hey, don't vote for Brexit; it won't do the rest of us any good." That kind of thing. Public figures not part of the election process urging voters to vote the way the public figures want them to -- normal. So it was the releasing of "private information" that was upsetting and we're going to have to hurt someone over that.

Here's the thing that really nags at me, though. While I understand that we're upset that a foreign government illegally obtained and released private information, it appears that the complaint is that they did it and not that the information was false. We are more upset that the information was released; no one is denying that the information is true. "They told everyone" is more upsetting than "The DNC is evil and underhanded in its dealings with its own people and with us." Racist, sexist, even "homophobic" comments from the DNC are not an issue; they're only relevant to the public if they're from the RNC, apparently. So, completely ignoring the elephant in the room (or would it be the donkey?), we are so focused on "those bad Russians" and, obviously, the Republicans that obtained their help (which, again, hasn't been shown) that we're ignoring the facts that no one is refuting. We are so ignoring those facts that it will likely arrive at the point that we will deny them entirely before this is over and focus solely on the messenger, not the message.

We live in an age when "I decide what gender I am and you have no right to use science or anything else to disagree" right alongside "I decide which race you are and you must submit to science or whatever else I choose to use." We live in an age when words don't mean much anymore. They only mean what we decide they mean at the moment we decide and don't you dare conclude otherwise. We live in an age where "fake news" is bad when it's news we don't like and good when it's news we like but never simply bad because it's fake. So why would I be surprised that the country in general and the DNC in particular would ignore the facts that the Democratic National Committee is underhanded and devious and not to be trusted while demanding justice for currently unsubstantiated accusations of Russian hacking and the Republican party? I shouldn't. Doesn't mean I'm not disappointed, though. I'd prefer a world where truth and reason ruled rather than what we have now.

Trump Used Russia to Hack the Election!

Please read that headline again. It is what is called in the common parlance "fake news". Never happened. And, yet, I think that very few Americans today who are following current events would doubt the headline because, after all, it's what has been suggested, implied, hinted at, and pushed without ever actually saying it out loud.

First, we have the "Russian hack". The media is referring to it as Russia's "hacking the election" as if Russians broke into our voting systems and changed the outcome. Never happened. What did? Well, in truth, we aren't quite sure. The accusation is that Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee and released compromising email exchanges. Of course, the release of these exchanges came through WikiLeaks, and WikiLeaks says that Russia didn't do it. So ...? Still, the pall of "Russian hacking" hangs over the election process.

Second, we have the whole "Trump's people talked to Russians" story. Apparently it is illegal, immoral, or ill-something to talk to Russians. This is sad, too, because I have spoken to Russians in the past few years so I suppose I'll have to give up my citizenship and retire to some sympathetic South American country somewhere so no one will find me. Silly, of course, but that's the sense of it somehow. And clearly and repeatedly implied in this story is the ongoing suggestion that Trump or his people engineered this fiasco, using Russia to "hack the election". (I find it ironic that so much of the media and, therefore, the unthinking imbibers of the media Kool-Aid think of Trump as dumber than a box of rocks ... yet wily enough to produce this amazing stunt.)

But, is any of this true? Well, of course it is, because, thirdly, we have the media's confident assertion that the FBI has dived headlong into a deep and thorough investigation of these allegations and, therefore, the allegations must be true. That's the American way, right? "If he's someone we don't like and the media says so, he's guilty until proven innocent."

Well, then, there you have it. The Left was right. Trump's presidency is illegitimate. So ... pull the plug and let's shut this baby down. The only correct thing to do is install Hillary as empress ...

... or ...

... the media is lying, the public is buying it, and this whole thing is just another "We hate Trump and will tear down our government and build it in our own image any way we can" thing.

I am a believer in the rights of Americans to their opinions. Even in their right to protest. The truth, however, is that when their protests block traffic or harm people not actually part of the issues, I suddenly stop caring about the issue they're protesting. Or when they start trotting out lies (like "We're not illegal; we're just undocumented"), I stop caring about their issue. Mind you, I've never been a Trump fan, but this repeated piling of problems without apparent proof or even cause is starting to make me stop caring about their issue. And I continue to wonder how long the media and the public would have put up with it if the story was reversed -- if Hillary was elected and the "we oppose Hillary" forces kept protesting, complaining, fighting, and throwing stuff against the wall to try to find something that sticks.

In Defense of the Electoral College

The recent hot topic was the election of an "unpopular candidate" by a "minority" accomplished by this rickety, outdated system called "the Electoral College". It's gotta go. It isn't democratic. It's not fair! And I have to wonder.

First, what are they teaching at this college? Is it an online college, or does it have an actual campus? Is it accredited? All to be humorous, of course, but just what is this thing? So, first, a "college" may be defined as "an organized group of people with particular aims, duties, and privileges." No, this one is not part of the Big 12 or any such thing. And where does it come from? First and foremost, it is a product of the United States Constitution -- Article II, Section 1. (Thus, eliminating it would require a Constitutional amendment, not merely a change in law.) Fine, so what is it there for?

Well, as it turns out, the founders of our country were not exactly fans of democracy. Not real democracy. Not "one person, one vote" democracy. They were concerned (as are many today) about "qualified citizens". And they were deeply concerned about what Alexis de Tocqueville called "the tyranny of the majority". That is, if you could get more than 50% of the voting public to agree, you could make life miserable for the other 49% just by popular vote. So they set out a way to deter that kind of problem. They wanted more of a State-based election than a popular vote, so each State got votes. There are two for the senators and then some based on population, amounting (today) to some 538 electors. (James Madison was concerned about demagogues. If only he knew what we were going to get in our time ...) They were concerned about the Congress doing the job because they could be more easily influenced as a standing body, so the Electoral College was a gather-once-then-disband procedure. And, of course, there was the whole problem of "qualified citizens". Some of what they meant by "qualified" was in contrast with "uninformed". We still have that problem today. The Electoral College was supposed to adjust for that.

Part of the problem can be seen today in the numbers. Over 70% of Americans live in large metropolitan areas. And, generally speaking, each of these metropolitan areas these days vote the same way. Look at a state-by-state voting map. The most heavily populated states like New York and California are blue states; most of the rest are not. And that means that the 30% that don't essentially have no voice in an actual democracy.

Consider some numbers. Wyoming has an whole 586,000 residents in the entire state. The City of New York has something like 8.5 million. That's 14 votes for each person in Wyoming. Never mind, Wyoming; we don't really need to know your votes. But then, dig into these states. Look, for instance, at a voting map of New York. Turns out, geographically, that New York is a red state with the exception of New York City, Syracuse, Buffalo, and Albany. Minnesota was a blue state ... mostly just in Minneapolis. Nevada was a blue state exclusively in Las Vegas. That is, taken in terms of geographical area versus numbers of people, the country is almost exclusively Republican.

"Oh, no," you will tell me, "Hillary won the popular vote." She did. She won because California and New York voted for her. Remove California's votes (both for Trump and Hillary) and Trump would have won the national popular election by nearly 1.5 million. Take away New York, too, and Trump would have won the popular vote by more than 3 million. In other words, without the Electoral College we'd be letting California and New York decide who is our president. Do we really want them to decide?

This election saw the greatest number of "faithless electors". The term refers to people, assigned the task of representing their state in the Electoral College to vote for the person their state voted for, who do not. Prior to this election, the largest number was 2. This time it was seven. And, really, are you surprised? There was a large call in the days following the surprise election of Trump for just such a thing. They were urged to "Vote your conscience" and to switch sides from Trump to Hillary. Two did. Five switched from Hillary to Trump. Trump won with 304 votes to Hillary's 227. Without those darn faithless electors, it would have been 301 to 230. In other words, in order for this call for electors to ignore the rules and vote for Hillary to make a difference, there would have had to be 31 faithless electors that switched from Trump to Hillary (and 0 from Hillary). Of course, that would have put the outcome into the hands of the House of Representatives ... which is Republican-dominated. Not a particularly likely plan.

Maybe not. Maybe we want a democracy. Maybe we want the largest group of people to decide who our president will be. Do we also want the largest group to decide what we do about, say, gun control? Right now the numbers look like less than 50% are in favor. A poll this year said that 49% of Americans think that abortion is immoral while only 38% did not. Gallup reports that 50% think it should be legal only under certain circumstances and another 19% think under no circumstances with only 29% thinking that it should be legal under any circumstances. Shall we put it to a vote? Oh, here's one. Apparently 43% of Americans support the Black Lives Matter movement. Vote anyone? Of course, this is nonsense. I mean, this stuff changes. Sometimes it seems to turn on a dime. The majority of Americans were opposed, for instance, to "gay marriage" until the Supreme Court made it law, and almost overnight opinions changed. Shall we really run the country on popular vote?

I'm not entirely sure that we really want a democracy. In the end it boils down to "How highly do we think of people?" If we view them as basically good, then surely we want them all to decide. If we view them as basically evil, then we would want to mitigate that evil. Of course, we know which side Scripture falls on. And, of course, we know Who is the ultimate government. Just some thoughts on that question of the day.

Don't Drink the Kool-Aid

The phrase comes from the Jonestown Massacre where nearly a thousand people committed suicide by drinking the poisoned Kool-aid provided by their "savior", Jim Jones. Today it refers to those who blindly follow a doomed course.

I'm a bit dismayed at the numbers of people I see who have drunk the Kool-aid, so to speak, in this current election cycle. Oh, I'm not referring to non-believers. They will do what they will do. I'm referring to Christians, people I know and love and even respect. There appears to be a whole group of them that will vote for Trump out of a near anti-Hillary hysteria.

Mind you, I'm not talking about those who, after great deliberation, have decided that Trump is the lesser of two evils. These haven't "endorsed" Trump. There are quite a few who, out of pure pragmatism, think that he is, flaws and all, the better of the two options and they will, as so often in the past, hold their noses and vote for Trump. Those aren't the ones I'm talking about. The group I have in mind are rabid #NeverHillary folk. To them it would be catastrophic if she got into office. To them it would be a sin for Christians to fail to vote for Trump. Sure, voting for Hillary would, to this group, be a sin, but they go farther and say that failing to vote for Trump would be a sin. Because, as everyone knows, to fail to vote for Trump is to vote for Hillary. And, as everyone knows, Hillary is Satan personified, the Devil in a blue dress (or whatever type and color of clothing she happens to be wearing today). It isn't a matter of pragmatism; it is a matter of evil. The sentiment of this particular group is hard to distinguish from plain, ordinary hatred.

Mind you, I'm not saying that Hillary is a viable option. If that's what you're hearing from me, let me quickly and roundly dismiss that. Electing a person like Mrs. Clinton would be electing someone diametrically opposed to most of what I believe in. I don't consider her a sound candidate, a moral candidate, a candidate with character, even a benign candidate. I think she would further damage our damaged country and I come to that conclusion from the positions she has declared to be her own. To start with, a candidate who declares boldly her disdain for the right of our youngest people to live and her desire to have the government pay for their execution is not a candidate who should occupy a position of power anywhere. Even her running mate is opposed to her stance on abortion. In one political index she is 43 points more "progressive" than public opinion on abortion (which is already too "progressive" for anyone who values life). On LGBT rights she is 62 points more progressive than the already left-leaning public. Well, look, on drug policy, education policy, environmental issues, gun control, health care, immigration reform, social security, and tax reform she scores far left of the public and even many progressives. So, no, I don't consider her a viable option.

So what am I saying about the Kool-aid? I'm wondering why there is a section of Christian America (genuine Christian) that has bought into the fear that "If Hillary gets elected it will be the end of the world as we know it!!" I'm wondering why there are genuine Christians who are endorsing Donald Trump out of hatred for Hillary. I may have not gotten the memo. Maybe there was an email glitch. Did God suspend the "love your neighbor" instruction for her? Have we, in these latter days, seen a suspension of Paul's "optimistic" "There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom 13:1)? Or maybe God is just not on His throne? Are these genuine Christians in the "God does what He can, but sometimes humans get in His way" camp? I don't get it.

Christians, don't drink the Kool-aid. Yes, we need to do what's right. We need to vote. We need to vote our consciences. But don't buy the "It's the end of the world if the wrong person gets elected" line. And don't vote for someone because you hate another. That Kool-aid is poisoned. It will be unpleasant for you. Don't do it.

Odds and Ends

Slippery Slope
We said it would happen. Some of you assured us it wouldn't. You were so sure it was a "slippery slope" argument. We said it was the logical conclusion. One person sued for a license to marry an animal and another for a license to marry his laptop. You can't make this stuff up. As I've said before, it's not a slippery slope argument if it actually happens.

Politics as Usual
On the political front, I recently saw a quote from John Calvin.

When God wants to judge a nation, He gives them wicked rulers.

Or maybe you'd prefer the more biblical version.

When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan. (Prov 29:2)

Welcome to the 2016 Presidential Election.

Trumping the GOP
Over and over stories are coming out about Republicans declaring their support for Hillary. They're not just pulling support from Trump; they're throwing it behind Hillary. In the case of Meg Whitman, she actually said, "I have decided to support Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is clear to me that Secretary Clinton’s temperament, global experience and commitment to America's bedrock national values make her the far better choice in 2016 for President of the United States." Really? "Commitment to America's bedrock national values"?

I warned before that one of the serious dangers of Donald Trump is that he held the potential to explode the Republican party. That is, he has the capability of completely derailing anything remotely like a "platform", a "shared position", a "commitment to America's bedrock national values". Republicans no longer know what those are, apparently. Welcome to the end.

Going on in this destruction of anything remotely "Republican" or conservative, when Ted Cruz told Republicans to "vote your conscience", he got booed ... for starters. The vitriol that followed was amazing with prominent Republicans assuring America that Cruz had just ended his career. Because, you see, it is an anti-Republican, anti-conservative position to vote your conscience. Wait ... what? Of course, the anger from Republicans toward Cruz was over the fact that he did not declare his support of the Republican nominee for president. Bad! Bad senator! So why is it when Trump refuses to support Republicans running for office who actually did endorse him, no one particularly cares? This is what happens when you Trump the GOP.

More on Voting
I'm still having difficulty in deciding the course to take on voting this year. It came home to me the other day. This election cycle with its particular choice of candidates is like I'm being told, "You can shoot your wife or you can shoot your mother. No matter what, one of them will be shot. So choose." If I participate in electing Hillary -- placing my vote for her -- or in electing Trump -- marking his name on my ballot -- I believe I will be complicit in the evil they will perpetrate. I believe that the evil either will try to produce is far beyond what we've seen thus far. I cannot vote for a candidate who favors killing babies on demand (and having the government pay for it). Nor can I add my name to the list of people who asked Donald Trump to be our president. Which will I shoot? Neither. Will there be consequences? Without a doubt. I just don't want to be one who supported them. "But if you don't vote for Donald, you're voting for Hillary!" Not true. 1) A failure to vote for one is not a vote for the other. 2) Most states are not "battleground states". The outcome is known. If you live in one of those where the outcome is a given, your vote for or against the candidate you oppose will not change that. 3) I need to vote my conscience and leave the outcome to God. I recognize that others -- people whom I love and respect -- are not as limited in that as I am. But I can do nothing else.

Update on Slippery Slope
And then there's this. Dr. Stephen Kershnar has written a philosophical analysis of pedophilia. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition already recognizes pedophilia as a sexual orientation. Now (as expected ... slippery slope and all that) Dr. Kershnar is arguing that it is a "natural function", causes no harm to a "willing" child or the adult participant, and ought to be normalized as protected sexual orientation and moral behavior. Thus we can see that morality premised on the "harm factor" and sexual relations premised on "consent" don't work. Again, it's not a slippery slope fallacy if it happens.