Thank God for the Rule of Law
Image
Man-made laws are a mixed bag. Motivations range from desire to build a better society to desire to pander to a constituency, increase personal power, settle a score, or cover up wrongdoing. Even when well meant, laws often bring unintended consequences.
Rule of law, though, is better. As an alternative to the rule of mere men, it’s a rare and precious blessing. A portion of the Oxford English Dictionary definition captures what I mean by the term.
… the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes.
Events of the past four years, especially the last four weeks, have exposed the fact that many who ought to be the most devoted and disciplined in support of the rule of law have lost sight of its value and importance.
Rule of law is God’s invention.
When God organized ancient Israel into a nation, He chose to do more than put Moses in charge and rule through him. He provided words etched in stone (Exodus 32:16). Eventually He provided the entire Torah (Pentateuch), and Moses and later rulers were expected to apply it to the needs of the nation—and also obey it themselves.
We might argue that Hammurabi introduced the rule of law first. Regardless, its invention was an act of God’s gracious providence in the world (James 1:17). By providing a written law to Israel, God made that clear.
Rule of law points to greater realities.
Decrees from autocrats and oligarchies inspire people to look no further than the arbitrary will of humans. They’re the ones in control and we do what they want.
Rule of law separates authority from personality, basing it outside the people in charge. But it does even more: it appeals to moral principles that are bigger than us—even all of us collectively.
In Israel’s case, those principles included “you shall be holy” (Exod. 22:32; Lev. 11:44, 19:2, 20:26) as well as principles such as the rightness of being kind to foreigners (Lev. 19:34, Deut. 10:19), respecting other people’s property (Exod. 20:15), and taking responsibility for unintended harm (Exod. 21:33, Deut. 22:4).
From a natural law perspective, the rule of law points to a transcendent order built into creation itself. From a biblical perspective, it points to the Transcendent Orderer who created. Either way, though secularists may try to deny it, law points beyond the merely human.
Of all people, Christians should treasure and zealously uphold the rule of law!
Rule of law seeks wisdom.
Legal proceedings privilege facts and reasoning over the passions of the moment, and it’s a blessing to all of us that they do. Scripture reveals that this elevation of careful though over emotion is characteristic of wisdom.
- Whoever is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who has a hasty temper exalts folly. (Prov. 14:29)
- Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered. (Prov. 28:26)
- An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge. (Prov. 18:15)
- If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame. (Prov. 18:13)
- The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. (Prov. 18:17)
- The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, but the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things. (Prov. 15:28)
- But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. (James 3:17)
- By me [wisdom] kings reign, and rulers decree what is just; (Prov. 8:15)
The conflict over the 2020 presidential election result boils down to one question: Will the political right honor the rule of law—in most cases, long-standing state laws—or will we be ruled by our passions? The latter is the path of folly but also the path of instability and oppression. The fact that the left demonstrated the same tendencies (though on a far smaller scale) in 2016 only underscores the point. If the right doesn’t champion the rule of law, who do we think we should leave that job to?
Many conservatives believe claims of large scale election fraud and efforts to keep Donald Trump in power are honoring the rule of law. But there’s a fundamental problem with that view: the rule of law includes due process and the burden of proof placed on accusers. Accusers are required to prove that their accusations are true using credible evidence (which is not the same as “someone saying what we want to hear;” see Prov. 19:28).
Any attempt to shift the burden of proof from “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent” is a direct assault on the rule of law. It’s not how we do law in America—and that reality is a blessing to all of us every day we live here.
Rule of law resists idolatry.
It’s easy to idolize a Queen Elizabeth or a Dear Leader Kim Jong-il, or a President Donald… or Ronald, or Barack or Joe. We’re constantly tempted to “put our trust in princes” (Psalm 146:3, 118:8-9).
It’s harder to idolize laws. It can be done (Rom. 10:2-4), but we’re much more prone to idolize people.
Where law is king (see Rutherford and Paine), power is distributed in written codes across regimes and generations. In the U.S., the law embodied in the Constitution spreads power across the legislative, judicial, and executive branches, and also spreads it across states. Though candidates and voters often act as though the President gets all the credit for national accomplishments, that’s not really how it works. U.S. presidents have substantial policy power, strong influence over what happens in Congress, and enormous cultural influence. But the rule of law ensures that achievements are the result of many individuals and groups working together.
It also has a way of throwing a wet blanket on our hero worship. We need that. We should thank God for it.
Rule of law is defining.
Given our national cultural decay, I think this is not overstatement: If we don’t have the rule of law, we don’t—as a nation, have anything. It’s ultimately all that keeps us from becoming Venezuela, Somalia, Russia, or China.
It’s also what makes all our other policy pursuits worthwhile. There’s no point in electing officials who are against murder if those officials are against the rule of law. This remains true if the murder we’re talking about is the killing of human children still in the womb.
This is a major shift in where we are as a nation, and one that many conservatives don’t yet seem to recognize. The rule of law used to be assumed on both the left and the right, but we can no longer take that commitment for granted—on the left or the right. Our first question about any potential president or legislator or judge can no longer be “are they pro-life”? Our first question must now be, are they pro-rule-of-law? Do they contribute to the strength of our national commitment to the rule of law or do they—directly or indirectly, through policy or rhetoric—weaken it?
Other things might be equally important to our national life. Nothing is more important.
Photo: Bill Oxford.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
…but after watching Hilliary Clinton skate for her private server with hundreds of pieces of classified information, and after watching zero prosecutions for using FISA power to undermine a sitting President without as much as adequately vetting the “dossier” provided by that President’s 2016 opponent, I would dare suggest that the “rule of law” seems to apply more than ever to “the rest of us” and not the “accredited elites.”
(not the only examples I could come up with, but it shows a pattern….)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
So the trick is to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Nominating and electing candidates that have a pattern of trying to exceed their authority or making public statements/advocating actions that undermine rule of law clearly makes the problem worse.
But I do think the leaders we chose are only half cause of the problem. They’re also half result of the problem. The attitude of the “elites” seems to be, increasingly, that whoever has power should use as much of it as they can get away with in pursuit of their goals. And this is also the way much of the electorate looks at it now. Everything is subordinate to “winning,” and everything is weaponized for that purpose… principles are just rhetorical bludgeons.
Rejecting leaders (and parties) that think this way may not solve the problem but at least that way we know we’re not making it worse.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I made a substantive change to a sentence.
Where it now says
If the right doesn’t champion the rule of law, who do we think we should leave that job to?
It formerly said “If…, who will?”
I wanted to change that because I know many of my friends/coworkers who are left or center left are very serious about rule of law. So while “who will?” might resonate with folks on the right who like to demonize everyone who is not one of them, that’s not how I want to be. The answer to “who will?” would have been “Lots of people. But conservatives should be more motivated than anyone to own that job!”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I don’t remember Jim Comey, Lois Lerner, or Bob Mueller ever appearing on my ballot. Now we did indeed vote for, or against, those who did put the bureaucratic state in place, but I think at some level the bureaucracy has learned to take matters pretty much outside of the hands of elected officials.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Sure. I’m talking about where we have influence and how we should use it, not where we don’t have influence and can’t use it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I don’t remember Jim Comey, Lois Lerner, or Bob Mueller ever appearing on my ballot. Now we did indeed vote for, or against, those who did put the bureaucratic state in place, but I think at some level the bureaucracy has learned to take matters pretty much outside of the hands of elected official
I find it interesting that the case that Texas and 18 others states are bringing concerning the election has to do with the rule of the law. Many elected and unelected officials decided to simply change the voting law even though they had no authority to do so. In other cases they chose to simply ignore the laws that were in place and no one stopped them. Laws are important and not following them has put an election in question. If we just allow people to ignore the law and we become a nation that selectively decides who has to follow the law and who does not, then we are in trouble. I hope that even those of you who despise Trump can see how dangerous this is. Even if you like the results of ignoring the law, what happens when the message is sent that laws are no longer important? Stalin had a description for those who were useful to his gaining power, but had not thought out the full implications of enabling him.
Many elected and unelected officials decided to simply change the voting law even though they had no authority to do so. In other cases they chose to simply ignore the laws that were in place and no one stopped them.
Specific examples and proof so that we know specifically what you’re talking about? Links?
It’s fair to say many people have no earthly idea how difficult it is to change State laws. Agencies routinely hire legislative liaisons specifically to lobby their interests to lawmakers so laws have a chance of being updated or amended. Even then, it can take years. Or, you can do it via rulemaking and change the interpretation of the laws.
Either way, it’s hard. It requires compromise. It’s much more complicated than the Looney Tunes version (“Great horny toads! I don’t like them there laws! Imma not a gonna listen to ‘em! Imma gonna change ‘em!!!”) regurgitated by Christians in thrall to partisan media.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Specific examples and proof so that we know specifically what you’re talking about? Links?
Joel, have you read the SCOTUS filing? That would be the best place to get the information you are looking for. It is available and you can see it for yourself. I have read part of it and skimmed through all of it. The Michigan parts were of particular interest. It is alleged that legislative requirements (the only constitutionally valid election law) was overridden by someone other than the legislature, thus violating the constitution and raising equal protection claims. Whether we think Biden won (as I do) or not (as others do), we should all be interested in this because this is not the last election. The law should matter.
As a side note, it is interesting to me the number of people who claim there is no proof and that claims are baseless yet have never looked for any proof or any evidence. The charges made (whether right or wrong) were significant and would take some time to determine their validity. Yet almost immediately we were told they were baseless. How did they know the claims were baseless before hearing them?
It’s fair to say many people have no earthly idea how difficult it is to change State laws.
It’s actually not that hard to do it informally, which is alleged. If the law requires a signature or an address, and the vote counter or supervisor or court says, “Do not require a signature or address,” then the law has been de facto changed by someone other than the legislature. It is at this point that the courts matter.
Of particular interest is the PA case where the legislature changed the law earlier this year to account for COVID and did not add particular provisions that were then later added by people who were not the legislature. That is said to be a violation of Art 2 that gives election law only to the legislature. No law can be changed (whether explicitly or implicitly) by anyone other than the legislature.
I find this all interesting not from a political viewpoint but from a legal one. Why do legislative laws matter if people can simply change the law by ignoring it? And if the courts won’t enforce the law, why write a law? There’s a lot more at stake than who is president for the next four years.
This election madness is the perfect capstone to the Trump era. Large segments of the American Church have gone stark raving mad. Election conspiracies abound, lapped up by people who want to believe “they” have done some unspeakable evil.
I just watched James White earlier this week suggest the various COVID vaccines are designed by “them” to control us and make us docile. It’s all part of the Great Reset, you see. Perhaps the ultimate irony with White’s descent into madness is that, despite his well-known aversion to eschatology, he is now just as alarmist as the most wild-eyed dispensationalist.
I am sick of the whole thing. It’s sad. Thank God indeed, for the rule of law.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
This election madness is the perfect capstone to the Trump era. Large segments of the American Church have gone stark raving mad. Election conspiracies abound, lapped up by people who want to believe “they” have done some unspeakable evil.
This is true. What is equally remarkable is the almost total lack of curiosity about the election by some who claim to love the truth. How can one love the truth but be so determined not to know it? How can one love the rule of law and be so determined to avoid knowing if the law was violated? I can see that coming from unbelievers but when it comes from the church, it is more disturbing to me.
Probable cause is why I’m not concerned! Predication …
I must also point out that these absurb allegations are often deemed “credible” because ordinary people have little idea of how things actually work in local and state government. No idea. It’s easier to refer to “government” as this monolithic menace, rather than understand it for what it is. It’s also quite convenient to impugn civil servants because of the political whoredom of the elected officials they serve.
Government is a collection of civil servants just like me who are not robots or droids. They’re Christians, black, white, Muslim, and everything in between. They have all sorts of personal feelings on a whole host of issues. Government exists at local, county, State and Federal level. It is well-nigh impossible for a coordinated effort to happen (like, say, stealing an election) without a conspiracy involving untold thousands of individuals.
It’s intriguing to me the same people who decry government as a collection of boobs who couldn’t pour pee out of a boot with instructions written on the heel have no issue believing in a vast, well-orchestrated and impeccably funded left-wing conspiracy that exists at local, county and State levels to deny President Trump his re-election.
When one waves a hand and says “the government” has done wrong, you are impugning the thoughts, integrity and intentions of thousands of civil servants. The casual ignorance of these kinds of statements also show the person leveling the charge has no idea how the a real government bureaucracy works. It’s no skin off his back, because he doesn’t have to prove them. He just makes idle accusations.
The WA Secretary of State (a Republican) has had to issue a statement because the GOP gubernatorial challenger (who lost badly) claims the WA election was stolen. She has repeatedly called for proof, not social media pontifications or other stupidity. None has been forthcoming. Yet, the GOP loser continues his irresponsible diatribe and his followers believe him. It is pathetic. It is sad. It is dangerous.
It should be no surprise that we’re in this situation when, just now, a pastor I follow on social media shared a ridiculous news story from a site called rebelnews.com. Does anyone with a functioning brain cell really think one can trust anything this site has to offer? Just the other day, another pastor I know shared a story from constitutionsoldier.com. These are men who have the care of souls for a congregation! When even shepherds are as gullible as children, anything is possible.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
What kind of research or investigation have you done to know whether there is probable cause or predication?
To me, one of the problems is dogmatic declarations that have no basis in investigation. Again, the lack of curiosity is interesting.
It seems to me there is not much doubt that elections laws were changed by people other than legislatures. The issue is whether or not that will be taken up and whether or not there is any remedy at this point. I think Biden won, though it seems there are some interesting irregularities. I am more interested in the bigger questions about election law.
I provided a link below to an article right after the election showing how the governor and the court changed election law in PA. They do not have the authority to do this. We have sworn testimony before state legislatures from multiple states showing that election laws were violated by local officials when they would not let observers in. Further signature verification laws were ignored. Much of the evidence was provided to hearings held by state legislatures. Some have called them “clown shows” in part because they were held in hotels instead of state capitals. Part of the reason for holding them in hotels is because the conference rooms in many capitals do not allow for social distancing as well as rented venues in other locations would.
The war of internet links continues. File suit. Contact the state Secretary of State. Contact the county auditor. These officials will use reasonable standards to determine predication and probable cause. People are innocent until proven guilty. This is something the “lost cause” Trumpists seem to have forgotten. There is a presumption of innocence, not guilt.
I note that legal efforts to date have been shot down, sometimes scornfully. That is quite telling. Nevertheless, the “lost cause” mythos will continue to live on and it will be with us for quite some time.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Contact the Secretary of State? LOL. In many of these cases it was the Secretary of State that decided to and even ordered the law to be ignored. If the county auditor is ignoring the law and preventing observers in or worse, then who do you contact if the Secretary of State will not even take your call or just responds like Tyler does and says we have auditors so you have no evidence? Of course people are innocent until proven guilty, but the scripture says that where there are multiple witnesses, we must take the accusation seriously. We have multiple witnesses giving sworn testimony. To assume the courts have no bias is willful ignorance. Most of these violations were taking place in select cities where the election auditors have a lot of power and little oversight. That in itself is one of the major concerns. Even a call for detailed audits and oversight gets mocking derision from some. That is scary and a disregard for the rule of law.
The “Secretary of State” is a large organization that likely employs several hundred, perhaps over 1,000 people. Who, specifically, do you mean when you charge that “the” Secretary of State has ignored laws?
You continue to deal in abstractions. This is often the way with people who have no facts. I see it every day. I’ve seen it every day for 18 years. Rod Dreher has a disturbing piece about Eric “Heil Trump!” Mataxas in which he marvels at the fideistic nature of Mataxas’ blind devotion to the cause of Trumpism. There is much of that in these continued allegations of fraud.
I shall bow out now. There is little point engaging with fideistic faith. Thank God for the rule of law. Appreciate the article, Aaron.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
The Supreme Court slapped down the Texas lawsuit as lacking standing. So that’s all but the weeping, I think.
Those of us who are deeply suspicious that there was widespread cheating—and I belong to that group—can now do little better than to take good looks at who voted, what their address is (addresses were), whether they’re still alive, whether they’re felons, and the like—and then when something is found, provide it to the state and to the media and more or less dare them not to do a better job with vote security.
And then we can work for lawmakers who will clarify election law to make very clear that excluding poll watchers is not just wrong but punishable, that you don’t count votes between 10pm and 6am, etc.. When the left tells you that there is no vote fraud, just point to the # of felons, dead people, people at nonexistent or nonresidential addresses, and such who have voted.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[TylerR]I’ve also been saddened by White’s late dark ravings. I really miss the good old days of stories of Islam and Gnosticism.This election madness is the perfect capstone to the Trump era. Large segments of the American Church have gone stark raving mad. Election conspiracies abound, lapped up by people who want to believe “they” have done some unspeakable evil.
I just watched James White earlier this week suggest the various COVID vaccines are designed by “them” to control us and make us docile. It’s all part of the Great Reset, you see. Perhaps the ultimate irony with White’s descent into madness is that, despite his well-known aversion to eschatology, he is now just as alarmist as the most wild-eyed dispensationalist.
I am sick of the whole thing. It’s sad. Thank God indeed, for the rule of law.
Anyway, I recommend anyone interested give this a read. It’s about China’s understanding of the “rule of law,” how they see it as linked to a Western model with universal human rights, and how they plan to export their own model to compete. I think you’ll find it well worth your time. https://bitterwinter.org/xi-jinpings-and-the-rule-of-law-a-new-tool-of-…
If the many election irregularities are understandable and trivial mistakes, such as will always happen in any election involving millions of voters (a reasonable assertion), why have nearly all the “mistakes” favored Democrats? I’ve asked that several times, and no one has yet provided a reasonable explanation. Laws of probability would expect half the mistakes to favor Republicans. Has anyone documented election irregularities favoring Republicans? This observation does not prove fraud, but the question deserves an explanation. If none is forthcoming, the only conclusion I can draw is that deliberate fraud has indeed occurred, and it needs to be exposed and the perpetrators punished. Dismissing this as “loonyism” without thoroughly investigating the allegations is problematic and smacks of partisan intransigence.
G. N. Barkman
The divine standard for investigations is that where there are 2 or 3 witnesses, authorities must investigate to determine whether illicit or unrighteous acts have been committed. Presently, there are hundreds of witnesses who under penalty of perjury have provided sworn testimonies that corrupt conduct has taken place in our elections.
In various states, either the governors or the secretaries of state or other election officials or all of them together are preventing investigations of the conduct of election officials in their states. When people have tried to confront these officials in courts about their misconduct, various judges are refusing to even hold hearings and are instead dismissing the cases.
Forensic examinations of the ballots in the disputed states would go a long way toward addressing the allegations but authorities are refusing to allow such examinations. This is unrighteous conduct and is preventing the issues from being properly resolved.
[Andrew K]
I’ve also been saddened by White’s late dark ravings. I really miss the good old days of stories of Islam and Gnosticism.Anyway, I recommend anyone interested give this a read. It’s about China’s understanding of the “rule of law,” how they see it as linked to a Western model with universal human rights, and how they plan to export their own model to compete. I think you’ll find it well worth your time. https://bitterwinter.org/xi-jinpings-and-the-rule-of-law-a-new-tool-of-c…
I also have given up on White. I have tried to turn him on a few times hoping to discover that he regained some balance but found otherwise. Such a wasted talent. I learned a lot from him through the years. I wish it was somehow illegal for Christians to be republicans (not really of course). Maybe they would start from scratch and form a principled party. Many Christians that I know can recite every possible election irregularity but how many are spending time reading their Bible or studying theology?
Rajesh wrote:
The divine standard for investigations is that where there are 2 or 3 witnesses, authorities must investigate to determine whether illicit or unrighteous acts have been committed. Presently, there are hundreds of witnesses who under penalty of perjury have provided sworn testimonies that corrupt conduct has taken place in our elections.
In various states, either the governors or the secretaries of state or other election officials or all of them together are preventing investigations of the conduct of election officials in their states. When people have tried to confront these officials in courts about their misconduct, various judges are refusing to even hold hearings and are instead dismissing the cases.
Forensic examinations of the ballots in the disputed states would go a long way toward addressing the allegations but authorities are refusing to allow such examinations. This is unrighteous conduct and is preventing the issues from being properly resolved.
This is really what the rule of law should be about. I find it strange that some on this site still mock such thought. This issue of the rule of law is not just a political issue, but a Biblical one. The last sentence reminds me of how many stories I have heard of criminal behavior being hidden within the church. I have to wonder how many on here who do not want an investigation of our election would also block investigations of child abuse in the church. I really hope there is not a connection, but I do hope that readers of SI would take more seriously the Biblical principle of 2 or 3 witnesses.
[G. N. Barkman]I’m sure if the Republicans had won the election, the Democrats would be documenting the election irregularities that favored the Republicans. Right now it’s the Republicans that are pointing out irregularities, so why do you think Republicans would point out any that favored Republicans?If the many election irregularities are understandable and trivial mistakes, such as will always happen in any election involving millions of voters (a reasonable assertion), why have nearly all the “mistakes” favored Democrats? I’ve asked that several times, and no one has yet provided a reasonable explanation. Laws of probability would expect half the mistakes to favor Republicans. Has anyone documented election irregularities favoring Republicans? This observation does not prove fraud, but the question deserves an explanation. If none is forthcoming, the only conclusion I can draw is that deliberate fraud has indeed occurred, and it needs to be exposed and the perpetrators punished. Dismissing this as “loonyism” without thoroughly investigating the allegations is problematic and smacks of partisan intransigence.
Generally, you can define probable cause as “facts and or circumstances which would make a reasonable and prudent person believe a crime has been committed.” This is typically the standard regulatory and law enforcement bodies use for opening an investigation. It isn’t the standard for substantiating a case and forwarding it; it’s the standard for opening a case.
Not one single person on this thread (no, not one), has gone beyond the level of abstractions. This is understandable, because not one single person here has any personal knowledge of any illegal act. But, even though it may well accomplish nothing, I will break down one portion of a statement above to illustrate reality for those who are outraged:
Has anyone documented election irregularities favoring Republicans?
I don’t know. Do you? Are you referring to a specific county? A specific State? This was a nationwide election. What are you talking about, exactly?
This observation does not prove fraud, but the question deserves an explanation.
You’re assuming something you don’t even know yourself. Thus, unless you have some predication (which you have not identified), you are whistling in the dark.
If none is forthcoming,
Do you realize you’re demanding people prove you’re wrong? This flips presumption of innocence on its head. You have begun with a presumption of guilt. This is not a Communist state, Comrade Barkman!
the only conclusion I can draw is that deliberate fraud has indeed occurred,
Where? In what jurisdiction? By whom? What is your basis for this conclusion, for which you have not presented any evidence?
and it needs to be exposed and the perpetrators punished.
You demand an investigation about something you can’t explain, against people whom you can’t identify, in a jurisdiction you can’t pinpoint, and you presume guilt … so why do we even need an investigation?
Dismissing this as “loonyism” without thoroughly investigating the allegations is problematic
Why? It will remain looneyism unless and until you can go beyond abstractions. The Courts have not been persuaded, nor have the various county officials and Secretaries of State for the jurisdictions in question. Even the Notorious ACB joined her colleagues in denying TX’s ridiculous suit.
and smacks of partisan intransigence.
Not at all. I refer you to everything I just mentioned. It’s fine to toss around accusations in an armchair. It’s another thing to deal with the real world, with statutes and standards of proof. I’ve done it all my life. There ain’t anything here, boys and girls. If you continue to have this fideistic faith that great fraud occurred, then you’re calling into question the entire legal structure of society in multiple jurisdictions. This doesn’t seem like a wise, prudent or warranted move. But, to each his own, I suppose …
For those who are interested, Eric “Heil Trump” Mataxas appears to have gone mad. Behold his parody video “Biden Did You Know?”
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Wouldn’t it be advantageous to the Democrats to point out voting irregularities that favored Republicans? That would support their contention that all the irregularities are understandable human errors that occur in any election.
For example, are there any precincts where Democrat poll watchers were excluded? Are there any precincts where Republican officials declared the counting would stop for the night, sent everyone home, and then continued counting in the absence of Democrat observers? Are there any precincts where voting machines switched Democrat votes to Republican? Are there any places where Republican officials allowed ballots to be counted that did not meet the required standard of law? Do you want me to go on?
G. N. Barkman
Looked away for a bit and this thread really got busy.
I know this isn’t going to change minds among those deeply entrenched in the irrationality that now dominates the right but it remains true… and may help someone who is on the fence.
- SCOTUS has rejected the Texas case for a reason
- All the other lost cases have been lost for essentially the same reason
- Many of those involved in bringing these suits know full well that they’re a crock of rubbish. They have political and financial reasons for doing it anyway.
- Note the large number of conservative judges, state and local election officials, and lawyers (i.e. those most likely to be best informed) who have rejected the stolen election nonsense
- Note the significant number of nonpartisan conservatives who have rejected the big steal lie, even several who have been very Trump supportive most of the last four years (Byron York for example).
The ‘evidence’ is a few procedural technicalities here and there, a couple of other actual problems with little impact on the outcome, and a whole lot of bold and dramatic claims with nothing backing them. And a bit of wacky conspiracy babble in the mix.
Then these cases take this poor evidence and add poor legal reasoning on top and demand absurd remedies.
That’s not how rule of law works.
Fortunately, there have been enough judges doing their jobs to sustain rule of law through this onslaught of deceit and ignorance…and self-serving manipulation.
It will be over soon, unless the zealots find ways to corrupt the electors. If they do, rule of law is very nearly dead in America. I think it’s more resilient than that though.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Reversing the results of the election is not my concern. I believe Biden won. However, a nation ruled by law is my deep concern. Simply saying, “Even if there are irregularities, they are not sufficient to overturn the results” is not sufficient reason to refuse to investigate these irregularities. Is no one to be held responsible for ignoring election laws in many precincts? If so, you can be sure it will happen again, and again, and….
The integrity of future elections requires confronting all known abuses of election law. Will those who refused to let poll watchers do their job be called to account? Will those who defied state election laws to accept ballots that were not qualified be held accountable? Even if we are talking about only a few hundred ballots, shouldn’t election laws be enforced, and violations punished? And, is it possible that a more careful examination of a few hundred irregularities may turn up a good many more? Maybe, maybe not. But we will never know unless we are willing to do genuine investigation, and not sweep it all under the “it won’t change the outcome” rug.
G. N. Barkman
Aaron, it was a lack of standing issue. So the details have not really been addressed, and we’re left with the question of why having one’s votes cancelled by fraudulent votes (allegedly) doesn’t constitute some kind of harm that the courts ought to remedy. It may be the right legal decision, but it’s still grating.
Other decisions were reached due to lack of evidence, and that’s really because the system makes it extremely hard to eliminate fraudulent ballots once they’re cast and counted the first time—it’s a feature of the secret ballot, really. So Giuliani et al probably went in knowing they were attempting a moon shot with a science project rocket.
Regarding GN’s question about “why does it all work out in favor of the Democrats?”, that’s really because the suspicious activities and votes are coming from a few large, mostly Democratic cities. And there’s the crux of the matter; are the poll watcher exclusions, wee hours vote counting activities, and the like occurring simply because these cities don’t plan well or like doing things at 3am, or is it because they’re trying to hide something?
Having grown up an hour from Chicago and having gone to college an hour from Detroit, I know these big cities don’t plan well, but I can’t shake the suspicion that there’s more going on than just that. There’s that “poll watcher exclusion” thing, really.
And then you’ve got the lawsuits that the left has filed every time anyone gets going on examining whether voter rolls and such are clean—if you’re committed to clean elections, why? Wouldn’t you rather see that problems were not found, and then gloat over it, if you’re on the up & up?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bro Barkman wrote:
The integrity of future elections requires confronting all known abuses of election law. Will those who refused to let poll watchers do their job be called to account? Will those who defied state election laws to accept ballots that were not qualified be held accountable? Even if we are talking about only a few hundred ballots, shouldn’t election laws be enforced, and violations punished? And, is it possible that a more careful examination of a few hundred irregularities may turn up a good many more?
I reply:
- You assume there are “known abuses,” but you refuse to identify who committed them, where they were committed, what locality has jurisdiction, and what exactly happened.
- Why do you believe poll watchers were thwarted, where were they thwarted, who thwarted them, and what evidence do you have to substantiate the idea that local officials have done nothing?
- Why do you believe state election laws were thwarted, in which states were they thwarted, who exactly thwarted them, and what evidence do you have to substantiate the idea that local officials have done nothing?
- A lot of things are “possible.” Not many things are probable. What is your predication for continuing to believe there was widespread ballot fraud? All you continue to do is ask rhetorical “what if” questions, assume guilt, and lambast officials for not seeing things your way. Yes, well … it doesn’t work like that in the real world.
You continue:
Maybe, maybe not. But we will never know unless we are willing to do genuine investigation, and not sweep it all under the “it won’t change the outcome” rug.
Have you realized it’s theoretically possible I’m the transgender descendant of Adolf Hitler? It’s true. It is possible. You’ll never know unless you’re willing to do genuine investigation! But, because there is no predication to actually believe that nonsense, it’s not worth investigating. There is no probable cause. No predication. That is how the real world works!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[G. N. Barkman]I’m not sure it would be advantageous. The Democrats probably realized they’d look silly making a big deal out of understandable human errors. The Republicans don’t seem to have a problem with how they are looking in this regard.Wouldn’t it be advantageous to the Democrats to point out voting irregularities that favored Republicans? That would support their contention that all the irregularities are understandable human errors that occur in any election.
For example, are there any precincts where Democrat poll watchers were excluded?Sure, in Detroit. When the room capacity levels were reached, extra poll watchers from both the Democrat and Republican party were denied entry.
Are there any precincts where Republican officials declared the counting would stop for the night, sent everyone home, and then continued counting in the absence of Democrat observers?Are there any precincts where Democrat officials did this?
Are there any precincts where voting machines switched Democrat votes to Republican?Are there any precincts where Republican votes were switched to Democrat?
I know there are some counties in Michigan and Georgia in which accusation have been made, but explanations are easily found for the discrepancies. For example, in one county, the “counting” software and the “reporting” software were not synched up correctly. So the count was correctly made, but the initial report of the count went out incorrectly. That’s not an actual “switch” of votes.
Are there any places where Republican officials allowed ballots to be counted that did not meet the required standard of law?Do you know of a place where Democrats did this? I know that 21 states allow votes to be counted if received after election day as long as the ballots are postmarked by election day. Did one of the other 29 states start counting them when they were received later?
Do you want me to go on?Sure, if you have something more substantial.
On the one hand, there are those who seem willing to believe every rumor and accusation of fraud, no matter how baseless. On the other hand, there are those who seem unwilling to accept any irregularities as possible attempts at fraud, no matter how suspicious.
Surely there must be a reasonable middle ground that recognizes the reality of irregularities, and desires to investigate to understand how and why they occurred. Why are some so determined to accept the assertion that there is nothing to see? Of course there’s nothing to see for those who are unwilling to look. (There was nothing to see with Hunter Biden until the election was over, and it was no longer possible to ignore.)
Irregularities in several large, Democratically controlled cities are reasonably asserted. Hundreds have sworn to witnessing violations of election laws. Poll watchers were excluded in several instances. Shouldn’t rule of law demand that we try to find out why? For those who demand evidence, I have none. Only questions. That’s why I want to see a more thorough investigation. Let the evidence be found, if it exists. If not, then let’s put it behind us and move on. But please, let’s not leave irregularities unresolved. The integrity of future elections require that all poll workers obey existing laws.
G. N. Barkman
If you have questions, read the actual lawsuits filed, then read the court decisions destroying them. You will find your answers there. It won’t be exciting reading, and it’s too boring to be covered in breathless tones by the usual suspects, but your answers will be there. Go to the primary source documents!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
It seems likely that many of the assertions were not thoroughly investigated because the remedy requested of the courts was way too big. Something like, “There is evidence of irregularities here, so we petition the court to throw out all the votes and overturn the election.” Trump’s team is focused on reversing the election. Somebody needs to be more narrowly focused on specific cases of irregularity and what to do about those. That’s too small a project for Trump’s attorneys, but not for the integrity of future elections.
G. N. Barkman
“Even if there are irregularities, they are not sufficient to overturn the results” is not sufficient reason to refuse to investigate these irregularities. Is no one to be held responsible for ignoring election laws in many precincts?
What hasn’t been investigated?
Because we’ve been having elections for a long time, and both accuracy and fraud have been a concern for a long time, there are longstanding procedures for all reports and allegations of error or misconduct.
Of course, there are different thresholds of evidence involved. Somebody making statements doesn’t automatically merit a criminal investigation.
In elections, they look for enough evidence to warrant an audit first. If there’s enough to call for that there’s an audit, and depending on what that turns up there might be more investigation to see if there was a process error or negligence, etc. There would have to be even stronger evidence to warrant a fraud investigation.
So, I’ve been seeing “investigation” in the sense of due process being followed, all over in this election, as usual.
Where has it not?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]In GA, they have done two recounts, but the SOS refuses to do signature verification. There are many disputes about the validity of ballots in GA that signature verification would help resolve. The Trump team has a petition before the Georgia Supreme Court to address various issues with ballots in GA as well as other problems: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/breaking-trump-legal-team-file…“Even if there are irregularities, they are not sufficient to overturn the results” is not sufficient reason to refuse to investigate these irregularities. Is no one to be held responsible for ignoring election laws in many precincts?
What hasn’t been investigated?
Because we’ve been having elections for a long time, and both accuracy and fraud have been a concern for a long time, there are longstanding procedures for all reports and allegations of error or misconduct.
Of course, there are different thresholds of evidence involved. Somebody making statements doesn’t automatically merit a criminal investigation.
In elections, they look for enough evidence to warrant an audit first. If there’s enough to call for that there’s an audit, and depending on what that turns up there might be more investigation to see if there was a process error or negligence, etc. There would have to be even stronger evidence to warrant a fraud investigation.
So, I’ve been seeing “investigation” in the sense of due process being followed, all over in this election, as usual.
Where has it not?
In MI, a forensic examination of Dominion voting machines is alleged to have produced evidence that votes were not switched by a glitch or by human error but were switched by the computer program. We may know more about that on Monday: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/will-small-county-northern-mi-…
There are several pending cases before SCOTUS concerning the battleground states that have yet to have been heard.
Favorable rulings in one or more of these cases might finally give the Trump team opportunities to have investigated things that have not been investigated by giving forensic access to the ballots, voting machines, etc.
Has anyone seriously investigated why poll watchers were removed from ballot counting in several big city precincts? Similarly, the issue of not allowing poll watchers to monitor ballot drop boxes? (Because, apparently, they were not specifically addressed in election laws. But, of course, they did not exist before this year, and were added because of COVID. Prime opportunity for ballot stuffing with nobody allowed to monitor the precess.) Has anyone addressed the issue of election officials accepting ballots that did not meet the laws of their states? Has anyone investigated the processes designed to assure the integrity of mail-in ballots to assure their legitimacy? Did COVID alterations compromise the integrity of ballot legitimacy? (IOW, is there any way to be sure all the mail in ballots came from legally registered voters, and were submitted by the intended registered voter only, and not someone else?)
It seems to me that there are still a good many questions that have not been satisfactorily answered.
G. N. Barkman
A large segment of the American church has gone mad and worships Trump and the GOP in an idolatrous fashion. I don’t recognize many of you as the otherwise rational, sane men I know you to be.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
If things like the exclusion of poll watchers have actually been investigated, I’d expect to see one of the two;
1. If it’s true, I’d expect elections commissioners to put those who excluded poll watchers on a list of people permanently ineligible to work in elections, and possibly even prosecute some of them. Distrust in elections is a big deal.
2. If allegations are false, I’d expect prosecutors to file perjury charges against those filing known false affidavits for the exact same reason as #1.
Having seen neither, my conclusion is that the investigations so far performed are of the sort that the Obama administration did of the IRS scandal—concluding that it was management problems instead of illegal acts, but not taking any concrete actions to prevent those “management problems” from recurring. In other words, pro forma investigations that everybody inside knows are a Potemkin village, but that credulous (or complicit) journalists will accept at face value.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The lawsuits and investigations have failed, not because the accusations have been investigated and found to not be true. They have been dismissed for other reasons. The SCOTUS said TX did not have standing. They did not say the claim was invalid. In a lot of other ones, and I have not read any of the reports fully, but have scanned the basics of them, have been rejected because the claim was not substantiated by Trump’s team. In other words, the court wanted Trump to do all the investigation, and then report the results. There has been very little deep investigation. Also, the courts have accepted the “recounts” as valid because the election officials say they are. To my knowledge, there has not been a vote audit that verified every absentee or mail in ballot was confirmed to have come from a real voter.
So, this is the reason the Trump supporters are still upset. The claim is that illegal ballots were counted in multiple states, and NO ONE has shown this has not been the case.
That being said, the election is over. Biden will be president. Father, please help us to be better witnesses of you.
Tyler wrote:
A large segment of the American church has gone mad and worships Trump and the GOP in an idolatrous fashion. I don’t recognize many of you as the otherwise rational, sane men I know you to be.
Tyler, I have to wonder if you have been reading the same threads as I have been. Some of us want investigations based on the Biblical teaching about multiple witnesses. Many of us have made it clear that it is not about Trump as much as about the rule of law. Tyler, you have not only slandered your fellow Christians, you have consistently resorted to name calling in these election threads. Your behavior towards those who disagree with you is very much like that of Trump towards those who disagree with him. I must say, however, that I hold pastors to a higher standard than I do presidents in that regard. Still, that is one of the reasons why I have not been overly enthusiastic about Trump as a president- even though I voted for him in 2020 but did not in 2016.
The lawsuits and investigations have failed, not because the accusations have been investigated and found to not be true. They have been dismissed for other reasons.
This is true in some cases. Not even close to all. Multiple local cases have been tossed due to lack of evidence.
About poll watcher claims, lots has been written. This may be of use: some claims have been proven to be plain false… https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/11/06/trump-and-allies-keep…
As for multiple witnesses etc., no witnesses have been ignored. They’ve simply been found to be either not credible, or hearsay, or to be verifiably counterfactual. Or to have observed what is actually standard procedure. There is widespread ignorance of the actual processes involved.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
JD Miller wrote:
Tyler, I have to wonder if you have been reading the same threads as I have been.
I doubt I have been! Many Christians today prefer to source their news from dubious hucksters or opinion pundits. They have little to no idea how to find news, an inability to filter it, and prefer to dwell in their echo-chambers of choice. That may or may not be you. But, it reflects the habits of far too many.
Some of us want investigations based on the Biblical teaching about multiple witnesses. Many of us have made it clear that it is not about Trump as much as about the rule of law.
There is no predication for action. Courts have ruled over and over. The process is working. It just isn’t the result you want.
Tyler, you have not only slandered your fellow Christians, you have consistently resorted to name calling in these election threads.
I have not mentioned any specific names at all. I am worried in general at the comments of many people on this thread, and in the greater evangelical world. The conspiracy mindset is inherently dangerous and illogical. It is a sickness.
Your behavior towards those who disagree with you is very much like that of Trump towards those who disagree with him.
If I were the President, I would have taken to Twitter and tossed out expletives, coined juvenile nicknames for my enemies, then fired everyone competent around me. I also would have mocked my opponent’s dead children on national television.
I must say, however, that I hold pastors to a higher standard than I do presidents in that regard.
So do I. It’s precisely why I am so disturbed at the comments and mindset of so many pastors in the evangelical world today.
Still, that is one of the reasons why I have not been overly enthusiastic about Trump as a president- even though I voted for him in 2020 but did not in 2016.
I am glad he lost. He deserved to lose. I did not vote for him in 2016 or 2020.
I am quite worried about our country. Has anyone seen the madness that was the Jericho March, from this past weekend? This is lunacy. Allan West, the Texas GOP Chair, has all but called for secession!
The mindset I see from some people on this thread, and from far too many ordinary Christians to boot, is the fruit from that same poisonous tree. I truly fear this country is headed towards something awful, and the saddest part of it all is that too many Christian Nationalists are just as radicalized in their own echo-chambers as the Leftists they despise so thoroughly. They are part of the problem. Now that’s irony.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Tyler, you have not only slandered your fellow Christians, you have consistently resorted to name calling in these election threads.
I have not mentioned any specific names at all. I am worried in general at the comments of many people on this thread, and in the greater evangelical world. The conspiracy mindset is inherently dangerous and illogical. It is a sickness.
Two Christians you mentioned and named called were Jenna Ellis and Eric Metaxas. Unless you can provide a quote of Metaxas saying “heil Trump” you did slander.
Many are coming from a different perspective then I am and are still responding in a godly manner. Some have crossed the line and I have addressed that when it happens. Aaron has been much more Christlike in his responses since I exhorted him and that speaks to his character. I hope you have the character to take rebuke and grow and learn from it.
Mataxas has gone mad. Perhaps he always was mad. Have you seen his “Biden Did You Know?” video? In a recent interview with Charlie Kirk, he says he is ready to die in the fight for President Trump against election fraud. I suspect he is truly mentally deranged. More recently, he appeared as the emcee for the Jericho March this weekend alongside maniacs who called for armed revolt, whilst a My Pillow ad appeared in split screen during the broadcast.
Jenna Ellis is a young lawyer with no relevant experience who is essentially a public relations shill for Christian Nationalism. She has hitched her star to the Falkirk Center, and looks to have a great career as a pundit ahead of her. Good for her, I suppose.
These are dangerous individuals who no sane Christian should follow or support.
To the charge of slander: I find it ironic that many people on this thread have no problem slandering untold thousands of civil servants at local in local and state bureaucracies as criminals who perpetrated election fraud (for who else could have done the evil deed, if it indeed happened?), whilst providing no predication for such an astounding claim, and yet cry out because certain Christian Nationalist figures are criticized.
I leave you now. We will likely never be on the same page. Take care.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Tyler. imagine if multiple witnesses came forward and said that someone in your church was sexually abusing children and a day after hearing the accusations, you said that you looked into it and that there was nothing to investigate. If someone said that because of the multiple witnesses there should be an investigation, would you accuse them of slandering you? That seems to be your standard with the election questions. I hope it would not be your standard in the church. As a pastor I would hope you have thought these things through. I also hope you do not treat the people in your congregation who you disagree with the way you write on SI. It may get you results as a schoolyard bully, or move you up the pecking order in the military, but it is not the way to pastor. BTW, I was not the one who clicked dislike on your post.
JD wrote:
Tyler. imagine if multiple witnesses came forward and said that someone in your church was sexually abusing children and a day after hearing the accusations, you said that you looked into it and that there was nothing to investigate. If someone said that because of the multiple witnesses there should be an investigation, would you accuse them of slandering you? That seems to be your standard with the election questions.
That is not a proper parallel. Again, multiple courts in multiple jurisdictions, including the Supreme Court, have determined there is no merit to the allegations. The Secretaries of State in multiple jurisdictions have found no reason to not certify the results. They based those decisions on reports from county auditors in multiple jurisdictions. The system has worked. You continue to misunderstand the nature of probable cause and predication. You just do not know what you’re talking about, in this regard.
I hope it would not be your standard in the church. As a pastor I would hope you have thought these things through.
I have.
I also hope you do not treat the people in your congregation who you disagree with the way you write on SI.
I am not sure what you mean. I just disagree that there is election fraud. Mataxas’ antics speak for themselves. I routinely criticize Christian Nationalism from the pulpit. My favorite line yet was when I was mentioned that Jesus isn’t a Republican, he didn’t vote for Reagan, and his kingdom will not resemble the GOP party platform. I have had multiple conversations with many church members about COVID conspiracies, the election, and Donald Trump. I have been as straightforward with them as I am here. I have even suggested to one man that he will likely never feel comfortable at our congregation, because I am not a Christian Nationalist (he suggested I do a special 4th of July sermon event).
On a related note, yesterday during a church business meeting, I said there was no conspiracy related to WA State’s COVID restrictions and we would not be “going there” whatsoever as we discussed how we would implement the latest directives. You seem to imagine me spitting at a keyboard in a rage as I wrote. The more accurate picture is of a guy just standing there chatting with you.
It may get you results as a schoolyard bully,
Oh my. Who’s doing the slandering now?
or move you up the pecking order in the military,
It won’t. The military is a highly bureaucratic machine and there are multiple interlocking criteria for advancement. “Bullying” gets you nowhere.
but it is not the way to pastor.
I agree. I have not bullied you. I just disagree with you. Again, who is doing the slandering now?
BTW, I was not the one who clicked dislike on your post.
I do not care who likes or dislikes my posts.
Can we please just leave it alone, now? We don’t agree. It’s ok. I don’t worry about it. Nor should you. Have a happy Monday.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
If you are one of the people who have opposed Trump and even his opposition to the results of the election, can you you answer these questions?
Do you believe that the changes to the old way of how elections were done brought on by COVID were done correctly in the 5 or 6 states under contention here? In other words, do you think the Supreme Court of PA has the authority to extend dates ballots were allowed to be counted over the explicit direction of the state legislature? Do you think signature matching was properly done in these states? Can you explain why absentee ballot rejection rates were historically at a significant percentage of the ballots received, but this year in several Democrat leaning counties they dropped to insignificant numbers? Does it bother you that some election officials allowed people to “cure” their ballot applications while others did not, when state law forbid it?
These are just a short list of objections to the results of the election that no court case has settled, and that no investigation looked into properly.
The Allied Security Operations Group explains:
We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results. The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This leads to voter or election fraud.
https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/michigan-dominion-report/
Some will look at this report and believe the above quote without further investigation. Others will say that there is no way that quote could be true. I would hope that most of us would want more information and more investigation based on this strong evidence.
What I find especially interesting is that this evidence has been available for quite some time, but it could not be released until a judge allowed it to be released today. The Secretary of State and the Attorney General of Michigan went to court to block the release of this evidence. Today a judge said it could be released. When there is evidence but it cannot be released until a judge says so, it makes the task of justice very slow.
Discussion