Evangelical leaders condemn Capitol protest violence: 'Dangerous for our republic'
“Conservative evangelical supporters of President Donald Trump have condemned the violence that broke out at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday afternoon, describing it as ‘dangerous for our republic’ and un-American.” - CPost
Related…
- 9 views
[Larry]They voted for Trump because they believed the end justifies the means (at least politically).
I can’t speak for all of them, but no, I know a great many who do not believe that.
You just said when they voted for Trump, “a great many voted for policies and for judges and for cabinet members.” That is called political pragmatism or the belief that the end justifies the means.
You can’t have it both ways, Larry.
These individuals enabled Trump knowing his character and what he was capable of. They can’t now wash Trump from their hands. All they can do now is commiserate with Lady MacBeth and cry, “Out, damned spot! Out, I say!”
But, the damned spot won’t go away…
Many of you who stated that you did not vote for violence, may only be partially true. You were blinded by the good things he had to say and the fact that you were voting against Clinton. For those of us who have been very weary of Trump from the beginning, what you see today is the culmination of that worry. For those of us who were worried about Trump in 2016, it was because we saw the very thing that was carried out yesterday. He is 100% capable of this and more. We saw all of these signs from the beginning. Yet Christians in droves voted for him because of his abortion stance, his stance on Israel….. They like the tough talking Donald. This is what that got. He is not right in the head. He wasn’t right in the head in 2016 and he isn’t right today. He is an extreme narcisist and this is what you get from someone who is an extreme narcisist with power. My opinion is that he should be removed from power today. He lost his right to be a president. Many of us were derided for being hard on Trump. While I do not want Biden in office for most of the same reasons as everyone else on this forum, I see Trump as a significantly worse scenario.
I also agree that all of these evangelical leaders are a bit late to the party.
You just said when they voted for Trump, “a great many voted for policies and for judges and for cabinet members.” That is called political pragmatism or the belief that the end justifies the means.
You can’t have it both ways, Larry.
No sooner do I say something than someone comes along and proves it true.
Immediately following this I said, “And there is clearly a huge difference between a political desire and one that ends up in violence. I think we all know that.”
Why not include that and respond to it? It just seems like you are not listening to what is actually being said.
This is why political discussions are frequently useless. People are going to say whatever they want regardless of what is true. They are not attempts to gain understanding but to demagogue the other side. People will refuse to interact on actual beliefs and instead paint their opponent in the worst possible light. Why? Are we not better than that?
Every election is a choice about better or worse and people might see that differently. It is political pragamatism in a sense, but every vote is political pragmatism. That’s the nature of life.
[Larry]You just said when they voted for Trump, “a great many voted for policies and for judges and for cabinet members.” That is called political pragmatism or the belief that the end justifies the means.
You can’t have it both ways, Larry.
No sooner do I say something than someone comes along and proves it true.
Immediately following this I said, “And there is clearly a huge difference between a political desire and one that ends up in violence. I think we all know that.”
Why not include that and respond to it? It just seems like you are not listening to what is actually being said.
Because that rationalization rings hollow given what they knew about Trump’s character and past behavior, Larry.
It’s like bringing a poisonous snake into your house to kill the mice in the kitchen, then refusing to take responsibility when the snake strikes one of your children.
Because that rationalization rings hollow given what they knew about Trump’s character and past behavior, Larry.
Might that say something about your judgment?
I support those who rally against racial injustice. I do not support those who participate in violence and looting. I assume you would do the same. Is that a hollow rationalization as well? I assume you agree with me that it’s not. The unwillingness to distinguish what seem like obvious difference is troubling. Where is that coming from?Is there no basis in your mind to vote for outcomes and policies?
[Larry] I support those who rally against racial injustice. I do not support those who participate in violence and looting. I assume you would do the same.
Wrong analogy. The better analogy to Trump is antifa. Would you ever support an antifa rally? Why or why not?
Wrong analogy. The better analogy to Trump is antifa. Would you ever support an antifa rally? Why or why not?
First, why is that a better analogy?
Second, no, I would not and I wouldn’t support a Trump rally either. But I think antifa has a pretty clear social and political position, do they not? That would keep me from supporting them.
The reason I chose the analogy I did is because I would support, in general, the principles of fighting against racism, policing problems, judicial disparities, etc. I would think you would as well. I might disagree with them on the best approach to it but that is beyond the point of the analogy.
Bottom line is, like it or not, our country is in Civil War II. Thus far it has been mostly a cold war. Civil War I easily turned into a hot war because the lines of division were also along state lines. Civil War II has geographic lines that more or less are urban versus rural, making it difficult to turn into a hot war.
One side in this war wants a socialist state that will seize most of your income and most of your assets and then scatter your means to the winds of foolish spending. The other side wishes for a small government that facilitates growth and opportunity.
Its easy to ridicule those who are upset, but people are afraid that the new administration will do what they said they will do, which is eliminate people’s jobs by executive order, leaving them with no means to provide for their families.
I am not advocating that Christians should or should not engage in this war, but at least we should be sensitive to the real needs and hurts of those who will helplessly watch their livelihoods disappear before their eyes.
[Darrell Post]One side in this war wants a socialist state that will seize most of your income and most of your assets and then scatter your means to the winds of foolish spending. The other side wishes for a small government that facilitates growth and opportunity.
This might paint the extremes of the side. I agree, that this is the fear, but the reality is probably not there. Much saber rattling and narrative pushing has created a view that both sides are as extreme as this. But that is not quite the case. Having lived in a Nordic socialist state, I can tell you that the extreme is not what it is painted as in this country. Yes we can point to Venezula, but that is really not what anyone is truly pushing, regardless of what they are saying. They use the term socialism to represent countries like Denmark, but those countries are truly not socialist. While the other side wishes for a small government, in the last two republican led White Houses the government has expanded. Most recently we saw this with Trump asking not for just $600 a person, but lets triple it to $2,000 a person. That was definitely not a historical conservative approach. If you have lived long enough, we go through the same thing about how radical the next democrat will be and reality is, that it is never really that radical.
Its easy to ridicule those who are upset, but people are afraid that the new administration will do what they said they will do, which is eliminate people’s jobs by executive order, leaving them with no means to provide for their families.
Hopefully we as Christians, are not afraid. Again, having lived in a nordic social state, this is not that painted picture. In fact, when your job is eliminated, there are significant protections in place that allows you to continue to provide for your family. Not that I am advocating for this type of state.
The nordic countries are much smaller, and have a long history of their brand of socialism. I grew up in NY state, where it used to be a place of opportunity. Now you can drive through the state and see property after property where a rotting old framed house sits boarded up, and next to it is a ratty trailer where people live. Don’t make the assumption (and I am not saying you are) that just because there are places in the world where small countries have been able to make some sort of success out of a micro-version of socialism that the new administration we face will be skilled at making it work at a large scale. We have already seen examples where no ‘provision’ has been made for people who lose their jobs.
I voiced concern about Trump’s character from the beginning as well, and refused to vote for him in either election.
But this rhetoric is not helpful. Most people who supported Trump did not “vote for this.”
[Mark_Smith]No, Aaron. Voting for Trump has NOTHING to do with storming the Capitol. Supporting Trump in the election had NOTHING to do with storming the capitol. Seeing that there were questions about procedures in PA and GA has NOTHING to do with storming the capitol.
I would appreciate you honestly recognizing that.
Honesty requires to me to say…
- Many Trump voters had no intention of voting for the deterioration of law and order in the country
- Nevertheless, voting for a man known to have the character Trump was well known to have was, nonetheless a vote for the deterioration of law and order in the country
It was also, as I pointed out in my first post, an expression of the same kind of moral reasoning that leads to storming capitol buildings.
Few intended that consequence. I grant that. And intent matters a lot. I fully appreciate the good intentions of the vast majority of Trump voters. But character has consequences and those consequences often are, or should have been, anticipated. There’s nothing I or any of us could say that could change that reality.
It’s not my intent to judge. I’ve made bigger mistakes than voting for an unqualified presidential candidate. Many Trump backers are probably better human beings than I am on balance. But it was a mistake to put such a man in high office. I hope the many who saw Trump as the best of bad options will have a very different point of view on whatever options we have in the future. Lessons learned. It’s all any of us can do.
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]Few intended that consequence. I grant that. And intent matters a lot. I fully appreciate the good intentions of the vast majority of Trump voters. But character has consequences and those consequences often are, or should have been, anticipated. There’s nothing I or any of us could say that could change that reality.
I agree. I think the problem is that most Christians focused on policy points, compared them with the other side and voted along policy lines, while never stopping to consider character. Most of my family is ardent Trump supporters, and there thinking, even today is that he was better than Clinton. Or he was against abortion, or…… You hear it today. “I will never vote for a candidate that supports legalized abortion”. So if that is the line that is drawn, than character is not nearly as important of an issue. Now what we are seeing is the reprucussions of that approach. A dictator that is against abortion is better than a civilized leader that is for abortion. The warning signs were all there from the very beginning, but it wasn’t a key policy requirement.
Either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump was going to be president in 2016. Many like myself had other ideas in the GOP primary, but when it came to the general election, it was ONE out of those TWO if you wished to have any say in the outcome. I do not blame anyone for wanting to have a say in the outcome. If others wanted to sit out, that was their privilege.
Even though I did try to have a say in the outcome, I was overruled anyway by the electoral college as all the electors in my state went to Hillary Clinton.
But there is not more nobleness in sitting out versus trying to get the best one can with the info available at the time.
Pushing through the ACB nomination before the election was a good call. It never would have happened afterwards.
I’m not sure I’ve seen a crash and burn in American politics as bad as this. Trump could have left on a very high note — confirming his third Supreme court justice, working hard to get the vaccine distributed, and giving regular updates on that and the economy, but instead he poisoned the GA senate runoffs with his attacks on fellow Republicans and torpedoed and any chance he had on re-election in 2024, I’m not sure it is fair to say we should have seen this coming, but now that it has come, we ought to see it for what it is.
Discussion