Liberty University students protest association with Trump

My thoughts on Trump are better encapsulated in this piece — http://amgreatness.com/2016/10/08/lewdness-donald-trump/ — and in Eric Metaxis’s piece in the Wall Street Journal, 10/12/16. (I’ll quote Metaxis’s piece below.)

Bert: Your speculation doesn’t explain the false claim to represent a majority, and the petition is posted and widely available, not being circulated one by one. The fact that a majority didn’t support Trump months ago when he was one of a dozen choices doesn’t say anything about what the numbers would be today given the binary choice between Trump and Hillary. I think you know pretty accurately what those numbers would be. As for the Playboy photo, the Babylon Bee piece was satirizing exactly your reaction.

Here’s what Metaxis wrote:

What if not pulling the lever for Mr. Trump effectively means electing someone who has actively enabled sexual predation in her husband before—and while—he was president? Won’t God hold me responsible for that? What if she defended a man who raped a 12-year-old and in recalling the case laughed about getting away with it? Will I be excused from letting this person become president? What if she used her position as secretary of state to funnel hundreds of millions into her own foundation, much of it from nations that treat women and gay people worse than dogs? Since these things are true, can I escape responsibility for them by simply not voting?
Many say they won’t vote because choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. But this is sophistry. Neither candidate is pure evil. They are human beings. We cannot escape the uncomfortable obligation to soberly choose between them. Not voting—or voting for a third candidate who cannot win—is a rationalization designed more than anything to assuage our consciences. Yet people in America and abroad depend on voters to make this very difficult choice.
Children in the Middle East are forced to watch their fathers drowned in cages by ISIS. Kids in inner-city America are condemned to lives of poverty, hopelessness and increasing violence. Shall we sit on our hands and simply trust “the least of these” to God, as though that were our only option? Don’t we have an obligation to them?
It’s a fact that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the country’s chance to have a Supreme Court that values the Constitution—and the genuine liberty and self-government for which millions have died—is gone. Not for four years, or eight, but forever. Many say Mr. Trump can’t be trusted to deliver on this score, but Mrs. Clinton certainly can be trusted in the opposite direction. For our kids and grandkids, are we not obliged to take our best shot at this? Shall we sit on our hands and refuse to choose?
If imperiously flouting the rules by having a private server endangered American lives and secrets and may lead to more deaths, if she cynically deleted thousands of emails, and if her foreign-policy judgment led to the rise of Islamic State, won’t refusing to vote make me responsible for those suffering as a result of these things? How do I squirm out of this horrific conundrum? It’s unavoidable: We who can vote must answer to God for these people, whom He loves. We are indeed our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.
We would be responsible for passively electing someone who champions the abomination of partial-birth abortion, someone who is celebrated by an organization that sells baby parts. We already live in a country where judges force bakers, florists and photographers to violate their consciences and faith—and Mrs. Clinton has zealously ratified this. If we believe this ends with bakers and photographers, we are horribly mistaken. No matter your faith or lack of faith, this statist view of America will dramatically affect you and your children.
For many of us, this is very painful, pulling the lever for someone many think odious. But please consider this: A vote for Donald Trump is not necessarily a vote for Donald Trump himself. It is a vote for those who will be affected by the results of this election. Not to vote is to vote. God will not hold us guiltless.

Is here: http://www.liberty.edu/news/index.cfm?PID=18495&MID=209786

I am proud of these few students for speaking their minds. It is a testament to the fact that Liberty University promotes the free expression of ideas unlike many major universities where political correctness prevents conservative students from speaking out. However, I am afraid the statement is false in several respects. First, the statement claims that a “majority” of Liberty faculty, staff and students are not supporting Donald Trump. It is true that Donald Trump lost in the Virginia primary at Liberty’s precinct when there were many Republican candidates still in the race but, when Mike Pence spoke to many thousands of students at Liberty yesterday, he was applauded when he spoke of the importance of supporting Donald Trump for president. In fact, he received five standing ovations during his speech. The group of students now speaking out against Trump represents a very small percentage of the Liberty student body of 15,000 resident students and 90,000 online students. The group (led by a never Trump activist, I am told) claims to have between 200 and 1200 signatures on a petition but admits that many of these signatories are not Liberty students. The student statement also falsely claims that I am “touring the country” and associating Liberty University with Trump. The fact is I traveled with the Trump campaign only one weekend in January and I always make it clear to the media that my endorsement of Trump is my personal endorsement only and that I am not speaking for Liberty University, its students, faculty or staff. I am only fulfilling my obligation as a citizen to ‘render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s’ by expressing my personal opinion about who I believe is best suited to lead our nation in a time of crisis.

[dmyers]

My thoughts on Trump are better encapsulated in this piece — http://amgreatness.com/2016/10/08/lewdness-donald-trump/ — and in Eric Metaxis’s piece in the Wall Street Journal, 10/12/16. (I’ll quote Metaxis’s piece below.)

Bert: Your speculation doesn’t explain the false claim to represent a majority, and the petition is posted and widely available, not being circulated one by one. The fact that a majority didn’t support Trump months ago when he was one of a dozen choices doesn’t say anything about what the numbers would be today given the binary choice between Trump and Hillary. I think you know pretty accurately what those numbers would be. As for the Playboy photo, the Babylon Bee piece was satirizing exactly your reaction.

Here’s what Metaxis wrote:

What if not pulling the lever for Mr. Trump effectively means electing someone who has actively enabled sexual predation in her husband before—and while—he was president? Won’t God hold me responsible for that? What if she defended a man who raped a 12-year-old and in recalling the case laughed about getting away with it? Will I be excused from letting this person become president? What if she used her position as secretary of state to funnel hundreds of millions into her own foundation, much of it from nations that treat women and gay people worse than dogs? Since these things are true, can I escape responsibility for them by simply not voting?
Many say they won’t vote because choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. But this is sophistry. Neither candidate is pure evil. They are human beings. We cannot escape the uncomfortable obligation to soberly choose between them. Not voting—or voting for a third candidate who cannot win—is a rationalization designed more than anything to assuage our consciences. Yet people in America and abroad depend on voters to make this very difficult choice.
Children in the Middle East are forced to watch their fathers drowned in cages by ISIS. Kids in inner-city America are condemned to lives of poverty, hopelessness and increasing violence. Shall we sit on our hands and simply trust “the least of these” to God, as though that were our only option? Don’t we have an obligation to them?
It’s a fact that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the country’s chance to have a Supreme Court that values the Constitution—and the genuine liberty and self-government for which millions have died—is gone. Not for four years, or eight, but forever. Many say Mr. Trump can’t be trusted to deliver on this score, but Mrs. Clinton certainly can be trusted in the opposite direction. For our kids and grandkids, are we not obliged to take our best shot at this? Shall we sit on our hands and refuse to choose?
If imperiously flouting the rules by having a private server endangered American lives and secrets and may lead to more deaths, if she cynically deleted thousands of emails, and if her foreign-policy judgment led to the rise of Islamic State, won’t refusing to vote make me responsible for those suffering as a result of these things? How do I squirm out of this horrific conundrum? It’s unavoidable: We who can vote must answer to God for these people, whom He loves. We are indeed our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.
We would be responsible for passively electing someone who champions the abomination of partial-birth abortion, someone who is celebrated by an organization that sells baby parts. We already live in a country where judges force bakers, florists and photographers to violate their consciences and faith—and Mrs. Clinton has zealously ratified this. If we believe this ends with bakers and photographers, we are horribly mistaken. No matter your faith or lack of faith, this statist view of America will dramatically affect you and your children.
For many of us, this is very painful, pulling the lever for someone many think odious. But please consider this: A vote for Donald Trump is not necessarily a vote for Donald Trump himself. It is a vote for those who will be affected by the results of this election. Not to vote is to vote. God will not hold us guiltless.

A very thoughtful response to Metaxis. http://skyejethani.com/why-im-not-voting/

“Finally, let me address the knock out punch at the end of Eric Metaxas’ column against Christians like me who plan to withhold their vote for president. He writes:

“For many of us, this is very painful, pulling the lever for someone many think odious. But please consider this: A vote for Donald Trump is not necessarily a vote for Donald Trump himself. It is a vote for those who will be affected by the results of this election. Not to vote is to vote. God will not hold us guiltless.”

Rhetoric like this is why some Christians have come to believe that casting a ballot on Election Day is the highest expression of their Christian faith, and why they carry such anxiety about the outcome. To believe their fate or that of the world hangs in the balance reveals how distorted our vision of God’s sovereignty really is. And to say that voting for Trump isn’t really voting for Trump requires a looseness with logic and language on par with Bill Clinton asking what the definition of the word “is” is.

On one point, however, I do agree with Mr. Metaxas—we are responsible to God for our decision, but our guilt or innocence will not be limited to what we do on November 8.

Metaxas ignores the fact that Mr. Trump’s odious character was well known before the release of the horrific Access Hollywood hot mic recording on October 7. It was well documented before he accepted the nomination of the Republican Party in July, and it was on full display during the primaries when Trump could have been eliminated from consideration. Donald Trump’s name did not magically appear on the ballot. People put it there—including a disturbing number of Christians who voted for him in the primaries.

What’s most troubling is not Donald Trump’s odious character, but what his nomination says about ours. And for that God will not hold us guiltless.

Evangelical leaders who have enthusiastically supported Trump for many months, like Eric Metaxas, need to take responsibility for creating a climate of paranoia among Christians that allowed Trump’s candidacy to be deemed acceptable in the first place. Having freed this beast from the abyss, they are now asking the rest of us to join them on its back because they think the other beast is worse. Good luck, Mr. Metaxas, but I’m staying with the Lamb.”

Dmyers, I’m somewhat troubled by your uncritical view of Falwell’s comments—he’s more or less coming out with the long knives and such at his own students while ignoring the fact that even in the computer age, getting over 1000 signatures on a student organized petition in a day is a big deal.

Regarding whether the claim to be a majority is true, I simply don’t agree that Falwell’s claim is meaningful. Sure, a lot of people will hold their noses and vote against Hilliary if the election is even close, but does that really constitute majority support for the Combover? I’d argue no—the STRONG rejection of him in the primaries is far more indicative. Yes, there are some who would applaud Mike Pence…..but again, come election time, they will be holding their noses; their votes will not be enthusiastic on the top of the ballot.

And for what it’s worth, while I’m likely to be holding my nose, too, I half wonder if Trump is a Clinton dirty trick that will make Watergate pale in comparison. Trump’s been pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-corporate welfare, pro-big government, and a friend of the Clintons for going on 30 years. Billary were at his wedding reception; the Trumps were at Chelsea’s. Bill and Donald have both had rides on the Lolita Express. Do.The.Math. We need to pray for repentance on both their parts.

I have openly wondered if Trump was a Clinton plant all along. I was never for him, and when I ran across folks who were for him during the primaries, I tried to talk them out of it. None of them listened. I wonder if they regret their decision now. Polling data from back in February shows that other candidates not named Trump were soundly beating Hillary in all key battleground states. Trump wasn’t. But they wanted him anyway. But it should have been obvious to all that Trump was a train wreck waiting to happen. Never before in the history of the Republican Party has there been a successful nominee who never before held an office in the area of public service.

This is the man the majority of registered Republican voters wanted as their nominee. In primary after primary, they chose this man over better-qualified candidates. People keep wondering aloud at my office, “how did we end up with these two choices?” The answer is simple - the majority of voters in the two political parties chose these two candidates. It reflects a fundamental infantilization and immaturity of American culture. These are the candidates the majority of the registered votes want to represent them.

The reminder that “our country is in heaven” from Phil 3:20 has never sounded so sweet.

TylerR, actually it is more accurate to say that the majority of those voting in the GOP primaries preferred some other nominee. The problem was there were 17 candidates running. In almost every state Trump got less than 50%, meaning most voters wanted someone else. But Trump was the ‘different’ sort of candidate and didn’t have anyone like him to compete with. The other main candidates were too much alike and splintered the vote. So Trump won many of the early states getting around 30% of the vote. Furthermore, it wasn’t always ‘registered Republicans’ voting. Many states have open voting, so you can walk in, request either party ballot and vote.

I think we may be in this situation because the majority of the electorate are uninformed and/or undereducated. Some of them are angry and others are blindly loyal.

Here is the %Trump received in the early states when there was still a large number of candidates:

IA: 24%

NH: 35%

SC: 33%

NV: 46%

AL: 43%

AK: 34%

AR: 33%

GA: 39%

MA: 49%

MN: 21%

OK: 28%

TN: 39%

TX: 27%

VT: 33%

VA: 35%

Many candidates dropped out by this point, but even with the smaller pool, Trump stiil struggled to reach 50%:

KS: 23%

KY: 36%

LA: 41%

ME: 33%

PR: 13%

HI: 43%

ID: 28%

MI: 37%

MS: 47%

VI: 6%

DC: 14%

WY: 7%

And even after these states, on March 15 it was down to just 4 candidates, but Trump still didn’t reach 50%:

FL: 46%

IL: 39%

MO: 41%

NC: 40%

OH: 36%

then it dropped to just Trump, Cruz and Kasich:

AZ: 46%

UT: 14%

WI: 35%

NY: 59%

Finally Trump gets over 50%, in his home state of NY. And here is when the floodgates finally opened as voters felt the pressure to get behind the eventual nominee. But you can see how in the first 32 states, Trump did not get 50% of the vote in a single state. The majority of voters wanted someone else.

Ron, again it wasn’t the majority in the first 32 states. The majority said, no thanks, we want someone who has actually held elected office.

[Darrell Post]

Ron, again it wasn’t the majority in the first 32 states. The majority said, no thanks, we want someone who has actually held elected office.

That is a great point. Early on the GOP brain trust was backing candidates like Bush who didn’t appeal to the angry and conservative base while spurning conservative candidates like Cruz and Rubio. The party lost control of the process and left us with this.

“Early on the GOP brain trust was backing candidates like Bush who didn’t appeal to the angry and conservative base while spurning conservative candidates like Cruz and Rubio. The party lost control of the process and left us with this.”

Exactly right. Bush spent 150 million dollars getting a) 4 delegates, and b) taking down Cruz and Rubio. It left Trump more or less isolated, and a media thrilled to push him forward.

It disturbs me that Mr. Falwell claims he is only speaking for himself, but when Liberty’s long-standing board member publicly disagreed with him about Trump, he was pressured to resign. That is reprehensible.

http://christiannews.net/2016/05/06/top-liberty-university-board-member-says-he-was-forced-out-over-falwells-trump-endorsement/

Evangelical divide seen in LifeWay Research survey

Trump 45 percent

Clinton 31

Johnson 8

Undecided 15

http://www.bpnews.net/47727/evangelical-divide-seen-in-lifeway-research…

David R. Brumbelow