Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dear Christians, If You Vote For A Godless Man, You Are Asking For Tyranny

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dear Christians, If You Vote For A Godless Man, You Are Asking For Tyranny

    It’s very simple. If a man has no moral center, if he has ambition but no faith, if he does not demonstrate humility or integrity, I will never vote for him for president. I don’t care who he is, what he’s done, what he says, or what positions he holds. None of that will matter when we are living under his tyranny, and tyranny is sure to follow when you give unspeakable power to a man who believes he is God.

    I’ll put this another way: if you vote for a man who worships himself over God, you deserve the tyranny that happens next.

    You deserve it because you chose it, just as the souls in Hell deserve Hell because they chose it. If you go to the ballot box and say, “I am going to do my part to put this self-absorbed pagan in charge of my nation” you are directly consenting to the inevitable result. You are embracing it. You are literally asking for it.

    I know this will not resonate with atheists, but for us God-fearing folk it is extraordinarily obvious and irrefutable that we ought to only vote for other God-fearing folk. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I think it goes without saying that if the governed ought to be moral and religious, certainly the governors ought to be the same, and arguably more so.

    That brings me to Donald Trump. I’ve tried to talk sense into Trump fans a thousand different ways and to no avail. It is a mob mentality driving Trump-mania, and mobs are famously difficult to reason with.
    The Blaze - Full Link

    This was an interesting read from a fairly well known and strongly conservative writer.

  • #2
    The article spelled Obama's name wrong.
    Other than that I agree.
    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

    Comment


    • #3
      But, the alternatives seem to be either...

      A godless Socialist bent on redistributing wealth and cementing Statist Capitalism with a massive increase in government, or...

      A political succubus bent on making herself god.

      Comment


      • #4
        Church and state are supposed to be separate. Further, how do we know when someone is a genuine believer? Politicians will say or do anything for more votes, more power.

        Maybe I'm too pessimistic but given their actions it's hard to believe that any of these war mongering, deceitful and money hungry politicians are believers. But, thou shall not judge. I'll vote for a good man, a good president regardless of his beliefs. The problem is finding that person.
        "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
        - Benjamin Franklin

        The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

        Comment


        • #5
          David Cameron's an a**ehole (although a raving Socialist by US standards), but not even he's thick enough to bring God into an election.

          At least I can spell his name.
          Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
            The article spelled Obama's name wrong.
            Other than that I agree.
            Where?

            I've read thru a couple of times and didn't see any reference or mention of BHO?
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
            “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by the ace View Post
              David Cameron's an a**ehole (although a raving Socialist by US standards), but not even he's thick enough to bring God into an election.
              That ship sailed away long ago as far as America is concerned (was the ship ever in port?). Don't mention God there in an election, and you face a scourging at the polls.

              Comment


              • #8
                A true Christian president would be a boon to the country since a true Christian would be:

                A. humble

                B. self sacrificing

                C. possessing a servant's heart

                That pretty much rules out everyone in DC, though. The catch 22 is that the best attributes for a good president exists in people who would never run for office. Only people with asteroid sized egos and an thirst for money and power are in the game. The author makes a good point in principle. But fat chance finding anyone who meets the standard.
                A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                  Where?

                  I've read thru a couple of times and didn't see any reference or mention of BHO?
                  Sorry.
                  My poor attempt at humor.
                  They spelled "Obama" wrong by spelling it "trump"


                  My actual point was that when the article said this: "if you vote for a man who worships himself over God, you deserve the tyranny that happens next",
                  it pretty much described Obama.
                  Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                  Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Conditions were different @240+ years ago when founding this nation, but I understand what Adams and others were intending with regard to character, integrity, and religious linkage. But then, religion at that time was mostly Christian and mostly of the Protestant flavor and since then other religions and their followers have arrived here, and the scope and scale of knowledge and education has expanded greatly.

                    While a religious faith can be an avenue to a "moral and up-right character", I hesitate to agree with Walsh and others that it must be the Christian route, or any 'cast in stone' religion for that matter. Being spiritual inclined might help and many so-called pagans I've known are as moral and have integrity as those of the other religions. Also, our Constitution has checks and balances still in effect that would thwart tyranny, especially of the Executive branch/POTUS ~ though admittedly under duress with the current Administration. But I'm just speaking as an atheist/agnostic which hopefully still allows me to be a Conservative.

                    What bothers me about Trump is what Walsh points out later in the op-ed;
                    ...
                    His behavior doesn’t appear to be any more “Christian” than his theology. We won’t talk about the fact that he’s a serial adulterer who abandoned his family (twice) to shack up with younger women. We won’t get into how his ex-wife once alleged that he ripped out chunks of her hair and violated her. We won’t delve into how the great Christian Trump sent his lawyer to intimidate and censor journalists who write about those accusations, and how his attorney recently told The Daily Beast, “I’m warning you, tread very f**king lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f**king disgusting. You understand me?” (Is that what you call “servant leadership,” Mr. Falwell?)

                    We don’t even need to get into alleged ties to the mob or financial scams or his confession that he bribes politicians. We won’t harp any longer on the fact that he spent most of his adult life espousing views and funding politicians who enact legislation directly contradictory to Christian teaching. We won’t talk about his support for a woman’s legal right to murder a fully developed infant all the way into the ninth month of pregnancy.
                    ...
                    I see a guy who lies constantly and blatantly. I see a man who changes his positions and his principles at the drop of a hat. I see a deeply immature man who insults people on Twitter but lacks the courage to face them in person. I see someone who fashions himself “politically incorrect” but is really just a cruel and bitter old man who thinks it’s funny to mock the disabled. I see a man with no honor who launches vulgar attacks on women and then lies about what he said. I see a phony who brazenly exploits the fears of the American public. I see a guy whose recklessness and greed drives his businesses into bankruptcy, and I see a guy who tries to silence journalists when they report on it. I see a guy who jazzes up the crowd at campaign rallies by bragging about his money and threatening to throw protesters out into the cold without their coats. And so on.
                    ....

                    This sort of profile, background, track record and conduct is what makes me reluctant to see Trump as POTUS. He's no improvement over what we have now, perhaps even worse.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                    “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                      Sorry.
                      My poor attempt at humor.
                      They spelled "Obama" wrong by spelling it "trump"


                      My actual point was that when the article said this: "if you vote for a man who worships himself over God, you deserve the tyranny that happens next",
                      it pretty much described Obama.
                      Guess I need more caffeine.

                      Good one, gotcha!
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                      “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                        That ship sailed away long ago as far as America is concerned (was the ship ever in port?). Don't mention God there in an election, and you face a scourging at the polls.
                        This article is much evidence of that. For many Americans, morality is Christianity, and as you have to prove your worth as a candidate on other grounds, you have to prove your morality (aka your Christianity) as well.

                        And that means politicizing your faith. Not discussing your faith invites accusations of not being faithful - or of being an Atheist, Papist, Muslim, Jew, etc.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                          Conditions were different @240+ years ago when founding this nation, but I understand what Adams and others were intending with regard to character, integrity, and religious linkage. But then, religion at that time was mostly Christian and mostly of the Protestant flavor and since then other religions and their followers have arrived here, and the scope and scale of knowledge and education has expanded greatly.

                          While a religious faith can be an avenue to a "moral and up-right character", I hesitate to agree with Walsh and others that it must be the Christian route, or any 'cast in stone' religion for that matter. Being spiritual inclined might help and many so-called pagans I've known are as moral and have integrity as those of the other religions. Also, our Constitution has checks and balances still in effect that would thwart tyranny, especially of the Executive branch/POTUS ~ though admittedly under duress with the current Administration. But I'm just speaking as an atheist/agnostic which hopefully still allows me to be a Conservative.

                          What bothers me about Trump is what Walsh points out later in the op-ed;
                          ...
                          His behavior doesn’t appear to be any more “Christian” than his theology. We won’t talk about the fact that he’s a serial adulterer who abandoned his family (twice) to shack up with younger women. We won’t get into how his ex-wife once alleged that he ripped out chunks of her hair and violated her. We won’t delve into how the great Christian Trump sent his lawyer to intimidate and censor journalists who write about those accusations, and how his attorney recently told The Daily Beast, “I’m warning you, tread very f**king lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f**king disgusting. You understand me?” (Is that what you call “servant leadership,” Mr. Falwell?)

                          We don’t even need to get into alleged ties to the mob or financial scams or his confession that he bribes politicians. We won’t harp any longer on the fact that he spent most of his adult life espousing views and funding politicians who enact legislation directly contradictory to Christian teaching. We won’t talk about his support for a woman’s legal right to murder a fully developed infant all the way into the ninth month of pregnancy.
                          ...
                          I see a guy who lies constantly and blatantly. I see a man who changes his positions and his principles at the drop of a hat. I see a deeply immature man who insults people on Twitter but lacks the courage to face them in person. I see someone who fashions himself “politically incorrect” but is really just a cruel and bitter old man who thinks it’s funny to mock the disabled. I see a man with no honor who launches vulgar attacks on women and then lies about what he said. I see a phony who brazenly exploits the fears of the American public. I see a guy whose recklessness and greed drives his businesses into bankruptcy, and I see a guy who tries to silence journalists when they report on it. I see a guy who jazzes up the crowd at campaign rallies by bragging about his money and threatening to throw protesters out into the cold without their coats. And so on.
                          ....

                          This sort of profile, background, track record and conduct is what makes me reluctant to see Trump as POTUS. He's no improvement over what we have now, perhaps even worse.
                          This is of course part of what makes partisan politics so interesting. So often it comes back around to faith that the other party will be inherently worse, regardless of their own candidate, in terms of ethics. There are always attempts to paint the other side negatively in terms of personal morality with the assumption that "our guy" is inherently better.

                          To put it bluntly, for many people, the most moral and ethical Democrat is still worse than the most immoral and unethical Republican as long as he is still a Republican.

                          It is quite amusing, and quite universal in American politics. I've met more than one person who would never vote for a Republican, no matter what.

                          Which, coming back to the article itself, is fascinating, because as often as people invoke the idea that the nation needs to be moral and ethical to survive if not prosper, these same people will actively support immoral and unethical candidates because of amoral political expediency.

                          Americans have abandoned the idea that politicians should be personally ethical. It's irrelevant to more mundane and physical concerns. "I don't care if you're a lying philanderer: are you going to raise taxes?"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            No matter what John Adams said, the Constitution does not require a religious test for office. So if you right wing Constitutionalists believe in the Constitution so much, why do you all make religion an issue in elections?
                            Article. VI.
                            All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
                            This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
                            The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
                            http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html
                            Homo homini lupus

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              ^ If the Democrats had someone like Trumman or even JFK running, I could be inclined to vote Demo (have in the past). As it is, if it boils down to Trump versus either of the two current Democratic contenders it will be a conundrum and literal "lesser of two evils" to pick from, IMO. I might even consider voting third party again, more to send a message rather than expectation of that candidate winning.

                              Meanwhile, this "partisan" GOPer is pulling for Carson or Cruz.
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                              “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • casanova
                                Berlin.1945
                                by casanova
                                The Sowjet T-34 tank against a German Tiger tank in Berlin in the II World War in 1945. ...
                                Yesterday, 23:41
                              • casanova
                                AW 169M
                                by casanova
                                The Austrian minister of defence Klaudia Tanner declared the buy of 18 Italian military helicopters of the type AW 169M for the Austrian army, the Bundesheer....
                                Yesterday, 23:26
                              • JBark
                                What changed?
                                by JBark
                                There was a time not too long ago when this forum was full of discussion, multiple posts, votes and involved discussions on the best of the war, etc.,...
                                Yesterday, 18:54
                              Working...
                              X