Election Deniers Think Their Supporters are Ignorant and Stupid

The whole premise behind arguments claiming that American elections are "fixed" or "rigged" or that there was "massive voter fraud" is getting people who are completely ignorant of the processes of voting and counting ballots on board with the claims.  That's really the whole thing in a nutshell.  I seriously doubt that any candidate running for office believes that their loss was due to a "rigged" or "fixed" election.  They know, before they decide to run, that the process is checked, double checked and completely secure, or they'd never run in the first place.  When they make those claims, either after they've already lost, or in anticipation that they might, they are counting on those among the electorate who buy into the false conspiracy theories and think that there's someone out there somewhere who is "out to get them."  

Arizona was once a reliably Republican state, put population growth over the past four decades, the most rapid anywhere in the country, has changed all of that.  There were hints of a growing Democratic party back as far as 1996, when Bill Clinton carried the state's 10 electoral votes at the time.  But over the course of the past decade, voters flipped the house delegation, now 9, to a 5-4 Democratic majority and then, in 2020, flipped both Senate seats.  The state legislature is on the verge of a complete flip and all of the state executive offices, including governor, flipped to the Democrats this election cycle.  

Maricopa County, which is mostly made up of Phoenix and suburbs, is where the difference has been made.  Just over 60% of the electorate lives there, a population of over 4.5 million, and the influx of new residents from the upper Midwest, California and the growing Latino population have caused the county to trend to the Democrats.  They had some help from some corrupt Republican governors and a notoriously racist county sheriff who helped galvanize a huge Latino voter turnout.  It's still close, but as Maricopa goes, so goes Arizona and that's what happened in both 2020, and this year.  

How Can This Be? 

The Arizona Republican establishment was shocked by the 2020 results, in spite of obvious signs that it was headed that way.  The fact that the GOP dominated legislature has made ballot counting a long, drawn out chore by its antiquated, outdated rules, and that those long, long ballot counts are caused by Republicans in charge of the vote counting process hasn't stopped the election deniers from claiming that there's cheating going on, without, of course, a shred of evidence. 

Mark Kelly won re-election to the senate by more than a 100,000 vote margin over Blake Masters, which was not a surprise to anyone except a few of the Republicans who believed in the flood of conservative polls that flooded the media prior to the election.  Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who had carefully guarded the voting and counting process and spoiled the election deniers chances of getting anything by providing solid evidence of a clean, accurate 2020 election won the race for governor, after all ballots were counted, by just north of 17,000 votes over election denier and Trump endorsee Kari Lake. 

Even though neither Republican candidate had anything to offer to the voters except the "R" behind their name and their Trump endorsement, which didn't play well in a state he lost in 2020, Lake has embarked on a campaign to spread doubt about the accuracy of the election, specifically in Maricopa county, as election deniers do, without any real evidence.  Her ace in the hole is a handful of voting machines in a Maricopa County precinct where the printers weren't working initially creating some long lines and wait times.  It hasn't been that long ago that a Maricopa County Republican elections manager caused massive lines during the primaries by consolidating precinct voting locations, and people waited for up to six hours to cast a vote, but that's where Lake has decided to focus her efforts.  

Here are the facts.  There was difficulty with some machines and printers in a Maricopa County precinct where perhaps 2,000 voters are registered.  The precinct is located in a part of the county that has tended to be Republican oriented, though not by a huge percentage, and there is no way that the problem had anything to do with Lake's loss.  Nor is it reasonable to demand that the entire county, or perhaps the entire state, take a revote in order to determine a reasonable winner, based on the few complaints generated, manufactured, and prompted by the Lake campaign.  But that's what these people do, because they don't think their followers and sycophants are smart enough to figure all of this out.  

Even after setting up a website to try and catch people who claimed to have "trouble" casting their ballots, not anywhere near the number of people have come forward that would indicate there was a need to redo the election.  The results were pretty clear.  Lake lost.  And in spite of the glitches, about which the county election board has evidence to indicate those who were inconvenienced still got to cast their ballot and have it count, the election in Arizona was obviously free from any kind of election fraud or corruption.  Lake is counting on the ignorance of her supporters to make a big enough stink to get some attention to impress Donald Trump, another loser in an Arizona election. 

Lake Had Reason to Think Some Conservative Arizonans Might be Ignorant Enough to Pull This Off

In one of the most boneheaded, wasteful, ridiculous moves ever made by a state legislature, the Arizona Senate, without legal standing or legislative authority, ordered a third "audit" of Maricopa County's ballots following the 2020 election.  There had already been two other audits which made it clear the vote count was accurate and that there had been no fraud involved.  But the Senate President, Karen Fann, kept pressing for an additional audit, primarily because the first two didn't support Republican claims of fraud.  I mean, after all, it was Arizona and it was Maricopa County.  A Republican couldn't have lost, could they?  

So, logically, instead of hiring a real auditor, they hired the "Cyber Ninjas," made up mainly of a Trump supporting jack-of-all-trades and a rag-tag group of hires who couldn't work the machines or computers, use the data bases or do anything without the continued assistance of the Maricopa election board.  It's hard to tell how much that cost the taxpayers, some Trumpies came up with some contributions and put about $6 million into their pockets until they went bankrupt before actually finishing the "audit", though in their report, they claimed that the total was off, in favor of Biden, by several hundred votes.  Well, for all that money they had to say something.  The state didn't certify their alleged count, or even acknowledge it took place.  

But I'm sure the image of the stupid looks on Fann's face, her ridiculous, unsupported, unbelievable statements and the whole concept of  a "Cyber Ninja" audit, which included claims of owning a camera that could see "bamboo fibers" in paper, which they claimed proved the ballot came from China, helped Lake conclude that Arizona Republicans are idiots and will believe anything.  No bamboo fibers were found and the whole incident, which did cost Karen Fann her senate seat, and any reputation she may have had as an intelligent human being, was a characterization of the whole phony election denier movement. 

Why not try it again, it might work this time.  

Human Error Means Things are Bound to Happen

No matter how secure or organized a process is, there is always human error.  Most issues with elections involve malfunctioning equipment, like the situation with the printers and computers in Maricopa county.  But election workers are trained to handle those errors, and to make sure that everyone who wants to cast a ballot gets to cast one.  That does include allowances to keep a polling place open until everyone who was in line before closing gets to vote, or to make sure that any prior glitches were handled correctly.  

Lake was depending on the ignorance and stupidity of enough Arizonans to carry out a big rally at the state capitol and create a show, to put pressure on the county board and the Secretary of State, in the hopes of changing the inevitable outcome of the election.  That's not going to happen.  There were, in fact, fewer complaints about ballot issues in Arizona this time around, including those that Lake collected on her website, than in 2020, and even then, not nearly enough to alter the outcome of the election.  

Arizonans do know B.S. when they see it, Kari.  And apparently plenty of them see it in you. 

 

 

Wondering Why I'm Still Doing This, and Whether or Not It's Worth It

You are the salt of the earth: but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored?  It is no longer good for anything but is thrown out and trampled under foot.  You are the light of the world.  A city built on a hill cannot be hidden.  No one, after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house.  In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your father in heaven.  Matthew 5:13-16, NRSV, from The Sermon on the Mount

There have been times, in the circles of relationships in my life, when I have wondered if I was the only person who thought the way I did.  

I grew up in a small, Southern Baptist church.  It was outside the deep South, in Arizona, near a military base so the congregation was a mix of people who lived in the community and had moved there from somewhere in the South, or people who were stationed at the military base or worked there and lived nearby, who tended to be from just about everywhere.  I was in Sunday school every week, in worship services Sunday morning and evening, and in missions group on Wednesday night.  I went to church camp every summer.  I was in the youth group in middle and high school.  And as a result of the influence of the church, I went to a university that was affiliated with the denomination, on a scholarship.  

One of the basic degree requirements of the university was to earn a total of twelve credit hours in Biblical studies.  There were four standard courses, Old Testament Survey, New Testament Survey, Christian Doctrines and Systematic Theology, which most students took to meet this requirement.  It did not take very long for me to realize that there was some discrepancy between the way my professors interpreted scripture, and the way it had been done in my church.  There was, of course, quite a gap in the educational level of those church leaders who had been my teachers, and the professors.  

My college roommate and I would often discuss the difference between what we'd been taught in church and what we were learning in school. He was studying for the ministry, and was raised in a church very similar to the one I grew up in.  One of his former Sunday school teachers, who was also a deacon in his church, had warned him that the university would try to turn him into a liberal.  That was their perception of what we were learning.  It was different, it required them to think, it challenged their presuppositions and their reaction was to reject it, label it and dismiss it.  

Not all members of all Evangelical churches feel that way, or consider an in-depth study of the Bible including the historical context and setting of the times in which it was written and looking at the original languages and style of writing, as being "liberal."  But that is not the approach to instruction in small churches where few members have an education beyond high school, and where the pastor may also lack college or seminary training in Biblical studies, backgrounds and languages.  And those kind of churches make up a majority of the conservative Evangelical branch of the American church.  

There is an academic definition of "liberal" as it applies to Christian doctrine and theology, and nothing I was ever taught in the university or graduate school where I received my M.A., both Baptist affiliated, really fits that definition.  I can generalize most of what I learned in a few statements: 

1. Context is vital to interpretation of scripture.  Therefore the Bible cannot mean something different now than it did when it was originally written.  Don't apply it if you don't know and understand the context.  
2. Jesus gave a dramatic and conclusive interpretation of the Old Testament, recorded in Matthew 5:17.  He saw himself as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and declared that not one "jot or tittle" of the law would pass from it until all was accomplished, that being the key phrase in interpreting his words.  It was accomplished when he was resurrected from the dead and ascended to heaven.
3. There is no "dual" or "hidden" meaning in scripture.  With the original context of past events, it is the principle that becomes the interpretation.  
4. The book of Revelation has a historical context that is the only valid interpretation of the book. 
5. There is no substitute for gaining an understanding of the original languages in which the Bible was written, and learning how to discern the context using them. 
6. The life example and teachings of Jesus Christ are the criteria by which all of the rest of scripture is to be interpreted.  The gospel of Jesus Christ is the high point of the whole Bible.  It is the point. Virtually all of the rest of scripture can be interpreted using the text of the Sermon on the Mount, recorded in Matthew 5,6 and 7, along with other teachings found in all four gospel accounts.  
7. Textual criticism is a valid means of evaluating the accuracy of transmission of specific portions of the entire Bible.  We have manuscript evidence, by secular historical standards, for most of the New Testament, but there are variants that need to be acknowledged.  It is too simplistic and somewhat inaccurate to claim that the Bible is "inerrant and infallible in its original manuscripts" without acknowledging that no original manuscripts exist, and the oldest and most reliable manuscripts which do exist are more than 300 years older than the originals.  
8. No sect, branch, denomination, fellowship or broader division of Christianity can lay claim to being "the true church" and there is no objective standard to make that evaluation.  The bridge across the gap of uncertainty is faith.  The divisiveness and exclusivity that has created divisions in the church that are sharper and more divisive than borders that separate countries is a product of human fallacy, and is not what Jesus intended for his church.  Any expression of Christianity that does not acknowledge its own shortcomings, and rejects other branches of the faith on its own terms is itself making a doctrinal and theological error in judgment. 

I could go on, and for those reading this who aren't Christian, or who have rejected Christianity as a whole, it might not make much difference to you.  The Christian church, in all of its forms, more often than not, has contributed to power struggles, conflict and wars because it has failed to follow its own gospel principles and has been lured into the temptation to use worldly, political power to preserve its own influence, something that Jesus was tempted to do, and rejected.  What we are seeing in this current mixture of right wing extremism with right wing Christianity is another subversion of the church.  

Well, But, Here's The Bottom Line

So here's what I'm getting at by saying all of this.  I initially started writing to vent frustrations over what I see as increasing encroachment of the loonier, crazier, more extremist politics of the far right into expressions of American Christianity, primarily the Evangelical wing of it, with which I am more familiar, but it's also finding its way into a few niches and outposts of mainline Protestantism and it is increasingly influential among Catholics.  While there have been some temporary departures from my original purpose, sometimes to chase rabbits, sometimes to address something that became part of the political-religious narrative, I've had two main purposes for writing here: 

• To defend American democracy, and more specifically, to support and defend the first amendment right to freedom of conscience, with an emphasis on the preservation of the Establishment clause of the first amendment, which is the right to have a free church in a free state, the principle of separation of church and state that was the clear intent of founders James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.  This is for the benefit of both church and state.
• To oppose the conflation of Christianity, primarily the conservative, Evangelical branch of American Christianity, with the extremism found in far right wing Republican politics, and to support and defend politicians who see the danger and error inherent in this perspective and have the courage to oppose it, knowing the accusations and criticism that their opposition will cause.  To help those within the Christian faith, and specifically within conservative, Evangelical churches and denominations to know that they do not have to minimize their religious convictions to be members of the Democratic party.  

Along the way, a group of somewhere around 20,000 followers has logged in and spent some time reading and responding.  I am guessing that the majority of those may be people who think along the same lines as I do.  I'm not so much interested in accumulating followers, though, as I am in making the point and inspiring those who are like-minded to continue their efforts to be an influence around them.  I've also seen some evidence that those who are on the margins in these political circumstances and who have their doubts about the wisdom and effectiveness of this conflation of right wing Christianity with extremist right wing politics who can be convinced with factual arguments, truth, and even some Biblical inspiration, have decided democracy and freedom are more important than winning some pointless culture war.  

To be honest, prior to the midterms, I was thinking of just giving up.  It wasn't looking good for this cause, and in the barrage of fake news polls and all of the ridiculous flood of rhetoric that came from some of the extremists, I wasn't sure of where to go.  Then I read the piece from Michael Moore.  Whether you like the guy or not, he's not someone who puts his credibility on the line by making statements of pollyana optimism in the face of certain defeat.  By 11:00 p.m. on November 8th, I was back in business.  

So if you read The Signal Press now and then, or all the time, thank you.  If you still have conservative, Evangelical friends and you can discreetly share it, that would be nice.  I monitor the comments and have standards on the hateful stuff I'll allow, most of that comes via email anyway and I have a lot of fun answering it.  And you can leave a comment every now and then, especially constructive dissent or disagreement.  

I don't know what the future holds.  Maybe blogging is a thing of the past, if it is, wow, that era went fast.  For now, I'm going to continue to advocate for democracy, freedom of conscience, separation of church and state, and the successful Biden Administration.  I think the House is going to provide some really great material to write about.  Noting that I try to keep the conversation graceful, it will be fun to see how that transpires, I think.  

Texas Baptists Reject Christian Nationalism; Affirm "Historic Tenets of Religious Liberty"

Texas Baptists Affirm Religious Liberty; Reject Christian Nationalism

The largest of the state convention bodies affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, the Baptist General Convention of Texas, has passed a resolution during its 2022 annual meeting which is essentially a repudiation of Christian Nationalism.  Meeting in Waco, the messengers in attendance supported the resolution which rejects government attempts to favor one religion over another, and which coerces the worship of Christ.  The Baptist General Convention of Texas has approximately 1.7 million church members in slightly over 4,000 churches in the state of Texas, as well as scattered churches in at least 10 other states.  It is the largest of the state convention bodies that make up the Southern Baptist Convention. 

The resolution avoided using the specific term "Christian Nationalism,' but the content clearly rejected any of its tenets.  It affirmed religious liberty and also condemned any government attempt to commandeer churches for secular purposes.  

Some of the critics of the resolution, according to the report in the Baptist Standard, felt that the resolution should have called out Christian nationalism by name, citing examples from Germany in the 1930's when Pastor Dietrich Boenhoffer and other confessing Christians called out the Nazi movement by name.  It was also noted that the resolution was introduced and supported by many younger pastors and church leaders.  

The wording, according to those involved in its authorship, was intended to avoid making a political statement.  An accompanying resolution on cultural engagement demonstrated a desire to shift the focus from "divisive rhetoric" at the expense of grace, truth and love which "characterizes the gospel." 

We see this as a positive development, that the largest state affiliate of the largest Evangelical denomination recognizes the inherent difficulties of a pseudo-Christian movement and seeks to educate people on the core values of the gospel.  It is a demonstration of their respect for religious liberty and for separation of church and state, pointing to the historic involvement of Baptists in developing American religious liberty.   It is becoming increasingly apparent that this aberrant theology is not as popular as once thought, and is not gaining a foothold even in conservative denominations.  

A Slow Awakening: Finally, Some Evangelicals See Trumpism as a Heretical Infiltration of Their Churches

Some Evangelicals Not Supporting Trump's Third Try for the White House

Donald Trump Jr. Tells Young Conservatives "Following Jesus' Commands has "Gotten Us Nothing"

When Donald Trump Jr. spoke at a Turning Point USA gathering in Phoenix in December of 2021, and said, "We've turned the other cheek, and I understand, sort of, the biblical reference--I understand the mentality--but it's gotten us nothing.  OK?" that should have done more than "ruffled a few feathers," as he suggested.  The message in that statement, along with the entire manner in which Trump Junior, and Charlie Kirk, who is the founder of the Turning Point organization that promotes the "culture war" side of Trumpism, present their message, is the complete opposite of the Christian gospel and the way that Jesus taught his followers to live in the world.  

In his characterization of this rhetoric as "The Gospel of Donald Trump, Junior," author Peter Wehner, in a piece published in The Atlantic said, "The former President's son had a message for the tens of millions of Evangelicals who form the energized base of the GOP:  The scriptures are essentially a manual for suckers.  The teachings of Jesus have essentially 'gotten us nothing.'  It's worse than that, really; the ethic of Jesus has gotten in the way of successfully prosecuting the culture wars against the left.  If the ethic of Jesus encourages sensibilities that might cause people in politics to act a little less brutally, a bit more civilly, with a touch more grace?  Then it needs to go."  

Tyler Huckabee, in an article in Relevant magazine about the Turning Point speech given by Trump Junior, said, "Trump is probably more correct that he knows here.  Christianity is a poor device for gaining worldly influence.  Nearly every page of the gospel has stories of Jesus refusing earthly power and exhorting his followers to do the same.  In fact, there are few things Jesus talked more about than the upside down Kingdom of God where 'the last shall be first,' and 'blessed are the meek'. Moreover, he cautioned against seeking earthly influence, going so far as to proclaim, 'woe unto you who are rich'.  The most cursory reading of scripture would leave anyone with the sense that this is not a manual for getting stuff."  

Relevant is an on-line publication aimed at a younger Christian audience, with an Evangelical perspective.  So kudos to Huckabee for calling out Turning Point and Trump Junior's remarks for the heretical departure from the Christian gospel that they are.  

Those words, from Trump Junior, when reported, as they were, should have caused an earthquake shock of horror among conservative Evangelicals who claim to believe the Bible is the "inerrant, infallible, only authority for Christian faith and practice."  The fact that it really didn't do that is a clear indication that there's been a shift in conservative Evangelicalism from depending on God's Holy Spirit and written scripture, to attempting to align their mission with secular political interests and become a tool used to win elections for a demagogue.  

Turning Point Prompts Arizona Pastor's "Horrified, Terrified" Reaction 

Christian Trump Event Left Evangelical Pastor Absolutely "Terrified" 

Arizona Pastor Finds "Turning Point" Political Events to be Heresy

Trump has been a media fascination for a long time, as is anyone who appears to have such a love for money that they devise ways to accumulate it, whether they are legal, moral, ethical, or not.  Trump has trusted his worldly image, and I use the term "worldly" in the sense that the Christian scriptures describe it in its most lascivious and ungodly sense, as his personal reputation and in the rhetoric of the previously quoted writers, as his manual for success.  It would be difficult to find others, in that subculture of worldliness, whose life has been lived more in opposition to Biblical morality, ethics and orthodoxy, than Donald Trump.  

Trump's pathway to legitimacy among conservative Evangelicals is the result of a political trade-off, not a conversion experience or his acceptance of their interpretation of the Bible or any conversion experience.  His crude behavior, particularly his open sexual immorality in claiming to have had hundreds of adulterous encounters with women, publicly humiliating all three of his wives, was a turnoff for most Evangelical voters, rightly so.  He was a willing, long-time supporter of abortion rights, having taken advantage of their legality on more than one occasion on behalf of himself and at least one of his children. But they were willing to set all of that aside when he realized that they were "suckers," as he calls those with whom he makes inequitable "deals," on the issue of abortion rights.  

I've heard some Evangelical leaders make what is an absolutely heretical statement according to Biblical doctrine, in justifying their support for Trumpism, that God sometimes uses evil men to accomplish his purposes.  That is a complete distortion and misinterpretation of God's movement in human history as recorded in scripture.  The Bible's does describe events where God's purposes are achieved in the course of human history and through specific historical events, but there is never a place where God's involvement ever allows evil to prevail over good, or where God ever requires or commands his people to give loyalty to anyone who is characterized as evil because they do not acknowledge his existence and his eternal power.  

To be honest, I think the appeal of Trump, Charlie Kirk, Don Jr., and the whole train of Trumpism's apologists finds fertile ground among Christians, and specifically Evangelicals, is that they truly do not believe in the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  All of those principles, starting with the Beatitudes at the beginning of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, where he speaks of the depth of Christian character in meekness, mournfulness, humility, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, mercy, purity of heart and peacemaking, then goes on to talk about turning the other cheek, loving enemies and going the extra mile, are the strength and power of the Christian gospel.  Thinking that the "culture war" rhetoric of Trumpism, and the more worldly approach which includes threats of and use of violence, hostility, and a Machiavellian "win at all costs" approach is denying that the power of God works through the Christian gospel.  

I'm glad to see that there are some church leaders and Christians among the Evangelical branch of American Christianity who are able to see that Trumpism, and the white supremacy and Christian nationalism that it pushes for its own benefit are destructive heresies which mislead Christians and deny the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Some of us have seen this for what it was, and what it has become, from the very start.  It is not an approach that will make America great again, nor is it one that will bring the Christian church in this country to its long-desired revival.  It is counterproductive to both of those things.  And it has been allowed, for whatever reason, to go on for far too long.  

For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.  Jude, the Apostle, his Epistle to the church, Verse 4 

Heresy in the Church, Hypocrisy in Patriotism

The intrusion of right-wing politics, conspiracy theories and the whole host of fear-mongering falsehoods has intruded on conservative American Christianity for at least three generations now, going back at least to the Reagan administration and the days of Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority."  There is where the boundary was crossed between praying for government and influencing government to trying to use the power of government to promote the church and its ministry and mission and to a revival of what was once called "Anglo-Israelism," or Christian Nationalism involving a re-interpretation of American history along the lines of that promoted by David Barton.  

The decline of conservative Evangelicalism in America can be traced to that period of time.  Long critical of "liberal theology" that they claimed was the cause of the decline of mainline Protestant denominations in the United States, conservatives were confronted with declining church attendance and membership, offerings were dropping, and it seemed that in spite of all kinds of marketing efforts and changes in the way churches worshipped and did evangelism, the declines got steeper.  

The last decade has been what many Evangelical leaders are publicly admitting is a "disaster."  Mainline Protestant churches have stabilized, to some extent, but Evangelical declines continue.  Absent from virtually all conservative Evangelical churches and denominations is the majority of Gen X and almost all millennial generation members.  There's been an obvious shift in the overall dependence of conservative churches on political influence and power, tax dollars to prop up sagging ministries, like schools, and endorsements of politicians.  That's the reason for the decline.  "Religion that requires the government's support to sustain it is bad religion," said Benjamin Franklin. 

Turning Point's rhetoric about the Constitution is hypocrisy.  If they cared one whit about the Constitution, they would never have supported, in any way at all, the efforts of their insurrectionist president to overturn its provision of the peaceful transition of power, based on the lie of a stolen election.  In attacking the sanctity of American elections, which are the most secure in the world, and then attacking Congress while they were certifying its results, these insurrectionists and traitors sent a very loud message that they can never again be trusted with any kind of political power in this country.  Those who are being arrested and charged deserve everything that they are getting.  Some are still unjustly figuring out how to avoid the law and get by with their traitorous attack on this country.  

Two of the church's Apostles, Peter and Paul, wrote about the connection between God's authority and human government.  Paul spoke of this to the Roman Christians in Romans 13:1-7, Peter to churches he knew well in I Peter 2:13-17.  These passages are authoritative for Christians and any Christian who believes these words needs to open their eyes and see what is happening.  Save your churches and separate them from these ungodly, evil intruders.  

A Republican Agenda of Hate and Revenge: Will Their Evangelical Supporters Have the Integrity to Call it Out?

It hasn't taken very long for the Republican House leadership to put their agenda of revenge and hatred on the table.  We'll see if some of those who won elections with razor thin margins in districts where their win hinged on their claims of actually doing something about inflation or crime or the border (Arizona 6 comes to mind) will go along with the phonies like Marjorie Taylor Green or Jim "Gym" Jordan or if they will keep them from getting a majority on the potential investigation and impeachment votes they are looking to hold.  I have my doubts, but when it comes to Republicans, I am never surprised by their extremism and their lack of concern for their constituents.  

Aside from the circus that all of that will be, it will also be a losing political proposition.  They actually thought that a "red tsumami" was coming, based on their extremism, but election denying and insurrection supporting lost big.  A majority of the electorate, a significant one if the exit polling following the mid-terms is correct, believes Trump's impeachments were justified, support the investigation into his theft of classified documents, and don't think there's anything wrong with the way elections are operated and ballots are counted.  Even extremist gubernatorial loser Kari Lake, in Arizona, has not been able to find a single voter who was denied the opportunity to vote, or whose ballot did not count in spite of the glitches affecting a few hundred voters in a few scattered precincts. 

A Bigger Moral and Ethical Issue 

But I'm aiming this narrative at conservative Evangelicals who read this, are looking at this and thinking that they can somehow separate this tsunami of hatred and vengeance from their claims of belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and in doctrine and theology they claim is based on the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible.  How is there any connection at all between what the extremists in the Republican party want to do, and what conservative Evangelicals claim to believe are the core principles of Christian faith? 

Daily Kos: Trump May Finally Be Losing Evangelical Support

It is difficult to center positions taken by conservative Evangelicals on Christian doctrine and theology.  Most of the churches, even those affiliated with denominations and fellowships, are independent and autonomous and if they have a pastor or church leader who wanders off the beaten path and tries to build personal loyalty from a congregation around unique interpretations of obscure Old Testament passages of scripture, there is no way to hold them accountable because they intimidate their own church members into submission and there is no other means of accountability.  People like Trump's "spiritual advisor" Paula White, or the Tennessee pastor who likes to make headlines, Greg Locke, are actually heretics by the more widely accepted standards of Evangelicals.  

But political power has trumped Biblical truth, bringing Mormons to the pulpit of Liberty University among Baptists and other ultra-conservative Fundamentalists who characterize Mormonism as a demonic cult.  The lust after worldly power is a temptation that is hard to resist.  So it's not surprising that they're willing to compromise sacred beliefs for political gain.  Trump, who is not a Christian by his own admission, demands, and gets, their loyalty.  Don Jr., at the Trump political organization's "Turning Point" rallies, tells the young Evangelical-leaning audiences who show up to abandon Jesus' teachings, that "turning the other cheek" and "loving your enemies" may be nice things to do, but "they won't get you anywhere in this world."  

Most of the members of Congress who wear their Christian faith on their sleeve, and use it as a political wedge lost my interest, respect and lost their credibility with me, and with millions of other disgusted Christians, a long time ago.  The most salient point of Christian theology in the Bible is that those who are Christians are most clearly and easily identified by the way they treat other people.  

"Those who say, 'I love God,' and hate their brothers and sisters are liars; for those who do not love their brothers and sisters, whom they have seen cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this:  those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also." I John 4:20-21, NRSV  

"Brothers," or "brothers and sisters" in this particular translation, is not an exclusive term.  The Apostle who wrote those words did not allow for defining the terms as "only those who agree with you politically or religiously."  He meant everyone.  

So it would not be judgmental, in a Christian sense, to expect politicians who use their Christian faith as a part of their political identity to look out for the interests of all of their constituents.  It would not be unreasonable to expect that if their focus in winning election or re-election to office was to do something about inflation, the economy or the crime rate to actually come up with a plan to do exactly that.  And it would not be unreasonable to expect them to set aside the rancor, the hostile rhetoric, the name calling and the vindictiveness in favor of the people they are supposed to represent.  

It would also not be judgmental or unreasonable, in a Christian sense, not to take their claims of faith seriously based on their behavior, and their words.  "Blessed are the peacemakers," said Jesus, "for they shall be called the children of God."  

I'm linking a post here by Julie Roys, who is an investigator of scandals and issues among Evangelical churches and related institutions.  It's not directly related to the Evangelical support for the vitriol and hatred that they support in Congress, but it is relevant to the point I'm making here. The post is about yet another failed investigation into issues of sexual abuse taking place on a Christian college campus, about which those in charge went about business as usual and worked hard to defend their own power and position.  She makes a poignant point in this story that is worth quoting here.  

"Because the lying and corruption is rampant in evangelicalism..."  

So will any Republican, conservative, Evangelical stand up to the extremists in the GOP?  I think that question has been answered by the conduct of those who continue to fail to allow their faith to affect their politics.  Evangelicalism is now too much of a business, and too little of a church, and it has lost its connection to the spiritual power of God, laying a foundation of dependence on worldly power, popularity and prosperity, and abandoning its principles and values when those things are threatened.  There are those who do take a stand, and who do call out the sin and corruption.  

I hope they prevail. 

Julie Roys: Issues at Cedarville University Could Be Evangelicalism's Chernobyl

A Tsunami of Corruption

Of course I would like to give credit where credit is due.  The title came from somewhere in the cluster of news reports I've watched and to which I've listened over the past eight or nine days since the election.  More than likely, I was doing something else when I heard it, it caught my attention and I wrote it down and went on with what I was doing.  

A Major Flaw in the "System" 

I consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent person.  Oh, it took a while to stop goofing off, settle down and earn the kind of grades I was capable of getting, recovering from my freshman year in college during the last three years, and then finally hitting my potential in graduate school.  But it really doesn't take good grades to measure intelligence, and to come to the conclusion that there are some serious flaws in our democratic republic when someone who celebrates his corruption and flaunts his ability to get away with criminal activity that is out in the open can gather a group of people together in the ballroom of the luxury hotel where he lives and make a public announcement that he is, once again, running for the Presidency of the United States.  

As Americans, we've always thought, and we have been taught, that our constitution is the best bulwark we could possibly have against the threat of dictatorship and extremism.  We have naively thought that we are the model democracy, so much so that our approach to foreign relations involves the imposition of our kind of democracy and our values on other people of the world.  We've found all kinds of excuses to explain why it didn't work in some places.  But we've never really backed off of that view.  And so, we have been brought to the precipice of a cliff, closer to losing what we have than at any other point in our history, in my opinion, closer even than we were in the 1850's and 1860's before and during the Civil War. 

When Donald Trump first started muttering about running for President, few people took him seriously.  I must admit, I didn't either.  But the Republican party, which has lost a considerable amount of its constituency since the turn of this century, got desperate to win elections and turned to this corrupt, flamboyant, loudmouthed, arrogant, boasting narcissist to get the White House back under their control.  They were willing to pay just about whatever price it cost to get it.  They knew his background, the corruption, manipulation and the lies he used, time and time again, to scam for money.  He bragged about cheating the government out of taxes and cheating his debtors out of their money.  

He is well characterized by his now famous, or infamous statement, "I could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and nothing would happen to me."  Up to this point, he has been 100% right about that.  And that is exactly the problem.  In spite of everything we would like to believe about being a nation of laws, and a country of law and order, for enough wealth and influence to avoid obedience to the law, one can get away with just about everything.  

The crimes this man has committed are as well documented as is possible, in thousands of pages of a special investigation conducted by Robert Mueller, and in thousands of pages of testimony and investigation conducted by Congress about his instigation and incitement of the insurrection on January 6th, 2020 and now, in his criminal removal of top secret documents from the White House following his presidency.  That doesn't count the multiple cases of fraud and sexual abuse he has settled or for which he has had to pay fines and penalties in his business dealings.  

So, in this country, with our pride in our constitution, our democracy, and our idealism, how is it possible that this man is free to announce yet another run for the Presidency?  How is it possible, riding a "tsunami of corruption" with evidence in hand, that he is even free?  

There Are Two Americas

The wealthy and privileged are the politically powerful in this country and they live by a different set of rules than those found in the constitution, or, in fact, those of any entity that has law-making authority.  Those are for other people, not them.  They know how to game the system, how to avoid accountability by using their wealth and influence and for the most part, it works well for them.  It does not even take a reasonably intelligent person to figure this out.  

Trump played the "presidential immunity" card following the Mueller investigation.  I read that report, by the way, every page of it.  Less than a third of the way in, the conclusion that Attorney General William Barr had lied through his teeth about every single aspect of it was easy to conclude.  Don't be surprised if the news eventually comes out that the document theft which occurred following the former President's departure from the White House, along with what was destroyed while he was still there, had a whole lot to do with the whole Russian connection. And don't think that's over, because it's not. 

It is this "Other America" that has made it possible for a criminal to stay out of prison, away from accountability and have the freedom to announce that he is running for President, which is a proclamation from him that the tsunami will continue and that if he wins, it will move right back into the government.  The fact that there are members of the media speculating about his chances and talking about this without much mention of the tsunami of corruption is a clear part of Other America. So is the lack of any effort at all on the part of the Republican party to prevent him from seeking their party nomination.  

In this same "Other America" exists the promise that something will be done about it, that there will be accountability and that justice will prevail.  For the subordinates, the "fall guys," the insurrectionists themselves, those who exist outside the circle of influence and power, there is some measure of accountability. For everyone else, including the perpetrator and inner circle of cronies who planned and conducted it, we will have to be shrill and loud in our insistence that something be done.  The best time for doing it has passed, and now "the Republicans control the House" will be yet another obstacle to overcome. 

Will we see justice?  The strength of the Constitution and the American Democratic Republic depend on it.  "Tetering on the precipice" is not tolerable. 

No Surprises Here

The fact that conservative, white, Evangelicals have been the tsunami's most reliable supporters should come as no surprise.  Most of the churches that fall under that category of American Christianity are set up to perpetuate the "Other America" system, not democracy or freedom.  And I know, because I was raised in a conservative, Evangelical church and belonged to one for most of my life.  I know how they operate, most of them, in their own wake of a tsunami of corruption.  

Among the wealthy, powerful and influential de-facto leaders of American Evangelicalism, scandal is just part of the culture.  There have been multiple, high profile falls of well-known leaders, including those politically connected to the extreme right like Jerry Falwell, Jr.  Most of those who are out in front and considered to be the spokespersons and leaders of the movement are all heads of ministries that rake in massive amounts of cash, or of churches which do the same.  They are, for the most part, completely disconnected from the Christian gospel.  You know, that conversion experience and the virtues and values that go along with the lifestyle which Jesus preached.  Jesus has been thrown under the bus in American Evangelicalism.  

But even among the smaller churches, it's easy to see how the tsunami gains wide acceptance.  While many churches claim to be organized democratically, the fact of the matter is that in almost every single Evangelical congregation, a few influential and prominent men run the church, no matter how the congregation votes or conducts its business.  These are individuals who, for the most part, don't have the social skills or the financial standing to be "somebody important" in the real world.  So they step into a church where there's a leadership vacuum, act like an expert, gather a group of people around their influence and cause all kinds of havoc.  In some churches, they're called "deacons," in some they're called "elders," and in some, regardless of who the pastor, elders or deacons are, they call the shots.  

They get their way by creating straw men enemies to knock down and set on fire.  Somebody is always after them, to take away their rights, to shut down the churches, to tax their property or to subvert their membership.  And that justifies setting aside the gospel to take up arms against the windmills that are represented by the slogan, "Make America Great Again" which represents looking back, not forward, regression instead of progress, racism instead of unity.  

We Got the Right Person for the Job

I voted for Joe Biden because I believed he had the experience and the knowledge of politics to stop this tsunami.  Beyond that, I believed he had the desire and the will do do it.  I still believe that, and that's the thought that I have on days when it seems like nothing will change.  In some sort of off-beat, strange way, I almost look forward to the "investigations" the new House leadership is jabbering about starting into President Biden.  I expect they will find as much as they did on Hillary Clinton, so get prepared to listen to the crickets chirping. 

To be honest, if we'd have elected anyone else, I would not be this confident.  Even as we speak, it seems that bringing charges against Trump, bringing him to trial and convicting him of the crimes he's committed, both on January 6th and with the document stash at Mar-A-Lago, might have been too high a hill for anyone else, except, perhaps, Kamala Harris or Nancy Pelosi.  But I think Biden has the will and the motivation, along with the ability and discernment, to get us there.  The only political tsunami down the road is the blue one that will flood the swamp and wash the trash out to see.  

I love those analogies. 

Politics, Morality, Faith and Individual Rights in a Democratic Republic

Religious freedom is one of the more crystal clear rights in the Constitution.  Explained and clarified by multiple citations from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who were the most influential founders behind this particular freedom, they left behind multiple statements which explain the rationale behind the very real principle of separation of church and state.  Both men, one a Christian who left little information behind about the depth of his faith, one a Deist who was more of an agnostic, agreed that religious belief was a matter of individual conscience.  Madison observed the persecution of Baptists in Virginia at the hands of the state endorsed Anglican church there, while Jefferson, also communicating with a group of Baptists in Connecticut, was also convinced that the Constitution should guarantee freedom of conscience, including religious beliefs, which the government should not endorse or codify into law.

Having grown up in a conservative, Evangelical church, I know all of the arguments they've come up with against "separation of church and state" being a basic constitutional principle.  But ironically, from professors at the Baptist university and subsequently the graduate school that I attended, and from which I earned degrees, I came to have an understanding of religious liberty, and separation of church and state, from the perspective left for us by the founders and writers of the Constitution itself, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.  They established complete religious liberty, not only for Christians, by not distinguishing between or singling out denominations, but for the followers of all religions, regardless of how few adherents they may have had, and particularly for those who followed or practiced no religion, the latter of whom made up the majority of the population of the United States when the constitution was ratified. 

Where to Draw the Line With the Law? 

At what point does government cross the line into an establishment of religion in its drafting of laws?  We can get into a long discussion about religious beliefs and morality as part of the law, and decisions courts have made over the years in drawing these lines.  There is no doubt that, in spite of the establishment clause and the clarity of the rationale for it left behind by Madison and Jefferson, a Protestant Christian bias has been dominant throughout most of our history.  

We're seeing a resurgence of attempts to enforce Christian principles through the law as Christian nationalism seems to be gaining a following in the Republican party.  Some of its ideas have been part of church teaching for centuries.  Many of the people in the church in which I grew up believed that law should reflect Christian beliefs because "majority rules."  And they don't understand how it can be in a democracy that equality of guaranteed rights means that those who are not Christian, or who do not practice any religion or have religious beliefs, are also protected from laws that would interfere with their freedom and have the same rights as everyone else.

An Issue That Crosses the Line 

I'm influenced by the Christian doctrine and theology that governs my practice of Christian faith.  In that context, I believe that there are moral choices which can be made that would avoid circumstances leading to an unwanted pregnancy and beyond that, to an abortion.  I believe in the sanctity of human life, and that there is a point early in pregnancy when an embryo or fetus becomes sacred and worthy of the protection of the law.  I believe that the decision to use abortion as a birth control measure in the case where an earlier, better informed decision would have not resulted in pregnancy, is immoral.  The Constitution gives me the liberty to accept this and believe it as a matter of conscience.  

But, not all abortions are the result of this kind of choice.  A woman who is raped does not have the chance to make a choice based on personal moral convictions.  A situation in which a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother is also one in which the choice that must be made has nothing to do with moral principle or faith.  Incest and abuse, which are much more common than most people realize, also leave women without a prior choice in the matter.  So what then?  I may still have a personal perspective when it comes to the morality of the situation, but I'm not the one who will have to live with the outcome.  

Most Christians believe that life begins at conception, though there is no specific statement from the Bible, which conservative Christians accept as the only authority for doctrine and practice, that actually says this.  There are a few places where Bible writers indicate that a child developing in the womb is a sacred human being, one passage in Psalm 139 comes as close as any to stating that life begins at conception.  What it says is, "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."  But, this is still a commonly held Christian belief.  And it is shared by other religions, including  Islam and Buddhism.  

But, not all Americans practice a religion and according to the constitution, not having one is also a matter of conscience.  The decision to have, or not to have an abortion is rightly governed by the religious beliefs of the woman who is making that decision and if her conscience leads her to believe the life within her is sacred from its conception, then that is her decision.  But what about those people who look more to medical science and research to determine to make a determination of viability and have a different perspective about the point at which a fetus becomes a "sacred life" or is viable?  Is it an infringement of their conscience if they are denied an abortion if they don't think its wrong?  Or, for those who are in a forced situation, which is a considerable number of women and girls now, if the government makes the decision based on a religious principle written into law, is that a violation of their conscience and of their religious freedom?  

The Conscience of the Law Maker

Our democracy operates as a Republic, a representative democracy in which people express their will by electing members of the government.  And under this same first amendment right, lawmakers have the freedom, as a matter of conscience, to believe in and practice whatever religious faith they choose.  Most of our Congress is made up of Protestant Christians.  But in exercising their duties as representatives of the people, do they have to set aside their personal religious beliefs in order to represent those of their constituents who don't have religious beliefs, or who are members of a different denomination or practice a different religious faith than Christianity?  

I think they do.  And as hard as that may be to understand, that's what a democracy looks like.  

Lawmakers who support what we call a "woman's right to choose" are not baby killers, nor are they held accountable or responsible by God for understanding that they cannot impose personal religious beliefs on others by using the government and the law.  What many of them do understand is that the denial of religious liberty to one group of people, based on the religious convictions of another, will undermine the religious liberty of everyone.  If a lawmaker cannot be held responsible for mass killings in schools and churches because they've failed to pass reasonable gun control legislation then lawmakers cannot be held accountable for abortions performed under laws that they've passed.  

Digging Down Deep Inside, As a Christian, What's My Response? 

"Let us therefore no longer pass judgement on one another but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another."  Romans 14:13, NRSV

The Christian gospel was not intended to be compelled by government, and there's no plan or intention in anything Jesus preached and taught that calls for a Christian theocracy along the same lines as the Old Testament theocracy that existed under what the Jews believed was a covenant relationship between their nation and God.  The Christian conversion experience is prompted by the spiritual conviction of sin, followed by the response of repentance and grace given by God.  That is not something that can be compelled by government, something about which the church's early Apostles are quite clear.  Both Paul (Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1-2) and Peter (I Peter 2:13-17) make the separate purposes of government and church very clear.  So did Jesus when he rejected the worldly power offered by Satan in one of his temptations, and when he declared to Pilate, "My Kingdom is not of this world."  

There can also be no ignoring the words of the Apostle John in his first church epistle, when he says, "Anyone who does not love does not know God."  American Christians might be much more successful in their ministry if they took that into consideration in their attitude and actions toward those who feel that abortion is their only option, especially toward those who were victims themselves.  Instead of pointing fingers and making accusations of "baby killing" and threatening the fires of hell, genuine Christian love should ask the question, "How can I help you?"  That's the best place to start, because, as John says, "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear."  

Democracy Means Equality of Freedom

There are no restrictions on Christian belief and practice in the United States.  Christians, especially white, conservative Evangelicals, are still privileged when it comes to individual rights and the practice of their faith.  As Thomas Jefferson said, "Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.  It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god.  It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."  

Christians are called to do more than just tolerate those who hold different beliefs and principles of life.  They are called to love them.  There's no constitutional restriction on that, nor on stepping up to help women who are in circumstances where they feel powerless, abandoned and trapped that doesn't involve turning them into criminals.

Trumpism Will Leave Evangelical Christianity in Ruins

It's a rare thing to hear a preacher in a conservative church base a sermon on a text from the book of Jude.  this short epistle, the only known work of the Apostle Jude, one of the twelve original disciples of Jesus, distinguished from Judas Iscariot, the betrayer, self-identified in his epistle as the brother of James, another apostle.  Catholics believe he was also the half-brother of Jesus, while Protestants aren't certain and don't make that claim.  

In this epistle, Jude calls out and condemns intruders in the Christian church who were false teachers, twisting the grace of Christ to use for their own purposes, which was, according to the text, a pretext for worldly pleasure.  Mentioned in the text, translated in the New Revised Standard Version are licentiousness, defiling the flesh, rejecting of authority, slandering angels or "glorious ones," being grumblers and malcontents, indulging their own lusts, bombastic in speech, flattering people to their own advantage.  

Those would be close to the terms I would use to describe the intrusion of far right-wing, secular politics into many of the conservative Evangelical churches and denominations in the United States.  I'm not saying that Jude is a prophesy of what's going on now, but I'm saying that his words are a prophetic description of this current intrusion into the church, and they are also a prophetic warning concerning what happens as a result of such an intrusion.  

An Aberration Beyond Belief

Unlike either mainline Protestantism in America, which has more or less united itself by accepting ordination credentials from each other's clergy and developed agreements under which denominations can merge, work together or which allow congregations to be dually affiliated, and the Catholic and Orthodox branches of Christianity, which are hierarchies under clergy rule, American Evangelicals are a collection of denominations and "fellowships," along with a significant number of independent, non-denominationally affiliated churches.  Though several large denominations fall under the umbrella of "Conservative Evangelical," there is no connection between clergy, churches tend to be independent and autonomous even if they do affiliate with a denomination.  There is a tendency for groups within this branch of the church to become detached from sound doctrine and sound Bible interpretation.  

While many white Evangelicals are unified by far right political positions, mainly on restricting access to abortion and opposition to same-gender marriage, and a sizeable minority still do not believe in racial equality, they are remarkably fragmented when it comes to things which should outweigh politics in importance, and that is the theology and doctrine they preach, teach and practice.  Where mainline Protestants have joined together in shared-clergy and dual church affiliation, and unite to support ministry and missions work, Evangelicals can't stand other Evangelicals who don't arrive at the same interpretations of the Bible as they do.

Some churches refuse to serve communion to visitors they do not know, because they can't determine their spiritual condition.  Some, among the Calvinist and Reformed branches of the church, won't serve it to individuals who don't belong to reformed churches.  A group calling themselves the Churches of Christ, who don't permit musical instruments in their worship services, also hold the belief that if one is not a member of their church, then they can't be a Christian.  And these aren't some kind of fringe practices.  The criticism of other Christians who differ on Bible interpretation within Evangelical Christianity in America is one of its more common cultural identifications.  

So how is it that a group with those beliefs and those characteristics are willing to accept, and adore, a political leader whose lifestyle contradicts every principle and virtue they teach, who is not, by any stretching of any definition they have of the term "Christian," and who has made open attempts to get Christians to change core doctrines established by Jesus because they don't support his way of doing things?  As the prophet Hosea wrote in his book, "For they sew the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind."  Hosea 8:7  

It's a Question of Credibility

Some of Trump's most ardent supporters and admirers among Evangelicals have taken some hard falls themselves.  It's become pretty clear that they placed no value in the Christian gospel beyond what their association with the church could get them in terms of money.  It was very discouraging and disappointing to thousands of Liberty University alumni and students when years of corruption, adultery and sexual immorality by Jerry Falwell Jr. and his wife were revealed.  Falwell invited Glenn Beck, a Republican apologist and a member of the Mormon Church which has zero doctrine and theology in common with Liberty University Baptists, to speak in front of the convocation, which is required attendance for all students, in 2014.  That was a clue that the faith preached by his father meant nothing to him, and politics meant everything.  

There's no argument for abandoning the practices and values that are identified with the gospel message of Jesus Christ for the sake of gaining political influence and power.  The Christian gospel turns into something completely different when it is imposed by power and influence.  Most often, as the examples of the history of Western Civilization have shown us, people use Christianity to gain power and then, when they get there, they abandon it altogether because they have no convictions.  And that's exactly what we are seeing in many conservative Christian churches in America right now.  Their influence is being used to gain power for people who are very worldly and corrupt.  And once they achieve their goal, they will throw everything they don't think they need anymore, including those Christians and churches they have used, under the bus.  

Too much damage has already been done to the credibility of Christianity, and specifically to conservative Evangelical Christianity, to be able to "return to normal," if there were an inclination to do that.  I think what we're seeing here is the exact result that Jude, and others who warned the early Christians about these kinds of intrusions.  They wind up having to start all over again.  

And that's really a tragedy that didn't have to happen.  

A Tribute to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

It is possible that the end of the current session of Congress might turn out to be Nancy Pelosi's last days as Speaker of the House. If Democrats wind up not holding the house, which, in spite of some good news over the past few days still looks like a possibility, then this last session prior to the holidays might be the last days of her service.  

There is no question in my mind that she is one of the best Speakers I've seen in my lifetime.  She has had to endure serving during a time when the other side has become increasingly hostile, ramping up hateful rhetoric, personal attacks that have nothing to do with politics, and behaving in a way that discredits their integrity.  Speaker Pelosi has always been gracious in her responses. maintaining a professional demeanor in the face of some ridiculous behavior.  She distinguished herself with her leadership during the Trump Insurrection, with her personnel choices for two impeachments and the January 6th investigation committee, and in the way she has handled the legislative agenda, party factions and all that goes with it.  She will go down in history as one of the best Speakers of the House ever to serve.  

Her response to the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise is quite a contrast from the hateful, coarse jesting of Andy Biggs, and other Republicans who want the mantle of leadership but aren't qualified because of their lack of civility. His despicable joke following the attack on her 82 year old husband is quite a contrast of character which she demonstrates, and he doesn't.  The way many Republicans have handled this event, and the lack of other Republicans calling them out for it is an indication of their moral bankruptcy.  

But part of Speaker Pelosi's legacy is the strength she has shown in the face of the spewing, vitriolic hatred that now characterizes her political opposition.  I think a lot of the anger we are seeing is the result of sheer resentment of a woman's success in politics, and the fact that she has beaten them so many times.  Win or lose control of the House at this moment, Nancy Pelosi was as much of a victor on Tuesday night as anyone who won an election. Only a few members of Congress ever have the distinction of getting over 80% of the votes of their constituents in 16 re-election campaigns.  

A Victory Lap

I provided a contribution to Rafael Warnock's runoff campaign today, in honor of Speaker Pelosi's service to the country.  Noting that the Speaker was overwhelmingly re-elected to her seat by the people of her district who clearly admire and trust her, I hope there are plenty of opportunities for her to take a victory lap before this session closes.  She has helped get some landmark legislation passed during her time, and it would be great if a bill having to do with women's rights could be named in her honor.  I would also suggest that a room in the Capitol, perhaps the speaker's office, could be named after her.  If a room can be named after Strom Thurmond, surely there's a place for doing that in honor of the first woman ever to serve as Speaker of the House. 

I hope the President is already figuring out how to honor the Speaker for her service and loyalty to country.  

I Think Senator-Elect Fetterman is on to Something Here

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Every County, Every Vote"  

For almost a decade, I lived in rural Butler County, Pennsylvania.  I know exactly how it feels to be a Democrat in a county where two thirds of the registered voters are Republican.  Enthusiasm for voting in local elections or state legislative races where the outcome is a foregone conclusion is hard to work up.  Candidates for statewide office on the Democratic party side never hold events in the county, to see them in person requires driving into Pittsburgh.  

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Trump held a rally at the airport just outside of the county seat of Butler.  It was apparently a memorable event, where hundreds of attenders were brought in by bus, and left waiting in the cold for hours, or having to walk back to where they'd parked in freezing weather.  I remember reading an article with several interviews in the local daily, and an older man told the reporter, "I voted for him (Trump) in 2016, but I'm not voting for him this time.  I thought things would change.  But for me, nothing really did."  

Democratic voter turnout, even in statewide elections, can be suppressed by the fact that no one is running on their side of the ballot in state legislative races, or even in some of the congressional elections.  In almost a decade, only two candidates for statewide office ever held an event in the county to rally support among Democratic voters.  Josh Shapiro did in 2016, running for Attorney General, and again this time around while running for Governor.  And John Fetterman did this year, running for the Senate.  

That's Exactly What I Would Expect From Fetterman

John Fetterman was the mayor of Braddock, a "suburb" just southeast of Pittsburgh, lying along the Monongahela River in an economically depressed, former manufacturing and industrial section of the metro area that has more than its share of blighted neighborhoods and run-down buildings.  Fetterman could have started his political career anywhere else besides a tiny, rarely noticed borough of fewer than 2,000 population.  But they're his kind of people, and as mayor, he put in tireless effort at revitalizing the former steel mill town that included setting up a not-for-profit company to revitalize buildings and houses, establishing youth programs and generally fighting malaise and apathy in a dying, decaying town.  

The town is still not much to look at, and still has abandoned buildings and blighted areas, but business has slowly started to invest there, the population has stabilized and there's no doubt that Fetterman's work as mayor made the community a better place to live among most of its residents.  That's what good public servants do.  That's also a big part of why he campaigned everywhere, working to motivate Democratic voters in areas where they're a minority, to vote.  

And they did. 

Democrats Should Take a Page From His Playbook

I know campaigns are tiring, visiting a dozen places a day, continuous speeches, and candidates want to make the most of their appearances.  The volume of voters live in the suburbs and the cities.  And it seems a lot more practical to spend time and money on places that can deliver a maximum number of votes.  But conceding the rural areas to the Republicans means losing a lot of potential votes that can make a real difference in places like Pennsylvania, where the balance between suburban, urban and rural voters can turn the results of an election.  

Fetterman's vote totals in places like Butler County are an improvement over Democratic performance there in either of the two most recent Presidential races, and almost equal to Senator Casey's performance in his 2018 landslide.  He got high percentages of the vote in Philadelphia, which is essential to any Democrat's chances of winning in the state, as well as in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, and the other urban areas in the state including Erie, Allentown and Harrisburg.  But his vote totals across the state, including rural counties, was better than Biden's 2020 performance in 56 of the 67 counties in the state.  In some cases, it was better by several percentage points.  It could very well be said that Fetterman won the election on the strength of the vote from Rural Pennsylvania.  

While most rural areas and small towns lie within television media markets, and are reached by television ads, it's hard to tell what a visit to a community might do for a candidate. Trump convinced a lot of voters who used to support Democrats that he cared about them, not by doing anything for them, just by holding a rally near their home and echoing their common complaints for an hour and a half speech.  Fetterman, whose political record includes actually doing things for people, helped demonstrate that this works and it's relatively inexpensive to pull off.  He did it in spite of his struggles after his stroke, and he won.  

Instead of "The Apprentice," It's Now "The Biggest Loser"

 It's still early, votes are still being counted and we don't have any idea at the moment of which party will control which house.  I'm prepared for the possibility that the GOP will eventually wind up with a house majority, though there are still races where unexpected vote totals are leaning toward Democrats and the forecasters keep adjusting their GOP numbers downward as early votes and mail-in ballots are counted.  

But there are some things that are really clear after last night.  And yes, my mood is such that these are worth pointing out and pondering.  And celebrating regardless of how everything eventually shakes out. 

This was a referendum on the sitting President.  And regardless of which party winds up controlling either house, the Biden Administration was affirmed by the outcome of this midterm.  Biden got a solid 45% job approval rating out of the exit polling, not great, but better than his predecessor's mid-term rating by 8 points and quite an improvement over the low numbers some polls indicated during the early part of this year.  Against some of the toughest political issues for Americans, inflation in particular and gasoline prices, and a non-stop barrage of fear mongering based on a crime rate that has actually been dropping, the results of this midterm election affirm the direction and progress made by the Biden administration. 

This was a referendum on election denying, conspiracy theories and insurrection.  The former President inserted himself onto the ballot of this midterm election and he lost, big time.  Endorsees that he appeared to help the most were the biggest losers, making me wonder if "The Biggest Loser" is now a Trump media production instead of "The Apprentice."  His election deniers lost to a group of savvy women in Michigan, in a wipe-out of Republican challengers who were involved in some of the more despicable attempts to overturn the election.  Pennsylvania, where it appears Democrats may control the state legislature for the first time in decades, was also a smack-down.  

Christian nationalism lost.  Fascism lost.  Racism lost.  And while it remains to be seen how long it takes some Republicans to realize what happened and separate themselves and the reputation of their party from extremists, it's clear that almost everything the MAGA movement stands for is a minority position, even among Republicans.  Now someone has to have the integrity and presence of mind to call this stuff out and send its supporters packing.  

Whether some Trumpies will see it as such, Dr. Mehmet Oz's concession of the Pennsylvania senate race is also a concession that there was no "massive voter fraud," and that there never has been any.  He knew he lost in a fair and free election.  Even Republicans are now acknowledging that if they don't get off the election fraud claim bandwagon, they are going to lose big in 2024.  

Trump lost again.  The hangover that the GOP has been experiencing since they first nominated him for President still goes on.  I can't help but think, looking at how the counts on many of these house races are continuing to frustrate Republicans, that if he had decided to announce his candidacy for President in 2024 before the midterm elections, stepping on candidates in his own party, we would now be counting how many seats Democrats gained in both houses.  

This midterm has made it quite clear that Trump doesn't have the kind of support he would need to get back to the White House.  If he decides to run, he will lose.  Regardless of where these midterms wind up, that much is crystal clear.  Trump is the biggest loser.

Maybe now we can get back to the give and take, compromise and negotiation way democracy is supposed to work.  I'm not holding my breath, but if the Republicans do take the path that they were shrieking about prior to this election, they will be setting themselves up for a huge defeat in 2024, and they don't have control of the state houses or secretary of state positions they would need to suppress the vote.  The evidence of what the voters would do to them is sitting right in front of them.  

If Republicans don't work with the Biden Administration on the big issues of the day, like inflation and crime, and back off their hardline stance on abortion, they will lose big in 2024.  They are going to have to work with President Biden and the Democrats to resolve the inflation problem, and to deal with the crime problem.  They're fortunate to have an experienced President in office who knows what he is doing.  They have offered no solutions.  But the problems now become theirs.  If they try to undo Biden's accomplishments, they lose.  If they don't resolve the inflation problem, they lose.  If they try to shove through their agenda of investigations and impeachments, they lose big time.  

The people have spoken and they didn't say what Republicans wanted them to say.  So if the GOP doesn't get off its shrill extremist agenda, including all of its planned investigations and impeachments, they will set themselves up for a huge 2024 loss.  The fact that, at this point, more than 24 hours after the polls closed, there's still no certainly about control of Congress, should change the tone and the agenda of both houses.  If it doesn't it's pretty clear the Republicans will pay heavily for that failure. 

The Supreme Court Lost.  Justice Samuel Alito and his five colleagues who decided to abandon their integrity, make their word worthless and render the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade are largely responsible for the huge Democratic voter turnout.  They lit this fire and in spite of pundits trying to damp it down and claim it was "fizzling out" it showed up at the polls in virtually every state, enough of a majority in many places to turn a potential "red wave" into a puddle, as I heard one journalist call it. 

Voters are demanding a non-partisan court that respects the rule of law, not one that does political favors for the President who appointed them.  This court is now a liability for the GOP that they can't control.  Their Dobbs decision did more for getting women to register and vote than anything else has done in the past 30 years.  Other extremist positions they may take will also motivate voters to elect Democrats, especially progressives who want to change the judiciary act, term-limiting justices and packing the court.

I have every confidence that the Biden Administration will adjust as necessary and for the good of the country, to continue to be an effective advocate for the people over the next two years.  It's obvious that this administration, working with the Democratic party across the country, got the messaging right.  The Republicans can do the same, make adjustments, realize that the polarization and political animosity was rejected by the voters last night, clean up the corruption in their party, drain the Trump swamp and move ahead.  They'll never get my vote, at least, not in any way that I can tell, but they do have this choice and I think this midterm is an indication that if this extremism doesn't go away, Republicans may never win another election.    

Comparing Republican Rally Crowds to Democratic Rally Crowds

 MSN: Half of Trump Rally Crowds, Which Aren't All That, Leave 30 Minutes or Less Into His Speech

And the proof is on Twitter, amazingly enough.  

While Trump, Dr. Oz and Doug Mastriano were clustered around the open door of his plane at an airport in Latrobe, where perhaps 1,500 had gathered, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Josh Shapiro and John Fetterman were speaking to a crowd estimated at around 13,000 in the Liacouras Center on the campus of Temple University in Philadelphia.  No one left that one early.  

Trump places great value on comparing the attendance at his rallies to Democrats, denying the fact that his gatherings have been shrinking considerably, because they're just too numerous and too long for the attention span of the crowd he draws.  Rarely when I see a note on social media from someone who has attended one show pictures of the crowd.  He blames the news media for deliberately not showing the crowd but they're instructed not to take pictures and are escorted out when they do.  

In Latrobe, Pennsylvania, in a heavily Republican county this past Saturday, at an airport, the organizers set up about 1,500 chairs, which didn't completely fill, though people did stand around in the spaces behind the seats.  But reporters who managed to capture pictures showed a lot of wide open space and not all that many people.  The press section was largely empty, because they've quit coming to be abused.  It seems that he thinks the size of a crowd is a measurement of the size of the vote, even though the largest venue in an area could only hold a fraction of the actual number of voters.  This one wasn't even close.  

And in response to his statement, "Can Joe Biden draw this kind of a crowd," well, yes, at just about every stop he makes. 

Failing to Speak Truth to Power, the Political Far Right is Now Making a Mockery of Conservative Christianity

Baptist News Global: Speaking Truth to Power Means Denouncing Lying Politicians and Their Preachers

The intrusion of secular, extremist, right wing politics into some of America's Christian churches has caused apostasy.  That's exactly right, many conservative churches are apostate, because they've allowed right wing politics to change the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and they've thrown Jesus under the bus.  They no longer preach and teach a gospel of redemption by grace through faith in Christ, they teach redemption by voting for the person they've declared to be right.  

The traveling band wagon called "Re-awaken America Tour" is making a mockery of conservative Christianity.  It appears intended to do so.  The involvement of both Eric Trump and Don Jr., who spend their time trying to convince Christians that all of this "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies" stuff preached by Jesus won't get you any worldly benefits, makes the whole think a big tragedy.  Tragic, because Christians actually show up for this clown show and believe the lies it is spreading.  

But this is really an epidemic that is doing great damage to the testimony of the churches and pastors who are involved in it.  There was a ten minute discussion on Scarborough Country on MSNBC this morning about how those Christians who are aligned with extremist right wing politics have lost their identity as Christians, the virtues spoken of in the scripture are no longer visible in their actions.  Joe Scarborough brings to the table a background of experience in the Baptist faith tradition as an Evangelical himself, from a religious perspective, anyway.  

Bringing up Lauren Boebert's remark that if Jesus had an AK-15, he wouldn't have been crucified as an extreme example of this slide into worldly oblivion--and that's not an exaggeration, by the way--says that people are noticing and that Christian churches and leaders are losing their testimony over politics.  Boebert is an extreme example, a woman who demonstrates sheer ignorance of both constitutional history in her failure to recognize that Jefferson and Madison wrote separation of church and state into the constitution deliberately, with clear rationale and reason, and failure to understand that, even if she were "joking," if Jesus hadn't been crucified, there would be no Christian faith because his sacrificial death is the foundational principle on which Christianity rests.  The only reason she gets votes is because of pathetic loyalty and profound ignorance among those who vote for her.  Christians who do so deserve double blame for the apostasy they have caused.

I never belonged to one of those "liberal woke" mainline Protestant churches before, but what I'm seeing now tells me a whole lot about what appears to be some major differences.  Differences which are distinguishing them as a much truer, complete, accurate representation of Christ's body than the Evangelical branch is showing.  Conservative Evangelicals make a huge deal out of testing the sincerity of others by requiring adherence to belief in the Bible's inerrancy and infallibility.  However, when it comes to practicing its principles or testifying to its truthfulness, their actions deny that they believe a word of it.  On the other hand, mainline Protestants don't require strict adherence to a doctrinal position on the scripture, but in this political hothouse, they elevate loyalty to Christ and glorifying God over who they support at the ballot box. 

As was noted on Scarborough Country this morning, Evangelical Christians can't seem to avoid a victim mentality.  They are always the victim, there's always someone out to get them, an enemy that must be fought to give them legitimacy.  Well, of course, there's their belief in the spiritual existence of evil, in the person of "Satan" who, in Christian tradition is a fallen angel, and to some, the personification of evil in the world.  But their use of his person in any modern context is relative to the moment.  The Bible's writers provide a consistent definition of evil, and in several places, they warn the early Christians about its intrusion into their churches.  And yet, in spite of their verbal adherence to "Biblical fidelity" they are blind to this intrusion of it that even the liberal, secular news media recognizes.

It's been very strange to see an institution in which I once had complete trust, become so unstable and untrustworthy.  I was always taught that a Christian didn't have to say that they were to be recognized as such, but now, politicians and church leaders who identify themselves as Christians can't be identified by their neighbors as abiding in God by their love (I John 4).  That's what happens when you abandon the gospel and throw Jesus under the bus to be loyal to a political perspective that only uses and never gives back. 

It IS Morally Wrong for Christians to Vote for Republicans

Baptist News Global: "Should 'Real' Christians Really Vote Republican?"

When Lying Becomes a Virtue

Using labels to identify one's Christian faith can be difficult these days.  Terms that were once exclusively associated with a specific doctrinal, theological perspective or broader denominational orientation now have political meanings.  I dropped the term "Evangelical" from my self-description, preferring to use just the term "Christian," though that also carries some political baggage as well.  I was raised in a denominational tradition which taught that its doctrine and practice of the faith made it "closer to God" than other traditions.  They didn't really teach that others weren't Christians, like some conservative Evangelical groups do, just that they were better Christians.  

It took a long time to throw that off.  Ironically, it was earning a master's degree at a graduate school affiliated with the denomination itself that helped me get past that exclusivity and develop an understanding that the Christian faith was intentionally inclusive and, narrowed down to its core beliefs, is really defined by just one salient point which is the confession of Jesus as the Christ.  There is a lot of other baggage attached to that, in multiple phrases that begin with, "You can't be a Christian if..."  How Christians vote has always been in the background, but now, it's a core doctrine of the faith.  It's not found anywhere in the Bible, but that has never been an obstacle for conservative Evangelicals who want to make a point.  They are masters at twisting Bible passages out of their context and original meaning.  

It should not be surprising that, among the multiple denominations and groupings, and thousands of independent, non-denominational churches of American Evangelicalism, there is a whole lot more bickering, fighting, finger point, and accusations of heresy and apostasy over everything from whether women can be pastors to what kind of clothing is appropriate to wear to church, to whether using recorded instrumental music to accompany singing in worship is "bringing the devil into the church."  But what is remarkable, against that backdrop, is the fact that if someone is a Republican, they will be accepted even if they belong to what Evangelicals consider a hell-bound "cult."  They will call the pope the "vicar of Satan" and the Catholic Church the "whore of Babylon" (I'm not exaggerating, there are many Evangelicals who do this) but will invite Catholic clergy into their church if they're an anti-abortion Republican.  And then, the next day, in a discussion about faith, they'll trash the pope and declare the church apostate. 

Priorities.  

My List Looks a Lot Like the One In BNG

I registered as a Democrat in 1976, voted for Jimmy Carter and have never looked back.  I was raised in a working class family, my Dad was a union man and his roots went back to Roosevelt.  Democrats are not perfect, make mistakes, get off track, have trouble with messaging and can fall into the trap of letting political ambition drive their actions.  But I've never felt that, when it came to things that were important to me, they didn't have my back and from a political perspective, Democratic politicians have always represented my interests.

Even though I am an adopted child, I've never really been sucked in by the idea that abortion should always be the bottom line in voting, and electing politicians who are in favor of abortion rights means supporting "baby killers."  No, it doesn't.  I absolutely does not mean that at all. In an accurate interpretation of Christian faith, every person is accountable before God for their own life, not someone else's.  We do not have the kind of insight and "immaculate vision" to see into other people's lives and judge their circumstances and their convictions.  It is within the means of our capability to resolve the problem and lower the numbers of abortions without sending women caught in untenable circumstances to prison and without interfering in the moral right every woman has to make that decision. There are men who should also be involved and accountable, you know.  

My morals and my Christian values do indeed determine my vote.  I won't vote for a pathological liar who has demonstrated absolutely no capacity whatsoever to recognize truth or do anything with it if he does.  He lives in a fantasy la-la-land.  And I won't vote for someone who has no ethical or moral compass, cheats in business, on his taxes and thinks people who handle their finances like responsible Americans are "losers" and "suckers."  Nor will I vote for anyone who supports him, or any of that ideology, which is anti-American, anti-democratic and anti-Patriotic.  

I will not vote for an election denier.  If they don't believe in free and fair elections, why are they running anyway? 

I will not vote for anyone who believes in conspiracy theories.  In particular, I will always vote against anyone who, in any way at all, references the lying, scam of Q-Anon as a source.  I think any human being who buys into that is morally and educationally bankrupt.  

I won't vote for anyone who doesn't see the need for comprehensive gun control legislation with enforcement teeth in it.  We've proven, over and over that this does not violate the right to bear arms and it can be done.  School shootings are especially heinous to me.  And Christians, especially Evangelicals, should be particularly sensitive to this, given that Biblical doctrine is strong and certain in its condemnation of violence and elevates peacemaking to divine status.  

I won't vote for any racist, anyone who espouses any kind of white supremacy theories, anyone who sees ethnicity and color as some kind of deficiency or disability. 

No anti-immigration politician will get my vote.  

No one who is against corporations and the wealthy paying their fair share, an equal percentage according to income, of taxes will get my vote.  

I vote against idolatry, and against radicalization, which has happened to a large part of the Republican party.  They follow a politician who has elevated himself to the place God should be, and demands exclusive loyalty.  It's not possible to give any loyalty to God in that political party, it can't be shared.  God, and Christian faith, are just tools to be used to make weak-minded people think that those values are at stake when they're clearly not.  

Christianity in a Democracy 

When the church's early Apostles, Peter and Paul, wrote to Christians about how to view government, it was the Roman Empire that set the context for their words.  And in spite of that, they still taught that it was a Christian virtue to follow the law as an example of faith.  In a democracy, where the will of the people is the driving force behind the law, and Christians have an opportunity to participate by voting is it really possible to be "morally wrong" when choosing candidates to elect to public office?  

Yes, I would say that it is, when those candidates advocate for government that would eliminate the rights of individual citizens.  We're instructed to live peaceably and under any government that is in authority over us, but with the privilege of choosing our own comes the privilege, and obligation, to protect the right that we have to worship freely and not have our churches directed by government authority, rather than by the movement of God's spirit.  

No candidate is perfect, and so applying some kind of moral standard to those running for office will always fall short.  Those are personal preferences, and we're all entitled to them without being judged for it.  But at the core of the conspiracy theories and the calls for Christian nationalism, and the authoritarian, anti-patriotic, constitution-hating Trump, is a moral issue that makes voting for anyone who supports those candidates morally wrong.