Debate is Over, I'm Getting Back to the Business of Supporting the Democratic Nominee to Get Four More Years

Joe Biden is 81 years old, and that makes him the oldest person to ever have occupied the White House as President of the United States.  

We know the stress that comes with that job, and can see it visibly in the way that all of the men who have occupied the position during this modern age when photography and video have become crystal clear means of communication have aged physically.  At most, it's an eight year job, but sometimes, realistically, it seems that Presidents age twice as quickly as a result of the time they've served as President.  

It is certainly legitimate to question the stamina and mental sharpness of an 81 year old man who is President of the United States.  Serving in that office has caused President Biden to age, just as it did all of his predecessors.  And already in his eighth decade, the stresses and strains of the responsibility may very well be beyond the mental and physical capacity of someone who is of that age.  

But all of that depends on the person occupying the office.  

As far as age goes, this is new territory.  So far, it has observably been President Biden's predecessor, and current opponent, who seems to have deteriorated mentally and physically more than Biden has, since he was first elected in 2016.  

But Biden's age has been a long running theme of the news media, even before he made his decision to run in 2020.  And because it is one of their long running themes, it gets far more attention than it merits.  There's no evidence, none, that has been seen up to this point that indicates this President is not capable of performing his daily duties as President of the United States.  But the media has brought it into this campaign and let it sit there and gather momentum, and they've kept at it because this generation of news commentators, directors and reporters, lack the kind of common, political sense that their predecessors had.  The news media in the United States is a take sides, biased, propaganda outlet, not a news media.  And that's why they haven't bothered to check their own facts when it comes to reporting on this Presidency.  

Examples of Biden's Age Affecting His Ability to Serve as President and his Conduct in Office

Here is where the crickets are chirping.  

The extremist news media, outlets like Fox News, Newsmax, and their ilk, make mountains out of molehills.  Oh, there are things that point to the fact that Biden is now in his 80's.  He walks with a stiff gait.  His hearing is somewhat affected, especially at times when there's a lot of noise around him.  He has, on occasion, exhibited some forgetfulness when it comes to protocol, though his Republican opponent never gets names or dates or even locations where he happens to be at the time correct, by comparison.  And if we're honestly comparing, Trump shows the same kind of blank stares, eye-blinks and slow responses that the far right wingers play over and over as evidence of Biden's age affecting his abilities.  He's needed assistance stepping off platforms and getting down stairs quite a lot recently.  

It's not been that long ago that this President took a ten hour train ride one way from Poland into Kyiv, took a stroll down the street, a good way, at least half a mile, with President Zelenskyy, walked back, got back on the train and rode for 10 hours out of Kyiv back to Poland.  I cannot be convinced that Trump would have ever attempted anything like that.  

And while there is not anything that the news media has been made aware of, or has been able to report to confirm their pre-concieved conclusion that Biden is too old, let's make sure there is some understanding of how the Presidency works under an experienced Democrat, as opposed to an inexperienced, egomaniac Republican.  There are plenty of competent people within the administration, appointed by the President, to do the work of the executive branch.  It's not like he has to do everything, which is one of the reasons why his predecessor failed at it so badly that 154 scholars from the Presidential Greatness Project, mentioned in the debate by President Biden, did indeed determine that Trump was the worst President in American history.  

Sorry, but I just had to make mention of that fact somewhere.  That same project rated Biden as the 14th most effective President in history, by the way.  

The business of running the executive branch of the United States government has not been affected by the fact that the current President is 81.  At least, the news media as a whole has not provided any evidence to back up their claim that "Biden is too old."  This has, from a legislative, political, foreign policy and economic perspective, been the single most accomplished and successful Presidency overall since Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy.  And if Biden had been "too old," that would certainly not have been the case.  

There are also plenty of provisions in place, from having a competent Vice-President, to procedures that can be initiated by the cabinet, to ensure the security of the nation should the President somehow become disabled, regardless of the reason.  And even if the possibility exists, and the risk of a disabling medical or mental crisis does occur, please tell me this?  Does that risk justify supporting the other guy?  Because the outcome of that would be far worse than anything that could happen if the back-ups must be called on to step in during a second Biden term.  So think about that when casting a ballot.  

So What About Biden's Debate Performance

What about it?  

Biden did not use the debate to deliver a stump speech from the campaign trail with the same old talking points from rallies and speeches for the purpose of pumping up the crowd.  He made an effort to actually answer the questions, and for well over 90% of the time, he responded to what was asked, and he didn't lie.  It was quite difficult to respond to Trump's remarks, because Trump never actually answered the questions being asked by the moderators.  So when it was the President's turn to respond, after a Trump statement, he did appear to be a bit confused and had difficulty responding to the off-topic lie told by Trump.  And that's a credible accusation, because the fact checkers concluded that Trump lied 90% of the time, and none of his responses that were truthful, or partially truthful, actually answered a question directly.  

I'd be a little confused as to how to respond to that, too.  

And I'll be honest, it was not a good debate performance.  It wasn't the worst debate performance in all of Presidential debate history, such as the far right media is reporting, but a lot of the importance placed on this debate, which opens the door for them to make that claim, came from the Democrats and the emphasis they placed on it.  Trump's debates against Biden in 2020 will go down in history as the worst debate performances in Presidential debate history, but on that side of the campaign, it didn't matter, because his base doesn't care about a fair debate anyway, and they don't care how he comes off, the worse he is, the better it is for them.  

This is Exactly What the Trump Campaign Needed

Biden has been picking up support for more than a month, after a period of time when polling data appeared to have him trailing in most of the "battleground states" and in nationwide polls.  I have serious doubts about the accuracy of polls operated by news media outlets that set out to use polls to prove their assumptions, as well as how much interference in the collection of data there has been from Russian sources, which is evident, and even about the accuracy of how the data has been gathered, as several polling sources have admitted they've been oversampling Republican voters.  But that data has shifted since Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts and a sentencing event is coming quickly.  

And while the responsibility for Biden's debate performance rests solely on him, he was the one up there doing the talking, and it wasn't good, the reaction of Democrats to his performance has been inexcusable and extremely dangerous.  It has given the right wing propaganda sources the words they need without using their own.  The instant jump to the conclusion that Biden needs to be replaced is exactly straight out of the Trump campaign playbook.  They couldn't have done better if they'd written the script for this whole scenario.  The demands for Biden to step down, the criticism of his debate performance, that Fox News is reporting isn't coming from Republican sources.  It's coming from Democrats.  

I give Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Gavin Newsome, and several other Democratic Senators and Congressmen who commented publicly on this credit for not playing directly into the hands of Republicans and Trump supporting media outlets.  Had all Democrats kept their panic to themselves, and had they let people with the knowledge and prior experience handle this, the Republican media would still have pointed fingers, made accusations and claimed this was a disaster and Democrats were in disarray.  But that would have looked like their own bias.  They're getting their quotes and talking points from Democrats who, in defeatist fashion, are jumping forward way too soon. 

And if this does become one of those turning point moments that costs Biden re-election, it will be his own Democratic party, and the media that prides itself on being fair and balanced with a progressive tone, that will be to blame.  Fortunately, the people in the Democratic party whose opinion weights heavily and counts the most are putting this all in perspective and trying to drown out the defeatists.   

So Let's Put This in Perspective

This is all based on the false narrative that the media has been pushing since before the start of the 2020 campaign, that Biden's age is disqualifying.  That notion has been debunked, and it has become clear, in the days since the debate, that is still not the case, and the debate performance is not evidence of that.  

Be realistic.  Trump's debate performance did not add a single independent, undecided Republican moderate, or frightened Democrat to his vote total.  The Biden campaign's job of convincing them to get on board is now made more difficult than it was, perhaps.  But then, perhaps not.  

One of the news outlets had assembled a focus group of voters, most of whom had been Trump voters in 2020, in battleground state Arizona, in Maricopa County.  Trump got no support from them.  Biden didn't convince any of them to vote for him, but the possibility that they would cast a ballot for him rather than Trump left the door open to further possible convincing.  

The debate temporarily shifted the focus from Trump's felony convictions and looming sentencing.  For what its worth,  it was horrible timing because it gave him a chance to spout his campaign talking points to an audience on national television before his sentencing, and it took the focus off his legal troubles.  It almost looks like CNN planned it to do just that, change the content of the news cycle and what people are talking about.  The emphasis in news media reporting will shift back to those convictions and the approaching sentencing.  

The news media in this country, 90% of it, is owned by and controlled by corporate interests who could care less about democracy, individual rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans.  What they care about, as we have all seen openly, is money.  Those who did pay attention to the orange headed buffoon during the debate learned pretty quickly that he measures his values in the cost to maintain them.  He's willing to sell our NATO allies out on the claim that they're not paying their dues, even though they are, and all of his alleged patriotism centers on money.  If they're not carrying their weight, he said clearly, then let Putin have them.  He's on the record with that comment, even though the fact that the NATO allies do pay their dues, and that's not a question.  

So that's what we are up against.  The only real damage done by all of the caterwauling and panic on the Democratic side was to Democrats themselves.  It seems like our party just can't resist shooting itself in the foot at the most inopportune time.  

As for me, I will continue to send in my financial support, and I will continue to drive the half-hour north to Wisconsin to help Democratic precincts have enough volunteers to walk streets and get out voters.  I'm voting for Biden, I know how our government works, I know that his age hasn't been a factor prior to now, and won't be in his job performance, and I know that there's a system in place if there is an incident or an occurrence, and good, competent people will step in and take us forward.  Biden isn't going to step down and there isn't any way to change candidates at this point that would lead to a November win.  That's a fact that we all need to accept, and go back to work to make sure that we take advantage of the gaffes and mishaps that the GOP is bound to commit between now and November.

Let's Get a Grip, Democrats, Put it in Perspective, and Move Forward

In any real world scenario, a presidential candidate who lies his way through a Presidential debate would be writing his own political obituary.  The only reason there's even a problem is because we are making it out to be a problem.  Biden had a bad night.  So did Trump, in all but one of the other debates in which he's participated in.  And June 27, 2024 was a bad night for him, too.  

June 27th's performance by Trump wasn't impressive.  What was visible, whenever Biden was speaking, was the ugly scowl on Trump's bloated face, that was more frustrated and angry as the night wore on.  Trump could not give a straight answer to a single question, could not marshall a single fact, not only about Biden's Presidency, but about his own, and could not handle criticism.  He cannot debate.  He has monologues that he spouts over and over and over, he has a small vocabulary and has few adjectives that he uses when he is critical.  

Trump demonstrated such absolute contempt, not only for the American people, but especially for his own political base, delivering the kind of off the top of his head lying that almost every single one of us would have been punished for telling when we were children.  That's not winning a debate.  And while we do seem to have more than our fair share of ignorant, stupid, uneducated and easily duped people who allow him to play on their own selfishness and throw their patriotic love of country under the bus, we also have a lot of people who have enough common sense to realize what is going on and show a little bit of intelligence, sensibility, reason and patriotic pride.  

People saw that.  In most of the focus groups, and in the post-debate analysis where voters were brought in to provide commentary, it was pretty clear that Trump didn't move the needle in his direction at all.  I didn't hear anyone say, "Yeah, Biden was quiet and seemed a little out of it so I'm going to cross over and vote for Trump, because I think a pathological liar would be a better choice."  

But for some reason, among Democrats, a party whose political campaigns are known for their heavy weighing on issues and logical conclusions to the kind of folly Trump puts out, but who are also known for not being able to grasp a clear, concise, well-communicated narrative, there is frustration and panic at every corner when things do not go as planned.  Maybe that comes from the pressure of holding together such a diverse coalition of voters, and always being afraid we're going to lose this group or that group over this issue or that issue.  

As much as it pains me to say this here, it needs to be said and the comparison needs to be made.  What if the situation were reversed, and a Republican candidate for President had just emerged from a less-than-expected debate performance that left the campaign and party leadership stunned?  Would we hear almost immediate commentary about how to get the candidate, especially an incumbent, to step down?  Would we even see, anywhere in public, the hand-wringing, wailing, caterwauling and calls for this to happen?  What would the Republicans be doing now if this had been the case?  And that's a relevant question, because their leadership was quite concerned that Trump's inability to follow a debate format would lead to the kind of display that actually occurred last night.  They're breathing a collective sigh of relief that the attention Democrats are focusing on Biden is preventing their panic from being nearly as visible, and for allowing them a repreive.  

Because the Republicans and their presumptive nominee are headed for a bigger crisis than the Democrats now have over Biden's debate performance.  Their candidate is going to be sentenced for 34 felony convictions in just a couple of short weeks.  Now tell me, what would you rather have on the table?  

And how are they handling it?  Well, let me use an analogy from the old western movies and television programs I used to watch by the hour, during summer break.  They are like the settlers, lumbering westward in wagon trains, when they see the Indians forming for an attack on the ridge.  They circle the wagons.  They form a defensive perimiter, take up positions inside the perimiter and make the Indians attack across the open country.  They give up nothing.  The rhetoric doesn't resemble anything close to the wailing, hand wringing, caterwauling of Democrats who are still, after almost eight years of observing Donald Trump and MAGA politics, playing the same old politics as usual game.  

Trump handed the Biden campaign and the Democrats running for Congress a complete agenda to pick apart during the debate.  For their part, every position they've taken is a winner.  Trump provided no answers to a single challenging question.  Did anyone get that?  He even wavered when admitting they  are losing in the states on pro-choice rights when he brought up Ohio and Kansas.  Basing his debate performance almost completely on false information, on lies if we call it like it is, was a complete and total admission that he has absolutely nothing to offer the American people.  

And frankly, while I hate to say this as well, if Democrats don't get it together and take advantage of the gifts that are being given to us, pull the party together, "circle the wagons," and defend the perimiter, then we deserve to lose.  

I'm not likely to be around more than another decade.  I'm almost 70 and not in great health, and the next President is probably the last one I'll know in my lifetime.  But I've spent my life in education, teaching and administration, working with our nation's youth, trying to instill a sense of political awareness and responsibility in them.  I feel sorry for the younger generations who may, under a Trump Presidency, have to endure what no generation of Americans has had to endure since 1860.   

There's a difference between constructive criticism and defeatism.  And I'm appalled to hear, coming from Democrats who have within their ranks some of the brightest and best journalists, politicians, and some of the best educated, reasonable, progressive thinking members of Congress and of state legislatures, what I sense as defeatism, in the face of an election against such an evil, anti-American personage as Donald J. Trump.  We have the collective ability to convince every American who is not already convinced that his getting back into political power would be one of the worst things that could happen to the United States of America.  

This debate must be our turning point, our wake-up call, whatever analogy we want to use to identify it, but it must be the moment that we come together as a party, set aside all of the petty bickering, fussing, hand-wringing and typical, traditional, old-fashioned politics, and unite to decisively defeat the common enemy of the American constitutional democracy, Donald J. Trump.  

We have truth on our side.

Fact Checking the June 27th Presidential Debate: Conclusion? Trump is a Liar, and Biden Knows What He's Doing

 PolitiFact Fact Check of the June 27th Presidential Debate

Sensational headlines, like Biden had an epic fail and Democrats are in a panic, can give way to the facts about the June 27th debate.  If I were Democrats, I wouldn't really panic.  Trump didn't win any new voters last night.  He's had a large group of Republicans, more than 25%, who have consistently voted against him in the primaries, something they didn't have to make an effort to do if they didn't care whether he was their nominee or not.  That defies the polling data that says this is close.  

Biden didn't pick up any support last night, either.  But he told the truth.  Well, take a look at PolitiFacts fact checker, which is something that I wish had been running across the bottom of the debate screen last night.  Yes, Biden is old, past eighty and has always had a stutter, speaking without notes and with a stutter.  But he was pretty clear.  In the long run, will this debate have an effect on how people vote on November 5th?  Considering past debate history, not really.  Sometimes they do, as in the case of JFK and Richard Nixon in the first televised debate, sometimes they don't, as in the case of the first Obama-Romney debate, or any of the Trump-Biden debates in 2020, or the Clinton-Trump debates in 2016.  

What Democrats should be doing now, instead of panic, is planning.  

The fact check is heartwarming and comforting, by the way.  No one is perfect, but through the more than hour-long debate, Biden got his facts straight 90% of the time, and Trump may have accidentally told the truth once or twice.  Overall, if you evaluate the debate on that basis, Biden won a slam dunk.  

What Bothers Me Most

I won't argue with those who express concern over the President's debate performance.  He was trying to remember all of the stuff that he'd been studying and trying to arrange in his mind, a lot of information and some of it, in typical political style, designed to sound and be presented like a campaign.  He tried to get in too much content in too short a period of time.  And he didn't look like he felt well.  He had a pre-set agenda and that led to his not confronting Trump's incessant lies with the facts.  He is old, he has a speech impediment, has never been a great public speaker and that combined to create a bad debate performance.  He didn't help himself.  

Trump incessantly and deliberately lied, lost track of his theme, and kept coming back to blaming all of America's problems, mostly exaggerated in his mind, on immigrants coming across the border.  His exaggerations are literally unbelievable, his ego-driven delivery makes everything about him, and not about the country, his ignorance of the Constitution and of American History is appalling for an adult American with a sixth grade education and his contempt for his MAGA base is astounding.  He thinks that if he speaks, they believe, cheer and on we go.  

And he's right about that.  

He was appealing to his far right base last night, not to new voters, independents, young people, clearly not to black or Latino voters, and not to anyone still undecided.  And what bothers me most about that is that even thought this is clearly a minority, there are far too many Americans who are caught up in that selfish, racist, misogynist, arrogant ignorance, and they are an obstacle to progress.  

This is an epic fail of the world's greatest Democracy.  We have not provided our people with an educational system that is successful in undergirding the democracy with core values, an appreciation, understanding and knowledge of its history from which its core values are derived, and which helps preserve and sustain it by providing an educated, informed electorate that loves the freedom it provides.  Trump's supporters have fallen for his hatred of freedom, and his worldview wrapped around selfish ambition, which places the aquisition of money at the top of the list and love of neighbors and people at the very bottom.  People who are not like him are simply stepping stones to his own personal prosperity, a philosophy he has obviously lived by for his entire life.  That's what appeals to his brainless followers.  

When these people are interviewed on camera, they are an embarassment to this country and what it stands for.  They literally don't know.  It's all about them and their freedom at the expense of everyone else's freedom.  And until we fix our educational system, we're going to have to deal with this subversive element of society and culture.  

Rant over.

Christians Supporting Trump Endorse His Immoral Worldliness, and His Lies, and Deny Their Own Faith

Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once and for all handed on to the Saints.  Jude 1, NRSV

It is impossible to contend for the Christian faith and at the same time, support a politician who is running for office in a constitutional democracy, where people have the privilege of electing their own leadership, whose political platform and personal character defy that same faith, in virtually every way.  By following the doctrine, interpretation, and application of the Biblical text that is distinctive to conservative, Evangelical Christians in this country today, I can draw the conclusion that it is inconsistent, and therefore "sinful" by their own definition, to give their political support to a candidate like Donald Trump. 

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 debauchery and deny our only Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.  Jude 4, NRSV

Though the Apostle Jude, who was very likely the son of Joseph and Mary, and thus one of Jesus' own brothers, was not giving some future prophecy of the appearance of a politician in the United States when he wrote these words, he was prophetically warning what was then an infant church, residing in a world surrounded by pagan religion and secular philosophy, about protecting their integrity, and the message of the gospel of Christ, from being perverted and distorted, allowing the church to be used for purposes outside of the mission and purpose given to it by Jesus, its founder.  The church has been the victim of multiple attempts, over the course of its history, of intruders who were not interested in the message of the Christian gospel, but who were very much interested in hijacking the institution and using it for their own political purposes.  Emperor Constantine is one of the better, earlier examples, among hundreds since, which illustrate how the church has been corrupted and co-opted by secular politics.  

Trumpism, and white, Christian Nationalism, are just more recent, modern intrusions that set aside the core principles of the Christian gospel, things that were taught directly by Jesus himself, if one holds to the belief that the gospel narratives of the New Testament are accurate transmissions of his preaching and teaching, and the example he set during his public ministry.  In following, and giving political loyalty to Trump, Christians set aside a whole long list of their own values, such as integrity, honesty, and truthfulness, sexual purity and marital fidelity, humility, peace, and what Jesus himself said was the second greatest commandment, equal to the first according to him, loving one's neighbor--an inclusive term meaning all other human beings according to his definition of it--along with loving and praying for one's enemies.  Jesus also said that those who were peacemakers were worthy of being known as the "sons of God," quite an honor that points to just how important that is to genuine Christian faith.  

Of course, no one is perfect.  And that's one of the more prevalent excuses conservative Evangelical Trump supporters trot out when this is pointed out to them.  That is true enough.  But one of the early Christian apostles, in an epistle he wrote to some specific churches, points out that the gospel of Jesus Christ centers on a conversion experience that starts with conviction of one's sinful nature, confession of that sin leading to repentance, and acceptance of Christ's sacrificial death as the sacrifice for sin in order to receive redemption.  Trump has, on multiple occasions, when asked to articulate a public confession similar to this one, which is a core part of Evangelical doctrine on which they do not budge or compromise, refused to do so, proclaiming that he has done nothing for which he must ask God's forgiveness, and then declaring that what he believes about God is private, and not open for discussion. 

"By this you know the Spirit of God," says the Apostle John, in his first churchc epistle, "every spirit that confesses Jesus has come in the flesh is from God."  [I John 4:2, NRSV]

In Evangelical doctrine and theology, this is a confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the promised one referenced by prophets in the Old Testament as the son of God, the one who would become the sacrifice for humanity's sinful nature.  So the failure to acknowledge the need for this forgiveness is a failure to acknowledge that Jesus has come in the flesh.  

"And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God," says John.  "And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you heard that it is coming, and now is already in the world."  [I John 4:3, NRSV]

So, in a conservative, Evangelical, interpretation, which would be more literal in its application, someone who refuses to acknowledge their own sinful nature before God, as a result of spiritual conviction, is antichrist.  Not The Antichrist, as in what those Evangelicals who hold a futurist interpretation of New Testament eschatology believe is some coming, evil, world ruler, but "antichrist" in that they have rejected Jesus and the gospel he preached.  

Now I'm not judging anyone's faith.  I'm simply pointing out words that have been spoken, on more than one occasion, by a politician who has confessed, to multiple Evangelical Christian "leaders," that he has done nothing requiring God's forgiveness.  Readers are free to draw their own conclusions, based on the Evangelical doctrine and theology that has been pointed out, exactly what that means.  And they are also free to decide if that is a position that they themselves, who claim to be Christian by this very confession itself, want to endorse and support in a politician whom they have the liberty to help elect.  

The excuses that are being used don't work.  "I'm not voting for a pastor-in-chief, I'm voting for a commander-in-chief," is an attempt to separate the political from the spiritual.  Unfortunately, this is not possible with Trump and the Republican party, nor with those Evangelical Christians who have made Trumpism and Republicanism part of their doctrine and theology.  They do not separate their faith from their politics, their position is based specifically on the union of their faith and politics.  So that particular phrase is deceptive and duplicitous, and unworthy of a sincere Christian who desires to reflect the values and live by the vitrues of true Christianity.  

Nor does the comparison to King David that some Evangelical leaders have used to justify their support for Trump.  If one accepts the historical accuracy of the Biblical text regarding King David, and the manner in which he was used by God, it is clear that he was morally flawed and imperfect.  He committed adultery, and then a murder to cover it up.  But here's the big difference between King David and Donald Trump in this regard.  King David was held accountable by God for his sin, confessed it, along with a whole lot of other sinful behavior in his life, demonstrated true repentance and was forgiven.  

But King David was not excused by God from the consequences of his sin.  He lost the loyalty of a good portion of his kingdom and his army, and had to work hard to gain back the confidence he lost.  Two of his sons were killed as a result of his poor decisions and as a consequence of his sinfulness, and his family life was a mess because of the lack of respect and confidence in his leadership that his behavior caused.  The spiritual leadership of the kingdom, which included the construction and consecration of the Temple in Jerusalem, was left to his son, Solomon, a pointed move attributed to God as a result of all of the character issues surrounding the rule of King David.  

Does a Candidate's Character Count When Christians Cast Ballots in a Constitutional Democracy?  Well-known, Well-respected Evangelical Pastor Dr. Adrian Rogers Says, Emphatically, "Yes, it does!" 

This is not the first time in American history, not even in modern American history, that the morality of a politician was considered as a factor in their candidacy for public office, more specifically the Presidency.  That's a long, old story.  But for Evangelical Christians, Trump isn't the first candidate whose lack of morality and integrity have raised questions about whether or not it is consistent with sincere Christian faith to vote for such a person.  

In fact, some of the very same Evangelical leaders who are more than happy to side-step the immorality and lack of integrity of Trump, and come up with every excuse in the world to bypass their own interpretation and application of scripture they consider to be inerrant and infallible, were some of the most caustic, vitriolic, hateful critics of President Bill Clinton, not only when his behavior with Monica Lewinsky was revealed, but also of alleged affairs he had prior to running for office.  Many of them declared him morally ineligible and unqualified for the United States Presidency, and worked hard to convince other Christians, specifically Evangelicals, not to support President Clinton with their votes.  

On February 8, 1998, Dr. Adrian Rogers, then senior pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, and a leading Evangelical pastor with a large television audience, preached a sermon entitled "Does Character Count?"  While he did not make any reference to President Clinton, and avoided specifics that would lead to the conclusion that he was preaching politics, both the timing and the content of the sermon made it clear that Dr. Rogers was telling fellow conservative Evangelicals that voting for politicians whose personal morality fell short of a higher level of expectation for the office to which they aspired was sinful.  

Dr. Rogers text came from the book of Romans, chapter 1.  Though he never mentions President Clinton by name, he makes strong allusion to the fact that the exhibition of "ungodliness" in leaders leads to widespread injustice, and that ungodliness, in the practice of immorality, comes from spiritual darkness where those who practice it "exchange the truth of God for a lie," interpreted as a veiled reference to the fact that President Clinton was an active member of a conservative, Evangelical church.  There is little room for doubt that many Evangelical leaders, and many Republican politicians, picked up on this theme and used it in their condemnation of President Clinton.  

It would be interesting to see how Dr. Rogers would deal with Donald Trump, whose total lack of integrity, who gives a whole new meaning to the term "pathological liar," whose multiple affairs with women, most of whom Trump identified, and bragged about bedding, who divorced and married "the other woman" twice, and who was recently convicted of 34 felony accounts of fraud due to an affair he had with a porn star during his third wife's pregnancy and the birth of his youngest son, who was, by any stretch of the imagination, far more immoral and dishonest than President Clinton.  I'd also like to see how he would have handled President Clinton's public repentance and confession, something he felt obligated to do because of what had happened while he was in the White House, compared to Trump's declarations that he sees no need to ask for forgiveness.  

"We Are Duplicitous, Don't Trust Us!" 

There's the message from conservative, Evangelical, Republicans to the voters of the United States.  "We are duplicitous, don't trust us!"  

"We believe our Christian faith, and our trust in the gospel of Jesus is powerless to achieve anything in this world," they are saying.  "Political power is where it's at, and how we get our agenda achieved.  To hell with our neighbors and to hell with our enemies." 

Christian history is more than 2,000 years of churches finding out that they cannot survive and keep their true mission, purpose and identity as the body of Christ intact when they are loyal to and dependent on politics.  What remains of European institutional Christianity, in the heartlands of countries where the link between church and state caused some of the bloodiest and most brutal warfare experienced on this planet, is the empty shell of a dead church which depends on ritual, tradition and in most cases, income mandated by tax dollars, that has no spiritual life or political power.  And conservative, Evangelical Christianity, placed in the same kind of context by its own political engagement and alliances with corrupt politicians, is headed for the same fate.  That destiny can already be observed.  

This election is coming down to a single issue, and that is which party, and which Presidential candidate, is going to be committed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the constitutional democratic republic that it establishes and sustains.  Trump, who led an insurrection against the Capitol, aimed at overturning a legitimate, provably accurate election, has already taken the first step to destroy the Constitution and the democracy "of, by and for the people" that it establishes.  And that kind of insurrection is forbidden by New Testament instruction of the early apostles, both Paul and Peter.  [Romans 13:1-7, I Peter 2:13-17]  

Since The Signal Press has been in existence, we have challenged those who want to disagree with anything we write to post a comment, with credible evidence from a recognized, politically neutral source, to do so.  Only a few have taken up that challenge, and so far, none have been able to provide the evidence to support their contention.  We do have evidence to support ours, and specific sources are usually directly referenced.  

Prove us wrong.  Otherwise, vote for President Biden to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  

Who's Treading on Whom?

The association of the Gadsden Flag with Trump MAGA politics has to be one of the most blatant displays of historical ignorance, and political deception ever experienced in American politics.  We have more than our fair share of historical failure and political backwardness in this country.  But support for Trump seems to have brought out the absolute worst collective ignorance that exists across the country, and put it on display.  

The Gadsden flag has a yellow background with a black illustration that depicts a rattlesnake with thirteen rattles, coiled and ready to strike.  Underneath are the words, "DON'T TREAD ON ME."  Some of the more modern versions include the apostraphe in "don't," while it is missing in older versions.  The rattlesnake is a representation of the unity of the thirteen colonies at the outset of the American Revolution.  It is used in other symbolic American political statements in similar fashion, such as in Benjamin Franklin's "Join or Die" woodcut in 1754.  

Symbolically, the rattlesnake represents the colonists, and the fact that it is coiled and ready to strike indicates the development of a willingness to defend the individualism and liberty that had developed over time during the settlement of the colonies.  As the British monarchy acted to protect its financial and political interests over the resources and people in the colonies, and began to limit individual freedom by subjugating colonists, many of them determined they were going to fight to defend what they had earned by their own hard work.

MAGA Use of the Gadsden Flag is a Gross Distortion of its Symbolism  

The appropriation of this symbol by Trump's Maga supporters, and their attempt at identifying with the cause that it represents is a gross distortion of its symbolism and meaning by those who are themselves engaged in politics aimed at repressing the individualism and freedom of people who don't look like they do.  This is an ignorant and hateful mob aimed at subjugating entire segments of the American population in order to create an oligarchy of the rich, benefitting only those with the power of personal wealth at the expense of all other Americans.  They are following a racist bigot whose aim is to stuff his pockets with our money.  And he's sure put that scam on his Maga base.  

Here's the question that begs an answer.  I want to know the answer to this question, supported by factual evidence, not lies off the top of that orange head. 

"What individual rights or freedoms of yours have been trampled?"   I dare you to name one, and then support your contention with factual evidence.  

Because here's how I see it.  

White Americans, especially white, Christian males, are the single most privileged group in the United States, especially if they are wealthy.  In addition to the bigotry, racism and misogyny that exists, which already elevates them over every other ethnic, racial and cultural minority group in this country, they have enough wealth to buy the kind of justice that is denied to women, and to every other racial, ethnic, social and cultural minority group in this country.  

In the legal and justice system, they universally receive the benefit of the doubt, and that factual evidence that I was just talking about overwhelmingly proves the point I'm making here.  The whole attitude of this racist bigotry is characterized by Trump's now infamous remark about shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, and no one doing anything about it.  

The man has committed a cataract of crimes throughout his life, and he's whining and moaning about being convicted on 34 felony counts, which required the full resources of a state attorney general's office to pull off.  Where is there a working class, black, Latino, Asian or even Caucasian male who would have been able to put off a trial for as long as Trump did?  And if one of them had mouthed off and threatened the judge or his family, and violated a gag order, how long would it have been before they were grabbed by police and kept in the darkest corner of a jail?  

Who, among the people of the United States, can afford the kind of lawyers it takes to get the federal judicial system to delay justice if they had incited a riot that led to the trashing of the US Capitol, the deaths of five police officers, and an attempted coup against the government?  As we have seen, by the evidence, most of those who committed crimes as a result of their participation in that insurrection have already been charged, tried, adjudicated and imprisoned.   The perpetrator and organizer of it, however, is a rich, white male who has paid millions to lawyers to prevent his being brought to justice. He's not only not paying for that crime, four years later, he's campaigning to be the President of the country whose Capitol building he trashed, and whose government he attacked.  That's so wrong, in so many ways. 

So who's liberties and individual expression is being trampled?  

And let's be honest here.  Trump is not the only wealthy, white, male bigot who gets away with multiple felonies.  Any wealthy, white, male bigot with a financial portfolio has individual liberties that trump, and I use that term deliberately, those of the rest of us Americans who work for a living, live from paycheck to paycheck, pay our taxes and take our vacations in the back yard.  

It's Trump Who is Doing The Treading--On YOU!

And I'm going to be brutally honest here.  Anyone in this country who does work for a living, lives paycheck to paycheck, becomes dependent on social security and medicare as their only retirement benefits, struggles to pay bills, and respects the rule of law is ignorant and foolish if they are voting for Donald Trump in the coming election.  Those who still support him and who aren't rich, white, men, need to take a close and careful look at his agenda, and at what he tells his diminished rally crowds he's going to do, to find out just how heavy those treading boots are going to be if he manages to eke out a win in November.  

Start with the agenda of Project 2025.  Those who are not white, not conservative, Evangelical Fundamentalists, and not relatively well off will be the first individuals in this country to lose their liberty.  This is the key issue of this election, people!  I subtly and strongly suggest that those who are fooling around the edges with things like "Biden is too old," and the Gaza war, and inflation (which is the sign of a prosperous economy) better take a hard look at this.  I also not so subtly suggest that they remove their head from their rear end, shake themselves really hard, slap themselved across the face a couple of times, kick themselves in the back side if that's possible, and make a commitment to either send in a mail-in ballot, or show up at the polls in November and cast a straight ticket Democrat ballot.  

Every American who goes to the polls and votes in this election is refuting the claim that the election was stolen.  If they really believed that, and it was a sincere conviction, they would not show up to cast their ballot, because that would make them a liar and a hypocrite.  Those who believe, sincerely, that elections in this country can be stolen, should act on those convictions and refrain from participating in the process.  Every single one of us who believes that elections in this nation are the most secure and honest in the world needs to make sure we cast our ballot in November.  That is the surest way to make sure that someone "DOESN'T TREAD ON ME!"

There's No Convincing Evidence Indicating Black Men Are Shifting Their Support to Trump

Over the past half of 2024, I've seen a lot of political news that I think can hit the trash can, or as we do it these days, the delete button.  There are a lot of catch phrases and buzz words being used, accompanied by adjectives indicating a lack of certainty of the author that makes me wonder why they wrote what they did in the first place.  For example, Newt Gingrich, who I wouldn't trust even if angels wings appeared on his shoulders, thinks he's seeing some "indications" in some polling data which "might" be interpreted as a coming Trump landslide.  

Of course he is.  He saw the same thing for Bob Dole, running against Bill Clinton in 1996.  And we know how that worked out.  But what I don't understand is, why bother reporting that?  Gingrich has been bonkers for a long time, and while it might be comforting to some far right wingers or extremists, he doesn't have the credibility that makes a statement like that worth reporting.  

There are some sources who seem to want to insist that they are seeing a "trending" movement of younger, black men toward support for Trump.  Polls "seem" to be indicating this movement.  Trump, of course, has announced that he knows it's happening as a result of his recent indictment and now convictions, because this has given him some kind of solidarity with black men.  So, insinuating in a manner that couldn't be more disrespectful or insulting toward black men, he claims that their affinity for him is out of sympathy for the fact that they share the experience of being unjustly accused.  So, unjustly accused black men are lining up to vote for him.  

Except, they're not.  

Black Men Are a More Reliable Source on Black Men Than "Polls"

Richard Chew is a morning talk show host on Chicago's progressive radio station, WCPT.  He also happens to be a black man, though his comments and his show doesn't focus exclusively on black political issues.  His focus, ever since he replaced the nebulous, narrowly focused Santita Jackson, has been convincing his listeners that voting for President Biden is the only way to preserve and protect American democracy as we know it.  

And it doesn't seem that he senses, or believes, the reports that black men are increasingly planning to support Trump.  In fact, his conclusions seem to be more directed the other way, that what little support Trump may have had among black people last time around is evaporating, that they can see where things are headed and are going to turn out in larger numbers to vote for Biden than they may have done last time around.  And while it would be hard to determine the full scope of his listeners, based on calls he gets, there's no indication from them of any support at all for Trump.  None. 

Richard is, of course a local guy.  He, along with our mayor, Brandon Johnson, who is also black, though I shouldn't have to point this out, don't seem to think the polls reflecting this specific trend is accurate. 

The Rev. Al Sharpton, on the other hand, has a national audience.  He's not really convinced of this, either.  On his MSNBC program, Politics Nation, he's said so, and pointed to evidence to the contrary.  

The "war on woke" being waged by Ron Desantis, governor of Florida, is producing its own kind of opposition and has probably done more for Democrats in that state than anything from the last 20 years.  It's actually put Florida back in play as a possible gain for Biden's electoral vote total, and because it has centered specifically on put downs and discrimination directly against the black community, it is creating its own opposition core.  

What Would Cause Such a Shift? 

Politically, black men have nothing to gain by switching support to Trump.  So why would they?  

First of all, I think there's a legitimate question of the accuracy in poll surveys identifying responses coming from "black males."  That's difficult to verify, and not an easy demographic for which to get an accurate reading.  And in the process of sorting out responses and determining how likely or unlikely they are to vote, I'd really like to see how those factors play out in putting the data together.  In the few groupings where black men are included in the data, the shift has been more toward Biden, not away from him.  

And what's missing is the really visible evidence, where people identified as leaders and spokespersons among this constituency are actually speaking the rhetoric.  That's not happening.  In fact, what is happening is just about the exact opposite of what we would need to see to confirm it.  

Big headlines were made in the electronic media, attracting attention to the fact that Trump made a speech at a rally at a "black church" in the heart of Detroit.  Yes, he did make a speech at a church identified as a building owned by a black congregation.  But with the exception of a few well-placed people for photographic purposes, the audience in the church was--white. With Trump's habit of not paying bills, I hope the church collected the money he offered them before he used their building.  But that's not proof that black men are turning to Trump.  Not at all. 

It wouldn't be consistent with Trumpist politics to commit to any significant enough benefit to black men that would cause a shift big enough to make a difference.  He doesn't like black men, and they're not part of his white supremacist, Christian nationalist perspective of a future America.  He's accused them, openly and just about at every rally, of being the cause of a crime problem, along with Latino immigrants.  He's given them no reason to vote for him, while Biden's policies has decreased their unemployment to record levels, increased their wages and opened the door for unprecedented economic opportunity.  

My Own Back Yard

I live in Chicago.  And while Chicago is a heavily Democratic city, and the collar counties have significant Democratic majorities, if there were a shift in black men over to Trump, we'd be seeing it here as well.  It's not happening, not visibly, or perceptively, anywhere.  I don't know enough black men to conduct an accurate poll, but I do know quite a few, from business, from church, from being neighbors.  I don't know any of them who are not all-out Biden supporters, the kind of people who put bumper stickers on their car and yard signs in front of their house.   

And while this doesn't appear to be a yard-sign, bumper sticker kind of election, I'm not seeing any of Trump's flags, signs or bumper stickers.  Well, I take that back.  I've seen one.

Fickle voters are out there, but to claim the kind of inroads into traditional constituencies without evidence causes a lack of credibility.  And I'm not seeing anything that convinces me that black voters, male or female, will turn to Trump at all.  What I hope they will do is turn out for Joe like they did for Barack in 2008 and 2012.  That's what we need to work together to save this democracy and rid it of the MAGA plague. 

 

No Absolution Coming for the Southern Baptist Convention

Baptist Standard: Paul Pressler, "Resurgence Architect" Dead at 94

Baptist Standard: Southern Baptist Attorney Tweets, "Pressler is a Monster and a Predator"

Silence.  

That's the response from the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, which bills itself as the nation's largest Evangelical denomination, when it comes to an extensive sexual abuse scandal, involving pastors of churches, and leaders of denominational entities including its seminaries, mission boards and its executive committee.  A second task force in the three years since messengers demanded action made its report to the convention during its annual meeting last week in Indianapolis, essentially failing to achieve the results that had been asked for.  

The general perception left with the victims of sexual abuse at the hands of abusers who were pastors and church leaders in the Southern Baptist churches they attended, is that the rhetoric from the task forces and leaders is more centered on protecting the convention's assets from lawsuits, and the cost of insurance premiums, than it is focused on any concern about the victims, or about how to set up a system which would prevent abusers from moving from one church to another, as they do now in the denomination made up of 45,000 independent, autonomous congregations.  And that's a failure of spiritual discernment and will in a Christian denomination that arrogantly claims to be the proclaimer of the "clear teachings" of the Bible they claim is both inerrant and infallible.  

The Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845, as a split from the Triennial Convention, based in Philadelphia, over the latter's opposition to slavery and its restrictions against appointing slave owners as missionaries. It was not until 1995, one hundred and fifty years after it was founded, one hundred thirty years after the abolition of slavery and the end of the Civil War, that the Southern Baptist Convention, for the first time, formally apologized to blacks for it's past support of slavery, segregation and white supremacy.  A resolution passed that year was the first time the denomination acknowledged that racism had played a significant role in its history, both past and present.  

I'm wondering if it is going to take that long for them to acknowledge the role they've played in a sexual abuse scandal that is as just as serious, and just as sinful.  

The "holy grail" of Southern Baptist life since 1979 has been the acknowledgement that the "Conservative resurgence," a turn back toward more fundamentalist, conservative doctrine and theology in the face of accusations of "creeping liberalism", saved the Southern Baptist Convention from decline, decay and dissolution.  This "resurgence" was led by two men who, out of deference for their agenda, were given an inordinate amount of power and influence well outside the boundaries of the denomination's bylaws in order to effectively bring about their claimed intentions to restore the denomination to "it's conservative roots." 

But since the Conservative Resurgence began, the things that its conservative theology and doctrine were supposed to save, and help get moving forward again, particularly evangelistic activity measured by the number of baptisms happening each year, and growth in church attendance and membership, have been in a steepening decline.  Even as overall church membership and attendance reached their all-time peak in 2005, the number of baptisms, representing the number of individuals who professed to having become converts to the Christian faith in Baptist churches, was in decline. 

The real intentions of the resurgence's two "architects," as they were called, had little to do with restoring the SBC to its "conservative roots."  Paige Patterson, who was then President of a tiny, financially strapped, broken down Bible college, Criswell College, in Dallas, wanted to be made president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, then the largest theological seminary in the world. Paul Pressler, the Texas Appeals Court judge, deacon and Sunday school teacher at Houston's First Baptist Church wanted to bring the Southern Baptist Convention into a full political alliance with the Republican party.  Both achieved their personal kingdom-building goals at the expense of the SBC  

The denomination's membership and attendance began a slow decline in 2006, and then a sharper, more steep drop off began in 2016, though church researchers and SBC leaders are loathe to connect this decline to the influence of far right wing extremist politics intruding into the denomination's churches.  Since it's peak in 2005, the membership has declined by 3.4 million, and the attendance by 1.9 million.  That's more than 20% of the total.  Since 2016, the membership losses began adding up to 200,000 a year, and that turned into 450,000 by 2018.  It slowed down to 250,000 this past year, while attendance rebounded by about 80,000, coming out of the pandemic.  But the pre-pandemic attendance was down considerably, almost 20%, from just a decade earlier.  

The idolization of the two men who helped bring about the Conservative Resurgence, the power they were allowed to have and the lack of any kind of accountability, which ultimately resulted in both of them being disgraced in some way, and eventually cut off from the denomination's fellowship, is a sign that the resurgence they led wasn't spiritually centered or focused, but it was either an exercise in personal kingdom building from the start, or it turned into one as a result of the power and influence given to these two men.  There are those who know both of them personally, who will attest to the fact that their goals were personal from the outset.  

The sexual abuse scandal in the denomination has been responsible for bringing down both resurgence leaders.  One of them because in his positions of leadership, he failed to value the women who were students in the seminaries he led, and didn't take their victimization by male students seriously enough to protect them.  The other, because he was alleged to have been an abuser himself, with credible accusations eventually catching up with him.  I don't find this ironic at all, in a predominantly fundamentalist religious denomination where women are still considered culturally and intellectually inferior to men as a point of doctrine.  Or where the fundamentalist atmosphere is so thick, that grace is always trumped by legalism. 

The abuse scandal, and the manner in which it worked its way through every layer and every level of Southern Baptist life, is a heinous and grievous sin.  So are attempts to downplay it, and make it look like a minor problem, coming from many of the denominations more reactionary hardliners.  But it is not this sin that is the root cause of the problem.

The sin is arrogance.  The fact that this has come along at a time when Southern Baptists are increasingly linking themselves blindly to one of the most morally bankrupt, corrupt, evil politicians of our time, is a sign of internal weakness that has failed to connect spiritually to God, or to the Christian gospel.  The denomination, at least at the core of its leadership, has become prideful and arrogant, declaring themselves and their own interpretations of the Bible to be as inerrant and infallible as they claim the scriptures to be.  But this arrogance has been exposed in its inability to confront a horrendous sin in its own camp. And there are those within the ranks of this denomination who do see it, and have called it out, and have been vindicated as a result. 

The leadership of the denomination is still blind, though it has distanced itself from both of these former privileged oligarchs, who didn't have to follow the same rules everyone else did.  This is a denomination which pays its bills out of the offering plates of its churches and that includes the perks and privilege expenses of these two self-proclaimed Kings of the SBC.  Indulging in sin that Southern Baptists place at the top of the list of bad sins that can be committed, with leaders who knew it was happening, and said nothing, is the height of sinful arrogance.

So far, the denominational leadership has been silent.  Silent when it comes to acknowledging the fact that they let these two men and the cause of the Conservative Resurgence become an idol that they worshipped.  Silent in failing to call out their grievous sins when they knew all along what was happening.  Silent in disavowing both men, and in expelling any church which accepted them into their membership.  Silent in admitting that their cause was an arrogant one, and their claims of being the sole interpreters of the "clear teaching of scripture" was not only offensive to every sincere Christian who tries to live a Christian life guided by prayer, study of the scripture and humble submission to God, but to God himself.  

Those who were in leadership and permitted this will need to come clean and be accountable, stepping down from their leadership positions as well as letting go of the de-facto power that is one of the more backward traits of Southern Baptist life. And that's why I don't think it will ever happen, and that Southern Baptists will ever see the light restored to their now darkened temple.  Because there is too much arrogance and pride in the camp to admit failure, wrongdoing, or to give up even the slightest power or privilege. I'm not sure there will ever be an acknowledgement that the conservative resurgence itself is the source of many of the inherent problems leading to the decline in evangelistic activity, church planting and church growth among Southern Baptists, but there's little question, when examining the facts, that it was.  

It was used to create an alliance with the secular political far right that has completely hijacked the mission and purpose of churches and denominations which once claimed to be committed to Christ alone and that has also been a key factor in the staggering membership losses experienced by Southern Baptists, though their leadership also has yet to acknowledge this fact. Supporting a political figure whose lifestyle is deliberately self-proclaimed as "worldly," who is a symbol of male dominance and misogyny and who brags about his immorality in grotesque, foul language is not the business of a Christian denomination and the fact that he has become the focal point for a majority of white Southern Baptists is blasphemy of, and an abomination before, a holy God. 

The Conservative Resurgence failed to re-energize and ignite the spiritual passion behind an evangelistic revival, and instead, its leaders presided over a sharp decline in baptisms.  It failed to reverse the trend in which 70% of the churches in the denomination were either plateaued or declining in membership and attendance, and it failed miserably in increasing the revenue available for its ministries, primarily its two mission boards.  It has made up for that loss by pressuring and brow-beating state convention bodies to give them a larger share of their receipts which most, not all, have done, bankrupting several of them in the process.  

And the Southern Baptist Convention's conservative resurgence leadership has failed to deal with a serious, clergy sexual abuse scandal among its pastors, church leaders and denominational leaders.  This happened on their watch, not while the "liberals and moderates" were in charge of the camp.  Nor are these the drag queens and the LGBTQ movement who are engaging in the abuse.  These are pastors, church leaders and denominational employees who are hiding behind the privilege and prestige they've been given in this apostate denomination.

Until repentance occurs, there will be no absolution.  Don't count on it happening any time soon.  Spiritual blindness is hard to shake, especially when it is partnered with arrogance.  

What Comes From the Dark Corners of Corruption in Conservative Evangelical Christianity is Hypocrisy

Baptist News Global: Pressler's Death Brings Overwhelming Sadness 

Baptist News Global: Paul Pressler Died and the SBC Said Nothing

Baptist News Global: What the SBC Should Do About its Most Famous Accused Sexual Abuser

One of the single most effective influences in the entire history of the Southern Baptist Convention, dating back to its origins in 1845, is Paul Pressler.  Pressler was an attorney, a former Texas Appeals Court judge, a Republican party influencer, mover and shaker, a Sunday school teacher and at different times, member of two of the largest Southern Baptist churches in Houston, Texas.  He is one of the two men known as the "architects of the Conservative Resurgence," a movement which started in 1979, and which aimed to gain complete control of every committee and board seat in the denomination, in order to effectively fend off a "liberal drift" in the denomination, particularly in its six seminaries, and enforce more conservative, fundamentalist-friendly interpretations of the Bible.  

Though outside of the Southern Baptist denomination, Pressler's name is not all that well known, he was probably one of the most influential figures in the movement to align Evangelical Christians with Republican party politics.  His role in the Conservative Resurgence included getting the Southern Baptist Convention out of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and completely revamping its public affairs commission, turning it into the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and securing the appointment of Richard Land, a Bush political ally, as its executive director.    

Pressler, along with fellow resurgence "architect" Dr. Paige Patterson, who was a protege of Dallas pastor and SBC power broker W. A. Criswell, and the President of Criswell College in Dallas, made the claim that "liberalism" had taken over the seminaries of the denomination, and needed to be purged by making sure the trustee boards were made up of theological conservatives who would fire those not aligned with the approved doctrine, even though Southern Baptists had never demanded strict doctrinal accountability in ministry cooperation. Acccording to Marv Knox, former editor of the Texas Baptist Standard, the work of these two men "split the Southern Baptist Convention and decimated the ministries of countless seminary professors, denominational workers, and pastors."  In the history of the Southern Baptist Convention, Paul Pressler will go down as one the most polarizing figures in the denomination.  

A Strange and Very Dark Turn of Events

Pressler died in Houston on June 7th.  The Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana June 11th and 12th made no mention of his passing, held no vigil or memorial, and no one eulogized and lauded this man's achievements in turning the Southern Baptist Convention into a far right wing, ultra-conservative, fundamentalist denomination and right wing Republican political action committee.  

How did it happen, for someone who was one of the most visible figures in the Southern Baptist Convention for over five decades, one of the men who helped push the liberals and moderates out of the denomination, helping it turn decidedly and staunchly conservative, and almost singlehandedly linked it to conservative, political Republicanism, that there was not even a mention of his death, much less any public tribute or acknowledgement for his helping bring about one of the single most celebrated movements in Southern Baptist history, the Conservative Resurgence?  

During all of the time he worked as a conservative reformer, as the result of legal settlements (including one which named the SBC Executive Committee), credible accusations surfaced of his sexual abuse of boys and young men. The abuse started two years before he became one of the two architects of the Conservative Resurgence, when he was alleged to have abused and raped a 14 year old who was a member of the youth ministry he led in a large, Houston church.  Though he faced no criminal charges because of statutes of limitations, he eventually settled a lawsuit brought by this accuser, Duane Rollins.  

Ultimately, the list of his victims grew to include others involved in church youth ministry where he served, along with interns and male employees of his law firm who who were assigned to do their work at Pressler's office in his Houston home.  The details of the law suits and the abuse that is known to have occurred is referenced in the links at the top of this article.  

One of the two Southern Baptist Churches in which he held membership, First Baptist Church of Houston, actually sent a letter to him asking him to resign from all of his church offices and positions, based on allegations from a victim within the church which they had verified.  The letter also warned him that if such accusations became public knowledge, it could discredit the cause which he was promoting, namely the Conservative Resurgence.  There's no explanation of why the church leadership, which was, at the time, deeply involved in and supportive of the Resurgence, did not take the step of informing Southern Baptist leadership of these allegations which were credible enough to cause them to ask him to step out of all of his church leadership positions.  

But then, who among the Southern Baptist's leaders would have been able to challenge Pressler's power?  

Clergy Sexual Abuse is the Southern Baptist Denomination's Modern Sin

About six years ago, the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express News published an expose based on information they had received, mostly from victims, that there were a number of sexual abuse cases that had been adjudicated against pastors and other church leaders in Southern Baptist churches.  What the investigation uncovered was that pastors or other church leaders, such as youth directors or worship leaders, had committed abuse in one church, and had simply left there to go serve in another church that was unaware of the abuse.  

Subsequently, an internal investigation, conducted by an outside investigating firm, was demanded by the delegates, known as "messengers," attending one of the annual meetings.  That investigation uncovered the fact that multiple abuse cases, reported by victims, including directly to the excutive committee itself, were simply filed away and nothing was done.   There was no system in place to handle such cases, because of the denomination's polity in which each church is independent and autonomous and no denominational authority exists which could force perpetrators out of the church positions they hold.  That's a dark cloud that's been hanging over the Southern Baptist Convention for at least six years now.  

This puts their religious and political conservativism into perspective, doesn't it?   

What is tragic about this whole thing, which drips with arrogant hypocrisy, is that both of the "architects of the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC" have been stained and discredited by the sexual abuse scandal.  Paige Patterson failed to properly handle and report cases of sexual abuse at both of the seminaries where he served as president, Southeastern in Wake Forest, North Carolina, and Southwestern in Fort Worth, Texas.  And Pressler, as it turns out, was himself an abuser of male victims.  In all fairness, one of his friends who wrote one of the linked articles above, pointed out that before his death, restitution was made to all of his victims.  For whatever that's worth.  

So the two most revered leaders of the conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention, whose current leaders cannot yet bring themselves to completely disavow either of them, and whose response is not anger over their misconduct, or even an attempt to undo the damage that has been done, turn out to be purveyors of the denomination's ongoing failure to deal with sin in its camp.  Their response is silence, to protect their resources and reputation, and silence so as not to lose the votes of conservative Evangelicals for Trump, who has been convicted on 34 felony counts involving another grievous sexual sin.  

What It Will Take To Restore Credibility

Until the Southern Baptist Convention effectively acknowledges the seriousness of the sexual abuse problem among their church leadership, entity leadership and in their churches, and lays out effective, workable plans to deal with it in the context of their "independent and autonomous" churches, it has no credibility as a Christian denomination.  And as far as this author is concerned, this abominable hypocrisy totally and completely undermines the entire platform of Evangelical-influenced, Republican politics. 

Incidents like this need to be at the forefront of the political messaging that people hear and see.  Trump grabs women by the genitals, has multiple affairs on his wives, sleeps with a porn star, gets charged and convicted of 34 felonies regarding the illegal business dealings surrounding his attempt to cover that up, and he's still a candidate for the Presidency.  His most vocally supportive constituency is embroiled in a sexual abuse scandal in a Christian denomination that involved it's leaders at the highest level, in both homosexuality and in sexual abuse of women.  

Southern Baptists must own up to the damage that was done by its "architects of the Conservative Resurgence," and be honest about their failures.  There will be a cost attached to that, in that those within the denominational leadership and on its committees and boards who supported the resurgence leaders and enabled their lack of accountability will have to step away from denominational politics.   

As far as the Republican party goes, the only absolution they should receive will occur when they force Trump out and nominate someone else for the Presidency.  

Far Right Wing Politics Makes American Evangelicals Better Known as Trumpers Than as Followers of Christ

Beware of any Christian movement that demands the government be an instrument of God's wrath, but never a source of God's mercy, generosity or compassion.  Rev. Benjamin Cremer

In spite of the rhetoric the far religious right has developed to excuse their support for Republican political candidates who do not reflect their Christian beliefs or practices, it is not philosophically or practically possible for a person who professes the conservative Evangelical testimony of Christian conversion to give their political support and their vote to Donald Trump, and claim that is consistent with their faith and beliefs.  The two worldviews, Trumpism and what we now call the MAGA base, and biblical Christianity, are practically, philosophically and religiously incompatible with each other.  

I'm not saying that those Christians who support Trump have "lost their salvation," or were not sincere in their Christian beliefs and practices.  That's for God to judge.  But what I am saying is that their own knowledge of, and practice of their Christian faith is neither extensive enough, nor mature enough, to recognize the fact that MAGA Trumpism is antithetical to biblical Christianity.  They are, as the author of the book of Hebrews called them, "infants unskilled in the word of righteousness," no matter how many sermons they've sat through or Sunday school lessons they've heard.  

Talking the Talk Without Walking the Walk

With white, Evangelical Christians being the single largest constituency within the MAGA crowd, and traditional, Reagan Republicans being a minority, Trump has had to figure out where to make his deals and what he can promise and deliver that won't interferre with his main agenda, which is to give ownership of the resources of the United States to a class of wealthy oligarchs who will control every aspect of the economy, and not interfere with their ability to achieve this goal because of some quirky aspect of Christian nationalist politics.

Abortion and overturning Roe was an easy deal.  It cost him nothing, because the judges he got on the Supreme Court who were willing to overturn Roe were philosophically and politically aligned with his agenda right down the line.  And frankly, the fact that Trump's personal morality is as antichristian as it can get, and what faith practice he has is with the heretical, apostate "prosperity gospel" crowd, which has abandoned the Christian gospel found in scripture by defining the term "blessing" with "money,"  lets him please both agendas and keep them on his train.  

It takes a level of what I refer to as "Biblical literacy," which includes knowledge of the themes and principles of each of the Bible's 66 books, along with some ability to discern how to interpret a text written in a culture and society in the Middle East over 2,000 years ago, to understand, and practice, the Christian gospel as a personal faith experience.  Most church researchers, like Barna, or Ed Stetzer, for example, have discovered that, among those who are found in the church's pews on a regular basis each week, fewer than 25% of them have enough working knowledge of what can be found in the Bible to discern the difference between authentic Christian teaching and what the Apostle Jude calls "intruders" who have "crept in...and perverted the grace of our God into sensuality."  

That's an apt description of exactly what has happened with Trump and the Evangelical far right.  Look at the rhetoric.  Trump has no qualms about making statements that Christians would recognize as sheer blasphemy if anyone else was making them, but they are blind to his use of that kind of terminology.  

Several high profile, self-appointed Evangelical "leaders" have made multiple attempts to get Trump to confess an authentic Christian conversion experience.  From their conservative, literalist, Evangelical perspective, this requires an individual to acknowledge spiritual conviction of their sinful nature, admit and confess that they are a sinner who cannot save themselves, turn to God, accepting the sacrifice of Jesus' crucifixion as the payment for sin's penalty and to avoid the wrath of God, repent from their sin and be restored spiritually by the Holy Spirit.  The hang up they've encountered with Trump is his refusal to admit that he is sinful, and his proclamation that he has not committed any sin that requires God's forgiveness.  His view of God, which he openly articulates, differs significantly from what those Evangelical leaders preach from their pulpits.  

Franklin Graham was caustic and judgmental in his condemnation of President Clinton, calling out his "marital infidelity," and publicly claiming that it "morally disqualified" him from the Presidency.  His response to Trump's affair with Stormy Daniels?  He should be "left alone"  to deal with it with his wife, and with God.  And that statement morally disqualifies Franklin Graham, as far as I am concerned.  

Of course, their response has been to try to ignore these public statements made by Trump, some of them caught on their own video, and pass over this, knowing that most of the people who follow them are not going to bother checking it out, and will believe whatever they are told.  After all, these are the people who fork over millions of dollars to them on a regular basis, basically for nothing, so that they can claim to be recipients of "God's blessings."  I'd suggest, or should I say, strongly assert, that any Evangelical leader of a large, multi-million dollar ministry organization, or a mega-church, who endorses and supports Trump is a phony.  And that's not judging them, that's simply an observation.  

So What is it About Trump That's So Anti-Christian? 

I think the easier question to answer would be, "what isn't?"  

Leaving the character issues aside, his history of adulterous affairs, divorces, marrying the "other woman" each time, along with a whole, documented, sordid history of sexual immorality which, by all of the available evidence, has continued through his presidency and into his post-presidency, his complete lack of remorse, repentance or even an admission that his lie about the 2020 election was wrong, is a serious sign of his anti-Christian attitude and demeanor.  He is a pathological liar, and that is just not consistent with the character of someone who claims to be Christian.  

The kind of rhetoric in which he, and his associates and surrogates who are involved in his campaign are engaging, advocating domestic violence, using the law, not to prosecute criminals but to get revenge against political opponents, and the endless lies being told and conspiracy theories being promoted are a diametric opposite of any Christian values or virtues.  Of course, his own son, Don Jr., made it clear, in a speech to a Turning Point U.S.A. rally that the virtues advocated by Jesus Christ "have gotten us nowhere."  That's an exact quote.  

When Trumpers emerge from a church service, critical of the pastor's sermon, based on Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, complain about where he got those "liberal talking points," that's a good sign that the spirit of antichrist reigns supreme in that far right wing political movement.  Loving one's enemies and turning the other cheek are Christian virtues that, when practiced, are a clear demonstration of spiritual transformation, since they run counter to human nature.  

The insurrection which Trump incited to attempt to keep Congress from counting the legitimately certified electoral votes, in addition to being a violation of the law, bordering on treason, are also a clear violation of scripture, written by the two most influential church Apostles, Peter and Paul.  Paul's instructions to the church at Rome was a powerful testimony to the depth of Christian faith, found in Romans 12;1-7, and Peter, who says much the same thing, actually mentions the emperor in I Peter 2:13-17.  

Then there's the incessant lying, deliberate dishonesty for the purpose of self-benefit and to deliberately mislead.  Trump is a proven liar, who has left behind a trail of thousands of deliberate lies which he is either incapable of recognizing, or which are a demonstration of his lack of any kind of concience or integrity.  And those who support him and buy into the lies are liars themselves.  And that means that it is not possible to trust the word of any of his Evangelical supporters, especially not those who are in positions of leadership, because they are endorsing the lies and the behavior.  

Conservative American Evangelicals Are Now Known More For Their Political Support for Trump, Than For Their Testimony of Jesus as Messiah

There's no way to avoid having to carry all of this worldly baggage when supporting Trump as a presidential candidate.  There's no way to separate his corrupt character from his politics or from one's faith.  Supporting someone with a vote that is a privilege, whose character is contrary to everything about one's own faith is sinful.  

The fact that so many conservative Christians continue to support Trump, with evidence of his lack of Christian character facing them in the news cycle every day indicates what I see as an appalling lack of knowledge of the Bible that they claim is the "sole" authority for faith and practice in Christianity, and a disconnect between what the Bible defines as Christian practice, and their own, which tells me that they are resisting any spiritual prompting or conviction that is essential to a visible Christian testimony.  But the lack of knowledge of the Bible in Christian practice is characteristic of Evangelicals as much as they claim it is a problem in other denominations whom they criticize for not believing the Bible like they do.  In their support for Trump, they are giving loyalty to a false messiah (Matthew 24:23-24).  

The very short epistle of the Apostle Jude, the only writing in the New Testament attributed to this Apostle who was most likely the son of Joseph and Mary and a brother of Jesus, gives instruction to the fledgling, first century church on remaining faithful and avoiding the intrusion of ungodly people who "pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only master and Lord, Jesus Christ."  

Jude identifies the intruders in a way that so closely resembles what is now happening to American Evangelicals that it's difficult to believe it wasn't written by someone who is observing it as it occurs.  His decriptions of those who are leading the church astray are spot on.  

"But these people slander whatever they do not understand, and they are destroyed by those things that, like irrational animals, they know by instinct. Woe to them!  For they go the way of Cain, and abandon themselves to Balaam's error for the sake of gain, and preish in Korah's rebellion.  These are blemishes on your live-feasts, while they feast with you without fear, feeding themselves.  They are waterless clouds, carried along by the winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their owns shame; wandering stars, for who the deepest darkness has been reserved forever."  Jude, Verses 10-13;

"These are grumblers and malcontents; they undulge their own lusts; they are bombastic in speech, flattering people to their own advantage."  Jude v. 16 

To get the full effect of using this as a description of the MAGA cult, do a little research and define what this author means by his use of "the way of Cain," "Balaam's Error," and "Korah's Rebellion."  It's an eye opener for sure.

And that's as good of a description of this abberration of American Evangelical Christians as I could come up with myself.  

Want to Know Who the Anti-Democratic, Pro-Russian Opponents of US Aid to Democratic Ukraine Are?

Roller Coaster: From Trumpists to Communists, the Forces in the US Impeding Aid to Ukraine, and How They Do It

I'll let the piece speak for itself, and readers can draw their own conclusions.  

This is a Ukrainian based site, with Ukrainian authors.  

In a Shocking Passage of a Resolution, Southern Baptists Slap Down MAGA Christian Nationalism

Meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, about 10,000 delegates representing the 45,000 churches of the Southern Baptist Convention came up with a couple of huge surprises that were somewhat unexpected, defying predictions of this author about the outcomes from their two-day convention meeting.  I'm still looking over the media reports, both secular and Baptist, checking for insights and explanations into what is clearly a move away from the influence of Christian Fundamentalism, rooted mainly in independent Baptist congregations (think Jerry Falwell) and from the Christian nationalism that has blended itself into the MAGA movement of the GOP.  

By Affirming First Amendment Religious Liberty as a Matter of Individual Conscience, the Southern Baptist Convention Distances Itself From Christian Nationalism

Baptist News Global: Engaging in Feisty Debate, Southern Baptists Re-affirm Traditional View of Religious Liberty 

Christian nationalism in some form or another has always been around, but Baptists, who developed a free, independent church tradition and who were among the original separatists who came to America to escape persecution by the British monarchy.  They were among the biggest influences on both Jefferson and Madison in helping promote the idea of religious liberty and abandoning the idea of a state church.  Their ideology in this regard was based on the manner in which Jesus and at least two of his Apostles, along with the gospel writer Luke, transferred the idea of "chosen people" from the Old Testament covenant with the nation of Israel to individual followers of and believers in Christ, rather than to the custody of a political entity.  

Some of the arguments put forth by those who were seeking to alter the resolution proposed by the Southern Baptists' resolutions committee are based on false assumptions and mis-interpretations of what Baptists consider to be inspired scripture.  They were infused with the rhetoric of the heretical Christian nationalist movements, and lacked supporting quotes from Jesus or any of his Apostles. They also represent the influence of Trumpism, and the MAGA cult's views.  Trump himself has rejected the premise of Christian conversion for himself, but has set a system in place to use it for his own political purposes.  Those within Evangelical Christianity who hold this view are demonstrating a very stilted and distorted view of the Christian gospel, ignoring the fact that there's no support or suggestion that Christianity be linked to political power.   

The "new Covenant" offered by Jesus, extends the redemption from sin and reconciliation to God that had been offered through the mediation of the theocratic structure of the Old Testament Jewish political-religious state and requires no ecclesiastical or political authority to mediate.  Two of the apostles, Paul and Peter, offer Christian perspectives of secular political power, mainly to demonstrate respect for the law as a testimony of faith.  Noting that they were speaking of the Roman Empire and its emperor, who would eventually turn against them and persecute the church, their words are remarkable in their context.  And for two centuries, during some of the worst persecution experienced anywhere in history, Christians remained faithful to the words of their apostles.  They did not organize a rebellion and resist.  They simply found ways to survive, if they could.  This persecution, and their suffering, led to the conversion to Christianity of a majority of the population of the Empire by the beginning of the third century, including subsequent emperors.  

In other words, while there are multiple nations that are "Christian influenced," in that their political system is based, either generally or more specifically, on a particular set of values identified with the Christian faith, and a majority of the population follows some branch of Christianity, there is no biblical authority that creates a state church where the theology and doctrine is enforced by law.  

The leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention is to be commended for recognizing this creeping, illegitimate threat to its own religious liberty, and to acknowledging free will expression of one's conscience as a gift from God.  The rhetoric in the arguments made against this resolution during the convention sessions is clearly influenced by MAGA politics.  The passage of this resolution is as strong a statement against Christian nationalism and in support of religious liberty as Baptists have come up with for a while now, and shows that there may be quite a few more Evangelical pastors and church leaders, who make up the majority of the messenger body at a Southern Baptist convention meeting, who are not part of the MAGA cult than we might think.  

Southern Baptists Turn Away Attempt to Amend Their Constitution to Prohibit Women Serving in a Pastoral Ministry Role 

Don't mistake the failure of the Law Amendment to the constitution and bylaws of the Southern Baptist Convention as a victory for women in ministry.  The day prior to this amendment failing to get its required two-thirds majority at two subsequent conventions, over 85% of the gathered messengers from the churches voted to expel the historic First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Virginia from the denomination because it has ordained several women to the ministry over the course of the past 50 years, has three ordained women who serve as pastors on its staff currently, and told the credentials committee, who sent representatives to question them, that if the opportunity came up for them to call a female senior pastor, they would do so without hesitation.  

And so, out the door they went, a historic church whose founding pre-dates the Southern Baptist Convention's founding in 1845 by almost a hundred years, because they disagree with the current version of the Baptist Faith and Message when it comes to the gender of who God can call as a pastor.  

Then, the next day, the same convention body failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority for a second year in a row to pass an amendment that would codify the dismissal of churches on this basis, making it an ecclesiastical interference into the affairs of a local, independent, autonomous church.  The credentials committee and convention ballot process already does this, on this specific issue, but putting it in the constitution would have made it more difficult to amend, as more and more Baptists seem to recognize a better historical and contextual way to interpret scripture than the literal nit-picking which led to this prohibition.  

It's Not All Good News; Southern Baptists Fail to Achieve Forward Progress in Resolving Their Sexual Abuse Scandal 

In this same denomination, where there were no qualms about violating local church autonomy to prevent women from being ordained and serving as pastors, no solution could be found to put practices in place which would prevent sexual abuse from occurring in local churches and in denominational entities.  Very little concern was expressed for the multiple victims of sexual abuse that has occurred at the hands of pastors, church leaders and denominational employees in what is as widespread of a problem as the Catholic church has been dealing with for decades.  The biggest problems for those who addressed the issue seem to be the extent of legal liability that the denomination or its entities might assume, and the cost of insurance premiums and lawsuits and litigation that might result from abuse.  

The task forces and investigations that have been done since the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express News exposed the scandal, even though their evidence was found among those already adjudicated for abuse instances in a limited geographic area, have cost a lot of money, eaten through reserve funds that belonged to its executive committee and stressed the resources of a denomination that has seen a 25% decline in membership and attendance over the past couple of decades.  But even though there's a reason for the concern, the manner in which many of the victims of the scandal have been treated, when they should have been supported, prayed for, and experienced the kind of ministering spirit expected from a Christian denomination, speaks volumes about where this group of Evangelical Christians has landed ideologically. 

There have been those who have suggested that a lot of this is just some kind of satanic attack on the SBC, to slow it down and prevent its evangelistic outreach from advancing.  The fact that this isn't taken seriously, that it got bogged down in denominational bureaucracy and that the "independence and autonomy" of local churches became the obstacle to action is inexcusable.  Among the many problems that the Southern Baptists resolve with the use of task forces, they seem to be stymied and at a complete loss as to how to deal with this issue. 

Personally, I think their failure to deal with this particular issue stems from their perspective of women in general.  They get hung up by their literal interpretation and application of an ancient biblical text, including the cultural norms of the day in which it was written also being considered as authoritative to interpreting and practicing the principle, and as a result, their treatment of and perspective of women fails to consider them as equal to men.  Their "equal but with different roles" argument doesn't really support the "equal" part.  And that's one of the main reasons why they're struggling with this.  

An Interesting Divide 

Three years ago, influenced heavily by perspectives from the extremist, right wing political faction of Trump, a small group of pastors formed the Conservative Baptist Network, following the defeat of a more conservative candidate for the denominational presidency.  Their anger and wrath was directed mainly at Dr. Russell Moore, then executive director of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, because he was openly anti-Trump, which is a position consistent with Christian faith and practice.  The bottom line was that they were looking to tighten the relationship between far right wing extremism in politics to the denomination.  

Since that time, only one of the candidates they have endorsed for office, a minor vice-president position, has won an election.  All of their other endorsees have been defeated, their recommendations and resolutions have been turned aside and they have become somewhat obscure, as their funding has dried up.  I would not interpret that as a sign that the SBC is becoming more moderate, because what remains is ultra-conservative doctrinally and in practice.  What is also present is a resistance to seeing the denominational structure itself get too wrapped up in secular politics.  A majority of Southern Baptists are Trump supporters, and blind to the fact that goes against the Christian gospel, but they are not willing to let their denomination be turned into a political action committee.  

At least, not yet.