Astronomy and Politics Through the Lens of Epistemology
How do We Know What We Know?
What is Our Method of Evaluating Truth?
Christian Epistemology
Politically Conservative Christians, Jews & the Presidential Election
Thoughtfully Discerning the Evil in Politics
by Bill Anderson
Copyrighted © by Bill Anderson [9-26-2016], All rights reserved
Are you a politically conservative Jew or Christian going through the same emotions as this little girl regarding which Presidential candidate to vote for?
If you are either, hopefully this essay will help.
I am a Christian who fellowships with both Christians and Jews, so I will try to speak to both Christians and Jews respectively and in terminology hopefully both can identify with.
Many people are torn in their Presidential voting decisions because of the moral depravity in Donald Trump (& aggressive personality) versus the near-criminal and genocidal character of Hillary Clinton (and a host of other issues). Too many people are inclined to stay home and not vote at all which would be a disaster for our good local Senators and Representatives. Yet for the thoughtful (vs emotional) Christian or Jew, this should not be solely a Trump question. Another important question is, would it be a sinful act on our part to ignore the moral character of Hillary Clinton? Consider that Hillary’s character is one of vehemently defending the blatantly obvious genocide of thousands or even millions of babies under the so-called “right” of very late term and/or partial-birth abortion. So we have make a decision between one involved in a clear pattern of sexual-immorality versus another who promotes the governmental protection of a heinous form of genocide, dishonesty and corruption across the board. So what do we do?
When Franklin Graham was asked who he would vote for, he answered (in so many words), don’t vote for personalities, vote for policies. This seems like a radical idea to many because he is suggesting placing less emphasis on a candidate’s moral character but placing the focus on their promised governmental policies instead. For many I have talked to, this seems repulsive to both men and women because that is not something we are used to doing. For example, many mothers will ask, how can I vote for a man who is a bad role-model for my child? Good question normally? But this is no normal election. I will concede that Trump, for example, would not be a good role model, but the idea that Hillary is good role model is a sensational form of self-deception! She just escaped criminal prosecution for security violations by the skin of her teeth when any regular person doing the same thing would and has been put away for life. And she has a long history of such scandals (See Video: Clinton Scandal History). Yet, if you want to see my serious concerns about Trump, just read my views on him in my previous blogs written before and during the Republican primary.
But someone else besides these two are not our choice now. Alternative third-party candidates will have no impact whatsoever on whether or not Hillary wins. We have to stop sobbing like the little girl above and make a reasonable, rational decision under very difficult and distasteful circumstances. Graham’s point in its fuller and effective context is not to vote for personalities, but for policies more consistent with Biblical/Torah values. Yet it seems as if everyone is totally embroiled in the candidate’s moral characters, while forgetting totally about the issues, policies and how the candidates will govern. But government policies and issues are not an abstraction compared with the candidates personalities. Nero burning Christians alive in front of their screaming spouses and children was a policy. Hitler’s genocide of six million Jews was a policy. Furthermore, America’s murder of a million unborn babies a year is a policy. In that case, Abortion was and is the issue. In all of those cases, policies have universally trumped personalities! Why are policies not important now???
On the other extreme are Christians, for instance, who whitewash or minimize Trump’s moral failures on a personal level. These, I believe discredit the Christian call to righteousness and our mission to be salt (a preservative - Matt 5:13) in the society around us. Yet Trump, at the same time, is advocating governmental policies more consistent with Biblical values .On the Democratic side we have another person of seriously flawed moral character, bordering on the illegal, and advocating policies grossly inconsistent with both Biblical and/or Torah values.
Is it not possible, that God is putting us awful experience, because for too long some Christians and Jews have ignored reverse condition where men of seemingly good moral character have advocated many Biblically evil policies in their governance? Does not our failure to recognize this in the past not warrant some Godly introspection and reflection on our own part?
Consequently, I will submit that it is quite possible that men of severely flawed moral character can and do embrace governmental policies consistent with Biblical/Torah principles and values. Cyrus the Mede, who returned the Jews to Israel after their exile is just one example in addition to several more in contemporary history. Yet I have to point out that Christian scripture corroborates this point, which I cite with all deference and respect to my Jewish friends who will undoubtedly be able to cite similar references to justice in the Torah. When the Apostle Paul referred governmental emperor of Rome (probably Claudius) as “God's minister to you for good” (Rom 13:1-7), I do not think there is a single Christian in existence that would argue that he or any Roman emperor of the time was a paragon of virtue! Yet that Roman leader had the full Biblical endorsement in that passage as “God’s minister for good”! Now, if he was Biblically qualified for that role in a New Testament view of government, why not Trump in light of Trump’s policies? And I ask that having spent much time and resources working against Trump in the Republican Primary and who I still believe is the worst of the 17 original candidates.
Now all of this we are considering AFTER the avalanche of accusations against Trump by women which supposedly demonstrate that in his recent past he has led a debaucherous state of mind and/or that he is a sexual predator. After looking at this in some detail, I have concluded that it is undeniable that he has had a debaucherous state of mind and I am convinced that it is a horrible Christian witness to white-wash those facts that have been undeniably verified in my mind. For example, the two videos I present below are where Trump verifies his own debaucherous past nature, from his own lips. The first is in my mind the most self-corroborated, but is not as well reported. The second is a devastating one we likely have all heard. If and only if you have white-washed or minimized Trump’s behavior, I want you to listen to what the world heard (not the sanitized version). Remember secularists are well aware of the fact that many Christians are defending this behavior in order to support Trump. If we are going to support him, should we not, at least, speak out against his past behavior to retain any modicum of a good witness?
The Allegations
Trump's Exposed Recording
Video No Longer Available
As believers, we simply cannot afford to justify this behavior in that it is forbidden in both God’s law to the Hebrews and the New Testament as well (Mathew 5:27-28). Neither can we spin it away, as Donald did, with the worldly phrase “locker room talk”. On the other hand, many of the sexual predator charges have not been verified except in the minds of his accusers and we will not have sufficient time before the election to come to any conclusion on this, at via Biblical standards. Not only is it highly suspicious that all of these women have only come forward simultaneously at election time, many of these have been discredited by eyewitnesses or relatives. So, have the Christians, who are out there pounding the sexual predator accusations against Trump, the hardest ever heard of the admonitions against gossip or even reflected on the concept of Biblical justice?
Yet if we follow the lead of Franklin Graham by judging the candidate’s policies instead of their personal character, it shifts our concern to a far more critical perspective. The critical thing we should be bearing in mind in our voting decision is the defense and on-going maintenance of “religious freedom” which has been under attack by segments of our population. Protecting religious freedom is a government policy Trump has been very supportive of, but Hillary is actually hostile to, as I will later document. Rabbi David Lapin, an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, effectively justifies Graham's priority on such policy issues by explicitly warning Christians about a battle for religious freedom they seem to be blind to: "Without a vibrant and vital Christianity, America is doomed, and without America, the West is doomed. Which is why I, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, devoted to Jewish survival, the Torah and Israel am so terrified of American Christianity caving in. Many of us Jews are ready to stand with you. But you must lead. You must replace your timidity with nerve and your diffidence with daring and determination. You are under attack. Now is the time to resist it." (to understand the religious freedom connection better, see the entire article A Rabbi's Warning to U. S. Christians).
Yet few of Trump’s “Christian critics” have bothered to pay attention to the policy issues protecting religious freedom. Furthermore, many Christians “assume” that religious freedom is automatically protected by the constitution, but fewer are aware that allegiance to the constitution has been severely eroded by lower level “case law” and further governmental legislation. The best anti-dote to this problem is a good list of Supreme Court Justices of which Trump now has 21 great examples he is committed to.
Another important weapon the government has in potentially threating religious freedom is what is called the 1954 Johnson Amendment to the tax code which prevents non-profit like churches or synagogues from, in any way, supporting political candidates or endorsements. This gives the IRS the power to be on the hunt for the most minute, technical violations in this area for which they can deny a church its tax-exempt status. This enables a type of government control which Trump has vowed to reverse (see Trump Promises to Repeal the Johnson Amendment). Now that will drive some of my Christian and Jewish friends crazy because we differ on how best to defend religious right and also have differing philosophies on Christian or Jewish participation in politics. But this represents yet another difference between Trump and Hillary in how Hillary sees conservative religious activism in politics as a threat to be suppressed.
But, I cannot think of a better example of the intrusion of religious practice by government than the Obama/Clinton administration’s Law Suit against the “Little Sisters of the Poor” for refusing to comply with Obamacare regulations. In these women’s conscience driven minds, to sign the government waiver form may exempt themselves from the regulations, but in doing that, they see this their signature as a legitimization of contraception and/or abortion regulations for the rest of society. Irrespective of how one might debate the particulars of these regulations vs their convictions, to take them to court for such amounts to government control of their faith convictions. Yet, this is a single example of how “religious freedom” is being challenged by a secular government on many fronts.
Yet many, even Christians, will still deny that there is any threat to religious freedom on many fronts from our government. Furthermore, any attempt to make such a case is often brushed off the complaints of right-wing Christians extremists. So let me cite a web-site of conservative Jews at Mosaic magazine that was launched in 2013. I doubt if anyone would have ever accused them of being religious extremists. Consider here an article by Bruce Abramson, “The Decline—and Fall?—of Religious Freedom in America"
Obviously one should review the entire site to be fair and balanced. Yet, I can tell you the other articles at the site, despite some variations, are equally compelling and very thoughtful. The sub-title in that article with the first paragraph, makes its message clear right out of the gate.
America’s “first freedom” is under attack from an ascendant cultural secularism. Christians are its first target, but Jews and Judaism may not be far behind.
Religious freedom in America is under threat, and the battle is already in progress. For the most part, the burden of the struggle has been borne by Christians. America’s Jews, living safely behind the front lines, have paid little heed. But that safety is likely to be ephemeral. If freedom falls for those now fighting for their religious rights, it can fall for all, prominently including a community characterized by its attachment to an ancient and traditional moral code and defining ritual practices.
Now, this should not suggest in any way that Mosaic Magazine is pro-Trump. Heaven only knows that many Christians are struggling over the same decision. Neither should one assume that all of what I advance in this article would be endorsed by Mosaic Magazine.
Yet, this article puts religious freedom as a central concern by those outside the Christian faith. Therefore religious freedom is not the exclusive concern right-wing Christians with an extremist agendas. Unlike far too many Christian laymen and laywomen, the threat to religious freedom is something recognized and continually tracked by some very intellectual, righteous men at Mosaic magazine, with similar concerns about their own faith. Now, this should not suggest in any way that Mosaic Magazine is pro-Trump. Heaven only knows that many Christians are struggling over the same decision.
Unlike the perspective of many Christians, including myself, Abramson measures the loss of religious freedom in American law against the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by Bill Clinton. Therefore, Abramson itemizes the historical decline of that law which I will just briefly cite here in part.
Picking up on his historical discussion on a local Indiana version of the original RFRA law, Abramson says;
This was explicitly the concern behind the anti-RFRA pillorying of Indiana—the idea that, through some hypothetical scenarios that few critics bothered to square with the actual law, people claiming religious convictions might conceivably seek inappropriate exemptions that the courts might conceivably grant. Thus, in an attempt to prove that Indiana’s Christians were hopelessly biased against gay rights, anti-Christian reporters fanned across the state seeking a villain. They finally found one in Memories Pizza, a Christian mom-and-pop shop in rural northern Indiana whose wall signs bore inflammatory messages like: “Every day before we open the store, we gather and pray together. If there is something you would like us to pray for, just write it down and drop it in the box and we will pray for you.” The reporters asked the proprietor whether she would cater a gay wedding. After noting that, as a pizza parlor, Memories Pizza had never been asked to cater a wedding, and noting further that it would never deny service to anyone, she conceded that if asked specifically to cater a gay wedding, she would have to decline.
Later on, Abramson makes a very poignant observation about Memories Pizza and others being in violation of a strictly hypothetical legal violation (how often is Pizza served at a wedding?).
The larger truth is that we have reached a watershed moment in American law, society, and culture: for the first time, avoiding participation in a given event or activity can now be construed as violating someone else’s civil (or human) rights—and can be actionable as such—even when the avoidance has been dictated by a religious conviction.
Correspondingly, Abramson the points out a complete transformation of objectives in the gay rights movement.
Consider the signs: within the activist base of the gay-rights movement, there has been a tectonic shift from seeking equal rights within an inhospitable society to seeking to curtail the rights of those deemed responsible for that lack of hospitality. In response, many of those who long saw themselves as guardians of America’s moral mainstream have experienced an equally momentous shift in the opposite direction, to a defensive posture of seeking religious accommodation within an increasingly hostile and energized secular culture.
In a really tragic ruling against a Christian family business who refused to photograph at a gay wedding lost its appeal to the Supreme count on April 7, 2014. Of course, the couple had provided a list of their competitors who could do the job. But that was not good enough here either. This was yet another example, as Abramson said, “avoiding participation in a given event or activity can now be construed as violating someone else’s civil (or human) rights”. The inescapable conclusion here is that the state is seeking ultimate control of how Christians carry out their faith in the public square. Much of this anti-religious reasoning is promulgated on the basis that religious freedom exists only within the confines of the four walls of a church or synagogue. That is critical constraint, because I do not know of a single church or synagogue that thinks that faith is in any way legitimate if not practiced in everyday life! That is a perfect description of government control over people of faith, which will eventually include, according to Abramson both Jews and Christians.
These examples of violations of religious freedoms are all cited for simplicity on the march of the gay rights movement and how government is intruding into the practice religious faith. But if one has watched the 700 Club News reports for the last 30+ years, a daily glut of such example are reported on, long before the gay rights movement became a serious movement. Everything from preventing Catholics kids quietly praying the rosary on a school bus or simply reading the Bible for historical religious studies in schools. Yet these violations of religious rights extend to businessmen participating in a prayer or Bible study during lunch to all manner of control of public ministries like the Salvation Army or Teen Challenge and now to religious hospitals. I have dozens of video tapes over the years of these reports going all the way back to the Beta-Max days. It is not in any way restricted to the gay rights movement. All of this is a systematic attempt to drive religious Americans out of public discourse or fulfilling what Christians call the Great Commission.
Abramson goes on to predict that the religious rights of Jews will be of increasing danger as is in the City of San Francisco banning the Jewish sign of the covenant, namely circumcision (an increasingly popular movement in the name of human rights or health concerns of course). Another encroachment on Judaism, he predicts next is a popular legal movement in Europe led by politicians in Scandinavia which effectively outlaws certain kosher laws regarding how animals are slaughtered. There, Jews are prevented from following these religious commands as would please many animal rights activists would like to do in this country.
The seriousness of this deterioration of religious rights for all is put well into context by Abramson which is the most astounding challenge to his own people I have ever heard from a politically conservative Jewish activist.
Freedom of religion falls when we refuse to allow people to align their lives, their families, and their businesses with the dictates of their faith. And if freedom of religion falls, so do all of our other rights. In an irony of epic proportions, the attack on religious freedom is an opportunity for America’s Jews to help America’s Christians secure the Christian nature of their community as a necessary step toward securing the Jewish nature of their own.
All I can say to that is WOW and thank you Bruce Abramson! This raises the possibility that Christians and Jews could put their heads together at some point and coordinate our efforts so as to not defeat each other’s concerns and/or interests.
I would also like to insert here that another article by an orthodox Rabbi that was so impressive to some Catholic Christians that they allowed him to publish his similar warning to Christians on their CERC site. This one is really brief but dynamite guys, so also read this link. Read about his Orthodox credentials at the bottom of his article.
Now just in case one is thinking along the lines of "no problem", Bill Clinton signed the 1993 RFRA into law, so Hillary will do the same - think again. For one thing, even Bill Clinton has expressed more narrowed qualifications and parameters in the law in light of the rapidly evolving LGBT agenda, as is implied in the Abramson article.
Yet, many religious people might ASSUME that because Bill Clinton signed the RFRA into law, Hillary would honor it herself, as she deceptively implied to some. Hey everybody, WE HAVE TO START PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE WORLD AROUND US!!! So note the fact that since the national 1993 “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” survived more than one major Supreme Court challenge (when applied to individuals). So states sought to clarify how it is interpreted given each states unique problems given their own populations. However, Hillary Clinton, as National Review points out, “has opposed all state versions of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was signed into law by her husband, falsely casting them as bigoted attacks on the dignity and rights of LGBT people” (see National Review article).
More importantly, in Hillary Clinton’s speech at the 2015 Women in the World Summit, Hillary advocated that women become agents of change regarding women’s “reproductive rights”. As she put it, “All the laws we've passed don't count for much if they're not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed” (see USA Today article).
"Religious belief...have to be changed"
The quote above is about 1/3 though the 23 minute video on the right. Now, there have been a flurry of “progressive” media reports and blogs attempting to apologize or explain that Hillary was not referring to abortion, contraception, or LGBT rights. If you listen to her speech, I think you will find the context is as I stated above. But regardless of the debate over context, the undeniable fact is that somewhere within Hillary’s
agenda is the intent to change religious beliefs in any way related our political participation. No matter how sympathetic we can become with particular secular political views, as religious people, we cannot allow those sympathies to be in conflict with either the Torah or the New Testament.
So I need to ask if anyone believes there is any alternative at all to voting for Trump for the purpose of arresting the hemorrhaging of our religious rights? On numerous occasions, Donald Trump has promised to reassert religious rights. A central part of this promise is his commitment to constitutionalist Supreme Court Justices as well as legislation. But even if he fails to do this, doing nothing would at least stop the current rate at which our religious rights are deteriorating. Who else has articulated a defense of both religious rights and religious beliefs – no one!
Gary Johnson’s libertarian philosophy leads him toward the legalization of the recreational use of marijuana, but he promises to cease his own use if elected. His libertarian philosophy also reveals itself in his isolationist approach and illiterate knowledge of foreign policy with his multiple “Aleppo moments”. Gil Stein has an even more controlling socialist philosophy than Hillary Clinton. McMullin is limited to only 3 states where he could theoretically win electoral votes; Utah, Nebraska and Main. Although his chances are good in Utah, Main and Nebraska do not go by the “winner takes all” electoral vote rule. Therefore, stopping Hillary from getting 270 electoral votes by this tactic are virtually zero. Alternative choices like these will have no impact on whether or not Hillary becomes president.
Yet there is a peculiar trend exclusively in evangelical thought which I have noticed especially with those heavily immersed in prophecy. There is a growing perspective in those circles to cite the Biblical prediction that the church will come under increasing persecution whether or not one is a pre-tribulationalist. There is no denying that scripture predicts this, yet there are many in this crowd that therefore become pacifists in this non-violent spiritual warfare and shrug their shoulders and say “so what” to the danger because God wins anyway. This is a really strange interpretation of scripture because the vast majority of Christians when it comes to literal warfare are not pacifists. Yet when it comes to spiritual warfare, they become pacifists. Think about that hideous conclusion. Because God predicts a latter-day onset of great evil, we are therefore supposed to cooperate with it??? That is irrational!
In response to that notion, I would encourage every Christian to memorize and meditate in your quiet time on Mathew 5:13 until November 8. There Jesus said,
You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.
No, the context here has nothing to do with spiritual salvation in which we are eternally secure. Yet we evangelicals, as a culture in “salty” apathy, are in severe Biblical danger of being physically “thrown out and trampled under-foot by men”.
My intent in citing this last prophetic warning (specifically in regards to Christians) was to stimulate the conviction to act as salt in the world around us, which is to fulfill the ancient role of salt as a preservative. However, if it produced fear in the mind of the reader or tempt one to trust in your political involvement or in government, please read my blog, “Dealing with Election Fears”.
