Author: rskurzdorfer@frontier.com

November 5, 2024

I am writing this on election day, obviously at this point not to convince anyone of changing their minds about their choice for our new Commander-in-Chief, but just to document some rather serious concerns I have with both of our candidates, regardless of who should be elected today.

To begin with, a short glance at previous posts should establish that I am not a Trump fan.  As for the reasons why, I’ve outlined my perspective in these prior posts.  The only thing I might add here is my fears for how he might handle current foreign policy matters, since the world has become an extremely more volatile place since he was in office.  Indeed, our prayers are needed for a leader who can hopefully bring some peace and stability, hopefully an end to the outright wars going on in Ukraine and the Middle East.  He/she must also, if possible, contain China in their desire to devour Taiwan, and keep N. Korea from invading South.  What concerns me is Trump’s tendency (and Vance’s) towards isolationism.  Not that we can always be the world’s policeman, but that sometimes, in order to prevent further aggression, an absolute stance must be made against such actions.  Many foreign policy experts believe that abandoning Ukraine might send a signal to Putin of our unwillingness to also fail to defend NATO member nations like the Baltic States and even Poland.  What message would it send to South Korea, Taiwan and even Japan?  I think that in many instances, being an isolationist is like being a collaborator…the alligator just eats you last.  (In the case of being an isolationist, you give the aggressor time to get stronger and stronger until you have to fight the war under much less favorable conditions).  If my (very limited) knowledge of foreign policy matters disqualifies my opinion, I would encourage anyone to listen to H.R. McMasters¹’ interviews² with Margaret Hoover, or read his book, “At War with Ourselves”.

But my concern is not only with Trump.  Kamala Harris has endorsed hyper-left policies (taxpayer funded sex change operations for inmates, $25,000 government paid down payments for first time home buyers, and $1,000,000 forgivable loans for minority business loans³).  Not only that, but she seems to be in line with much of the current liberal agenda, which has even lifelong liberals like Bill Maher in disgust.  The way she would handle the current world conflicts is also a very great concern of mine.  She recently said she would do nothing different from what Joe Biden had done.  Why would she say such a thing in regard to the handling of the disastrous and shameful Afghanistan pull-out?  She could have stated that she would have handled that differently, given the almost zero power a Vice-President holds….unless she is on record for being a part of, or agreeing with, Biden’s actions.  Trump did set the stage for that pullout by negotiating solely with the Taliban (not including the then-current Afghani government that we helped to set up).  But I believe even he would have handled the pull out better, although I question the necessity, or even desirability of a complete pull out at that time.  It was 2020, and American casualties were low, and I don’t believe the cost of being there was at that time very high.  Trump’s prior policy (yes Trump’s) was actually working well.  But in pulling out, all that we accomplished has disintegrated, save for keeping former terrorists like Al-Qaeda from using the country as a staging ground for terrorism for nearly 20 years.  (Conditions for women and Christians has massively deteriorated since we left).  Also a concern is how she would handle the current situation in the Middle East.  So far she has stated her support for Israel, but how long can it last in the current liberal atmosphere of blaming Israel for all of it.  Does she have the strength to stand up to that group-think?  (As an aside, I know how we could get Israel to agree to a cease-fire this minute…..Have Hamas unconditionally surrender!!).  I know the history of Israel’s settling in Palestine was often a violent one, but the solution is not Hamas’ commitment to drive them into the sea.  How can people think that Israel can exist without Hamas’ surrender?  A cease-fire without surrender just gives an enemy a chance to regroup and re-arm.  Can you imagine the League of Nations calling for a cease-fire in WWII when the Allies were getting the upper hand? 

So, what are we left with?  Two questionable candidates in my view.  Hopefully, the new President will rise to the occasion.  It is possible.  A think a lot of prayer is in order.

1. McMasters was Trump’s National Security Advisor for part of Trump’s administration
2. Look for Margaret Hoover’s two interviews with McMasters on YouTube on “92NY”, or “Firing Line”.
3. As part of slavery reparations, as an attempt to bring blacks to economic parity with whites, government loans to individuals with solid business plans, administered by banks or other financial institutions, not directly by the federal government, might be a solid idea.  At least it would be infinitely better than cash handouts that would quickly fade from having any long-term value at all.  But Kamala’s ad-hoc proposal just smacks of pure vote-buying.

      America, the nation founded not on ethnic origin, but the ideology of freedom, has lost its way.  Not chiefly because freedoms are eroding, but because the line between personal responsibility and freedom has been pushed too far.  We have become a nation that wants what it wants, without regard to its effect on others.  Freedom has never been absolute, and it’s time that the lines be re-drawn.

      I can think of no better example of this phenomenon than the almost universal perception that a woman has a right to choose to do whatever she wants with her own body.  Yes, I agree she has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body.  But a fetus is absolutely, without question, not a part of her own body.  If it was, her egg could not be taken out of her own body, fertilized, and placed within another woman’s body to grow and develop.  Yes, it is absolutely dependent on a woman’s body, but not the biological mothers’ body.  The objection that a woman has a right to choose to abort her baby (note; not their baby, not the child of her and the father) also fails closer analysis.  Isn’t it far more accurate to say that (excepting rape and incest, where a woman has had no choice in the matter), that choosing an abortion is a matter of desiring to be exempt, free from the consequence of a choice freely exercised, knowing that her choice risked pregnancy, but going forward anyway? And since it really does take two to tango, what about the fathers’ rights?  If he wants to raise the child (a good argument can be made that raising a child for 18-20 years is more than equal to 9 months of pregnancy and even a difficult childbirth), what are his rights? If she wants to raise the child, he must (and should!) bear his responsibility for his actions.  But if she wants to abort the child, she doesn’t have to bear the responsibility for her actions.  2000 years ago, a Roman man had absolute power over the life of his child.   21^st century women seem to now want that same power.

      There is actually a parallel between the issue of abortion and the question of environmental pollution.  In the case of the latter, what is ethically required of every company or corporation is that they bear responsibility for all they produce….the good (the product), and the unwanted by-products (the pollutant(s) they are required to contain or re-process in some manner to render them not harmful to the land, the sea, the air, or any of its inhabitants).  But many women don’t want to have to bear responsibility for the unwanted thing (child) they produce.  While women were for so many years treated as second-class citizens (the last to get the right to vote), and still often are recipients of less pay for the same jobs as males, this is one area where the pendulum has swung too far.  This is not about freedom of choice, but freedom from responsibility.

      Of course, what is really desired is consequenceless sex.  It’s what everybody seems to want, but again, what about personal responsibility?  Years ago, when a young woman got pregnant out of wedlock, she was shipped away to ‘visit relatives’ to bear the child and quietly give it up for adoption.  While these backward practices (really aiming to keep shame away from the parents) were certainly unjust and hypocritical, let me ask another question to see how ethical you really are.  Wouldn’t you say that every child entering the world ought to have every opportunity to be healthy, happy, productive, fulfilled, and able to handle anything and everything the world throws at he or she?  If so, having sex with any possibility of pregnancy, with anyone who isn’t kind, compassionate, mature, able, ready and willing to raise a child at that moment with you……isn’t that an act of profound irresponsibility?  Shouldn’t every child (ideally) have both a good mother and father? (Father’s are considered optional today….maybe partially because so many men are so galactically irresponsible). Of course you will rightly say that even responsibly choosing a mate/sexual partner might still result in divorce or even abuse (I’m not sure one really knows the person till some time after the wedding day). True, but being responsible in the matter will only drastically increase the odds of a better life for the child.

Is it really progressive to lead society down a path of personal irresponsibility…to tell them they don’t have to be responsible for their actions, to go so far as to protect them from having to be responsible for their actions?  Isn’t freedom from responsibility actually regressive?   Isn’t freedom and responsibility the progressive way, since it looks after not just one’s own freedoms, but the ramifications of that freedom on everyone around them as well?

Updated on: 5/03/2022

Some 49 years after Roe v. Wade became law, it now looks like that landmark decision on abortion law may be reversed.  Yesterday, a 98-page preliminary draft of the decision in the case of Dobbs. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was leaked to the press, and it looks as if the decision will uphold a Mississippi law prohibiting abortion after only 15 weeks of pregnancy.  This morning I was already hearing some very passionate responses in opposition to the possibility that this decision will indeed become law. But, as is typical of what I’ve heard for many years, a great deal of the argument is, in fact, pure rhetoric, classic mis-characterization, and completely illogical bias.  What I will argue below is not the details of this most recent court case, but the illogic of much of the pro-abortion stance.  Under the guise of being progressive, a great deal of pro-abortion logic is, in fact, the inability to draw the line between personal rights and personal responsibility. Freedom is not absolute.  It ends where personal responsibility begins. 

 Is “freedom of choice” an accurate description of the right all women claim to have when seeking an abortion?  I propose that no one who agrees to consensual sex and is “forced” to carry a child to term is being denied freedom of choice.  Indeed, what is desired is to be free from the consequences of a choice freely exercised, to be free from the risk of an activity they chose to engage in.  The only individuals denied such a choice would be those women who are victims of rape or incest, since they gave no consent to engage in a sexual act.  And, contrary to our grossly immature society’s assertions, sex is not an essential activity, or a need that one must engage in.  Granted, sex is an extremely powerful desire, but not a need.  Since consensual sex is neither compulsory or necessary and choice is always involved, shouldn’t the persons responsible for the pregnancy be responsible for the result? 

      To gain further insight to Roe protecting an essential “right” for women, imagine the following scenario:  What if a poll were taken of every woman in this country who’d raised a child to at least the age of 18yrs.  The poll questioned each woman as to which was more difficult for her, carrying the child for nine months, or raising the child for the ensuing, say 18 years.  I would venture to say an overwhelming majority of women would say the latter.  Now imagine a young man willing to take on this burden of raising his child with or without his pregnant girlfriend’s assistance.  She, however,  is insistent upon having an abortion.  Both freely consented to sex, but she has absolute power over the destiny of the child.  Now the man must bear responsibility for his actions and pay child support (which he should) if she wants the child.  But if he wants the child, she conversely does not have to bear responsibility for her actions!  Legally, I would contend that 40 years ago the pendulum concerning women’s rights on this specific issue swung way too far.  Roe v. Wade granted women not equal rights, but special rights.  Special rights – rights that a particular group gets that others don’t.  Special rights are rights reserved for a privileged group.  In the example above, women get to be free from the consequences of their sexual encounters, but men don’t.  Further, this freedom gives them license (permission) to encroach upon the life, liberty, and happiness of another individual, in this case, the life of the not yet born.

      Now some of you reading this might cede the idea that ‘freedom of choice’ is not an accurate description of this desired ‘right’, but might object by saying that the argument is immaterial, since a woman has a ‘right’ to do what she wants with her own body (claiming the fetus to be a part of her body). But think about it.  For many years now, women have been able to have their eggs harvested, fertilized outside the womb (via in-vitro fertilization) and implanted in another woman’s uterus (a “gestational surrogate”).  The surrogate of course has no genetic connection to the fetus.   Are those who say the fetus is a part of the woman’s body saying the life of the fetus is now fully a part of, and property of the surrogate woman?  This scenario clearly shreds the notion of the fetus being part of a woman’s body.  Completely dependent yes, but then so is every newborn.  (Incidentally, state law varies on even permitting gestational surrogacy, but in many states, and rightly I would think, the gestational surrogate has no rights to the child once born).   Isn’t every woman who claims that she has a right to abort her child really viewing that life as a piece of property….something she possesses, not an independent life?

Others, while conceding the fact that the fetus is an independent life, will object by asserting that the fetus is not yet fully conscious, and therefore not ‘qualitatively’ human.  On what basis could this assessment be made, and should it be made at all?   The presence of brain wave activity was posited many years ago as a possible basis for determining when the fetus is ‘truly human’.  Brain wave activity is present quite early in gestation, but is obviously not as developed as a newborns’, which is not nearly as developed as an adults’.  So where should the line be drawn on what level of brain activity constitutes ‘human-hood’?  Brain wave activity in those who have experienced traumatic brain injury is often looked at as an indication of whether to withdraw life support from the individual.  Many such persons, depending on the degree of injury will never come back into an even partially conscious state.  But the difference here is the fact that, left to simple, adequate self-care on the part of the mother, it is most probable that the fetus will develop into a fully conscious human being.  So should even a certain level of brain activity be the decisive condition for determining whether a fetus is fully human?  Unfortunately, Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court Justice writing the majority opinion in Roe v Wade forty-nine years ago, decided himself when in utero human life begins.  He stated, “We need not resolve the question of when human life begins”. Yet in prohibiting abortion only after the second trimester, he defacto (and dejure) defined that life in the womb wasn’t qualitatively human until then.  (Otherwise, it would enjoy equal protection under the law).  But in a humane society, shouldn’t the biggest determining factor be the allowance for the greatest possible safety factor for when life begins, as opposed to the greatest possible allowance for a person to escape personal responsibility for their actions?  

      If Roe were overturned, and women were ‘forced’ to be responsible for their actions, where would or should this lead us?   Not to a place where abortion is unconditionally restricted.  It seems obvious that the life of the mother must always be protected.  This is a case of one life verses another.  Who is government to decide between the lives involved?  Rape and incest victims, since they had no choice in the matter should be free to opt for an abortion, even if it is not the best answer.  And there are cases of severe fetal abnormality, where the parents should be given the freedom to choose.  In my opinion, any serious health risk to the mother should also qualify as an exemption from having to carry the child to term. But should vague exemptions, like the health of the mother, where health can be almost anything, be permitted?  One example of this is when a child is viewed as an inconvenience by the mother and is thus unwanted.  On the basis that the child poses a danger to a woman’s “psychological health”, should a physician be able to sign-off on an abortion?  If danger to a woman’s health is to be an exemption from having to carry a child to term, the dangers which would qualify for such an exemption should be specified much more definitively.  And let’s not pretend that there aren’t other options.  A woman doesn’t have to care for the child for the rest of her life, she just has to carry it to term.  As for the rest of the burden, the option is there – adoption!

       The right to privacy is often advanced as a justification for the right to abort a child.  “We don’t want the government in our bedrooms” so the line goes.  But yes, the government has the right to be in your bedroom if you’re beating your child or abusing your infant.  The legitimacy of government intervention again returns to the question of whether the entity in the womb is a human being.   If it is indeed human (as I would contend it is), it must enjoy the full protection of the law.  You can kill yourself if you want to….but not another human being.

      It’s been 49 years since the Roe v Wade decision was announced.  Let’s finally face the reality of the ill-logic behind the characterization of Roe as guaranteeing ‘freedom of choice’.  The right to an abortion can be described as ‘freedom of choice’ only to those who were denied the choice to have sex in the first place.  For the rest, it is freedom from the consequences of their actions.  Roe v. Wade may soon now be overturned.  But that will only bring it back to the states to decide the nature and extent of the restrictions on abortion.  But as those arguments begin, can we at least describe the nature of abortion more accurately.  At least let’s not pretend that it’s simply “freedom of choice”.

     

       

    

      We all do it.  That is, we all turn to authority figures for guidance.  We look to people with the needed experience, the right training, the appropriate knowledge.  Sometimes they have a pedigree we’re looking for.  That is, MD, Ph.D., JD, CEO of this or that company, etc.  Sometimes they are famous because of their name or because of their accomplishments.  Sometimes they are simply people who have been placed in positions of authority.  The problem is – they’re not always right.  Sometimes they’re really not competent to adequately advise on the situations they’re speaking about.  Even worse is when the people in authority abuse that authority with lies and manipulation to deceive their followers.  And one of the means by which they do this is scare tactics.

      At about the end of President Obama’s first term, I watched a video by Christian apologist Dinesh D’Souza offering a frightening vision of what Obama’s plans for America were, according to D’Souza.  Supposedly, Obama was going to usher in socialism – lock, stock, and barrel.  Funny thing – four more years passed and there was no attempt to nationalize American industries, no talk of it, zero, zip, nada.  Scare tactics.  Was this the genuine belief of D’Sousa, or was it disingenuous hype, designed to move the electorate in another direction, for some self-motivated purposes?  Four years later, a wealth of evangelical leaders zealously advocated for the election of President Trump, presumably based on his support of pro-life policies, including the extremely important tasks of appointing judges who would support this world-view, as well as other conservative positions.  (While I didn’t vote for Donald Trump because of his profound character issues, I understood the importance of those issues).  But the manner in which some of these church leaders framed their support, I believe, gave impetus to their followers’ unconditional support of Trump, no matter how bad his behavior.  At least one Evangelical leader framed Donald Trump’s 2016 election as a “work of God”.   This same leader before the 2020 election warned that socialism would “come full force” if Joe Biden were elected.  President Trump’s speech the night before the Capitol riots was replete with all manner of hyperbolic fear-mongering.  Here’s a bit of that speech.  “If the Democrats are elected, all of your savings will be gone, your laws will be gone, your freedom will be gone……The socialists and Marxists will be in charge of our country……The democratic candidates will attack our heroes, destroy our economy, and betray you and your family and it will happen very quickly.”  When such prominent leaders posit these notions in such frightening ways, you can fully expect a great many of their followers to take extreme actions.  But caveat emptor!  People need to be much shrewder in their listening.  Have you heard of “confirmational bias”?  It’s where a person only listens (reads, pays heed) to those views and ideas they already believe in.  These people never let their existing world-view be challenged.  It scares them too much.  Of course, we all have biases, and we all nurture those biases.  I am hugely guilty of this.  But we all need to listen to the perspectives and viewpoints which are opposite ours.  Often, it may only confirm our views, while sometimes, if really open, it may alter or change our viewpoint altogether.

        Why is it that Fascists, Dictators, Communists, all try to control the media (or to assert that everything but what they say is ‘fake news’)?   Because to control the media is to be able to control the people.  How can one find the truth if the very facts are distorted by the media or whomever controls them?   Do I think that the “liberal media” sometimes distorts the truth?  I do, because I have seen them do it just by deciding what events/issues to cover, and which ones to ignore.  But what about Fox News.? I use to think that (in spite of their insistence of the purity of their journalism), that Fox was biased, but in a way that somewhat balanced the liberal media bias.  Today, I think their bias is worse than anything the mainstream media puts out.

      To be frank, I am very seriously disappointed in many of our present evangelical leaders.  So many seized upon the idea of Donald Trump as some kind of savior of the American way of life, some kind of “God -chosen man” who would protect all of our cherished Christian ideals.  But the church should never enter so deeply into the defense of a single candidate or even party.  Like it or not, there are many Christians who have been opposed to the Trump presidency, and all that he represents.   Billy Graham once warned of the dangers of the church becoming one with the Republican Party, saying that, “the hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it.”  The most serious consequence however might be the loss of respect for people of faith and as well for certain valid conservative ideas and ideals due to the association of people of faith and conservative ideals with the person of Donald Trump. 

A retrospective analysis, based on President Trump’s four years in office.

       A little over four years ago, evangelical leaders across America overwhelmingly offered up their support and advocacy for Donald Trump, largely based on the idea that a candidate’s political platform is more important than his character.  In spite of being quite conservative on a number of issues, I felt that this idea was sorely wrong-headed.  Especially concerning the case of the extreme character deficits of Donald Trump.  Narcissistic to the point of believing only what he wants to believe, he has split this country like no other public figure in recent memory.  Insisting he won an election (contrary to all evidence), he urged his loyalists to take this ‘rigged’ election back, inciting a mob to swarm the Capitol, resulting in five deaths.  (Ironic that he thought voter fraud was perpetrated by the left.  If I were to guess who would be the most likely person to attempt to cheat the system, based on their character, it would be Donald Trump!) 

      I’m sure Trump’s evangelical supporters would cite his loyalty to the anti-abortion platform, appointing and confirming two conservative Supreme Court Justices.  Yet his pushing through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett at the end of his term gave the Democrats just the justification needed to pack the court if they should later so choose (Trump commented that winning elections, i.e, control of the Senate, carried with it the benefit of doing as they should so choose).  Did Trump ever care about the death of unborn children?  I believe he adopted the anti-abortion stance just so he could secure a large voting block from Catholics and Evangelicals.

      And what about his leadership during Covid?  I think there is something seriously wrong that America, arguably the most developed, most technologically proficient country in the world, leads the world in total infections and total deaths!   Yes, the infection numbers in other countries, and even deaths attributed to Covid may not be as accurately counted in these countries, but consider India.  It has three times the population, yet has experienced only approximately 40% of the infections and deaths that we have.  Even accounting for what might be poorer tracking and statistics in India, we should have done far better.  But to Trump, Covid was initially, “no big deal”.  He and Pence flaunted the idea of not wearing masks, setting the worst example imaginable for the general public during this crisis….resulting in far many more deaths than what might have been.  And it is my belief that during the last six months he has had little on his mind but his reelection.  That’s the way it is when you elect someone for whose whole life has been characterized almost solely by his own self advancement.   How would you ever expect someone like this to place the well-being of the citizenry above his own?  He couldn’t even be loyal to those who had displayed almost fawning loyalty to him the moment they no longer played to his liking.  (He called Mike Pence a coward the moment when Pence chose to do what was absolutely required of him by our constitution).

      The unconditional support of Trump has greatly, in my opinion, sullied the reputation and character of evangelical leaders and evangelicals as a whole.  Being an evangelical, I am greatly angry and disappointed with these church leaders, many well-known.  I believe they need to issue an apology to their followers and to the American people as a whole.  And what about those eight Senators and 147 House members who called on Congress to actually overturn the results of the election – overturning the democratic process itself, presumably for reelection’s sake?!!!  I feel they should be campaigned against the next time they come up for reelection, regardless of who’s running against them.  It doesn’t matter who’s running against them…anyone who hasn’t sold their soul like they have is OK with me.

      As for a candidate’s platform being primary, there will always be situations, threats, difficulties which cannot be predicted, and a president’s handling of them will depend on more than what he outlined in his plans for his administration.  His preparation, experience, knowledge, wisdom, and character will be called into play.

      It’s very hard to really know some people’s character….what really matters to them, what they are willing to risk or sacrifice to do the right thing.  The best we can do is look at their history, their behavior, and try to see if their actions have shown self-sacrifice or self-promotion: respect and concern for others or indifference, apathy, or even antipathy:  leadership qualities like wisdom in one’s decisions, or failures due to lack of vision, etc.  In Donald Trump’s case however, a great deal of his character could be readily seen from his past, and even in his campaign rhetoric and behavior.  There was no excuse for putting him forward as a candidate for the Presidency, and even less for the kind of unconditional support he received from some quarters.  Character was supposed to be unimportant.   Character matters maybe more than anything in a candidate.

Four years ago, I listened to a thinly-veiled endorsement for Donald Trump at the end of a sermon at the church I was attending.  The pastor’s justification for his choice was that the candidate’s platform, in his opinion, outweighed the candidate’s character, no matter how marginal.  My own judgment weighed in the opposite direction, and, in spite of my dislike for a great deal of Hillary Clinton’s platform, I voted for her.  Trump was elected with a huge support from evangelicals, a great many of whom voted for him based on a single issue on his platform…..abortion.  True to his word, the President has been faithful in his support of the pro-life issue, including the nomination of two conservative justices to the Supreme Court.  But what of the rest of his accomplishments during his first term?  Has his support for the pro-life movement overshadowed the failures of his first term, and has the evangelical support for him been justified?  And should the church be involved in politics in the manner which it has been for the last four years?

      First, let’s look at the high and low spots from his first term.  As mentioned above, he was faithful in his support for the pro-life movement.  He signed a major crime-reform bill (the First Step Act) into law which was lauded on both sides of the aisle.  He (properly, in my opinion) fought unfair trade practices by applying tariffs to Chinese dumped steel and other products (I’m free trade, but also fair trade).  And he insisted that all the member NATO nations do their fair share as part of the pact.  And he did restrict air travel from China when Pelosi and other Democrats were calling him out for ostensibly being xenophobic.  I’m sure there are many other things he has accomplished during his first term, and I’m sure I’m amiss to not know or mention them.  On the other hand…

      His administration has been practically a revolving door with regards to aides, cabinet members, appointees, etc.  He has refused to be transparent with regards to his taxes.  He has cozied up to dictators and alienated long-term allies.  He nearly got us into a major conflict with Iran last January in the bombing of the Irani general Soleimani, an action that could have spiralled into an even greater regional conflict or even world war.  (Never mind whether it was justified……was it wise?)  Also, in October of last year, Trump shamelessly betrayed an ally of ours in the war against ISIS, the Kurds.  After bearing the overwhelming burden of the conflict with ISIS (over 11,000 Kurdish deaths verses approximately a dozen American deaths), Trump pulled our remaining 1000 or so troops out of Syria. The result was the  invasion of Turkish troops into Northern Syria and the displacement of more than 300,000 Kurds.  One retired 4-star general called Trump’s actions an “unsound, morally indefensible act”, and a “disgrace” to America and the soldiers who serve this country.  And then there’s his administration’s leadership in the time of covid-19.  No he didn’t cause it, yes his initial response (in restricting travel from China and Europe) was good and timely.  But since then, both his policy as well as he and his staff’s personal example have been the quintessential example of poor leadership.  In spite of the positive results of mask requirements in many other countries, Trump has yet to mandate masks universally and generally downplays the seriousness of the situation.  He and Mike Pence (Pence in the Mayo clinic no less) walk around without them, when their personal example could mean so much to the prevention of the spread of the virus, and the protection of the vulnerable in our society.  Then, of course, there is Trump’s lack of leadership in our current race-relations.  His failure to condemn the radical racist right until just recently, and his complete lack of any positive leadership with regards to black concerns about racial justice have only fueled the fire of this conflict.  Finally, there is his personal conduct and pejorative comments with regards to women, the disabled, servicemen who get captured, etc.

      My question for the church is this…..not that we shouldn’t advocate for particular candidates, but should we unconditionally support them like I see so many Christian leaders have done? I believe that in some regard, the church has sort of prostituted itself with regards to Trump, that is, offered unconditional support in return for his promise to support the pro-life agenda.  Shouldn’t the church always in a sense stand outside the ‘powers’?  That is, shouldn’t it stand ready to praise them when they act according to right and wrong, and in general govern justly; ready to criticize and condemn when they act outside of these ideals?  In the last four years I seldom hear the Trump supporters, church persons or other, offer any criticism, even when he has been obviously in the wrong.  And is the single issue of abortion the only issue for the Christian?  Elderly lives matter, black lives matter, Kurdish lives matter.  To a lesser extent, but still importantly, the environment matters, the economy matters, our educational system matters. 

But back to the abortion issue, what is the best-case scenario for a public that doesn’t want abortion restrictions?  After all, in the absence of significant punishments for an offense, even our Christian theology states that prohibitions usually only heighten the desire to transgress them.  In a democracy, what the public wants, the public eventually gets.  People need to be convinced of the evil in the act of an unjustifiable abortion.   Laws themselves won’t suffice.  And a 6-3 court majority overturning Roe v. Wade would only kick the issue back to the states……which means that this conservative majority for the court might not be nearly as decisive on the issue of abortion as has been expected!  And ultimately, if the people don’t want any tighter abortion restrictions, another party will eventually rise to power and find a way around it, like packing the court.  If elected this term, Joe Biden has refused to say he won’t pack the court.  But why shouldn’t he?  Donald Trump defended nominating Amy Coney Barrett to the Court during an election cycle, on the grounds that winning an election brings with it the advantage of doing certain things.  If Biden should be elected, he has every right to justify packing the court on the same logic.

      Some of the ‘cultured despisers’ of Christianity would have it that religious people shouldn’t be involved in politics or statecraft.  But the Constitution is clear:  its prohibition is against state sponsorship of any religion, not the involvement of religious people or religious institutions in politics.  It’s just very important that we do so wisely, and advocate for the good of all, not just those issues that are central to our own concerns.  After all, God can defend us, should He so desire.  We need to defend others.

6/13/2020

     Ideas matter.  They have consequences.  Inaccurate facts, poor logic and bad theories often spill over into unfortunate and even tragic results in the societies that embrace them. It is especially true for bad theology, because theology itself presents itself as kind of a sacred philosophy, and when inaccurate or mis-guided, that theology can affirm what is, quite frankly, evil behavior for that portion of society that looks to the church for what it embraces and what it forbids.  How else could an ostensibly “Christian” nation allow (and in some places affirm) the abominable practice of racial slavery for a couple hundred years, followed by another hundred years of segregationalist Jim Crow laws?  For reasons of greed, cowardice, and social acceptance, Christian scriptures have often historically been used to justify what people have wanted them to justify.  Several hundred years ago, those in power saw the huge economic advantages of trade in human souls and therefore saw ‘slavery’ in the Bible as justifying racial enslavement. But the truth of the matter is that the slavery the Bible was describing was actually either indentured servitude (willingly making yourself another’s slave in order to work off your debt), or the cruel practice of conquering nations like Rome to make slaves of many of the people they conquered.   The church could have made a difference in those early years of our Republic, if only it was unafraid to preach the truth.  And it could still make a difference today.

     You see, governmental policy changes can only go so far.  Yes, they are necessary, and needful.  To an extent they can fight the “structural evil” in certain institutions by implementing changes to policing practices, properly vetting police recruits for latent racist attitudes, etc.  But how can any government change the hearts of racists souls? The church is where this possibility exists (for those who embrace the Christian faith).  But, I believe in order to do so, it will have to change both the nature of its practical theology (preaching), and the deeper understanding of what it really means to be a Christian.

     First of all, the church’s preaching needs to call out and condemn racist attitudes and actions in the most uncompromising manner.  When Christ commanded us to never return evil for evil, and required us to even pray for and hope for the good of those who treat us particularly bad, how could mis-treatment of innocent persons with a different skin color be remotely thought to be tolerable?  It is tragic in the extreme that some of the churches were actually complicit w/both slavery and the segregationist Jim Crow laws that followed.  It should have condemned them both, even if it meant the church’s destruction.  The church’s job is always to do the right thing, that is, witnessing to the will of a righteous and compassionate God.  Why bother existing without doing the one job you were commanded to do?  Even today many of the Christian churches are cowardly and reluctant to point out those behaviors and attitudes which are contrary to God’s will, even when such preaching could prevent someone from escaping the judgment of God!  The Scriptures never fail to condemn evil actions.  (See Revelation 21:8, and 1^st John 2:9, the latter which says, “Anyone who claims to be in the light and hates his brother, still lives in darkness”).  It is no stretch, nothing inconsistent with scripture to proclaim that racists, if they maintain their racism, will never enter the kingdom of God. 

     As for how the Church’s theology in general has been lacking, since the Reformation many evangelical churches have espoused a theology of salvation which has no requirement of obedience, no change of behavior.  One simply trusts in the work of Christ to save oneself.  Then one just goes and lives their life as they please!  Of course, the words of Jesus in the Gospels have to be discounted or marginalized in some manner, since His requirement is to daily die to one’s own wishes and desires and surrender our lives to Him.  His demand is that the advancement of the Kingdom of God and His will take precedent over every selfish desire we have.  Hard stuff, but non-negotiable.  Take it or leave it.  Many churches preach this, but many don’t.  If they all did, many would leave the church.  But at least it would be a faithful witness to what God desires, and no one would confuse Christians with racists.

     As for those who loot and riot and throw stones at the police force….do you want to be treated justly?  That is, not attacked or mistreated when innocent?  How can you attack a policeman when he or she may be innocent of not only any unjust behavior, but also may be innocent of any racist attitudes?  God will hold everyone to account for their actions.  Victims can become oppressors.  Each of us has a choice.  All truly Christian churches must stand with the idea of justice for all.  If not, its witness is already compromised.  The Church of Jesus Christ has a job to do.  If it isn’t faithful to this, it might soon completely lose its value to the world.

Postscript:  The death of George Floyd and the unrest that has occurred since then has revealed something rather unpleasant about myself.  That is, most of the things I fight for, most of the causes I advocate are typically causes that will or might someday affect me.  Bourgeois, I think is the term.  That is, protective of the things that comprise the concerns of white middle-class persons like myself.  With regards to racism and racial inequality, I have been prototypically been quick to assert how far things have come since the 1960’s, not really listening to what is still occurring.  But a recent letter from a friend, whose husband is Kenyan, has changed my perspective.  The letter mentioned the rather staggering numbers of times he has been accosted by whites, especially taking into account the rather brief period of time he has lived in the States.  It is far more often than I would have imagined. 

Some say crisis shapes individuals. Other say it simply brings out what was inside them already. I regret to say that the Covid-19 pandemic has revealed what resides in the souls of many Americans, and it isn’t pretty stuff. While we are accustomed to accusing our political leaders with all manner of evil and malfeasance, what I am really concerned with is the gross self-interest, and the almost infantile selfishness of a significant portion of the US population.

I’ve been off work for six weeks now, and I’m beginning to get a bit restless. But restlessness isn’t exactly a critical health concern. Yet the reaction of a rather large portion of Americans to just such minor discomforts gives me great concern. It comprises the America that insists on the quarantine being lifted, because quite frankly, the corona virus just doesn’t threaten their age group. They’re out there protesting the situation, probably because they don’t care whether 7 million Americans die, as long as they don’t. (If each and every one of the approx. 350 million Americans was infected, 7 million dead would be the result of a 2% fatality rate). The quarantine is necessary, because minimizing the infection rate not only drastically reduces the number of deaths due to reduced exposure, but also increases the survival rate, due to several factors. Among these factors is keeping the hospitals from being overwhelmed, so that ventilators are available to save lives, plus giving the doctors more time to develop better treatments and maybe eventually come up with a vaccine. Yet these people don’t care. Their freedom is being impinged upon! Really? Our freedom is not absolute. Your freedom and mine ends where it negatively effects the well-being, the happiness, the freedom of another. Think about it. We’re not being drafted and forced to risk our lives in a war on foreign soil. We’re simply being asked to stay home and not spread the virus, to protect the more vulnerable individuals in our nation. And it’s not like we don’t have access in this sequestration to the best of food, and even endless entertainment and social media possibilities. Yesterday, on Facebook, I read of the most violent and extreme caricature of this heartless attitude. It seems a woman was stopped at the entrance to a dollar store somewhere in Michigan, and asked to put on a mask. She spit in the employee’s face, and later returned with her stepfather and stepbrother, one of whom shot and killed the employee. America the soulless, the spoiled beyond measure.

As for our recent policy of slackening some of the quarantine rules, I think it’s too early, especially without a government mandated policy requiring masks (if within 6 feet of another person). The masks are an important measure, one that can greatly inhibit the spread of the virus. To that point, about a month or two ago, I viewed a YouTube video from the Czech Republic. It showed how, very early in the pandemic, their government issued a lock-down and required masks whenever anyone was out in public. The result? The number of deaths there due to the virus is only one-tenth that of nearby Sweden, which has a similar population size. Yet here, almost violent demonstrations are being held protesting the lock-down. Only a few days ago, the Ohio governor backed off from requiring masks, probably due to public resistance, but nevertheless, a cowardly response. (Of course, the recent actions of Mike Pence at the Mayo Clinic displayed a horrific example of how Americans should behave in this crisis).

Finally, we need an administration that is going to create an intelligent and effective long-term policy towards this situation, not a short-term one, created with eyes on the fall election. Getting everyone back to work too soon might create another serious outbreak of the virus, with another extended period of downtime for the US economy. This might be a far worse scenario than sitting it out a little longer now. And, when finally going back to work, the government needs to require the wearing of mask. And they need to enforce it.

P.S. A lot of people are out there every day, risking exposure. Pray for the health care workers. As for the grocery store and drug store employees….how’s about leaving them a healthy tip? (If you are able).