Posted on 11/13/2016 7:11:52 PM PST by ReformationFan
One has to admit that Donald isn’t everybody’s idea of a pious Presbyterian. Though he still maintains some loose connection with his parents’ confession, his behaviour is, how shall I put it, more Playboy than Presbyterian.
And yet he won over Christians by a wide margin: 52 per cent of all Catholics, 58 per cent of all Protestants and 82 per cent of all evangelicals voted for him.
The Catholic vote is particularly notable. After all, some 40 per cent of US Catholics are Hispanics, and, putting it mildly, Trump didn’t go out of his way to endear himself to that group.
Why did Trump win the Christian vote? Here I recall a conversation I once had with a friend, a good Catholic and a good man, even though his politics are somewhat to the left of mine.
The conversation veered towards Franco, whom I described as a saviour of Spain. The man had no wings, but the choice Spain faced wasn’t one between Franco and an angel. It was between Franco and Stalin, and, had Franco lost, Spain today would closely resemble Romania.
My friend didn’t exactly share my enthusiasm for the Caudillo. But, he admitted, had he lived at the time, he would have supported Franco, begrudgingly. Because, he explained, “the other side was killing Catholics”.
But what about a place where no priests are being murdered? Should faith in Christ still skew a person’s political convictions and, if yes, how?
The question is valid, for the dual nature of Christ demands a synthesis of the physical and metaphysical. This is the cornerstone of Christianity, and it’s no accident that the deadliest heresies in history preached the evil of the physical world.
Yet, when Christ said that his kingdom wasn’t of this world, he meant that his kingdom was higher than this world. He thus established the primacy of the metaphysical ideal, which ought to determine how the physical life is lived.
Hence one’s faith should at least influence one’s politics. Otherwise the metaphysical thesis and the physical antithesis won’t meet at the counterpoint of synthesis, thereby flouting the dialectical essence of Christ.
Now skipping some intermediate logical steps, I’m convinced that it’s a Christian’s moral duty to vote for the most conservative (or the least socialist) candidate on offer.
For Christian Socialism (predominantly Protestant) is an oxymoron, as is its Catholic doppelgänger Democratic Socialism. Socialism can no more be Christian than it can be democratic.
Socialism, in its multiple variants, is the most toxic offshoot of that etymological cognate of Lucifer, the Enlightenment. Its animus was rebellion against Christendom, starting with its founding religion. That was the original revolt of the masses, to use Ortega y Gasset’s term.
When it erupted in a violent 1789 outburst, hundreds of thousands of Christians were killed. But the damage went even further than that: the Enlightenment also killed Christianity as the dominant social, cultural and political force.
Everything about post-Enlightenment modernity is an active denial of everything about Christianity: modernity’s statism, materialism, mendacious premises – and its natural political expression in socialism.
The essence (as opposed to verbiage) of socialism is deifying the omnipotent central state, transferring most political and economic power from the individual to a bureaucratic elite ruling in the people’s name. This is the exact opposite of Christian subsidiarity, devolving power to the lowest sensible level.
Financing the giant provider state through extortionate taxation is also the opposite of Christian charity: a man giving his money to a beggar acts in the Christian spirit; one giving his money to a mugger doesn’t.
Ascribing an undue significance to the process by which the ruling elite is formed bespeaks the characteristic modern obsession with formalism. Having failed to replace the Christian content of our civilisation with anything of remotely similar value, the modern lot are obsessed with forms rather than essences.
Hence their fixation on method of government, masking the fundamental kinship of all modern governments, whatever they call themselves. Equally hostile to the traditional organic state, they’re all different parts of the same juggernaut rolling over the last vestiges of Christendom (I make this argument at length in my book How the West Was Lost).
A Christian must feel the inner need to slow down this juggernaut as best he can, even if it can’t be stopped. Hence he’s duty-bound to support the most conservative candidate, in the only valid meaning of conservatism. Only thus can he preserve his intellectual integrity.
Many Christians must perceive this viscerally, even if they haven’t thought it through philosophically. Hence their support for Trump – no matter how thoroughly most of them must be appalled by his vacuity and vulgarity.
I don’t see Trump as a fellow conservative. Had he stood against a George Canning or at a pinch a Ronald Reagan, no right-minded person would vote for him. But, even as the alternative to Franco was Stalin, not an angel, the alternative to Trump was Hillary, not a George Canning or at a pinch a Ronald Reagan.
It’s a damning comment on our time that believers in absolute truth have to become political relativists, choosing not the greater good but the lesser evil. Trump, they decided, was just that – and, God help us all, they were right.
Hillary’s Supreme Court.
The explanation in three words.
One reason is because Trump opened the door to Christian leaders. He also talked of defending religious liberties and appointing pro-life justices to our courts.
Meanwhile, democrats are thinking about naming a muslim as their next party leader.
The main reason many people voted for Trump was to deny Traitorhillary the White House. With that expectation being met by Trump, anything else good he does is just icing on the cake.
It’s probably too much to hope that we will be able to retire that stupid, brainless slogan, “The lesser of two evils is still evil.”
Voting to keep the most evil candidate out of office is good. It is the right use of the vote.
Hillary’s plans to ramp up the resettlement of Muslim “refugees” into this country didn’t help her among Christians. It seems that quite a number of them perceive that as a mortal threat, regardless of the SJW horse manure heaped up around it.
One reason is because Trump opened the door to Christian leaders. He also talked of defending religious liberties and appointing pro-life justices to our courts.
.......................................................
He also previously said he was against gay marriage. Now in his 60 minutes interview he says he is fine with it. He doesn’t win nearly the same number of Christian votes and maybe loses the election if he says this two weeks ago.
I’m very concerned.
I’m not totally with this. Trump is flawed, as are we all. But he does have a nobility of spirit. His failure to always live up to those standards does not mean he does not aspire to them.
We didn’t choose between the lesser of two evils, we chose honor. . . flawed, perhaps, but honor nonetheless.
Hillary is on record saying religious values must change to accommodate the murder of the unborn child and homosexuality.
Trump is no choir boy.
However, he is willing to listen to the Christian community and is not asking/telling us we have to change.
He's promised a Scalia type appointee(s) for SCOTUS.
That is a nutshell is why Christians voted for him.
He also previously said he was against gay marriage. Now in his 60 minutes interview he says he is fine with it.
—
I don’t believe he’s changed his position. He thinks it should be a state issue. Also, he doesn’t believe it should be forced on churches.
I didn’t see the 60 Minutes interview, but personally, I don’t believe he should make it one of his top priorities. My biggest problem with gay marriage is when they try to force it on our religious institutions.
Hillary.
And his pro-life and pro-Constitution stand.
I think they are trying to bait him into saying something controversial before he even gets in office and he knows better than to play into it, especially what with all the rioting going on.
I think he’s wise in not committing to anything yet since it’s meaningless at this point cause he’s not be inaugurated.
I’ll wait and see and continue to pray.
Corrupt MassMurdering HilLIARy
there’s your answer in just three or four words
oh yes, you can add jobs to that list
Clinton, much like Obama, appears to be openly hostile to Christians. Even worse, she has hinted openly that Christian beliefs and practices are antithetical to her world and legislative view.
Christians don't need a perfect Christian role model in the White House, but we do need someone who's not actively politicking against us.
Now in his 60 minutes interview
It is 60 minutes. They routinely lie and edit their interview tapes to deceive.
I bet, if you listen to the unedited tape, the meaning is significantly differen.
Missouri Synod bump
I'll hope so anyway.
Trump has demonstrated that he is not hostile to Christians and Christianity. Clinton has demonstrated that she is.
That’s it in a nutshell.
That pretty much sums up my reasons for voting for him.
Trump showed respect for people of all faiths, and he earned the support of many influential religious leaders. I think itbalso helped that he was humble and never tried to act like a religious leader.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.