Jump to content
270soft Forum

"Christianity Today Magazine", founded by evangelist Billy Graham, calls for Trump to be removed


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

They don’t seem to have any political stance at all

It seems true that the general editorial policy (obviously the piece in question is an exception) is to try to appeal to readers across the evangelical spectrum, and part of that means avoiding appearing partisan.

Having said that, I buy that they editors don't have any political stances at all as much as I buy that you or I don't have any political stances at all.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

4 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

As you said, there aren't many that are explicitly about American politics.

Just looking at the December articles, here's another one that seems to have anti-Trump bias.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2019/december/evangelicals-fight-refugee-resettlement-trump-executive-ord.html

Part of this is tricky because Christian motivating impulses often work along a different logic than typical political left-right impulses.

 

 

I would look at pre-Trump issues since Christian morality would be naturally opposed to Trump if it has any semblance of Jesus-based Christianity. If right and left are determined exclusively by Trump, then you are restricting the whole left right spectrum. The journal is probably aligned with someone like Kasich or Flake. That is center right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the key paragraph in the editorial is this.

"But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral."

(The editor then goes on to talk about how terrible Trump's twitter feed is. )

The problem is that the facts in this instance are quite ambiguous. So it sounds like the editor in question is getting his news from left-leaning outlets.

The conversation transcript is debatable. Is the President trying to coerce Zelensky? It doesn't *sound* to me like coercion is the right term, but perhaps it is. Zelensky himself says no, he didn't feel pressure. But perhaps he's being pressured to *say* he didn't feel pressure? Possible.

Can it be legitimate to investigate someone who happens to be a political opponent? Of course! That's what the House Dems have been doing for a year now! The question is what is the justification for looking at or launching an investigation. Here the facts are less clear. Was there sufficient evidence to justify the President asking a foreign leader to look into corruption charges related to the Bidens? Perhaps not. But it's not 'unambiguous'.

That's all the time I have for forum threads today, new release coming out later today! You can have the last word if you'd like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I think the key article in the editorial is this.

"But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral."

(The editor then goes on to talk about how terrible Trump's twitter feed is. )

The problem is that the facts in this instance are quite ambiguous. So it sounds like the editor in question is getting his news from left-leaning outlets.

The conversation transcript is debatable. Is the President trying to coerce Zelensky? It doesn't *sound* to me like coercion is the right term, but perhaps it is. Zelensky himself says no, he didn't feel pressure. But perhaps he's being pressured to *say* he didn't feel pressure? Possible.

Can it be legitimate to investigate someone who happens to be a political opponent? Of course! That's what the House Dems have been doing for years now! The question is what is the justification for looking at or launching an investigation. Here the facts are less clear. Was there sufficient evidence to justify the President asking a foreign leader to look into corruption charges related to the Bidens? Perhaps not. But it's not 'unambiguous'.

That's all the time I have for forum threads today, new release coming out later today! You can have the last word if you'd like.

You’re stuck on the impeachment, but the article isn’t — it states that regardless of Whether it’s by impeachment or election, Trump must be removed.  Not exclusively because of his actions with Ukraine, but because he is morally bankrupt.  To that degree, Ukraine is but one example and the article goes on to briefly list others.

The heart of the article, in my mind, is not at all about impeachment or Ukraine, but is instead this stunning call to action for evangelists, most of whom have backed Trump this far.

”Remember who you are and who you serve.”

He is stating that their very literal SOULS are at stake here, and for those who are inclined to actually believe in this sort of thing, I have to think that at least makes a person take a step back and reconsider their best path forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, vcczar said:

If right and left are determined exclusively by Trump, then you are restricting the whole left right spectrum.

I take it this is a sake of argument statement, because no rational or educated person would view the political spectrum this way, otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, vcczar said:

I would look at pre-Trump issues since Christian morality would be naturally opposed to Trump if it has any semblance of Jesus-based Christianity. If right and left are determined exclusively by Trump, then you are restricting the whole left right spectrum. The journal is probably aligned with someone like Kasich or Flake. That is center right. 

 

4 hours ago, admin_270 said:

I think the key article in the editorial is this.

"But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral."

(The editor then goes on to talk about how terrible Trump's twitter feed is. )

The problem is that the facts in this instance are quite ambiguous. So it sounds like the editor in question is getting his news from left-leaning outlets.

The conversation transcript is debatable. Is the President trying to coerce Zelensky? It doesn't *sound* to me like coercion is the right term, but perhaps it is. Zelensky himself says no, he didn't feel pressure. But perhaps he's being pressured to *say* he didn't feel pressure? Possible.

Can it be legitimate to investigate someone who happens to be a political opponent? Of course! That's what the House Dems have been doing for years now! The question is what is the justification for looking at or launching an investigation. Here the facts are less clear. Was there sufficient evidence to justify the President asking a foreign leader to look into corruption charges related to the Bidens? Perhaps not. But it's not 'unambiguous'.

That's all the time I have for forum threads today, new release coming out later today! You can have the last word if you'd like.

 

3 hours ago, Actinguy said:

You’re stuck on the impeachment, but the article isn’t — it states that regardless of Whether it’s by impeachment or election, Trump must be removed.  Not exclusively because of his actions with Ukraine, but because he is morally bankrupt.  To that degree, Ukraine is but one example and the article goes on to briefly list others.

The heart of the article, in my mind, is not at all about impeachment or Ukraine, but is instead this stunning call to action for evangelists, most of whom have backed Trump this far.

”Remember who you are and who you serve.”

He is stating that their very literal SOULS are at stake here, and for those who are inclined to actually believe in this sort of thing, I have to think that at least makes a person take a step back and reconsider their best path forward.

Since Christianity, if one actually follows the Ministry of Christ, unlike Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and Shinto, but more like Bahai, Buddhism, Jainism, and Taoism, is inherently non-political non-legal from a mortal governance perspective, Christians should not apply their beliefs to politics except as a moral guidepost, but not as a doctrinal basis for platform or lawmaking. That being said, there is not a single U.S. President I can think of, nor any other world leader in any nation contemporary to the 240-year existence of the United States who is someone Christians would enthusiastically rally around and claim is a good and moral shepherd of the people. Power corrupts, and maintaining Christian moral observance while in a position of true power seems more than almost any can handle or rectify. This is why "Caesar," or the State, should be kept be separate from the Church - but by the Church, themselves!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...