Trump chooses who to lead the Office of Faith Relations? Really, of all of the orthodox non heretical Christian leaders around he chooses who?
I have my problems with the whole concept personally. History suggests that every time the Church gets too cozy with the government, that it is the Church that ends up losing. Scripture tells us that the Church will prevail and that the "gates of hell" cannot stop it. In short, the Church does not need the protection of the government to fulfill it's mission.
What I expect from the US government is "fair and equal" treatment under the law for all religions.
What I don't want is a president who doesn't appear to have any significant faith himself appointing a false teacher to protect the Church. As we see in places like Iran, the Church seems to do pretty well without government protection.
10 comments:
You don't mean...
"anytime an openly hedonistic,
openly corrupt,
clearly amoral narcissist leader
welcomes the religious into his house,
he is always only planning on using them for personal gain and power"
...do you?
This is much ado about nothing. If the church can survive, it can survive and this cannot do much harm, either. I do have a problem with who he's tapped for his religious advisors...or at least Paula White (don't really know who else he's picked)...the initiative itself is not problematic. What's more, it matters not the degree to which he believes for this initiative to be of value, but only that it works toward the intended goals of protecting religious liberty. And while I believe it was inspired by the obvious attacks on actual Christians, and may be focused on the many abuses perpetrated against them, I fully doubt he would less concerned if Jews, muslims or others were so mistreated.
Biden had his own version of such an office. I would have to research...and I'm not going to...but I would suspect other presidents had something similar as well. I have no problem with government and the church working in tandem, so long as they stay in their lanes.
Plagued by my inability to truly read the hearts of others, I will leave it to God to determine the quality of Trump's faith and belief. I just wish he had better advisors than those of whom I am aware.
No. I mean that Trump chose a woman to head the "faith office" who is a heretical "christian pastor". I have no problem with the office, I just think he chose a shitty person to fill it. If this is an attempt to pander to/win back Christians, it shows a certain tone deafness toward the group he is possibly trying to woo.
As I've said repeatedly The Church does not need an office in the US federal government to protect it. The Church will be just fine whether or not this office exists. Historically, when The Church has gotten entangled with the state, it hasn't benefited The Church at all.
This has little to do with Trump's faith or lack thereof. I does have everything to do with him making an incredibly poor choice for this office.
Paula White was a "faith advisor" the last time he was president. Where are all the good scholars advising Trump of his poor choice? He had other heretics with him also last time, which is probably why Trump doesn't seem to understand real Christianity.
I reported on this fiasco a few days ago:
https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2025/02/president-trumps-faith-office.html
I suspect it's partly that Trump is pandering to the pro-life/conservative Christian demographic and he's just ignorant about who is a heretic and who is not. Which, of course, calls his faith into question.
Given that the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, I think it's appropriate for the federal government to have some office tasked with guaranteeing that guarantee. Frankly, I'm not sure what the purpose of this office is supposed to be and/or do. If they act as a place where acts of religious bigotry can be reported, they can move from there to getting those acts addressed by law enforcement. I haven't given the office itself much thought, but only have been as alarmed at his choice to head it up. Can whatever the heck her job is be done well while being a heretic? Can't say without knowing what the job entails, and I don't know.
Politicians pander always. It's how they get elected. It's the nature or intention of the pandering which matters. He pandered to all who wanted the border issue resolved. He pandered to all who wanted wasteful spending found and addressed. Here, I think it's obvious he's pandering to conservative Christians and others who have had their faith treated like a pariah by leftists with immoral goals threatened by people of faith. Those are just three areas of pandering which have great personal appeal, as well as the improvement of life in American as the end game. Let's all send messages to Trump and let him know that despite his personal opinion of White, if he's truly interested in drawing nearer to Christ, there are far better people available to guide him.
When I said that "I had no problem with the office", that's what I was referring to. If the office is to ensure the constitutionally protected free exercise of any and all religions, then cool. If it's to "protect Christianity", then it's a pointless exercise and should be eliminated.
Given that this appointment has been presented as good thing for Christians, I'd argue that being a heretic might impede that goal. If her protection for Christianity involves promoting or prioritizing her heretical views, again problematic. Because why not pick a heretic when there are plenty of non heretics available?
Interesting "defense" or excusing of pandering. The border and spending are legitimate, essential functions of the federal government. This "faith office" seems like a waste of time and money.
If he's pandering to conservative Christians, it seems strange to pander by choosing someone who would be considered a heretic by a significant number of conservative Christians. The problem is that most/all of the "persecution" of Christians for the last few years was undertaken by the DOJ. Presumably Trump's AG pick will not continue those policies, rendering this "faith office" superfluous in terms of government overreach against Christians.
The problem with pandering (to say, do, or provide what someone (such as an audience) wants or demands even though it is not good, proper, reasonable, etc.) is that it is cynical by it's very definition. It's promising things to people with little or no regard to the consequences.
I have no interest in politicians pandering. I'm interested in their convictions and principles.
"Interesting "defense" or excusing of pandering."
It is neither. It's just recognizing pandering for what it is: common to all politicians for good or ill. I know how the term is commonly used and my point is that it is used improperly to assume the intentions of Trump not overtly expressed. Most, if not all, presidents have done the same thing to one extent or another, and most have relied on spiritual advisors. That Trump has chosen poorly his advisors is akin to his having poorly chosen Anthony Fauci, but in each case his intentions, I believe and have no reason to doubt, are more sincere than not...not "pandering" in the sense that he's trying to get what he doesn't already have by whatever means necessary. As always, we can speculate about his intentions, but I choose to not do so in a manner that suggests fact no evidence is provided to support. It's again a question of whether I'm supporting/defending Trump as much as questioning the negative suspicions of others about him.
I don't know what this faith office involves in terms of costs to the American tax payer. I've heard so little about it and have made no effort to investigate as I regard it as insignificant even conceding his bad choice of advisor.
I also don't know...can't know...just how serious he is about issues of faith, except that many who have come close to death do...at least for a period of time until the shock wears off...think more seriously about such things. This he has expressed, and it's too bad he's relying on people like Paula White. Thus, I say again that as Christians ourselves (as we insist we are), encouraging him in finding better than her is worth a few minutes of or time. Better spiritual advisors will (hopefully) influence positively his convictions and principles.
I understand, you're excusing pandering by claiming that everyone does it so it's just something to be accepted. Got it.
I understand. It's hard for you to accept almost anything that you perceive as negative about Trump, even as you agree that his choices have been bad, you still argue that they don't matter and/or shouldn't be considered.
You are right that we don't know about his faith, yet we do know what he's done and what's he's said publicly. I've heard nothing from Trump that suggests that he has any sort of Biblical/Christian faith. As I wouldn't consider faith as a prerequisite for POTUS, that's not a negative politically. Trump has enough good and bad that is readily apparent, it's pointless to speculate about that which is not. The fact that he has a history of bad "spiritual advisors" doesn't seem to bode well for his faith.
Given the scorched earth approach of DOGE, and the massive deficit/debt, I'd argue that even if the cost is only a few million dollars, that it's a waste of money.
Post a Comment