Trump and Politics

RandyPNW · Feb 10, 2026

Inclusive or Patriotic? Trump seems bewildered that even though his economy is doing well the numbers still indicate people don't like him. But I think it's pretty simple, really. The Republican program Trump supports is more patriotic than inclusive. Why do Democrats, the schools, the media, the entertainment all support a more "inclusive" model of politic? It's because the more "inclusive" model attracts more people, more political support, more customers, more money, more listeners, etc.

The more "patriotic" model has standards and may appear to look judgmental and racist. It may look bigoted. This is clearly going to look "hateful" to many people--particularly to people who don't *want* to have moral standards, or who want to live in lawless, less-confined ways. Democrats define their version of "democracy" as "inclusive," and wish to stitch together a wide assortment of disaffected people, or minorities. They wish to invite in illegal immigrants to stack up their census numbers of sanctuary states so that more congressman are permitted, growing the numbers of Democratic congressman, forming majorities in Congress.

Entertainers want support from a larger number of people, drawing from liberals who appeal to all, politically, religiously, and morally. That way they sell their product to more, and not less, people. The same with company executives who want to sell their wares to more, and not less, customers. Sports heroes, actors, musicians all want to sell to the highest number of people, without excluding the lowest common denominators. "Patriots" are going to lose out to a non-discriminating mass of people. Public schools are going to be oriented to the more "democratic" model because they are designed to apply to all. Higher Education wants to attract all, from any country or group, and not just those who support our Constitution.

So even if our economy is doing well, the campaign to take down Trump and his "patriotism" is going to have "teeth." No matter if his policies are healthiest for America, and in support of a true constitutional form of Democracy, he is going to be questioned by the media and branded "uncompassionate" and "bigoted." Putting America first seems more intuitive, but does not take hold where there are media blitzes that taint the political message. Perhaps 80% of America rejects the lawless inclusion of illegal hordes coming into America and doing damage to our society and schools. But looking these "illegals" in the eye draws upon compassionate hearts, and crime is ignored in favor of "inclusion."

Without standards, however, all the wealth we gain from selling to "all" will be "cheap money earned," and the money will be spent in a worthless, self-destructive way. It will be like sand spilling out between our fingers. I'm for a fewer, more quality-oriented politic. I'm for the obviously-needed "lawful behavior." I hope you feel the same?

stevevw · Thursday at 7:42 AM

In saying all that. In establishing two clear sides on this. Do you think theres an underlying ideology as well that goes with "patriotism" and "inclusiveness" ?

You mentioned Dems will be more likely to support "inclusiveness" over "patriotism". Is there any other fundemental differences ? Such as more progressive and liberal as opposed to traditional.

What about spirituality and belief ? Is there a fundemental difference ?. Such as secular ideology like humanism and relativism. As opposed to Christianity and Gods objective laws and order.

RandyPNW · Thursday at 5:01 PM

stevevw said:
In saying all that. In establishing two clear sides on this. Do you think theres an underlying ideology as well that goes with "patriotism" and "inclusiveness" ?

You mentioned Dems will be more likely to support "inclusiveness" over "patriotism". Is there any other fundemental differences ? Such as more progressive and liberal as opposed to traditional.

What about spirituality and belief ? Is there a fundemental difference ?. Such as secular ideology like humanism and relativism. As opposed to Christianity and Gods objective laws and order.

I think the average American's political leanings have to do with how they were brought up, whether they have government jobs, whether they are a minority group, and what news sources they draw upon. The important matter to me is that the Democrat Party appears to have been taken over by the more extreme Left, who are Socialists and who have a low moral bar on culutural values.

If you live in a Liberal State like Washington State, where I live, your political inclination may be determined by whether you're in the Seattle Tacoma area in the Western part of the state or in the Eastern part of the state, which consists of farms and orchards--people who are independent of the government.

Both parties try to "enlarge their tent" and therefore do not wish to create categories that separate their membership. So, I'm generalizing about how their basic philosophy differentiates from each political party. The Democrat Party has less of an emphasis on traditional America, which is European and Christian, while the Republican Party is the opposite.

I'll try to say be more specific later when I have more time. Thank you for the questions.

RandyPNW · Thursday at 5:05 PM

stevevw said:
In saying all that. In establishing two clear sides on this. Do you think theres an underlying ideology as well that goes with "patriotism" and "inclusiveness" ?

You mentioned Dems will be more likely to support "inclusiveness" over "patriotism". Is there any other fundemental differences ? Such as more progressive and liberal as opposed to traditional.

What about spirituality and belief ? Is there a fundemental difference ?. Such as secular ideology like humanism and relativism. As opposed to Christianity and Gods objective laws and order.

I just posted this on another forum--I hope it helps?....

God said in His 10 Commandments to "have no other gods." For Israel this was both a political and a religious thing. Not "freedom of religion" but "no license for any other religion."

This is the opposite of what we have in our Liberal Democracies. Without a core religious belief a large state like Russia collapses into Socialism, where power becomes authoritarian and is concentrated in the hands of a few or in the hands of a single party. So, according to God's ideal political government, power needs to be concentrated in His own hands, and not in the hands of men.

We may achieve that in our Liberal Democracies today by "checks and balances" to keep man under check. Or, we may have a more pure form of Christian government, which always fails over time due to the inevitable "aging" of society.

The Democrat Party is interested in moving beyond current Constitutional guidelines in the US--a living document that changes with time. It is good with going from Capitalism to Socialism as the need may be.

The Republican Party is interested in keeping traditional Constitutional government. It is perhaps part of that "aging Christian government" I was speaking about.

Both kinds of party philosophy fall below God's standard in the 10 Commandments. They both reject "God alone" or "Divine government" as "corrupt theocracy." But practically speaking, when true Christians are reduced, in terms of power, to a small minority, they cannot expect to impose their view of government upon all. The majority will decide what government they want.

Currently, I think the Republican Party wishes to retain many of the traditional Christian morals of the past. By contrast, the Democrat Party wishes to advance to support freedom for homosexuals, transsexuals, communists, socialists, illegal immigrants, Muslims, etc.

As a Christian I believe we should vote in favor of Christian morality, even if one political party is demonstrably in favor of helping disadvantaged groups. How are we "helping them" if we're steering them towards moral compromise?

On the other hand, if the Republican Party is so corrupt that their "Christian morality" is a joke, then that is equally bad. For the present my choice is to support the more Conservative party.

But each individual has to follow their own road. I'm just throwing my two cents out there. There is a place where Christian truth intersects politics. And it is something we have to deal with whenever we vote, or whenever we read the news. We are always making choices, and I think we should be guided by the Holy Spirit and by the Word of God to our conscience.

stevevw · Thursday at 11:16 PM

RandyPNW said:
I just posted this on another forum--I hope it helps?....

God said in His 10 Commandments to "have no other gods." For Israel this was both a political and a religious thing. Not "freedom of religion" but "no license for any other religion."

This is the opposite of what we have in our Liberal Democracies. Without a core religious belief a large state like Russia collapses into Socialism, where power becomes authoritarian and is concentrated in the hands of a few or in the hands of a single party. So, according to God's ideal political government, power needs to be concentrated in His own hands, and not in the hands of men.

Yes, and I think the authority and power that governments hold is God given originally. It was His institutions that allowed humans to uphold law and order. A basic human requirement to even exist without anarchy and chaos.

But some States usurp this and inject their own ideology as to what represents a government over the people. When you take God out you get all these human made ideas that fill that authority.

I think the fundemental principle in there being no other gods is then inverted when God is rejected and the void is filled with "not other State, or Dictator, or ideology. In other words this is a fundemental truth that there can only be one truth and God in the world.

That no matter what you use as that god or truth it will eventually become "might is right" when God is rejected. The foundation is either God or some other god or ideology if God is rejected.

RandyPNW said:
We may achieve that in our Liberal Democracies today by "checks and balances" to keep man under check. Or, we may have a more pure form of Christian government, which always fails over time due to the inevitable "aging" of society.

The difference being in a 'Liberal Democracy' there is no true God or gods or ideologies. This is open to the majority. If the majority and social norms have it that they worship the gods of money or some other idol then that is the case.

But if God installed the institution then this is going against what is the natural order of Gods institution on earth. Nut I think there are some natural truths about rulership that all humans understand and recognise as necessary regardless of religion. Its a case of which Rulers come the closest to Gods institution.

Paul mentions that we pray for the Rulers that they be Godly as this pleases God as this is how more are saved when the government is upholding the universal truths of God such as Rule of Law and God given natural rights.

RandyPNW said:
The Democrat Party is interested in moving beyond current Constitutional guidelines in the US--a living document that changes with time. It is good with going from Capitalism to Socialism as the need may be.

Its interesting how socialism is being recast as a good moral way to run the government and society. Especially in a capitalist society where even those advocating for socialism will not want to give up their homes or material goods to the State when push comes to crunch.

Which shows this is more about an ideology that is fundementally opposed to western ideals which stem from the church and Christian values. Which are more in line with Gods institutions on earth.

Even more fundementally this is spiritual any ideology that opposes God is better for society according to the new era of secular ideology as a basis for how we order the world.

RandyPNW said:
The Republican Party is interested in keeping traditional Constitutional government. It is perhaps part of that "aging Christian government" I was speaking about.

But wanting to keep the traditional Constitutional government is not some radical ideology. Its basic commonsense government that has worked for centuries. As opposed to say political Christianity. Where Christianity is subverted into politics. Thats something different again and just a smuch an ideology as others.

RandyPNW said:
Both kinds of party philosophy fall below God's standard in the 10 Commandments. They both reject "God alone" or "Divine government" as "corrupt theocracy." But practically speaking, when true Christians are reduced, in terms of power, to a small minority, they cannot expect to impose their view of government upon all. The majority will decide what government they want.

Yes, we have tried theocracy and it failed. Humans are incapable of keeping to Gods laws and order while governing. Salvation is not by force. But a government can align with Gods way without even being a religion. They can also impose the opposite in humanmade gods like money.

RandyPNW said:
Currently, I think the Republican Party wishes to retain many of the traditional Christian morals of the past. By contrast, the Democrat Party wishes to advance to support freedom for homosexuals, transsexuals, communists, socialists, illegal immigrants, Muslims, etc.

Yes this is the interesting aspect. Has it always been this way fundementally. One side aligning in some way with Gods law and order and by extension are traditional as God does not change. While there has always been this rebellion against Gods way which is expressed in ideas like liberalism and preogressive politics.

The same ideas can be seen in the ancie3nts where there was Gods people and then there were the rebels who made false gods and idols or pagan governments promoting their opposite ideas of sexual freedom. many gods, no gods, certain gods and idols that are anti God.

RandyPNW said:
As a Christian I believe we should vote in favor of Christian morality, even if one political party is demonstrably in favor of helping disadvantaged groups. How are we "helping them" if we're steering them towards moral compromise?

This is the dilemma. Bot sides claim they have the moral truth. Even both claiming to representing Christ. Which is more a reflection of the level of relativity we have decended to. That there can be many versions of Christ.

I think Gods law and order and Christs truth will always be holistic. They will align with nature and reality. With lived reality and it is by the fruits they bear that we can inevitably tell their truth value. Sometimes that takes a bit of time to come out in the wash for some. If not many the way the modern church is conforming to secular ideas.

RandyPNW said:
On the other hand, if the Republican Party is so corrupt that their "Christian morality" is a joke, then that is equally bad. For the present my choice is to support the more Conservative party.

The key I think is to take religion out of the politics. The problem is it is the liberal progressives who have brought religion like race into politics as well. Its not just the reps or conservatives. Its quite natural for conservatives to align their politics with their beliefs. Its natural for humans to do that.

But the liberal progressives are the ones that made the political the personal and the personal the political. So now we have identity politics. The only solution is to once again divorce religion from politics. As we did before the political revolutions. The State use to consult the church as a seperate moral guide. They were respected as such. Not that the State had to then follow such beliefs.

But if there is a seperate church who can be above reproach and untouched by the politics and culture war. Then this makes a clear seperation. Then the church is respected and their guidence is seen in the light of a wise counsel and untainted by the world.

RandyPNW said:
But each individual has to follow their own road. I'm just throwing my two cents out there. There is a place where Christian truth intersects politics. And it is something we have to deal with whenever we vote, or whenever we read the news. We are always making choices, and I think we should be guided by the Holy Spirit and by the Word of God to our conscience.

Yes I think the church and Christianity align with some fundemental truths where you don't have to be religious to recognise their value and status. Like natural God given rights for just being a child of God. But the world still recognises these truths. They just cannot ground them in secular relative ideology.

So as Christians we can align and stand up for those truth not just by belief but by a rational and natural truth that all humans known.

The problem is though that these moral determinations acording to the world are subjective. So even though they may recognise their truth. Because its a subjective belief they cannot fundementally agree because belief is mixed with feelings and desires. If the truth conflicts with those feelings then it will be rejected regaless of knowing its truth and rational.

RandyPNW · Thursday at 11:38 PM

stevevw said:
Yes, and I think the authority and power that governments hold is God given originally. It was His institutions that allowed humans to uphold law and order. A basic human requirement to even exist without anarchy and chaos.

But some States usurp this and inject their own ideology as to what represents a government over the people. When you take God out you get all these human made ideas that fill that authority.

I think the fundemental principle in there being no other gods is then inverted when God is rejected and the void is filled with "not other State, or Dictator, or ideology. In other words this is a fundemental truth that there can only be one truth and God in the world.

That no matter what you use as that god or truth it will eventually become "might is right" when God is rejected. The foundation is either God or some other god or ideology if God is rejected.

The difference being in a 'Liberal Democracy' there is no true God or gods or ideologies. This is open to the majority. If the majority and social norms have it that they worship the gods of money or some other idol then that is the case.

But if God installed the institution then this is going against what is the natural order of Gods institution on earth. Nut I think there are some natural truths about rulership that all humans understand and recognise as necessary regardless of religion. Its a case of which Rulers come the closest to Gods institution.

Paul mentions that we pray for the Rulers that they be Godly as this pleases God as this is how more are saved when the government is upholding the universal truths of God such as Rule of Law and God given natural rights.

Its interesting how socialism is being recast as a good moral way to run the government and society. Especially in a capitalist society where even those advocating for socialism will not want to give up their homes or material goods to the State when push comes to crunch.

Which shows this is more about an ideology that is fundementally opposed to western ideals which stem from the church and Christian values. Which are more in line with Gods institutions on earth.

Even more fundementally this is spiritual any ideology that opposes God is better for society according to the new era of secular ideology as a basis for how we order the world.

But wanting to keep the traditional Constitutional government is not some radical ideology. Its basic commonsense government that has worked for centuries. As opposed to say political Christianity. Where Christianity is subverted into politics. Thats something different again and just a smuch an ideology as others.

Yes, we have tried theocracy and it failed. Humans are incapable of keeping to Gods laws and order while governing. Salvation is not by force. But a government can align with Gods way without even being a religion. They can also impose the opposite in humanmade gods like money.

Yes this is the interesting aspect. Has it always been this way fundementally. One side aligning in some way with Gods law and order and by extension are traditional as God does not change. While there has always been this rebellion against Gods way which is expressed in ideas like liberalism and preogressive politics.

The same ideas can be seen in the ancie3nts where there was Gods people and then there were the rebels who made false gods and idols or pagan governments promoting their opposite ideas of sexual freedom. many gods, no gods, certain gods and idols that are anti God.

This is the dilemma. Bot sides claim they have the moral truth. Even both claiming to representing Christ. Which is more a reflection of the level of relativity we have decended to. That there can be many versions of Christ.

I think Gods law and order and Christs truth will always be holistic. They will align with nature and reality. With lived reality and it is by the fruits they bear that we can inevitably tell their truth value. Sometimes that takes a bit of time to come out in the wash for some. If not many the way the modern church is conforming to secular ideas.

The key I think is to take religion out of the politics. The problem is it is the liberal progressives who have brought religion like race into politics as well. Its not just the reps or conservatives. Its quite natural for conservatives to align their politics with their beliefs. Its natural for humans to do that.

But the liberal progressives are the ones that made the political the personal and the personal the political. So now we have identity politics. The only solution is to once again divorce religion from politics. As we did before the political revolutions. The State use to consult the church as a seperate moral guide. They were respected as such. Not that the State had to then follow such beliefs.

But if there is a seperate church who can be above reproach and untouched by the politics and culture war. Then this makes a clear seperation. Then the church is respected and their guidence is seen in the light of a wise counsel and untainted by the world.

Yes I think the church and Christianity align with some fundemental truths where you don't have to be religious to recognise their value and status. Like natural God given rights for just being a child of God. But the world still recognises these truths. They just cannot ground them in secular relative ideology.

So as Christians we can align and stand up for those truth not just by belief but by a rational and natural truth that all humans known.

The problem is though that these moral determinations acording to the world are subjective. So even though they may recognise their truth. Because its a subjective belief they cannot fundementally agree because belief is mixed with feelings and desires. If the truth conflicts with those feelings then it will be rejected regaless of knowing its truth and rational.

Well thought-out analysis. You make so many interesting points that I'm going to have to take more time later in responding.

iarwain · Friday at 1:03 AM

RandyPNW said:
The more "patriotic" model has standards and may appear to look judgmental and racist. It may look bigoted. This is clearly going to look "hateful" to many people--particularly to people who don't *want* to have moral standards, or who want to live in lawless, less-confined ways. Democrats define their version of "democracy" as "inclusive," and wish to stitch together a wide assortment of disaffected people, or minorities. They wish to invite in illegal immigrants to stack up their census numbers of sanctuary states so that more congressman are permitted, growing the numbers of Democratic congressman, forming majorities in Congress.

Hopefully I don't regret throwing my two cents in here. There definitely is a big divide in the country according to political ideology, and that has certainly become very toxic. As a conservative myself, I know leftists like to call us racists (and more recently Nazis and fascists). IMO, all three of these are absolutely deplorable accusations. How can a person in good faith call their fellow citizens such names, it seems disgusting to me. The "Nazi" and "Fascist" bit is just too silly to address. When it comes to "racist", they should (but they won't) understand that we are not racist, we just have a difference of opinion. We don't think the color of your skin should matter. Period. Period. But they want to have quotas or DEI or guaranteed outcomes according to race, or hold back white males (especially), and we don't. That isn't racism, it's just a different approach. Who is to say one is more racist than the other?

As a conservative, they might think I am hateful. But to my eyes, I have never seen as hateful a group of people as the left, when they are talking about right wingers, or Trump especially, or anyone who might have voted for Trump. Some hate us so much, they want to confront us at the gas station, and say we should never have a moment's peace because of the horrible things we have unleashed on the nation. Research has shown left wingers are more likely to disown their family and friend for political reasons. You say celebrities want a wider audience? But if you are a right winger, they hate you and don't want you as a fan. That's half the country they're alienating.

I am a Christian first and foremost. But it's true I vote a certain way, I do have these political leanings. Bill Maher says being conservative or liberal is an extension of your personality, and people can't help which way they lean, so they shouldn't be condemned for it. As for illegal immigrants, we've seen how Europe has slowly losing their culture and Western Civilization because of unchecked Muslim immigration.

RandyPNW · Friday at 1:11 AM

iarwain said:
Hopefully I don't regret throwing my two cents in here.

Not at all. I agree with everything you say here. I would just suggest you look into the Enlightenment period of European history with the philosophes.

They were a group that saw the corruption of the Christian Church and began to denounce not just the Church but the Christian Religion, as well. They thought they had a better form of government, to replace Christian government. It was the beginning of modern secularistic societies, whether they took on the form of communism or the form of liberal democracy.

In fact, I think the US form of government was in effect a compromise between Christians who believed in Christian government and deists who felt a neutral government best protects against a despotic Christian government.

The philosophes in their rhetoric were hateful just like today's progressive radicals. They were staunchly against religion because they felt dogmatic Christians threatened society with an autocracy every bit as bad as an abusive, uncontrolled king.

iarwain · Friday at 1:53 AM

RandyPNW said:
The philosophes in their rhetoric were hateful just like today's progressive radicals. They were staunchly against religion because they felt dogmatic Christians threatened society with an autocracy every bit as bad as an abusive, uncontrolled king.

This is one problem I have with the Democrats - or let's say this is one reason I prefer to vote Republican. Look at all the hatred that has been loaded on to Charlie Kirk. Just mention his name in leftist circles and watch the hate come out. I can see they might not like him because he supports conservatives politically, but there's no question he advocated for a Biblically based Christian worldview. IMO he was certainly martyred, more for his Christian beliefs than his conservative ones.

As you note, they more heavily promote a secular society. There is separation of church and state, but we are a country based on Judeo-Christian values. And as has been said, there is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I'm sure both parties are rife with deception, but the Republicans seem more likely to protect Christianity, while the Democrats seem more likely to exclude them. Not all, of course, but trending in those directions.

RandyPNW · Friday at 1:56 AM

stevevw said:
Yes, and I think the authority and power that governments hold is God given originally. It was His institutions that allowed humans to uphold law and order. A basic human requirement to even exist without anarchy and chaos.

I'll try to make this short, though it deserves much more. I wish to maintain interest over substance.

I agree. God operates through men and through their free choices and institutions. And yes, God put a conscience in every man such that there is something called Natural Reason. It can, of course, be corrupted by Free Choice run wild

stevevw said:
But some States usurp this and inject their own ideology as to what represents a government over the people. When you take God out you get all these human made ideas that fill that authority.

Totally agree. Dismissing God you get a false god--an idol. And instead of blessing and happiness you get curses and hostility.

stevevw said:
I think the fundemental principle in there being no other gods is then inverted when God is rejected and the void is filled with "not other State, or Dictator, or ideology. In other words this is a fundemental truth that there can only be one truth and God in the world.

Agreed. One God, One way.

stevevw said:
That no matter what you use as that god or truth it will eventually become "might is right" when God is rejected. The foundation is either God or some other god or ideology if God is rejected.

Yes, God is replaced with abusive, controlling authority. If God does not maintain order, people will try to do the same. And rejecting God they impose order abusively. I think Francis Schaeffer spoke a lot about this.

stevevw said:
The difference being in a 'Liberal Democracy' there is no true God or gods or ideologies. This is open to the majority. If the majority and social norms have it that they worship the gods of money or some other idol then that is the case.

Yes. Unselfishness derived from the Spirit of God becomes Greed.

stevevw said:
But if God installed the institution then this is going against what is the natural order of Gods institution on earth.

Not sure what you mean here?

stevevw said:
Nut I think there are some natural truths about rulership that all humans understand and recognise as necessary regardless of religion. Its a case of which Rulers come the closest to Gods institution.

I should think Western democracies come closer to "God's institution" than Communist "democracies?"

stevevw said:
Paul mentions that we pray for the Rulers that they be Godly as this pleases God as this is how more are saved when the government is upholding the universal truths of God such as Rule of Law and God given natural rights.

Right. There is reason to believe God can work through even pagan institutions and governments. Otherwise, prayer for them would be strictly evangelical. But we are told they can bring peace in some measure, along with civil order.

stevevw said:
Its interesting how socialism is being recast as a good moral way to run the government and society. Especially in a capitalist society where even those advocating for socialism will not want to give up their homes or material goods to the State when push comes to crunch.

Yes, Conservatives do see the hypocrasy in socialist-leaning leaders like AoC and Mamdani. The "Squad" likely got very wealthy even as they promoted "equalization" between rich and poor. I think it's a scam personally. Look at the Somalian sheister Omar (my view onlyl)!

stevevw said:
Which shows this is more about an ideology that is fundementally opposed to western ideals which stem from the church and Christian values. Which are more in line with Gods institutions on earth.

I do think some of the progressive agenda derives from Christian values, just as the Enlightenment philosophes derived their concept of "liberty" from Christian values.

But the progressives have turned completely against their Christian roots, claiming to base their beliefs on Human Reason alone, or some sense of equality for all (with their leaders in charge, of course).

stevevw said:
Even more fundementally this is spiritual any ideology that opposes God is better for society according to the new era of secular ideology as a basis for how we order the world.

Yes, just like the Enlightenment felt a Social Compact was better than the 10 Commandments, today's Progressives feel that their liberal humanistic values trump Christian doctrine, which they see as bigotted and genocidal.

stevevw said:
But wanting to keep the traditional Constitutional government is not some radical ideology. Its basic commonsense government that has worked for centuries. As opposed to say political Christianity. Where Christianity is subverted into politics. Thats something different again and just a smuch an ideology as others.

So, here is where you bring up an interesting point. It was also, I think, the departure of the philosophes of the 18th century from Christianity. They rejected the insertion of Christian dogma and exclusivity into political ideology. They did not want to confuse politics and religion. And I would agree to some degree.

Political authority and Religious authority have always been separate fields. To make the Pope a king, or to make the King a pope just doesn't make sense, considering the different fields they rule over.

And when governmental authority acts too much like religious authority what we get is a false prophet, in a sense. The king acts as if he has religious authority when God has reserved the prophetic gift for prophets--not kings.

So I do agree with the philosophes and with liberal democratic philosophy in this sense, that the two spheres of power need to remain separate. But as I said before, religion and politics intersect by necessity--otherwise, God is removed from political life entirely, and we end up with false gods, or idols.

stevevw said:
Yes, we have tried theocracy and it failed. Humans are incapable of keeping to Gods laws and order while governing. Salvation is not by force. But a government can align with Gods way without even being a religion. They can also impose the opposite in humanmade gods like money.

A most interesting point here! To what degree can a secular government act with religious consistency without becoming too religious, or a corrupt theocracy? I would go even farther to ask, "Did God ask too much of Israel by imposing upon them a limited kind of theocracy?

I can't really answer this question right now. It is too big of a question. God would never impose a corrupt theocratic system, or one by definition impossible to work. So did He impose upon Israel a theocracy at all in the OT era?

I think He did so, though not in the way we view theocracies today. He did not require a king, for example.

stevevw said:
Yes this is the interesting aspect. Has it always been this way fundementally. One side aligning in some way with Gods law and order and by extension are traditional as God does not change. While there has always been this rebellion against Gods way which is expressed in ideas like liberalism and preogressive politics.

I agree.

stevevw said:
The same ideas can be seen in the ancie3nts where there was Gods people and then there were the rebels who made false gods and idols or pagan governments promoting their opposite ideas of sexual freedom. many gods, no gods, certain gods and idols that are anti God.

Yes, one side more right, and the other side more in rebellion against Natural Reason and God.

stevevw said:
This is the dilemma. Bot sides claim they have the moral truth. Even both claiming to representing Christ. Which is more a reflection of the level of relativity we have decended to. That there can be many versions of Christ.

I think Gods law and order and Christs truth will always be holistic. They will align with nature and reality. With lived reality and it is by the fruits they bear that we can inevitably tell their truth value. Sometimes that takes a bit of time to come out in the wash for some. If not many the way the modern church is conforming to secular ideas.

Yes.

stevevw said:
The key I think is to take religion out of the politics. The problem is it is the liberal progressives who have brought religion like race into politics as well. Its not just the reps or conservatives. Its quite natural for conservatives to align their politics with their beliefs. Its natural for humans to do that.

Yes, the Progressive side makes their ideology into a false god, or a religion. Then like the corrupt Church in history they impose their "corrupt Church" in its place. They begin by trying to correct the abuses of religious dictatorship by imposing a dictatorship of their own.

stevevw said:
But the liberal progressives are the ones that made the political the personal and the personal the political. So now we have identity politics. The only solution is to once again divorce religion from politics. As we did before the political revolutions. The State use to consult the church as a seperate moral guide. They were respected as such. Not that the State had to then follow such beliefs.

The Democrat Party has taken up the banner of disparate, disaffected groups. Whether Blacks, immigrants, women, or the idealistic youth, the Democrat Party wants to erect a big tent encompassing enough different groups to outnumber traditionalists, or the center party. In doing so they've become essentially the center party.

stevevw said:
But if there is a seperate church who can be above reproach and untouched by the politics and culture war. Then this makes a clear seperation. Then the church is respected and their guidence is seen in the light of a wise counsel and untainted by the world.

Yes, the church apart from the State can be a positive influence on the State. But I think Christians can also operate to some degree within the State. I don't believe traditional politics can completely remove all vestiges of religious dogma, whether it regards the Right to Life or the prohibition of Homosexuality.

stevevw said:
Yes I think the church and Christianity align with some fundemental truths where you don't have to be religious to recognise their value and status. Like natural God given rights for just being a child of God. But the world still recognises these truths. They just cannot ground them in secular relative ideology.

It really depends on how far we've fallen. Israel in the OT began with the 10 Commandments and absolute truth. But it was an ideal, destined to fail over time.

It is the same thing with traditionally-Christian nations. They begin as "Christian nations," and ultimately separate truth from their rational philosophy, particularly as they are influenced by other ideologies. Non-Christian or liberal Christian scientists, for example, gradually weaken the authority of divine revelation, leaving truth in a test tube, completely oblivious to anything certain about God or Man.

stevevw said:
So as Christians we can align and stand up for those truth not just by belief but by a rational and natural truth that all humans known.

The problem is though that these moral determinations acording to the world are subjective. So even though they may recognise their truth. Because its a subjective belief they cannot fundementally agree because belief is mixed with feelings and desires. If the truth conflicts with those feelings then it will be rejected regaless of knowing its truth and rational.

Yes, truth has become subjective because religious authority has gradually been stripped away in our public education and in our universities. The very thought of Christian truth in our political philosophy is viewed as anathema by so many that Conservatives fear placing any role for Christians in political positions.

But in reality, this is where God began with Israel--with the 10 Commandments. "Have no other gods." How far we have fallen!

We, as a minority, cannot impose our religious truth on a now-skeptical and compromised public. But we can be witnesses to the truth. And whether recognized or not, it brings eternal judgment upon our societies or eventual reconciliation with God. We just need to hold onto what we have.

Thanks for a very thoughtful message.

stevevw · Saturday at 8:40 AM

RandyPNW said:
I'll try to make this short, though it deserves much more. I wish to maintain interest over substance.

I agree. God operates through men and through their free choices and institutions. And yes, God put a conscience in every man such that there is something called Natural Reason. It can, of course, be corrupted by Free Choice run wild

yes

RandyPNW said:
Totally agree. Dismissing God you get a false god--an idol. And instead of blessing and happiness you get curses and hostility.

Yes I think it is natural for humans to make gods. If you reject God you make false gods. The 1st cammandment is 1st for a reason.

RandyPNW said:
Agreed. One God, One way.

Even post modern ideologies are a new religion. Like humanism. Perhaps even paganistic. But still a religion with a worldview and morals and metaphysics. To replace traditional religion. Humans cannot exist without a God.

In fact as you mention the curse of rejecting God. The curse is that when we reject God we also reject the natural order of things. We also reject reality itself.

RandyPNW said:
Yes, God is replaced with abusive, controlling authority. If God does not maintain order, people will try to do the same. And rejecting God they impose order abusively. I think Francis Schaeffer spoke a lot about this.

Ok I will check him out. I was listening to a commentator who mentioned that in reality morals need grounding beyond the subjective mind. Christians ground this in God.

But without that grounding it is natural that this becomes (Might). Not necessarily might makes right. But it takes some sort of 'Might' to install a ethical basis. Hense we see how when each side of politics gets in power then dramatically change the ethical framework.

The ultimate might being dictators. But in one way or another it comes down to some form of forced doctrine.

RandyPNW said:
Yes. Unselfishness derived from the Spirit of God becomes Greed.

I am not sure what you mean.

RandyPNW said:
Not sure what you mean here?

Lol I just said the same thing above. It relates to what you mention about Gods curse and when rulers reject God and impose their own ideology. This not only rejects Gods institutions as they were meant to be. But curses them. Hense we are seeing those curses come to fruition today.

RandyPNW said:
I should think Western democracies come closer to "God's institution" than Communist "democracies?"

Yes they come out of the early church. So they should be.

RandyPNW said:
Right. There is reason to believe God can work through even pagan institutions and governments. Otherwise, prayer for them would be strictly evangelical. But we are told they can bring peace in some measure, along with civil order.

Its interesting because we look at say the founding of the US and many would say that some good principles for governing were created. Freedom of religion. You would not want to live in a communist nation where you cannot even be Christian.

So God has put this knowledge in our hearts. But like you say States can defy this natural good way to govern people for various ideological reasons. Usually in making themselves the gods. Just like the original deciever.

RandyPNW said:
Yes, Conservatives do see the hypocrasy in socialist-leaning leaders like AoC and Mamdani. The "Squad" likely got very wealthy even as they promoted "equalization" between rich and poor. I think it's a scam personally. Look at the Somalian sheister Omar (my view onlyl)!

But this is the thing that I think many are realising. In the last couple of years much of the ideology has been exposed. Even now people are no longer going along but fact checking and calling out the lies and false narratives more or less in real time.

Whereas it use to be that people stayed quiet or went along. So I think its post trying to show this is unreal and even evil. But it seems at the same time some are doubling down. Almost as though admiting they know but still wanting to force their will.

I think we have entered a new stage which is more a spiritual warfare beyond a culture war.

RandyPNW said:
I do think some of the progressive agenda derives from Christian values, just as the Enlightenment philosophes derived their concept of "liberty" from Christian values.

Yes I think most people are fundementally the same. We all want equality. Its a case of what that is grounded in and how its achieved. I can see that it can be easy to have dynamically different interpretations of what equality represents in different denominations.

I recognise theres a fundemental difference in how progressive churches see equality in Christ as opposed to orthodox and traditional churches. But basically I think we all want the same thing.

RandyPNW said:
But the progressives have turned completely against their Christian roots, claiming to base their beliefs on Human Reason alone, or some sense of equality for all (with their leaders in charge, of course).

Yes this was part of the Enlightenment. The Reformation came around the same time. This made human reason greater than Gods word. But the beginnings of questioning and critiquing everything was already developing. In some ways a natural and inevitable development from the cross. Or soon after when the church got political.

RandyPNW said:
Yes, just like the Enlightenment felt a Social Compact was better than the 10 Commandments, today's Progressives feel that their liberal humanistic values trump Christian doctrine, which they see as bigotted and genocidal.

Yes but as mentioned above. I think we have moved even beyond this. The experiement of the Social Compact, Humanism, Globalism, Wokism have now all been tried and failed.

It seems to be coming full circle. I have read this current generation many young people are coming back to the traditional churches. I think we are moving post liberalism and progressive ideas and people are perhaps in some sort of limbo and not sure whats going on.

At least the silent majority. But I think as a result of the failed humanist ideas there is also a growing doubling down. DEspite being exposed as unreal and evil some are attacking the source that has exposed them.

RandyPNW said:
So, here is where you bring up an interesting point. It was also, I think, the departure of the philosophes of the 18th century from Christianity. They rejected the insertion of Christian dogma and exclusivity into political ideology. They did not want to confuse politics and religion. And I would agree to some degree.

Yeah, I think Christ recognised the State had a role to play. When you think about it. If the world is fallen and not Gods Kingdom then there can be no theocracy yet. So its inevitable that governments will form that are not theocratic. In fact the founding fathers were very wise men in this regard.

But I don't think they realised or seen that some day the nation would be say Islamic or pagan. I think they seen the value in a free democracy and the people freely choosing God socially and spiritually. They naturally thought that the same kind of people who would want freedom would also believe in God as their maker.

RandyPNW said:
Political authority and Religious authority have always been separate fields. To make the Pope a king, or to make the King a pope just doesn't make sense, considering the different fields they rule over.

I am wondering if this is not a spiritual dilemma that will go on until Gods Kingdom is established. Because it seems you cannot really seperate religion from governance in some ways. Even when the church is seperate they State turns to the church as the moral conscience.

Or it rejects it completely. In doing so it installs mans kingdom.

RandyPNW said:
And when governmental authority acts too much like religious authority what we get is a false prophet, in a sense. The king acts as if he has religious authority when God has reserved the prophetic gift for prophets--not kings.

So I do agree with the philosophes and with liberal democratic philosophy in this sense, that the two spheres of power need to remain separate. But as I said before, religion and politics intersect by necessity--otherwise, God is removed from political life entirely, and we end up with false gods, or idols.

I am beginning to think we cannot seperate them really. If you take out the traditional religious aspect. If you look at all the aspect of religion, the ethics, order, elections of elders to overseer, the morality and the metaphysics or philosophy behind governance. Its not too dissimilar.

I heard Kirk say that I think in Deuteronomy perhaps that Moses set up the first governance system.

But if you look at say humanism or the modern version Woke. It is much the same. People are shamed or ostrasised for percieved sins agianst the ideology. There are the elders and high priests such as the academics and activist who are worshipped as the narrators of their doctrines. Heck we even had Dems bowing a kneww to the god of DEI.

So I am not sure you can really seperate them out because fundementally everything has an ethical basis.

RandyPNW said:
A most interesting point here! To what degree can a secular government act with religious consistency without becoming too religious, or a corrupt theocracy? I would go even farther to ask, "Did God ask too much of Israel by imposing upon them a limited kind of theocracy?

Yes I was pondering this above. I am not sure now where the line can be drawn. I think its a dilemma. Stuck between a rock and a hard place. In some ways the only way that will work is a theocracy for obvious reasons as ultimate this is Gods kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. The ultimate fullfillment.

But at the same time its a fallen world and there are dark powers and pricipalities at work to decieve rulers to their side. That could be anything from radical Islam or dictators to corrupt western governments who should know better. Maybe the Amish got it right lol.

RandyPNW said:
I can't really answer this question right now. It is too big of a question. God would never impose a corrupt theocratic system, or one by definition impossible to work. So did He impose upon Israel a theocracy at all in the OT era?

No worries. I wasn't expecting you to answer. It is a big topic.

RandyPNW said:
I think He did so, though not in the way we view theocracies today. He did not require a king, for example.

I forgot about Isreal. They did succeed in making a theocracy for a while by following Gods instructions. But I was thinking more about after Christ when the church became the power over people and failed.

RandyPNW said:
I agree.

Yes, one side more right, and the other side more in rebellion against Natural Reason and God.

Yes.

Yes, the Progressive side makes their ideology into a false god, or a religion. Then like the corrupt Church in history they impose their "corrupt Church" in its place. They begin by trying to correct the abuses of religious dictatorship by imposing a dictatorship of their own.

The Democrat Party has taken up the banner of disparate, disaffected groups. Whether Blacks, immigrants, women, or the idealistic youth, the Democrat Party wants to erect a big tent encompassing enough different groups to outnumber traditionalists, or the center party. In doing so they've become essentially the center party.

Yes, the church apart from the State can be a positive influence on the State. But I think Christians can also operate to some degree within the State. I don't believe traditional politics can completely remove all vestiges of religious dogma, whether it regards the Right to Life or the prohibition of Homosexuality.

It really depends on how far we've fallen. Israel in the OT began with the 10 Commandments and absolute truth. But it was an ideal, destined to fail over time.

It is the same thing with traditionally-Christian nations. They begin as "Christian nations," and ultimately separate truth from their rational philosophy, particularly as they are influenced by other ideologies. Non-Christian or liberal Christian scientists, for example, gradually weaken the authority of divine revelation, leaving truth in a test tube, completely oblivious to anything certain about God or Man.

Yes, truth has become subjective because religious authority has gradually been stripped away in our public education and in our universities. The very thought of Christian truth in our political philosophy is viewed as anathema by so many that Conservatives fear placing any role for Christians in political positions.

But in reality, this is where God began with Israel--with the 10 Commandments. "Have no other gods." How far we have fallen!

We, as a minority, cannot impose our religious truth on a now-skeptical and compromised public. But we can be witnesses to the truth. And whether recognized or not, it brings eternal judgment upon our societies or eventual reconciliation with God. We just need to hold onto what we have.

Thanks for a very thoughtful message.

No worries.

RandyPNW · Saturday at 5:20 PM

stevevw said:
yes

Yes I think it is natural for humans to make gods. If you reject God you make false gods. The 1st cammandment is 1st for a reason....

I forgot about Isreal. They did succeed in making a theocracy for a while by following Gods instructions. But I was thinking more about after Christ when the church became the power over people and failed.

Good conversation. I certainly have more views on this--views that are more definitive. But at this point I would wish to enjoy the exhange of ideas before launching into more controversial language.

I don't really subscribe, fully, to modern liberal democracies. I see them more as a practical necessity, in view of the fact Christian states have largely failed. The quality of Christianity in them goes down, and in the end good Christians make up a smallish minority. Then the state is not truly Christian anymore, but only influenced by Christians.

The language of "theocracies" is mostly rejected today, although I can't really find fault with it. I do reject Islamic theocracies or even corrupt Christian theocracies, aka former deteriorated Christtian states.

But I don't think that Christian states are always failures or of necessity failures. Christian empires and Christian states have existed in history with all of their warts and pimples, and have done at least as good as any secular state or pagan state.

I do think God intended to set Israel forth, in the OT, as an example of the kind of state He prefers, even if it was destined to fail like Israel failed. God required of Israel a kind of theocracy, even if it was ultimately headed by a king. Theocracies can, I think, exist as either a monarchy or a democracy. It depends on if the ruling agents operate according to Christian laws.

I do recognize that most today would argue that neither a democracy nor a monarchy is a theocracy. They would argue that only when religious leaders rule as political leaders do we have a genuine theocracy. But that is not how I'm using the term.

If any kind of political leader operates by Christian law we do have a form of "theocracy," I believe. And I believe this is what God has always wanted, even in our imperfect world with imperfect leaders.

Is there anything better than the Christian state? No, secularistic states and pagan states may look good for awhile. But in the end they end up like all other states--in some kind of failure.

We may define political failure different. Pagan governments have existed for a very long time, appearing to be "successful." But an oppressive tyranny can exist for a very long time, which would certainly not be considered a "success."

The best form of government, to me, would have to be a Christian government if it is to be truly "friendly" to the people and successful in that sense. Secular states that have, therefore, a Christian background and a strong Christian contingent stand the best chance of persevering in a good way over time. Just my view.

stevevw · Saturday at 11:31 PM

RandyPNW said:
Good conversation. I certainly have more views on this--views that are more definitive. But at this point I would wish to enjoy the exhange of ideas before launching into more controversial language.

I don't really subscribe, fully, to modern liberal democracies. I see them more as a practical necessity, in view of the fact Christian states have largely failed. The quality of Christianity in them goes down, and in the end good Christians make up a smallish minority. Then the state is not truly Christian anymore, but only influenced by Christians.

The language of "theocracies" is mostly rejected today, although I can't really find fault with it. I do reject Islamic theocracies or even corrupt Christian theocracies, aka former deteriorated Christtian states.

But I don't think that Christian states are always failures or of necessity failures. Christian empires and Christian states have existed in history with all of their warts and pimples, and have done at least as good as any secular state or pagan state.

I do think God intended to set Israel forth, in the OT, as an example of the kind of state He prefers, even if it was destined to fail like Israel failed. God required of Israel a kind of theocracy, even if it was ultimately headed by a king. Theocracies can, I think, exist as either a monarchy or a democracy. It depends on if the ruling agents operate according to Christian laws.

I do recognize that most today would argue that neither a democracy nor a monarchy is a theocracy. They would argue that only when religious leaders rule as political leaders do we have a genuine theocracy. But that is not how I'm using the term.

If any kind of political leader operates by Christian law we do have a form of "theocracy," I believe. And I believe this is what God has always wanted, even in our imperfect world with imperfect leaders.

Is there anything better than the Christian state? No, secularistic states and pagan states may look good for awhile. But in the end they end up like all other states--in some kind of failure.

We may define political failure different. Pagan governments have existed for a very long time, appearing to be "successful." But an oppressive tyranny can exist for a very long time, which would certainly not be considered a "success."

The best form of government, to me, would have to be a Christian government if it is to be truly "friendly" to the people and successful in that sense. Secular states that have, therefore, a Christian background and a strong Christian contingent stand the best chance of persevering in a good way over time. Just my view.

God never made the Isrealite to follow Him and they often strayed away. I think Isreal maybe a sort of prototype example of how a nation can be. On the one hand they can follow God and prosper. On the other they can reject God and be cursed. It seems God can also use that curse to reveal himself that people may see Gods wisedom and authority.

I think as we have free will then how we govern encompasses a spectrum so to speak of possible positions in which governments can align or not align with God.

So even if a nation is not religious they can align. Or one who is religious like the Isrealites can also be ut of align.

But primarily because its based on free will it is more a case of social norms and the culture naturally aligning through choice. At the same time that choice can vary away from God to varying degrees and has to include choices rejecting God. .

But the choice is a necessary part of the equation.

I think fundementally this is the spiritual battle of the invisible principalities and powers between Christ and the world.

RandyPNW · Sunday at 1:06 AM

stevevw said:
God never made the Isrealite to follow Him and they often strayed away. I think Isreal maybe a sort of prototype example of how a nation can be. On the one hand they can follow God and prosper. On the other they can reject God and be cursed. It seems God can also use that curse to reveal himself that people may see Gods wisedom and authority.

I think as we have free will then how we govern encompasses a spectrum so to speak of possible positions in which governments can align or not align with God.

So even if a nation is not religious they can align. Or one who is religious like the Isrealites can also be ut of align.

But primarily because its based on free will it is more a case of social norms and the culture naturally aligning through choice. At the same time that choice can vary away from God to varying degrees and has to include choices rejecting God. .

But the choice is a necessary part of the equation.

I think fundementally this is the spiritual battle of the invisible principalities and powers between Christ and the world.

Yes, there's a lot of truth in that from my perspective. But I would say it this way. God set up an ideal system of faith for the nation with OT Israel. But being a typical nation, some would align with God, and some would rebel against God.

I do think, then, that God was displaying the prototypical nation with fathers of the nation who at least initially wished to enter their nation into covenant with God. And God certainly knew it would result in a mixed bag, and ultimately, in failure.

It doesn't mean the system was wrong. It just means that if a nation wishes to follow God by faith there will be a progression, or regression, as such. As the nation loses out to external pagan influences, God's People are reduced to a smaller minority who must not impose their way on the majority but must nevertheless set an example and hope to continue influencing the nation along more godly lines.

But yes, it all boils down to free choice. Some will lean towards following the Spirit of God, as it touches our heart through the vehicle of His word. This is called "Faith."

And some will choose to follow the example of human lust and covetousness that surrounds us by those who do not know or wish to ignore the voice of their conscience. This becomes a temptation that does damage even to those who wish to exercise Faith.

stevevw · Sunday at 6:51 AM

RandyPNW said:
Yes, there's a lot of truth in that from my perspective. But I would say it this way. God set up an ideal system of faith for the nation with OT Israel. But being a typical nation, some would align with God, and some would rebel against God.

I do think, then, that God was displaying the prototypical nation with fathers of the nation who at least initially wished to enter their nation into covenant with God. And God certainly knew it would result in a mixed bag, and ultimately, in failure.

It doesn't mean the system was wrong. It just means that if a nation wishes to follow God by faith there will be a progression, or regression, as such. As the nation loses out to external pagan influences, God's People are reduced to a smaller minority who must not impose their way on the majority but must nevertheless set an example and hope to continue influencing the nation along more godly lines.

I think its similar to an individual who may follow God or choose to follow other ways. Individuals can be examples of Gods way and a group of individuals forming a family or nation can example Gods way as well.

I am reminded of Dr Kings "Beloved community". His idea that a community of Christlike individuals coming together as the example of a loving community that seen beyond race.

RandyPNW said:
But yes, it all boils down to free choice. Some will lean towards following the Spirit of God, as it touches our heart through the vehicle of His word. This is called "Faith."

And some will choose to follow the example of human lust and covetousness that surrounds us by those who do not know or wish to ignore the voice of their conscience. This becomes a temptation that does damage even to those who wish to exercise Faith.

And it is hard to follow Gods spirit to the world, to the flesh. It requires sacrifice of self. It requires lowering self and submitting to something greater. This is the fundemental battle that started in the garden.

Its interesting that 'Pride' is now celebrated rather than it use to be one of the 7 deadly sins. In fact the first one that preceeded all the others.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Trump and Politics

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Similar threads