Trump just promised an authoritarian ‘task force’ to impose Christian ideology

[Bradskii]

I won't be able to comment on what Trump has said in this regard since it's not something I have yet researched into.

However, there is an issue I'm seeing, as someone who has converted to the Christian faith and that is this:

All the founders of the United States were completely steeped in a "Christian", or a Biblical worldview. Everything about the laws they made, things they thought and things that concerned them came directly out of the mindset of the reformation.

Without understanding certain Biblical premises, you don't understand how many of the phrases they used in the drafting of our laws and constitution were actually intended to be understood.

You don't have to believe the Bible, but a background of knowledge is more than just helpful in understanding the foundational documents.

Therefore, I do think teaching it at some point in a child's education (Maybe High School and college?) is helpful in going forward to an adulthood of understanding our laws.

If you take any foundation of understanding out of a thing, you can twist anything any which way.

Don't confuse some moral precept being found in scripture with that precept being founded on scripture.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I won't be able to comment on what Trump has said in this regard since it's not something I have yet researched into.

However, there is an issue I'm seeing, as someone who has converted to the Christian faith and that is this:

All the founders of the United States were completely steeped in a "Christian", or a Biblical worldview. Everything about the laws they made, things they thought and things that concerned them came directly out of the mindset of the reformation.

Without understanding certain Biblical premises, you don't understand how many of the phrases they used in the drafting of our laws and constitution were actually intended to be understood.

You don't have to believe the Bible, but a background of knowledge is more than just helpful in understanding the foundational documents.

Therefore, I do think teaching it at some point in a child's education (Maybe High School and college?) is helpful in going forward to an adulthood of understanding our laws.

If you take any foundation of understanding out of a thing, you can twist anything any which way.

One thing I’ve noticed as someone who’s always been Christian is that Christians are super excited to take credit for the things they think they did that are great (even if they didn’t actually do the thing they think they did), but a whole lot less excited to discuss the things that other faiths did that were equally or just as good, and a whole lot less excited to discuss the things they’ve done that were negative, harmful, or on the wrong side of history.

Anything good they’ll shout from the rooftops. Anything bad? No thanks.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I won't be able to comment on what Trump has said in this regard since it's not something I have yet researched into.

However, there is an issue I'm seeing, as someone who has converted to the Christian faith and that is this:

All the founders of the United States were completely steeped in a "Christian", or a Biblical worldview. Everything about the laws they made, things they thought and things that concerned them came directly out of the mindset of the reformation.

Without understanding certain Biblical premises, you don't understand how many of the phrases they used in the drafting of our laws and constitution were actually intended to be understood.

You don't have to believe the Bible, but a background of knowledge is more than just helpful in understanding the foundational documents.

Therefore, I do think teaching it at some point in a child's education (Maybe High School and college?) is helpful in going forward to an adulthood of understanding our laws.

If you take any foundation of understanding out of a thing, you can twist anything any which way.

The particular sect of Christianity into which you've converted - likely similar to the one in which I grew up - was likely a bit too nationalistic and failed to differentiate between true Christian faith and Christian terminology that was merely coopted by other philosophies. I would argue that the more you understand Christianity, the clearer it becomes that what the Founding Fathers were talking about is often quite different than what is taught in the Bible. It wasn't so much the Reformation that was informing them as it was the Enlightenment. For example, the concept of "natural rights," which the framers describe as "all men" being "endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not remotely a Christian philosophy. One can infer from Christian ethics that that's how we ought to treat each other, but the Christian "Creator" never promised or endowed anybody with anything of the sort. The only thing promised to Christians was persecution for their faith and a ticket to heaven.

 

[MrMoe]

Considering that he's trying to convince the SCOTUS he should have absolute Presidential immunity for any and all criminal acts, I'd say that narrative is dead on.

From the Collins Dictionary:

A dictator is a ruler who has complete power in a country, especially power which was obtained by force and is used unfairly or cruelly.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dictator

Trump is just trying to extend something that already exists, and is unlikely to get it. Not very dictatory if you ask me.

Plus he's already admitted he'd be a dictator "on day one." We just have to believe someone guilty of fraud (and other things) that he'd actually stop there.

-- A2SG, even if his actions on January 6th weren't an indication...

In 2016 Trump threatened to put Hilary in jail if he became president. Trump became president and Hilary never went to jail. I learned a long time ago that Trump is all bark and no bite. Trump becoming a dictator is as likely as Biden not saying something nonsensical or incoherent.

 

[DaisyDay]

From the Collins Dictionary:

A dictator is a ruler who has complete power in a country, especially power which was obtained by force and is used unfairly or cruelly.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dictator

Trump is just trying to extend something that already exists, and is unlikely to get it. Not very dictatory if you ask me.



In 2016 Trump threatened to put Hilary in jail if he became president. Trump became president and Hilary never went to jail. I learned a long time ago that Trump is all bark and no bite. Trump becoming a dictator is as likely as Biden not saying something nonsensical or incoherent.

If he didn't lock her up, it was not for want of trying: Report: Trump wanted to prosecute Comey, Hillary Clinton

Perhaps getting more loyalists to replace civil service employees will work out for him next time.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The headline is a lie. Nothing in the article shows Trump imposing Christian ideology. This is just Trump pandering to Christians, which he's been doing for years. The headline seems designed for those percentage of people who only read the headline and to feed into the "Trump will become a dictator if he gets into office" narrative.

Secondly, MSNBC is the FOX News of the left. I find it funny how left wing members here will trash FOX News but then, without a hint of irony, post an MSNBC article.

Did you notice the part where article with this title was labeled "Opinion"? That's how you identify it as "opinion" instead of reporting.

 

[MrMoe]

Did you notice the part where article with this title was labeled "Opinion"? That's how you identify it as "opinion" instead of reporting.

That doesn't change anything, since an opinion can still be wrong.

 

[MrMoe]

If he didn't lock her up, it was not for want of trying: Report: Trump wanted to prosecute Comey, Hillary Clinton

Perhaps getting more loyalists to replace civil service employees will work out for him next time.

Why didn't it work out for him the last time?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

That doesn't change anything, since an opinion can still be wrong.

I've noticed a trend in recent years of people claiming that opinions that they disagree with are lies (for example, "The headline is a lie."). A lie is a deliberate misstatement of fact.

Generally speaking, opinions are expressed on issues where facts aren't (yet) known. This can be on a global level or an individual level - the facts may not be known to anyone, or the individual expressing the opinion may simply not be aware of the facts. Disagreement (without facts to support it) doesn't render an opinion wrong, and opinions that are shown to be wrong based on new facts are not lies unless they continue to be expressed after those facts are known.

 

[SimplyMe]

Why didn't it work out for him the last time?

Because he largely hired people that were qualified for the job and brought their own morals to the job. As such, they refused to do what Trump ordered when it was wrong, when the facts and evidence didn't fit what Trump was trying to do.

Trump has already said he's learned his lesson and that this time he's only going to appoint people that are absolutely loyal to him, who will do exactly what he tells them, and not people that will use the law and facts to temper their actions.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That doesn't change anything, since an opinion can still be wrong.

My point was that it was characterized as biased reporting thing you were arguing against was the conclusions the author of the piece made about the future. That is fine, but your issue is with the conclusions, not the bias of reporting.

 

[DaisyDay]

Why didn't it work out for him the last time?

He didn't have a clue how government worked last time round.

 

[MrMoe]

I've noticed a trend in recent years of people claiming that opinions that they disagree with are lies (for example, "The headline is a lie."). A lie is a deliberate misstatement of fact.

Which is exactly what the headline does.

"Trump just promised an authoritarian ‘task force’ to impose Christian ideology"​

Trump made no such promise. Hence, the headline is a deliberate misstatement of fact.

Generally speaking, opinions are expressed on issues where facts aren't (yet) known. This can be on a global level or an individual level - the facts may not be known to anyone, or the individual expressing the opinion may simply not be aware of the facts. Disagreement (without facts to support it) doesn't render an opinion wrong, and opinions that are shown to be wrong based on new facts are not lies unless they continue to be expressed after those facts are known.

You're confusing opinion with speculation.

 

[MrMoe]

Because he largely hired people that were qualified for the job and brought their own morals to the job. As such, they refused to do what Trump ordered when it was wrong, when the facts and evidence didn't fit what Trump was trying to do.

Trump has already said he's learned his lesson and that this time he's only going to appoint people that are absolutely loyal to him, who will do exactly what he tells them, and not people that will use the law and facts to temper their actions.

Can you give me a source for what he said. Especially for the part where he said he doesn't want people that will use the law and facts to temper their actions.

 

[MrMoe]

My point was that it was characterized as biased reporting thing you were arguing against was the conclusions the author of the piece made about the future. That is fine, but your issue is with the conclusions, not the bias of reporting.

The headline isn't a conclusion the author of the piece made about the future. It's in past tense and states that Trump made a claim he never made.

 

[MrMoe]

He didn't have a clue how government worked last time round.

And yet there are people who believe this guy will become a dictator.

 

[A2SG]

And yet there are people who believe this guy will become a dictator.

About that....

From the Collins Dictionary:

A dictator is a ruler who has complete power in a country, especially power which was obtained by force and is used unfairly or cruelly.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dictator

His arguments for absolute Presidential immunity sure sound like he wants complete power. The only limit would be impeachment and removal...and he's survived two attempts at that so far, due entirely to party loyalty. And, so long as his party controls the House, there possibility of a third impeachment would be minimized.

And, of course, he also would give himself a "get out of jail free" card by simply resigning. No impeachment, no removal...no accountability.

Sounds like a dictator to me.

Trump is just trying to extend something that already exists, and is unlikely to get it. Not very dictatory if you ask me.

The absolute immunity Trump seeks does not already exist.

In 2016 Trump threatened to put Hilary in jail if he became president. Trump became president and Hilary never went to jail. I learned a long time ago that Trump is all bark and no bite. Trump becoming a dictator is as likely as Biden not saying something nonsensical or incoherent.

Yeah, it's so hard to get good sycophant...er, I mean help these days.

-- A2SG, heck, with the absolute immunity he's seeking, Trump could kidnap Hilary and hold her in a cell located in Mar A Lago...and if the House doesn't impeach him....

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Which is exactly what the headline does.

"Trump just promised an authoritarian ‘task force’ to impose Christian ideology"​

Trump made no such promise. Hence, the headline is a deliberate misstatement of fact.

He promised a task force, and the things that he says that he/the task force will do could easily be construed as "imposing Christian ideology". So no, not a deliberate misstatement of fact. It's a reasonable synthesis of several things that Trump has said. Remember that, when reading an opinion article, you should append "In my opinion..." to headlines that don't already have some version of that included. It's implied.

You're confusing opinion with speculation.

Speculation is a type of opinion - one that is not very well-founded in fact. The more facts you have, the less speculatory your opinion is.

 

[DaisyDay]

And yet there are people who believe this guy will become a dictator.

Your “And yet” is a non sequitur. Every indication is that he doesn’t respect the rule of law.

While he was in office last time, he realized he couldn’t do all that he wanted to, such as have those who oppose him jailed, so this time he is determined to do it differently.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

“I always say Al Capone was treated better than I was treated.”

Finally, an appropriate comparison.