Trump Should Be Removed from Office

[tulc]

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html

In our founding documents, Billy Graham explains that Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith. The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic. It requires comment.

The typical CT approach is to stay above the fray and allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible. We want CT to be a place that welcomes Christians from across the political spectrum, and reminds everyone that politics is not the end and purpose of our being. We take pride in the fact, for instance, that politics does not dominate our homepage.

That said, we do feel it necessary from time to time to make our own opinions on political matters clear—always, as Graham encouraged us, doing so with both conviction and love. We love and pray for our president, as we love and pray for leaders (as well as ordinary citizens) on both sides of the political aisle.

Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.

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.

tulc(an interesting Op/ed from Christianity Today)

 

[redleghunter]

Then they need to call Nancy Pelosi and ask her to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

She won’t for some reason. Redleg finds that very interesting.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Then they need to call Nancy Pelosi and ask her to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

She won’t for some reason. Redleg finds that very interesting.

Maybe she hopes for a Democratic Senate after the next election, in which case Trump would be impeached easily. Maybe just more pathetic corrupt Dem strategy.

 

[redleghunter]

Maybe she hopes for a Democratic Senate after the next election, in which case Trump would be impeached easily. Maybe just more pathetic corrupt Dem strategy.

They would still not have the votes necessary. Takes 67 to remove. In the wildest of dreams for Dems they would maybe come to 52. Not even close.

 

[miamited]

Hi tulc,

Yea, I read that article. I was pleasantly surprised, as I've always considered CT to be an arm of the Billy Graham ministries and I know that Franklin Graham, who has put himself out there as a fairly strong supporter of the President, has a hand in their operations.

While Billy Graham was a long time spiritual counselor for many previous presidents, I don't remember him ever being particularly involved in political issues the way that his son seems to be. It's going to be interesting how this plays out in the next few days, because it's my understanding that a lot of those people who have supported the president, claiming to be 'evangelical christians', also hold the Billy Graham ministries in pretty high regard. Billy Graham was the epitome of the evangelical movement!

This may well be the biggest stone to fall on President Trump in smashing his authoritarian hold over the 'evangelical' arm of christianity. If he plays his usual attack back process with this CT article, he may find himself losing some serious support. We'll see.

On the other hand, what do you want to bet that we see a retraction fairly soon?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[redleghunter]

Yea, I read that article. I was pleasantly surprised, as I've always considered CT to be an arm of the Billy Graham ministries and I know that Franklin Graham, who has put himself out there as a fairly strong supporter of the President, has a hand in their operations.

Franklin Graham has nothing to do with CT.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

They would still not have the votes necessary. Takes 67 to remove. In the wildest of dreams for Dems they would maybe come to 52. Not even close.

Hope springs eternal within the breast of man.

 

[A_JAY]

"To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?

"​

 

[miamited]

Franklin Graham has nothing to do with CT.

Hi RLH,

You could be right, but I thought that I had read that it sprung out of the early BGEA ministry. I could be mistaken about that. Either way, it is explained by many sources, to be a strong ministry of the evangelical movement.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

HI RLH,

Here's a FOX source that explains that Billy Graham did start 'Christianity Today'. However, it now appears that Franklin Graham is not a part of it and is thoroughly incensed that it would support such a position. He even speaks for the dead in assuring us that his father wouldn't have approved either, although, I'm personally not sure that he wouldn't have. As I said, I never knew Billy Graham to get as involved in the political issues as his son does.

Franklin Graham slams Christianity Today for invoking father's name in call for Trump's removal

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[redleghunter]

"To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?"​

I applaud CT editor and staff for exercising their First Amendment right of a free press and expression of opinions. They are consistent as they went after Nixon and Bill Clinton as well.

There is a problem with their logic. Both Clinton and Nixon had actually statutory violations in their articles of impeachment. Trump's? None.

But they did focus on Trump's moral character, mainly he says really mean things to people which is not in keeping with loving neighbor. The quote above says "immoral words and behavior" which can be summarized as "Trump' demeanor is that of anger and he hurts people's feelings." Which I agree should not be a characteristic of a chief executive. Yet in defense of Trump I use the very words of the CT editor in chief when he admits from the beginning the media and general political environment was hostile to Trump. It seems CT wants Trump removed for moral behavior. It seems they wanted the same for Clinton. That is what elections are for, not impeachment and removal. Boorish behavior is not impeachable by our Constitution and not even Clinton was impeached for adultery in the Oval Office. He lied about it and obstructed justice and there was physical evidence to prove he lied. It seems this quote and the article makes the giant leap that Trump's Boorish behavior somehow led to impeachable offenses. That remains to be seen as the House Speaker has not delivered the articles of impeachment to the Senate to trial before the Senate. The articles are devoid of facts and the only evidence that can actually be put forward as first hand knowledge is the transcript the President released. CT should have waited for the trial results in the Senate and honor due process and the "president's day in court."

Where I take CT to task is their use of a false moral equivalency. How they can preach to other Christians that they cannot be taken seriously speaking against abortion of human beings in the womb putting it on par with Boorish behavior of a US President is shocking. I did not see any CT articles (I am subscribed to CT long term) during the Obama administration admonishing Christians for supporting a president who not only supported abortion at any stage of development but advocated for and then funded programs promoting abortion. Where was CT on the issue of abortion over the 8 years of an Obama administration. Subscribed to CT I did a search. Not one admonition. Very soft articles on condemning the stance but nothing in the way of "Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?"

The statement above is a false moral equivalent. CT knows it, but they just want to carry the water of the left right now. More like, they want to silence their critics right now like Nancy Pelosi did by pushing through articles of impeachment and then not delivering them to the Senate for trial.

 

[redleghunter]

Hi RLH,

You could be right, but I thought that I had read that it sprung out of the early BGEA ministry. I could be mistaken about that. Either way, it is explained by many sources, to be a strong ministry of the evangelical movement.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Hi Ted, I am correct. Franklin stated his father parted ways years ago from CT.

 

[redleghunter]

He even speaks for the dead in assuring us that his father wouldn't have approved either, although, I'm personally not sure that he wouldn't have.

Franklin is Billy's son. I think by the character I observed of Billy Graham he would have taken the admonishment of fellow Christians who supported Pro-Life issues to heart as something we don't do.

As I said, I never knew Billy Graham to get as involved in the political issues as his son does.

I agree. Franklin has been consistent in my opinion. He said the President was wrong on the Kurdish withdrawal, did not support the president's refugee response in Syria and when we had record numbers of migrants at the Mexican-US border called on the President to provide more resources to that.

Franklin also put his ministry Samaritan's Purse in action to support refugees globally, and sent real aid to the US-Mexico border this past summer.

Franklin unlike his father is very vocal on religious freedom issues in our US politics. I don't think Billy would have been as active but did speak on such matters as in saying we live in a nation where God has blessed people of faith with freedoms unheard of in human history.

 

[redleghunter]

Hi RLH,

You could be right, but I thought that I had read that it sprung out of the early BGEA ministry. I could be mistaken about that. Either way, it is explained by many sources, to be a strong ministry of the evangelical movement.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Good day brother Ted. I found Franklin Graham's response to the CT editorial:

My Response to Christianity Today:

Christianity Today released an editorial stating that President Trump should be removed from office—and they invoked my father’s name (I suppose to try to bring legitimacy to their statements), so I feel it is important for me to respond. Yes, my father Billy Graham founded Christianity Today; but no, he would not agree with their opinion piece. In fact, he would be very disappointed. I have not previously shared who my father voted for in the past election, but because of this article, I feel it is necessary to share it now. My father knew Donald Trump, he believed in Donald Trump, and he voted for Donald Trump. He believed that Donald J. Trump was the man for this hour in history for our nation.

For Christianity Today to side with the Democrat Party in a totally partisan attack on the President of the United States is unfathomable. Christianity Today failed to acknowledge that not one single Republican voted with the Democrats to impeach the President. I know a number of Republicans in Congress, and many of them are strong Christians. If the President were guilty of what the Democrats claimed, these Republicans would have joined with the Democrats to impeach him. But the Democrats were not even unanimous—two voted against impeachment and one voted present. This impeachment was politically motivated, 100% partisan. Why would Christianity Today choose to take the side of the Democrat left whose only goal is to discredit and smear the name of a sitting president? They want readers to believe the Democrat leadership rather than believe the President of the United States.

Look at all the President has accomplished in a very short time. The economy of our nation is the strongest it has been in 50 years, ISIS & the caliphate have been defeated, and the President has renegotiated trade deals to benefit all Americans. The list of accomplishments is long, but for me as a Christian, the fact that he is the most pro-life president in modern history is extremely important—and Christianity Today wants us to ignore that, to say it doesn’t count? The President has been a staunch defender of religious freedom at home and around the world—and Christianity Today wants us to ignore that? Also the President has appointed conservative judges in record number—and Christianity today wants us to ignore that? Christianity Today feels he should be removed from office because of false accusations that the President emphatically denies.

Christianity Today said it’s time to call a spade a spade. The spade is this—Christianity Today has been used by the left for their political agenda. It’s obvious that Christianity Today has moved to the left and is representing the elitist liberal wing of evangelicalism.

Is President Trump guilty of sin? Of course he is, as were all past presidents and as each one of us are, including myself. Therefore, let’s pray for the President as he continues to lead the affairs of our nation.​

 

[miamited]

Hi RLH,

Thanks for your repsonse:

Franklin is Billy's son. I think by the character I observed of Billy Graham he would have taken the admonishment of fellow Christians who supported Pro-Life issues to heart as something we don't do.

While I'm not about to say that I've heard every utterance of Billy Graham, I honestly don't have any recollection of his speaking out about specific sins. Now, I'm sure that he did have biblical understandings of how God's people should live, I always saw him as drawing that line when teaching on sin, that there was a difference between those of the lost world, and he would usually just point out that we're all sinners, and those who were born again children of God.

Yes, Billy Graham would have taken the issue of abortion and taught that it was something that we shouldn't do. I don't know that he would have ever been so bold as to say that it is something that 'we don't do'. Billy Graham understood that we're all sinners. We're all, each and every one, tempted by sin and, even as believers, are prone to fall to that temptation.

He said the President was wrong on the Kurdish withdrawal, did not support the president's refugee response in Syria and when we had record numbers of migrants at the Mexican-US border called on the President to provide more resources to that.

Yes, and that's my point. Now I don't know what Billy would have said in private conversation with any president, but I don't really have any recollection whatsoever of his making public statements as to what he believed any president should do.

That's just my understanding of the difference between Billy and Franklin Graham.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[The Barbarian]

Then they need to call Nancy Pelosi and ask her to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

She's leveraging McConnell; if he sets up a fake trial designed to get Trump off, then he'll have to wait for it. If he's reasonable, and sets up a fair process, he can have the articles of impeachment now.

She won’t for some reason.

Because McConnell isn't dealing honestly on the process. And Pelosi is a lot smarter than McConnell.

Redleg finds that very interesting

Amusing, I think.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Trump Should Be Removed from Office

tulc(an interesting Op/ed from Christianity Today)

According to the real Book the Bible
Trump's our man in charge.
Compared to the last guy
seems we've been blessed?
M-Bob

 

[redleghunter]

She's leveraging McConnell; if he sets up a fake trial designed to get Trump off, then he'll have to wait for it. If he's reasonable, and sets up a fair process, he can have the articles of impeachment now.

So Nancy wants a quid pro quo. Interesting.

Because McConnell isn't dealing honestly on the process. And Pelosi is a lot smarter than McConnell.

How can he deal at all without the articles delivered.

But I agree McConnell should deal with the House how they dealt with the impeachment hearings. Use those rules and I think that would be a good deal. Meaning McConnell can impeach whatever witnesses the Democrats call and limit them to 1/4th the time.

I think that is fair.

Oh and forbid the House managers from outside council.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Yes, Billy Graham would have taken the issue of abortion and taught that it was something that we shouldn't do.





Yes, and that's my point. Now I don't know what Billy would have said in private conversation with any president, but I don't really have any recollection whatsoever of his making public statements as to what he believed any president should do.

That's just my understanding of the difference between Billy and Franklin Graham.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Doesn't take much study of the Bible to know that God does not want us killing babies.

A hundred years ago they would have hung a person for that. Don't tell me that we are smarter and more moral now.

M-Bob

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
She's leveraging McConnell; if he sets up a fake trial designed to get Trump off, then he'll have to wait for it. If he's reasonable, and sets up a fair process, he can have the articles of impeachment now.

So Nancy wants a quid pro quo.

The difference is, political negotiations between the House and the Senate are not felonies. Witholding military aid from a foreign nation, while demanding help against one's political opponent is a felony.

Interesting.

How can he deal at all without the articles delivered.

He just has to set up a fair process. If not, she's not obligated to send him the articles until she's ready.

But I agree McConnell should deal with the House how they dealt with the impeachment hearings.

He can't:

The impeachment is essentially a grand jury proceding. The Senate trial is a trial. Different rules. If McConnell chooses to do things in secret, he's then in violation.