Orban is Out

Yes Donald, we get the point:
He's a friend of yours

Viktor Orban the strong arm ruler of Hungary has been voted out of office. It's a credit to the strength of Hungary's democratic system that this  was possible. Strong arm rulers like Orban have a habit of dismantling democracy to lock in their power; in fact according to Wiki.....

Since Orbán resumed office in 2010, Hungary has experienced democratic backsliding and weakened judicial independence, while witnessing an increase in corruption and the establishment of governmental agencies with stricter oversight of the press and media

That Orban was a favourite of Trump's administration and also Putin's lying, tyrannical criminal regime tells us all we really need to know about Orban's authoritarian leanings. Trump's lieutenant JD Vance recently visited Hungary and canvassed for Orban. Vance had the gall to suggest that the current US Administration shared Orban's values of "freedom" - read that as "freedom" from the messy argumentative business of democratic government; a form of government which acknowledges epistemically and morally challenged human nature and therefore builds into a formal constitution both accountability and an agreement to disagree.

With "friends" like these the West hardly needs enemies. 

It is a breath taking irony that all the above pictured characters are trying sell themselves using a "Christian"  gloss. 

INTERESTING LINKS

1. Marjorie Taylor Greene threatened by Trumpites

Marjorie Taylor Greene alleges Trump sent callous text: 'If your son is killed, it's your fault'

"The former congresswoman from Georgia, formerly a staunch Trump ally, revealed the details in a recent interview in Piers Morgan Uncensored, describing the president's response as showing 'no compassion' when she raised the issue of death threats to her family."

Franklin Graham, Michael Brown, Ken Ham, Paula White et al, please take note of the kind of man you have help put in the White House. 

A tyrant's death toll after 4 years of total war.

 

Vanity of vanities: "My reputation & imperial glory
 or else......or else you die"

To save his vanity the Russian "mafia" boss pictured above has persisted in his violent pursuit of conquest against Ukraine. He has dug himself into a hole and he cannot easily backout without losing face; for how is he going to justify the loss of thousands of lives if his expansionist goals are not achieved? His vanity means that he wants to be feted as a successful autocrat bringing victory, wealth and empire to his country. Therefore he must go on and continue to dig his hole come what may.  Those who serve him are either sycophants whose interests lie with his mafia regime or are deluded by his media control as he exploits the very natural human desire for tribal pride and  a "home team" win. The rest serve him out of fear of imprisonment or assassination.

He continues to pursue his vain project of conquest even though that pursuit has the possibility of triggering nuclear Armageddon. That's no problem to this proud gangster and his acolytes. The thousands he has already killed will be portrayed by his propaganda machine as someone else's fault and a justifiable response to conspiracies threatening national existence.

He is a slave to his pride and that slavery will likely mean that many, many more will die to add to the thousands of Ukrainians and Russians who have already been killed in his seeking the feelgood fix of imperial power and conquest. He is no novelty in human history; the past is littered with would-be warmongering tyrants like him who murder rivals and kill thousands in their ambitious wars as they seek to satisfy their need for kudos, accolade and glory as great empire builders. He is just another face in a rogues gallery of tyrants enslaved to their base nature, classic studies in the squalid side of the human condition.

Relevant Links

1.  Former Russian tycoon and Kremlin insider blasts Putin: "He is leading us into the abyss"

2. Can the EU find a Russia whisperer to mediate an end to the war in Ukraine? - BBC News

Quote: Now the EU is looking to join the [mediation] effort and ensure that any deal, if ever done, is the best for both Ukraine and European security. Vladimir Putin claims he is open to the idea as long as whoever is appointed "has not said all sorts of nasty things about us"

That statement by Putin may express just how historically out-in-the-European-cold Russian autocrats have felt. This feeling may well go back hundreds of years. They've so often been out of the rich European club. Does this have its roots in the Byzantine vs Rome split? What Putin won't accept is that the best contemporary way forward for Russia is a constitutionally argumentative democracy, not an empire building autocracy where disagreement is forbidden. 

3. I was part of Putin’s propaganda machine. Ordinary Russians won’t overthrow him

QUOTE:“When I came to Channel One, it was an absolutely ordinary TV channel. We broadcast news from all over the world – from the United States, from the United Kingdom, from Europe – and there were no special restrictions. But step by step, the rules changed, and more and more topics became forbidden,” she says.

By the time she left, “we couldn’t say anything positive about Europe, about Western Europe, about the United States, and we had to show Putin as the saviour of Russia. If something was going wrong, we had only one rule. We had to say Putin is good, but his officials are to blame.”

Interesting but  not really anything we didn't already surmise!

4. Putin remains uncompromising on Ukraine, but is public discourse on war changing in Russia? - BBC News

It's Putin's destiny to keep digging. 

Disobeying The Word of Ham

Perhaps it's just a coincidence but I notice that Ken published a blog post on the 24th February entitled "When in the Biblical Timeline did Satan fall?". He's playing catch up! See *3 in the text.

"This Christian Leader cannot be trusted"
....said Ken

You can be quite sure that Ken Ham, the fundamentalist "Answers in Genesis" theme park supremo, voted Trump in the 2024 US elections (See here). He also appears to have linked his interpretation of the Christian cause with the emerging far-right where, presumably, AiG's supporting and financing community lies. For example in one of his posts where he mentions the persecution of Christians he says:

Will persecution ramp up against Christians/conservatives?

Yes, it may be that persecution will increase, but who are these "conservatives" Ken mentions and why bundle them together with Christians? Can we talk about Christians/liberals? After all, in spite of vociferous tribal squabbling between Christians Christianity is a very broad church (unless one has a fundamentalist perspective), a church which actually includes people from both the "woke" and the "unwoke" tribes. God is good to quarrelling humankind.

I used to think of myself as a conservative; I still do in fact: I largely support capitalism (intelligently regulated), the democratic status quo, the academic & scientific establishment, and I'm a constitutional monarchist. But somehow I don't think I'm the sort of "conservative" our Ken has in mind! I wonder if he would equate my criticisms of his kind of conservative with "persecution"?

Among the "conservatives" Ken alludes to I have an inkling one can find some or all of the following sentiments.... 

1. Aspirations to destroy our argumentative & complex democratic administration on the basis of conspiracy theories about a "deep state". 

2. A highly ideological form of economic libertarianism...such would likely create a political vacuum giving opportunity to plutocratic authoritarians who would enforce their libertarian ideology, thus bringing in draconian regulation by the backdoor. 

3. Seeking to protect cultural Christianity with nationalistic concepts & boundaries.

4. Telling us to shelve the concept of "empathy" because it's too "woke" or "new-age" (See here)

5. Sympathies with the social and market Darwinism of Ayan Rand (*4).

6. There is nothing wrong with raising a question or two over climate science, but many of those "conservatives" are declaring "climate alarmism" as a hoax, a leftist conspiracy, perhaps promoted by China. The result: Climate complacency. 

7. Widespread support for Donald Trump, a pathological liar who appears to have a personality disorder.

There are inconsistencies in this list but in our passionate and polarized culture-war blatant internal contradictions are easily overlooked (*1). Moreover, the far-right are so far-right, that a conservative like myself looks like a "radical woke leftist". But of course Ken isn't thinking of my kind of conservative. In using the term "conservative" Ken is sending out a virtue signal to his constituency - namely, to the far-right Christians who think of  their Trump supporting culture as the only true "conservativism" (and. perhaps, a corollate of the only true, or at least the best form of Christianity); consider for example those otherwise conservative Republicans who oppose Trumpism and who are categorized by the radical-right as "Rinos". ("Republican in name only").

Such are the people who finance Ken's business interests and he can not afford to alienate them because those business interests depend on them (*2). Moreover, it is in the interests of Ken's business to bring to bear the most spiritually intimidating language when he calls down hell and hamnation on influential Christians who hold views which contradict Ken's young earth literalism, a literalism which is the foundational rationale for the Answers in Genesis organization. For just how spiritually bullying he can get even with very devout Christians see here for example; but I'm also going to comment on a recent post by Ken where he bad-mouths Hugh Ross, an influential Christian who believes in an old Earth, and tells us that Ross "cannot be trusted"; once again testament as to just how extreme Ken's language gets even toward devout and very committed Christians. But then this is just what is meant when somebody earns the label "fundamentalist". 

***

Hugh Ross, leader of the old Earth Reasons to Believe ministry promotes the idea that the Bible and Creation are two books of Revelation. Ken is really riled by Hugh's old Earth views as he is any other influential Christians who hold views contrary to the rationale behind his theme park. I would go along with Hugh's old earth views but I don't accept the two books notion myself. That's because no book written in natural language can be read in a cultural vacuum; the interpretation of natural language necessarily employs huge resources from the rest of the created context; from the cognitive, through the cultural to the historical. Thus, in my view the Bible is organically joined to the rest of creation thus forming an integrated body of Revelation; a medium through which signals from the Divine mind are transmitted. But all that's by the by. What I want to do now is critique a paragraph from an article by Ken where he made his accusation that fellow Christian Hugh Ross is untrustworthy.

***

In a blog post titled "Did God give us two books?" Ken asks "Is nature really the 67th book of the Bible?". Ken does not think so because...

SAYS KEN: Nature is cursed. We aren’t looking at the world as God made it. According to biblical history, we’re looking at a creation that was once “very good” but is now cursed with death and suffering (because of sin) and was judged by a global flood. We can’t look at this creation and figure out what happened in the past without the eyewitness revelation of the Creator (given in Genesis 1–11).

MY COMMENT:  Strictly, the Genesis 3:17ff doesn't say nature is cursed, it says the ground and man's working of it is cursed. That's not necessarily the same as saying the whole Earth or the whole Universe is cursed: The ground and man's working of it is the agricultural foundation of all human production and civilization. From Genesis 3:17ff the most we can say is that human production is cursed whether through human sin or through direct Divine declaration. Fundamentalists like Ken also tend to miss that the serpent of  Gen 3:1 suggests that a created but fallen being existed before the fall of man (*3). So humanity did not find itself in a perfect creation before the human fall. 

Romans 8:20ff, which tells us we are in a less than perfect world is ambiguous; it is ambiguous about the cause of this lack of perfection. Is 8:20 referring to God, Satan or man? But Ken doesn't like ambiguity; being a true fundamentalist and young earth literalist Ken bills himself as being blessed with utter certainty. It is this arrogant habit of mind which he believes entitles him to blowhard hard on what he considers to be heretics. 

But whatever! Imperfect though it may be there is so much about the creation which is still very good although man's relationships revolving around the means of production are certainly hindered by the curse of sin. 

Ken's intent, if I'm reading him correctly is that he's trying to undermine Hugh Ross' 67th book thesis by suggesting that the information delivered to us via creation and which informs about deep-time is Hamstrung by the curse. Well, firstly, as I've said, this doesn't follow from the theology of the Genesis fall of man which is not about the creation in toto. Secondly, I myself have no use for the 67th book thesis; that's not how the Bible works; my view is that the Bible and the rest of creation form an organically unified body of revelation via the equation Meaning = Text + Context (where the resources of Context facilitate interpretation). Thirdly, it doesn't follow that because of human sin light signals and many other signals mediated via creation don't testify to long ages. The creation still yields truthful information about its age and this is not Hamstrung by the fall; after all, the messages of creation are likely to mirror God's integrity. 

One other criticism I would like to make of Ken's paragraph above is that it is misleading to say that God was an "eyewitness" to creation because He doesn't have eyes - that is an anthropomorphism. Very likely we perceive creation in a very different way to how God sees it. 

Hence, in conclusion, using Ken's own words found in his post as a template, I think we can say....

Rather than accepting Ken's authoritarian annunciations about the past and forcing them into Scripture, we must always start with Scripture first and allow God’s Word to be our authority.

Footnotes

*1. But see this article on Science & Culture which does identify a right-wing split. 

*2. See for example a post by Ken titled "The most important part of a church service" dated 20th Feb. As usual he complains about the "compromised" church as it attacks Ken's interpretation of Genesis with "the lies of evolution/millions of years".  Towards the end of the post Ken then stresses the need for the financial support of his organization (The emphasis is Ken's): 

"Your prayers and financial support are vital to helping us boldly continue the ministry that the Lord has called us to do — would you prayerfully consider sending a generous gift today at AnswersDonate.com? Your donation of any size will be a great blessing to AiG. 

Thank you for being part of our Answers in Genesis family and supporting us prayerfully and financially. Please know that support is an investment in eternity as we reach as many as we can with the truth of God’s Word and the saving gospel.

 I wonder if AiG is a bit strapped for cash at the moment?

*3. Perhaps it's just a coincidence but I notice that Ken published a blog post on the 24th February entitled "When in the Biblical Timeline did Satan fall?". He's playing catch up!

*4. See for example Darren Beatie who looks to be a social Darwinist. This is the kind of person Ken has helped put in power.

Political Corruption?

In this post I accused Charlie Kirk of being politically corrupt; after all, he stands accused of spreading COVID-19 misinformation,  supporting the white genocide conspiracy theory and promoting false claims of electoral fraud in 2020.... contrast the latter with the 2024 election which was a genuine win for Trump and where there were little in the way of claims of electoral fraud by the losing side; the losing side accepted that the American voting system was basically reliable.  Now, when I saw the quotes below from Kirk I concluded that he was also intellectually corrupt...

At first I wondered if these quotes were mischief making by anti-Kirk commentators, but they are all over the internet with no contradiction I can find.

With no knowledge of the "new age" in the early 1970s I was using the term "empathy" to explain the process by which one center of conscious cognition projects conscious feelings into another first person perspective. That was before the New Age became a noticeable popularist movement. The word "compassion" is not disconnected from "empathy"; compassion makes no sense if we don't have the initial first step of empathy which enables us to identify others as centers of conscious cognition. In the above quotes Kirk is mindlessly playing with words which chime with his supporters. 

Computer game players have no compassion about the simulated foes they shoot-up in their games: That's because no empathetic projection of consciousness need be made toward a simulant no matter how intelligently that simulant acts.  In the quotes above Kirk is virtue signaling to his constituency, a constituency who may well pejoratively label empathetic parties as "snow flakes" and "social justice warriors".  

Here's Hannah Arendt using the term "empathy" well before Kirk was born and well before New Age was a thing. But she would probably be written off by the Trumpite-right as a communist & "social justice warrior".  

Finally, seeing the picture below was no surprise. The irony is that Musk and Kirk only add fuel to the fire of those far-left revolutionary Marxists whose case will look stronger in the dark shadows of Musk and Kirk. Worst of all, Kirk has help corrupt Christian culture from within bringing it into disrepute (In this connection note that the 1st graphic above is from tTGA). 

An enthusiastic supporter of Kirk is fundamentalist theme park manager Ken Ham. Ken is as intellectually compromised as Kirk, But if you disagree with Ken look at the kind of thing he says about Christians who don't swing into line behind his views!

Interesting Links

1. Trump vs MTG

Being an unwoke right-winger doesn't in anyway excise the fundamental problems of power, ambition and divisiveness....

Trump targets ally Marjorie Taylor Greene ahead of Epstein files vote - BBC News

Marjorie Taylor Greene doubles down on calls to release Epstein files - BBC News

QUOTE....

She (MTG) said she's also focused on ending hate and division in politics, which she said is splitting apart American families, friends and neighbours.

"I think America needs to come together and end all the toxic, dangerous rhetoric and divide, and I'm leading the way with my own example, and I hope that President Trump can do the same," she told Bash.

It's a stark messaging shift for Greene, who has previously been accused of stoking political divides by promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories and elevating controversial posts on social media. She liked a post that called for the executions of former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former President Barack Obama, and posted a photo of herself holding a gun beside images of three progressive Democratic congresswomen.

When Bash brought up some of these examples, Greene reiterated her past apologies and said a core part of her Christian faith is forgiveness.

Well, I hope she stays true to that new message. Perhaps at last Marj has seen the light. Trouble is, given Marj's track record Donald's accusation of her being "wacky" and a "ranting lunatic" will have some traction.

See also here:

Will Marjorie Taylor Greene turn the Maga movement against Trump?

2. The Christian nationalist's war against empathy

Kirk and musk aren't alone

Religious scholar explains how Christian nationalists use and abuse the Bible

McClellan noted that Christian nationalists are demonizing the word "empathy" and railing against "the sin of empathy." Claiming that "empathy" is inherently bad, according to McClellan, is a distortion of scripture.

McClellan told Letson, "Those are the people who are overwhelmingly trying to defend precisely parochial empathy because they're trying to convince others it's bad for us to empathize with undocumented immigrants. It's bad for us to empathize with people from other nations. It's bad for us to empathize with either conservatives or liberals. I think empathy that is outward looking is good."

A stuck gramophone record

A somewhat embattled Kenneth Ham. 

Ken Ham, hard-right Trump voting Biblical literalist, firebrand fundamentalist, "Young Earth" theme park supremo and bigoted blowhard recently published a blog post criticizing BioLogos, a Christian organization which promotes evolutionary creation. The target of his criticism was an open letter from BioLogos about science and faith.  In his criticism Ken repeats for the umpteenth time his profound misunderstanding of the nature of science and how it works.... 

KEN OPINES: Throughout the letter, they never really define what they mean by science, but based on their other writings, it’s clear they are lumping historical and observational science together.

 Historical science deals with an interpretation of the unobserved past, and BioLogos has the wrong starting point. 

Observational science is science we can directly test and observe (e.g., technology, medicine, etc.), and while this type of science often doesn’t have the same problems regarding interpretation that historical science has, your worldview still matters!

MY COMMENT: That Ken might actually have an inkling that his "historical science" vs. "observational sciences" dichotomy may not be as simple as he makes out is suggested by his admission that this type of science (i.e. "observational science") often doesn’t have the same problems regarding interpretation that historical science has.... So, if so-called "observational science" often doesn’t have the same problems regarding interpretation I read that to mean that Ken is admitting that "observational science" sometimes does have the same problems of interpretation! Too right it does! What about the "observational sciences" of economics, social sciences, psychology and even complex technological systems...etc? Observation is not necessarily  so easy even for present-tense-continuous processes is it Kenneth?

What is beyond our Ken is that all science is observational in so far as all the theories of science submit themselves to observational sampling. The problems of interpretation arise because of differences that these objects have in their epistemic distance; that is,  their amenability to the collection of the relevant observational samples.

 As always Ken's polarizing mind tries to turn a question of degree into a black and white either/or question which allows him to sort people into sheep and goats using a shibboleth (an approach to society common to both the hard-right and hard-left as they seek to demonize the opposition). I have addressed Ken's naive conception of science on several occasions. Viz:

Quantum Non-Linearity: Beware: Anti-Science Mind at Work

Quantum Non-Linearity: Mangling Science Part 5: Two Kinds of Science?.

Quantum Non-Linearity: Mangling Science Part 2: Opening up Ken’s Can

Quantum Non-Linearity: Epistemology, Ontology, Creation and Salvation

Ken might also like to ask himself whether the bizarre coordinate transformation proposed by his cosmologist mate Jason Lisle (and published on the AiG web site and with whom Ken eventually fell out) which tried solve the Young Earth star light problem by making all distant galaxies "now" objects, makes them observational or historical science. I suspect that  once again we've got here another question which is beyond our Ken. 

***

I have also addressed Ken's fundamentalist tendency to reinterpret reality and distort it in the process. See here....

Quantum Non-Linearity: History? No, more like Hamstory!

Views, News and Pews: The Distorting Lens of Fundamentalism

Views, News and Pews: The "Answers in Genesis" world of half-truths

I would also charge Ken with acting as a crypto-cult leader who comes very close to using spiritual intimidation and spiritual abuse in order to ease through his will. See here....

Views, News and Pews: Jeepers Creepers II: The John Mackay Affair

Views, News and Pews: Fundamentalist Publicity Sects.

Views, News and Pews: Hell and Hamnation Watch

Views, News and Pews: Calling down Hell and Hamnation on Heretics!

I would also question Ken's understanding of the basis of morality; morality isn't based on Ken's concept of the "letter of the law" but rather the "spirit of the law". The true spirit of the law is only meaningful because human beings (and God of course) are centres of conscious cognition. See here....

Views, News and Pews: The dangers of rule driven morality.

If I was as bigoted as Ken I could turn the very words of Ken Ham on himself, simply by replacing "Man" with "Ken" as per the following quote based on an extract from his own writings.

Instead of starting with God’s Word, Ken starts with Ken's ideas and then tries to fit God in somewhere. It’s a compromise of mixing Ken's ideas (really, Ken's religion of rule following) with God’s Word—and God hates compromise.

I think it's sobering to remember that Christianity is and has always been a wide collection of overlapping, highly variegated sub-cultures of which Ken and AiG, the Watchtower Organization, the Children of God, The flat earth movement, Trumpite evangelicalism, Putinite Orthodoxy, The Mormons etc. are just a few if perhaps rather extreme examples; and yes, this is the human shower I identify with  See page 8 of this document.

Oops, we've just made a dictator

Funny, yet not funny..... 

According to this BBC article these so-called "free speech libertarians" are looking to censure  the museums. I wonder when they will be coming for the internet opposition? It's a very easy AI inquiry to come up with a list of prominent anti-Trump bloggers. Notable also are the Trump politicians who are trying to label Trump opposition as a mental illness.

INTERESTING LINKS

1. Poor Old Nigel

Led by Donkeys take over giant screen at Reform rally with pictures of Vladimir Putin and Nigel Farage

I feel a bit sorry for Nigel because I don't think he's anywhere near as bad as some of the people he keeps company with. 

Once More Unto the Breach: A Clueless Rev. Michael Brown.

The beatification of Trump! I wonder who produced this add?
According to Poe's law it could be either a supporter or an opponent of 
Trump satirizing Trump world or even Putinite election interference.
But you can bet Granny's dentures that some evangelical idiots
out there believe it!

Evangelical Michael Brown of the Line of Fire Ministry continues to heart search about his overt Trump support as he wonders where Trump policy will take the country. But for the arguably narcissistic sociopathic Trump, government policy is primarily and ultimately about himself. Trump power comes first and an appearance of adopting conservative values is a means to that end. In this article Michael starts by asking this question: 

MICHAEL: What are the cultural implications of Donald Trump’s decisive presidential victory? On the one hand, he incurred the ire of the pro-life movement by distancing himself from historic pro-life stances, gutting the GOP platform in the process. (He gutted the platform in terms of pro-life issues as well as marriage and family issues.) How should followers of Jesus assess all this? On a certain level, things just got a lot more simple. That’s because it will become increasingly difficult for the Church to look to Trump to lead the way on key moral and cultural issues.

MY COMMENT: For the umpteenth time: Trump isn't about policy, whether pro-life or pro-choice: Policy is a shop front tool with which Trump manipulates voters. If evangelicals have ever looked to Trump to lead on moral and cultural values, clearly the grossly immoral Trump has pulled the wool over their eyes about his true intentions. It's no surprise that Trump has equivocated on the pro-life question as he's sought to maximize his vote. 

***

MICHAEL: To be sure, he has chosen his battles carefully, highlighting the destructive extremes of radical transgender activism while distancing himself from Project 2025. It seems evident that this reflects pragmatism more than (or, at least as much as) conviction. More and more Americans are saying “No way!” to boys sharing locker rooms with girls and to the genital mutilation of minors. At the same time, the vast majority of Americans have no idea what is in Project 2025, other than the Democrats said it was really, really draconian and evil. Trump campaigned against trans-activism while vigorously declaiming any connection to Project 2025. Again, he’s a pragmatist, and it worked.

MY COMMENT: Chosen his battles carefully? More pragmatism than conviction? Any worthy convictions (and we aren't talking about Trump's criminal convictions here) are liable to be trumped by Trump's Trump-first policy. And yes, if that's what Michael euphemistically calls pragmaticism (= curating your vote) it's worked. As for Project 2025; this is a brainchild of a group for whom Trump himself is but a shop front and a useful idiot. 

***

MICHAEL: But when it came to pro-life issues, his insistence that he would not a sign a federal abortion ban into law, along with his adopting a moderate pro-choice position, caused some pro-life activists like Lila Rose to call for a boycott against Trump in 2024 before finally voting for him in the end.

Indeed, from the very strong pro-life language in GOP platforms dating back to 1980, the new Trump-mandated version primarily voices opposition to late-term abortion, which is largely rejected by most Americans. And while Trump emphasized that by overturning Roe, the states could decide what policies to enact, there can be no doubt that his language and emphasis changed from 2016 to 2024.

Again, this is most likely attributed to political pragmatism, as opposition to abortion has been invigorated since the overturning of Roe.

MY COMMENT: "Political Pragmatism" is a euphemism for a pathological liar cynically using the passions behind the pro-life/choice contention to manipulate voters. I doubt Trump has any strong convictions on the subject and will simply bend in the direction he feels the wind of opinion is blowing.

***

MICHAEL: As for issues pertaining to marriage and family, while Trump had said already in 2016 that same-sex “marriage” was the law of the land, he didn’t tamper with the language of the GOP platform in 2016 or 2020. Yet this year, the changes were so dramatic that a Newsweek editorial by Brad Polumbo opined, “Trump's New GOP Platform Is a Massive Win for LGBT Americans.” The older platform stated,

“Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law.”

 That language totally disappeared from the 2024 platform. The shift was seismic.

 MY COMMENT: More so-called "pragmatism" no doubt!: Ibid my previous comment.

***

MICHAEL:  So, I ask once again, “How should followers of Jesus assess all this?” It’s really quite simple. Trump never was and never will be the moral savior of America. As for the GOP, it is not God’s party, championing righteousness and purity in the land. Hardly.

 MY COMMENT: True, no party is God's party, but political parties can at least be inhabited by honest principled people, even Godly people. Instead, naive evangelicals like Michael have help feed this gurning cuckoo in the nest of the GOP as it has grown and grown.  Trump's son once said that the GOP is now rightly called "The Trump Party"; he's probably right.  Thanks very much Michael for helping to create the Trump Party. 

***

MICHAEL: But this is not necessarily bad news, since, as I have stated endlessly over the years, politics cannot do what only the gospel can do. And while there are highly moral politicians, and while I still prefer GOP policies to Democratic policies, we make a terrible, sometimes even fatal mistake when we look to a worldly system to carry out heavenly work.

MY COMMENT: On the contrary it's very bad news. Instead of promoting salt of the earth politicians (Like a Mike Pence or a Jimmy Carter) evangelicals in America have been manipulated by a lying power-seeking pied piper into putting him onto the seat of power. But yes, I agree these evangelicals have made a fatal mistake in falling for the trap that is the 1 Samual 8:7-18 syndrome. A simple style over content mistake!

***

MICHAEL: As for other aspects of Trump’s moral example, he is hardly even attempting to present himself as a moral icon. That’s why I say that things have simplified for us as followers of Jesus, in particular, for those of us who voted for Trump. We no longer have to present him as Saint Donald (as some almost did in 2016), the champion of the pro-life movement, a fine upstanding Christian.

MY COMMENT: Well Michael if you don't acknowledge that Trump is the greatest president of all time, the greatest Godfather ever, and worthy of being called Saint Donald you might find yourself being accused of a disturbing lack of loyalty, a traitor to the project 2025 cause. 

You must believe this......

                

....or you might be told this.....

***

MICHAEL: We can recognize his many weaknesses and appreciate all the good he can do without looking to him to do our job. After all, Jesus didn’t say to the President of the United States, “You are the salt of the earth. You are the light of the world” (see Matthew 5:13-16). He said that to His disciples. That’s our task and calling. Let’s give ourselves to it, by His help and grace, while praying for God’s best for the president.

 And while we can seize the cultural movement in which so many radical leftist policies and ideas are being exposed, we cannot let secular culture lead the way. That’s our job.

 MY COMMENT: Well Michael, in focusing on those so-called radical leftist policies you've fallen for some political sleight of hand which has defocused you from your job; that job is acting as salt in society and doing your best to promote honest and principled politicians rather than a narcissistic power seeker who promotes the lies of conspiracy theorism. You idiot Michael, you've allowed you self to be blindsided by appeals to your own vanity by the vainest president elect ever.

INTERESTING LINKS

1. Anne Coulter doesn't Trust Trump-world

'Never trust them': Ann Coulter rages after MAGA star's apology for conspiracy theory film

2. Ominous!

Donald Trump’s disturbing war on the press has now escalated

 “It costs a lot of money to do it, but we have to straighten out the press.” “Our press is very corrupt,” Trump continued. “Almost as corrupt as our elections.”

3. The logic of coercive "gangster" authoritarianism

Dmitry Medvedev says editors of the Times are ‘legitimate military targets’

Trump Enablers

In this post I will be looking at the following two North American right-wing Christian figures who have been ingested into Trump political culture and are significant instruments of Trumpism....

1) Ken Ham, supremo of the fundamentalist
Answers in Genesis Young Earth theme park

 2) Michael Brown of The Line of Fire ministry

Ken and Michael have been coy about openly encouraging votes for Trump in their rather disingenuous attempt to appear non-political, but as the US election day approaches it is now clear where their political allegiances lie....

In a previous post I concluded that a fundamentalist figure like Ken Ham would very likely be voting for D J Trump; not only that he has given his implicit support to the QAnon movement. Further, recent evidence that Ken is a not-so-covert Trump supporter comes from this post of his:

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2024/08/25/what-christians-must-know-about-kamala-harris/

Add to this the fact that Ken has never, as far as I'm aware, posted an article with a heading like What Christians must know about Donald Trump warning us about Trump's very obvious amorality, then I think we can put 2 and 2 together. The nearest Ken comes to criticizing Trump is on Trump wanting to allow abortion up to 15 weeks (See above post by Ken). But even with this (and I myself disapprove of abortion) Ken won't tell us about the elephant in the room: D J Trump is about policy only if it suits his purpose of getting into power. Trump is therefore ambivalent about abortion because he's primarily looking for votes. With Trump, policy is second to his ulterior policy; namely, Trump-power. To this end he will lie, lie and lie again.  Even worse is that Trump is but a frontman and showman to those even more dangerous operators than Trump (such as Putin supporter Steve Bannon) who are waiting in the wings for Trump to get into power, destroy the America democratic constitution thus giving them a stake in an unholy scramble to the top of an unaccountable power pyramid absent of democratic checks and balances.  Why isn't Ken telling us all about this? Because his organization depends on Trump & QAnon supporters. 

***

Now, Michael Brown, unlike Ken Ham, has always come over to me as a nice reasonable person and I've always liked his tone. Moreover, he seems to have his eyes open about Trump-evil.  But he too, like Ken, has been pulled into the orbit of Trump influence and power; Michael's ministry support base is, like Ken's, very dependent on the MAGA cult. Michael therefore has a vested interest in not alienating the MAGA movement. So, after months if not years of equivocating on Trump-power he has at last come out in favour of voting for Trump (as I expected). The evidence of this open declaration of Trump support is clear from the quotes below which I have taken from this post of his:

Can a Vote for Trump Be Morally Justified? | Articles | The Line of Fire | Your voice for Moral Sanity and Spiritual Clarity | The Line of Fire

In the following quotes the emphases are mine....

We cannot possibly vote for Kamala Harris for a host of reasons. But can we, in good conscience, vote for Donald Trump?

In short, the battle we are fighting is an existential one, with our most fundamental liberties under attack. And, many of us reason, Donald Trump, with all his shortcomings, is the best man for the job.

As Tucker Carlson [Another corrupt party - Ed] said in December 2019,

“If you're wondering why so many Christians have been willing to support this president despite his personal life, this is why: It's because whatever his flaws, he's made it clear that he's not the enemy of Christians.”

Many a Trump supporter would say, “Precisely so!”

But can we really look to Trump to fight for the things that are important for us? On Friday, August 23, he posted on Truth Social that if he is reelected, his “administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights.” What?! Here is an allegedly pro-life candidate using the misleading rhetoric of the pro-abortion camp (speaking of “reproductive rights” rather than the so-called right to abortion) and promising this “right” to women.

Talk about a deep betrayal of our values, also reflected in the GOP’s gutted 2024 platform, where the pro-life plank is virtually gone and all opposition to same-sex “marriage” has completely disappeared.

How, then, can Christian conservatives justify their vote for Trump?

Many would still argue that, despite his caving in on some of the issues most important to us and despite his many glaring character weaknesses, he will still do a better job on the economy, on securing our borders, on standing with Israel, on standing up to our international enemies.

Why, then, vote for Trump?

When pressed further on this issue, the answer would sound something like this: “We still believe that character counts and morality matters, but things have become so extreme in America that we have to elect a streetfighter, someone who stands up for our cause – not just for our good, but for the good of the generations to come.”

And so, overall, balancing out the pros and the cons, Trump is the better choice.

And if we do choose to vote for him, a choice that the vast majority of Christian conservatives will make, we must remember to keep our focus on Jesus and the gospel and to be sure that, to the extent Trump’s character deficiencies are a negative example, we distance ourselves from those deficiencies while setting the bar high in our lives and conduct.

We can vote for him without becoming like him.

***

We can see from the above that Michael is encouraging a Trump vote, but he has completely lost the plot and has ignored the herd of T-Rex's in the room....

Why is Michael voting Trump? He's clear about Trump's moral failings and yet still recommends a Trump vote. So, is it Trump's policies he's voting for? Well, if that's so it can't be because of Trump's abortion and same-sex marriage policies; after all, Michael accuses Trump of a deep betrayal on these issues. I once might have thought that these two issues were sacred to people like Michael and that they would never compromise on them by voting for a candidate like Trump. In fact, both Ken and Michael have repeatedly written articles stating these values as the main reason for not voting Democrat. So now it seems that both Ken and Michael have compromised on these Trump policies. So why are they still voting Trump?

Michael lets slip the real reason why he wants Trump:  As we can see from the quotes above Michael believes Trump to be a streetfighter who is on the side of Christians like himself and will therefore fight a dirty fight for their ministries, implement right-wing agendas around immigration and oppose China (but I suspect not oppose Putin's Orthodox Russia which Trump and Steve Bannon admire). 

As long as Trump defends their ministries, they are prepared to pay the price of ignoring that herd of T-Rexs, of which both Ken and Michael say nothing......Nothing about those dubious stolen election stories. Nothing about the QAnon fantasy. Nothing about Trump's extreme supporters like Marjorie Taylor-Green, Steve Bannon, Laura Loomer, and white supremacists like Nick Fuentes. Nothing about Trump's lying accusations and conspiracy theory promotion. Nothing about those implausible accusations of Kamala being a communist. Nothing about Trump being a big step toward a corrupt criminal authoritarian autocracy where cleverer would-be-dictators are waiting in the wings for a Trump victory. Nothing about the trouble that the AR15 armed Trump militia are likely to cause if Trump isn't elected. Nothing about those rumors of civil war. Nothing about Trump's relationship with aspiring plutocrat, oligarch & naive crony capitalist Elon Musk. Nothing about the rampant conspiracy theorism of the Trump supporting far right. Nothing about signs that Trump will imprison political opponents. Nothing about those bogus "deep state" stories which prepare the naive mentality for the great fascist-like simplifications of top-down autocracy. Nothing about 1 Samuel 8:7-18 with its clear warning on the effects of the absolute rule of Godfathers.....and the list goes on and on....

Michael of course might claim that all these stories are mischief making by a Democratic party who themselves are trying to criminally undermine democracy. But if that is true, why isn't he making this a good reason to vote Trump? That's because he can't afford to draw attention to this subject as it would take his support base dangerously close to the truth: After all, 2024 is far from a normal US election: It's not a case of democratically electing a right-wing but principled figure like a Ronald Reagan or a George Bush or a Margret Thatcher. There have been no hints in previous US elections about charging and imprisoning political opponents. Such talk has only surfaced since Trump appeared on the scene. All this and with armed Trump supporters at the ready if the electoral system doesn't go their way it is clear that this is a dysfunctional election. But Ham and Brown have a vested interest in not drawing attention to this dysfunctionality because that would be too telling. 

For Ken and Michael, it's really all about keeping their Trump voting support base sweet and ensuring the survival of their ministries; they simply can't afford to alienate their supporter base. Ken Ham isn't the nicest of persons (See also here) and his authoritarianism readily comes to the surface and this chimes with the sentiments of the far-right. Michael, however, is of different stuff; he can sense the conflict, but in the end he's captive to the Trump tribe. Both have sold out to the gross evils of Trumpism in order to preserve their ministries.

In this post of mine are some thoughts as to the reason why we are at a juncture where North American Evangelicals have sold out to a corrupt movement. In that post I quoted one commentator who had studied the subject, and this is what he said regarding the 2016 election:

 It was this that led 81% of white evangelicals voting for Trump....It was a marriage of convenience in which Trump promised everything on the evangelical agenda.....Evangelicals reciprocated with intense support for a man whose personal and political morality  - which many feel is at odds with Christianity - was set aside in order to win what they perceived as a battle for the soul of America.  

But things have moved on even further: Trump, with his eye on power rather than policy, is no longer promising abortion laws and laws on gay marriage that were on the evangelical agenda. But it's too late for Michael, Ken and many an evangelical. They are irreversibly trapped in the MAGA cult and Trumpite evangelicalism.

RELEVANT LINKS

1. Threats of imprisonment

Liberals go into meltdown after Trump vows to jail political enemies (msn.com)

2. The Political Pied Piper

Views, News and Pews: Trumptruth News: The Political Pied Piper of far-right Christianity (viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com)

3. Ken's rule driven morality

Views, News and Pews: The dangers of rule driven morality. (viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com)

4. History of right-wing evangelicalism

Views, News and Pews: Origins of the US Evangelical Right (viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com)

5. Panda's Thumb's view

Tax-exempt AIG attacks Presidential candidate, may be reported to IRS (pandasthumb.org)

6. Persecution of Gays

X refuses to take down post falsely accusing Rev Richard Coles of being a paedophile (msn.com)

7. Scientific American endorses Kamala

Scientific American makes presidential endorsement for only the second time in its 179-year history (msn.com)

Quotes worth noting: Trump peddles lies and conspiracy theories....

“The US faces two futures,” the editors wrote, pushing one candidate who “offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience.”

They continued: “In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”

The article highlights Trump’s baseless claim during the debate that some states allow a person to obtain an abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy, and calling it “execution after birth.”

“No state allows this,” Scientific American clarified. The magazine also emphasized that Trump refused to answer whether he would veto a national abortion ban.

8. Kamala falsely accused of being a communist

Why 'Comrade Kamala' memes are taking off among Latino exiles - BBC News

This reminds me of the right-wingers who accuse even the conservative party of being "socialists"!

9. Well done Mike Pence!

Mike Pence takes swipe at Trump in sign of a political comeback (msn.com)

Brave man! Trump will no doubt find Mike's lack of loyalty disturbing. If there's a Trumpite dictatorship Mike may well find himself in jail. I'd have voted for Mike Pence if I was a US citizen!

10. Trump seeks to prosecute news organisations that oppose him

Trump says he will seek Google's prosecution if he wins election (msn.com)

11. This speaks for itself

Voices: Is Donald Trump’s ‘Kristallnacht’ speech his most dangerous yet? (msn.com)

12. I think I already knew this:

'We may in 32 days have a dictator': New warning about Trump from presidential historian (msn.com)

13. Marje the Cranky, Crackpot, Christian (?) Conspiracy Theorist is at it again,

Marjorie Taylor Greene says ‘they’ control the weather after Hurricane Helene kills 215 in the US (msn.com)

13. Franklin Graham, another Trump enabler:

Evangelicals for Harris claim Franklin Graham is threatening to sue them (msn.com)