What happened in Washington on January 6 was a clash between two idealisms. On the one hand, Evangelical Christianity1 formed an unholy alliance with a self-aggrandizing presidential candidate in hopes, among other considerations, he would appoint conservative judges who would favor evangelical agendas, such as repealing Roe v. Wade. As an ideal, Evangelical Christianity believes that all of life should be brought under the “Banner of the Cross,” and reflect Christian values and ideals, as evangelicals understand them. On the other hand, American Democracy has a different vision, calling for a diverse and pluralistic society:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"2
In other words, America from its beginning has been comprised of different races and religions all of which are considered equal under the U. S Constitution. Each foreign group, as naturalized citizens, can pursue “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in their own way, worship their own Gods, and raise their children, as they choose, under the law. One goal of democracy is to allow every citizen as much freedom and accommodation to as many of their values and mores as is possible under the law. It is a grand ideal that regularly has been stressed and battered, especially in recent years.
Tragically, an attempt to displace American Democracy, as we know it, occurred in Washington, DC on January 6. Security at the Capitol Building was breached while congress was in session, which led to a temporary occupation of the Capitol, the concealment of the members of congress, the death of a police officer3 and several insurgents, while several representatives and two United States Senators4 were attempting to interrupt the Electoral College process by challenging the certified results of the 2020 presidential election.
Just before the assault, at a rally in Washington, Mr. Trump turned his supporters into insurgents by verbally inciting their march on, and takeover of, the Capitol. Among the zealous supporters in Mr. Trump’s political base are Evangelical Christians5 and paramilitary groups, such as the Proud Boys,6 strange bedfellows and a marriage that, to say the least, was not made in heaven. Most of us recall Mr. Trump commenting on his popularity with his base by saying that he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose any voters. On January 13, however, Mr. Trump did suffer consequences for sparking the insurrection when the U. S. House of Representatives impeached him a second time; he is the only American president to have ever been impeached twice. The impeachment was the direct result of Mr. Trump’s incentivizing the mob to storm the Capitol Building—so I assume he now knows that he cannot stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot anyone with impunity!
What troubles me about this whole debacle has been the role of Evangelical Christianity in facilitating Mr. Trump’s rise to the highest office in the land. One would have imagined that evangelical leaders could have read the signals in Mr. Trump’s generally unacceptable behavior and consider that things might not end well. Their persistent support for Mr. Trump’s policies, however, blinded them to these signals as they considered the quid pro quo they hoped to receive.
Christianity has always been a “big tent” religion even from the earliest time as is attested by the early sources.7 Hence, it is not unusual to find Christian groups involved, however tangentially, in violent acts; for in its long history Christianity has been stained with violence in the name of God (the obvious examples are the crusades and the inquisition but there are many others). The last four years appear to have witnessed another one of those instances. Without the support of evangelical Christianity Mr. Trump would have been hard pressed to put together the coalition that led inevitably to the insurrection on January 6. Hence, evangelical Christians share the responsibility for enabling the insurrection. Some self-proclaimed evangelical Christians were even part of the mob that stormed the Capitol Building on Jan 6.
Through history there have been many versions of what it means to be Christian. It is embarrassing to the Christian brand that any one group should think of itself as the gold standard for religious faith to the extent that it would undemocratically aim to impose its self-understanding on others in a democratic and pluralistic society by bending the political system to its will.
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University
1Evangelicalism is a worldwide trans-denominational movement within protestant Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism
2Emma Lazarus, The New Colossus, Nov 2, 1883.
3U. S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.
4The two are Josh Hawley (Missouri) and Ted Cruz (Texas). On Hawley see Katherine Stewart, “The Roots of Josh Hawley’s Rage,” The New York Times, Jan 11, 2021: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/opinion/josh-hawley-religion-democracy.html?smid=em-share
5Elizabeth Dias and Ruth Graham. “How White Evangelical Christians Fused with Trump Extremism,” The New York Times, Jan 11, 2021: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/how-white-evangelical-christians-fused-with-trump-extremism.html
6Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys
7There are several distinct types of “Christianity” in the first 400 years of our era: for example, Synoptic, Johannine, Pauline, Gnostic, early Orthodoxy, creedal Christianity.
64 comments:
Understanding evangelicals is difficult. My thought in reading this was that they hear the story of the Exodus and somehow side with the Egyptians, and they hear the story of the resurrection of Jesus and conclude that no response, no relation to the Kingdom, no transformation is needed. I hear a sermon coming.
The last four years have been embarrassing and frustrating for many of the Evangelical Christians with whom I am acquainted who are decent, peaceful, and kind human beings. Shame on those who allied with Trump and his thugs!
Thank heaven the inauguration passed without any violence or assassinations - I was worried and practically held my breath until Biden and Harris were sworn in. And what a hopeful, open-hearted, and diverse event it was! Especially Amanda Gorman's dynamic performance of her poem "The Hill We Climb" - truly inspiring. I cried with relief, gratitude, and new hope for our country.
A great piece, Charlie!!
Sandra White
Faustian indeed! You nailed it.
Andy
Andrew D. Scrimgeour, Ph.D.
Archivist Emeritus, Society of Biblical Literature
Dean of Libraries Emeritus, Drew University
Madison, New Jersey
Federal laws prohibiting religious indoctrination in public schools, de-segregation, changing gender roles, changing attitudes toward sexual behaviors, equal rights for women including healthcare, and laws prohibiting racial and sexual discrimination were seen as threats to many evangelical Christians in the fifties through seventies. The evangelicals went political in the seventies because they weren’t allowed to discriminate against Blacks (Green v. Connally), by 1980 voting Republican en masse, and in 2016 they “hooked their wagons” to the Trump brand, which reinforced their fears and prejudices from the day he began his campaign for president.
White supremacists and Christian evangelicals coalescing isn’t new in the South. In many places they are the same people. (Most Christians are not racists, but ALL the racists I have known or read claim Christianity as their faith. I’ve lived my life in Georgia, primarily worked in rural Georgia.) Root around in their attics and you might find their daddy’s (or their) white sheets. I don’t know that much about some of the new groups, but when the KKK was revived in 1915 it was considered a “Protestant lodge,” with one of its leader’s (HW Evans) proclaiming, “The white race must be supreme, not only in America but in the world.” It was popular because of its intolerance and terrorism against Jews, Catholics and African Americans. Synagogues, Catholic churches and churches serving Black congregations were bombed, people were lynched, from the late 19th c. through the mid-20th. (See “Religion in American Life, Butler, et al. esp. ch. 19.) That “Christian” sentiment has not faded since then, from my experience living and working amongst white supremacists. Trump channeled these cults of evangelical Christian and secular intolerance into his personal stooges over four years, as culminating with the attempted coup.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Good Sunny Afternoon Charlie!
President Trump no more incited violence at the United States Capitol than BLM leaders did in Portland, Seattle, Kenosha, Minneapolis, and Atlanta this summer after George Floyd's death. Both BLM and President Trump have a right to speak publicly at peaceful rallies and protests- that is their constitutional right. Neither BLM nor President Trump condoned the violence that took place after their speeches; sadly some bad actors got involved and burned buildings and looted them towards the end of a largely peaceful demonstration.
Your baseless claims that Trump incited violence include nothing specific or substantive. It would helpful to see the exact words he used that called for violence at the Capitol. Unfortunately, I see no quotes from his speech in your essay. I just see your repetitive whining about Evangelicals and how inferior their morality compares to yours. (Yawn) Or to BLM, whose morality and rhetoric is above criticism.
Perhaps you believe as Nancy Pelosi does that the buildings and businesses that were destroyed after the peaceful BLM protests in Atlanta and Kenosha deserved to be destroyed since they are owned by racists who don't deserve a livelihood... Or perhaps you believe as she does that the police officers shot by protestors and anarchists also deserved to die because all police officers are white supremacists who need to be de-platformed, de-programmed, and defunded.
BLM had nothing to do with the outbreak of violence at their marches and protests, they simply exercised their right to assemble and protest in public- thank goodness they weren't Evangelicals. Charlie has enough to whine about.
Elizabeth Holmes
St. Louis MO
Hi Charlie,
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-history-of-calling-elections-rigged-if-he-doesn-t-like-the-results/ar-BB1aUshA
Trump's claiming elections are rigged, even when he wins (2016), goes back at least as far as 2012, and back further if you include the birther conspiracy, even accusing a fellow republican (Cruz) of rigging (Iowa caucuses in 2016). It's that long history of priming his admirers with lying and other manipulations that will need to be taken into consideration beyond his remarks in the last week prior to the insurrectionist acts.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Hi Elizabeth,
Thanks for weighing in. The "claim" that Mr. Trump incited violence was agreed to by the House of Representatives and they impeached him a second time for that reason in a bi-partisan vote. Anyone who watches the news channels has heard him, his son, Don, Jr., and Mr. Juliani inciting the events that followed immediately upon the Rally. Try this news source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8ORZ_iwO3w
Cordially,
Charlie
Good Morning Gene,
Do you assume that When the trial takes place in the Senate that such evidence will be offered/
Charlie
Thank you as well for weighing in Charlie! Partisan left wing videos on you tube are not evidence of a crime- right wing videos also show news clips of Democrats saying for more incendiary comments and threats. Works both ways, I'm afraid. News montages are old hat and prove nothing.
Since you don't have Trump's exact words and since you are relying on partisan media to do the heavy lifting for your case- all you can resort to is "well Congress said it's true." That doesn't make it true.
Senator Mike Lee wisely stated "This body of elected officials can't reach a conclusion to the meaning of the same group of words." That's what's going on here... We're talking about interpreting someone's words- someone who fills you and the Democrats with extreme hatred and bitterness.
You cannot point fingers at Trump when Maxine Watters and Nancy Pelosi have also called for uprisings and getting in people's faces and supporting Antifa. But you're free to whine about it. Elizabeth
Good Morning Dennis,
Your post took me back to my own growing up in Greenville, MS, the county seat of Washington County in the Delta bottom land of the muddy Mississippi. Greenville, at the time I graduated high school in 1952 was completely segregated but enjoyed the presence of a liberal newspaper, the Delta Democrat Times. I do not recall any violent racist incidents during my childhood but in all honesty I was almost completely unaware of the bifurcated society in which I lived. I left for the military in 1953 returning in 1956 to finish college and then left for California in 1958, never to return to the state for any length of time. During those two years I was pastor of a Baptist Church is Issaquena County at Mayersville. The county was largely comprised of black citizens, and it was only then during those two years that I began to become sensitized to the racial inequities of the state and the South in general. It sounds like you were much more aware of the situation in Georgia during your growing up.
Cordially,
Charlie
To clarify- I'm looking for the words you falsely claim were uttered by Trump commanding supporters to "storm the Capitol." That command is no where to be found. (I even fact checked it) Elizabeth
Hi Charlie,
1) I think it has to be offered to win impeachment, but I'm afraid to assume anything.
2) Can't help noticing the difference in the meaning of "we," between the Trump unimpeded walk to the capitol (without Trump), and the MLK marches with adversity all around. Trump stays home admiring himself in front of the TV after Giuliani had earlier called for "trial by combat," and MLK grabs the hand of his fellow man fighting back fear and leads a march into hell at the front of the line.
See for example:
https://www.fox29.com/news/timeline-of-the-pro-trump-riot-at-the-us-capitol-how-the-chaos-unfolded
"And after this... WE’re going to walk down to the Capitol."
"FOX 5 DC reported that rioters had gotten into the U.S. Capitol building by 2 p.m." Trump tweeted at 2:38, "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement."
6:00PM Trump offers, "...events like this happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long." He added, "Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, PA
Charlie, I "came of age" during the days of Lester Maddox wielding an axe handle to keep African Americans out of his restaurant, then becoming governor of Georgia, where around the same time, as I've mentioned before, the pastor having to leave Dahlonega Baptist Church (an SBC church) for inviting the Black Baptist congregation to church. The sixties were a time of racism, which Trump in the last four years has tried to legitimize. I had my life threatened as late as the 80's for a letter to the editor in a nearby town complaining about a white supremacist presence near a school. I have no tolerance for the Trump cult racists.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
I never said he commanded a storm on the capitol. I said that he incited an insurrection. incite: "to put in motion; to move to action; to stir up; to urge on." It all comes down to the following: did he put the attack on the capitol in motion by what he said to the crowd.
Cordially,
Charlie
But you provide no direct statement of President Trumps to the crowd that set anything into motion. It’s hard to follow your logic when you use generalities.
Did BLM set looting and fires in motion by accusing police of “hunting down black people?” Are they responsible for Capt. David Dorns death?
All crowds can get out of control as you saw last summer- but I never heard anyone hold the speakers at those rallies be held to account the way you are desperately trying to pin this on Trump, who never once urged violence or law breaking. The only time we see your moral outrage over mob violence is when democrats are affected by it, but not the owners of the Wendy’s in Atlanta or the car dealer in Kenosha. I guess they must have been owned by Evagelicals.
If you take the trouble to view dozens of statements recorded in real time by the people who stormed the Capitol building while they were on their way from the WH rally to the Capitol,
you will discover that in those statements they plainly say that they understood Trump was calling upon them to do exactly that.
No whining needed.
If you insist that, well, maybe that’s how they heard him but it’s not what he said, this is what we call special pleading—which is the opposite of what we call convincing, and the antithesis of what we call taking a principled stand.
You do not have to believe me. You can do the viewing for yourself.
https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/?fbclid=IwAR0lmHqXqC2sFk7mB1CnuMFW95Us0N6ISht9RXA_Xe75YVpuBDT2Gjjqckw
Exactly, Bill Y.
If one didn’t hear or understand the "call to arms" in Trump’s rally and before that his third grade level tweets and his hateful rhetoric designed like that of racist, "populist" leaders of the past, one has "ears open but can not hear." Obviously, the crowd he invited did.
To use his most glaring example over the years, which relates to comments above about the Black Lives Matter protests,many people I have known don’t perceive racism when it is obvious to those around them, because it is an attitudinal component of perception. If one, for instance, is taught and socialized to hold certain views, these views become part of that person’s identity. When one makes remarks that are part of someone else’s identity, it is not seen as aberrant.
A. Protests demanding justice for racial inequality, much of the inequality at the hands of rogue policemen or in Georgia, murderers in pickups with shotguns.
B. An insurrection where people overran the Capitol in an attempted coup, intent on taking prisoners, murdering, and overturning a legal Electoral College vote, at the bidding of the president and his stooges on stage, promising of course to be with them. (He wasn't.)
It would be remiss not to mention that these two actions are not equivalent. I can see where perhaps the leadership of South Korea, Russia or a host of despots in “third world” countries – and the followers of Trump – might think that, but it is beyond the pale for most Americans.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
"And after this, we're going to walk down there, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down ... to the Capitol and we are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women," Trump told the crowd. "And we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong."
He further said: "You're the real people. You're the people that built this nation. You're not the people that tore down this nation."
The president did also say: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
And he added in a bit of irony: "Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy."
See how how that works? They're called direct quotes. The reason you have none from President Trump is that his words are not inciting violence. If you had an actual quote of him urging violent action- you would have led with it. But you don't.
We don't impeach Presidents because of what people "think" they heard him say. They could have thought they heard him say any number of things- so what? What if they thought they "heard" him say to fly to Mars? Is that impeachable?
President Trump's speech is recorded for all to see and read- those words cannot be changed. What his supporters thought they "heard" is subject to interpretation and can be easily changed... And crafted to fit whatever narrative they are seeking. Elizabeth
To clarify "mob violence": Everyone knows what mob violence is whether it takes place at a peaceful BLM rally or a Save Our Democracy rally... The speakers may be different but the violence itself is the same. Violence is violence- there's no wiggle room. No looting or burning or tearing down of statues took place at the Capitol like it did in Atlanta and Kenosha and other cities. The only shooting that occurred at the Capitol was performed by a police officer, not AT a police officer like what took place in St. Louis. The destruction that has taken place over this summer at BLM event has cost over a billion dollars. (Not that you care) The question is not about the violence itself- we all agree that the violence in all instances is wrong. The question is- who is responsible for the violence at BLM events and the Capitol event?
Were the speakers at the BLM encouraging violence? Was President Trump's speech encouraging violence? Take a look at Trump's words and BLM rally speakers' words and decide for yourself.
And for those who are trying to say Trump should not only be impeached for his speech on January 6, but other rally speeches, and past news interviews, and things his sister said in a book about him... And don't forget his nasty tweets.... If you need to reach that far back to concoct another phony impeachment debacle... Well, good luck with that. Elizabeth
RE: "The only shooting that occurred at the Capitol was performed by a police officer, not AT a police officer like what took place in St. Louis."
***That police officer has a name and his name was Captain David Dorn. He was killed in cold blood on June 2, 2020 in the aftermath of a BLM protest***
Hi Elizabeth,
I'm trying to understand your thinking as best I can. You wrote:
"What his supporters thought they "heard" is subject to interpretation and can be easily changed... And crafted to fit whatever narrative they are seeking."
Would you agree that any one of us could legitimately substitute "I" for "his supporters," "they," and "they."
If so, would you agree that a group of peers or authorities could/should be called upon to search out how close "I" am to an objective perspective.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Hi Elizabeth,
Do you see any connection between Trump's rally that took place on the ellipse just before the storming of the Capitol?
Here is the way Fox news reported the timeline: https://www.fox29.com/news/timeline-of-the-pro-trump-riot-at-the-us-capitol-how-the-chaos-unfolded
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Charlie and Gene,
1) Do not post news links for me to click on- I can only respond directly to your own thoughts and quotes from sources. I do not respond to videos. If you cannot make a reasonable argument on your own, then I am unable to help you with that.
2) Gene I apologize for not understanding your question- would it be possible for you to re-state it? As I think about it- are you suggesting that my perspective is not objective? If so, then yes there's some truth to that. No one's perspective is 100% objective including my own.
3) The violent attack that took place in the aftermath of the peaceful rally was planned in advance which is why the Capitol police asked for National Guard troops to be present at the certification ceremony. Nancy Pelosi denied their request. Trump had no knowledge of the violence that would ensue, but some people speculate that Nancy Pelosi did.
Lastly, try doing your own thinking and using your own logic, not Fox News's.
Elizabeth
Hi Elizabeth,
it was a video with audio for crying out loud!
Charlie
Good Morning Charlie,
If you can’t state your own case in clear concise terms in your own words, then perhaps you don’t feel you have a strong case to make. Summarize the video for us and tell us why it strengthens your case. I’m here to engage with other humans and I enjoy responding to their thoughtful analysis. If you wish to share why the video convinced you that the violence at Capitol Hill was Trumps fault, then please do so.
People send me videos, articles, and all kinds of media to look at.., Everyone thinks their article or their video is the most important and the most convincing evidence they’ve seen.
I don’t mind pull quotes here and there, but it’s far more effective to formulate your own opinions and analysis. Why did the video convince you it was Trumps fault? Elizabeth
Hi Elizabeth,
In my opinion individual participants do not have the right to be telling the blog owner how to run the blog. If anywhere, that belongs in a back-Channel conversation with Charlie.
Your writing is full of absolutes, commands, judgments: "do not post news-links/videos for me...summarize...tell us...everyone thinks...its far more effective to...", and that's just a few recent paragraphs. You also missed the point of my previous post that peer groups, families, juries, governing bodies etc. are needed in a civil society as a check on the autonomy of personal judgments. This all makes conversation very difficult.
I hope the dialogue becomes more positive!
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, PA
As always thank you for sharing your opinion Gene- and thank you for having an opinion to share. I appreciate that you do your own analysis.
I happen to agree that "peer groups are needed in a civil society to serve as a check on the autonomy of personal judgements." Did you think that I was disagreeing with that statement?
If so, then what did you think I meant when I said "No one's perspective was 100% objective including my own?" Was that taken as a criticism? I'm sorry you see it that way, Elizabeth
Gene I don't know if you felt left out or not- but I'll also extend to you the same invitation I gave to Charlie: Please feel free at any time to tell me in your own words, using your own thoughtful analysis, why the video proves the Capitol Hill violence was Trumps fault.
For the record, you and Charlie are free to put up any amount of videos you wish... And I have the freedom to choose whether or not I listen to them. I hope that's ok with you, Elizabeth
Gene, I don't often discuss this blog with my husband over dinner but I did mention this quote to him that you wrote earlier: "You also missed the point of my previous post that peer groups, families, juries, governing bodies etc. are needed in a civil society as a check on the autonomy of personal judgments." I was explaining to him that you and Charlie keep pointing to an outside authority (the fox news video) to prove Trump's guilt and impeachment charge.
I agree with my husband that while you wish to serve as a check on the autonomy of my personal judgements... I reserve the right to serve as a check on the authority itself of news media and politicians who are spinning a false narrative about our 45th President. I don't need an outside authority to tell me what to believe and I don't appreciate being asked to watch something against my will. Elizabeth
Hi Elizabeth,
I hope that I can engage enough self-discipline to make this my last post in this series.
I know nothing about the Fox News video. I couldn't tell you anything that was in it. You won't find mention of it in any of my posts. Nothing I've said is based upon it. Apparently it's one source of info among thousands that folks have to choose from.
There comes times in each of our lives when our behavior must survive, or not, the judgment of our peers based on the information available. Donald Trump is no different.
In the matter of blog behavior Charlie is the evaluator, along with whoever he wishes to consult for advice. I've found him to be incredibly caring and patient, giving everyone equal opportunity.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
As always thank you for your insight Gene.
"In the matter of blog behavior Charlie is the evaluator, along with whoever he wishes to consult for advice. I've found him to be incredibly caring and patient, giving everyone equal opportunity."
Forgive me for pointing this out, but you are the only evaluator of behavior here- Charlie isn't a school marm. You have taken the liberty to self-appoint yourself nursemaid to my blog behavior. Being a woman, I am used to be publicly singled out for speaking in "absolutes," while men are free to do so with impunity. If it make you feel good, then please continue monitoring my blog behavior to make sure I don't get out of line. I take it as a compliment. Elizabeth
What makes me feel good, Elizabeth, is when people don't lie about me. I had no knowledge of the Fox video, never in my direct posts to you above have I included any link, Fox or otherwise, and the biggest lie of all is that I would use Fox logic rather than my own thinking and logic. And your suggestion of sexism in my remarks is totally off the mark. I apologize for my sex that you've been treated that way.
You can check on the accuracy of my account of what you've said beginning at 3:37 on 1/23.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, PA
The president seditiously motivated a group of his cult to commit federal crimes, including insurrection, and they terrorized the Capitol with deadly force trying to overturn Trump’s defeat in the Electoral College vote. It’s that simple. His scores of lawsuits and threats to Republican state officials in Georgia yielded nothing, even with judges he placed on the federal bench and Supreme Court, so he was desperate. Glutting a blog with over a dozen perseverating posts demanding proof but refusing to watch or hear proof as it happened will not change reality (or convince anyone).
I will pop popcorn & grab a beverage, awaiting the ex-president’s second trial, which will undoubtedly show the Jan. 6 evidence once more and hopefully evidence from Georgia, as well as his attempt to replace the AG at the last moment, and see if any Republican senators who denounced Trump’s actions in the aftermath of the Trump Insurrection will continue to grow a backbone. (Maybe they’ll even be able to “stand up straight” again.) A few in the House, remarkably, did.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Thank you as always Gene... As you know, both you and Charlie posted the same video from "fox29news." You are also aware that no where in my previous message the word "lie" or "sexist" appears because I never accused you of either. And you know that.
Lastly, I must admit I have no earthly idea where your need to micromanage my blog behavior comes from. Everyone else here seems to be perfectly capable of discussing issues without judging and scrutinizing personal behavior.
Thank you again, Elizabeth
Charlie is the one who claimed the fox29news thing had audio... talk to him about it. It’s the same thing you cut and pasted. If you all want to post those links amongst yourselves that’s fine.... Just don’t expect me to look at them. Thank you.
Elizabeth, if you're talking about 1/21 7:03PM and 1/22 11:05 AM, they are not videos, but sites which I sent to Charlie so he could verify the info I sent.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, PA
Don’t ask me Gene- I have no clue why Charlie said it had audio. Either way, I’m not clicking on selective news sites whether they have audio or not.
If you wish to state your opinion in your own words, I’ll do my best to respond accordingly.
The president seditiously motivated a cult to commit federal crimes and insurrection? That is quite a fantastical claim. Even for Dennis! I never pegged you for a conspiracy theorist Dennis. Just did how did President Trump pull this off? That must have been some powerful tweet.
Good thing he's not on Twitter anymore.
If you can't state the proof in your own words, then you have none. You keep saying you have evidence. Ok- what is it? Is there a dossier involved? Those dossiers can come in pretty handy my friend. Look hard, I'm sure there's one lying around somewhere.
If you can find the evidence of Trump's guilt- I'll buy the popcorn. Elizabeth
Elizabeth, I went back and checked the site. I had only used the written time-line info. I notice now that there are also still pictures and movies of the break-in and comments by various congressional leaders. That's why Charlie said it was audio. Apologies for my role in causing confusion.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, PA
I understand Gene, it’s ok. No apology necessary... News is full of propaganda and I prefer to use my own news sources. No hard feelings. Elizabeth
Good Morning Elizabeth,
The reason I said audio is because one who watches could listen to what the insurrectionists were saying between themselves and shouting. But most important is because one who listens can hear what Mr. Trump said to the crowd at the rally that turned them into insurrectionists. And the reason I cited the Fox news report is because Fox news had been a strong supporter of Mr. Trump up till fairly recently. In other words one can see and hear the connection between rally and insurrection for oneself without being told what happened by a third party. I thought it was pertinent to the discussion.
Cordially
Charlie
Hi again Charlie,
Sorry to be stubborn, but I really question your judgment regarding the nature of the "seditious" words President Trump used to set a portion of the crowd ablaze storming the Capitol. As you know, we don't impeach Presidents because of what people "think" they heard him say. They could have heard any number of things. And they can change their story at the drop of a hat, which some of them have done.
President Trump is only responsible for his own words, not the words of rioters. If you have an example of President Trumps speech on Jan. 6 that motivated violence, then I'd love to hear it.
What you and Dennis are saying with regard to this "evidence" that Trump incited an insurrection reminds of me Adam Schiff begging the public to understand that "evidence" of Trump's collusion with Russia was "hiding in plain sight." He strung the American people along with that lie, and he never once produced an iota of evidence of any collusion whatsoever. Even after spending 40 million dollars on the Mueller probe.
This effort to prove Trump's guilt is getting a little desperate in my opinion. But good luck with the Senate trial, hopefully your dreams of impeachment and conviction will come true. Many thanks, Elizabeth
A reflection exercise: I'm going to share a few thoughts about epistemology, that branch of philosophy concerned with how we know what we know. Truth is the goal.
I suggest that first there is an event which leaves an outcome of various kinds, impressions in people of various kinds.
I suggest that second there is a context: The circumstances and influences which, if fully known, would bring full understanding to the event/outcome.
Example:
I know a guy who wrote a book that was followed by the sale of two copies. The truth sought is an understanding of the relationship between the writing and the sales.
Think of the context, all the details that would need to be studied and interviews conducted in multicultural settings with regard to (1) the spectrum, origins, and other settings of the colloquial to controversial content in the book; (2)the five different ways that the book was promoted, including worldwide;(3)the author's credentials and reputation, or lack thereof.
What would it take to do the job?
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, PA
A reflection exercise:
To broaden the possibilities of how one might evaluate Donald Trump:
Steven Hassan, Author of "The Cult of Trump" on our former president's similarities to famous cult leaders — and how to break the grip.
Interview: https://www.salon.com/2019/10/22/cam-members-of-the-trump-cult-be-deprogrammed-after-the-leader-falls-steven-hassan-says-yes/
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg,PA
"A reflection exercise: I'm going to share a few thoughts about epistemology, that branch of philosophy concerned with how we know what we know. Truth is the goal.
I suggest that first there is an event which leaves an outcome of various kinds, impressions in people of various kinds.
I suggest that second there is a context: The circumstances and influences which, if fully known, would bring full understanding to the event/outcome.
A reflection exercise:
To broaden the possibilities of how one might evaluate Donald Trump"
Thank you, Gene. It's a good idea to take a step back and look at the broader picture to gain insight and perspective. All of the participants in this discussion (including myself) have already come to a conclusion regarding the January 6 riot... We've also come to a conclusion regarding our evaluation of President Trump. We've reached our own determinations and judgements using our own logic and analysis of facts. And we've shared our reflections on what happened at the Capitol extensively with the group here.
It's ok if we disagree on the outcome; dissent is not illegal:
"Now politicians of all kinds
Who are not yet decided,
May see how Yankees speak their minds,
And yet are not divided."
(Catherine Drinker Bowen, Miracle at Philadelphia, p. 292)
Best of luck as you continue to gather facts and information so that you yourself can make your own determination of truth, Elizabeth
It's understandable that those indoctrinated with Trump's monosyllabic drivel and simple sentences on Twitter might have a problem with lengthier words and sentences.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Good Morning to all posters,
We never got around to discussing the culpability of Evangelical Christianity (if any) for enabling the events of Jan 6, which was the point of the essay. I would put the issue this way: Those who enable share the responsibility or credit for outcomes. Any Comments?
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Charlie,
The following apparently represents a dominant Evangelical point of view. They're at least guilty of promoting lies about the election. What the results of that have been are currently under congressional and all levels of law enforcement investigation.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/21/franklin-graham-i-tend-to-believe-trumps-claim-election-rigged/
"Rev. Franklin Graham detailed in a Facebook post Saturday many of the ways in which the Democrats and media have “maligned” and “falsely accused” President Donald Trump."
"The Christian leader, who is president of charity Samaritan’s Purse, and a supporter of Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, summarized:"
"In 2016 Donald J. Trump told the American people that the government was spying on him. The media said that he was paranoid. The Obama administration and the Democrats said that this was an absolute lie and that Donald Trump was not fit to be president, only for us to find out later that the U.S. government did spy on Donald Trump, and what he had said was in fact true. Then we spent the next two years with the President under investigation for collusion with the Russians. The President said there was no collusion, but night after night, the media and the Democrats said there was collusion. After an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, it turned out to be false—there was no collusion. President Trump was right again. Then the Democrats impeached him over a phone call."
“The President has been maligned, falsely accused, and attacked on every front since before the election in 2016,” Graham wrote. “When President Trump says that this election has been rigged or stolen, I tend to believe him. He has a track record of being right.”
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
"We never got around to discussing the culpability of Evangelical Christianity (if any) for enabling the events of Jan 6, which was the point of the essay."
The reason we never got around to it Charlie is that rational and informed human beings are not in the habit of assigning "culpability" to large groups of other human beings. That's what racists do- they take the actions of certain individuals and blame those actions on an entire group that had nothing to do with that event. Since you are not a racist, this strange habit of spewing contempt upon Evangelicals seems out of phase. Your need to assign blame and culpability accomplishes nothing because you have no power to change people's minds- it takes someone less judgmental to do that.
Franklin Graham, Josh Hawley and even myself have a right to ask that serious voting irregularities be looked into- in the same way that Stacey Abrams did in Georgia. She never conceded. I'm fine with that. We neither need nor seek your permission to audit election results. If there's nothing to hide (as in the governor's election of GA against Stacey Abrams), then the audit will prove Republican allegations wrong.
What is the difference between supporting President Trump and enabling him? Elizabeth
Re: "What is the difference between supporting President Trump and enabling him?"
I'm not talking about the dictionary definition of "enable" and "support." I'm asking in terms of practical application of those terms. In other words- can a Trump voter support the 45th president without enabling him?
Lastly, since you cannot credibly explain how President Trump motivated a group of rioters to storm the Capitol, you are now shifting the focus onto the President's supporters by calling them enablers. In your own words, please explain precisely how Trump supporters enabled the January 6 riot and why exactly are they responsible for the outcome? Elizabeth
Hi Charlie,
To elaborate a bit on my earlier comment. It's my understanding that all of the states went through a rigorous vote certification process that Attorney General Barr agreed resulted in a fair election. Numerous recounts did not alter the outcome. At least sixty challenges in the courts did not alter the outcome. The whole process certainly comes under states rights as per the constitution. Even so, Cruz and Hawley called for a congressional review of the results of each state, creating a struggle over where the power of election certification resides. The state powers were upheld with the backing of the vice-president and even after a large crowd at the capital overcame law enforcement, occupied the building, and threatened the safety of senators and congress.
One might want to compare these events to the election of 2016
when the loser, a woman, won the popular vote by several million, the voting again was close in key states, but the loser conceded by the next day. Not sure how true it is, but quite awhile ago I remember reading a piece that claimed that Nixon's closest associates urged him to challenge the Texas (remember LBJ) results when he ran against Kennedy — he refused
due to the division that it would cause the country.
If Trump wanted to challenge the state certification process he could have been walking at the head of a peaceful March to the capital where they could shout, sing, and hold signs all day and night. He took the cowards way out. Even Jim Jones (1978?) shot himself on the day that 900 followers obeyed his command to take a suicide brew.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, PA
Good Morning Elizabeth,
If you are not as shocked as I was by the incendiary nature of the words of Trump and his lieutenants at the rally immediately preceding the insurrection attempt on the Capitol, then my words will have little influence. I have no need to convince you of anything. We will have to let it go as a difference of opinion. If you have not watched and listened to the videos of what went down on that day, however, you owe it to yourself to do so. And for the record I do think that that those who enable a situation share the responsibility for its outcomes. Watch the videos, listen, and learn.
Cordially,
Charlie
Thanks for the review, Gene!
Charlie
Good Morning Charlie,
"I have no need to convince you of anything. We will have to let it go as a difference of opinion." Then...
"Watch the videos, listen, and learn."
If you're not trying to convince me of anything- why persist and telling me to watch videos? I'm more informed than you are and I have no need to be told what to watch. Rather than quoting excerpts of Trump's speech and explaining their shock value, you narcissisticly claim that I HAVE to be as shocked as you are. Well, I have news for you... I'm not.
No one needs to be told what to think or what to be shocked at. Society needs more people who demonstrate the capacity to step in another man's shoes and walk around in them... Like Atticus Finch said to his daughter Scout in TKAM.
"And for the record I do think that that those who enable a situation share the responsibility for its outcomes."
And yet you refuse to explain in plain English why President Trump supporters are responsible for the outcome of January sixth. Like children are prone to do, you seem to believe that just "saying it" repeatedly makes it true. I'm afraid it isn't quite that simple.
I'm not capable of comprehending why you are solely interested in blaming and condemning an entire religious group for the actions of a few radical nuts. That makes you no different than a racist. I hope you're not proud of that.
Thank you, Elizabeth
Whoops, my last sentence sounded a bit like a put down. It was not so intended. Here is what I was thinking: Watch the videos, listen, and learn why many in the country, including some Republicans, found Trump's words to be incendiary.
Cordially,
Charlie
I already commented Charlie- where did it go? Did you remove it? I posted it at 8:00 and it’s not here. Did you delete it?
"Whoops, my last sentence sounded a bit like a put down. It was not so intended. Here is what I was thinking: Watch the videos, listen, and learn why many in the country, including some Republicans, found Trump's words to be incendiary."
Very strange that I posted a comment between 8-8:15... Sort of confusing why your comment appeared at 8:40 and mine is no where to be found. Anyway Charlie, I already know why some Republicans (and some Democrats) found Trump's words to be incendiary. But I don't know why you find them incendiary because you offer no quotes from his speech whatsoever. You keep repeating the same claim over and over- saying it's so does not make it so.
If you aren't trying to convince me of anything, then stop telling me to be as shocked as you are... Or to read and watch your handpicked sources of information. I have my own news sources and I'm more informed than you as evidenced by the Atlantic article. You had no idea Jeffery Goldberg had said "he may have been wrong" about those retired generals false claims. I've never told you to watch a video. I've never told you to be shocked. I've never told you what you should read or how you should think. I fully expect you to educate and inform yourself. You don't need my help with forming an opinion of your own.
Voting for and supporting President Trump does not make a person responsible for what happened on January sixth- that is not an opinion, that is a fact. If you wish to prove otherwise, provide some actual facts and stop this racist tactic of blaming it on Evangelicals. Many thanks, Elizabeth
Good afternoon Elizabeth,
My daughter administrates the blog and posts the comments. She has blog set so when comments come in no comments are automatically approved. All comments are reviewed prior to their appearance online so that spam does not get through or so that messages meant for me personally are not posted, but are sent to me rather than to the blog. She was out of her home this morning (doing pandemic grocery shopping) and that was the reason for the delay. I do not think we have ever removed a comment once it is posted.
Cordially,
Charlie
Charlie,
I did speak to evangelicalism in the two paragraphs of my first post, and would have been quite content to continue. They deal quite a bit of responsibility for the mess. And, yes, the choice of Trump by evangelicals was an unfortunate misogynist gasp (against a woman running for president in 2016), maybe... hopefully the last one of theirs that will mean much. We beat the evangelicals in all three statewide elections in Georgia because of the educated suburban women in the cities of metro Atlanta and the cities to the south. Unfortunately, the new loony Congresswoman from Northwest Georgia is an example of the more rural areas. The rural areas, because of the evangelical proliferation, tend to have a culture that supports cults like Trump's, where he is unable to do any wrong, a "secular messiah."
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Here is part of what I was writing the other day when the topic went sideways, Charlie.
Southern evangelicals have not fared well psychologically in the last two centuries, when the slave work force was taken away from them, then when their “sacred” segregationist milieu was taken away in the workforce, schools and society. It is not surprising that most of them reacted with glee and voted for one positioning himself as a nativist racist when he ran for president from the moment he came down the escalator. They were able to cast away any qualms about his consummate lack of morality that even defiled their deified scriptures to support him...
Now evangelicals and other Trump supporters took to the Capitol at his behest to try to overthrow the government, like the thugs of Franco and Hitler, both who used Christianity as a tool to gain autocratic control. (Hitler even proposed an “Aryan Jesus” and was considered the “savior” of German “purity,” killing those who didn’t “fit,” a deadly nativism finding parallels in the caging of children, separating families at the border by Trump.) The insurrectionists would create an America in that mold. Certainly, all who attempted the Washington coup were not evangelicals, but... if not for the fact that three out of four evangelicals voted for Trump we probably wouldn’t be facing this crisis. The results of four years of constant reinforcing of core “values” that torched American ideals, principles like law & order, justice, and truth has cast a shroud over evangelicalism. Supporting Trump’s reign of anarchy by evangelicals means that as a set of religious views, evangelicalism is dead. As societal change, it is odious, capturing even the secular nativists and racists into a net of what one might call “secular apocalyptism,” oxymoronic as that might seem. (It reminds me of “The Damascus Document” (DSS) and the “three nets of Belilal,” tweaked slightly.)
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
"It's understandable that those indoctrinated with Trump's monosyllabic drivel and simple sentences on Twitter might have a problem with lengthier words and sentences."
Lengthy sentences do not hide the impotency of Dennis's conspiracy theories... While he is understandably frustrated by that, its no one's fault but his own that he lacks credible facts to back up his crazy accusations.
Elizabeth
St. Louis MO
According to Charlie, "We never got around to discussing the culpability of Evangelical Christianity (if any) for enabling the events of Jan 6, which was the point of the essay."
That's what my posts above were doing, outlining the culpability of evangelicals, along with others in the Trump insurrection. Your attempt above was merely ad hominem.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Couldn't agree more. Evangelicals haven't been blamed and denigrated nearly enough on this blog... No ad hominem applied those Evangelical rubes, they deserve it.
Sorry to interrupt the enlightening discourse on Evangelicals... Let the bigotry continue.
Elizabeth
St Louis MO
Post a Comment