Joshua Feuerstein is a “Christian” pastor who has completely lost his mind over Donald Drumpf and has been reveling in the new era where bigots and morons are emboldened to speak what’s on their tiny little minds. In fact, I honestly don’t think you can call him a Christian anymore; he’s something more like a Drumpfian™. This has clearly become his religion. None of his posts to date have shown this to me more clearly than a recent picture he put up with Jesus hugging a dejected-looking Donald Drumpf in the Oval Office:
In what appears to be a never-ending toddler tantrum, Drumpf again lashes out at a critic and attempts to hand-wave away his awful behavior. I’m posting this not because I want to give a crap about Donald Drumpf’s Twitter feed or his feelings, but because this man is our next President. The American electorate put this man in office. As such, I feel it’s important to make sure we understand who and what this guy is.
MSN posted an article today referencing France’s new law banning violence against children, including corporal punishment (or “spanking”). While Conservatives would argue this is yet another sign of the downfall of society, I’m encouraged that we’re now discussing on a broader scale the efficacy of hitting children. I previously wrote a piece titled “Spare the Rod” in which I discussed my personal experience with corporal punishment and the fact that it never really deterred me, but I want to point out a few items from the article with which I heartily agree:
Since Drumpf was elected as our next President I’ve used the #NotMyPresident hashtag a few times. I realize that this hashtag, in the wake of the Portland and Oakland protests that turned violent and resulted in property damage and at least one life lost, has become somewhat marred with irrationality, “cry-baby” entitlement, and unjustified anger. This is obviously not representative of my views on #NotMyPresident as an idea. This post is intended to clarify why I still use #NotMyPresident.
I woke up Wednesday morning to the news that Donald J. Drumpf will be the 45th President of the United States of America. This news is historic on so many levels. I can’t think of many good things that will come out of this Presidency. My thoughts follow:
NOTE: I’ve now had a full day to process this information and am still having trouble with the reality of the situation. This post has been written over the course of two days and may not even fully describe the potential threat to America Drumpf’s Presidency poses.
1. Drumpf’s Presidency legitimizes the worst in us
Throughout his campaign, this man has done everything he could to scare the living crap out of the American people, using phrases like “third-world country” and “war zone” to describe our infrastructure and cities. While this sensationalism is obviously false, and (for example) numerous reports – based on actual data over the past few decades – show that crime is down nationwide, the anxious, frightened voter base he’s garnered takes it as confirmation that they’re in real danger and cements the wrong-headed idea that our government has failed us. In short, he has bolstered intellectual laziness over honesty with the words, “Trust me.” And his voter base did. You don’t have to scour social media very thoroughly to find more examples than you want of expressions of these ideas.
As egregious as Donald Drumpf’s missteps in this election have been, few people have really drawn any real attention to the following fact: Mike Pence is worse. Sure, Drumpf may be the one spouting all of his nonsense, inciting fear and hatred, and generally being a bigoted asshat but Mike Pence is still his Vice Presidential running mate who waves away, justifies, or adopts Drumpf’s harmful rhetoric. It’s one thing to “just be yourself” and be an outwardly awful person but another thing entirely to pretend to be a man of principle while refusing to take a stand and distance yourself from the awful person. You’ve always heard that you’re judged by the company you keep and, in this case, Pence is an awful person.
Pence has had ample opportunity to stand on American values and make what would be an enormously historic statement in American politics by simply saying, “I cannot in good conscience back a man who would undermine American democracy with abandon” and formally remove himself as Drumpf’s running mate. Think of how Pence would be remembered for decades – maybe centuries – just by making a single gesture of patriotism and moral fortitude! He could be one of the most famous politicians of all time!
With violence erupting anew and the controversy over bans on Muslim immigrants and terrorism, I feel it’s important to comment on the state of things and a fundamental misunderstanding of terrorism on the part of our elected officials. To whit:
Terrorism isn’t a person. It isn’t even a people. It’s an ideal.
This is where things get sticky. Our government officials have stated that we will “defeat terrorism” and that we’re already doing a pretty decent job of it. But what’s the measure being used? How can you tell how many people – ordinary, disenchanted, naturalized citizens of the country – are being influenced by this ideal and how they’re responding to our attacks on a vague notion of the “perversion of the religion of Islam?” The answer is, you cannot. To prove that, look at the recent attack in Orlando where, at what seemed to be the last minute in a seemingly uninformed statement by the killer, a natural-born United States citizen pledged allegiance to ISIS and murdered 49 people. He’s not alone.
This has nothing to do with religion but I’m kind of worked up over it and wanted to share some thoughts. Last night I was pulled over by a very courteous and friendly police officer who was (a) admiring my Mustang and (b) wondering if my windows were tinted too dark. They are, and I’m fully aware of this. However, I’ve chosen not to rectify the situation because I feel that the law makes no sense. I’ve essentially agreed that any tickets I may receive for my tinted windows are a tax for keeping my window tint. That aside, I’ll detail all of my thoughts on the law below and would love to have some feedback from my readers (if any are still hanging around).
I downloaded an app for my iPhone called “Thumb.” This app allows you to ask questions and get answers from random strangers, with thumbs-up and thumbs-down ratings. It’s mindless entertainment, as are most social apps. Anyway, while thumbing through questions I stumbled across one depicting a Marine Corps drill team with the caption, “Respect and honor????” I’m not sure why so many question marks were necessary.
In my news feed on Facebook I will be served a daily dose of Christian affirmations from friends. In this series of posts, which I call “Facebook Affirmations™,” I will post and discuss some of these gems. Here’s the affirmation for today:
I don’t often weigh in on abortion because my views on it are complicated and it’s an even more controversial topic than religion. Since I will never personally know the joy — or terror — of being pregnant I feel that any view I adopt regarding a woman’s reproductive rights ought to be every bit as compassionate as it is logical. Ultimately I feel it comes down to an individual woman’s right to decide whether or not her body will be used as an incubator for a potential human being. Let’s discuss the post above.