Answering Rachel Held Evans

04 Aug

We do not think much of that lady and her very biased pro-Clinton post leads us further away from thinking that she has any real credibility, among other negatives.You can read the her whole post at:

The mere fact that she trumpets and praises a woman who is a known liar and who knows what other evil she does or has done, not to mention Clinton’s support for and praise of sin, leads us to conclude that Ms. Evans is not looking at any facts through Christian eyes. She lets the fact that Clinton is a woman, influence her judgement and investigative reasoning. One of her quotes that bothers us significantly are the following words:

Knowing many of my pro-life friends feel torn between voting for an unpopular but highly qualified pro-choice candidate in Hillary Clinton and an incompetent narcissist who poses a unique threat to our American democracy in Donald Trump, I’d like to make a proposal:

as it tells us that she is not going not be honest, fair or even close to truthful about representing Mr. Trump and his views. But we do not want to get into a ‘who you should vote for’ debate because we do not feel that is our place. Sadly Ms. Evans does as she says:

Evangelicals, I implore you: Don’t support Donald Trump. Don’t support a racist demagogue who can’t even quote a single Bible verse properly and who takes to Twitter to viciously insult everyone he disagrees with.  He’s playing you. Whatever promises he’s made regarding Supreme Court appointments should be weighed against a pattern of lies and failure to follow-through

It seems that Ms. Evans forgets about the pattern of lies told and lived by Clinton. Who you vote for is between you and God and while we do not like Clinton we will not tell you to not vote for her. The point of this post is to address several points made by Ms. Evans near the end of her post and we will go through them in order

how you can claim God’s love for kids with special needs while supporting a man who openly mocks people with disabilities,

Supporting someone who may not like special needs people does not mean one does not like special needs people. We only know a little about that 1 incident involving Mr. trump but the anti-Trump crowd has blown that incident way out of proportion and exaggerated what took place. We have not heard of any further incidents so how can anyone make that quoted judgment?

We do know he only did something to 1 person not all people with disabilities so the question really is, how can we listen to those people who distort what really took place for their own political gain?

how you can oppose sexual immorality while shrugging off the transgressions of a strip club owner who brags about his sexual exploits and extramarital affairs and who publicly sexualized both of his daughters,

This seems to come from left field as what does the transgressions of a night club owner have to do with Mr. Trump?  I wish Ms. Evans gave a link to this so we could address it better for we do not know if Mr. Trump owns a strip club or has done those things in that quote. The question is, how can we support people who bring in situations that do not apply to the presidential candidate?

how you can make grand announcements about your efforts to move toward racial reconciliation while working to elect as president a man people in his own party acknowledge is racist, and who is widely supported by white supremacist groups,

First, it depends upon your definition of the term ‘racism’. For us here, racism does not exist for there is only one human race, not four or five as evolution likes to erroneously teach. Second, you have to prove he is racist and a few comments you do not like do not make a person racist. Then being widely supported by white supremacists doe snot make a person a racist. What we need to ask is how can we listen to someone who continually distorts the truth in her work to elect a known liar and commits other deadly sins?

how you can appeal to “religious liberty” to justify denying wedding cakes to gay and lesbian couples without challenging a candidate who wants  to increase surveillance of Muslim neighborhoods, create a database of Muslim citizens, and ban Muslims from visiting the U.S., which would suggest the only “religious liberty” you want to protect is your own,

Ms. Evans doesn’t seem to listen to the news or hear the words that many terrorists are linked to the Muslim faith. She also ignores the fact that Mr. Trump i snot stopping their right to believe what they want to religiously believe, he is looking at stopping those people who use religious freedom to harm others who disagree with them.

A little reality on the part of Ms. Evans would go a long ways in her seeing the truth about what is going on in the world.

how you can claim your conservative views on women’s roles aren’t anti-woman while supporting a misogynist who says he likes to have a “young and beautiful piece of ass” on his arm, calls women “bimbos” and “fat pigs,” and distributed unflattering pictures of a political opponent’s wife as a campaign tactic,

Since Ms. Evans is a woman, we will put this down to her feeling insulted that some women are called babes, bimbos and so on.  She may not like it and we do not favor those terms but then in today’s PC world there are a lot of words we cannot use any more without being accused of being sexist or sexual harassers. Maybe Ms. Evans should review the idea that ‘it is how a comment is perceived that makes a word or statement wrong’ as how it is perceived may not be the correct intent behind the words.

Too many innocent men have been accused and charged with ‘crimes’ they did not commit because of that ideology and that is not right. It is up to the listener to make sure they heard correctly before launching their crusade to ruin someone’s life. Assuming and putting their own ideas on other people’s words is not hearing the terms correctly.

how you can claim it’s unfair to characterize evangelicals as anti-intellectual while following a man who believes conspiracy theories from the National Enquirer, thinks climate change is a hoax,  says vaccines cause autism, and displays such breathtaking ignorance regarding the state of the world and foreign policy that no former presidents will endorse him and multiple generals, foreign policy experts, editorial boards, and heads of state have denounced him as dangerously uninformed,

She really does not get it and is caught up with the superficial, like so many others, and they fail to see the forest for the trees. We do not believe in climate change either but that does not make us anti-intellectual just not bandwagon jumpers. Campaign strategy does not necessarily mean a candidate is uninformed. It may not be the wisest of moves but let’s go beyond the surface and make sure that he is uninformed before condemning him.

Mr. Trump did not get to run a multi-billion dollar corporation for decades by being a buffoon.

how you can quote Bible verses about “welcoming the stranger” while supporting a candidate who wants to turn away desperate refugee families,

This can be a difficult issue as refugees certainly need help but what do you do if Islamic terrorists hide amongst the refugees? Or why can’t they go to their own people for help first? We can welcome the stranger but we do not do so when our own people will suffer as a result of that aid.I have yet to hear Ms. Evans tale any of these people into her home so we can question her ‘welcoming’ spirit as well.

how you can call yourself “family values” voters while supporting Trump’s mass deportation, which would orphan or displace 4.5 million children who are U.S. citizens but who have at least one parent who is an undocumented immigrant,

Family values do not allow for people to break the law and get away with it. The presence of children does not determine what is just and right. It may help in bringing mercy but we do not overturn family values and support illegal acts because children may be affected.If we did, then we would not be able to send many people away for the crimes they have committed because they have children who will be affected.

how you can claim it’s a “morally good choice” to elect a president who wants to bring back waterboarding and other forms of torture, who wants to target the families of terrorists because “that’s what they do to us,” and who admires the tactics of Vladimir Putin and Saddam Hussein

I doubt that waterboarding has ever gone away. Admiring certain aspects of other people, even though they are not that great, does not make the admirer those people nor state that he will act in that manner.

What bothers us most about this piece by Ms. Evans is that she claims to be a Christian yet not one thing she has written is Christian. Her underlying motive is not to being God’s way to the campaign trail and call the actions of both candidates into account but to elect a woman president. There is nothing Christian about Clinton and since she is violating Isaiah on calling evil good, and so on, there is nothing of God in Clinton so why is Ms Evans writing in support of her and distorting the facts about Clinton’s opponent?

To say the least, Ms, Evans is not being honest and undermines her point of view by removing God and his word from her work. There is no point in attacking the opponent of a favored candidate when the favored candidate is rumored to be worse than the opponent, especially when the favored candidate only wants to become president to fulfill some personal ambition and could care less about the people she may soon govern.

Leadership is about taking care of the people one is leading properly and correctly, with wisdom, honor, honesty, integrity and so on. Somewhere in the past 40 years the right way to lead has been lost and now the presidency is for the highest bidder who has the most people distorting the facts and the truth.

Comments Off on Answering Rachel Held Evans

Posted by on August 4, 2016 in academics, Bible, church, controversial issues, faith, General Life, Justice, leadership, politics


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: