Trump, Religion, and Hypocrisy
I figured this subject area needed its own forum, so I started one.
I asked myself (and ChatGPT) what would Jesus think of Trump today? Jesus was not above condemning people if they got on his wrong side. Based on this list of things he would condemn people for, clearly Trump would be at the top of the list today.
* Religious hypocrites (Pharisees & scribes/“law experts”) — “Woe to you…” for showy piety, neglecting justice/mercy/faithfulness, and exploiting the vulnerable. (Matthew 23; Luke 11:37–54).
* Those who lead others into sin — better to have a millstone than cause “little ones” to stumble. (Matthew 18:6; Luke 17:1–2).
* An “evil and adulterous generation” fixated on signs and refusing repentance. (Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:38).
* False prophets and miracle-workers who do mighty deeds yet practice lawlessness—“I never knew you.” (Matthew 7:15–23).
* The rich who ignore the poor — prophetic “woes” (Luke’s beatitudes) and the Rich Man & Lazarus warn of judgment on callous wealth. (Luke 6:24–26; 16:19–31).
* Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit — singled out as an unforgivable, condemnable posture. (Mark 3:28–29; Matthew 12:31–32).
Will any sane person, but a member of the Trump cult deny that Trump fits all those categories?
How about MAUGA?
* Religious hypocrites (Pharisees & scribes/“law experts”) — “Woe to you…” for showy piety, neglecting justice/mercy/faithfulness, and exploiting the vulnerable. (Matthew 23; Luke 11:37–54).
* Those who lead others into sin — better to have a millstone than cause “little ones” to stumble. (Matthew 18:6; Luke 17:1–2).
* An “evil and adulterous generation” fixated on signs and refusing repentance. (Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:38).
The rich MAUGA who ignore the poor — prophetic “woes” (Luke’s beatitudes) and the Rich Man & Lazarus warn of judgment on callous wealth. (Luke 6:24–26; 16:19–31).
Seems to me you can find MAUGA in all those above. So, would Jesus condemn MAUGA? I would say probably.
How about White evangelicals. I'll address that a little differently and use a test Jesus might use. Are they:
* Welcome the Stranger (Matthew Luke 10:25-37): 70% of WEP see newcomers as Threats. 61% think immigrants are "invading", Only 45% feel there should be a path to citizenship and a whopping 75% oppose asylum entry.
* Truthfulness (Matthew 5:37): 60% if WEP (White Evangelical Protestants) believe and propagate Trump's lies about the 2020 election. 30% believe in Qanon.
* Peacemaking and nonviolence (Matthew 7:15-20): One-third of WEP think true American patriots need to individually resort to violence. 41% of WEP don't condemn the assault on police by the insurrectionists on Jan 6, 2021.
* Treatment of the Vulnerable (Matthew 25:35-40):
* Love thy enemies (Matthew 5:44):
* Humility (Mark 10:42-45): 37% of WEP are open to "rule-breaking" leaders. 77% of WEP wrongly think our founders intended America to be a "Christian Nation".
* Care for the Poor (Matthew 25:35-40): This is one where they do show higher marks because of their charity work, but they oppose, generally, the gov't role in it.
And in full disclosure - Trump does partially pass the Peacemaking test with his Abraham Accords and the First Step Act.The Christian Right is much more of a political cult than a spiritual movement. The most disgusting of people hiding behind Jesus and Christianity as the foul insides of a dirty cup yet one that is all shiny on the outside.
Amen Brother!
On a completely unrelated note... I think this is what Americans... normal Americans... are getting sick of hearing about... every...single...day... and why Trump's efforts in DC and LA and anywhere else will continue to garner support:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sMZJU_1tAYGarner support? His martial law is not going over well anywhere in America except with MAUGA (the 38% in a recent poll) who apparently prefer to live in a police state.
I seriously doubt Jesus would be applauding what Trump has done.martial law?
You seem to be struggling with the definition of this word."Garner support? His martial law is not going over well anywhere in America except with MAUGA"
Polls clearly show that Americans overwhelmingly do not support the military take over of cities.
Ok, Ken we can digress just a bit. The other day someone killed two children and injured 17 or more at a Catholic school. What sort of beast assaults school children? In spite of the conservative ruse of trans this and trans that, the only common denominator in this equation is the fact that the assailant was white, male and young. Perhaps, I can see a picture of his face on the TV as well?
Yeah, people are tired of that... race is not... well, should not be the issue... lack of enforcement of law, lack of order, is the problem.
You know someone shared a link to an article that had told the story of locals protecting their school, back in the 70s, it showed a picture of a couple of men standing relaxed in front of a school with rifles.
And then we 'progressed' to a point where Americans were told it is not OK for citizens to protect themselves like that, they needed to let the police do it, it was their job... and then we get to just a few years ago, where 'Defund the Police' was all the rage...
Don't protect your kids... let the police do it... don't fund the police, don't allow them on school grounds... there is no one to protect the kids.
So its time for a reversal of all that... restore order... restore the enforcement of law... stop worrying about the rights of criminals... start worrying about protecting innocent people.No one is worried about protecting criminals. School shootings were not on anyone's radar in the '70s and Trump is the one who is actually defunding the police...
How can someone be both Christian and MAGA at the same time? They don't mesh. You are either one or the other.
“I was a stranger and you welcomed me... whatever you did for one of the least of these, you did for me.”
Matthew 25:35,40The teachings of Jesus are so far removed from the Trump/MAGA agenda as to be unrecognizeable.
When I think of Maga and Christianity the saying "There is no hate quite like Christian love" comes to mind .
It's sad to see just how much Christianity has deviated away from Christ’s teaching and strayed away from what we, as Christians are called to do and be.So true. Do you realize today's MAGA movement descends from the 1970's Moral Majority that was created by presidents of Christian colleges who wanted to keep their tax-exempt status without having to integrate their schools? They wanted to create a voting block of church members but couldn't enough of them to commit to their objective. So they chose anti-abortion instead. That worked and today we have MAGAs. Google it.
Pretty anti-Jesus if you ask me. I suspect Jesus would have condemned them for that.
"I suspect Jesus would have condemned them for that."
You need to actually sit down and read the Bible instead of cherry-picking scriptures and then using them out of context.
If you do, you'll find out how untrue the above statement is.
When I read what is written by the left when it comes to the Bible I think of Romans 1:22
"Professing themselves to be wise, they proved to be fools"Shar,
I have had the experience of debating people from the left on the teachings of the Bible. Talk about warped concepts. One person tried to tell me the Bible endorses Homosexuality and same sex marriages.
The left's game when it comes to the teachings in the Bible is to take verses out of context and subvert their meanings. They then try to apply them to real world situations and unless you really know about the Bible's verses, the history of the scriptures, the history of the people in the scriptures, you could get taken in by them.
It's a shame but the left tries this delusional smoke screen on the unknowing all the time. Many are gullible to fall for it.
Like it says in Romans 15:4
"For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope."
There is also
"And take THE HELMET OF SALVATION, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Ephesians 6:17In my view, the gender issue said a lot, but I know some believe the Bible would condone abortion and even gender reassignment. What strikes me more, though, is how some on the left display such open hostility toward anyone who doesn’t share their ideas. I honestly don’t understand how they can live with that kind of unchecked hate. I am certain Jesus would never condone such judgmental bitterness.
It’s difficult to engage with people like this. On one hand, it tests my patience, yet on the other, it stirs a sense of sympathy for what I see as lost souls.
Aren't you talking about MAUGA? Many on the Left actually believe in Jesus and try to live up to his teachings.
Yes, sir, they do. They just need to vote like it.
"Left actually believe in Jesus and try to live up to his teachings."
Now, THAT if funny. It just tells me how detached the left is from reality especially the teachings of the Bible. How sad. A person from the left once tried to tell me that the Bible endorses homosexuality. What a bizarre and warped idea.
When I read that I said we need to cue the theme from the Twilight Zone.How many times have you read the Bible cover to cover?
Christians aren’t a voting bloc. Millions on the left and right sincerely try to follow Jesus. The Bible doesn’t “endorse” homosexuality, but faithful Christians disagree about how the few relevant passages apply today—especially since Jesus never addressed it directly. Disagreement ≠ detachment from reality. If we’re going to argue as Christians, let’s do it the way Jesus taught: with humility, truth, and love (John 13:35; Matt 7:1–5), not mockery or caricature.
Just my view --- When looking at Trump through the lens of action and service, one can see a man who has focused on practical solutions for the people. He has taken steps to address homelessness by providing shelters, hotels, and essential services, worked to reduce conflicts abroad and promote peace, and implemented policies aimed at supporting lower-income families and communities. Jesus would look at deeds, at the work put into one’s tasks, and understand that no one is perfect. Yet, when someone is good in deed, those actions can overshadow words. As James 2:17 reminds us, "So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead," and 1 John 3:18 tells us, “Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.” Proverbs 14:23 further underscores this principle: “In all toil there is profit, but mere talk tends only to poverty,” highlighting the value of working and doing, not just speaking or planning. Viewed in this way, a perspective grounded in Scripture might recognize that he works to protect life, alleviate suffering, and create conditions for safety and prosperity. While no leader is flawless, these tangible deeds reflect initiative, decisiveness, and a concern for results, qualities that align with the values Jesus repeatedly emphasized: mercy, care for the vulnerable, and peacemaking. From this standpoint, one could reasonably see him as a man striving to make a positive impact in the lives of those around him.
Matthew 7:1–2 – “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
Please do not respond to my comment; this is simply my view. It sickens me that I even feel compelled to share it. It sickens me to witness such harsh judgment placed on another person, a stranger whose heart none of us, including myself, truly knows.
Perhaps a better question is not “What would Jesus think of Trump?” but rather, “What would He think of me?”Trump Derangement Syndrome on display.
What is even sadder is that you get religious advice from ChatGPT.I just read a post present as a 'view" but were claims were statements of facts that needed checking out. Since AI can research this stuff more thoroughly and faster than I can, I put the entire passage to it. This is the response.
Short answer: partly true, mostly misleading. Here’s the line-by-line:
“Addressed homelessness by providing shelters, hotels, and essential services.”
True for 2020 COVID response: FEMA and HUD funded hoteling and related services (e.g., ESG-CV, non-congregate shelter). I have to wonder if they would be able to do that today.
But in 2025: a new executive order directs HUD/HHS to end federal support for “Housing First” and reorient grants away from that model—i.e., away from the very approach that paid for hotels and services.
Verdict: cherry-picked. Early COVID hoteling happened; current policy moves the opposite way.
“Worked to reduce conflicts abroad and promote peace.”
Credit where due: the Abraham Accords (2020) normalized ties between Israel and several Arab states.
But now: the administration is trying a “pocket rescission” to cancel ~$5B in foreign aid (peacekeeping, democracy programs)—a move widely criticized as unlawful and counter to U.S. diplomacy.
Verdict: mixed at best: notable 2020 diplomacy, but current cuts undercut the claim of broad “peacemaking.”
“Implemented policies aimed at supporting lower-income families and communities.”
Some initiatives: Opportunity Zones boosted investment/housing supply in some places, but evidence on jobs/poverty is limited or mixed.
Big 2025 changes: the administration’s marquee law and budget push large cuts and new work rules in Medicaid/SNAP, with CBO/KFF estimating hundreds of billions in reductions and coverage losses—hitting low-income households hardest.
Verdict: the overall 2025 policy mix is not pro-poor.
Scripture citations: the verses quoted (James 2:17; 1 John 3:18; Prov 14:23) are accurate, but whether they “overlook words” depends on context—biblical ethics also condemn lying, injustice, and partiality. All Trump Hallmarks
Bottom line
The comment overstates Trump’s record: it highlights a few real actions (COVID hoteling; Abraham Accords) but omits current shifts (ending Housing First support; cutting foreign aid; deep Medicaid/SNAP reductions). On net, the claim is misleading."How many times have you read the Bible cover to cover?"
I was challenged in my mid-30s to read the Bible like a single book. I've read five translations in 35 years. (I highly recommend the chronological Bible!)
"Christians aren't a voting bloc." Maybe I should have said "Evangelicals" since that is how so many in the media identify the political group.
While a great deal of debate has gone on over human sexuality, until the mid 1940s the word homosexual wasn't in any translation of the Bible. After some 2,000 years the word rapist was translated homosexual - changing the meaning significantly.
One of many references: https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has … the-bible/Sorry,
That's simply wrong.
Homosexuality has been mentioned in the Bible as far back as the King James Version that was published in 1611.No, Kathleen is right. The word, homosexual, simply doesn't appear. Now, some people have interpreted the Bible's words to mean homosexual, but she is right - in MOST instances, it is referring to rape or violence of some sort.
Interestingly, Leviticus is the OLNY place in the Bible where male-on-male love is specifically forbidden. (Female-on-female is not.) Further, it is only one passage in Leviticus where it is highlighted. So, where did Leviticus get the idea it was prohibited? He says from Moses, that God told Moses. Unfortunately for Leviticus, Moses doesn't back him up on that. The closest he comes is when he spoke about male temple prostitutes. He doesn't get it from the Ten Commandments either.
So, why did he write such words? Apparently, to separate the Israelites from "others", specifically, the Canaanites. That, to me, is an ulterior motive and not a God-driven directive.
Then there is also this problem. Sexual orientation isn’t chosen; it’s a natural outcome of biology—polygenic influences, prenatal conditions, and developmental pathways—with genetics contributing alongside other factors. Many Christians would say such biological realities fall under God’s providence, though they differ on whether God directly wills them or permissively allows them. In any case, it is not the individual.Bottom line: God said "Whosoever will, may come." He didn't point to anybody or any group and say, "But not you."
Also coming to mind: "He who is without sin, throw the first stone.""Sexual orientation isn’t chosen; it’s a natural outcome of biology"
That is a topic for debate. Interesting how hundreds of people leave the gay lifestyle every year. Did they change their biology?It is actually not. If you think it is, give me the science that shows it is debatable.
Also, there is a huge difference between "leaving" the gay lifestyle and "stop" having natural feelings toward the same sex. If I were gay and had a gun held to my head with someone telling me to stop, I would probably considering hiding it.“Born That Way” No More: The New Science of Sexual Orientation
A new study adds to a growing body of evidence demonstrating that the dominant narrative about sexual orientation—that it is genetically determined—simply cannot be true. Instead, the science shows that a person’s sexual orientation and choice of partners depends heavily on the development and expression of personal autonomy regarding one’s own sexual possibilities. People with same-sex attractions should be legally and culturally free not to identify with or act on them.
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/09/57342/The problem is not that you can find supporting evidence...
The problem is that the 'Progressives', along with those that seek to undermine the nation from within, have spent plenty of money making sure that there are science-psychology tests add nauseum that will show exactly what results they want.
The whole Post-Modern there is no truth, therefore the truth is whatever we make it to be... becomes quite problematic... if you hadn't noticed when arguing with these ideologues... where the only sources of facts-truth are the ones they approve of, and any that counter their facts-truth must be 'Right-Wing' or 'Fascist" etc.
But people who can use common sense and think critically, eventually they become aware of what is going on... sooner or later they are asked to accept or believe in a lie so big, to accept it is to deny their own sanity.
Reminds me of that 'discussion' Credence and I were having recently about Disney... this person's reaction is exactly what I'm talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY9AFW2Iqrc
And once a person wakes up from being 'woke' ... or as they say ... become aware that the Left has left them... there is no going back.Intresting video, I listened to the woman and yes she had some good points but I and many blacks do not support Democrats out of lockstep. I look at policy positions and I have my preference as to how the government should operate and the Republicans are the bogey men because they have earned that designation in my opinion.
Tokenism is no substitute. Media or no media, it has been obvious that the Republicans have more often worked against my interests than for them. Trump’s villainy is more than just a media sleight of hand. She did make a good point about the Disney example. I really do not care what color the mermaid is. I don’t expect society to cater to me or mine, but I insist on equal treatment within the system. I will endlessly fight toward those ends. Trump is working contrary to my expectations and can never be taken seriously by me.You will never "win" against a conspiracist. As we have seen, they will keep inventing things or cherry-pick things that seem to support their warped view of the world every time to you present real facts that shoot them down.
All we can do is keep presenting the TRUTH and hope some of it makes it through.
"Interesting how hundreds of people leave the gay lifestyle every year."
How do you know this?
It has certainly been mentioned. Some people will even go so far as to twist what is written in the Bible to fit their own narrative—clinging to a single word or phrase while ignoring the larger context. As has become a norm for some in our society.
But the truth is, the Bible is very clear on the subject of homosexuality. The context leaves little room for confusion; it is direct, blunt, and paints an unmistakable picture. One of the clearest passages is found in Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” And this is not the only place. Other verses, such as Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:9–10, all reaffirm the same teaching. There are multiple examples, and together they make the Bible’s position unmistakably clear.The translations appear very clear, and the context is very clear. Not sure how it could be misunderstood as written.
Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
Romans 1:26–27 – “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
1 Corinthians 6:9–10 – “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 Timothy 1:9–10 – “Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.”And imagine America reconstituting itself in the future under Sharia Law.
The Quran uses terms like fahisha (shameful deed) to describe homosexual acts, and traditional interpretations of these verses, along with Hadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad), have led to a concrete view that homosexual acts are forbidden (haram) and considered sins.
Islam’s position on homosexuality has always been clear and perspicuous from the time of the revelation of the Quran to our Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), 1,400 years ago, to this very day. The Islamic perspective is also consistent with Judaic and Biblical perspectives as stipulated in the holy scriptures.
From the Islamic standpoint, homosexuality is a forbidden action; a major sin and anyone who partakes in it is considered a disobedient servant to Allah that will acquire His displeasure and disapproval. This is clearly stated in the three main sources of the Shariah: The Quran, the Sunnah, and the consensus of all scholars, which extends from the time of the Prophet till today.
There has never been any debate or discussion regarding this viewpoint amongst the scholars, past or present, simply because the matter was always comprehensive and immutable.
Romans 1:26
That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.Shar,
It amazes me how many people refuse to acknowledge these passages. Some people claiming to be Christians ignore them and act if these verses in the Bible don't exist.
I've had to deal with this for decades.
It's a shame.I agree… Many verses mention homosexuality, and these passages cannot be mistaken, as the context is very clear. Some of the most straightforward verses include
Leviticus 20:13,---“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
Leviticus 18:22 (NAB) – “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.”
I mean, how could these verses be skewed to mean anything but what they say? I mean, I can honestly say--- Now I Have Seen It All"In sum, traditional English translations of Leviticus 18:22 are known as “clobber passages” that condemn homosexuality. Lings’ philological, literary analysis undermines the inclusion of Lev. 18:22 among those texts. He legitimizes a reading of Lev. 18:22 that condemns incestuous, same-sex rape. Therefore, the use of Leviticus 18:22 as a weapon against all same-sex relationships is not only unjust, but linguistically misguided in translating into English the original Hebrew.
[1]K. Renato Lings, “The ‘Lyings’ of a Woman: Male-Male Incest in Leviticus 18:22?,” in Theology & Sexuality (London: Equinox Printing, 15:2, May 2009), 240."EXACTLY. Translations of Leviticus are often debated because they involve subjective interpretations of ancient Hebrew.
No one knows what the original text says on the subject. It has gone through so many translations where the translator injects their own thoughts and feelings. That is why translations differ so much from each other.
"use of Leviticus 18:22 as a weapon against all same-sex relationships is not only unjust, but linguistically misguided in translating into English the original Hebrew."
Guess what? Leviticus is NOT the only place homosexuality is addressed.Find another passage that talks specifically about homosexuality in the way that you mean it and not in some other context.
Mine was three. The first was around 5th grade, the next sometime in high school, and once again in college.
5th grade? Wow. All I knew at that age was the verses we memorized in Sunday School.
I need to start again. It always takes me years to get through it. What translation did you get the most out of?I only read one which I presume was the King James version; anyway it was the one we had at home. (I think I still have it somewhere.) As I recall, my mom tried to raise me as a Methodist.
Even at that tender age (around 1957) I was into politics (the Red Scare and all that) and religion. Religion because what I heard in Sunday School didn't resonate with my sense of what was right and wrong (I am a Libra) As soon as I got past Genesis, I became rather put out by what I was reading. From there, I just kept digging deeper.
I was taught God most certainly looks beyond outward appearances. He searches the heart and the innermost thoughts, the “reins”. He judges people not just by what they say, but by their true intentions and the results of their actions.
This is what I’ve come to understand from Jeremiah 17:10: it reminds me how far we’ve drifted from looking beyond outward appearances. In my view, I’ve never seen such a divide, and I can’t help but wonder if it’s in part because we’ve come to believe we have the right to judge—sitting in judgment while too often ignoring deeds and focusing only on the appearance of words. Instead of judging by surface impressions, we are called to look deeper, to discern true intentions and the fruit of a person’s actions.
Maybe you could share what Jeremiah 17:10 means to you—I’d really like to hear your perspective.An old response in the days when HubPages was more social I was in a group of poets. A reply that was common for me to use was "Nice!" No more, no less. That is what I share about your response to the verse I shared.
As to my perspective, at this time, today, perhaps is a continuation of what was shared while at the same time offers perspective from where I sit today.
Ecclesiastes (8:14) – God alone provides meaning to life that—apart from Him—is “meaningless”.
Using the Catholic/Lutheran version (there are three, actually), does ANYONE disagree that Trump frequently violates the following Commandments: #2, #3, #5 (maybe), #6, #7,#8, #9, and #10?
#2 - You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain: If you have ever gone to his rallies, you know he takes God's name in vain frequently. He has been heard to do the same in the Oval office and other official meetings.
#3 - Keeping Sundays Holy: He has never been known to do this publicly. Occasionally, he has been seen in a church but all too often, he is not doing holy things, at least as this Commandment intended. Does he pray at home privately? That is always possible, I suppose.
#5 - You shall not kill: This is a "maybe" and depends on who you define kill. In the most direct since - has Trump personally killed another? Probably not. Has Trump directed that someone be killed? More than likely not although there is at least one occasion where that may be a possibility. Now, if "kill" means actions that led to the death of another, then Trump has violated this many, many times. One example is all the excess COVID deaths attributed to his purposeful mishandling of the pandemic. Another are deaths directly attributed to his denial of aid from USAID.
#6 - You shall not commit adultery: A repeat offender.
#7 - You shall not steal: He has been convicted of it. His charity was banned because of it, Many more examples.
#8 - You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor: An unimaginable number of times.
#9 - You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife: There are at least two verified reports from married women Trump has hit on. Then there is that infamous Access Hollywood tape where he admits it directly.
#10 - You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods: While "coveting" is an "inward" thing, many of Trump's actions point heavily in the direction that he does.
Boy, what a terrible record.
Now, I am not naive enough to think there is anybody on earth, living or dead, who hasn't violated some or all of those Commandments on more than one occasion. If that is the case, then how do you measure it? I am forced to look at quantity and/or seriousness.
By that measure it is clear to me Trump is a serial violator to the Ten Commandments and any attempt to say otherwise is pure hypocrisy and probably a violation of the 8th Commandment.Whatever you believe the Bible says or means by what it says, one passage is clear. "Judge not."
It's all I can do to keep up with my own sins before I start throwing stones at others.
I will stand my ground against a falsehood. When a topic is debatable, I will only spend a limited amount of time on it.
I've reached my limit.Not sure how many times these verses need to be posted, before some stop denying the fact that Homosexuality was mentioned and condemned in the BIble.
Explicit Laws and Commands
Leviticus 18:22 (ESV)
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13 (ESV)
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
New Testament Condemnations
Romans 1:26–27 (ESV)
"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
1 Corinthians 6:9–10 (ESV)
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Timothy 1:9–10 (ESV)
“…understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.”
Genesis 19:4–5 (ESV) – The story of Sodom and Gomorrah
"But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.’”
(Here, “know them” is widely understood as a sexual demand.)
Judges 19:22 (ESV) – The outrage at Gibeah
"As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, worthless fellows, surrounded the house, beating on the door. And they said to the old man, the master of the house, ‘Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.’”
(This mirrors the Sodom account — again a violent attempted male-male act.)
Jude 1:7 (ESV) – Referring back to Sodom
"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."Here is the other view you keep asking for:
Jude 1:7 isn’t a blanket ban on consensual same-sex relationships. In Greek it says Sodom “went after other flesh” (sarkos heteras), not “homosexual” flesh. In context, Jude has just mentioned angels who “left their proper domain” (v.6) and then says Sodom “likewise” pursued other flesh—i.e., an attempted assault on angelic visitors (Gen 19), a violation of hospitality and a cross-boundary act, not a mutual same-sex union. Elsewhere Scripture names Sodom’s core sins as pride, injustice, and neglect of the poor (Ezek 16:49–50). So a more complete understanding of Jude 1:7 shows that it condemns violent, transgressive lust—not covenantal same-sex love.For Aa more complete understanding Judges 19:22 isn’t teaching about consensual same-sex relationships (which is what this discussion is about); it’s recounting a gang-rape attempt and a collapse of hospitality and justice. The Hebrew “know” (yādaʿ) here clearly means sexual assault, and the mob’s target is the male guest only because he’s the outsider they want to humiliate. The story proves the point when they end up raping the woman to death (19:25–28)—the sin is violence, depravity, and violation of hospitality, not loving same-sex intimacy. It’s a horror narrative that triggers Israel’s outrage and civil war (Judg 19–21), not a blanket statement about covenantal same-sex unions.
A different understanding of Genesis 19:4–5 describes an attempted gang rape of strangers (who are actually angels), not a consensual same-sex relationship. The men of Sodom demand to “know” the visitors—here clearly sexual violence as domination of outsiders. Lot’s horrific offer of his daughters (v.8) shows the issue isn’t orientation but violent inhospitality and abuse. Later Scripture names Sodom’s core sins as pride, injustice, and neglect of the poor (Ezek 16:49–50). So Genesis 19 condemns assault and xenophobic depravity, not covenantal same-sex love. - Which is under discussion here.
As many times as it takes to explain that different translations at different times interpreted these verses differently.
Bottom line for me: I'm not nearly as concerned about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes as I am with the rapes that most commonly are committed by heterosexual men.And that get's to the hypocrisy doesn't it. They seem to be more worried about someone's lifestyle (as if it were any of their business) rather than what the Bible really condemns - the rape - and that is very sad.
"I'm not nearly as concerned about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes as I am with the rapes that most commonly are committed by heterosexual men"
I'll second that.
Here is a different way to view 1 Tim 1:9–10 the ESV’s: “men who practice homosexuality” translates a single rare word, arsenokoitai., the word that translates to "homosexual" is not part of the original language, let alone text.
That term is debated. Literally it means “male-bedders,” it shows up in a vice list alongside pornoi (“sexual exploiters”) and andrapodistai (“slave traders/kidnappers”). In the Greco-Roman world, male–male sex most visible to Paul was exploitative (pederasty, prostitution, abuse of enslaved boys). Many scholars therefore read arsenokoitai as men who sexually exploit other males, not a blanket ban on consensual, covenantal same-sex unions. Different translations reflect that uncertainty (KJV “abusers of themselves with mankind,” NRSV “sodomites,” NRSVue “men who engage in illicit sex”).They don't seem to want to accept that the Bible was written in ancient Hebrew...not English.
Again, there is no translation from the original language to the word "homosexual" which is used here. That implies the authors bias. Instead, consider In 1 Cor 6:9–10 the ESV’s “men who practice homosexuality” collapses two Greek terms: malakoi and arsenokoitai. Malakoi literally means “soft” and in Paul’s world commonly referred to self-indulgent men or male prostitutes/younger partners in pederasty. Arsenokoitai (“male-bedders”) is rare and likely points to exploitative male-male sex—older men with boys or commercial/coercive relations—especially given the vice list’s stress on economic abuse (greed, swindling) and its pairing with slave-traders in 1 Tim 1:10. That’s why translations differ (KJV: “effeminate… abusers,” NRSV: “male prostitutes, sodomites”). So the passage targets exploitative, lust-driven practices, not covenantal, mutual same-sex unions—a social form Paul doesn’t address here.
Now, let me take another shot at Leviticus. First, what God actually said to Moses on the subject is, historically speaking, lost to us. What we have in Leviticus reads like priestly teaching preserved with oral tradition and eventually compiled by priestly scribes into the book we know.
So, did God REALLY say this? From a faith perspective, Leviticus presents these as words from the LORD through Moses; historically, we can’t verify. But assume He did. Then we are left with this.
Leviticus does not prohibit homosexuality itself; it prohibits the expression of that love via sex—male–male intercourse (traditionally understood in Jewish law as anal intercourse). Further, Leviticus does not mention female-to-female sex acts. What the text targets are acts, not identities: “a man lying with a male as with a woman” is legal shorthand for male–male intercourse (Lev 18:22), and Lev 20:13 adds the penalty clause. The law doesn’t ask why—love, lust, companionship—it simply regulates a specific behavior. Orientation, as a concept, isn’t in view.
That matters for interpretation. Leviticus 18–20 is part of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26)—boundary-marking laws that set Israel apart from surrounding peoples (explicitly “Egypt” and “Canaan” in Lev 18:3). Alongside certain sex acts, the code also regulates foods, purity/impurity, and festival observances.
Many readers therefore see these verses as covenant markers for ancient Israel, not statements about the ontology of love or modern identity. Others read them as universal moral rules. Either way, the text itself legislates conduct; it never defines or condemns a “homosexual person.”
The New Testament follows the same pattern: Paul addresses behaviors, not identities (Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10). His rare Greek terms label actions or participants—malakoi and arsenokoitai—and scholars still debate whether he meant all same-sex acts or primarily the exploitative forms common in his world (pederasty, prostitution, coercion).
Bottom line: the Bible passages often cited don’t proscribe “being gay”; they regulate certain sexual acts—male–male in Leviticus, with later debates about scope in Paul. Whether a loving, covenanted same-sex union should be treated differently is a theological question communities answer beyond what the ancient law code explicitly says.
I appreciate that a lot of this information is outside the comfort zone for many. And the original Hebrew texts are thousands of years old. Every time a translation is made, changes occur - intentionally or not.
No one's salvation depends on these texts. John 3:16 is enough.- tsmogposted 2 weeks ago
0Just to add a little something on the homosexual discussion. Doing a browser search for -homosexual etymology, we discover homosexual was not even a word until 1869. It wasn't translated into English until 1890.
From Google online AI we have . . .
The term "homosexual" is a portmanteau of the Greek word "homos" (meaning "same") and the Latin word "sexual". It was coined in German by journalist Karl Maria Kertbeny in 1869 to challenge laws against same-sex acts, becoming popularized by Richard von Krafft-Ebing and eventually translated into English around the 1890s.
Breakdown of the Word
Homo- (Greek):
.
This prefix comes from the Greek word homos (ὁμός), meaning "the same" or "alike". It is important to note that this is different from the Latin root homo (man).
Sexual:
.
This part of the word comes from Latin sexualis, meaning "of or relating to the sexes".
Origin and Adoption
1. Coined by Kertbeny:
In 1869, Karl Maria Kertbeny used the German term homosexuell to argue against laws criminalizing same-sex relations.
2. Popularization:
The term was later used by Richard von Krafft-Ebing in his 1886 book, Psychopathia Sexualis.
3. English Adoption:
The word was adopted into English, likely modeled on the German and French (homosexuel) forms, with the noun "homosexuality" appearing by the 1890s.
Also, you can see/read its etymology from etymonline
https://www.etymonline.com/word/homosexual Let me put the Bible translations into perspective.
The Bible as we know it has been around for 2,000 years.
The old testament, where Leviticus is located, was taken from the Jewish Torah, which means it has been around for 5,000 years.
During these thousands of years there have been thousands of individuals who have translated the the Torah from the original ancient Hebrew. The vast majority agree with what is written in the King James Version and the modern interpretation of the Torah as well as the Bible's later interpretations.
The Bible, Torah are against homosexuality. That has been the interpretation for thousands of years by thousands of people. Those who try to create a different type of translation do so because they have an agenda and not a sincere desire to accurately translate the scriptures from their original texts.
Food for thought, what language was the New Testament of the Bible written it? Ancient Hebrew? NO. Koine Greek."Food for thought, what language was the New Testament of the Bible written it? Ancient Hebrew? NO. Koine Greek"
But we were discussing Leviticus, Old Testament.. which was written in ancient Hebrew.It would be nice if you were right, but you are not.
“The Bible as we know it has been around for 2,000 years.”
Not so. There wasn’t a single, fixed “Bible” in year 25 CE. The New Testament canon wasn’t fully listed in our familiar 27-book form until Athanasius’s Festal Letter (367 CE), and the broader 4th century is when East/West churches firmed up the list. Chapters/verses are medieval/early-modern add-ons.
“The Old Testament/Torah has been around 5,000 years.”
The Torah is older than the NT, but “5,000 years” overstates it. Earliest Pentateuch fragments we possess are late 3rd–2nd c. BCE; the Septuagint Greek translation began in the 3rd c. BCE, implying a largely finished Torah by then. The Masoretic Text—the standard Hebrew base for many modern OT translations—was stabilized 6th–10th c. CE by the Masoretes. So your "5,000" is closer to 2,300 years ago. And Judaism itself is barely 4,000 years old.
“Thousands translated it, and they mostly agree with the KJV.”
The KJV is a magnificent 1611 English translation, but it relied on the best manuscripts available then (e.g., Textus Receptus for the NT) rather than the earlier manuscript discoveries we use today (e.g., Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Dead Sea Scrolls).
Modern critical editions sometimes diverge from KJV where earlier witnesses differ (e.g., Mark 16:9–20; 1 John 5:7 ‘Comma Johanneum’). Agreement across translations isn’t measured by “matching the KJV,” but by how closely a translation reflects the earliest recoverable text.
“The Bible/Torah are against homosexuality, full stop.”
Leviticus legislates acts, not identities—prohibiting male-male intercourse; it does not mention female-female acts (later discussed in rabbinic literature). That is a textual observation, regardless of one’s theology. You may not understand this, but homosexuality is NOT just male sex
Paul likewise addresses behaviors, and the rare Greek terms (malakoi, arsenokoitai) are debated in scope by mainstream scholars (exploitative practices versus all same-sex acts). None of this requires an “agenda”; it’s standard philology.
“People who translate differently have an agenda.”
That’s not an argument; it’s an ad hominem. Major translation committees (across conservative, Catholic, Orthodox, and mainline scholars) regularly flag text-critical issues and semantic ambiguity in footnotes (e.g., on Mark 16 and the Comma). Disagreement here reflects normal scholarly method, not bad faith. Consider, it may be you that has the agenda. Is that possible?
“Food for thought: the NT was Koine Greek, not Hebrew.”
Correct—and that point supports careful scholarship. Because the NT was written in Koine Greek, translators and historians must work from Greek manuscripts and weigh variants; they don’t simply “match the KJV.”
Bottom line:
No fixed, bound “Bible” existed in year 25 CE; the canon and our reference system came centuries later.
The Torah is ancient, but not “5,000 years” in the form we have; its text took shape over time and was standardized long after.
The KJV (1611) is one historic translation among many; earlier manuscripts sometimes correct it.
On Leviticus, the text targets specific acts (male–male intercourse) and does not mention female–female acts; debates about Paul’s terms are scholarly, not agenda-driven.Right. The verses cited here in the Old Testament were originaly written in Hebrew. The New Testament in Greek.
I wonder... how bad things would have gotten if the continued decline of lawlessness (as is becoming prevalent in pockets of CA) had Trump not been elected?
The world is a dangerous place, and few Americans realize the extent of how bad it can get... how many places would be allowed to become like what we saw in Seattle a few years ago, CHAZ it was called... how many would decline to the point where extremists take over completely?
Is what is going on between Israel and Hamas the type of rift we see growing within America... between States and regions that demand Law and Order be retained, and those that succumb to the violent extremists that will do whatever it takes to maintain control over the population?
I watch a video like this (extremely graphic warning applies) and wonder how soon without the presence of strong Law Enforcement our various Democratic led states would devolve to this:
https://x.com/amuse/status/1963354418910282106You raise some fair points about what happens when law and order breaks down. Seattle’s CHAZ zone is a good reminder of how quickly things can spiral if authority pulls back. I also agree that the world is far more dangerous than many Americans realize, and pretending we’re immune to that kind of chaos is risky.
At the same time, I think the U.S. has stronger institutions and a deeper commitment to order than most places where things collapse completely. One must also consider, when we see Hamas beating people in Gaza’s town square, that there were people cheering them on. So again, we need to strongly reflect on what kind of society ends up with a terror group like Hamas voted in to support them. That’s a very different foundation than America’s. Americans are not a warring people, our society, at its core, respects humanity.
Where I think the balance lies is in making sure leaders, whether Trump or anyone else, are willing to actually back law enforcement and not give extremists the upper hand. Without that, you’re right, things could deteriorate fast. But I also believe most Americans, regardless of politics, don’t want to see their communities devolve into lawless zones, and that instinct will help keep the worst outcomes from taking hold.And how much of "people cheering them on" do we see in the recent riots in LA... when the police cars are being destroyed ... when the police are being beaten down... how close are such 'Progressive' controlled parts of America getting to becoming No-Go Zones for your average well-meaning American?
Ken, I understand your concern, but we need to keep perspective. Gaza’s situation and recent unrest in U.S. cities aren’t really comparable. The people of Gaza voted for Hamas, many still support them, and generally, they’ve lived in a society with a long history of warring behavior and deep-seated hostility, hate toward others.
Yes, Hamas has brought war and hardship, but that’s very different from the temporary riots we see in the U.S. Here, we still have functioning institutions, law enforcement, and the rule of law protecting everyday citizens. Americans may debate, protest, or even get angry, but we still overwhelmingly respect the system, the police, and each other’s rights, common sense tells us we’re nowhere near a system where Americans would cheer on violence against their fellow citizens the way it happens in Gaza.
It has become worse over the last decade, but I see hope of pushing down, drowning out the hate I have witnessed over these past years. I truly feel it is out there, but in a small minority.
This type of photo has been getting pretty common in America since 2020, one side seems to be of the mindset that if they don't get their way, destroying the nation is OK... and if they do get their way, the nation is going to be destroyed for sure.
Might be time to go after the real Domestic Terrorists and traitors to the nation... not the Patriots who are trying to save it.Ken, I will agree that this form of protest violence, in my view, is primarily carried out by leftist protesters. But do I believe they are the majority? I really don’t. These are the types who cause trouble when they can’t get their way. I see this mindset even on social media, when they don’t find agreement, they become agitated, repeat themselves, grow angry, and lash out verbally. I will admit that we do have some in our society who could become dangerous if given the right moment and the right circumstances, especially if they are in groups. That said, I’m not sure they could ever muster the kind of numbers needed to spark a large-scale uprising.
The question, then, is what kind of numbers are we really talking about? I think the left is struggling to gain a real base. Americans are a funny breed, innately, most seem to be trying to distance themselves from extreme leftist ideologies and don’t want to be associated with the more radical ideas. I believe our focus should be on domestic terrorists and traitors to the nation, because the enemy within can be the most dangerous. Boy, could I make a long list of these folks.The entirety of the danger being posed is significantly more than it appears.
I am sure you can recall just how out of control things appeared to be getting in 2020... how many Americans felt desperate to get things back to normal.
How the media spent an entire year... after all their efforts to paint Trump as a Russian conspirator failed... showing and painting the Floyd riots as justified and 'peaceful' while painting anyone who showed Trump support, or who later questioned a very questionable election as a terrorist and/or threat to Democracy.
Now... there is not that much of a leap from what was done in 2020... to what was done in Ukraine during the... as Wikipedia now calls it 'Revolution of Dignity'.
The ability of certain aspects of our intelligence operations to influence a revolution abroad in a country like Ukraine... or here at home to help make what Wikipedia now calls 'January 6 United States Capitol attack'...
Is a serious threat... how the media shapes it... how the intelligence agencies instigate it... how it is framed on Social Media (or silenced)... we have seen many examples (whether recognized or not) this past decade.
That threat has not gone away... perhaps this is the most dangerous time for America... for our Republic... for our Freedoms and Economy...
It may appear as if Trump and his supporters are winning the battles... here at home domestically... that we have our foreign enemies reeling abroad... it is not something one should take confidence in.
Russia is not close to collapsing or losing support globally... for a war that the Biden Administration often scoffed at the idea of Russia being able to last past 2024 without collapsing economically.
It might appear that the Democrats are in complete disarray... but the people pulling their strings have very deep pockets and have allies globally wanting to bring America to its knees... too many Americans still fail to realize the enemy is within and it is imbedded in our own government, especially the Democratic Party.
The Trump Administration is embattled on all fronts... the old Main Stream Media (owned by billionaires and funded by trillion dollar corporations) many tenured officials throughout the government the idealogues and corporate sellouts... the Dick Cheney Halliburton types and the John Brennan Communist types.
This is probably the most dangerous time of all... the People willing to stand up and defend America the Nation... who believe in Citizen Rights and the Constitution are exposed now... they are serving in the Trump Administration... they are standing up and showing support...
Their opposition is hiding behind masks in riots... is working to undermine the economy... the media still works non-stop to denigrate everything Trump does... and it is human nature, given enough time, for people who are struggling to blame those they see in power for their problems.
"And How Much ..." - the honest answer is NOT MUCH.
"Beaten Down" - You mean like what Trump's Troops did to the Metro Police and others on J 6? Yes, some LA police were injured, all or almost all MINOR, but it pales in comparison to what Trump caused to happen.
"No-Go Zones" - doesn't exist.
Now, here is a neutral discussion of what happened during the LA protests.
Short answer: there was some real violence in June’s LA protests (a burned CHP patrol car, fires, injured officers, dozens of arrests). But the claim that “progressive parts of America are turning into no-go zones” isn’t supported by the evidence: most demonstrations were peaceful, and citywide crime in 2025 is down, not spiraling[/b].
Here’s the clean, sourced picture:
What actually happened in LA (June 2025):
A CHP patrol car was set on fire downtown; prosecutors filed charges tied to that and to fireworks thrown at officers.
[Los Angeles Times]
Waymo robo-taxis were torched, and there was property damage and tagging around City Hall and nearby streets.
[Los Angeles Times]
Officers were injured and vehicles damaged during clashes, according to contemporaneous reporting.
[The Guardian]
According to the gov't and [b]not independently verified, DHS said ICE officers were assaulted outside a federal facility
[U.S. Department of Homeland Security]
How widespread/severe? - Not very.
Local coverage emphasized that the city was not “under siege.” The L.A. Times reported arrests and violent incidents alongside largely peaceful crowds, and the D.A. publicly pushed back on the “city under siege” narrative while bringing specific felony charges.
[Los Angeles Times]
Also, beware viral clips: fact-checkers flagged miscaptioned older videos that were re-used to exaggerate the weekend’s destruction. Apparently, there was an attempt to make the destruction look worse than it was.
[AFP Fact Check]
“People cheering them on”? - NOT
You can find individual videos of bystanders applauding vandalism, but there’s no reliable measure that large crowds were endorsing violence. Newsrooms generally described mixed crowds (peaceful protesters plus small groups committing crimes), not broad encouragement of assaults.
[Los Angeles Times]
“No-go zones”?
There are no recognized no-go areas in Los Angeles. Police, fire, deliveries, and daily life continued citywide after short-lived street closures. On broader safety, LA is actually on pace for its lowest homicide total in decades and—like many big U.S. cities—saw double-digit declines in several violent/property crimes in the first half of 2025.
[Los Angeles Times, My WordPress]
Bottom line
True: There were serious but localized violent incidents—burned vehicles, injured officers, felony charges.
Not supported: The idea that “progressive cities are becoming no-go zones for ordinary people.” LA’s 2025 crime trajectory and daily access patterns contradict that claim.
[Los Angeles Times, My WordPress]
Were the Troops actually needed or just a $120 million waste of money?
Bottom line: LA experienced localized, time-bounded violence that local agencies managed with curfews and arrests. With no state request, a court finding of unlawfulness (now stayed), and relatively limited police injuries, the record supports: not necessary—at least not at the scale and manner used.
[The Guardian, Reuters, https://www.kbtx.com]
"again, we need to strongly reflect on what kind of society ends up with a terror group like Hamas voted in to support them.
Can you refresh us on exactly when the last election was? And how that would be representative of the people today?"Can you refresh us on exactly when the last election was? And how that would be representative of the people today?" Willow
Gaza hasn’t had a real national election since 2006, when Hamas won the legislative vote. They’ve basically been in control ever since 2007 after splitting from the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. The West Bank is still governed by the Palestinian Authority, and from all appearances, it doesn’t have the problems that Hamas leadership brought to Gaza, life there seems much more stable politically. There were talks in 2021 about holding new elections, which would’ve been the first in 15 years, but they got postponed because of disputes over East Jerusalem and internal disagreements. They’ve had a few local elections, mostly in the West Bank, but Hamas boycotted those and didn’t allow them in Gaza. So basically, nothing’s changed on the national level in Gaza, and Hamas is still running the show.
Anyone who followed the turmoil in that part of the world watched in horror to see these citizens vote to have a known terrorist group represent the leadership in Gaza.
"And how would that be representative of the people today?" Willow
To answer your question-Hamas’s leadership has brought war, blockades, economic collapse, constant suffering, and more war to the people of Gaza. That election tells you what the majority vote of Gazans brought them: two decades of Hamas rule. And they still cheer on Hamas in their streets."Can you refresh us on exactly when the last election was? And how that would be representative of the people today?"
Shar,
What the left knows has never impressed me. What they don't know has caused my jaw to drop to the floor more than once. How can anyone claim to know anything about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza without knowing when and how hamas came to power and what they've done since?
The best part is with all this access to AI, asking YOU to clarify things.
Amazing.
Reminds me of all the anti-Israel protesters chanting "From the River to the Sea" almost all of them didn't know what river and what sea they were talking about.
To me, this is incredible.Mike, I was taken aback by her question. I’m not sure of this person’s age, so I chalked it up to them just not knowing much about the issue. The Palestinians have one thing that stands out in history: their tendency to start wars with Israel and never come to a true two-state agreement, LOL. It seems obvious that some either don’t understand or don’t want to understand that the people of Gaza voted Hamas in to represent them, and there were clear reasons behind that choice at the time.
Most who protest probably don’t even realize what the phrase “From the River to the Sea” has always meant. From the PLO to Hamas, it was never about coexistence; it meant erasing Israel entirely, wiping it off the map, and for militant factions, that included violence and killing.
What also stands out to me is how this part of our society barely acknowledges the innocent deaths we’ve seen in Ukraine, a truly peaceful people, attacked by what could be described as another Hamas-like aggressor. Yet there were no protests, no outrage. Strange, but not so strange when you consider the skewed mindset some operate with.
Pockets of CA, but in all of MS, LA, GA, AL, FL, AK
You very clearly want a police state it seems.
" few Americans realize the extent of how bad it can get... "
We're finding out how bad it can get. Three years, four months and counting . . .
Make America Good AgainNow I want to take this deception up on its own. It was said that what made the LA protests of ICE's illegal activity so horrible in the eyes of the Right was that "when the police are being beaten down." in LA was totally out of context when compared to a REAL violent riot on Jan 6.
In LA about 12 police officers received minor injuries. there were NO reported major injuries.
Compare that to what the Right is now actively trying to change history on - the Capitol Insurrection and Riots. Here is what happened there which Trump infamously found OK and pardoned the criminals who committed these horrific acts:
* Approximately 140 Metro and Capital Police were injured in a few hours of severe rioting by Trump supporters.
* More than 15 of them required hospitalization.
* Dozens more were sever and long lasting.
* Four officers died later, partly of the result of the trauma sustained on Jan 6.
It just boggles the mind to find people who think what happened in LA is on par with the insurrection on Jan 6.Good thing we stopped the violence in LA with the National Guard, isn't it? The mind boggles at the potential had it not been nipped early on.
Had Pelosi (who controlled that particular option) done that in DC there may have been no one hurt at all. Instead she did nothing, and a handful of police were slightly injured (no one died from it, either!) and one "protester" was killed.Nancy Pelosi, or any Speaker of the House, does not have the authority to deploy the National Guard in Washington, D.C.. Unlike National Guard units in states and territories, which report to their respective governors, the D.C. National Guard reports directly to the President of the United States.
You are correct - my error. I should have said that Pelosi could have planned better, just as she has said. The failure was hers - had she done better we might not have had even the few minor injuries we saw.
But she didn't, did she?
Related Discussions
- 209
DOGE vs Deep State - Trump’s Efficiency Crusade Left’s Hypocrisy
by Sharlee 5 months ago
My View, and added sources on statsAs I reflect on the current political climate, it's evident that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), spearheaded by President Trump and Elon Musk, has become a focal point of contention. The left's vehement opposition to DOGE's initiatives reveals a...
- 23
"Muslim Americans for Trump"
by Susie Lehto 9 years ago
Donald Trump’s bold conservative message seems to be powerful enough, that he is swinging support from voters that don’t normally hold Republican views. Its clear that Trump is in a league of his own because of the increasing growth of supporters and the ever expanding influence he has on the...
- 156
Can a Person Be a Good Christian and a Trump Supporter?
by Allen Donald 5 years ago
This question was raised in another forum.I said that I did not think a person could be a good Christian and a Trump supporter, but naturally somebody disagreed.However, I would love to learn more, so if you believe you are somebody who adheres to the Bible, the word of Jesus Christ, and is...
- 478
Has Donald Trump done more for Christians than anyone?
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 6 years ago
Has he done more than Jesus Christ?Has he done more than Paul?Whom does he compare with?He said"Well they're going to show up for me because nobody's done more for Christians or evangelicals or frankly religion than I have. You've seen all the things that we've passed including the Johnson...
- 189
Would Jesus be proud of Modern Christianity?
by Mikel G Roberts 15 years ago
Modern Christianity glorifies Jesus and not God. The modern christian churches have made Jesus more important than God and to my way of thinking that just isn't What Jesus Would Do, or what Jesus would want.
- 41
I'm beginning to wonder if Christianity itself is a cult!
by Yoleen Lucas 11 years ago
You guys - I posted this in the Questions section, but because it turned into a full-blown discussion, HubPagers advised me to move it to Forums. Here it is:"Cult" is defined as a system of beliefs that doesn't work, but people cling to it because they fear "eternal hell"...