My Response to Huffington Post Contributor Wanting to Talk with a White, Christian Supporter of Trump

I'm willing to keep the dialogue going.

By Michael Brown Published on February 15, 2017

This article is written in response to Susan M. Shaw’s February 11 article in the Huffington Post, “Dear White, Christian Trump Supporters: We Need To Talk.” (Shaw is Professor of Women, Gender, & Sexuality Studies at Oregon State University.)

Dear Prof. Shaw,

Thanks so much for opening the door to dialogue in such a candid and gracious way, and thanks for admitting that you’re having a hard time relating to many conservative American Christians today.

You say, “I don’t think I know how to understand you at all,” and, “We need to talk, and I don’t know how to talk to you anymore.”

I hope I can help bridge that gap, clear up some areas of confusion for you and, at the least, help you to understand why many compassionate, God-honoring and neighbor-loving Christians voted for Trump.

But allow me to say this first: I am a registered Independent, not Republican, and I opposed Mr. Trump during the primaries before ultimately voting for him as our president. Now that he is our president, I do support him, and I believe that he has the potential to do much good for our nation, despite his many evident flaws.

With that, let’s get to the heart of your issues.

Your Views Changed Because of Your Experiences. So Did Mine.

Speaking of your upbringing, being raised by a Southern Baptist father who did not go to college, you wrote, “My white, conservative Christian upbringing had told me that was the American Dream ― to work hard and succeed. I did, and I feel you’re holding it against me now that I no longer share your views.”

Actually, it wouldn’t dawn on me to hold it against you for not sharing my views. My father was the senior lawyer serving in the New York Supreme Court, and he was extremely liberal politically and socially. And all my studies, through my Ph.D. in Semitic languages at New York University, were in secular schools, so I never once studied under a professor who shared my spiritual or biblical beliefs.

I recognize that over the course of years people’s views do change, for better or for worse, and one reason I write articles and books and do radio and TV shows is to seek to be a positive influence on others. If I can I help you to see your views need adjustment at some point, great. If not, I respect your right to differ with me and to seek to influence me.

You say, “Along the way, a lot of us developed progressive ideas, not out of our privilege, but out of our own experiences of discrimination, struggle and oppression.”

Can you understand that many conservative American Christians came to opposite conclusions out of our own experiences, and that our convictions are as far from bigotry and hatred as the east is from the west?

Again, I respect that, but can you understand that many of us — meaning, the conservative American Christians whom you address — came to opposite conclusions out of our own experiences of caring for the poor and hurting and rejected, out of our own experiences of raising families and building relationships, out of our own learning and study and encounter with God, and that our convictions are as far from bigotry and hatred as the east is from the west? And do you understand that many of us used to be “liberal and progressive,” but we have concluded that these ideas are not in the best interest of society? (Take for example the welfare system. We see that as doing far more societal harm than good, as conservative intellectuals like Thomas Sowell have explained.)

Ideas Should be Rigorously Debated on Campuses — But They’re Not Anymore

I also must take issue with the way you describe the university environment as one in which ideas are rigorously debated and subjected to peer review. To one extent, that is true. To another extent, it is quite misleading, since today’s secular universities skew hard left in many ways, and it is well-documented that conservative views are often suppressed on campuses.

I assume you’re familiar with books like Alan Bloom’s classic The Closing of the American Mind, or Roger Kimball’s important work Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education. Or perhaps you’ve read So Many Christians, So Few Lions: Is There Christianophobia in the United States? by professors George Yancey and David A. Williamson (they answer the question of the subtitle in the affirmative).

Often, the secular academy serves as a liberal echo chamber rather than as a true proving ground for different ideas. While I recognize that there are many fine scholars at the so-called elite schools in our nation, I would encourage you to make efforts to interact with conservative scholars at top Christian universities and seminaries. My guess is that it would be a fruitful learning experience for all involved.

Concerns, Lies, And Why Many of Us Voted Trump

But now we get to the real issues for you. You simply cannot understand how conservative Christians who prize morality and family life and biblical values could vote for Donald Trump, better known in the past as a playboy businessman than as a serious political candidate.

In short, that’s one reason many of us did not back him at first. We had real concerns about his character, and character does matter to us. Over time, however, we voted for him because: 1) we were convinced that a Hillary Clinton presidency could be disastrous for America; 2) we saw that he was surrounding himself with fine Christian leaders, people of character and conviction who were speaking into his life and who had his ear; 3) we felt that God could use someone who was entirely politically incorrect, having lost our faith in the political establishment (on both sides of the aisle) long ago; and 4) we looked at him as a Cyrus-type figure (referring to an idol-worshiping, non-Israelite king whom God raised up to help the Jewish people 2,500 years ago; see Isaiah 45).

You wonder aloud how we could vote for him if we prize truth, and you view him as a serial liar — perhaps as a man out of touch with reality — pointing to his claims about the size of the crowd at his inauguration.

Frankly, many of us wish he would have never brought up the issue of the crowd size (really, who cares?), but we see other issues as being much more important, and so we keep advocating those issues while encouraging him to step higher and act more presidentially.

What troubles me is that you seem to feel that the right has a monopoly on bias and mendacity and the left on dispassionate truth-seeking. Far from it. Can you not see the faults on both sides?

But there is another side to this story. Senator Obama campaigned as a Christian who believed that marriage was the union of one man and woman (something “sacred”), yet he was previously on record as affirming same-sex “marriage,” and it was David Axelrod who stated plainly that Obama lied to his conservative voters (specifically, his fellow black voters) to get their trust, thereby misleading the nation. In your eyes, which is worse, pushing a false narrative about the size of the inaugural crowd or deceiving your voters about a foundationally important moral issue?

And what of Hillary Clinton? How many lies did she tell about Benghazi? How many lies about her emails? Where do we start?

Again, I’m not minimizing lies that Trump may have told. I’m simply putting them in a larger context of political chicanery, and if you condemn one, you condemn the other.

You write,

You say you want progressives to listen to you. Then prioritize truth. This election was filled with “fake news,” shared widely on Facebook, and this administration already has begun to create a language of “alternative facts” to misinform and mislead. If you want to talk, offer evidence, real evidence based on verifiable data and reliable sources, not wishful imaginings or fabricated Breitbart stories.

With all respect, Prof. Shaw, I see at least as much “fake news” on the left as on the right, and a glance at the daily headlines at the Huffington Post tells me that the publication for which you write is at least as biased as, if not more biased than, Breitbart. And how much “fake news” has been reported by CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times in recent months?

What troubles me is that you seem to feel that the right has a monopoly on bias and mendacity and the left on dispassionate truth-seeking. Far from it. Can you not see the faults on both sides?

What We Mean by “Get Over It” (We’ve Been There Too)

I personally believe I could stand up publicly and make a powerful presentation of your worldview and core convictions before explaining why I differ with you. Could you do the same for me? If not, then please keep reading and let me help you.

You write, “Help me understand how you align your Christian perspective with [Trump’s] racism, misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, and antisemitism.”

Frankly, there are things he said that have disturbed us and there are other things we believe are false charges (to mention one in particular, President Trump is not an antisemite). Perhaps you’re listening to some fake news here?

In any event, we see him as far from perfect and in need of much growth, but we also see him moving in the right direction and taking a stand for many things that are important to us socially and politically and even morally.

You explain that you have a hard time simply “getting over” the fact that Trump is our president, noting that this election is a matter of life and death, writing:

Perhaps you can tell me to get over it because you do not have to worry that Trump will appoint a Supreme Court justice that could play a role in invalidating your marriage. If Congress passes and Trump signs the First Amendment Defense Act, you probably won’t have to worry that a bakery, restaurant, or hotel might legally deny you service. You don’t have to worry about being stranded at an airport and refused admission to the U.S. because of the country you’re from or the religion you practice. You don’t have to worry about having your family divided across the world with a simple signature on an executive order.

Truly, this paragraph startles me.

How do you think we felt when Barack Obama was elected — which means that he was our president (and my president) for the last eight years? How do you think we felt when he appointed Supreme Court justices who helped to fundamentally redefine marriage, an absolute horror to us for many reasons? How do you think we felt about the prospect of Hillary Clinton deepening America’s ties with Planned Parenthood, in our view, the number one slaughterer of babies in the womb?

How do you think we felt when friends of ours lost their jobs or were put out of schools or suffered serious professional recriminations because they were forced to violate their religious beliefs?

And since you mention bakeries, restaurants, and hotels — none of which, by the way, have refused to serve a gay person simply because he or she was gay — how do you think we felt when friends of ours lost their jobs or were put out of schools or suffered serious professional recriminations because they were forced to violate their religious beliefs, bullied by LGBT activists and their allies? Are you not aware that this is a two-way street?

And how do you think we felt when President Obama and the Department of Justice launched an aggressive campaign designed to punish all states that took issue with, say, a 16-year-old boy who identifies as a girl playing on the girls’ basketball team and sharing their locker room and showers? Twenty-three states took the administration to court over this, yet Barack Obama remained our president throughout, just as Donald Trump is now your president.

That’s what we mean by “get over” it. We didn’t riot in the streets after Obama was elected and reelected, nor did we plan to riot and demonstrate if Hillary was elected.

Let’s Be Honest About Conservative Christians, Progressive Christians and the Founders

You ask how we could use a “pagan” (my word) like Trump over “a woman who is a Christian, a lifelong Methodist and who, from the heart, quotes the Bible and John Wesley,” yet you then write, “I’m afraid that what you want is a nation that conforms to your interpretation of the Bible.”

Well, doesn’t Hillary want that? Don’t “progressive Christians” want that? Don’t gay clergy want that? (As for Hillary’s Christian views, that’s what galls us all the more. Some of her beliefs are in direct contradiction with the teachings of the Bible, let alone those of Wesley. To us, this is a matter of religious hypocrisy and of Bible-twisting, neither of which are light matters.)

In reality, in this democratic republic in which we live, we all do our best to see our values prevail, and we do so by persuasion and by voting and by influencing and by educating. We believe God’s ways, as understood by traditional Jewish and Christian morality, are wonderful and in the best interest of any country. Liberal Christians and Jews differ with us, as do many agnostics and atheists.

So be it. May the best position win! That’s what we advocate.

That being said, I do believe you mischaracterize the intent of our founding fathers, writing, “You say you want a Christian nation, but our founders were clear that was never their goal. In fact, the Constitution goes to great lengths to protect the government from religion and religion from government.”

The founders presupposed that Christian beliefs and values would lie at the foundation of the nation, with John Adams famously stating that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”

I agree that our founders were not trying to establish a Christian nation, but they assumed that Christian mores would lie at the foundation of the nation.  John Adams famously said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,” and, “It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Do you actually believe that our founders could have countenanced the day when a Christian who could not in conscience participate in the “marriage” of two men would be punished — rather than the two men being punished?

In any case, we strongly advocate our beliefs, and oddly enough, we find President Trump to be a recent champion of our religious liberties. You ask: “Can’t we agree that all people should be free to practice their religion or practice no religion and should be safe from coercion based on religion? Can’t we agree that we share values of love, kindness, respect, and community and then try to live those with each other?” Yes, of course we can!

Thinking Through the Tough Immigration Issue

As for the knotty question of immigration, you ask, “Do you really think a Christian, especially a biblical literalist, can want a wall built?” And, you note, “The Bible is clear about how we are to treat foreigners among us — no matter how they got here.”

First, many of us who voted for Trump are actively involved in helping the needy and poor worldwide, and my own family was part of a church that sponsored Vietnamese refugees during the Boat People crisis in the 70s and early 80s, welcoming these dear people into our homes for years at a time. So, we are hardly a monolithic, xenophobic, group of angry populists.

We simply recognize that there’s a problem with those illegal aliens who drain and damage our society. (In the words of President Obama in 2015, “What we should be doing is setting up a smart legal immigration system that doesn’t separate families but does focus on making sure that people who are dangerous, people who are gangbangers or criminals, that we’re deporting them as quickly as possible.”) We also recognize that radical Islam presents a serious security issue for America (and the world), and therefore we need to improve our vetting.

As for a Christian building a wall, do Christians lock their doors at night? That’s what this is about, although plenty of Christians do take issue with the president’s proposed immigration policies, and that is a healthy debate we must have.

As for the Bible’s teaching on how we treat foreigners, remember that the same Old Testament to which you allude called for the killing of hostile foreigners (the Canaanites and others), so I would encourage you to give that subject further reflection so you might gain a more holistic view of the subject.

We Won’t Compromise on Our Conviction That a Child is Not a Choice

Finally, regarding your call for us to work together to reduce abortions, you state, “We can lower abortion rates together but not by denying women choices over their own bodies. We can be effective together by listening to the data and working together to ensure all women have access to contraception, education, and social and economic resources. Are you willing to have that conversation?”

Do you think the words, “It’s a child, not a choice” are just some catchy slogan to us?

Prof. Shaw, we cannot work together unless you begin by at least understanding our viewpoint: A woman does not have the choice over someone else’s life — namely, the little baby living in her womb. Or do you think the words, “It’s a child, not a choice” are just some catchy slogan to us? In our view, we are witnessing a black genocide (among other things), with staggeringly high rates of abortion among blacks in particular and among the poor in general, and we’re not looking for some kind of middle ground here.

We are all for education and social and economic resources to help lower these rates, but not if it means partnering with those who believe that the child in the womb is merely an appendage of the mother’s body, just a clump of cells or a mass of tissue. Would you at least reflect on these truths?

An Invitation to Keep Talking

You close your article with a series of questions, and, to answer, I assure you that we’re more interested in doing good than winning, that we’re open to building coalitions where lives can truly be changed for the better, open to real science and factual evidence as it pertains to choices we make, and 100 percent committed to “live the love of God we claim.”

Are you committed to the same? And do you really want to dialogue? Let’s start with our two articles here, and hopefully, you’ll back up your call for interaction by joining me on my radio show to talk — not fight.


Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • David MacKenzie

    The first sentence after the blue headline, “Your Views Changed Because of Your Experiences. So Did Mine” needs to be fixed. Other than that, good stuff…

  • Dean Bruckner

    Dr. Brown is back on the road! Good article!

  • Irene Neuner

    Progressive christians can’t prioritize. For example they can’t value discipleship of a families who show up to church every Sunday over outreach in a underserved community. Both goals can be met but one must take priority over the other.

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    Well, you certainly are going after the hard nuts to crack … Will be interesting to see if your sound biblical perspectives, compassionate presentation & well rounded idealogical positions will make any difference or if Ms. Shaw is just baiting the hook …..

  • Gary

    Probably a waste of time to try to convince a homosexual liberal of anything. And there is no such thing as a “progressive Christian”, or a “liberal Christian”. Liberalism is antagonistic to the Bible and cannot be reconciled with it.

    • Plaztickman

      Rosaria Butterfield would disagree.

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        I’ve watched numerous videos by Rosaria and I’m not understanding what you think Rosaria would disagree with there. Are you saying that Rosaria would identify as anything other than a “Christian”? With NO adjectives? If so, that’s not the Rosaria I’ve seen.

        And, since you brought her up, I have to assume you know what Rosaria came out of so I hardly think she’d disagree with the statement that Liberalism is antagonistic to the Bible.

  • Joshua Krug

    We need the Counselor.

    • Dant e

      Even He was hated and rejected by the majority.

      • Joshua Krug

        It doesn’t mean we don’t need Him any less.

  • Joe

    Great column, but wasted on the intended audience.

    • rob

      It’s never a waste to speak the truth in love

  • Anne Fernandes

    I disagree that this writing is a waste. It was was the truth written with love. I intend to share the Godly truth, wisdom and discourse of this writer, and perhaps one heart will be open. Nope, not a waste!

  • Julie Abarca Cheek

    Well done Dr. Brown

  • bdj

    Great article. I would disagree to some of the comments below. It’s never a waste of time to be salt and light in a dark world. We need to be bold and compassionate or like Dr. Brown would say “hearts of compassion, backbones of steel” You are a gift to the ecclesia Dr. Brown.

  • Carolyn Schuster

    Thank you

  • m-nj

    While this was a very good response to Ms. Shaw’s questions, I don’t really think she wants a dialogue or the truth. She is just trying to start placing wedges into the coalition that elected Trump in a further attempt to delegitimize the president.

  • Royce E. Van Blaricome

    Dr. Brown, I think you were probably spitting in the wind and suspect Ms. Shaw is as interested in having a real conversation with you or any other Conservative as she is in seeing Trump get reelected. Moreover, based on my experience with Liberals her “we need to talk” really means “Sit down in that chair, keep your mouth shut and your ears open while I tell you the way things really are!”

    I’m a bit confused by your reference to “we looked at him as a Cyrus-type figure”. I distinctly remember you writing an article last year on that very supposition and seem to recall you demonstrated how that was Biblically not the case. So I’m confused why you wold refer to it as a reason why Christians voted for Trump.

    I’m also a bit confused by your asking Ms. Shaw “Can you not see the faults on both sides?” and “Are you not aware that this is a two-way street?”

    You are joking aren’t you?

    • James Doyle

      As I answered Anthony earlier on I would say that nearly all Christians just want to see peace we are not trying to convert The Huff Post . After all I would probably say nearly 100% who read The Stream wouldn’t lay eyes on the H P and vice versa ( except for Anthony) . I am of the same opinion as yourself-This is definitely not a 2 way street. To take one instance The Homosexual question. They don’t want us to say Homosexual Marriage is wrong. Most of us were ok with the Civil Unions but no let’s put the boot in we want equality we want Marriage. So they got Marriage ,happy NOWAY . Now really let’s put the boot into Christian Business such as Bed and Breakfast over here . What we’ll do is go to Christian B Bs and if they refuse to let us in we’ll sue them ,get plenty of money and put them out of business. Then we’ll go to Christian Bakers tell them to bake cakes with Homosexual innuendo and if they don’t we’ll sue ,get plenty money of them and put them out of business. Yes it does seem like a 2 way street.

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        I’d agree that nearly all Christians just want to see peace – but how is that “peace” defined and where is it found? For those seeking to find it in this world, I’d question whether the term “Christian” applies for surely Jesus made it clear otherwise.

        Took me a moment to figure out what H P was but I got it. I’d just say that it’s a mistake to “try to convert” the HP or anyone else. Conversion is not our job. Giving the Message that is used to convert is.

        You are spot on with SSM and the whole LGBTQABCXYZ agenda for that matter. It is not, and never has been, about “Tolerance” or even “Acceptance”. It is, and always has been, about “Approval”. That is seen when one understands that what lies as the crux of the matter is Truth and that this is all part of the Spiritual Warfare than is being fought.

        The Homosexual KNOWS, for God has said so, that their behavior is a sin and they’re rejection of God and to repent of their sin will result in eternal torment in the Lake of Fire. Those who still have their God-given conscience (Rom. 2:15) can have NO peace as long as their behavior is not approved of. So they seek for that approval not even accepting that if the whole World approves of their behavior God never will. And so they continue to fight for that approval as a means to hopefully assuage their guilty conscience. For those who have rejected God’s call on their life one too many times and have been turned over to a reprobate mind, they are only living out Eph. 2:1-4 and doing Satan’s bidding. Some consciously doing so while foolishly thinking they’re somehow gonna obtain a blessing from Satan and a better state in Eternity when the opposite it true for God will be the one to decide that as well. Others, perhaps unconsciously, just being led along by Satan as one of his minions and not unlike a bull with a ring in his nose.

        The evidence of that is in Ms. Shaw’s comments herself. Contrary to her “we need to talk”, I think most of us know there is no talking to these people. Give ’em the Gospel and leave it to God to do the rest. Anything more is just casting pearls before swine until there is evidence that one is responding to the drawing of The Father and the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

        • Matt

          If you’re primary point of view and the lens for which you view the world is one of religion you are in the wrong country! This is a democratic Republic! The founding fathers (despite how hard you try to make it otherwise) didn’t adhere to your “brand” of Christianity. They were intellectuals who embraced classical thought, philosophy, science and the ideals of liberty and justice above all else! They did not want religion to become the guiding force of our nation because they knew the danger of it! Although “GOD” is cited in the documents they handed down to us, this was not in the original drafts and was added later because they needed a concept of a higher power (that the common people could understand) bestowing rights on man.This was only done demonstrate that our rights are inalienable and cannot be denied by our government. This is not to say that they did not respect the free expression and practice of religion.

          The simple fact of the matter is that Donald Trump is a conman. He always has been. He surrounded himself temporarily with the types of people who appealed the Christian Right and said all of the things the Christian Right wanted to hear. He does not share or respect your views or your beliefs. You were led to believe the alternative would strip you of your identity and put you in a world where your values and beliefs could not prevail. What you failed to realize is that the only values that allow you to practice your religion and and live life according to your own design have now been jeopardized. You are simply a means to an end. His ultimate goal is money and power at the expense of the masses. I can think of no aim more ungodly.

          The poor will get poorer and the middle class will further erode under this administration. Knowledge, technological advances and our legacy as the leader of the free world will slip away. Dark powers like Putin will utilize this vacuum to incite chaos world wide and then guess what happens? Christianity like all other religions will be sacrificed to make way for absolutism and the ultimate power of the state.

          As for walls, they do very little to secure safety, peace or protect the identity of a nation. History makes this clear. The only thing they are successful at is ushering in dark ages where knowledge and the sharing of free ideas falls away.Our country will become less competitive and less secure as a result.

          That’s not to say the Christian Right is the only group at fault. Moderates and the Left should’ve taken an active role in this election cycle. We all should’ve encouraged civil and open discourse and should’ve insisted on facts. We should’ve been respectful of each others experiences, fears and even each others misconceptions (there are many on all sides).

          There was a time in America when the free exchange of ideas and an appreciation of balanced discussion with opposing views (not alternate realities) was encouraged and embraced. There was a time when respect and the liberties and rights of the constitution were the order of the day. We have to get back there! As much as it saddens me to say it, the President will not help with that effort. This has to start in homes and communities. Knowledge and intellectualism can no longer be marginalized. We must demand that civics be taught in our schools and that our students have at least a basic understanding of the constitution and what led up to it. Education can no longer be checking a series of boxes to push students along. They need to enter the world with an understanding of our government, how it works and enough critical thought to question it.

  • Anthony

    All I read was whataboutisms all throughout your response. But Obama did this and Hillary did that. Again. Was Hillary cleared on Benghazi? Yes. By a Republican senate Committee. Was Hillary charged by the FBI? No. Did the FBI reopen the case? Um. About that. How’s that going? Then you mentioned fake news. Again the finger pointing. I’m not going to argue or point out the down right bs media networks of breitbart and infowars. As a professor you know theirs a difference between click bait headlines as opposed to outright lies and bias coverage, right? You know fake news. The type the President himself has and continues to spread and perpetrate. Don’t get me wrong. We all have a love hate relationship with the media. And let’s face Trump wouldn’t have been elected if it wasn’t for the mainstream media printing & reporting everyone of his lies, bigotry and misogynistic views. Which it seems the right loves to hear. You argue for Christian values which automatically categorizes non-christians as irrelevant. And as far as the LGBT Community, then send them all to hell! But the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Religion as a whole is nothing more than a means to enforce ideology onto people and be damned if they disagree. But that’s a whole essay unto itself. The new struggle between left and right is another attempt to categorize and segregate. It’s easier to dismiss someone as a liberal or libtard because they don’t believe in your outdated ideology. And it’s easy for the left to dismiss a conservative as a white nationalist. But each side has just as many unsavory characters as each other. Until we stop labeling and lumping everyone into the left or right then it will become the new class wars. You didn’t really address her concern about Trump. You merely countered with but. Trump talks a lot about WHAT he’s going to do. But to date he has shown the complete opposite. He didn’t drain the swamp. He isn’t getting Mexico to pay for the wall. And he didn’t ban all Muslims just the ones he has no business ties with. Oh and he forgot about the constitution along the way. And now we possibly have treasonous acts on our hands. Did I mention money laundering? You call it potential. Whereas the rest of the world calls it lies and manipulation. Oh. And those jobs he promised. A robot named Steve is now doing the job of 20 men for a fraction of their once hourly wage. There are no jobs. Another lie. So until you and Trump can show us REAL progress and how he will make America great again, then all I hear are empty word (lies) and BS. Or as you put it potential.

    • Gary

      What someone believes to be true really matters. Whether someone accepts God’s moral laws, or tries to substitute their own ideas of what is right and wrong really matters. People who hold conflicting views are probably not going to agree on very much.

      Trump has only been President for about a month. It is unreasonable of you to expect him to do everything he promised in that amount of time. I don’t know what he will eventually accomplish, maybe not much good, but you have made it clear that you don’t like him, don’t agree with what he has said he wants to do, and are not going to give him a chance to do it.

      • Anthony

        Totally agree Gary, which religion is the one true religion? And how do we get everyone to agree? Even Pope Francis came out the other day and said all religions lead to the same God. I liken religion to a car crash. The wreck/crash is God. The witnesses represent religion. And all the witnesses agree there was a car crash (God) but they just cant agree on how it happened.

        Trump is big on WHY things should change. But a lot of those are false reasons. He is big on WHAT will change and some of those things he has tried to implement (unconstitutional travel ban) or says he will implement. But trump isn’t very big on HOW he plans to change or even fund the things he says he will change. He is a master manipulator. He will tell you what you want to hear and do the complete opposite. Let’s look at who’s paying for the border wall. It’s not Mexico. No, after repeated calls and rants that Mexico will pay, no it’s the ordinary tax payer now who will pay for the wall. But the wall will pay for itself many times over! Oh really? How Donald, how? Again very light on details. Remembering this was one of his major policy platforms. A wall. A wall that Mexico will pay for. But Mexico isn’t paying for it. Tax payers are. Oh, and just another reminder. Trump isn’t a tax payer. Hasn’t been for 18 years. So no, I don’t think he will do or achieve anything of significants in any length of time, except maybe totally destroy the unity, equality, liberty and the economy of the US.

        • Gary

          I believe the evidence points to Christianity being true. And if it is, then all other religions are false. Not many are going to agree with that. Most people today, and through history, have not been Christians. And there is no way to force them to become Christians.

          The “travel ban” was NOT unconstitutional. The law gives the President the authority to block foreigners he considers to be a threat from entering the US. And, the law does not allow for free admittance to anyone who wants to come into the US.

          There is no unity in the US now. You and I are not united. We disagree on a wide variety of things. And that happened before Trump became potus.

    • David Whitmore

      Who is this robot called ‘Steve’? And where can I get one like him for my business? Of course, then I’ll have to hire a couple of technicians (on an as needed basis) to repair Steve when he stops functioning. Then I’ll be able to grow my business into something more than the minor financial advantage it is; currently, I pay myself about $0.50 an hour from the sales of my hand-made products.

      That ban? It was for ALL the citizens of those countries; not just the Muslims. There was no discrimination based on the religious practices of those affected.
      So far, there has been ONE recording of Trump self-describing behaviour that indicates lewd actions. The bragging of one man to another; much like that which happens in bars, locker rooms and bowling alleys world-wide. Did he actually do this? Or was it just bravado? The other person hasn’t said. The female shown in the picture never said.
      Something to think about: Do women ever do this sort of thing?
      Racist behaviour? Really? He, himself? Or was it the actions of an individual in his employ?

      I get the impression that you disagree with the entire concept of religion; that it might interfere with you living your life as you wish. Or is that my perception of your implied (not quite stated) perception?
      While I don’t believe that the lifestyle of the LGBTQIA folks is one I could enjoy, I do have friends whose lives fit in line with one or more of those labels. I also have friends that ride motorcycles and wear ‘colours’ and fit much of law enforcement’s preconceived ideas of trouble-makers and criminals. And others of my friends are in law enforcement; or, are fire-fighters. And Fashion Designers (lots of those). I’m even friendly with a few ‘Fortune-500’ business owners. My Christian upbringing taught me to love the person whether or not I personally approve of how they live their lives.
      But, that said, I haven’t become friendly with any lawyers or politicians. Lines must be drawn!

      As far as ‘fake news’ the author did point out that it occurs, and that it originates from all of the various political viewpoints. And that it is NOT a good way of dealing with matters.
      Trump exaggerates, he stretches boundaries… True.
      Has HE lied? Possibly. I’m waiting for proof of such. Has any other President before him lied. Undeniably.
      Has Trump been misrepresented in the press? You betcha!
      By lots of folks on both sides of the political aisle. Why? Because he represents people that the political ‘elite’ and other power-brokers have not yet been able to conquer. He represents individuals that want to dream and be independent.

      Hillary’s appearances before Congress… Pure play-acting. Non-acknowledgements of wrong-doing, Blaming others for one’s own misdeeds or mistakes. Temper tantrums. All things a young child would do to avoid accepting responsibility for their own actions and inactions.
      And Hilary WAS NOT “charged by the FBI” for anything. The FBI can not charge anyone of anything. Period.

      We’ll start with these, for now.

      • James Doyle

        David really enjoyed reading your post . Just the other day I was blogging on F B with a Guy about Sex Education. My argument was to let kids be kids and especially to keep away the teaching that Homosexual Sex was ok as in 2 Dads 2 Mums . Anyhow he came at me all guns firing and said that kids don’t really bother about having 2 Dads 2 Mums Etc . As i had said it was also against nature and against Gods law he wrote ” I see that as you believe in God you are incapable of rational thought ” . The Liberal Left maybe summed up in that sentence .

      • Anthony

        Hi David, there is no robot called Steve. It’s Hal. But if I had a robot, I would call it Steve. Im not sure what kind of business you do so I can’t say whether a robot would be good for you or not. What I do know is that robots are very good workers. ‘They’re always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex or race discrimination case’, But I can’t the credit for saying that. It was Andy Puzder who said it about replacing workers with technology. But I digress.

        Re: Ban. Trump stated several times during the election that he was going to deport all Muslims. He also heckled and berated a mother of fallen US soldier who was also muslim. He repeated his ban on all muslims when he took office. He then proceeded to ban muslims. But not all muslims. Just those countries he didn’t have business interests in. Ignoring the fact that 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. Which isn’t on the list of banned countries. You made the point, ‘It was for ALL the citizens of those countries; not just the Muslims’ While this is correct, it’s also a little dishonest too. The majority, if not 100% of citizens in those banned countries are muslim. So too say it was for ALL people just not muslims, that gets a little thin when you think about it a bit more deeply. Doesn’t it?

        Lets talk, about locker rooms. Granted, some lockers rooms can be pretty sexist and brazen. But it wasn’t really locker room talk now was it. He was sitting in a broadcast truck ready to be interviewed. Not sure how he got confused and thought he was in the confines of his country club locker room. More on that in a tick.
        No, in fact its not the first time that Trump has had locker room chats. Actually, he’s gone further. He actually has grabbed them on the pu$$y. In fact 20 legal cases to date. The latest on on the 23rd january, 3 days after he became president. As Trump loves to say, they will see him court. Trump has a long history of sexual abuse. He has settled many times out of court. All of which are subject to gag orders. In other words, he paid them off. These are not alternative facts. These are press releases put out by Trump and his lawyers. he’s also been sued for racial discrimination. Both he and his father were found guilty of systemic racism. Guilty. And ordered to pay compensation. So no David, it wasn’t just locker room talk. Trump has a long history of misogynistic behaviour that has manifested into sexual abuse and harassment. Should we mention Ivanka and how he likes her body and boobs? Or that fact that he repeatedly grabs her by the butt, in public, on stage, in front of millions? And has said on TV that he would date her, you know, if he wasn’t her father? Not sure where you come from or believe, but I don’t think that is appropriate for any father to say, at any time, let alone in public!

        Religion. yes I disagree with religion. More to the point, I disagree with ideology that says I should like one person over another because of their skin colour, race, beliefs or religion. I believe in treating everyone with respect. I believe in judging someone based on their actions and words, not because someone else has told me I should or shouldn’t. I live my life simply. I work. I play sport, I have a family. A loving family. We welcome everyone of every race and religion. You’re Christian upbringing taught me to love the person whether or not you personally approve of how they live their lives. Mine too. I was born and raised in a christian family. We just weren’t religious. I don’t need to be told HOW to love. I don’t need to be told HOW to hate either. These all come quite naturally for me. I choose happiness over suspicion. I choose respect over position. I choose trust over paranoia. I believe in law but not suppression. I believe in freedom to speak, earn and live. So if that is me ‘living my life the way I want too’, then yes, you are correct.

        Im glad you have a diverse set of friends, colleagues and acquaintances. Diversity is the key to unlocking innovation and insight. Not to mention good food. I too would draw the lines at polls and lawyers but my brother in law is a lawyer so I need to stretch the line a bit further 🙂

        Lets talk media. We all have a love hate relationship with them. But lets get something out of the way. Trump would not have been elected if it wasn’t for the mainstream media – including NYP, NYT, CNN and alike. They all bought Trumps lies and manipulations hook line and sinker. But by the time they realised he was gaming them, it was too late. The media are like remorseful junkies. They love getting the hit and riding the high but they regret it afterwards and preach about how it is wrong to spread lies and misdirections. But their they are, lining up at every press conference printing and reporting more of his lies and misdirections. In fact, report HIS fake news, would you believe?

        David, there is a long list of lies and fake news Trump has spread and perpetrated. That has another long list where they can debunk every single one of his lies and fake news or twitter rants. Murder rates at all time highest in 40 years? Wrong. Actually, its at one of the all time lowest. Frank Dodd? bad for business and his friends with good business but can’t get a loan? Absolutely wrong. In fact, loans have increased substantially since Frank Dodd was introduced. Now Trump wants repeal it. He wants to make sure that tax payers once again bail out the banks (Wall Street) if they do bad business again. that is, He wants you David, a hard working guy who pays himself .50c per hour to bail out a multi-million if not billion dollar company because they did bad business deals. Wait, wasn’t Trump a man of the people?

        Trump has never had to apply for a job in his life. Except of the Presidency. he owns Mar a Lago which he now calls the winter white house. This is a country club where even you could join and mingle with the president. That is David if you have $100,000 for a member initiation fee. Oh, wait, my mistake. Since becoming President, it has gone up to $200,000. Trump is not a man of the people. Another lie. He is a billionaire who has been bankrupt 4x times. And He hasn’t paid taxes for 18 years because he is bankrupt apparently. How many people do you know David that are bankrupt and yet owns a jet, a yacht and a Tower with his name on it? Not too mention the other 33 or so projects and companies he has a hand in. David, he may not be the political elite, whatever that actually means. But he certainly is one of the most elitist people you will ever come across. He represents 1% of all the wealth in the US. That 1% earns more money than the other 99% combined. Does that really sound like a man of the people? And now if looks like he got to the presidency with hep from the Russians. But that is a very complex discussion so won’t go into for now.

        Finally, on Hillary. The US senate enquires are an exhaustive process. They do a lot of prelim work prior to what you see on TV. That is, they have intelligence and law enforcement agencies to do their work. They look at all the evidence and then build a case either for or against the accused. Pretty much how the judicial system works. What you see on TV is a deposition. They get the accused or questionable to answer questions. They then test those testimonies against the evidence. And the Senate Committees finding in the Hillary and Benghazi case? No case to answer. This wasn’t because she lied or acted. This is because she was actually telling the truth. The truth which married up with the evidence. So no, she wasn’t acting. She is simply not guilty regardless of how much people dislike her. That’s not a crime, yet. And you are correct, the FBI can not charge anyone. They arrest people but they prepare a case and hand it over to the U.S. Attorney office or Department of Justice and they file charges.

    • James Doyle

      Anthony you lot really just don’t get it . Am sure if you were tied to a chair by ISIS and they said your head was about to be cut off you still wouldn’t get it . I don’t know where you live but if you Really want to love Muslims take a trip over here to Bradford. Take your Liberal peace into a Bradford Mosque and tell THEM they should change their beliefs to suit you . I can assure you my friend you ain’t coming out of Their Sharia Court with all hands fingers and toes intact. Now as a Christian your welcome at anytime to come into My Church and say we’re wrong we won’t agree with you but I can assure you that you’ll leave as healthy as you came in . Also as regards the Homosexual and Transgender problem ( and it is a problem ) as it costs our NHS £Millions per year to keep them in Anti Viral Drugs which is a direct cost to their way of life . Even at that if The Homosexual Stazi would keep themselves to themselves it would be ok . But no they want to shove their Homosexuality in the face of others . Give yourself a break and use some of that pent up anger and frustration to talk to people who are intent only on chaos and wrecking your already worn down and as in the case of New York rat infested Cities .

      • Anthony

        James, when you say, you lot, do you mean liberals? I will assume you do for this discussion. Firstly, your point re: ISIS chopping my head off. Oh, Im pretty sure I would get it. I would get the fact that this person was about to chop my head off. I would get that this person isn’t a very sane or normal person. This person is acting on rage and emotion. Acting on ideology that has become warped and shaped by many complex factors and circumstances. I get that his way of thinking is completely different to mine. So in a nut shell, pretty sure I would get it. I think most people would. Liberals or ‘you lot’ as you called us aren’t naive or blind by extremist, jihadis or fanatics. Im pretty certain all liberals would agree that we need to persecute the guilty and embrace the innocent. In fact, Im willing to bet, both sides would agree on this, don’t you think? I mean, if a guy walks into a church and shoots nine people dead in the name of his beliefs and religion, you would persecute that guy, right? After all, he just shot 9 people dead. You wouldn’t call for all people who followed his faith or religion to be banned from the country, right? Or have that faith banned entirely, that would be ridiculous. It was just one guy, not an entire group or set of people. That would be ludicrous. How would you practice being a christian if this happened? How would you be able to go to church or pray or see other practitioners if they banned his religion? You see where Im coming from James? Do get it? I can point out the Oklahoma City bombing 1995 where 168 people were killed and more than 600 were injured. I can talk about the Centennial Olympic Park, US bombing, July 27, 1996. Or the suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010. Or we could discuss the IRA and British conflict that left many catholics and protestants dead or injured through bombing and shootings. This discussion would go round and round in circles though. But where does that leave the argument? I don’t know Bradford. But I am curious. Have you been inside the Mosque? Have you spoken to anyone in the mosque or outside the mosque? More importantly do you know anyone that has lost their hands, fingers or toes? If so, did you report it? more so how is that person going now? Have they gotten the help they need? If true, Im hoping the police did their job and arrested those that perpetrated this heinous crime. Do you have a link to the story? Id like to follow the outcome? Such a terrible story. But let me address anther issue you brought up. Homosexuals and transgenders. You say they are a problem. You cited that they are costing the NHS millions of pounds a year to keep them in ant-viral drugs? I again don’t know anything about this. Has it been reported by the NHS? Can you also send me a link to this? Would love to read more about it. Also when you said The Homosexual Stazi, did you mean Stasi? Which was the the internal security force of the former German Democratic Republic, abolished in 1989. IS that what you meant? If so, Im not following. So I guess you are right, I just don’t get something. I don’t get what the The Homosexual Stazi is. But to end, please send me those links on those stories you mentioned. I would love to learn more.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          “This person is acting on rage and emotion.”

          And you don’t see that in both your bloviations? Oh no, there’s no rage or emotion in your exhaustive blather at all. (sarcasm).

          That would be what Jesus calls a Giant Sequoia Tree sticking outta your eye socket. I’d say it’s time to buy a chainsaw.

          • Anthony

            Haha. No. I was actually quite calm when I wrote it. Much like now. It must be my passion. Passion is found in the same cortex as rage, love and anger. Or emotions, which are controlled by the amygdala. As for bloviations, I assure you none of the points raise are empty. They are all quite factual really.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Haha. No. Not factual at all. I assure you that a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Sorry to see the Sequoia Tree is still there. Think about a trip to Lowe’s.

            Or better yet, into God’s Word.

          • Anthony

            Not factual? Oh? How so?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, since you asked but not because I think it will be helpful:

            “Liberals or ‘you lot’ as you called us aren’t naive or blind by extremist, jihadis or fanatics.”

            “Im pretty certain all liberals would agree that we need to persecute the guilty and embrace the innocent.” (While it may be a fact that you think that the surety of your thinking is false. As evidenced every single night on the news.)

            “you would persecute that guy, right?” (Wrong. Prosecute, yes. Persecute, no.)

            “I assure you none of the points raise are empty.” (Speaks for itself.)

            “They are all quite factual really.” (No. MOST of it was OPINION.)

            Does that answer your question?

    • Sherman Dye

      Hello, Anthony. You said quite a mouthful here! And parts of it (especially toward the end) I actually agree with. The left loves to throw words around. Words like “racist” or “homophobe” or “xenophobe”, etc. We need to stop the name-calling and start treating people with respect even when we disagree. I don’t think most people on the political “left” hate this country; I just think most are misguided as to the best way forward, but they (and you?) would likely feel the same way about me.

      You said, “You argue for Christian values which automatically categorizes non-christians as irrelevant.” That’s actually not true. Nowhere in scripture are Christians told it is acceptable to treat people differently who disagree with us. We are to share God’s love and compassion to all people. This is why you find multitudes of Christian charitable organizations throughout the country. We go out of our way to find people in need and lend them a helping hand. When someone comes into a homeless shelter, no one asks if they are gay or transgender or an atheist. They have a need, and they go to a place where they are welcomed regardless of their circumstances or background. And Christians don’t go around denying services to people simply because of their sexual orientation. We do so because we don’t want to be forced to participate in a ceremony that violates our conscience. What two consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business. But when you ask me to participate in a ceremony that violates my beliefs, then it becomes my business, and most Bible-believing Christians have a very big problem with that. Even if you disagree with me, I hope you can at least understand why we feel that way.

      When it comes to abortion, we aren’t “anti-woman” or “anti-choice.” We who oppose abortion do so not out of some desire for a woman to “pay for her mistakes”, but out of a desire to show those most innocent among us that they will be welcomed with open arms into a society that does everything possible to care for them and love them and protect them. If a woman doesn’t want her child, there are other options besides infanticide. What about protecting those choices?

      You said, “Religion as a whole is nothing more than a means to enforce ideology onto people and be damned if they disagree.” Isn’t that what our universities are doing now? Berkley just had a riot recently to prevent someone from speaking who disagreed with many on campus. Does that mean liberalism has become a religion? I don’t see anyone being told they can’t speak somewhere for espousing liberal views, but I see lots and lots of people being forced out of academia, out of a job, or shunned for espousing conservative views. So when you make a statement like the one above you are probably thinking of Christians, but Christians are more likely than not to welcome opposing views. I can only speak for myself, but I have a number of Facebook friends who disagree with me completely on pretty much everything, yet we still maintain a cordial relationship because we have mutual respect. But when I see people rioting in the streets because their ideology lost this election, I see a group of people who are willing to do whatever it takes to force others to agree with them, and it borders on religious fervor.

      Finally, I would like to talk about what you call an “outdated ideology”. Just because you think something is irrelevant doesn’t mean it is. C. S. Lewis was a famous atheist who changed his mind because he saw evidence that God was real and that the Bible was (and is) correct. Men have waged wars to destroy Christianity and to kill those who speak for God, but the Bible has remained while nations have crumbled. And I am certain that the Bible will continue to remain relevant long after the United States has become a footnote in history.

    • You better add CNN to that BS list of yours. They outed themselves as prime movers and shakers on that list with their ridiculously deceptive and INACCURATE claims about the inauguration attendance. Their own equipment openly exposed their lies.

      • Anthony

        Do you have a link to this?

    • Teephphah

      Um? Dude? It’s been A MONTH. Chill. Let the man work. Where’s the wall? Where are the jobs? Are you being serious?

      It’s. Been. A. Month.

      In what universe do you *rationally* believe that any politician is capable of fulfilling all of their campaign promises in a month’s time?

      Before I address any of your other “potential” (apparently that’s what we’re calling bullsh!t now?) I’ll let you address that point because I think you you’ve got some real wrestling with this thing we call “reality” you work through before we’re going to be able to discuss anything seriously.

  • Joan Montjoy

    Great response! Thank you for answering intelligently, in love and representing Godly views very accurately. Yelling back and forth “across the isle” won’t get us anywhere; however, responding kindly, firmly and with the truth of God’s word will at least defend the Savior that we love so dearly. Again, thank you for raising your voice.

  • Tommy Rogers

    Well said… I agree with everything you said and that is exactly the way I feel.

  • Billtownphysics

    When she says, ““I’m afraid that what you want is a nation that conforms to your interpretation of the Bible.” She is exactly right! Congratulations, yes that is what we want, and as Dr. Brown correctly points out, that is what leftist liberal “Christians” want as well. Now may God grant victory to the side that is right.

    The left will tolerate us, as long as we agree with them and vote with them.

  • xapd

    Shaw was not inviting a dialog. She was demanding an explanation. Many on the left believe the right is somehow held to account for their heterodox beliefs. I suggest they hold their collective breath while waiting…

    • Triple T

      This Shaw character is the type for whom “Let’s talk” can be translated as “I will talk and you will listen. I’ll tell you everything that’s wrong with you. Don’t you dare try to do the same to me.”

  • It is astonishing to me how obvious the deception regarding the Inauguration attendance was. It was so obvious as to be embarrassing. CNN actually (inadvertently) outed themselves with their own production on their own equipment.

  • doree10

    Thank you, Dr. Brown…The problem with the Progressives, as they reference themselves, they want no part of truth…It will be an uphill climb all the way until the end of the age for those who love Truth and the Father of Truth, nothing new for the believer? The progressives want to dialog about as much as Iran wants peace with Israel. We will keep on keeping on and hopefully some will wake up as the world grows darker…

  • Enrique Pasos

    Great article. Very wise words. Thanks for writing this Dr Brown.

  • eddiestardust

    Exactly, Dr Brown..You said it far better than I could!:)

  • Matthew Rohr

    I feel as though the crux of the matter runs through here:
    ***How do you think we felt when Barack Obama was elected — which means that he was our president (and my president) for the last eight years? How do you think we felt when he appointed Supreme Court justices who helped to fundamentally redefine marriage, an absolute horror to us for many reasons? How do you think we felt about the prospect of Hillary Clinton deepening America’s ties with Planned Parenthood, in our view, the number one slaughterer of babies in the womb?

    And since you mention bakeries, restaurants, and hotels — none of which, by the way, have refused to serve a gay person simply because he or she was gay — how do you think we felt when friends of ours lost their jobs or were put out of schools or suffered serious professional recriminations because they were forced to violate their religious beliefs, bullied by LGBT activists and their allies? Are you not aware that this is a two-way street?***

    There is no comparison here. Recognizing same-sex marriages as equal to hetero marriages before the law did no harm to those whose personal beliefs do not allow for same-sex marriage. And many businesses have attempted to turn away gay customers who are simply asking for the same services being offered to any other customers.

    The issue here is that when your faith begins materially affecting other people against their will, that is the overreach. Your faith should affect yourself. If your faith puts you in a position where you are unable to do a job because you feel as though you must discriminate (and discrimination is not allowed), then the appropriate next step (for someone who puts faith first) is not to try and create an environment where your discrimination is safe. It is to step away from the job because your faith is more important to you. I could respect that kind of commitment. I cannot respect people who cry because they’re forced to treat others equally.

    Tolerance is not bound to tolerate intolerance. That is self-contradictory and self-destructive. The liberal ideal of tolerance is mutual tolerance. Mutual understanding.

    Lastly, the author of the original piece tried to explain to you concerning abortion that there are more effective ways to reduce the number of abortions – ways that almost everyone could agree with and get behind. Again, these more effective means would not require us to push our faith on others.

    The US is a secular state. It must be, because it guarantees religious freedom to all while maintaining a wall of separation between church and state to preserve that freedom and the neutrality of power. Those who seek to undermine the secular nature of the state perhaps do not understand the horrors of political power wedded to religious belief. Our founders did. We must all remain free to be true to our conscience, and this circles us all the way back to the primary point. We are not free to force others to be true to our conscience. We are free to practice our faith for ourselves.

  • TexasTbone

    Wasted words. She doesn’t want to understand. You really think you could convince Hitler that Jews are good people?

  • Joanna Barnes

    So much wrong with this article, I literally cannot take the time needed to refute it point by point. But I will say these few things:
    There ABSOLUTELY were riots after Obama was elected. In fact, he was burned in effigy! I am by no means condoning violent protest, but to say conservatives did not riot in the streets after Obama was elected or that conservatives quietly & patiently accepted President Obama during his tenure as President is laughable.
    If you are truly Christian, what difference does it make to you who loves whom? How does it affect your life? No one is telling you that heterosexual sexual relationships are bad; we are saying that we need to love, support, and accept each other regardless of sexual orientation, race, or religion. Jesus taught us to love all. I watch President Trump & hear him speak. It is so often full of malice and hate, I find myself fighting just to listen to him.
    I know people personally that HAVE BEEN REFUSED SERVICES BASED ON THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Just because you do not know people that have experienced this does not make it untrue.
    As far as fake news. Fake news is when a media outlet mostly or even completely fabricates a news story in order to generate shock, anger, & provoke people in general. Showing actual clips of things the President has said is not fake news. Calling out his administration on acts they are actually doing is not fake news. Just because you disagree with it does not mean it’s fake.
    As far as the rest of your story, I will agree there are some points that we can both come together on, but in general, you missed the point of her article completely by using the same white privileged biases that got Trump elected in the first place. Congratulations.

    • Evans Hayangah

      Wait a second, there is a need to refute what the bible teaches on homosexuality? Jesus didn’t tell people to go and sin no more? Jesus didn’t tell people of repentance and judgement? There is a need to refute the four reasons why the Conservative Christian would vote for Trump or find Obama’s and Hilary’s position of homosexuality contrary to the word of God or incompatible to their claims of being Christian? Their dissatisfaction with the political elite stemming to the days of the prayer in school ruling and Rove vs Wade? What of the use of political coercive force forcing them to abide with actions contrary to their beliefs?

Lessons From a Stolen Bike
Alex Chediak
More from The Stream
Connect with Us