catholics-for-trump
Freedom of Religion

Catholics for Trump: “We are in a battle for the soul of America”

The Lord has chosen Donald Trump as the next president of the United States. At least Donald Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen believes so. Perhaps if you were Donald Trump’s lawyer you might be persuaded to see America’s messiah coming in the clouds, too. There is a certain religious fervour surrounding his candidacy, and even the fulfilment biblical prophecy: ‘For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the TRUMP OF GOD..’ (1Thess 4:16). Honestly, some Christians believe this (really, no kidding). It’s all over the internet: “I believe Trump is the 45th President a 100% because the LORD GOD himself gave me 5 dreams and visions,” says the prophet Liz Alba, affirming the prophet Kat Kerr. It gets better: “It is also remarkable to note that Donald Trump (424) is the Gematria of ‘Messiah for the House of David’ (משיח בן דוד). That is not to say that Donald Trump is the Messiah, but that his presidency will usher in the Messianic era…” The divine order goes: ‘God -> Jesus -> Donald Trump.’ They don’t say who comes next.

Trump has long attracted a considerable following among white, Protestant Evangelicals: they regularly meet to pray for him (and with him). According to the Pew Research Center, “Now, fully 78% of white evangelical voters say they would vote for Trump if the election were held today, including about a third who ‘strongly’ back his campaign.” By contrast, religiously unaffiliated voters incline toward Hillary Clinton (56% support her, as against 19% for Trump). Evangelicals may be supporting Trump through gritted teeth, but when the alternative is Clinton, it isn’t at all clear to millions of Christians where the lesser evil lies.

The Evangelical case against Trump has been made by Professor Alan Noble of Oklahoma Baptist University:

Trump has boasted of infidelities, profited off gambling, mocked the handicapped, cheered and offered financial assistance for his supporters who fight protesters, supported abortion (until his fortuitous change of heart before the election), called for war crimes against innocent people, demonized minorities and immigrants, knowingly played upon racist fears, promoted open racists through social media, promoted conspiracy theories, and crudely treated women.

The Evangelical case for Trump has been made by Gary Bauer, a “politically conservative Baptist with strong commitments to preserving the traditional family and the Judeo-Christian values he believes are the foundation of American society”:

This country is the equivalent of that hijacked plane right now. We’re headed to a disaster, unless we can get control of the cockpit again… Ladies and gentlemen, this is a Flight 93 election. This may be our last shot. It’s time to roll. It’s time to run down the aisle and save Western civilization.

So, vote Trump in November, or Western civilisation (ie white, Christian America) falls. Which is more or less the position of Fr Michael Orsi, parochial vicar at St Agnes Catholic Church in Naples, Florida: “The Constitution is quickly being destroyed,” he warned in a speech last month. “Unless the right choice is made in November, we may not have a court that is fair and balanced in its interpretation of the Constitution.” Evangelicals for Trump tend to wear their faith on their sleeves: Catholics for Trump is a rather more secret organisation, but Fr Michael Orsi is a voice crying in the wilderness, preparing the way for the coming messiah:

If the pastors do not speak out now, they may not be able to in the future…

Too many of the pastors — too many, practically all — in Germany refused to speak against national socialism. And look at the result: millions of Jews, pastors, priests, homosexuals, gypsies all lost their lives because everyone was afraid. What are you afraid of, a couple of bucks? Your tax-exempt status? What’s that going to do to you? Your churches may be closed anyway, because if a certain party gets elected, this certain party said, if the churches do not agree with our interpretation of women’s reproductive rights, they’ll just have to change their doctrine.

…If a certain party gets elected, I can assure you what kind of judges are going to be on those appeals courts.

…I’m not going to vote for a candidate who decides that we can redefine the meaning of marriage… Our opponents believe once they destroy the family, once they destroy the churches, they can re-create society in their own image and their own likeness. That, my friends, is not just political. That is diabolical. Get it straight, for crying out loud! The devil is in this!

According to Fr Michael Orsi, if a certain party gets elected… it is the work of Satan. That certain party isn’t the GOP. There needs to nutty internet prophet to tell us that. In this culture war, Catholics for Trump have a duty to “vote the right way” and deliver us from evil. Presumably, they must turn a blind eye to his infidelity, adultery (he’s on his third marriage), gambling, greed, mocking of the handicapped, demonisation of immigrants and minorities, promotion of racism, conspiracy theories… Of course, in the great scheme of things, these personal foibles and offences matter less than the diminution of religious liberty. O, for the trump of God to sound a clear note.

  • Inspector General

    A fair appraisal of the fellow, Cranmer. The most surprising thing of all is that for all his whatevers, believe it or not, he is still a breath of fresh air. Really, he is! Doesn’t say much for the liberalism currently being nurtured by Obama.

    How can he lose!

  • IanCad

    Dodgy ground these groups are treading. They are in clear violation of laws concerning the tax exempt status (501c) granted to religious organizations.

    From the website of the IRS:

    “Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.—-“
    Religion and State are clear different entities. The law should be applied to keep it that way.

    • Ivan M

      Hahaha there goes the tax-exempt status of Obama’s church.

  • Inspector General

    Building a wall to keep the Mexicans out, and their drugs, and then charging the Mexican government for its construction – sheer genius!

    The Inspector would also like to thank Big Gay and the homosexual uprising for its persecution of Christians, sodomising marriage, and closing down gendered toilets.

  • So, vote Trump in November, or Western civilisation (ie white, Christian America) falls

    If Trump were elected and remained true to his word, the fall of white Christian America would certainly be slowed, which presumably explains why ‘Jewish donations to Mr Trump so far make up just eight per cent of what Mitt Romney received during the 2012 race’ and why ‘just two per cent of donors to the Republican nominee’s campaign were Jewish. Meanwhile, Jewish donors to Mrs Clinton’s campaign were at ten times that figure, at 20 per cent.’

    When US Jews believe that the greatest threat to their safety is ‘white Christian anti-Semitism’ [fifth paragraph here], who can blame them for wanting that threat out of the way? And the threat is very real to them. Earl Raab wrote in 1993: ‘The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country [page 246 here].’

    It is in the best interests of white American Christians that they remain the majority, while Jews believe that their best interests will be served by white Christians becoming a powerless minority. Multiculturalism, the gift that keeps on giving.

    • The Explorer

      Steinlight, himself Jewish, bleakly points out the implications of multiculturalism, It will ensure that there are soon more Muslims than Jews in the US. Backed by Saudi money, they will exert an influence on US policy towards Israel.

    • Ivan M

      So called White America is the reason why people wish to migrate there. We don’t see many queuing to migrate to non-Western countries. Apart from the relative prosperity of the Western countries, there is a large measure of fair dealing, which is ultimately based on the general disposition of the people. A nation full of Blacks end up looking like Lagos, full of Indians and you get Bombay. Those few Jews working for and celebrating the end of White America are busily sawing off the branch they themselves are perched on.

      • @ Ivan M—Yes, one of the reasons advanced for the relative success of Western societies is that they are ‘high trust’.

        It’s important to note that Jews began working for the end of white America long before the rise of Hitler. It’s as though being anti-white, or perhaps it’s better to say anti-Christian, was in their DNA. I sometimes think that Jews were so fixated on overcoming white/Christian societies that they gave little or no thought to the likely consequences. As The Explorer has just commented, Stephen Steinlight and the Jews who will vote for Trump have given thought. But they are a minority and the damage already done by mass immigration may prove irreversible anyway.

  • Albert

    Trump terrifies me.

    • Ivan M

      Why? He is far less bloodthirsty than the Medusa.

    • Inspector General

      Liberalism should terrify you. That the abortion industry thrives also disgusts. Come on man, show some bone…or have you been emasculated too!

    • CliveM

      The best that can be said for a Trump Presidency is that Congress and the Senate will stop him getting anything done.

      • Ivan M

        Congress will stop Hillary from getting anything done too. The problem comes with the war powers of the President, and his ability to appoint judges thereby incrementally changing the interpretation of the laws in a preferred direction as Obama has done.

        • CliveM

          Well it has to be said US Government seems dysfunctional at the moment.

      • IanCad

        Not so sure they will. The Supreme Court is another matter.

        • CliveM

          It seems to be a feature of most Presidencies these days, an inability to get on with the Houses.

          • IanCad

            Separation of Powers is a great thing. Nothing much gets done; which when governed by mediocrities is the best state.

          • CliveM

            Says to me that we should be the happiest of nations, basking in the light of the best and most benevolent constitutions.

            Stick your Republics say I!

    • IanCad

      Why on earth should that be so Albert?

      • Ivan M

        Could have been this Ian:
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O13kaQA

        • IanCad

          Ivan,
          It would be the height of irresponsibility for any presidential candidate to assure the world he would not use nuclear weapons. May as well scrap them.
          A fine deterrent is something you have vowed not to use!

          • Ivan M

            The way it was presented certainly scared me, but I rationalised it by assuming that Trump was just being an arse, and generally in practice, actual usage of nuclear weapons require the assent of the larger security establishment.

          • IanCad

            It scares me when the press is the chief huckster for Hillary.

      • Albert

        Please see my reply to the Inspector, above.

    • Inspector General

      Albert, have you crawled into the corner of the room and covered yourself with your comfort blanket again? Stick your head and and stop sobbing, we want to reassure you…

      • IanCad

        Our stout Albert?! The scholar and gentleman? what has happened to him? Trigger warnings and safe spaces next?

        • Inspector General

          It’s been all too much for the old fellow. Best look away for the next few weeks, Albert…

        • Albert

          Trump’s a scholar and a gentleman? I must have missed that bit.

          • IanCad

            A bounder and a cad more like, but still the clear choice as I see it.
            It certainly didn’t stop bill Clinton’s election to the job. I must add that, in general, even if they don’t make the best decisions, presidents rise to their responsibilities

          • Albert

            I’ve just asked this question of Jack (above) but why, in your view, is Trump better than Clinton (not that I like either)?

          • IanCad

            Well, for a start, he’s got enough good sense to know that a dissatisfied peasantry can get mighty dangerous when they get mad enough to take up arms. By giving them some hope that their labour will be valued according to its scarcity should defer that option.

          • Anton

            Obama shows that is false.

          • IanCad

            Anton,
            I did use the qualifier: “In general.”

      • Albert

        Thank you everyone for your concern for me. The reason Trump terrifies me is that he seems psychologically unsound to me. I suspect he’s actually rather fragile and has spent his life trying to convince himself that he is good enough because he’s made so much money/has a young (for him) attractive wife/is so masculine/has appeared in a porn film/is such is a bully/is prepared to make unpleasant comments about people etc. I just don’t feel comfortable with such a man being the most powerful man in the world. I suspect he flips, the moment someone challenges the image he’s created for himself.

        And then there’s this:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZPBeor0oSY

        • Inspector General

          He’s no more psychologically unsound than the Inspector is. There, that’s told you!

          • carl jacobs

            Most of Hillary’s campaign ads fall into the category of “Trump Saying Stupid Sh*t!” Now, I am not referring to statements about policy. I am talking about stupid sh*t. These ads are incredibly effective. The man is a buffoon.

          • Inspector General

            We’ve a Foreign Secretary who’s a buffoon. And no one’s declared war on us yet…

          • Albert

            But he’s a demonstrably clever buffoon, and he tends not to be aggressive.

          • Albert

            Nothing I said should have given the impression I think he is as psychologically unsound as the Inspector is! 🙂

          • Inspector General

            You’ve spent quite some years on this site bemoaning secularism. Yet when the antidote appears you run off. Remember how powerful our enemies are becoming. A good example is that ageing lesbian a few weeks back who was going to report Cranmer to the police. For anti PC crime!

        • Anton

          So he’s a psychopath. Isn’t the only difference from other politicians that they hide it better?

          • Albert

            Well spotted. I do worry that he is a psychopath or clinical narcissist, and yes, you’re probably right about other politicians.

          • Ivan M

            He is not a psychopath. He is just a lying salesman trying to sell his wares. We’ve all known them and they are usually nice fellows to be around. Psychopath fits Lady Macbeth to a tee, though:

            https://youtu.be/UtH7iv4ip1U

            https://youtu.be/yBdqxMUQByU

            “Like the crackling of thorns is the laughter of a wicked woman.”

          • Albert

            I’m not saying Clinton isn’t disturbing. I’m inclined to think she is less psychologically fragile and therefore less likely to make a dreadful mistake so as not to lose face.

          • Ivan M

            Oh please the record speaks otherwise. She has been a disaster over Syria Libya and the Russkies. Trump is pretty much a loud mouthed mediocrity in politics. For that reason as explained by IanCad we should have some years of quite.

          • Albert

            I’m not saying she isn’t a disaster, or that she won’t make mistakes. It’s the cause of the mistakes (made by Trump) that I am addressing.

        • Ivan M

          He did not appear in any porny films. The Demoncrats as usual try to knock off a rival by catching him with his pants down. He did have his hands around the usual set of bimbos though.

          • Albert

            Okay, scrub that bit. He still terrifies me.

    • Cressida de Nova

      Ignore the inspector’s jibes, Albert. He is feeling inadequate being in the presence of a real man.

      • Inspector General

        You minx, you…

      • Albert

        Thanks Cressida. Is the real man me or Trump?

  • len

    Trump will not be the first or the last person to appear as the false ‘saviour of Christianity’…
    ‘For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect’.(Matthew 24:24)

    ‘Discernment ‘is needed now as never before in’ these last days’, and true discernment can only come through The Holy spirit…

    • Inspector General

      Oh Lord! Not ‘the last days’ again…

      • len

        You got one thing right inspector….Calling on the lord!…

    • Ivan M

      What great signs and wonders has Trump wrought excepting perhaps appearing with more than a handful of bimbos?

      • len

        Everyone thought Trump a joke when he announced he would run for President…Who’s laughing now?

        • Ivan M

          It was just the press whose main job in American elections is to make Republicans unelectable for President. What was so impressive about Obama? What was his resume?

        • IanCad

          Yes Len! There are quite a few on this blog who are wiping egg from their faces.

          • TropicalAnglican

            Think of The Guardian pundits, etc. — you can’t see their faces for the omelettes…

    • seansaighdeoir

      I don’t think Trump has claimed to be the ‘false’ saviour of Christianity though.

      By the people need a ‘saviour’ from the increasing tyranny of the globalists and the destruction of America.

      Trump at least recognises that.

  • seansaighdeoir

    Trump is the common sense candidate.

    If he loses and Hilary wins the globalists win also.

    Obamas weakness has made the the world a more dangerous and should Hilary win also it will make America a more dangerous place too.

    From the outside it is already so polarised that thinking Civil war is brewing is not outside the realm of possibility.

    • David

      Exactly.

  • len

    Dictators (of the very worst sort) have always risen to power out of ‘crisis situations’. We have see this happen in Europe before and these very conditions are happening again in the Middle East. America and Europe face enormous problems with migrants fleeing wars as an indirect result of the destabilisation of their countries.

    The Coalition forces pulling out of the Middle east with no exit plan left the ground ripe for terrorist groups to start and to expand with little or no resistance.
    Neither Trump nor Clinton have solutions to these problems facing America whatever they promise.

    • seansaighdeoir

      Trump is a response to the weak liberal Obama and his 8 years of inaction and dithering. This has resulted in a resurgent Russia and a destabilised Middle East particularly North Africa.

      A lot of that happened under Hilary’s watch as SOS.

      Hilary’s campaign is funded by the big corporations and Soros each who have a vested interest in the continuing problems of the ME.

      Trump is (hopefully) going to the antidote to some of that.

  • Royinsouthwest

    My kingdom is not of this world. John 18:36,

    Why would any Christian ignore that clear statement. Some of the remarks quoted by Cranmer in this post are as blasphemous as the expression Guns and Jesus used a few years ago by those idolators who worshipped Sarah Palin.

  • carl jacobs

    The Lord has chosen Donald Trump as the next president of the United States.

    The blood of 70 million dead cries out to heaven against us, so this could well be true. Of course, that argument also works for Hillary. The cup is full to overflowing, and we will drink it – every drop.

    I’m going to write in a name on the ballot. I refuse to legitimize this farce by participating.

    • Hold your nose and vote against Swillary Clinton.

    • David

      Jack’s advice represents pragmatic common sense.

  • David

    The biggest threat to western civilisation is PC, as it prevents society and the political leaders form grappling with reality.
    Trump is certainly not a godly man, but he is big enough, ugly enough and independent minded enough to stand up to the powerful PC juggernaut.
    Therefore, because things are at such a dangerous stage now for our western civilisation, I have been rooting and praying for Trump.

    • The Explorer

      In ‘Isaiah’, God refers to “my servant Cyrus”. Cyrus did not know he was God’s servant; he did not know God. But God used him to enable the Jews to return to Zion from Babylon. Similar sort of situation with Trump? Using a heathen?

      • Cyrus responded to the grace of God and behaved honourably towards the Jews. Trump? At best, he may be the lesser of two evils. He’s the fruit of the modern Western world.

        • David

          Trump, well Jack he is certainly not a man of God – that I am sure of. Like you I would like a genuine Christian, like the recent OZ Prime Minister, Abbott, but at present Trump is the best hope that those orthodox Christians of the US, and therefore the west, have at present to confront the out and out evil of the alternative.

        • The Explorer

          Yes. But where there are two heathens (as with the current US candidates) the one heathen may be more responsive than the other. When Paul says to obey the authorities, it’s not because the authorities are Christian. But they are still used by God. Difficult territory, I know. Did Judas do God’s will? Will the Antichrist be doing God’s will?

          • God works all things to His purposes and brings good from evil. Did Christ have to die to make His perfect offering to His Father? The Jewish authorities, the Romans and Judas did not “do God’s will” but their evil acts were instrumental in achieving God’s plan for our salvation – foreknown before creation.

            As the saying goes: God writes straight in crooked lines.

          • The Explorer

            Could God use Clinton as well as Trump? I’d say yes, but it’s like the difference between freezing hot water and cold water. Hot water (Clinton) has to cool down first, so the process takes longer. With cold water (Trump) you’re part way there already.

          • Of course God’s purposes will be achieved whoever is elected. From God’s eternal perspective, history is already written. However, those siding with the greatest evil, through a deliberate intent to weaken religious influence and promote a Godless “diversity” and “inclusiveness”, will be held to account.

          • The Explorer

            You want to get from Point A to Point B. That’s not in doubt. But it may take longer than intended because of an accident or detour. The Bible seems to suggest that although evil cannot thwart God’s purposes, it can delay them. (The Prince of Persia in ‘Daniel’ who delays God’s angel, and Satan’s thwarting of Paul in ‘Thessalonians’.)

          • How can man delay God’s purposes? Those scriptural passages are just our way of presenting God’s salvation plan in history.

          • The Explorer

            In the two instances I cited, the delay is abused by demonic rather than human intervention.

          • Anton

            And those siding with the lesser evil? I recall you saying that a golden rule of ethics was Do no evil, in any circumstances.

          • carl jacobs

            Heh.
            Heh heh.

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

          • Naturally, being an American, the home of consequentialism, you have no concept of doing no evil that good may come from it. That said, effectively abstaining in the election suggests you may not be entirely committed to this.

          • Ivan M

            The question of a lesser evil does not arise when it comes to politics as it is an arena where the “princes of the world” hold sway. Jesus Christ Himself acknowledged that Caesar is master of his own realm.

          • Did you miss this: ” … through a deliberate intent to weaken religious influence and promote a Godless “diversity” and “inclusiveness””/

            With hindsight, the moral principle that when forced one is permitted to choose “the lesser of two evils.” is not the best way to frame the issue. A Catholics may not choose any evil. None – period.

            There is a principle in moral theology – the principle of double effect – which, under certain clearly defined conditions, permits us to perform an act that has both a good and an evil effect, but there is no allowance whatsoever in the Catholic system for directly choosing an evil.

            Sometimes the same act causes both a good result and an evil result at the same time. Can such an act be performed? The answer is that it can be, provided that all the following four conditions are met : First, the act itself must be good or indifferent. Second, the good effect must not be caused by the evil effect. Third, the good effect and not the evil effect must be directly intended by the agent. Forth, there must be a proportionality between the good and evil result (i.e., the good must outweigh the evil). The principle is applied across the whole spectrum of Catholic morals, but notably in the areas of just war doctrine and medical ethics.

            What constitutes a moral evil in electoral politics? Or, conversely, what is a moral good in exercising our citizen’s right to vote? Politics is the art and science of governing a society. It is a “normative” science inasmuch as it seeks to govern society well and rightly . Normative sciences, such as logic and aesthetics, seek to establish the right way of doing things. We can contrast these with the “descriptive sciences,” which study the way things actually are.

            Since politics is a subdivision of ethics, its principles must fit coherently with the entirety of right behaviour. All this established, we can answer our above questions very simply: It is a moral evil to support a candidate whose platform runs contrary to the natural law. Conversely, it is a moral good to support one who works to uphold the natural law.

            Voting itself is not an intrinsic evil. So, is it ever justified to vote for a candidate who does not hold the Church’s teaching on abortion, but whose position is less extreme than another candidate’s? Catholics do not want to vote for anyone who favours abortion or who holds other positions not in agreement with the Church on the non-negotiable issues – human life, marriage and family, religious liberty.

            In voting for a candidate with the less extreme position there is the appearance of voting for the evil that he or she would allow. A Catholic voter may not vote to support an intrinsic evil in any measure. The lesser-of-two-evils name does not, however, accurately reflect what the voter does in making such a voting choice. There are three elements to every morally good act: the object (what is done), the intention (why it is done) and the circumstances (the when, where, how it is done).

            The first of these is the object of the will: To what is the will directed in the choice being made? This object must always be good or the act is immoral at its root. What would be the object in voting for an imperfect candidate? It would be to limit the evil that a more extreme candidate would do. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects, in order to prevent worse legislation from being adopted. It is morally wrong to vote for the enemies of religion or liberty, except to exclude a worse candidate.

            Then there are the intention and the circumstances.

            If the object of the act is to limit the evil that would occur if the worse candidate, or legislation, succeeded, then the intention must be predominately directed to that object. It should not be primarily to lesser purposes, such as keeping a party in power, aiding this group or that or to some personal advantage derived from policy choices. Concern for the common good begins with defending the non-negotiable values upon which a morally, politically and economically healthy society depends.

            A vote is made morally possible by the need to exclude a worse candidate – one who is the enemy of morality. Circumstances can create a compelling reason to vote for the imperfect candidate, the so-called lesser of two evils. In doing so, our personal opposition to the evil the candidate does embrace must be made known and our true motive is seen and the scandal of appearing to vote for evil is undermined.

            However, notwithstanding all the above, there is a valid alternative position that holds we can’t play the lesser of two evils game at all. Clinton vs. Trump, is seen by some as a situation where Christians should abstain from voting or go third party. If we keep doing the lesser of two evils we just get gradually more evil. The culture of voting for the lesser of two evils leads to a long slide into moral dissolution. Some hold it’s better to simply not play the game at all. Faced with a situation like is, we can never affirm evil or affirm tyranny, even if it is the lesser than the other option in our view.

          • Ivan M

            Long way from your busking days, boss.

          • Anton

            With hindsight, the moral principle that when forced one is permitted to choose “the lesser of two evils.” is not the best way to frame the issue. A Catholics may not choose any evil. None

            Better waste your time in a monastery then. Smacking young children to train them not to go near busy roads is a pretty good example of the lesser of two evils, by the way.

          • You think we can only live in this world by accepting or doing evil? Strange perspective.
            Disciplining a child is neither counter scriptural or evil. Not to do would be immoral. To smack a child randomly and wantonly to simply inflict pain or to vent one’s frustration, would be evil.
            Jack notes you didn’t read his post.

          • Anton

            What makes you think that?

            I actually believe that ethics is so deep that it is not capturable comprehensively in written principles. Men like Aquinas did a good job – I gladly accept – but any such system will always be provisional. (Just like the laws of my own subject, physics: Einstein overthrew Newton for instance.) That is why simple counter-examples from the real world will always leave ethicists floundering. Immediately above, you were forced to deny that administering a hurt to a child (albeit a small hurt) was not evil. It is: it is simply the lesser evil, and your quantity of words cannot deny the quality of that fact. Likewise you will always find counter-examples to “just war” theory. This is not to criticise Aquinas or yourself; just accept that what you write about ethics will never be the last word.

          • Explain just how disciplining a child is an act of evil?

            Proverbs 13:24
            “Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.”

          • Anton

            That is a scripture for a fallen world, of course.

          • If the world wasn’t fallen there would be no need for scripture. If the world wasn’t fallen we wouldn’t be discussing good and evil.

            Children are born into a fallen world. We are not born with our bodies, minds and souls integrated and in harmony with our Creator.
            Why is it evil to discipline children? Jack is waiting for an answer.

          • Anton

            Do stop trying to sound like a Bond baddie, Jack; it doesn’t suit you. As I have said in so many words, it is the lesser of two evils. I credit you with being too intelligent not to understand the point I am making. Do stop pretending not to understand.

          • You’ve made no point. Jack is still waiting on it. You want to justify evil as being unavoidable. It isn’t.

          • Anton

            If you think I am trying to “justify evil” then truly you misunderstand me. If you think you have me in some kind of cleft stick then ask me a question.

          • What’s evil about disciplining a child?

          • Anton

            Those who love him hit him yet he has done nothing wrong. I’m talking about training him to keep clear of the highway past the front door at an age well before he understands reasoned argument. We know no other way to do it.

          • Ah, Jack thought you meant he would be smacked after an attempt to go near the road and place himself in danger.
            Well, it would certainly be poor parenting and an ineffective approach. Unless the child can connect the smack with the road, it would be pointless. Would it be an intrinsically evil act? Certainly, it would be an unnecessary infliction of pain as there are other possibilities available. All in all, a silly example.

          • Anton

            Evidently you have never lived in a situation of that sort.

          • Jack has experience of these matters both personally and professionally.

          • Anton

            If one is unlucky enough to live where there is a danger and you have children below the age of reason, you can do your best to keep them from the danger by fences and such, but causing them to associate moving nearer to the danger with a smack is surer: then you need never worry about holes in the fence, your child joining others who know a way round, etc.

          • So the smack is a physical reinforcement of a verbal command that is breached. That’s called discipline. Infants may not have reason but they understand prohibitions and parental approval and disapproval.

          • Anton

            But the infant was unable to understand the verbal command, being below the age of reason.

          • As Jack said, even infants understand “No”.

          • Anton

            And why is that?

          • Tone, body language, facial expression – all the usual signals – that convey disapproval.

          • In Catholic theology the movement of grace doesn’t require a knowledge of Jesus Christ. We are not told Judas’ motives, what was in his heart, but he committed evil actions and remember what Christ said of him. That’s not God’s will. Similarly, the antichrist will be following the will of Satan – not God.

        • Albert

          I’m not following the US election closely enough. How come Trump can be called the lesser of two evils (serious question)?

          • For no other reason than Clinton is actively promoting abortion and wants to withdraw the rights of religious groups to opt out of funding these. The issue of abortion should prevent any Christian from voting for her. If abortion is evil, then there is no rational way for a Christian voter true to his faith to vote for her. The abortion business Planned Parenthood recently called Clinton its “champion” and implied that she could replace President Barack Obama as the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history. Clinton has promised Planned Parenthood that she would repeal the Hyde Amendment and force taxpayers to fund abortions. She also promised to nominate U.S. Supreme Court justices who will ensure that Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand up until birth remain the law of the land for years to come.

          • Albert

            Thank you Jack, that’s really helpful – if unsettling, to put it mildly.

      • David

        Maybe, maybe not – only God can be sure. But if he’s prepared to back western civilisation, then he’s the best that the US and the west have at present. So let’s use him whilst praying hard for guidance and God’s help.

      • Royinsouthwest

        God also used Balaam’s ass. It often used to be said that in strong Labour constituencies people would vote for a donkey if it wore a Labour rosette. That saying was supposed to be an indictment of the stupidity of diehard Labour voters. Mind you, if a donkey were to stand against Corbyn most people would be praying that the donkey would win!

        • Inspector General

          Braying that the donkey would win…

          • Royinsouthwest

            Yes, that would be a perfectly rational response!

    • len

      The greatest threat to Western Civilization is ‘Secular Humanism’ PC is just one of the weapons in their armoury.
      Secular Humanists are tearing up our Christian Foundations as ‘an experiment’ because they have no idea what will happen when they have accomplished their task.
      Of course we all know from Bible Prophecy it is exactly at a time of complete turmoil that a man who appears to be’ the solution to all our problems’ will appear.

      • You do know secular humanism has its roots in Protestant individualism and autonomy that arose with “private judgement”? Add moral consequentialism and proportionalism, and absolute objective truths go out of the window and emotionalism takes center stage.

        • chefofsinners

          And Protestant individualism has dual roots:
          1) Holy scripture
          2) A corrupt Catholic church

          • So just where exactly in scripture is individualism and private judgement presented as God’s way for His people? As Paul teaches, the Church is a collective; one Body made up of individuals all contributing their different gifts.

            The Catholic Church needed reforming, agreed. However, this does not justify schism or the mushrooming of heretical sects.

          • Anton

            So just where exactly in scripture is individualism and private judgement presented as God’s way for His people?

            The fact that Jesus never coerced anybody. The church is a voluntary opt-IN body, and its ultimate sanction is throwing-out. And He warned nonbelievers of the consequences of their nonbelief but never did anything more. Are you advocating anything beyond that?

          • Oh, so it’s not in scripture.

            The Church is a Body made up of those who are called by Christ and respond. Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 12, the Church is one Body, made up of people with different gifts and different functions. Some teach, some lead, some prophesy …. It’s a communal relationship with Christ and with one another. Not individual.

          • Anton

            Oh, so it’s not in scripture.

            Where do you think I got my information that Jesus never coerced anybody?

            The church is the collective of individuals who have a personal trusting relationship with Christ. The set of characteristics that may pertain to a collective is different from the set that may pertain to individuals. Of the former set, the church has some and not others.

          • chefofsinners

            Have a read of the first of Luther’s 95 theses.

          • “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.!
            Luther cites almost no scripture. The 95 theses are a rant wherein he pours out his gripes against the selling of indulgences and the Pope.

            Besides, this must be on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum and good Catholics never read such things.

          • chefofsinners

            Read also ‘Explanation of the 95 Theses’. If you’re allowed.
            The point is the Vulgate’s substitution of ‘paenitentiam agite’ (go and do penance) for the Greek ‘metanoia’ – repent.

          • “But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him”.
            (1 John 2:27 ESV)

          • Albert

            I can certainly see how Catholic corruption was part of the picture. But I don’t see scripture coming into Protestantism much, TBH.

        • Anton

          Secular humanism is an abuse of the freedom of conscience that was won following the Reformation.

          • The Reformation allowed freedom of conscience? Jack doesn’t think so. Rather, it imposed an heretical version of Christianity and paved the way for the Enlightenment and the decline of faith.

          • Anton

            It overturned a heretical version of Christianity, Jack, one that failed to allow freedom of conscience (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition…), although the doctrine of political freedom took a while to develop.

        • len

          I wouldn`t expect you to say anything else Jack ,you are unable to think for yourself the Magisterium does your thinking.

        • The Explorer

          I thought Secular Humanism did away with private judgement. There is no divine law to follow, so humans must decide for themselves what is right. How do they do that? A given community decides on what is right for it. That is then enforced on everybody within the community. The community can change its mind, enact new laws, and those laws will then be enforced in turn. Within that system, there’s no room for private conscience. (Given that conscience is simply a social construct anyway.)

        • The Explorer

          Surely the great grandfather of Secular Humanism is Auguste Comte? And Comte’s ‘church’ owed much to Catholicism, but nothing to Protestantism?

          • Comte was a creature of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. He came from a Catholic and monarchical family but had abandoned the Catholic faith by the age of 13 and shunned all religions.

            Surely the Enlightenment was the revolution of science and philosophy in the 18th century, that stemmed from the individualism and rationality of the Reformation? Europeans did not want the moral restraints on their lives that they had had previously.

            For good or ill, the Reformation introduced new, more supposedly “rational” Christian theologies and individualism in interpretation and moved Europe towards “modernity” and “progress”. The separation of Christianity into different sects led to the idea of religious freedom and created the modern mind-set – critical, sceptical and individual, enabling secular ideologies to rise to prominence.

            Protestant Christianity and the Enlightenment accommodated one to the other. They both demystified religion and prized cognitive claims by so called scientific advances. So we got so called “Higher Criticism” in biblical scholarship and Darwinianism in natural history;

          • The Explorer

            I’d say the essence of Secular Humanism is that you do not need religion in order to be ethical; so religious influence should be removed from society. When this belief is combined with Fabian socialism you get Social Utopianism, but not all Secular Humanists are Utopians.

            Kant did more than anyone else to argue that ethicism could be independent of religious belief, but I was thinking of Comte’s role in systematising an alternative to Christianity , the elevation of science, the promotion of sociology as a discipline etc.

          • Ivan M

            Secular Humanism is the product of advances in science. Isaac Newton although a religious man did the most to do away with God by his explanation of celestial phenomena.

            As you know, the story goes that when Napoleon asked Laplace – who had brought the Newtonian program to a very high level – “where is God in your system?”; Laplace that he had no need for “that hypothesis”.

            The battle then moved to biology but there too the believers in God which Louis Pasteur suffered defeat after defeat at the hands of other scientists who had no need for “that hypothesis”.

          • Ivan M

            Ironically Comte himself is not held in high regard by the scientists, since (IIRC) he imperiously ruled out a number of sciences and sought to impose restraints on what the scientists could regard as real.

            Positivism consistently applied is a sterile doctrine as it rules out any agency of the mind including the minds of the scientists themselves along with their preexisting theories. God does have a sense of humour.

          • The Explorer

            Comte was like the first stage of a rocket into space. It provides the initial thrust, but then must drop away. Human versions sometimes do not detach themselves when they should, and impede the progress of the next stages.

            It’s the same sort of thing with Aristotle’s science. Bang out of date. But the codifying of different disciplines was a colossal achievement.

        • Anton

          Odd, then, that secular humanism first went political in a country which had expelled its protestants more than 100 years before yet which had retained a Catholic church. (Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, 1685; French Revolution, 1789).

          • Louis XIV didn’t want heretics among his subjects. It was a political decision. Besides, in practice, the policies outlawing Protestants were relaxed during the reign of Louis XV. A hundred years later Protestants were again tolerated and many were prosperous. Compare their fate to Catholic Irish under the British Penal Laws.

            And just who did the French Revolution targeted? By 1794, France’s churches and religious orders were closed down and religious worship suppressed. Look to the Enlightenment’s quest to promote reason and science as the basis for “legitimacy” and “progress”. The philosophers appreciated the value of religion in promoting moral and social order, but the Church was condemned.

            France was ‘dechristianised’. The aim to excise religion from French society. Public worship was forbidden and all visible signs of Christianity were removed. Church bells were pulled down, crosses were taken from churches and cemeteries, and statues, relics and works of art were seized and destroyed. In November 1793, churches were closed, to be converted into warehouses, manufacturing works or even stables. Streets and other public places bearing the names of saints were given new Republican themed names, and time was recast to further repudiate France’s Christian past. Sunday as a day of rest and worship was cancelled. Christianity had no place in the Republic.

          • Anton

            A good deal of that is true (although if Louis XIV wanted heretics out then he came down on the wrong side…) But your comment is a fine example of a response without a reply. You claimed that secular humanism had its roots in protestant individualism, even though no country did more to establish (in every sense) secular humanism than France and protestantism in France was always small compared to Catholicism. Perhaps you care to list the protestant French thinkers and their works who so influenced French 18th century secular philosophers?

          • The French Revolution rose from the Enlightenment which sprang from the soil of Protestantism.

            Jack agrees Burke in seeing Rousseau as the chief ideologue of the French Revolution. Rousseau’s conception of liberty was understood as ruling oneself, living only under a law which one has oneself enacted.

            Rousseau was born and reared in Geneva, the seat of Calvinism. His ancestor, one Didier, was a bookseller who published Protestant tracts and had escaped persecution from French Catholics by fleeing to Geneva in 1549.

            At 15, he ran away from Geneva (on 14 March 1728) after returning to the city and finding the city gates locked due to the curfew. He took shelter with a Roman Catholic priest and he sent him to Turin. This resulted in his having to give up his Genevan citizenship. He “converted” to Catholicism as an adult, reacting to Calvinism’s insistence on the total depravity of man. Later reverted to Calvinism.

          • Anton

            The French Revolution was a lethal hybrid of cold 18th century secular rationalism and the then-new neopagan Romanticism. Rousseau was the principal philosophical representative of the latter. That provided the emotional impetus, but the rationalism was expressed in dozens of influential French writers without whom the Revolution would have been inconceivable – Diderot and the encyclopaedists, among others. The “religion” they were reacting against was the religion that dominated 18th century France, namely Roman Catholicism. Had they known evangelical protestantism as an alternative, that revolution might never have happened.

          • Oh, please ……
            Lol

          • Anton

            How then do *you* explain that it happened in France? Time to do some work instead of googling…

          • The breakdown of the political, economic and social order that had been held together by the glue of Christianity and the rise of individualism.

          • Anton

            The glue of *politicised* Christianity, and consequently inauthentic.

            Politics = setting the law

            Christianity = grace set in contrast to law (ref: St Paul)

            We were always called out from the world. When the church tried to become the world, it became polluted. Satan is lord of this world till Christ returns.

          • Now you’re getting more confused.
            Paul was referring to Mosiac Law and not the moral law or civil law. Law and order, reflecting the moral law, is necessary for the common good. Civil authorities were instituted by God for this very purpose. The Church also has a mission to bring the peace of Christ to the world. We don’t roll over and simply say “Satan’s in charge.”

          • Anton

            No, Paul was referring to a more general concept of law than the Law of Moses. How can you, a longstanding Christian, not understand that in view of Paul talking about “the law of sin and death” in Romans 8 and pagans nevertheless being “without excuse” in Romans 1?

            We don’t roll over and say that Satan’s in charge either. We just believe that the way to combat him is one soul at a time, not one polity at a time.

          • Sodom didn’t arise by accident. Sin and the structures of sin infect all those in its orbit. You don’t believe Christians should press for promoting the common good and protecting the vulnerable, weak and innocent from spiritual and physical harm? Isn’t that how we show we are followers of Christ?

          • Anton

            What Christians should always do is preach the gospel and live it. Where we can make the communities we live in better by social action, we should do that, and where we can lawfully influence the law, as in democracies, we should do that too. I didn’t mention the second and third of those things, but only because we cannot do them in many countries, such as Saudi Arabia and North Korea. Where we can do them, we should, of course.

        • Royinsouthwest

          Protestants believe in one mediator between God and man, not a whole hierarchy of mediators as if God if very remote and needs a system of relay runners to find out what is going on here on Earth and to interpret his commands to us.

          • The Catholic Church acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father. Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. They can help the cause of mediation by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.

            I Timothy 2:5 : “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” Then Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men…” Intercession is a synonym for mediation.

            Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Is this a contradiction? The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in Him.

            The Church is not claiming Christ couldn’t get the job done so he needed help. Of course not! He could do it all by himself if he wanted to. He delights in using his Body, the church, to communicate his life and love to the world.

            The Church is Christ in this world. This does not take away from Christ’s unique mediation; it establishes that unique mediation. Different members of the Church mediate various graces in accordance with their gifts while the whole body functions to bring Christ to the world. Romans 12:4-6 says:

            For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.”

            Is Christ our one, true mediator? Absolutely! And it is this same Christ who has chosen to use his Body to mediate God’s grace to the world in and through him.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Thanks for taking the trouble to write a detailed, considerate response.

          • You’re very welcome.

      • David

        Secular Humanism and PC are all the same to me. I can hardly distinguish one from the other, but if you can, that’s great !
        But so what ? As they all leading to the death of the west.

        • len

          Secular Humanism(not a new thing) wouldn’t have got anywhere if Christians were prepared to stand up and defend Christianity.Instead Christians actually took on board Humanist thinking and by doing so ceased to be salt and light.

          • David

            Agreed.

      • The Explorer

        I’d say Secular Humanism and PC have slightly different pedigrees. Secular Humanism has its origins in Comte’s Positivism, and what floats its boat is that we can be ethical without religious beliefs. It wants to rid religious influence from society. PC is the modern form of Marxism and seeks the collapse of existing society vis the new proletariat of “victimhood” before the final economic revolution.

        Both are implacable foes of Chrsitianity, and the two have become increasingly intermingled. But all PCers are Marxists (whether they know it or not) whereas some Secular Humanists are not.

        • len

          I see PC and Secular Humanism as ‘fruits’ which have fallen from the same tree.
          The’ tree’ being rebellion against the authority of Christ as are all false religions and ‘humanist’ philosophies.

      • Royinsouthwest

        You are not suggesting that Donald Trump is the man, are you? It is difficult to imagine European news media, such as the Guardian and BBC, hailing him as the answer to our prayers. Mind you, if Polly Toynbee were to endorse Trump, everyone would believe in miracles!

  • carl jacobs

    • Albert

      Do actually like that kind of music Carl?

      • carl jacobs

        From my days as a Civil War Re-enactor. Yes, I have a great fondness for mid-19th Century music.

        • bluedog

          Johnny Reb? Say it isn’t so, just can’t see it in you, Carl.

          • carl jacobs

            Company G
            24th Iowa Volunteers

          • bluedog

            Phew. Never really saw you riding with JEB Stuart.

          • carl jacobs

            I did re-enact a few times for the South when they needed people.

            In the movie “Gettysburg” the coolest scene in the movie to me was when the Confederates did a By Files Right into Line at the railroad cut during the first day. It gave me chills to watch it.

          • bluedog

            I’ll have to check it out. Can remember my brother and I being given the Avalon Hill board game Gettysburg by a US resident uncle when aged c12. He played the Union, the South were more my type. Used to end in fights more bitter than Pickett’s charge! Never been to the battlefield, but must go one day.

          • carl jacobs

            I had that game. It was given to me circa 1975.

            The largely unknown story of Gettysburg is the charge of the 1st Minnesota in the late afternoon of the second day. It’s the story of how 262 men saved the battle by charging a Confederate brigade of 1500. Only 47 returned.

        • Albert

          Interesting. Which side were you on?

          • carl jacobs

            My unit (listed below) was a Northern unit. But beyond heritage you don’t really have a side. It’s about remembering those who fought.

          • Albert

            I had you down as a Southerner.

        • IrishNeanderthal

          I don’t like to watch YouTubes unless I have a synopsis of what they’re about.

          However, I was recently watching Michael Portillo on a railway journey through America. As he crossed the border from Pennsylvania, a thought occurred
          to me:

          Where do you get real instant Southern Fried Chicken? In a restaurant with its diner on the north side of the Mason-Dixon Line and its kitchen on the south.

  • len

    ‘Hindsight’ I know is a wonderful thing but who could have thought that a’ chaplinesque’ figure who`s name now personifies evil would drag Germany and the rest of the world yet again into the terrible destruction which was world war two.

    Be careful what you wish for….

    • Inspector General

      Albert, room under that comfort blanket for one more? Len’s shaking with fear now…

      • len

        Fear no….concern yes.If you can look at the news and see what’s happening in Syria etc and not be concerned to see what happens when law and order totally breaks down then perhaps you can look on at the future with no concern?.

        • Inspector General

          You can bravely scuttle off now…

          • len

            Ever time I look at your posts Inspector it makes me glad not to be a member of the Church you claim to belong to….

          • Albert

            That’s a very discerning comment, Len. The Catholic Church is full of prostitutes and tax collectors – best to keep away.

          • len

            Sounds like they are having quite a party?.

          • Albert

            Quite – there’s more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents…

      • The Explorer

        Wasn’t Linus the one with the comfort blanket?

        • Inspector General

          We had to burn that one. It was very gay and there was an awful smell off it…

          • TropicalAnglican

            “…hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh” (Jude 1:23, NIV)

        • Albert

          I’m definitely not going under Linus comfort blanket.

          • len

            Space reserved for the inspector though.

          • Albert

            No – the Inspector has gallantly given up his space to you (see above). But I won’t let either of you under my comfort blanket, nor Linus either. I’ve got it all to myself.

      • Albert

        No offence to Len, but I’d rather not.

  • Inspector General

    An aside. A magnificent speech from Mrs May re Brexit on BBC Radio news. What a PM!

    • Anton

      Missed it. Reminiscent of St Margaret of Finchley of Blessed Memory?

      • Inspector General

        Effectively told the SNP to sod off, and said there was going to be no chance for parliament to ‘debate’ Brexit, so the good parliamentarians will have no chance of delaying the inevitable…and subverting democracy with it.

      • bluedog

        Filling the shoes.

  • Albert

    I was wondering how it is that America has got itself into such a state that the choice it between Trump and Hillary. Then I remembered that this is a country where “Randy” is a first name and suddenly it all made sense.

    • seansaighdeoir

      8 years of liberalism?

      • Albert

        I never liked Obama. He just seemed too slick (like Cameron). Perhaps I should be drawn to Trump. He ain’t slick.

        • seansaighdeoir

          Voting for Trump is similar to Brexit.

          Hillary represents the establishment and has the liberal media, corporations and the globalists behind her.

          However that can’t negate the reality of people who have lost jobs, who are living on food stamps and seeing their industries pack up and move abroad.

          Trump represents the only hope to changing that reality and of saving America, certainly in the short term.

          • Albert

            Thank you Sean, that makes sense as an argument. But what a state of affairs where people feel they have to vote Trump because the alternative is too terrible!

          • seansaighdeoir

            Thank you Albert and I agree the situation isn’t a good one.

            But I think its reflective of the times. For years the left pursued a PC agenda where to question immigration made you a racist.

            The result of that was that people turned around and voted Brexit in defiance of the ‘orthodoxy’.

            What the left conveniently wishes to ignore is that it is they who create these problems often as a result of their own policies.

    • len

      If Trump and Clinton are the very best that America has to offer as Presidential candidates then God help America…

      • Albert

        And the rest of us.

    • Anton

      To them, it’s simply short for Randall. But to us it’s another amusing example of transatlantic misunderstanding.

      • Albert

        That’s all very well, but there was once an Archbishop of Canterbury called Randall Davidson. Imagine if we English did the same thing? “We welcome Randy Archbishop of Canterbury.”

        • Anton

          Do ask Mrs Proudie!

          • Albert

            Funnily enough, I never thought of Bishop Proudie as being a Randy kind of man.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            The very idea!

          • Albert

            You should know.

    • bluedog

      Snob.

    • Linus

      Any race that names its boy children after English counties clearly has a screw loose.

      All those Kents and Devons and Wilshires (what happened to the t, did it sink on the Titanic?) wandering about in Boston and Beverly Hills are very confusing to the geographical sense.

      Let’s thank your imaginary god the English don’t return the favour and call their children Connecticut and Massachussets. Although I did once meet a Carolina on the King’s Road, but judging from her dulthet and lithping tones, any resemblance between her name and US geography was purely coincidental.

      It turned out she hailed from the beautiful thity of Thalamanca on the High Cathtilian plain (the one the rain falls mainly in), which she rethembled in many waythe, being both elevated and (virtually) naked. Well, it was a warm day and her micro bikini top and an almost total absence of skirt left little to the imagination. Even mine.

      But I digress…

      I note that one of Trump’s sons goes by the rather curious moniker of Barron. Two Rs. Even allowing for the superfluous consonant, surely such a name unconsciously betrays aspirations of upward mobility. I wonder however whether his choice of the lowest rank of the peerage might not foreshadow an upwards limit to his ascent. Had he been destined to be president, surely his son would have been called Duke. Or even King. Or Emperor…

      It’s in the unconscious little betrayals that a candidate’s destiny can be read. I make no predictions of the outcome of this presidential race. Politics is too volatile and unpredictable game at the moment. However I will note that a tradition of candidates with a close family link to a preceding president being well-placed to win in their turn has already been established in the US. The brother of Kennedy. The son of Bush. Why not the wife of Clinton?

      • Albert

        On the name Barron: surely such a name unconsciously betrays aspirations of upward mobility

        or should that be “upward nobility”?!

      • bluedog

        Carolina is not the only US state ending in ‘a’ that is used as a girl’s Christian name. One reads of minor celebrities called Dakota, whether North or South is not explained. Then there are the footballing classes who name their children after suburbs of New York.

        • IanCad

          Mencken wrote about odd names back in the 1920’s. More particularly, those in the black community. Mothers, as ever, struggled for a name that that was exactly right and often asked their doctor to suggest something appropriate. Doctors everywhere have a great sense of humour and many children ended up with names such as Labia, Excreta, Placenta, Clittora; several young fellows were given the moniker – Positive Wassermann.

  • Anton

    Trump is the American Farage. He is not a Christian but he understands the principles of American greatness. Faced with the choice of him or Hillary I’d vote for him without hesitation.

    • The Explorer

      Well summed up.

    • David

      Quite ! That’s close to my conclusion about him.

    • chefofsinners

      I would vote for neither without hesitation.

      • Shadrach Fire

        If you voted for neither, who are you going to let in?

        • chefofsinners

          Neither

  • bluedog

    Trump is a sensational exercise in self-parody. Given his immense wealth, or credit lines, one suspects that if he becomes POTUS, we will witness the Trumpification of America. Remember, this is a man who puts Branson to shame when it comes to self-promotion and branding. What we would see? The First Church of St Donald the Virtuous? Trump University? Children of Trump Hospital? The possibilities are limited only by his imagination. In terms of US foreign policy, would the Slovenian wife drag the US deep into Balkan politics? After The Donald’s cretinous threats to The Hillary, one suggests that a trip to Sarajevo may be ill-advised. One also suspects that a Trump administration would make the Kennedy family look like amateurs when it comes to nepotism.

    • Anton

      He never threatened Hillary except at the ballot box. He suggested that if she were so committed to depriving citizens of their firearms then she should start with her own bodyguards. That’s a great comment – it exposes hypocrisy.

  • chefofsinners

    Happy are the people who are English and Christian:
    Unlike most of the humanity, we can choose our leaders and soon we shall regain our full sovereignty.
    We are spared the agonising choice between the Democrat Devil and the deep blue Donald.
    We have the assurance that ultimately the Most High God rules in the kingdoms of men.

  • The man is a crook, a narcissist and a megalomaniac. He wouldn’t know Biblical Christianity if it bit him on the leg. Why anyone would think that voting for him would save Christianity in America is beyond me.
    They say that everything is bigger in America- the liars, the con-men, the charlatans. And the biggest of them all is running for President. Wonderful!
    However, it does make one thankful for Teresa May, who exudes calm, confidence and capability. Whether she actually has any of those attributes I don’t know, but no doubt we shall find out shortly.

    • seansaighdeoir

      And Hillary?

      Also is there evidence for calling Trump a crook? I’m not sure there is.

      Kind words regarding TM but the evidence from her time at the home office suggest otherwise.

      But I hope you’re right.

    • IanCad

      Martin,

      To bear False Witness is a breach of the Ninth Commandment. (8th if you’re Catholic or Lutheran)

      You state – “The man is a crook, a narcissist and a megalomaniac.” Then you further add – ” the liars, the con-men, the charlatans” and suggest that Mr. Trump is the worst of all those pursuing such wicked ways.
      Quite an indictment. The herd mentality is shining through.

  • Dreadnaught

    According to Fr Michael Orsi, if a certain party gets elected… it is the work of Satan.

    What an idiot. A supeme example that illustrates the idiocy of resorting to the outlandish claims Faith over Reason in politics, is not confined to Islam.

  • Maxine Schell

    Here is the reason: Judicial watch.org

    • Anton

      Bill Koenig, a fine man. He it is who spotted the extraordinary correlation between natural disasters in the USA and the State Department shafting Israel.

      • len

        Been happening for years to the UK as well.

        • Anton

          Interesting… examples please! Koenig’s examples for the USA are very close in time to the Israel-bashing policy announcements.

  • Maxine Schell
  • PessimisticPurple

    Everyone has the wrong idea why people might vote for Trump. It’s the same reason the English voted for Brexit. Sometimes, you just feel the need to tear everything down with a wrecking ball and start again.

    • Anton

      Not everything. That’s communism. Just tear down postwar socialism.

    • carl jacobs

      Good plan. Let’s tear out the hull of the ship and re-build it when the ship is in the middle of the ocean. What could go wrong?

  • It is sad for the American people that they have to choose between 2 candidates who have 1 thing in common – a complete lack of integrity.

  • John

    Countries tend to get the leaders they deserve. The lamentable choice before the US electorate is an indicator of how far they have fallen from grace as ‘one nation under God’. Either outcome of November’s election will have serious consequences both for them and for us.

    • IanCad

      “one nation under God”
      Where, in the law of the land, does it claim that?

      • John

        1954 Amendment to their Pledge of Allegiance.

        • IanCad

          That forms no part of the law of the USA.

  • grandpa1940

    Lets all hope that these so-called Catholic leaders who are apparently calling for votes for Trump are different from the ‘Leaders’ who gave us, and in particular Boston; this:-

    https://mikecunningham.wordpress.com/2016/10/03/an-addition-to-a-prior-post/

  • bockerglory

    Your Grace, thank you for your thoughts. We must remember that all prophets save Jesus, were sinful and some were womanisers (thinking of the concubines of King Solomon and King David). As some of your followers have noticed God can deliver his message via heathens or Sinners.

    I think your human based views are mixed with a bit of intellectual snobbery. Mr Trump’s colourful uninhibited self expression resonates with Americans as many have had similar unspoken thoughts. Of course as you know God knows our unspoken thoughts or feelings so I doubt God thinks any less or more of Trump than what God already knows about him. Therefore we should restrain our snobbery, remember Trump spent most of his life not anticipating being a politician so has not been duplicitous in covering his history.

    If he becomes President, and I think God may have a soft spot for Trump, then we should pray for God to guide Trump. I think God has a soft spot for Trump because he is very much human and Clinton has had over 18yrs in high office to have done what she now wants to achieve.

    So God Bless Trump. He can be no worse than the other leaders all are human Sinners.

  • Richard Hill

    From wikipedia…
    “Pope Francis raised eyebrows in 2013 and again in 2015 when he recommended Robert Hugh Benson’s Lord of the World.”
    Written in 1907.
    Read it.
    It is not totally irrelevant.