147 responses to “Is Donald Trump making America masculine again?”

1. 

   AnnaMS

   January 29, 2017 at 5:52 am

   I absolutely agree that America has lost much of a sense of masculinity. However, Donald Trump is hardly the definition of masculinity and we do everyone a disservice if we accept that as the norm. I would call America too feminist rather than feminine. But then I’m the weirdo who sees a difference between feminine and feminist, and masculine and misogynist. My husband found an interesting article about the effects of an anti-masculine America. I’ll see if I can find it.

   I think you’re strawmanning some complicated policy issues here. For someone who advocates so hard for a strong family structure and values, I’m surprised you’re shrugging off potential family separation. I’m not a fan of illegal immigration and I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know how we can best actually solve the issue, but it’s definitely more complicated than hurting someone’s feelings.

2. 

   SapphireYagami

   January 29, 2017 at 11:20 am

   most police officers are kkk members with a badge. many abuse the power of authority and the reason why the black community is suffering is more than just a broken family united. i suggest you watch the documentary on netflix called the 13th

3. 

   biblicalgenderroles

   January 29, 2017 at 12:46 pm

   Sapphire,

   All I can say is there is rock solid proof for what I said – rougly 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock and raised by singly mothers. That is a well known fact that is attested to all over the web. It is easily provable. What you have have said about most police officers being KKK members with a badge(or even racist) is not provable. It is simply how you may feel but there are not facts to prove that. Are there racist cops? Yes. But they are tiny minority – not the majority.

4. 

   biblicalgenderroles

   January 29, 2017 at 12:51 pm

   AnnaMS,

   I stand by contention that America has become too feminine rather than just feminist(as we both would agree that it has). To be feminine is to approach the world, and national polices from an emotional perspective. The emotional perspective says “even if I don’t have the money or resources we will just do this thing because it feels good.” It sort of reminds me of when a woman convinces her husband to go on an expensive vacation when they can’t. He is thinking logically – “we don’t have the funds to do this” and she is thinking “but it would feel so good go do this together”. That has basically been our policy.

   While it is sad that getting tough on immigration may break up some families, we cannot make national policy based on if something is sad or not. It is what is best for our nation that matters, not what is best for immigrants who want to come into our nation.

5. 

   SapphireYagami

   January 29, 2017 at 12:57 pm

   you saying that is the reason of crime and poverty on black communities yet not looking and the cause of that. crack was introduced to our communities, laws are made not by politicians but companies especially those who run private own prisoners that need to reach a certain quota to get funding.

   there are many factors in place that keep not only my people back but others as well. Its not like my people are not smart, there have been times in history where we had our own business and the like, search black wall street. The hair industry makes billions yet my people don’t have a monopoly on anything. many of our black own hair products are now own by whites. so we do come together and try to prosper but there are just some people in the world that doesn’t want to see is rise.

   that tiny minority are the ones on the news abusing their power of authority causing fear in communities. They need to have their badges removed but does that happen, no it doesn’t..so as long as our law enforcement allows those kind of people on the force,the people will never respect the police and its not just blacks but whites as well.

6. 

   Alex

   January 29, 2017 at 1:34 pm

   Anti-tariff policies aren’t a result of people not wanting to hurt other countries’ feelings. They’re a result of big businesses who know that they’ll make significantly higher profits if they buy and then resell foreign-made goods that are far cheaper than American-made goods. They’re also a result of people who understand that more people can afford to buy those cheaper foreign goods resold for higher but still cheaper prices in American stores. Now, obviously, this policy has not ultimately been good for our economy or for Americans who could afford more with good manufacturing jobs. But we’re not refraining from implementing high tariffs because we’re afraid of hurting other countries’ feelings. Our government has refrained from doing so because high tariffs can also have a negative impact on the economy.

7. 

   biblicalgenderroles

   January 29, 2017 at 2:00 pm

   Sapphire,

   Your Statement:

   “you saying that is the reason of crime and poverty on black communities yet not looking and the cause of that. crack was introduced to our communities, laws are made not by politicians but companies especially those who run private own prisoners that need to reach a certain quota to get funding.”

   You may feel there is some conspiracy against black people in this nation but there is solid evidence to support that. Crack and other drugs have been readily available to white communities as well. The white community as a whole has simply made a different decision about that. While there are white babies born out of wedlock as well – by percentage it is far smaller(but still way too high to me). So the white community as a whole has made different decisions about marriage as well – although marriage is under assault in the white community as well it is just not to extreme that it has been in the black community.

   There absolutely no evidence of there being quotas to fill prisons. If anything we have a massive prison over population problem in this country and we see prisoners released all the time because of it. We don’t need less prisons – we need more prisons in this country. And we need to stop doing this “catch and release stuff” whether it be with criminal illegals or criminal citizens.

   Two major areas that need much more funding in this country are prisons and mental hospitals. This is a major role of government that has been over looked in the past decades with funding cuts. We should not be cutting funds for the military, police, prisons or mental hospitals. Instead we should be cutting from food stamp and other freebie progams to pay for these other areas we have cut.

   Your Statement:

   “there are many factors in place that keep not only my people back but others as well. Its not like my people are not smart, there have been times in history where we had our own business and the like, search black wall street.”

   I agree that there have been and still are today many industrious and intelligent black people. I love Herman Cain and would have voted for him as President. Look at Ben Carson – one of the most intelligent and articulate men you would ever meet. There are many genius level black men that work in all STEM fields. There are many great black entrepreneurs in this country. There are several fine black men that serve our country in the military. I am not questioning the capability of black people in this country. I am saying that black people because of a break down in the family and a lot of bad decisions are not living up to their own potential.

   But I rather than seeing a conspiracy against blacks – I see that our nation has actually gone too far in trying to help them from a financial perspective. Welfare programs in past incentivized single parent homes. But still it was the choice of these black people not to marry.

8. 

   Jonadab-the-Rechabite

   January 29, 2017 at 2:04 pm

   It is way to early to judge Trump or his effect on society. It is also too simplistic to define the spectrum of personality solely along a masculine-feminine dimension. Trump may turn out to be masculine and worldly – those characteristics identify most of the tyrants and brutes in history. Being powerful, evil and masculine is not a virtuous life. Trump may however turn out to be masculine and pursue truth, beauty and goodness and that is a virtuous life for those classical pursuits lead to God who is truth, righteousness and beauty. If Genghis Khan is to be considered masculine then maybe Trump will be a masculine marauder too, should we awe in his masculinity the. We may want to be more careful in what we label masculine and not associate it with tyranny and cruelty. This failure to distinguish gives the feminists the justification to falsely call patriarchy oppression. I would argue that Biblical masculinity rules with authority for the benefit of those ruled, not to control them for the rulers pride and pleasure as if those ruled served no higher purpose.

   What is clear from this administration already is that the cult of nice and inoffensiveness does not regulate President Trump, that is a good thing. There is cause to hope that his pragmatic “get er done at all costs” methods may bring much needed reform in the governance of the country. The corrupt are squealing, their hypocrisy is audacious and clearly evident, the liberal media stronghold looks threatened and some of the faux-opposition has been disenfranchised and it is still Trump’s first month in office. Let’s hope that what we have seen thus far is real and not just the opening round of negotiations that end in compromise of principle.

   It is too early to know if he is a great leader or a reckless nationalist or a deal maker that talks big at first only to back down latter and settle for a slice of bread and lose most of the loaf. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. I feel a little schadenfreude at the plight of the liberal hordes and delight in watching their fall from power. But that does not mean that Trump will set things right, liberalism is but one of many forms of error and evil. Will Trump make masculinity fashionable again? Too early to say, but at least so far he is not a worshiping women from the ovulating office.

9. 

   SapphireYagami

   January 29, 2017 at 2:09 pm

   i really suggest you watch the film 13th, because it will affect all americans regardless of our race.

   the prison system is a modern day plantation. the point of prison is that is suppose to straight people out so they dont make the same mistakes but once you get out, its impossible yo get hired and thus forces the person to do what they did before and its back to jail,which is free labor.

   our police force is looking more and more like the military is is unnecessary and more training needs to be done to de escalate a situation instead of automatically going for your gun like in some case where the person is not armed at all yet they are shot.

   many things in this country need fixing and if we dont see the problem the 1% that controls majority of this nations wealth and thus has more influence we will find ourselves in a place we will surely regret.

10. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    January 29, 2017 at 2:12 pm

    Alex,

    I realize our policies have been about more than hurting feelings of other nations. But I do think that a part of our decision processes whether it be economic policy, immigration policy or foreign policy has been about appeasing people’s feelings.

    I agree with you that American companies love being able to build factories over seas and have their goods manufactured there for a fraction of the cost and then ship them back into the US for sale. Americans also liked getting cheaper goods as a result. But the problem is this policy gutted the US manufacturing base. It pushed millions of Americans who could have worked in manufacturing making a decent wage that could support a family into low wage service jobs at Walmart and Mcdonalds.

    We have had politicians on both sides of the aisle watching the decimation of our manufacturing base and just seeing it as a natural result of global markets. They say “people just need to get educated”. That is garbage! Not everyone can get a college degree and neither should they. Not everyone is intelligent enough to do high tech jobs. We have one of the highest teen and college age unemployment levels we have ever had in this nation because young people can’t get entry level jobs at Walmart and Mcdonalds because 30 year olds who should be in factories are stuck in service jobs.

    I am so glad we finally have a President who will stand up to economic globalism and will embrace the historic American position of protectionism. I have never been so excited about a President in my life. This man will make as big an impact as FDR and Lincoln. It is going to be massive. He has re-written the political play book and brought populism and protectionism back. He is assaulting the religion of global free trade. Amen, Amen and Amen.

11. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    January 29, 2017 at 3:58 pm

    AnnaMS,
    
    Your statement:

    “However, Donald Trump is hardly the definition of masculinity and we do everyone a disservice if we accept that as the norm.”

    I forgot to address this comment in my earlier response to you.

    I want to be clear that I do NOT believe that Donald Trump’s behavior in the past or even some recent things he has done are the “definition” of what it means to be a man. For instance I do not think Donald Trump’s “thin skin” attitude is Biblical masculine trait we look for in men. I don’t think he needs to respond to every little comment made toward him.

    However I think the most masculine trait of Donald Trump that is Biblical is his boldness and firmness. The Bible tells us this a core attribute of masculinity:

    “Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.”

    1 Corinthians 16:13 (KJV)

    It is the boldness and firmness of Donald Trump that I find to be a most admirable trait while agreeing that he has flaws in other areas that do not represent Biblical masculinity. But a second attribute is make tough decisions that yes may make many people upset but that he knows are right for the country.

    As husbands and fathers – sometimes we must make decisions for our family that both our wife and our children do not like. We may know it upsets them and they do not agree but we believe it is God’s will for our family – its tough – but it is right. This is what I see in Donald Trump and this is what I admire in him.

12. 

    AnnaMS

    January 29, 2017 at 4:57 pm

    For someone who is accused of sexism as much as you are, you might be better off not seeing someone ‘feminine’ as the dumb wife who has her head in a financial bubble and tries to pressure her husband to bankrupt their family based on satisfying her immediate desires. Especially when you’re going to argue that women should be feminine. A lot of the manosphere see women that way and it’s a very catchy mindset for people who have an unlikable female in their life, but it could not be more wrong.

    If you look back over my first response, you’ll note that I never said anything about not doing what was best for America. What I said (and what Alex elaborated on a further example) was that you’re strawmanning seriously complicated issues into “waaah waah, my feeeeeeeeeeelingggggggs are hurt”. This is incredibly intellectually dishonest.

    There is a difference between a bully and a masculine person. Trump is ‘bold’, ‘firm’, and ‘tough’ in the same ways a school bully who dominates the schoolyard are, not the way respected men are.

    Jonadab made a statement in his comment that I 100% agree with and I think is worth mentioning again. These are his words. “We may want to be more careful in what we label masculine and not associate it with tyranny and cruelty. This failure to distinguish gives the feminists the justification to falsely call patriarchy oppression.”

13. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    January 29, 2017 at 5:42 pm

    AnnaMS,

    Your Statement:

    “For someone who is accused of sexism as much as you are, you might be better off not seeing someone ‘feminine’ as the dumb wife who has her head in a financial bubble and tries to pressure her husband to bankrupt their family based on satisfying her immediate desires. Especially when you’re going to argue that women should be feminine. A lot of the manosphere see women that way and it’s a very catchy mindset for people who have an unlikable female in their life, but it could not be more wrong.”

    I actually don’t mind being called a sexist or being accused of promoting sexism on this site if by that people are going by this definition of sexism:

    1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

    2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism

    I absolutely believe that from Biblical perspective women should not have equal rights with men either in the family, the church or society at large. I whole heartedly embrace the idea of certain types of discrimination against women(such as women should not be allowed to be fire fighters or allowed in the military). I made it clear here on multiple occasions that I do not believe women should be able to vote.

    Now do I think a woman accused of murder, or other crimes should have equal justice before the law? Absolutely. But since I don’t believe in equal rights for women and I do believe some types of discrimination against women are not only allowable but are prudent and wise I would rightly be labeled a sexist. A some point I will get my post out “Why I am a sexist and proud of it”.

    Now I am a misogynist(as in a hater of women)? Absolutely not. Yet our culture equates sexism with misogyny which is highly unfortunate. I will be making a clear distinction between sexism and misogyny in that post.

    As to your comment about me promoting women feminine. I promote godly femininity on this site, not fleshly femininity. There is a difference. When it comes our human natures we have either a masculine or feminine human nature “male and female created he them”(Genesis 1:27). But because of sin both the masculine nature and feminine natures that God made in the Garden of Eden have been corrupted. For each person they may be corrupted in different ways. Our task in this world and time is try and recognize what parts of our masculine or feminine natures are God given and what parts a corruption of the flesh.

    The Bible presents what God meant the feminine nature to be. He meant it to be gentle, nurturing and submissive. Part of what makes a woman nurturing is her emotional nature. It helps her to feel others pain and to empathize with them. When it is exercised correctly a woman’s nurturing spirit is one of the most beautiful things to behold. But then the flesh comes in and warps a woman’s emotional nature and uses it for sin. It can sometimes cause her to throw reason and logic out the window.

    This is where man comes in. He helps to keep his wife’s emotions in check and to do things that he knows to be right even in it may hurt his wife’s feelings.

    Now in the same way God given femininity has been corrupted by sin – so too man’s masculine nature has been corrupted by sin. Jonadab’s comment shows where this corruption can sometimes occur where men can become tyrannical and cruel.

    Your Statement:

    “There is a difference between a bully and a masculine person. Trump is ‘bold’, ‘firm’, and ‘tough’ in the same ways a school bully who dominates the schoolyard are, not the way respected men are.”

    Donald Trump has a commanding presense – but I disagree in you associating him with a school yard bully. What does school yard bully do? He uses his strength and power for evil and for his own selfish gain. He does not use his strength and power to help others. When Donald Trump goes to another nation and says “We have the most powerful economy in the world – so you are going to stop treating us as if we have the same size economy as smaller nations” he is not bullying them – he is stating a fact. America has not used its economic strength as a bargaining chip and we should.

    When he goes to nations that support terrorism and says “we will bomb your cities into dust if you don’t weed out the terrorists in them” he is right in doing so. That is not being a bully – that is being a powerful defender of what is right.

    When he goes to the leaders of American companies and says “I will put penalties on your companies and call you out on national TV if you continue to the practice of building products overseas only to turn around and ship them back here – thus destroying our manufacturing base” he is not being a bully – he is being a strong leader.

    Can you give me some examples in his Presidential policies that you think are those of a bully?

14. 

    Afd

    January 29, 2017 at 5:58 pm

    Agreed. It has gotten to the point where having standards and following the law gets you accused of bigotry. Or my favorite: “Pharisee” if you are conservative and a Christian. I am actually struggling with this quite a bit. My family and I attend a city church in a conservative denomination, but is attended by many people who are more on the liberal side of the spectrum, including the pastor. I hear more condemnations from liberal Christians than I do from non-religious people sometimes. All of a sudden, your Christianity gets questioned if you’re conservative. All of a sudden, I am not living as Jesus lived based on my conservative political views. What do you do? It is really hitting below the belt because I am definitely all for taking care of the poor and needy as Jesus did, I just don’t believe that expanding the government is the solution. I am all for helping refugees who are already here or for sending aid overseas, though I have misgivings about bringing so many into the country. It doesn’t lessen my salvation, or my faith. It doesn’t hinder my ability to be compassionate. And it is hard to go to church or get on Facebook and see these misconceptions and generalizations spread. They definitely come from reacting on feelings and not logic, in addition to making someone feel ashamed by appealing to their emotions. I would love some guidance…

15. 

    AnnaMS

    January 29, 2017 at 6:15 pm

    Of course I see how God encourages Biblical femininity. It is unfortunate that the one example you used previously was of a woman ignoring her budget and trying to manipulate her husband into doing a vacation they obviously could not afford. That’s hardly how God views being feminine. That’s pretty much exactly how the manosphere views anything vagina-related.

    For anyone who viewed the Republican debates from any position other than Trump’s lapdog, it was extremely obvious that he regularly bullied the other candidates (he also has a well-documented history of bullying those in less powerful positions than he is…google is your friend here). Respectable men (Christian or otherwise) do not need to put others down in order to get ahead.

    Wiping out entire cities of innocents because those in charge didn’t weed out terrorists? That entire train of thought reeks of “well I”m safe and warm in America, who cares about those people”.

    How is someone a strong leader who obsesses about sizes of inaugurations (who gives the tiniest crap? but yeah, Obama’s was a good deal bigger so he’s better off not harping on that topic). Or who lies his way through policy “explanation” by making statements like “mexico is gonna pay for the wall”. Or who throws a fit on Twitter whenever anyone does or says something that hurts his feelings. Or who uses his position of power to prey on the less powerful (does anyone remember the ‘grab them by the pu**y’ tape?). This is aside from the fact he has a hard time forming a coherent sentence with the media (actually read the transcript of some of his interviews…they would be hilarious if it wasn’t real life).

    I’m not saying that everything Trump touches will break, but I think it’s extremely obvious he’s among the worst example of genuine masculinity and leadership. If America becomes more masculine (not “masculine”) under his presidency, it won’t be because people are modeling their behavior after him. Roosh V wrote an article on Return of Kings (a site I do not advocate) describing men under a Trump presidency. He was all like “yay, now we can call women fat without getting in trouble”. Yeah, real men there…….

16. 

    Alex

    January 29, 2017 at 9:54 pm

    @BGR,

    “The Bible presents what God meant the feminine nature to be. He meant it to be gentle, nurturing and submissive. Part of what makes a woman nurturing is her emotional nature. It helps her to feel others pain and to empathize with them. When it is exercised correctly a woman’s nurturing spirit is one of the most beautiful things to behold. But then the flesh comes in and warps a woman’s emotional nature and uses it for sin. It can sometimes cause her to throw reason and logic out the window.

    This is where man comes in. He helps to keep his wife’s emotions in check and to do things that he knows to be right even in it may hurt his wife’s feelings.”

    We may or may not disagree here, but I think that it’s important to note that it is still primarily the wife’s responsibility to rule her emotions. This doesn’t mean that the husband can’t step in and keep her from making a bad decision–he can and indeed should! But it does mean that the woman (just like every other person, really) is the person primarily responsible for her own emotional control and behavior. This is because, at the end of the day, only she and God can really regulate that. It’s not wrong for a wife to ask her husband or others for emotional support or help solving problems when she needs it, but she can’t depend on others (except God) to make herself stable. That stability really has to come from within. Even psychiatrists, psychologists, and therapists will readily admit that they can’t make a patient emotionally stable if the patient won’t utilize their help and coping mechanisms. Psychiatrists can give patients medications to help stabilize their mood and give them the boost that they need to do the things that they need to do to regulate themselves. Psychologists and therapists can give their patients insights and coping mechanisms that can help them regulate themselves. But the patient has to be ready to change and get better.

    Now, here’s where this applies particularly to women. Obviously, men need to regulate themselves too, and everything that I said above could and does apply to men seeking help for mental illness. But women need to realize that having a more emotional nature does not mean that they are automatically going to become slaves to their emotions–because it does not! I believe that it’s very dangerous for women to fall into this line of thinking because it can cause them to rely on other people for emotional stability. That just doesn’t work. I’ve been in the position of trying to be another person’s primary or secondary emotional support system, and I’ve realized every time that what they ultimately needed was to find their own coping mechanisms and potentially seek psychological help. I’ve also been in the position of having anxiety get out of control. I went through a couple years where I would break down into crying fits throughout the day in private because I was agonizing over a small problem. I would solve one angle of the problem in my mind, and then an hour later, I’d come up with another problem. It was an endless negative feedback loop. I couldn’t figure out how to break out of it, partly because I always ended up coming to the conclusion that I was justified in being upset and that not being upset would be tantamount to ignoring a problem. Nobody else could help either–not my husband, not my parents, not my friends. Any calming words would go in one and out the other or would just get overwhelmed by the twisted logic in my head. So my husband I worked out the finances, and I got myself the help that I needed to break out of this cycle and ultimately control it in my own heart and by opening up to God completely. And I honestly feel much better, and all of my relationships function much better. Emotions are now friends, not enemies, and I’ve been better able to override them on my own with logic and to be more accepting of other people’s logic. I actually haven’t even really cried in over a year (unless you count getting teary over some sad movies and books). It hasn’t made me less nurturing or submissive (I think that the changes have actually made me better at those things because I can get out of my own head), and it hasn’t cut me off completely from my feelings. It’s just taught me to have a healthier relationship with them.

17. 

    AnnaMS

    January 29, 2017 at 10:03 pm

    Ugh, I’ve been there too, Alex, and you’re so right. I didn’t understand BGR to be saying a husband is responsible for his wife’s emotional stability (pretty sure he’s said the opposite in other posts).

    On a minor tangent, I’m not comfortable making feminine and emotional synonyms. There’s a lot to being feminine that isn’t what comes to mind when someone says “emotional woman”. Out of curiosity, I googled the word, and none of the top 5 definitions (the only ones I looked at) even mentioned the word emotional. A key part of being feminine, to me at least, is being gentle and calming which involves being able to keep emotions in check and intentionally using them only to help a situation. I’m not trying to separate the two entirely, but I don’t think they’re interchangeable.

    I also think Trump is one of the most emotional presidents we’ve had in awhile. He has a very volatile personality which isn’t inherently a bad thing (if well controlled), but one look at Twitter and his emotions jump out at me.

18. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    January 29, 2017 at 10:07 pm

    AnnaMS,

    Your Statement:

    “Of course I see how God encourages Biblical femininity. It is unfortunate that the one example you used previously was of a woman ignoring her budget and trying to manipulate her husband into doing a vacation they obviously could not afford. That’s hardly how God views being feminine. That’s pretty much exactly how the manosphere views anything vagina-related.”

    I think you took my example wrong:

    “It sort of reminds me of when a woman convinces her husband to go on an expensive vacation when they can’t. He is thinking logically – “we don’t have the funds to do this” and she is thinking “but it would feel so good go do this together”. “

    I did not say the wife manipulated her husband. Yes some women do that by crying or using sex. But that is not what I was trying to communicate here. What I was saying is it is very common for women to think with their heart and not their head. Men can sometimes think with their penis instead of their head as well. So I am not saying either sex is perfect. But men tend to be logical in their approach to financial and leadership issues.

    So what my example was saying is – the wife just gets an emotional feeling of wanting to take a random weekend getaway and the husband knows they are broke and can’t. She thinks – “Oh we will make it – we always do” and he knows they won’t. Its not a matter of her manipulating him – it is just a matter of not thinking logically, but emotionally. Sometimes women can do this with their children and discipline issues where a father knows something has to has to happen but she can’t stand to see her child suffer the consequences. That is why God calls men to lead because in most cases(not all) men can make those tough decisions easier.

    Your Statement:

    “Wiping out entire cities of innocents because those in charge didn’t weed out terrorists? That entire train of thought reeks of “well I”m safe and warm in America, who cares about those people”.”

    With all due respect AnnaMS – your statement here is exactly why women should not be involved in decisions regarding war. Do you realize that during World War II cities were routinely bombed by the Allies? They knew they would hit civilians in surrounding areas when they took out factories and other installations.

    We dropped the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki knowing it would kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. But we knew that it would end the war. It have take thousands of more American troops lives to take main land Japan.

    Even in Israel often times they are fighting with two hands tied behind their back. The terrorist hide within urban areas. So when they bomb an area they know civilians will die. That is part of war and it is necessary to defeat the enemy.

    Men can turn off the emotion and do what needs to be done for the greater good – whether it is of a company, a state, or a country. Women because of their nurturing and emphatic design have difficulty doing this. That is why women belong in the home and men belong on the war rooms, the battlefield and the oval office.

    I already conceded that I think Trump’s think skinnedness is one of his many character flaws. But I would rather have a President with his character flaws that breaks through the bureaucracy and accomplishes real change then these polished politicians who never say anything offensive yet never get anything done.

19. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    January 29, 2017 at 10:21 pm

    Alex,

    Your Statement:

    “We may or may not disagree here, but I think that it’s important to note that it is still primarily the wife’s responsibility to rule her emotions. This doesn’t mean that the husband can’t step in and keep her from making a bad decision–he can and indeed should! But it does mean that the woman (just like every other person, really) is the person primarily responsible for her own emotional control and behavior.”

    Alex we agree that a woman is primarily responsible to rule her own emotions. Each person whether a man or woman is responsible for self-discipline. What I was partly alluding to was exactly what you said that sometimes a husband has to step in and stop his wife from acting in a bad way based on her emotions taking over and her not thinking something through.

    But there was another angle I was thinking of. I once heard a Pastor many years ago say “Either you will rule over your wife’s emotions or your wife’s emotions will rule over you”. What he was saying to men was either they would make right and wise decisions for their family in spite of their wife various emotional ups and downs or make their decisions based on their wife’s emotions. A home that is ruled by however the wife feels(Happy wife, Happy life) will not be serving God. That was my point.

20. 

    Alex

    January 29, 2017 at 10:33 pm

    @BGR,

    I thought that we did pretty much agree. (And I see that we do.) I think that is important to reiterate to women, though, that they are capable of self-discipline and self-regulation. Placing too much of a connection between femininity and emotionality is a good way to discourage women from taking personal responsibility or to believe that they can’t do better.

21. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    January 29, 2017 at 10:41 pm

    AnnaMS,

    I hear what you are saying about “emotional woman”. There is a wide range of what that means with women. When I say it I am talking about women approaching the world from a feelings perspective. It is a scientific fact that women often record more details about events in their memories then men because they record not just what happened – but how people felt about what happened. It does not mean that women can’t act contrary to their feels because they can. But women can’t even see a decision without taking into account the feelings of the people involved(including their own feelings).

    The book – “Men are like waffles and Women are like spaghetti” explains this well. For women everything in their life is connected and it is all connected to various feelings. Men are capable of compartmentalizing their feelings.

    So when I think of a woman being emotional I think of her being an empathizer(a person who is programmed to feel the feelings of others). Her being an empathizer is what makes her a great mother(and perhaps a nurse :)) but it is also what would make her a terrible General or solider on the battlefield. On the battlefield a solider must not think of the opposing soliders feelings or the fact that he is a son, husband or father. He must see that man as object – as an obstacle in his path to victory.

    This is why I maintain the fact that men being objectifiers – being able to see people for their function apart from their person is by the design of God. Women have a very difficult time seeing people for their function and separating them from their person because they are built to empathize.

    So I see femininity as more than just being gentle but also being an empathizer. I have in my life met some women that seemed extremely manly and I realized the reason why was because they were not nurturing and empathetic. This is what we expect from a woman.

22. 

    AnnaMS

    January 30, 2017 at 10:31 am

    There are absolutely times where bombing of cities is appropriate and some civilian deaths are inevitable in war. But if you think there is general male consensus on how we handled the atomic bombs or even wars today then you are dead wrong. I can find support for the atomic bombs because they were an actual way to end the war (unlike bombing a random middle Eastern city where there may or may not even be terrorists). There has been a LOT of philosophical and ethical debate about how we should have handled various war situations. I definitely agree I’m not cut out for battlefield but removing me and all women from those situations is not going to leave one logical male reasoning.

    We will see how much Trump accomishes. He is one of the most hated Presidents to take office, has already had a court block an executive order, and has had the senior leadership at the State Department resign in one sweep (although he probably has Tillerson to share the blame with on that one). Still waiting for Mexico to pay for the wall…….

23. 

    AnnaMS

    January 30, 2017 at 10:54 am

    Yes, a woman being feminine involves more than being gentle. I was merely listing one way there. We appear to agree that feminine and emotional aren’t the same thing.

    We have traveled fairly far from the original topic of whether America makes policy decisions based on”hurt feelings” and whether Trump will make America more masculine. I still argue that decisions are way more involved than that (although Trump’s may or may not be), and that Trump’s version of masculinity is far from what Godly masculinity is actually like.

    It’s easy in a sense to not be bothered by Trump’s sexism and racism when one is a white male. Or to not care about his treatment of the poor when one is not poor. Or his treatment of immigration when one is not an immigrant or trying to get someone else in the country. Or that civilian deaths are no big deal when it isn’t you or your family that’s dying (I’m guessing you would see countries we are at war with bombing your city as a bad thing and your families deaths as more than a shruggable offense). Trump is great at convincing middle class white people that “the others” are to blame for America’s problems. If you’re not happy, it’s the blacks, or the Muslims, or the immigrants fault (not counting the ones he hires for cheap labor of course because it’s merely good business when he does it). So yeah, middle class whites showed up for him in mass numbers. But what are they going to do if America becomes totally white and Christian and we still have problems?

    I am hopeful that this will still be a good presidency and was glad to avoid Clinton. But when he started off by whining about inauguration numbers, loading his cabinet full of massively incompetent people, signing orders that made it harder for actual citizens or those who already had visas to get back in the country, and the state department resignations, I figured we were in for a rough ride.

    Christians are excited because they think Trump will enforce their morality (never mind he doesn’t actually believe it himself). This is trying to attack symptoms rather than the root issue.

24. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    January 31, 2017 at 1:30 am

    AnnaMS,

    Your Statement:

    “I can find support for the atomic bombs because they were an actual way to end the war (unlike bombing a random middle Eastern city where there may or may not even be terrorists).”

    At what point did I say we should bomb random cities? But should we bomb cities like the ISIS strongholds in Raqqa and Palmyra? You better believe it. There are rumors going around this week that Donald Trump will be requesting his generals to come up with a plan that involves a much more aggresive campaign against these ISIS strongholds including deploying American artillery to bombard these cities as well as less targeted bombing and more aggressive bombing. That is how you defeat the enemy.

    ISIS like the cowardly Palestinians purposefully hides behind citizens in theses cities forcing house to house combat and making the taking of cities a blood bath for the those wish to come against them. Bombing these cities is not some random act – it is a strategic act. We know if we begin artillery bombardments and massive bombing campaigns of these cities many civilians will die. But this is the cost of destroying the enemy.

25. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    January 31, 2017 at 2:49 am

    AnnaMS,

    Your Statement:

    “It’s easy in a sense to not be bothered by Trump’s sexism and racism when one is a white male.”

    I realize you can’t forgive Donald Trump for his locker room talk or his womanizing past. But I look at history and see many great leaders who were in fact womanizers. JFK was a prime example. He had a huge impact on this nation(tax policy and civil rights policies) before his untimely death and he had a parade of women. Yet we don’t dismiss him as some horrible man – we see him as a flawed man who did great things for this nation.

    There are countless other leaders throughout history that were womanizers and yet we do not dismiss all their other accomplishments because of their flaws.

    And racism? Please tell me where he has shown racism toward blacks? He went out of his way to appeal to them in this election that he would help the inner cities to be rebuilt and jobs to come back.

    Your Statement:

    “Or to not care about his treatment of the poor when one is not poor.”

    How has he treated the poor badly?

    Your Statement:

    Or that civilian deaths are no big deal when it isn’t you or your family that’s dying (I’m guessing you would see countries we are at war with bombing your city as a bad thing and your families deaths as more than a shruggable offense).

    Civilian deaths are always a tragedy. But they are a reality of war. Again you are empathizing with the civilians who occupy the cities that are strongholds for our enemies. And that is ok – you are woman and designed to empathize and feel the feelings of others. In fact I watched an interview with some Hollywood actors and they were saying why most actors are liberal. It is because of the fact that liberalism is based in in emotion – specifically empathy. An actor must feel the feelings of the characters he or she portrays – many actors cannot turn off their empathy. Most women cannot turn off their empathy.

    This is why yes as you correctly point out some men have different opinions on war – President Obama was such a man. He allowed his empathy to cloud his judgment and most liberals do. He would only do pin point strikes and nothing major if he saw there would be any large civilian collateral damage.

    Your Statement:

    “Trump is great at convincing middle class white people that “the others” are to blame for America’s problems. If you’re not happy, it’s the blacks, or the Muslims, or the immigrants fault (not counting the ones he hires for cheap labor of course because it’s merely good business when he does it).”

    What a reckless charge! When did he say if we are not happy it is the blacks fault? Holy cow. Does the black community have big problems that are in large part due to the break down the family unit? Yes. Are gangs a problem in Chicago? Yep. Are police now afraid to confront blacks and being massively disrespected? Police moral is massively down nation wide. Is calling for the respect to be restored to police and for police to be able to aggressively crack down on crime racist – no way.

    And Muslims? 99 percent of terrorism in the world is coming from the Muslim world community. Whether it is foreign born Muslims or American born Muslims being radicalized by their parents or foreigners it is a big, big problem. Are we supposed to stand by and watch bombs go off and not get stricter on Muslim immigration because it hurts people’s feelings? Come on.
    And yes even immigrants from our southern border are causing problems here. They are flooding our social welfare system and taking use our resources. We have a right as a nation to protect our borders as well as our culture.

    I think one of the biggest reasons for the uproar in against illegal immigration is because we don’t force immigrants to assimilate to our culture anymore as we once did. People who came from other countries routinely changed their last names to more American style names out of respect for our country. They learned the language and embraced our customs and integrated themselves into our culture. They did not expect us to change our culture for them – but they instead molded themselves to American culture. Immigrants of the past did not march through the streets holding the flag of the native countries and refused to integrate and assimilate.

    Your Statement:

    So yeah, middle class whites showed up for him in mass numbers. But what are they going to do if America becomes totally white and Christian and we still have problems?

    You might be ashamed of being white but I am not. I am proud of my white, Christian heritage. My family as been in North America for almost 200 years and we trace our ancestry to England, Scotland and Germany. I am proud of the fact that that vast majority of the people who built this nation were white Christians.

    Did my white Christian ancestors do some very wrong things that I am not proud of? Yes. I am not proud of the un-biblical manner in which Americans acquired and kept black slaves. I am not proud of the some of the treatment by my white Christian ancestors of American Indians. But like I recognize Trump will probably do many great things – despite his flaws or things I disagree with so too our Christian ancestors were flawed but yet built the greatest civilization in modern history.

    In tracing my ancestry I have often had to look to various censuses. If you look at the 1790 census you will see the demographic that built the system of government, type of economy and freedoms we now enjoy:

    English 47%
    Scotch-Irish 8%
    Irish 5%
    Scottish 4%
    Welsh 3%
    Dutch 2.5%
    French 2%
    German 7%

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Americans#1790_Census

    So who was it that gave us the foundation for the government, private property rights, capitalism, freedom of religion and other freedoms we now enjoy? It was a bunch of White anglo-celtic christian men! In fact to be even more specific the majority of them were Anglo-Celtic(People from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales).

    It is not about race – it is about culture. Even within Europe there are different cultural subsets. In a way despite some of the very wrong things England did in its history it has had as great an impact on the world as the Roman empire did. Today Great Britain and its child the United States are responsible for putting out the most patents in the world. We both have been a source of freedom and ingenuity in the world.

    White Anglo-Saxon culture helped to build this government and freedoms we now enjoy. I don’t want to chase non-whites out – despite what you and others might try and say against me. I don’t want to see blacks, hispanics, arabs or Muslims treated unfairly in the legal system if they are citizens. We as citizens should all share the same rights. However I do believe we have a right as nation to control what nations our immigrants come from whether it be on a temporary basis or to keep a certain cultural balance. There is no sin in this – it is no different than Israel trying to keep its nation distinctively Jewish – they have the right to do that.

    But I am not a racist for being proud of my ethnic heritage or thinking it had a huge part in building the culture we have. I won’t apologize for being concerned that white anglo-celtic Christians may become a minority in this nation within the next 40 years.

26. 

    SapphireYagami

    January 31, 2017 at 4:05 am

    so if the middle east wants american troop outta their country all they have to is bomb us and we’ll leave?

27. 

    anonymous

    January 31, 2017 at 9:57 am

    Sapphire – I think the truth is that there are some things that are racism, and there are also some things that are not, but are just difficult. One problem is that when everything begins to be called racism, credibility is lost, and then sadly, people tune out to even the real racism that they would have listened to before. There is a difference between racism, things that didn’t work out, and also the result of poor choices.

    I personally think the black community has been hurt by feminism possibly even worse than other communities.

    I see sites that talk about men going their own way, basically living a life without woman. I get it, I understand it, in this environment where often men cannot win, but it is the wrong way to proceed.

    Others have gone a different route, instead of going their own way, they are going to play the game of getting sex when and where they can, moving on from woman to woman wherever opportunity exists. This too obviously is also the wrong way to proceed, and worse, results in children with no families to be raised in. I think there is where feminism has hurt black families the most.

    The only answer is to go back to doing things the way God says they should be done. Get married. Husbands need to love their wives and have ownership and responsibility for their families. Wives will have to obey their husbands even when they don’t want to because there is no state daddy to run to at any moment. This is the environment where fathers lead children to have straight paths before God.

    About Trump, he is not ideal, and in many ways is an overshoot or over-correction for the problems of the last many decades. I don’t think he is a man who bows before the Lord, and that is something I hope he learns, but he is a million times better than the alternative. I was discussing this with my wife the other day and many people are looking at Trump as their savior or as the enemy, when he is neither. For real good to come, hearts will need to return to Jesus with a real conviction to follow him and do right, it is so simple. Trump can make changes that help the situation, and I hope he does, but it will take decades to fix this mess just as it has taken decades to cause it.

28. 

    Alex

    January 31, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    @Anna and BGR,

    I don’t think that BGR is saying that he or anyone else is truly “okay” with civilian deaths. It’s tragic and evil when terrorists and even enemy soldiers use civilians as human shields to try to deter attacks on their strongholds. I also think that Anna is partly trying to say that generals and their soldiers do want to spare as many civilian lives as they possibly can and will weigh the cost versus the benefit of bombing a city. Basically, I think that you both agree that men aren’t completely lacking in empathy and certainly aren’t lacking in concern for the preservation of human life.

29. 

    AnnaMS

    January 31, 2017 at 3:18 pm

    BGR, I’m going to split comments into topics for better organizational purposes. This one is about race. First, you asked about examples of Trump being racist, which is a little like asking for proof that the sky is blue (with your defense being that Trump said he would help ‘the blacks’ during his compaign…as if that’s proof of anything…he also said he respected women…did you fall for that hook line and sinker as well?). But ok, I’ll bite. Trump has been sued twice by the Justice Department for refusing to rent to black people. He said laziness was an inherent quality in black people. He said he didn’t want a black person counting his money. I could be here all day, but once again google is your friend here. You could also look at some of the people he’s chosen for his cabinet/staff positions. Also, while my examples here were all against black people, his racism is not limited to that.

    You have yet again tried to strawman me here. I said that if America became all white and Christian we would still have problems (as not all our problems are caused by “the others”). You chose to try to dumb down that argument as to my saying I was ashamed of being white, which is something I never said and quite frankly I’m unsure how you got there. I am glad to be white. I find myself more attracted to white men than non-white men and unsurprisingly married a white man. People are more comfortable around people similar to them, and that can often include race. None of that is wrong.

    I am curious as to why you are so worried about whites becoming a minority. There are times I struggle with that, too, but that’s because I accept that being a minority is in many ways very difficult. Are you worried people will treat us the same way we have treated them? Or perhaps are you under the mistaken assumption that America is or has ever been a white country?

    Trump ran on a platform of hate. Which was appealing to a lot of Americans (particularly the ones whose lives were worsened under an Obama presidency). Very few non-white, non-male groups escaped his hate during the elections. Muslims, Hispanics, Mexicans (which I would think would be included in Hispanics, but Trump would often select them), women (especially ones Trump considered unattractive), African-Americans, etc. He incited hatred in his followers and the increase in hate crimes during his campaign and especially after his election should come as no surprise.

    Of course, if one is not included in these groups, their lives become extra cushy and protected. Where you are sitting, a Trump presidency is good for many things in your life, excluding the church and the reputation of Christianity. If you care to look at other people (which believe it or not, does not signify weakness), it really isn’t hard to see how that isn’t the case for others. You might be able to dismiss certain examples (as the media is good at fanning the flames), but you have to have your head pretty firmly buried in the sand to deny everything.

30. 

    AnnaMS

    January 31, 2017 at 3:26 pm

    Moving on to sexism, which I’m hoping to address quickly. Trump’s problems are much MUCH greater than womanizing or “locker room talk” (which I think is an incorrect description and you yourself pointed out the difference in your post about locker room talk, so not sure why you’re using it now). While I obviously don’t like to see those in men in general, especially those in positions of power/influence, etc., there not nails in the coffin for me. But to dismiss his actions because you accept his talk (or at least don’t see much danger in it) is bad logic. When Trump bragged about grabbing women by the pu**y, he was NOT merely engaging in some screwed up version of locker room talk. He was admitting (and bragging!) about committing actual sexual assault. This goes way beyond talking.

    In your sexual denial posts, you and Dragonfly repeatedly pointed out that men are very accurate when it comes to their sexual adventures. Thus if a man says he’s hardly having any sex, he should be believed even if he is a complete stranger to all of us. It would be nice to see the same principle play out here to where Trump says he assaulted someone and we believe him rather than dismissing it as ‘just talk’. To argue one thing in sexual denial posts, and another for Trump is intellectually dishonest.

    Again, it’s easy to realize that this isn’t likely to hurt you or people you personally care about and to therefore dismiss it, but I think God expects more of us.

31. 

    AnnaMS

    January 31, 2017 at 3:34 pm

    As to his treatment of poor people (which I’m specifically referring to lower-status employees of his.

    Trump paid $475,000 after being sued by LA golf club employees for a number of offenses including not receiving their wages. He was sued again (and settled for an undisclosed amount) for hiring undocumented Polish workers, paying them $5/hr less, if they were even paid at all (which was sometimes not the case), and forcing them to work 12 hr shifts 7 days a week with no overtime pay. There are other ongoing suits now that I’m obviously unable to comment on.

    Someone with Trump’s wealth can afford to pay his workers. And if not, he needs to cut back. And this is the President that will be so good for our economy?

    But I’m sure Trump looooooves “the Polish”, right? And his workers have always had it so great. After all, Trump said that during his campaign so it must be true. Of course part of me feels like I’m wasting my time here because I’m pretty sure you’re going to say “well I never said he was perfect, and obviously I don’t like what he did, but…………”

32. 

    AnnaMS

    January 31, 2017 at 3:43 pm

    Just wanted to touch briefly on Muslims. Perhaps 99% of terrorism is caused by Islamic extremists, but that could not be more different than saying that 99% of Muslims are terrorists. I realize that neither you nor Trump have said that, but his recent immigration ban as well as comments he made (and comments people Trump chose to elevate and therefore bears some responsibility for) often inflate fear. If you see a Muslim in a hijab and the first reaction you feel is fear, you’re not behaving rationally. At least 2 of my coworkers are Muslim and they are as white as I am, hate violence, denounce terrorism, and for all intents and purposes wouldn’t hurt a fly. I agree that extremists (Islamic, Christian like Dylan Roof, whatever) needs to be taken seriously and I’m not opposed to valid vetting processes, but seeing Muslims as a threat until proven otherwise is an emotional fear-based response

    There was an interesting news segment I heard part of yesterday discussing how some people in the Middle East will be more likely to radicalize as a result of this ban. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to listen to all of it because I was in the car and reached my destination, but it is an interesting thought I wouldn’t have come up with. I’m sure there are articles online for those interested. America (and western thought in general) is much more in sync with peaceful Muslims than extremists are. Terrorists would love to muddy those waters, and I’m worried this ban is going to play right into their hand.

33. 

    AnnaMS

    January 31, 2017 at 3:54 pm

    And finally, the topic of war. I feel like you are again straw-manning me here. You first said that I believed a position because I was a woman. I pointed out that men think the same thing and you respond that liberals do (which was clearly intended to weaken my argument as neither of us identify with the liberal position). However, you are either missing or choosing to ignore that there are quite a few strong, Godly, respectable men who see legitimate ethical issues of war and don’t just give a knee-jerk ‘kill them all’ response. If your position is unable to account for those men, it might not be as strong, Godly, or respectable a position after all.

    Bottom line: life matters. Not just to women, not just because of women, not for anything related to women. Life matters period. Why? Because Jesus said so. Now has Jesus ordered annihilation of groups of people that posed legitimate threats? Absolutely. There’s also Biblical support for killing in self defense, as well as the death penalty. So I’m not saying that we can never ever take the life of another human being, but we should absolutely tread carefully.

    Conservatives (especially Christian conservatives) have a terrible reputation for caring about life until a baby is born and then they stop caring about that life. I don’t think that’s entirely justified (although I can certainly see individual examples supporting such an argument). But that thought is out there. We would be wise to do something other than just dismissing it. Because that won’t magically make it go away.

    If you look at Jesus and what He did and didn’t do (He didn’t stay in His warm and happy home because the earth’s woes didn’t have to concern Him, He didn’t refuse to help the woman being stoned because she was a woman and He wasn’t the one being stoned, He certainly wasn’t an American, He gave His life to save others rather than sacrificing others to save Himself, etc.), it’s hard to come up with something more anti-Trump. If you don’t think Jesus would have made a good President because He wasn’t strong or masculine enough, than I’m not sure what to say.

34. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    January 31, 2017 at 8:02 pm

    AnnaMS,

    Your Statement:

    “Trump has been sued twice by the Justice Department for refusing to rent to black people. He said laziness was an inherent quality in black people. He said he didn’t want a black person counting his money. I could be here all day, but once again google is your friend here.”

    Trump may or may not have said those things in the past. As far as him not renting to blacks – again that may or may not be true. Just because a company is sued for something does not mean it is true. I know in businesses I have worked in management it is very common for people to sue saying “you fired me because I was black, or you did not give me the promotion because I was black” or just replace “black” with “woman”. It is not always true. In fact it is rarely true.

    But let’s say it is true. Do you know they have the same things on Bill Clinton from decades ago, or many southern congressmen and Senators? If they are over 50 and from the south that is extremely common to find in their history.

    And really this lends itself a discussion of prejudice in general. There are all kinds of prejudices in this world. Some people are prejudice against woman because they have been mistreated by many women and have seen the worst behavior in women. Some people are prejudice about against Muslims because they have seen the worst in Muslims. Juan Williams – a black man and former NPR employee and Fox News contributor who is very liberal, admitted to be feeling prejudice toward Muslims when they got on a plane after 9/11. He lost is his job at NPR over that.

    I grew up in near a major suburban area where the vast majority of crimes that were committed were by blacks coming form the poorer neighbors in the major city next door. My brother was robbed by gun point at a gas station by such a person. Does that cause some conscious or unconscious prejudice toward black men who are dressed a certain way? Yes it does and we must be honest about that.

    In the same way I do understand the prejudice that some blacks have toward police officers for feeling they will be pulled over simply because they are black? Yes. But let me tell you something. In the area where I grew up if you were white driving through a inner city black neighborhood you might get pulled over by the cops too. You know why? Because they thought you were there to buy drugs or pick up a prostitute.

    I believe that most of us as Americans try to act in good faith toward each other whether white, black, Hispanic or Asian. I think if we have prejudices from past experiences we try to overlook them – but like Juan Williams we must be honest with ourselves as well.

    So yes some prejudice is just based in fear based our or families past experiences. But then we have what you alluded to as preferences. Most Churches and neighbor hoods in this country are self segregated by race and ethnicity. In the major metro area I live in – we have the Chinese area, the Arab areas, the Black areas and White areas. We simply flock to those most similar to us – it is human nature.

    Your Statement:

    “I am curious as to why you are so worried about whites becoming a minority. There are times I struggle with that, too, but that’s because I accept that being a minority is in many ways very difficult. Are you worried people will treat us the same way we have treated them? Or perhaps are you under the mistaken assumption that America is or has ever been a white country?”

    Actually the reason I am worried about whites becoming a minority has little to do with how I think we will be treated as a minority. I agree that in any country where one group is an ethnic, religious or racial minority they may be treated different to a greater or lesser extant. That is simply the nature of how societies operate. Minorities are often tolerated but never fully accepted in a great many nations around the world.

    The main point of my fear about whites becoming a minority is not being treated differently, but rather that the cultural shift will turn this nation into an unrecognizable form of its past. People try to make this about skin color but for me it is about culture. Whites of anglo-celtic european decent have a particular culture. In fact there are some customs, mannerisms and ways we do things in our family that may go back 500 years and we do not even realize it. I am not some Nazi who believes in some superior race bull crap. But I do believe the anglo-celtic culture has helped form the modern world and we should care about preserving its dominance in our nation. I realize you may not see a difference between the two but I see it a clear as night and day.

    So no I am not worried about how my white anglo-celtic grandchildren will be treated as minorities as much as I am concerned that America will no longer culturally be the nation it once was and I do not believe this nation will continue to be the world super power whether it be militarily, economically, technologically. In fact if I am to be completely honest I believe based on our cultural trends(with liberalism, feminism and ethnic changes) we may well be headed for our second civil war within the next 30 years.

35. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    January 31, 2017 at 8:16 pm

    AnnaMS,

    I wanted to re-visit this statement in particular closer:

    “Or perhaps are you under the mistaken assumption that America is or has ever been a white country?”

    I supplied you with factual evidence form the 1790 US census that roughly 80 percent of the those in the US at begining of our nation where whites of European decent. In fact the vast majority of that 80 of whites was actually of anglo-celtic descent. So it is a historical FACT that the anglo-celtic people gave us the foundations of our culture – the system of government we have as well as our religious and family customs.

    You might say any other culture could have come in here and done the exact same thing. But is that true of Central America and South America? No. Is it true of Asia or Africa? No. Did the Anglo-celtics have some major moral failures along the way with slavery and the treatment of the American Indians? Yes. But overall the anglo-celtic culture built the greatest nation in modern history. And no nation of our power and status has ever done the good that the US has done in the world despite those who call us evil.

36. 

    AnnaMS

    January 31, 2017 at 8:27 pm

    I haven’t done the research on Clinton that I have on Trump but it does not surprise me to hear that that is also true of him. He certainly was never the poster boy for ethical values.

    I agree that it is easy, and somewhat natural, for people to have prejudices (I say natural because there have been studies shown that children, if given the choice and opportunity, are more likely to form groups based off of similarities which include race and gender). I am not trying to force some pseudo heterogeneous culture. For example, a lot of people dislike DeVos because they think her school choice programs will enable white parents to take their children out of majority-minority schools and place them in majority-white schools. I don’t see how forcing parents to put their children into certain schools is going to magically cure them of racism so I’m not against this, nor am I willing to have my child’s superior test scores carry a school full of inferior test scores so I’m not going to try to force that on another parent, either. Of course I personally think DeVos is going to be disastrous for public schools and as I’m no advocate for them, I wouldn’t mind watching their collapse. People who actually choose public schools for their children may have a different opinion, though.

    All that to say, prejudices are something that we all have. But we can either brush it away as “well everybody does it” or we can actually choose to recognize and address it in ourselves.

    I also think that people are more prone to generalize black people as a race than they are white people (Sapphire has mentioned this in past posts as well). I know that nobody, police or otherwise, has appeared to view my husband differently since the Dylan Roof shootings and I havent’ viewed other white men differently either. But I know if I see a black male committed a serious crime, I’m more likely to connect that with prejudicial views that I then need to fight against. The problem is, I don’t see Trump fighting against any of that. He says what he needs to get elected. He picks the political party he needs to get elected (how nobody seemed to care that he was a liberal up until this election, I have no idea). He only cared about apologizing for past actions when he was caught, which screams of ‘i’m sorry I got caught” rather than “i’m sorry I did this”.

    This holds true of his issues with women as well. Did you know that before my husband was a Christian he assaulted girls at his school? It was non-sexual and the violence was minimum, but he definitely had issues (a LOT of issues) that he took out on the girls around him. By the time he met me, he had changed his life and repented (including trying to reconnect with some of the girls on fb so he could apologize…although he had limited success with that as it was a good decade later and a lot of the girls had different last names that he didn’t know). It wasn’t that he was doing the same stuff over and over again and then magically said what he thought I wanted to hear so that I would date him. I would be an absolute fool to fall for that (and believe me there are plenty of foolish women who do exactly that).

    Because someone was some way 10 years ago doesn’t mean they’re the same way now, but it also doesn’t mean they’re not the same way now. Trump’s claims that he loves “the black people” do not speak well of his ability to see black people as individual persons rather than a race in general which he’s been proven to have negative views on. That’s never a good place to start when trying to combat racism. Of course, Trump’s not actually trying to combat racism because saying “i love them” is enough for him. And it was…he got elected.

37. 

    AnnaMS

    January 31, 2017 at 8:34 pm

    As far as being a white country, I don’t really care what culture could have or could not have done any particular thing. Caucasians have been the majority since this country was started (although how much of that was that black people were not counted as fully human when our country was founded, idk, I know recent statistics show that Caucasians are a majority, although decreasing in number). But having the greatest number doesn’t mean the country belongs to them. We are and always have been a nation of immigrants, not a nation of whites, even if the majority of immigrants are white. Every citizen who is not an American Indian (and possibly some who are) are descendants of immigrants. There is no one white culture. We were not the first ones in America. We would not have built the government we did were we not to have engaged in genocide and slavery, so unless you’re a massive (and I mean MASSIVE) utilitarian, you’ll do more than just shrug that off cuz it worked out well for you in the end. I’m glad that I live in America and that we are the nation that we are, but I am painfully aware that it is not some thing we accomplished gloriously, and that our country was founded in white supremacy…some of which remains to this day. If we’re actually going to take note of the mistakes of the past, we might want to address similar attitudes (albeit not similar actions) we see today.

    Also, have you ever seriously pondered why Europeans have more success in many ways than Africans do? Or do you just look at the results and assume one culture is superior to the other?

38. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    February 1, 2017 at 2:55 am

    AnnaMS,

    Before we continue. I just want to say where we agree. We agree that slavery was a stain on our past. While I do not believe all forms of slavery are wrong I do believe the way our slaves were acquired(based on race and kidnapped from their nations of origin in Africa by slave traders) was immoral. In addition the inhumane ways in which they were kept as slaves compounded the immorality of slavery.

    But where we disagree is that America was not gloriously founded. I will not ever define our nation by our past mistakes. I will continue to define our nation by our past glorious accomplishments chief among them being our declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. The fact that that these founders built a republic that has lasted this long is a testament to the glory of our founding. It makes me sick when I see these liberal universities saying we should no longer honor these men but look at them as terrible human beings because they were involved in slavery.

    But what if the founding fathers had never allowed slavery. What if the debates about slavery before our Constitution was ratified had ended with slavery being abolished and the slaves being sent back to Africa(as many founders would later advocate for in coming decades). So then you have the 1790 Naturalization act that only allowed free white men to the United States. If slavery did not exist and they only allowed white Europeans would that have been immoral in your opinion?

    If so please explain why you think that would have been wrong if they kept the whites only immigration policy and had ended slavery and shipped the slaves back to Africa? The question really is – does a nation have the right to determine its cultural makeup or is that forbidden by Scripture? Please do not misunderstand me. I am not arguing for shipping Black Americans to Africa or Hispanic Americans back to Central America. What I am talking about are immigration quotas. Does a nation have the right to set immigration quotas in order to keep a certain cultural makeup that always keeps one cultural group in the majority?

    Your Statement:

    “Also, have you ever seriously pondered why Europeans have more success in many ways than Africans do? Or do you just look at the results and assume one culture is superior to the other?”

    Well the question is why do some cultures advance and why do other cultures seem to get to a certain point and then stop. Look at the American Indians. Why did they not advance beyond the stone age? While there were some more advanced kingdoms in Africa at different points in history they too reach various points and never advanced beyond that. Why did the Muslim nations slow down in the progress after centuries of being advanced in Mathematics and Science during the dark ages of Europe? I realize some will try and blame all of Africa (and Middle Eastern Arab nations) lack of advancement on European interference. But European nations routinely battled one another often swapping land yet all their nations continued to advanced.

    My answer is I do not know why some cultures stall in their advancement and why others have continued move forward – but results do matter to me. The fact is the European culture eventually dominated the planet and eventually one nation(Britain) and then its child(America) eventually came to lead the world.

39. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    February 1, 2017 at 3:03 am

    AnnaMS,

    Your Statement:

    “We would not have built the government we did were we not to have engaged in genocide and slavery”

    I meant to zoom in on this statement. Please support from history how the founding fathers would not have been able to make our declaration of independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights had we not been “engaged in genocide and slavery”. That statements makes zero sense to me. Maybe you can reword it so I can understand you better.

    Also I disagree with you on the use of the term “genocide” in relation to our wars with the American Indians. I will let
    Michael Medved speak for me on this issue:

    “Few opinions I’ve expressed on air have produced a more indignant, outraged reaction than my repeated insistence that the word “genocide” in no way fits as a description of the treatment of Native Americans by British colonists or, later, American settlers.

    I’ve never denied that the 400 year history of American contact with the Indians includes many examples of white cruelty and viciousness — just as the Native Americans frequently (indeed, regularly) dealt with the European newcomers with monstrous brutality and, indeed, savagery. In fact, reading the history of the relationship between British settlers and Native Americans its obvious that the blood-thirsty excesses of one group provoked blood thirsty excesses from the other, in a cycle that listed with scant interruption for several hundred years.

    But none of the warfare (including an Indian attack in 1675 that succeeded in butchering a full one-fourth of the white population of Connecticut, and claimed additional thousands of casualties throughout New England) on either side amounted to genocide. Colonial and, later, the American government, never endorsed or practiced a policy of Indian extermination; rather, the official leaders of white society tried to restrain some of their settlers and militias and paramilitary groups from unnecessary conflict and brutality.

    Moreover, the real decimation of Indian populations had nothing to do with massacres or military actions, but rather stemmed from infectious diseases that white settlers brought with them at the time they first arrived in the New World…

    Sympathy for Native Americans and admiration for their cultures in no way requires a belief in European or American genocide. As Jared Diamond’s book (and countless others) makes clear, the mass migration of Europeans to the New World and the rapid displacement and replacement of Native populations is hardly a unique interchange in human history. On six continents, such shifting populations – with countless cruel invasions and occupations and social destructions and replacements – have been the rule rather than the exception.

    The notion that unique viciousness to Native Americans represents our “original sin” fails to put European contact with these struggling Stone Age societies in any context whatever, and only serves the purposes of those who want to foster inappropriate guilt, uncertainty and shame in young Americans.”

    http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2007/09/19/reject_the_lie_of_white_genocide_against_native_americans

40. 

    AnnaMS

    February 1, 2017 at 9:01 am

    BGR, I do not know how to set up other people’s quotes the way you do, but I’ll try to set them apart as clear as I can. You said: ” I will not ever define our nation by our past mistakes. I will continue to define our nation by our past glorious accomplishments…”

    That right there is a large part of why we disagree. If you intentionally choose to only view our nation in a good light and ignore (or pay lip service, but virtually ignore) our bad qualities, that’s a rather disingenuous way to view anything. Of course, to do the opposite (only view the bad and ignore the good) is just as dumb. I feel like you’re doing the exact same thing about Trump. You’re choosing to not see him as a sexist, racist, abusive employer, and instead to see him as the person who will supposedly Make America Great Again, by supposedly making Mexico pay for the wall (I’d say don’t get me started on that one, but really don’t get Mexico started……have you seen how our relationship has plummeted this last week?) You’re intentionally only viewing the part of history that you can put your stamp of approval on. There are people who live in a bubble and there are people who intentionally keep themselves in a bubble. How this isn’t the latter, I’m not sure.

    About immigration quotas, you’re starting to throw the word ‘right’ around again, and you know how I think about that. If they came up with a ‘blacks-only’ policy, would you think that was totally a-okay? I think the better question here is whether we have a responsibility to let in other people or not. Now individual countries and situations need to be looked at individually, so there is not one across-the-board answer here. But from our countries message to the world on the Statue of Liberty, to what we personally as Christians should do (particularly with refugees….Jesus really wasn’t silent on the topic of immigration!), you’re hard pressed to say we’re being honest and moral shutting our doors. Also, immigration has never been about culture-control. Maybe in your head it should be, but that’s where it resides. Not in our official policies.

    I do not know all of the factors that played a role in Africa and Europe, and I wasn’t actually thinking about European involvement that negatively impacted African people (although you are absolutely right that that plays a role). If you do a little research on the topic (my husband has done more than I have here, so I’m really just presenting his ideas for those who are interested….maybe I can get to this more in the illusive ‘free time’), you might find that environmental factors (both for gardening, lifestock, and overall health) all massively favor the Europe area which has nothing to do with skin color. In short, if Europe had always been where black people lived, and Africa was where white people lived, I think you would see similar cultural situations, just flipped. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t take pride in what we have accomplished, but I think about it more like a woman who has a child. That’s definitely considered an accomplishment (I know I did!), but she really can’t take credit for having a vagina or ovaries, or actually growing her baby in the womb. She’s not culturally superior to a man who can’t do that, because he was never given the tools necessary to do that.

41. 

    AnnaMS

    February 1, 2017 at 9:09 am

    Oh our founding fathers could have written those documents, and maybe even won the Revolution (I’m unsure to what extent slavery played a role for either side). But pieces of paper mean nothing left to themselves. Our nation was built in large part by free labor. You’re honestly arguing we would have done (not written) the exact same things if we hadn’t had the labor force we acquired? I’m not sure that having the Bill of Rights buried under a rock somewhere because the country never got off the ground, is something to be too proud of in and of itself.

    As for your quote about genocide. As far as I can tell, the man never provided a definition of the word, and his biggest defense seemed to be “but others did it too”, which is the height of irresponsibility. Would the fact that throughout human history a lot of men have killed young women make you feel the slightest bit better if your daughter were to be similarly murdered? If we continue to use other people’s offenses to justify our own (which I saw you doing earlier with Clinton and Trump), our society will accept the least common denominator of social behavior, whether that denomination will be good or bad (and a quick look at sin nature in general should be able to give a good idea as to which one that will be).

    Merriam Webster provides a definition as “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group”. I don’t see how one doesn’t view our actions against the Indians that way.

    Again, we’re starting to get way off topic from Donald Trump.

42. 

    anonymous

    February 1, 2017 at 10:30 am

    Sapphire – listen – I hope everyone here strives to have a Christlike attitude towards others. Rule 2 of 2 is love your neighbor as yourself. I say this with kindness – yes there are people like you say, racist, oppressive, mean, etc., but it is not everyone. These days I don’t think it is even most people, whether they follow Jesus or not. There is one racism destroyer and that is Jesus. I once new a guy and I didn’t doubt his love and commitment to Jesus, for he was serious, but he focused on the negative all the time. An attack from here, an attack from there, it was always an attack. My point is that you can live in defeat from worry or focus your mind on the enemy attacking, or you can live in joy knowing that Jesus has your back. If you are being persecuted, Jesus has your back. If you are having hardship, you know He suffers with you because He loves you and you are His.

    So here is the thing, as I suggested earlier, the things you say are so far to one side that they are not provable and not true. Most police officers are not KKK members. Now, I will say that I think that police officers have quite a bit of attitude and can be difficult, which I wish wasn’t the case, but it is. Like a bad child who gives daddy a hard time and takes away daddy’s options on how he can react. “Son, I’d like to let you have extra time to play, but after that fit and disrespect, I can’t do it because it sends the wrong message. Your fit took that option away from the options I can pick from.” Often police officers are in the same position. We could do this easier or harder, but you took away my option of easier, so now it is harder. This can be fixed by respecting their position, whether they are a good officer or a bad officer. It can’t be fixed by arguing with them and trying to deal with them as if you are at the same position or level. This is the mistake that many make, they take racial equality to mean positional equality and think they have a right to deal with an officer as though he has no authority over them. This mistake isn’t going to go well with any officer no matter what your race is.

    The truth is that many in the black community has had both actual racism and oppression AND they have made extremely poor choices, both of which keep them from living as God wants them to.

    One thing I’ve learned in life is that often the things we are most passionate about can become an idol that rises to a level we place in our hearts higher than God. Be careful that your feelings about race do not rise above your love for Jesus. I say this to you and I say it to myself; I am not trying to be prideful here. I struggle with the same thing, raising something I am passionate about to a higher position than I should. I need to remind myself that it is the Lord where everything good comes from, and that even my ideas about His ways aren’t always right, though I try to be serious in knowing His ways. One thing you can never go wrong with is taking pride in the Lord, loving His ways, and being thankful that He shares His Holy Spirit with us.

    Don’t remain trapped focusing on something that bothers you when nothing should be as important as what Jesus did for you!

43. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    February 1, 2017 at 11:32 pm

    AnnaMS,

    Your Statement:

    “Merriam Webster provides a definition as “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group”. I don’t see how one doesn’t view our actions against the Indians that way.”

    I want to let this go to and get back to Donald Trump – but let me ask you simple question based on the definition of Genocide you just gave. The British, French and later the Americans wanted to do two things with Indians. They wanted to civilize them if they could(in large part by converting them to Christianity) and if they could not civilize them they wanted to move them. Were there cruel acts of savagery on BOTH sides as the writer I gave you conceded? Yes. But those things happen whenever a technologically superior civilization meets a much less developed society. But there is absolutely no evidence that the British, French or later the Americans wanted to exterminate the Indians as a people from the face of the earth. That is genocide. Anything less than that is the displacement of a people – but not the genocide of a people.

    And if we apply your whole “immigrants” idea that everyone was immigrants before the Indians then lets apply that to Israel. The Israelites went in and displaced the entire population of Canaan in a much more brutal way than what we did with the Indians. They wiped out whole cities. So were the Israelite’s immigrants because the Canaanites were there first? The English believed it was their God given mandate to convert and move those they considered to pagan savages in much the same way the Israelite’s displaced the pagan idol worshipers from Canaan.

    This is why I am a conservative. Conservatism deals with the world as it is. Liberalism deals with the world as they wish it was. Conservatism recognizes that there is peace through strength. Liberalism thinks that you don’t have to have a strong military that you are willing to use to have peace. They live in a little bubble. I remember a while back Rob Lowe was on Fox News with Bill O’Reily and he admitted as a liberal – “Conservatism is based in logic, Liberalism is based in emotion”. I would translate his “emotion” to “empathy and wishful thinking”.

    So as a conservative I accept the reality of how mankind operates and the reality of war. I don’t believe the Europeans displacing the Indians was some great immoral act. These kinds of displacements have occurred all throughout history. I know your answer is “just because everyone was doing it does not make it right”. I agree that just because everyone does something does not make it right, but I also don’t think because most countries or people do something, or have done something makes it wrong either.

    My point is that I do not believe wars always have to be defensive to be justified. I may be wrong about what you think – but I am guessing you think all wars of conquest were immoral. I do believe there is such a think as a justified offensive war and the conversion or displacement of indigenous peoples. It is a huge subject so I will leave the last word to you on the subject of the Indians and in my next comment I will return Donald Trump.

44. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    February 2, 2017 at 12:34 am

    AnnaMS,

    Ok its not back to Donald Trump just yet – because I just have to point out a glaring falsehood in what you just said here:

    “About immigration quotas, you’re starting to throw the word ‘right’ around again, and you know how I think about that. If they came up with a ‘blacks-only’ policy, would you think that was totally a-okay? I think the better question here is whether we have a responsibility to let in other people or not. Now individual countries and situations need to be looked at individually, so there is not one across-the-board answer here. But from our countries message to the world on the Statue of Liberty, to what we personally as Christians should do (particularly with refugees….Jesus really wasn’t silent on the topic of immigration!), you’re hard pressed to say we’re being honest and moral shutting our doors. Also, immigration has never been about culture-control. Maybe in your head it should be, but that’s where it resides. Not in our official policies.”

    Are you kidding that “immigration has never been about culture-control”? Are you unfamiliar with with the fact that we only allowed “free white men”(1790 Naturalization Act) for several decades and also established quotas from various nations for over 100 years from our founding? Are you aware that these quotas favored European nations until the 1965? Are you unfamiliar with the Chinese exclusion Act of 1882 that band all Chinese immigration and forbid Chinese immigrants already here(as imported laborers) from becoming citizens? If all those things are not evidence of our nation using immigration as a way to do culture-control I don’t know what is.

    Founding fathers like Benjamin Franklin were worried about not only having too many blacks here – but also Germans. Listen to what he wrote:

    “Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.

    Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/02/swarthy-germans/48324/

    I could supply you with more quotes from Alexander Hamilton(who was worried about French immigration) or others but you get my point. The founding fathers who were predominately English were very much concerned with keeping the English culture the majority culture in this country. To argue otherwise is to argue against historical facts.

    I also find it interesting that you conceded this in an earlier comment:

    “People are more comfortable around people similar to them, and that can often include race. None of that is wrong.”

    So basically in your view – it is moral and ok for people to prefer to live in neighborhoods, go to churches and marry people that are closer to their racial and ethnic heritage but for a nation to base its immigration policy in these preferences as we did for over 170 years is somehow a horrible immoral act?

    Also as this statement you made:

    “But from our countries message to the world on the Statue of Liberty, to what we personally as Christians should do (particularly with refugees….Jesus really wasn’t silent on the topic of immigration!), you’re hard pressed to say we’re being honest and moral shutting our doors.”

    Here is an ironic peace of history about the message on the statue of liberty and Ellis Island:

    “We think of Ellis Island as this great monument to immigration. It’s really the monument to border control,” says Morris Vogel, president of the Lower East Side Tenement Museum, which painstakingly reconstructs the squalor and ambition of 19th- and 20th-century immigrants. Ellis Island was, Vogel notes, “the first wall,” often used to repel undesirables.

    You know Lady Liberty’s entreaty to give her “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”? Emma Lazarus penned that sonnet when the United States began implementing strict laws to keep the huddled masses out. A year earlier, in 1882, Congress had passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the first major immigration law to restrict entry of a specific ethnic group, after complaints that the Chinese were polluting American culture and appropriating American jobs.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/from-benjamin-franklin-to-trump-the-history-of-americas-nativist-streak/2015/08/27/d41f9f26-4cf9-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html?utm_term=.015cdcebd097

    I suppose you will condemn modern Israel for doing the exact same thing with their Law of Return passed in 1950 that makes clear only people of Jewish decent had an absolute right to immigrate to Israel. In fact their Supreme Court ruled in the 1999 that even being a descendant of Jews was not enough. The person also also had to be adherent to the Jewish faith too to have an absolute right of return. Otherwise in most cases Arabs and others only get permanent resident status and they do not have an absolute right to citizenship.

    This policy which has been around since modern Israel’s founding lead John Kerry to make this statement about Israel:

    “Today there are a similar number of Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They have a choice. They can choose to live together in one state or they can separate into two states but here is a fundamental reality — if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or Democratic, it cannot be both and it won’t ever really be at peace“

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/israel-jewish-democratic-cannot-be-both-john-kerry-secretary-state-172413/

    I agree and disagree with parts of John Kerry’s statement. I disagree with him that Israel is not Democratic. They are democratic in that their Jewish Citizens vote for their government and their polices. A democracy does not have to allow all it citizens to vote, neither does it have to grant all its residents equal rights. America did not for a long time. But I agree with John Kerry that Israel will never find peace until they solve the Palestinian problem. The answer would have been easy if this were occurring 150 years ago. They simply would have displaced the Arabs living in Israel and forced them all into the adjoining Arab countries. In some ways they tried to do that but failed in their resolve to see it through.

    This is the last I will say on immigration and the right of countries to attempt to control their cultural mix through immigration quotas and will give you the last word.

45. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    February 2, 2017 at 1:18 am

    AnnaMS,

    Now returning to Donald Trump.

    God used pagan Kings throughout his history to accomplish his will. He used King Artaxerxes to help Jerusalem’s walls to be restored by allowing Nehemiah to undertake the project. Walls in the Scripture are sign of protection and strength for a nation.

    “He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls.”

    Proverbs 25:28 (KJV)

    When Nehemiah went to rebuild the walls he was opposed by men from foriegn nations who did not want the walls they claimed he was workign against the King and the kingdom. They were basically like the globalists today. We don’t need nations or borders anymore or so we are told. But Nehemiah was a nationalist! He cared about his Jewish people. This is what he said to them:

    “Then answered I them, and said unto them, The God of heaven, he will prosper us; therefore we his servants will arise and build: but ye have no portion, nor right, nor memorial, in Jerusalem.”

    Nehemiah 2:20 (KJV)

    You know what, I could take that same verse and change that to it to what many Americans who voted for Donald Trump believe:

    “To the residents of Mexico, and other central and south American countries. To the residents of the Muslims countries banned by Trump. To all the other residents of other nations of the world:
    You have no right, no portion and no memorial in this American nation. You do not have a right to come here. If we allow some of you in then you should consider it a privilege – not a right. The God of heaven will prosper us as we arise and build our wall, secure our nation in the area of immigration, as well as economically and militarily.”

    So you can attack Donald Trump’s person all you want. But I believe he is the imperfect vessel God has chosen to be the protector of this nation’s people to help restore some of her former greatness.

    That is my final word to you on Donald Trump. I will give you the last word.

46. 

    AnnaMS

    February 2, 2017 at 11:01 pm

    I’ve read your first response to me here a couple times and I’m missing the “simple question” you referred to. I will say that I said earlier that immigration needed to be handled on an individual country/situation basis and I am definitely not qualified to speak about what Israel’s immigration position should be either now, in the past, or in the future.

    I try to avoid words like ‘always’ or ‘nothing’ just because they are ridiculously easy to disprove, so I’m not going to say that wars for conquest are always wrong. I do think there is something fundamentally wrong with the mindset “you has it…i wants it…i grabs it cuz i can” approach to wars of conquest. People tend to support them when they’re the ones on top and hate them when they’re not (although you could say the exact same thing when it comes to obstruction tactics in DC), but morality doesn’t work that way.

    I saw something on fb the other day asking if people were going to be Christians first or Americans. Obviously, it is ideal to not have to choose between the two, but the Bible is certainly not the place to look for comfort that being a Christian will come with lots of support and understanding from others (I can find specific references if you want, but I’m guessing you know enough off the top of your head as well). It’s easy to think that Jesus will of course be on white America’s side (what is that even???), but the truth is Jesus isn’t likely to have had a drop of Caucasian blood in Him and He’s certainly about something other than advancing the American agenda. So if we go through life with the goal of having America come out on top (which I don’t think is going to be accomplished by having an anti-immigration attitude, btw), we’re likely missing the entire point. This isn’t a man/women or conservative/liberal thing. Unless the only Christians are liberal women which wouldn’t work out well for either of us. 🙂

    We’re descendants of immigrants because our ancestors came from America and settled here…it really doesn’t get more clear than that. If we don’t want immigrants and their descendants living here, we should turn the land over to non-immigrant American-Indians and relocate. You have said previously in this post that you don’t agree with how we treated the Indians, so I think it’s a tad late to defend it now.

    And finally, this gem…really? “I agree that just because everyone does something does not make it right, but I also don’t think because most countries or people do something, or have done something makes it wrong either.” Since when have I ever said if most countries or people do something, it makes it wrong. Morality cannot be decided, nor immorality excused, by the actions of a majority or a minority.

47. 

    AnnaMS

    February 2, 2017 at 11:11 pm

    As for immigration quotas, obviously they have been used and abused in different ways in the past to strengthen whatever political agenda was currently prevalent (whether good or bad didn’t seem to matter). You may want to shy away from using the founding fathers viewpoint on other races unless you’re also willing to adopt their 3/5ths approach. Whatever people say about the Statue of Liberty, the meaning is clear that it is welcoming to legal immigrants. As a country that highlights that to the world, and as Christians living under Jesus’ rules about treating immigrants, I do think we have a responsibility to welcome immigrants here. I am not against vetting them, obviously.

    Recognizing people being more comfortable around their own race is hardly the same as advocating for isolating people to their own race. Do I want to be the only white person in my neighborhood/church/job? No. Do I want to work towards living in a white-only city? Not at all. I’d lost a lot of good black coworkers that I have a lot in common with despite our differences in melanin. I would also lose the person who is arguably my best female friend here who happens to be a Hispanic (and coincidentally, a Cuban refugee).

    Again, I’m unable to comment on Israel’s immigration quotas. From the very little I know, they don’t put out a message of welcoming non-Jews into their country (like America does and therefore has a responsibility to live up to). But obviously, if something is best for America, it doesn’t make it best for Israel and vice versa.

48. 

    AnnaMS

    February 2, 2017 at 11:22 pm

    I honestly don’t know what else to say about Donald Trump. You started out by praising Trump’s masculinity until you weren’t because he’s actually not a good role model. And how he won’t make emotional decisions, until it was pointed out that he’s pretty much 100% controlled by them. And how he’s not racist/sexist/treats poor people badly, until I pointed out that he did (which went largely unaddressed). Honestly, the sheer amount of misinformation and head-in-sand syndrome is pretty appalling. I know and love people who voted for Trump in the general election knowing what they knew of him. I can respect that, and I’d be lying if I said I was sad it wasn’t Clinton. To honestly have no idea up until now of how he treated his employees, or women, or other races, or to think somehow someone who employed illegal immigrants and profited off of them financially is a good consult for immigration…..it’s just very naive. I honestly expected better. Unless you were asking me for proof that you already knew existed (which I think you have more respect for my time than that), than I have no choice but to believe that this is all new to you. Which does not speak well of your candidate assessment skills.

    I will say that you are grossly taking that Nehemiah verse out of context. He was saying what he said in response to nations who were mocking Israel. If people mock our country, don’t think we should have a country, etc., than yeah, they can stay somewhere else. But that’s hardly the attitude the vast majority of immigrants have here. Not to mention that you can’t just add your side of an opinion into Nehemiah and change the wording around. People with opposing viewpoints can do the exact same thing (how an unborn baby has no right in a woman’s body is one possible example that comes to mind).

    Finally the, ‘but God can still use him’ argument. Yes, God can use him. God can use Clinton. Or me. Or my 8-month-old son. This is not an argument for Trump. If you’re willing to accept Trump because God can use him, than you should accept anybody and everybody that ever runs.

    But, of course you don’t like Trump because you think God can use him. You like him because you think he will ‘make America white again’. Which, despite being likely false (he’s already been blocked by one judge, and is an impossible task anyway) is hardly a Biblical mindset to have.

49. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    February 3, 2017 at 1:35 am

    AnnaMS,

    If going to disagree lets be honest about where we disagree.

    Your Statement:

    “You started out by praising Trump’s masculinity until you weren’t because he’s actually not a good role model.”

    I did not praise his masculinity as a whole. I presented how Americans felt in surveys I presented. They felt our country had become soft and feminine and that Donald Trump might bring back some masculinity to America. I then got very narrow on the masculine attribute which I was talking about because as you well know I condemned his version of “locker room” talk. I was talking about him being firm and taking hard stands on things. You proceeded to turn the discussion into him being a bully. Then you dragged out his history with his workers. You attacked him on his racist comments and basically using cheap illegal immigrants at times to get things done. So I brought out the founding fathers to you show you that they were also racist and also used slave labor. Then you revealed how little you think of our founding fathers and the unjust founding of this nation.

    My point was this – all the things you attacked Donald Trump for we could attack previous Presidents of this country on. Great men who did great things for this nation.

    And some day I would really love to hear your “Jesus immigration plan”. Jesus was speaking about the church – not the immigration policies of various nations. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” – Galatians 3:28 (KJV)

    In the body of Christ on a spiritual level there is absolutely no distinction between men, women free, slave, Jew or Greek. We share equally in the salvation Christ offered and in our inheritance to come. But guess what – the same Paul who wrote there neither slave nor free told slaves to obey their masters. He told Masters to treat their slaves humanely. This same Paul reiterated God’s decree for gender roles in this world. And never did he say that nations had to intermix and have open borders.

    Your Statement:

    “But, of course you don’t like Trump because you think God can use him. You like him because you think he will ‘make America white again’. Which, despite being likely false (he’s already been blocked by one judge, and is an impossible task anyway) is hardly a Biblical mindset to have.”

    You really did not understand a thing I said. I never said I thought Trump could or would make America white again. That is just a silly statement on your part. I was trying to present to you a historical context that this nation did in fact use race and ethnic origin as major factor in its immigration policy up until 1965. You just simply think that was evil and immoral, I don’t and I explained why I did not. We will simply have to agree to disagree on that.

    Placing a temporary ban on immigration from 7 Muslim countries is not going to help make America’s white population grow. If we closed the borders to all immigration from all countries for the next 30 years it would not make the white population grow to a larger percentage of the total population. You know why? White American women have less babies that Black Hispanic, or Arab women do.

    So no I have no allusions of America keeping the majority White Anglo-Celtic culture that founded it – that ship sailed with liberalism, multiculturalism and feminism talking over our nation a long time ago. Do I think it is a sad thing that the anglo-celtic people that founded this nation will no longer be the majority in the decades to come? Absolutely! But I fully accept the fact that the most popular last names of Smith, Johnson, Williams and Jones(all English names) along with my English surname will become a small minority in the next 40 years.

    I also believe that if voting patterns persist as they do among the various races of this nation that United States will no longer exist in the form it does today within the next 40 to 50 years. In fact I would not be surprised if we had our second civil war in the next 50 years. And no it won’t be over race. But because of the voting patterns of races you may just see one side being predominately white with a smaller amount of blacks, Hispanics and others while the other side will be predominately hispanic, black, and other races with a minority of whites. It will be over freedom from the tyranny of modern liberalism and globalism. It will be about people being able to actually keep most of what they earn instead of it being redistributed to their neighbors by the government. It will about churches being able to preach what they believe and say what they think. It will be about private property rights and family rights. It will be about the right to keep and bear arms.

    So in a way it will about some new things(like globalism vs nationalism) but also some very old things like private property rights and religious freedoms.

50. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    February 3, 2017 at 2:28 am

    AnnaMS,

    Again you have a statement I just can’t pass up because you are putting words in my mouth. In many ways this is reminding of conversations I have with my globalist, multicultural liberal friends – although they don’t seem to be as upset as you do here at times. We can just agree to disagree. Having said that here is your statement I must correct:

    “I saw something on fb the other day asking if people were going to be Christians first or Americans. Obviously, it is ideal to not have to choose between the two, but the Bible is certainly not the place to look for comfort that being a Christian will come with lots of support and understanding from others (I can find specific references if you want, but I’m guessing you know enough off the top of your head as well). It’s easy to think that Jesus will of course be on white America’s side (what is that even???), but the truth is Jesus isn’t likely to have had a drop of Caucasian blood in Him and He’s certainly about something other than advancing the American agenda. So if we go through life with the goal of having America come out on top (which I don’t think is going to be accomplished by having an anti-immigration attitude, btw), we’re likely missing the entire point. This isn’t a man/women or conservative/liberal thing. Unless the only Christians are liberal women which wouldn’t work out well for either of us. “

    Are you kidding? I told you I do NOT believe as the Nazis did in a superior race. Do I prefer the Anglo-Celtic people and the culture they built(previous to liberalism, globalism and feminism) – you betcha. I think some Europeans made good cultures, some bad cultures and some better cultures.

    Of course Jesus was not white – come on. Again another silly comment.

    I am fully supportive of nations like Israel whose decedents are of middle eastern background like Jesus was deciding that they will keep their nation primarily Jewish. If the French want to keep their nation primarily those of French decent then so be it as well. If China wants to do the same that is fine.

    I actually think it works better for a nation where the majority of the people have more things in common(like faith and ethnicity) and there is only a small minority of those who are different in that regard. Some diversity can be a good thing, but too much diversity can also be a bad thing and can cause nations to break up.

    Let me given analogy to Churches. I believe in the universal body of Christ. The body of Christ is made up believers from every tribe language and tongue – both living and dead. But yet we have many flavors of local churches in our country and around the world and each church has its own unique culture. Now some churches have a similar enough culture that they can do joint ministries together and others have so many differences whether it be doctrinal, traditions or just language barriers where it makes it more difficult.

    I believe the same applies to the culture of nations. There are many nations around the world that have a majority racial/ethnic group. In fact I would say most nations are setup that way. We as human beings naturally gravitate toward those that are most similar to us. This happens in most families, most churches and many countries around the world. As I proved from America’s early years this country was 80% white European. It was only natural. Then later in our history multiculturalism was introduced.

    You have nothing to say about Israel having a policy of keeping its population primarily Jewish, but you think it was abhorrent that our nation in its first century setup polices to keep our population primarily white European. I think both Israel and America’s founders were right to try and protect their cultural primacy in their nation – you obviously don’t.

    And finally on the issue of being first American or first Christian. There is no debate there for me and most conservative Bible believing Christians. We are first Christian, then American and then whatever political party we associate with. Jesus said his Kingdom was not of this world so course he would not be voting for one form of government or another or one nation or another. Now do I think God has blessed this nation contrary to those who otherwise? Yes. Do I think it has anything to do with the faith of our founders? Yes.

    Do people sometimes have to choose between loyalty to country or loyalty to God? Absolutely. Daniel had to, as did other Biblical characters. But sometimes we don’t have to choose. We can fight for what we believe is right and still be consistent with our faith. You and I stand apart on this issue. You think that Trump is wrong on immigration. I think he is right. I believe in a nation defending its borders, its culture and its economy to the best of its ability. I believe that sometimes means making changes in immigration policy and yes sometimes banning whole countries from coming in a various points.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.