Trump: losing their religion
I can’t remember any campaign in my lifetime in which any candidate has questioned another candidate’s religious sincerity.
I’m old enough to remember that JFK’s Catholicism was an issue for some people, but Nixon certainly never mentioned it. Same of Romney in 2012; some weren’t comfortable voting for a Mormon, but I don’t recall a candidate talking about it. And no one questioned JFK’s or Romney’s sincerity about their faiths; they questioned whether someone of that religion ought be president.
But in this campaign it’s been different, as have so many things.
Initially, though, it was Ben Carson who wondered about Trump’s faith and whether Trump’s adherence to it was bona fide, based on Trump’s lack of humility:
“By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches and honor and life and that’s a very big part of who I am. I don’t get that impression with him,” Carson said of Trump. “Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t get that.”
Trump said this in reply:
I never heard faith was a big thing ”¦ until [Carson] started running, I don’t know about Ben Carson’s faith, all of a sudden he becomes this great religious figure, I don’t think he’s a great religious figure. You look at his faith and I think you’re not going to find so much ”¦ who is he to question my faith when I am, he doesn’t even know me.
And then Carson quickly apologized for what he’d said:
“I think I did slip, and that’s why I apologized,” Carson said on Fox News’ “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.” “There is no reason ever to question anybody’s faith. That’s something between them and God.”
However, about a month later, Trump said this about Carson’s Seventh Day Adventist faith:
I’m Presbyterian. Boy, that’s down the middle of the road, folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don’t know about. I just don’t know about.
This time it was a criticism more akin to the traditional doubts that someone of a certain faith should be president (although those doubts were never expressed directly by a previous candidate, as far as I know), rather than questioning the person’s sincerity within the faith. Here Trump is insinuating that Seventh Day Adventists are a bit wacky and out of the mainstream, as opposed to Trump’s own Presbyterian affiliation (sincere or insincere). Trump never apologized, claiming he hadn’t said anything bad about Carson’s faith, just that he didn’t know about it.
Carson only did this faith-questioning business once. Since the Carson/Trump exchange on the subject, Trump has made a regular habit of it, despite his “who is Carson to question my faith?” statement about Carson. For example, back in December Trump questioned Ted Cruz’s faith
:
With Ted Cruz surging in Iowa and some national polls, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump took a jab at the Texas Senator’s faith, saying, “not a lot of Evangelicals come out of Cuba.”
That seems to be a dig about Cruz’s sincerity within his faith—although, as with many Trump statements, it’s hard to tell because it’s obscure and odd enough that he can issue a disclaimer about what he meant. It’s also a twofer, because Trump seems to be combining that criticism with some of his usual birther stuff about Cruz—who did not actually “come out of Cuba,” because Cruz has a Cuban-born (evangelical) father and an American mother, and Cruz was born in Canada. (“Cruz” means “cross” in Spanish, by the way, for what that’s worth, and Cruz’s paternal grandfather was from Spain.)
In February, Trump questioned Ted Cruz’s faith again (as well as his veracity) even more directly and clearly:
“How can Ted Cruz be an Evangelical Christian when he lies so much and is so dishonest?” he tweeted.
Then yesterday, when Mitt Romney said that he would be supporting Ted Cruz in Utah, Trump turned to one of his favorite accusative ploys:
“Do I love the Mormons? I have many friends that live in Salt Lake City — and by the way, Mitt Romney is not one of them,” Trump said to applause. “Are you sure he’s a Mormon? Are we sure?”
So, some of his best friends are Mormons. Love those Mormons. Hate Mitt. He’s not a Mormon, maybe.
Trump supporters ordinarily shrug this sort of thing off (“Trump just being Trump”). Or they praise it: so clever, so strategic, so smart and ballsy and funny to diss Romney’s religious commitment when Trump’s making a speech in Salt Lake City, of all places.
It matters not that Romney’s membership in the Mormon church and his activity and service as a Mormon elder is beyond question (see also this). This is one of Trump’s accusations/jokes/insinuations that has no substance at all—purely strategic, purely imaginary. It is Orwellian, the opposite of the truth.
But if Trump thinks it will work against someone who criticizes him and backs a rival, he does it, and his supporters applaud no matter how low the blow. How low can he go? I think there’s no bottom.
It’s that time in the ebb of civilization where one begins to question everything, including religion. Christianity, once robustly Christian has been denatured and filtered to being meaningless. Any assertion of Christian belief may be nothing more than appeals for social justice and in some cases less than that — more an appeal to civility in discourse as by broached Ms Manners.
Then too:
“I actually believe that people of faith make better leaders. Whether they are Christians, as I am, my faith has sustained me through some very bad times. I’ve battled cancer, I’ve lost a child, I’ve been tested. But whether it’s a person of Christian faith or Jewish faith or Muslim faith or other faiths, I think faith gives us humility, and empathy and optimism. And I think those are important things.” — Carly Fiorina
Fallon clarified, “so you’d be fine with that [Muslim president]?”
“Yes, I would be fine with that,” she said to cheers from the audience.
So much for religion, and submission, and appeasement. Everyone’s religion may be questioned by those who hold theirs earnestly. It’s just this easy: those who hold their beliefs as superior to the detriment of others ought be dismissed from consideration. Otherwise move on to something meaningful — like who the hell invited several million religiose fanatics into the country?
JurassiCon Rex:
I don’t for a moment think you believe that what Trump did in any of these cases was an actual sober and evidence-based questioning of their religious beliefs “by those who hold theirs earnestly.” Particularly this latest by Trump about Romney, whose has been a faithful and active Mormon his entire life, as the links show. Trump’s accusations are pure Orwellian strategy, which Trump enters into when someone starts challenging him in the polls or supporting another candidate. It’s really just as simple and transparent as that.
And if you think otherwise, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Since Trump lies about things which are so easily checked out, I wonder why his supporters think that he will be honest with them about things they care about?
I was just reading comments at American Thinker and it is clear that many Trump supporters don’t care what happens to the country so long as they can destroy the Republican Party. If that gives the leftists the edge they need to finally destroy our country forever – they just don’t care. “Conservative” commentators like Rush and Hannity have succeeded in turning people’s justifiable wrath away from the Left and have shifted their anger completely onto the amorphous Republican establishment which for obvious reasons is never named.
How low can he go? Unfortunately when one’s opponents live in the gutter one is bound to get dirty (this is not directed at Carson or the other Republican candidates) .
The headline:
The link:
http://donsurber.blogspot.com/
I know the first response is to say that Trump was criticizing another Republican. And again, for the record I’m no rabid Trump supporter. Nonetheless, I chalk all of this garbage up to campaigning politics, which is why I’ve pretty tuned out much of the campaigning this year. If they don’t speak to the issues, let them speak to the LIVs.
I’m still convinced that what Trump is doing is running a masterful media game, playing the media like Isaac Stern would have played a Stradivarius and getting hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free publicity in the process.
As to character and principles, remember that Lincoln’s opponents called him an ape and Dewey, Goldwater, Reagan and Bush were considered reincarnations of Hitler. Nothing much has changed, it’s just televised and tweeted now so it has a immediacy that reading the press accounts used to lack.
I said it early on, and I repeat it again: Trump is not a moral man.
“I said it early on, and I repeat it again: Trump is not a moral man.” [Matt_SE]
Unlike Hillary, Bill, Kerry, Grayson, Stubbs, Obama, Putin, Berlusconi, (the late) Quadaffi, Assad, Arlen Specter? (/sarc off)
T:
You are confusing what candidates say with what supporters of that candidate say (or what the press says), a distinction I made clear in my post.
I do not believe that even Lincoln—one of the most reviled candidates and presidents of all time, despite his popularity today—was called “ape” by his presidential opponents, the candidates themselves.
And Trump’s low discourse has been part and parcel of his public life for decades. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the opposition to his presidency, it is an ingrained character trait and a long-held strategy for dealing with anyone who opposes him. You might want to take a look at the man’s history in that regard.
Neo-neocon,
I’m happy you don’t think it because I don’t.
Every comment needn’t be considered a defense of Trump. In my otherwise, I stated: otherwise, move on to something meaningful. Even I wouldn’t defend Trump as being indispensably meaningful in all his utterances.
Some people have postulated that as the convention, and the general campaign, approach Trump will moderate his repulsive behavior. I suspect that he is incapable of that.
T, have to tell you that I would not vote for any of the people you listed. What was the point, again?\
“I can’t remember any campaign in my lifetime in which any candidate has questioned another candidate’s religious sincerity.”
In light of what was revealed about Jeremiah Wright’s “church,” if McCain had questioned Mr Obama’s “religious sincerity,” the last eight years might have been different.
T Says:
March 19th, 2016 at 3:55 pm
“I said it early on, and I repeat it again: Trump is not a moral man.” [Matt_SE]
Unlike Hillary, Bill, Kerry, Grayson, Stubbs, Obama, Putin, Berlusconi, (the late) Quadaffi, Assad, Arlen Specter? (/sarc off)
Tu quoque fallacy. None of the people you mentioned are moral, which in no way excuses Trump from being immoral too.
Trump always has these leading questions, akin to the narrators of any documentary of UFOs or some other so-called “mystery”.
.
They never answer a question outright. They never make an unequivocal statement. They never provide evidence.
.
They just sow the seeds of a certain line of thinking.
.
In Trump’s case, it is classic FUD. Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.
.
But, his supporters are receptively looking for “it” and “hear” the message, without much question.
Capn Rusty:
Not in the least.
PLENTY of people questioned Obama’s religious sincerity, and it didn’t matter one whit. If McCain had joined in he would have been excoriated for it, and it would also not have mattered in terms of harming Obama.
And by the way, in case it wasn’t clear from the post—there is a huge difference in questioning a person’s religious sincerity when there is evidence to question it. There would have been plenty of evidence to question both Obama’s sincerity and the form of the religion (Wright’s church) he appeared to adhere to. What Trump does here is something quite different: questioning his opponents’ religious sincerity without a shred of evidence for that questioning.
@ JurassicCon: Not all beliefs are equal.
Unless he is drilling down into the molten core, Trump should bottom out in the Mariana Trench. Perhaps Kasich will accompany him. I will say one thing for Trump, he merely used his reality tv art of the deal skills in the vacuum created by the Beltway entrenched GOPe to blow his own horn.
A retired farmer told me a joke today: What is the difference between Hillary and Trump? Hillary has bigger hands. Not funny, but that sums up the weirdness. A choice of stage 3 or stage 4 cancer.
I thought McClellan (who ran for president in 1864) referred to Lincoln as an ape or gorilla? Though afaik, he did so while he was still a general (i.e. before he ran for president), and only in private.
Huckabee made some remarks about Mormonism during an interview in 2008 (or possibly late 2007). He also repeatedly referred to himself as the only real Christian running (or something like that) during the late stages of the same primary.
The LDS community noticed. It’s worth noting that a 2008 poll during the primary showed Huckabee losing Utah to Obama.
Trump is cannily bringing up ‘religion’ at the lectern as it hits the emotions — hard.
Trump KNOWS that Romney is a devout Mormon.
He tosses out the counter-factual so that legions of observers will jump to their keyboards and DETAIL all of Romney’s Mormanism…
Which is a lead weight to Romney in the political space.
&&&&&&&
Similarly, Trump is tarring Ted Cruz by hyping his evangelical roots. ( triggering MORE exposure of very controversial video clips )
We (Obama) have imported WAVES of non-Christian — and paranoid — immigrants.
The fact that Trump is as amoral as they are is double plus good… in their eyes.
&&&&&&&&
What we’re seeing in Trump — at the lectern — is little different than the office and phone conduct of Steve Jobs or Larry Ellison.
Somehow the notion that hyper successful executives are sweet and clean — like Mitt Romney — a virtual saint compared to his peers — has taken root.
We’re not seeing evil or perverted politics.
Scandalous, yes.
Sensational, yes.
That’s how Donald Trump is ‘owning’ the MSM — and how he ‘dusted’ his rivals.
He’s in COMBAT MODE.
He’s not in management mode.
&&&&&&&&
I don’t think Trump would weird out the Oval Office.
Barry Soetoro has set the standard that no man could eclipse.
Trump’s ‘problem’ is that he is a terrible nominee.
His negatives are in ORBIT.
The MSM has managed to prop up a candidate who’ll be an even weaker nominee than Hillary.
Ted Cruz is not an ideal candidate. No-one ever is.
But he lacks the BAGGAGE that Trump does… the stuff that’ll be pouring out of the video screen all through the Fall.
That data stream of flip flops and double talk (John Oliver) will make Trump the laughing stock of the electorate.
&&&&&&&
Ted’s problem is that he’s TOO close to the evangelical movement.
Which then causes flaming paranoia in atheistic ranks — and Leftists skew highly towards atheism… as they believe in Man over God.. their version of the First Commandment.
Other than that, Ted does NOT have any raging flaws that send hackles up ones back.
Being called ‘a liar’ by Donald Trump — tis to laugh.
That’s the weakest tea ever served up from a political lectern.
It’s tossed out — without ANY buttressing evidence.
It’s also worth noting that the extended Bush crew are the PRIMARY source for every manner of dig against Cruz.
Like Dr. Carson, they were insulted by his supreme intellectual skills.
Countless times in my past I’ve helped this or that fellow…. even when they requested it.
Invariably they begrudge me.
Later in my relationship I stopped helping them in any way… by feigning ignorance. In a stage whisper, walking away, I could hear them muttering their immense relief — while venting their anger — having FINALLY found a limit to my knowledge library.
Solving intractable problems in SECONDS triggers shame and bitterness within the beneficiary — that can’t be openly expressed.
( My own Brother is super reluctant to accept help as this dynamic enrages him with self shame. )
It’s obvious from G.W. Bush’s statements and others that they feel VERY inferior around Ted.
So they “just don’t like the guy.” A direct W quote, BTW.
Since this antipathy is driven from the subconscious, George could not quite pin down his distaste — for a fellow that worked ardently in his service… particularly getting Florida’s electoral votes. (!)
THIS is where the antipathy to Ted Cruz springs from.
Huckabee is the same sort of low-character opportunist that I’ve accused many others of being who fell into Trump’s camp. Christie, Jan Brewer, Rick Scott, and probably Kasich before this is over.
I must also comment on those folks who conflate Ted’s ardent support for his CLIENT’S political position ( client= GW Bush ) and the personal thoughts of Mr. Cruz.
Ted Cruz signed on for his LEGAL skills to the Bush camp.
They didn’t need him to stuff envelopes — or work the phones — or craft sound bites.
Any attorney working for a client — even outside the courts — is supposed to jealously guard their client’s interests.
He is supposed to advance interests that are not his own… so long as they are not a conflicted interest.
The political scene of 1999-2001 was entirely different than 2011 thru present.
Ted’s become quite alarmed WRT (illegal) immigration — especially as 0bamba cries out “All ye All ye All Come Free.”
junior Says:
March 19th, 2016 at 6:20 pm
I thought McClellan (who ran for president in 1864) referred to Lincoln as an ape or gorilla? Though afaik, he did so while he was still a general (i.e. before he ran for president), and only in private.
%%%%%
Modernity has corrupted the insult.
In 1864 the slur would’ve certainly been that he ( Lincoln ) was an “ape lover,” … “maybe part ape, himself.”
McClellan’s subliminal campaign message was that Whites are killing themselves in huge numbers solely to advantage Blacks.
“Ape” was the code word replacement for the pervasive term used for (Black) slaves.
McClellan looked to sweep the ’64 elections — right up until Sherman’s capture of Atlanta — the CRITICAL railroad hub of the Confederacy made a prompt total victory manifest.
( You would not believe the screwball logistics of Atlanta. It was the Southern version of Chicago. Every significant railroad had a line into its massive yards.
( There, countless thousands of slaves transshipped — by hand and barrow — cargoes from one gauge to the next.
( So, the loss of Atlanta really meant that Virginia was cut off from every state west of Georgia — and Georgia, too. The Confederacy was chopped down to just three states, Virginia and the Carolinas.
( Even so, Sherman marched to the Atlantic. This was done not to cut the South in half — but to gain a supply hub for his army — as he was destroying his own logistical tail as he advanced. What he could not hold and protect, he had to destroy.
Silly Con Wrecks:
You are at least 100 years behind the times regarding questioning the value of religion and “established” norms. The Great War (WW1) did more to wreck western moral and cultural underpinnings and the belief in G*d than anything in recent history.
OM,
Yes, WW1 devastated Europe’s moral and western orientated culture. A majority of young males slaughtered, industries crippled, and economies set back 100 years. WW1 set the stage for WW2. After that war Western Civilization was protected by Ameican treasure, hich allowed the massive welfare state in Europe to induldge unsustainable social welfare program, and thus they became soft nd sdverse to risk.
They are just beginning to pay for their foolihness.
Blert –
Modernity has corrupted the insult.
In 1864 the slur would’ve certainly been that he ( Lincoln ) was an “ape lover,” … “maybe part ape, himself.”
——————
Actually, I think McLellan kept it strictly to calling Lincoln an ape or gorilla (can’t remember which one). Lincoln had a famously unattractive face. And with his beard, he had a bald face surrounded by dark hair, much like some primates. I don’t think McLellan’s jibes had anything to do with blacks.
junior…
You MUST be dreaming.
In 1864 EVERY jibe was with regard to Blacks.
Lincoln had transformed the war into a moral campaign.
The fatalities were in ORBIT.
The only obvious winner were Black slaves.
The obvious losers were Whites of military age — both North and South.
The PRIMARY reason to induct Blacks into the Union Army turned on this optic.
In the field — Black troops were — almost uniformly — useless.
The flagrant exception being the FIRST Black unit — see “Glory.”
No other Black outfit remotely attained its distinctions.
Most Black outfits// formations were deemed militarily useless.
1) Illiterate — entirely.
2) In awe of the Southern slave master.
3) Physically all beat up. That is, they were ex-slaves.
Which is why you never read about Black military exploits in the back half of the Civil War… even though the numbers of Black troops EXPLODED.
On their performance, it was immediately decided to use them as construction troops – – ESPECIALLY rail road troops.
In that capacity, it took THREE Blacks to equal the performance of ONE White (punk Irish) dude.
For in the era, the Irish were White ‘slaves’ in economic terms.
&&&&&&&
It is politically incorrect to proclaim how stupid, stupid can get — with Blacks.
Having been tasked with getting effective with economic performance out of truly stupid Blacks — nice guys — handsome guys — Christian guys — I can assure all that it’s the peak of frustration.
I don’t hate them.
I don’t disdain them.
I weep for them.
As I would for any cripple.
It truly pains me to witness a Christian soul victimized by his IQ… bleed down by leeches — human leeches.
And the poor lad can’t even figure that much out.
I will skip just how stupid the lad was.
Suffice it to say that it beggars the imagination.
In so many words, he couldn’t go from A to B and stay whole.
The kicker is that this was a NICE guy.
He functioned as if the world were populated by nice guys — whereas most fellows are more towards Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs — but without the intellect… or the charm.
Such is the corruption of humanity.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
Little Napoleon called father Abraham “a well meaning baboon” in 1862 when McClellan was General in Chief of the Army.
Blert –
YOU AREN’T READING WHAT I’M WRITING.
This was NOT in 1864 during the presidential campaign. As Lurker notes, it was while McClellan was still in command.
And on a completely unrelated note…
Apparently the LDS community in Utah has taken note of Trump’s comments. I saw a Deseret News/KSL poll that had Trump losing to both Clinton and Sanders in Utah.
Latest Utah poll numbers:
Cruz 53, Kasich 29, Trump 11.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ut/utah_republican_presidential_caucus-5765.html
Kasich is drawing too much support for me to be happy about it. I thought he would be irrelevant in any case, but he may actually play the spoiler.
Still, I think we can clearly see what Utah Mormons think about Trump.
P.S. if you click on the poll link at RCP, it takes you to a Salt Lake Tribune article that states “It [the poll] showed that Cruz performed even better among “very likely” caucus attendees, coming in at 57 percent.”
P.P.S.: “Only 29 percent of the respondents promised to vote for Trump in a general election, while 25 percent said they would write in another candidate, 15 percent said they’d vote for a third-party candidate and 7 percent said they’d back the Democrat.”
I assume UT is a *bit* of an outlier with their bias against Trump, but this must reflect somewhat on the state of the base in other states too.
McClellan was not a candidate then.
This is Trump’s “Bully Talk”. It’s intended to be beyond the pale and to dare someone to hit back so he can play offended. Anyone with common courtesy, not political correctness would not only hesitate but be appalled to respond in kind. I’m reminded of the great character actor Simon Oakland the bully in the Sand Pebbles. He was a Trumpian character moving from one outrage to the other but no one would challenge him. But he went one step too far and the quiet character played by Steve McQueen helps his Chinese coolie beat the bully in a fight. It doesn’t help relations between the crew.
A bully has great power so long as it’s worth it for his accollytes to string along. Nothing but a total defeat can break the bond. The weakness is that others with more power will not willingly work with the bully. The WJS today has a good story about how Deutsche Bank is the only one willing to work with Donald today and only because the need his business. His bully tactics made him off limits to other banks and finance houses. So much for the great negotiator
Dirty Jobs Guy…
The Big Bankers that are shutting Donald off have HUGE political exposure to Hillary’s retaliation.
Get it ?
Rupert Murdoch does not want Trump to be the nominee. Rubio was MUCH more his cup of tea.
Hence, you can count on a slew of WSJ articles damning Trump one way or another.
&&&&&&
Which gets back to why Trump is a lousy nominee.
Too much baggage — too many Big Players out to trip him up.
More even than those unhappy with Ted Cruz.
Just how animated can a corporate type get about a candidate that pledges to restore the rule of law and the US Constitution ?
Whereas Trump is galvanizing.