- Abraham had his wife pose as his sister: Genesis 20. It was pragmatic for Abraham (who feared for his life) to say Sarah was his sister, but God had other plans.
- Israel spying out the Promised Land: Numbers 13,14. It was pragmatic to refuse to enter the Promised Land. God kept Israel in the wilderness until an entire generation died.
- Israel defeats Jericho: Joshua 6. A pragmatic person would say marching around a city would have little effect on defeating it.
- Moses’ mom did not kill him: Exodus 2. It wasn’t pragmatic to hide a male infant. But Israel was ultimately freed because of her actions.
- Hosea didn’t divorce Gomer: Hosea 3. A pragmatic Hosea would divorce a woman who returned to prostitution. But God used his love as a symbol for his relationship with Israel.
- Jeremiah kept preaching: Jeremiah 25. A pragmatic prophet would stop preaching after a few years with no results, but Jeremiah kept at it for 23 years.
- Daniel in the lion’s den. Daniel 6. A pragmatic Daniel wouldn’t have ended up in the Lion’s Den.
- Fiery Furnace: Daniel 3. A pragmatic Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego wouldn’t have ended up in the fiery furnace.
- Solomon Takes wives: 1 Kings 11. The wisest man on earth decided it was pragmatic to marry and take concubines from other nations, and he ended up worshipping false gods
- Ananias and Saul: Acts 9. It would have been pragmatic for Ananias to stay away from a renowned killer of Christians. But then he wouldn’t have been there to begin discipling a man who would write half the New Testament.
- Jerusalem Council: Acts 15. It would have been pragmatic to give in to the Jewish believers and make Gentile believers follow Jewish customs.
- Timothy: 1 Timothy 4:12. Pragmatism says that older people know more than younger ones.
- Gamaliel: Acts 5. Gamaliel gave some very bad pragmatic advice.
“And if you will listen to all that I command you, and will walk in my ways, and do what is right in my eyes by keeping my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did, I will be with you and will build you a sure house, as I built for David, and I will give Israel to you.” 1 Kings 11:38
“And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just. ” Romans 3:8
- Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary says, “Let us do evil, that good may come, is oftener in the heart than in the mouth of sinners; for few thus justify themselves in their wicked ways.The believer knows that duty belongs to him, and events to God; and that he must not commit any sin, or speak one falsehood, upon the hope, or even assurance, that God may thereby glorify himself. If any speak and act thus, their condemnation is just.”
- Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible says, “Whatever is evil is not to be done under any pretence. Any imaginable good which we may think will result from it; any advantage to ourselves or to our cause; or any glory which we may think may result to God, will not sanction or justify the deed.”
- Matthew Poole’s Commentary says, “ The apostle doth not vouchsafe to refute this absurd saying, but simply condemns it, and those that put it in practice.”
- Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown’s Commentary says, “Such reasoning amounts to this- ‘which, indeed, we who preach salvation by free grace are slanderously accused of teaching – that the more evil we do, the more glory will rebound to God; a damnable principle.’ thus the apostle, instead of refuting this principle, thinks it enough to hold it up to execration, as one that shocked the moral sense.”
“If you don’t vote for Trump, you are handing the court to Clinton! She will appoint so many liberal judges that we will never get it back!”
I don’t think anyone can argue the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has become politicized. It’s possible the next President of the United States will appoint 3 to 4 judges to the court. It has become a lighting rod in the election. On both the right and the left, people proclaim that unless we want to see the court destroyed (and America with it) we must vote for their candidate!
Conservatives are told that unless we want to see the court swing far left we must vote for Trump. We have to stop Clinton at all costs. For some, this is the only reason they are voting for Trump. They hope that he will appoint conservative justices, while they know Clinton will appoint progressive ones.
Let’s forget about the fact that there were far better qualified conservatives in the primary that would have absolutely have appointed conservatives. Candidates about which there wouldn’t be any doubt, as opposed to a candidate who says “Everything’s negotiable.” Forget that the 40% of GOP primary voters who selected Trump did not care about the SCOTUS. This is where we are now:
We are faced once again with the fear that SCOTUS will slide to the left if we don’t get in line and vote for the GOP candidate.
Unfortunately, it’s too late. SCOTUS is lost. Our supposedly conservative court is the same one that upheld the Affordable Care Act twice and gave us same-sex marriage.
Conservatives try to appoint justices that will interpret the Constitution as originally written. Progressives appoint justices that will interpret it in light of current views and circumstances.
So, in our “conservative” court we see progressive appointees always render opinions that line up with progressive positions, and those appointed by conservatives sometimes break ranks and join the progressives. The only way to fight this sort of thing in the current climate is to appoint conservatives that will always render opinions along the lines of conservative positions. Just as progressive justices adhere to their progressive values, we must appoint justices that will adhere to conservative principles even if they feel they violate the Constitution.
This is not what the Court is supposed to be.
This one branch of government is not supposed to have this much power. They are definitely not supposed to legislate. Aside from hearing cases from lower courts, one of their main roles is Judicial Review. Since 1803, Marbury vs Madison, SCOTUS has passed judgment on the actions of the Executive and Legislative branches of government. Here’s a quote about the case from USCourts.gov:
“In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.”
I believe that SCOTUS has moved too far away from what it was. Justice is no longer blind, but instead the view of the court is slanted to the right or left. We should not fear our own Supreme Court, no matter what party holds the Presidency. Pandora’s box is open. There is no way to return to the Court of before. We have to find a way to fix the Court as it is now.
Currently the only way to reverse a SCOTUS ruling is with another SCOTUS ruling or a Constitutional amendment. That worked well when the Court wasn’t legislating from the bench. Imagine Congress with such limited checks and balances that every law they ever passed was virtually immune to being overturned. That is SCOTUS today, When they make such broad rulings that, in effect, force new laws on the people, they have overstepped their role and need to be put in check.
The power to appoint Justices to the Court has become a political tool that is more effective then electing actual legislators. We have allowed this to happen, and we can stop it. The solution is not to appoint justices that reflect our views, so we can get rulings we like. That is a temporary solution to a long term problem. That solution ensures that we will always be in a fight for the Court.
The long term solution is found in Article V of the Constitution.
“Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress”
This solution doesn’t just have the potential to fix SCOTUS, but to limit the power and jurisdiction of the Executive and Legislative branches as well. 34 states must petition for a Convention and submit amendments. We can fix our government. But repeating the same cycle of elections over and over is not the way. A Convention of States could be.
Regarding the Court; I believe the current system has been corrupted to the point that it must have outside reform. We cannot appoint our way out of this mess. We need measures to limit terms of Justices and ways to more easily overturn a ruling.
That is what we should be fighting for. The current Presidential election matters, because the President does (among other things) appoint Justices. But the only way to actually, truly fix SCOTUS is to limit its power. No President can do that.
The wonderful thing about a representative form of government is that we, the voters, can put people who represent us into positions of leadership. These elected officials have the power to represent the things we hold dearest. They have the power to lead our towns, counties, states and nation in a way that reflects who we are.
Unless we vote based on our fears. On the national scale, in our 2 party/binary choice elections we seem to always hear about voting against the worse candidate. If we don’t vote for candidate x we will have horrible consequences. These tactics play on our fears.
If we elect people based on our fears, they will govern based on our fears. Is what we fear the best representation of us? Do we really expect our government to improve if we put people in office who represent what we are afraid of, rather than what we value?
I propose a radical alternative in the political climate of 2016: Don’t vote against someone you are afraid of. Don’t vote against ideologies you fear. Vote for what you value, for the things you hold dear. Vote your values, not your fears.
WARNING: There is a dangerous epidemic spreading across America. Binary Choice Syndrome (BCS) is a condition where voters believe they only have 2 choices for President. If they don’t vote for one, then they are actually voting for the other. The condition, prevalent on both the right and the left, has caused feelings of alienation and frustration. In more acute cases, the people afflicted with BCS have shown symptoms of rabid, illogical support for one candidate over the other. It is in this state that they are actively spreading the syndrome. Be very cautious when dealing with anyone who says the presidential election is a binary choice.
Binary Choice Syndrome plays on your fears about the two major party candidates. If you find yourself in the position where you don’t want to vote for either politician, those with BCS try to scare you into reluctant support of their candidate. They hope you will hold your nose and vote against the horrible politician by voting for the less horrible one. Should you think about not doing that, they trot out the binary choice. It’s your duty to vote for the less bad candidate, or you are helping the worse candidate get into office.
The premise of BCS is this: If you don’t vote for candidate x, then you are voting for candidate y.
3 reasons why Binary Choice Syndrome should be destroyed.
- It’s illogical. Obviously, if you don’t vote for X then X get’s one less vote. But does that mean Y get’s an extra vote? Of course not. Just just means X doesn’t get a vote. You might chose to vote for Z or even not to vote at all. (I encourage everyone to vote their conscience, but that’s your choice.) Voting for Z does not add votes to the tally for Y or X. It just adds votes for Z. In a 2 party system it may feel like you are throwing away your vote but you are definitely not adding to the tally of another candidate.
- It cheapens your vote. Binary Choices limit your options. Who are they to say you must choose between one or the other? Who are they to say that a vote for a candidate you support, no matter how unlikely to carry the day, is actually a vote for someone else? It is your right as a citizen to participate in the election process in the way you feel is required by your conscience. If that means voting for someone not represented by the two major parties, then that is your right. BCS is often spread by those in leadership of one of the two major parties because BCS keeps them in power.
- It is only valid if voters allow it to be valid. The ultimate cure for Binary Choice Syndrome is to realize that as long as we vote for the lesser of two evils we will get one of the evils. Every voter has the power to break free of the binary choice and vote for someone they actually support. If enough voters did this, the 2 party system would fall. We are not required to vote Republican or Democrat, just as people in elections of the past were not required to vote Whig or Democrat. Parties can change, the system is what we, the individual voters, make of it. We have all the power. We choose to remain in a 2 party system by voting for the two major party candidates. We don’t have to.
Be careful, one of the more slippery symptoms of BCS is the Issue Related Binary Choice. Sometimes, BCS sufferers will not talk about particular candidates, but will choose an issue to present as a binary choice. Recent cases of this have centered around the US Supreme Court. BCS sufferers will present the concern over the Court and then point to a binary choice as the only way to protect us from this runaway government branch. Previous cases have centered on the issue of abortion, LGBT rights, immigration, and many other social and economic issues. While concerns about issues may be valid, the binary choice is not.
You can be vaccinated against BCS by realizing that your vote matters, and you can choose who you will vote for based on your values, not your fears.
It’s no secret I dislike Trump as a candidate. Character, competence and core values: he falls short in every area. I understand why some Republicans will support him over Clinton, but I cannot.
Still, he won the primary vote, fair and square. And as any Trump supporter will tell you, he won with more votes than any previous candidate. Of course what they don’t mention is that even more people voted against him than for him. Trump won about 40% of the primary vote. And in the broad field of GOP candidates this cycle, that was enough to earn the required 1237 delegates.
Since his opponents dropped out several weeks ago he has failed to unite the Republican Party. He has even spent time attacking fellow GOP members. It has been revealed that he has very little money in his campaign and is no longer planning to “self fund”. (See image of the “survey” fundraising letter I received) He has let major issues go by without comment (i.e.- SCOTUS abortion ruling) and created self inflicted wounds on his own campaign (i.e.- the Star meme, praising the “bad guy” Hussein). The same polls that he loved in the primary continue to show him losing to Clinton. He doesn’t have a significant campaign apparatus. The media which gave him massive positive coverage in the primary (over $2 Billion worth) has turned on him. Clinton just beat the rap on her email scandal.
And we’re not even to the GOP convention yet.
There have been rumblings of a delegate revolt. There may be some sort of move to make the first ballot, on which the 1237 delegates Trump has earned are bound to vote for him, an advisory vote. Or something that makes it not binding in the convention, or similar. Allowing delegates to vote their personal convictions on the 2nd ballot. Basically, we would have a contested convention.
Is this possible? A recent report says that only 890 GOP delegates are personally loyal to Trump. 680 oppose him. 900 are “in play”. It’s a longshot at best. It still takes 1237 delegates to secure the nomination. 680 is a long way from 1237.
I have said I don’t think the GOP could survive something like this, and I don’t care if it dies. With Trump’s campaign becoming more and more of a so-called dumpster fire every week, I just don’t know what would happen anymore. I’m certainly not pushing for it. If I was a delegate bound to Trump, I’m not sure I could be a part of the revolt. He won the primary. But since I’m not, if another candidate emerged from the GOP convention I might vote for him or her.
What about the will of the people? It’s true that the will of 40% of GOP Primary voters would be thwarted in a move like this. It’s also true that this would only be possible if the candidate in question failed so utterly at delegate selection that the delegates bound to him actually would consider voting for someone else. Which of course, Trump did. Every state has its own rules and a part of that is the delegate selection process. And Trump’s own ineptitude set up the potential revolt.
Would it be legal? Remember that the political parties are not actually Government entities. They are private. They could change the rules in some way to make this possible, if enough delegates put on enough pressure. According to the same report on delegates, 20 of the 28 committee members needed to bring something like this to the floor are already on board.
One could make the case that the reason political parties have delegates and conventions is because they need one more stop gap before they nominate someone who will lose. Similar to the electoral college for the general. It’s never happened, but theoretically a presidential vote could be overturned by the electoral college. (In 1820, 1960, and 1988 individual electors chose not to vote according to the state vote) From a purely pragmatic point of view, Trump trails in polling and funds more than Romney at this point. Delegates might feel it would be smart to nominate someone else. After all, the point of this is to win the election, right?
Even so, any delegate revolt getting beyond the rules committee is unlikely. And then, for that effort to successfully nominate someone else is even less likely. While it might be a pleasant day dream for #NeverTrump-ers to cling to, we had better prepare for Trump as the nominee. And for Clinton as president, if polls and trends continue.