MennoNet.com

Robert wrote:Do not take what he says literally.

Does this apply to his speech at the March for Life?

I Timothy 2:1-3 "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone- for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior,"

Regardless of our thoughts about the current president, I hope we are all fervently praying for him and all our leaders.

PeterG wrote: Does this apply to his speech at the March for Life?

Yep. For me, it does. Very Sanguine.

So...when President Trump said "Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the right to life" and "We are protecting the sanctity of life and the family as the foundation of our society," we shouldn't take him literally?

Dan Z wrote:I believe Trump was put into office not because most people thought he would do a good job, but as a result of a significant voter dissatisfaction resulting in a fit of anti-establishment cynicism bent on upending the system - and perhaps the cynics are happy to see the system undercut like this, but the rest of the country (and the world) is being dragged along for the ride.

You see to think that voters with an anti-establishment attitude are somehow wrong. Should they be happy about the current establishment?

The strangest thing about these discussions is the general consensus that results that we'd really all just be a lot happier with a polite, respectable "leader" like Obama or Bush Sr. Basically, it seems a lot of us hold opinions that would help us get invited to good cocktail parties, but also make us woefully out of touch with the average working American and particularly those who are a bit down and out.

Josh wrote:

Dan Z wrote:I believe Trump was put into office not because most people thought he would do a good job, but as a result of a significant voter dissatisfaction resulting in a fit of anti-establishment cynicism bent on upending the system - and perhaps the cynics are happy to see the system undercut like this, but the rest of the country (and the world) is being dragged along for the ride.

You see to think that voters with an anti-establishment attitude are somehow wrong. Should they be happy about the current establishment?

I think change is important, improvement is essential - but within a context of stability and functionality. Anti-establishmentism as a strategy or a goal may feel good (like cussing someone out when you're mad), but in the end it is short-sighted, disruptive, and dysfunctional - and usually hurts those who can least afford to be hurt (perhaps the working poor most of all).

You don't fix a house by blowing it up. Build on the best of what we've got (American democracy has a lot going for it) and make it even better. Trump, as an anti-establishment solution, is a bad idea.

PeterG wrote:So...when President Trump said "Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the right to life" and "We are protecting the sanctity of life and the family as the foundation of our society," we shouldn't take him literally?

You do understand that taking him literally means focusing on each word being exact,right? Taking him figuratively means try to understand the point or principle being conveyed.

I previously voted 'Very Positive' to see if there would be some comment on anyone here voting that way. I changed it to 'Neutral' although there are not things Donald says or does that concerns me as a Canadian other than a concern that God will save Donald. If the Lord saved the apostle Paul (chiefest of sinners), the Lord can certainly save Donald. Now wouldn't that be a wonderful testimony of the saving grace of our Lord.

History is mostly guessing; the rest is prejudice. - Will Durant

Robert wrote:

PeterG wrote:So...when President Trump said "Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the right to life" and "We are protecting the sanctity of life and the family as the foundation of our society," we shouldn't take him literally?

You do understand that taking him literally means focusing on each word being exact,right? Taking him figuratively means try to understand the point or principle being conveyed.

If that's all it means to take someone literally, no one should ever be taken literally, and interpreting President Trump's words is no different than interpreting anyone else's words. Which is fine.

But the points and principles conveyed by many of the things President Trump says and writes are exactly the problem, not the dictionary meanings of the individual words. The use of the word "[out]house," in and of itself, is not a particularly big deal; it's the point being conveyed that is problematic. To put it another way, the figurative use of this word in context is precisely what's wrong with it. Jonah Goldberg offers insightful (if rambling) analysis of that particular controversy here.