Does Romans 13 Support the Case for Keeping Trump?

In response to Mark Galli’s Christianity Today op-ed calling for President Trump to be removed from office, Peter Leithart at First Things appeals to Romans 13 as one reason to put up with a bad executive. I have heard this in defense of Trump, but I don’t think it is a correct application. First, here is the passage:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

It seems obvious that governing authorities involve more than the president. Congress is an authority, the Judicial branch is an authority. There are state and local authorities. Critically, the Constitution via the Supremacy clause is the law of the land. Paul did not specify a form of government. In our form of government, the authority is the Constitution. Rulers are elected by the people and are considered public servants. Citizens and rulers are subject to the Constitution which is the governing authority.

Thus, it is important for Christians to respect Congress and who God has placed in office there. Many Christian Trump supporters right now are myopically focused on the executive branch. However, I believe they have encouraged President Trump to violate Romans 13 by supporting his resistance to subpoenas and parroting his rhetoric about a witch hunt. I think a case can be made that Trump is in violation of Romans 13 since he will not bring himself under the authority of Congress and the Constitution.

Trump supporters might counter by saying he has a right to go to court to seek a favorable interpretation of the law in his resistance to Congressional oversight. While that is true, it should be noted that he has argued that the president has absolute immunity from investigation and indictment while in office. The president could commit a crime in broad daylight and according to the argument he has advanced, he could not be investigated until he leaves office. This is an extreme position and has not prevailed in any court challenge thus far. The Supreme Court will hear related cases soon.

Trump’s legal strategy aside, my main point is that current Christian Trump supporters must find a way to respect all of the authorities. I think Leithart is clearly wrong to say Christians should put up with bad behavior in our Constitutional form of government when Congressional oversight exists.

In Leithart’s article, I read no argument for why Christians must honor the executive branch more than the legislative branch. Trump Christians have shown a consistent bias on this front. The Constitution gives impeachment power to the House. Trump Christians such as Franklin Graham, Tony Perkins, and Robert Jeffress blasted the impeachment procedures as biased and unfair. In fact, the House leaders had the right to conduct the business as their preexisting rules dictated. Giving Congress honor and respect as an authority was not at all what these leaders did. Instead, they left their religious callings and became partisan political players.

Now, Senate Republican leaders are threatening to dishonor the Constitution by making the trial a sham. Christians should insist on a trial which brings forward evidence. Christians should publicly call on the president to obey subpoenas and submit the authority over him — the Constitution. Christians should honor the Constitutional order for the role of the Senate. The Senators take an oath to be impartial. Christian Senators who follow Romans 13 should strive to follow that oath. Christian citizens should call on the Senate to follow their oath and honor them for doing so.

In short, governing authorities involve more than the executive branch.  Christians need to support the legitimate work of the legislative branch and insist that the president honor the Constitution. There is no reason to elevate one branch over another in our system since the law of the land isn’t a potentate but the Constitution.

UPDATE: This post at American Creation blog is a nice summary of Calvinist views of Romans 13. Gregg Frazer, Dean of The Master’s University and historian of the founding era wrote to address Calvin’s perspective on political rebellion. In short, without some governmental sanction for resistance (e.g., impeachment), Christians should not rebel. However, impeachment and removal is built in to the Constitution and therefore legitimate. Christians should not appeal to Romans 13 as a reason to oppose impeachment.

272 thoughts on “Does Romans 13 Support the Case for Keeping Trump?”

  1. Being that the gist of Romans 13 involves punishing evil, no rainbow flag waver is justified in holding public office, Donald Trump included.

  2. The impeechment sham is over – “Following Trump’s acquittal, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham wrote, “Today, the sham impeachment attempt concocted by Democrats ended in the full vindication and exoneration of President Donald J. Trump. As we have said all along, he is not guilty. The Senate voted to reject the baseless articles of impeachment, and only the President’s political opponents – all Democrats, and one failed Republican presidential candidate – voted for the manufactured impeachment articles.””

    1. Don’t forget the two Independents.

      Several GOP Senators said he was guilty but that they didn’t want to remove him for it. It is natural for Trump and his supporters to spin it but many statements of the Senators who voted to acquit didn’t exonerate Trump. They were too weak to do impartial justice but they did render an opinion.

      1. Yes don’t forget the 2 democrats who did not vote for the articles. Warren it is obvious you literally hate the man, and look down on anyone with a difference of opinion to you on this matter, however this is nothing but a partisan stunt, the articles were not for “impeachment” purposes so even if they considered that he was guilty of those things, which I think is clear they have not proven beyond “reasonable” doubt, he still could NOT be impeached for it, so that should get you to think what was the purpose of this SHAM, it was nothing but to throw mud at the President of the United States and to demean the position and to make Mr Donald Trump look questionable to the voters ahead of an election, they are using their positions for votes instead of proper governance, they took their shot they have exposed their evil motives for all the country to see except those who are blinded by their hatred. Look you obviously have an opinion you’re welcome to it but isn’t it strange that you are still holding a candle for impeachment, seriously it is over why do you hate this man so much? Especially when you are trying to give opinions on the applicability of biblical accounts, how can you do this from a hateful perspective. I have said this before Mr Donald Trump isn’t perfect, neither am I, God’s grace is sufficient for all, but thank God that He placed Trump in the position because he has had a thick skin which can take the serious abuse from the leftist democratic mob. At the end of the day the Democrats have exposed their evil motives and anyone who continues to hold an impeachment candle shows their hatred and bitterness. I’ll pray for you.

        1. “Yes don’t forget the 2 democrats who did not vote for the articles.”

          and why didn’t those representatives vote for the articles of impeachment against Trump?

          “beyond a reasonable doubt” is not a requirement for impeachment or removal from office. Further, I suspect if the Senate had called witnesses to testify under oath (ex. Bolton) the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, while not necessary, would have been met. However, I will grant you that it was the House that should have called those witnesses, rather than rushing the articles.

  3. Someone on this thread with a Cross as an avatar is an embarassment to what it really represents. I pray they repent.
    “hot air fried your brain perhaps”
    “Thank you for proving you’re a moron”
    “Yes you are free to and I am free to ignore imbecilic remarks”
    ” poopy Pelosi”

    Hypocrisy is still abound in the church, as they try to defend the most corrupt, racist, misogynist president ever. Maybe that’s why more people are leaving organized religion more than ever.

  4. Someone on this thread with a Cross as an avatar is an embarassment to what it really represents. I pray they repent.
    “hot air fried your brain perhaps”
    “Thank you for proving you’re a moron”
    “Yes you are free to and I am free to ignore imbecilic remarks”
    ” poopy Pelosi”

    Hypocrisy is still abound in the church, as they try to defend the most corrupt, racist, misogynist president ever. Maybe that’s why more people are leaving organized religion more than ever.

  5. The Constitution also gives the authority to conduct the trial to the Senate only. It does not permit the House to refuse to send the articles unless the Senate agrees to conduct it the way the House wants it to be done.

    1. Show me in the Constitution where it says when the House must send the articles of impeachment to the Senate by a certain time or in a certain manner. The House could hold the articles until the Senate turns Democratic if it wanted to. They don’t expire. Another House could revote on them I assume but the Constitution is silent about when the articles get to the Senate.

      1. If Trump is such a threat to our civilization and Pelosi has the indisputable evidence why the hold up?

        1. Maybe to give Senators time to reflect on the situation, rather than simply vote on party lines? Thing are pretty heated right now, and a period of reflection might be no bad thing for the nation. (Obviously I can see why such a “period of reflection” might be awkward for certain individuals and political cliques!)

        2. Perhaps you’ve missed McConnell’s statements that he doesn’t intend to be impartial or call witnesses.

          1. Perhaps you missed they wanted to impeach Trump before he was even in office and have been working to overthrow the 2016 election and a duly elected President. You went along with it and still are. Facts are facts, Pelosi should release the transcripts to the other members of Congress and turn it over to the Senate. Unless of course this is just another political stunt to overturn The Will of the People. Trump will win 2020.

          2. Sorry, Articles… Send them over and lets go to trial, Trump can face his accusers they can call witnesses and Trump can on put on a defense… or just wait and let the people decide in less than a year.

          3. The Will of the People?* Don’t you mean the Will of the Electoral College?

            (Of course, the Will of the Electoral College should, given the current constitutional arrangements, be respected, unless there are very good reasons, such as impeachable activities, for it to be challenged and, maybe, overturned by elected legislators who are entitled to exercise sovereignty in matters allocated to them by the Constitution.)

            *On the basis of the collective ‘Will of the People’ across the Union, Trump would not be the President: in 2016, he garnered over 2.85 million fewer votes than the candidate who won the most votes.

            Do you understand this, or would you like further explanation?

          4. Perhaps you missed they wanted to impeach Trump before he was even in office and have been working to overthrow the 2016 election and a duly elected President.

            These are simply talking points. They sound like a reasonable argument, but they are not. Weather or not some Democrats wanted to impeach Trump from the beginning is irrelevant to whether he abused his office. Whether Trump was “duly elected” (which, to be clear, he was) is also irrelevant to whether he abused the power of his office and should be removed now. How do you think it would fly in court if a lawyer argued “The police wanted to arrest my client from the beginning, even before he commit those crimes.”? Try dealing with the facts.

            Also, “The Will of the People” is incredibly disingenuous. Yes, the President was elected by the people, but *so was the House*. You can’t honestly say one is “The Will of the People”, but not the other. Never mind that Trump did not actually receive a majority of the votes. Never mind that House districts are gerrymandered and actually under represent the Democratic majority.

            Another reason your argument is obviously BS is if 51% of the people support removing Trump, would you suddenly support convicting Trump? After all, that’s “The Will of the People”. And then argue the Republicans are thwarting it if they acquit him? I’m going to hazard a guess and say, no. You don’t actually care about the people’s will outside of disingenuous talking points.

          5. I like your analysis.

            I believe there is also a more fundamental problem at play: the understanding of what “democracy” is really about. Ultimately, it not about what a majority of people have said they want at a particular moment; rather it is concerned with the protection of human rights and the maintenance of the rule of law. Without these, there is no real democracy.

            Back to Romans 13: in our time, I believe it requires us to accept the disciplines of democratic, constitutional government as the best means available to us of protecting human dignity and promoting the common good.

          6. “this is just another political stunt to overturn The Will of the People.”

            “the will of the people” was to have Hillary Clinton be president. She had 3 million more votes than Trump. It was the quirk of the electoral college that won the election for Trump.

  6. Seeing as we have Trump Christians do we also have Pelosi Christians or maybe we have Omar Christians etc… you show bias by making such a connection. Christians who stand for justice cannot support a partisan House everything about the impeachment has been a farce and under false pretenses, Jesus is the Truth the Devil is the liar/deceiver as I recall so farce and false sounds like it is not from God or for God’s will. The public deserves a government which governs instead of wasting more of the countries monies on partisan politics, 2 and a half years of Mueler millions of dollars wasted and resisting all of the President’s proposals/campaign promises yes that was a witch hunt and so is this. Sorry if you are going to claim that Republicans are acting partisan then I would recommend removing the blinkers. . Mr Galli’s attack on the President was also a partisan attack and was called out by Mr Graham correctly. “legitimate work of the legislative branch” I think the problem is that most of America except some like this writer can clearly see that the work of the legislative branch is and has been far from legitimate.
    God remains sovereign no matter what and I pray the democratic party with all their evil ideas are going to get a very loud message come election day.

      1. So in other words you accept that you are rejecting God’s word to suit your agenda, thank you for the honesty. Yes I’m sure you came out against the chanting of “not my President” you also accepted the election result that Mr D. Trump is the President of the United States of America and you have chided every official which has resisted him as President. Hypocrisy suits the left(the whole racist democratic party) perfectly the policies that the President of the United States is being blocked from instituting are the polices that the people of the United States elected him for, so those who obstruct and obfuscate, hate their own country and countrymen and are illegitimate, which is what the DNC has been doing and are.

        1. Trump was elected by the Electoral College. Sorry to bore you with a fact, by the way.

          (The framers of the Constitution believed that the election of the President should not be a direct election by the people of the Union, so talk of “the people voted for …” is not in line with the constitutional order. And, in the case of Trump, he did not secure a majority or plurality of votes across the Union as a whole.)

          1. Yes he was elected by the states of America. By the majority of states because America is not New York or California it seems the same snowflake arguments abound, sour losers who hate their country. After the election the bozo’s in the leftist democratic camp should have stood together and continued with task of governing instead they made up/took on resistance motto’s and not my president motto’s, further the electoral college votes is so that a few more densely populated states do not rule more sparsely populated states, go figure the founders thought being fair was a good thing, unlike the democrats today, so yes by the people for the people amazing isn’t it. After 3 years you would think people would be over their snowflakishness.

          2. So you agree that Trump has a constitutional mandate, but not a popular one. Good.

          3. Nope not one bit. He won the popular vote, he is more popular because he gained more states therefore he is more popular, Hillary won 20 and Donald won 30.

          4. You need to get a better Russian-English dictionary and look up “popular” again before your next set of trolls.

    1. Just on a point of fact: the Meuller investigation was launched when the Republicans had a majority in both chambers of Congress (i.e. there was bipartisan support for its existence).

      The epithet “Trump christian” is entirely apt for those who declare that Trump is somehow God’s agent. I don’t think Christians who oppose Trump make similar claims about Pelosi or Omar or …

      1. Just as a point of fact God can use even demons to bring about His justice, and the President of the United states is far from that. The derogation of the President and Christians by that epithet is purposeful and harmful and true lamebrain leftist democrat mockery of anyone who will not stand with their evil agendas and of Jesus Christ, it is a sacrilege but you probably don;t know what that word means.

        1. Calm down dear! You seem to be somewhat overexcited. Nice cup of tea perhaps? Ken would probably suggest decaffeinated, by the way …

          I was simply saying that ‘Trump christians’ is a term used for those who believe that Trump is somehow ‘doing God’s work’. There are indeed people who voted for Trump for other reasons. They are not ‘Trump christians’ (though they may be Christians), merely people who voted for Trump, some of whom will vote for him again, I expect.

          Trump himself doesn’t give a dime about Jesus, as far as I can see. (I may be wrong about that, of course – ultimately who am I to judge? – but he just seems far too narcissistic to be someone who might actually listen to what God may be saying to him.) He really does appear to me to be pretty much consumed by a squirming bunch of carnal and secular appetites: his talk of female genitalia and pride in avoiding paying taxes (in flagrant contradiction of Romans 13, one might argue) being perhaps two indications of this. But then many political leaders down the ages have been like that – that’s a reality that transcends culture and religious affiliation, I think.

          1. Perhaps you would like to have a go at presenting a cogent argument to justify Trump’s conduct and policy? No? (Not that easy, is it?!)

          2. What is wrong with the policies be specific? Which conduct are you specifically complaining about he is flawed just as you are can you justify yourself?

          3. How long have you got?! But it’s your lot who have the executive branch, so it is up to you to explain and justify your position if you want people to respect you.

          4. So you’re like the rest of the democratic party and their impeachment hoax, hot air fried your brain perhaps.

          5. Are you actually going to explain why the Administration’s policy is appropriate and the President’s conduct becoming of the Office? (I get the feeling that the answer to my question is “No”!)

          6. I asked – “What is wrong with the policies be specific? Which conduct are you
            specifically complaining about he is flawed just as you are can you
            justify yourself?”

          7. I asked for your defence of Trump’s conduct and policy first, but I will indulge for a moment with a couple of examples …

            On policy in respect of environmental protection: the Administration appears willfully ignorant of the pending environmental emergency. Perhaps you would like to address my concerns with facts and cogent argument.

            On Trump’s conduct at some of his political rallies: the way he appears to encourage violence in the face of dissent strikes me as a fundamental threat to democratic politics, which permits peaceful, legal dissent with impunity. Again, maybe you would like to offer commentary that might reassure sceptics.

            In a democratic society, I respectfully submit, we are required to respect the rule of law, but are not required to respect the behaviour of individuals who appear to threaten the very constitutional arrangements by which they were accorded power. Our first duty as citizens of a democratic polity is to respect human dignity, on which all truly democratic politics is based. (And one might argue that respect for human dignity is also a fundamental Christian duty – one that transcends the holding of any particular political viewpoint.)

          8. “On policy in respect of environmental protection: the Administration appears willfully ignorant of the pending environmental emergency.Perhaps you would like to address my concerns with facts and cogent argument.” Thank you for proving you’re a moron who believes ignorant doomsday models and cut and spliced weather patterns to suit the fake story and think that humans can reverse what the earth is doing on it’s own and for believing that money and taxes will save you.


            ” the way he appears to encourage violence” what other things do the (cnn) voices in your head tell you.

            “we are required to respect the rule of law” really – howz about you remove that great big plank in your eye, how is Portland these days etc.



            Where was your outrage then and where is it now for what continues.

            Yes the Republicans allowed the Mueller investigation circus so that they could not be accused of partisan nonsense but they will not be used again for the impeachment fairy tales that you believe

            time to put on the big boy pants and actually govern instead of running around blaming everyone else while setting your own hair on fire.

            I fail to see why I should waste my time with your ignorance. I will not get into a theological discussion when it is obvious you have no grasp on reality and reject reality. You can comment on my original comment nothing more.

          9. Lol. The climate change hoaxers would be funny if the issue were not so serious. And I suspect you yourself might take a different view if you lived in Bangladesh or south-east Australia or …

            I’m not a politician nor do I live in Portland. Nor am I a registered Democrat, by the way. Nor is my hair on fire!

            Just because people you disagree with do things that are wrong, you cannot justify wrongdoing by people you agree with.

            I am free to comment on any comment you might make, as long as I do not cause any harm to others in the process. Legitimate freedom of expression is still (for the moment) allowed in a forum such as this, though it does appear that there are religious extremists and others who like the idea of destroying it.

            I notice that you have not answered Warren’s question about Romans 13.

          10. I will not throw “pearls to pigs”. First show why we should vote for any democrat before I will think for a minute about getting rid of a President who has clearly shown that he supports conservative ideals.
            “Just because people you disagree with do things that are wrong” – which democrat distanced themselves from the evil that persists as far as antifa, none. Whether you are registered or not it seems you are pushing their talking points.
            “issue were not so serious.” no proof given just more assertions by you, how about you actually go listen to the physicist whose video I posted.
            Yes you are free to and I am free to ignore imbecilic remarks.

          11. But this post is not about the Democratic Party candidates; it is about whether Romans 13 can be used to support the case for keeping Trump.

            You are dodging the question. (To help you focus, I have made some subsidiary point below.)

            (I say again: you cannot, as either a Christian or someone who believes in democracy and the rule of law, use wrongdoing by one person to justify the wrongdoing of another. So you can forget that attempted ‘line of defence’.)

            (I also say again: I am not affiliated to the Democratic Party. So you can forget trying to use party politics to hide from the real issues here.)

            (I also remind you that this argument is not ultimately about the policy of each potential candidate in the forthcoming election; it is about how scripture should used in the context of democratic politics. Please note also that impeachment is not about the policy platform of a person or party; it is about a president’s behaviour while in office.)

            (Do you really believe that Trump supports “conservative ideals”? Do boasts about tax avoidance and grabbing women’s private parts suddenly exemplify “conservative ideals”? If so, that’s a new one on me! I know there are some pretty crazy ‘churches’ out there, but …)

          12. are you dense no-one voted for Trump they voted for the policies how many times do I have to tell you that. you continue on ad hominem attacks it is pointless drivel. Tell me who is better

          13. Correct – Impeachment is not about the the policy, but about the conduct of the person who is president. So we focus on Trump’s behaviour, not his policy.

            The policy of any would-be challenger is irrelevant.

            Mind you, TP appears to be somewhat capricious in many aspects of his policy. Meanwhile, tensions are high as ever in the Near East and N Korea continues to test missiles. The policy – whatever it is – doesn’t seem to be working too well …

          14. there has been no impeachable offense it is nonsense the same as the Russia hoax which Trump Christian haters ate, breakfast lunch and supper on the other hand though we have had antisemitic, anti-patriotic, lack of progress from the house, specifically the democratic party because of hateful and inept congressmen and women who will do anything to take away the light from their ineptitude.

            Tensions in the East are high not because of Trump how about you blame the Iranian government for their funding of terrorism and Barrack for giving them money.

            As for N.Korea –

          15. I like your N Korea link and its reference to (and I quote) “Trump’s dangerous unpredictability”. Quite right – TP is one dangerous guy.

            Are you a US Senator? If not, aren’t you being rather presumptuous in saying that (and I quote you) “there has been no impeachable offense”? It is for the the US Senate, and not you, to decide whether there has been an impeachable offence”.

            As for TP’s actions in respect of Ukraine: it looks to many, including, it would appear, a plurality of your fellow citizens, that something ‘out-of-order’ went on.

          16. Oh shame, you are so cute still holding out hope in your house, I have hope in Jesus Christ not in the house of representatives or the senate or the executive, you should try it sometime, here is something for your edification –

            yes it is very dangerous for a foreign country to toy with America, Trump does nothing by himself he uses every tool in the box and listens to the advise given(always) that all of government provide him that includes killing terrorists pity you think killing a terrorist is somehow a bad thing. Woe to you who calls evil good. When a terrorist kills one of your countrymen you should want justice but your justice is giving the terrorists more money and freedom to kill more of your countrymen.

          17. The article said that Trump is dangerous, and I agree.

            The experience of Ukraine indicates that it may also be dangerous for US allies to trust Trump.

            In the impeachment process, the House has played its part; it is now for the US Senate to decide.

            I notice that you talk of repaying death with death. Ever heard of Jesus Christ? He said that the law, as fulfilled by him, was no longer “en eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” I think you need read a book called “The Bible”, focusing especially on texts know collectively as “The Holy Gospel”. (Incidentally, there are also good pragmatic reasons for securing justice by non-violent means … but I have a feeling that, if I were to spend time explaining them, I would be “casting pearls before swine”.)

          18. It is the House that decided if a president should be impeached, not the Senate (and they have already decided). The senate decides if the president should be removed from office.

            also, anyone is allowed to have an opinion on whether Trump has done something impeachable. Just as anyone is allowed to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the evidence in forming that opinion.

          19. if that were true then many of those who voted for Trump wouldn’t have a problem with him being impeached, since Pence supports those same policies.

            and yet the Trump supporters all rally to defend Trump, not his policies.

            As far as who is better than Trump, just about anyone, including Pence.

          20. “if that were true then many of those who voted for Trump wouldn’t have a problem with him being impeached, since Pence supports those same policies.” Nobody has a problem if he is impeached but you may only do it with truth not lies and fictional notions. “and yet the Trump supporters all rally to defend Trump, not his policies” NO, It is about truth there is NO truth in the way the procedures were carried out or in the articles of impeachment as set out. Not one witness showed that there was any form of abuse of power nor was it shown that the President has gained anything, Biden was never a serious contender he is as corrupt as they come and why should the truth of his dealings, if he is so squeaky clean, be of concern, are you saying that the President must be impeached even though there is no evidence just because of partisanship. You do realise that two democrats defected and that no republicans voted for impeachment, what do you think that means, are you going to blindly follow poopy pelosi and these democrat cronies, I pity you. No Trump was the best thing, God knows, that could have happened no-one else could have won no-one else would have had a thick enough skin to handle the amount of abuse the left including every democrat has heaped upon him. You looking for abuse of power look at the democratic party, it stinks of it. Yes Mr Trump has had very questionable dealings in his personal life, even immoral ones, there is no doubt and that is between him and God, but what he did has nothing to do with his leadership, he is America’s leader and he is the President how about some respect. Tell me why poopy pelosi still hasn’t handed over the articles to the senate, because the longer this drags on the more harm it does to the Presidents campaign and the country, nothing else, and that is all it is about cronyism even ignoring the fact that the country needs to be united against the real threats of Iran, North Korea, China and Russia, they pathetically continue to divide Omar Tlaib etc making up stories ridiculous and the leftist morons eat their shit and regurgitate it seriously sad. Say what you like the facts remain the same I will not repeat them again and again.

          21. Several witnesses and documents showed there was an abuse of power. Further, other witnesses would have likely added to that evidence, had not Trump obstructed congress in preventing them from testifying.

            Now I will agree the democrats in the house played political games with the process. However, that is hardly news. I wished they would have taken the time to properly hold the hearings and gather more evidence, including subpoenas of Trumps tax records.

            However, these political games don’t change the facts that you choose to ignore. The fact is Trump used the power of the presidency to attempt to extort a foreign nation for his own personal gain.

          22. “Several witnesses and documents showed there was an abuse of power.” Nope, sorry, did not happen. every Republican and 2 Democrats do not agree and the Senate has been waiting… you need two thirds you won’t get half, well unless poopy pelosi is allowed to blackmail/extort/bride members of the Senate she might. The house doesn’t get to dictate circumstances for the articles to be delivered and how the senate must proceed with them that is overreach by the house and trying to create a false air and distrust about the senate. You keep hinting at facts but there aren’t any to support the claims.

          23. Denying reality doesn’t help your argument. Trump inappropriately withheld funding for the Ukraine then attempted to coerce Zelensky into investigating Biden in order to get those funds.

            Trump’s aides knew this wasn’t proper, which is why they tried to hide the conversation on a secured server. Trump also knew it was improper, which is why he released the funds when he found out there was a whistle-blower reporting the conversation.

          24. Trump inappropriately withheld funding for the Ukraine then attempted to
            coerce Zelensky into investigating Biden in order to get those funds” again and round and round we go – you have NO evidence.

          25. Ken – there is no input valve on PG. He or she isn’t interested in accuracy or truth.

          26. Is that another ad hominem Warren? Would you like to show that ken’s commentary has been proven because it seems all Republicans and at least 2 democrats thought it wasn’t true. Further every witness testified that there was no offense. Here is a link you’re welcome to complain about the source and ignore the content as it seems this is all that happens nowadays –

          27. I agree – time for me to lay off. PG is simply not interested in addressing the key issue: how Holy Scripture should (not) be used to prop up dodgy politicians.

          28. Sorry, Warren, I’ve relented. I have asked PG if has a problem with Pence being the President. Thought it might one last aspect worth probing …

            Is it worth engaging with people like her/him? Perhaps it does give an insight into the ‘trumpish mind’, and I’d say that evasion and irrelevance – along with the rudeness (which we have come to expect) – are the most noticeable characteristics of trumpish dialectic.

            Whatever we may have thought of his policy, many of us are now pining for the dignified and thoughtful demeanour of President Barack Obama! (Ooops! That might get PG foaming at the mouth! Should I delete that last sentence? Hmmm … No, I don’t think so …)

          29. There is evidence to support this. Government records (and sworn testimonies) show the admin held up the funds and the transcript of the Zelensky phone call make it clear why.

          30. No there is not. No they did not for the purposes you have proposed. You are the alex jones of the left aren’t you. Don’t answer I doubt you’re that bright its just regurgitation from you. Don’t worry your master will pat you on the head shortly again.

          31. I’m not the one worshiping Trump here.

            Your childish denial of reality isn’t going to convince anyone here.

          32. Lashing out like a little child you would be cute if you weren’t such a douche bag. Done with you.

          33. “Trump’s aides knew this wasn’t proper, which is why they tried to hide the conversation on a secured server.” Conspiracy theory – Alex Jones would be proud of you.

          34. No theory, just facts based on the statements and records that were brought up during the inquiry (and some that the media got via FIOA requests)

          35. I think that the $64k question for PG is this: If it were to become clear during the Senate Trial that there was indeed an abuse of power, would he try to use Romans 13 to say that Trump should remain in office?

          36. I think Pence would be more careful and consistent when it came to foreign policy. But, in a sense, that is irrelevant, isn’t it? The issue is: should the Bible be used to justify the maintenance of a leader who is deemed through a constitutional process to be abusive and corrupt?

          37. I think Pence would be more careful and consistent when it came to foreign policy. But, in a sense, that is irrelevant, isn’t it? The issue is: should the Bible be used to justify the maintenance of a leader who is deemed through a constitutional process to be abusive and corrupt?

          38. I will digress for a moment – I know how much your flaccid mind enjoys digressions!

            Maybe we don’t need to worry too much about how much we exploit the environment and the mess we leave for our children and grandchildren, given that Rump’s capricious and illogical foreign policy will probably get us all blown the bits pretty soon! (I alluded to crazy ‘churches’ earlier: I suppose people in those outfits it would reckon it to be “God’s will” if were to happens. It is just amazing what rancid ‘religion’ can achieve in terms of creating moral vacuums and worse – “It’s just fine to avoid paying tax and to grope women, and it’s God’s will that we wreck the joint!” Is that what your ‘church’ teaches, by any chance? The church I attend most certainly does NOT!)

          39. So your “church” teaches killing babies, marrying gays and telling men they can have babies, got it, go bow at the flesh pots of your democratic party idol.

          40. No, it doesn’t do that either!

            Going back to “conservative ideals”: how about the $1.1 TRILLION budget deficit? I thought ‘conservatives’ were meant to be fiscally prudent?

            I think the problem is that, when it comes to what Trump really stands for, you are deluded.

          41. How about you pass a few bills through the house so that we can save I wonder how long it’s taken for the new trade deal. I think that when it comes to reality you can’t see it.

          42. What the US House of Representatives does or dos not do is a matter for them. I have no influence over them!

            Are you going address the issue of Romans 13 and Trump or not. We are waiting to see what s your view and how you justify it …

          43. “Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming”

            “Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry ”

            And I see you believe there are Very Fine People on Both Sides.

            And you evidently don’t mind that Trump is single-handedly dragging us into another Middle Eastern War. I expect your grandchildren to be first in line at the recruiting office tomorrow morning.

            PM., please turn off Fox “News,” click away from Breitbart, and put down your Washington Times. They are lying to you.

          44. Antifa is classified as a domestic terrorist group. Are you supporting and funding a terrorist group?

          45. I am not perhaps you didn’t see my avatar, but I see you are unable to answer my question, you’ve been flagged. and I have copied this in case I deem it fit for the FBI.

          46. you should watch the video I posted and complain about the data not the man but seeing as you’re ignorant of the data and a climate doomsayer. I wonder how much you’re planning on receiving from the carbon taxes. I wonder how much guardian has received from leftist morons, I wonder how left leaning sage is. Further though what does climate change denier actually mean, because if you bothered to listen to the talk the blinkers you have on may have been loosened but you’re a doomsayer who can do nothing but doomsay. How is the Russia collusion working out for you. You’re probably praying that impeachment will stick aren’t you, it’s rhetorical I already know.

          47. Such a sad little man. You’re just embarrassing.
            Unlike you, I would like to leave my grandchildren an inhabitable planet.

          48. Thought so, you’re unable to deal with the data, looks like you have a serious mind projection problem there bumfluff.

          49. Spoken like a person who jumps in on other peoples conversations and doesn’t read the whole thread go watch the video linked on one of my posts the data though is what has been collected by the authorities.

          50. You mentioned a link, which featured Soon giving a talk. That is it. I’d be happy to look at the data you are talking about as soon as you provide me with a link/citation for it. However, you haven’t done that.

            Others here have provided links to data from the IPCC showing how the ave. temp of the earth has been increasing AND that this is NOT simply a cyclical warming period, but an overall warming trend that has not been seen in the past.

          51. So you are just relying on Soon’s claims. You haven’t actually seen any of this data for yourself?

          52. Maybe you should actually try answering the question instead of just repeating the non-answer then.

          53. yes, I have read the article. It is NOT a research article and provides no data (which you keep saying I should look at).

            So again, I ask you, what is it you believe this article proves?

            and where is this “data” you keep referring to?

            The only “greedy men” in the climate change debate are the fossil fuel industry execs. who fund guys like Soon in order to fool people like you.

          54. This link is cites news articles rather than the actual science. The problem with that is that news articles have a tendency to cite worst-case scenarios in order to sensationalize the facts.

            However, simply because the worst case scenarios haven’t occurred does not mean there isn’t a problem. Further, if you wait until such worst cases happen, you will generally be to late.

          55. the climate has been changing, big news, it has done so for thousands of years, obviously you didn’t listen to Willie and others, doesn’t prove a thing good science is science which can predict according to those scientists about which those articles are written and the scientists conclusions, not the articles/journalists conclussions, they are unable to predict therefore BAD “science” or psuedo science. Now seeing as you are being dogmatic and not interested in reasonable discussion I think it is best you can hold your view and I’ll hold to the facts.

          56. No, your comment is just a baseless claim. And when asked for your evidence to support your claims, you just engage in childish behaviour.

          57. Yes you are childish that is correct because after umpteen times to get you to look at the data you just want to argue. Done with you.

          58. What data? you haven’t provided any data. Just a link to some shill for the fossil fuel industry and another to a bunch of old newspaper article. No actual science at all. You keep claiming there is some sort of data to support your claims, yet you can’t provide any.

          59. A quick note about Dr. Soon’s work (the 1st speaker) from The New York Times:

            He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

          60. tell me if a scientist in the employ of a fossil fuel company made a statement today that climate change and global warming are true and you’re going to be dead in 12 months, you would say his findings are all incorrect because he is funded by that industry right. The amount of pathetic talking points you guys invent to ignore the science is mind boggling. go ahead complain some more. BTW we can ignore all scientists which made the claim of global warming which have their names on any of the IPCC documents all of them are biased that is how you think right this must be true because the panel receives money and if there is no climate change they get no money and the more alarm the more money they get. Utter stupidity

          61. Depends on what evidence he provided to make such claims. And whether he improperly hid conflicts of interests.

          62. “And whether he improperly hid conflicts of interests.” no the data should speak for itself but nice that you think everyone is biased including yourself. Good bye.

  7. All public officials are subject to the Constitution- which is meant to make our government one of law and not of men. Three branches of government to carry out the intent of the Constitution- Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. All separate from one another- and all equal to one another. Therefore the admonitions of Romans 13 should be to obey the Constitution- not a person.
    So hypocritical to use the flawed interpretation of Romans 13 , after completely ignoring this interpretation during Democratic administrations, (Clinton, Obama).

  8. And let’s not forget the bit about paying taxes we “owe” (to quote the translation used by Warren in his piece). I wonder how many of the Trump plutocrats actually do that rather than using devices to avoid paying what the tax code says they “owe”? Just a thought …

    1. are those devices “legal” then they aren’t avoiding paying anything they are just paying according to the taxation rules thus paying exactly what is owed. Nice as a socialist talking point but does nothing in reality.

      1. Rich people are often able to do things to avoid tax that poorer people cannot do. It might be ‘legal’ (although sometimes, I suspect, it is not), but is it ‘moral’?

        We might think we can be ‘safe’ behind a legalistic approach, but I’m confident that you believe as I do that God is not going to buy that … unless you have changed your religion since the last time we spoke! 😉

  9. Anybody who claims Romans 13 requires American Christians to not oppose Trump had better also affirm that it forbade Christians from opposing Obama or Bill Clinton, or for that matter that it forbade Christians in Germany from opposing Hitler. Otherwise the invocation of Romans 13 only in this particular case is pure hypocrisy.

    As a historical question, I wonder if Romans 13 was a topic in Germany in the 1930s, when the “German Christians” went along with Hitler and his nationalism, while the Confessing Church movement maintained that their primary allegiance had to be to Jesus.

  10. Only problem is that god didn’t put trump in office, trump supporters did, with the help of the electoral college.

      1. Ken didn’t say that. And, anyway, the removal of Trump would lead to Pence becoming president. Would that be a problem for you?

        Romans 13 applies to the authority of the state: in the United States of America, that is vested in the Constitution and exercised jointly by the three branches of the Government of the Unites States. Individuals deemed by constitutional processes to have behaved in a way that is not consistent with the Constitution should spend more time with their families! Or even more time than at present on the golf course. Or perhaps go to jail.

        1. Yes I think he did. Are you saying that God did not intend for Mr Trump to become the President of the United States of America?

          1. Then you think wrong. As I posted in another topic, I doubt god has anything to do with US politics.

          2. Because a person like Trump is in office. And politics in general has been devolving into twitter fights.

          3. In the USA, citizens are given the freedom to make certain choices about which particular individuals are elected to certain offices. Is that “God’s will”? Maybe, but it is certainly a product of history, and presently manifest.

            In his comment, Ken did not say anything specifically about either God’s sovereignty or what St Paul wrote to the early Christian community in Rome. That is self-evident from a reading of what he (Ken) wrote. He simply pointed out that Trump came to power as a result of a vote in the Electoral College – which is entirely true, isn’t it?

            Are you one of these people who believe that, if something happens, it must have been God’s will? If so, was the Holocaust God’s will? Or the Armenian Genocide? Or 9/11? Or the slaughter of natives Americans in the 1700s and 1800s? Or the deaths of innocent people as a result of natural disasters today? Or abortion? God’s will? Really? Think about it, PG! Think about what it is you really believe about God. Think! Think! Think! And stop listening to fatalistic, amoral goofballs who call themselves ‘pastors’ and flit around in private jets! You are not complete idiot, you know …

        2. Just in case you haven’t read it (NIV)-

          13 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
          2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
          3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
          4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
          5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
          6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.

          1. in the United States, the Government, as defined by the Constitution, is the governing authority, not a particular individual.

        3. You may legitimately remove a president if he is found guilty of a crime, you may not do it with lies. “Thou shalt not bear false witness” how many times did Mr Schiff lie? I have asked numerous times now, Romans 13 has applied at various periods within his term, have you applied it to those who have “resisted” his rule without legitimate reason, everyone who complained “not my President”, his character is not a legitimate reason BTW, for everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? “9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable:
          10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
          11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.
          12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
          13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
          14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

          I tell you there are too many people who are self righteous hypocrites what do you think God will say to those who think they can stand in unrighteous judgement, I tell you that anyone who stands with this impeachment process better look inward.

          1. Let us see what the US Senate decides.

            Are you suggesting that Trump is like the tax collector in the parable? I certainly cannot see that analogy.

          2. Well best you get poopy pelosi to get the articles to the senate otherwise it will be voted on without it and without a prosecution.

          3. Should I write to her? I’ll tell her that PG is very keen to get things moving, and will be very upset if that doesn’t happen? Maybe I’ll also say what you’ve called her.

            You have missed the point of this post yet again: it is about how people should use Holy Scripture in the context of political arguments. By all means, use Romans 13 to support the idea of respecting “governing authorities”, but remember what is the governing authority in the United States: the Government, as defined by the Constitution.

            You cannot credibly trash “poopy pelosi” [sic] and laud Trumpy-pumpy! Both are temporarily leading members of the governing authority. You are, of course, free to criticize both (aren’t citizens of the USA so blessed that they are able to hold governing authorities to some kind of account?!) or neither, or one or the other; you are also free to make the choices you deem appropriate at elections (again, what a blessing!). But don’t drag God into your partisan position; it is demeaning and cheap. And God might not appreciate it – ever thought of that?!

          4. You’re more than welcome to call her poopy pelosi on my behalf, it is an indictment on her state which allows addicts to poop (amongst other dangerous things) in the streets and malls and stores and does nothing about them, then fines law abiding people for not cleaning up after the addicts. You on the other hand make up names just to be insulting.

            As for God, being dragged in is something that doesn’t happen, haven’t you heard He is omnipresent, I know it is a long word but I’m sure you can google it.

            Further did Trump start this sham impeachment, no, she is the one responsible she is the one trying to claim the moral high ground, much like you, all the while being terrible sinners themselves even worse in scale than the President at least the President has done all he could to keep his promises all she has done is run her state into the ground further and resisted as much as she could.

          5. Who are you to judge the extent of someone’s sinfulness? In any case, the extent of someone’s sinfulness is not ultimately of any significance, as all must be purified to be in God’s nearer presence.

            Sin is not the issue here; all of us are sinners. The issue is whether Holy Scripture should be used / abused to contradict or subvert the potential conclusions of constitutional processes.

          6. who am I to judge I haven’t they condemn themselves, yes the scriptures should be used to expose and discover the sinful motives of those who are and have been for 3 years trying to oust a legally elected President who has done nothing of that which they accuse him. Further it is only by the knowledge of the scriptures that you can understand the constitution and the declaration upon which it is founded.

          7. Saying that Trump has done nothing of which he is accused is simply an assertion on your part. You do not know what happened, although there does seem to be number of people (who are not political hacks) who believe that something ‘odd’ (to say the least) went on in respect of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

            The Constitution is what it is. Is it influenced by a Judeo-Christian world view? I’d say so. But one does not need “knowledge of the scriptures” in order to read it and understand what it is saying. There is no ‘gnosticism’ here. It is a pretty straightforward political document; the ability to read and understand English is all that is required to get what it says.

          8. English language will not get you to the Spirit of the Law. The reasons for the law is not found in the laws but in God, the source of what is morally good is God, you have to understand what he has revealed about Himself in order to connect properly with truth it is the lack of this connection that some “new laws” are being created which are morally reprehensible, however I am pleased you understand the constitution is connected to the Judeo-Christian worldview.

            I still believe that the President has not done anything wrong as far as the call or the holding back of funds further the holding back of funds was because of corruption, Biden and his son seem very corrupt, so if Ukraine was not going to tackle corruption it would make sense that they should not be getting American funding. My only problem is the insertion of Guiliani, which is the same problem Barr had/has.

            All the best.

          9. Let us see what transpires when the Senate considers the evidence.

            I’m afraid, PG, you will have to accept that most Americans, including probably most Republicans, do not take the view that the Constitution is something that requires theological interpretation.

            You will also have to accept that probably a plurality of Americans do believe there was something seriously amiss in respect of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

            I think there’s something else you need to confront, and it is eloquently put by a former UK Secretary of State here:

          10. Let us see what transpires when the Senate considers the evidence.

            I’m afraid, PG, you will have to accept that most Americans, including probably most Republicans, do not take the view that the Constitution is something that requires theological interpretation.

            You will also have to accept that probably a plurality of Americans do believe there was something seriously amiss in respect of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

            I think there’s something else you need to confront, and it is eloquently put by a former UK Secretary of State here:

          11. a plurality of Americans don’t make reality. or is the concept of truth lost on you. Further most Americans realise that the constitution is based on the founding document the decleration of independence and guess what it says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” So if they want to understand how they are endowed they need to know the scriptures. Don;t waste my time with any more of your secularist drivel.

          12. The United States Constitution is the principal political document of a secular state that quite deliberately does not favour adherents of one particular religion over those of another. That it is influenced by Judeo-Christian thought is a matter worthy of note (and entirely understandable given the historical context in which the United States came to be), but the Constitution is what it is.

            Incidentally, the right to the “The pursuit of Happiness” is not actually a Christian concept at all. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that people have the right to pursue happiness in this life. Happiness is ultimately a gift from God, not a human right; in this context, the responsibility of the Christian is to consider others’ happiness, not grasp for their own.

            But all the above, important though it is, does not address the question that is the title of this post. Whatever the outcome of the Senate ‘trial’ (and I believe Trump will not be convicted, partly because of the composition of the US Senate, partly because the evidence against him, though quite persuasive to many of us, is essentially circumstantial, as far as I can see), the “governing authorities”* (cf. Rom 13 : 1) in the United States are not solely the President. The answer to Warren’s question therefore has to be NO. Any case for either keeping or dumping Trump must be made on other grounds, without claiming ‘God’s support’!

            Finally, do I think Trump is a “vile man”? Yes, I do (and a majority of Americans view him unfavourably, by the way – let us not forget that); but that, of course, does not in itself justify his premature removal from office. Part of the ‘deal’ in a democratic polity is that we have to put up with leaders we don’t like until due process gives us the opportunity to change them.

            *Note the plural – which is a credible translation of the original Greek text.

          13. secular – “not connected with religious or spiritual matters.” so by your own admission – “That it is influenced by Judeo-Christian thought is a matter worthy of note” you have refuted yourself.

          14. no Richard has not “refuted himself.” If you can’t understand what Richard meant by “secular state” then you aren’t intelligent enough to have a conversation with him.

          15. stay on your own discussion, you aren’t very good at your own, how do you think you will fair with trying to talk for someone else.

          16. But the important point about the Constitution is that it does not include any indication that a particular religion is to be afforded preferential treatment, any particular world views embraced by the Framers notwithstanding.

          17. I agree. But that does not mean that state power should be used for the advantage of any particular religion. In fact, history suggests that when Christianity has been propped up by state power, or vice versa, things have usually ended badly. Much better for us to be free to proclaim the Gospel; if we do so effectively, we will win hearts and minds without the help of the state. Separation of church and state is first and foremost good for the Church!

          18. Firstly there has never been a proper Christian state, and those who have failed, failed not because of Christian principles but because of the lack of Christian principles. the American constitution is the closest as it revolves around the principle of free will, but here you now have it, you think the state is some abstract entity, the state is people not just some rules and laws, the people in the state should have the same character as those of the public “by the people for the people” they should share the same religion of the people the founders knew full well that the constitution was useless to govern people which are irreligious they said so in as many words, but if you have the irreligious imposing the laws you will have the same problem (rom 13), (here you are correct “any particular religion” I add and lack thereof) there has never been any separation of church and state in the sense that you are trying to claim, no-one has been able to show how that would even be workable people being rules by a foreign government, that is a nonsense claim, it was just about the Catholics and the Protestants not killing each other it was about not giving one specific sect a hand over the other, i.e using the government as a club against the other, but it was never secular and Godless it was never supposed to remove prayer from schools or any other such nonsense. Church is a strange word but the word is actually congregation that is the body of Christ which is fellow believers it is the people but specifically the people of God. Beware for Karl Marx once said “a people without a heritage are easily persuaded” if you are wondering what is happening in your colleges and your new generations it is because people have forgotten the scriptures they have forgotten to tell their own history how they came to inherit the land they now posses to the new generations and the new generations are being blown around by the stronger winds of ignorant feelings and evil desires. The state should have protected its people by protecting its religion it has failed to do so it has failed in the obligation which was given it by the people and turned the people secular which was never the power it should have wielded, people using the state to force bakers to bake things for irreligious people with hateful irreligious motives and the list goes on and on. Yes religion starts in the home but it should be allowed to spread, colleges with their far left leaning professors are preventing that from happening, interestingly they are 17 to 1 ratio “liberal” to conservative. College is a large reason why children lose their faith many claiming they lost it when they went off to college, it is not the only reason maybe even an excuse but, is that part of the state did not the people build those institutions were they not supposed to protect our national heritage instead the heritage has been claimed to be things like slavery the type of which is not taught in the scriptures the heritage has been claimed to be greed, power, licentiousness and other such worldly things instead of the true heritage which is found only in God and upon His principles. I fear you may have been a victim of the nonsense sloganeering be careful turn to God for your answers do not rely on fine sounding arguments including mine if you so wish. All the best.

          19. A good place to end our dialogue. I agree that the US Constitution is a good attempt at reconciling conflicting aspects of the human condition, although like any other human device, it does not ‘solve everything’.

          20. Funny how you want to talk about Schiff’s lies, but not Trump’s.

            Further, you are wrong about the president being found guilty of a crime. The pres can’t even be charged with a crime until he is removed from office. And according to Lindsey Graham “there doesn’t have to be a crime to remove a president”

          21. You’re so cute that is what I said, I’m calling out your hypocrisy and yes I have spoken about Trump’s character already so you’re wrong and you post to hide your hypocrisy.

          22. Where have you spoken about Trumps LIES? Certainly not on this thread. And your comment history is private so I can’t see what you have posted elsewhere.

          23. Where? I can’t find it. Perhaps you can link to the specific post you are talking about or just cut paste part of the passage from it (then I can do a specific search)? Nothing where you mention Trumps lies (or even acknowledge that he has lied). Just a lot of excuses for Trump and false/misleading information.

          24. It think this was in response my request for your climate change data. Here I was asking about where you claimed Trump has lied.

          25. Honest in his campaign promises?
            Like his promise that Mexico would pay for the wall?
            His promise to close the loophole that allows hedge-fund billionaires to avoid taxes?
            His promise to spend more time working and less time golfing compared to Obama?
            His promises that he and his family wouldn’t use his presidency for profit?
            His promise to “drain the swamp” that has been followed by a Cabinet with a huge number of ethics problems and the appointment of numerous lobbyists to key posts (like a coal industry lobbyist now running the EPA after the first guy left after being exposed for corruption)?
            His promise that he could easily win trade wars?

          26. Honest in his campaign promises?
            Like his promise that Mexico would pay for the wall?
            His promise to close the loophole that allows hedge-fund billionaires to avoid taxes?
            His promise to spend more time working and less time golfing compared to Obama?
            His promises that he and his family wouldn’t use his presidency for profit?
            His promise to “drain the swamp” that has been followed by a Cabinet with a huge number of ethics problems and the appointment of numerous lobbyists to key posts (like a coal industry lobbyist now running the EPA after the first guy left after being exposed for corruption)?
            His promise that he could easily win trade wars?

          27. Like his promise that Mexico would pay for the wall?- still waiting for the NAFTA replacement are you.
            His promise to close the loophole that allows hedge-fund billionaires to avoid taxes? – He’s still got time.

            His promise to spend more time working and less time golfing compared to Obama? -I agree, was that a promise he needs to keep if he has already out performed Obummer in jobs which Obummer said would never happen?

            His promises that he and his family wouldn’t use his presidency for profit? – proof please

            His promise to “drain the swamp” that has been followed by a Cabinet with a huge number of ethics problems and the appointment of numerous lobbyists to key posts (like a coal industry lobbyist now running the EPA after the first guy left after being exposed for corruption)? – I think he has fired more folks including a whole bunch from the FBI swamp, is that also a swamp or is that deep state who knows, he would get rid of morebut he’snot allowed tofire the House of Representatives for instance Omar Tlaib AOC Poopy Pelosi.

            His promise that he could easily win trade wars? – He has won trade wars against China and with the neighbors.

            Problem with your comment is you thought that he didn’t intend to or has done nothing about any of the subjects you posited, but you haven’t shown that to be so, so you have not shown any dishonesty. So show that he has been dishonest on all your points.

          28. now you are claiming Trump isn’t a liar? Note you still haven’t shown me the post where you spoken about Trump’s lies the way you have with Schiff.

          29. I think you are confusing constitutional processes with general moral principles. Of course we should not be hypocritical, but saying that constitutional processes to investigate possible wrongdoing should be followed – a proposition that had bipartisan support (at least one leading Republican acquiesced to it) – is not hypocrisy.

            Incidentally, one doesn’t see Trump beat his breast and confess his faults (despite his capricious and chaotic approach to the current crisis), so the parable you cite doesn’t appear to me to be particularly relevant!

          30. You should worry about your own state of affairs with God and not Trump’s if you didn’t realise it you’re the Pharisee. Took you three months and BTW no evidence of wrongdoing go figure, go pray to your democrack party. Oh yes you’re not a democrat right. Well then must be that pet hatred of yours.

          31. I merely said above that those whom constitutional processes deem to be unfit for public office should not hold public office. Most people have no problem with that. What’s your problem, honey?

          32. I was referring to what I said in my original comment. Take another look at it, and maybe you’ll see my point?

          33. You are wasting your time with PG. Like most religious fundamentalists he only sees what he wants to see, expects you to interpret his religious text as he does and won’t provide any evidence for his claims.

          34. My view is that PG keeps coming back for more because he is genuinely in two minds about his Trump ‘father/god figure’. I feel no need to comment on trumpist blogs; that is pointless because their whole dynamic is set up for those who have been brainwashed. But PG is here (on a blog that has real scope for freedom of expression) because he feels insecure about his ‘faith’ in Trump. Little wonder, since so many of the assumptions that undergird Project Trump are being rocked to the core by this awful pandemic.

            By the way, I hope that you (and indeed PG) are keeping safe and well.

          35. Oh yes, and you say “no evidence of wrongdoing”. There are plenty of people who would disagree with you on that. You are simply giving us your opinion.

            Just as a reminder for you, here is the polling that shows roughly equal support for and opposition to impeachment.


            Something else: hypocrisy is about criticizing people for something we ourselves do, so your accusations of hypocrisy are meaningless.

          36. did I call you a hypocrite really, seems fitting too, but that is not what I said, try again but without the strawmen.

          37. You’re just playing games now, PG. You know perfectly well that you effectively said I was a hypocrite. Which is okay – you are entitled to your view.

          38. Also, I have to say that it is rather cheap of you to use one of Our Lord’s parables to prop up your own opinion. Why not just argue your case logically without hiding under some ‘religious’ skirt!

          39. You’re the one telling people they have to ‘get right with God’. I’ve not commented on your relationship with God; I stick to what you actually say, rather than playing psychological guessing games.

          40. you’re the one trying to speak about Trumps relationship with God. Is that tree growing in your eye blinding you.

          41. I have not said anything about Trump’s relationship with God. I think you must have confused me with someone else.

          42. I have said nothing about his relationship with God, only that he is not inclined to admit mistakes.

          43. Richard’s not the one doing that. You are the one who misinterpreted Richard as saying something about Trump’s “relationship with god”

          44. I’m not rattled or rude, pointing out that you are not being honest is not rude but truthful, pity you hate truth and are unrepentant.

          45. claiming someone is lying but refusing to support such a claim qualifies as “rude.”

          46. I doubt you can find anything I’ve said that is manifestly false. And let us not forget that this latest exchange began when you said that Ken had said something that he had not said. That’s not exactly being truthful, but never mind …

          47. You have a problem with me asking another user a question? 3 months ago (latest exchange pffft more lies). Are you really that insane, perhaps the covid has fried your brain.

          48. It is so often the case that, when we say something about others, we are really saying about ourselves!

          49. Thanks for the tasteless reference to COVID-n19, by the way. I’m sure readers will be very impressed by it. A fine example of Christian witness? No wonder so many people are put off …

          50. Yes most people are put off by the truth because they hate being told they are sinners in need of a Saviour because they hate God much like you, you do not want to make your own relationship right with God even though God through me has called you many times, you love whatever sins you have in your life far more than you love God and God doesn’t settle.

          51. Perhaps your own internal conflicts are leading you to ‘project’ onto others. It is a common phenomenon, promoted further in the Age of Trump by a political leader who lies and then accuses others of lying. You can’t really be blamed, in a way; like too many others, you have been duped.

          52. You are entitled to your opinion! I still think you are worried about the conflict between your faith and Trump’s behaviour, which is of course hypocritical (lying whilst accusing others of lying).

          53. But surely, given your apparent concern about hypocrisy, you must be worried about a politician who accuses others of what he does himself? (I notice that you haven’t contested the idea that Trumps both lies and accuses others of lying, suggesting that you know it is the case. Perhaps you think that his lies are ‘justified’?)

          54. No, more likely most people are put off by self-righteous people like you who think they speak for god.

          55. The Trump both lies and accuses others of lying presents you with serious difficulties. I can see that: there is a conflict between your Christian faith and your ‘faith’ in Trump. I realize it must be difficult for you.

          56. No, more likely most people are put off by self-righteous people like you who think they speak for god.

          57. You didn’t ask a question, you misrepresented what I said. Richard is simply pointing out you have a history of making false claims about what others have said.

          58. Oh boy another person trying to rewrite history, typical leftist, you said quite clearly “god didn’t put trump in office”- that is actually equal to “God is not Sovereign” so I did not misrepresent you, I exposed that you are a theological imbecile and questioned your comment by use of simple paraphrase. You could have corrected my paraphrase however I think you never did.

          59. The history is here for anyone to see. I merely pointed outed a fact about how the US political system in the US works, which is a secular government, not a religious one. You were the one who went and mis-interpreted what I said to claim I said something I didn’t.

            You have a bad habit of doing that, if not out right lying.

          60. No if I write it I would automatically read it so again you fail even in your little quips. In case you were struggling with comprehension and wondering you’re the writer of fiction, now move along little troll, you have been found wanting in every area, come November you’ll have another 4 years of DJT as your President no matter how much you complain “not my president”. So best go find your little safe spaces and stock up on your TDS medication.

          61. PG’s weak point concerns hypocrisy: I am allegedly a hypocrite and PG is apparently horrified by this. He doesn’t contest the notion that Trump both lies and accuses others of lying – which is manifestly hypocritical – yet seems utterly unperturbed by T’s behaviour. He completely lacks consistency and so utterly undermines his own position.

          62. You could of course quote me if I spoke about Trump’s relationship with God. (Except you can’t, because I didn’t!)

          63. The original point I and others were making is very simple: that the authority we are called to respect is not merely the Executive.

            By the way, I’ve just been reading a history of the Vietnam debacle. One can see there what can happen when too much latitude is give to the Executive!

          64. I think you are confused. Warren’s piece, and many commenters’ initial remarks, is about what ‘state authority’ we are expected to respect. The problem with some people is that they effectively view the president as being the only ‘authority’ deserving of respect, whereas the Government of the United States has three branches, and collective responsibility features in all three of them.

            I think you should read about the utterly pointless carnage that was the Vietnam fiasco; it strikes me that one can get a good insight into how horribly wrong things can go when only part of the Government is ‘respected’.

            Incidentally, ‘respecting’ authority does not mean that one has to agree with what a particular office holder has to say. After all, despite my criticism of Trump’s conduct, I still pay my taxes and stop at a red light …

          65. “The problem with some people is that they effectively view the president as being the only ‘authority’ deserving of respect” which people would those be ? and

            the reason perhaps that people are concerned is the complete and utter disrepect/treasonous/treacherous attitude shown to the executive by the majority party in the house and minority party in the senate, and the hypocrisy because the house doesn’t seem to follow the rules of conduct they profess to uphold and further do not have any reason to treat the President as they have and have completely failed to do the work they were elected to do. (Do I need to highlight all the bs stunts they have pulled to try and cover up their complete incompetence)

            Yes the house would have had more respect if it had shown itself to not be partisan and actually work for the people like Mr Trump has worked for the people. Say what you like come November you will have another 4 years of this President but you will not have another 4 years with a democrat controlled house. The people are fed up with the partisan nonsense coming from the house.

            As for Vietnam I think you are making wild jumps of logic trying to infer situations which have zero similarities.

      2. didn’t say anything about that, not really sure how you are getting that. however i don’t believe in your bible.

        1. If you don’t believe in the Holy Bible then you have nothing to say to Christians about Rom 13as this is internal and your opinions are useless.

          1. And I haven’t said anything about Romans 13. Re-read the post I made at the start of this thread. It said nothing about Romans 13. It was simply a comment about who is responsible for Trump being in office.

          2. You thought you could speak for god and I asked –
            “So according to you God is not Sovereign and Romans 13 is never applicable” but you’re an atheist so what the hell are you doing speaking about God in the first place, envy much.

          3. I have never claimed to speak for anyone but myself, nor have I.

            Nor am I an atheist .

            In both these cases you have once again mis-read what has been written and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

            I would emphasize the only thing I’ve said about my religious beliefs here is that I’m not a christian. And with such “shining examples” of christianity such as you, I never will be.

            To be fair, I realize you don’t represent all christians, but you do represent far too many of them.

          4. Silly you think Christianity is about Christians, no wonder, so even though Christianity is true you would rather go to hell because of other Christians. What was that wonderful saying cut off your nose to spite your face.

          5. Once again your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

            While you are free to believe what you wish, so am I. And I will never believe as you do. Nor wish to be associated with the likes of you.

          6. Sure no problem I’m a poopy face, got it, however this is where you are wrong, I’m not only free to believe but also to exercise my belief, you intolerant person you and a bigot to boot by the last comment shame, because unlike pagan secular beliefs which are harmful to society which love lies, foolishness and the following of every evil human desire, Christianity fundamentally is based on love. A concept which secular society has attempted to demean and portray as sex and worse sexual perversion. Yes, Satan hates love especially the love which will stand in the way of secularism and paganism. So it is absolutely in fitting with your worldview that you would pick a destructive path instead of a path built on truth. I would tell you to smell the coffee or the roses unfortunately you have cut off your nose. You should do this scientific experiment get yourself a bucket where you can get both feet into then place the bucket on a solid floor and stand inside of the bucket with both feet now grab the bucket either by it’s handle or sides and then lift yourself up. Tell me how that works out for you.

          7. “Christianity fundamentally is based on love.”

            And yet you, a devout christian, display none of this love you claim your religion is based on. Sadly, far to many of your fellow christians also seem to lack this love you claim your religion is founded on.

          8. Yes, no Christian is perfect, this is true you have told no one anything new, you unfortunately have not shown what is wrong with my character and by which standard, in fact it is because of the imperfect human condition that the Son was sent, the sick need a healer those who are not sick need no healer do you believe yourself to be well and whole, but you have no basis for your judgement. Upon which standard do you judge others and try and steal the authority given only to the Lord Jesus Christ you a mere mortal like everyone else.

          9. “Yes, no Christian is perfect,”

            Correct, no one is perfect, christian or otherwise. However, you (and many like you) don’t even appear to be trying.

            As for what is wrong with your character, you show no compassion or “love” for others (supposedly a fundamental part of your religion); you childishly insult those you don’t like; you hypocritically ignore worse faults in those you do like; when questioned about your claims (many which are false) rather than provide evidence or sources you again resort to childish name-calling;

            “Upon which standard do you judge others”

            My standards, based on my ability to observe and reason.

          10. You asked for my opinion of you, not my fault if you don’t like the answer.

            As the song says:

            “don’t ask me what I think of you I might not give the answer that you want me to”

          11. This is what you said, which I took as a request for my opinion on your character.

            “you unfortunately have not shown what is wrong with my character and by which standard,”

          12. what would the word “shown” mean and again I reject your subjective moral judgement for with it you have no objective reasons to judge another and further you’re judgements based on scripture are lacking because you lack basic understanding of what the scriptures say nor are you in any position to judge me by it, and that isn’t even getting to the fact that you continue to obfuscate and not provide a moral standard of your own outside of your feelings – observation and reason are NOT able to provide you with an ought/moral standard. In nature you can observe and reason that animals kill other animals but they do not murder the other animal etc. all you have done this whole time is look for argument and attempt to lord yourself over other people you are not interested in truth or love or any other virtue.

  11. Romans 13 meant zip to the Republicans who hated former President Obama, and were obstructionists to the last, particularly Moscow Mitch.
    Romans 13? Merrick Garland.

  12. I think you are exactly right. At the time of Romans 13, a ruler was the ultimate authority in any land. But the United States has placed that ultimate authority in our Constitution, to which any elected Federal representative and the President must take an oath to uphold. That oath seals their fealty to that higher power.

Comments are closed.