Why I Am Voting For Hillary Clinton

I have in the past written about why it is problematic for a Christian to support Donald J. Trump's candidacy for president of the United States of America. I have however not disclosed that I do in fact support Hillary Clinton. In this election many have spoken as if it makes no difference, especially if one is a Christian, whether they support Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. I this brief post, I want to suggest that it makes a great difference who we support.

Christians who support Donald Trump, especially those Evangelicals who throw their weight behind him, should know that they are doing so not only as Americans but also as Christians. From my experience in the church in the United States, I have noticed that most Christians I have met are first Americans before they are Christians. This means that being Christian ranks lower for them than being American. Many would of course deny that this is the case but their actions often prove otherwise. For example, decisions about who to support for president or other elected offices is often based not on Christian beliefs but rather on some other thing - such as the desire to "make American great again." There is nothing particularly Christian about this and there is nothing particularly Christian in supporting Donald Trump. I challenge any Evangelical supporting Donald Trum to explain the Christian basis on which their decision is made.

A similar challenge may be thrown to me - that I should explain the Christian basis on which I support Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is said to be just as detestable as Donald Trump. She is said to be a corrupt liar whose incompetence brought about the events of Bengazi. To evade the normal governmental process she used a private email system when she was Secretary of State, deleting those that may incriminate her. She is said to be in the pocket of big business, giving speeches to Goldman Sachs and refusing to provide the transcripts so that we may see what is in them. On the whole, it is said, people do not trust her. I am not going to defend any of these, even though we must admit that there are many layers to the Bengazi affair about which she has not be found to be directly responsible. As Secretary of State, however, the buck stopped with her.

On the side of Donald Trump, he has given legitimacy to racists, insulted women, the disabled, and people who fought to defend America. He has criminalized whole groups of people like Latino and Muslims and refused to pay people who have worked for him. He has refused to show us his taxes so that we may get a better picture of his business activity, saying that it is none of our business. He has lied over and over, such as when he repeatedly said that he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating the 9/11 attack. I am going to leave aside his recent call for Russia to hack the computers of his opponent, Hillary Clinton, which some are describing as treasonous. I am not going to talk about his divorces because they are no longer seen as sinful these days.

On what basis should a Christian then support the one and not the other? There is no Christian principle that may be used here to decide who to vote for.  No principle of love or forgiveness or the fact that we are all fallible will work here. Some have claimed that you need to see it as a binary choice of two bad candidates. That is however not true. One may decide not to choose at all! On the whole, however, Donald Trump has said and done things that are worse than Hillary. In fact, on the whole, Donald Trump is ethically worse than Hillary. In the end, it needs to come down to the kind of formation Christians have received. What kind of people has the church in America formed? Has the church in America formed people who are comfortable with racism, bullying, insult of women and the disabled, etc.? Voting for Donald Trump is voting to accept these things as the lesser evil. I do not see what Hillary has done as even close to all to the heineous things Trump has said and done. She has not humiliated people and divided society as Donald Trump is doing. She has been far open, especially with her taxes, than Donald Trump. More especially, she is appealing to the better angels of our being rather than to our fears. She is calling us to come together rather than driving us apart, as Donald Trump is doing.

I would rather vote for one who inspires a better dream for humankind than for one who inspires racists and bullies. I will be voting for Hillary Clinton.

With Donald J. Trump Evangelicals Choose Situation Ethics

Many Evangelical leaders say that they are in a quandary in terms of whether or not they should choose between Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton in the ongoing presidential campaign in the United States. Borrowing from an idea first voiced by Paul Ryan, the Republican Speaker of the House, they now say that what they are faced with is a "binary choice" that calls for a decision to be made. What this means is that in their moral odyssey, they have come to a fork on the road and have to decide which way to go. The decision however does not appear to be based on any moral formation or transformation but on a coin toss. One may take one way or the other but, by all means, one needs to take one way if there is going to be any continuation of the journey. Not to pick one side is irresponsible. Here we see a cobbling of situation ethics and atheistic existentialism brought together to address an apparent ethical dilemma.

Apart from the fact that this statement of the issue creates a false dilemma (there are in fact many other morally appropriate actions to take), the gospel call for Christian actions to be based on a moral formation that transforms the mind is jettisoned for an amorality that is solely based on political calculation judged by proximity to power. One of the flimsiest display of this is the claim that with Donald Trump there is going to be protection of religious freedom in America. This is a claim that blows the mind of anyone who is aware of the actual lack of religious freedom in other places around the world compared to the dominance of the Christian faith in the United States. This leads one to wonder whether this claim is merely a front to cast a vote for a person whose morality is more Nietzschean than Christian, given that it lacks the pretense of discernment. What kind of religious freedom are Evangelicals seeking in America? Is it the freedom to practice Christianity in the public sphere to the exclusion of all other worldviews or is it to give equal voice to all religions in America? The hypocrisy of the call to religious freedom in America would make Coptic Christians in Egypt think that they have it really good. Instead of claiming a persecution that does not exist, American Evangelical Christians would do well to form Christians whose spirituality are mature enough to discern the signs of the times and to identify an oppressed people when they see one.

Evangelical Theology After Donald J. Trump

There has to be an Evangelical theology after Donald Trump for Evangelical theologians have a lot to reflect upon in the wake of their constituency's endorsement of Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for President of the United States. Evangelical theologians need to evaluate what it is in Evangelical theology that makes the people they theologize for to be enthusiastic supporters of a man who does not demonstrate any clear Christian character and policy. Polls show that at least 90% of Evangelicals are throwing their support behind this man, whose arrogance is unmarched, who insults the weak, and shows profound lack of compassion.

The wholesale endorsement of Donald Trump by most Evangelicals and their leaders may mean several things, none of which is good for Evangelical theology. First, it may mean that the work of Evangelical theologians cannot adequately form discerning Christians who are capable of discerning salutary human character. Second, it may mean that the work of Evangelical theologians are ignored by the churches for which they write, in which case there is no point to what they are doing. Third, it may be that the work of Evangelical theologians is actually aimed at forming people who would actively want people like Donald Trump to be President of the United States of America. Whatever the case may be, Evangelical theology has significant soul searching to do for most of those who have been rooting for Donald Trump in this election cycle have been Evangelical leaders and their followers.

A significant turning point in the life of the Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, was his realization that those he had followed, his teachers, were in fact enablers and supporters of what has come to be known as the First World War. This realization was so traumatic for him that he broke with the theological training they had given him, setting off a paradigm shift for twentieth century theology. The dictatorial tendencies Donald Trump has demonstrated in this election cycle, may leave one in little doubt that he may throw the world into disorder if he becomes President of the United States.  If this were to happen, we would have Evangelical Christians to thank. Evangelicalism should be harboring an uneasy conscience now and that conscience needs some reflection. There needs to be an Evangelical theology after Donald Trump.

Boris Johnson Is A Racist II: More Evidence

The BBC has cataloged statements that painfully show that the new British foreign minister, Boris John is a racist. It is amazing that a person like that is considered honorable enough to be the foreign minister of Britain. With Boris Johnson and Donald Trump, racism is becoming fashionable again.

Below are some of the statements the BBC attributes to Boris Johnson:

Boris on Africa

On Tony Blair visiting Africa, in 2002: "What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies...
"They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird."
Mr Johnson apologised for the comments in 2008, during his successful campaign to be mayor of London.
But it's not the only time he has used the term "piccaninnies", a derogatory word for black children.
On the effects of colonialism in Uganda (in 2002): "If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain."

The Prosperity Gospel Does Not Explain Donald J. Trump

There is a post over at The Washington Post claiming that the prosperity gospel helps explain some Evangelical support for Donald J. Trump. Chris Lehman, the author of the piece, connects Donald Trump to the views of Joel Osteen of Houston and claims that the message of Mr. Osteen may explain how followers of his gospel views Donald J. Trump. I am no fan of the prosperity gospel, which claims that wealth could be seen as a blessing from God. There is just so much that is wrong with this gospel, the least of which is its failure to interrogate ill-gotten wealth.

However, it does not sound proper to claim that this gospel explains Donald Trump. What the prosperity gospel does not do is to explain how people who do not honor God may become wealthy. Donald Trump is clearly a man who does not honor God, demonstrated through his various bombastic statements and his screwing of small businesses. The claim of the prosperity gospel is clear - God blesses those who strain to maintain a pure lifestyle. Such lifestyle of purity is one with which Donald Trump could hardly be associated. Most followers of the prosperity gospel would not agree that all wealthy people should be seen as people who have been blessed by God. Thus, even though Mr. Osteen may speak well of Donald Trump, this may only be in line with his view that he is compelled to speak only positive things about people, that he is no prophet - however this self-understanding may skew the gospel.

This post is not a defense of the prosperity gospel (with which I have no affinity) or Joel Osteen (with whom I have no personal relationship) but a rejection of the claim that this gospel may help evangelicals understand Trump better. This claim forces the available evidence and the belief this gospel promotes.

Brexit Fallout From Africa: Tanzania Quits Trade Negotiations

Tanzania has decided to quit trade negotiations between the European Union and an East Africa block because of what its describes as the "turmoil" in the European Union.

Brexit Is British Retreat Not Independence

Some, especially those who campaigned for Britain to leave the European Union, are saying that the vote to leave the EU should be seen as marking Britain's independence. In fact, Nigel Farage, the loquacious leader of UKIP whose recent resignation after the vote to leave shows that he could not stand to defend the lies he told during the campaign, declared the day of the vote to be British Independence Day. It is now being reported that other groups, especially in the United States, are taking inspiration from this to call for their own independence.

Before the falsehood that Brexit marks British independence takes further root, it is important to reject this narrative. Brexit does not mark British independence; it is rather the latest stage of British retreat. It marks Britain's retreat as a fallen empire. There was a time when Britain controlled the world from Asia to Polynesia, Africa and the Americas. Beginning with America's war of independence in the eighteenth century and stretching to the independence of Hong Kong in the late twentieth century, British influence in the world has been declining. Brexit marks the latest stage of this decline and retreat rather than a quest for independence. Normally only oppressed people fight for independence, as the history of the global South tells us. Calling Brexit British independence is an insult to those who have had to fight to extricate themselves from the tyranny of Britain. Brexit should be properly called what it is - British retreat.