Advertisement
Call the Show 800-520-1234
LIVE: Mon-Fri, 6-9AM, ET
Hugh Hewitt Book Club
Call 800-520-1234 email Email Hugh
Hugh Hewitt Book Club

Doing Good?

Email Email Print
Advertisement

So, Hillary got honest and ticked off her team mightily.  If read this blog, you have been following that discussion.  The fun part has been the return fire she has been getting, particularly from the DNC data guy.  One of his tweets, I think, reveals stuff on levels far beyond Democrat in-fighting.  Consider:

DNC data folks: today’s accusations are f#$%^&* b@#$s*&^, and I hope you understand the good you did despite that nonsense.

— Andrew Therriault (@therriaultphd) June 1, 2017 (note – cursing redacted)

Now I suppose it is possible it is a Twitter shorthand thing but I have to ask, do election data guys do “good?”  I am sure they do “good work” (and note he had the characters available to insert the word “work” if he wanted), but “doing good” is a moral thing, not a function thing.  I also know that elections have massive moral consequence, but come on, is gathering and analyzing data about voters really “good” in the same sense that someone on a mission trip or donating to Feed the Children is?  Does that tweet not seem to imply that it is?

If the Dems really think that, is it any wonder that struggling with the results of the election as they are?  They did not just lose an election – they lost a moral crusade.  If you think you are on the side of right and good, you believe you will prevail because almost all of us think goodness always wins in the end.  Obviously Trump must be Satan for only dark forces could overcome their overwhelming good.  (BTW, I will not contend that Donald Trump is a moral positive, he’s been wrong morally a lot in his life, but I don’t think he is Satan either.  He is just a sinner like the rest of us.)

If I analyze this properly there are two important things to note.

The first thing is that it is not the actual religious fervor of the Republican/right that is keeping the nation divided.  We reserve our religious fervor for our actual religious devotion.  It is the Democrat/left which, largely absent actual religion, has imbued its politics with religious significance that will keep us divided for the foreseeable future.  There is a major difference between thinking that politics has religious/moral consequence and thinking politics is a religions/moral act.

So how do we build bridges?  Well, telling the Democrat/left they are wrong about this will not achieve any more than it does when they tell us we are “overzealous religious nuts.”  Rather we need to give them the proper place to invest their religious fervor.  I think our politics will be forever as fractured as it is until such time as we can actually do evangelism and formation instead of just talking about doing it.  The divide makes it plain we are not doing those things well.

Secondly, this makes me think the election of Donald J Trump really is God’s hand in history.  There is little question we have been guilty at times of imbuing our own politics with too much religious fervor.  The massive amount of religious garbage that floated around the internet concerning George W Bush (I saw “stories” about him stopping in the middle of public appearances to lay hands on someone!) and the intra-religious fighting that occurred around Mitt Romney were both indications that we were going too far mixing our faith and politics.  Someone like the President with us politically, but so clearly not like us religiously, actually aids us in putting a proper distance between our religious fervor and our politics.

God really does move in mysterious ways.

ADDENDUM:  Not long after I wrote this the president announced our withdrawal from the Paris Accords.  In the wake of that announcement came all sorts of pieces telling us about the lack of wisdom in such a decision.  Within all that coverage was yet another tell that the Left holds their views with actual religious fervor.  The Hill carried a piece the headline of which read (emphasis added):

Trump admin. refuses to say whether president believes in climate science

One does not “believe” in science.  Science postulates, hypothesizes and models and then proves those postulates, hypothesis’ and models true or it does not – there is no belief.  If belief is demanded in something it is other than science.  In point of fact, the word “believe” is most often associated with religious doctrine of one sort or another.

The last week has shown us that losing an election can be quite revelatory.  Certainly we have seen Hillary Clinton to be dysfunctional harpy we always suspected she was.  I think it is fair to say we are seeing the Left generally reveal that their politics are, as we have always suspected, a substitute religion.  I take political delight in such revelation, but my God-fearing heart hurts for their distance from true religion.

Hughniverse

Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertisement
Advertise with us Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Book Hugh Hewitt as a speaker for your meeting

Follow Hugh Hewitt

Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices

The Hugh Hewitt Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Advertisement
Advertisement
Friends and Allies of Rome