Thursday, November 17, 2016

Jesus on Trump?

So life is crazy busy this week, long story and I won't give the short version, save to mention that quakes are part of it. No progress on my "apostolicity" post. But here is a quick post. Reading Luke 19:11-28 the other day, I was struck by resonances in the story with the election of Donald Trump as US president AND the reports coming out of Washington/New York of who is in favour, out of favour, in favour then out of favour (etc) re forming the new government. Oh, and reports of people not wanting Trump as their king president!

Jesus, sort of, knew the story of Trump as a perennial story of royalty, grants of favour, expectations and days of reckoning and revenge. Yes, Jesus made it his story of the kingdom, but today, read it as a story resonating with the crazy reports coming out of the citadels of forthcoming US power ...

"
11 As they were listening to this, he went on to tell a parable, because he was near Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. 
12 So he said, "A nobleman went to a distant country to get royal power for himself and then return. 
13 He summoned ten of his slaves, and gave them ten pounds, and said to them, "Do business with these until I come back.' 

14 But the citizens of his country hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, "We do not want this man to rule over us.' 
15 When he returned, having received royal power, he ordered these slaves, to whom he had given the money, to be summoned so that he might find out what they had gained by trading. 
16 The first came forward and said, "Lord, your pound has made ten more pounds.' 
17 He said to him, "Well done, good slave! Because you have been trustworthy in a very small thing, take charge of ten cities.' 
18 Then the second came, saying, "Lord, your pound has made five pounds.' 
19 He said to him, "And you, rule over five cities.' 

20 Then the other came, saying, "Lord, here is your pound. I wrapped it up in a piece of cloth, 
21 for I was afraid of you, because you are a harsh man; you take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.' 
22 He said to him, "I will judge you by your own words, you wicked slave! You knew, did you, that I was a harsh man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 
23 Why then did you not put my money into the bank? Then when I returned, I could have collected it with interest.' 
24 He said to the bystanders, "Take the pound from him and give it to the one who has ten pounds.'
25 (And they said to him, "Lord, he has ten pounds!') 
26 "I tell you, to all those who have, more will be given; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 

27 But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.' ""

25 comments:

Brendan McNeill said...

There’s a good article from commentator Mark Steyn today where he quotes Churchill:

"The object of Parliament," observed Winston Churchill at election time in 1951, "is to substitute argument for fisticuffs."

http://www.steynonline.com/7598/advice-for-the-loyal-opposition

And yet, he reflects, the Democrats who believed they lived essentially in a one party state have spent a good deal of time delegitimising those who disagreed with them. They are apparently no more than enactors of the ‘to do list’ on Satan’s refrigerator.

Styen quotes CNN's Sally Kohn at 9pm on election night:

“My sense is that if Trump wins, Hillary supporters will be sad. If Hillary wins, Trump supporters will be angry. Important difference.”

Steyn is his usually witty and prescient self and includes a useful quote from CS Lewis.

I don’t know if Trump will have the Democratic voters brought before him and slaughtered in his presence. Most of the violence appears to be coming from the ‘sad Hillary supporters’.

Important difference.

Glen Young said...


Hi Peter,

Everything that you have written so far on your site,about American politics shows a dismal comprehension of the stark reality which the American voter faced.It was not a choice between Democrats and Republicans nor between left and right.It was a choice between Clinton continuing the treasonous legacy of Obama, in giving the SOVEREIGNTY of America to the SATANIC UN'S one world government;or reclaiming the NATION for the American citizens.In voting for Trump,they decided for the latter.

In tracing crimes,law enforcement officers always say:"Follow the MONEY".In this case,the money behind Obama and Clinton leads directly to a billionaire sociopath named George SOROS. A man whose fortune has been amassed, by manipulating the currencies of many Nations.A man who is wanted dead or alive by the Russians.A man whose life's ambition is to destroy the Western World.A man who wishes to see American social and economic life organized according to Saul Alinsky philosophy.This is the type of America one would get with a vote for Clinton.

Soros/Obama/Clinton can not comprehend how the the people could reject them.Hence the Soros funded snow flakes out protesting in the cities with Democrat mayors.To follow the money,investigate the 187 so called charitable organisations he funds.They would not dare to take their busloads of funded protesters /// "RIOTERS" into cities with Republican mayors.

It is this same humanistic doctrine that TEC and Canada has taken on board and the COE looks set to along with,as well as the ACANZP.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Glen
I appreciate that there are various agendas at work in politics, and some agendas may connect, but I do not recognise your theory above as other than a "conspiracy" theory. I do not share it.

I recognise that the Trump presidency may bring in some needed corrections to some things within the socio-political-economic realm of the US but I generally am alarmed at the flip-flopping of Trump, the distance between his campaign rhetoric and what he now says he is committed to, and in particular I am alarmed at his lack of perception of the ways in which rhetoric can fuel hatred of races.

Generally I fear we are heading for a disaster. Yes, we might have been heading for a disaster with Clinton, but all in all, I think it would have been a lesser disaster.

Andrei said...

" I am alarmed at his lack of perception of the ways in which rhetoric can fuel hatred of races"

Peter can you actually provide a direct quote from Donald Trump that is in any way racially provocative?

From where I sit it seems that Donald Trump's opponents have created the narrative that he is "racist, misogynistic and homophobic" and that this narrative has been uncritically accepted by many

It seems to me rather than debate the real issues the Clinton campaign, with the help of a sycophantic media (one that would make Pravda in Soviet times seem fair and balanced in comparison) has demonized Donald Trump in Alinsky fashion and are now rousing the mindless mob in an attempt to sabotage his transition.

What we a seeing is nothing short of disgraceful

Donald Trump won the election and if people really believe in democracy they should support him or at least allow him to get on with it

And BTW it is not a conspiracy theory that George Soros has a hand in this - after the riots in Oregon it turned out that over 1/3 of those arrested were employed by organizations funded by George Soros

Father Ron said...

I see Glen's alarmist theories, concerning his embrace of the El Trumpo economic systemm - making Trump rich through his isolationist politics - as not too different from that of 'Bishop' Brian Tamaki here in Aotearoa/New Zealand and his wacky theory of the recent Canterbury earthquakws being the direct result of God's anger with what Tamaki sees as the 'sin' of Same-Sex Marriage. When will the Fundies learn that their God is no longer viable in the world of today?

The so-called 'Prosperity Gospel' is contrary to the economy of the Gospel of O.L.J.C.: "Blessed are the poor, they shall inherit the earth!"

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Andrei
I am very carefully not accusing Trump of racism but of inadequate recognition of words which likely will incite racism (e.g. some disgraceful things he has said about Mexicans, also Muslims - indiscriminate sweeping judgments).

Hi Ron
Please do not make people guilty by association: as far as I can tell Glen has never espoused the tenets of prosperity gospel teaching here, nor has he offered a rendition of Brian Tamaki's views.

Brendan McNeill said...

Hi Peter

Six reasons why Trump is better for the USA and the world than a Clinton Presidency.

1) Clinton is a globalist; Trump is a nationalist. Since Genesis 11, God has been a ‘God of nations’. Clinton, the UN et. al. consciously or unconsciously are at work on ‘project Babel’.

Besides, elected leadership should be acting in the best interests of those who put them there, not some wider utopian ‘grander good’.

2) Clinton’s foreign policy is more hawkish than Trumps. She presided over the chaos that is now Libya, and has threatened ‘no fly zones’ over Syria. While Trump wants to crush ISIS, he is not into ‘nation building’ Obama, Bush and Clinton style in the Middle East. Neither does he desire a confrontation with Putin over a contrived dispute in Eastern Europe or elsewhere.

3) Immigration / migration from the Islamic third world to the West is the defining issue of our times. Clinton is pro-immigration, Trump is not.

4) A resurgent Islam is plaguing the whole world. The kindest thing you can say about Clinton is that she is Islamo-friendly. The reality I suspect is much worse than that. Trump shares the concerns Christians and others ought to share about Islam, and particularly the growth of Islam in the west.

5) Clinton has enriched herself through the Clinton foundation that has received payments not only from our own Government ($7.7M - sigh) but from some of the ugliest Islamic regime’s on the planet. She owes them, and they would have called in favours. Trump is owned by no one. This is no small thing.

6) True, there are questions about Trumps temperament, but there was a reason Clinton didn’t speak to her supporters when it became clear she had lost the election. She had lost it emotionally, is reported to have been consumed by anger, throwing things, banging tables and in no fit condition to speak publically. The reports may be wrong, but similar reports about her temperament have leaked from secret service staff over the years.

I could say more about the character and world view of those to whom each candidate looks to for advice, and who they surround themselves with, but the above reasons are more than enough to prefer Trump over Clinton.

Andrei said...

"I am very carefully not accusing Trump of racism but of inadequate recognition of words which likely will incite racism (e.g. some disgraceful things he has said about Mexicans, also Muslims - indiscriminate sweeping judgments)."

Peter is illegal immigration an issue facing the USA? And if so is discussing policy regarding it during an election campaign a reasonable thing to do, particularly in light of the fact that many US citizens have been adversely impacted by it?

Similarly with large scale Muslim immigration from the ME bringing with it Islamic radicalism - I am not anti Islam as you know, my late Mother in Law was born a muslim and in many respects I feel greater kinship with Islam than I do with modern secular liberalism but Salafism is a threat and we have seen the effects of Salafist radicalism written in the blood of innocents - deny this if you will, but it concerns many and needs to be discussed in the context of an election campaign

Donald Trump is a brash New Yorker and uses the syntax of such - its not hateful, its not bigoted, it is plain speaking rather than political double talk and is preferable in my mind to PC platitudes - WYSIWYG

Democracy thrives on free speech and robust open debate and Hillary Clinton who did not want to have these matters on the agenda encouraged shrinking violets and trigglypuffs to do their thing and get outraged to shut these legitimate debates down

A Hillary Clinton Presidency would have led to WW3, apart from anything else she is in the pocket of the Saudis and the Qataris, which would not bode well for the Syrians and the Lebanese

This is a time of challenge and hope - Will Donald Trump be able to pull it off? That remains to be seen but the course we were on was the Titanic sailing full steam ahead into the iceberg

Shawn Herles said...

Peter, I'm going to break my silence to deal with some outright fabrications that seem to be coming up regularly on your blog.

"but I generally am alarmed at the flip-flopping of Trump"

Trump has not flipped flopped on any policy. If you are relying on the MSM for this claim, they are lying. Some policies have been mildly moderated, which is normal for an incoming President, but all the policies have been and are being upheld in principle.

"I am alarmed at his lack of perception of the ways in which rhetoric can fuel hatred of races."

Trump has not said anything in reality (as opposed to what the MSM claims) that can reasonably be said to fuel racial hatred. He did vastly better than Romney with Hispanic and Black voters. On the other hand there has been an outpouring of anti-White racial hatred and numerous violent assaults on Trump supporters as a result. Anti-Trump protesters in New Orleans painted "Die Whites Die" on the NOLA monuments. An elderly white man was viciously beaten by two young black thugs for supposedly voting for Trump. I have seen dozens of these stories online in the last week. If you were genuinely concerned about racial hatred, then why the silence about these incidents instead of vague accusations about Trump?

"Generally I fear we are heading for a disaster."

Your fear is unfounded and based on MSM lies.

"Yes, we might have been heading for a disaster with Clinton"

Not might, would have. Already tensions between Russia and the US have begun to dissipate as a result of Trump's victory. Hillary was calling for a no-fly zone over Syria which would have lead to military confrontation. There is no "might" about it.

"but all in all, I think it would have been a lesser disaster."

I would love to see some actual evidence for this claim other than what CNN or the BBC say.

Finally, Ron's constant use of the Prosperity Gospel claim with regards to Trump is total and utter bunk. It is simply not true in any way, shape, or form. None of Trump's actual economic policies have any relation to the Prosperity Gospel. Several times you have censored posts regarding the Clinton's or George Soros which were based on actual evidence, on the frankly silly basis that you might be sued. Yet this claim is allowed.

Overall, a little more balance would not go amiss, on all of these issues.

Shawn Herles said...

Final post. Hopefully! :)

This is a friendly challenge to those claiming concern about Trump's supposed racial rhetoric, and an invitation to a little soul searching.

Obama promised to be a post-racial President, to be a uniter not a divider. Yet once in power he used the Presidency to advance a rhetoric of racial resentment. At every opportunity he blamed "White racism" or "institutional racism" for all the ills of urban black people, regardless of whether it was always true or not. He advanced the most radical anti-White narratives of the Black Left. When the Black Lives Matter movement came into being, and claimed that White racism was always, in every circumstance, to blame for young black men being shot by police, Obama openly and loudly agreed and encouraged them to get out on the streets. This reached ridiculous proportions. In one incident White racism was blamed when a black police officer shot shot another black man! Incidents of black on white violence with clear racial overtones, some of it by BLM activists, were ignored by Obama, the Democrats and the MSM.

And countless Democratic Party politicians, College professors, and mainstream media sources piled on and spread this rhetoric. And in terms of the rhetoric of violence, Obama was a serial user. He said of his political opponents that "when they bring a knife to a fight we bring a gun." He told his supporters to "get in their faces" regarding Republican voters.

The results of all of this are now plain to see. Violence has exploded in the wake of Trump's victory. There have been dozens of documented acts of violence against Trump voters, much of it with disturbing anti-White racial overtones. Threats of violence are being made against white people generally, such as the "Die Whites Die", which is just one example or many, as well as threats of assassination against the President-elect.

Now, did Hillary/Obama supporters, or those now claiming concern for Trump's rhetoric, ever speak out about this? Did you yourself Peter, ever express on your blog any concern for this rhetoric from Obama and the the US Left?

And if not, why not?

I think this is a case of dealing with one's own sins, and the sins of your own preferred political side, before pointing fingers at Trump.

Glen Young said...


Hi Peter,

If I am guilty of spreading "CONSPIRACY THEORIES",then there 60,000,000+ Americans who think the same way. But before you lay claim to the moral high horse and say that Clinton won the Popular Vote;stop and ask yourself how many of them were illegals,machine manipulation and dead.One chap said:"All the time I knew my father ,he voted Republican;but now he dead he voted Democrat".

Father Ron said...

"Besides, elected leadership should be acting in the best interests of those who put them there, not some wider utopian ‘grander good’." - Brendan -

Not, actually, Brendan. The majority of counted votes went to Hillary! The U.S. electoral system is flawed to allow a result that now responsible for unrest all over the U.S. Also, I can't think that Hillary's lust for money could possibly be greater than that of El Trumpo. That's why the Mega-Church Leaders love him - he knows how to make money. Money from his charity, i understand was used to help his election bid. They're all culpable!

One thing about Hillary, she doesn't carry a bible around with her to impress the gullible. And, she does not court the lunatic fringe, that has little idea of economic policy or democratic government. Not do the understand the extra-biblical truth of the origins of the universe.

Father Ron said...

"I would love to see some actual evidence for this claim other than what CNN or the BBC say." - Shaun -

REALLY? And what alternative news sources from around the world can you cite that are less politically biassed that CNN or BBC? Al Jezeera perhaps?

Glen Young said...


Ron,

You can be assured that I am not into the Prosperity Gospel doctrine having been brought up on the land by a dear old Scots Grandfather, who could not read or write English.He was hard but beautifully genteel.When my cousin, who was intrigued by the uncles' fob watches asked for one,Grand Dad replied:"Nooo laddie nooo,all you need to ken is that when the sun gets up,you start work and when it goes doon,you can stop".In our upbringing,we were extremely blessed and have under the hand of God prospered.I was always brought up on the Words of Deut. 8. and 2 Thes.3:10. Paul was a tent maker to pay his way in spreading the GOSPEL.How is the tent making going in Christchurch????

Peter Carrell said...

Dear All
For the record, with a bit of repetition: my views:

(a) both candidates flawed
(b) Trump won fair and square. The system is not so much about a funny old thing called an electoral college but about each state having a say in the presidency of the union.
(c) No Christian should support any human leader as though they are the representation of the kingdom of God.
(d) All Christians should pray for the appointed leaders of their country.
(e) There all sorts of perceptions about Trump, most of which he has fostered himself over the years, which do not add up to Trump being any kind of godly man (and nor does he claim the same).
(f) These perceptions mean Christians do or potentially do great harm by contributing to a perception that Trump is some kind of divinely appointed political super-hero.
(g) See (a).
(h) I remain very concerned.

Andrei said...

"These perceptions mean Christians do or potentially do great harm by contributing to a perception that Trump is some kind of divinely appointed political super-hero."

I for one don't believe that and have never implied it and nor do I think anyone else here has

We live in a Post Christian society and any person aspiring to political office cannot wear his/her faith on his/her sleeve

Anyone espousing Conservative Christian views will not get a foot in the door in any English speaking Nation's legislature - Politicians who claim the Christian Faith are invariably from the liberal, progressive wing - the litmus test being support for "gay marriage".

Donald Trump is Post Christian President

The West is collapsing, Donald Trump may delay the inevitable and ease the landing but the writing is on the wall.

The collapse of Communism in the long term will turn out to be a worse catastrophe for the West than it was for the East - on the scale of human history 25 years is nothing and since the fall of the Berlin wall American hubris has become overbearing but the days of the American Empire are numbered one way or another.

We are not out of the woods yet - the Godless elites who rule the world may not want to go quietly and be prepared to see the death of billions and the destruction of continents in order to prevent the new world order which is emerging flourish.

There are spiritual forces at work though - this is always true but humanity has free will and how it all plays out will depend on whether that gift is used wisely or not

Rosemary Behan said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Ho8OrBzig Trust the media? Listen to Pilger.

Glen Young said...


Yes,humanity does have free will and certainly,the choices we make,decide our status at the time of the final war between CHRIST and Satan.Whether we die prior to or are alive at the time of Satan's final attempt to usurp CHRIST'S RIGHTFUL POSITION;our free will choices will greatly affect our future eternal life.

We were created in the image and likeness of God to have dominion of HIS creation according to His Commandments.Because we rebelled and fell,our choices have been so often at variance with His WILL.

Trump is not a God appointed leader to take them into a PROMISED LAND,as much as someone that gave them a choice, between unconstrained GLOBALISM and American Nationalism.Trump represented the difference between living under the SATANIC dictates of the UN and being once again being allowed to live and earn their livings according to CHRISTIAN BELIEFS AND CONSCIENCES.Bakers will no longer lose their business, because they decline to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple;not because they are the only baker in town,but because they are the baker whose religious principles the LGBT brigade wish to make an example of.

This UN foisted psuedo-morality, may be the type of America that the weird HOLLYWOOD crowd might wish to live in and may fit the false doctrine of TEC;but it did not sit well with middle America.Obama's illegal throwing open the right to vote,may have pleased the illegals and the DEAD;but it also made a mockery of the election process.AMERICA is not a DEMOCRACY;It is A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and the 2016 Presidential Election was decided according to that CONSTITUTION and won by DONALD TRUMP.

It does not surprise me that certain commentors on this site, who can not accept Trump winning according to the Constitution; can not also accept the CONSTITUTION (1857) of the ACANZP.

Brendan McNeill said...

Hi Fr Ron

I appreciate that we view the world differently albeit we both embrace the risen Christ. But to respond to your reflections. Yes, Hillary may have won the popular vote, and California etc. is the reason for that. However, both candidates understood how the election was won or lost and campaigned accordingly. Trump would have visited California endlessly if he believed the popular vote was the path to the presidency. It isn’t and he didn’t.

Both candidates played by the rules, and under those rules your preferred candidate lost, just as Obama previously won two terms. That’s democracy – embrace it or condemn it, either way it makes no difference for the next four years. I suspect you only believe the electoral system is ‘flawed’ because your candidate lost. If she had won, would you have opined thus?

This result is not responsible for the ‘unrest’ – it is those who refuse to accept the democratic outcome that are responsible. We have agency, we are not the victim of circumstances, political or otherwise. However, I understand that many college students in the USA now have access to hot coco, colouring in books and play dough to help them through the emotional stress of a Trump presidency.

If this is an indicator of the resilience of the political left, then God help America should ISIS operatives decide to occupy University campuses in the USA. Tears and crayons are no match for Islam and AK47’s.

Thankfully the adults are back in charge, and America’s children are reasonably safe for at least one more term of Government.

As to which of the candidates owns, carries or reads a Bible I’m unconcerned. God has a history of using those who don’t know him to affect his purposes here on earth. Check out Isaiah 45.

Oh, and I forgot to mention the supreme court as one more reason why we might have occasion to thank God that Trump rather than Clinton won the election.

And that Trump is pro-life and will attempt to delegate the issue of abortion to the States rather than to federal courts. This at least should reduce the number of third trimester unborn children who are sacrificed to the Moloch of convenience.

So you see Ron, there is much to celebrate and little to regret, at least in this early stage.

Glen Young said...



3,000 rioters in Athens streets protest against Obama's visit.Police use tear gas to dispel them. How strange this was not reported in our news.
Perhaps they don't welcome the fact, that the foreign bank have insisted on higher taxes and cuts in welfare as a bailout condition.The poorest 20% of Greece's 11 million population have suffered a 42% drop in disposable income since 2009. All will be well though, when Soros and his globalization mates get in control.They just love helping the poor OUT;(out where is the only question ?????).

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet;as to be purchased at the price of
CHAINS AND SLAVERY", Patrick Henry.

Anonymous said...

“Take your Bible and take your newspaper, and read both. But interpret newspapers from your Bible.” ~ Karl Barth, quoted in Time Magazine, May 1, 1966.

Thank you, Peter, for reflecting on the current events in the light of the Word. I tend to ignore comments that, in their captivity to one extreme or the other, do not.

Bowman Walton

Glen Young said...


Bowman,it's good advice you give, in your quote from Barth.The biggest lie perpetrated by the 'mainstream media is not in the bias of what they report,but in what they don't report.It would appear, that the basis of how Barth and John Webster would interpret the newspaper from their Bible,is vastly different from how +Fairweather Vane would.You see,Barth and Webster actually believed the Scriptures to be the AUTHORITATIVE WORD of GOD,(which is a discussion that often takes place on this site).This is not one of the strong points of a number of the present ACANZP;and sadly their views do reflect the current events in the light?/darkness? of the world.People who interpret their bible from the newspaper.

Bowman,there may be a central ground in the world of Cockaign', where mugwumping is practiced,but there is no central ground in this life in the SPIRIT;where we are either for HIM or against HIM.St Paul writes:"Casting down imaginations,and every high that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God,and bringing into "CAPTIVITY" every thought to the obedience of CHRIST (emphasis mine).So I guess, I am CAPTIVE to one extreme but I do not consider myself EXTREME in that CAPTIVITY.The other extreme of course being the world and the 'father of lies'.

Jonathan said...

A thought provoking and rather lengthy article posted by Psephizo can be found at http://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/how-social-justice-ideology-gave-us-donald-trump/ Psephizo notes that he doesn't necessarily agree with everything in the article.
On the topic of vote gerrymandering, no system is perfect. Here in Dunedin we use STV, a preferential voting system, for mayor and councillors, which in my opinion is better than MMP. Even so, the mayor won with around a third of the vote. The reason, however, was that there were quite a few candidates who got lots of votes (something like 17 000; 11 000; 9 000; 8 000; 7 000...)
Whichever system one uses it will have flaws or critics (e.g. threshold debates concerning MMP). Oh, and it took me about 2 hours to rank the council candidates thoughtfully and accurately from 1 to forty-something in order!

Father Ron said...

In the latest "religion dispatches' from the U.S., here is a serious questioning of what the election of Donald Trump - mainly by the Protestant white majority in American Churches - might mean for the Black Minority:

http://religiondispatches.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=9484d4afd3e0323b1a58540bb&id=e3f993c543&e=ad9f02c21c

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Glen, I am only now seeing your comment of 19th November.

I do not understand it. Since my comment above alludes to the OP, which was about American politics, I naturally try to understand your comment on my comment as a continuation of my conversation with Peter. But reading your comment that way does not make sense to me.

If I try to do that, your comment seems to be supposing something like--

(1) The whole cosmos is polarised by the rule of God and his enemies.

(2) So too, the tiny part of the cosmos that is the United States is necessarily divided by that same cosmic polarisation.

(3) And that cosmic polarisation is the same as the division of the United States into Republicans and Democrats.

(4) Therefore, one party rules for God and the other party stands for his enemies.

(5) Probably, it is the Republicans who rule for God, and Democrats who are the enemies of God.

Personally, I can consider (1) and (2), but would have to rather force the imagination to find (3), (4), or (5) plausible.

Are you supposing any of that, or do you mean something else altogether?

Blessings,

Bowman Walton