Can leadership and morality walk different paths? Join us as we navigate the gray areas of personal immorality among professional titans like Steve Jobs and several U.S. presidents. With Anton's sharp insights, we confront the paradox of measuring success, revealing the multifaceted nature of leadership beyond mere economic triumphs. From the complexity of Christian ethics in the political arena to the nuanced expectations of a president, this episode promises an intellectual exploration of the standards by which we judge our leaders.
The words we choose can ignite wildfires or bridge divides. This episode contemplates the weighty implications behind labeling the January 6th Capitol event as either an insurrection or a riot. With careful analysis, Anton and I dissect the power of media narration and reflect on the responsibility leaders hold in times of unrest. The potency of political rhetoric unfolds before us as we discuss the ripple effects of influential figures like Trump on society's collective conscience—stretching into our homes, churches, and the core of our national identity.
As we unravel the intricacies of public figures and their religious overtures, we ask: How authentic is the mingling of faith and politics? The debate stretches from the sanctity of personal belief to the critical eye on political personas, where the use of religious symbols by leaders like Trump becomes a subject of contention. Join us for a thought-provoking session that promises to resonate with your convictions and curiosity.
Thanks for Listening! Follow us on Facebook and Instagram!
Can leadership and morality walk different paths? Join us as we navigate the gray areas of personal immorality among professional titans like Steve Jobs and several U.S. presidents. With Anton's sharp insights, we confront the paradox of measuring success, revealing the multifaceted nature of leadership beyond mere economic triumphs. From the complexity of Christian ethics in the political arena to the nuanced expectations of a president, this episode promises an intellectual exploration of the standards by which we judge our leaders.
The words we choose can ignite wildfires or bridge divides. This episode contemplates the weighty implications behind labeling the January 6th Capitol event as either an insurrection or a riot. With careful analysis, Anton and I dissect the power of media narration and reflect on the responsibility leaders hold in times of unrest. The potency of political rhetoric unfolds before us as we discuss the ripple effects of influential figures like Trump on society's collective conscience—stretching into our homes, churches, and the core of our national identity.
As we unravel the intricacies of public figures and their religious overtures, we ask: How authentic is the mingling of faith and politics? The debate stretches from the sanctity of personal belief to the critical eye on political personas, where the use of religious symbols by leaders like Trump becomes a subject of contention. Join us for a thought-provoking session that promises to resonate with your convictions and curiosity.
Thanks for Listening! Follow us on Facebook and Instagram!
Hey and welcome to another episode of the podcast. We left you with a cliffhanger last time. Anton posed a question, and so we're going to jump right back into the conversation Looking at Anton's question. I hope you enjoyed the episode. Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 2:I don't think so. I don't think so, can I actually?
Speaker 3:ask a question Absolutely. Do you think one could be an immoral man and a great president in our modern times? An immoral man and a really good great president. Are those two things counterintuitive? Yes, great president, are those two things counterintuitive? Yes, dig in then. I think that's aaron. Do you feel the same way?
Speaker 2:because I think that would be our fundamental, yeah I think that's where I'm struggling and that's literally what I'm processing, because in my mind I'm like I don't.
Speaker 3:But why would that be true? Not great, but how would that be true of any other profession in your mind?
Speaker 2:yes, like the whole reason when you read elon musk's uh biography and like when you read jobs biography and all these like to me. Like there he's a great. I love apple, use apple products, like. But I don't think steve jobs is a great man like there's, but I don't mean, that's not the question.
Speaker 3:Do you think he's a great?
Speaker 4:yeah, he's a great ceo though because I think.
Speaker 2:No, I don't think he was a great ceo, then who's a better ceo in your mind than steve? I think he's a great CEO. Do you think he's a great CEO though? No, I don't think he was a great CEO.
Speaker 3:Then who's a better CEO in your mind?
Speaker 2:than Steve Jobs. I think he may again. For me it's the win and the win. If win is money, then yes, he sold a lot of things. If the win is to me character, then he didn't like in my mind I can't separate. That I'm trying.
Speaker 1:I'm listening to you guys' argument.
Speaker 2:I can't separate that in my mind because I'm like, if you have a daughter who you act like doesn't exist, I can't put you in the category of great man.
Speaker 3:Again, you keep going back to great. I'm not saying he's a great, arguable that he's the greatest person at his profession that's ever existed.
Speaker 4:Why, simultaneously being a terrible dad wall right now and they have no family because they've been divorced how many times? And their kids can't stand them. Just because you rule in that sphere does not mean you rule in all spheres. So, yes, you can be an amazing CEO, because, again, when you talk about a great CEO, we are speaking strictly upon that specific area of life. You can be great at that and fail in other areas. So, yes, I would agree, aaron, do you not see that that way?
Speaker 2:I do see what you're saying, it's just I have a hard time.
Speaker 3:I think this is where we run into. This is why, to me, it comes into the conversation. Then there's no such thing as a great president. Just be okay with that, because who are you talking about?
Speaker 2:I think I'm okay with that though.
Speaker 3:But then there's no discussion. The Trump argument, to me, falls apart, because he's no longer different than anyone else. He's just another bad president. Because they're all bad, because they all sin, which, to me, is where we're always going to end up. That either you have to be able to separate his personality from his job. If you can't separate the two, then you're always going to end up with yes, we agree that he's a bad man, but we'll agree with that for virtually every man, because, as the Bible says, there's none good, no, not one. So we'll end up at the same place of no one's good.
Speaker 4:So everything's bad and and but. But I think if you rephrase the question where the end game goal is baked into what the job title is, in my opinion you can. You be a immoral person and be a great pastor, aaron. What would you say? No, there we go. Thank you, I agree with that, but again, of course, because baked in into the fact of what a person is supposed to do to be a pastor. Well, look at 1 Timothy, it's clear. No argument. I mean, if you want to write your own little list of qualifiers, whatever it is, then be my guest. Blaspheme the Holy Spirit and add to God's word, right, so that's up to you, but at the end of the day, you know what the requirements are.
Speaker 3:And so, therefore, you cannot be immoral. This is how I started, though yes, I agree with you, that's why I started.
Speaker 4:I'm going somewhere. Ethics Okay, it's ethics.
Speaker 3:It's because those are Christian ethics that we're applying. I'm saying you do not apply Christian ethics to everyone, otherwise you'll end up in the same place, because everyone's not a Christian.
Speaker 4:Again. Now, here we go. Now let me finish the thought, and the thought again lead us to the point of it depends on what your version of president is. I know we're in the weeds a little bit, but it depends on what your version of president is Like. Do you consider a president, then, to lead a country to what? What success? What exactly do we feel Like? Because the thing is it's like OK, if you want to put it in money, well then, he's a great president.
Speaker 1:I mean holy cow.
Speaker 4:Like things were, things were booming, Things were rocking Right To some extent, as in far as in recent days if that's your qualifier then of course he was a great president.
Speaker 3:The president and I was going to read the president takes enough. I do solemnly swear that I will execute the office president, united States, the President of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. That is the President's job Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Did Donald Trump preserve, protect and defend the Constitution? The answer is yes. So again, that's the job.
Speaker 2:July 6th January 6th.
Speaker 4:I agree.
Speaker 3:That's exactly where I'm going, man, Because I mean, if he so, you're so again. The assertion you're making and I'm calling it an assertion is that Donald Trump himself created insurrection against the United States.
Speaker 2:No, but he did not stop it, he did not protect.
Speaker 4:Oh, I'm not going to be gentle about it, then we're gonna disagree. What color, what man on the planet has enough power to snap his finger and like rabid supporter, let me be careful. But well, yes, rabid supporters, the ones, the ones that are like running into the office, capital and law enforcement, are being killed. Yes, that's a rabid supporter and so therefore, a rabid supporter so who else are we holding that standard for?
Speaker 3:are we holding that standard for the black lives protesters that brock? Obama said nothing about that. Went out and shot people in his name? Are we holding that same standard? Are you holding that same standard for the 1960s and who else we holding the stamp saying like this is this is where we, you, but wait a second.
Speaker 4:Okay, none of those were presidents number one and well, okay, the thing about oh, you're talking about the fact of him saying something against black lives matter no, saying things to support people who were running through streets and using firearms, sometimes on civilians and law enforcement I believe the burden of proof will then be upon you to be able to then say that there was an activity that he could have extinguished versus.
Speaker 4:Time is not on our side, bro. You are giving a speech, give it up. Pence has already given it up and said look, they're going to go ahead and then state the next man. I am just saying the burden of proof is on you to be able to say that the qualifiers are the exact same in the scenarios that there are people literally with guns blazing walking straight up to this Kmart and then Barack Obama was standing right there and he had the power to then say guys, don't do this, I don't think that's fair.
Speaker 3:That didn't happen on either side, I know, but I'm just saying that I don't think it's fair.
Speaker 4:I don't think the two are fair, though that's the only reason I don't think they're apples. No, let me give you a better.
Speaker 3:You don't feel fair. Because it is fair, because Barack Obama went on a mic after people were riding in the streets and talked about how oppressed black people were, when he had the apparent ability to go out there and say we have racial differences, but we can come together. And he didn't. It's like donald trump could have went out there and said, hey guys, we fought hard, we lost, let's move on. But he didn't. He went out there and said I don't think I lost. It's like a goofy dude and now we're gonna get. Okay, I don't think it is the same. You don't like it that it's the same. But I'm like this is not new. He played politics in a way that you don't like people to play politics.
Speaker 4:He did. I still think that the insurrection there at January 6th because up until this point this was a person like I was going to ask you guys.
Speaker 3:It wasn't an insurrection. Like please, I'm not even a person who likes to get into political things. Like, let's start with the CNN, New York Times.
Speaker 4:I have a subscription to the New York Times. I love the New York Times.
Speaker 3:I have a subscription to the New York Times. I love the New York Times. These are clearly targeted words. It's not an insurrection.
Speaker 4:An organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation state. That's the definition of an insurrection. What is the first word?
Speaker 3:Violent. No, I thought it was organized.
Speaker 3:Anized sorry, organized and usually violent. You're telling me that was organized or is that a riot? Because it looked like a riot to me. I'm just saying, let's say, organized, organized with no firearms. Again, I'm not even arguing that it's right, I'm just saying a better description of what happened is a riot. It is not an insurrection. That is just, again, media nonsense words, because people don't understand definitions. If this was actually an organized riot, people would have guns. Isn't that common sense? Wouldn't you agree? If you were actually organizing to take over the city-state, you'd bring no guns in the year of our Lord, 2020, what, what was it? 2021? You're going to do it with clubs and a hammer. Stop it, stop.
Speaker 4:That doesn't make any sense If we're going to sit here and barrel Down on the matter of it being Organized or unorganized, then we would have to then then see what are we trying to get? What were they trying to Accomplish? You're saying that they're trying to take Over city state. They just wanted enough attention.
Speaker 4:That's right that people be pressured Into then not signing, and maybe if they had Pence's support as well, then they might've been able to then sometime overturn a decision or delay the decision that you found. I don't think that they're ready for Civil War 2.0 in the 2020s.
Speaker 3:Then it's not an insurrection this is my point of this words matter Then it's not an insurrection Because what you described is a riot, which is exactly what I would say about Barack Obama, which is why I find the situation similar. There were riots, riots got violent. Both were inappropriate, both are morally reprehensible, both are wrong. Both men, in my mind, did not step up to the responsibility of the office they held. I'm willing to give you that it wasn't an insurrection, it was office they held.
Speaker 2:I'm willing to give you that wasn't an insurrection, it was a riot. I'm willing to give you all of it, but I'm still saying like he wasn't protecting the constitution. That's all my argument was, and I will put brock obama in the same spot um, I, I am.
Speaker 4:I am careful before I throw him in that same spot, because I do believe not because you're looking at a, the blm sympathizer to be able to go and say that rioting and different things are okay in different matters, but how you have the situation where a starving man come and rob your home even biblically you look in Proverbs If a guy is hungry and he steals from you, well then, when he restores it, what sevenfold or whatever it is again like, if he's in need, he does it.
Speaker 4:And I'm just saying, when you have black people being killed in the streets and that's your response, you know, then is to then lean on the side of a group of people who are then saying we've had enough, versus a guy is sticking out his his bottom lip because he doesn't believe that the election was run fairly and so now he's going to try to take over the Democratic Republic. What I'm just saying is I don't think that these are on the same level for me to then say, okay, one is defending, again, call it a sympathizer to some extent, but I'm just not putting it on that same registered scale.
Speaker 3:Can I say this about both men? This is why I would say objectively I don't dislike either of these men, because I disagree with the premise that they're not upholding the constitution. I think Barack Obama whether again, white people or other people listening to this podcast, and I agree believe that black men were being targeted by the police unfairly based on racial bias and their constitutional rights were not being upheld, and I think he felt the same thing you just felt. I think Donald Trump believed, whether you agree or not, that the election was not held fairly and that the constitution was not being upheld. I don't necessarily agree with either man, but I would never and this is the point of like what I would say, because I'm not going to sit here and tell you that either man was not defending the Constitution.
Speaker 3:I disagree with the fact that, necessarily, black men were getting shot at the level that I think Barack Obama asserted to a lot of people. I disagree with the fact that Donald Trump overstated that there could have been fraudulent voting. However, I think both premises have some bearing in reality, that cannot just be dismissed offhand, and that both men could be upholding the constitution if their purview was true. I do not think either man has produced enough evidence to lean me to either side, but I think it's foolish to pretend that they're just dismissing the constitution because he just wanted to overthrow the world. And I don't believe that because, again, as you denoted how much power he has, it seems like he could have done a lot worse than a couple guys with clubs if that was his intent, just like I think if Barack Obama really wanted black people to riot, he could have done a lot more than that. So I think both are, in my opinion, not really logical positions.
Speaker 2:So in other words, they're both politicians.
Speaker 4:Yes, precisely, they're both politicians. And for the American public, who doesn't have a Webster's Dictionary sticking out their back pocket like they do, like Anton, I do think that majority of people, as they just looked at the political landscape, that you know what he was. A guy that was like, you know, boy, he is rough, he is just kind of tacky. You know, I think of J Hugh in the Bible who was like boy. That guy is tacky but man, he got the job done.
Speaker 4:So many times in the Old Testament Like, yes, you saw him as that, but to me, on that day, you know, like there are pivotal moments that you looked at his campaign and you had so many red flags where you're trying not to pharisaically judge this man, even though he's giving you plenty of fodder.
Speaker 4:Basically, it's like you're trying not to, but I'm just saying whatever word that you call it. That took place on that day when you watched the leader of the free nation to be able then to squelch something that was getting well out of hand at our nation's capital on a pivotal day. Like I just for me, I just feel like for the majority and I can't say because I have no statistics to sit in front of me, but I'm just saying January the 6th, whatever day you call it something happened and that turned me into somebody who was like I was already in the position where I'll never vote for you again. And then after that, it was like put a gun to my head and I still won't vote for you after that day, because it was just kind of like there's, there's just no way. So I I again was barack obama's hands bloody. Well, you're not looking at somebody who was, you know, busting out the polls either for him.
Speaker 3:So I so again I ask the question, though sincerely sure what do you feel donald trump did on january 6th? Not anyone else?
Speaker 4:donald trump did, or, yes, did negligence, negligence, racial negligence Sorry, forget word racial because I'm thinking of the next point.
Speaker 4:I'm thinking of the next point. I'm going toward Negligence, negligence of his position and authority. Any person who is in leadership, you cannot be naive to the influence that you will. Even the words you say, which I so put on Donald Trump, you can say well, his heart was in the right place. Here's what he meant.
Speaker 4:The fact of the matter is, 98% of the people inside of a building are hearing one thing and the 2% he might whisper to somebody else on the other can say can be justifiable.
Speaker 4:It doesn't matter when you're in leadership, the 98% that you are projecting, you still have to take responsibility for Come on, you and we're all husbands inside this room. So often there've been things that I know that we're not in a covenant relationship with these people, but I'm just saying the principle still stands that there are things that you probably shouldn't say to your wife, even though ethically, even though in every way possible, you're bulletproof and being allowed to say it. You can say it's not wrong, but the thing is it's taken in a certain way and the thing is you still have to be responsible for the words that you're using to your spouse, and I'm saying is he was negligent in the way he directed his words and as he was negligent as far as what he incited, and I say that, yes, I laid that completely at his feet. It was not something, that was something he just did and been like oh, I didn't know that was happening.
Speaker 4:No, you know, football was taking place bro.
Speaker 3:I don't know, that's. That's an interesting take.
Speaker 4:Okay, we're not gonna agree okay, well, let's move a little bit further, because this is the part we need to get to as well. Okay, so there seems to be a great divide between supporters and non-supporters. Nah, I'm just kidding, but I'm just wondering who do you sympathize with most, and why? Because, like I don't know, there's nothing been more polarizing, in my opinion, than this issue right here. How many family get-togethers have been ruined by literally bringing up one name? How many people have galvanized relationships and I'll be so far to say, hey, the things. I can say that now that I'm not in full-time evangelism anymore how many churches were started because of Donald Trump? I mean seriously political, like it became a political drive that some people felt it so strongly that they left their churches and started new churches. So what I'm saying is I haven't seen anything like it in my lifetime. And so why is this great divide? Aaron, I'll start with you and then we'll move over between supporters and not supporters.
Speaker 2:There's lots of reasons for me. I mean there's biases. We don't want to appear stupid, so sometimes we double down on what we like and what we don't like on either side. Like I would say there was moments and I'm going for towards Anton's argument Like there's times where I have judged Donald Trump not because of who Trump is, but because of the leaders that like him, that I disrespect and so I don't want to be on that side because I don't want to be on their side, and I know that about myself and so I know I have to come back and check myself.
Speaker 2:But I would say there's there's lots of reasons why this is divisive and plus, we just live in a divisive time and the media, lots of people, and again, donald Trump is a divisive person. He likes it that way and that's where I struggle. I think he enjoys being divisive. I think that's his goal. If he can be divisive and say strong statements, I think that's his goal, like, if he can be divisive and say strong statements. And so for me, as probably a personality type, differences in the whole mix. So I find there's so many reasons to be divided over Donald Trump that it's hard for me to nail down just one.
Speaker 4:No, but yeah, you can nail down one.
Speaker 2:But I'm just saying like but who do you sympathize with, more supporters or non supporters, I mean of course, since I'm a non-supporter. I'd probably lean that way.
Speaker 4:I mean just to be honest if I had to sympathize with some. I'm not a big fan, understood, understood, anton. What about you? Do you sympathize more with the supporters or non-supporters?
Speaker 3:Per usual, I'm going to avoid your question Side7.
Speaker 3:The answer is neither for me. The people I actually feel sorry for and this is like Aaron are the people who are in my camp, people who are not emotionally tied to the issue. The people who voted for Donald Trump but will, admittedly tell you he has these flaws and it's a hard vote for me and I don't know what to do. Or the people who are like I wouldn't vote Donald Trump for these, the people who are just being logical because to me, aaron said a word there that I think is true.
Speaker 3:Donald Trump has fans and haters, like a basketball player it's a very emotional again fan short for fanatic, right, it's irrational. The people who like Donald Trump are just irrational. The people who hate him are equally irrational. It's like if Donald Trump, just tomorrow, tried to do the best thing in the world I don't know. Let's just say, stop world hunger. There is a segment of our population that would be mad for some reason. And there's a segment of the population if he decided to just blow up a house on the Upper East Side would be like need to be done. My man, he's got guts, bravery, I'll tell, tell you that. And it's like no matter what happens. To me there are these two emotional extremes that have nothing to do with reality, that I would say most people uh have to agree with or come to grips with that.
Speaker 4:In reality, in my opinion, the people who have it worse are the people who are neutral um, the neutral people, I, so everybody's going to see like where they're going to sympathize with a person who that the person that they are and this great natural though.
Speaker 4:Yeah, but I thought that you know, the whole point of the podcast is many times like we're going to be super objective and we are, we're trying, I'm trying, you know again, to be, you know, super objective with it. And so my initial definitely is a matter of I sympathize obviously with non-supporters just because of the fact I look, but I just have a hard time with a rabid supporter. And I guess, because of those reasons, I sympathize greater with the non-supporters, because if you're going to carte blanche, sign off on it, but if you're going to wear the sticker and you're going to show up and it's like, wow, you know what I mean. To me that's harder to wrap my mind around. I can understand the closet appreciation around like. I can understand the closet appreciation like, um, when it first came up, I joked with my mom like because, remember, when donald trump first ran for office 2000, what 2016, or whatever it was and it was like the buffet of different republican national convention, like everybody was running for president. I think I threw my hat in the ring at one point like everybody seemed to gain traction and so like then this orange man came up and then it was just kind of like.
Speaker 4:I remember listening to Forrest's debate and I'm like there's just no way. I have never met, I've never even just walked away and been like, wow, I just feel like I just got kissed by arrogance. I was just like, wow, I don't even know you, bro, I don't even know you. And then after we realized, wow, I don't even know you, bro, I don't even know you. And then after we realized like, oh snap, he's a front runner, you know. And then to go from there and I said, mom, you know, you're going to get used to it, you're probably going to have to just go ahead, check the little ballot box practice at home, because it's going to be hard to do it. You're going to scratch in that little bubble right there for him, because it looks like he's going to be the guy right or whatever it is.
Speaker 4:And I look back and it's almost like, in a way, I just don't understand how I could boldly, boldly, didn't do it. But again, that's just me defining where I am, and so therefore, I feel like I'm not being balanced. But why is there no middle ground? I just can't imagine we can have the goat conversation and walk away and laugh. Why is it that, for some reason, even on things that matter to us, that are very strong, there's just seemingly no middle ground, even on both sides of this equation. People who then argue about the matter, about transgender and different things like that, even though I clearly see in scripture that there are only two genders, like I, honestly, can walk away from people at work and we're okay with that, but for some reason this man and being supported it seemed like there is no middle ground. Am I blowing it up or is that situation? Or y'all find the same situation?
Speaker 2:I do, I think so. Can I give an illustration to see if I'm making sense? Like, to me, it feels as if and this is why I feel so ill-equipped for this conversation, because and we're going to have a conversation, I think we talked later podcast but I think it depends on where you get your information from. And so, even as I start thinking now, like who I, who would I sympathize with? Like, even as you guys are talking, I'm starting to think I sympathize for the person again, like myself, but I would say that doesn't know where to get the information from.
Speaker 2:So it's almost like when you're at your job and your coworker has a conversation with your boss and the conversation your coworker has paints the boss in a bad light, and you have a relationship with that coworker and you're like all you know is that one side, and you're like all you know is that one side and you're like, oh yeah, he is a jerk, I can't believe he would do that. And then if another co-worker, because you have a relationship, paints the picture another way because your relationship, you're so like we all have our news sources and things that paint things in a certain way, and when we have in a certain way, we feel like we're informed, but we're not. And since we're not informed, we make irrational decisions, and we tend to because we don't want to look stupid or ignorant. It's like if you ever watch the, what's that late night show that has the lie, what's the where they?
Speaker 3:ask people Lie witness news.
Speaker 2:Yeah, lie witness news and like where people don't want to look stupid. So like, were you? Did you watch such and such last night? Oh yeah, what happened? And they make fun of all these people because people don't want to look stupid. So then they they because we're staying at the water cooler, and I remember our friend told us a story about how the boss is a jerk. Now it's like yay, the jerk, he's this or so and so, and I have no basis for that, and so this is where I start to believe this is where we're at in our argument about Donald Trump. Wherever you get your source from news, I don't think there's too many, and I would say Anton probably is honestly in this conversation trying to be the most objective because he has more information. And I was trying to research this and I'm like I don't know where to get the information because I read one thing and something else would contradict it, and then I'm like I don't know, and so I get very confused.
Speaker 4:So, if that makes sense and that's not a ramble- yeah, no, I think that that is a astute observation, but it does move us to our final point. Well, the final point that I would like at least to acknowledge before we wrap up and this, to me, then, makes all the difference, because this is the ace in the hole to me, or whatever it is and is the fact of like. Let me get the example of Anthony Edwards right. So, for those who watch the NBA playoffs or whatever it is, anthony Edwards is supposed to be the next face of the league. You know, dunked on Kevin Durant, you know, whatever. Just you know, coming after LeBron.
Speaker 4:Confident guy, I really want to like him. He's called Ant-Man. I really want to like Anthony Edwards and it's like man. I've been a KD follower for a while but I'm like man. I like Anthony Edwards. But then he goes on and makes this thing of like man.
Speaker 4:I feel like I'm black Jesus and I put the team on my back and I carry them on home and I'm like you lose me, just leave Jesus out of it. You know what I mean If you just left Jesus out of it. I'm feeling like man. I go to T-Wool Stadium, man, I support that guy. I mean it's fun to watch exciting, explosive, whatever it is but the moment he brings Jesus into it, to me it's like it's a whole complicated thing where it's like, no, I can't get behind it. Your, your personal, has now affected your performance.
Speaker 4:And so for me, donald Trump, like all those things you can say he does, he is, but leave Jesus out. Don't walk in front of a church and carry your Bible Like, just just just stop. And to me that is the violation of the 10th commandment. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain. I understand you're going to attract a certain group of people because of your policies. I'm not going to sit here and act like the man's not a salesman. He is a salesman and a brilliant one at that.
Speaker 4:But I'm just saying is, but the moment you begin to invoke Christ's name into this, and now he becomes as it was taught early in the podcast about him becoming the savior, and we're equating that, to me I don't really care who you are, I don't care really what you've done, I don't care about the performance record that you have. I'm out. I'm out of this entire conversation. Anton. Is that unfair, then, to place that on Trump? Because for me, that's the reason why, dude, I'm done. And again, polarizing or not polarizing, just the fact of his representation that many people put him with Christ.
Speaker 3:I have two thoughts. One about what Aaron said. I'm just going to say that I think the reason that there is no middle ground is because this is a motion and you are not really convincing anyone based on Trump's policies, if Trump is a good person or not, because that's what the conversation is Is Trump a good person, not, is Trump a good president? And then to what Adrian is saying, I would say this is exactly the same contention I have with Donald Trump. We're similar in that way. That's where he loses me as well. The only thing I will say and this is again just trying to be objective, I think this is the same argument, that's what I'm saying, I'm just trying to be balanced on both sides that everyone was making with Reverend Wright when Donald Trump was running, I mean when Barack Obama was running for president. I think it's a very similar argument and I think they both that's what I'm saying Like to me, politics are politics.
Speaker 3:Do I think Barack Obama's a Christian? Not really. Do I think Hillary Clinton's a Christian? Not really. Do I think Donald Trump's a Christian? Not really. Do they all have pictures at church hugging, singing Amazing Grace? Yes, they do. Do I believe any of it? No, do I think Ronald Reagan was a devout Christian? Of course not. So I'm just saying that this is not a Donald Trump phenomena the way people keep making it about Donald Trump. If you don't think politics should be like this, vote different ways, donald Trump. If you don't think politics should be like this, vote different ways have new people run.
Speaker 4:But this is politics in the United States and I can concur that it's very common. But I don't remember the Bush Bible, you know what I'm saying. I don't remember the Obama Bible, and so I guess I look back and it's just kind of-.
Speaker 3:You remember when Barack Obama was accused of being a Muslim and then all of a sudden he was all over every church and no, no, he wasn't selling Bibles. But he made sure everyone saw in that church with his big black Bible next to his wife and his kids singing. All of a sudden, when the only other place you'd ever seen in a church was Reverend Wright's crazy, I Hate America church, and then all of a sudden he was not there anymore. He was in a new church singing new hymns. Again, it's I. I get the selling of bibles might bother you, but honestly I'm not against selling bibles. That could be a good thing.
Speaker 4:But so I don't, I don't note that it's different. Well, we need to have a separate podcast about that one, because this is, this is uh, do you think?
Speaker 2:every I would agree with anton there. You think every uh public book publisher. King j James Bible is the most best-selling book of all time. You know that somebody who has a printing press is going to plop out a couple dollars. And so again, I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying that he should Exactly, but that's why you lose me.
Speaker 3:Here's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1:I'm not going to say it's wrong though that's what it would be like.
Speaker 3:Why am I offended?
Speaker 4:What are you talking about? It's an identity. We have the teenage Bible, the dad Bible, the carpenter's Bible, but they all speak to the fact of. Let me give you some helpful notes to be able to help you grow your Christian life, as a dad, as a businessman, whatever it is.
Speaker 2:What is a Trump? What are we trying to make? I disagree with the Trump Bible 100%, but if Christ be preached, even if I rejoice If somebody picks up a Trump Bible and they read the gospel and they know Jesus. You know what? I'm not for the Trump Bible. I don't want Trump to make a red sin off God's word. But if it does, if some preach Christ, even of contention, I'll take it.
Speaker 1:Why are we into this right now? I?
Speaker 4:feel like this is a separate conversation to some degree, and so I guess this will be again. This will be my final thoughts as I'm trying to think through all these things. And that would be, anton, you kind of found that we found a little middle ground. So I know that we've been kind of scattered throughout this entire podcast and so, but we've kind of found some bit of a ground. And that ground that we have found is that I'm hardcore on is the side, then, of saying, okay, if the ultimate goal of president is economics or whatever it is, then obviously he's doing a great job.
Speaker 4:But to me, the president not only yes, he does those things defend the constitution, different things like that, but I do believe in a turning and I know this is idealistic and spiritual to think but like the fact that the King's heart's in the hand of the Lord, and I do pray that we will be turned to having a revival of the gospel inside of our nation in the sense that things that would bring us closer to Christ. And so, therefore, I know that sometimes I get shot like, oh, you're not going to vote for him or anything to that effect, and it's like, well, you're not going to vote for him or anything to that effect, and it's like well, you're voting for the other, so do you support whatever side? Or you're voting third party, so you're wasting your vote and all the other arguments that get attached with that. However, for me, I still firmly believe that my vote quote, unquote I want to vote toward this kingdom. This is not my home and I truly am passing through, and so therefore, since that be the case, if it's God's will that the economy plummet and it's God's will that things doesn't just happen as nicely I don't have my two car garage and my two story house and picket fence then if that's God's will, then so be it. I'm not just automatically assuming that God's will is a booming economy and a great housing market.
Speaker 4:Therefore, I need to vote for Donald Trump for that to happen, and even though, if I feel that my morals have been compromised in the process, but we got to have that two-story house or whatever it is to me, this is not my home, and so, therefore, it's just kind of like, even though it seems to be self-deprecating in some ways, I feel like what I believe is going to supersede how I feel, and I do believe that I should not, in my heart and before God, am perpetuating a lifestyle and in some way supporting that which I do believe, characteristically, on every level, goes against my belief system in scripture. I know that's a very long and elaborate way to say it, but I just don't roll with somebody who I believe is misrepresenting God. Anton, your thoughts.
Speaker 3:I agree with that 100%. Just to piggyback on what you said, my thing is which I'm not voting for Donald Trump, but it's my biggest reason for not voting for Donald Trump is directly related to this, because to me, the same thing I kind of said earlier is that I have Christian ethics and I don't give that to unsaved people. However, when you say I am a follower of Christ, you receive my Christian ethics At that point. That's the standard I'm judging you by. If you're an unsaved plumber, unsaved president, I judge you as such. Now, if you're going to sell me, you're a follower of Christ. Now I have to judge your fruit.
Speaker 3:This is a different conversation altogether, and that's my thing with Donald Trump. That's why I could never rule Donald Trump, because to me, as you said, with taking the word name in vain is exactly what you're doing, and I'm not even going to say we're not even going to play the game. It doesn't mean that I don't think any of your policies are good or I don't think you did anything well, but I am going to judge you for my vote based on Christian ethics and you do not pass.
Speaker 4:Aaron. Any closing thoughts?
Speaker 2:I do not. I agree with you. Guys are saying I'm still processing, so still processing, still. Hey, if you're a Christian plumber and you have character, let's talk. But other than plumber and you have character.
Speaker 3:let's talk, but outside of that.
Speaker 4:I'm so proud of you. You're making sure the plumber is heard.
Speaker 2:Voice is heard. I'm the Martin Luther King for plumbers. Right now. I have a dream.
Speaker 4:Which that's actually going to be. I'm sure that's a retort for somebody, as well as concerning Martin Luther King's habits and different things.
Speaker 1:I thought about that earlier.
Speaker 4:Again, conversations can be had. I agree, I know wholeheartedly in that and so trying to separate these two things, but we did do something that we did not think that we were ever going to do tackle this matter about the political figure, mr Donald Trump, and I hope that has brought clarity. I hope it's been something that's been a profitable conversation and, thankfully, to be able to see kind of the not only just some other people's side, but even the tension of those who support and those who don't support. And if you're a fierce supporter and you have reasoning, hey, shoot us an email. We would hope that you would be cordial about it as we continue to go through this because we are learning ourselves, but we would love to be able to learn more upon this topic.
Speaker 4:I just am pretty rock solid on this matter of God has, I think, unfortunately during this season has a lot of little C Christians and big P patriots, and I just want to make sure that I am a big C Christian in this world and I really do hope that is my goal and my focus as I continue to go forward. So a lot to be able to process, a lot to be able to think through Again. Reach out to us birdforthetimes at gmailcom. Thank you for those who do. We didn't give any tips and tools or whatever, because they are sporadic, and maybe if you can give us some material, whatever that you want us to read, we'll be happy to do so. But as we close things out, are all hearts and minds clear, gentlemen?
Speaker 2:Yes sir, mine is, but I'm just want to say out loud that I wanted to name this podcast why we love Donald Trump because it's so polarizing that three black guys saying why we love Donald Trump but bring us more ratings and so that's all I was going to go for. That's how, when we talk about polarizing, I knew this would be polarizing just talking about Donald Trump. So if Adrian doesn't just know that, that was my vote. Why we love Donald.
Speaker 4:Trump. Yeah, and I can promise you it ain't going to happen either, I would say, because you get one chance with that when you do that whole clickbait Be like bunch of liars, and and that's the crowd we're really attracting Then they listen to everything else we said.
Speaker 2:Anyway, you thought we had haters.
Speaker 4:You don't have to have carrot to be a good podcast. Wow, we're just influencing what Toilets. Come on, man, this is getting improbable. Anyway thank you so much for joining us on this podcast. We look forward to you joining us on the next podcast and we'll see you next time.