Why this post? Former Governor Terry McAuliffe has started to worry about losing the gubernatorial election in Virginia. So, he is doing the usual things Liberal Democrats do to cheat and win.
Why the picture above? That has to do with the etymology of the word hypocrisy (etymonline.com).
hypocrisy (n.)
c. 1200, ipocrisie, “the sin of pretending to virtue or goodness,” from Old French ypocrisie, from Late Latin hypocrisis “hypocrisy,” also “an imitation of a person’s speech and gestures,” from Attic Greek hypokrisis “acting on the stage; pretense,” metaphorically, “hypocrisy,” from hypokrinesthai “play a part, pretend,” also “answer,” from hypo- “under” (see hypo-) + middle voice of krinein “to sift, decide” (from PIE root *krei- “to sieve,” thus “discriminate, distinguish”). The sense evolution in Attic Greek is from “separate gradually” to “answer” to “answer a fellow actor on stage” to “play a part.” The h- was restored in English 16c.
Hypocrisy is the art of affecting qualities for the purpose of pretending to an undeserved virtue. Because individuals and institutions and societies most often live down to the suspicions about them, hypocrisy and its accompanying equivocations underpin the conduct of life. Imagine how frightful truth unvarnished would be. [Benjamin F. Martin, “France in 1938,” 2005
hypocrisy (etymonline.com)
Hypocrisy involves pretending to have virtues we don’t have. The requirement to pretend explains why the term comes from the ancient Greek theater. The actors would wear masks to pretend they were someone they were not.
Okay! Now we are ready to get to the point. Watch this short little video.
Politics, apparently, also involves pretending.
Politics is show business for ugly people. — (author uncertain)
Who says Washington is “Hollywood for ugly people”?: We trace a cliche back to its origins (voices.washingtonpost.com) and Entry from December 14, 2009 “Politics is show business for ugly people” (barrypopik.com)
Are you the pastor of a Conservative Christian church, black, white, red, yellow, or purple with pink polka dots? Do you remember that that tax exemption you have requires that your church to avoid partisanship? Churches, according to IRS rules, cannot be partisan and remain tax-exempt organizations. They cannot endorse political candidates.
Well, we have two systems of justice. The rules only apply to Conservatives, Republicans, and the like. The rules don’t apply to Liberal Democrats. Don’t we know Liberal Democrats will not be punished?
There is an old adage we all need to remember.
The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing — (author uncertain)
The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing (quoteinvestigator.com)
What should good men do? Well, if you are the pastor of a church and you believe in impartial justice, then please urge the members of your congregation to vote. You don’t have tell your members who to vote for, but you can most certainly remind them they they have the obligation to vote, and that obligation is Biblical.
Contemplate Romans 13:1-7 (biblegateway.com). Then consider the following question.
Now, as a conservative Christian, I also believe in “conforming fully to the Scriptures,” but doesn’t Paul’s epistle to the Romans beg the obvious question: What is the definition of “governing authorities” to whom we are to submit?
Surely the answer matters, doesn’t it? I mean, not all governments are the same. The “authorities” of the Roman Empire were clearly different than those of modern-day countries such as Jordan, Syria, or even the United Kingdom. And if various “governments” have varied definitions, then we ought to first ask the question, “who is the ultimate governing authority in America?” before we preach submission to that government?
Bill Federer, author of “Who Is the King in America,” provides the answer to this question. After voluminous research, his conclusion is straightforward: The definition of American government is quite clear. “We the People” are the ultimate governing authority of our nation. In the United States, the People are the king.
No, Romans 13 does not say Americans must submit to Biden (washingtontimes.com)
We Americans know how to run a constitutional republic, but we risk losing control of our republic. What is worst is that we risk losing the moral integrity and the skills required to govern ourselves. For the sake of each other and for the sake of our children, we must do whatever God would have us do to keep our constitutional republic.
We can put up with people who don’t look so good running our country, but people whose ugliness extends to the heart will destroy us.
Vote! Vote for the sake of the people you love.
References
- McAuliffe fights to engage politically exhausted Democrats in close of Virginia campaign (cnn.com): See the end of this article.
- ‘Souls to the polls’: Virginia churches to air pro-McAuliffe ads featuring Kamala Harris (washingtonexaminer.com)
- Kamala Harris Records Cringe Campaign Video for Terry McAuliffe That Will Air at 300 Virginia Churches (legalinsurrection.com)
- Kamala Harris Records Video to Be Played at Over 300 Black Churches Calling on Worshippers to Vote for Democrat Virginia Governor Candidate Terry McAuliffe (thegatewaypundit.com)
Citizen Tom 
Tom,
I linked your post and comments to mine today titled: USA Voters Socrates Truth, of my opinions of VP Harris message to Black ministers and truth about the average voters’ skills of voting on contents of issues and candidates regardless of race or religious creed.
https://rudymartinka.com/2021/10/20/usa-voters-socrates-truth-test-king-solomon-blog/
Regards and goodwill blogging.
In the state where I live, the largest congregation (which happens to be Southern Baptist) was taken to court because the pastor had talked in his sermon about an upcoming election. The faces of the candidates were displayed on the screen while the preacher talked about voting for God’s candidate and not for the other candidate. His gestures when he said the words “God’s candidate” pointed toward the image of one of the candidates, and some people attending the service were offended by the implied endorsement and sought legal action regarding the congregation’s tax-exempt status. If I remember correctly, the judge made the pastor and congregation leaders promise not to do it again and let them off with a warning.
Any congregation in Virginia that shows this video on church property this Sunday should be served with a similar lawsuit. Even if they are not penalized, they should be warned that political endorsements on church property violate the understanding between government and state regarding tax exemptions for church organizations. J.
@Salvageable
Given how unambiguous the First Amendment is, I don’t think the prohibition is constitutional. So, I am a bit ambivalent about prosecuting anyone for a law I don’t think is constitutional.
Was the lawsuit in state or Federal court?
Reblogged this on boudica.us.
Thanks again!
Tom,
Now if only Harris would address all ministries to encourage them to vote for candidates who support school choice or school vouchers?
What’s the odds that will ever happen?
And I believe I saw a news clip recently where your Governor Terry was stating that the State knows better than parents how and what they should be taught in a heated reply to a reporter. Not really sure though. How does he stand on this issue State vs. Government know what’s best to teach children?
I agree with your ending statement.
“We can put up with people who don’t look so good running our country, but people whose ugliness extends to the heart will destroy us.”
Regards and goodwill blogging.
@Scatterwisdom
In his second debate with Youngkin, McAuliffe actually said parents should not have a role in deciding what the public schools teach their children. At first the Democrats engineered a plan that resulted in Attorney General Garland insinuating that the parents opposing the instruction of their children in CRT, transgenderism, pornography and the like are domestic terrorists. When that backfired, McAuliffe put out a campaign commercial saying that he supports parents and Youngkin’s campaign ads take him out of context. Youngkin’s ads do nothing of the sort.
So, we now have a liar, Harris, asking black Christians to vote for a liar. I hope and pray that black Christians see through all the lies.
I also hope and pray that if any pastor endorses McAuliffe the members of that church go looking for another pastor.
Tom – You Stated
“So, we now have a liar, Harris, asking black Christians to vote for a liar. I hope and pray that black Christians see through all the lies”.
I think you are going to be pleased and concur with the post I am now writing titled:
‘USA Voters Socrates Truth Test?’, which I will probably post tomorrow and link to your post.
Would do it today but am having work done on my house.
Notice I used the word TRUTH in the title.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
Conservative Pastors disregard this rule at will. And Liberals hardly have the market cornered on hypocrisy. Nothing to see here.
Plus, Trump keeps claiming that he “repealed the Johnson Amendment”.
So it’s all good, right….?
@Constitutional Insurgent
Since it has never been enforced, the rule is primarily used as an excuse by pastors to avoid politics. Most pastors, of course, know the rule has never been enforced, but most want nothing to do with politics.
Since the rule should be ruled unconstitutional, Republicans have no interest in enforcing it, and Democrats pay lip service to it, arguing for the separation of church and state (by Conservatives). Then they do politics in black churches. That is hypocritical.
There is another issue with the rule. Democrats may eventually find it expedient to enforce it. Depending upon who is on the Supreme Court, we can only guess how they would rule.
Here is what Trump did. Executive orders only work so long as the current administration supports the order. That’s not exactly a big secret.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.natlawreview.com/article/president-trump-signs-johnson-amendment-executive-order-limiting-treasury-s-actions%3famp
I’ll agree with this part, I believe the rule is unconstitutional. I don’t think that any 501c3 organization should have limits on their political speech. I want everyone to have the ability to out themselves on where they stand.
@Constitutional Insurgent
Out themselves? Not the way I would put it. The people who are most up front generally are not the ones who cause trouble. When public debate is honest, we usually can work out our differences.
One thing I don’t think most realize is that the debate over slavery, for example, was not an honest debate. Read the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1852. Fascinating debates. Both men were fine speakers, but Douglas refused to debate the ethical issues of slavery. He deflected, and he did so skillfully.
What freedom of speech allows us to do is to remind people of that which our opponents should explain, but gloss over.
Slavery sounds great if someone else is the slave. It becomes a problem when we realize that if one person can be enslaved anyone can be enslaved.
Otherwise, I agree with your latest comment.