We previously pointed out that WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah effectively abdicated any moral authority to pass judgment on the personal behavior of others by giving a pass to President Trump's alleged affair with a porn star. He doubled down on that position in his Jan. 23 column, effectively saying he doesn't care about Trump's sleazy personal life because he's delivering the political goods:
The Washington Post Sunday called evangelicals “moral relativists” for supporting President Trump, but unless you subscribe to that fake news outlet, you can’t read the story.
I would not suggest doing so, but, instead, read it for free here. Or, just take my word for it.
Is that assertion true?
No, it is wholly a lie.
That’s not to say some evangelicals are not moral relativists.
But people like Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell Jr. and Tony Perkins are not.
In American politics, we have choices to make. When “candidate A” supports 99 percent of what you believe and his or her opponent, “candidate B,” supports none of it, the morally responsible thing to do is to vote for “candidate A.” And when “candidate A” is elected president of the United States and fulfills his promises in record time, as President Trump has, you praise him, thank him, pray for his safety and continued good health and thank God for the blessing He is pouring out on your country.
It’s really that simple.
But, you know, there are some people who call themselves “evangelicals” who don’t see it that way. I would suggest to you that if they are truly supportive of life, liberty, religious rights, Israel’s self-determination and security, national sovereignty, the Constitution, the sanctity of marriage and the rule of law, that they should be as supportive of President Trump as I am in his dedication to those issues to date. If he falters in his second year or third year of fourth year, we should criticize him for doing so. Right now, however, there is very little to criticize. It’s quite simply, from an evangelical worldview, the best start to a presidency in modern history.
And here, we get to the part where Farah once again gives Trump a mulligan on his past, something he has never done for anyone named Clinton:
Those who attack evangelicals for supporting Trump are being disingenuous at best. Why shouldn’t they? He listened to them. He’s doing what they asked him to do. This is not a mystery. And it’s certainly not moral relativism. They didn’t change their positions. Trump changed his.
The Washington Post story, in making its case for evangelical moral relativism, cited one of its own columnists, Michael Gerson, described by the piece as “a leading evangelical.” Gerson wrote, according to the piece, “At the Family Research Council’s recent Values Voter Summit, the religious right effectively declared its conversion to Trumpism.”
That’s a lie and an insult.
When one “converts” to something, it suggests leaving behind one’s previous beliefs.If anyone “converted” from his previous political beliefs, it is clearly Trump. From the perspective of the evangelical majority, that’s a good thing. We love converts to life, liberty, religious rights, Israel’s self-determination and security, national sovereignty, the Constitution, the sanctity of marriage and the rule of law. We make no apologies for that. We love it even more when people embrace God. And, whatever his past suggests, President Trump has demonstrated at least a public respect and reverence for the Creator of the universe and His ways.
In the world of politics, that is reason for praise, enthusiasm and thanksgiving.
Just as Farah provided no evidence in his previous column for his claim that Trump "was a very different Donald Trump" when he had his alleged porn-star fling, he provides no evidence for his new claim that Trtump has "converted" from his previous views.
Farah betrays a little skepticism by acknowleding that "whatever his past suggests, President Trump has demonstrated at least a public respect and reverence for the Creator of the universe and His ways" -- indicating that he at least suspects Trump is being insincere. But, again, Farah doesn't care Trump's personal life the way he cared about, say, Bill Clinton's, at least as long as Trump continues to do Farah's bidding.
And that was the whole point of the Washington Post article Farah is attacking -- that evangelicals are placing access to power before character. Not only does Farah avoid actually engaging in that argument beyond saying, "Damn straight we're putting power before character!" he attacks anyone who makes it as a "Trump hater."
Spoken like a true believer. That dogmatic attitude shows that Farah really is a Trump convert after all.