Hambo Tells Us How To Choose a US President

Probably no one in the United States is confused or undecided about the Presidential election coming up soon. But in case you are confused, we have some advice today from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

At the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), Hambo’s creationist ministry, he recently posted Are You Republican or Democrat? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Sometimes I’ve had conversations while out shopping where a store employee asks if I’m Republican or Democrat. My answer? I tell them I’m a Christian, and as a Christian, I build my worldview on the Bible. Then I explain that I will use the Bible as my absolute authority and judge politicians’ beliefs and promises accordingly. This will direct the way I vote.

Hambo is so wise! Then he says:

I’ve had Christians tell me that they grew up in a home where their parents always voted Democrat or Republican, and so they also will always vote for that party. But shouldn’t we as Christians instead judge the worldview of each candidate against the absolute authority of God’s Word? We should then use this to determine who is the best candidate for whom to cast my vote.

What is Hambo saying — we should vote for the candidate who believes in Noah’s Ark? Has he ever heard of the US Constitution? Skipping a couple of paragraphs of scripture, he tells us:

It seems to me, when it comes to politics, many people express their opinions about candidates’ personalities, how they say things, and so on. But as Christians, we do have an absolute standard by which we are to judge, and we should use that same standard to judge others regarding what they believe and say. Yet it is a fallen world, so everything will not be black and white. So we must judge based on the absolute authority of God’s Word. This way we can be much more discerning in deciding who gets our vote.

No doubt about it — Hambo really does want a candidate who believes the same stuff he preaches. His political advice continues:

I consider these things to be very important in guiding my voting: freedom for Christians to witness, preach God’s Word, and freely exercise their faith [No candidate opposes those things!]; the need to put an end to abortion [That’s an issue in this year’s Presidential election?]; and stances on other moral issues. Our responsibility is to research each political candidate, judge their worldview against God’s Word, and pray earnestly for the sovereign God to guide us to the decision we need.

It’s becoming rather clear what kind of candidate Hambo wants. Fortunately, the Constitution pretty much keeps his concerns from being national political issues. Well, there’s the 1973 Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade, but neither candidate is talking about that. (If they are, we’re unaware of it.) Let’s read on:

You can find certain voters’ guides to help you know what each candidate believes and where they stand on various issues at the following websites: [two links omitted]. This pdf from the National Right to Life Committee [link omitted] compares the two primary presidential candidates’ views regarding abortion and the right to life.

Hambo is amazing — he thinks US Presidential elections are all about abortion. And now we come to the end:

So as you vote, don’t be a Republican or Democrat — be a Christian and vote for the best imperfect person who stands a good opportunity of getting elected. Then pray that they will pass policies that don’t hinder the spread of the gospel and will help save babies!

Okay, dear reader. That’s Hambo’s advice. Your Curmudgeon’s political views are known, so we won’t bother telling you what we think about the election. You don’t need our advice, and we don’t think you need Hambo’s either — but that’s your decision.

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

23 responses to “Hambo Tells Us How To Choose a US President

  1. ” the need to put an end to abortion” and the LIAR knows the buyBull has no problems with abortions, their gawd ordered many abortions and their gawd committed many abortions (don’t count miscarriages). So again HE IS A LIAR!!!

  2. “the need to put an end to abortion [That’s an issue in this year’s Presidential election?]” Yes. The Republicans promised to move the Court more and more in that direction, and this is a major part of Trump’s appeal, and the appeal of Republicans ever since Reagan, to evangelicals. I’m surprised that you are now saying you haven’t noticed this

  3. Paul Braterman, I didn’t recall that it was an issue with Kavanaugh’s appointment. Maybe I wasn’t paying attention.

  4. Michael Fugate

    iVoterGuide is run by very, very conservative Christians
    https://ivoterguide.com/about/Our-Partners including Bryan Fischer

    ChristianVoterGuide is run by pseudohistorian David Barton and Wallbuilders. Hey pseudoscience and pseudohistory to go with Ham’s pseudotheology.

    Abortion & marriage equality are not the only issues and business owners being able to deny service to those they judge sinners is not religious freedom.

  5. Michael Fugate

    Here is the GOP platform

    Continue nominating constitutionalist Supreme Court and lower court judges
    Protect unborn life through every means available
    Defend the freedoms of religious believers and organizations
    Support the exercise of Second Amendment rights

  6. The Bible gives some guidelines for a leader.
    Deuteronomy 17:16ff
    “… he shall not multiply horses to himself … Neither shall he multiply wives … neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold … etc”
    Prov 29:2
    “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”
    Also 2 Peter 2

  7. Michael Fugate: I assume – perhaps wrongly – that “constitutionalist” Supreme Court justices means those who adhere strictly to the words of the Constitution, while rejecting attempts to extend their meaning by implication unless rigorously necessary, and then with extreme reluctance.

    It might be interesting – or not – that the Australian Constitution is interpreted by the Australian High Court, and this interpretation has nearly always been “constitutionalist” in the above sense. Our Court generally takes the view that if the Constitution were meant to grant some specific right, it would say so. Some exceptions have emerged, generally from the Court’s interpretation of pre-existing rights granted by Common Law, or precedence from earlier applicable British statute law. The recognition of native title to land in 1992 was a landmark, but it was not until 2013 that the Court formally found that freedom of speech was an implied right under the Constitution.

    Thus, there is no Roe v Wade equivalent in Australia. The effective right to termination of pregnancy on demand is a result of statute law. Our High Court – it’s fairly safe to say – would never hold that the granting or withholding of that right was a Constitutional matter.

    I recognise that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution specifically grants the citizen the right to have and to bear arms. It has always appeared to me that it grants that right only to members of a “well-regulated Militia”, authorised by States and commanded by officers carrying their commission, but that interpretation is apparently completely ruled out. As to the rest, the 2nd Amendment says what it says, and Americans want it to remain, despite the obvious and undeniable costs.

    On religious belief, Australia is in a rather strange position. Our Constitution does specifically protect religious freedom, and prevents establishment of religion (in exactly the same words as those of the 1st Amendment), but there never has been the same push to secularize all public institutions as in the US. The US Supreme Court found a way not to forbid the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, but it has steadfastly sustained pleas against general school prayer, and (hurrah!) the teaching of religious doctrines as if fact. But the Australian Parliament opens with a recital of the Lord’s Prayer, which is as specifically a Christian observance as anything could be. Chaplains are appointed to State schools, and religion may be taught there, with prayers, provided that attendance is neither compulsory or expected. It seems a little odd, given that Australia is far less religiously observant than the US. Perhaps we just keep it going because it doesn’t really matter to us. Or possibly as a form of insurance.

    But that returns us to Ham. What Ham wants is theocracy. He wants the doctrines and observances of his religion to be enforced and enshrined as law. In the above, he actually says so overtly and specifically. The day he gets his way is the day the Republic falls. I can only say – paradoxically, I suppose – may God forbid.

  8. Michael Fugate

    It is interesting which parts of the constitution they single out – religious freedom in the 1st amendment, but speech in general and guns in the 2nd. No illegal search in the 4th which a judge issued no-knock warrant killed Breonna Taylor and the city of Louisville just paid $12M in damages. No 13th and 15th to protect citizens and voting rights. Constitutionalism is not all that strict if it hurts the party’s interests.

  9. You’d think that if the Republicans were really opposed to abortion, they would have done something about it the numerous occasions they’ve had full control of the presidency and both houses of Congress.

  10. Our Curmudgeon considers

    Maybe I wasn’t paying attention.

    But that’s all right, everything is all right, your struggle is finished. You have won the victory over yourself and are protected by Big Brother’s Herd Mentality

  11. Roe v Wade was judicial activism, using the courts to do what was obviously necessary when the politicians didn’t have the courage. So if you fill the court with strict constructionists, you pave the way for it to be overturned. I thought everybody knew that!

  12. Excuse me for repeating myself, but the chapter 2 Peter 2 is such a description of the future kind of leader that the Biblical author is warning against. A true student of the Bible would recognize the description in today’s America and could not ignore it. To substitute one own’s opinion for what the plain and clear scriptural warning should be unthinkable.
    Seriously, read 2 Peter 2,

  13. The BBC does pay attention! Article from 3 days ago:

    Abortion: How do Trump and Biden’s policies compare?

    Mr Trump had promised in 2016 to pick judges who would “automatically” overturn Roe. While that hasn’t happened yet, he has installed hundreds of federal judges plus two conservative justices on the top court – and if the president wins re-election he could reshape the judiciary even further.

  14. @PaulB: ” I thought everybody knew that!”
    Not me, because the Dutch legal system doesn’t work that way.

  15. @ FrankB: Here in the Britain Formerly Known as Great, we no longer appear to have a legal system at all.

    The Great British Humbling

  16. @Megalonyx, don’t exaggerate. The Westminster Government is only allowed to break the law when it decides that it has very good reason to do so

  17. …and is only breaking the law in a “limited and specific way” (sic)

  18. About the 2nd Amendment, DaveL observes “It has always appeared to me that it grants that right only to members of a “well-regulated Militia”, authorised by States and commanded by officers carrying their commission, but that interpretation is apparently completely ruled out.”

    From a textual perspective, what rules it out is the phrase calling the right to keep and bear arms “the right of the people.” The “people” in this amendment must be the same ones who have the right “peaceably to assemble” (I), to be “secure in their persons” (IV), retain other unspecified rights (IX), and for whom powers not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved. It is worth noting that Amendment X specifically mentions states alongside the people. The distinction seems to rule out the idea many propose that a state National Guard is equivalent to “the people.”

    I recall a paraphrase someone came up with that may clarify the rationale behind the wording. “A well-informed electorate, being necessary to the governance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.” The clear implication is that it is good for everybody to have access to information, and that it does not have to be stored in a public library, nor does anyone have to be eligible to vote in order to own and read it.

    True, free access to deadly weapons involves risk. But then, so does free access to information. Look at QAnon and other conspiracy theories that lead people to disruptive and dangerous actions.

  19. Retired Prof, there’s no real mystery about the right to keep and bear arms and a “well-regulated Militia.” In Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, he wrote: “Every able bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50, is enrolled in the militia.” It also says: “The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service. But this injunction was always indifferently complied with …” As for that phrase about “a well-regulated militia,” that expression, I’m told, actually meant a well-supplied militia.

  20. Michael Fugate

    But given the original interpretation of “people” in the Constitution (the one the “Christian” right keeps telling us is more Christian than Enlightenment) this included less than 10% of the population. Land-owning white males – probably Protestant – most likely an owner of enslaved people or profiting from enslaved labor. And if you are not part of the chosen “electorate”, then it is perfectly fine for the “Christian” founders to deny education to those deemed not part of the electorate. It is interesting how many ways over the past 200 years those in power have employed to prevent certain groups from becoming part of the electorate (now you know why the US has the largest prison population in the world).

  21. And the ham-fisted GOP approach of outlawing abortion will not stop them. Much better is the Colorado approach of making access to birth control easier and cheaper.

  22. @Mega: thanks for the link. I especially like “The EU is under no obligation to act in Britain’s interests.”
    This little point seems to be forgotten by those who suffer from “Rule Brittannia” nostalgy.

    @KeithB: ah yes, it’s fun to ask pro-forced birthers what they think of contraceptives and point out that they lower abortion rates. So I decided to consult the creationist blog of the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.


    1. “These medications [morning after pill – FrankB] are abortifacients intended to prevent or disrupt the implantation of an embryo, thereby leading to the death of the child.
    2. ” If people can be convinced that oral contraceptives—which enjoy wide acceptance—have been doing the same thing as the “morning after pill” all along ….”

    From 1996:

    3. “We get health department heads who distribute condoms to schoolchildren and promote the flawed concept of ‘safe sex’ instead of God’s only fully workable and proven method of moral sex — between husband and wife only.”

    From 2008:

    4. “National Condom Day on February 14, when free condoms are given away in the cafeteria. (What? You’re not having pre-marital sex, hooking up on weekends? What’s wrong with you?)”

    Ol’Hambo believes in Free Will, but doesn’t trust it enough to offer youngsters a fair choice.
    Still his strategy seems to be: “ban evilution theory at schools and abstination will prevail.” He doesn’t write much about sex ed.