Hambo Tells Us Who To Vote For

Are you confused about next week’s election, dear reader? Many people are, but we have some good news for you — your confusion is over! The clear thinking you’ve been craving is in the newest post by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

It’s at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Heading to the Polls? Here’s Who You Should Vote For. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

We’re exactly one week from election day here in the United States. [Yeah, we heard about it!] Many people are saying this particular election is one of the most important in America’s history — so who to vote for? With only one ballot, how can a citizen use it to impact the future of America?

Then he quotes a bit from one of his earlier posts, after which he says:

For a Christian, the outside, such as the shade of someone’s skin, the shape of their eyes, how handsome or attractive they might be, is not important. [Don’t vote for the prettiest candidate!] It’s who they are as a person, what they believe, and how they act (in other words, their fruit) that’s important. [Very interesting!] We also need to understand the role of government.

Is Hambo going to give us a lesson in the U.S. Constitution? That should be interesting. But no — instead he tells us, with scripture quotes that we’re omitting:

First of all, it’s important to recognize that God has ordained government: [That doesn’t sound like the U.S. Constitution!] And the purpose of government is to maintain law and order: [And guarantee freedom!] So obviously, I want to vote for those who will want to maintain law and order. Of course, I also understand that if someone doesn’t believe in the Bible as the absolute authority, then right or wrong, or good or bad, becomes totally subjective. [Huh?]

The Constitution lesson continues:

Now we also need to look at the moral issues confronting us in the culture and judge what people are doing against the absolute authority of the Word of God: [Scripture quote omitted.] We see major issues prevalent in the culture today concerning marriage, abortion, and gender.

He informs us of what we already knew — that he’s against gay marriage, abortion, and any kind of gender variety. For Hambo, those are crucial issues in any election. In addition to that, he declares:

What about other issues, like climate change? Well, Noah’s flood caused dramatic climate change — and climates change ever since. If people don’t believe the history from the Bible concerning the flood and its consequences, they will make wrong decisions regarding climate change.

It seems that no one can think properly about climate change unless he believes in the Flood. Oh, here’s something else to think about:

Now, here comes a difficult part. We live in a fallen world. Most of those running for a political office are not born-again Christians who have a truly Christian worldview.

Wowie — it’s starting to look like we can’t vote for anyone — except ol’ Hambo himself. Let’s read on:

Next week in America, make sure you do your part (human responsibility) and vote. But, before you do, carefully consider the above principles and research all candidates and their party to see where they stand. Then pray, cast your ballot, and pray some more.

Good advice! And now we come to the end:

And remember, no matter who wins the White House, King Jesus is still on his throne. He is sovereignly reigning and accomplishing his plan throughout history, and we’ve been placed here for such a time as this. So no matter who wins, we will continue to share the gospel, contend for the faith, and do the King’s business until he returns.

That was truly inspirational! Okay, dear reader, now go forth and vote — but do it in a way that Hambo would approve. And be grateful for his brilliant advice!

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

24 responses to “Hambo Tells Us Who To Vote For

  1. And the Bible tells about choosing a leader.
    In Deuteronomy 17:17-24, we are told about what kind of king the Israelites were advised to choose.
    In Proverbs 27 @ 29, we are warned about the consequences of having the wrong personality.
    And in 2 Peter 2, we are warned that there will be people with the wrong characters who will try to be leaders.

    The Bible makes it clear, if common sense were not enough, what kind of person to avoid.

  2. Michael Fugate

    Law and Order – belies his attempts to be inclusive – racism on stilts. The police originated as slave patrols so that disenfranchised white males would ally with rich white property owners rather than Black enslaved people. The history of protests pits the police against the nonwhite male property owners – protecting property is more important than peoples’ lives. This is why a Black male can be killed by police for as little as a few dollars in property loss.

  3. The Bible gives explicit instructions on choosing a leader.
    The Fundamentalist-Evangelicals make up their own instructions which have nothing to do with what the Bible says.

  4. Michael Fugate: Instruct me. I’m not defending, and would never defend Ham, who is a theocrat par excellence, but how does a direct injunction NOT to consider the shade of a candidate’s skin, nor any other aspect of personal appearance, amount to “racism on stilts”?

    We have quite enough to bite on as it is.

  5. I think you should vote on the colour of someone’s skin. You should not be allowed for vote for orange oompa loompas.

    I really thought he would take the normal Christian line with the mental gymnastics and the cognitive dissonance it entails. Like abortion is the biggest issue as well as rewriting the law through the Supreme Court. This means you should ignore misogynist, racist, white supremacist attitudes if the choice is on the right side of these very narrow range of issues. The fact that Joe is a Christian (albeit Catholic) and Trump may as well have horns and a tail as far as his beliefs go never seems to overcome the thought processes of Christian conservatives.

  6. Dave Luckett asks

    how does a direct injunction NOT to consider the shade of a candidate’s skin, nor any other aspect of personal appearance, amount to “racism on stilts”?

    Just maybe in the same fashion that the DI’s many claims to be ‘defenders of Academic Freedom’ and wholly agnostic about the identity of the Intelligent Designer, or David Duke’s avowals that he is not a racist, are best not taken at face value?

  7. Dave Luckett

    Just maybe? Just maybe there’s a God, but I’m not about to say there is one.

  8. Michael Fugate

    Because it is Dave – it’s what racists do. The least racist person ever uses racist dog whistles every day. Read some on the subject.

  9. Dave Luckett

    Oh, I have. How can an accused person defend such an accusation, then?

  10. @Michael Fugate
    The least racist person in the room told us that when he knew that his family was in that room. He is celebrated for being honest because he says what he feels, plainly (a fog horn), without the falsehood of dog whistles.

  11. Members of visible minorities generally do not want to hear, “I don’t see you as any different from me,” they want to hear, “I do see that you are treated differently from me, and unjustly, and I will stand by you until it’s fixed.”

    “I don’t see colour” at least implies that “colour” doesn’t have a practical effect on how people are treated, and it does.

    I mean, if I were a town councilor and I said, “I don’t see poverty,” would you think that I’m well-equipped to help the less well-off in my community?

  12. Michael Fugate

    What is telling is our new US Supreme Court Justice – who has adopted Black children from Haiti and she couldn’t say Black Lives Matter. She couldn’t stand up for her daughter and profess that all lives can’t matter until Black lives matter – and especially Black women and even more so Black LGBTQ+. It is a complete failure of empathy – an inability to see outside herself. If she had even the least amount of self-awareness she would have turned Trump down and she wouldn’t show up twice without a mask at his grandstanding events. Absolutely no concern for anyone else. A disaster waiting to happen.

    On voting, anyone who respects science cannot vote for Trump under any circumstance. http://www.businessinsider.com/noaa-scientist-fired-after-asking-trump-officials-to-respect-science-2020-10

  13. Dave Luckett asks

    How can an accused person defend [against] such an accusation [of racism]

    Maybe by presenting evidence of actions and experiences instead of claims? Cf. 1973 Housing Discrimination Suit against Fred and Donald Trump.

    In our lifetimes (I’m pretty sure we’re the same generation of Boomers) overt racism has become socially unacceptable (time was when it would hardly have been used as an accusation) but that of course does not mean racism has gone away. Of course, that public unacceptability is some progress toward a more just and equitable society, but it does also have some deleterious effects, viz.

    [1] Enhanced hypocrisy, usefully signalled by that hoary old opener, “I’m not a racist, but—“. The honest thing to say IMHO is, “I am a product of a racist society who has inevitably imbued some groundless but omnipresent prejudices in the course of my childhood; as an adult, I endeavour to expose them for the falsehoods they are, and live accordingly.”

    [2] Reactionary backlash. Although the phrase “white privilege” is technically accurate, it carries a connotation of status and power which understandably makes it a turn-off: it does not mean all white folks are wealthy and powerful. But it does mean that, in a predominately white society, white folks have the great privilege of generally being able to ignore race as an issue, still less as a personal constraint. One civilly goes about ones day in the office, in the shops, in restaurants &c without encounter the suspicious surveillance of proprietors of those establishments. One does not, while driving safely and under the speed limit, find oneself routinely stopped by the police because your skin complexion appears to them out of place in a BMW. And so forth, ad nauseum

    As for Hambo? I have neither the data to make a call. Nor the inclination. But if I had the latter, I’d start with a look at the composition of his payroll and question his experience and practices rather than take his disavowals at prima facie.

  14. Michael Fugate

    “White privilege doesn’t mean you haven’t worked hard or you don’t deserve the success you’ve had. It doesn’t mean that your life isn’t hard or that you’ve never suffered. It simply means that your skin colour has not been the cause of your hardship or suffering.”
    John Amaechi

  15. If SC is as smart as he thinks he is then his undying support for Trump should have his cognitive dissonance in the red right now.

  16. @DaveL: “How can an accused person defend such an accusation, then?”
    Simple: the accused person should answer “I do see colour, but I do my best to take coloured people as seriously as I do white people.” Then start with the coloured person standing in front of that accused person.
    It’s not my fault that I’m white and male and hence prejudiced. Everybody is. It is my fault when I refuse to consider the possibility that I may foster prejudices and hence don’t want to listen when other people (especially when coloured and/or female) point some out.

  17. Michael Fugate

    As I mentioned before, I recently read Ibram X. Kendi’s “Stamped from the Beginning” on racism in the US – highlighting Cotton Mather, Thomas Jefferson, William Lloyd Garrison, W.E.B Du Bois and Angela Davis. It is very clear that I have benefited from being white, straight and male not because I am racist or sexist but because the system has always worked in favor of white, straight males. Access to education, employment, healthcare, etc. are all in my favor. BIPOC in the US have been systematically deprived of all of these often violently. Women of color – even worse. Lynched, bombed, burned, beaten, incarcerated, denied employment, housing, land, loans, etc. Every single step forward on equality has elicited a backlash – right now the “law and order” racists are charging peaceful protestors with felonies – a ploy to keep them from having any rights not only now but in the future. If we aren’t working to change the system, then we are racist – because the system is.

  18. He says ‘And the purpose of government is to maintain law and order:’ Why is it they always talk about law and order? I never hear anyone talk about justice. What is the good of law and order if they do not promote justice?

  19. @Harvey
    Is there Biblical backing to the claim
    that the purpose of government is law and order?

  20. Dave Luckett

    All I can say in defence is that I recognise and accept that any group of people that is recogniseably different from the group that includes me, will be subject to my unthinking tribalism, which I try to recognise and repudiate. It’s not just race, it’s social class, gender, sexual preference, political affiliation, religion, culture. We humans spent hundreds of thousands of years, at least, living in small family groups, then tribes. Living among constantly shifting strangers in cities came late. We are suspicious of strangers and strange ways, because it was a survival trait. We can, however, be taught. Well, mostly. I have done my best to educate myself.

    I remember, as a child, being shocked when my grandfather, a man born in 1886, referred to an Aboriginal person as “a darkie”. This was in the ‘fifties. Things were already changing then, and the change has continued. Megalonyx refers to the improvement, with the implication that it has not gone far enough, yet. I agree. So long as it is even necessary to issue an instruction not to consider the colour of a candidate’s skin when casting a vote, it has not yet gone far enough. Still, I cannot for the life of me see why issuing such an instruction is evidence of racism in the issuer.

    I am aware and ashamed of my nation’s history. I was actually a voter by the time Aboriginal people were granted full citizenship on the same basis as every other Australian – and I had the dubious honour of being able to vote for it, as if my approval were required. Should I be consulted on whether the sky is blue?

    My nation – long before it was a nation – was responsible for perhaps the only “successful” genocide in history, the destruction of the Tasmanian Aboriginals. That it was accomplished mainly through disease is of course irrelevant.

    We cannot pay adequate compensation. We can’t. We took their land. We took their lives. We took their all. We can only do what we can. But It isn’t enough. We can do better. We should do better. I think I have enough optimism to say, we shall do better.

    Now remember, I count as a conservative, in Australia. I believe, from what I can observe of the American political spectrum, that in the US I would be somewhat on the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. And with that, the commenters here will have to be content. Or at least, agree to disagree.

    For here’s the thing: despite everything, I think western civilisation is the best hope for humanity, and the nations of the west the best places to live that have ever existed, and are capable of yet further improvement. I’ll stand on that, despite everything.

  21. Dave Luckett

    Harvey, what is the use of no law and chaos, for they must necessarily promote injustice?

    I see that my last post has been held for moderation. I don’t know why.

  22. Dave Luckett, I don’t have a clue why your post was held for moderation. It was done by the software, not me.

  23. Dave Luckett

    No, Michael Fugate. This is what The Mancunian Marxist thinks it can convince you is police completely out of control. And what is the meat of the story?

    Less than a thousand “incidences” (an odd word to use, but, hey, this is the Guardian) of violence in five months of riot. Over five hundred of these consisted merely of using riot control measures – tear gas and pepper spray – to break up mobs. That is, according to the Guardian’s lexicon, not allowing rioters to do whatever they want, and using standard methods of preventing them, is “violence” against them.

    Yeah, right.