Trending
In a February 10, 2024 column, Dr. Timothy Pagana mistakenly attributed some opinions to me which I would like to disavow. He says he read these opinions somewhere sometime in the Sun-Gazette, just in case, I suppose, you'd find these "citations" helpful in checking out the accuracy of his misrepresentations. I consider the column a disappointing piece in which Dr. Pagana identifies positions I have never held, inaccurately attributes them to me, and then attempts to refute them… to what purpose I cannot imagine. It's off-putting when someone takes the plain sense of your words to mean something you never wrote or hold as true the way Dr. Pagana did in his article. It is difficult to respond to unsupported, sometimes hurtful, inapt generalities with no basis in fact. Such grotesque caricatures comprise much of what Dr. Pagana had to say. Specifically:
The headline for the column was "misusing the Bible to justify maligning political opponents is wrong." I agree. That's why I never did any such thing. In fact, I think it is wrong to malign -- that is to make evil, harmful, and often untrue statements, to treat with malice, to show hatred toward, to abuse, to wrong, to injure - anyone about anything.
On the other hand, I do not think it is wrong, indeed, I consider it my personal challenge as a Christian to point out the incompatibility of Scriptural teaching with the messages and actions of political figures, whoever they are, whenever they occur. While Dr. Pagana's overarching theme is my supposed misuse of Scripture in this regard, he never mentioned a single instance in which I misused a specific passage which I cited to make my point. Instead, he merely voiced his mistaken opinions about my views in the form of incorrect generalities with no biblical citations.
In a most recent article of mine. I have expressed the view that moral character should be taken into account when evaluating political candidates. All the conservatives I used to know believed that a candidate's moral values, integrity, and personal conduct are crucial factors in determining their suitability for public office. I must have missed it…but when did conservatives stop thinking moral character was an integral part of what they stood for?
I have pointed out, chapter and verse, an often repeated refrain of mine, that there is a contradiction between the words and actions of Jesus Christ and those of Donald Trump. Jesus professed and lived the values of love, forgiveness, humility, awareness of sin, humility, compassion, reassurance, unpretentiousness and truthfulness. Donald Trump has publicly boasted of and unapologetically continues to live out his commitment to hatred, revenge, pride, self-justification, heartlessness, intimidation, arrogance, and dishonesty. Specific citations abound in which Donald Trump has hailed these "values" as the guiding posts of his life.
I said that some Christians have abandoned the specific values preached and lived by Jesus Christ for those taught and lived out by Donald Trump." I don't think these Christians are insincere. In fact, I find them sincere to the point of blindness, so much so as to believe it's perfectly fine to ignore the conduct of a leader when he espouses and conducts himself in ways that are contrary to Christ's teaching. I would contend it is, at best, shoddy to equate "sincerity" with "truth." They're sincere, alright. They are also in error.
There happen to be many Christian conservatives who share this position. Some are the editors of Christian media outlets like "Christian Post" and "Christianity Today." Others are Christian leaders like Rev. William Barber II, Russell Moore, Max Lucado and Beth Moore.I agree with these conservatives: Like me, they feel obliged to call out these contradictions between Christ and Trump, and do not rationalize or justify them as some feel comfortable doing.
Dr. Pagana purports to describe my positions on some other issues in his article: namely, the treatment of migrants, open borders, defunding the police, economic stability, social justice and abortion. But what he says about what I think is a surprise to me because what he has to say about my views misrepresents them. So here's what I actually think on the subjects he comments on in my article and those he gratuitously misrepresents as my views, or just mentions for good measure.
Treatment of migrants and open borders: I do not believe in open borders. I have said so in writing publicly in the past. I know of politicians who have called for more lenient immigration policies and more humane treatment of all immigrants, but I can't find a single public statement of any prominent leader calling for completely open borders. I think and have said that decisions about our borders should be guided by the answers to questions like "What level of immigration is optimal at this moment for the nation as a whole if we take our economic needs, resources security, and ability to assimilate into account? What security measures are necessary to effectively deter illegal immigration?
Defunding the police: I have written in the Gazette in opposition to defunding the police with my reasons why.
Abortion: Morally, I personally hold views most would consider restrictive on the issue of abortion. I hold myself personally to this standard. Legally, I am open to persuading others open to hearing my point of view on the issue, but as a member of a pluralistic society, I would not try to legally impose my view on others. Why? Because, many, in good conscience and, often using arguments of Christians, even saints, in the past, have come to a different moral conclusion in good conscience..
Economic stability and Social Justice: Dr. Pagana asks these two questions: "Is it heretical for conservatives to want financial success and economic stability for as many of our fellow countrymen and for the world through effective economic policies that preclude spiraling inflation? Is it heretical to be against the indiscriminate provision of money to the poor instead of encouraging education, family development, employment, and disbursement of needed financial support through locally responsible groups and religious organizations? These questions are heavily weighted with assumptions, social desirability biases, and emotionally charged language. Who on God's green earth ever asked, much less replied affirmatively, to these loaded questions— even under anesthesia? These questions are like: "Wouldn't you agree apple pie tastes good?"
At one point, Dr. Pagana says that he thinks both he and I "are not wrong." That we're both right but have different opinions. I don't think so. I have tried to be precise about what exactly I agree and disagree on with Dr. Pagana. Where we hold contradictory views on facts, both of us cannot be right.
What I hope comes out of this exchange are two things: I would like to see discussions like these be: 1) based on fact-checked specifics, not distortions and fabrications and 2) founded on accurate representations of the actual views of others, not exercises of tilting at windmills, as I think Dr. Pagana spent so much of his article doing. I expected a response to what I like to think are my eclectic set of opinions developed over a lifetime of thought and study by someone who thinks of himself as a fact- enamored 84 year old. Instead Dr. Pagana paints me with the sloppy broad brush of an imagined, undifferentiated archetype of Donald Trump's "liberal" opponents blasted incessantly on FOX News as: a cookie cutter, talking-points member of a homogeneous cabal of anti-patriotic "socialists, radicals, leftists, globalists and elites. hell- bent on destroying this country." People who know me don't think of me in that way. Far from it. But that's the way Dr. Pagana thinks of people like me. Amazingly, to my constant bewilderment, so do tens of millions of like-minded people.
Tim Mannello is a retired hospital system executive and business consultant residing in Williamsport.