Trump Left Me

Trump Left Me

Thomas Allen

During the 1960s, a common saying in the South was: ”I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; it left me.” Well, I did not leave MAGA Trump; he left me when he left MAGA. Trump promised he was going to be a peace president, but he has become a warmonger. Worse, he became a puppet of Israel. Now, he wants to make Israel great at the expense of American capital and labor. Thus, he has placed Israel before America. Furthermore, he is purging real MAGA people from Congress because they want him to make America great again instead of following the neoconservative foreign interventionism of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden.

Trump has made some great progress on domestic issues. He is solving the illegal immigration problem, reducing the influence of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusiveness), eliminating transgenderism, ending affirmative action and quotas, halting the global warming idiocy, and standing up for Whites, who have become second-class citizens in the country that they built.

Unfortunately, Trump has made almost no progress in draining the swamp. At least, he has not surrounded himself with neoconservatives and establishment conservatives as he did in his first administration. Instead, he has surrounded himself with Zionists, who place Israel’s welfare above America’s.

Additionally, Trump has failed to hold the FBI and others in the Justice Department accountable for abusing the law and to give the falsely convicted January-6 protestors justice, although he rightfully pardoned them.

In the realm of the economy, Trump has been mediocre. He was making progress on rebuilding the economy that Biden had destroyed. Now he has undone his work with his stupid and unnecessary war for Greater Israel’s imperialism. 

His war with Iran is only going to hurt the economy of the United States as it drives up energy costs, which drives up the cost of most products and services. Moreover, his war diverts resources from constructive to destructive ends, as it destroys both precious labor (lives) and capital.

Trump’s tariff program, a key component of his economic recovery plan, has focused on bullying other countries with tariffs. He claims that one purpose of his tariffs is to raise revenue. However, raising revenue is secondary. Forcing other countries to bow to his will is their primary purpose.

In addition to tariffs, Trump has continued the traditional governmental policy of picking winners and losers. With subsidies and other federal intervention, he is promoting his favorites, such as artificial intelligence.

Instead of his erratic bullying tariff program and favoritism, Trump should have started eliminating all the unconstitutional agencies and programs that regulate economic activity. (Most federal agencies and programs that regulate economic activity are unconstitutional.)

Excessive credit is the underlying cause of most economic problems. Rather than reducing excess credit, Trump is expanding it with the extravagant growth of the federal budget and resulting debt. Eliminating unconstitutional agencies and their programs (most federal programs are unconstitutional), reducing the armed forces to the level needed to defend America but small enough to thwart foreign interventionism, drastically cutting the budget, and paying down the debt would greatly improve the US economy in the long run. Such action would bring about a sustainable economic boom the likes of which the world has never seen.

However, his interventionist warmongering foreign policy guarantees a growing budget and more debt, which are devastating the American economy. By concentrating on making Israel great instead of making America great, he is undoing all his work to repair the damage that Biden did to the economy.

Unfortunately, in foreign affairs, Trump failed MAGA to the point of destroying it. When he sold his soul to Zionism and Israel and decided to make Israel great instead of America, he betrayed MAGA. 

Nevertheless, Christian Zionists love him and his war with Iran. They are praying that his war becomes a global nuclear war. They need such a war to accelerate Jesus’ return. Some Christian Zionists believe that Trump is the frontman to bring about a nuclear war to hasten Jesus' return. Other people suggest that he may be the Antichrist. (According to John, Jews are the antichrist.)

What has changed since his campaign, when he was promising to keep America out of war? Is it the urgency of his master, Israel, to destroy the largest resistance to Greater Israel? Is it the urgency of the Christian Zionist to quicken Jesus’ return?

Using Bush’s excuse to attack Iraq (if we don’t attack them there, they will attack us here), Trump attacked Iran (his narcissism prevents him from openly admitting that Israel is his master, and he does as it orders him). With only a puny air force and navy, how could Iran threaten the US? Trump must not think that the US Navy and Air Force can protect the United States from an almost nonexistent navy and air force. Moreover, if the United States were not acting as an imperial power with bases scattered throughout the Middle East, Iran would not have any American military or naval assets to attack.

One of Trump’s excuses for his war is to free the Iranians from an oppressive government. Many Iranians sympathize with America and oppose the Ayatollah. Will they continue to view America favorably after the United States kill many of their families and friends? Will they view America favorably after the United States turn their country to rubble and then seize control of Iran’s natural resources?

Trump campaigned as a peace president. He was going to end the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Gaza war and not start any new wars. He could have quickly ended both the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Gaza war by cutting off all aid to Ukraine and Israel. Instead, he continues to provide them with aid. Worse, he has sold his soul to Israel and Zionism and has made the United States Israel’s muscle thug who beats up any country that opposes Greater Israel.

At least Trump’s war against Iran has been good news for some people. Ambassador Huckabee, Senator Cruz, and most other Christian Zionists must be in rapture heaven (they believe that they will enjoy watching the mayhem from heaven because they will be raptured away before events get really bad). Additionally, warmongers like Senators Graham and Cotton are leaping with joy before Lucifer.

Besides attacking Iran to bring about regime change to suit Israel, Trump also attacked and executed a regime change in Venezuela. It seems that he wanted to capture the oil fields in Venezuela, which are the largest in the world, in preparation for his war for Israel against Iran. Most likely, he knew that petroleum exports from the Middle East would cease once the war started. (I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. When all his shortsightedness, blusters, and erroneous predictions about the war are considered, he may not have known.) Major US oil companies are the chief beneficiaries of his Venezuelan regime change, since they will receive huge profits as the world’s oil supply drops by 20 percent.

Distinguishing between Trump’s foreign policy and the neoconservatives’ is difficult. Both seek regime change and hegemony centered around war.

Nevertheless, Trump has done some good in foreign affairs. He has removed the United States from many of the United Nations’ agencies and programs.

One of the most repugnant acts of Trump is trying to drive and even driving some of his greatest supporters, such as Representatives Tom Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene, whom he did force to resign, from Congress because they objected to his neoconservative policies of hegemony, regime change, nation-building, being the world’s police force, and making the world safe for Zionism. Instead of Trump meddling in the affairs of foreign countries, they wanted him to concentrate on domestic issues.

Trump wants to be thought of as America’s greatest president. If he had kept his promises of being a peace president, he might have become one of America’s greatest presidents. However, he abandoned his campaign promises and became a warmonger. Now, he may outdo Lincoln and become America’s worst president, especially if his war for Israel against Iran leads to the global greatest depression or a world war. (One person commenting on this remark noted that Trump will have to fail even harder to edge out Lincoln on the race to the bottom, which is true.) If Trump wants to be seen as the greatest president ever, he has failed and failed hard.

At the behest of Israel, Trump is sacrificing America on the altar of Zionism. Will Israel order its subordinate, Trump, to nuke Iran? If so, will Trump do what he has yet to do with Israel and show enough courage to say no, or will he obey his orders? 

By being a pawn of Israel, Trump may have delivered the control of the House and Senate in 2027 and the presidency in 2029 to the Democrats. Taking actions to return the control of the federal government to the Democrats is Trump’s greatest betrayal of MAGA. When the Democrats regain control, they will undo all the good that Trump has done and expand the bad that he has done.

(Here is the best comment that I have seen online discussing Trump attacking Iran. Like diabetes, there are two types of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome): TDS Type One: Trump can do nothing right; TDS Type Two: Trump can do no wrong.)

Comment

An anonymous person made the following comment, which summarizes my observations. Of course, Democrats are rejoicing over Trump’s ego, narcissism, and stupidity, and his sacrificing America for Israel, although they will also sacrifice America for Israel.

“We had a good thing, you stupid son of a bitch! We had an Al boom. We had a Supreme Court super majority. We had both branches of Congress. We had everything we needed to save America and it all ran like clockwork. You could’ve shut your mouth, played golf, and stole as much money for your family as you ever needed. It was perfect. But no, you just had to blow it up. You, and your debt to Israel and your ego. You just had to make Netanyahu the man! If you’d done your job, known your place, we’d all be fine right now.” (https://paulcraigroberts.org/are-americans-up-to-the-task-of-survival/)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

King on Shattered Dreams

King on Shattered Dreams

Thomas Allen

In “Shattered Dreams,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 87–97, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses people’s reactions to shattered dreams and peace. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins by writing, “One of the most agonizing problems within our human experience is that few, if any, of us live to see our fondest hopes fulfilled.” (P. 87.) (This statement is one of the most truthful ones that King ever wrote.) Continuing, King asks, “Is there any one of us who has not faced the agony of blasted hopes and shattered dreams?” (P. 87.) Then, he comments on the shattered dreams of some famous men. “Shattered dreams are a hallmark of our mortal life.” (P. 88.) (King may have thought that his dreams were shattered just before he died, but they were not. Most came to pass after his death. He failed to live long enough to see the Negro become the White man’s superior. Nor did he live long enough to see himself and the Negro idolized, and one of his speeches become a founding document of modern-day America. Within a few years after his death, America adopted almost everything that he advocated. However, a guaranteed income is one of his dreams that has yet to come true. Though he did not live to see the fulfillment of his dreams, most of them came true. Now that America is on the verge of shattering, have his dreams made America a better place?)

Next, he comments on reactions to shattered dreams. “One possible reaction is to distill all of our frustrations into a core of bitterness and resentment.” (P. 89.) Such people frequently “develop a callous attitude, a cold heart, and a bitter hatred toward God, toward those with whom he lives, and toward himself. Because he cannot corner God or life, he releases his pent-up vindictiveness in hostility toward other people. . . .  He loves no one and requires love from no one. He trusts no one and does not expect others to trust him. He finds fault in everything and everybody, and he continually complains.” (P. 89.) This type of reaction often leads to various physical ailments and mental problems.

About another reaction to shattered dreams, King writes, “Another common reaction by persons experiencing the blighting of hope is to withdraw completely into themselves and to become absolute introverts.” (P. 89.) These people do not enter the lives of others or allow others to enter their lives. “Such persons give up the struggle of life, lose their zest for living, and attempt to escape by lifting their minds to a transcendent realm of cold indifference.” (P. 89.) They become detached from the world, and cynicism often cripples them. Such a person may become schizophrenic. 

Next, King describes a third reaction to shattered dreams. “A third way by which persons respond to disappointments in life is to adopt a fatalistic philosophy stipulating that whatever happens must happen and that all events are determined by necessity. Fatalism implies that everything is foreordained and inescapable.” (P. 90.) These people succumb without resistance to whatever they consider their fate. They believe that they have no freedom and that external forces control them. “To sink in the quicksands of fatalism is both intellectually and psychologically stifling.” (P. 91.) With his discussion of fatalism, he concludes, “But fatalism stymies the individual, leaving him helplessly inadequate for life. Fatalism, furthermore, is based on an appalling conception of God, for everything, whether good or evil, is considered to represent the will of God.” (P. 91.) (An obdurate Calvinist might dispute King on this issue. To the obdurate Calvinist, man is just a robot executing his God-given program. Otherwise, if man had any freedom, God would not be sovereign. [See “God the Great Programer: Predestination Theology” by Thomas Allen.])

Then, King describes how people should react to shattered dreams. “The answer lies in our willing acceptance of unwanted and unfortunate circumstances even as we still cling to a radiant hope, our acceptance of finite disappointment even as we adhere to infinite hope.” (P. 92.) People should accept their shattered dreams, but they should not forget their dreams. They should turn their defeat into an asset.

Next, King turns his discussion to the Negro. “We Negroes have long dreamed of freedom, but still we are confined in an oppressive prison of segregation and discrimination.” (P. 93.) (Negroes have gained their “freedom.” They have been so successful at slaying segregation that many now seek segregation. [See “More Social Issues Related to Blacks” by Thomas Allen.] Negroes have turned discrimination against Negroes into discrimination against Whites. Has this freedom of which King dreamed made the country any better?)

King asks should Negroes conclude that segregation is God’s will and resign themselves to it. (If they believed the Bible, they should have because the Bible teaches segregation and condemns integration. Nevertheless, King does not appear to believe the Bible and, like Lincoln, quotes it to deceive people.)

King condemns the failure to oppose segregation as blasphemy. (Although it is biblically ordained,) segregation is unjust and should be opposed using his “nonviolent” tactics. “By recognizing the necessity of suffering in a righteous cause, we may possibly achieve our humanity’s full stature.” (P. 93.) (The Negro leaders of the civil rights movement did not suffer much, at least not in King’s sense of the word. Most were well-paid and got to integrate with Whites. Unfortunately, the Negro achieved King’s goals not so much by raising the Negro as by pulling down the White race. The decline in educational standards is evidence.)

King writes, “Our present suffering and our nonviolent struggle to be free may well offer to Western civilization the kind of spiritual dynamic so desperately needed for survival.” (P. 94.) (Regrettably, King’s civil rights movement did not provide Western civilization the kind of spiritual dynamic that it needed to survive. What his movement did was to provide Western civilization with evil spirits that have hastened its demise.)

Continuing, King states, “We must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope.” (P. 94.) Following this advice was the secret to the survival of the Negroes’ slave foreparents. (How does King know?) Then, he describes how he saw slavery. (The slaves who survived the trip and were sold in what became the United States were better off than if they had remained in Africa. If they remained in Africa, most likely, their captors would have killed them because they had no value. On the other hand, if no market existed for slaves, they may not have been captured. Nevertheless, most of their descendants would live a better life in slavery than they would have lived in Africa in freedom — although except for the autocratic kings, witch doctors, and perhaps a few others, no one was really free in the Western sense of the word. For whatever reason, most Negroes seemed doomed to live undesirable lives, whether remaining in Africa or living in slavery in the Americas. However, some slaves in the Americas gained their freedom. In Haiti, all slaves became free in 1804, but their lives did not improve and, in some respects, became worse. If given a choice in the 1950s, most Haitians would have gladly left the land of the free to live in the land of segregation and discrimination.)

King remarks that people should not let adversity stop them from pursuing their dreams. Then, he comments on Paul facing adversity. Although Paul never achieved his dream of going to Spain (as far as we know), he never quit doing the Lord’s work. Paul was never complacent. He had learned “the distinction between spiritual tranquility and the outward accidents of circumstances.” (Pp. 95-96.)

King concludes with a brief discussion of peace. To the world, peace is beautiful weather, plenty of money, a body and mind free of aches and pains, and the achievement of dreams. However, these are not true peace. True peace “is a calmness of soul amid terrors of trouble, inner tranquility amid the howl and rage of outer storm, the serene quiet at the center of a hurricane amid the howling and jostling winds.” (P. 96.)

Through faith in Jesus, a person obtains true peace. (I wonder if King ever obtained true peace. If he is judged by his works, it is doubtful.)

In closing, King writes, “Our capacity to deal creatively with shattered dreams is ultimately determined by our faith in God.” (P. 97.) “The Christian faith makes it possible for us nobly to accept that which cannot be changed, to meet disappointments and sorrow with an inner poise, and to absorb the most intense pain without abandoning our sense of hope, for we know . . . in life or in death. . . . ‘that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.’” (P. 97.)

In this essay, King discusses various ways people respond to shattered dreams. He offers sage advice on how people should react. This essay is one of his more inspiring ones.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Mencken on Liberty in a Democracy

Mencken on Liberty in a Democracy

Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes liberty in a democracy, pages 157-162. Below is an overview of his discussion on liberty in a democracy; my comments are in brackets.
    Whenever the liberties of the people “are invaded and made a mock of in a gross and contemptuous manner,” as occurred “in the United States during the reign of Wilson,” some observers always marvel that people bear such “outrage with so little murmuring.” About such observation, Mencken remarks, “Such observers only display their unfamiliarity with the elements of democratic science. The truth is that the common man’s love of liberty, like his love of sense, justice and truth, is almost wholly imaginary.” [The response of most people to 9-11 supports Mencken. Their quick surrender of liberty to the ruling elite shows their lack of love of liberty.] Unfortunately, for the lovers of liberty, the common man, of whom the masses comprise, is not “happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. He longs for the warm, reassuring smell of the herd, and is willing to take the herdsman with it.” Thus, “[l]iberty is not a thing for such as he. He cannot enjoy it rationally himself, and he can think of it in others only as something to be taken away from them.”
    When liberty is a reality, it is the “exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority of men, like knowledge, courage and honour. A special sort of man is needed to understand it, nay, to stand it — and he is inevitably an outlaw in democratic societies.” Mencken continues, “The average man doesn’t want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” [Hence, the response of the average person to 9-11: throw away liberty for safety — and end up with neither. The common man, the inferior man, the democratic man, fails to realize that without liberty, real safety cannot exist.]
    Mencken cites Nietzsche as saying that liberty “was something that, to the general, was too cold to be borne.” However, Nietzsche “believed that there was an unnatural, drug-store sort of yearning for it in all men, and so he changed Schopenhauer’s will-to-live into a will-to-power, i.e., a will-to-free-function.” [Friedrich Nietzsche {1844 –1900} was a German philosopher, cultural critic, poet, and philologist. Arthur Schopenhauer {1788 –1860} was a German philosopher.] Mencken believes that Nietzsche “went too far, and in the wrong direction: he should have made it, on the lower levels, a will-to-peace.” Mencken remarks, “What the common man longs for in this world, before and above all his other longings, is the simplest and most ignominious sort of peace the peace of a trusty in a well-managed penitentiary. He is willing to sacrifice everything else to it. He puts it above his dignity and he puts it above his pride. Above all, he puts it above his liberty.” [As statists promise such peace, statists always have an advantage over lovers of liberty, libertists, in a democracy.]
    The common man loves peace and safety far more than he loves liberty. This may “explains his veneration for policemen, in all the forms they take — his belief that there is a mysterious sanctity in law, however absurd it may be in fact.” Mencken adds, “A policeman is a charlatan who offers, in return for obedience, to protect him [the common man] (a) from his superiors, (b) from his equals, and (c) from himself. This last service, under democracy, is commonly the most esteemed of them all.” [In reality, the ultimate job of the police is to protect the ruling elite, the real powers behind the political leaders, from the masses, i.e., the common man.] “In the United States, at least theoretically, it is the only thing that keeps ice-wagon drivers, Y.M.C.A. secretaries, insurance collectors and other such human camels from smoking opium, ruining themselves in the night clubs, and going to Palm Beach with Follies girls.” [To Mencken, the primary job of the police is to prevent personal vice.]
    Although the common man is deceived about liberty, “he starts from a sound premise: to wit, that liberty is something too hot for his hands — or, as Nietzsche put it, too cold for his spine. Worse, he sees in it something that is a weapon against him in the hands of his enemy.”
    Mencken adds, “The history of democracy is a history of efforts to force successive minorities to be untrue to their nature. Democracy, in fact, stands in greater peril of the free spirit than any sort of despotism ever heard of.” He continues, “The despot, at least, is always safe in one respect: his own belief in himself cannot be shaken. But democracies may be demoralized and run amok, and so they are in vast dread of heresy, as a Sunday-school superintendent is in dread of scarlet women, light wines and beer, and the unreadable works of Charles Darwin.” Then he remarks, “It would be unimaginable for a democracy to submit serenely to such gross dissents as Frederick the Great not only permitted, but even encouraged.” He notes, “Once the mob is on the loose, there is no holding it. So the subversive minority must be reduced to impotence; the heretic must be put down.”
    If a primary purpose “of all civilized government is to preserve and augment the liberty of the individual, then surely democracy accomplishes it less efficiently than any other form.” [The dictatorship of the proletariat does a much worse job. But, then, Mencken considers the dictatorship of the proletariat to be a form of democracy.] If the individual is worth thinking about, then “the superior individual is worth more thought than his inferiors.” Yet, “the superior individual  . . . is the chief victim of the democratic process. It not only tries to regulate his acts; it also tries to delimit his thoughts. . . . The aim of democracy is to break all such free spirits to the common harness. It tries to iron them out, to pump them dry of self-respect, to make docile John Does of them.” [Nearly all laws coming out of Congress and the statehouses seem to have as their primary objective the breaking of all free spirits to a common harness.]
    Democracy measures its success by the extent that it brings down superior men and makes them common. “The measure of civilization is the extent to which they resist and survive. Thus the only sort of liberty that is real under democracy is the liberty of the have-nots to destroy the liberty of the haves.” [Thus, the inferior man is a strong supporter of the welfare state because it brings down the superior man and destroys the liberties of the haves.] Mencken adds, “This liberty is supposed, in some occult way, to enhance human dignity.” In one aspect, perhaps, it does: “The have-not gains something valuable when he acquires the delusion that he is the equal of his betters. It may not be true but even a delusion, if it augments the dignity of man, is something.” Under this apparent reality, “the peasant no longer pulls his forelock when he meets the baron, he is free to sue and be sued, he may denounce Huxley as a quack.” [Thomas Huxley {1825–1895} was an English biologist and a prominent proponent of evolution, in which Mencken ardently believed.] Unfortunately, as the inferior is raised, the superior is lowered. Mencken notes, “If democracy really loves the dignity of man, then it kills the thing it loves.” It reduces all to a common level.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Mencken on the Democratic Man

Mencken on the Democratic Man

Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes the democratic man, pages 9-15. Below is an overview of his discussion on the democratic man; my comments are in brackets.
    Emerging “as Rousseau’s noble savage in smock and jerkin,” the democratic man came forth “to shame the lords and masters of the civilized lands.” Being at the bottom of the social scale, i.e., being inferior, he acquired “a mystical merit, an esoteric and ineradicable rectitude” that “by some strange magic became sort of superiority — nay, the superiority of superiorities.”
    Thus, enlighten countries have moved evermore “toward the completer and more enamoured enfranchisement of the lower orders.” For, in this democratic man “lies a deep, illimitable reservoir of righteousness and wisdom, unpolluted by the corruption of privilege.” Whatever baffles statesmen, the democratic man can solve “instantly and by a sort of seraphic intuition.”
    Moreover, his “yearnings are pure.” Only he is “capable of a perfect patriotism,” and in him “is the only hope of peace and happiness on this lugubrious ball.” [If true, no hope exists for peace. The democratic man is as much of a warmonger as are the aristocrat and the upper class; only his wars are far more brutal and destructive as World War I and World War II demonstrate.] Thus, “[t]he cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!”
    This notion of the democratic man “originated in the poetic fancy of gentlemen on the upper levels — sentimentalists who, observing to their distress that the ass was over-laden, proposed to reform transport by putting him into the cart.” These gentlemen were “the direct ancestors of the more saccharine Liberals of to-day, who yet mouth their tattered phrases and dream their preposterous dreams.”
    Then Mencken gives a description of the rise of the democratic man during the French Revolution. “Early democratic man seems to have given little thought to the democratic ideal, and less veneration. What he wanted was something concrete and highly materialistic — more to eat, less work, higher wages, lower taxes. He had no apparent belief in the acroamatic virtue of his own class, and certainly none in its capacity to rule.” [Thus, the democratic man seems to have shown more common sense than his aristocratic overlords and other members of the upper class who propelled him into governing.] Extermination of the baron was not his goal; his goal was “to bring the baron back to a proper discharge of baronial business.” In his attempt to force the barons back to baronial business, the baronage ended and others from among the democratic man took the barons’ place. The democratic man quickly showed his “opinion of them by butchering them deliberately and in earnest.” Once the blood began flowing, “it was a great deal more dangerous to be a tribune of the people than to be an ornament of the old order.” “[H]aving been misled into killing its King in 1793,” the democratic man “devoted the next two years to killing those who had misled” him. Then he got another king [Napoleon], “with an attendant herd of barons, counts, marquises and dukes, some of them new but most of them old, to guard, symbolize and execute his sovereignty.” So overjoyed was the democratic man at the return of a king, “that half France leaped to suicide that their glory might blind the world.”
    The blood flow in Europe slowed the rise of the democratic man. However, America had been spared such slaughters; thus, the popularity of the democratic man rose more quickly in the United States.
    Nevertheless, the conditions of the democratic man improved. “Once a slave, he was now only a serf. Once condemned to silence, he was now free to criticize his masters, and even to flout them, and the ordinances of God with them. As he gained skill and fluency at that sombre and fascinating art, he began to heave in wonder at his own merit. He was not only, it appeared, free to praise and damn, challenge and remonstrate; he was also gifted with a peculiar rectitude of thought and will, and a high talent for ideas, particularly on the political plane. So his wishes, in his mind, began to take on the dignity of legal rights, and after a while, of intrinsic and natural rights, and by the same token the wishes of his masters sank to the level of mere ignominious lusts. By 1828 in America and by 1848 in Europe the doctrine had arisen that all moral excellence, and with it all pure and unfettered sagacity, resided in the inferior four-fifths of mankind.” [In 1828, the supporters of Andrew Jackson formed today’s Democratic party got Jackson elected President.]
    Then in 1867, a philosopher [Marx] arose from the gutter and declared “that the superior minority had no virtues at all, and hence no rights at all — that the world belonged exclusively and absolutely to those who hewed its wood and drew its water.” Within a few decades, “he had more followers in the world, open and covert, than any other sophist since the age of the Apostles.” [Today, in the United States, his disciples dominate the Progressives, Liberals, Neo-conservatives, the Democratic party, and even the Republican party.] As the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union showed, this extreme philosophy had some problems. [Unfortunately, for Americans, the followers of the ruling elite have learned little from the experience of the Soviet Union, as the ruling elite is trying to turn the United States into its version of the United Soviet States of America.]
    The failure of the democratic man’s dictatorship of the proletariat did not slow the march of the democratic man. World War I was fought in the name of democracy, and all the defeated countries embraced it “with loud hosannas.” All Christendom now embraced the fundamental axioms of democracy: “(a) that the great masses of men have an inalienable right, born of the very nature of things, to govern themselves, and (b) that they are competent to do it.” [Viewing all the democratic and so-called democratic countries of the world brings into question that the democratic man is competent to govern. They present an argument much greater that he lacks the competence to govern.] When the democratic man is  “detected in gross and lamentable imbecilities,” it is because he is “misinformed by those who would exploit [him]: the remedy is more education.” [Education is the solution to all problems in a democratic society, even when, or especially when, education means indoctrination.] If, at times, he is “a trifle naughty, even swinish, . . . it is only a natural reaction against the oppressions [he] suffer[s]: the remedy is to deliver them.”
    Further, liberation of the democratic man is the “central aim of all the Christian governments of to-day,” which seek to augment his power. Moreover, a good government is one that “responds most quickly and accurately” to the desires and ideas of the democratic man. A bad government is one that “conditions [his] omnipotence and puts a question mark after [his] omniscience.”
    [Mencken’s description of the democratic man is a fairly accurate description of the typical supporters of the Democratic party and the typical supporters of RINOs {Republicans in name only}. Perhaps, this is because, as Mencken notes, the ancestors of Liberals and Progressives are the progenitors of democracy, i.e., ever expanding suffrage.]

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

Why Elijah Defeated the Baal Priests

Why Elijah Defeated the Baal Priests

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: The following article has been significantly revised from the earlier version that appeared.  Revised January 13, 2018; revised May 5, 2018, by adding 35-37; revised March 18, 2019, by adding 38; revised September 28, 2024 by rewriting 14 and adding 39.]
    Why was Elijah able to defeat Baal’s priests in his duel with them (1 Kings, chapter 18)? The traditional explanation is that Jehovah or Yahweh or YHWH is the supreme God or that He is the only true God.[1] Naturally, Baal apologists object to Jehovah being the supreme god, much less being the true god.
    Jesus said in Matthew 7:7, “Ask and it shall be given you.” As many prayers go unanswered, prayer apologists have come up with excuses for unanswered prayers. Baal apologists can easily use these excuses to explain Elijah’s victory over Baal’s priests. Some of the favorite and most popular excuses of the prayer apologists for unanswered prayers follow.
    1. Doubt. God does not answer prayer because of doubt, i.e., the prayer has some doubt that God would answer the prayer. Thus, doubt is more powerful than God. How much doubt is necessary is not usually stated other than if the prayer has one iota of doubt, his prayer will not be answered. According to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they had some doubt that Baal would answer their prayers. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude of people praying for peace, is that all of them have doubt. Of the few who pray for war, apparently one of them has no doubt that God will deliver war. Therefore, we have war instead of peace. (In this article, peace means the absence of war; it does not mean the unmeasurable internal peace of God.)
    2. Lack of Faith. God does not answer prayer because of a lack of faith, i.e., the prayer does not have enough faith. Presumably, if the prayer is answered, the prayer has enough faith. If it is not answered, the prayer does not have enough faith. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not have enough faith that Baal would answer their prayers. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude of people praying for peace, is that none of them have enough faith. Of the few who pray for war, at least one of them has enough faith to ensure that God will deliver war.  Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    3. Serious and Earnest. God only answers prayers when the prayer begs seriously and earnestly. Otherwise, He ignores the prayer. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not beg seriously and earnestly enough. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude who pray for peace, none begs seriously or earnestly enough. Of the few who pray for war, at least one begs seriously and earnestly enough. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    4. Not God’s Will. God does not answer the prayers of His people unless He so desires, i.e., it is His will to answer them, or the prayer is consistent with His will. Presumably, His refusal to answer serves some higher and usually hidden purpose and is not whimsical. Moreover, as God’s will always prevails, presumably, His will is going to be executed even if no one ever prays. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because Baal’s will was that they lose. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that of the multitude who pray for peace, is that none are praying for God’s will. Of the few who pray for war, they are praying for God’s will, which means that God’s will is war. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    5. God Answers Those Who Seek His Will. If what the prayer is seeking with his prayer is God’s will, God answers the prayer. If the prayer’s prayer is contrary to God’s will, God does not answer the prayer or answers it negatively.  Again, as God’s will always prevails, presumably, His will is going to be executed even if no one ever prays. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they were not seeking Baal’s will when they asked him to defeat Elijah. Therefore, Baal allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that people who pray for peace are not seeking God’s will. The few who pray for war apparently are seeking God’s will, which is war.
    6. Gives Things Asked for That He is Willing to Grant. The prayers must ask for things that they know that God is willing to grant. This excuse leads to much groping around in the dark, for who knows the mind of God. Thus, prayer is mostly a trial and error thing with the prayer searching for what God will grant. Even then, he does not know whether it is answered prayer or coincidence. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not ask for that which Baal was willing to grant when they asked him to defeat Elijah. Therefore, Baal allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, we have war instead of peace because those who pray for peace are not praying for that which God is willing to grant. The few who pray for war are praying for that which God is willing to grant, which is war.
    7. God Answers But the Answer Is “No.” God answers all prayers. Sometimes He grants the prayer what he asks for, and sometimes He does not. How this is to be distinguished from random events and coincidence is not adequately explained — especially when compared to nonprayed-for events. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because Baal answered his priests negatively. Therefore, Baal did answer their prayers, and his answer, contrary to their petition, was to allow Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that God answers the prayers for peace negatively. However, He answers the prayers of the few who pray for war in the positive and gives them and those who pray for peace war.
    8. The Answer Is Not What Was Expected. God answers all prayers. However, the answer is frequently not what the prayer wanted or expected. Again, how this is to be distinguished from random events and coincidence is not adequately explained. Baal did answer the prayers of his priests. However, the answer was not what they expected. They expected Baal to give them victory over Elijah. Baal decided to answer their prayers by giving Elijah victory over them. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because Baal answered his priests in a way that was not expected. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that God answers the prayers for peace with war, which is not what the prayers for peace wanted or expected.
    9. Has Something Better. God answers all prayers, but He often answers by giving the prayer something better than what he asks. Evidently, this is true even, and especially, when the prayer never perceives the thing received as better than what was requested. Apparently, the “something better” for Baal’s priests was defeat, humiliation, and death. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; Baal gave his priests something better than victory over Elijah: defeat, humiliation, and death. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that God is giving the prayers for peace something better than peace and that is war.
    10. Gives What Is Needed, Not What Is Wanted. God answers prayers by giving the prayer what he needs instead of what he wants. A corollary of this excuse is that God does not answer prayers for wants; He only answers prayers for needs. What does God do when the request is for something that is both needed and wanted? Does He grant the request because it is needed? Does He withhold answering because it is wanted? Or does He only partially answer it? Obviously, Baal’s priests merely wanted victory over Elijah. What they really needed was defeat, humiliation, and death. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; Baal gave his priests what they needed (defeat, humiliation, and death) instead of what they wanted (victory). Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that prayers for peace merely want peace. What they really need is war. Presumably, those who pray for war merely want war, but what they really need is war, so God gives them war.
    11. Not Yet. God answers all prayers, but He often delays in answering, even when the prayer is time sensitive. Again, how this is to be distinguished from random events and coincidence is not adequately explained. Also, not explained is time running out without the prayer being answered. When was Baal going to answer the prayers of his priests? After Elijah defeated, humiliated, and killed them? According to the Baal apologists, Baal did answer the prayers of his priests. He just did not answer them in a timely manner. He delayed answering their prayers to some future date. Evidently, Baal plans to answer the prayers of his priests in the future when he has reincarnated or resurrected them and Elijah and has the duel between them reenacted. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because Baal decided to answer their prayers later. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that God will grant peace sometimes in the future — perhaps when no one is left to fight.
    12. Unconfessed Sin. God does not answer prayer because the prayer has unconfused sin, i.e., the prayer has not confessed all his sin. Therefore, God will not answer the prayer. If this excuse is true, then God seldom answers many prayers as many prayers have unconfessed sin. Many people cannot even remember all their unconfessed sins, so their prayers are never answered. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they had some unconfessed sin. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that of the multitude who pray for peace, all have unconfessed sin. Of the few who pray for war, apparently at least one does not have any unconfessed sin, so God answers his prayer for war.
    13. Dire Need. God only answers the prayers of people in dire need. When does a need become a dire need? What is a dire need? Cemeteries are full of people who thought that they had a dire need. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not have a dire need to win. Apparently, they had a dire need for defeat, humiliation, and death. Moreover, prayers for peace do not have a dire need for peace; however, prayers for war do have a dire need for war. Therefore, we have war.
    14. Not Praying the Correct Way. According to this excuse, one needs to follow the correct formula in praying before God will answer the prayer. That is, in order for God to give the prayer his request, the prayer must follow the correct formula for prayer. (This excuse sounds like Gnosticism in that a hidden formula for prayer exists. One only needs to be enlightened enough to find it.) Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not pray the correct way. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that of the few who pray for war at least one follows the correct formula. Of the multitude who pray for peace, none uses the correct formula. To the extent any formula for prayer is given in Matthew 7:7, it is simply to ask; then God will grant the request.

     15. Failing to Deal with the Spirit Behind the Problem. The prayer has one or more spirits causing the problem for which he is praying, and he has not dealt with these spirits. He must first rebuke, confess, acknowledge, and command these spirits to depart before his prayers are answered. (To the extent that this excuse has validity, the rebuking, confessing, acknowledging, and commanding the departure of these spirits is implied in most prayers even if they are not explicitly stated. Often the prayer may not even be aware of such spirits.) Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not first rebuke, confess, acknowledge, and command the departure of the spirit behind Elijah’s challenge although their prayers did imply, if not explicitly command, etc., such departure. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that of the few who pray for war at least one has rebuked, confessed, acknowledged, and commanded the departure of the spirit behind peace. Of the multitude who pray for peace, none has rebuked, confessed, acknowledged, and commanded the departure of the spirit behind war.
    16. Not Praying to the Right God. God will not answer one’s prayer if he prays to the wrong God. Presumably, the wrong God will not answer his prayers either, although the prayer prayed to him. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they prayed to the wrong god. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude of people praying for peace, none of them is praying to the right God. All are praying to the wrong God. Apparently of the few who pray for war, at least one is praying to the right God.
    17. Asking God to Perform Magic, Miracles. One should never pray for a miracle because that is asking God to perform magic. God does not do magic because that is interfering with the natural course of events, and God does not interfere with the natural course of events. Therefore, one should only pray for unmeasurable intangibles like courage and wisdom. One should never pray for measurable tangibles like curing someone of a disease or world peace. Apparently, people who use this excuse do not believe Jesus when he said, “Ask and it shall be given you” (Matt. 7:7). An unanswerable prayer for a measurable tangible shows that Jesus lied. A prayer for an unmeasurable intangible cannot be shown whether it is answered or not. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they prayed for a miracle, i.e., they asked Baal to perform magic. However, Jehovah interfered with the natural course of events and performed an act of magic by lighting Elijah’s water-soaked wood (1 Kings 18:32-38). Therefore, proponents of this excuse must reject Jehovah as the true God because He performed magic. Baal apologists would add that since the true God does not do magic since Baal did no magic, and since Jehovah did do magic, Baal must be the true God. Moreover, God refuses to answer prayers for peace because to do so requires magic, a miracle. War is the natural course of events.
    18. Lack of Fervor. According to this excuse, God only answers the prayers of those who pray fervently. How much fervor does it take before a prayer is fervently prayed? Apparently, the fervor displayed by Baal’s priests was not enough. For anyone to display more fervor as the Bible describes them doing (1 King 18:28-29) is hard to imagine. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not pray fervently enough. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude of people praying for peace, none of them prays fervently enough. However, out of the few who pray for war, at least one prays fervently enough.
    19. Praying for the Wrong Thing. God does not answer the prayers of people who do not pray for the right thing, i.e., they pray for the wrong thing. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not pray for the right thing. He did not answer the prayers of his priest because they prayed for victory over Elijah; they prayed for the wrong thing. Presumably, they should have prayed for Elijah to win; then Baal would have answered their prayers because they would have prayed for the right thing. Likewise, the multitude who pray for peace prays for the wrong thing: peace. However, the warmongers pray for the right thing: war. Therefore, God answers the prayers of the warmongers and ignores the prayers of the peace lovers.
    20. Asking for Things Not Good for the Prayer. If a person prays for something that is not good for him, God will not answer the prayer. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they prayed for something that was not good for them. He did not answer the prayers of his priest because they prayed for victory over Elijah, which was not good for them. Presumably, defeat was good for them. Likewise, God does not answer the prayers of those who pray for peace because peace is not good for them. Therefore, war must be good for them.
    21. Sinner. God does not answer the prayers of sinners. If true, then God would never answer any prayers as everyone is a sinner. Possibly, the only exception is a prayer for salvation and that is iffy. So why did Jesus bother promising that people would receive whatever they asked? Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they were sinners. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that every one of the multitudes who pray for peace is a sinner. At least one prayer for war is not a sinner. Therefore, God answers the prayers of the nonsinning warmonger.
    22. Not a Christian. God only answers the prayers of Christians. This excuse is a good test for someone to use to decide if he is really a Christian. If God answers all his prayers, he is a real Christian. If God fails to answer at least one of his prayers, he is not a real Christian; he is a pseudo-Christian. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they were not real Christians. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Because Elijah was not a Christian either, Jehovah could not have answered his prayer. Moreover, of the multitude who pray for peace, not one of them is a Christian. Of the few who pray for war, at least one is a Christian. Therefore, God answers the prayers of the warmongering Christian.
    23. The Prayer Must Be Prepared to Receive What Is Being Asked For. God only answers the prayers of those who are prepared to receive that for which they pray. He does not answer the prayers of those who are not prepared. How one becomes prepared is anyone’s guess. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they were not prepared to receive victory. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none are prepared to receive peace; none can handle peace. Of the few who pray for war, at least one is prepared to receive war; this one can handle war. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    24. Must Adhere Only to Christ.  Before God answers a person’s prayer, that person must adhere only to Christ. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not adhere only to Christ. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Although evidence is given that Elijah adhered to Jehovah, no specifically stated evidence is given that Elijah adhered only to Christ. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none adhere only to Christ. Presumably, of the few who pray for war, at least one adheres to only Christ. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    25. Prepared to Live God’s Will. Before God answers a person’s prayer, the prayer must be prepared to live God’s will. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they were not prepared to live Baal’s, will. Therefore, Baal refused to answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus of the multitude who pray for peace, none are prepared to live God’s will. Of the few who pray for war, at least one is prepared to live God’s will. If correct, then living for war appears to be God’s will.
    26. Praying for God’s Will to Be Done. Only when a person prays that God’s will to be done, does God answer the prayer. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not pray that Baal’s will be done. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none is praying that God’s will to be done. Of the few who pray for war, they are praying that God’s will to be done. Therefore, as we have war instead of peace, then God’s will must be war. However, according to Matthew 7:7, God’s will seems to be simply to ask so that He can give whatever is asked for.
    27. Must Know God. God only answers the prayers of those who know Him. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah was mightier; they lost because they did not know Baal. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none knows God. Of the few who pray for war, at least one knows God Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    28. Must Keep the Commandments of God. God only answers the prayers of those who keep His commandments. This excuse is the ultimate excuse because we are all sinners, and no sinner can keep the commandments of God. To break one commandment is to break all commandments. Based on this excuse, God never answers anyone’s prayer, which makes Jesus’ promise in Matthew 7:7 a hoax. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not keep Baal’s commandments. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none keep God’s commandments. Of the few who pray for war, at least one keeps God’s commandments. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    29. Must Have Accepted Jesus as Savior. According to this excuse, God only answers the prayers of those who have accepted Jesus as their savior. This excuse is a good test for one’s salvation. If the prayer has one unanswered prayer, then he is not saved. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah was mightier; they lost because they had not accepted Jesus as their savior. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, no specific evidence is given that Elijah had accepted Jesus as his savior, so accepting Jesus as his savior had nothing to do with his victory. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none has accepted Jesus as his savior. Of the few who pray for war, at least one has accepted Jesus as his savior.
    30. Must Pray in the Name of Christ Jesus. According to this excuse, a person must pray in the name of Christ Jesus before God will answer that prayer. However, Matthew 7:7 does not require asking in the name of Christ Jesus. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they had not prayed in the name of Christ Jesus. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, no evidence is given that Elijah prayed in the name of Christ Jesus, so his prayer had nothing to do with his victory. Thus, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that of the multitude who pray for peace, none pray in the name of Christ Jesus. Of the few who pray for war, at least one has prayed in the name of Christ Jesus.
    31. Asking with Incorrect Motive. God does not answer prayers when the prayer is praying with incorrect motives. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priest did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they prayed with an incorrect motive. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none ask with the correct motive. Of the few who pray for war, at least one asks with the correct motive. Therefore, as we have war instead of peace. Apparently, a desire for war is the correct motive, while a desire for peace is an incorrect motive.
    32. Asking from a Selfish Heart. God does not answer the prayers of a prayer who prays from a selfish heart. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they prayed from a selfish heart. Selfishly, they want to defeat Elijah. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, all pray from a selfish heart. Of the few who pray for war, at least one does not pray from a selfish heart. Apparently, praying for peace is selfish, while praying for war is altruistic. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    33. Pray Continuously. One must pray continuously for God to answer a prayer. Although the record shows that Baal’s priests prayed continuously, apparently, they did not pray continuously enough — much more continuously than Elijah prayed. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah was mightier; they lost because they did not continuously pray. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, all failed to pray continuously. Of the few who pray for war, at least one prays continuously. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    34. Seeking to Receive the Blessing More Ardently than Desiring to Commune with God. God does not answer the prayers of prayers who desire the object of the prayer more than they desire to commune with God. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah was mightier; they lost because they desire victory over Elijah more than they desired to commune with Baal. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, all pray desire peace more than they desire to Commune with God. Of the few who pray for war, at least one desires to commune with God more than he desires war. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    35. Sowing and Reaping: One Reaps What He Sows. God answers prayers using the principle of what one sows is what one reaps. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they had been sowing defeat, so he let them reap defeat by letting Elijah defeat them. Thus, all of the multitudes of those who pray for peace have been sowing war; therefore, God lets them reap war. Likewise, the few who pray for war have been sowing war; therefore, God lets them reap war.
    36. Lack of Humility. God does not answer the prayers of those who lack humility.  Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah was mightier; they lost because they lacked humility. (Based on his actions, Elijah displayed much more arrogance than humility.) Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers; consequently, he let Elijah win. Thus, of the multitude who pray for peace, none prayed with humility. Of the few who pray for war, at least one prays with humility. Therefore, we have war instead of peace.
    37. Lack of Trust. God does not answer the prayers of those who lack sufficient trust in him. Presumably, if the prayer is answered, the prayer trusts God, even if the prayer is an atheist who prays sarcastically. If it is not answered, the prayer does not trust God. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not trust Baal. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that out of the multitude of people praying for peace, none of them trust that God will deliver peace. Of the few who pray for war, at least one of them has enough trust that God will deliver war.  Therefore, we have war instead of peace. (Promises kept build trust; promises broken destroy trust.)
    38. Pleasing in God’s Sight. The prayer must ask for things that God finds pleasing. Thus, according to the Baal apologists, Baal’s priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because prayed for something that was not pleasing to Baal: namely, victory over Elijah. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that the multitude of people praying for peace are praying for something that is not pleasing in God’s sight: peace. The few who pray for war are praying for something that is pleasing in God’s sight: war.  Therefore, we have war instead of peace.

39. Pray as Though the Prayer Has Already Been Answer.  According to this excuse, one should pray as though God has already answered the prayer. If the prayer thanks God in advance for answering the prayer, God will grant the prayer's request. That is, in order for God to give the prayer his request, the prayer must thank God for answering the prayer before he begins to pray. Thus, according to Baal apologists, Baal's priests did not lose because Jehovah is mightier; they lost because they did not thank Baal for answering their prayers before they began praying. Therefore, Baal did not answer their prayers and allowed Elijah to win. Moreover, the reason that we have war instead of peace is that of the few who pray for war at least one thanks God for giving them war before praying. Of the multitude who pray for peace, none thank God for giving them peace before praying. 
    As shown above, the traditional explanation of Elijah’s victory over Baal’s priests may not be correct if the prayer apologists are correct. Prayer apologists need to find a better excuse for unanswered prayer. They need to find an excuse that the Baal apologists cannot possibly use to explain Elijah’s victory.
    Now let us examine Jesus’ promise in Matthew 7:7. According to this verse, God’s will it to ask so that He can give. All one has to do is merely ask in order to receive that for which one asks. If this verse means what it says, conditions necessary have prayers answered, i.e., the excuses, given above are irrelevant. Taking as Jesus spoke it, this verse contradicts the above excuses offered by the prayer apologists.  If one or more of the above conditions, excuses, must be met before a prayer is answered, then Matthew 7:7 is deceptive. In essence, by providing excuses for unanswered prayer, prayer apologists do not believe what Jesus said in Matthew 7:7; they are calling him a liar.
     When the prayers for peace are considered, one must wonder why we have more war than peace. Is it because God gives more weight to the few who pray for war than He gives to the multitude who pray for peace? Is it because, as some critics claim, Jehovah is a god of war who relishes in war? Parts of the Old Testament seem to suggest such. Is it because one or more of the above excuses are correct and, therefore, God refuses to answer prayers for peace?
    As for war, a typical retort is that sin is the cause of war. True. Yet this argument also rests on making sin more powerful than prayer. Sin is more powerful than God Himself. It is so powerful that it prevents God from keeping the promise that His Son made in Matthew 7:7.
    To mask unanswered prayer, many pray for intangibles that cannot be measured, such as comfort or guidance. An exception is the prosperity preacher. His prayers or at least those of his followers can be measured. As many of these prayers are not answered, the prosperity preacher qualifies prayer and praying away as meaninglessness. The favorite excuses of the prosperity preacher for unanswered prayer are doubt and lack of faith. Thus, he does not really believe what Jesus said in Matthew 7:7. If his followers do not become wealthy, the followers doubted or lacked sufficient faith.
    In essence, by providing excuses for unanswered prayer, prayer apologists are claiming that the Bible is written as a good shyster lawyer writes contracts and laws. Grandiose promises are simply and concisely stated upfront. Then the promise is qualified as meaningless with the fine print.
    Apparently, Jesus’ promise in Matthew 7:7 does not really mean what is so plainly stated. So, what does it really mean? Is the Bible written as a shyster lawyer writes a contract or law? Are the atheists right? Is it all coincidence? Was the little boy right when he said that faith was believing in what one knew was not true? Is it all caprice?

Endnote
1. If He is the only god, then the first of the commandments (“You shall have not other gods before me:”) is meaningless.

Copyright © 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

 More articles on religion.