Per 
(The words of Idleman’s article are bolded. The words of other sources are in italics.)
A “fact” is, “something that has actual existence,” or, “a piece of information presented as having objective reality,” (Merriam-Webster). None of the arguments in this article have anything to do with facts. They are either not supported by facts, or they are in direct opposition to facts. The only things used to form this article are beliefs, opinions, and misinformation. None of those things constitute facts.
Idleman begins the article like so:
“Like many, I’m perplexed by the divide in the Christian community over President Trump — but I’m not surprised. The media is fueling lies, and the world is listening. This was demonstrated in a worship song by Daniel Deitrich (talk about the wrong place to express political views). Deitrich’s song was written in response to the 81% of white evangelical Protestant voters who supported Donald Trump in 2016. Here are the lyrics: They started putting kids in cages. Ripping mothers from their babies. And I looked to you to speak on their behalf.”
From the start, Idleman claims the media is fueling lies. That statement is true; no media outlet is ever completely honest, and some are far less honest than others. However, what Idleman really means is that the whole media is fueling lies directed at Donald Trump. Specifically, he is insinuating that the inhumane situation at the border only exists in the misinformation of liberal news outlets. More on that issue later, but one can already tell that Idleman’s view of the media is selective and that he only believes the media’s rampant misinformation is directed at Donald Trump. Fox News could never tell a lie, right?
Idleman continues:
“This, of course, is in response to what is “perceived” as happening at the border. I assume that Mr. Deitrich is sincere and his heart truly wants to help people, but we must get our facts from reputable sources or first-hand experience. God willing, I’m touring the border with other California pastors very soon and hope to gain that perspective personally (look for that op-ed in mid-February).”
It is now explicitly clear that Idleman believes the situation at the border is not actually inhumane, and that anyone who says it is is not relying on reputable sources. The problem is, Idleman is insisting we believe his opinion of what is happening at the border (which lacks verification through the “first-hand experience” he mandates as a source of authenticity), an opinion which is in opposition to people who have actually had first-hand experience of migrant detention facilities (or, as some would call them, concentration camps).
And these observations were not from biased leftist activists and whatnot. They come from physicians, attorneys, and children’s right advocates, among other “reputable” sources, as Idleman demands.
To quote Intelligencer:
“The third week in June began with a broad political discussion on whether Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s designation of migrant detention centers as ‘concentration camps’ was the correct nomenclature for holding rooms in which 41 detainees live in a cell built for eight. It ended with heinous reports of the conditions at said camps, where undocumented migrant children are being held away from their families in conditions ‘worse than jail,’ according to physician Dolly Lucio Sevier, who wrote up a medical declaration obtained by ABC News after visiting Border Patrol holding facilities along the border in Texas. Here’s everything we’ve learned about conditions in the detention camps in recent weeks.
“Sevier, a private-practice physician in the Rio Grande Valley, was granted access to a facility in McAllen, Texas in mid-June, after attorneys discovered a flu outbreak that sent five infants to a neonatal intensive-care unit. At the detention center — the largest such Border Patrol facility in the country — Sevier examined 39 children under the age of 18 facing conditions including ‘extreme cold temperatures, lights on 24 hours a day, no adequate access to medical care, basic sanitation, water, or adequate food.’ All 39 exhibited signs of trauma.
“Sevier told ABC News that the teenagers she observed were not able to wash their hands while in custody, which she called ‘tantamount to intentionally causing the spread of disease.’ Teen mothers in custody told her they were not able to clean their children’s bottles: ‘To deny parents the ability to wash their infant’s bottles is unconscionable and could be considered intentional mental and emotional abuse,’ Sevier wrote. In summary, she determined that ‘the conditions within which they are held could be compared to torture facilities.’
“In mid-June, attorney and children’s-rights advocate Warren Binford gained access to a Clint, Texas Border Patrol facility where 351 migrant children were detained; over 100 were under 13, and the youngest was just over 4 months. Binford reported that many of the kids had been held for three weeks or longer, and that guards had created a ‘child boss’ who was rationed extra food in an attempt to control the other children. Binford described the Clint facility’s treatment of a lice outbreak to The New Yorker:
‘So, on Wednesday, we received reports from children of a lice outbreak in one of the cells where there were about twenty-five children, and what they told us is that six of the children were found to have lice. And so they were given a lice shampoo, and the other children were given two combs and told to share those two combs, two lice combs, and brush their hair with the same combs, which is something you never do with a lice outbreak. And then what happened was one of the combs was lost, and Border Patrol agents got so mad that they took away the children’s blankets and mats. They weren’t allowed to sleep on the beds, and they had to sleep on the floor on Wednesday night as punishment for losing the comb. So you had a whole cell full of kids who had beds and mats at one point, not for everybody but for most of them, who were forced to sleep on the cement.’”
The Inhumane Conditions at Migrant Detention Camps
I imagine Idleman would be horrified by these accounts, but I also imagine he will never read them because he is so preoccupied with defending his version of the “truth” and combating “fake news” and “misinformation”.
Idleman continues:
“Some say, ‘How can you follow Jesus and Donald Trump?’ We are not following a man, we are shaping a movement. A better question to be asking, though, is What direction is the country heading? If a leader lacks Christian character but is pointing the nation back to God, is that a bad thing? If they are minimizing murdering babies and maximizing godly values, is that a bad thing? If they are being a terror to terrorists and making America secure, is that a bad thing? If they are honoring hard work and minimizing free handouts, is that a bad thing? God doesn’t judge a nation based on the character of one man; He judges it based on the spiritual health of her people. Never forget that.”
This is the beginning of the part which is not in opposition to facts, per se, but is unsupported by facts and can not be supported by facts. Idleman is dealing with religious beliefs, beliefs that are inherently without objective proof and empirical evidence. Therefore, they are inherently without facts.
I cannot “prove” Idleman’s view of his deity wrong (not that he can prove it right; all of his positions are based on feelings and personal opinion, and there is no demonstrable evidence that he can present which suggests this deity exists and has the characteristics that he says it does). However, I can point out the contradictions inherent to his theology and religious literature when it comes to his pro-life stance and belief in “minimizing free handouts”.
The pro-life stance is obviously supported by the majority of the modern-day church. Idleman suggests that he uses religion to condemn abortion, a method that is very common, but fundamentally subjective. I admit that I have more respect for the likes of Ben Shapiro, whose argument against abortion is without religion. But, as Idleman forms his argument purely from religion, his argument can be destroyed purely by religion.
If one takes into account the actual teachings of Judeochrisitan scripture (something that Christians are not adept at) they will be able to see that Jehovah is not at all pro-life. If you pay attention to scripture, particularly the Old Testament, you will find that he is not pro-choice, either. The God of the Bible is pro-death. He mandates abortion under numerous circumstances.
For instance, take Numbers 5:11-31. The passage describes a purity test imposed on wives accused of adultery, which involves the ingestion of a poison which will cause a miscarriage is the woman is guilty. Of course, no such test could determine innocence or guilt, meaning the rules imposed by Jehovah are oftentimes no better than the methods used to “identify” so-called witches during Salem’s witch trials. Of course, this test is different in that it targets unborn “people”.
Or, take Exodus 21:22-25 into consideration. The passage describes the punishment for injuring a pregnant woman and causing her to give birth prematurely: paying a fine to the woman’s husband. This means that harming an unborn child is treated similarly to the way harming property should be treated; i.e. it is not treated as murder or assault.
For a more extreme example, consider Hosea 13:16. “The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” Not exactly the most pro-life statement. But, what do you expect? “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks,” afterall (Psalm 137:9).
Many are quick to blame such verses on the “old covenant” or “ceremonial law”, as if an system of excuses based on covenants and contradictory scripture is enough to justify the clear changes plaguing a deity that is supposedly changeless (not to mention the evil, inhumane, and primitive elements of this deity’s supposed word).
However, even if you agree with such individuals, and believe that God really did change his mind, and that both the New and Old testaments are God’s word despite their inconsistent stances, you will soon find that even the New Testament does not condemn abortion. Not once. There is no verse in the New testament, not from the likes of James, Paul, or any other author, that condemns abortion.
Now, I will discuss Idleman’s stance for “minimizing free handouts”. At this point it becomes even clearer that Idleman’s conservative, GOP colors are showing, as was expected. It is not quite as clear that this position is rooted in religion, but assuming it at least partially is, it also falls apart under scripture.
It is clear when reading the New Testament that Jesus Christ is represented as a leftist in many ways. This also applies to Paul and the rest of the early church. Matthew 22:17-22 is a famous example of Christ’s pro-tax attitude. So much for the Christian conservatives who blame the fall of the Roman Empire on excessive taxation.
There is also Matthew 19:21-24, which describes Christ’s command for a rich man to give all his possessions to the poor, followed by Christ’s famous “eye-of-the-needle” speech. If that does not constitute a calling for a free handout, I am not sure what does.
Additionally, Romans 13:1 states, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Acts 2:44-45 is also notable for describing communist behavior among the early church.
To conclude this response to Idleman’s statement, Paul believes you are to obey the government as if it has been appointed by God himself and Jesus makes Bernie Sanders look like Ronald Reagan (or Gary Johnson, actually).
In light of Idleman’s beliefs being incompatible with his Bible, Idleman’s Bible being inconsistent with itself, and the countless denominations, churches, and doctrines that have sprung up from the same reading material, one thing is clear. Idleman’s beliefs, like the beliefs of virtually all other religious people, are not based on God or the bible. He is just believing what he thinks is right. Then, he passes it off as divine in a way that makes Trump look like a good leader. Facts are not involved.
Back to Idleman:
“I regularly say that we Christians love refugees and immigrants and are eager to help with food, lodging, and jobs. But at the national level, the president is to put the safety and provision of the American people first. When an airplane loses cabin pressure, parents put on their oxygen masks first to better assist their child. This isn’t selfishness; it’s wisdom. Opening the borders parallels cabin pressure falling and a limited supply of masks. Our law enforcement officers could not sustain the load, nor could our nation. Let’s streamline the process and welcome God-fearing immigrants and have them contribute to society so everyone benefits. The truth is, kids are not being put in cages and ripped from their mothers, as the song accuses.”
If one wants actual knowledge of how immigration affects the economy, I suggest looking past the assumptions this man makes without any supporting data. I would suggest listening to people who do actual research into how immigrants affect the economy
To quote PBS:
“While Trump’s rhetoric has lately focused on unauthorized immigrants, his policies have targeted legal immigration as well. Under his administration, refugee admissions in 2017 dropped to their lowest since at least 2002. Trump signed an executive order tightening restrictions on HB1 visas for skilled immigrants. He has pushed for a merit-based immigration system, and his administration has proposed cutting public benefits to legal immigrants.
Trump’s characterization of immigrants, as people who drain public resources, however, is not backed by the data. Unauthorized immigrants aren’t usually eligible for federal benefits, for instance, and multiple studies have found that immigrants help the economy grow.”
That is merely an introduction, I recommend reading the whole article: 4 myths about how immigrants affect the U.S. economy
There is also an article by The Marshall Project that dispels the notion that unauthorized immigration increases crime:
“A lot of research has shown that there’s no causal connection between immigration and crime in the United States. But after one such study was reported on jointly by The Marshall Project and The Upshot last year, readers had one major complaint: Many argued it was unauthorized immigrants who increase crime, not immigrants over all.
An analysis derived from new data is now able to help address this question, suggesting that growth in illegal immigration does not lead to higher local crime rates.”
Is There a Connection Between Undocumented Immigrants and Crime?
That is what we call facts. The meaningless analogies and assumptions of a pro-Trump right-winger who’s arguments are based solely on faith and unsupported claims are not facts.
Moving along:
“The majority of news outlets spin everything (yes, everything) to put President Trump in a bad light. Their hatred for him trumps the truth. Their agenda is simple and clear: remove him from office at any cost! And I hope you realize this: they are really coming after you, me, and our Christian values.”
This is not facts, either. This is conspiracy.
“The push toward open borders is more about votes than truly helping people. Open borders would be like me telling my kids to leave their windows open in case a stranger needs a warm night’s sleep. That would be severe parental neglect because many harmful things could also enter through those open windows. Open borders would parallel that type of irresponsibility. Additionally, our financial system cannot support people flooding in who need assistance. How is that using wisdom? It’s not a matter of if this type of financial irresponsibility causes damage but when and how much. Our California representatives in Sacramento need to wake up to this fact—and wake up quickly. There is a better way, but our leaders must repent and seek God for wisdom.”
Again, his analogy is inappropriate and his economic claims are easily refuted.
“Most critics don’t care what the facts are. Their hatred for the president overshadows their desperate need for humility. Let this sink in: innocent children are being protected, godly counsel is surrounding President Trump, terror is being restrained, good judges are being selected, socialism is being resisted, families are being encouraged via employment (black employment is at an all-time high), prayer is being brought back in schools, God’s wisdom is being sought, and on and on it goes. So again, we are not following a man, we are revitalizing a movement — a movement back to God. I’m more concerned with our nation’s national character than I am with the president's personal character.”
Idleman is a perfect example of not caring for the facts and pushing an opinion against any evidence to the contrary. I know few Trump critics whose claims are quite as egregious as Idleman’s. Now to dissect some of Idleman’s praises:
“Innocent children are being protected…”
Except for the ones being abused and neglected that you denied the existence of because of “fake news”. Also, your God does not care about the fetuses that are being protected,. Well, not that he would have a problem with killing the living children, to.
“Godly counsel is surrounding President Trump…”
Religious counsel is surrounding Trump. You can not say whether or not they are godly any more than I can. The Bible itself does not deny that everyone who appears to be a Chrisitan is not necessarily a Chrisitian. History itself does not deny that the actions of the religious can often be far less moral than those of the nonreligious.
“Terror is being restrained…”
If Idleman is referring to the excessive travel bans imposed on Muslim countries, he should be informed that right-wing terrorist have been responsible for more deaths in the U.S. than Islamic ones: After El Paso, right-wing terrorists have killed more people on US soil than jihadis have.
Granted, I appreciate Trump’s attacks directed specifically at Isis, so I will give him that.
“Good judges are being selected…”
I imagine Idleman’s standard for judges is plagued by just as much subjectivity and misinformation as this article is.
“Socialism is being resisted…”
I do not intend to turn this into a support of Socialism, but I will say this: the form of Capitalism proposed by the likes of FDR and Theodore Roosevelt is far more effective than that proposed by Trump and Reagan, in my opinion. I will say as I did earlier that the philosophies of Jesus and Paul are quite close to socialism, if not communism. Economic system is not the main focus of this response, however, so I will leave that alone.
“Families are being encouraged via employment (black employment is at an all-time high)…”
Trump’s influence on the economy, especially when compared to Obama, is not black and white. An interesting source that expresses both positive and negative things about the economy under Trump is this: The Trump economy vs. the Obama economy in 15 charts - The
“Prayer is being brought back in schools…”
I am not sure why Idleman thinks prayer was removed from schools. Students can pray both to themselves and out loud. Teachers have even prayed at events, which I have witnessed personally. The school is simply not allowed to accommodate or respect a religion above another. Under the Constitution, Christian prayer supported by the school is just as bad as Islamic prayer supported by the school. Religion is a freedom, and we should keep it that way, especially if you would have a problem with your children being part of a prayer that involves getting on the floor and making sure you are facing Mecca.
“God’s wisdom is being sought…”
I obviously do not take Idleman’s claims regarding religion, especially religion relating to Trump’s presidency, seriously. But, he should be informed that secularism is still rising under Trump’s presidency: The Number of Americans with No Religious Affiliation Is Rising
“An analogy that I often use will bring this point home. The head of a neighborhood watch program, who took the late-night watches, had previously had an affair. He was occasionally gruff and impulsive, and sometimes his words were crass and offensive, but he watched over the neighborhood diligently each night. Each week he invited church leaders into his home to pray for him and his family and to seek their advice. He often stood against others on the committee who wanted to enact policies harmful to the neighborhood and to the children, such as advocating an open-door policy where residents were required to allow anyone into their homes at all hours of the day for handouts.
Is this not the kind of person you would want leading your neighborhood watch? Does his past or his demeanor matter more than the results he is accomplishing? If you are intellectually honest, the answer is not difficult. In the same way, the answer is simple for America. Again, we are not voting for people based on how godly they are; we are voting for the future direction of America: the right to life, the elevation of God’s Word back to its proper place, the appointment of conservative judges, securing America and her borders, creating jobs, and improving the quality of life for all Americans.”
If one is intellectually honest, they will quickly see that all of Idleman’s claims are either meaningless from the start or they fall apart under any careful observation and critique. Idleman’s very goals and values are incompatible with the Bible he claims to follow, not to mention the evidence present in reality.
“As a personal observation, I have noticed that those who oppose president Trump typically embrace liberal theology. It makes one wonder what is truly leading them: worldly mandates or biblical principles.”
Here is the punchline of the whole joke. A man who, like most Christians, ignores large portions of the bible is complaining about others ignoring biblical principles. His “truth” is no more credible than a person with liberal theology; they are both subjective and both in opposition to scripture in the same way that scripture is in opposition to itself.
