Former President Donald Trump’s latest venture selling Bibles has sparked the fury of Christians.
Trump, who became the presumptive Republican nominee earlier in March, posted a video on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday urging his supporters to buy the “God Bless the USA Bible,” inspired by country singer Lee Greenwood’s patriotic ballad.
“Happy Holy Week! Let’s Make America Pray Again. As we lead into Good Friday and Easter, I encourage you to get a copy of the God Bless the USA Bible,” Trump wrote in the post, alongside a link to a website selling the book for $59.99. It came a day after Trump seemingly compared his legal plight to Jesus Christ’s persecution.
And it comes as he faces mounting legal bills while fighting four criminal indictments and a series of civil charges while running to reclaim the White House. On Monday, a New York appeals court agreed to hold off on collecting the more than $454 million he owes following a civil fraud judgment if he puts up $175 million within 10 days.
But the move has sparked the ire of Christians.
Christians isn’t a monolithic entity, the way the headline pretends. There’s liberal Christians and conservative Christians. Hell, there’s an LGBTQ church down the street from here with a trans pastor and a church trauma support group.
i.e. Not all Christians love what Trump has done and not all Christians hate that he’s selling bibles.
So called “liberal Christians” just enable the fascist ones.
ACAB.
How?
Because if it was all bad it would just be abandoned. It is like smoking tobacco vs consuming botulism. Each time you smoke a tiny bit of damage is done and a lot is pleasure is delivered every time you consume botulism you get very ill and risk dying. That’s why people aren’t consuming 20 capsules of botulism a day.
The liberal Christianity tried to offer a different route. A Christianity that doesn’t depend on bigotry. A Christianity not supported by the texts or thoughts of the faith for the past 20 centuries because they are doing that they are offering cover for the the branches aligned with Christianity. They are holding out the possibility of reform. If they don’t exist people would see Christianity for what it is, and not what in theory it could be.
The problem with your analogy is either the people of the religion need to view it as botulism or the vast majority of society needs to view those people as botulism.
The people of the religion are at best going to see it as tobacco. I hate tobacco; smoking isn’t pleasurable, it just makes me feel sick. But there are people who love it. You and I may see their religion as devoid of anything good, but to them it’s good. They are often born into it and want their religion with the negatives you and I see. It has nothing to do with liberal Christians.
And it is not liberal Christians that make it so we don’t reach the threshold of the vast majority of society not tolerating the bad Christians. The bad Christians are a sizeable enough part of society on their own to guarantee that. And as a society, we’re fairly geographically sorted. So even if they were only 5% of the population, they’d still often be surrounded by like-minded individuals and be able to wield political power. Plus, they’re still people. Even the most evil people generally have some redeeming qualities.
People forcing them all into one box enable the fascist ones. Anytime someone says “that’s fascism and not Christianity” they’re met with screeches of “nO tRuE sCoTsMaN!”
I can back up my arguments with their holy texts as well as the Greek thought most of it was stolen from. At its core it is a fascist faith. Beginning with Plato’s blueprint for a spiritual dictatorship ruled by mystics who don’t have to explain themselves, to Jesus declaring that his path was the only way, to the City of God telling us that torture in this life was better than hell and thus justified.
None of that explains how Christians who say “Fascism is bad” are enabling fascists.
Do you know that an enabler doesn’t have to be intentionally doing it?
Do you know for someone to be an enabler there should be some evidence/argument for it other than “you’re speaking against the thing I’m accusing you of enabling”?
I spelled it out. Quite clearly. Don’t waste my time.