Trump and the Bishop

On Christian compassion (and hypocrisy) and a little bit of the Streisand Effect for good measure.

As part of the general festivities surrounding the inauguration, there was a prayer service at the National Cathedral. The RNS has a write-up: In sermon to Trump, Bishop Budde pleads for immigrants, transgender rights.

About halfway through the service, Trump, seated in the front row, heard a sermon that functioned as one of the first public criticisms of his second administration. After beginning her homily by exploring the difficulty of forging a “kind of unity that fosters community across diversity and division, a unity that serves the common good,” the Rt. Rev. Mariann Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington, singled out three foundational principles for the task: honoring the inherent dignity of every human being, honesty and humility.

Near the end of her sermon, Budde directed her remarks to Trump himself, noting the declaration in his inaugural address that he believes he was “saved by God” from an assassination attempt last year.

She then expressed concern for LGBTQ people who may feel targeted by his administration: On Monday evening, Trump signed a blitz of executive orders, including one that condemned “gender ideology” and declared, “it is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.”

[…]

Budde also made a plea for immigrants, a group under fire from Trump’s incoming administration, saying they include people who “pick our crops” and “work the night shift in hospitals,” among other vital roles.

I recommend watching the full clip:

These statements did not go over well with Trump and his allies.

Trump, for example, posted the following:

There is a lot here. First, it is awfully hard to listen to the delivery of Bishop Budde and call it “nasty.” But, of course, that is just how Trump hears any criticism sent his way.

I would note, too, that he continually lies about the threat posed by immigrants and about the notion that other countries are emptying out their jails and mental institutions to send those folks to the US.

I will come to her politics and her message below.

But first, some other responses:

Representative Mike Collins (R-GA ) calls for her deportation–as one does when an American citizen exercises her First Amendment rights. (I wonder why a lot of people view the contemporary Republican Party as pro-authoritarian?).

BTW, it is quite hilarious for him to have shared her words, even as he condemned them.

Trump’s Press Secretary:

And I would especially note Speaker Johnson’s tweet, especially given his very public Christianity.

So, and to run the risk of disapproval from the readership of the site, I can see why Republicans would see this as a partisan attack on their guy. Budde clearly has left-leaning political views (at least in the context of US politics) and publically criticized Trump after his Bible-holding photo-op in LaFayeyette Square. I can even see an argument that the expectation of these kinds of events would be for them to be vaguely nonpartisan (although since, by definition, the events are the celebration of a partisan victory, it is hard for them to be nonpartisan or even bipartisan in their entirety). It is utterly silly, I would note, to think of these types of things as nonpolitical events, as they are, indeed, inherently political. I would hasten to add that Trump himself did nothing to make his inauguration into a unifying event (just look at his speech, as simply one example among many).*

Having said all of that, I find all of the protesting hollow, if not mostly absurd.

First, it is amusing, in a Streisand Effect kind of way, the amount of attention being brought to the Bishop’s words by Trump and his allies.

Second, and more importantly, the notion that what she said was untrue or that her words constitute some uniquely leftist views is simply wrong.

I challenge anyone to tell me where the lies are.

In terms of how “radical” she was (as both Trump and Johnson assert), she sounds a lot like Jesus of Nazareth.

The content of her admonitions is all very much rooted in basic Christian theology. Further, it is hardly a shock to anyone who has ever attended a religious service for the officiant to admonish the audience to behave in particular ways that comport with their views of their religion. Yes, singling out a specific member of the audience may be unusual, but being the President of the United States is an unusual position, and carries a lot of power and responsibility.

But let’s focus on the message.

Mike Johnson, who often carries his Christianity on his sleeve, surely knows that Jesus said that the second greatest commandment is “love your neighbor as yourself” and that the whole story, for example, of the Good Samaritan is that everyone, especially those in need, is our neighbor.** It is especially galling, I have to say, for people like Johnson, who has been very overt in his desire to impose his specific views of Christianity on the rest of us, to call obviously Christian notions “radical” in a derogatory sense. And please spare us all the notion that he and his fellow travelers use their religious views to unify us all.

The following are all quotations from the book that we are constantly told is inerrant and worthy of being used as a guide for public policy:

You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. Deuteronomy 10:19 

The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:34 

‘Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.’ Then all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Deuteronomy 27:19

Thus says the Lord of hosts: Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another; do not oppress the widow, the orphan, the alien, or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another. Zechariah 7:9-10

That’s just a sample from the Old Testament.*** This is not a comprehensive list.

At a bare minimum, there is a lot more textual support for treating immigrants with kindness, mercy, and compassion than there is for doing the opposite. There is absolutely more support for such compassion than there is for getting upset about Drag Queen Story Hour, for example.

I am mostly focusing here on immigrants, but I will note that there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus that supports cruelty to the LGBTQ+ community. I would note that Paul’s admonitions that mention homosexuality also mention adultery. And we aren’t getting upset about that now, are we?

Having a pastor ask the President of the United States to show some level of compassion to groups of people who are fearful and persecuted should not be seen as “radical” but I guess that is ground that the GOP wants to stake out.

Along those lines let me close with the following.

“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.–Known radical leftist Karl Marx (oops), Jesus of Nazareth.

Don’t like that one? How about this one?

“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”–Known radical leftist, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (aka Lenin). Oops again! It was Jesus of Nazareth.

Note that I am not saying that there should therefore be no immigration laws. But I am saying, as directly as I can, it isn’t radical leftism to assert that we should treat other people with mercy and compassion (or, at least, it shouldn’t be).

Moreover, while we can have debates about policy, I find it grotesque for people who are very public about their supposed religious faith to choose to defend Trump over words and views that comport pretty closely with the religious figure they claim to follow above all else.

And to be clear, I am not at all asserting that just because it is in the Christian Bible, it is somehow magically perfect. I am just asking for consistency (or for people like Johnson, Trump,**** et al., to stop acting like God is exclusively on their side and that this justifies what they want to do). I have zero doubt that Mike Johnson would state if asked, that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Well, that position means taking it all seriously. And as far as I can tell, he doesn’t.

Indeed, a reminder of something Johnson said about himself not long after he became Speaker:

“I am a Bible-believing Christian,” Johnson said. “Someone asked me today in the media, they said, ‘It’s curious, people are curious: What does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun?’ I said, ‘Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview.'”

His response to Budde’s words suggests that maybe he needs to do some reading himself.


*A lot of the problem here is that the president is both head of state and head of government. The head of state role is supposed to be inclusive and national in orientation while the head of government role is partisan and political in that sense of the term. These roles don’t mix well, to be honest, and Trump is especially bad at anything that is unifying. Most inauguration speeches type to cleave more to the head of state role than the head of government role. Trump’s speech this time, however, was about himself and sounded more like a bad SOTU than an inauguration speech.

**To be clear: I am quoting Christian scripture not as some kind of proof-text slam dunk, but rather to illustrate what the religion that these people all loudly profess says about these topics.

***I know some Jewish friends who might find that usage offensive. I will note that this entire conversation is based on the POV of the Christians who allegedly find Budde’s comments offensive.

****Again: Trump claimed in his inaugural address that God saved him so he could be president again. I would say that opened the door for this conversation.


And, because I can’t get it out of my head, a humorous digression:

FILED UNDER: *FEATURED, Religion, US Politics, , , , , , , , , ,
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a retired Professor of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. Jay L Gischer says:

    Well, the more I know, the more I think that Jesus was a radical. I recall thinking this as a college student, observing all the adults in power invoking religious authority while not appearing to understand it at all. This was a primary experience of young people in the 60s and 70s. We were taught one thing, and then observed quite another thing happening out in the world by people who denied/weren’t aware that there was any contradiction at all.

    If she protested Trump in his first term, one wonders why they put her on stage with this particular exercise.

    5
  2. Kathy says:

    “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

    ― Mahatma Gandhi

    17
  3. Not the IT Dept. says:

    Many American political Christians like Johnson don’t ever actually read the Bible, any version. They either dimly remember the Kiddy Bible they sort of read in Sunday School or they sit through sermons that focus on the stories (prodigal son, wedding at Cana water into wine, etc.) and leave out a lot of the narrative. If you sit down and read the gospels straight through, the Jesus that emerges is a real individual and he’s pretty clear about a lot of things the Bible Bangers would hate. When I was in public school, we had a teacher who would start Social Studies class (where we discussed religion) by reading an excerpt from the Bible and challenge us: Old or New Testament? Jesus or John the Baptist or Joshua or whoever? Context? At least once every couple of month he’s swap in an excerpt from another religion’s holy book without telling us. I can’t imagine the uproar it would cause if he were still teaching today.

    6
  4. charontwo says:

    Maybe a bit OT, but from what I remember watching the video Trump can not sit still, constantly moving, fidgeting, reading stuff etc. This is not a well person.

    4
  5. James Joyner says:

    So, on the main, I don’t think it appropriate to use these events to advance political messages. Not only is that not the spirit of them, it’s simply rude to call out a guest—let alone the guest of honor—in such a setting. But it’s mighty hard to apply that to Trump, given how routinely he violates the same norms, such in both of his inaugural addresses.

    10
  6. Joe says:

    They came to her turf and knew who she was and could easily anticipated what she said. This is a tempest of Trump’s own making. He can ignore her if he wants, but this tempest is silliness at best and the worst kind of performative as Dr. Taylor describes at worst.

    I opened my FB page last night and found one of my local Trumpy acquaintance loudly denouncing the bishop and providing a phone number so everybody, like she did, can call the diocese, give them a piece of her mind and call for the Bishop to be fired. Her own comments section was littered with both pro-bishop and con-bishop comments. OMG, this is the next 4 years of Trump setting everyone’s hair on fire.

    6
  7. Jen says:

    Meh. I think I’d like to borrow Melania’s “I don’t care do you” jacket.

    Asking Republican Christians to actually follow the teachings of Christ sounds like a non-starter.

    ETA: how is this any different than the priest who publicly refused to offer communion to Biden based on his views on abortion?

    10
  8. reid says:

    They’re nearly all Republicans (or Trumplicans) before anything else, including Christians, and that means you have to say and do some difficult things in support of the Party.

    2
  9. Kingdaddy says:

    @James Joyner: Mercy and compassion are not partisan political messages. Unless, of course, one party is hell-bent on running far, far away from them.

    17
  10. Mister Bluster says:
  11. @James Joyner: I understand this position, to a point. But it is also very telling that it is considered rude to tell Trump it might be nice to be merciful and compassionate.

    It isn’t like she admonished him about his adultery and whatnot.

    Moreover: it is a telling thing for him and his supporters to be thin-skinned about.

    19
  12. reid says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Exactly, and Trump brings it on himself by being such an extremely un-Christian person.

    5
  13. @James Joyner:

    use these events to advance political messages.

    I will go a step further and state that I think that the way Trump himself behaves makes it impossible for any interaction with him to be apolitical in a way that I don’t think has been true with previous presidents. To treat him normally (whatever that even means these days) is a political act.

    And I would add that it is the job of someone like Budde to speak truth, and to avoid doing so is a choice just as much as doing so.

    10
  14. Gustopher says:

    Bishop to King’s Balls.

    7
  15. Scott F. says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    To treat him normally (whatever that even means these days) is a political act.

    From the very first legal actions taken against him in office, Trump and his GOP enablers have claimed weaponization of the law as defensive cover for legitimately criminal behavior from this crooked man. Now, Trump Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claims weaponization of the pulpit as defensive cover for Trump’s immoral behavior and objectives.

    How weak must one be if such typically benign things as justice and morality can be so easily used to hurt you? It would be laughable if the premise weren’t so easily accepted by the GOP base.

    11
  16. James Joyner says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    the way Trump himself behaves makes it impossible for any interaction with him to be apolitical in a way that I don’t think has been true with previous presidents.

    Concur. I’ll write a longish post on this at some point.

    4
  17. SC_Birdflyte says:

    I suspect that folks in the incoming administration wanted to have the service in the Cathedral Church of Saints Peter and Paul (to give it its proper name) to draw as big a crowd as possible. But when you accept the hospitality of someone else, don’t be surprised if your host (Bishop Budde) speaks frankly to you. Johnson and others of his ilk take the Bible literally but not seriously.

    6
  18. Matt Bernius says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    And I would add that it is the job of someone like Budde to speak truth, and to avoid doing so is a choice just as much as doing so.

    And that history of speaking truth to power is literally the foundation of the Christian faith–the Pharisees wielded both spiritual and political power.

    14
  19. Joe says:

    @James Joyner and Steven L. Taylor:

    Concur.

    Good. I hate it when mom and dad fight.

    @SC_Birdflyte: If these people wanted a laying on of hands, they should have taken Trump to a Pentacostal congregation. They took Trump to Budde’s Episcopal Cathedral, they get what I expect is a standard Budde admonition. If you can’t take the heat don’t stick your head in the oven.

    9
  20. Andy says:

    It’s almost like not all Christians are the same or interpret the meaning, requirements, and relative priority of the faith’s tenets in identical ways; who knew?

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    I understand this position, to a point. But it is also very telling that it is considered rude to tell Trump it might be nice to be merciful and compassionate.

    and

    And I would add that it is the job of someone like Budde to speak truth, and to avoid doing so is a choice just as much as doing so.

    Sure, but she chose to single out two particular groups in the mercy message, which wasn’t an accident. She knew what she was doing. I’m not bothered by it at all, and I have no problem with religious or other leaders calling on or criticizing the powerful, but it’s hard to deny that she crafted the message about mercy in a very particular way for and to Trump, which implicated widely-held political views.

    Let’s say that Biden or Harris had won and she had largely the same message, but the two groups she mentioned were instead Palestinians and Yemeni civilians. Or all the soldiers and civilians, Russian and Ukrainian, dying and suffering in that war. What if she had called on Biden/Harris to have mercy and think of the unborn children?

    In that case, would everyone be taking the same positions they are now, or would we see a 180?

    A lot of this reminds me of the various Popes over the years who have done similar things—providing what are both political and religious messages wrapped in a single package. In those cases, it’s always predictable who will be cheering and who will be outraged, and this is no different.

    3
  21. Roger says:

    @reid:

    Trump brings it on himself by being such an extremely un-Christian person.

    I beg to differ.

    I was raised in the Baptist church. My grandfather was a Baptist preacher. Two uncles were Baptist preachers. My father was a Baptist preacher who met my mother at the Baptist seminary where they both were studying. I (in the language of my youth) committed my life to Christ and considered myself a born-again Christian. I spent most of my life thinking I had a pretty good handle on what evangelical Christians believe and value.

    I was wrong.

    Because of how very wrong I was about what’s important to American evangelical Christians I no longer call myself a Christian, though I remain very impressed with the rabbi from Nazareth and try in my own imperfect way to follow his moral teachings. It saddens me to say that Trump is not an un-Christian person. To the contrary, he fits right in with the church as it currently exists. He’s extremely un-Christlike, but that has very little to do with being a Christian these days.

    9
  22. wr says:

    @Andy: “Let’s say that Biden or Harris had won and she had largely the same message, but the two groups she mentioned were instead Palestinians and Yemeni civilians. Or all the soldiers and civilians, Russian and Ukrainian, dying and suffering in that war. What if she had called on Biden/Harris to have mercy and think of the unborn children?”

    I would still think it was an appropriate thing for her to say and the proper place to say it.

    That’s because I’m not a Republican.

    And not everything is “both sides do it.”

    17
  23. gVOR10 says:

    @charontwo:

    Trump can not sit still, constantly moving, fidgeting, reading stuff etc. This is not a well person.

    What little I remember from my long ago Lutheran Confirmation classes said something about love thy neighbor and put the most charitable interpretation on what he does. Charitably, Trump’s just not comfortable with being in church. Not something he has any experience with. Nor with sitting quietly while others talk. On the other hand, Trump’s not my neighbor.

    As to Johnson, first, it’s often struck me that Evangelicals are sorta Jewish. Aside from shouting “JAYsus” at every opportunity, they seem to be more into the vengeful God, eye for an eye, strict rules, Old Testament stuff than anything in the New Testament. Except Revelations. Johnson knows that hippy stuff about, “as ye have done it unto the least of these” only applies within the tribe. Second, he’s doing the standard GOP version of unity, concessions and compromise must come entirely from the other side.

    1
  24. @Andy:

    It’s almost like not all Christians are the same or interpret the meaning, requirements, and relative priority of the faith’s tenets in identical ways; who knew?

    This is, of course, true. But I would still rather stridently argue that it rather hard to ignore what Jesus himself is purported to have said, especially if one is a hardcore Evangelical.

    She knew what she was doing.

    Of course she did.

    Let’s say that Biden or Harris had won and she had largely the same message, but the two groups she mentioned were instead Palestinians and Yemeni civilians. Or all the soldiers and civilians, Russian and Ukrainian, dying and suffering in that war. What if she had called on Biden/Harris to have mercy and think of the unborn children?

    This would not upset me in the least.

    If she had, do you think a President Harris would have responded as Trump did? That’s really more the point, is it not?

    A lot of this reminds me of the various Popes over the years who have done similar things—providing what are both political and religious messages wrapped in a single package. In those cases, it’s always predictable who will be cheering and who will be outraged, and this is no different.

    I think you are rather eliding what she said v. the responses of Trump, et al. (and the ferocity of the objections. You know, like saying she should be deported).

    12
  25. reid says:

    @wr: And you can be sure Biden/Harris and Democrats would not respond in such a disgusting manner.

    It’s a free country (checking… yes, but act now!), but a nuanced argument in Trump’s defense seems so odd these days.

    1
  26. Connor says:

    @Andy:

    I think Andy nails this. She, and anyone else, has the right to their views. She chose a poor venue, with intent. She diminished herself.

    I wonder if her moral compass, or commenters here, would apply to JFK or Bill Clinton or Joe Biden. No need to answer. I know.

    1
  27. DK says:

    @Andy:

    In those cases, it’s always predictable who will be cheering and who will be outraged, and this is no different.

    It’s similary predictable who will default to the intellectual laziness of reflexive bothsidesism.

    Who was the last Democratic president to demand an apology from the Pope? Catholic bishops have long been vocally critical of Biden and other Democrats over abortion policy. Did Biden demand apologies? Did he call for these bishops or for pro-Trump evangelical church leaders to be deported? Did Harris?

    Oh.

    14
  28. DK says:

    @Connor: “Ivanka’s got the best body. I’ve often said that if Ivanka weren’t my daughter I’d be dating her.” — Trump, lusting after his child

    “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” – Trump, praising his dear friend Jeff Epstein

    Imagine Trumpers still pretending they know what a moral compass is. No wonder Trump wanted Matt Gaetz as his attorney general. Pedophiles of a feather flock together.

    11
  29. Jen says:

    What if she had called on Biden/Harris to have mercy and think of the unborn children?

    In that case, would everyone be taking the same positions they are now, or would we see a 180?

    Well, I literally mentioned the priest who decided to not give Biden communion and made a big show of it. The difference is that Biden didn’t take to the second-rate social media platform he owns and then whine/screech/complain about how VERY VERY MEAN people are to him.

    Trump is devoid of class, grace, and pretty much any other characteristic we used to demand of a leader.

    I find it exceedingly tiresome that people are still trying to “bothsides” this.

    17
  30. Gustopher says:

    @Andy:

    It’s almost like not all Christians are the same or interpret the meaning, requirements, and relative priority of the faith’s tenets in identical ways; who knew?

    The Trump team could have chosen to have this even at Big Bob’s Casino and Prosperity Gospel Mega-Church, but they didn’t. It might have violated a norm, but what’s a norm worth? The paper it’s written on?

    Most Christian faiths pay at least lip service to the teachings of Christ, but they could have shopped around and found one that would have amplified their message with a fire and brimstone sermon about Groomers and Wetbacks and how Jesus said “the poor will always be with us — so there’s no point in trying to help them.”

    I think it was very respectful of the Bishop to not mention Mathew 19:24 and hand Trump the reigns to a camel and a sewing needle.

    (Most presentations are better if they involve a live camel shuffling about)

    7
  31. mattbernius says:

    @Connor:

    She, and anyone else, has the right to their views. She chose a poor venue, with intent.

    To my point from before, choosing “poor venues” (at least from the perspective of those in power) to speak truth to power is a Christian tradition that literally goes back to, and is the foundation of, the Gospels.

    Christ literally calls that out in his teachings and paid the price for choosing “poor” venues to speak his truth.

    10
  32. charontwo says:

    @gVOR10:

    As to Johnson, first, it’s often struck me that Evangelicals are sorta Jewish. Aside from shouting “JAYsus” at every opportunity, they seem to be more into the vengeful God, eye for an eye, strict rules, Old Testament stuff than anything in the New Testament.

    How familiar are you with actual Jews? That reads as a grotesque Christian stereotype.

    the vengeful God

    Another grotesque stereotype, from people adhering to a religion with a mind-reading God who condemns people to everlasting torment for the thought crime of lacking proper beliefs.

    (That “vengeful” OT God does not give a shit about beliefs, judges purely on actual actions and actual results of actions. No Hell in Judaism either).

    3
  33. Stormy Dragon says:

    I wonder if we can expect a late night truth.social rant demanding to know why no one will rid him of this turbulent priest

    2
  34. Jen says:

    @Stormy Dragon: I think that the Truth social rant excerpted in the original post qualifies, don’t you?

    2
  35. Andy says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    I think you are rather eliding what she said v. the responses of Trump, et al. (and the ferocity of the objections. You know, like saying she should be deported).

    This is why I sometimes feel obligated to write extremely long comments with a lot of throat clearing in order to avoid such wrong perceptions that really are based on nothing I actually wrote.

    So let me clear this up – I’m not eliding that at all. If you need me to hear you say bad things about the dumb, hostile, overwrought, unfair, and dishonest reactions from the right, well then let me tell you unequivocally that they are dumb, hostile, overwrought, unfair, and dishonest.

    But the argument that no one should think this was inappropriate or how could anyone object to her Christian message elides the fact (IMO) that the message was both Christian and political and was targeted at Trump in both a Christian and political manner. And, as I said, I don’t have a problem with that and this is nothing really new.

    Furthermore, I think a lot of people elide the fact that tribalism exists as a feature of the human species and, especially when it comes to partisan politics, we tend to actually not view things neutrally or fairly. And yes, that includes me. People here whine about “both sides” as if one side (their side, natch) magically avoids human nature and the other does not, but the fact is that both sides are composed of human beings with all their inherent flaws, and no one has an iron lock on the truth. The arguments about which messages and contexts are appropriately Christian and which are not (or any number of things) – for some strange reason – tend to fall neatly on partisan lines. A remarkable coincidence.

    And it’s great that you and other commenters here state that you would never object if the situation were reversed and a Democratic President was low-key criticized in a similar way but a lot of people would and historically have. The difference here is not that Democrats would not have criticized a Bishop doing something similar to a Democratic President, but the scale of the reaction. The histrionic over-reaction by the MAGA crowd is what’s novel here.

    2
  36. Scott F. says:

    @Andy:
    You may not be “both-siding,” but you are at the very least normalizing the abnormal regarding Trump and the MAGA crowd.

    It may very well be that it is human nature to fall neatly in line with the tribe on differences of opinion. But, it is uniquely Trumpist to claim that priests (and judges) are out to get you personally and politically by weaponizing their realms. Trump claiming to be a victim is what is novel here and it isn’t normal.

    3
  37. @Andy:

    And it’s great that you and other commenters here state that you would never object if the situation were reversed and a Democratic President was low-key criticized in a similar way but a lot of people would and historically have.

    First, am I not only responsible for myself? I have a two-decade, searchable track record.

    Second, I am ultimately at a loss as to your point, since you state “I don’t have a problem with that and this is nothing really new.”

    And,

    The difference here is not that Democrats would not have criticized a Bishop doing something similar to a Democratic President, but the scale of the reaction. The histrionic over-reaction by the MAGA crowd is what’s novel here.

    Well, yes. Hence the OP.

    7
  38. @Andy:

    The arguments about which messages and contexts are appropriately Christian and which are not (or any number of things) – for some strange reason – tend to fall neatly on partisan lines. A remarkable coincidence.

    BTW, you aren’t wrong as a general matter.

    I would note, however, that my point here is not to promote a specific vision of Christianity. First, know that I was raised Southern Baptist and was theologically quite conservative, probably into my early 40s. I have known a lot of people like MIke Johnson. As I have said before, I speak fluent Evangelical. I was also a person who spent a lot of time in Bible study. As fits my personality, I tried to take very scholarly approach to theology. I taught adult Sunday School.

    Now, I will admit that my relationship wth Christianity has changed, is complicated, and is not something that I could easily assign a label to.

    One thing I do know, however, is that Evangelicals know full well that what the Bishop said were not “nasty” and that they weren’t radical, save in the same way that Jesus was radical (a word I have heard more than one Southern Baptist preacher use to describe the gospels).

    I don’t think I am wrong to call people like Johnson out on this.

    10
  39. Matt Bernius says:

    @charontwo:

    How familiar are you with actual Jews? That reads as a grotesque Christian stereotype.

    Pretty much this. Also there is was more to the Torah and Talmud than just the books that make up the Christian Old Testament.

    3
  40. charontwo says:
  41. wr says:

    @Connor: “She diminished herself.”

    Yes, the Episcopal priest diminished herself by referring to Jesus’ words in a church.

    Is there any depths you Trumpies won’t plummet to defend your scumbag of a hero?

    And what you claim to “know” is just the cheap adolescent cynicism required to follow MAGA.

    13
  42. Connor says:

    @DK:

    Dumb.

  43. Connor says:

    @wr:

    Light, silly and pointless.

  44. Connor says:

    @Andy: as a newby here I find it somewhat distressing that so many words have been written over a simple observation: she was inappropriate in venue. That’s it.

    She’s totally within her rights to opinions.

    Separately, I find selective outrage rampant among those on the left. In my time here so far, I find (valid) criticisms of the right blandly overlooked when applied to the left. Glass houses and such.

    1
  45. al Ameda says:

    @SC_Birdflyte:

    I suspect that folks in the incoming administration wanted to have the service in the Cathedral Church of Saints Peter and Paul (to give it its proper name) to draw as big a crowd as possible. But when you accept the hospitality of someone else, don’t be surprised if your host (Bishop Budde) speaks frankly to you.

    I’m with you on this.
    It’s always about performance with Trump. I suspect he did not anticipate the Bishop’s remarks that came his way. Also, the look on JD Vance’s face during this was … priceless.

    But we all know that Trump is a crude, blunt, and brutal person, so for me his response was entirely expected, and no surprise whatsoever.

    7
  46. Kathy says:

    BTW, you cannot deport a citizen, as all citizens have every right to be inside the country their citizens of.

    You can expel or exile a citizen, if the law allows it. This is a practice much resorted to by tyrants of various stripes, notably the Czarist governments in Russia. and this tells you where the heads of the orange rapist cult are: in the past and full of suppression.

    3
  47. Wr says:

    @Connor: Ooh, a theater critic. How butch you are.

    1
  48. Wr says:

    Sorry, double post. Wasn’t that clever.

  49. Joe says:

    she was inappropriate in venue.

    JFC, Connor, it is HER venue. She did not hunt him down. He came to HER house.

    15
  50. Andy says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    First, am I not only responsible for myself? I have a two-decade, searchable track record.

    As do I.

    One thing I do know, however, is that Evangelicals know full well that what the Bishop said were not “nasty” and that they weren’t radical, save in the same way that Jesus was radical (a word I have heard more than one Southern Baptist preacher use to describe the gospels).

    I don’t think I am wrong to call people like Johnson out on this.

    I don’t disagree with any of that except maybe to point out that it’s “some” Evangelicals and not all of them. How many people have actually called what she said “nasty” (I honestly don’t know)? It’s a small subset, and I think one shouldn’t paint with a too broad brush.

    But I would go back to my original response, where you wrote:

    I understand this position, to a point. But it is also very telling that it is considered rude to tell Trump it might be nice to be merciful and compassionate.

    and

    And I would add that it is the job of someone like Budde to speak truth, and to avoid doing so is a choice just as much as doing so.

    I really don’t want to get wrapped up in debating this dumb controversy, but let me try to explain my point more clearly.

    In the first part, my view is that the method and manner could reasonably be considered to be rude given the context. IMO it’s not “telling” that some people would take it that way any more than it’s “telling” that others would insist there is absolutely no legitimate reason to think it was rude or inappropriate. This is something reasonable people can disagree about.

    As I said, I am not personally bothered by what she did, but I concede it’s reasonable that others will have a different view.

    Secondly, as noted, she knew what she was doing. It wasn’t merely a simple Christian message. That’s what your part about her job being speaking the truth gets at, I think. Speaking the hard truth to someone who doesn’t want to hear it and highlighting their specific very non-Christian views in a public way will inevitably come off as rude to the recipient and others. Although I was somewhat surprised at the scale of the backlash, I don’t think anyone should be surprised that there was one and that it would be overwrought. Poking angry, overly sensitive bears who have a well-established record of overreaction does that. We’ve seen this play before, and everyone knows (including, I suspect, the Bishop) about Trump’s exceedingly thin skin.

    My point about reversing the situation where a Democrat would get similar treatment is that, too, would generate a reaction with the reasonable conclusion that it is rude or more. I don’t think Democrats would fly off the handle like Trump and his allies, but many Democrats would be pissed to have their person publicly called out in that way right after they won an election. That’s the way partisanship works. To my detractors here, (not you, Steven), partisanship is a “both sides” thing whether one admits it or not. It’s not equal, or the same, or equivalent in any particular instance or even overall, but the tribal tendencies of our species are undeniable and always manifest in partisan political debates. There certainly have been plenty of cases where Democrats have overreacted and tried to generate outrage for something that is either true, reasonably true, or a minor transgression for entirely political reasons.

    And just to make it crystal clear again, even if one reasonably believes that the Bishop’s words to Trump were rude and not appropriate for the event and venue, the histrionic response from Trump and his supporters far outstrips any reasonable offense. Anyone who suggests that I’m “normalizing” Trump or other such nonsense because I also criticize Democrats and understand they are not special flowers they sometimes think they are, is only proving my point.

    Anyway, that’s it from me. I regret chiming into this thread; the points I tried to make were minor and not really worth the time and effort spent to fully explain them. I should have realized it would go off the rails a bit. It’s going to be a long four years and I’m reminded from the last Trump term that I’m going to have to be exceedingly choosy in where and how I engage here.

    1
  51. Ken_L says:

    It’s beyond parody that Trump leads a bunch of other politicians into a church to celebrate his political victory, and then proceeds to claim the church has no business in politics. How dare God’s servant preach Christian values!

    41 “Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.

    42 For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink.

    43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’

    44 “Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’

    45 “And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’

    46 “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.”

    – Matthew 25

    “Radical Left hard line Trump hating nonsense!”

    – Trump and his cult

    4
  52. DK says:

    @Connor:

    Dumb.

    Yes, indeed, it is unintelligent to insist an Episcopal bishop speaking from the pulpit of her own church has chosen an inappropriate venue to urge those before her to act with empathy and compassion towards strangers, the sick, and the poor — as Christ called for.

    Maybe this absurd critique is repeated because its adherents don’t know who Christ was or what a church is? Or

    4
  53. Matt Bernius says:

    @Connor:

    Separately, I find selective outrage rampant among those on the left. In my time here so far, I find (valid) criticisms of the right blandly overlooked when applied to the left. Glass houses and such.

    This is true. And is “rampant selective outrage” something that is unique to the left? Or, having said, selective outrage drowning out “valid criticisms.”

    Generally speaking, it commonly happens on both the left and right. Perhaps, rather than being of any particular political persuasion, it’s more a sign of our common humanity.

    Now, as to which side you think said selective outrage happens on more… that’s probably a sign of politics, though perhaps not in the way you think it is.

    2
  54. @Andy:

    As do I.

    Yeah, but I did not accuse you of a particular possible hypocrisy/past reaction.

    How many people have actually called what she said “nasty”

    The post was not aimed at all Evangelicals. It was aimed at Trump (who did call her “nasty”), his press secretary, a member of Congress, and Mike Johnson. Now, do I think that their supporters are at least indicated in part? Yes. (I would also note that Budde is being pilloried on FNC).

    I don’t think Democrats would fly off the handle like Trump and his allies, but many Democrats would be pissed to have their person publicly called out in that way right after they won an election

    This strikes me sort of the core of the point, and we agree. We also agree that reaction would have been order of magnitude different. It appears, that while we agree we do agree as to why that order of magnitude matters.

    And just to make it crystal clear again, even if one reasonably believes that the Bishop’s words to Trump were rude and not appropriate for the event and venue, the histrionic response from Trump and his supporters far outstrips any reasonable offense. Anyone who suggests that I’m “normalizing” Trump or other such nonsense because I also criticize Democrats and understand they are not special flowers they sometimes think they are, is only proving my point.

    Here’s the reason that people likely feel you are both-sidesing/”normalizing: even though your position and mine overlap probably 85%-90%. You have written now hundreds of words that are dedicated, in part, to affirming Budde’s rudeness and asserting that Democrats would have reacted negatively to a turnabout situation while agreeing that they wouldn’t have behaved as badly.

    It really does come across as saying that the reaction is mostly normal (i.e., just politics), save for being over the top, and is just the same kind of political response Democrats would have.

    But my point instead of Trump/his allies saying, well, that was a bit rude or inappropriate or whatever she is being attacked by some of the most powerful people in the country, and was briefly the center of the FNC maelstrom. This has resulted in death threats.

    Responding to this with, well, Democrats wouldn’t have liked if their person was called out from the pulpit seems to be ignoring the broader context.

    And yes, I personally think that politicians who wish to use their religion as the basis for their policy positions, like Mike Johnson, should be reminded that the man they belive to be God incarnate said a lot of things about love, compassion, and mercy that I think they ought to take seriously.

    5
  55. Jen says:

    @Connor:

    She chose a poor venue, with intent. She diminished herself.

    Her space, her speech. Maybe the next time Trump decides he wants to play Pretend Christian he can pick one of those megachurch places where the clergy believes in “Prosperity Gospel” (missing, of course, the rich man through the eye of a needle bit). He’ll have a friendly (and not-really-that-Christian) audience there.

    I wonder if her moral compass, or commenters here, would apply to JFK or Bill Clinton or Joe Biden. No need to answer. I know.

    JFK is an odd choice for this list, as there were a lot of people who were very concerned about his being a Catholic, and thinking he’d be taking orders from the Pope.

    And as for Joe Biden, this particular commenter has already pointed out that Catholic clergy did something similar to Biden, by stating ahead of time that he would be refused communion based on his abortion stance. The only difference is that Biden acted like an actual adult about it, rather than the behavior we’ve seen out of the Toddler-in-Chief.

    6