Trump, the Heritage Foundation, and the Threat of a US Theocracy
It has become undeniable by now that Trump is likely going to become the candidate who, while not necessarily endorsing it himself, will represent the idea of “Christian Nationalism” in the 2024 General Election, at least as per the definition think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and others have forged. At first glance, this idea seems contradictory, given that Trump often represents the exact opposite of Christian ideals: He's an adulterer who has paid off an adult-movie starlet so that their affair did not become public; he's a pathological liar who has often enough sown hatred against the needy and his next ones; the man who couldn't quote any part of the Bible who has likely never looked into the Good Book. Apparently to such organisations, it's not about having someone to represent the ideals he's supposed to infuse into their policies, but someone they can manipulate for their own means. And ever since Michael Wolff's book “Fire & Fury”, it's known that everyone around him has used him as a puppet rather than a serious president with whom one could have discussions on policies from which to draw compromises that would finally convince both sides in Congress¹. The second tenure, if it were going to materialise, would be no different, only with more extreme manipulators in the White House and outside thereof.
Now, how do the “Christian” parts of this agenda look like? While I haven't dived deep into the agenda channelled through the aforementioned organisation(s), there should be little to learn, after all. There is the--highly unpopular--sentiment of a full abortion ban, likely even trespassing the ethical barrier of allowing it at least for rape victims and life-threatening pregnancies, as well as the naïve principle that the US were a “Judeo-Christian nation”--a policy that if this were ever passed even as a proposal before, would liken one that has previously been passed by an earlier Netanyahu government in Israel, but for Jews only, thus excluding Israeli Arabs². Again, this is only comprised of rumours I heard and read but didn't check, aside of the full-flenged abortion ban. If you have heard different, feel free to comment and name me sources so that I can amend my text.
There will of course be vaguely related (or not related at all) policies such as the most liberal interpretation of Second Amendment, meaning that there should be no restrictions to one's rights to bear and utilise arms³. (Remember the ideal of “God, Guns and Freedom”, which you as Americans may have read or heard somewhere, unlike me who resides in Germany) There may have been (or are) rioters and who have partaken in the January 6 Capitol Hill Insurrection (as I like to call it) who thought of themselves as good Christians who intended to protect their false idol⁴ (as they wouldn't call Trump, although he has been treated this way after the Insurrection at CPAC events⁵).
Now, I don't want to unnecessarily extend this text, and instead cut to the chase, which shall be my following question: Does it even make sense that Christianity were infused into governance, into a government? Be reminded that this text must necessarily be premature and incomplete because I lack knowledge about key literature such as St. Augustine's “De Civitate Dei”, because I didn't come to read it yet, for different reasons. As a Patris Ecclestiæ, he has contributed marginally to this question, obviously representing the view that there shall be no kingdom but God's, thus technically presuming that all earthly jurisdictions were null. I will nonetheless attempt to answer my question as satisfactory as hitherto possible.
Because of my ignorance about certain viewpoints, I will rely by and large on the Bible. Therein, we often hear opinions that seem as though Augustinus too relied on them: That there must be no master but God, although a good part is mostly concerned with coexistence and how people ought to rely on their next ones as well as, dominantly, themselves. Self-sufficiency, so to say, a core feature in Anarchist thought too⁶.
 |
| Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons |
I have said that Christian theology speaks in great detail about how we shall help one another get through, that we must help the downtrodden as Jesus has helped the needy, e.g., Lazarus (John 11:38-44), the healing of a man in Capernaum (John 4:43-54), the healing of a blind man in Bethisda (Mark 8:22-26), &c. Now, no-one is expected to perform equal miracles, as they have likely never happened in the first place, as the whole Bible, both the Christian and the Hebrew, comprises of fables to teach us morals and ethics. Jesus was the first saint, and, according to Nietzsche, the first and only Christian⁷, although we will not dwell on Nietzsche's critique of Christianity, as this too is not our concern in this text. What I meant to say is that reliance on one another can help to overcome needs for a centralised government, when services are localised and governance can be broken down to the municipal level. In the end, people will feel closer and abler to identify with their 'home turf' rather than an estranged, faraway government that monitors resources and governance like the count in the castle in Franz Kafka's "Schloß". Some might call this premise naïve, and since I would refer to the Free Market in several cases when brainstorming the provision of services, I would never deny that certain services, such as healthcare, must be controlled and provided centrally, first and foremost healthcare. I have written about this in texts of my own⁸. But overall, the Free Market has proven to be the best at providing services fast and efficient, as well as affordably. Concerning the Christian viewpoint, the quickest reference that one could provide would be the tablets Moses received from God, where it read that 'thou shalt love thy neighbour'. To be honest, the Bible is not always as explicit as I am with regards to this: As we remember, for example from Deuteronomy 5:21, "thou shalt desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's". So, this is more concerned with jealousy, a deadly sin for Catholics, who are, as we know, underrepresented in the US, since Joseph Biden is now only the second Catholic POTUS, after John F. Kennedy, founding member of the Dead Kennedys. (I'm joking, and I'm sorry if this may be in bad taste for you) Matthew 22, 39 speaks explicitly about "loving thy neighbour as thyself", on the other hand. Of course this is not an outright endorsement of the state's abolition as much as it is a common-sense standpoint in any civilised society. Therefore, we shall move onwards to another important passage in the Bible that is often cited in political concepts that try to connect Christianity with radical political schools of thought, while not losing the link to the concept of loving your neighbour as much as yourself: Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 5:33-37, Jesus has explicitly told his people to not abide to any authority but God. A few lines above, in Matthew 5:12, we can interpret the passage in such a way as that he tells his fellowship to help one another, be kind to one another (the latter especially in the very beginning, when exclaiming who shall be blessed by the light of the LORD) Beyond beliefs, whether they be of Abrahamite origin or of the Far East, beyond the concept of religious beliefs in the first place, the Sermon of the Mount is almost a sufficiently detailed manifest for proactive compassion. It has also exceptionally influenced the lesser-known religious and political writings of Лев Толстой, said to be one of the pioneers of Christian Anarchism⁹. Unfortunately, Tolstoy's essays are another source that I didn't have time (or the lingual capacity) to read his essays. That's why we may rely more on secondary sources, such as the ones cited under footnote no. 9.
To cut it to the chase, his epiphany was when he saw the peasants working in the field, living in absolute misery (something that you also learnt from Marx's first volume of the "Kapital", which deals profusely with the concept of the craftsmen's misery, from the cradle to the grave), noticing that all that gave those people meaning in life was their faith¹⁰. What stands out in my opinion about Tolstoy's understanding of Anarchism is that religion plays a superior role to politics. As the second source in footnote no. 9 wrote, «в этом смысле Толстой был, наверное, более радикален, чем самые заядлые анархисты его времени.» (also follow up on page 10 of 14) The most important passage from this Russian-speaking text, is found on page 10, a passage that again points out how little Anarchism for Толстой was about politics and ideological tribalism and more about down-to-earth issues, one of them being general improvement of the people's state of wealth; wealth hereby not meaning the amassment of material goods and money, but a good life, not in dirt and misery, but in humble yet humane whereabouts. As the author wrote:
‹Толстой также был против всяких внешних — оппозиционных, либераль ных и прочих — объединений, партий, кружков, институций государства, как того, что существует благодаря партийному насилию или духовному подавлению я-личности. Эти репрессии не так очевидны, как физические или юридические наказания. Но они гораздо страшнее. Говорить о человеке надо не на искусствен ном — политическом или художественном — языке «господского слова», а на базо вом — человеческом, или народном, в его терминологии. Здесь вновь срабатывают «толстовские противоречия»›
By now it comes as no surprise that Толстой is not any philosopher, if at all--in the end, he never meant to make a point to anybody; his essays are not only personally titled, but also functioned to come to terms with his own religiousness. The fact that they withstood the test of time to now be accessible to us is our blessing, as he delivers unto us the best of both worlds: A political redemption and Utopia to pursue, and a morale to guide us therein. I would have loved to already qutoe from his writings myself, but my interests have driven in crossways again. However, instead of bathing in self-loathing, I should instead return to our actual subject. With the new input, we could say a little more about the concept of Christian Nationalism the GOP has been endowed with by thought leaders such as Rufo of the Manhattan Institute and whoever is worthy of being named by today's Claremont Institute. (As you can tell, I use the term 'thought leader' rather liberally; whether that be for good or ill is up to you) I remembered someone from this Institute, but forgot now, as I am not good at recalling names.
I would agree with Толстой that man (i.e. human) must stand front and centre of Anarchism, next to flora and fauna. This accounts for all humans, even those with vilest beliefs. As I have written in my own long-form texts, in an Anarchist society, there were numerous autark communities that suited themselves and chose who to interact with and who to leave alone. This way, for example, Nazis could pursue their personal Utopia of pure-blood Aryanhood, whereas left-winged Liberals could do everything humanly possible to oppose this. As long as everyone stuck to themselves and did not attempt to penetrate others' communities and ways of life, there should be no openly embattled juxtapositions. Of course this included exterior agressions penetrating the fortification of their community, such as the infusion of viruses or torn-off heads by the means of a catapult to “send a message”.
The point I want to make is that there is good reason to believe that in the GOP's 'Christian Nationalism', there is no interest in working for every human being, but only those who are ready to unite with them behind a President Trump, and whoever were to succeed him once he were no longer there. (Because he has hinted himself openly about ignoring the Constitutional term limitation, although that was only in meme'y social media posts he only reposted, so that we cannot argue that he explicitly contemplated overturning the 22nd Amendment. Not that he necessarily understood it, although this descended into mocking him for his--likely age-related--mental incapacity) Throughout his first tenure, he has done nothing but sow division as I have argued before, and this goes strictly against the gospel. For example, consider this passage from 1 Timothy 6:17-19:
“Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
“That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
“Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.”
Of course not all of us are rich, depending on one's measurement of richness, and in what regard even. But in the end, everyone should give as much as one could, weather that be in material means or in actions to help one another. To use an excessively used phrase by Karl Marx, "To each according to his needs, by each according to his means". Or something like this, I don't remember it clearly. The point still stands is that while Толстой put religion over politics, Trump et al. put politics over religion, which consequently means that the Nationalism will play a major role in his second tenure, and the religion be nothing but a false pretense, a ludicrous justification to commit heinous atrocities against those who come to seek relief and help. The theme of wanting to address the border situation and the migrant caravans who are heading from as far South as Venezuela and Guatemala towards the United States. There are many non-Christians who point towards Joseph's whereabouts, himself being a refugee whose wife ended up bearing the LORD's son in a small shack. But there is more to the tale, as we learn from Deuteronomy 25:6-9:
“And thou shalt speak and say before the Lord thy God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous:“And the Egyptians evil entreated us, and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage:
“And when we cried unto the Lord God of our fathers, the Lord heard our voice, and looked on our affliction, and our labour, and our oppression:
“And the Lord brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders:
“And he hath brought us into this place, and hath given us this land, even a land that floweth with milk and honey.”
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
And in vain it is indeed! Although there were certain surgical practices already since the Stone Age¹³, abortion was none of them. (Perhaps because the concept of cloth hangers was not yet invented) It is obvious that in Christianity, the life is holy, and a child's life even more, but to thereby declaim that abortions were murder and therefore landed those who have them (as well as the practitioner) in hell were far-fetched, in my opinion. Because if there be a life that should be valued, it's the one existing, namely the carrier of the unborn life. Those who call themselves 'pro-life' for opposing abortions value the life that isn't over the one that is, which is a strange position to hold. They also intervene in someone else's business, which cannot be approved of especially from a Conservative point of view, and I will hazard the guess that a good majority of self-proclaimed Christians are also Conservatives. We read it clearly in 1 Thessalonians 4:10-11:
“And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more;
“And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; [...]”
“He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.”
Now, this post has become hysterically longer than I planned to write it, but this is also not the first such instance. Since I have run out of likely policies they (Republicans with the same ideological travesty of a Christian mind) might pursue--there would be pet peeves like books teaching children and young adolescents about their sex, and about transgender issues; vilifying Democrats with the most outlandish allegations; generally maligning alternative lifestyles, alternative meaning anything that doesn't match the concept of the nuclear family--, I would like to wrap it up from here. Of the pet peeves I've mentioned, it should either be clear what I think about it, or the Bible might say about it, or it couldn't be addressed by means of the gospel because the issues were not even close to have been discussed yet by the people of its composition's time. (You may have heard the saying that 'none of those words are in the Bible', speaking of something indescribably preposterous, and this describes it about right) The sources I've cited herein or hereunder, especially the Sermon on the Mount, should answer your questions, especially when you read the chapters from which the quotes were taken in full, which I recommend especially when you read the King James Version, my personal favourite, due to its poetic language. But you do yours, of course.
“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
“For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.”
“They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
“And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
“Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
“And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
“Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people." (Exodus 32:8-12)
“Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;“Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.“And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.“And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.”
No comments:
Post a Comment