MSNBC’s Morning Joe rains hell on right-wing Christians for choosing Trump’s 'blasphemy' over Christ's teachings

[vz71]

mocking the keynote speaker’s serious citation of the Gospel?

I must have missed this.
Exactly what did he say that mocked anyone?

 

[dvdjs]

The Guttmacher Institute article I linked to disagrees with you.

Abortion Protections​

As legislators in other states attack abortion rights, progressive state legislators are responding to a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court by enacting protections and expanding availability. In 2019, nine states took major steps to protect or expand abortion access and governors in five states vetoed abortion restrictions passed by the state legislature.

I am not sure about your point? Could you clarify?

Sorry but gun control is not a fair comparison.

Does your thinking on the right to self-defense include a mother whose life is threatened by the unborn child she is carrying?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

mocking the keynote speaker’s serious citation of the Gospel?

I must have missed this.
Exactly what did he say that mocked anyone?

He mocked the Gospel, by joking that he didn’t think he could agree with it. (Unless he wasn’t joking, in which case it’s even worse.)

 

[vz71]

Exactly what did he say that mocked anyone?

He mocked the Gospel, by joking that he didn’t think he could agree with it.

Again, what exactly did he say that mocked anyone?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I didn’t say he mocked anyone. I said he mocked the Gospel, which is even worse.

 

[vz71]

I didn’t say he mocked anyone. I said he mocked the Gospel, which is even worse.

Same question again.
What exactly was said that was mocking to anyone?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I didn’t say he mocked anyone. I said he mocked the Gospel, which is even worse.

Same question again.
What exactly was said that was mocking to anyone?

Same answer. He mocked the Gospel. The exact words were quoted previously.

 

[vz71]

Same answer. He mocked the Gospel. The exact words were quoted previously.

I must have missed those, can you post these exact words again?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Same answer. He mocked the Gospel. The exact words were quoted previously.

I must have missed those, can you post these exact words again?

Here’s from the official white house website transcript:

Thank you. Well, thank you very much. I’m working very hard for you, I will tell you. (Laughter.) And sometimes you don’t make it easy, and I certainly don’t make it easy on you. (Laughter.) And I will continue that tradition, if I might, this morning. And, Arthur, I don’t know if I agree with you. (Laughter.) But I don’t know if Arthur is going to like what I’m going to say.

This was immediately after keynote speaker Arthur Brooks spoke on Matthew 5:44, where Jesus told us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. Brooks said This thinking changed the world 2,000 years ago, and it’s as “subversive and counterintuitive today as it was then.”

“How many of you love somebody with whom you disagree politically?” Brooks asked the group of politicians. Raising his own hand, Brooks indicated they all should raise their hands if they do love such a person. At this point, President Trump, who was sitting to Brooks’ right side and in the camera shot, didn’t raise his. Brooks then said that moral courage isn’t necessarily standing up to your enemies or the people who disagree with you. Rather, it is standing up to the people with whom you agree on behalf of those with whom you disagree. “Can you do it? Are you up for it?” he asked the room.

One of the main points Brooks made is that anger is not the problem–contempt is. Quoting 19th-century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, Brooks defined contempt as “the unsullied conviction of the worthlessness of another.”

 

[vz71]

Here’s from the official white house website transcript:

Thank you. Well, thank you very much. I’m working very hard for you, I will tell you. (Laughter.) And sometimes you don’t make it easy, and I certainly don’t make it easy on you. (Laughter.) And I will continue that tradition, if I might, this morning. And, Arthur, I don’t know if I agree with you. (Laughter.) But I don’t know if Arthur is going to like what I’m going to say.

Seems a little shaky as far as evidence goes.
I do not see anything actually mocking in that quote.
Perhaps you can explain what exactly leads you to believe he is mocking.
What words precisely and what is the meaning you are attributing to them.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Here’s from the official white house website transcript:

Thank you. Well, thank you very much. I’m working very hard for you, I will tell you. (Laughter.) And sometimes you don’t make it easy, and I certainly don’t make it easy on you. (Laughter.) And I will continue that tradition, if I might, this morning. And, Arthur, I don’t know if I agree with you. (Laughter.) But I don’t know if Arthur is going to like what I’m going to say.

Seems a little shaky as far as evidence goes.
I do not see anything actually mocking in that quote.
Perhaps you can explain what exactly leads you to believe he is mocking.
What words precisely and what is the meaning you are attributing to them.

Trump as much as admitted that “love your enemies” is not to be taken seriously. He made a joke of it, starting with denying that he agreed with it. He went on to confirm that he did not agree with it by stating that the keynote speaker might not like what he was going to say. He went on to prove he did not take Jesus’ words seriously by showing how much he hates his so-called enemies (which at this point is a very long list) starting with a Senator in his own party, Romney, who alone had the moral courage to stand up to Trump and vote his conscience in the impeachment trial. Trump said he doesn’t like people like that, and denied that Romney was acting out of his deep convictions of his faith - something Trump could not possible know anything about. Then Trump went on to deny the sincerity of Pelosi when she said she prayed for him - again, something he could not possibly know anything about. And he said he didn’t like people like that either. He went on to desecrate the entire event by turning it into one of his typical rants against his “enemies”, thus thoroughly demolishing any shred of respect he might have had for Jesus’ words so eloquently cited by the keynote speaker. It was the National Prayer Breakfast - something that has always be held in a certain degree of reverence by past Presidents, and not an occasion for disrespecting his enemies, disrespecting the tradition of the event, disrespecting a member of his own party, disrespecting the keynote speaker, and disrespecting the words of Jesus.

 

[vz71]

Trump as much as admitted that “love your enemies” is not to be taken seriously. He made a joke of it

That is your claim.
But it doesn’t stand scrutiny.

He is quite likely making a joke out of his own disbelief of the interpretation of the scripture.

To attribute nefarious motivation when there is a perfectly logical and less nefarious explanation is extremely uncharitable.

He went on to prove he did not take Jesus’ words seriously by showing how much he hates his so-called enemies

Really? I do not recall him admitting to hate at all. You should provide the exact quote for this.

Then Trump went on to deny the sincerity of Pelosi when she said she prayed for him - again, something he could not possibly know anything about.

With this be akin to your interpretation of hatred on his part when you do not know his heart?

He went on to desecrate the entire event by turning it into one of his typical rants against his “enemies”, thus thoroughly demolishing any shred of respect he might have had for Jesus’ words so eloquently cited by the keynote speaker

Given the quote you provided, and what you claim it means, I find this charge dubious at best.
Do you have actual quotes and why they are a desecration of the event?

It was the National Prayer Breakfast - something that has always be held in a certain degree of reverence by past Presidents,

Perhaps, but I do not think it rises to the level of holiness one would expect by the word desecration you have thrown around.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

He is quite likely making a joke out of his own disbelief of the interpretation of the scripture.

Oh, so he doesn’t even believe in the honest interpretation of Jesus’ words? That at least is consistent with everything else we know about his life.

 

[pnewton]

This Joe character does not use the word blasphemy correctly. It is a strong, harsh term, one which brought about the death penalty in Judea. The president did not commit this crime. He stated he did not agree with it. That is not blasphemy. Following the whole of the speech, the President somewhat backtracks, saying that it is tough to follow. I do not think the President was simply honest about what he was feeling. Now his statement comparing himself to Christ was blasphemy. This was not.

It was however crass, inappropriate, and most decidedly un-presidential - the things that helped him get elected in our problematic culture. I will agree with Joe that I am still amazed at the things that he can get away with and maintain Christian support.

Thought for the month: He becomes guilty of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor. - Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[vz71]

Oh, so he doesn’t even believe in the honest interpretation of Jesus’ words? That at least is consistent with everything else we know about his life.

But that also does not make him the hateful person you portrayed.

I think you need to reevaluate your attributing hatred to him. You have made a big item out of some not knowing the heart of an individual and thus being unable to pass a judgement like that.
Yet somehow claim for yourself the ability to know Trump’s heart.

 

[Leo2014]

Discernment…

As Catholics and Christians, we believe that the Word of God is above all else? You’re a sinner, but your right - I don’t know your heart - so I cannot judge the level that you embrace your sins. But, it is not wrong for any of us to point out those errors if we conduct ourselves in a level of piety. I sure hope you have done it while raising your children and when you found that they needed corrections in regards to their misgivings.

It is unfortunate that our tribalism has affected our ability to discern good value judgements. It has brought us to the point of embracing junior high school tactics; reciprocating arguments like “everyone does it” or the “he is just as bad” approach. Yet, you know one of the tenets of our belief is that we will be judge for our misgivings; regardless if everyone else is doing it.

I am glad to see those who point out the wrong Trump has displayed in using a Spiritual forum like a Prayer Breakfast to exemplify his misgivings. He routinely conducts himself in a manner unfitting of the position he holds.

 

[vz71]

But, it is not wrong for any of us to point out those errors if we conduct ourselves in a level of piety.

No one claimed it was wrong.
What is the claim, is that we should not judge a person’s heart that we have no knowledge of while at the same time making such a judgement.

It appears to be a hypocrisy.

 

[Leo2014]

No one claimed it was wrong.
What is the claim, is that we should not judge a person’s heart that we have no knowledge of while at the same time making such a judgement.

It appears to be a hypocrisy.

I’ll do my best to decipher the premise of your message…

You have a misunderstanding about judgment. The example that I provided to you about placing moral lessons on your children can be conveyed as judgement; especially, in their eyes. But, as a parent you are using your moral guidelines to help them establish good spiritual convictions.

Your argument is that until we reach a utopian state in our society, none of us have the right to say anything?

In regards to Trumps Prayer Breakfast speech; he passed judgement on others by stating that he did not believe in the sincerity of ones prayers. You know that is an evaluation that is solely God’s domain. You are right if you are implying that we should not determine the validity of a prayer given by another. But, you would be wrong in supporting Trumps statement merely due to political allegiance.

The faithful have a responsibility to the Lord first. We cannot serve two masters.

 

[vz71]

Your argument is that until we reach a utopian state in our society, none of us have the right to say anything?

My argument is that a person claiming we do not know a person’s heart should not also be claiming Trump hates.

 

[vz71]

You are right if you are implying that we should not determine the validity of a prayer given by another. But, you would be wrong in supporting Trumps statement merely due to political allegiance.

I haven’t actually provided support one way or the other. I am simply noting an hypocrisy within some of the arguments placed against Trump.