Concerning: “MAGA Christianity, a toxic stew“, February 11th :
Edwin Lyngar’s recent anti-MAGA Christian opinion piece calls for another response and a “truth extraction.”
He cleverly invents a political hyperthreat of “MAGA Christianity.” We cannot escape the fact that religious political affiliations are studied, tracked and exploited by both parties. It’s about winning the election, duh. Yet the idea that “political Christianity is about appropriating liberals and winning elections” is an absurd fantasy. Half of this is just and strictly political, with no ownership implications, as it feeds into another one of his fantastical notions.
Another absurdity check is in order with regard to the statement that “if you disagree on a tax policy or a candidate, it’s suddenly a sin against God.” No, it’s not, it’s politics!
Not to be outdone, his arguments check almost every box of the favorite liberal smear mantra: existential, Taliban, MAGA, AR-15, toxic, masculine, right-wing Christian nationalist, extreme.
Then we get even more lost in the version of Jesus he is referring to. Is it his original “flimsy old Jesus”, or the new “Original Recipe Jesus”, the new “MAGA Jesus” who is “muscular, angry, masculine and armed with an AR-15” and then the “Jesus biblical”? Then, of course, there is the “evil twin Jesus” falsely attributed to my previous rebuttal. (However, don’t wonder if it’s the same AR-15 Antifa likes; they are exempt from any examination or political and even religious affiliation.)
Now let’s surgically contrast his version of the religion and politics involved in the pernicious threat of his MAGA Christianity.
If a candidate advocates policy positions that, to some extent, share or represent ethics (biblical or societal) and align with constitutional principles, this does not mean that it is a politicized faith. And if Donald Trump is the nominee, expect increased scrutiny of any person, group or bloc expressing support. Gun owners are likely to favor Trump. For what? Because they are simply constitutionalists who, in many cases, are Christians.
If a bloc of Christians determines that their religious ethics are best represented by a candidate, then they are no different from another bloc of like-minded or motivated voters – unions, for example. There is a relentless effort to introduce into the debate that only Christians – mostly evangelicals – should be held responsible for not voting as a bloc. And if they do, there must be a nefarious reason. So what about the Jewish religion? American Jews largely favor Democratic candidates. Where is their scrutiny? And what about Islamic Americans? Hindus?
Now there’s his convenient concept of “MAGA Christianity” that fuels a frenzy of opposition to both. The confusion of the two serves a political, not religious, narrative. In this narrative, MAGA supporters are implicated as followers, as if Trump were a supreme leader – or worse, a master. But what about then messianic rhetoric infused into gatherings of Barack Obama’s first campaign? And whatever you do, don’t neglect the pre-woke education propaganda movement exploited within the Common Core that I taught the children that Obama is a messiah. Hypocrisy?
Then there’s the “progressive Christians” get-out-of-jail-free critique card. Odd; The progressive is not found in the Bible, but it is certainly another example of confusing religion and politics. This of course favors the left because they like the euphemism of “progressive” as if liberalism were insufficient – or better yet, that it offered the allure of being elevated and “better than.” And Lyngar subtly insults Christians as if only a “progressive Christian” is generous and generous.
By inventing his own flavor of hatred, proclaimed “MAGA Christianity,” he ignores Romney’s Mormons, Jewish Obama supporters, black Protestants and Hispanic Catholics. Are Romney’s Mormons far-right white nationalists? If not why ? So what about Oprah Winfrey’s 2007 Obama rally Obama’s introduction which caused audience members to raise their arms in “O” salutes. “O” hello? Who makes the political salutes? (Note: Added only for absurd effect; no further implications intended.)
Any division in our country is political, not religious, or a mixture of the two, as Lyngar would have you believe. MAGA Christianity is simply a fictitious and convenient political target.
So what about the “threat” posed by conservative or MAGA politics? This is another long debate that far exceeds the print space of this rebuttal. However, to begin, consider this: Conservatives, independents, and some objective liberals are likely receptive to the goal of restoring our country to greatness represented by leaders who honor our Constitution and respect the role of public service. We seek to restore a justice system – not a legal system – that unfairly serves the whims of corrupt liberal politicians. We want a country open for business, not for sales. We want to be President Reagan’s Hilltop City that represents our national greatness to export prosperity, not today’s import of poverty to fill the coffers of Democratic voters.
If there’s a toxic MAGA stew, I’ll have seconds of it with a side of liberty fries. There are no masters in my world – well, maybe my wife of 36 years – but religiously, there is only one Savior.
Michael Smith is a Nevada resident and retired military and commercial pilot.
Have your say:How to Submit an Opinion Column or Letter to the Editor
