Archive for May 7, 2017

The Great Pretender Commits a Sacrilege!

Posted in On Donald Trump, Playthell on politics, Witnessing Against False Preachers on May 7, 2017 by playthell
 
A Souless Fraud

Somebody is Gonna Burn in Hell Over This Blasphemy

The world has just witnessed a shameless exhibition of hypocrisy, one that rises to the level of blasphemy, conducted by the shameless charlatan who by a grievous accident of history, made possibe by the triumph of the untutored white mob weilding ballots, now occupies the Oval Office of the American presidency.  Donald J. Trump – a serial philanderer, compulsive liar, vainglorious braggart, and avaricious money grubber – as ungodly a man as has ever ascended to this omnipotent office; which has sheltered thieves, slaveholders and mass murderers such as his idol Andrew Jackson – called a press conference on the White House lawn to announce his latest Executive Order, “Defending Religious Liberty.”

The monstrous dimensions of this sacrilegous fraud is clear to anyone who pays attention to American politics. Trump’s Executive Order is a transparent payoff to the religious right.  Especially the millions of fanatical white Evangelicals, like the legendary Evangelist Billy Graham’s son, who contributed grand theft dough to Trump’s campaign that played a vital role in his election to the presidency.

With no visible qualifications for this critically important and demanding job, the Christian Right supported this garish, empty, charlatan because  he promised to allow them to do whatever they wanted: The Constitution be damned.  Trump’s pandering to right wing Christians, smashing down the longstanding wall between church and state, will almost certainly be challenged in the federal courts, but given the composition of the Court anything can happen. Alas, the language of the Constitution is filled with ambiguity; which allows the sitting Supreme Court Justices to interpret its provisions as they damned well please. That’s why there is a no-holds barred fight over who sits on that august bench.

For instance, the First Amendment, which speaks directly to this question, is far from clear in its view of the government’s role regarding the practice of religion.  While it is virtually unanimous among historians that a principal motivation for the insertion of the Establishment Clause was to prevent the creation of a state sponsored church such as The Church of England – from whose tyranny some colonist had fled – other implications for the relationship of government to religious practice remains unclear.  And a simple reading of the text does not immediately resolve this uncertainty.  It states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

If one is an “originalist,” such as the late Justice Antonin Scalia and his sidekick on the high court Uncle C. Thomas – and perhaps Justice Gorcish, who was recently appointed to the High Court by Trump – the text must be taken at face value; regardless of the fact that this is an 18th century document and the drafters of the Constitution were imperfect men filled with contradictions – like perpetually spouting the virtues of freedom while maintaining a system of slavery that represents the apex of tyranny.  Hence, while it has become conventional wisdom that the First Amendment proscribes the role of the Church in the affairs of state, the text of the First Amendment can be interpreted as solely limiting the power of the state over the affairs of the church.    

Consider how two of the “Founding fathers” viewed the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment, which addresses the religious question.  Dr. Benjamin Rush, a brillant polymath who was a leader of the American Enlightenment, signed the Declaration of Independence, led the Pennsylvania delegation that ratified the Federal Constitution, vigorously opposed slavery, supported the rights of women and promoted scientific research, also envisioned a prominent role for government in promoting religion.  A founder of the Pennsylvania Bible Society, Rush proposed that the US government provide a copy of the Bible for every American citizen at public expense, and the words The Son of Man Came into the World, Not To Destroy Men’s Lives, But To Save Them, should be emblazoned above all court houses and government buildings.

In his role as a leading advocate for the establishment of a public-school system, Dr. Rush proposed that the bible be used as a basic text in the curriculum.  He once observed: I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as perfectly satisfied that the Union of the United States in its form and adoption is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament” and he would argue in 1798, eleven years after the drafting of the Constitution: The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”

Hence those who argue against the intrusion of religion into the political sphere on constitutional grounds will find no support from this Founding Father.  However, reading the views of Thomas Jefferson, arguably the most thoughtful of the Founders and no religious zealot like Dr. Rush, in fact he was publicly accuse of being an “infidel” by his political enemies – does not offer much comfort either. In a letter to The Danbury Baptist, penned on New Year’s Day 1802, Jefferson said the following:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

It is instructive that it was in this letter – which some historians have dismissed as political pandering because he consulted local elected officials before crafting it – that Jefferson’s oft quoted statement regarding a “wall of separation between church and state’ originates.  And it is usually referenced by those who argue that churches should play no partisan role in politics – a sentiment that is enshrined in the tax laws which give exemptions to religious institutions, particularly the much referenced “Johnson Act.”   However, when Jefferson’s statement is viewed in context one could credibly argue that it was intended to prevent the government from interfering in the affairs of the church rather than the other way around.

However ambiguous the text of the Constitution is on this question, there remains the Johnson Act – which is a statute that cannot be overturned by an Executive Order – and Trump’s open display of favoritism for Christianity and Judaism to a lesser degree over say, Islam, Buddhism and Orisha Voodoo which is expressly forbidden in the “Free Expression” clause of the First Amendment.  All of these factors mitigate against the legality of Trumps Executive Order “protecting religious freedom.’

However, being the pompous fool and opportunistic charlatan that he has revealed himself to be…none of these fine points of law mean a thing to “The Donald.”  This raises ethical questions about the integrity and credibility of the religious leaders who assembled in the White House Rose Garden, and enthusiastically applauded the transparently ungodly Trump in a Lips to posterior posture, even as he was violating the most basic charge of Jesus Christ to ‘heal the sick and feed the hungry,” to tend to the “least among us.  For as you do unto to them so have ye done unto me!”

The whole thing was the foulest blasphemy!  To venerate a self-confessed sinner, who claims to be a Christian yet says he has never felt the need to ask the lord for forgiveness, is a shame before man and a sin in the sight of God!  Nothing was sacred to these preachers with forked tongues. They called upon scripture, and even defamed the good name of Dr. Martin Luther King, associating the legacy of this modern day prophet, “drum major for justice,” and Apostle of Peace with their shameless genuflection before an obscene money changer and minister of mammon.  To associate God’s holy word and the memory of Dr. King with  this profane  scoundrel, whose evil deeds even offends a godless wretch like me, and Jesus Christ drove from the temple with violence, is brazen hypocrisy!

It is a betrayal of the commandments of the lord in order to appease the princes and powers that rule this modern-day Babylon!   I say to them beware: Check yourself before you wreck yourself.  For the Bible instructs us that no person can serve two masters; we must either serve God or the Devil. And I can think of no better personification of Lucifer in these dawning years of the 21st century, a time when one man has the ability to set the world on fire, than “The Donald.”   Therefore, if the beliefs about heaven and hell claimed by those impious preachers who gathered in the Rose Garden and sang hosannas to Trump prove to be true: SOMEBODY IS GONNA BURN IN HELL OVER THIS UNHOLY UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

*********************

Click on Link to witness the Ceremony in Hypocrisy

 

Playthell G. Benjamin
Harlem, New York
May 5, 2017