No initial screen?
The NY Times looks at a Michigan bible college’s efforts to help Trump steal the election.
Last July, the Michigan attorney general, Dana Nessel, a Democrat, brought felony charges against all 16 of the state’s bogus Trump electors; she has said that her investigation remains open, raising questions about whether more charges might be coming. And while the Michigan indictments were the first stemming from the Trump campaign’s effort to seize electoral votes, at least four other swing states are now pursuing criminal investigations.
Hillsdale administrators declined to be interviewed for this article. But in response to written questions, the college said its officials had acted and spoken in a “personal capacity” regarding the 2020 election.
…
How did a small college in Michigan, self-defined by the idea that the project of American democracy is the realization of millenniums of Western wisdom, get mixed up in a plot to subvert it?
Millenniums? Have we given up on millennia? Just as we’ve apparently given up past-tense “forecast” for the clanging “forecasted”?
Anyway, yeah. Another way of putting it would be how could a conservative bible college see a Donald Trump as in any way acceptable? Don’t even conservative colleges and churches see the first and most basic filter as some form of human kindness? Don’t they have that initial screen that rejects mean angry hostile cruel venomous sadistic shits? If they don’t, why don’t they?
Maybe they cling to a tiny shred of that filter?
Like others in his intellectual camp, Arnn seemed to love Trumpism more than the man himself. (“There’s obviously a lot of things that are really great about that guy, but we don’t teach our students at Hillsdale College to act the way he does on all occasions,” he quipped during a 2017 speech.)
Hurhur. So, not the “you can grab them by the pussy” part of him? The mocking a disabled reporter part? The threats, the sneers, the lies, the threats?
I don’t know. Journalism tends not to ask questions of that kind.
I have a kind of grim fascination with the history of religion, particularly the emergence of Christianity, and I can assure you that elements of the various propaganda pieces compiled under the title “The New Testament” can be and have been twisted and cherry-picked to endorse far worse characters than Trump, all the way back to the second century. Authoritarians gonna’ authoritate, and in every age religion has been a very handy tool for that.
A lot? I can’t find any.
He certainly doesn’t “Walk the Walk,” does he? He’s a bad example for their precious children. He mocks the disabled, minimizes sexual abuse, brags about going into watch teenagers change clothes at his pageants, he’s a bully, takes illegal funds from foreign governments (so he can drain the swamp?) and he lies constantly.
Christians can be quick to judge those they don’t like and excuse those they do. #notallChristians
Others I run across are phenomenons, criterias (double ouch), and datas.
As for liking Trump, the Christian Right has long been prepared to endorse anyone that is useful to them. Their moral code is less about controlling their own behavior than it is about controlling that of other people, and they will willingly overlook anything as long as they are getting what they want. Hence their endorsement of the lukewarm Christian, divorced and remarried Ronald Reagan over the born again, life-long married Jimmy Carter.
Just some of them then, or maybe even most of them. He’ll only rule out ‘all’. Also whatever happened to “there’re” or even “there are”?
Well, they only teach phonics at Hillsdale College and can’t be bothered by anything more complicated than that…
I haven’t followed the history of Hillsdale college, but it used to be a strongly libertarian place (free markets, Austrian economics, anti-union, etc*). Don’t know when the transition to Christofascism happened.
—
“Or should that be “and etc.”?