Exhibit A in How Defense of Trump Distorts Christian Witness

Exhibit A in How Defense of Trump Distorts Christian Witness May 16, 2016

A reader writes:

Trump has grown in virtue. Mark Shea claims to defend life 100% but is willing to overlook secured borders, jihadists, the overthrow of Christianity via caliphate building, minority enabling via pandering, illicit trade, evidenced by his third party advertisements. An unwillingness to defend the lives of people who defend life.

Notice the infallible way in which Trump defense leads to using the unborn as human shields for Trump’s *real* “non-negotiables” (and those of his Frankenstein base).  The proposition that a man who still insists that he has done nothing for which he need ask God for forgiveness is delusional enough.  But notice as well how this is coupled with a total focus, not on the unborn, but on xenophobia and racist fear of “minority enabling”.  Those are the real issues for this person.  The Babies[TM] are just fig leaves.

That shell game is what every Trumpkin has to commit to.  You will always wind up dancing to Trump’s tune, never he to yours.

In contrast, if you subscribe to a Whole Life ethic you just agree with the Church and then get back to fighting abortion.

"Then you will appreciate this....The Louisville Courier-Journal reports:Should pregnant women be monitored by the state? ..."

Simcha Fisher Has a Great Idea
"No wonder the atheists reject this supposed Catholic God.The Catechism of the Catholic Church1035 The ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"I was referring to the problem of reconciling the claim of a god of perfect ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
""To believe and suggest that the pope "perhaps didn't even read" that crucial part of ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Bemused

    What is minority enabling? No, seriously, what does he mean?

    • I was wondering the same thing!

      • Bemused

        Yay! Company in my puzzlement!

    • chezami

      It means Trump is a hit with racists, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists who see no conflict between their racism and the Faith or the prolife movement.

      • Artevelde

        No argument with your evaluation of who trump is a hit with, but each and every one of the concerns that this person sums up, is valid.

        Edit: apart from the illicit trade thing. No idea what that means.

      • Bemused

        Well, yes, but I was more trying to figure out what he was actually trying to say. That reader does not appear to English well.

    • Artevelde

      Probably something along the lines of ”letting minorities get away with bad behavior because of PC.”

      • Bemused

        It certainly fits with the spirit, but that’s a really obscure way to phrase it if that’s what is meant.

        • Artevelde

          True. I suspect it has something to do with mob mentality. Trump often talks about Hillary as that ”nasty enabler.nasty nasty”. Also, good to see you again, Bemused and Beadgirl.

          • Bemused

            *waves back* 😛

          • Good to be back! That’s a charitable assumption, by the way. I hope it is correct (and the writer is just awkward at expressing him/herself). I fear it is not.

            • Artevelde

              I’ve heard the phrase before. There is a lot of truth in it, though it also often is a clear indication of racism. I’m going to leave race out of it for now, because it tends to muddle the issue. What he is in all likelihood referring to are things like generational unemployment, where being unemployed becomes entrenched in families, communities and generations, with all the misery and sinful behavior associated with it. Welfare systems (hence the rage against everything ”leftist”) tend to foster generational unemployment, especially when not accompanied by specific activation measures. Of course the argument is often, though not always, disingenuous when coming from ”fiscal conservatives”, because they often don’t give a hoot about whether or not people have a job. They just don’t want to pay, or worse, exploit the vulnerable.
              The right approach, I think, is combining welfare with a very personal activation approach, both in a positive (help them find a job) as in a negative (withhold support if offered job opportunities are flat out refused) way. These things are best handled on a local level and work best when government policies are embedded in a healthy community.

              • But why add the qualifier “minority”? As I understand it, white people benefit just as much, if not more, from welfare. E.g., in 2010 apparently the rates of TANF for the big three “races” are 31.9%, 31.8%, and 30%. So why single out minorities as taking advantage of the system or being entrenched in it?

                • Artevelde


                  Those are the numbers you cited, I think, but you’ll have to take the percentage of said groups in relation to the overall population into account. If 31.9% of the money goes to African-American families, they are overrepresented.

                  I don’t think it’s necessarily a sign of any racism or nativism to point that out. On the contrary, unless one wants to see society only as a bunch of inviduals, it can be a sign of caring for the socio-economical status of such groups. The devil is, as always, in the details. It’s not because, let’s say, African-Americans have more families receiving welfare in relation to their percentage of the total population than Whites, that the goverment is ‘pandering’ to them, as that reader wrote. They probably are simply more likely to be in a bad situation. Why that is so is another question again.

                • chezami

                  Because the writer is a racist. It’s really not complicated.

                  • Artevelde

                    Come on Mark, that’s not even remotely serious. The writer may very well be a racist. His use of words like ‘pandering’ seems to indicate that. So would saying they take ‘advantage’, despite the fact that some people do take advantage of the system.
                    You’re not, however, magically going to make the varying socio-economical postion of different groups, minorities or majorities of whatever kind, disappear just by crying ‘racist’.
                    For me something else is ‘not complicated’: saying a ethnic minority is being pandered to or is taking advantage of the system is probably a sign of racism. Saying no group or family is ever ‘entrenched’ in whatever kind of problemic situation is just not caring about them.