Trump Republicans: You’d Better Hope God Ain’t Real

Randolph Blake Farenthold, a Tea Party congressman from Texas who was elected in the we-hate-Obama election of 2010, was born in Corpus Christi, which in Latin means “body of Christ.” He attended a school in that city called Incarnate Word Academy. According to its website, one of the “core values” of the school is,

Belief in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, and his message of love for the world.

Well, Mr. Farenthold, and those other Republicans selling their souls to Donald Trump, had better hope they never meet the world-loving Christ—in body or out. They’d better hope he isn’t real, that his life and death and resurrection is a fable, a figment of the collective imagination of his earnest followers. Because if they do meet the Incarnate Word, if he is who they claim he is, Trump Republicans will be greeted with a variation of these words, from Matthew 5:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

In light of the recent revelations that Donald Trump loves him some genital-grabbing assaults on women, do Trump Republicans think that committing those assaults, possibly including rape, fits into the “right hand” in this passage? The right hand that “causes you to stumble”? The right hand that Jesus suggests—no, demands—should be cut off and thrown away? That seems like an easy question, doesn’t it? But not for followers of the Cult of Trump. Congressman Farenthold is one of those cultists who, when it counted, found it hard to condemn the easily-condemnable. He appeared on MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes on Tuesday night. Here is how CNN reported the hell-worthy exchange:

Farenthold was interviewed by MSNBC host Chris Hayes on the political fallout from a leaked video showing Trump, among other things, saying he could grab women by the genitals.

Asking the Republican congressman about the recent wave of party leaders, like Sen. John McCain and Rep. Paul Ryan, pulling their support from Trump, Hayes tried to size up Farenthold’s commitment.

“Until he does something so bad to make him worse than Hillary, I’m still in,” Farenthold said.

Hayes posed a hypothetical: “If someone off the record, in a locker room — this was not in a locker room, it was a workplace — said, ‘I really like raping women,’ would that be locker-room talk?”

Farenthold answered, “Again, it depends, you don’t know the entire context of all this.”

“But you would be fine with that?” Hayes interjected.

“I don’t like what he said,” Farenthold began to answer.

So Hayes repeated his hypothetical: “If a tape came out with Donald Trump saying that, saying ‘I really like to rape women,’ you would continue to endorse him?”

“Again … that would be bad. And I’d have to consider it, but again, we’re talking about what Donald Trump said 10 years ago as opposed to what Hillary Clinton has done in the past two or three years,” Farenthold said. “She’s been a failure.”

Hayes returned to the question and asked if there was a single, conceivable thing Trump could do to earn Farenthold’s opposition.

“Absolutely, but I think actions speak louder than words,” Farenthold said, dismissing the controversy over the leaked tape as a “kerfuffle.”

Here’s a clip of the conversation:

Farenthold, a short time later recognizing that Jesus may be fitting him for a rather large millstone that would assure he was “drowned in the depths of the sea” (thank you, Matthew 18:6), took to Facebook to seek relief from either Americans or the Almighty or both:

I apologize for my failure to immediately condemn anyone who would say something as outrageous as they like raping women. During an interview on MSNBC with Chris Hayes tonight, I was thrown off by the anchor’s use of a hypothetical question. I do not, and have not ever condoned rape or violence against women.

Does it take a moral or theological genius, “thrown off” or not, to “to immediately condemn anyone who would say something as outrageous as they like raping women”? Of course not. Any normal and decent person would pass that test. So, what is going on here?

I submit that it is way too easy to say Planet Trump poisons everything that wanders into its orbit, including a congressman from Corpus Christi. The harder truth is that people who are already poisoned with hate—for whatever reason—seek and fall under the nasty gravitational influence of a Trump. In other words, Donald Trump didn’t corrupt them. They were wounded, corrupt bodies chasing a Father Star. And, in Trump, they have found a home.



  1. ansonburlingame

     /  October 12, 2016


    I considered just writing this comment in a private email to you but decided, “no”, as you have put yourself out there on a limb publicly.

    My comment basically is the ESPN remark “Com’on Man”.

    Do you realize you have written with your old evangelical hat on, using Biblical verses to condemn your political opposition, and doing so in the extreme. Had any male over 50 (or should I say 15 years of age) reading this blog or all around the country followed the dictates of the quoted Mathew verse we would have a nation with probably 90% of one-eyed males, all lashing themselves on the back with whips for egregious thinking after glancing at a Playboy centerfold once or twice in their life. Hell’s bells, Jimmy Carter would have governed in self-inflicted blindness!!

    Condemn Trump all you like for political buffonery, but Biblical verses, well “Com’on Man”. You are normally a cogent political observer but this one is so far off the mark it is laughable, to me at least!!

    Would you please start posting your blog using Braile so I can read it??



    • Anson,

      First, I’m not fluent in Braille.

      Second, you know as well as I do that I do not personally subscribe to the beliefs noted herein. My point is that many, many Trump Republicans do. I am merely demonstrating that these people cannot have it both ways. I will not let them tell me how morally superior they are because they are “family values voters”who love Jesus, while embracing, about as enthusiastically as possible, a self-admitted groping creep like Donald Trump.

      Which leads me to another point I think you need to keep in mind. Of course most of us men have behaved in ways that wouldn’t make our mothers proud, in terms of objectifying women and lusting after them in various ways. But that’s not what we are talking about in Trump’s case. He wasn’t merely lusting after women with his eyes, he was mauling them with his hands. And he admitted doing so on that bus. That is the point here. I suspect you haven’t gone up to random women you found attractive and grabbed their genitals (without an invitation) and then bragged about doing so when you were with co-workers (this did, after all, occur while Trump was working). I know I haven’t done so because if I had, I would probably be still serving my prison sentence. Why? Because according to Trump, “stars” can sexually assault women with impunity, or so the thinks, and the rest of us would-be gropers would be subject to the law.

      So, I say to you, Come on, man! See this for what it is and stop trying to put all of us men into the same class as someone who thinks it is okay to have his way with women because he’s rich and famous. Many of us are, or have been, jerks or cads or quasi-boors, but few of us have done what Trump said he did—apparently routinely.



  2. Anonymous

     /  October 12, 2016


    I sympathize with your fear that lusting, grabbing a handful of …., might result in blindness, be prudent, just do it until you need glasses, and then quit. Most normal humans advance beyond “locker room talk” or sex fantasies by the time we graduate High School. Trump and his supporters in their 70’s should not be “dirty old men”, except I guess a majority of executives at Fox News. This condemnation is but one of many of Trump’s failure as a “Christian conservative”, a mature adult, a being arespectable human being. To place such a “masher” as your party’s nominee for the most important position on the planet, leaves your righteous indignation as humorous.


  3. ansonburlingame

     /  October 13, 2016

    To all,

    My position on faith and politics is that they must be kept separate, by us as “pundits” and politicians themselves. Only when someone like Carter, Pence (just in the case of abortion so far), etc. start moralizing about political issues do I simply discount their application of religion to politics. By discount, I mean I reject their “God says do it” arguments and simply try my best to consider the issue(s) strictly on legal or political terms.

    Does “God tell” some people how to vote? I am sure they think He does so but certainly such a point made by them bears no weight, actually even a “eye roll” in my own mind. BUT I do no condemn them for seeking such “advice”, quietly and on their own time. Just don’t use your own theology or religion to try to convince me to do take a similar political position.

    All of us have faced very heavy moral dilemmas in our lives. Some of us have attempted to seek “spiritual” (religious, theological, black magic…..) guidance to resolve them. The question for me when I think someone is doing so, seeking “outside help” is to merely judge their ultimate conclusions, not the source of advice they sought.

    I am sure Bush II prayed really hard before invading Iraq. He probably felt as if he received a green light from God to do so. Of course if that was the ultimate reason he made that fateful decision, well, I certainly don’t like some “God directed actions” Jimmy Carter took many times.

    Bill Bennet recently noted (commenting on the latest Catholic comments from the Clinton camp) that religion is now the only remaining human thought process in which the opposition can sound like bigots (anti-religion) and get away with it. Show Duane an evangelical and you can bet he gets his political hackles up, like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

    Some things upset people, cause a viceral reaction based on some pretty deep feelings. We all need to keep ourselves on a short leash before saying, writing, even taking action in response when that happens. Show Duane a crowd of evangelicals espousing some pretty crazy ideas and watch the response, sometimes. Show me a crowd of OWS (or BLM) rioters (not protestors) and unless I am very careful, well watch me respond.

    Both of us can easily get “politically incorrect” when we condemn one or the other crowd. But liberals will instantly call me a bigot while Duane can unleash on evangelicals as per the above and get away with it in a political setting. Frankly we are both wrong, in my view, when we allow ourselves to so “unleash”.

    So, “Com’on guys”. Let’s leave our instincts behind and argue about what to do with the extra money when Hillary tries to raise taxes on the rich, etc and leave God out of it.



    • Anson,

      I’d love to leave God out of it. The problem is that around 40% of the Republican base is fairly radical white (and some black) evangelicals, most of whom want to impose their religious conclusions on the rest of us. I think it is important to attack that idea. I think it is important to keep them from turning the U.S. into a quasi-theocratic state.

      Also, Pence’s right-wing religious extremism isn’t just related to the issue of abortion. It also is related to the rights of LGBT folks to live a life free of theocratic bullshit. He is why we simply cannot ignore his religious views, or the religious views of anyone who says religion is the most important thing in his or her life (as Pence has said).

      Finally, I take it you haven’t read the alleged anti-Catholic comments “from the Clinton camp.” If you did, you would see that they, as Catholics, were (essentially) fretting over the idea that their faith was being invaded by another one, namely evangelicalism. Unlike my criticisms of evangelicals, they were trying to keep pure their own version of religious expression. If anything, you could accuse them of religious snobbery, but nothing more than that.  I don’t embrace any version of religious expression myself, but I regard some of them as bigger threats to civilization than others. Bill Bennett’s version of Catholicism is much more dangerous to a free people than, say, Tim Kaine’s. Thus, I think it is kind of strange for you to cite Bill Bennett, who has been trying to impose religion on us for many years now (particularly via his views on reproductive rights for women), as the voice of reason on this matter.



%d bloggers like this: