“As a Christian, I don’t think you can be both MAGA and Christian,” one person wrote in the comments of the video.
Two weeks ago, Jen Hamilton, a nurse with a sizable following on TikTok and Instagram, picked up her Bible and made a video that would quickly go viral.
“Basically, I sat down at my kitchen table and began to read from Matthew 25 while overlaying MAGA policies that directly oppose the character and nature of Jesus’ teachings,” she told HuffPost.
In the comments of the video ― which currently has more than 8.6 million views on TikTok ― many (Christians and atheists alike) applauded Hamilton for using straight Scripture as a way of offering commentary. Others picked a bone with Christians who uncritically support Trump.
Yes! Matthew 25:32 is one of the best examples of how warped MAGA & Christianity has become.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
I quote this passage a lot because it’s very explicit about going to heaven or not. It’s based on good acts, outlined briefly here. I don’t get how any MAGA person can read that and agree with our current policy. It’s anti-Christian.
There was a news article a while ago about maga hats saying their church was repeating “liberal talking points”, when the pastor was simply quoting Jesus.
https://www.newsweek.com/evangelicals-rejecting-jesus-teachings-liberal-talking-points-pastor-1818706
Most of the maga hats don’t care. They found their tribe and that’s all that matters to them now.
Facts and quotes don’t change people’s minds. In-group belonging does. So long as they see you as an enemy, they won’t listen to anything you say. We’re all vulnerable to that, but maga hats seem especially vulnerable.
MAGA still lives in the times between 1680 to 1880, mentally.
A time when people had 6 children on average, the mindset that we call “conservative” today worked out, men did blue-collar jobs while women stayed at home and cared for their children.
That was a prosperous, interesting time from the point of view of white settlers. MAGA still things back at that time, and thinks, if they can just behave the same way that people back then did, they’ll have the same, prosperous way of life.
Fact is, that way of life stopped working because the circumstances changed. All of US is settled, there’s no more space, people can’t have 6 children anymore, it doesn’t make sense for women to stay at home anymore.
MAGA has yet to realize that.
Thanks for sending me this.
The rest of the passage hit harder. First, the setup
Then your section about “the right”. Then the rest
As you correctly put, all sacred texts are better informed by their context & message as a whole. As a Unitarian Universalist, I’m not particularly happy with the ending of that passage, because it goes against my beliefs (I don’t think hell is real). But it does set the tone.
I don’t believe it (or the rest) either: the wrathful, vengeful, genocidal god of the old testament (who would not measure up to any sensible notion of good or moral) fatally discredits the religion to me. The passage is compelling, though. By likening everyone (& yourself) to Jesus, it demands we treat them accordingly (like a golden rule by proxy). It, moreover, indicates passive inaction (possibly including monasticism) is not enough, thus demanding positive engagement with the world.
As for rejecting the idea of hell, it’s interesting to compare for reference the older Zoroastrian/Mazdayasna tradition that inspired/originated many of those ideas (duality of good & evil, god & devil, free will, divine justice, heaven & hell, guardian angel, archangels, immaculately conceived savior who resurrects the dead, final judgement) & was in some sense more benevolent & coherent about them. They did not consider hell eternal: impure souls in the dark underworld are purified & reunited with the divine, a good god wouldn’t allow eternal suffering, and when asha ultimately prevails over druj, hell ceases to exist & the universe is restored to a pure state.
Digression: surprises in Mazdayasna changed the negative impression Christianity gave me of religion. For example, they don’t consider belief a condition for a good afterlife, either: only good deeds for the right reasons (uphold truth, order, justice, no expectation of reward) seem to matter. I think it’s fascinating that ancient people can & have imagined better than the primitive savages the old testament led me to think they were. It disappoints me that their benevolent ideas struggle to survive.