Curmudgeon's Corner

The new Trump religion

Inauguration begins the meeting of the two institutions

By John Kubal

The Brookings Register

Posted 2/4/25

On Jan 20, the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump came off with a strong dose of religion. Leading off the clergymen (no women today, … but the next day) was Cardinal Timothy Dolan, …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in
Curmudgeon's Corner

The new Trump religion

Inauguration begins the meeting of the two institutions

President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office during the 60th Presidential Inauguration in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 20.
President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office during the 60th Presidential Inauguration in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 20.
Saul Loeb/Pool photo via AP
Posted

On Jan 20, the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump came off with a strong dose of religion. Leading off the clergymen (no women today, … but the next day) was Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Catholic archbishop of New York, delivering an opening prayer with a touch of prayerful history. He referenced George Washington on his knees praying at Valley Forge; Lincoln in his second inaugural address, seeking “charity for all”; Patton at the Battle of the Bulge urging his troops to “pray for … , pray for … , pray for … .” (No mention of the “weather prayer” in “Patton,” the movie.)

Following that, the cardinal got a bit more specific, praying for the Trumps, the Bidens, the Vances and our nation’s men and women in uniform. He besought wisdom for Trump, noting that the soon-to-be-sworn-in president is “aware of his own weaknesses.” (If he is, I’ve never heard him admit them.) At 2:45 minutes, he finished with an “Amen.” To the cardinal’s credit, he kept his prayer generic, with no mention of Jesus or gathering in his name. God forbid, there might have been a non-believer or two in the audience.

He was followed by the Rev. Franklin Graham, who having answered the call has been very successful following in his father’s theological footsteps. He got some applause early in his prayer. The reverend noted that God “saved (Trump’s) life and raised him up with his mighty hand.”  The reverend made reference to First Lady Melania Trump’s “warmth, beauty and grace.” And in closing at about 3 minutes, he referenced his “Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

Trump’s address — in which he noted that God saved him from assassination — was followed by a four-clergyman benediction: a rabbi, an imam, a Protestant minister, and a Catholic priest who personally knows the president.

When it was all over, pretty much every religious base had been covered. Plenty of freedom of religion — but from religion? Will religious freedom and tolerance follow in the four-more years of Trump’s second term in office?

Next day, Jan. 21, the National Day of Prayer at the National Cathedral, found Trump, Vance, their families, and other GOP D.C. long-ball hitters in attendance. However, this gathering was not to the Donald’s liking, following some comments directed at him by Episcopal Bishop Mariann Budde: “ … have mercy on people in our country who are scared now … .” Insert the LGBTQ+ community, illegal aliens and possibly others of political leanings that might be such as to put one on a presidential retribution list. 

Needless to say, Trump was not amused by the bishop’s remarks. He put her down as “a trump hater … ungracious … nasty … not compelling or smart.” Whether you agree with her comments or not, she believed she was speaking truth to power. However, might she have chosen a more appropriate occasion? Good question. Bottom line: Give her a thumps up for courage, a thumbs down for venue.

I digress a bit. But the bishop’s comments got me to thinking about FOT (Fear of Trump) syndrome, very evident among the GOP’s male senators and congressmen, especially when it comes to challenging his choices for cabinet posts or other positions. Few of them have the cojonean courage to stand up to the Donald.

I appreciate that every incoming president has the right to put his own team in place when it comes to his cabinet and other high-ranking posts over which he has the power to appoint. Usually the vetting and voting for those posts is a rubber stamp, with both parties approving the president’s picks.

Witness the 98-1 vote for retired Marine Corps General James A. Mattis as Trump’s first Secretary of Defense pick during his first term in office. (Mattis, unwilling to kiss the ring, would later resign, diplomatically noting that the president deserved a SECDEF whose views were more attuned to his own.)

This go-around Trump got a 99-0 vote for Secretary of State Marco Rubio. So much for Democratic senators being viewed as obstructionists.

Might they be the loyal opposition that we expect now and then when the parties can’t agree? Unfortunately, many American voters today see them both as putting party loyalty before patriotism. Also, unfortunately, this election brought religion into the fray with conservative Christians getting onboard the Trump bandwagon.

Now stand by for heavy rolls. There’s a 900 pages-plus document out there called Project 2025. Cobbled together by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, it’s custom-made for a Trump presidency, although he has taken a never-heard-of-it approach to the document. It’s not an easy read. And I find it hard to define.

I think Chelsea Ebin, author of “The Radical Mind,” and a professor at Kansas State University, weighs in pretty convincingly in a public seminar about “The Religious Right and Project 2025”: “Written with a future Trump presidency in mind, Project 2025 lays out a radical agenda to concretely reshape US political institutions and transform American social and political culture, and it has garnered considerable attention from the media, the Democratic Party establishment, pundits and scholars for its overt Christian nationalism and authoritarian proposals.”

Note that this is only one view. I’ve checked out other sources and come to the conclusion that this is a view of Christianity that fundamentalists, evangelicals, born agains and those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible are likely to find to their liking. I envision the Ten Commandments prominently displayed in every federal government building, prayer in public school classrooms, and government support for Christian schools via vouchers or tuition assistance. 

Sounds good to many … but. When you take federal dollars there are strings attached. Is there an expected quid pro quo here? Think about it. I have devout and conservative Catholic friends who think Christian nationalism is worth pursuing. The doubting-Thomas Catholic in me thinks otherwise.

Have a nice day.