Eyyy there it is, the fascist’s call for order. Everything else is chaos and only authoritarians can restore order and peace through violence.

For all non-fascists out there, always remember that fascists love violence and are fucking cowards. I don’t condone it but they’ll run if youscare their fine sensibilities or tell them no.

Declaring independence from an empire & making sea tea is a sin too.

You know they’re scraping the barrel when they skip the entire gospel and quote fucking Romans to make their point.

Good luck finding an example of Jesus obeying authority (spoiler: it’s the part where he dies).

I mean, didn’t the Romans crucify Jesus within the Roman Empire? Is she saying the Romans had full authority to murder Jesus so it’s all good?

But then I sigh and, with a piece of scripture,
Tell them that God bids us do good for evil;
And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With odd old ends stolen out of Holy Writ,
And seem a saint when most I play the devil.

from Richard III, Act I Scene III by William Shakespeare

Matthew 25:31-46 is when Jesus lays out the standards by which people will be judged. I don’t think MAGA would rate highly by Jesus’s standards, since it’s based entirely on the treatment of the poor, the sick, foreigners, and the imprisoned.

‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’

This is what “taking the LORD’s name in vain” actually looks like - using God as your excuse to do heinous shit.

oBEY mah auTHORatay

Hell is stuffed with people like her.

If you take Jesus at his word anyway.

There’s a much more famous example, which is actually in the gospels, that details how Christianity and government are related, and that’s when Jesus said “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

Why wouldn’t she go for the most famous example, and the one that is actually in Jesus’s words? An example that has been examined and debated more closely than just about anything outside of the gospels. Why did she go for a book that is attributed to Paul, instead of going to Jesus’s words?

My first theory is that she just doesn’t know the Bible very well. She probably doesn’t understand the contextual meaning of Jesus’s words. My second theory is that it’s a slightly more subtle opinion than the black-and-white world which that sort of asshole thinks she lives in. Jesus is responding to a tricky challenge where the easy answers are either that he supports breaking the law, or he believes religious people should subjugate themselves before their governments.

And the simplest interpretation of his answer is that earthly authorities have authority over earthly matters. So, it means nearly the same thing as Romans 13.

Of course, there’s no evidence that Renee Good was breaking any law, either, so

This person is breaking two Commandments, the only rules so explicitly important to Christians that the only God they believe in hand carved stone to make sure the followers know these rules do not change.

Thou shalt not kill

Thou shalt not take thy Lord’s name in vain.

She is no Christian and will burn forever as Satan applauds her for steering more souls to Hell. She is a heretic and will forever burn in fire. Good for her.

Jesus LOVES Murdering Moms! It SAYS so in The Bible! And if you DONT see that you’re a TERRORIST who needs to DIE for Your Sins! I’m GOING TO HEAVEN!

Anyone surprised there was no reference to Renee Good being gay and that making killing her even more justified in the eyes of god? Because I am.

Everything else aside, what law did she break?