The Bible and "MAGA" and "Christian Nationalist" Christians

ChatGPT, what are some of the most important Bible verses and themes that contemporary "MAGA" and "Christian Nationalist" Christians in America honestly reject by their words and deeds?

This is a serious and sensitive question that deserves a fair but clear answer. Many MAGA-aligned or Christian nationalist figures in the U.S. publicly identify as Christian and appeal to biblical authority. However, critics—both religious and secular—have pointed out that many of their words, policies, and actions seem to conflict with central biblical teachings, particularly those emphasized in the New Testament.

Here are some biblical themes and verses that many contemporary MAGA/Christian nationalist figures arguably reject or ignore, based on their rhetoric and conduct:

---

🔹 1. Loving Enemies and Nonviolence

Matthew 5:44 – “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Romans 12:17–21 – “Do not repay anyone evil for evil… Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

Conflict: Many Christian nationalists adopt hostile rhetoric against political opponents, immigrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others they view as cultural threats. They often encourage confrontation, not reconciliation, and sometimes downplay or excuse political violence (e.g. Jan. 6).

---

🔹 2. Humility and Repentance

Luke 18:14 – “For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Matthew 23:12 – “Whoever exalts himself will be humbled…”

Conflict: The movement often glorifies power, dominance, and self-righteousness, with little public focus on humility, repentance, or confessing wrongdoing—qualities that Jesus strongly emphasized.

---

🔹 3. Care for the Poor, Immigrants, and Marginalized

Matthew 25:35–40 – “For I was hungry and you gave me food… I was a stranger and you welcomed me…”

Leviticus 19:33–34 – “The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born… Love them as yourself…”

James 2:5–7 – “Has not God chosen those who are poor…? But you have dishonored the poor.”

Conflict: MAGA-aligned platforms often support policies that exclude immigrants, reduce social welfare, and stigmatize marginalized groups. This stands in tension with biblical commands to welcome strangers and care for the needy.

---

🔹 4. Truthfulness

Exodus 20:16 – “You shall not bear false witness…”

Proverbs 6:16–19 – “There are six things the Lord hates… a lying tongue… a false witness who breathes out lies…”

Conflict: The MAGA movement has frequently been associated with disinformation, conspiracy theories, and repeated false claims (e.g., about election fraud), often spread knowingly or recklessly by Christian nationalist figures.

---

🔹 5. Rejecting Idolatry and Nationalism

Exodus 20:3 – “You shall have no other gods before me.”

Philippians 3:20 – “Our citizenship is in heaven…”

John 18:36 – “My kingdom is not of this world…”

Conflict: Christian nationalism often elevates the U.S. (or a certain vision of it) to near-religious status, blending patriotism with faith in a way that many theologians call idolatrous. It sometimes treats political power, the Constitution, or Trump himself with a reverence that appears to compete with devotion to God.

---

🔹 6. Rejecting Racism and Ethnic Superiority

Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Acts 10:34 – “God shows no partiality.”

Conflict: Christian nationalism often promotes a white-centered cultural and political identity, marginalizing people of color and supporting systems that perpetuate inequality. Some MAGA-aligned Christians oppose multiracial democracy or speak nostalgically about eras marked by racial exclusion.

---

🔹 7. Peacemaking, Not Division

Matthew 5:9 – “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

Titus 3:9–11 – “Avoid foolish controversies… and divisions…”

Conflict: Many Christian nationalist leaders fuel division, encourage fear and anger, and attack other Christians who disagree politically. They often prioritize cultural war over unity, which undermines Jesus’s teaching that peacemakers are blessed.

---

🔹 8. Servant Leadership and the Rejection of Power Politics

Mark 10:42–45 – “Whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant…”

Conflict: MAGA-aligned Christian rhetoric often praises strength, dominance, and authority—both political and military—while downplaying Christ’s model of humble, sacrificial service.

---

🔹 9. Concern for Character

1 Timothy 3:2–7 (re: leadership) – “An overseer must be above reproach… self-controlled, respectable… not violent but gentle…”

Conflict: Many MAGA Christian leaders excuse or minimize gross moral failures, dishonesty, or abusive behavior in political figures, especially Donald Trump, often invoking flawed biblical comparisons (e.g., “God used King David or Cyrus”).

---

✅ Conclusion:

The contrast between core biblical values—especially those taught by Jesus—and the priorities and conduct of Christian nationalism is widely recognized by theologians, ethicists, and pastors across the political spectrum.

This isn’t to say that all MAGA-aligned Christians are intentionally rejecting Scripture. But the practical effects of their rhetoric and political alignment often undermine or contradict the ethical teachings that are central to Christian life—particularly those about humility, compassion, truth, peace, and love for all.

Let me know if you'd like this reshaped into an essay or article-style format, or tailored for a specific audience (church, classroom, blog, etc.).

An "Add the Day of the Week" Extension

The other day on I heard a story about people who know very little about coding making apps using ChatGPT.

So, I used it to try to make a Chrome extension that would add the day of the week to any date I receive by email since I LOATH dates without days given!! I think it might also do this to any other date on a browser too, but I am not sure of that yet.

There was a bit of trial and error -- including it creating code that basically crashed my Gmail for a while BUT it later apologized for that! -- but here's what was sent from another account to my Gmail, and then what showed up in Gmail!

How to install:

1. Download and unzip the folder anywhere you like.

2. In Chrome, go to chrome://extensions

3. Enable Developer mode (top right)

4. Click Load unpacked

5. Select the unzipped folder

That’s it — the extension will then run on Gmail and add the day of the week to dates.

If you try this, let me know! And if you update it to make it better, let me know!

What Should Have Happened in the Tragic Case of Adriana Smith?

New, at Bioethics Today, the blog of the American Journal of Bioethics!

What Should Have Happened in the Tragic Case of Adriana Smith?

Are Early Abortions Wrong? Ethical Theories, Consciousness, and the Moral Irrelevance of Biology

Are Early Abortions Wrong? Ethical Theories, Consciousness, and the Moral Irrelevance of Biology

Many people believe that abortion is wrong because it involves ending the life of a biologically human organism. However, philosophical investigation into the ethics of abortion suggests that this stance is mistaken, especially when we consider early abortions, which constitute the majority of abortion cases. 

This essay argues that early abortions are not wrong because major ethical theories—such as utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and Rawlsian justice theory—do not condemn early abortion. The reason is that early fetuses and embryos are not conscious or rational beings, and thus, these ethical theories do not regard them as possessing morally relevant features. Morally relevant features include capacities such as consciousness, sentience, rationality, and the ability to value one’s own existence (or anything, for that matter).

Insofar as what can reasonably be seen as the best explanations of what makes actions wrong do not condemn early abortion, we have good reason to think that early abortion is not wrong. Since actions that are not wrong should not be illegal, this helps justify the view that early abortions—indeed, most abortions—should be legal.

1. The common anti-abortion argument and its flaws

A central argument against abortion is that fetuses are biologically human and therefore abortion is morally wrong. This argument is typically expressed in a syllogism:

1. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings.

2. Fetuses are innocent human beings.

3. Therefore, it is wrong to kill fetuses.

This argument equivocates on the term “human being.” On one reading, “human being” refers to any biologically human organism. On another reading, it refers to a person—a being with moral rights. The conclusion of the argument follows only if we assume that all biologically human organisms are persons. But that is precisely what needs to be proven, not assumed. If early fetuses are not persons in the morally relevant sense—that is, if they do not have the properties that make killing wrong—then premise 2 does not support the conclusion.

2. Biological humanity is not morally relevant

Suppose someone argues that embryos and early fetuses are human because they are members of the species Homo sapiens. That is biologically correct. But does being biologically human entail having moral rights? According to major ethical theories, it does not. Consider utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and Rawlsian justice theory.

3. Utilitarianism and sentience

Utilitarianism, especially in its classical form as developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, holds that what matters morally is the ability to experience pleasure and pain. Sentience—the capacity to suffer or enjoy—is the key to moral relevance. Bentham famously wrote, “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”

Embryos and early fetuses, prior to the development of a functioning nervous system, cannot suffer or feel pleasure. They lack consciousness altogether. Thus, according to utilitarianism, they do not have interests, and therefore their lives do not have moral weight. Early abortion does not frustrate any interests or cause any suffering. Therefore, it is not morally wrong from a utilitarian perspective.

4. Kantian ethics and rational nature

Kantian ethics centers moral worth on rational nature. For Kant, persons are ends-in-themselves because they are rational agents capable of formulating and following moral laws. Respect for persons means respecting rational agency.

An embryo or early fetus lacks any capacity for rational thought or moral autonomy. It is not a subject of experience or reasoning. It cannot be treated as an end-in-itself because it is not a self at all. Therefore, under Kantian ethics, early fetuses are not beings toward whom we have moral obligations. It is not a violation of duty to terminate a pregnancy at this stage, since no rational being is being harmed or disrespected.

5. Rawlsian justice and the veil of ignorance

John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice, constructs principles of justice from the standpoint of the “original position,” where rational agents choose fair principles of cooperation behind a “veil of ignorance.” Behind this veil, individuals do not know their place in society, their abilities, or their conceptions of the good. Importantly, they are rational agents choosing from a position of fairness.

We cannot imagine ourselves as embryos or early fetuses behind the veil of ignorance because such beings lack the rationality and sense of justice that define participants in the original position. The veil of ignorance is meant to exclude knowledge of our particular identity but presupposes that we are rational agents with moral capacities. Embryos and early fetuses do not meet this condition and therefore are not represented in the original position. As a result, principles of justice do not directly apply to them, and early abortion does not violate Rawlsian justice.

6. Why biology alone is not enough

A common objection insists that the biological fact of being a human organism is sufficient for moral consideration. However, if we examine other biological humans, such as brain-dead patients or anencephalic infants (born without the parts of the brain responsible for consciousness), we find that they are often considered not to have full moral rights despite being biologically human. Moral consideration depends not just on species membership, but on the possession of morally relevant features such as consciousness, sentience, or rationality.

What makes killing us wrong is not that we are biological humans, but that we are conscious, feeling beings with interests. Embryos and early fetuses lack minds. Therefore, they lack the very features that make killing wrong in the paradigm cases.

7. Implications for the abortion debate

Given that the most widely accepted ethical theories do not regard embryos and early fetuses as beings with morally relevant characteristics, arguments against early abortion based on biological humanity alone are unconvincing. Instead, we must consider the rights, interests, and autonomy of the pregnant person. The pregnant person is a conscious being with a sense of self and a capacity to value her life and future. Her rights to bodily autonomy, health, and life plans outweigh any claims that might be attributed to a non-conscious embryo.

8. Considering potentiality

Some argue that even if embryos are not persons now, they have the potential to become persons and should be treated as if they already are. However, potentiality does not confer actual rights. A potential president does not have the rights of the actual president. A potential person is not a person.

Moreover, potentiality depends on circumstances. An embryo outside a womb or in a context where the pregnancy will not be carried to term has no realistic potential to become a person. Therefore, basing moral obligations on potentiality is vague and unreliable.

9. Considering continuity

Another objection is the continuity argument: the idea that since we were once embryos, and it would be wrong to kill us now, it was wrong to kill us then. But this argument confuses identity over time with moral relevance over time. Just because an adult was once an embryo does not mean the embryo had the same moral relevance. What matters is not who we were, but what we were like at the time. Moral relevance can develop. We don’t treat infants like adults in terms of rights and responsibilities; morally significant capacities matter.

10. What about late abortion?

This essay has focused on early abortions, which constitute the majority. As pregnancy progresses, the moral considerations change, especially once consciousness and sentience emerge. Even then, abortions later in pregnancy are rare and often performed for serious medical reasons. Philosophical arguments about early abortion do not necessarily apply to late abortion, and vice versa. Still, the ethical focus remains: what morally relevant characteristics are present?

11. Conclusion

Major ethical theories—utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and Rawlsian justice theory—agree on one key point: early fetuses and embryos do not possess the features that make killing wrong. They are not conscious, rational, or capable of experiencing suffering. Arguments against abortion that rely solely on biological humanity ignore what these moral frameworks teach us: morality depends on mental and experiential capacities, not mere species membership. Once we understand this, we see that early abortion is not morally wrong. The real moral concern lies in respecting the rights and autonomy of pregnant people, not in preserving the lives of unconscious biological organisms.

Understanding and accepting this conclusion not only clarifies the ethics of abortion but also encourages more respectful, thoughtful, and rational conversations about one of society’s most emotionally charged issues.

Recent essays at 1000-Word Philosophy

I thought I'd do a post about recent essays at 1000-Word Philosophy. Here it is!

Here are our newest essays:

• Martin Heidegger on Technology by Matthew Sanderson
• Civil Disobedience: Seeking Justice by Breaking the Law by Henry Krahn
• Ethics and Animal Research by Paul Bali
• Stoicism: Finding Happiness in What’s Under Your Control by Matthew Pianalto
• Animal Minds by Tiina Carita Rosenqvist
• Richard Swinburne on Religious Experience by Matthew Sanderson
• Philosophy of Pain by Tiina Carita Rosenqvist
• Heidegger on Being: Why is There Something Rather than Nothing? by Matthew Sanderson
• William James on Mystical Experience by Matthew Sanderson
• Robert Nozick’s “Wilt Chamberlain” Argument for Libertarianism by Daniel Weltman
• Artificial Intelligence: Ethics, Society, and the Environment and Artificial Intelligence: The Possibility of Artificial Minds by Thomas Metcalf
• Pyrrhonian Skepticism: Suspending Judgment by Lewis Ross
• Moral Education: Teaching Students to Become Better People by Dominik Balg
• Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems by Jon Charry
• Objects and their Parts: The Problem of Material Composition by Jeremy Skrzypek
• The Mind-Body Problem: What Are Minds? by Jacob Berger
• Seemings: Justifying Beliefs Based on How Things Seem by Kaj André Zeller

We publish new essays frequently, so please check back for updates. Also follow us on Facebook, Bluesky, Instagram, and Twitter / X, and subscribe by email on this page to receive notifications of new essays. 

"I Used to Teach Students. Now I Catch ChatGPT Cheats"

 I Used to Teach Students. Now I Catch ChatGPT Cheats

I once believed university was a shared intellectual pursuit. That faith has been obliterated

by Troy JollimoreUpdated 8:03, Mar. 5, 2025 | Published 6:30, Mar. 5, 2025

Public Philosophy presentation

“Feminist Philosophical Fact-Checking” at the Official Blog of IJFAB: the International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics and “Are Embryos “Babies” and “Children”?” at the blog of the American Journal of Bioethics

Atheism versus non-theism(s)

There a certain type of person (often found online) who has a hard time distinguishing atheism -- believing there is not a God -- from the variety of non-theism -- not believing there's a God. 

I made this image; perhaps it can help. Posting it here since I plan to eventually write up something about this. 

"Feminist Philosophical Fact-Checking"

Something new by me that may be of interest!

"Feminist Philosophical Fact-Checking" at the Official Blog of IJFAB: the International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics

https://www.ijfab.org/blog/2025/01/how-to-be-a-feminist-bioethics-scholar-on-social-media-an-essay-by-philosopher-nathan-nobis/

ChatGPT explains why common anti-abortion arguments and soundbites are mistaken

I am very much opposed to ChatGPT and AI use in educational contexts, but I do wonder if it could help with people who tend to think that expert opinions are a result of some kind of conspiracy or indoctrination or whatever, not a result of actually understanding the issues and arguments. Perhaps people who won't listen to experts will listen to ChatGPT?

ChatGPT explains why common anti-abortion arguments and soundbites are mistaken

Anti-abortion advocates often are willfully resistant to learning about abortion and ethics: they often reject distinctions that are widely known among people who have studied the issues, and enthusiastically accept demonstrably bad arguments. 

Yet, when this is pointed out and explained, they don't accept this and revise their views, believe it or not!

With that in mind, I asked ChatGPT some questions on matters where these types of errors are common. ChatGPT agrees that common responses from anti-abortion advocates are mistaken! 

How might anti-abortion advocates respond to ChatGPT? Will they see it as being duped by a liberal (or is it conservative?) conspiracy in giving these types of responses? Or will they recognize that ChatGPT has a more "fair and balanced" understanding than they do, and rethink their views? 

We might see! Click below for questions and ChatGPT's responses:

1. ChatGPT: Must everyone agree that a human embryo is a "human being," or else they are irrational?
2. Chat GPT: Must everyone agree that a human embryo is a person, or else they are irrational?
3. ChatGPT: Must everyone agree that an embryo or beginning fetus is a "baby" or a "child" or else they are irrational?
4. ChatGPT: Mammal's bodies start at conception or soon after conception. So human mammal's bodies start at conception or soon after. Does that suggest that abortion is wrong?
5. ChatGPT: If someone consents to having sex, knowing that pregnancy is a possible outcome, does that mean that they consent to that pregnancy?
6. Chat GPT: Is an embryo comparable to a sleeping person, in that since it's wrong to kill a sleeping person, is it also wrong to kill an embryo?

What are other questions that should be asked of ChatGPT?

Note: if someone responds, "Whatabout pro-choice people's misunderstandings???" yes, that indeed is a problem too, but this response is likely an attempt to deflect from the more pressing issue, which is misinformed people promoting unjust laws prohibiting and criminalizing early abortions: laws that criminalize morally permissible behaviors are unjust.