Left Goes Ballistic After Trump Wishes the Blessed Virgin Mary a Happy Birthday
Virgins don’t have birthdays? Did I miss something?
In the Catholic calendar, September 8 is the Nativity of Mary, the day we celebrate the birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Queen of Heaven.
It’s an important day! We honor the Blessed Virgin because without her “yes,” we wouldn’t have Jesus.
Well, Donald Trump decided to wish Our Blessed Mother a happy birthday!
Happy Birthday Mary! pic.twitter.com/d1nwHWTk2b
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 9, 2024
Well, those who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome lost their minds. They also don’t know anything about Catholicism, which isn’t rare, unfortunately.
Ana Navarro-Cárdenas thinks virgins cannot have birthdays. I honestly don’t know the point of this tweet, but TDS people aren’t normal.
When you obviously know nothing about virgins…🤦🏻♀️ pic.twitter.com/Rwoes1SWlN
— Ana Navarro-Cárdenas (@ananavarro) September 8, 2024
When you know nothing about the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God. Yesterday we LITERALLY celebrated the Nativity of Mary. https://t.co/hxXc11ZPBP pic.twitter.com/GGDZDsuSBx
— 🥧 Spicy Ginger 🍂 (@mchastain81) September 9, 2024
This response caught my eye. I laughed so hard I started crying. Tears from the laugh not from this stupid cold. LOL.
I’m still laughing.
I just love how the MAGA idiots are calling you dumb when they have no clue that Trump posted a picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe and NOT the Virgin Mary.
— Save Our Democracy🇺🇸🇺🇦☮✝️🗽🌊 (@rjrabbit2001) September 8, 2024
Um, there are not several Marys. There is only one Mary.
Our Lady of Guadalupe is probably the most well known representation of the Blessed Virgin. It is a Catholic title for her.
Our Lady of Guadalupe refers to the specific apparition of the Virgin Mary that Juan Diego witnessed in Mexico City in the 16th century.
The ignorance and stupidity always blow my mind. Sometimes, I wish it would for real because then it could unplug this pressure and congestion!
thats not mary thats La Rosa de Gudealdlupe
— tippity (@tippitytoptweet) September 9, 2024
Hey, did you know that Mary is from the Middle East?
If she was alive today, you would have banned her from entering US 😂😂😂😂😂
— Abdalrhman AK (@klf_ak) September 9, 2024
Hey, did you know that Mary is from the Middle East?
If she was alive today, you would have banned her from entering US 😂😂😂😂😂
— Abdalrhman AK (@klf_ak) September 9, 2024
Now, as you can tell from my post, I apply these titles to the Blessed Virgin. It’s weird for me to just call her Mary. But hey, Trump isn’t a Catholic and the fact that he wished her a happy birthday is cool.
Don’t nitpick.
You can tell he’s insincere by the lack of pretentious adjectives. Any self respecting Catholic would dress up “Mary” with a few “blessed”s, a “holy”, and obviously the word “virgin” had to appear somewhere in her title. Come on now Don, you’re not even trying.
— Eddie Blake (@EddieBlake1923) September 9, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Eddie Blake is yet another nasty bigot.
For that matter, ALL of the lefties whining about this are nasty bigots.
That settles it for me. I’m never voting for Trump
/s
I take it he wasn’t referring to Kamala Harris.
Isn’t she being saved for one of the Hamas martyrs?
I liked the prostitute Mary best, though I don’t remember the story exactly. Of course they made less money in those days.
Then there was one wandering around the tomb, I don’t know if that was the same one. I don’t even know who the virgin birth applied to – I seem to remember it was one back from what you expect, in Catholicism. A sort of double protection scheme.
The whole story made no sense in Sunday School and makes no more sense today, but Congregationalists aren’t big on it in any case.
The happy birthday tweak was amusing of Trump.
Your an idiot
As most men were jealous of Mary Magdalene relationship with Jesus, they made her out to be a prostitute… she was not
“If no Scriptural evidence directly ties her to this role, where did the prostitute affiliation come from
In the 6th century, Pope Gregory the Great authoritatively pronounced that the sinful woman mentioned in Luke 7:36-50 was the same person as Mary Magdalene. He even asserted that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany
were the same person. The Eastern Orthodox Church never linked Mary Magdalene’s identity with the sinful woman in Luke 7.”
Mary Magdalene’s loyalty and dedication were most evident during Jesus’s crucifixion and burial. When many of Jesus’s disciples deserted Him, Mary Magdalene remained steadfast, witnessing His crucifixion. She was also present at His burial and was the first to discover the empty tomb on Easter Sunday. This made her the first person to see the resurrected Christ and thus the first to share the news of His resurrection, earning her the title “apostle to the apostles”.
Christianity.com
Jean Genet did a nice literary analysis of the tomb episode.
So Mary Magdalene ran back until she came to Simon Peter and the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them: They have taken our Lord from the tomb, and we do not know where they have put him. So Peter and the other disciple came out, and went to the tomb. The two ran together, but the other disciple ran faster than Peter and reached the tomb first, and bent down and looked in and saw the bands lying there, but he did not go inside. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and he went into the tomb; and he saw the bands lying there, and the napkin, which had been on his head lying not with the bands but away from them and folded. You see how he writes his Funeral Rites and the remains: with the assiduous gestures of a philologist, an archeologist, a mythologist bent on dispersing, destroying, crossing out whatever he finds or reconstitutes. The most critical operation. But his assiduousness is strange, as if distracted from itself. He always seems in fact to be assiduous about something else, detached from what he does. He tells you another history, you follow the narrative attentively; he shows you this or that with a finger, and yet he [touches] you, his eyes elsewhere.” (Genet, Funeral Rites.)
cited by Derrida, Glas, p107-108
The point being that it’s composed and the composing can be analyzed. The philologist who points out and erases, keeping your interest and saying nothing that remains.
Why don’t you go someplace your ignorant bigotry will be appreciated, Hardin? Stormfront, Democrat Underground, Hell.
It’s actually very likely she was the woman of ill repute who poured the perfume on Jesus’ feet. Jesus did hang with all sorts of very sinful people. (Thank God.)
Also, we know Jesus was bipartisan… because he hung around with ‘publicans AND sinners. 😉
(Only people old enough to have used the King James version get that one.)
No, there is no proof Mary was a woman of ill repute
None
I believe the “men” were very jealous of her, Jesus went out of his way to appear first to her
She never denied him as they did (cowards) and they hated her for it
I believe she was vilified and left out of the Bible because of it
Women being not equal to men, it was easy
The entire bible is written by men
Yet Jesus chose Mary
A woman…who had the courage that the men did not!
Harold Bloom says the Hebrew bible that Genesis was based on was written by a woman. See “The Book of J.” introduction includes
For reasons I will expound, I am assuming that J lived at or nearby the court of Solomon’s son and successor, King Rehoboam of Judah, under whom his father’s kingdom fell apart soon after the death of Solomon in 922 BCE. My further assumption is that J was not a professional scribe but rather an immensely sophisticated, highly placed member of the Solomonic elite, enlightened and ironic. But my primary surmise is that J was a woman, and that she wrote for her contemporaries as a woman in friendly competition with her only strong rival among those contemporaries, the male author of the court history narrative in 2 Samuel….
That is a really ignorant take on Scripture, and smells much of feminism.
(The Bible was “written” by God, through those men. So take it up with Him.)
“When there was as yet no shrub of the field upon earth, and as yet no grasses of the field had sprouted, because Yahweh had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the soil, but a flow welled up from the ground and watered the whole surface of the earth, then Yahweh molded Adam from the earth’s dust (adamah), and blew into the nostrils the breath of life, and Adam became a living being.”
You could notice its composition. At the very moment life appears, it’s through the first figure of speech (breath of life). Did God think of that or was it a writer, J in particular. It’s very effective. You can recognize the literary trick and still you can’t avoid literalizing it. Technically it’s a confusion of use and mention that makes it impossible to think backwards past. It serves as a rhetorical origin.
For once I agree with gonzo. Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, and the sinful woman whose name is never given, are all different women. Mary was an extremely common name at the time.
No. Catholics believe that Mary was born without sin, but they do not believe her mother was a virgin. Sex is not a sin. Catholics, like all Christians, believe in only one virgin birth.
For when you insult Catholics in the very post you are claiming someone else is insulting Catholics. Yes Catholics are pretentious…..just roll out the dual loyalty accusation towards Italians and say Irish are always drunk we could see your thought as clearly as your face Ed.
By the way you see the Jew hating to, because the “would have banned” is an overt “Jesus was a Palestinian”=erasure of Jewish history.
But I think the biggest reveal is insulting Catholics in the name of defending them.
The important part of believing is knowing it’s ridiculous.
Are you as brave calling Islam ridiculous as Catholicism?
Certainly. Islam is about optimizing the next world, Judaism and Christianity this one.
The supporting texts are literary exercises to get the point across, not to be literally true. On which, here’s Wittgenstein, starting with talking about something Kierkegaard wrote:
“Kierkegaard writes: `If Christianity were so easy and cozy, why should God in his Scriptures have set Heaven and Earth in motion and threatened eternal punishments?’ – Question: But in that case why is this Scripture so unclear? If we want to warn someone of a terrible danger, do we go about it by telling him a riddle whose solution will be the warning? – But who is to say that the Scripture really is unclear? Isn’t it possible that it was essential in this case to “tell a riddle?” And that, on the other hand, giving a more direct warning would necessarily have had the wrong effect? God has four people recount the life of his incarnate Son, in each case differently and with inconsistencies – but might we not say: It is important that this narrative should not be more than quite averagely historically plausible just so that this should not be taken as the essential, decisive thing? So that the letter should not be believed more strongly than is proper and the spirit may receive its due. I.e. what you are supposed to see cannot be communicated even by the best and most accurate historian; and therefore a mediocre account suffices, is even to be preferred. For that too can tell you what you are supposed to be told. (Roughly in the way a mediocre stage set can be better than a sophisticated one, painted trees better than real ones, – because these might distract from what matters).”
Islam is about optimizing the next world, Judaism and Christianity this one.
Ummm, no. Christianity (nor Judaism) is not about “optimizing” this world. Not at all. As a matter of fact, it’s a grotesque heresy to make Christianity about making this world into a Utopia – that’s what Progressivism is.
For Augustine, charity was thinking the best of other people rather than the worst. That’s how it came to be soul-saving. Its effects are in this world, where, if you take soul to mean connections to others, the soul is. The religion says that figuratively, is all.
Only later did charity come to mean money.
Here’s Derrida, writing about what’s wrong with Islam:
“What appears to me unacceptable in the “strategy” (in terms of weapons, practices, ideology, rhetoric, discourse, and so on) of the “bin Laden effect” is not only the cruelty, the disregard for human life, the disrespect for the law, for women, the use of what is worst in technocapitalist modernity for the purposes of religious fanaticism. No, it is, above all, the fact that such actions and such discourse _open onto no future and, in my view, have no future_. If we are to put any faith in the perfectibility of public space and of the world juridico-political scene, of the “world” itself, then there is, it seems to me, _nothing good_ to be hoped for from that quarter. What is being proposed, at least implicitly, is that all captialist and modern technoscientific forces be put in the service of an interpretation, itself dogmatic, of the Islamic revelation of the One. Nothing of what has been so laboriously secularized in even the nontheological form of sovereignty (…), none of this seems to have any place whatsoever in the discourse “bin Laden.” That is why, in this unleashing of violence without name, if I had to take one of the two sides and choose in a binary situation, well I would. Despite my very strong reservations about the American, indeed European, political posture, about the “international terrorist” coalition, despite all the de facto betrayals, all the failures to live up to democracy, international law, and the very international institutions that the states of this “coalition” themselves founded and supported up to a certain point, I would take the side of the camp that, in principle, by right of law, leaves a perspective open to perfectibility in the name of the “political,” democracy, international law, international institutions, and so forth. Even if this “in the name of” is still merely an assertion and a purely verbal commitment. Even in its most cynical mode, such an assertion still lets resonate within it an invincible promise. I don’t hear any such promise coming from “bin Laden,” at least not one in this world.”
“Autoimmunity: Real and Symbolic Suicides” _Philosophy in a Time of Terror_ p.113
You did prove me wrong in thinking I saw anti-Catholic bigotry, and I take back the accusation.
You aren’t going to convince me religion is absurd, and I am not going to convince you that there is a God so we could agree to disagree, we disagree a lot politically but I hope you without knowing it live out a life that follows God and we meet in surprising circumstances since neither of us are immortal.
Again sorry about the accusation I was wrong about you although again I disagree with your take on religion in general.
I know that when I have a question regarding faith the first people that I go to for answers are atheists.
And when my car isn’t running right I have it towed over to Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration for a valve job.
The stupidity… It burns.
I’d ask a Satanist before asking whatever Hardin is.
Atheists do better than you’d think. Take Wittgenstein, and point out what a believer would find fault with:
Queer as it sounds : The historical accounts in the Gospels might, historically speaking, be demonstrably false and yet belief would lose nothing by this : _not_, however, because it concerns `universal truths of reason’! Rather, because historical proof (the historical proof-game) is irrelevant to belief. This message (the Gospels) is seized on by men believingly (ie. lovingly). _That_ is the certainty characterizing this particular acceptance-as-true, not something _else_.
A believer’s relation to these narratives is _neither_ the relation to historical truth (probability), _nor yet_ that to a theory consisting of `truths of reason.’ There is such a thing. – (We have quite different attitudes even to different species of what we call fiction!)
I read : “No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” – And it is true : I cannot call him _Lord_; because that says nothing to me. I could call him “the paragon,’ `God’ even – or rather, I can understand it when he is called thus ; but I cannot utter the word “Lord” with meaning. _Because I do not believe_ that he will come to judge me ; because _that_ says nothing to me. And it could say something to me, only if I lived _completely_ differently.
What inclines even me to believe in Christ’s Resurrection? It is as though I play with the thought. – If he did not rise from the dead, then he decomposed in the grave like any other man. _He is dead and decomposed._ In that case he is a teacher like any other and can no longer _help_ ; and once more we are orphaned and alone. So we have to content ourselves with wisdom and speculation. We are in a sort of hell where we can do nothing but dream, roofed in, as it were, and cut off from heaven. But if I am to be REALLY saved, – what I need is _certainty_ – not wisdom, dreams or speculation – and this certainty is faith. And faith is faith in what is needed by my _heart_, my _soul_, not my speculative intelligence. For it is my soul with its passions, as it were with its flesh and blood, that has to be saved, not my abstract mind. Perhaps we can say : Only _love_ can believe the Resurrection. Or : It is _love_ that believes the Resurrection. We might say : Redeeming love believes even in the Resurrection ; holds fast even to the Resurrection. What combats doubt is, as it were, _redemption_. Holding fast to _this_ must be holding fast to that belief. So what that means is : first you must be redeemed and hold on to your redemption (keep hold of your redemption) – then you will see that you are holding fast to this belief. So this can come about only if you no longer rest your weight on the earth but suspend yourself from heaven. Then _everything_ will be different and it will be `no wonder’ if you can do things that you cannot do now. (A man who is suspended looks the same as one who is standing, but the interplay of forces within him is nevertheless quite different, so that he can act quite differently than can a standing man.)
I had to look up who Ana Navarro was. “The View?” Say no more. I can’t believe people actually watch that show for political commentary.
I know! I mean stop quoting the insane
And they are insane
It’s a great show…
…for mild to moderate constipation symptoms.
Her X profile comes right out and says it: ” I’m a single-issue voter: for Trump to lose.”
We Orthodox Christians also venerate (NOT WORSHIP!) the Blessed Virgin. And celebrated her nativity yesterday.
RFK jr ad for Trump
Definitely putting a bullseye on vaccines, without saying vaccines
Expect the pharmaceutical companies to do something… awful
https://x.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1832584331459432723
Back off on Ana Navarro-Cárdenas. She’s a professional dumbass, and she’s just doing her job.
Cheap pandering.
I’m still voting for him … but cheap pandering.
I don’t know I get excited anytime anyone tries to write anything positive to Jewish people on any Holiday even if they screw it up and mix Purim with Hannukah ( the only holiday non Jews seem to know about). Not sure Catholics feel the same way but it’s nice someone bothered to notice important or holy days and their significance even if they mess up the details . It shows a willingness to get out of your bubble and learn.
Except Trump didn’t mix anything up — the people attacking him are too ignorant to realize what they think is a different Mary is a manifestation of the same Mary.
I have to grin at this. I’m currently tracking down a problem in the Faces feature of Apple Photos, where every time I say “this face is John Smith,” it insists on creating ANOTHER person named John Smith.
One of things I love about Trump is his casual way shining a flashlight in the liberal chicken coup as he passes by..
“Left goes ballistic . . . .”
Dog bites man.
I’m agnostic and I have several retablos made by modern Santeros, one of them being Our Lady of Guadalupe. Living in New Mexico, the image is immediately recognizable. You don’t need to be Catholic to recognize the image, just educated.
Leftists are immensely ignorant about those they hate the most — the people around them.
What odds do you think that there are that the same Leftists screaming like ruptured Bann Sidh at President Trump showing passing respect for Christians would view a Democrat politician quoting the Koran as a shining example of the Diversity they want to bring to the US?
Subotai Bahadur
Democrats still love Obama despite him saying the future does not belong to those who “insult the prophet Mo”.
Our Lady of Guadalupe – The Other Mary.
Idiot.
Veronica Lueken used to have a radio program where she relayed messages she received from the Virgin Mary, which were fairly authoritarian remarks in bureaucratic cliches most of the time. No doubt some audio clips are still available as well as books of transcriptions, one of which I have. The book smelled of cigar smoke, which I assumed was from the help.
Yes, for example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_EUcc5Xzqg&list=PL492A2BA3B5627EE3
It occurs to me that Veronica is basically a human ChatGPT on religious texts, having continuous what is technically called hallucinations.
Srsly?! FYI, Mary was not Moslem, nor even Christian; she was Jewish, a Jew from Israel, which is yes, in the Middle East, thank you Mr Geography. Did Trump ever attempt, or even express an interest, in banning Israeli Jews from entering the USA?! On the contrary, it’s the current administration that imposes sanctions on Jews who choose to live in Judea.
Actually there are several Marys in the New Testament. But only one of them is ever referred to as “Our Lady”, and obviously that’s what you meant. The various “Our Ladies” of this place or that are all references to the same Person. Who obviously had a birthday, even if the Church is only guessing at when it might have been.