Religious Rhetoric in US Right-Wing

Politics Chiara M. Migliori

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/religious-rhetoric-in-us-right-wing-politics-chiara-m-mi
gliori/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Paradoxical Right-Wing Sexual Politics in Europe 1st

Edition Cornelia Möser

https://ebookmass.com/product/paradoxical-right-wing-sexual-
politics-in-europe-1st-edition-cornelia-moser/

Immigration Policy and Right-Wing Populism in Western

Europe Anna Mckeever

https://ebookmass.com/product/immigration-policy-and-right-wing-
populism-in-western-europe-anna-mckeever/

Aspects of the New Right-Wing Extremism Theodor W.

Adorno

https://ebookmass.com/product/aspects-of-the-new-right-wing-
extremism-theodor-w-adorno/

Religious Freedom in Islam: The Fate of a Universal

Human Right in the Muslim World Today Daniel Philpott

https://ebookmass.com/product/religious-freedom-in-islam-the-
fate-of-a-universal-human-right-in-the-muslim-world-today-daniel-
philpott/
The branding of right-wing activism: the news media and
the Tea Party Costley White

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-branding-of-right-wing-
activism-the-news-media-and-the-tea-party-costley-white/

(eBook PDF) Ethics, Left and Right: The Moral Issues

That Divide Us

https://ebookmass.com/product/ebook-pdf-ethics-left-and-right-
the-moral-issues-that-divide-us/

Reconstructing Empedocles' Thought Chiara Ferella

https://ebookmass.com/product/reconstructing-empedocles-thought-
chiara-ferella/

Defending frenemies : alliances, politics, and nuclear

nonproliferation in US foreign policy Taliaferro

https://ebookmass.com/product/defending-frenemies-alliances-
politics-and-nuclear-nonproliferation-in-us-foreign-policy-
taliaferro/

Peace in the US Republic of Letters, 1840-1900 Sandra

M. Gustafson

https://ebookmass.com/product/peace-in-the-us-republic-of-
letters-1840-1900-sandra-m-gustafson/
PALGRAVE STUDIES IN RELIGION,
POLITICS, AND POLICY

Religious Rhetoric in
US Right-Wing Politics
Donald Trump, Intergroup Threat,
and Nationalism

Chiara M. Migliori
 Palgrave Studies in Religion, Politics, and Policy

Series Editor
Mark J. Rozell, Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason
University, Arlington, VA, USA
This series originated under the co-editorship of the late Ted Jelen and Mark J.
Rozell. A generation ago, many social scientists regarded religion as an anachronism,
whose social, economic, and political importance would inevitably wane and disap-
pear in the face of the inexorable forces of modernity. Of course, nothing of the sort
has occurred; indeed, the public role of religion is resurgent in US domestic politics,
in other nations, and in the international arena. Today, religion is widely acknowl-
edged to be a key variable in candidate nominations, platforms, and elections; it is
recognized as a major influence on domestic and foreign policies. National religious
movements as diverse as the Christian Right in the United States and the Taliban in
Afghanistan are important factors in the internal politics of particular nations. More-
over, such transnational religious actors as Al-Qaida, Falun Gong, and the Vatican
have had important effects on the politics and policies of nations around the world.
Palgrave Studies in Religion, Politics, and Policy serves a growing niche in the
discipline of political science. This subfield has proliferated rapidly during the past two
decades, and has generated an enormous amount of scholarly studies and journalistic
coverage. Five years ago, the journal Politics and Religion was created; in addition,
works relating to religion and politics have been the subject of many articles in
more general academic journals. The number of books and monographs on religion
and politics has increased tremendously. In the past, many social scientists dismissed
religion as a key variable in politics and government.
This series casts a broad net over the subfield, providing opportunities for scholars
at all levels to publish their works with Palgrave. The series publishes monographs
in all subfields of political science, including American Politics, Public Policy, Public
Law, Comparative Politics, International Relations, and Political Theory.
The principal focus of the series is the public role of religion. “Religion” is
construed broadly to include public opinion, religious institutions, and the legal
frameworks under which religious politics are practiced. The “dependent variable”
in which we are interested is politics, defined broadly to include analyses of the
public sources and consequences of religious belief and behavior. These would include
matters of public policy, as well as variations in the practice of political life. We
welcome a diverse range of methodological perspectives, provided that the approaches
taken are intellectually rigorous.
The series does not deal with works of theology, in that arguments about the
validity or utility of religious beliefs are not a part of the series focus. Similarly, the
authors of works about the private or personal consequences of religious belief and
behavior, such as personal happiness, mental health, or family dysfunction, should
seek other outlets for their writings. Although historical perspectives can often illu-
minate our understanding of modern political phenomena, our focus in the Religion,
Politics, and Policy series is on the relationship between the sacred and the political
in contemporary societies.

More information about this series at

https://link.springer.com/bookseries/14594
 Chiara M. Migliori

Religious Rhetoric
in US Right-Wing
Politics
Donald Trump, Intergroup Threat,
and Nationalism
Chiara M. Migliori
John F. Kennedy Institute
Freie Universität Berlin
Berlin, Germany

ISSN 2731-6769 ISSN 2731-6777 (electronic)

Palgrave Studies in Religion, Politics, and Policy
ISBN 978-3-030-96549-5 ISBN 978-3-030-96550-1 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96550-1

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: selimaksan/Getty Images

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 For my grandfather
who would have hated the things I say
but would have loved a book written by me
 Preface

When I started my Ph.D. in October 2016, Donald Trump was still

the Republican candidate who had been polarizing the United States,
and most of the world’s public opinion, since summer 2015. In little
more than a month, under the bewildered look of half of the nation’s
population, he had become the president-elect of the United States.
I have always been fascinated by how Christian faith and conservative
politics intersect in the social panorama of the United States, and I had
set out to pursue my research in a structured, in-depth way thanks to the
opportunity offered by the doctoral position. What I had not foreseen,
when I first set foot in the Graduate School of North American Studies
of the Freie Universität of Berlin, was that I was in for a ride that would
have challenged many of the preconceived notions I had on that subject.
At first, I had thought of limiting my research to the discourse
of Donald Trump, investigated through an attentive listening of his
speeches, and that of preeminent pro-life and pro-traditional family
interest groups, if I had been brave enough to meet some of the people
working for them. Then my colleagues suggested that I interviewed
the people whose opinions mattered the most: ordinary voters who
supported the former president and did so without being conditioned by
the decades-long relationship tying the Religious Right to the Republican
Party.
During the years, I managed to meet with people who allowed me
to ask them the questions that then formed the structure of this book.

vii
viii PREFACE

We talked about politics and religion, they granted me access into their
thinking and their beliefs, and even though some of them are the opposite
of mines, I was grateful for their willingness to sit down with a complete
stranger to discuss the whys and hows of their worldview.
I organized this specific type of interviews because conversations
happening in small groups can give as a result a wider variety of input
related to the topics discussed. Peer groups differ from focus groups in
their being composed by a smaller number of participants, who usually
know each other. The familiarity of the setting allows to reduce the role
of the facilitator and the conversation to flow in a more natural way.
A commonly mentioned limitation attributed to focus or peer groups
concerns the lack of representativeness of the participants’ opinions.
Further complicating issues characterizing this type of interview might be
the interruption of the answer of another participant, the mutual galva-
nization on certain topics, originating from shared opinions or grievances
surrounding them, and the outspokenness of some of the participants that
inevitably leads to the silence of other, less vocal ones.
A very low percentage of the pastors I had contacted answered my
request, either positively or negatively. At such low response rate, self-
selection clearly played an important role in the formation of the groups,
thus preventing me to obtain a probability sample. The rather low level
of representativeness obtained through this type of qualitative research,
however, does not constitute a hindrance for the present work, whose
main aim remains a discursive analysis directed at highlighting the role of
religious identity in informing political behavior in the 2016 presidential
election.
Some peer groups’ discussions proceeded smoothly, with participants
respecting the rules of taking turns, but sometimes avoiding expressing
strong feelings on any of the topics discussed. In other groups, instead,
it is possible to retrace deeply felt emotions and ill-concealed anger and
frustration. Notwithstanding the value of individual, in-depth interviews
to gain a deeper perspective in the object of investigation, the social
imaginary of white conservative Christian voters, a pluralistic discus-
sion represents the form best suited to uncover the multiple layers of
significance that some issues might assume in the imaginary of the
interviewees.
In order for the conversation to proceed, people usually tend to look
for common ways of framing the issue being discussed. Posited that
every singular way of framing corresponds to a different worldview over
 PREFACE ix

a specific topic, peer groups’ results provide with a detailed description of

the process of meaning formation and reproduction that is crucial to gain
a thorough understanding of the topic at hand.
Five years after the beginning of this research, Donald Trump is no
longer president; he was succeeded by a figure that represents the ideolog-
ical opposite of everything he symbolized, and his most ardent supporters
stand for. The amount of research and literature that his mandate spurred
to create is impressive, to say the least, and readers might ask themselves
why they should engage with yet another book on the subject.
In the following pages, you will be taken through the creation of what
I defined the tale of the mythological figure of Trump as the savior of
Christianity. Answers will be provided as to how a figure such as Trump
could obtain the success he had, and the historical events that saw the
development of the official relation between religion and politics won’t
of course be left out.
The most important thing readers will encounter, however, are the
voices telling this tale. These, belonging to his faithful followers, tell a
story of resentment and relief, of threat, fear, and revenge. As unfath-
omable as these words might be for many people, and as enraging some
of their ideas, Trump happened, and he, like many similar personalities in
western democracies, can’t simply be discarded as a mistake of the past.

Berlin, Germany Chiara M. Migliori

 Acknowledgments

I was lucky enough to be part of a program that allowed me to pursue

my research in an ideologically unconstrained manner. I was surrounded
by colleagues who showed me their support through stimulating conver-
sations, challenging discussions, and honest and friendly advice. My
supervisors encouraged me throughout and pushed me to face what I
thought were unsurmountable limitations.
As someone recently told me, “It’s clear that you have extremely
supportive friends and a family you can always rely on.” And I don’t
take this for granted. The work that made this book possible wouldn’t
have stood a chance, hadn’t it been for the help and love of the people
surrounding me. Thank you.

xi
 Praise for Religious Rhetoric in US
Right-Wing Politics

“The subject of this book is an extremely timely and important one.

Migliori’s work is the first large-scale qualitative study of how and why
religious conservatism bolstered support for Trump despite his overt char-
acter flaws. Understanding the Trump phenomenon is absolutely essential
due to its unprecedented nature in the U.S. and its similarity to right-wing
authoritarian politics in other national contexts.”
—Laura Olson, Thurmond Professor of Political Science, Clemson
University, USA

“Although the Christian Right has long been a central actor in Republican
politics, the embrace of Donald Trump by many but not all movement
activists came as a surprise to many. A movement that had claimed that Bill
Clinton’s affair disqualified him for the office of the presidency embraced
a man who paid off a pornstar and who bragged about multiple sexual
affairs. A movement that had long upheld the Bible as a source of guid-
ance embraced a man who was the poster boy for the Seven Deadly Sins.
In this carefully researched book, Chiara Migliori traces evolving evan-
gelical reactions to Donald Trump, dissects the various frames for his
presidency from the right and the left, and helps us makes sense of our
cultural movement. Highly recommended.”
—Clyde Wilcox, Professor of Goverment, Georgetown University, Qatar
Campus

xiii
 Contents

1 The Outsider and the White House 1

White Conservative Christians, the Religious Right,
and Donald Trump: The Creation of a Tale 5
Scope and Aim 15
References 16
2 “What Happened?” 19
“It’s Time to Remove the Rust from the Rust Belt” 23
“This is Youngstown, Mr. President” 27
“All he’s Doing is just Trying to Do the Best He Can” 30
References 46
3 Whiteness, Christianity, and Politics 49
White Conservative Christian Voices 50
Discarding the Word Evangelical 53
Religion and Race 57
White Christian Nationalism 62
“It’s ok to pray if you’re a Muslim” 66
References 73
4 A Threatened Status 77
Intergroup Threat 79
“Nobody Is Responsible for Their Own Actions” 84
Symbolic and Status Politics 88

xv
xvi CONTENTS

The Perception of Status Loss 92

References 99
5 Fighting for the Soul of the Nation 103
Religion and Partisanship 104
Young Voters and the God Gap 106
God and the GOP 111
“Pro-Life and Pro-Family:” The Twenty-First-Century
Religious Right 116
References 120
6 A Rhetorical Weapon 125
The Rights Talk 125
The Irreconcilability of Worldview: Examples and Effects
of the Rights Talk 130
“According to the Liberals, Their Free Speech Is Awesome,
but Our Free Speech Is Hatred:” 140
References 144
7 Trump Won. Deal with It 147
November 8, 2016: Why Trump? 148
“We Weren’t Electing a Pastor:” Justifying the Support
for Trump 151
“Most Importantly, I Brought My Bible”: Trump’s Style 155
“You Know, I’ve Been Here Before”: The Values Voter
Summit 161
References 171
8 Dispatches from the Swamp 175
Victims of Discrimination 178
How Trump Saved Christmas 186
The Villain and the Hero 187
References 192
9 “He’s Just a Real Dude” 197
Moral Politics and the First-Born Syndrome 198
“He’s Become the Mouthpiece for That Disenfranchised
Group”: The Liberals’ Take 203
Trump as One of Them 206
 CONTENTS xvii

The Common Man and the Hero 214

References 217
10 How Could Trump Happen? 219
References 225

Index 227
 About the Author

Chiara M. Migliori earned her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of

North American Studies of the Freie Universität of Berlin. Her research
focused on the interaction between Christian faith and political culture
with a specific focus on the Trump era.

xix
 CHAPTER 1

The Outsider and the White House

Oh, he’s got The Art of [the Deal], hold that book up please. One of the
great books. That’s my second favorite book of all time. You know what
my first is? The Bible! Nothing beats the Bible, nothing beats the Bible,
not even The Art of the Deal.1
Donald Trump, August 11, 2015.

One of the very first mentions of the Scriptures by then first-time

candidate Donald Trump happened on August 11, 2015 during a speech
he held in Birch Run, Michigan, on occasion of the Lincoln Day celebra-
tion, less than two months after announcing his intention to run for the
presidency of the United States. Trump repeated the sketch several times
during the rallies of his first campaign, and the reaction he obtained from
the public was invariably an outburst of cheers and approval shouts.
For the presidential hopeful, occasions to express his beliefs and elab-
orate on his Christian faith did not lack during the months preceding the
election in November 2016, although the answers didn’t always satisfy the
press. During the campaign, it had become a joke among journalists to
interrogate the candidate on Christianity and to highlight every instance
of his evident biblical illiteracy.

1 Trump’s speech at Lincoln Day celebration in Birch Run, Michigan, August 11, 2015.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2022
C. M. Migliori, Religious Rhetoric in US Right-Wing Politics,
Palgrave Studies in Religion, Politics, and Policy,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96550-1_1
2 C. M. MIGLIORI

When Bloomberg journalists asked him to name his favorite Bible

verses, he answered that he preferred not to go too much into details
regarding his faith, as the Bible was something very personal to him
(Halperin & Hailemann, 2015). The question was asked to him again in
April 2016 and by that time he was prepared and claimed that his favorite
verse was the Old Testament’s “an eye for an eye” (Morton, 2016).
Trump also talked about the Holy Communion in terms of a modest
happy hour, claiming he would have his little wine, and his little cracker
(Scalia, 2015) and, during a speech held in January 2016 in front of the
students at Liberty University, he quoted a verse from “Two Corinthians”
instead of Second Corinthians (Taylor, 2016).
Anecdotes from the campaign trail seemed to convince many that
Donald Trump would have never won the hearts and votes of the conser-
vative Christian constituency his Republican predecessors had counted
on since the 1980s (Cohen, 2016; Wiener, 2016). The conviction was
further cemented by the infamous Access Hollywood tapes’ recording of
Trump claiming to “Grab them by the pussy” (Farenthold, 2016), as a
way to describe the sort of free pass his fame allowed him in relationships
with women. The release of the 2005 video and audio recording just a few
weeks before the November presidential election did not seem to shake
Trump’s confidence, let alone push him to a last-minute withdrawal.
And not all prominent Trump supporters seemed to be taken aback
by the revelations of the candidate’s moral flaws. These included Jerry
Falwell, Jr., former president of Liberty University and one of his first
supporters, and other members of the Evangelical Advisory Board Trump
had created in 2016. Despite contrary opinions and mistaken pollsters, on
November 8, 2016, Donald Trump became the 45th president-elect of
the United States.
From a Pew Research Center’s preliminary analysis of the 2016 vote on
the part of religious people, 81% of “white, born-again/evangelical Chris-
tians” voted for Trump (Martìnez & Smith, 2016; Pulliam Bailey, 2016).2

2 This data has drawn particular attention because it reported a higher percentage than
that of white born-again/Evangelicals who voted Republican since 2004, respectively
78% for Bush, 74 for McCain in 2008, and 78% again for Romney in 2012. What is
interesting is also the broadness acquired by the category “Evangelicals,” now generally
used to refer to white conservative Christian voters: As claimed by Pew, “[the] ‘white,
born-again/evangelical Christian’ row includes both Protestants and non-Protestants (e.g.
Catholics, Mormons, etc.) who self-identify as born-again or evangelical Christians”
(Martìnez & Smith, 2016).
 1 THE OUTSIDER AND THE WHITE HOUSE 3

When the news of the unprecedented result registered by the Presi-

dent among white Evangelicals started spreading, journalists and scholars
engaged in a debate over the accuracy of such a number. Some found
counterevidence to the 81%-statistic, providing data aimed at exposing a
different reality, namely, that those identifying both as Evangelicals and
as Trump supporters formed a considerably smaller group (Stetzer &
MacDonald, 2018; Taylor, 2018).
Articles explained, debunked, and redefined what the percentage
meant. Religion-based online magazines invited the readers to discard
the term Evangelical, especially if used in relation to politics (McKnight,
2017). Other commentators still insisted on the message that the Pres-
ident had indeed managed to surpass his Republican predecessors in
gaining the highest ever support from Christian voters. Despite argu-
ments over the actual percentage, which, according to some journalists,
amounted to 80 instead of 81, scholars and observers could not disagree
on the evident approval the candidate obtained from the white conserva-
tive Christian constituency. Moreover, this ethnic and cultural group has
oftentimes been reported as the one whose support for the former pres-
ident remained stable during his mandate (Burge, 2019; Burton, 2018;
Fea, 2019, Schwadel & Smith, 2019).3
There seems to be no unique definition correctly including the variety
of religious people who voted for Trump, nor their actual number. What
is undisputed is that the 2016 election has not called into question the
long-standing paradigm that sees some segments of white Christian citi-
zens, mainly Protestant but also Catholic, bound in a political alliance
with the Republican Party. For some scholars, in view of this estab-
lished partisanship, Trump’s success among these voters was nothing to
be surprised of (Hunter & Bowman, 2016; Jelen & Wald, 2017).
As a matter of fact, the contrary—the hypothetical case in which
white conservative religious people, in particular self-declared Evangeli-
cals, would collectively shift their partisan affiliation merely because of a
scarcely religious candidate such as Trump—would have been astounding.
What is also very probable, claimed Jelen and Wald, is that the Republi-
cans won because it was their “turn” at the presidency, as the result of the

3 This support might have slightly wavered during the last months of his presidency,
undoubtedly also because of the Covid19 pandemic. Source: “White Evangelicals See
Trump as Fighting for Their Beliefs, Though Many Have Mixed Feelings About His
Personal Conduct”, Pew Research Center, 12/3/2020.
4 C. M. MIGLIORI

physiological alternation of the party in charge and because the economic

situation usually favors the opponent over the incumbent.
Regarding the proposed explanation for the support given to Trump
by white conservative Christians, partisanship is undoubtedly a tool that
eases the identification of individuals, as “it answers the ‘who am I?’ ques-
tion by providing an identity” (Rozell, 2017, 22). This identification and
its effects are also strengthened by the religious signals a candidate might
emit, and as a matter of fact does, at least in the Grand Old Party (GOP)
arena: “Religious signals by political leaders provide exactly this: cues that
Americans use to truncate their information exposure and consideration”
(Domke & Coe, 2008, 20).4
The force of the phenomenon of partisanship, fostering not only iden-
tification but also an in-group versus out-group mentality, allowed voters,
especially already politically aligned ones, to overlook Trump’s character
flaws. These were classified as less important than his affiliation to the
GOP and, as a result, he was automatically granted the traits of a person
interested in defending religious and moral principles and values.
The explanation relying on partisanship also answers the question:
“[Do] citizens who already favor a particular candidate simply assume
that the candidate has socially desirable traits such as religiosity? Or does
the religiosity of a candidate generate a citizen’s favorable attitude toward
the candidate?” (Smidt et al., 2010, 33). As it has been shown, what was
recorded first was the appeal of Trump’s persona and what followed was
the attribution of the traits of a devout political leader.
Such attribution happened thanks to the combination of several factors.
One was Trump’s deployment of Christian symbols in his campaign
rallies, another undoubtedly was the depiction that some cable news
outlets (prime among them Fox News) provided of Trump as collabo-
rating with major Religious Right’s leaders.5 A further element that needs
to be considered was the public opinion’s staple that the GOP is the party
more attuned to conservative religious values.

4 In this regard, it is important to mention that Trump did not need to provide hard
facts testifying to his religiosity. His discourse, especially during the electoral campaign,
was inserted in the tradition of a presidential rhetoric automatically resting on religious
symbols (Gorski, 2017).
5 In this book, I refer to the pro-life and pro-family, or anti-abortion and anti-same-sex
marriage, movement as the Religious Right. Despite it not being the proper name of an
entity or organization, I prefer to capitalize its initial letters.
 1 THE OUTSIDER AND THE WHITE HOUSE 5

Finally, the November 2016 presidential election, culmination of the

electoral campaign of the two most unlikable candidates since the second
half of the twentieth century, dramatically exposed the pervasiveness of
the phenomenon of negative partisanship in the United States (Webster &
Abramowitz, 2017). In this sense, Trump represented the outcome of the
racial and gender-driven divide that has been reorganizing partisan affili-
ation for decades. Trump, as underlined by many, was the ideal candidate
of the white, lower-to-middle class male. The clash with his opponent,
Clinton, often devoid of the enunciation of concrete political programs,
was the epitome of a twenty-first-century political process mainly aimed
at raising and exploiting rage and resentment (Wuthnow, 2018).

White Conservative Christians, the Religious

Right, and Donald Trump: The Creation of a Tale

Whether religious or political, Americans are always looking for a savior.

(Domke & Coe, 2008, 156)

The Religious Right and the Republican Party maintain a decades-

long relationship that sees the systematic exploitation of religious values
for political purposes stretching back to the 1970s.6 Those years saw the
creation of a movement fighting to reinstate conservative Christian values’
preeminence in the United States’ society. Despite internal changes and
periods of diminished presence on the national stage, the movement is
still active more than forty years later.
The creation of what Wuthnow defined the New Christian Right
(1988) pulled conservative Christians (at first mainly Protestants who
had fought and lost the battle between fundamentalism and modernity
at the beginning of the century) out of a longed-for purist separa-
tionism and into the public square. The Civil Rights movement, the
cultural revolution, the rise of feminist politics and deepening political
divisions spelled out to the conservative citizenry that the wall between
personal, religion-based morals and public life was crumbling (Jelen &
Wald, 2017). Morality became a public and political issue.

6 Jerry Falwell, one of the first and most famous televangelists, began his work of
mobilization in 1976, with rallies and fundraising, also involving students from his Liberty
Baptist College (later Liberty University) in Lynchburg, VA.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Tori suur' oli muuan varsinkin,
taloin ympäröity uhkein;
oli palatsi, asunto kuninkaan,
näkö jonka on mitä muhkein,

(se on palatsin.) — Pääoven edess' on

kopit vahtien molemmin kulmin.
Punatakkeja vahdissa pyssyineen
on muodoin niin murhan-julmin.

Ties oppaani: "Tässä asuu Ernst

Augustus, suurtorylainen
jalo, vanha lordi, mut vuosikseen
hyvin vielä virkeänlainen.

Olo häll' on idyllisen turvallinen,

näet paremmin kuin punanuttuin
kaikki parvet puuttuva uskallus
häntä turvaa rakasten tuttuin.

Hänet joskus nään, ja hän päivittää

miten kuiva virka on kovin
tää kuninkuus, johon tuomittu hän
nyt on päänä Hannoverin hovin.

Isobritannilaisille tavoilleen
muka täällä ahdasta niin on,
ihan pelkää vaan, että silmukkaan
hänet vielä saattava spleen on.

Toiss' aamuna kamiinin ääressä näin

hänen häärivän kumarassa;
oli kuningas kipeille koirilleen
lavemangia laittamassa."
XX LUKU.

Tulin Harburgista Hampuriin ma tunnissa. Oli jo ilta, ja ilma

lempeä, tähtöset mua tervehti taivahilta.

Ja kun äitini luo tulin äkkiään,

ilo hänt' ihan häpsähytti;
"Rakas lapsi kulta!" hän huus ja löi
kädet yhteen, läpsähytti.

"Lapsi kulta, kolmetoista jo on

ohi vuotta, ennenkuin palaat!
Kova nälkä sulla on varmaankin —
sano mitä sä syödä halaat?

On hanhea, kalaa ja kauniita

myös appelsiineja mulla."
"Anna hanhea, kalaa ja kauniita
vain appelsiineja tulla."

Emo ilosta säteili nähdessään

mun ruokahaluni julman,
sen sitä, tuon tätä hän kyseli,
välin pisti pahankin pulman.
 "Sun, lapsi kulta, nyt tokko vaan
hyvin siell' on vieraissa laitas?
Tokko rouvas on toimekas emäntä
ja parsii sukkas ja paitas?"

"Kala hyvältä maistuu, maammosein,

mut ääneti syödä se pitää;
niin helposti kurkkuunsa ruodon saa,
älä nyt multa kysele mitään."

Tuli hanhi pöytään, kun popsinut

kalan tuon olin kaunihisti.
Emo sen sitä, tuon tätä kyseli taas,
välin pahankin pulman pisti.

"Sanos, lapsi kulta, nyt kumpi maa

on parempi elää, ja kumpi,
tämä Saksan kansa vai Ranskanko,
on mielestäs mieluhumpi?"

"Hyvä Saksan hanhi on, maammosein,

mut muheammiksi kuin meillä
ne ranskalaisin' on syötetyt,
myös paremmat höysteet on heillä."

Tuli appelsiinien vuoro, kun jo

teki lähtönsä hanhenpaisti;
ne ol' odottamattoman oivia,
ihan mainiolta ne maisti.

Jo äiti minulta mielissään

taas kyseli kyselemätään,
hän muisti sen tuhatkin seikkaa — mun
välin saada ol' aivan hätään.

"Mikä, lapsi kulta, on mieles nyt?

Yhä vieläkö ulkona tuolla
sa politikoit? Nyt kannaltas
minkä puolueen olet puolla?"

"Hyvät appelsiinit on, maammosein, ja tosi nautinnolla imen

suuhuni mehun ma makean ja annan kuorien olla."
XXI LUKU.

Taas alkaa kohota poroistaan vähitellen kaupunki polo; kuin

puudelin puoleksi kerityn on Hampurin hahmo nolo.

Näen murehella ma kadonneen

monen kallismuistoisen kadun. —
Missä talo, joss' suutelot suutelin
ma ensi lempeni sadun?

Missä kirjapaino, jost' ilmoille

mun matkakuvani tuli?
Missä kellari, jossa kerran mun
ens osterit suuhuni suli?

Ja Dreckwall, missä Dreckwall on?

Sit' on hakea turha työ nyt!
Missä paviljonki, joss' olen niin
monet sokeritortut syönyt?

Missä porvariston ja senaatin

koti korkea, raatitalo?
Tulen tuiman saalis! Pyhintäkään
ei säästänyt ahne palo.
 Viel' ihmiset huokaili hätäänsä
ja kasvoilla murhe musta
palon suuren surkuteltavaa
he muisteli tapausta:

"Joka haaralla valkea valloillaan,

kaikk' kietoi se liekein ja sauhuin!
Tulipatsaina tornit kirkkojen
ne sortui ryskein ja pauhuin.

On porona vanha pörssi nyt,

joss' isämme asioivat
läpi vuosisatojen keskenään
niin rehellisesti kuin voivat.

Pankki, kaupungin kultainen sielu, jäi,

Herran kiitos! ja kirjat, joissa
joka miehen arvo merkitty
on selvissä numeroissa.

Meille kansat kaukaisimmatkin

keräs apua, kiitos Herran!
hyvä kauppa — se kolehti tuotti noin
miljoonan kahdeksan verran.

Tosihurskaat ja kristityt hoitivat

apukassaa tuota — ei tiennyt
käsi vasempi konsaan, paljonko
oli oikea kulloinkin vienyt.

Avoimiin käsiimme tulvanaan

tuli rahaa kaikista maista,
elintarpeita myös, ylenkatsottu
ei lahjaa minkäänlaista.

Tuli leivät ja lihat ja liemet myös,

puvut, peitteet tukkunansa!
Meille miel' oli Preussin kuninkaan
myös johtaa jo joukkojansa.

Tuho aineellinen tuli korvatuks,

se voitiin arvioida —
mutta hirmu se, meidän hirmumme,
sit' ei millään korvata voida!"

Sanoin rohkaisevasti ma: "Ette saa

noin, veikkoset, itkua valaa;
oli Troija parempi kaupunki,
vaan silt' oli pakko palaa.

Talot uudet tehkää ja kuivatkaa

pois katuinne ropakko-roiskut,
ja paremmat lait te laittakaa
ja paremmat paloruiskut.

Ei kilpikonna-lientänne
pidä liiaksi pippuroittaa,
nuo lihavat suomukarppinne myös
voi terveyttä vahingoittaa.

Vähän vaaraa kalkkunat teille saa,

vaan varottavammat on pillat
sen linnun, mi pesäks on ottanut
pormestarin peruukkivillat.
 Mikä turman lintu se on, sit' ei
tässä tarvis sanoa mulla.
Mult' aina, kun sitä aattelen vaan,
ylös tahtoo yökätys tulla."
XXII LUKU.

Vielä muuttuneemmat kuin kaupunki on kaikk' ihmiset —

kallella-päiset ja apeat kadulla astuissaan kuin rauniot
käveleväiset.

On hoikat viel' yhä hoikenneet,

yhä pullistuneet on pulleet,
on lapset vanhoja, vanhat taas
on jälleen lapsiksi tulleet.

Moni imuvasikka entinen

nyt mua jo mullina kohtaa;
moni pikku hanhonen piiperö
emähanhen jo höyhenin hohtaa.

On vanha Gudel maalattu

ja siistitty sireeni-somaks;
tukan mustan ja hampaat valkeat
upo-uudet on hankkinut omaks.

Oli tuttuni, paperikauppias tuo,

lujin kestämään ajan hallan;
pää kehäss' on hiusten kellahtavain —
kuin Johannes kastaja vallan.

Näin ————:n vilahtamalta vain,

ohi pyyhkäs kuin puhallettu;
aju palanut raukan, ja Bieberill'
oli kuulemma vakuutettu.

Näin vanhan sensori-kuomanikin.

Tuli halki usman ja huurun
hän Hanhitorilla vastaani, —
pään kantoi kovin jo kuurun.

Me toistemme kättä pudistettiin,

ukon silmään kyynel täytti.
Miten iloitsikaan minut nähden taas!
Se liikuttavalta näytti. —

En kaikkia tavannut. Ajalliset

monelt' askeleet jo on laanneet.
Ah, silmäni Gumpelinoakaan
eloss' enää ei nähdä saaneet!

Pois suuren sielunsa henkäsi

jalo tuo juur' ennenkuin saavuin,
Jehovan istuimen eess' on nyt
seraafina kirkkain kaavuin.

Tuota käyrää Adonista turhaan hain

halki Hampurin kadut ja torit,
jolla kuppeja, yöposliineja
oli kaupan kukkurakorit.
 Pikku Meyer vieläkö elossa lie,
sitä tiedä en toden totta;
en nähnyt miestä ja unohdin
selon Cornetilta ottaa.

Sarras, tuo puudeli uskollinen,

pois kuollut on — haikea hukka!
Kynäniekkaa kymmenen ennen maar
ois uhrannut Campe rukka. — —

On juutalaista ja kristittyä,
niin kauas kuin muisti kantaa,
väki Hampurin; — jälkimmäistenkään
tapa juur' ei ilmaiseks antaa.

Koko hyviä kristityt kaikk' on, myös

hyvin päivällisensä syövät,
ja vekselinlankeema-päivänsä
hyvin harvoin he laiminlyövät.

Taas juutalaisten joukkoa kaks

eri puoluetta on heitä;
synagoogassa vanhat vaeltaa
ja nuoret temppelinteitä.

Halu hangotella on nuorten, ne

sianlihan on nielijöitä,
demokraatteja; vanhat pikemmin taas
ovat ylimysmielijöitä.

Pidän vanhoista, pidän nuorista,

vaan varma se on kuin vala,
eräs muu laji: silakat savustetut,
on vielä parempi kala.
XXIII LUKU.

Tasavaltoina Hampurin varjoon saa hyvin Venedig sekä

Florens, mut on Hampurin osterit oivemmat, myö parhaita
kellari Lorenz.

Oli kaunis ilta, kun Campe vei

minut sinne, — meill' iltatuimaan
oli tuumana Reininviinissä
siell' osterit panna uimaan.

Hyvä seura siell' oli myös, mä näin

iloll' entistä veikkoa monta,
Chaufepién esimerkiksi, monta myös
uutta, ennen tuntematonta.

Oli Willen viiruinen naama, tuo

sukukirja, kärjellä miekkain
käsialaa täyteen kirjattu
akadeemisten vihasniekkain.

Ja Fucks oli, umpipakana,

verivihollinen. Jehovan,
vain Hegeliin uskoo ja hiukan myös
kai Venukseen Canovan.

Oli Campeni jalo Amphitryon,

hymy huulilla luopumatonna;
hänen silmänsä autuutta säteili
kuin kirkastettu Madonna.

Ma aattelin, pöydän aarteita

alas kaulaani halulla ajain:
"Tuo Campe on todella suuri mies,
kukka kaikkien kustantajain.

Joku toinen ois nälässä antanut

mun kulkea maita, teitä,
tää juottaa janonkin sammuksiin;
hänt' en mä ikinä heitä.

Ole kiitetty, luoja taivahan,

tään rypälemehun kun luonut,
ja kustantajaksi kun minulle
olet Julius Campen suonut!

Ole kiitetty, luoja taivahan,

kun suuri tulkoon-sanas
loi osterit mereen ja kasvamaan
maan Reininviiniä manas!

Sitruunia myöskin, antamaan

meren ostereille mehun —
tän' yönä suo, isä, vatsassain
vain hyvästi sulaa rehun!"
 Tuo Reininviini niin hellyttää
minut aina, rinnasta haipuu
joka ristiriita, siell' elähtää
syvä ihmislemmen kaipuu.

Mun ajaa se katuja astelemaan

ulos alle taivallan välkeen;
sydän sydäntä hakee, ja silmä käy
valkohelmain hentojen jälkeen.

Ihan riutua moisena hetkenä

olen kaihoon, mi rinnan täyttää;
katit kaikki harmailta silmissäin,
Helenoilta naiset näyttää. — — —

Ja Drehbanin päähän päästessäin

kuun valossa kuninkainen
tuli vastaani vaimo-ihminen,
ylen korkeapovinen nainen.

Oli kukkeat kasvot kuin täysi kuu,

sini silmäin kuin turkoosikivi,
kuin ruusut posket, kuin kirsikka suu,
nenä myös vähän punehtivi.

Päässä päähine valkealiinainen

ihan linnakruunun malliin,
sen tärkkäys poimuihin taitettu
kuin tornit ja sakarat valliin.

Hän kantoi valkoista tunikkaa

alas pohkeille ulottuvaista.
Ja mitkä pohkeet! Kulkimet kuin
pari pylvästä doorilaista.

Mitä maallisin, mitä luonnollisin

joka ilme, mut että vaimo
oli ylempi olento, tiesi taus
yli-inhimillisen aimo.

Kävi kohti hän virkkain: "Terve taas

tykö Elben pitkältä tieltäs —
nuo kolmetoista ei vuotta viel'
ole, näämmä, muuttanut mieltäs!

Haet noita kauniita sieluja kai,

kera joitten niin monesti muinen
tässä kauniissa seudussa karkeli pois
sult' yö sulohaaveiluinen.

Nieli elämä, hirviö satapää,

ne jo irjuvin ikenineen;
pois aika vanha on vaipunut
jo armaine ajattarineen!

Poiss' on sulokukkaset, sydämes

jumaloimat nuoren — ne kukat
on langenneet, on lakastuneet,
ne myrsky runteli rukat.

Ne kuihtui, murtui, musertui

raa'an kohtalon-anturan alle —
niin, veikkonen, täällä kaikelle käy
ihanalle ja armahallel"
 "Ken olet sa?" — huusin ma — "olethan
kuin unelma aikojen takaa!
Miss' asut sa, korkea kulkijatar,
ja saanko matkas ma jakaa?"

Hän hymyillen virkkoi: "Sa erehdyt,

olen kunniallinen nainen,
siveellinen, hieno henkilö, en
katuperhonen kaikellainen.

En moinen pikku mamselli,

siro etelän seikkailijatar —
sa tiedä: Hammonia, Hampurin
olen suojelusjumalatar!

Sä säpsähdät, laulaja uljas sa,

sä säpsähdät, säikähdytkin!
No niin, tule äläkä tuumaile,
jos tahdot seurata nytkin!"

Hohonaurussa tuohon ma huudahdin: "Heti kanssas ma

tulla tuumaan — käy edellä vaan, peräss' astutaan, vie vaikka
hornaan kuumaan!"
XXIV LUKU.

Miten salin ahtaista portaista lien ylös tullut, sit' en mä tiedä;

mua näkymättömät henget kai ylös sinne mahtoi viedä.

Siellä, kammiossa Hammonian,

pian hetket herttaiset kulki.
Mulle sympatiansa Jumalatar
jo vanhan tunnusti julki.

"Näes", — virkkoi hän — "ennen enimmän

tuo laulaja lempeni voitti,
joka meille hartaalla harpullaan
Messiaan suuruutta soitti.

Klopstockini kipsinen kaapin pääll'

on vielä, mut verkoissa lukin,
jo vuosia mulla hän ollut on
vain toimessa myssytukin.

Sua lemmin ma nyt. Näet vuoteeni

pääpohjissa kuvasi oman,
ja tuores laakeri, katsopas,
on seppelnä kuvan soman.
 Se vaan, että olet mun poikiain
niin näykkinyt usein, se mua
välin todella syvästi loukkas, — nyt ei
saa enää se tapahtua.

Kera vuotten suita jo vallattomuus

tuo toivottavasti talttui,
ja mieles narreja kohtaankin
kai suvaitsevammaksi malttui.

Vaan sanos, kuinka sun pohjolaan

tuli matkata tuuma päähän
tähän vuoden-aikaan, kun tantereet
vilu talven jo vetää jäähän?"

"Oi Jumalatar!" — ma vastasin —

"syväll' ihmispovessa asuu
moni uinuva aatos, mi heräämään
ihan väärällä hetkellä osuu.

Hyvin päällisin puolin ma kyllä voin,

mut sisällä vaiva valvoi,
se päivä päivältä paheni vaan —
mua kotikaipaus kalvoi.

Kävi painostamaan tuo muuten niin

kevyt Ranskan ilma mua;
piti tänne päästäni hengittämään,
jos mieli ei tukehtua.

Käry turpeen ja tupakan täällä taas

piti tuntea täyttä rintaa;