Paula White, one of President Donald Trump’s top evangelical advisers, has officially taken the cake for the worst religious defense for his cruel immigration policies.
White told the ultraconservative Christian Broadcasting Network that Jesus could never have broken immigration laws crossing into Egypt because Jesus was without sin, and as such, incapable of breaking any laws at all, Vox reports.
White further defended the president by claiming that the detention centers where migrant children are being kept are “amazing.” She also maintained that there is biblical precedent of families being separated.
“I think so many people have taken biblical scriptures out of context on this, to say stuff like, ‘Well, Jesus was a refugee,’” White said. She added, “Yes, [Jesus] did live in Egypt for three-and-a-half years. But it was not illegal. If He had broken the law then, He would have been sinful and He would not have been our Messiah.”
Vox notes that White was referring to an area in the Bible that details how Joseph, Mary, and baby Jesus found refuge in Egypt from the King of Judea, Herod, who had been slaughtering all new infant boys out of fear that another “king of the Jews” had been born.
White is no stranger to using the Bible to defend and justify Trump. Last year she told an interviewer that Trump was “raised up by God” in reference to him winning the presidency.
“Because God says that he raises up and places all people in places of authority it is God who raises up a king. It is God that sets one down,” White said during an appearance on “The Jim Bakker Show.” However, she later backpedaled by clarifying that God chooses every human leader.
It is not uncommon for there to be various interpretations of the Bible and its teachings. However, it is particularly gut-punching when its words are deliberately twisted and manipulated to defend pure evil.
Ironically, White strategically did not share a biblical anecdote or scripture that specifically defends the separation of families at the border. Presumably, deep down she knows there is simply no justification for that. She can make a general excuse for the consequences of breaking the law, but not for ripping children from their mothers and fathers. That is plain wrong, no matter how you spin it.