A historical classic conflict: morality of the pope vs immorality of Trump

The Pope openly rebuked Trump, and called off trips to the US as the battle between morality vs immorality comes out in the open.  , prompted by Trump's threats to wipe out a whole civilization to get the Gulf of Horuz open, Trump got closed. Pope Leo vows now not to visit the US while Trump is president per reports early 4/9/2026, https://www.thenational.scot/news/26006429.pope-leo-refuses-go-us-donald-trump-president/   Also, a factor, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth threatened the Pope; https://newrepublic.com/post/208820/pentagon-threatened-pope-criticized-donald-trump. Trump did TACO, a "cease fire," and negotiations have begun, but demands on both sides are so far apart, the prospect of this is iffy.  It is an off-ramp for Trump's blunders, causing strategic failures and blowbacks, even if the military executed target orders brilliantly.

 This is only part of the Pope's condemnation of Trump's policies. The dispute had already become public over Trump's inhumane treatment of migrants in  Milwaukee. https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/explainers/faith-action-milwaukee-churches-confront-human-toll-immigration-policy/

https://www.dbu.edu/mitchell/medieval-resources/medpapalimperialconflict.html

The same moral outrage is appearing in protestant Texas over the treatment of immigrants in the rise of Talarico.  https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2026/03/james-talaricos-victory-in-texas.html   Talarico is a Presbyterian theologian student.

https://baptistnews.com/article/its-pete-hegseths-theology-that-ought-to-concern-us

Post World War II attempts to codify what constitutes acceptable behavior by warring factions also reflect a level of morality generally supported by international law.  It is expressed in what is considered as a war crime, worthy of criminal prosecution in international tribunals, and was the outgrowth of the Nuremberg trials that sent a large number of Nazi leadership to the gallows or to prison. Trump may have backed off his threat of genocide and wiping out a whole civilization in Iran because someone whispered in his ear that what he threatened was a war crime in itself, but for sure if he carried it off with a bombing campaign  Trump may think he can commit war crimes in the US and get away with it because the Supreme Court granted him immunity, but the Hague can still bring him to justice and trial if a warrant for his arrest is issued.  FYI: the rest of the Trump administration, from cabinet members to military brass, are not protected from criminal prosecution in the US and in the Hague.  Particularly at risk is Secretary of "War", Pete Hegseth, who calls the Geneva Conventions and other laws and military rules of engagement that keep military actions that protect innocent civilians as "stupid". https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/02/us-defense-secretarys-media-remarks-on-rules-of-engagement# 

https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2026/04/trump-advocating-war-crime-t-when-hague.html

https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2026/03/iran-hegseths-holy-war.html

https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2026/02/moral-indignation-rises-as-major.html

Hegseth is not the only cabinet member or major policy shaper in the White House. In fact, Trump has handed much power to White Christian Nationalists who see the future of America in racial terms and draw on their religion to justify their intent. The gospels are dominated by taking care of the least of these and how to treat "strangers", completely contradicting the intent of Jesus as he is reported to speak .https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2026/02/white-christian-nationalism-has-taken.html

Update 4/1//2026:  Why is Trump so immoral? 

Trump has a personality problem. Why does Trump keep making bad judgment calls like the Iran war and adding costs of daily living to so many in America, while enriching the already rich with taxes and public policy favors? I keep searching for answers. Here is what I conclude. It is based on observations of what he does as much as what he says with bluff, puffery, and lies. It is more than just Trump being Trump. He has his standards, and doing moral things is not his goal or his own measure of success. Being "transactional" means making deals that benefit himself. It is not what is moral or good for even his supporters. It's not what is legal or Constitutional. Trump has always been that way, but now it seems in his second term, his personality quirks are on steroids. Trump is consumed wth amassing wealth and power for himself in the short time he has left in office. He is stuffing his pockets with crypto and building monuments to himself, from ballrooms to soaring arches, his name on currency and concert halls, his face frowning down on citizens from public buildings, and throwing his military muscle around. Everything else is secondary as he makes Trump great again after his loss in 2020. That is the problem with having an egomaniac, self-aggrandizing president. Those with bad judgment are his enablers who think that what is good for Trump is good for the rest of America and their very own lives.

And now Trump and Vance support and provide active support to a dictator, described by some as a neo fascist.

This is  an update of a Feb. 18 post:

4/9/26 And then Trump and Vance left no doubt that they not only endorsed Oban, but actively came to his aid as polls show he may lose the election this coming Sunday. Orban now enjoys the support of Putin and Trump...all the "best"people. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/watch-live-vance-speaks-in-hungary-on-trip-to-help-boost-orbans-reelection-bid

Rubio boosts Orbán's bid for another term during Budapest visit | PBS News

Viktor Orban has been described by many sources as a dictator and a neo fascist and has been held up as a darling by US right-wing conservatives (CPAC).

He also favors Putin's foreign policy, particularly as it pertains to Ukraine. Fellow European NATO members find him constantly out of step with their attempts to help Ukraine, and often have to use /workarounds to carve out their support for Ukraine. That Rubio would be endorsing him says much about Trump's love of dictators, a role his words and deeds reveal he aspires to join them, as well. As a Cuban-American, one would think Rubio understands why dictatorships are bad. I do not get him other than he has hitched his political ambitions wagon to Trump..

MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: The Orban playbook and if it would work here

In her 2018 book Fascism: A Warning, former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright identified Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán as a leader exhibiting authoritarian, fascist-like tendencies. She categorized his actions—such as undermining the press, judiciary, and minorities—as part of a broader trend of anti-democratic behavior. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/watch-live-vance-speaks-in-hungary-on-trip-to-help-boost-orbans-reelection-bid

Trump advocating a war crime when the Hague has already charged both Netanyahu and Hamas with war crimes

Today we can breathe a sigh of temporary relief. Trump TACO'd over his threat to commit genocide on Iran (the threat itself is a potential war crime) and ordered a two-week pause in bombings for negotiations. Whether he was influenced by the public reminder that he would be carrying out what was considered a war crime by the International Court of Justice in The Hague is not known. However, he would have been at risk of joining some recent additions to the Hague legal actions: Both Netanyahu of Israel and Hamas leaders have been charged by the Hague for war crimes in the Gaza conflict, and warrants are out for their arrest. Both of the charged parties fear traveling to any country other than friendly ones, where they could be arrested and sent to the Hague for trial.  

https://www.icccpi.int/defendant/netanyahu#:~:text=About%20Defendant,at%20least%2020%20May%202024.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/international-criminal-court-seeks-war-crimes-charges-for-israeli-and-hamas-leaders   

Tina Peters...will get a shot at reducing her jail time, though the conviction stands

 Tina Peters will get a shot at reducing her jail time, though the conviction stands.  The trial was fair and the conviction was fair, but the sentence needs review.The judge rules that her sentence does deserve a second look on the basis that her freedom of speech was impaired, but we will not know the outcome for at least 42 more days. Per NPR " So, the three options are, in 42 days if nobody appeals, Judge Barrett will do the resentencing. If somebody appeals, there’s a short period for the Supreme Court to decide if they're going to hear the case. If the answer is no, it will be sent to Judge Barrett for resentencing. If the answer is yes, we'll need to wait to hear what the Supreme Court says and they might come to a different conclusion than the Court of Appeals but we might not know that for maybe a year to a year-and-a-half.:" https://www.cpr.org/2026/04/03/district-attorney-dan-rubinstein-tina-peters-resentencing/

What Peters did was not only destroy the integrity of the count in a ruby red county because she took seriously instructions from Trump to "secure the ballots",. She then violated state ballot security rules and laws.  She secured them for sure, but she secured them for unauthorized Trump partisans and then engaged in a cover-up.  Trump has made her the martyr on behalf of his anti-voter access campaign based upon the "stop the steal" continuous lies about the 2020 campaign in order to justify his "SAVE" legislation, which will seriously restrict the ability of many to vote in the November midterms.  Trump tried to pardon her, but he could not since Peters was convicted under Colorado state laws, not federal ones, and Trump only has jurisdiction over federal convictions.  Instead, Trump engaged in a pressure campaign against Colorado, removing federal installations, federal assistance to social programs, and other attacks, putting pressure on Governor Polis to overturn her conviction or mitigate her sentence. Polis is now off the hook with this ruling. This court ruling upheld her conviction and that she had a fair trial, but did allow for a review of her sentence based upon the violation of her free speech rights.

The first amendment issue is whether the 9-year sentence was based on muzzling her advocacy post being removed from her position, or on other justifications, i.e., to prevent future clerks from doing what she did. The conviction was not overturned; only the issue is that her sentencing was affected

.https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2026/03/gov-polis-do-not-commute-tina-peters.html