Guest Post: Beware using the Bible to attack political opponents
Dr. Mark Doggett
For the May 10, 2026 edition of the Bowling Green Daily News, I offered my column space to Dr. Mark Doggett, who wrote the essay below.
Readers of the Daily News may recall an opinion piece from a few weeks ago that referenced the Beatitudes. The author asked whether our current administration—specifically President Trump—governs according to those principles.
I’ve always found it curious when pundits or academics invoke sacred texts to justify their political views. As the saying goes, when you point a finger at someone else, several fingers point back at you.
I don’t claim any special insight into the divine, but I have read the Bible. I could quote scripture here, but that’s not my aim.
Religion has long shaped how people understand public life. That isn’t new, nor is it inherently wrong. Martin Luther King Jr., for example, grounded his arguments for justice in scripture, while others have used the same texts to defend opposing positions. The issue isn’t whether scripture belongs in political discourse—it’s how it’s used.
When someone uses scripture to criticize one group but ignores the same behavior in their own, they aren’t applying a consistent moral standard. Instead, they’re selectively using religious texts to reinforce prior loyalties or identities. That doesn’t necessarily invalidate their concern, but it does reveal inconsistency in how it’s applied.
There are several reasons this happens. First, people are naturally inclined to defend their own beliefs and values, often interpreting standards more generously for their own side. Second, it’s easy to highlight passages that support one’s position while overlooking those that challenge it. Sacred texts are complex. If one believes they are divinely inspired, it’s difficult to justify treating them selectively.
Jesus did not endorse a political party or platform. It’s worth remembering that no administration or elected official will ultimately redeem us. Leaders will always fall short.
A more intellectually honest approach is to apply the same standards consistently—even when doing so is uncomfortable—and to acknowledge when one’s own side fails to uphold them.
Scripture is meant to challenge the reader first, not merely their opponents. Properly understood, it should prompt self-examination more than accusation. Because no one fully lives up to these ideals, sacred writings should cultivate humility rather than condemnation.
I would encourage the author to begin with self-reflection before critiquing others. A column that evaluates whether a particular administration embodies the qualities of peacemakers, and “children of God” may not age well. In a time marked by political assassination attempts and violence, a deeper commitment to introspection seems especially necessary.