Bible Signings

As much as I hate Donald Trump, which is plenty, there is a clear tendency among people who hate him to react to every single thing he says and does with outrage.  Bad strategy.  We should be outraged that he has denied aid to people in emergency situations.  We should be outraged that he has encouraged ICE to engage in horrific human rights violations.  We should be outraged that he has used his position as president for his personal enrichment.  We should be outraged that he attempted to pull off a coup in Venezuela, even though he failed at it.  We should be outraged that he has appointed horrible, authoritarian type people to the courts.  We should be outraged about the stupid wall, and the atmosphere of hate that surrounds the whole project.
But, signing bibles?  Eh, whatever.  As an atheist, it’s none of my concern whatever.  He’s not desecrating a religious symbol that has any importance to me.  If the Christian’s aren’t outraged (I suppose some of the are, hence the controversy, but obviously some of them aren’t, because there were people wanting to get their bible’s signed.)
Within the Christian religion, this war between purists and modernists has been going on a long time.  Back in the days of Luther, and Calvin, and Tynsdale, one of the controversies was whether the mass (and the bibles) should be in Latin, because that was like sacred, which is weird, because it didn’t exist in biblical times, and for most of the time Latin was a living language, it was the language of the people prosecuting Christians, or in the native language of whatever  country you happened to be in.  The reformers eventually won that battle.
Today, you have ‘prosperity gospel’ (e.g. Joel Osteen) which is basically a pyramid scheme which uses a lot of Christian symbology and code words.  It’s about 10 times more offensive than somebody writing their signature on the front cover of a book.  Of course, the prosperity gospel types just love Donald Trump.
Then there’s the whole literary symbology of it.  Usually, when somebody autographs a book, it’s because they wrote it.  So, maybe it’s a wee bit tacky on that point, but I don’t think he’s claiming to have written it, or to be God.  On the other hand, if his followers wish to think of him as such, he doesn’t object.
Summary:  tacky, laughable, but not impeachable, and therefore not what we should be focusing on.