I read that passage, and it doesn't sound at all like Jesus sent his disciples to
steal a horse. He sent them to
borrow a horse, with the consent of the owner.
The passage reads: "...Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.
31 And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.
32 And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them.
33 And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt?
34 And they said, The Lord hath need of him."
They apparently talked to the owner and identified their "master" who had directed them to bring the horse (The Lord), and there is no indication that the owner objected. Apparently, the horse was used with the owner's consent, and that is not theft.
It's one thing to accuse politicians of being horse thieves, but can't we agree to give The Lord the benefit of the doubt?