Jesus, Wrong for America
A friend sent me a little graphic he found out there on the "internets" that I found particularly interesting, especially in light of at least one right wing reader who is often puzzled that anyone would have a problem with the charlatan fundementalists who pervert Chrisianity to promote far-right and Republican causes or the fact that this administration has cynically used and abused their supposed Christianity to do most decidedly un-Christian and immoral things.
Rather than post it, (it's kind of hard to read) I'll just provide a description. It's good food for thought.
Let's say Jesus is running for office against Bush, though it could be any Republican. What might their campaign ads against him be like? Probably something like this:
(picture of Jesus from shoulders up, as a faintly mocking voice over says...) Jesus of Nazereth says,
"Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you."(As the words appear under his picture, an ominous voice intones,
"Jesus
favors more government handouts for welfare cheats."
(camera zooms a bit closer on Jesus' face): Jesus of Nazereth says,
"Judge not, that you not be judged."(ominous voiceover)
Jesus is soft on crime.
(camera zooms yet closer on Jesus' face):
Jesus of Nazereth says, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's."(ominous voice)
Jesus will raise your taxes.
(zooms in a little more as picture begins to dissolve into scary negative image.)
Jesus of Nazereth says, "Do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other."(voiceover)
Can we trust Jesus to fight the war on terror?
(as the now extreme close up turns into frightening negative, bullet points appear on the screen accompanied by sounds of a hammer striking metal.)
Jesus -
WRONG on social services
WRONG on crime
WRONG on defense
WRONG for America
Vote Republican.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 10/16/2007
8 comments
8 Comments:
Dope, to ever think that Jesus would be affiliated with a party is silly.
- Giving to the needy,
- Feeding the hungry,
- Clothing the poor,
Jesus was all about 'individual' obedience in these matters. I do not believe that Jesus would be impressed by individuals doing little, but saying, "I supported the tired, the poor, the hungry through my government."
In addition, I believe that we would have to agree that Jesus would not be pro-abortion, huh?
Nice try though. Your post will, I am sure convince many that you are a clever individual (knowing that you'll likely censor this more appropriate perspective on the matter).
Enjoy...
No rational responses ever get "censored" Jimmy.
(maybe overlooked inadvertently, but I'll gladly correct that if it's brought to my attention)
You can flatter yourself that your drivel will not make it to the page, but the fact remains that I've never "censored" any of your comments unless you'd already made your points about a half dozen times already.
I'd really hope that you'd learn to "censor" yourself and not send in comments which might serve to embarass you, or express notions that are easily debunked.
You're so full of right wing bullshit techniques that you instictively cry "censorship" even though I provide this place for you to vent and routinely publish your comments.
What kind of whiny crap is that?
I don't expect you to like it when I argue your points or disagree with your views, but to then turn around and try to suggest you don't get a fair hearing is a gigantic lie.
And you've been whining now for a year, but it sure doesn't stop you from continuing to get your stuff published here.
Remember, getting a comment published on my blog is a priviledge, not a right. Instead of whining that you're being "censored" when you're absolutely not, the fact that any of your stuff gets published proves that I indeed don't "censor" as much as I probably should.
You censoring coward - why don't you just take the entire post down - as it is a testimony to your cowardess.
Liberals and FREE SPEECH - until it makes them look bad!!!!!!!
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
Yesseree there Skippy.
You really make me look bad. (ahem)
But you're REALLY messed up if you think your right to "free speech" somehow means I have to print your idiocy on MY blog.
I gave you a few shots at showing how bright you are. Now it's just sad.
If you want to make an ass out of yourself by spouting your rubbish in the park, THAT's free speech.
Coming on someone else's blog and sounding like a grade A moron IS NOT.
It has nothing to do with the fact you're a right wing nut job, but rather that you can't manage to muster a coherant thought, let alone an argument.
I'm not sure if you're drunk, a child, mentally handicapped, or some combination of the three.
Your comments actually make people dumber when they read them.
But look around, I'm sure you'll find some place that will be happy to print your gibberish. I won't.
Come on Dope. Mowen made a solid rebuttal to your post showing that you clearly are barking up the wrong tree.
He clearly showed that Jesus would be far more concerned with how INDIVIDUALS react to these issues, not how the GOVERNMENT reacted (and, no, they are not the same).
You went off into the 'censorship' la-la land.
I know for a fact that you have censored at least 3 comments on this topic - so, yes, you are looking foolish to those that know...
And regardless of your censoring this comment, as I expect you will, we all know - AND SO DO YOU.
Deb,
Nice shot at being the guilt patrol.... but I'm afraid my concience is quite clear despite your typical attempt at shame.
You have a really peculiar way of looking at things.
First of all, how do you know what Jim Mowen wrote?
You read his comments here, right?
Then why do you go on to accuse me of "censorship"? Kind of baseless, wouldn't you say?
Secondly, could you please tell me if the daily paper is under obligation to print whatever anyone sends in for publication?
Does ABC have to put anyone on the air that wants to go on?
If you call WOC to talk to a radio host, do they have to put you on the air or else they're "censoring" you?
Of course not. So you're entire baloney about "censorship" doesn't hold water.
I'm under no obligation to print ANY comments from ANYONE.
But I do publish what Mowen has to say, obviously or you wouldn't have anything to point to. He said his piece, and now you're still whining.
I find that really ..well, crazy.
I don't know what you want from me, except to demand that I go around and around endlessly with Mowen, which is beyond useless and bores me.
He says his thing, I respond, we might go another round or two, but he doesn't know when to move on. He'll continue to send in crap for literally MONTHS if I allow it, all repeating the same stale argument he made the first time he commented. Then when I finally end it, he'll call a few names and wait until the next time he thinks I simply MUST debate him endlessly.
Sorry, I'm not going to indulge him, and I'm not going to waste my time.
He maintains that Jesus would want people to do those things mentioned in the post, rather than government, eh?
Well where do you get the idea Jesus didn't care about rulers or kings or governments? Isn't it simply incorrect to suggest that Jesus didn't mean his teachings to apply to rulers as well?
I think it is, and I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find quotations to show that he indeed had instructions for governments as well.
And.....
When did you people start getting the unique notion that the government is some sort of separate beast, some sort of life-less thing that exists utterly aside from and independent of "the people"???
The government IS the people, and the people are the government. Republican attempts to separate the two are simply wrong.
If Jesus instructed people to behave in ways that are exact opposites of the very core ideals of the Republican party and it's current leaders, then how can you attempt to argue that Jesus wasn't talking to them??
Is there ANYTHING you won't excuse these un-Christian and immoral leaders who consistently try to cut aid from the poor while spending yet more and more billions in efforts to kill innocent people around the planet?
Is there ANY bizarre and twisted argument you'll not use to try to defend what you know runs directly opposite of the teachings of the man you profess is your savior?
Your strange and tortured logic amazes me.
You also suffer willful ignorance of the fact that individuals, or people in small groups simply can't provide effective help to those in need on the wide scale basis.
To hear Mowen tell it, the government, FEMA, National Guard, etc. shouldn't have done a thing after the Katrina disaster. Why, individuals could have taken care of it, apparently.
Jesus doesn't say anything about the government (perish the thought) playing any role in helping the afflicted, according to Jim. (isn't that a really lame show on TV?)
Why Mowen and yourself are blind to this is anyone's guess. I think his ideology blinds him to a lot.
Individuals can't establish and support a Center for Disease Control or fund and run the Food Stamp program or subsidized housing, all programs which are largely sucessful and help thousands, if not millions of people.
If government social services shut down tomorrow, which is apparently the goal of such fine religious men as Mowen, they'd be the first one's howling their heads off because of all the homeless and starving and suffering going on without relief.
Or maybe not. Apparently the thought of letting so many suffer horribly doesn't bother them. They'd apparently rather throw these people in the streets, let them suffer and doubtlessly die, all because that's better than allowing the government (all the people) to provide help.
The sheer selfishness and un-Christian meaness of it all astounds me.
They truly think that anyone that didn't make the same choices in life, anyone who didn't lead a similar life and who wasn't born into similar circumstances as they, that these people deserve to suffer.
I don't recall Jesus saying that.
As one other commenter squealed, "What about the fat people? The addicted? Are we supposed to provide care for THOSE PEOPLE??"
Republicans would argue no, apparently content to let these people suffer or even die simply because they happen to eat a poor diet or are prone to being overweight, or are unlucky enough to have become addicted to a harmful substance.
Does Jesus say that if you make poor choices, tough shit?
So according to you and Mowen and millions of these peculiar Christian right-wingers, Jesus commands us as individuals to do things that directly contradict right wing ideology, but he apparently doesn't care at all what governments do in these same people's names and with these same people's tax dollars?
I see.
That has to be one of the lamest arguments yet by so-called Christians to square their beliefs with the core tenets of the Republican party.
Sorry, but it can't be done.
PS. I know Mowen won't read this. Too many words in a row makes his brain go haywire.
Dope, you are certainly right that there are too many words...why can't you make a comment and leave it at that? Everything has to be a bash on the right, Bush or Christians.
Hey, all I said was that Jesus spoke to INDIVIDUALS about taking care of the sick, the hungry, etc.
I certainly do not see anywhere that Jesus said - "people, don't worry yourselves about it, let the government deal with it. The government will take care of all needs and they'll just tax the rich."
The reality is that it is not the governments job to look after people - they have been stuck with the job because too many people will not accept this responsibility themselves (they all seem willing to talk a good game and then put it off on the government - or anyone other than themselves).
Feel free to show me where Jesus took this responsibility off of the individual - and you might have something to talk about.
Jim, I don't know who or what you're arguing with, as no one has ever suggested that the individual doesn't have this responsibility or that Jesus' teachings weren't directed towards everyone.
But how you can possibly even conceive of a government which does NOTHING to help it's poor and needy is simply stunning and morally reprehensible.
We've been down your road before, in England during the Dikensian Industrial revolution, and in the early days of this country, when the poor and afflicted were left to simply die in the streets.
We managed to respond to our better natures and collectively addressed this problem, thus having something we as a nation could truly be proud of.
I simply can't believe that any evolved person in the 21st century (and one that professes to be Christian no less) is actually advocating a return to a state of unmerciful suffering and death of anyone who doesn't happen to share your good fortune.
In this country, we don't turn our backs on our fellow man when they are suffering and in dire need of assistance.
Perhaps you'd be more comfortable in a country where such programs don't exist?
I can think of a few. And they're the very one's you condemn and fear as "evil".
Post a Comment
<< Home