It is the height of irony that FOX News and the conservative right wing consider themselves the guardians of Christmas tradition. From all that was allowed to be published regarding Jesus, there is no evidence that Jesus was anything but a liberal pacifist. Thus, the war for Christmas perpetrated by the right would be anathema to Jesus.
I have long dismissed the notion of Jesus Christ as a God or even a relative, and relegated him to the same status I reserve for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Nevertheless, his human traits as portrayed by the bible are truly admirable.
What I find baffling is how a social right-wing conservative can claim to be a Christian at all. The same people who want to keep the manger scene at a Texas City Hall are the first to decry wasteful government spending. The same people who loudly and self-righteously profess Jesus as their savior—the same Jesus who said, “do not judge, lest you be judged”—have large websites dedicated to the hatred and judgment of everyone from Muslims to gays and everything in between that does not fit their paradigm of a good Christian.
Don’t get me wrong, many Christians are very good people who do not engage in this hatred and are offended by the hypocrisy shown by their alleged fellow believers. The problem is that the right-wing Christian is now the poster child for the religion. Polling shows it is they who dominate the belief system of religion in this country and their evangelical desire for conformity has permeated every political issue from taxes to who gets social services in this country.
Jesus, on the other hand, was very clear about the separation of church and state; “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”
His views on the poor were pretty straightforward and indisputably liberal—one might even call them socialist. The only signs of him having a temper were exhibited against the Wall Street crowd of his day, the money changers whom it is said he chased out of the temple and warned people to be on their guard against greed. In manner, dress and attitude he would have been very comfortable with the Occupy San Jose folks who were evicted from City Hall.
But the best legacy—and best political policy—he advanced was the simple notion that one should “love thy neighbor as yourself” and “do to others as you would have them do to you”.
As a philosophy, that is worth celebrating. It is the same philosophy that allowed Martin Luther King, Jr., Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Cesar Chavez, Bishop Tutu, and many other liberal icons to be the symbols of freedom in their respective societies.
Jesus preached about a charity that flowed from the heart, not dictated by the State. Jesus was not a politician, Richie. Centralized command and control by a welfare state instead of local people helping their neighbors is worlds apart….maybe even other-worlds apart. Big Government is the new god of the liberal mindset. Jesus, help them!
Horse manure. Jesus never claimed helping the poor should be a choice—it was required. As for big government, it depends. Nothing bigger than the military,
But I submit most people are not against big government as they are against multiple and duplicative government. I plan to address that in a future blog.
” Jesus never claimed helping the poor should be a choice—it was required.”
Easy to say by a guy who lived on handouts from others his entire life.
I am assuming you are referring to Jesus, who did live his life on the handouts of others. But what is the point?
He spent most of his adult life supporting himself as a carpenter.
Some say building crosses for the Romans, but there no evidence anywhere that he worked. Besides, per my original thought, everything about the mythological Jesus is hearsay upon hearsay.
check out: parasitesaredevouringthehostculture.wmv
A new vote on High Speed Rail will quickly reveal that most people ARE against big government. But look on the bright side, taxpayers will save 100 billion by rejecting the project for which you lobby.
More high comedy from the Rich-meister.
“It is the same philosophy that allowed Martin Luther King, Jr., Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Cesar Chavez, Bishop Tutu, and many other liberal icons to be the symbols of freedom in their respective societies.”
Think Martin Luther King Jr. would associate with modern day liberals? (That’s a rhetorical question)
Liberals of today, in fact, are not liberals at all, they’re statists. The religion of today’s liberal is big government uber alles where individuals exist only to fulfill the needs of the state.
And Jesus would be down with OWS? Kudos for reaching ever new heights of absurdity. OWS is nothing but a bunch of anarchists and participation-trophy-generation types texting on their iphones and facebooking on their macbooks about how unfair it is that they have to payback the student loans they took out for their [insert worthless degree here].
Finally, I noticed that you left Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, off your list of liberal icons. FIFY.
Another view of OWS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2qqRFYv3ao&feature=related
REALLY Dude!!!!!!!!!
The ONLY thing liberal about Jesus was his love for people!!A serious Bible study with a mature Christian would help you understand Jesus a little better. My main concern is that you don’t accept Jesus as GOD in the flesh. He was born of a virgin and died at 33 years old as payment for ALL our sin, came back to life 3 days later then went back to heaven to hang out with GOD until time to call his children home. I want you to get that part most of all so we can be together in heaven some day Rich.
In your attempt to justify liberalism, you both slap the majority of Christians in the face while at the same time use the core of their religion to rationalize big government and illegal activity?
There is also a very basic flaw in your premise. You are basing some of your argument on the current translation of the Holy Bible. Anybody who has set aside their religious preconceptions and done any serious research on the history of the bible can tell you that it has been modified repeatedly to serve the crop of politicians in power at the time. In other words, religion was co-opted by big government in order to solidify power over the masses. So much for the separation of church and state…
Jesus justified liberalism. Jesus broke the law, was convicted by the system and was executed. Their is no bigger government than the church.
Rich, exactly what laws did Jesus break? My recollection, after more than a decade of various Sunday School lessons, was that Jesus in point of fact broke no laws. John 18:35 “‘What is the truth?’ Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, ‘I find no basis for a charge against him.’” John 19:4,6 “Once more Pilate came out and siad to the Jews, “Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him.” “…But Pilate answered, ‘You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.”
Rich, your ignorant assertions frankly border on the heretical as they fly in the face of some basic tenets of the Christian faith particularly the fact that Jesus was blameless and without sin, executed unjustly. This blamelessness is one of the cornerstones of the themes of redemption and righteousness. Furthermore, your assertions that institutionalized ‘charity’ are biblical or consistent in any way with anything Jesus did or taught flies in the face of what it is documented that he did teach and do in the course of his abbreviated life.
Jesus taught that faith and actions were a matter of individualism, that they ought be expressed as individuals. In point of fact, he recoiled at the idea that acts of faith or charity ought to become institutions. He was enormously critical of the religious leaders of the day – the Pharisees – and outraged at how faith became commercialized to the point that he overturned the moneychangers tables at the synagogue.
Jesus’ message was that expressions of faith – and by extension, charity – ought to be deeply personal and individual acts, just as ones’ relationship with God ought to be. When you create institutions which remove individual choice as expressions of faith and charity, you erode a central part of our humanity – that of free will. It is around these principles – the supremacy of the individual over government, individual property rights, that the freedom to express one’s conscience in matters of speech and faith are a part of natural or God’s law – that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are designed.
Perhaps if you spent more time reading and understanding these documents – The Bible, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, The Federalist Papers – your conscience might twinge a bit at the notion of posting such revisionist garbage.
The assertion that Jesus was a socialist is misguided and incorrect because the premise is grounded in the liberal ideology of American politics, not in biblical exegesis. Not one place in the bible did Jesus advocate it was the function of government to do what loving human beings ought to do on their own. Conservatives are not opposed to social programs. We shed our blood, donate our time, apply our labor, and voluntarily redistribute our income to the poor. And quite frankly, research shows we are better at it than liberals. Jesus was a conservative because he promoted charitable giving on behalf of individuals, not government. Jesus was a conservative because he promoted the hard work and success of the individual, not the legislative body of the government. Jesus was a conservative he saw giving as a ministry of the gospel, not a secular and spiritless exercise of government in order to level the economic playing field. Liberals may claim Jesus as their own, but Jesus would not claim them as his own. It takes a lot more to give from your personal resources than it does to compel others to give through taxation.
Jesus loves all people.
Rich is a misguided liberal. Being liberal is okay. Demanding that all people see your way, because you are right and they are wrong, is wrong. In every post by Rich,he emphatically points out that others are wrong.
Not all conservatives are right wing, not all Christians are evangelical. The right wing is not the poster child for Christianity. There are far more Catholics and Orthodox Christians, that Rich doesn’t even acknowledge. Rich stereotypes many with the swipe of a broad brush. Rich, who preaches tolerance, is intolerant to anyone that disagrees with him.
Don’t worry Rich,there is hope for you….
We won’t give up!
(but that doesn’t mean SJI should give him a soapboz!)
All those OWS people look like Jesus so therefore Jesus must have been like an OWS person right?
Hard work is not a conservative trait. Many poor work very hard sometimes two jobs. That is an ignorant statement. Consersatives dont want change and are the status quo, that is why they are called conservative. Jesus was neither of those things. He was “bucking” the powers that be and paid for it.
The most ignorant article ever written at SJI. Talk about not knowing the subject…
That is a faith based comment—belief without evidence.
So if someone disagrees with you it’s a “faith based comment – belief without evidence”? You do not know the subject – and I have no “faith” to speak of – I am spiritual and not “religious”. However, some of what you spoke of was the separation of church and state and clearly you can’t say that you know much on THAT topic. And I might add, you did not answer my point about that. So clearly you have never read the Constitution – most Americans have not however so I will give you that one in this case.
So to the matter of belief and evidence: Do you believe you’ll awaken each day? What evidence do you have that it will happen EACH day? Do you believe the water will flow every time you turn on the tap? What evidence do you have to prove that? Do you believe that EVERY Conservative is evil and EVERY Liberal is in the right? What evidence do you have?
Write what you want – but when you write in a public forum be prepared for people to disagree and take it like a man, not like a spoiled brat.
Rich Robinson is a liberal, Jesus is just fine.
> But the best legacy—and best political policy—he advanced was the simple notion that one should “love thy neighbor as yourself” and “do to others as you would have them do to you”.
Ummmm. Rich: You’re sophistry and revisionism know no bounds.
The “Golden Rule” was a revolutionary concept for the times, and in the current age of neo-tribal statism, remains profoundly revolutionary.
The dominant social-cultural ethic preceding Christianity was tribalism.
The essential world changing paradigm of Christianity was conveyed in the parable of the Good Samaratan. It’s message was simple: social harmony and virtue are fostered by a “catholic” view of humanity. (For the dumbells in the audience, “catholic” doesn’t mean “working for the Pope”, it means “universal”).
This is the bedrock principle of Western Civilization and the operative principle of the “free market economy”.
Tribalists organize war parties and take what they want from the tribe down the stream.
Free marketers respect the humanity, dignity, and free will of those down the stream, and trade valuable things for the other peoples’ valuable things. It’s called “commerce” of “business”. This is foundation of peace and harmony.
Today’s neo-sophists (e.g., leftists, liberals, progressives, communists, socialists, whatever) are really “neo-tribalists”. Neo-tribalism is just tribalism based on the kinship of group plunder rather than the kinship of blood. Like the tribalists of the stone age, neo-tribalists divide the world into “our tribe” and “enemy tribes”.
For tribalists, it is OK to organize war parties and steal the women, horses, and tax revenues from neighboring tribes. So-called “community organizers” are just petty “war lords”. Occupy Wall Streeters are just neo-tribalists who call their tribe “the Ninety Nine Percent”, and those other tribes that they wish to prey upon and steal from “the One Percent”.
Christianity is revolutionary.
“Progressive-ism” is just a fancy neo-Sophist word for pre-civilized tribalism.
Sophists live inside their heads and imagine that they can control reality through imaginative and bizarre exercises in rhetoric.
But at the end of the day, sophistry is the same as psychosis: detachment from reality.
For somebody who throws around the charge of “sophistry”, you talks a good game, but, don’t demonstrate any knowledge of what you are talking about.
You attack Mr. Robinson with
” Rich: You’re (sic) sophistry and revisionism know no bounds.
The “Golden Rule” was a revolutionary concept for the times, and in the current age of neo-tribal statism, remains profoundly revolutionary.
The dominant social-cultural ethic preceding Christianity was tribalism.”
That may be what you learned from your FOX News version of history, but MY history sources say that
The “Golden Rule” “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.” is NOT unique to Christianity. Just a few of MANY examples of cultures that taught the same basic ideal:
Judaism teaches, “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.” { Hillel, Shabbath 31a.}
Islam teaches, “No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.” { Hidith }
Even Buddhists, some whom deny the existence of any God, teach, “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” { Udana-Varga }
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm shows there are versions of the “golden rule” in 21 major religions.
As for Christianity being such a great improvement over “tribalism”, I ask you as a Christian clergyman, to tell that to all the “heretics”, “witches”, “faggots”, “savages”, “schismatics”, etc., etc, that we Christians who called ourselves “God’s people” have tortured and killed over the centuries.
“But the best legacy—and best political policy—he advanced was the simple notion that one should “love thy neighbor as yourself” and “do to others as you would have them do to you”.”
Yes, indeed Rich, but Jesus also left you explicit instructions regarding what it means to love one’s less fortunate neighbor, and who that neighbor is. It is found in his famous parable of The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-27). If you will take the time to read that parable very carefully you will clearly see that Jesus very explicitly had the Good Samaritan use his own resources exclusively to succor the needs of the poor traveler who he found beaten and left to die by robbers. He did not have the Samaritan appeal to the State to send out tax collectors to take money from his neighbors by whatever force was necessary to obtain the money to care for the stranger.
Tax collectors would be convicted of embezzling but for the exemption from criminal prosecution the State grants them. God’s commandment is, “Thou shall not steal!” It exempts no one. Jesus was not fooled by any sophistic declaration that it’s ok for the State steal.
Rich, don’t be Scrooge. Take care of the poor yourself and let others worry about themselves. If they don’t care for their neighbors, God will deal with them. Your desire to use OPM (sounds like opium, is equally addicting, stands for other people’s money) to care for the poor makes your profession of caring sound insincere.
Merry Christmas Rich!
May you and yours continue to benefit from the tradition of Judeo Christian ethics and morality upon which this great country was built- even if you do fail to appreciate it.
The Constitution clearly calls for a separation of church and state, it was the first amendment to the document. In addition, the Constitution called African-Americans 3/5 of a person for census purposes only, thus giving white slave owners more power in the lower house. Indians were not considered people and women were chattel for husbands, fathers and brothers.
Are these the principles to which you refer?
Yes you’re right Rich. What a bunch of uncivilized barbarians the founders were. Besides all the unforgiveable sins you listed, they were also guilty of burning wood on Spare the Air Days, didn’t provide LGBT counseling in the military, and had no school lunch programs.
Boy, we modern people sure are better than they were 250 years ago aren’t we!
Yeah we are. . .
While I am all for a separation of church and state have you actually read the Constitution?
The Separation Of Church and State
The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment erected a “wall of separation” between the church and the state (James Madison said it “drew a line,” but it is Jefferson’s term that sticks with us today). The phrase is commonly thought to mean that the government should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion. The Religion Topic Page addresses this issue in much greater detail.
This is from a section entitled: Things that are NOT in the Constitution at this web address:http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Yes, I have read the Constitution. The establishment clause in the first amendment is very clear. The bill of rights was promoted by the jeffersonians who sought to insure individual liberties and limit the powers of the federal government.
Thus Jefferson’s statement of the legislative intent and the common usage of the term separation of church and state has merit.
It has much more merit than those who cite a second amendment right to “bear arms” without giving context to the need for a well regulated militia. A concept the current Court majority completely ignored on a 5-4 vote.
Like the bible there are those who bastardize the meaning of the Constitution or fail to extrapolate concepts necessary for a modern society. Like the bible, the constitution is a flawed document open to interpretation and misuse by people who see and read simple passages without putting those phrases in context with the whole purpose of the document.
Like the bible the constitution is a revered document held in great esteem by most people who have never read it.
Clearly you do not understand simple concepts other than your own. You do not see anyone’s opinions but your own. I did not say that Jefferson did not discuss the separation of church and state – I merely corrected you that it was NOT an amendment to the constitution. This is your statement: “The Constitution clearly calls for a separation of church and state, it was the first amendment to the document.”
As another person state later in the blog….I will not be responding any longer. You just wanted to create your own bitch session forum…….good for you. Conservatives are not necessarily the devil nor are Liberals – they both need to get off their collective asses however and work together.
And yes – many people misinterpret the bible as you have misinterpreted the Constitution (and I even handed it to you on a silver platter with the US Constitution link). I am a liberal and very proud. But I will not take down others for believing differently. I do not believe that gains anything other than more people arguing instead of doing.
Now – get out there and be part of the solution instead of the problem kid.
Erin Clark,
Thanks for having the intellectual honesty to stick up for the truth about what the Constitution says, or rather what it DOESN’T say.
But then you had to go and encourage Robinson to “get out there and be a part of the solution”.
Do you have any idea how much damage a guy like this can inflict on us with his “solutions”?
Believe me, we’re all a lot safer when Rich Robinson and his cronies are safely situated at their keyboards harmlessly voicing the arrogance and contempt they have for us and our forbears rather than spending their time turning that hate into legislation that does us actual harm.
The more he yammers on here the better off we ALL are. It’s when we DON’T hear these know-it-all busybodies that we really need to worry!
John Galt,
Look – the conservatives responding here appear to hate liberals and have so many “facts” wrong it’s bordering on lunacy and I haven’t noticed too many liberals responding, but I am sure that some would be the same as the conservatives (hating the other party to a point where it borders on lunacy) and he wants to hate everyone it seems…and that IS lunacy. Could he be less of a busybody and READ and LEARN more? Yes he could. Could he then get off his duff and be part of the solution? Yes, I think he could. Will he do either…no he will not. So in that sense, yes you are correct, him being HERE instead of OUT THERE…probably better for all. I was merely pointing out however, as I think you well know since you seem to be quite intelligent as opposed to him, that being part of a real solution is usually the way to go instead of bemoaning “facts” and rewriting history to suit ones needs/wants.
And for the record, to anyone reading this (and this is not directed at Mr. Galt) I am a liberal. I am not the devil…merely Irish/American
I find the conservative views stated here by some to be amusing because those of you bemoaning the liberals are also using revisionist history to suit your own needs yet skewering the “author” (loosely defined obviously) for his. Again I will state that if the two major parties in this country don’t start to work TOGETHER, this country will be in more dire straits than we are now. It does not matter any longer who is right or wrong or who has the bigger *xxxx*. What does matter is DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
Here endeth my rant…
We are the state. We are a government of, by and for the people. The money we collect from taxes is our money. Nary a conservative I know will disavow that tax money is our money.
That said how we choose to spend our collective combined wealth is a choice. We can collecttively use our hearts to utilize those funds for the poor and destitute or we can choose to hoard those resources, subsidize already wealthy individuals, spend it on other things, This nation state—unlike some others—is not a separate entity from the people.
As good Samaritans who participate in a representative democracy you can choose to support the poor or not. But you don’t get a pass by objecting to paying for the poor with your tax money by saying it isn’t your money, that you have no say or that it is theft and coercion.
Government policy is a reflection of our shared values. Sophistry is when you claim to be a good Samaritan yet challenge or oppose collective societal efforts to help those in need. Such convoluted argument helps the conscience of those who claim to follow a Jesus, but refuse to accept the moral responsibility of helping ones neighbor.
“As good Samaritans who participate in a representative democracy you can choose to support the poor or not.”
Ok, I can agree with that. But then “But you don’t get a pass by objecting to paying for the poor with your tax money by saying it isn’t your money, that you have no say or that it is theft and coercion.”
So, which is it? Do I have a choice or not? I can choose not to support the poor what, by leaving the country and living in an even more despotic and oppressive country? Your logic is flawed. Either I can choose who to contribute my hard earned money to, or I cannot. Under the leftist ideology, I am forced to contribute to causes not chosen by me, but by some benevolent government that supposedly represents my interests. Hogwash! Our government has strayed so far from the intent of the Constitution in controlling individual wealth that our founding fathers should be rolling in their graves. And, our politicians coerce and smooth talk their way into power and then spend all their time pandering to those they believe will keep them in power at the next election. If Jesus would have spent a bit more time in the Senate instead of the temple, he would have driven them out with a whip as well…
Don’t mind helping my neighbors who need my help. Do mind helping those who’ve made a career out of working the system.
Those who get back more from the government than they put in have got a lot of nerve condemning those who subsidize them. They’re arguing from pretty shaky ground I’d say. Mmm hmm.
Oh well. All God’s creatures deserve our respect.
Merry Christmas anyway Rich!
Happy Reason Day to you John.
Ah yes. The Atheist’s Day of Worship.
You see? Every Faith has it’s traditions and rituals-even yours.
My only knowledge of you is this article, Mr. Robinson, so I don’t know if you are a theologian by profession, but this article puts many of my profession to shame.
Anybody who knows anything about Jesus should recognize that he was a liberal par excellence, as I document in great depth at http://LiberalslikeChrist.Org/
This last comment is a great answer to the conservative argument that what Jesus promoted was PRIVATE vs PUBLIC concern for justice. There are so MANY things wrong with the argument that I would like to add to what you have already said so well:
1) Jesus didn’t make helping the oppressed a GOVERNMENT matter in his day because he was addressing his followers who were anything but the gov. in their day. Once his followers took over the gov. which conservatives insist happened in the U.S.A. (as well as in most of the other democratic governments of the world, ALL OF THAT CHANGED – which is the point you make in your comment-.
2) While “Christian conservatives” rant and rave about liberals fighting to keep Christianity out of our gov., – by which all they mean is public professions of Christianity” – it is laughable the way these same people fight any effort by the government to put the teaching of Jesus into practice. Conservatives want our government to PROFESS to be “Christian”, while we liberals elect representatives who vote for the kinds of programs that Jesus promoted.
3) While “Christian Conservatives” follow the leadershi[p pf the anti-Christ Ayn Rand in describing everything that helps those less fortunate than themselves as “CHARITY”, what Liberals like Jesus mean by helping such people is usually a matter of JUSTICE. That makes a world of difference, as “charity” may be viewed as “optional”, and over and above what is required, while “justice” is “required” for anyone or any society which wishes to be considered MORAL.
Hope to see you all at http://LiberalslikeChrist.Org/
Private charities are far more efficient than the government in meeting the needs of the poor. If we are serious about caring for the less fortunate, we should make sure that less money goes to the government and more to individuals. If I had more money, I would give more. As it is, in 2010, Vice President Biden made about $235,000 more than I did, but gave about $10,000 less than I did to charity. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/15/obamas-earned-55-million-2009b/
Research has shown that conservatives give about 30% more (as a percentage of their income) than liberals do to charity. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1#.TvUWGa6xj-Q
Private charities do not have the capacity or resources needed to address the wider problem, which is why government is needed.
Those who give to charities deduct the amount from their income thus paying less tax. Without the tax benefit we know charitable contributions would be drop significantly. Conservatives and liberals use the system to adjust their tax burden.
The VP may not give as much to charity, but he supports policy that addresses the needs of the poor. Who is the better Christian?
“Conservatives and liberals use the system to adjust their tax burden.”
One problem with that… liberals don’t give. Liberals view giving of oneself as something that the other guy does. Liberal “giving” consists of raising taxes on others and spending the proceeds on causes that they approve of.
The government kneecapping of private charities isn’t about helping the poor at all. It’s about cementing a dependent class that’s forever beholden to big government.
Practically anything or any problem that government touches is made worse.
But who cares about the impact on the poor on the receiving end government “charity”. What’s important here is that raising taxes to feed bigger government helps the elitist, self-loathing, liberals feel compassionate and better about themselves.
Oh almost forgot. Bigger gov’t means there more money in the pot for lobbyist slime to leech from.
Using a figure like Jesus to support an argument like this is dangerous sledding, but there is truth in saying the only thing that props up the Republican party these days is evangelical Christians. Otherwise, it would just be a bunch of rich people blatantly cutting taxes for corporations and their country club friends.
As a clergman who served in two of the largest mainstream denominations in the U.S. , I say that Sergeant X’s “FOX News” claim that “Private charities are far more efficient than the government in meeting the needs of the poor. If we are serious about caring for the less fortunate, we should make sure that less money goes to the government and more to individuals. ” is cow pies.
We don’t have to speculate as to whether private charity might do better than public welfare. “We’ve been there done that.” BEFORE liberals took over most of the U.S. government in the 1930’s and began IMPROVING the lives of the great mass of Americans by adding to the public education they had created earier Welfare for needy families, Medicade, Medicare, Social Security, labor protections, housing regulations, environmental protections, etc., etc., CONSERVATIVES had their chance. They controlled most of government from the 1870’s through the 1920’s, and life was great FOR THE 1%; and TERRIBLE for everybody else, as I show at http://liberalslikechrist.org/liberalrecord.html
The “New Deal” was inspired in no small measure by the “New Testament” ( or “New Covenant”, i.e. “new deal”, which Jesus described as “good news for the poor”.
Yep. No doubt about it. Liberalism has done wonders. We’ve gone from a nation that espoused self-reliance to a nation waiting on a handout from government.
Hey, since you worship at the altar of big government and liberalism, can you let us know how all that big government love is working out for the black community?
Novice,
Since you conservatives dream of “a nation hat espoused self-reliance to a nation waiting on a handout from government” why don’t you get YOUR OWN CONSERVATIVE STATES to stop mooching from OUR LIBERAL STATES?
As I showed at http://liberalslikechrist.org/graphs.html in the typical year of 2001, our Liberal states (which voted for Democrat Al Gore in 2000 & John Kerry in 2004) GAVE $ 80,149 Million than they got back so that YOUR conservative states could mooch off of us to the une of $ 71,868.
As for “charitable giving”, there’s no reliable accounting in that area, as definitions of what constitute “charity” are vague, and so much of it relies on self-reporting, (like donors to Salvation Army of film cameras which they can report as valued $300, when they are actually worthless!)
encourage writers to boycott this site (idiot). It is even worse than PO’s and not worth responding too. Just my suggestion and will not be on this blob again. SJI pick another presenter.
“We are the state. We are a government of, by and for the people. The money we collect from taxes is our money. Nary a conservative I know will disavow that tax money is our money.”
Rich: Thou shall not steal! Stolen property does not become and is not “our money.”
Your assertion is a bunch of statist malarkey! What conservatives believe, or what you say they believe, proves nothing, for most conservatives are as addicted to OPM (sounds like opium, is equally addicting, stands for other people’s money) as liberals, they just like to use it for different purposes than liberal thieves. The point is that collecting taxes depends on the initiation of force against otherwise harmless people. This introduction of the element of violence into otherwise peaceful human relations has terrible consequences, which can neither be predicted nor justified by some people’s desire to live off the fruits of other people’s labors. There is simply no logical nor moral distinction between extortion practiced by the Mafia and that practiced by the State. Jesus concurred with His Father’s Commandment, not with the statist sophistry of liberals and conservatives, who in their mutual dependence on OPM are cut from the same soiled cloth.
Who signed me up to be part of the collective you evidently worship as your god? Not me, so obviously I am not part nor party to your almighty state. (And thus, thank God, not party to its many crimes, like those of sending its trained military warriors to kill the natives of other lands, and sending it domestic thugs (IRS agents) to plunder its own “citizens.” Your religion is obviously Statolatry. You are high on and addicted to OPM, a terribly debilitating dependency that robs its victims of every shred of decency, honesty, responsibility and self worth. Seek help for your addiction.
Reverand Ray Dubuque, visit my website and learn what Jesus thought of the State and its taxes. There you will find the most comprehensive analysis of everything Jesus said and did relative to taxes and tax collectors as reported in the canonical and noncanonical gospels. When it was first published to the World Wide Web in 2003, it was the first and only such study, but since then there have been several others (Google: “Jesus Taxes,” whose authors come to substantially the same conclusion. My website: http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com…keep the faith
Went to the Reverend’s website and turns out that he’s been defrocked by the Catholic Church and forced into retirement by the Methodist Church. His website is a good read for those into conspiracy theories. I’m surprised that it is missing a link to UFOs.
He’s also not from around here. I wonder how he even learned about this fairly obscure website and this argument therein.
Berryessa Chillin’ , you’re a great example of conservative dishonesty and ignorance. Far from being “defrocked by the R.C. church”, I threw off its robes before being corrupted by them (and rather than molesting children as a “celibate” priest, my ex-Catholic wife and I proceeded to adopt 5 children, 3 of whom were severely handicapped, to add to the five bio-kids my wife had already raised).
And if I was “forced into early retirement from the United Methocist ministry” , it wasn’t by the church, but by my wife’s ill health – which nearly cost her her life.-
But don’t try to confuse conservatives with FACTS when their minds are already made up!
As for my not being “from around here”, maybe you can find some kids to explain to you how the internet works. People don’t have to live in your neighborhood to read what YOU read!
“As for my not being “from around here”, maybe you can find some kids to explain to you how the internet works. People don’t have to live in your neighborhood to read what YOU read!”
Translation: Rich was losing miserably as his misguided comments were repeatedly debunked so I came in to throw my two cents in at the invitation of the losing side.
“Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
“I also wonder how Jesus would view the charitable donation habits of the members of both of our political parties. For instance, the Catalogue For Philanthropy recently released their 2004 Generosity Index with some rather stunning findings. What this directory of non—profit organizations does every year is compare the average adjusted gross income of each state to the average itemized charitable deduction, and derive a ranking based upon the differences in these statistics.
According to their calculations, for the eighth year in a row, Mississippi is the most generous state in our nation, followed by Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Alabama —— all red states that Mr. Bush won by an average margin of 25%. In fact, the top 25 most philanthropic states according to this study all voted for Mr. Bush. This means that all the states that Mr. Kerry won in November fall into the bottom half of charitable contributions as related to income in our nation. Moreover, the worst seven states in this study also all voted for Mr. Kerry, including number 49 (Massachusetts) which Mr. Kerry won by a comfortable 25% margin.
Given these statistics, what would Jesus think of liberals if he were alive today?”
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/01/would_jesus_be_a_democrat_or_a.html
You will know them by their fruits. Indeed.
For the record – those of you quoting the bible (even the “author”…again using that term loosely), why do you think it HAS to mean one thing or the other? Many of you quote the bible and act as if many of your churches don’t have missionaries in other countries helping out the poor and huddled masses yearning to be free (did you catch what I did there?) I live in a VERY highly conservative and extremely fundamentally Christian area. However, the poor ARE helped by the Christians (from the left and right) whether the Christians themselves, are poor or not. What annoys ME however as a liberal is that then those same conservatives come out of church and tell their Christian AND non-Christian friends, help the poor, help the poor…..and they usually have an advertisement for some missionary trip to somewhere abroad. Charity begins at home does it not?
And, I find it insulting that many believe that ALL liberals are godless, brainless wonders running around helping the poor (oh we’re going to hell for that) and just throwing money down the toilet on “great” things (yes we need more weapons of mass destruction…which by the way is not in the bible…). I am a very proud liberal, and I do not label myself with a religion because as it so happens I do not believe in a lot of things. I do believe Jesus was real. However, as Catholic (yes “Rev.” Dubuque, we do know what Catholic means we are not stupid, do not insult us any further) and Irish comedian Tommy Tiernan says, “Jesus was just a bloke…”
I have Christian friends and non-Christian friends and we all AGREE TO DISAGREE because that is the attitude that gets things done in life. I can work side by side with my conservative Christian and non-Christian friends to help many a charity. I give until it hurts. So do not sit there and say “ALL” liberals want to give away everything to everyone and give away “my” piece of the pie as well. It’s just simply not true. If you, as conservatives, want a bunch of illiterate people running around so that you can cut school budgets even more, go right ahead. How many more Rich Robinson’s do you want out there? If you want to starve CHILDREN, to punish their “give us a handout because we’re lazy ass druggies abusing the system” parents, go right ahead. If all of you want to live in smog filled areas (I live in the Pacific Northwest so I am not from “here”…..which by the way berry contessa or whatever your nickname was…is the internet…a PUBLIC forum.) get rid of the EPA.
But hey, here’s a wild thought: Let’s work together on better solutions that WORK, like…..oh I don’t know…..just throwing this out there….looking at other countries models of how they run things and trying those? In the UK (yes yes, let go of the socialism thing for a while, I know it hurts terribly for some of you to do so) they have a benefit fraud hotline. It has saved the government millions of pounds (or so a UK friend told me, so forgive me for not checking the facts) so far. There was a woman here in Washington State, living in a ritzy area (in a million dollar house) collecting welfare, and food benefits, and Medicare disability, all while working and paying for the million dollar house. OOps…gee, employing more workers to check into these things would have helped figure that little bit out a hell of a lot sooner don’t you think? How about, the CEO’s of corporations that are taking their jobs overseas get fined millions for doing so? So far Boeing has not left the area. When they do, Washington State will cease to exist. The area I live in has lost it’s lumber mills because we import wood from Canada, we have lost larger employers (an RV manufacturing company, furniture manufacturing etc) due to high overhead, but also due to the fact that they were mom and pop places and they could not compete with the big corporations. Our area is mainly agricultural, and yet, the CONSERVATIVES in the area want to make sure the farmers don’t lose revenue, so they do not stand by the immigration bill. Look up Doc Hastings from Washington State. You see, the farmers in our area depend on CHEAP labor. The ILLEGAL immigrants work where they are hired, and the farmers get cheap and QUIET labor that will not complain about an on the job injury. I know, because I know many of the people who work in the offices of these farms and have heard the horror stories – and yet the farmers (who are conservative Christians) go to church EVERY Sunday and just pray their sins away. On one hand, illegal is illegal period and I have Mexican/American friends who think the same thing because THEIR parents came here LEGALLY to work the fields. But, why not punish the farmers who pay their ranch foreman to smuggle people in? It does happen HERE. I am not saying it happens everywhere in the States, nor am I saying that it doesn’t. I am merely stating that it happens HERE. Most farmers (and by farm I mean apples, pears, peaches, mint and hops – look up Yakima Valley…or do you need help Rev. Dubuque? You seem to think most people are stupid..therefore you must be stupid as well.) here in this valley have two sets of books, one they show to INS and the IRS, and the REAL set. It’s well known throughout the valley. The feds know. They have known under conservative governments, and they have known under liberal governments. No one cares. It is the almighty dollar that matters.
You see, the almighty dollar is infinitely stronger to some than The Almighty…no matter what side of the fence you are on.
Rich,
I’m not sure what status you “reserve for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny,” but the story of Santa Claus obviously has roots in the historical figure of Nikolaos of Myra, a real person who lived about 1700 years ago. No flying reindeer back then, but the tradition of self-sacrifice rings valuable across the centuries.
I agree that some Republican big money folks seek to claim evangelical Christianity as their Party’s property – not from a sense of faith, but of venal political self-interest.
However, Democratic atheists and agnostics need to be cautious not to conclude people of faith are Republican and people of non-faith are Democrats.
While there are sincere people in any political group, the modern Democratic party has grown greatly on Catholic, Orthodox, denominational Protestant and Jewish foundations. Conversely, the modern Republican party has significant financial backing from relativists who give lip service to issues of faith, but who have little interest in the complex details of religious history or the details of biblical teachings.
And all US political leaders – regardless of party – would do well to read the Constitution more regularly.
Plenty of Democratic leaders are well-educated, thinking people of faith. And, I know Republicans who seek to balance their political views day-to-day with authentic faith. But whether one is an adherent of any organized religion, all political leaders would do well to note the Prophet Micah’s admonition “to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy G-d.”
All of us in politics can benefit from more justice, mercy and humility. Even when people disagree strongly on policy issues, less bitterness results in better governance.
Best New Year’s regards,
Chris Stampolis
Member, Democratic National Committee
Trustee, West Valley-Mission Community College District
408-390-4748
Erin, me too, Irish that is. But I must say the the more the two parties are at odds and unable to enact legislation, the safer we are. Stir the pot!