Monday :: Dec 20, 2004

Flouting The First Pharisee

by pessimist

How can I define George Warmonger Bu$h? Let's try these definitions:

Webster's 1913 Dictionary

\Hyp"o*crite\, n. [F., fr. L. hypocrita, Gr. ? one who plays a part on the stage, a dissembler, feigner. See {Hypocrisy}.]

One who plays a part; especially, one who, for the purpose of winning approbation of favor, puts on a fair outside seeming; one who feigns to be other and better than he is; a false pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or piety.

Easton Bible Dictionary: one who puts on a mask and feigns himself to be what he is not; a dissembler in religion. Our Lord severely rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16). "The hypocrite's hope shall perish" (Job 8:13).

The Hebrew word here rendered "hypocrite" rather means the "godless" or "profane," as it is rendered in Jer. 23:11, i.e., polluted with crimes.

Sounds like we're getting warm - but not as warm as Georgie is going to get in the Hereafter!

Bush fails to practice faith as preached

Bush’s “Christian” agenda is, without question, the least Christian in years. Bush constantly utilizes “God language” and religious undertones to promote his political agenda and woo voters. The Bush administration seems obsessed with rejecting the heart and soul of Christianity and embracing sin.

Instead of promoting peace, love, charity and equality, Bush works for greed (tax cuts for the wealthy, favors to corporations), revenge and death (Iraq), division (gay marriage) and lies (Where should I begin?). Whoops! Those are all serious sins.

By capitalizing on his “religious” image to secure votes, Bush takes the name of the Lord in vain (Oops! That’s a commandment).

The air, land, water, wildlife and ozone layer are all in serious danger under the care of Bush (Caring for the earth is the point of Genesis).

How does it compute that this man calls himself a Christian? It is painstakingly obvious that Bush is working completely against many of the most important Christian ideals. Christians are called to take action and speak out against such acts, particularly since God is often used to further these causes.

If Dietrich Bonhoeffer could sacrifice his life to resist Hitler, certainly contemporary Americans can challenge the backwards, ignorant policies of Dubya.

Just in case any of you 'moral values' Red Staters need a refresher course in who Jesus was and what he stood for, read this:

Jesus was a liberal

OK, Christians. As we approach Jesus' 2005th birthday, it's time to follow his words and stop voting Republican.

Read the Bible and you will see the obvious: Jesus was a bleeding-heart liberal.

He believed in the core liberal values: feed the hungry. Cure the sick. Be nice to people. Don't hurt others. Share. Take care of each other. The ideals that conservatives hate and fear with all of their being, these are the values that Jesus Christ held dear.

Read the Bible: Jesus did not like the rich.

From John 2, when he threw over the moneychanger's tables, to when he said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Matt. 19:24) he never mentioned "free trade" or "estate tax." Being rich wasn't the bad thing, however; it was the greed that came with it. If a rich man gave away all he owned, he could go to heaven (Mk. 10:21). But wealthy Republicans don't have such a good chance.

Imagine Jesus in modern society. Would he forget that archaic "turning the other cheek" nonsense, and advocate wars of aggression and the death penalty? Of course not. "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt 5:39).

So why do so many Christians turn to the warlike Republican Party, if Jesus never would have?

God, guns and gays, goes the conservative mantra. Many Christians erroneously believe that Jesus was against homosexuality, and join the conservatives to keep with their church. In fact, it is the church that calls homosexuality a sin, and not the Savior on which the church is based. Jesus never advocates homosexuality in the Bible, but neither does he condemn it. To say that he would not allow two monogamous, devout Christians of the same sex entry into heaven for loving one another is absurd.

The story of Sodom and Gommorah (Gen. 19), which is usually trumpeted as proof of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, is inapplicable. They were perverts there, sure. They would have "known" anything that crossed their path, even the two angels who visited. But to say that rapists are the same as gays is not an interpretation that can be attributed to Christ.

As for Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," the Hebrew word for "abomination" was "to'ebah." It was also used to describe the mixing of meat and milk pans in a kitchen, wearing a belt on Saturdays, and other "ritual impurities;" the word for "moral violation," or sin, is not used in connection with any of these acts.

Jesus loved everyone, unlike modern conservatives. He hung out with prostitutes and thieves; he would treat gays differently than Pat Robertson does. Even if they were sinners, it doesn't mean they deserve condemnation or second-class status.

The compassion of Jesus cannot be translated into the condemnation of the Religious Right. They condemn others not because they are Christians but because they are mean.

The Son of God did not advocate striking potential enemies first, or keeping what you earn without sharing, or condemning other sinners. Jesus was definitely not a conservative.

Come on, Christians. It's time to start reading the book yourself and finding some people to talk about it with besides the dittoheads that watch Fox News all day long.

Because when the Rapture comes, you can be sure that the hypocrites and conservatives will be the ones left behind.

In a similar vein, one author feels that we need a 'new' god - one that Bu$hCo wouldn't recognize:

All I Want For Xmas (Besides no more Xmas, that is)

My American brethren, we need a new God. The one we have has gotten awfully pushy and, like an un housetrained Rottweiller in a one-bedroom apartment, He’s getting damn hard to ignore.

Soon as we get this holiday crud behind us, I say we shop around for something a bit more humble and a lot less ruthless. An un-jealous God, if you will, who doesn’t throw a hissy just because every Tom, Dickstein and Abdul isn’t continuously on their knees singing His hosannas.

Our conservative friends like to deregulate everything else, from the phone company to the Endangered Species Act, yet they seem perfectly satisfied with the idea of centralized sanctimony enforced by an overbearing, invasive bureaucracy of angels, saints and televangelists getting mixed up in every aspect of our lives, from who we fall in love with to what weapons systems we give to Israel.

Listen, if your chief bitch is about Big Government, what makes Big Theology so much better?

So, as much as it pains this lefty, I’m suggesting what we need is a free-market God, instead of this monopolizing, big brother, Ma Bell God the moral socialists insist we sign up with. A God who won’t be chucking everyone who strays off the straight and narrow down to a long rot in Hell, or maybe even a God with a sense of humor, is that too much to ask?

Any Creation that includes concepts like “post-modern,” “rap music” and “born again” needs a Creator who knows sarcasm when he sees it. (Besides, a funny God would almost certainly come up with more things like penguins and chimpanzees and less things like centipedes and Southern Baptists.)

Oh, and what say we drop the omnipotence bit? As far as I’m concerned, that stuff was dumb long before Darwin and it never amounted to a hill of beans anyway. Think about it … if the God of Abraham, Isaac and Moses is so all powerful and all knowing, why would He let them put Jerusalem in an earthquake zone, huh?

Another thing: Let’s make sure our new God sticks with what He puts down on paper. For instance, if our new God’s good book says, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter into Heaven,” then He’d better see to it that either 1) rich guys don’t get in to Heaven, 2) needles get way bigger or 3) camels get way smaller.

What set me off on this crusade was seeing Jerry Falwell on a talk show recently [just prior to the publication date of Dec 15, 04], can you believe that bloated boil is still blaming gays and Hollywood for 9/11? He says it wouldn’t have happened if all Americans had God in their hearts like—of course—he does.

Well, pilgrim, I decided then and there I don’t want anything in my heart that’s been in Jerry Falwell’s heart.

But that leaves me in somewhat of a quandary. Let’s say that some day I have to explain to a small child where her Granny went when she died. Or better yet, what if I find myself in a foxhole? And seeing’s how there’s no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole, I have no choice but to believe in something larger than myself. At least until I get out of the foxhole.

First of all, there’s no chance I’d ever foist Jerry Falwell’s Supreme Bogey Man off on a kid. I may have done a lot of rotten things in my time, but I draw the line at scarring children for life. And as far as a foxhole conversion goes, don’t count on that either. If I have to rely on some Gomorrah-busting, world-flooding, heretic-burning, birth control-nixing, Adam&Eve-banishing, Bush-backing brute for my salvation, I’ll take my chances with the enemy’s bullets, thank you very much.

Still, like everyone else, now and then I seek answers to unanswerable questions. And please, don’t give me another Jesus pitch. I’ve heard it all before and you bet, he seems to be a perfectly nice, blue-state kind of fella. But frankly, after being marketed by 2,000 years’ worth of powerful Popes, proselytizing Protestants, millions of pesky missionaries and most recently, Mel Gibson, Jesus comes with some pretty ambiguous baggage. And besides, who’s really running the show up there? … The Grumpy Father (who doesn’t think twice about hosing the planet off and starting over), the Son (that proto-hippy who came to save us all, and then take the rap for the ones he missed), or the Holy Ghost (whom, word is, Ashcroft is trying to make part of the Patriot Act before he goes).

I guess what I’m looking for is a God smart people can believe in, too. Darnit, the barely aware [Red State] masses have been making God in their image long enough, so it’s our turn. A God who keeps up with modern science so we won’t be bickering over what gets taught in schools, wouldn’t that be nice? Seriously, it feels like a whole plague of locusts are crawling down my back when I think about getting stuck in Sunday morning services with a herd of needy, grasping, fearful souls who will buy on faith whatever a used-religion salesman with a Bible school certificate tells them, but reject everything that comes out of Stephen Hawking’s mouth.

I want a God who, when he says “free will,” means “free will.” Being endowed with free will, then being damned to an eternity of unimaginable suffering as punishment for exercising it isn’t what I call free will. Might as well tell a slave, “Shor, ya’ll juss go ’head an’ vote. But when I catches ya’, don’ be surprised that I hang yer ass from that there hickory tree.”

I don’t want any God who’s merely a substitute addiction for booze hounds, skirt chasers, gamblers, junkies, overeaters and compulsive shoppers.

You’ve known your share, I’m sure … folks who can’t get from one day to the next without some sort of fix, then they get hooked on God and act like their dependency days are over. That’s not God in their hearts, brother. It’s more like methadone.

Okay, I think that about covers it. And look, I realize a week before Christmas probably isn’t the best time to announce we need a new God. But consider this … I could have saved the thought for Easter, so be thankful for what little sensitivity I have.

Which is much more than the amount of sensitivity we can count on from George Worshipper Bu$h.

Copyrighted source material contained in this article is presented under the provisions of Fair Use.


This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.

pessimist :: 1:56 PM :: Comments (2) :: Digg It!