Friday, April 5, 2013

4.5.2013



I'm going to talk about some things that bother me about modern conservatism, and namely the idea that conservatism and Christianity somehow go together.  My position is that that idea is without a doubt false, and here's why.

In modern political discourse, Jesus would be called a socialist, a towel head, a hadji, a terrorist, a RINO, a communist, a Marxist, a libtard, anti-freedom, a taker, or worse.  The Messiah of the belief system claimed to be central to the extreme right wing radical political party would be the most reviled and hated person they could imagine, to even ascend in the hate model above President Obama himself.  Jesus of Nazareth was a Humanist, if he was a completely real person.  He was a progressive the likes of whom had never been seen before. 

I say these things because the hateful rhetoric has to stop from the right.  Some of the issues that the Tea Party has in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus are their stance on immigration, their stance on poor people, their stance on taxes, their stance on healthcare, their stance on welfare, their stance on war, their stance on charity, their stance on foreign aid, their stance on marriage equality, and even more.

For example:

Mark 12:29-31,
29. And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

So, love your neighbor as you love thyself.  Not love thy neighbor as you love thyself as long as thy neighbor is like thyself or is in agreement with thyself's belief system.  Man that sounds libtarded to me.  Like marriage equality.  Welfare reform to not perpetuate generational poverty.  The elimination of hunger.  Immigration reform.  Less war.  All of these ideas are those of loving thy neighbor, or as I like to call them, Humanist. Jesus of Nazareth and by proxy based on the tenets of Christianity, God, is a Humanist.

What he does not say is to threaten violence if someone disagrees with you.  He does not advocate name calling and belittling.  There is no intent of violent overthrow of the government if the government doesn't protect your wealth from the needy or if the government doesn't give you the right to violently attack the needy. Read this pathetic story  Jesus advocated the payment of taxes.  He advocated giving away your money and worldly goods.  He advocated against building wealth.  He advocated for treating everyone equally.

Focusing more on the helping the poor aspect of his teachings, he said things like this:

1 John 3:17 “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?”

This is a fun one as well:

Luke 6:33-34 "And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full.”

These do not sound like the ravings of a lunatic Tea Party member raging on and on about taxes, how bad humanism is, how we need to revolt against the government for offering government assistance. 

I also read this little piece right here:
“Another thing to note about these verses is the lack of caveats-- the lack of excuses. None of them add ‘...once a year’ or ‘...when you feel you can’ or ‘...if they're moral’ or ‘...unless they're black’ or ‘...if they speak English’.  We have plenty of reasons (I'm sure you can think of a dozen) why we can't go out and feed the hungry, why we have to turn away the needy borrower-- and God help us, how many of us have sold so much as a lawnmower in order to have money to give away?” (Here) Check out this website if you’re a Christian, it will definitely put some things into perspective.

The scriptures also do not claim that there should be no government help in these issues.  The scriptures say nothing about a minimalist government.  Jesus never said "Do not allow thy government to give to the needy.  Attempt to pass legislation to lower your taxes so that less of your money goes to the needy.  Also, make sure that the taxes of the needy remain high in relativity."  If I take a poll of who helps the needy and the poor more, who feeds them, clothes them, takes care of their health, houses them, and more, individuals or government, guess who wins that poll?  That’s right.  Government does, and that's by a massive landslide.

Jesus wasn't a conservative; he's a revolutionary.  None of his teachings coincide with modern conservatism.  He would despise and condemn modern conservatives.  Not that he would like modern liberals much more.  But the idea that conservatism carries on the traditions of Jesus is just untrue.  Jesus could have been a tremendously wealthy man.  He became impoverished on purpose.  He wanted to place himself into the situation of the poor.  To share in their plight.  Some of his followers today act as, presumably, they feel Jesus should have acted, building multi-million-dollar cathedrals, earning millions on television, or even on a smaller scale, by making a good living and not contributing to helping the poor. But Jesus came as a poor man.  He wanted his poverty to be the cornerstone of his teachings.  There was only one commandment above helping the needy in importance to Jesus, as were his own words.

Now, I’m not preaching, I’m only clarifying, because I see a very scary amount of people joining forces with the Tea Party.  That party is the party of the Sadducees.  It is the party of the wealthy, those that leach from the poor, instead of helping them.  This is just something that’s been bothering me with the recent shift from moderate politics in America to this extremist fanatical Tea Party conservatism that violates every single principle that it claims to adhere to.  Of course, this is only my opinion.


No comments:

Post a Comment