The strange love-hate relationship Evangelicals have with Jesus

Phil Zuckerman: Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus –

“Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture. Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world. Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one’s money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation’s poor — especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of “socialism,” even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training — anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do. In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.

What’s the deal?

Before attempting an answer, allow a quick clarification. Evangelicals don’t exactly hate Jesus — as we’ve provocatively asserted in the title of this piece. They do love him dearly. But not because of what he tried to teach humanity. Rather, Evangelicals love Jesus for what he does for them. Through his magical grace, and by shedding his precious blood, Jesus saves Evangelicals from everlasting torture in hell, and guarantees them a premium, luxury villa in heaven. For this, and this only, they love him. They can’t stop thanking him. And yet, as for Jesus himself — his core values of peace, his core teachings of social justice, his core commandments of goodwill — most Evangelicals seem to have nothing but disdain…”

Today’s Bible verse, illustrated: Matthew 21:12


via: draconianlegend

40 Days to Save America (Interpreting the Bible: you’re doing it wrong!)

“Rick Perry claims that the idea of the separation of the church and state is from Satan, and he and others will next week embark on a 40 days to save America campaign, which (as far as I can tell) means “40 days to save America from Obama” campaign. Seems to me Perry got it exactly wrong. Satan is the one who tried to get Jesus to identify his kingdom with the kingdoms of this world, and even offered to let him run the whole thing. Thankfully, Jesus had the wisdom to refuse the offer…” — Greg Boyd (via: azspot)

Since when did Christianity become the excuse for political power grabs? I must have missed that Sunday school lesson.

“I want you to kill all infidels.” — Jesus

School Hangs Up Student’s Drawing of Jesus Saying ‘I Want You to Kill All Infidels’

Aren’t American fundagelical children adorable (like their parents)? Or look at it this way: the Taliban will have nothing on the next generation of Christians.

“Pastor” Curtis Knapp: The government should kill gays

It seems that fundamentalist “Christians” don’t spend nearly enough time with the New Testament portion of the Bible — that part with Jesus Christ and the whole ‘new deal’ forgiveness, hopey-changey thing:

[Pastor Curtis Knapp] of New Hope Baptist Church in Seneca, Kansas says President Barack Obama has gone too far in supporting same sex marriage and it’s time for the U.S. government to begin killing gay men and lesbians. [...] Knapp read from Leviticus 20: “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. They should be put to death,” Knapp declared. “‘Oh, so you’re saying we should go out and start killing them, no?’ — I’m saying the government should. They won’t, but they should.”  

Whatever. Guess what else Leviticus says (25) — and it’s notcorporations are people too’:

Oh, what’s that? We should take care of those less fortunate than us? THAT kind of charitable thinking actually IS backed up by Jesus the Socialist, unlike what Pastor AntiChrist quoted above. So in other words, it would be easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for the GOP and their “tax cuts for the wealthy / austerity for the rest of us” thinking and corporate masters to enter Heaven.

Religious fail.

When Jesus said “Go Galt!” and then changed His mind: Paul Ryan’s impressive flip flop

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), chairman of the House budget committee, was scheduled yesterday to speak at Georgetown University, a Catholic institution. 90 faculty members and administrators sent him a letter about his budget:

“I am afraid that Chairman Ryan’s budget reflects the values of his favorite philosopher Ayn Rand rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ,” said Father Thomas Reese, a fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown, in a press release Tuesday. “Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love.”

The complaints seemed to resonate with Ryan. On Thursday, he went on record denouncing Ayn Rand, who believed altruism is evil, brushing off his well-documented obsession with her as a teenage romance.

Continue…

Did Paul Ryan JUST NOW discover Ayn Rand was an atheist – and a hateful, selfish, hypocritical one at that? Or did he just now discover what Jesus actually taught? Apparently so. This week, Paul Ryan’s did a big ol’ flip flop on his well-known, well-documented hero worship of Rand, as Catholic organizations, educators, and leaders started calling bullshit on Ryan for claiming to be a Christian AND a huge fan of Ayn Rand.

As one example, here’s what he said in 2005:

The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” Ryan said at a D.C. gathering four years ago honoring the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”

Ryan also said

“…that virtually every national struggle our society faces can be boiled down to the Randian binary, “Almost every fight we are involved in here on Capitol Hill … is a fight that usually comes down to one conflict–individualism versus collectivism.”

But here’s what he said THIS WEEK:

I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.

Say hello to the new and improved Paul Ryan! Ayn Rand isn’t politically expedient this week, so no more conflict of interest.

Note also that many tea partiers and rightwing bloggers, who would call themselves religious people, worship at the feet of Ayn Rand and Objectivism for political purposes.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that one of the most xenophobic, mindlessly hateful bloggers for the right has named her site after Rand’s book “Atlas Shrugged.”

So will Paul Ryan’s sudden philosophical conversion change his perspective with regard to his budget proposal? Not at all. He told a Christian tv show that his budget was practically endorsed by the Pope himself, who is down on debt:

James Salt, the executive director of Catholics United, which organized one of the protests outside the hall where Ryan was speaking, told gathered reporters that his group was there because “the dignity of the poor should be at the forefront of our minds.” Taking a dig at Ryan’s attempts to cast his budget as a boon for poor people, Salt noted, “If Paul Ryan knew what poverty was, he wouldn’t be giving this speech.” 

Morning Bunker Report: Matthew 28:6! 4.8.2012

————————————-WHAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY STANDS FOR TODAY

‘DERB’ TOO OPENLY RACIST EVEN FOR NATIONAL REVIEW: National Review Fires Derbyshire – National Review editor Rich Lowry does the right thing, announcing that John Derbyshire will no longer be writing for the influential conservative outlet: His latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible. We never would have published it, but the main reason that people noticed it is that it is by a National Review writer. Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise. So there has to be a parting of the ways. Derb has long danced around the line on these issues, but this column is so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation. It’s a free country, and Derb can write whatever he wants, wherever he wants. Just not in the pages of NR or NRO, or as someone associated with NR any longer. Lowry and the National Review deserve credit for finally cutting ties with Derbyshire’s long record of hateful rhetoric.

FLASHBACK: ONE EXAMPLE OF DERB’S LONG RECORD: ‘Women Voting Is Bad For Conservatism’ – In 2009, [John Derbyshire] authored a book that contained a chapter titled “The Case Against Women’s Suffrage.” In it, he argued the country would be better off if women didn’t have the right to vote. He discussed his views in a Sept. 2009 interview with Alan Colmes:
DERBYSHIRE: Among the hopes that I do not realistically nurse is the hope that female suffrage will be repealed. But I’ll say this – if it were to be, I wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep.
COLMES: We’d be a better country if women didn’t vote?
DERBYSHIRE: Probably. Don’t you think so?
COLMES: No, I do not think so whatsoever.
DERBYSHIRE: Come on Alan. Come clean here [laughing].
COLMES: We would be a better country? John Derbyshire making the statement, we would be a better country if women did not vote.
DERBYSHIRE: Yeah, probably.


Chuck Grassley calls Obama ‘stupid’ on Twitter – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and his Twitter page made headlines again Saturday afternoon, as the senator called President Barack Obama “stupid” for his comments regarding the Supreme Court’s future ruling on the Affordable Care Act. Reacting to Obama’s comments this past week, in which the president labeled any overturn by the Supreme Court of the law as an “unprecedented, extraordinary step,” Grassley exhibited his colorful personality again on the social network. “Constituents askd why i am not outraged at PresO attack on supreme court independence. Bcause Am ppl r not stupid as this x prof of con law,” the informally written tweet said.

Bob Cesca point out Grassley’s own long history of stupidity – No, senator, the president is arguably one of the smartest, best-educated presidents in history. And yes, senator, the American people are bigtime stupid. Oh, and let’s rewind for an illustration of Chuck Grassley’s burning intelligence:

Missouri GOP Rep: ‘I have doubts’ about Obama’s birth certificate – Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo) became the latest Republican to express uncertainty over President Barack Obama’s citizenship this week at a town hall event with her constituents. A group called Show Me Progress filmed Hartzler’s response to a question about the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate. “You know, I have a lot of doubts about all that,” Hartzler said. “But I don’t know, I haven’t seen it. I’m just at the same place you are on that. You read this, you read that. But I don’t understand why he didn’t show that right away. I mean, if someone asked for my birth certificate, I’d get my baby book and hand it out and say ‘Here it is,’ so I don’t know.”

———————————————————–——PRESIDENT OBAMA / DEMOCRATS

Ryan, Obama, and Deficits – CBO has done a full scoring (pdf) of the Obama proposals; they estimate a deficit in 2022 of 3 percent of GDP (Table 2). Their scoring of Ryan (pdf) does not include any actual scoring of his tax proposals; they simply accept, because they have no choice, his unsupported claim that he can make the thing revenue neutral. Under that assumption, they come up with a deficit in 2023 (Table 1) of 1 3/4 percent of GDP. But the Tax Policy Center (pdf) has scored the actual Ryan tax proposals, minus the mystery meat, and concludes that they would reduce revenue by more than 2 percent of GDP in 2023. Put these things together, and what they say is that the Ryan proposal would lead to bigger, repeat bigger, deficits than the Obama proposal.

Isn’t it marvelous? Obama seeks to define Romney for voters – After watching quietly while Republican candidates fought each other, Obama is now trying to define his likely opponent in November as an out-of-touch multi-millionaire who would cut social programs for the elderly and the middle class while promoting policies to help the rich. Obama’s riff on Romney’s use of the word “marvelous” to describe Representative Paul Ryan’s budget plans carried a subtle message. “It’s a word you kind of associate with the upper class, and I think that the intention was to tweak Romney for being wealthy and, you know, sort of brought up in the kinds of circles where they would say ‘marvelous,’” said Kenneth Sherrill, a political science expert at New York’s Hunter College. “That’s trying to get under his skin a little bit.”

TENNESSEE: “Why is my womb attached to a transportation bill?” – Meanwhile, Park Overall, an environmental advocate and actress from East Tennessee, filed a qualifying petition to run against U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, the Tennessee Democratic Party said. [...] Overall, who spoke at the Tennessee Democratic Party’s Jackson Day dinner on Saturday, was “very well received” there and decided to take on Corker, who is nearing the end of his first Senate term, party spokesman Brandon Puttbrese said. Overall said she was driven to run by “an East Tennessee fire in my belly.” “It was the Blunt amendment that put me over the top,” she said. “That’s where they were going to decide if they would give me medical care or give me birth control depending on how they morally believed.” The Blunt amendment was proposed earlier this year to be added to a highway funding bill. In her speech at the Jackson Day dinner, Overall asked, “Why is my womb attached to a transportation bill?”

What Would Jesus Do at the Masters? | Maureen Dowd – THERE was a boys’ club, of course, a band of ardent, jockeying disciples. But as his fame grew, the messiah was also surrounded by women and talked about women with great respect. With his father far away, the golden boy was most influenced by his strong mother and the women in his inner circle. I’m talking about the real messiah, not Barack Obama, although it applies to both. [...] The message of Jesus, after all, is not about exclusion, but inclusion. Briggs said that most American Catholics will never go along with retrogressive dictates of the church, like the one against artificial contraception. “God,” he noted dryly, “only had one son.” [...] “They say women can’t be priests because Jesus only called men to be apostles,” he said. “But the women close to Jesus were the first witnesses of the resurrection. When the men were afraid and hidden, the women went to the tomb and said, ‘Jesus is risen!’ If Easter is the most important part of Christianity, the first to proclaim the message were women. Who could make more effective preachers?”

Because why would you need a church to follow Jesus?

Because of things like Red-State RWNJ Political-Christianity (also known as the laughable Teaparty fiction of a Republican-Atlas-Shrugged Jesus figurehead) combined with the worldwide sordid and hypocritical displays of modern “Christianity,” like the Catholic Church attempting to conceal systemic child molestation by its priests for decades (if not centuries), what we know as organized religion is dying a very slow but well-deserved death.

Newsweek: This week’s cover features a very average-looking Jesus Christ, whose cover line urges we follow him—and ditch the church. The cover story is written by Andrew Sullivan, who who argues that Christianity in America is “in crisis,” as political issues like contraception, health care, and abortion have been usurped by religious thinking, and the kind of Christianity that is most essential and pure has been lost. 

Here’s an excerpt (full story online and on newsstands tomorrow AM):

It seems no accident to me that so many Christians now embrace materialist self-help rather than ascetic self-denial—or that most Catholics, even regular churchgoers, have tuned out the hierarchy in embarrassment or disgust. Given this crisis, it is no surprise that the fastest-growing segment of belief among the young is atheism, which has leapt in popularity in the new millennium. Nor is it a shock that so many have turned away from organized Christianity and toward “spirituality,” co-opting or adapting the practices of meditation or yoga, or wandering as lapsed Catholics in an inquisitive spiritual desert. The thirst for God is still there. How could it not be, when the profoundest human questions—Why does the universe exist rather than nothing? How did humanity come to be on this remote blue speck of a planet? What happens to us after death?—remain as pressing and mysterious as they’ve always been?  That’s why polls show a huge majority of Americans still believing in a Higher Power. But the need for new questioning—of Christian institutions as well as ideas and priorities—is as real as the crisis is deep.

All organized Christian institutions today are based on The Council Of Nicea, which met to “define” Christianity and Jesus Christ in 325 AD, and which involved exactly zero women (because the common thread between the ancient Abrahamic-based religions — Judaism, Christianity, Islam — is that women are second-class citizens who don’t seem to have independent or valuable souls). The reality of modern Christianity is that the final biblical canon was chosen by and for rich and powerful men — likely for as many political and social reasons as for religious purposes. Kind of sounds familiar, doesn’t it? And it’s interesting that the New Testament that was chosen by this group of powerful men left out more than they put in.  What did they accomplish? — what we have today when we think of organized religion.

Tonight’s GOP debate: will Rick Santorum embrace his religious fanaticism? Will there be starbursts?

Jed Lewison brings up a good point about tonight’s GOP debate – Rick Santorum’s answer to the religion question will define Wednesday’s debate:

With Rick Santorum’s radical views on the role of religion in public life under fire not just from those of us on the left but also Mitt Romney’s allies in the Republican establishment, here’s an easy prediction for tomorrow’s debate: How Santorum handles the “are you a religious fanatic and/or would you govern as one?” question will define the debate. Thanks to Newt Gingrich’s famous outburst, John King might not have the guts to open the debate with that question, but there’s no way he can avoid asking it without looking like a total idiot. When he does, if Santorum betrays even a hint of defensiveness in his answer, it could be a disaster for his candidacy. On the other hand, if he goes on the attack against his critics, it could send starbursts flying throughout the GOP and presage a mad rush to his candidacy like the one Gingrich experienced in South Carolina.

Will the typically angry, low-info, resentful, cheering-for-executions-and-deaths-of-the-uninsured teabaggy audience applaud louder for an American Theocracy as envisioned by the little mullah, or for an American Plutocracy as plotted by the King of Bain? Tune in! 

February 22, 2012: 8pm ET on CNNLive Stream
Location: Mesa Arts Center in Mesa, Arizona
Sponsor: CNN and the Republican Party of Arizona
Participants: Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich