Re: If you read the Gospels, the Religious Right is most often wrong
- From: "Mick" <littleroundtop@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 14 Feb 2006 12:47:56 -0800
Nice try Russ , but you are doing what the religious left does . Which
is what the religious right does , which is like which came first the
chicken or the egg . I believe in free will as i am sure you do , and
God judges the heart which I am sure you believe also . I do have a
hard time understanding abortion as a right , promoting anti
discrimination issues based on perceived gender and cross dressing and
whatever is in the definition these days , I do not believe its a good
idea to give help to people without accountability on their part or
allowing the giver to have the knowledge to who they are helping . No
one gets helped that way .. The bible teaches about treating the rich
equally with the poor , not one better then the other .
You can list a host of things , like corporate tax breaks and such
that I would aggree with also .... Using religion in politics is just
a bad idea , I understand perhaps why you would vote a certain way or
for the values you hold , but to say Christ is a republican or a
democrat is just wrong ..
Russ T. Nale wrote:
If you read the Gospels, the Religious Right is most often wrong
Religious Right? It seems more like the religious 'wrong'
Date published: 11/28/2004
RICK MERCIER
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2004/112004/11282004/1577602
WAS JESUS a big winner in the last election? You'd sure think so. If the
pundits and Religious Right zealots are correct, the Son of God scored a
knockout victory on Nov. 2.
We've had it drilled into our heads that something known as "moral
values" was decisive in the election. Some worked-up commentators have
even said we're on the brink of a second Great Awakening.
All this hype about the God talk swirling around in our culture prompted
me to do a little research (a big departure from how I usually prepare
for writing a column). I cracked open my Bible and started rereading the
Gospels.
And you know what? I can't see what all this sanctimonious values
rhetoric has to do with Jesus. I've compared what I read in Gospels with
what I've been hearing from the Religious Right, and I've concluded that
the holier-than-thous must have traded in their red-letter editions of
the Good Book for red-state versions that omit most of Jesus' teachings.
The truth is, if you depend on the Christian right for your theological
sustenance, you probably won't recognize the Jesus of the Gospels.
Jesus was quite a troublemaker. In fact, I'm thinking the Bush
administration would have a special place for Jesus were the swarthy
Nazarene to take up his ministry today in the U.S. of A.--in a cell with
other Middle Eastern men awaiting deportation.
Let's recall what the Jesus of the Gospels espoused. "When you give a
banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you
will be blessed, because they cannot repay you," the sandal-wearing
rabble-rouser was known to say.
That sounds pretty good, but it makes you realize that JC would never
have reached "Ranger" or "Pioneer" status in the Bush fund-raising
machine.
Then, of course, there's Jesus' encounter with the rich ruler who said he
was a righteous man because he'd followed the Ten Commandments since his
youth (though he gave no indication that he'd ever erected a monument
dedicated to them in a public place).
Jesus told the ruler: "There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that
you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure
in heaven; then come, follow me."
When the ruler started looking glum, Jesus responded with his famous kicker:
"How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!
Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than
for
someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Holy class warfare! No wonder Republicans have switched out the Jesus of
the Gospels for a low-rent moralizer preoccupied with what other people
are doing with their bodies.
I've no intention of turning this column into a Sunday school lesson, so
I'll ease up on the Bible quotes. But go ahead and read the Gospels for
yourself, and see if you can reconcile the Jesus you encounter in those
texts with the Jesus the Religious Right wields as a battle-ax.
If you're a thoughtful, independent-minded person, I'll bet you read the
Gospels and wonder: Where in America does this Jesus dwell?
Where in America is the Jesus who sides with the poor and the outcasts?
Where in America is the Jesus who disdains those who wear their piousness
on their sleeves? Where in America is the the Jesus with the prophetic
voice, the radical who dares to tell the powerful what they don't want to
hear?
Is he in the pews that fill every Sunday morning with the smug and
complacent? Is he in a political party that fights for tax cuts for the
rich while neglecting the needs of decent, hard-working Americans? Is he
among the "God-and-country" demagogues who push an idolatrous nationalism
and who see military service as the supreme form of sacrifice?
Your questions might not end there. You may observe that other things are
missing from our fashionable "moral values" rhetoric.
You may, for example, notice the absence of any critique of an economic
system that turns Jesus' birthday into an opportunity to jump-start
consumer spending. Or any critique of corporate control of the public's
airwaves, which helps ensure the culture is saturated with sexuality and
violence that appeal to the lowest common denominator but generate huge
profits.
Where is the righteous conservative Christian politician who makes these
things campaign issues, who talks about them as moral issues?
I have no doubt that the Christian right and their leader, George W.
Bush, are sincere about their faith. But I also have no doubt-- to
paraphrase one of America's pre-eminent theologians, Stanley
Hauerwas--that sincerity has precious little to do with Christianity.
This "moral values" talk doesn't do much to sustain Christianity, either.
The phrase is as banal as the hacks (of both the political and
journalistic variety) who are busy fetishizing it.
For political operatives, the phrase's beauty lies in its meaningless. It
can be made to mean anything, and, in a culture with no meaningful moral
narratives, it can be turned into a cudgel that's useful for political
ends but has nothing to do with any coherent religious tradition.
In the spiritual vacuum that exists in this country, the Christian right
is well-positioned to argue that its menagerie of fears and
chauvinisms--piled into a box labeled "moral values"--constitutes a
serious moral narrative. It doesn't, but the Religious Right's
contribution to the denigration of Christianity will continue unabated
until other Christian communities come up with a compelling alternative.
The trouble is, our society seems to lack the kind of exemplars who could
build that alternative. What we need are the spiritual descendants of
Martin Luther King Jr. and Dorothy Day, people who are willing to endure
the enmity and scorn of the political establishment and mainstream
culture.
Maybe those people are out there, but I don't see them. That's why I'm
not optimistic about the survival of the Christian tradition in our
culture. What many view as a great spiritual revival looks a lot to me
like another stage of rot in American Christianity's corpse.
Can the cadaver rise up? It doesn't seem hopeful. In contemporary
America, the Jewish Palestinian whom many call their messiah has become
just anotherMiddle Easterner to be ignored or reviled.
RICK MERCIER is a writer and editor for The Free Lance-Star.
Date published: 11/28/2004
==================================
--
Russ T. Nale
http://grace.break.at
God is still speaking
http://www.stillspeaking.com
To send e-mail, remove "youhat" from address
.
- References:
- If you read the Gospels, the Religious Right is most often wrong
- From: Russ T. Nale
- If you read the Gospels, the Religious Right is most often wrong
- Prev by Date: If you read the Gospels, the Religious Right is most often wrong
- Next by Date: Jesus died a virgin?
- Previous by thread: If you read the Gospels, the Religious Right is most often wrong
- Next by thread: Jesus died a virgin?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
