Quantcast

If Republicans Really Acted Like Christians — Then They’d be Liberals

followersA while ago someone told me that if you’re a rational person, never try to understand someone who’s irrational — you’re simply not wired the same way.  At that point I had never really thought about it like that, but it makes perfect sense.

How can someone who thinks rationally understand someone who is irrational?  The irrational person doesn’t view the world in the same way as the rational, so in reality they’re living in two different worlds.

It’s a mindset I always try to remind myself of when dealing with Republicans.  No matter how much time I spend “in this business,” I really don’t think I’ll ever understand the inner workings of a conservative.

The easiest way I feel to showcase this is through religion and faith.

What Jesus Christ stands for is fairly universal, no matter if you’re a Christian, Muslim, atheist or anything in between.  By that I mean you don’t have to be a believer in any particular faith to believe in the values for which Jesus Christ represents, because those values transcend religion into basic humanity.

But even though, for most people, the goodness for which Jesus Christ stood isn’t disputable – Republicans still try to act as if Jesus would be on their side.

Jesus Christ was a peace loving, eternally forgiving helper of the needy and the poor – all while condemning greed and those who used God for their own selfish benefits.  How exactly are those values any kind of representation of what Republicans stand for?

If you eliminate abortion and an opposition to gay marriage, what religious principles do conservatives really incorporate in their devotion to faith?

Church attendance?  Please.  But honestly, where are these “Christian values” in the current Republican party?

Do they really believe Jesus Christ would:

  • Be an advocate for guns
  • Support cuts to programs that help feed the poor
  • Push for cuts in programs that help support our elderly
  • Cut funding for education
  • Judge those with whom he disagreed
  • Oppose health care reform that gave access to health care for millions of poor people
  • Believe that the best economic model is based upon giving the richest among us the most and hoping they “trickle it down” to the rest of us
  • Be filled with fear, hate, paranoia and anger

Is this the Jesus Christ they believe in?  Because it sure isn’t the one that’s represented in the Bible.

Biblical Jesus Christ—-well, he was a liberal.

He believed in helping the poor, the sick and the needy.  He loved others, preached forgiveness, didn’t judge people he disagreed with and spoke of a hopeful future.

Where exactly are those values found in the Republican party platform?

If Republicans really lived their life like Jesus Christ, they wouldn’t be conservatives, they’d be liberals.

There was nothing conservative about Jesus.  His love, compassion, understanding, acceptance – they were all limitless.  Even those who he strongly disagreed with, he held out hope that they would change and become better people.

Heck, even after being tortured and crucified, Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”  That’s Jesus.  Asking for forgiveness not for himself, but for those who condemned him to an excruciating death.

Jesus Christ was actually the first famous progressive.  He spoke out about ideas that had never before been seen. He dared to challenge that which had been the norm for as long as most people could recall.  He didn’t cling to “traditional values” because those values had placed people in chains and kept them in poverty.

These aren’t things I see emulating within the GOP.  They judge, hate, fear and reject anything and everything that isn’t just like they are.

Jesus wouldn’t judge homosexuals, he would accept them.  He wouldn’t hate Muslims, he would converse with them.  He wouldn’t take from the poor, he would give to them.  He wouldn’t restrict health care, he would open it up.  He wouldn’t judge others, he would accept them.  He wouldn’t fear change, he would embrace it.

Conservatives trying to convince themselves that Jesus Christ would actually support their political ideology are completely delusional.

Because if Jesus were alive today he might not be a Democrat, but it seems clear to me – he damn sure wouldn’t be a Republican.

The following two tabs change content below.
Allen Clifton is from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and has a degree in Political Science. He is a co-founder of Forward Progressives, and author of the popular Right Off A Cliff column. He is also the founder of the Right Off A Cliff facebook page, on which he routinely voices his opinions and stirs the pot for the Progressive movement. Follow Allen on Twitter as well, @Allen_Clifton.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • What is Wrong with Society?

    Wow, no.

    Jesus would call for America to REPENT and trust God.

    But of course, liberals like you hate the truth.

    • http://facebook.com/FalconFour Matt Falcon

      “wow, no”? No to what? Thanks for proving this article right – nothing but hate-spewing from the conservatives. Only thing liberals hate are people that misrepresent facts for their own purpose – like you, saying “liberals like you hate the truth”, implying that the “truth” is something that you and only you know.

      • Mark W. Mumma

        Newsflash bird boy. Disagreeing with lunacy does not constitute “hate”. Wise up!

      • Lincey51

        Gee Matt, name calling Christian!

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      “Do they really believe Jesus Christ would:
      Be an advocate for guns
      Support cuts to programs that help feed the poor
      Push for cuts in programs that help support our elderly
      Cut funding for education
      Judge those with whom he disagreed
      Oppose health care reform that gave access to health care for millions of poor people
      Believe that the best economic model is based upon giving the
      richest among us the most and hoping they “trickle it down” to the rest
      of us
      Be filled with fear, hate, paranoia and anger?”

      Answer the question, fool.

      • xpatYankeeCurmudgeon

        “Liberals” imagining they guilt-trip people by bringing in the figure of Christ. Your tactical relativism just makes independents, Liberatarians and conservatives laugh.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Liberals don’t proclaim themselves to be “Christians” while exhibiting behavior that is contrary to Christian teaching. That is the only reason we bring it up. Otherwise, we don’t care what you believe. No guilt trip intended–just exposing hypocrisy.

      • xpatYankeeCurmudgeon

        Nonsense. If conservatives bring up the traditional Judeo-xtian ethic that, sorry to infuriate you, is clearly the foundation in America, they are ridiculed for the supposedly unscientific worldviews they hold. If they bring facts to the argument “Liberals” feign empathy with the poor and start telling you “Jesus was a a socialist, man.”

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You can bring it up all you want. It doesn’t make it true and it doesn’t mean I have to agree with you. And conservatives don’t like dealing with facts because it undermines their arguments, which is like shooting fish in a barrel.

        There is NO mention of God in the Constitution. Jefferson was a Deist: From Wikipedia:

        “Deism gained prominence in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment—especially in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States—among intellectuals raised as Christians who believed in one god, but found fault with organized religion and did not believe in supernatural events such as miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity.[8]

        So was Thomas Paine: “There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found in any
        other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our
        reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in
        order to force himself to believe them.

        But in Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The wonderful structure
        of the universe, and everything we behold in the system of the creation, prove to us, far
        better than books can do, the existence of a God, and at the same time proclaim His
        attributes.”

      • xpatYankeeCurmudgeon

        Did the historical figure of Christ rely on deception and coercion ?
        No.
        Does the left’s platform for America rely on those two?
        Refuse to buy a product (insurance) the left openly acknowledges top-ranking Donks lied about and you will be forced to pay a fine.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        We don’t rely on deception and coercion. YOU and your fascist Christian buddies rely heavily on coercion. And the health insurance thing is for the common good. You have a car, you have to buy insurance or get nailed if you’re caught driving without it.

        ACA. It’s a beautiful thing. Hillary 2016.

      • xpatYankeeCurmudgeon

        1-You don’t understand the terms you use. Fascist economies are centrally planned and the regime encourages a cult of personality.
        2-Like most progs you never define “the common good” because it means you have to actually take a position on something and lay your cards on the table.
        3-the car insurance analogy is weak. My body is not a car. I can buy car insurance across state lines. Car insurers punish those who have broken laws; my insurer does not pay for every little thing etc.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yeah, I do:

        1. “Hostile to liberal democracy, socialism, and communism, fascist movements shared certain common features, including the veneration of
        the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation[5][8][9][10] and asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations.[11]

        Sounds like the Republican party and the American Taliban (aka Christian right).
        2. The common good: That which benefits the majority of society. Having health insurance is good because we all pay for the care of the uninsured. A healthy population is also a productive population.

        3. Cops, and the bank financing your car will punish you if you don’t have car insurance, not the insurance company. If you own a house and have a mortgage, you need to have homeowner’s insurance. You have a body, therefor you need to insure it so I don’t have to pay when your sorry ass gets sick and you don’t have insurance.

      • xpatYankeeCurmudgeon

        European notions of patria do not apply in America.

        By all measures the US economy under Obama grows less and less free. That makes it closer to a fascist economy (corporatist) than we were under Dumbya.

        As an expat this idiotic meme about a supposed Christian American Taliban amuses me.

        Do “Liberals” who spew such nonsense regard FDR as one of its members? After all, this was a president who beseeched the entire nation to join him in prayer as the most crucial battles of WW2 approached.

        Was the pro-life JFK a “Christo-fascist”?

        In number 3 you simply dodge my question.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Less American vs European; rather, it’s whether or not you believe you are your brother’s keeper. Many of us believe that and try to make the world a better place. Yours is not the default position. Neither is mine.

        What examples do you have of the economy becoming less “free”, keeping in mind lack of regulation and oversight caused our meltdown.

        You are an American Taliban because you like to boast and threaten those who don’t agree with you. We have no problem with religion. We do have a problem with people who insist this is a “Christian nation” despite no evidence in the Constitution, and think it should be codified by a Republican administration in perpetuity, and those of us who disagree should be banned, put to death or locked up in concentration camps for liberals. THAT is the difference.

        The first Amendment explicitly prohibits GOVERNMENT from ESTABLISHING a religion. That means you can yammer all you want, but you have to respect my religious beliefs, or lack of, just as I must respect yours. That ends when you try to force me to believe as you do.

        People were suspicious of JFK because he was Catholic and the paranoid Americans among us didn’t want “the President taking orders from the Pope.” He was my kind of president because he wasn’t wagging his religious dick in everyone’s face.

      • xpatYankeeCurmudgeon

        I defy you to find a single post of mine even describing my religious beliefs. I have never said America is a Christian nation. I did say that the historical record is pretty clear as regards the centrality of Judeo-Christian ethic. You may wish to argue, but as I pointed out you then distance yourself from Democrat leaders like FDR and John F Kennedy.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        How have I ever distanced myself from FDR and JFK. Those two are my idea of real leaders.

        We can be thankful you’re an expat…

      • xpatYankeeCurmudgeon

        Nice dodge there. You have no reply.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What dodge? Answer my question. If it walks like a religious conservative, talks like a religious conservative. You may not be religious, but you are certainly conservative and the two often go hand in hand, especially when disparaging the lesser among us.

      • xpatYankeeCurmudgeon

        And in the news today – Democrat Mark Pryor on TV in his district hoping to avoid electoral slaughter by waving The Bible around and begging for divine intervention….

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        So? Maybe he’s a closet Republican…

      • xpatYankeeCurmudgeon

        ” Maybe he’s a closet Republican…”

        Brilliant. Yeah, the guy who had no Republican oppostion when he was re-elected to the Senate might be, you know, a Republican “plant” of some kind – a sleeper! – who was just a-waitin’ for to embarass secular Democrats by “wagging his religious dick in everyone’s face,” as you put it.

        Is there any Donk failure / hypocrisy for which “Liberals” don’t have some sort of conspiracy?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I’m not sure why Pryor waving a Bible is significant. He’s from Arkansas; I would expect no less. Now, if he were to try that up north where I live, it wouldn’t fly.

      • xpatYankeeCurmudgeon

        Why is it okay to “profile,” however snarkily, this guy Pryor and his constituents?
        If I were to write the same about Keith X. Ellison and his Mohammedan constituents it would be labeled “hate speech.”

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You mean Keith Ellison, the Minnesota representative whom I never see in the news saying stupid things?

        Ever been to Arkansas?

        You really are a cranky little man.

      • josephherring

        Actually Liberals are more like the Taliban than the GOP. The Taliban rule through force, lies, and violence.. The ACA was forced upon the American people. Forced to pay for it or be taxed. The lies about being able to keep your insurance if you liked it was a lie. Right now DHS has bought 1.6 billion rounds of ammo. What would be the need to purchase that much ammo unless they had a specific plan for it. I myself would not put it pass the government if the planned to use it on the American people. They have a history of doing things to the people, so this would not be surprising.

      • josephherring

        Actually Liberals are more like the Taliban than the GOP. The Taliban rule through force, lies, and violence.. The ACA was forced upon the American people. Forced to pay for it or be taxed. The lies about being able to keep your insurance if you liked it was a lie. Right now DHS has bought 1.6 billion rounds of ammo. What would be the need to purchase that much ammo unless they had a specific plan for it. I myself would not put it pass the government if the planned to use it on the American people. They have a history of doing things to the people, so this would not be surprising.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Blah, blah blah. Congress PASSED the law, the President SIGNED it into law and the Supreme Court UPHELD the law. Most of you will be able to keep your insurance. This was directed at the crappy policies sold on the individual market that were essentially no coverage.

        You have to buy car insurance if you have a car; you have to buy homeowners insurance if you want a mortgage. So big deal.

        The GOP on the other hand, wants small government unless it involves women’s rights, gay marriage, anyone who isn’t white and rich, and would establish a theocracy in a heartbeat. What exactly is the government’s ” history of doing things to the people?”

        The DHS buys ammo just to make you paranoid. I think they should buy twice as much. (Acutally, they buy in bulk like going to Costco).

      • josephherring

        Funny who you think it laughable and yet the criminal in office already has criminal charges being filed against him, so it wouldn’t be surprising he would try to force himself as a dictator to this country.

      • karensc

        You know what, you really are an idiot. And, paranoid. And, stupid. And, not worth my time.

      • josephherring

        Calling someone stupid when you say I’m not worth your time and yet you take the time to send a message. I rather be paranoid and ready about a president who already feels he is all powerful and can do whatever he feels like, than be slow and submissive and willing to bow down to the criminal.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Blah, blah blah. Congress PASSED the law, the President SIGNED it into law and the Supreme Court UPHELD the law. Most of you will be able to keep your insurance. This was directed at the crappy policies sold on the individual market that were essentially no coverage.

        You have to buy car insurance if you have a car; you have to buy homeowners insurance if you want a mortgage. So big deal.

        The GOP on the other hand, wants small government unless it involves women’s rights, gay marriage, anyone who isn’t white and rich, and would establish a theocracy in a heartbeat. What exactly is the government’s ” history of doing things to the people?”

        The DHS buys ammo just to make you paranoid. I think they should buy twice as much. (Acutally, they buy in bulk like going to Costco).

      • josephherring

        You have a body, therefor you need to insure it so I don’t have to pay when your sorry ass gets sick and you don’t have insurance. That ia what the ACA is doing. We are al paying for the insurance of others, so how can you say the you won’t have to pay?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        NO, we are NOT all paying for insurance. 14% of you recalcitrant morons have vowed to never buy insurance.

      • josephherring

        Those who will not be able to afford insurance you will be paying for them. that is what the ACA is doing, Also why does a single man with no kids and is not married, as well as, the elderly need to pay for maternity and pediatric care? Neither has any need for it, but yet it is mandated and is forced upon us.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        NO, we are NOT all paying for insurance. 14% of you recalcitrant morons have vowed to never buy insurance.

      • josephherring

        How? Helping the poor while bringing everyone else down? The simplest solution would have been to revise medicaid and medicare. The American people are already paying for these things. Why add another tax when it would have been more beneficial to everyone to change the acceptance process and to add more on to what they already approve. As for taxing the rich, you fail to realize the consequence of that action. The rich are the one who provide the jobs. Adding more taxes to them will only cause layoffs, or the closing of a business. They already have money how will it hurt them to shutdown a business. Most can live off the interest alone. instead of taxing everyone get rid of the IRS altogether on both state and federal levels.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yeah, it would have been far simpler to enact Medicare for all, but do you REALLY believe Obama would have gotten that past a Republican House that swore on the day of his election to do everything in its power to obstruct him? That is truly delusional.

        Sorry, dude, but the top 1% have been bringing everyone down by outsourcing jobs to China and India and paying themselves fat bonuses. The rich do not provide jobs; one of them famously said, “We’re in the business of making money, not creating jobs.” Demand creates jobs. Raise the minimum wage, pay people better, and they will have money to spend on stuff which will create jobs to supply that stuff.

        And because the rich CAN live off the interest it should be taxed as ordinary income, the same way Reagan did it. BTW, how is it we built highways, bridges, hospitals and schools in the 1950s when the top tax rate was 91%? Or how we did so much better during Clinton when the top tax rate was 39.5%?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yeah, it would have been far simpler to enact Medicare for all, but do you REALLY believe Obama would have gotten that past a Republican House that swore on the day of his election to do everything in its power to obstruct him? That is truly delusional.

        Sorry, dude, but the top 1% have been bringing everyone down by outsourcing jobs to China and India and paying themselves fat bonuses. The rich do not provide jobs; one of them famously said, “We’re in the business of making money, not creating jobs.” Demand creates jobs. Raise the minimum wage, pay people better, and they will have money to spend on stuff which will create jobs to supply that stuff.

        And because the rich CAN live off the interest it should be taxed as ordinary income, the same way Reagan did it. BTW, how is it we built highways, bridges, hospitals and schools in the 1950s when the top tax rate was 91%? Or how we did so much better during Clinton when the top tax rate was 39.5%?

      • josephherring

        How? Helping the poor while bringing everyone else down? The simplest solution would have been to revise medicaid and medicare. The American people are already paying for these things. Why add another tax when it would have been more beneficial to everyone to change the acceptance process and to add more on to what they already approve. As for taxing the rich, you fail to realize the consequence of that action. The rich are the one who provide the jobs. Adding more taxes to them will only cause layoffs, or the closing of a business. They already have money how will it hurt them to shutdown a business. Most can live off the interest alone. instead of taxing everyone get rid of the IRS altogether on both state and federal levels.

      • Mark W. Mumma

        WHATT?????????????????? The left doesn’t rely on deception and coercion? That’s the funniest shit I have heard all year. You take away deception and coercion and the democratic party would crumble and blow away into the wind.

        Do you really believe the stupid shit you say or are you just blindly spreading the latest liberal talking points?

        Wise Up!

      • josephherring

        Really? Liberals do not exhibit behavior contrary to christian teaching? Might want to read up on the history on the Democrats. They were for slavery and for segregation.

      • josephherring

        Really? Liberals do not exhibit behavior contrary to christian teaching? Might want to read up on the history on the Democrats. They were for slavery and for segregation.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Keep trying. That was 50-60 years ago and that brand of Democrats were known as “Dixiecrats” and they weren’t liberals. They became today’s GOP after Nixon’s “Southern Strategy.”

        Northern Democrats and the Northeastern Republican elite were the liberals. You might want to read up on what constitutes a liberal today. Your idiotic statement is analogous to saying today’s Germans and all Nazis.

      • josephherring

        Did I make any statement about Germans? I also find it funny how you feel the need to resort to name calling in the attempt to express your point. None of my comments to you have been like this. I guess when you are wrong you feel the need to resort to this.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Keep trying. That was 50-60 years ago and that brand of Democrats were known as “Dixiecrats” and they weren’t liberals. They became today’s GOP after Nixon’s “Southern Strategy.”

        Northern Democrats and the Northeastern Republican elite were the liberals. You might want to read up on what constitutes a liberal today. Your idiotic statement is analogous to saying today’s Germans and all Nazis.

      • Mark W. Mumma

        Christians that act hateful are not following the teaching of Jesus. Sorry… You can’t condemn all Christians because of the actions of a few. Not every Christian is a hypocrite.

      • 65snake

        Fantastic misinterpretation of the basic premise.

        Are you somehow under the impression that a very loud faction of the conservative party does not, in fact, incessantly wave their religion as their moral foundation while simultaneously opposing all of the points the author listed as stuff that Jesus preached?

      • Mark W. Mumma

        The author is wrong. Regardless of what you libbies think, Jesus was not a socialist.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Do they really believe Jesus Christ would:
        “Be an advocate for guns”

        No, he’d be against regulating them.

        “Support cuts to programs that help feed the poor
        Push for cuts in programs that help support our elderly
        Cut funding for education”

        No, He’d support cuts to taxes so that individuals could decide which charities to support.

        “Believe that the best economic model is based upon giving the richest among us the most and hoping they “trickle it down” to the rest of us”

        In place of your characterizations I’ll just say he’d be for a free and liberal market. Against government elites controlling everything falsely in the name of “the people.”

        “Be filled with fear, hate, paranoia and anger?”

        No. But neither would he likely ask for your opinion on who deserves those descriptions.

      • Mark W. Mumma

        The only people I have seen displaying fear, hate and anger are leftists. The fact that they call everything we conservatives do ‘hateful’ doesn’t make it so.

        Jesus was for working hard and being kind to the poor. He wasn’t asking us to pawn this job off on government. He said that WE should take care of the poor OURSELVES.

        Most of the crap you listed here is complete bullshit. If you really think Obamacare is going to give access to health care to ‘millions’ should check the stats again. Millions ARE being affected by Obamacare. THEY’VE LOST their insurance. Proof that the government effs up everything they try to do.

        If you love big government so much, move to Russia or China. We don’t need communism here.

      • Lincey51

        You are calling people fools, how Christian of you?

    • MARTinNJ

      Thank you so much for thoroughly proving the author’s point. And you did it in under 20 words. Wow.

    • MARTinNJ

      In response to your screen name question, but better place to start than with you.

    • Christian Liberal

      I am a born again Christian, bleeding heart Liberal Democrat. I really find you being hypocritical.

    • Danny Mathey

      to answer your…screen name question…..YOU

    • frelling_cute

      Did you even read the article doofus?

  • MARTinNJ

    Yes, but….wouldn’t you agree that it is far easier for a rational person to understand an irrational person, than it is for an irrational person to understand a rational person? Irrational and rigid people, by definition, have no mechanism or skill set to understand people different from themselves. By contrast rational people can grasp another person’s perspective, even a person with a completely different perspective.

    So a rational person, by definition should be better able to grasp or understand why an irrational person might believe what they believe in. Even if that perspective is totally irrational by definition.

    • chief

      Assuming the irrational person does not think his is rational. Like crazy people do not believe they are crazy.

    • Flyagain Angel

      I am the example that disproves your theory here. I am one who is EXTREMELY rigid. I myself, demand complete structure and do not tolerate deviation from the rules without cause (and yes there is cause from time to time, but nowhere near as often as most would like to think).
      Does this mean I am wrong? No. Does it mean I am irrational? No. Does it mean I do not understand where you are coming from or trying to say? Definitely not. What it means, is that I do not allow LIFE to sway my personal life or the way I hold myself around others. It does not sway what behavior I expect from you or anything else.

      I personally believe that laws should be followed no matter what, ALWAYS, unless there is a GOOD reason not to. Let’s use the following as an example; it is very basic and I think most people would agree with it.

      You have one person that is caught shoplifting a loaf of bread. Even though he shows that he had no other choice (you can never prove that argument to me) he is still guilty of theft.
      You have a second man who, standing outside a pharmacy, witnesses another man get stabbed. He runs into the pharmacy, grabs a first aid kit and runs back out the door to start applying first aid to the victim.

      With the first case, most will agree the theft of the bread is still a crime no matter what. BUT they will lesson the penalty for it if the man can truly prove he “was in need” (again you can not sell me on that argument; and next month will be the first month in 12 years that I have not qualified for food stamps so I have lived the need, trust me). With the second man however, there was a very clear, extenuating circumstance, that justified his actions. And lets go one step further and say the man was a homeless man with no way to pay for the first aid kit, and so was the victim. So no possible way for it to be paid for afterwards by either of the two. He would not be found guilty of theft under those circumstances.

      Even with not holding the second example as a crime, I am still very rigid and unrelenting. I am not however, irrational.

  • Matthew Reece

    In modern political terms, Jesus would be a free market anarchist, not a progressive.

    • TREE

      Nope, Jesus would be a straight up communist. – TREE

      • strayaway

        If Jesus was a Progressive, he would have been an advocate of the central government of Rome promoting Pax Romana, job creating infrastructure projects, taxation, and the public arts. He did at least say to give unto Caesar that which is Caesars’ and got along with the Centurion. Of course there was that incident where those Romans crucified Him.

      • Matthew Reece

        If Jesus had directly said to pay the Roman tribute, the Jews would have turned against Him. If Jesus had directly said not to pay the Roman tribute, the Romans would have arrested Him for sedition. By speaking a truism, Jesus allowed people to believe what they wanted to believe, while implicitly saying that God was the only legitimate authority and no one owed Caesar anything. Everything Caesar had was not acquired legitimately; it was stolen by him or his predecessors.

      • Flyagain Angel

        bullshit on all counts. read further on and yuo will find where the government is there beCAUSE GOD placed it there.
        You will also find throughout the bible that God will give us exactly what we need when we need it. He gave us Rome. He gave us Babylon. He gave us France and

        He has given us the United States.
        Why do you think God has given us the government that we wanted? Actually, first question should be, why do you think we have the government we have?

        We have our current government because we ASKED FOR IT. We voted in (or failed to vote out, however you want to look at it) those who would “control us and steal from us, give all our money away to those who are too lazy to work for themselves”. God states He will give us what we ask for as well as what we need.

        I tell you now, America NEEDS this government. Why? Not because of the reasons the government would give, no. But because we have grown too complacent; too selfish and uncaring; too worried about what the next person has. We have left His ways and do not even realize that we have done so (just like Babylon did, and Rome). Thus He has given us, or so I believe, a government that is going to wake us up and teach us how we have wandered off of His path, so that we may get back on His path before it is too late.

      • http://twitter.com/WebGuyTV Mark W. Mumma

        “But because we have grown too complacent; too selfish and uncaring; too worried about what the next person has.”

        And by “we” you mean liberals. Conservatives don’t covet. That’s a liberal thing.

      • Flyagain Angel

        roflmao every single citizen in the united states covets. They covet the internet and higher speeds; they covet the newest car, or shiniest boat; Hell they even covet the food stamps those in need receive! They covet a newer home in a better area, or a home out in the country; They covet the next pay raise, or a higher paying job. They covet the riches tax breaks, they covet the lower incomes tax returns… I can continue on forever and ever repeat myself with what is coveted in this country.

      • http://twitter.com/WebGuyTV Mark W. Mumma

        Every single childish citizen covets. There’s also a difference between covetousness and wholesome desire.

        While it may make you feel better to project your childishness onto — I don’t know — EVERYONE ELSE, that doesn’t make it so.

        Grow up Angel. Not everyone is a childish spoiled brat. Sorry to destroy your world view, but I thought it was FACT that you wanted to embrace.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ad lapidem is an admission of defeat and ignorance.

        By your reasoning (if it can even be called that), we need an institution that caused 350 million deaths in the 20th century and untold economic damage because without it, we might not be nice to each other.

        Who is this “we” you speak of? I did not consent to any of this. And voting is a fool’s errand. The system cannot be abolished by the means that grants it the illusion of legitimacy.

      • Flyagain Angel

        “Ad lapidem is an admission of defeat and ignorance.”

        Wrong. “Ad lapidem” is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.

        I did not make any claim as to a statement being absurd without giving proof of its absurdity. I made them factual statement that Government is put into place by God Himself. I even gave in more than one place, reference as to where to find this proof.

        Another definition of “ad lapidem” is as follows: Ad lapidem statements are fallacious because they fail to address the merits of the claim in dispute.

        You continue on blithely to claim I make an ad lapidem statement; however, you fail to 1: state which statement(s) is being represented in your claim; and 2: you fail to state WHY they do not address the merits of the claim.

        Guess who the real guilty one is of using ad lapidem statements?

      • Matthew Reece

        That government is put into place by God is not a factual statement. At least, not until someone proves the existence of God as well as the involvement of God in human affairs.

      • Mike Lavender

        Hardly, you are using your definition of “what is a liberal” If I used your model, then a ‘conservative’ Jesus would have mingled only with the elite and wealthy, never walked more than three steps to his chariot, supported every action and utterance by the Roman Occupiers (the power), never participated in that loaves & fishes boondoggle, managed to collect 75% of the gate at the ‘Sermon on the Mountpalooza’ and beat the rap with Pilate, because he could hire a top legal mouthpiece with the ‘love offerings’ from his ‘ministry’. And the place in Bethelhem? A museum or watermark-probably both, courtesy of Jesus, Inc.

      • strayaway

        Status quo Republicans would have but the Tea Party Jesus would have declared sovereignty and acted as obstructionists with regards to the Romans. He might have even lobbied for the succession of Israel citing a long train of abuses and usurpations by Caesar.

      • Mark W. Mumma

        YOU ARE DELUSIONAL. You clearly don’t have the first friggin clue what the Tea Party is all about. You’ve bought the ‘lies of the left’ hook line and sinker.

        Why not try thinking for yourself? You can start your Tea Party education by searching YouTube for videos by Bill Whittle Called “What We Believe”….

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “…you are using your definition of “what is a liberal” If I used your model, then a ‘conservative’ Jesus would have mingled only with the elite and wealthy, never walked more than three steps to his chariot, supported every action and utterance by the Roman Occupiers (the power), never participated in that loaves & fishes boondoggle, managed to collect 75% of the gate at the ‘Sermon on the Mountpalooza’ and beat the rap with Pilate, because he could hire a top legal mouthpiece with the ‘love offerings’ from his ‘ministry’. And the place in Bethelhem? A museum or watermark-probably both, courtesy of Jesus, Inc.”

        Completely wrong. Those are not conservative positions. Conservatives don’t want the state taking over any sovereignty that is not absolutely necessary. You OTOH have endless delusional and selfish “greater good” (collectivist) arguments to have the state take over everything.

        The state is your god. Jesus would not like that, I assure you. But carry on in your ignorance. You seem to enjoy it.

      • http://twitter.com/WebGuyTV Mark W. Mumma

        objectivefactsmatter is 100% correct.

        Commandment #1. Have no other God before me”.

        (That includes the STATE)

        Your liberal Jesus fantasy has been BODYSLAMMED liberals. Now go get a job.

      • http://twitter.com/WebGuyTV Mark W. Mumma

        That old BS talking point raises its ugly head.

        “Conservatives only care about the rich” isn’t true.
        “Conservatives want everyone to be rich” is closer to reality.

        All of us, every last one of us, rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight have the ability inside of us to PROSPER and be FREE. It isn’t the conservatives that are squelching this message, its the liberals. According to liberals, America is too racist and homophobic for blacks and gays to succeed.

        BULLSHIT.

        Everyone can succeed and they don’t need the government to help them succeed. But, if this message were allowed to be spread it would mean the end of the nanny state and the end of liberalism.

        Liberalism is all about CONTROL.

        When people are controlled, there is no liberty.

  • Dee Dee

    He wasn’t just a liberal, he was a socialist!!!

    • Mark

      Jesus was a libertarian. Forced virtue is not virtue – being charitable at the point of an IRS jackbooted thug is not charity. Did Jesus have armed apostles that enforced his tax code, and threatened people who didn’t go to church and tithe? I think not. He encouraged people to help the poor, he didn’t used the power of government to force people to help the poor.

  • Ken

    The bottom line: How can you call yourself a Christian if you don’t even follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? Centuries of elitists have tried to suppress his basic message of love and charity. If you want to call yourself a Christian for Christ’s sake, follow what he taught.

    • Lincey51

      Republicans follow Christ’s teachings perhaps more than liberals when it comes to being anti-abortion, giving to charities, donating time to most charitable organiztions and supporting them financially.etc. Also making sure that a vote is honest by requiring ID, growing businesses that provide training and jobs. I think they give of themselves and do not want others to rely on a government that breeds dependency as a way of life, killing individual self esteem and self respect, and killing family pride. The governments chronic handouts only promote a sense of failure and worthlessness. It should only help out temporarilly when individuals have a hardship and fall thru the cracks. No wonder so many of our youth are angry and resentful!!! Chronic handouts from the government breeds resentments. Jesus I think would agree.

    • Flyagain Angel

      “How can you call yourself a Christian if you do not even follow the teachings of Jesus Christ?”

      let me ask you a different question. Do you think that to be Christian means you are perfect and without sin? I will tell you right now a Christian is neither. A Christian, by definition, is someone who believes in Jesus Christ and TRIES to follow His teachings. Recognizes when he falls short, or recognizes that he does not know everything and thus IS guilty of sin even if he does not know what that sin may have been, and asks forgiveness and continues to try and do his best.

  • Frank Key

    There are two Jesus philosophies that the Christians have a very difficult time reconciling into one belief system.
    There is the Social Justice Jesus that is written about in Matthew and Mark.
    There is the Salvation Jesus derived from the Gospel of John and the teachings of Paul.
    Salvation Jesus is the preferred model for the conservative evangelicals. He is the one used to condemn society as a whole and demand repentance or the soul won’t go to heaven. This Jesus has no behavioral accountability to society. Just say the right words in the swimming pool; vote for the right political candidates; attend the right churches; conform to the current talking points; put some money into the offering plate and this group will offer acceptance and approval. No further actions required.
    Social Justice Jesus is a whole other problem for the conservatives as he seems to call people to get out into society and do stuff that that will improve the lives of others, many or most of whom will not be accepting of conservative religious dogma. This Jesus calls them to come out of their comfort zones which most of them are not willing to do thus creating an elaborately twisted theology of why this Jesus is an invention of the liberals and not the true Jesus (Salvation Jesus).
    (To his credit, Pope Francis is attempting to blend the two Jesus’ into one practical theology and he is getting a tremendous amount of flack for his efforts.)
    To be honest, it’s difficult to perceive the gap between the two Jesus ever being bridged into a theology that is acceptable to both liberals and conservatives. Both camps have invested too many $$$$$$$ into sustaining their PoV to risk losing significant amounts of it on a consensus position. Thus, the Social Justice Jesus described in the above article will most likely, for many generations to come, remain a stranger to right wing evangelical conservative organizations and churches.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Eloquent. Thank you.

    • karensc

      When the rich man asked Jesus what must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus told him to sell all he had and give it to the poor, then follow Him. Jesus also said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of God.

  • Mark W. Mumma

    Assuming Jesus would be a supporter of big government is absurd. YES Jesus said for us to be kind to the poor, feed them and clothe them. What he did not advocate is pawning off the care of the poor to the government. He wants us to CARE FOR THE POOR OURSELVES, not the government. If you’re going to debate “what would Jesus do” it might help to read the bible and fully understand what Jesus DID.

    • waterfairy

      In a democracy the people are the government, so the government caring for the poor is us caring for the poor ourselves. it’s far more important to understand the meaning of what Jesus said, the method of application will change as the world does.

      • Mark W. Mumma

        First of all, we’re not a Democracy, we’re a Constitutional Republic.

        Second: No. It is not the same. Not even CLOSE to the same.

        Its funny how you guys on the left are constantly screaming about the separation of church and state, yet turn right around and claim that Jesus would have been a fan of ‘big government’. Big government is what KILLED Jesus. He told US to care for the poor. He didn’t say ‘pawn it off on government.’

        The ‘method of application’ was for US to take care of the poor, not to pawn the job off on someone else. THAT would have angered Jesus. To suggest that in a changing world we can ignore the instructions of Jesus, or just remold what he said to fit ‘changing times’ is ludicrous.

      • mike46

        So, what you are saying is that the church with their tax exempt status should be providing AFFORDABLE health care, housing and food for the poor and stipends to the elderly that can no longer work.

        How’s that working out for the church so far? They don’t even pay their fare share for fire, rescue and police.

      • Mark W. Mumma

        Dude. You’re drunk. Go home.

      • mike46

        Ahh. Hit a nerve there Mark? What should the church be doing with all that tax free money? Building some more nice buildings?

        “Where two or more are gathered in my name, there shall I be” doesn’t require a tax free multi million dollar Crystal Palace.

      • Mark W. Mumma

        LOL. Not in the least. That’s just my knee jerk reaction to ‘statist’ thinking.

        Churches and private charities do an immense amount of work helping the needy. If tax exempt charities didn’t exist, neither would this country. Not as we know it.

        As for what they should do with it.

        Same thing they’ve been doing with it. Providing disaster relief, supporting FREE medical clinics like the one my church is building to replace the one they run now. Basically doing what Jesus told us to do. Take care of each other.

        You know, it could be said that there are lots of different religions and the state has no business imposing one. This would also be true of the religion known as STATISM. A lot of people on the left worship the state and hold it supreme. If that’s your thing, I support you in your right to be a statist. Just don’t shove your statism down my throat. Fair enough?

        Our rights don’t come from the state. The state can only take away the rights we were born with.

      • mike46

        Right, like the churches of Terry Jones and Fred Phelps. They certainly do a lot for the poor. Or how about the one that just got robbed of $600K from one weekend of “donations”. Your view of what churches and non-profits is view through darkly tinted rose colored glasses. Most non-profits exist to enrich those that have jobs there.
        You are right about the state not imposing a religion but it also shouldn’t be supporting any of them either. If your church catches fire, who are you going to call? Are you going to pay for the expense of the fire fighters?
        No you are not, but you and the church members are going to have a lot to say about how my tax dollars are spent. Tax exempt status is not a right. It is a law passed by church members for church members.

      • Lincey51

        Yes there are those out there who have put a stain on many churches, but to every Terry Jones there are hundreds more who provide food, housing, toys for children at Christmas, Christmas dinners, Thanksgiving help, daily soup kitchens for the hungry,counselling, medical services to the poor and needy, and then continue to assist them on getting out of their poverty, addictions, abusive situations, helping them to get free health care, job training, child care , connecting them with services they may need, holding their hand and walking them through unfamiliar but needed services, being a shoulder to cry on and a voice and hand to help lift them up or over to the next stepping stone to independence and out of poverty. All given freely by so many chuches and their members. Some are subsidized, some are donations, some are fee for services,..but none are turned away for inability to pay. And yes many are Republicans as well.

      • Brian Davies

        It’s funny how when (you) liberal/progressives want to argue a point or make an example you go to the examples that DON’T exemplify the majority.

      • http://twitter.com/WebGuyTV Mark W. Mumma

        Progressive policies only seem palatable when the truth is distorted and facts are ignored.

        What made America great is LIBERTY. These little a-holes want to take away as much liberty as they can.

        PATHETIC.

    • Chris Muir

      Where in the Bible does Jesus complain about government welfare? Not a single verse that I know of. Nor does he complain about taxation, instead he said “Rend unto Ceasar”, who headed the Government of that era.
      Granted, he didn’t call for government welfare, mainly because the Roman Empire didn’t do much in the way of welfare, but that doesn’t mean He was opposed to it.

      • Michael Munsey

        Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. Why do you want to dip into the things that are God’s?

      • Flyagain Angel

        Later on Jesus states that you are to obey all the laws and regulations of government because the government has been put there by God Himself. So God put government in place. Government minted the coins we use for currency. Govenrment distributed the currency then recalled some of it (in form of taxation) to redistribute to those who did not get enough.

        Sounds an awful lot like the governments things are Gods things ;-)
        Keep in mind also God states that he will give us what we need, no matter what. What if what we need is an oppressive government in order to teach us humility and reconciliation with our brother? Hmmm? Something to think about ;-)

      • http://twitter.com/WebGuyTV Mark W. Mumma

        Typical statist thinking. GOD = THE STATE.

        Rawng!!

      • Flyagain Angel

        Go read the bible instead of opening your mouth in a knee jerk reaction and maybe yuo will learn something ;-)

  • Leejon Bumphus

    I was going to try to offer a response to the author of this piece,until I got to this paragraph: “These aren’t things I see emulating within the GOP. They judge, hate, fear and reject anything and everything that isn’t just like they are.” If this is what he truly thinks, there is no point in replying to him.

  • xbj

    Jesus also railed against the conservatives of his day, the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin, who eventually plotted to have Him killed for it. He WHIPPED the capitalist moneychangers who profited from religion using URSURY, OUT of the Temple, the ONLY time in His life He gave vent to rage. Jesus was the most anti-conservative anti-Republican who ever lived. No wonder they’re so hell-bent on destroying everything He IS by perverting and duping those who think they are His followers into uncaring hateful elitist-worshiping bigots and racists.

  • comdytrd

    I’ve
    decided, after weighing all the evidence, that Phil “the Duck” Robertson
    is a more important cultural figure than Honey Boo Boo.
    But, just barely. Intellectually? Pretty close.

  • Mark W. Mumma

    Do any of you ‘progressives’ know that progressivism is just communism repackaged? Or are all of you just the ‘useful idiots’ that Lenin referred to.

  • Dorothy Dill

    It is so funny that you say you can’t understand an irrational person because you are not “wired” the same way. The reason it is funny is because that is how my pastors wife always describes republicans….she says they are “wired up wrong” .

  • Guest

    “Assuming Jesus would be a supporter of big government is absurd. YES Jesus said for us to be kind to the poor, feed them and clothe them. What he did not advocate is pawning off the care of the poor to the government. He wants us to CARE FOR THE POOR OURSELVES, not the government. If you’re going to debate “what would Jesus do” it might help to read the bible and fully understand what Jesus DID.”

    Jesus would be a supporter of big government if he saw that was the only way to get food, clothing, and shelter to poor people–which is as it stands now. Right now the people of the Red states are the ones most in need and a the biggest users of benefits. If the conservative Christians were doing their job, taking care of the poor themselves, then those states would be the wealthiest and healthiest, with no need for any help from the outside. I live in the Northeast. I cannot personally go to the South and help feed and heal poor people. Therefore I am grateful that by paying my taxes I can contribute to the well-being to those not so fortunate. Many of those people are working full-time in stores such as Walmart, yet relying on food stamps. I would like to see the minimum wage raised so that every full-time person who works makes a living wage and can hold their head high. I would hope that Christians would want our ailing veterans better cared for–something conservatives have consistently voted against. Do we only believe in big government when it comes to waging war? How would Jesus have felt about corporations running the show and being the biggest recipient of tax breaks and benefits? He is the one who turned over the tables of the money-changers. If you don’t want Big Government and don’t want taxes, then it’s time for you to TITHE as is specified in the Bible. My form of tithing is in paying taxes to help people. I only wish it were more. “When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.” Notice foreigners are included. Would Jesus have wanted a barrier on our southern border? Charity, as they say, begins at home.

  • Guest

    Jesus would be a supporter of big government if he saw that was the only way to get food, clothing, and shelter to poor people–which is as it stands now. Right now the people of the Red states are the ones most in need and a the biggest users of benefits. If the conservative Christians were doing their job, taking care of the poor themselves, then those states would be the wealthiest and healthiest, with no need for any help from the outside. I live in the Northeast. I cannot personally go to the South and help feed and heal poor people. Therefore I am grateful that by paying my taxes I can contribute to the well-being to those not so fortunate. Many of those people are working full-time in stores such as Walmart, yet relying on food stamps. I would like to see the minimum wage raised so that every full-time person who works makes a living wage and can hold their head high. I would hope that Christians would want our ailing veterans better cared for–something conservatives have consistently voted against. Do we only believe in big government when it comes to waging war? How would Jesus have felt about corporations running the show and being the biggest recipient of tax breaks and benefits? He is the one who turned over the tables of the money-changers. If you don’t want Big Government and don’t want taxes, then it’s time for you to TITHE as is specified in the Bible. My form of tithing is in paying taxes to help people. I only wish it were more. “When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.” Notice foreigners are included. Would Jesus have wanted a barrier on our southern border? Charity, as they say, begins at home.

    • BoiseBoy

      This is the best post I have seen anywhere about anything! Thank you! Hope you don’t mind if I spread the word.

    • KOGDEN

      awesome post!!

    • http://twitter.com/WebGuyTV Mark W. Mumma

      ” if he saw that was the only way to get food, clothing, and shelter to poor people ”

      That is a ginormous “IF” and Jesus knew that ALL THINGS WERE POSSIBLE through him.

      So,

      Nice try.

  • Cliff Gaul Jr.

    I don’t seem to recall the Republicans ever having to take a vote at any of their conventions, on whether or not to “allow” God as part of their platform. I’ve never heard them publicly boo him either. That was one of the most shameful displays I’ve ever witnessed. Someone “really” needs to get the plank out of their own eye, If you know what I mean. My guess is, you probably don’t have a clue.

  • realist

    “Father,
    forgive them (conservatives) , for they know not what they do.”

  • Vern Cox

    He Taught “A man leaves father and mother and cleaves to his wife”. Mt 19:5

    He Taught “Let the little ones come to me.. for such is the kingdom of heaven”
    Mt 19:14 How can they come if you kill them before they’re born or as they are being born.

    He taught : “Woman, where are your accusers. Nowhere my Lord. Nor do I condemn you so go, BUT SIN NO MORE” We can love you, but we don’t (and shouldn’t) agree with you when you’re violating GOD’s law. Even Jesus demonstrated that. Jhn 8:11, Jhn 5:14 ( we don’t know what that man did if anything, but he had to have known what Jesus was talking about when he was told “sin no more before something worse happens to you”.

    HE taught “Whoso does the will of my Father in heaven is the same as my brother, sister, and mother.” Loving your brother or any sinner doesn’t mean you have to approve of their wrong doing.

    Telling you you are wrong IS NOT judgmental.
    Not doing this is: Rom 12:17-21

  • Linda Matthews

    “Render unto to Caesar the things that are Caesars and those to God which belong to God.”

  • Ed Barajas

    The old “what would Jesus do?” entrapment question. I have no idea what Jesus would do. He wasn’t a politician, so I guess as far as legislation to “help” the poor etc. he’d do nothing.

    What I DO know is that Jesus did not preach to the Romans (government) to tax the Jews (citizens) more so that the Romans could provide more “programs” for the poor. He preached to INDIVIDUALS to be more loving and give willingly to those in need. And that’s what Conservatives do. Conservatives give more to charity than Liberals (documented).

    Jesus would not pick my pocket and give the contents of my wallet to a poor person because he believed he could better determine who needed it better than I could. He would admonish ME to do it.

    • Flyagain Angel

      He also told you to give your taxes to the government (render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s). He also states further on that the government (and subsequently all laws) are their because He put them their and that we are to obey them while on the Earth. This being the case, you have to do BOTH: pay your taxes (so the government can do whatever it chooses with them) AND personally help the poor and needy.

      • http://twitter.com/WebGuyTV Mark W. Mumma

        Google the words “their” and “there”. You’ll find that they are, in fact, two separate and distinct words that do not mean the same things.

      • Flyagain Angel

        Instead of being an ignorant ass of a grammar Nazi try learning some facts. Yes they are two separate words with different meanings. Yes I made a typo; guess what? you understood what I was talking about so it doesn’t matter.

      • Ed Barajas

        I believe in paying taxes and following the laws (of government(s) ). I don’t believe in excessive taxation for an expanded welfare state.

        Again, Jesus didn’t lecture the Romans (government) about helping the poor. The discussion is about helping the poor and needy and the ways of doing it. Was Jesus admonishing individuals or the government (Caesar)? The answer is clear. He was speaking to individuals.

        Jesus, by the way, associated with a lot of social misfits–including tax collectors. That’s why I’m not against paying taxes per se.