Quantcast

Introducing Republicanity, the Real Religion Conservatives Worship

jesusphilosophyIt’s no secret that I don’t believe many conservatives are actually Christians.  And I damn sure don’t believe the GOP represents real Christianity at all.

So I coined the term “Republicanity” as the religion I believe these people actually worship.  It’s a term I really hope gets more mainstream attention because I’m absolutely fed up with Republicans slandering the Christian faith.

Republicanity is a blend of cult-like religious beliefs mixed with political ideologies.  It’s neither a true political party, nor a real religion—it’s both.  It’s why so many conservatives cling to being a Republican as tightly as they do being a “Christian.”  To many of these individuals, they treat their devotion to their political beliefs with the same conviction as they do their faith.

For them to dare question Republican talking points is tantamount to questioning their belief in God.

See, real Christianity is predicated on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.  You know, that whole helping the poor; giving to the needy; accepting one another; loving thy neighbor; forgiveness; hope and not judging others.  Basically, principles that aren’t beholden to one specific faith or religion — instead, they’re what I think are representative of good human beings.

You don’t have to be a Christian to believe in the values for which Christianity stands.  Which is one of the reasons why I call myself a Christian.  Yes, I believe in Jesus Christ, but I also think the values I believe in transcend religion to the very heart of human kindness and decency.  I believe that even when I meet people from other religions — or of no religious affiliation whatsoever — we can share these common values as good people.

Yet, when it comes to many conservatives, they don’t represent any of these values.  Their entire political movement is based on fear, hatred, judgment, anger, paranoia and disdain for those who are different.

Hell, the only “Biblical” values I ever see followed by many of these people is their opposition to homosexuality, abortion and church attendance.  (By the way, all three of those are issues which Jesus Christ never spoke about.)

See, you can say the Bible is your book, without actually being a Christian.  Jews aren’t considered Christians, but they believe in God and follow the Bible.

What conservatives have is a “religion,” if you will, built by two completely contradicting systems of belief.  First, their political ideology comes from Ayn Rand — someone who thought religion was stupid and those who followed it were idiots.  Then their social ideology is taken from a few handpicked excerpts from the Bible.

The reason why I view these people more like cult followers than anything else stems from the fact that their economic and social ideologies are complete contradictions of one another.  How does it make any sense to claim religious “moral” principles socially while at the same time supporting economic policies created by someone who opposed all forms of religion?

It makes absolutely no sense.  In fact, the only way anyone could believe such idiocy is if they were a part of some brainwashed cult following.

Think about it.  These people really believe they follow Jesus Christ by hating most anyone who isn’t just like them.  They really think that Jesus Christ — someone who spent his life helping the poor and the needy — would support massive cuts to programs that help the poor and the needy while protecting tax breaks for the rich.

These are people who complain constantly about their quality of life, then vote for Republican politicians who support policies which make their quality of life worse.

Many of these people base their entire spirituality off church attendance and how much they hate gay people.  Because, you know, same-sex marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage — according to millions of conservative heterosexuals who’ve been divorced (often multiple times).

When I think of all the idiocy and contradiction within the conservative movement, “cult” is about the only term that properly describes what I see day in and day out with conservatives, because they’re damn sure not Christians.

They belong to a cult I call Republicanity.

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

  • Matthew Reece

    “They really think that Jesus Christ — someone who spent his life helping
    the poor and the needy — would support massive cuts to programs that
    help the poor and the needy while protecting tax breaks for the rich.”

    Government programs tend to harm the very people they are supposed to help. This is no surprise, of course, as statists tend not to care about the poor as anything other than hostages to shame and capture the guilt of the innocent and force them to hand over additional money, rights, and children to the state.

    Jesus spent his life helping the poor and the needy, but he never stole anything from anyone in order to do it. All statists steal to finance their endeavors.

    • Ravenfall

      So you really don’t believe in any kind of government at all? We would all somehow live where we live, but pay no taxes? No government services would be provided at all, at any level? No roads, no schools, no snow plowing, no fire department, nothing?

      • Beverly Gjerdahl Lowry

        you are missing the point and going back to talking to your blah blah blah crap

      • Rick

        Gee, what a well-crafted, reasonable response that was! Bra-vo!

      • Kelly S

        lol well you’ve sure contributed to the discussion. what, praytell, is the point?

      • regressive rightwing trash

        hey bev…………pleeeeeeeez tell us U are NOt one of these white trash regressive religious scum who exclusively watches ( and osculates with) FOX “news”???

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        Typical rightie response to something that they have no answer for.

      • Matthew Reece

        The burden of proof is on the statist to show that such services must be provided through compulsory taxation rather than through free enterprise.

      • Shain Neumeier

        Under a system with no government/state or its equivalent, compulsion, coercion and hierarchy would still exist, just in different forms and possibly along different axes. Worse still, under such a system, they might be better disguised as benign or nonexistent – leading people to think they’re “free” in some abstract sense, without many if not the majority being meaningfully free in a way that allows them to live and thrive. The government we have isn’t doing a good job (to say the least) of standing for the people with the least power against those who, in other ways, have the most. However, getting rid of all existing structures that help or have the potential to help people who need it, or at least the means of keeping such structures intact (namely taxation), would pretty much be throwing them to the wolves.

      • Matthew Reece

        Read Stefan Molyneux’s writings about dispute resolution organizations to see how ending the state does not have to throw people to the wolves.

        What will help the people who need it is to get the state out of their way so that no government regulations keep them from finding or creating work.

      • William Carr

        Watch Mad Max to see how Anarchy always turns out.

        Street Gangs know this simple logic. You get together enough thugs, and seize all you can hold.

        It’s the SAME math that created Political Parties.

        A gang will always be stronger than an individual; if necessary, they’ll take him while he sleeps, and then rule by terror.

        The Representative Government we have is the best way of ensuring that the Law is maintained and the Rights of the People protected against criminals.

        Government Regulations don’t keep people from finding work or starting new businesses.

        DEMAND is what drives the Market.

        We’ve seen over and over, with Alcohol and Drugs, that Demand always WINS.

        So, you have enough Demand for aircraft brakes, but the Government bans Asbestos because it causes Cancer and everyone exposed to it dies.

        The Market searches for another way to fulfill the Demand; that means MORE employment; and quickly an alternative to Asbestos is found.

        Smokestack laws protect the people downwind from the consequences of unwise pollution upwind.

        That doesn’t eliminate jobs, because then the company has to hire someone to come install scrubbers on that smokestack.

        The regulation CREATED jobs that wouldn’t otherwise exist !

        The only impact is a short-term dip in Profit, and the Government bends over backwards to let companies write off capital improvements on their taxes.

        What perplexed Randians such as yourself fail to recognize, is that Government’s primary purpose is to keep as many Citizens alive and voting as possible.

        Anarchy has no such benison to grant.

      • Matthew Reece

        The hypotheticals you posit for anarchy are certainties under government.

        Mad Max is chaos, not anarchy. Anarchy is spontaneous order.

        Demand does not drive a market; production does. Anyone can demand anything, but it will do nothing for the economy if production is not possible.

        Regulation created jobs that wouldn’t otherwise exist? Broken window fallacy as well as ipse dixit.

        I do not follow Ayn Rand, or anyone else. I am influenced by Murray Rothbard, Samuel Konkin III, Stefan Molyneux, and many others.

      • taymie

        Anyone can make something, but if no one wants it, it does nothing for the economy. You must have both supply and demand. Any kid with a dollar and a choice between broccoli and a cookie could tell you that one.

      • taymie

        ouhhh I can do that! Take a look at every society in which infrastructure is NOT provided through compulsory taxation, where either there is little or no taxation or taxes are spent on something else, and see what the result is.

        lets see, that would be every single 3rd world country in the world. High poverty, high death rate, lack of access to technology, complete stagnation of technological advances, and low literacy rates, low access to medical care, low ability to move from one social rung to another, and in general something to avoid at all costs.

        Now, show me a time or place in history where that WASN’T the case when the society did not utilize public fund to provide for the infrastructure of the social needs. Even the nomadic Native American tribes used public resources to provide for the needs of the tribe.

      • Matthew Reece

        To claim that something which has not yet happened cannot possibly happen is a logical fallacy.

    • Jim

      What a crock! Government is a device, not a bad or good one, just a device. Government “steals” from me to fund tax credits for oil companies and pipelines, it steals from me so that the elites can finance wars on who ever opposes their stealing. Since money is printed by government and government authorized entities, you could say there would be nothing to steal if it weren’t for government. The government that I oppose is exactly the one that these cultists love. Matthew you just proved the authors point.

      • Matthew Reece

        Government is inherently evil, as nothing that people do in its name is done without violating someone’s logical rights.

      • Nicholas A Kocal

        If you are an US citizen and eligible to vote, then YOU are the government. So my your statement, you are saying that you are evil.

      • April

        Yep

      • Matthew Reece

        A government is a group of individuals who exercise a monopoly on the supposedly legitimate initiation of force within a certain geographical area. I am not part of such a group.

        By your logic, if you are in a dark alley and allowed to vote, then YOU are the rapist/mugger/etc.

      • Nicholas A Kocal

        So I guess you have never read the US Constitution and deny that you are an American. And the rest of your statement makes no sense and just proves that you are also an idiot.

      • Matthew Reece

        The Constitution is a contract signed by 40 men, all of whom are long dead. They had no legitimacy to impose that contract on anyone who did not consent to its terms, or to bind all future generations under its yoke, as this would violate the natural right of freedom of association. Thus the Constitution is an invalid document, and has been at least since June 28, 1836 (when James Madison, the last surviving signatory, died). Practically, the Constitution has been invalid since December 17, 1828 (when William Jackson, the penultimate surviving signatory, died), as it is rather pointless to have a contract of government with oneself.

        Ad hominem and ad lapidem are admissions of defeat and ignorance.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        again crafty (???) and jejune matthew is spouting psycho babble. By your insertion of that insanity above 95% of all ‘contracts’ are INvalid for a plethora of reasons

      • William Carr

        Does Insanity run in your family?

        Just curious.

        EVERY time someone votes, that Contract we call The Constitution is renewed.

        EVERY time we have an Election, and the loser shakes the winner’s hand and steps aside, that Contract is renewed.

        For people that don’t vote? They’ve decided not to be part of the Ruling Class.

        The only way the Constitution could expire, would be if everybody stopped voting, the Government shut down, and all the people who HAD ever voted died off.

        Then the Constitution would only be a piece of paper.

        You belong to a Cult, and you’re spouting their weird dogma as if it actually makes sense.

        Next we’ll have a Scientologist on here telling us about Warlord Zenu and Bad Thetans.

        When a Cultist is truly programmed, it’s safe to let him roam about alone; nothing will make him use common sense, or stray from the tenets of the Cult.

        He’ll insist that up is down, black is white, cutting taxes on the Rich results in more jobs, helping hungry families feed their kids is racist; anything he’s been programmed with.

        Try to reason with him, and IF you catch him in a bind he’s not programmed for, he’ll self-generate Dogma in defense of his programming.

        Like this dreck you came up with to claim the Constitution doesn’t apply to people not alive in 1789.

        You want so desperately to overthrow our Government that you’ll make up crap as justification for nullification.

      • lance1949

        The contract is only renewed if voters are given, through the ballot box, a chance to renege and remove support for the constitution. It can only be upheld if on a regular basis we are given the opportunity to repeal it – that doesn’t happen so it’s not, strange as it may sound, a consitutional document.

      • wawoo

        Well sweetheart, name one instance in history where your fantasy libetarian society has ever existed?
        Oh, there are none.
        I suppose currently Somalia and the worst areas of Afghanistan and the Nortwest Territory of pakistan come the closest to Ayn Rand perfection.

      • Matthew Reece

        Well “sweetheart,” name one instance in history before 1787 where a “fantasy” constitutional republican society had ever existed?
        Oh, there were none.
        To claim that because something has never happened in history means it can never happen in the future is a logical fallacy.
        Also, Ayn Rand was not an anarchist.

      • wawoo

        Sweet heart,I am dealing with historical fact and the reality of human behavior in my remarks. You are locked in a fantasy whose closest approximation in history was the Nazi regime in Germany. Read the Nazi social and economic plan. Pretty much a one to one correspondence with Randian theology just some minor differences over who are the makers and who are the takers. Any Randian system would inevitably be anarchy. You fancy yourself as quite the intellect just like your goddess Ayn Rand who was not tethered to reality in her intellectual life which consiste of a perpetual pique because her mother gave her best toys away when she was 10 or so.. Paul Krugman’s remark about comparing Lord of the Rings afficianados with Ayn Rand devotees certainly rings true in your case.Note , Lord of the Rings wins that contest.

      • Matthew Reece

        I am not a fan of Ayn Rand. I have never even read her works. I only know a few random quotes of hers. My influences are Murray Rothbard, Samuel Konkin III, Hans Hoppe, Stefan Molyneux, and many other anarcho-capitalist thinkers.

        Nazism is almost a polar opposite to free market anarchism. If you cannot understand this (and even worse, lump the two together) then I see no point in trying to reason with you, as your reasoning violates the law of identity.

        As for the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien was also an anarchist, and the One Ring is an excellent metaphor for the state (with throwing it into Mount Doom to unmake it being a fitting end for it).

      • wawoo

        Quite the cast of self important generally not so big, certainly not anywhere as big as they think they are, thinkers you got there. Stefan Molyneux kinda caps it as there being little hope for your imagined reality comporting with actual reality.

      • Jim

        For sure-she believed the only legitimate function of government is to protect her money. When the Bolsheviks took Daddy’s drug store, she totally got turned off by the whole idea of government( except when she needed Social Security when she was old and Alan Greenspan wouldn’t support her).

      • lance1949

        This is, in fact, true. Why do we allow a document as old as the Constitution, control the way we think today? It is a powerful document but it is, after all, just a document that today, more than ever, needs to be seriously amended.

      • William Carr

        You have the brains of a Gerbil.

        Our Founding Fathers fought and died to create a Country where you were represented; where your vote made you PART of the governing class.

        You ignore this act as if we’re back in the days of Kings and Emperors that rule by conquest.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ad hominem and ad lapidem are admissions of defeat and ignorance.

        “Representation” does not invalidate logically proven natural rights, which all governments violate by their very operation.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        Tell us of those “natural” rights. The right to take whatever you can? The right to kill whomever you want? The right to total selfishness? Please, describe these “natural rights” and tell us how they work in an actual human society.

      • Matthew Reece

        None of what you listed are natural rights because they violate natural rights, such as ownership of one’s body, private property ownership, and freedom from aggression. None of these rights can be opposed without logical contradiction, so they must be valid. They are the basis for prohibitions against murder, rape, theft, slavery, and so on.

      • Arjie46

        Matthew, you never once resorted to name calling or personally assaulting anyone. Your restraint in returning jabs and insults thrown at you was admirable.
        It was a pleasure to read your thoughts, opinions and conclusions. Your character is intact. Much to be said for that!

      • Matthew Reece

        Thank you.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        my pet TEGU eats gerbils,,,,,,,,,,,,and he wouldn’t touch matthew

      • Cathryn Sykes

        You would prefer chaos? Everyone for themselves? Might makes right? Of course, someone like you always sees themselves as both “right” and among the “mighty.” However, I’d love to see you pitched into the kind of “freedom” you so love….including meeting others with more guns that you have, and a love for THEIR “rights” even greater than yours….including the right to take whatever they want, including everything you have. Government is not the problem: bad government is the problem. But anarchy is almost always worse.

      • Matthew Reece

        It would help if you would actually study some anarcho-capitalist theory. Robert Murphy and Stefan Molyneux have excellent writings that shoot your above comment full of holes.

      • Chuck Thom

        Read the book of Romans. It says all governments are good and ordained by god. To go against the government is to go against God.

      • Matthew Reece

        That was Paul speaking, not Jesus.

      • Chuck Thom

        And???

      • Dunbar

        Matthew, the deotological conception of rights is not a sound position. The notion of “self ownership”, is built on circular reasoning: it assumes ownership precedes ownership, it’s “begging the question” fallacy.

        The concept of “ownership” isn’t universal, it’s culturally contingent and, where it does exist, has many different forms.

      • Matthew Reece

        It is not circular reasoning. The deontological conception of rights asserts bodily ownership (I don’t use the term self-ownership because there is no such thing as a self) and shows that by attempting to argue against it, one must implicitly assume it, resulting in a performative contradiction.

      • Dunbar

        Hence the argument is circular; it assumes the prior existence of “ownership” derived from “nature”. It’s a self referencing position. It’s not logically consistent, nothing can follow from it.

      • Matthew Reece

        The concept of ownership does not come from anywhere. It is valid because it must be; its invalidity leads to contradictions, which equal falsehood.

      • Dunbar

        That is a self referencing belief; it’s inherently circular, the same as saying: “it is because it is”, it’s Dr Suess reasoning.

        Ownership is not a symptom of Being. Ownership is a social phenomenon, it is culturally contingent.

      • Matthew Reece

        No, it is because it not being creates contradictions. Contradictions equal falsehood. It may help you to review the three laws of thought.

      • Dunbar

        “Ownership” is not axiomatic, it is an arbitrary concept. Your position is recursive; nothing can follow from it, logically.

        Ownership is a social relationship. it is defined by society, and is culturally contingent. In societies where there is no ownership the concept itself has no meaning; indeed, it is untranslatable.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ownership is not an arbitrary concept. Ownership means having an exclusive right to control something which has an independent form in physical reality; in other words, a material object.

        Society cannot define anything because society does not exist. Each individual person exists.

      • Dunbar

        Rights are a social phenomena, achieved by consensus. They constitute a belief system, that does not exist outside of language.

        So, we agree individuals exist, but you deny the existence of groups of individuals? Groups with shared cultural norms and language?

      • Matthew Reece

        A group is a concept, not an entity that exists independently of its component parts.

      • Dunbar

        So, a group (a collection of individuals gathered together) is not really a group, it is a “concept”? I’m having difficulty following your “logic”.

      • Matthew Reece

        If you want to understand this better, look up nominalism.

        A group must be a group, by the law of identity. It is a concept in the brain of someone who chooses to recognize it, not an entity that has an independent form in the external reality outside a person’s brain.

      • Dunbar

        The “law of identity” is impure; it contains logical aporias, it is incoherent without externalities; without reflexivity, or “the mirror of language”. I suggest you read Derrida’s critique of identity.

        Anyway, a group of individuals can be measured, physically, and linguistically, as can their relationships, in concrete terms.

      • Matthew Reece

        The law of identity simply says that for any A,
        1. A is equal to A, and
        2. A is unequal to “not A.”
        Without this law, rational discourse is impossible, as anything may at any time become anything else.

      • Dunbar

        The law of identity is valid, but unsustainable in its own terms.

        Derrida exposes the contradictions in the proposition A=A through the process of deconstruction but stresses it isn’t possible to step outside of identity to analyse identity, just as language itself cannot be considered without language. The law of identity relies on an “origin” to which the law refers, an origin free from contradiction. Derrida demonstrates this is only possible through a process of exclusion (complexity, mediation and difference); a process that takes place at a general metaphysical level that underpins the entire system of Western thought.

        Groups do indeed “exist”; to dismiss groups as a fiction of the brain is a drift into solipsism.

      • normbreyfogle

        But the self doesn’t exist, according to your own words. lol

        The embarrassing pretzel shapes you’re forcing yourself into due to your unrealistic and irrational ideology would be quite amusing if not for the fact that it’s entirely unoriginal, outmoded, and routine.

      • Matthew Reece

        The self does not exist. The body does exist. No pretzel necessary.

      • normbreyfogle

        Same difference; what you call the individual does indeed exist. The pretzel to which I refer is your semantic game.

        Claiming “society doesn’t not exist” is more of the same meaningless semantic game. Your awkward word-play is a transparent, impotent fail based on adolescent ideology.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ad lapidem fallacy.

      • Michael Rowe

        God, you’re such an idiot, Matt. LOL—you poor sap. You need to turn off FOX and put down the remote and get some fresh air.

      • Matthew Reece

        Insults are an admission of stupidity.

        I don’t watch Fox News (or CNN or MSNBC, for that matter) for anything other than entertainment. I know that it is all propaganda.

      • lance1949

        So many people get this wrong – the Government doesn’t print money. It’s he Fed Reserve and it’s not controlled by the Govt just like the Supreme Court isn’t controlled by the Government either.

    • Anita Morren Jagodzinski

      Matthew, government funded things like war and corporate welfare tend to harm people. But feeding the hungry? Clothing the naked? Please. This quote may help you understand: “It’s okay if you don’t want to feed the hungry, or heal the sick, or house the homeless. Just don’t say you’re doing it for their own good. Don’t say you’d like to help people, but your hands are tied, because if you did it would cause a culture of dependency, or ‘go against the Bible’ or worst of all, ‘rob them of their freedom’ to be sick and hungry. Just admit you’re selfish and based on how little your beliefs mirror the actual teachings of Jesus you might as well be worshiping Despicable Me.”

      • Matthew Reece

        In a moral context, it does not matter what is done with stolen goods. What matters is that they are stolen. The morality of an action cannot be determined by its consequences; it must be derived from first principles.

      • Anon

        So when you read Robin Hood you saw him as the villain and the sheriff as the hero?

      • Matthew Reece

        Wrong. The sheriff was stealing the property of the people. Robin Hood was taking back their stolen property for them.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        just as glenn beck and his white trash tea party is taking back America”????

      • regressive rightwing trash

        and history PROVE conclusively the the end justifies the means. your psycho babble is “PI”

      • Matthew Reece

        Might helps to make outcomes, but cannot make right. You cannot get an ought from an is.

        Ad lapidem admits defeat and ignorance.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        read below chrome dome matthew— if a starving women steals to feed her 9 and 8 yr olds U call it stealing. I call it survival

      • William Carr

        Except your statements ARE absurd. They don’t even bear argument.

        It’s as if you insisted that God was dead and therefore all Laws were void.

        The rest of us would simply look at you with curiosity and start making bets on whether you’ll be killed crossing the street against the light.

        You must really LOVE Sarah Palin; she makes up stuff and pretends it’s all factual as much as you do.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ad lapidem admits defeat and ignorance.

        Sarah Palin is a statist. I am not.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        might makes right,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, history proves it a million times. U are living in a cartoon sketch world. AD LAPIDEM???? OK schmuck– hows about stalin? mao? they were WRONGING all2many; yet their MIGHT made it RIGHT as RIGHT is defined by who WINS. mao and stalin died in their sleep as all-powerful rulers. case closed

      • Scaramongus

        depends on your moral philosophy. Deontology vs teleology . You are definitely in the deontologist camp and dismissing teleology. If my family is starving and i have absolutely no other choice then to steal, then it is moral to do so, the end does justify the means.

      • Matthew Reece

        You do not have a right to steal. But if you do under those circumstances, anyone who severely punishes you in the same manner as a hardened criminal is probably going to be ostracized for doing so.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        stealing is defined by the plaintiff,,,,,,, and the powers that be who make money off of legislating and punishment. If I steal something that U stole,,,who is the thief?

      • Matthew Reece

        If you steal from others, you should be estopped from being able to complain about others stealing from you.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        tell that to big businesses

      • William Carr

        Taxes are not theft. At any rate, you have a solution.

        LEAVE. Go to Antarctica. Go to an abandoned island somewhere. You won’t have to pay taxes.

        But as long as you’re here, you’re subject to the Law.

        Either you pay taxes or you’re freeloading, and we don’t need more freeloaders; we already have the House of Representatives.

      • Matthew Reece

        I suppose you also think that an abused wife should be forced to marry another abusive husband or be kept inside the house if she wants a divorce. That is what your reasoning looks like when applied to an equivalent situation.

      • taymie

        no the reasoning is that an abused wife who wishes not to be abused must LEAVE her husband and not STAY in the situation she does not like.

        Your interpretation of the sugestion “love it or leave it” would be more in line of being told that if you don’t like American Laws you can go to England, whereas the suggestion given was Antarctica….a place where no civilization exists.

        Justify this: you don’t think we should have law and socially funded police and fire and infrastructure maintenance etc. And you feel justified in forcing that ideology on those of us who think that having an actual society is worth preserving.

        We have our society, if you don’t want to be part of it, then you can leave it, you don’t get to steal it away from us.

      • Matthew Reece

        False dilemma. There are more alternatives than coercive monopolies in charge of services versus no services at all. The third option is voluntary competition to provide services.

        I am advocating non-aggression; the non-initiation of force. As a supporter of the state, you are the one who is advocating for the use of violence, as everything the state does is rooted in violence.

        As for the spousal abuse analogy, my point is that “divorcing” a government is not the same as divorcing an abusive husband, and it ought to be.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        why have him pollute antartica????? have him go to Mississippi,,,,,,,,,,

      • John

        Anita. I’m on your side but you just ranted a Jon Stewart diatribe almost verbatim.

      • taymie

        she did not say who the quote was from, but she did say it was a quote, and she did put it in quotation marks.

      • Anita Morren Jagodzinski

        And that’s why I called it a quote and put it in quotation marks.

    • MamaMetz

      You obviously do not know anything about the Bible because there are over 300 scriptures admonishing everyone to see over the less fortunate in their surroundings. Funny conservatives like to use scriptures regarding gays and abortions as voting points but ignore the hundreds of verses regarding the poor. Jesus said in Matthew 25:31-46 that this is the key for entering heaven and hell.

      • Matthew Reece

        I am a free market anarchist, not a conservative.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        vague and illogical

      • Matthew Reece

        Ipse dixit combined with argumentum ad lapidem.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        been drinking again EH matt?

      • Matthew Reece

        Ad hominem is an admission of defeat and ignorance.

      • taymie

        You keep saying these things, but here is the thing, you fail to address the issue of sometimes it is not ad hominem, sometimes it is simply admitting that the person you are “debating” is not providing accurate, logical, or proven information to back their claims. Sometimes it is about trying to figure out where ideas that make no sense at all are coming from.

        From your assertion that every time someone questions your sanity, sobriety, and ability to reason is proof of their defeat and ignorance and not a legitimate question you are intimating that you have actually provided some logical or easily identifiable answers to basic questions as the legitimacy of the social structure you are advocating.

        nothing you said holds up under rudimentary examination of logic and reason. Therefore questions into sanity, sobriety, ability to reason, and even moral character, are completely within the bounds of a logical argument.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ipse dixit fallacy. You cannot simply assert that my arguments are nonsensical without providing a logical argument as to why.

      • normbreyfogle

        Such has been provided you many times.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        l’ ennui

      • Sally Strange

        In other words, a conservative embarrassed about being a conservative.

      • Matthew Reece

        Conservatives are statists. Anarchists are not.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        So describe for us what anarchists are.

      • Matthew Reece

        Anarchists believe the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        donn be dissin my negga ( matthew) dogg :))

      • William Carr

        No, he’s a Randian Cultist. The confusion you experienced is because the modern TeaBaggers hold out Ayn Rand as a Saint and Philosopher.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ayn Rand was a statist. I am not.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        You have no concept at all of what anarchy is like. None. There are few things in life more horrible than actual anarchy. You, of course, see yourself as one of the powerful people who will benefit from having no check on your desires. You would be shocked to find that there will be people even more amoral than you, even stronger than you, who would take everything you have and have no hesitancy in killing you for kicks…while you begged for someone to help you. What a silly, foolish, ignorant being you are!

      • Matthew Reece

        It is you who does not understand anarchy. You are reciting the same spoon-fed propaganda about anarchy that everyone is indoctrinated with through public schools and the media. Statism is organized chaos. Anarchy is spontaneous order.

      • normbreyfogle

        You aren’t taking thousands of years of human nature, very clearly on display throughout our histories, into account.

        The only way that the anarchy you envision could possibly work in any way better than brutal feudalism is if the entire human race were first enlightened. And, we’re a looooong way from that occurring.

    • regressive rightwing trash

      so,,,,,,,,,,,,,, statism by the true definition means that scumbag crybaby regressives who CRY for smaller GOVT yet want BIG money spent on defense and outlawing abortion and govt making it tougher for minorities to vote and govt legislating no oral sex or no sex marriages between gays is OK,,,,,,, small dicked religious trash who want the BIBLE ( especially the white trash in our country wanting a Baptist version) to be implemented in our GOVT as the TRUE alpha/omega mandate determining all social structuring. that would make regressive shitbag republican white scum the bigger statists of all as they want their local GOVT much bigger

      • Matthew Reece

        A statist is anyone who supports the operation of a state. This means that anyone who is not an anarchist is a statist of some type.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        that is total OVER simplification of the definition

      • William Carr

        Statism: a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.

        Your definition is like saying “meat is murder”. Black or White; steal a penny, get the death penalty for theft.

      • Matthew Reece

        More like steal a penny, lose one’s right to protest against violations of one’s own property rights through estoppel.

      • Barbara Leary

        Going back to the cave man people have banded together in groups for the common good. In doing so they had to give up some individual freedom, but considered it worthwhile for the benefits. Strength in numbers is accepted by just about everyone, but you might be able to find a wilderness area you could move to where there was no government. There is a reason why there are few such places, however. I think all you people who don’t believe in government should buy an island, move there, and let everyone just do whatever they want there. Let us know when you find out that doesn’t work and form a government.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        hey stoooopid: Im a centrist liberal who hates FOX “news” and all the scumbag white trash regressives who cry for JEEEESUS in THEIR “idea” of government. Ya wanna try again??

    • Sally Strange

      Blah blah blah. Taxation is not theft. Taxation without representation can be; and if you’re experiencing the latter, then you fix it by getting better representation, not abolishing taxes. That libertarians and other righties who are rightfully embarassed by the antics of social conservatives can’t recognize this basic fact is why they continue to be the laughingstock of politics.

      • Matthew Reece

        Taxation is the forceful taking of property by non-owners of that property. That is the definition of theft.

        By your logic, sex without consent is not rape. Sex without consent or representation can be; and if you’re experiencing the latter, then you fix it by getting better representation, not by abolishing sex without consent.

        Free market anarchism is not left or right, in the same sense that an atheist is not a Christian or a Muslim.

    • Karkadann

      “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
      -Jesus

      • Matthew Reece

        The most misunderstood verse in the whole Bible. Read “God is an Anarchist: Render Unto Caesar” by Darrell Anderson to learn the correct meaning of the verse.

      • Karkadann

        Meh, I thought you were a bible thumper, but appearently you’re not, so whatever, wasted quote.
        And Anderson is basically bending the bible to fit his political philosophy, something that most versions of christianity do.

        How can you even call Yahwe an anarchist? If Yahwe were an anarchist it wouldn’t be such a tyrant. It represents basically anything you should loathe, like stupid laws and stealing stuff from people by demanding sacrifices.

      • Matthew Reece

        According to the Bible, Yahweh has no ruler over him; he rules himself. He also does not force his rule onto others, although sometimes his followers do, and negative consequences tend to come to those who reject his commandments. However, in many cases, natural disaster were attributed to supernatural entities with what we now call post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. Anarchy comes from the Greek “anarkhos,” meaning “without rulers.”

      • taymie

        according to the Bible, Yahweh does not “force” people to worship him, he just tosses them into an eternal lake of fire if they don’t.

    • Derek Miyahara

      Well, if you don’t like government, you can just take yourself over to Somalia and see how you do. Good luck. Quit your complaining and leave the rest of us alone.

      • Matthew Reece

        Bringing up Somalia is a red herring fallacy, as it is not an example of free market anarchism.

        As for your “love it or leave it” sentiment, where are people who do not wish to be governed free to go? All habitable land large enough to support a functional stateless society is controlled by agents of governments. To say “go somewhere else” or “love it or leave it” under current world circumstances would be like saying that if a woman wishes to divorce an abusive husband, then she must immediately marry another abusive husband rather than be allowed to be single.

      • Derek Miyahara

        Whatever. You don’t explain WHY it isn’t example of free market
        anarchism. I’d be interested in your explanation (really). But you if
        you expect a society without a functioning government to operate in any
        fashion OTHER than what has happened in Somalia, you have more faith in
        human nature than I do.

      • Matthew Reece

        A free market anarchy does not have institutions which can initiate force with impunity. In Somalia, any warlord can use his mercenaries to initiate force and get away with it if his forces are strong enough. Somalia is basically an example of a civil war with many sides, or a competition of coercive institutions. Every free market anarchist theory I have encountered has means to prevent this, starting with how the existing government should fall. Agorism and its peaceful replacements of state institutions solve problems that a violent overthrow of the established order (as happened in Somalia in 1991) cannot.

        I am an anarchist partly because I have no faith in human nature. I believe that there is evil (or at least a capacity for evil) in all of us, and that a monopoly on force is therefore far too dangerous to be allowed to exist.

      • Derek Miyahara

        Well, it looks like you’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. you don’t trust government, but without it, you are dependent upon the better part of human nature, which you also don’t trust.

        Surely there’s an island that you and like-minded folks could buy. Of course, if they’re as cynical as you, I don’t know if I could trust them (or maybe I’d trust them MORE, who knows?) Good luck with that, too. You’re not getting any closer to that by commenting on these boards, though.

      • taymie

        in your free market anarchism, who enforces these standards of behavior? why? who pays the enforcers?

      • Matthew Reece

        Dispute resolution organizations, contract rating agencies, and private military companies enforce the standards of non-aggression and respect for property rights. Everyone purchases representation with one among several competing institutions. Standards are enforced for profit, and violators are economically ostracized.

    • William Carr

      You’re an idiot, Matthew. Government programs keep people ALIVE.

      Republicans believe in the Desperation Fairy. If only you’re desperate enough to take that job working in the Asbestos Factory, you’ll be visited by the Desperation Fairy and find a golden opportunity.

      Then you’ll get out of Poverty, and be Rich.

      Republicans LOVE the Horatio Alger stories. A poor orphan sells pencils on the street and sleeps in a drafty attic.

      Eventually, he moves up to shoe-shine boy, and makes friends with a bunch of Rich guys.

      He ends up selling Apples, making ten times what he started as, and then, suddenly; a rich Uncle he never knew dies and he’s a millionaire.

      All because he kept plugging along.

      Republicans hoard stories like this.

      When you ask them about all the poor orphans who starved to death… they scoff; they don’t want to hear about that.

      I call this flaw in their Philosophy the “Dead Orphan Problem”.

      For every orphan that succeeds and becomes rich, 10,000 will starve or fall into prostitution.

      But, Liberal programs that keep people from starving… that give them the chance to keep plugging along in a low end job and reaching for that better day; Conservatives HATE those.

      Because they hate TAXES. Any Tax, unless it’s for funding the War Machine.

      Because the War Machine makes them feel all safe and snuggly.

      So, they need a pretext to convince the gullible why Government programs are BAD, without mentioning Taxes TOO often or bringing up the Dead Orphan Problem.

      So they manufactured this myth that a Government program that keeps people from starving to death actually discriminates against the poor.

      Well, we spend twice as much on Corporate Welfare as we do on actually FEEDING hungry people, so doesn’t that mean we’re discriminating against the Corporations?

      After all, if they were desperate enough to compete harder, cut Executive Pay, and take on jobs they’d otherwise think too risky or had too little profit margin, wouldn’t THEY be visited by the Desperation Fairy ?

      And then they’d be RICH !

      Oh, wait. They’re already Rich.

      “statists tend not to care about the poor as anything other than hostages to shame and capture the guilt of the innocent”

      No, you imbecile.

      Liberals ACTUALLY care about the poor. We ACTUALLY think it’s Society’s Duty to help them.

      Only Randian Sociopaths believe crap like this; they NEED to demonize even Charity and Altruism because they know most sane people approve of these things.

      After all, it was your Patron Saint, Ayn Rand, that said “Altruism is Evil”.

      And as far as Christ and Taxes go… the Pharisees sent a man to test him on this. The man asked Christ, “should we pay taxes to Rome?”

      If Christ said “Yes”, the anti-tax brigade would be against him.

      If Christ had said “No”, then they would report him to the Romans as Seditious.

      Christ asked the man whose visage was on his coins.

      The man said “Why, Caesar’s”.

      Christ said “Render unto Caesar what is Caesars’”.

      Thus foiling the plot against him.

      Then as now, Taxes pay for roads, bridges, the Military, and public utilities.

      Those are things we all need to thrive and do business.

      Living without Government is simply impossible, and Governments require tax revenue to function.

      I despair, sometimes, of getting Objectivists to see Reason; you’re as much of a Cult as the Republicans are.

      LEAVE.

      Go to Somalia.

      Start your adventure of living without Government, and PROVE to all of us that you can create a Libertarian Country without taxes.

      Because it’s NEVER BEEN DONE.

      The first flu epidemic that comes along will wipe you out entirely.

      • Matthew Reece

        A field full of strawmen. I am not a Republican, conservative, an Ayn Randite, a supporter of corporations, or a supporter of the military-industrial complex.

        Statists do not care about the poor. They ship the poor off to die in wars, force them into indoctrination centers where they graduate unable to read, and trap them in an underclass with entitlement programs. Libertarians care about the poor, and that is why we want the state out of their way.

        You have the burden to prove that roads, bridges, the military, and public utilities cannot be provided through free enterprise because claiming that the state is necessary for these is a positive claim.

        People once said that ending slavery could not be done. People once said that a constitutional republic could not be formed. They were on the wrong side of history, and so are you.

    • Laila

      You’re right, Jesus didn’t steal anything from anyone. Those who had were willing to give to help their fellow man. Funny how a couple thousand years change things.

    • Michael Rowe

      Jesus said “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s.” He was talking about paying your taxes and shutting up about it.

  • Mrs_oatmeal

    Every man an island? We know how that works, Matthew. Many of those government programs help people. Just ask Mitt Romney, whose family received Welfare when they moved from
    Mexico back to the USA. ( fact). Or Paul Ryan , who received Social Security and grants for College after his father died. ( fact). I guess they are the exception. They got theirs, so screw everyone else. Right?

    • Matthew Reece

      False dilemma fallacy. There are more options than statism and Crusoe economics.

      • William Carr

        There are only TWO philosophies though.

        Liberalism, that acknowledges that change happens and we need to adapt and grow, and Conservatism, that treats social progress as a threat to their social status.

        That’s the clash that’s been happening for Centuries.

        The best compromise Economically was The New Deal; prosperity for the Middle Class, with partnerships between business and Government.

        Reagan destroyed that. We know what works, we only have to go back to it.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        matthew need to take a big shit,,,,,,he is obviously stuffed up

      • Michael Rowe

        Oh Matthew, I’m sure you think that makes you sound very intelligent, but you’re wrong, alas. And you can babble about ‘statism” and “Crusoe economics” till the cows come home, but the meme is 100% right: the GOP philosophies have zip to do with what Christ taught, so they’ve got not business using Him as a campaign shill.

    • Mike Minyen

      Yes but theirs was a special situation, their not like “those” other people

      • Marty Cox

        haahhahahahahahahha only in THEIR minds!

    • Cathryn Sykes

      That’s it in a nutshell, Mrs. Oatmeal. They have theirs, so screw everyone else. Except they take it even further. They have theirs, and they will always NEED MORE….so they take it from everyone else. And claim that they got theirs because they are morally, intellectually or philosophically superior (often ignoring the parents who were rich, the help they got along the way from others, the governmental help they got) and they deserve more for the same reason. Petty, mean, greedy people. And they do it all in the name of freedom. Their freedom. No one else deserves it.

      • buricco

        The world is not enough…

    • langranny

      Isn’t that what Jesus said? “I’ve got mine, screw the rest of you”…

      • lance1949

        Yup. I think I read that in the Republican Manifesto so it must be true.

  • Katie jay

    I called them cafeteria Christians … Pick what fits your agenda and move on. However, they may get a surprise at check out time!

    • lance1949

      Assuming you really believe that anything happens at checkout time.

  • April

    One of my favorite conservative answers is that when Jesus said “feed my sheep” it was a metaphor. Really? And why is that a metaphor but the creation story is not? Because based on example (manna in the desert, the loaves and fishes), he meant “FEED my people”

    • Diggingdeeper

      It is definitely a metaphor, but people take a metaphor to mean “it means nothing”. It didn’t mean, literally, to go out and find the baaing wolly creatures that belonged to Jesus over 2000 years ago. It was a metaphor which means to feed, to nourish the people of the world. If anything it is a metaphor that calls for people to go deeper. A commanding metaphor of the time had more than one meaning, the most basic is the most literal translation, that is, taking it as you said, to feed the people. That was supposed to be taken as GRANTED. That was the minimum required action based upon the command. But you must go beyond that /because/ it is a metaphor. You must provide nourishment to them in every way, not just in the physical hunger, but beyond.
      That is what it means for a passage to be a metaphor. It doesn’t mean “It’s a metaphor, ignore it.” That trend of dismissing metaphors is what anti-intellectualism in Conservative Christianity is all about.

    • Kenneth James Abbott

      What Jesus DIDN’T mean is “Steal someone else’s money and use it to feed My sheep.”

  • Mike Minyen

    Jesus was the ultimate flaming liberal, Obama could be the leader of the Tea Party compared to him. If you call yourself a Christian and hold conservative Republican values, that house on a hilltop in a gated community you fantasize is being prepared for you…Yea your name is not on the mail box.

    • Michael Rowe

      Amen.

  • Sally Strange

    You don’t have to be a Christian to believe in the values for which Christianity stands. Which is one of the reasons why I call myself a Christian.

    I don’t understand why this is not an argument against calling yourself a Christian.

  • Tommy Towne Piercing

    I was expecting a better article. Most right wing christsins I know would tear this article apart. Ayn Rand is on the Libertarian Party book shelf not the GOP head quarters. The GOP reads the bible and autobiographies about Reagan.

    • Matthew Reece

      “Ayn Rand is on the Libertarian Party book shelf”
      Sadly, yes. She ought to be edged out in favor of Murray Rothbard, Samuel Konkin III, Hans Hoppe, etc.

  • Lois Heckman

    how about CHRINO – Christian in name only!

  • Steve Yu

    Even Ayd Rand said that her philosophy is in direct contradiction to that of Christ!

  • Liberal idiots piss me off

    You sure do seem to hold quite a bit of hatred for republicans, or half our country roughly, for someone ranting about how much hatred others have

  • William Carr

    When we strip off the lies, we see the Truth.

    Republicans are Cultists.

    Like any Cult, they want more power, they want more followers, and they even stockpile weapons like a Cult.

  • jobeob987

    The
    point of this article is trying to make is good in that our social
    system should help those in need and Jesus taught that but it doesn’t
    tell the whole story. Jesus said if you love me keep my commandments.
    Jesus commanded a great many things through out the gospels and he
    defined marriage as between one man and one woman. He also said that
    sex outside of marriage is sin. The apostle Paul received his message
    from Jesus and what he taught the Corinthians caused many of them to
    repent of their sinful ways. One of those sins was homosexuality. This
    is the problem I have with the article. Most conservative know the
    things that I just said. What they don’t seem to get is that the rest
    of Jesus’ teaching are just as crucial; like sell your possessions and
    give the poor Luke 12: 33, love you enemies and turn the other cheek and
    those that make peace will be called the sons of God; not the best
    recipe for consumer drive society. The word of God is a two edged sword
    that cuts both ways. The saying of Christ sound like they would be
    hard to do in fact they are impossible but when you are yoked to him the
    burden is light.

    • taymie

      provide me with the passages in which Jesus defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

      • jobeob987

        4-6 He
        answered, “Haven’t you read in your Bible that the Creator originally
        made man and woman for each other, male and female? And because of this,
        a man leaves father and mother and is firmly bonded to his wife,
        becoming one flesh—no longer two bodies but one. Because God created
        this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art by
        cutting them apart.” Matthew 19 The Message

      • jobeob987

        4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Matthew 19
        New International Version

  • Cathryn Sykes

    How much plainer could Christ have made it? Note: He doesn’t mention going to church. He doesn’t mention prayer. He doesn’t mention singing hymns or smiting the unbeliever or building giant temples or churches. Matthew 25: 34-46:

    34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

    37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

    40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

    41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

    44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

    45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

    46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01033370072650216855 ItStartedWithAWindmill

    Many people that are devoted church-going Christians absolutely need the very minimal guidance that their interpretation of Christianity brings. Think for a moment how dangerous some of these people could be without this minimal “Christian” guidance in their lives? It isn’t difficult to see how easily groups of people can become become Nazis when the guidance of their religion collapses or allows for genocide, all while ignoring the tenets of their religion.

  • John Lynch

    What’s the point of debating an anarchist? Do you think you’ll change his mind?

    Take comfort in knowing he’s just wasting his self-indulgent time – and don’t waste any more of yours. I sure won’t.

  • Guest

    awww,,,,,,,,,the FAKE small dicked user of my name is crying!!! best part??? “HE” has supremely complimented me—and show how I have INDEED nestled under his white trash regressive crybaby skin– by being forced to imitate my name in HOPES of making me(??) look foolish with “HIS” infantile posts. He is now going to practice his quotidian onanistic tendencies after ingesting visually some porn

  • speakoutforscience

    Hallelujah!!!!

  • Nick Papageorgio

    Matthew 23-25:

    23And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

    24″Again
    I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
    needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

    25When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?”

    • nextstep99

      The lead up verses to the “camel and the eye of a needle” are more explicit.

      “Sell everything you have and give to the poor.”

      The Rich Young Ruler – (Matthew 19:16-30)
      22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
      23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy.
      24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!
      25 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.”

  • Amee

    Wow! I feel like you took a peak into my brain and pulled this out! This explains exactly how I feel! I am so sock of hypocrites spewing hate!!

  • lance1949

    It seems to me that Republicans link ‘Liberalism’ with ‘Unchristian’. I have no real idea where this attitude came from but it is totally right. I have a suspicion that ‘Liberals’ are actually more Christian that most Republicans because liberals act in more Christian ways that do Republicans independent of Church attendance levels. Going to Church is no guarantee that you live as good Christian life.

  • xbj

    It’s called militant christianism, the PURELY political perversion of True Christianity as Jesus Christ taught, lived, and died, solely based on achieving great wealth for power’s sake, to force a one-party conservative theocracy based on Judaic Law upon the planet, starting with the US. And too often terrorist in nature when it comes to denying women’s reproductive rights. christianism is to True Christianity what Zionism, a purely political movement of imperialism, is to True Judaism, a religion.

  • Dennis

    I’ve thought a lot about this. NO ONE, who understands the difference between Old Testament religions and New Testament religions should be shocked. Old Testament religions advocate xenophobia, hate, intolerance, mysogeny, and bigotry. New Testament religions advocate peace, acceptance, equality, and tolerance. He has a right to practice and preach his religious beliefs – shining the light of day on their outmoded and intolerant beliefs will teach everyone the true nature of OT Christianity….

  • Getaclueyouliberal

    A BUNCH OF LIBERAL DRIBBLE! If liberal/progressives want to pretend to know republicans that’s fine…OR they can be truthful! But we all know that isn’t going to happen, because liberalism is a disease that corrupts the brain and turns it to mush!!

  • Kien Tran

    Ayn Rand would roll in her grave.

  • lindylou

    I have been referring to them as “Christopublicans”.

  • JAMES PAINTER

    Amazing, Atheists embracing Christ to show their hate.

    • lisa palmer

      Helping feed the poor, educating the poor, providing support for child care while they work and go to school, making healthcare affordable and available to the poor, providing public transportation and housing support for the poor, advocating for a living wage for the poor, this is not a religious position. This is a moral position. It happens tocoincide with the overwhelming majority of teachings and behavior of Jesus. So, tell me, James, just what is the hateful part of that? Or is this all about you; you feel hated an persecuted, am I right? (Tiny violins playing).

  • Sunny Ray

    One thing Jesus says clearly and more than once, hypocrites will burn in hell…

  • Peter Pullar

    I recommend reading the book “When helping hurts” – alleviating poverty without hurting the poor. It helped me understand many of the individual strengths and weaknesses of each side.

    • miketothad

      Sounds like more right wing bullshit.

  • FiachSidhe

    “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
    - Matthew 19:24

  • Pingback: Introducing My New Religion, Cliff-stianity()

  • deedee2die4

    The largest growth in MuriKan Xianism is the Abundance groups. The appeal of being a Rupblocrat is that when one hits the G-Bus lottery, one doesn’t want Big Government taking back their Devine Abundance.

  • Pingback: The Republican Party is Driven by Two of the Most Destructive Forces in Human History()

  • Pingback: Christian Chaplain Preaches Love, Acceptance and Peace - Then Gets Fired For It (Video)()