Jesus For Congress?
 Just a few more days and then we can return to our regular diet of commercials for little blue pills, feminine hygiene products, and the latest gadgets you can get for only $19.99 plus shipping and handling.But wait, there’s more! That’s right. Before you can experience that return to nether land and enjoy a sweeps month of no reruns of your favorite shows, you have to endure one last week of campaign ads, all aimed at convincing you that everyone running for office is either: A. a sleaze ball B. a thief, murderer, or child molester C. a commie, socialist, pinko, gun hating Godless idiot D. an extremely estreme extremist or E. all of the above It’s a wonder anyone would want to serve when to get elected, you must subject yourself to the most heinous character assignations imaginable. Valerie Dixon, writing in the On Faith column of the Washington Post recently, wondered how Jesus might fare if he were running for office in any of the most competitive districts across the United States next Tuesday. See what you think as he imagines what types of commercials His opponent might run. On foreign policy: Scene: A shot of the World Trade Center towers falling. Voiceover: 9/11. The nation suffers the worst attack on its soil in history. But Jesus says that we ought to love the people who did this. He says: "do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who misuse and persecute you." (Matthew 5:44) Love al Qaeda? Do good to the people who attacked us? This is no plan to keep us safe. Jesus. Soft on defense. Wrong for America. On guilt by association: Scene: Nighttime on a city corner where prostitutes and drug dealers are doing business. Cut to Jesus having dinner with the same people. Voice: People are known by the company they keep. Jesus is friend to prostitutes, drug dealers, tax collectors. Is this the kind of man we want in the United States Senate? Jesus. He's just not one of us. On family values: Scene: Children outside playing in the yard, happy and carefree. The father is washing the car while the mother watches from the kitchen window. Everyone is happy and contented. Voice: Strong families are the backbone of America. Faith and family are what make this country strong. Next scene: Father and son are screaming at each other. A daughter stomps out of the room, slams the door and leaves the mother looking lost and bewildered. Voice: But Jesus wants families to be at war with each other. He said: "For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be those of his own household." (Matthew 10: 35-36) Is this what we want for our families? Is war in our homes a family value? Keep Jesus in Nazareth and in the carpenter's shop. We do not need him in Washington. On Jesus' patriotism: Scene: Jesus is speaking to a large audience. He says: "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the Day of Judgment than for you." (Matthew 11: 21-22) Voice: Why does Jesus hate America? Do we really want someone who hates his country so much making laws for us? Real America, tell Jesus no on Election Day. On socialism: Scene: A scene from the movie Dr. Zhivago when he comes home from the war to find strangers living in his house. The woman says there was room for many families here. Freeze frame. Voice: Karl Marx says that the government ought to take from each according to his abilities, and give to each according to his needs. This is socialism. This is communism. Jesus agrees with Marx. He says to be saved, you have to give your hard-earned possessions away. He said: "Go and sell whatever you have and give it to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven."(Mark 10: 21) Jesus. Socialism. Dangerous for America. Your thoughts? Labels: Elections, jesus, Valerie Dixon |
posted by Dave Miller at 8:59 AM
Comments on "Jesus For Congress?"
-
Beth said ... (9:44 AM) :
-
Doug said ... (11:12 AM) :
-
timmer said ... (11:25 AM) :
-
Beth said ... (12:44 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (2:38 PM) :
-
Doug said ... (5:10 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (9:16 PM) :
-
RickXIII said ... (10:24 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (10:35 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (10:40 AM) :
-
Lista said ... (2:52 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (3:00 PM) :
-
Beth said ... (7:03 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (6:05 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (10:30 AM) :
-
Shaw Kenawe said ... (1:37 PM) :
-
dmarks said ... (7:52 PM) :
-
Beth said ... (6:29 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (9:45 AM) :
-
Lista said ... (11:06 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (11:21 AM) :
-
Lista said ... (11:51 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (2:10 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (4:19 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (4:36 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (5:26 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (6:32 AM) :
-
Lista said ... (9:20 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (7:27 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (7:56 PM) :
-
Beth said ... (10:03 PM) :
-
BB-Idaho said ... (5:33 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (7:25 PM) :
-
BB-Idaho said ... (6:43 AM) :
-
Lista said ... (2:13 PM) :
post a commentShows to me how the Bible is spun to serve one's agenda.
IMHO - Jesus would never run nor agree to run for office. He was never here for a popularity contest or to win votes or even gain fame or fortune.
Jesus lead by example and chosing to follow that example is a personal choice. Not necessarily a political one.
And yes, Beth, the Bible is and always will be spun by others to serve their own agenda.
To bad it was put here for another reason.
Brilliant Dave. Hilarious.
Well said, Doug.
Thanks Timmer, nice to hear from you again...
Beth and Doug, it also shows how people can ascribe terrible motives to someone who is trying to really do good.
Dave, true enough.
However, people can mean well and try really hard and still go about it the wrong way.
And, people can do everything right, and still fail.
Oh yeah, and they can do all the wrong things and still succeed.
Doug has made two very Inspiring Comments and He Speaks a lot of Truth in both of them.
Jesus also had a Lot more to Say about a Person's Personal Walk, than about How a Country should be Run.
About the Only Political Thing that comes to mind right now is the Example in the Old Testament of how the Israelites wanted a King (Monarchy). God didn't Approve of the Decision, but Allowed it anyway.
There was also a Mention by Jesus, that we Should Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's, or in other Words, Pay your Taxes, yet there was no Mention of whether Taxes should be High or Low, or Rather Government should be Big or Small.
For the most part, though, Jesus did not Mention much about Politics and Spoke Mostly about a Person's Personal Walk and not much about the Structure of Government.
Beth is Right that the Bible can be Spun to Serve One's Own Agenda, but IMO, the Bible is Rather Neutral on Issues that Relate to Politics.
Since even God has Given the People the Right to Chose whether to do Right or Wrong, there is Credence in the Idea that the Government should not Be Forcing People to do the Right Thing. Perhaps even if the Right Thing involves Supporting the Poor, yet I'm also not Opposed to the Idea of the Government Collecting Taxes in order to Support the Poor, within Reason.
I don't Use the Bible to Support this Idea, though, because as I said, I Think the Bible is Actually Quite Neutral on the Subject of Politics.
But, but..... I thought Jesus was already our President. Or is he Moses?
Or is he Jackie Robinson, or perhaps Lucifer? Or maybe Mahatma Gandhi.
In my humble opinion he's more like Satan!
Nice Rick, you are apparently not even aware that you are exactly the type of person Valerie Dixon is mocking...
Too bad you don't have a live link, my friends might think I just made your comment up.
Doug, you hit a great nail on the head! People can have all the right intentions, and still do a bad job, or not get it right.
My argument is with the folks that because they do not agree with whatever those methods may be, choose to assume the worst in people, as evidenced by Rick.
For instance, I know people are upset with President Obama and the direction of his government, or policies.
But isn't it possible that he is a good man, loves America, desires the best for the American people, but just got it wrong?
There's is nothing wrong with that. It states an opinion, yet still treats him with respect and honor.
Shouldn't our political system work like that? Not only for the Democrats but for Republicans as well?
You are Right, Dave, that People Assume the Worst of People, yet what Frustrates me is that a Person Like Obama does have some Significant Flaws, yet the People who Support him Down Play them. In Short, those who do not Like him Exaggerate his Faults, yet those who do Like him Down Play them.
When I say, for Example, that I Think Obama is Sympathetic to Terrorists in ways that he Shouldn't be, I am not Saying that he is Satan Himself, but Simply that I think he is too Sympathetic to Terrorists.
The Possible Consequences of being Overly Sympathetic to Terrorists, though, should not be Down Played.
Sadly the President does not act like he loves America, in my opinion. He does not believe in American exceptionalism, and he seems to think many Americans are evil. I truly want to give him the respect he deserves, but I don't feel he gives many of us any respect.
And there in lies the problem Beth. People can make the same statements, wrongly I believe. about Bush.
We need to reject that kind of thinking, rise above it, and move forward.
Again, just because someone is wrong, does not mean they acted with wrong motives, but that has become our way of thinking as it relates to politics.
"He said: "Go and sell whatever you have and give it to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven."(Mark 10: 21) Jesus. Socialism. Dangerous for America."
Socialism is all about submission to authority: turning over your treasures to the ruling elites. The only place where socialism intersects the Gospels is in "Render unto Ceasar". That one phrase of Scripture pretty much covers it for socialism.
I'd vote for Jesus for president, but he'd probably choose all men for his cabinet--and probably create a Department of Fishermen.
Who would blame him?
Perhaps He could place Mary Madgalene in a cabinet post, to appease those demanding token female appointments.
The loaves-and-fishes foodstamps issued by the administration would be pretty cool.
You know Dave, how come libs want cry about the separation of church and state when a town wants to display a nativity, but then a lib uses Jesus in politics such as you posted here?
Beth, while not part of what I posted about I'll give it a shot.
This isn't a state/government blog, so there is no separation of church and state here.
But when a city, or government wants to display that nativity, it does seem as if it is showing favoritism towards one religion or the other.
Since our Constitution, at least as it is currently being interpreted, has that wall between the two, it is problematic.
My point in this posting is not so much whether Jesus should, or should not be involved in politics.
It was to show that if you are determined to demonize someone, you can do so pretty easily.
I think that was one of, if not the message of the weekend rallies in D.C. which I admit, I did not see at all.
But returning to the nativity question, what if we had a state government that was majority non Christian, would people who supported the placement of nativities on government support that particular state displaying their stuff?
For instance, would it be alright for the government of Hawai'i to display a statue of Buddha on government land and have the noble 8 fold path listed on all the court room walls in that state?
I would probably say no, but I would assume the states rights people, trying to be consistent, would say yes.
I am just thinking here, no developed thoughts or arguments yet.
It is not Unconstitutional for a Nativity to be Displayed on Public Property, it just can not be Sponsored by the Government. Some Private Group has to Sponsor it.
In Southern California, where we used to Live, there is such a Nativity, and In Fact, Booths Containing the Entire Christmas Story Displayed every year in a Grassy Center Divider of a Public Highway. It is Sponsored by a Group of Churches in the Area and some other Group Decided to Add a Display of a Menorah.
It Continues to be Legal as long as it is Sponsored by Private Groups and not by the Government.
I Suppose if someone Wanted to Add Something about Buddha, that would be Legal as well, as long as the Government was not Sponsoring it. So far, no one has done so.
Lista, I am talking about something on government property, as I think Beth is too.
What happens on private property, like a private blog, is not the same.
I'm not Talking about Private Property, Dave. I am Talking about a the Center Divider of a Public Street. It is Public Property and this Issue did go Through the Court System, yet the Decision that was made is that the Government can not Sponsor it, but a Private Party or Organization can. The Display was not Shut Down. It Still Continues every Year just as before and this is in the Liberal State of California.
Probably because it is not seen as a government property, even though, of course it is.
But it is much different from say, city hall.
My issue with all of this comes down to whether we as Christians believe any religion should have all of whatever rights we believe they are due, or just ours.
Typically, we tend to fall on the just ours side of the ledger...
You Know Dave,
Not everyone sees things in the Unreasonable Biased Way that you Suppose. I Grant you that Quite a Few People do, but not Everyone.
Of course Every Religion is going to be Granted the Same Rights. To me, that is Obvious and I would never Ask it to be otherwise.
The Nativity Display that I was Talking about had been a Holiday Tradition for many many Years and to all of a Sudden Take that Away would have been Tragic.
Perhaps there is a Difference between Government Property, such as City Hall, and simply Public Property, which of Course also belongs to the Government. The Public Property Issue, though, is the one that the Most Concerns me, because there should be Freedom of Speech in such Places.
Yeah I completely agree Lista on the public property areas.
But I guess I would still ask the question if, for instance, some of the more conservative people, would be as open to religious displays if they were not Christian.
I think the view towards the Islamic Center in New York might give us some insight into that.
The Conflict over the Islamic Center has more to do with Location in Relation to the Twin Towers, than with the Forbidding of the Building of such Centers. I'm really Surprised that you don't see that Distinction.
Oh I do Lista, but I also saw many comments from people saying the most awful stuff about Muslims in general and how we shouldn't let them have even one Mosque in this country.
I'll admit that I am more skeptical of the tolerance of the majority, but it has been around for a long long time.
It is a very Machiavellian trend...
Ok, I see that you are just as Upset at what I call Extremism as I am. Sometimes I call it Extremism and sometimes I call it Black and White Thinking and by that I mean if it is not All One Way, than it is All the Other. In Other Words, Muslims are either all Good, or they are all Evil.
I Disagree with this because in Reality there are good People who are Muslim and then there are the Terrorists.
What I Feel Like Saying to you now, though, and Perhaps also to myself, is that if we Focus only on the Extremes, or even on Correcting those who Dwell in such Extremes, then we may be Avoiding Talking about the Specific Real Issues just as much as the Extremists that we are Criticizing.
Dave asked: "For instance, would it be alright for the government of Hawai'i to display a statue of Buddha on government land and have the noble 8 fold path listed on all the court room walls in that state?"
I would not care if the government were not wasting money on it. If you don't like it, ignore it.
In Response to the Buddha Statue on Government Land. It is not alright for the Government to Sponsor and Pay for such a Display. It has to be Sponsored, Payed for and Placed there by a Private Group or Party. I'm not sure Exactly how this Law is Written, but it seems to me that it also should not be a Permanent Display.
The Display that I was Talking about was a Temporary Holiday Display and as I Mentioned, a Jewish Group Decided to add a Booth that Displayed the Menorah in Honor of Hanukkah, which was Fine. No One Complained.
There is no "wall of separation" in the Constitution.
"There is no "wall of separation" in the Constitution." The framers intent is clear:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Thos. Jefferson
1802 He was referring to
Article VI, para 3 regarding all members of the federal gov't and state gov'ts .."no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
..the intent of which is
clarified in the establishment clause of the first amendment.
While 'wall' does not appear in the constitution, the intent does- According to one of the framers of that document.
The Constitution Explains the "Wall of Separation" that Thomas Jefferson Wrote about. It was not Worded that way in the Constitution. Instead it says, "make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This is more about Law, than about What we can and can not do on Public Property.
And then there is the other Quote, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.", which is about the Election of Political Offices and again, not about what one can and can not do on Public Property.
We can not be Bound, BB, by the Opinion of ONE of the Framers of the Constitution.
"We can not be Bound, BB, by the Opinion of ONE of the Framers of the Constitution." That interpetation is why the
Westboro Baptist Church
is permitted to carry signs like 'God Loves IEDS'
Your son died for Fags" at
the funerals of fallen
soldiers...perhaps another
founder?
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses." John Adams
"The first was a government of priestcraft, the second of conquerors, and the third of reason"
-Thomas Paine
"An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government." James Madison
There is no Doubt that the Freedom of Speech is Sometimes Misused in Ways that are Really Rude, yet that doesn't Change the Fact that the Freedom of Speech is Protected. I do not Believe, though, that Funeral Homes, Churches and Cemeteries are Considered Public Property, for these Things are Generally Run and Owned by either Some Group or Someone, Except of Course for the Military One that is Owned by the Government.
If someone Wants to Add an Amendment to the Constitution, though, giving some sort of Extra Protection at Funerals, on Cemetery Property, at Hospitals and the Like, Honoring the Wishes of those who are Morning, I would not be Opposed, yet to Forbid the Expression of both Politics and Religion on Public Property is just Plain Silly. This is a Freedom of Speech Issue, not a Separation of Church and State Issue.
There are also a lot of Quotes that were made by the Christian Founding Fathers that are Interesting. It just Depends on which of the Founding Fathers a Person decides the most to Look Up to and Respect.
Also, I do not Hardly Think that a Private Group Putting up Displays of the Nativity and the Christmas Story in the Center Divider of a Public Street Hardly Constitutes an Alliance or Coalition between Government and Religion, BB, nor was it "Aided" in any way by Government.
Don't you see? This has all been Taken Out of Context and Once Again, this is a Freedom of Speech Issue, not a Separation of Church and State Issue.