Five Key Christian Values and How Republicans Don’t Represent Any of Them

jesus-healthcareAnyone who follows politics is well aware of the fact that conservatives try to paint themselves as people who represent the “moral majority.”  And even though our First Amendment clearly forbids it, Republican politicians often do their best to interject their religious beliefs into public policy.

Which is really ironic when you consider these are the people who seem to never shut up about “Constitutional values.”  Our First Amendment is pretty direct.  “Freedom of religion” which is also means freedom from religion.  It’s also fairly evident, by the lack of the word “Christianity” appearing even once in our Constitution, that our Founding Fathers didn’t want religion playing a part in our government.

Still, that doesn’t stop Republicans from constantly trying to force their warped view of “Christianity” into much of the legislation they attempt to force on the American people.

But I’ve never quite understood where Republicans get off claiming Christianity.  Why, because many of them go to church?  Because many of them read the Bible?  The policies they support sure as heck don’t represent real Christian values.

I guess their opposition to abortion and homosexuality is where they stake their biggest claim to following “Christianity.”

However, I’m not sure that many Republicans know what being a Christian actually means.  Being a Christian does not simply mean going to church and following the Bible.  Christianity is defined by believing in, and following the Word, of Jesus Christ.

And guess what?  He never once spoke about homosexuality or abortion.  To judge your conviction to Christianity based on either of those issues means you’re assuming what Jesus would believe.  And isn’t it quite arrogant for anyone to assume they would know what the son of God would believe on two issues he never even spoke once about?

Good news though — Jesus did openly speak about many of the values which he did, in fact, support.  However, many of those aren’t reflected in the way many conservatives act and they’re damn sure not found in the policies supported by the GOP.

To showcase this hypocrisy I thought I’d run through five of the key traits which I’ve come to understand that Jesus Christ strongly supported and how Republicans simply don’t represent any of them.

So in no particular order, here we go.

1) Helping the poor 

Talk about supporting policies that basically do the opposite.  Right now, thanks to extra funding the 2009 stimulus had given our SNAP program (aka “food stamps”) running out, millions of Americans are set to have their benefits cut this month—right before the holidays.  Republicans could have extended them, but they chose not to.  Not only that, but they’re pushing for an additional $39 billion in cuts to the program.

All while pushing for more tax breaks for the rich and big corporations.

Add this on top of many Republican-controlled states refusing to expand Medicaid under “Obamacare” — denying the expansion of health care to millions of poor Americans — and they’re not only cutting food benefits for the poor, but health care benefits as well.

This list could honestly keep going on and on.  It seems that whenever Republicans need to make cuts, the first people they go after are the poorest among us.

2) Not judging others 

Another big swing and a miss for Republicans on this one.  There’s the famous example of Jesus Christ defending a woman set to be stoned to death for committing adultery by asking those who were there if any of them were free of sin, let them cast the first stone.  I summarized the quote of course, but the general point behind it is that we’re all sinners and it’s not our place to judge someone else for their indiscretions because we’re all flawed.

Well, Republicans judge everyone.  Basically, if you’re not a straight, white, church going male—you’re judged.  Hell, some of the most vile, hateful, ignorant judgement I’ve ever witnessed came from those who attended church frequently.  It seems high church attendance gives these people the feeling that they’re superior to others because they sit in a building and listen to someone tell them what is and isn’t acceptable.

I’m sure you know these types of people.  The alcoholic, been divorced three times with four kids by three different partners, angry, hateful, judgmental individual who goes around telling others what is morally right and wrong while making excuses for their own indiscretions in life.

The Republican party seemingly builds their entire social platform based on judging anyone and everyone who isn’t just like they are.

3) Being hopeful 

Honestly, Republicans are some of the most paranoid, fearful, angry people I run across.  Liberals might really dislike certain politicians (such as my disdain for Ted Cruz), but conservatives hate President Obama.  It’s a deep-seated, vile hatred the likes of which I’ve rarely seen.

Their entire party predicates itself on this perpetual notion that their values are constantly under attack and that at any moment everything they care about in life can be gone.

But then isn’t that the best way to keep people in check—through fear?  Fear can be paralyzing.  Honestly, fear is probably the most powerful emotion.  It can render people to such a state of mental instability that all rational thought and logic fly right out the window.  Which, for Republicans, is a great thing.

Conservatives are almost constantly fearful of the future.  As long as I’ve been alive, it seems they’re always in this state of mind that someone, or something, is out to get them.  Liberals are evil.  The government is evil.  Muslims are evil.  Homosexuals are evil.  President Obama is evil.

You get the picture.

4) Acceptance 

This one kind of ties into the whole “not judging” thing Republicans constantly fail at.  But it’s one thing to not judge someone — it’s quite another to actually accept someone who’s very different from yourself.

This is why I dismiss much of the “giving at church” that conservatives often use as evidence of their generosity and giving.  Sure, many conservatives give a great deal of money to their churches.  But guess what?  Many of them do so because they’re told that’s what they need to do to stay in the good graces of God.  Then when you look at the churches these people attend, they’re simply filled with people just like them.  It’s a lot easier to give your money to people who reflect exactly who you are.  But that doesn’t mean you’re being generous or giving.  Especially when you’re giving out of obligation to your religion, not an unwavering generosity and willingness to help.

But conservatives rarely accept anyone different from themselves.  Take President Obama for example.  We elected our first black president in 2008.  But, for many conservatives, we elected a foreign born, Muslim brotherhood supporting antichrist.  And don’t tell me his race has nothing to do with it.  If President Obama were white, Republicans still probably wouldn’t like him, but the blind hatred wouldn’t be near as intense.

One almost constant calling card of conservatives is resistance to change, not the acceptance of it.  Their social ideology seems decades behind most of the civilized world.  Doubt me?  Feel free to head to any small town in rural Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana or Georgia.  You’d think you were back in the 1950s the way many of these people think.

5) Helping those who can’t help themselves 

This one kind of ties together all four of the previous.  Jesus Christ didn’t ask those who sought his help why they needed help, he just helped them.

Republicans build an ideology that’s essentially based on “survival of the fittest.”  Get as much as you can, nearly any way you can, and if others can’t keep up—that’s their problem.

The way they build their system of beliefs is completely contradictory to Jesus Christ.  If someone fell down, before they lent a hand, they’d ask why they were on the ground instead of just helping them up.  To them, helping that person out equates to “socialism.”  Even though its readily apparent that the vast majority of conservatives don’t even know the definition of “socialism,” though they love to use the word frequently.

Republicans seem to make it a mission to vilify those who need help, while championing those who live a life of greed.  Now, I’m not one to begrudge anyone’s success or wealth.  Nor should people envy the rich.  However, we have a massive problem of the hoarding of wealth in this country by the top 1-2% of the population.  People whose entire purpose in life seems to be finding ways to be richer than they were last year.

While they seem to always want to cut funding for education, clear air, food for the needy and health care for the poor—they support massive tax breaks for the rich, oppose closing loopholes that allow wealthy Americans to pay lower taxes than those much poorer than they are and almost always staunchly oppose any legislation that doesn’t directly benefit the wealthiest among us.

Mind you, their contradiction toward all five of these beliefs is pulled off under the guise of being the “party for Christian values.”

The only problem is, almost nothing the Republican party stands for reflects the values for which Jesus Christ lived and died for.

So, how exactly are these people Christians?

Well, that answer’s simple—they’re not.  They follow Republicanity, not Christianity.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Jehovah

    Amen Brother. I have said for a long time about WWJD? HE would run like hell to get away from the Republican establishment. But, there is still time, because no one is ever too far from God that he won’t take you back. Stop loving money and start loving Him instead and see how much happier you are.

    • Lorrie Crabtree

      No he wouldn’t. He’d raise ten kinds of Hell, like he did with the money changers.

    • Chris Anderson

      And Jesus would condemn the Dems for their stand on Abortion and homosexuality. Period. Jesus was the perfect Jew. He followed every law, perfectly. But he was just. Ye who is without sin……He would tell the homosexual to go and sin no more and to follow HIM. God destroyed Sodom. He told the woman at the well to sin no more. You can’t pick and choose. Take the Bible as what it is: the perfect representation of what GOD wants us to be. It shows that man is no where perfect. But those who follow Christ and believe in Him as God/Man will be saved.

      • rose1957

        “You can’t pick and choose.” Better get out those stones to throw at your neighbor when he cuts his yard on the Sabbath, which–by the way–is Saturday. Better throw a few at your sassy, mouthy kids who disrespect their elders. Better spit out that shell fish and pork. Better check the label on your clothing to make sure it’s not blended threads. Better segregate your wives and daughters while they’re on their periods. Better check the rules on how to treat your slaves and buy virgins for your multiple-wife marriage.

  • Why5ks

    If people hate socialism, they can’t be Christians because Jesus was a card carrying member who gave his life to forgive all the sins of man, especially those seven deadly sins.

    • Matthew Reece

      In modern political terminology, Jesus would be a free market anarchist.

      • Why5ks

        If you want to really mess with Tea Partiers and “holier than thou” Republicans try explaining to them that Capitalism is not guaranteed by the Constitution but Socialism is written into the Constitution as the expressed mission of the government. On the first issue they believe without a doubt that Capitalism is in the Constitution because if you watch FauxNews they all but say it. Then you point out that Adam Smith didn’t even write his book stating his theory until 1776 and it didn’t even take hold throughout the country until the mid 1800’s. Then you show them in the Preamble to the Constitution which say the government “..promote the general Welfare” which is a socialist goal.

      • Guest

        They were following John Locke no Adam Smith

      • dveed

        John Locke was their guide; not Adam Smith. “general Welfare” does NOT mean what you think it does. Language shift MUST be taken into account – which educated people do and Jackasses don’t.

      • Why5ks

        Which is what I was doing, since I was a History/Poli Sci major in college with an emphasis on Constitutional Law. So trust me, it means exactly what I think. The US was not a Capitalistic Society during the American Revolution or during the founding of our Constitutional Republic. We were still an Agricultural and Mercantile based society. The break up of the Whig Party is a good tracking indicator of this country’s shift from those economic systems into a Capitalist system. The Civil War was the final nail in the coffin for the old system. As for the general Welfare it appears in the Preamble, and though the court has rule that the Preamble can not be used as a lone jurisdictional factor in determining Constitutionality of a law, it can be used to determine the intent of the authors when there may be conflicting issues within the document. And the founders did intend that the general Welfare meant that government has an obligation to take care of the citizens, whether that be at the local, state, or national level is to be determined by the other provisions within the Constitution. As for John Locke I make no argument about he being a philosophical driving force behind many of the founders of this country, but that has nothing to do with what I said. Adam Smith wrote “Wealth of Nations” which is generally referred to as the first major work on global economics, which is the birth of Capitalism.

      • Chris Anderson

        Why5ks: Why don’t you log on as your own name and not hid yourself? Coward or just yellow? The US was founded on Christian principals. Period. Jefferson attended church every Sunday. He even admits that he prayed to GOD for guidance. Why did the framers of the constitution start every meeting with a prayer to invoke God’s guidance?

      • Why5ks

        Read all of Jefferson’s writings and even he says the country was not founded on Christian principles, but on the principle that there has to be a higher power to guide all peoples or there is no right or wrong without that higher power. The fact that each of the founders were devout people and they still felt the need to make sure the government was not a Christian government speaks volumes. As for my name what difference does it make? You won’t know me even if you know it. I am Thomas Hall, does that help you, feel better now?

      • Independent and proud of it

        The founders did NOT intend that the government “has an obligation to take care of the citizens” — at least not in the sense that seemed to be implied by modern leftist economics arguments. How do we know? BECAUSE THEY DID NOT DO IT.

      • Why5ks

        I guess you’ve spent more of your time reading Rand when you should have been reading Locke.

      • Truthseeker

        5Ks, the Constitution says “promote the general welfare…” not “provide the general welfare.” Words have specific meanings, especially in legal documents such as our Constitution. Nowhere in our Constitution do ANY basic concepts of socialism exist. Economic freedom and socialism cannot coexist. You either have one or the other.

      • Why5ks

        @Truthseeker you can keep spreading a myth, that doesn’t make it true. The promote general Welfare does mean exactly what I think it means, not the greed based interpretation you are spreading. Most of the founding fathers were followers of John Locke and were inspired by his principles. Democracy and pure economic freedom can not exist either. There is a basic fundamental principle about democracy that most ultra capitalists forget. Democracy is a shared experience. And I don’t mean shared in the sense that they are rich and get to use the rest of us for cannon fodder and profit.

      • Independent and proud of it

        Just because “promote the general Welfare” may be a claimed socialist goal does not mean that even one socialist policy accomplishes that goal.

        I know lots of people who have a goal of losing weight and every thing they do opposes that goal.

        Even the most left wing economists I know these days think that some form of capitalism does a better job at achieving the goal of general welfare than a purely socialist state would.

      • bcmugger

        Lets just have a revolution tomorrow and see who wins. You communist bastards wouldnt last a week.

    • Twinsfantravis

      Jesus Christ was not a socialist, or capitalist, or anarchist, or any other “-ist”. He did not care about politics. That is a major the reason the Jews rejected him as the Messiah. When asked if they should pay taxes to the tyrannical Caesar who the Jews had been fighting for there independence from, Jesus told them to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”. If he wanted to change the world through politics, or wanted us to invest a significant part of our lives in them, he would have made himself a Senator, not a carpenter.

      Also, the “Seven Deadly Sins” are not any deadlier than any other sin; all are equally detestable to God.

      • Why5ks

        Just so you understand Socialism can be a political/economic system, also, in Marxism it is the developmental stage between capitalism and communism, but it can also be a life style philosophy. Jesus was a socialist in philosophy, not politically. He taught us to love each other and to take care of each other. We are to accept everyone and not judge others, because we are all children of God. Thus we are all equal and just as valuable as everyone else. And when I used the term seven deadly sins this was merely an iconic reference.

      • Chris Anderson

        show me 1 place where Socialism has worked.

      • it always turn into a oppressive dictatorship.

      • Twinsfantravis

        I get what you are saying. However, your implication was that Jesus (being a “card carrying member” of the socialist party) would support socialism as a political ideology. Your post is on a thread that is about politics. If you are referring to socialism as a life style choice on this thread, you need to state it. My argument was that he would treat socialists with the same apathy he treated the tyranny of the caesars.

      • Why5ks

        I did state it, but part of the exchange of ideas also centers on understanding other peoples’ understanding of the meaning of words. I love having great debates and cerebral exercises in jousting (for lack of a better term). I was offended by your exchange, I realized you were only asking for the rationale in my perspective. I have no problem expressing and defending what ever position I choose to take. I find it impossible to learn or better understand something without questioning it. Unfortunately on the internet very few people want to make an intelligent argument in a discussion. Everyone wants to make a partisan political statement and how do you learn a new way to look at anything if everyone is 100% agreeing with you or 100% calling you delusional. Just read some of the other comments in response to what I have written on this same thread. I can play that game, but I would rather have thought provoking discussions.

    • Roger Cotton

      Nonsense. Jesus was by no means a Socialist. Socialism is FORCED charity. And, Jesus most certainly wasn’t for abortion, institutionalized theft (redistribution), immoral behavior, or any number of “Progressive” ideals.

      • Why5ks

        Please show me a reference where Jesus said he was against those things. First, Jesus never said a single thing about abortion, not once. Second, I would argue the parable about dividing the loaves and the fish speaks a lot more about taking care of everyone and redistributing the wealth then anything he ever said or did that would suggest the opposite. Third, Jesus said quite a bit about immoral behavior, and most of that disproves your point entirely. The woman who was to be stoned for adultery, did he call her a harlot of curse her immoral deeds? No he bent over the woman and helped her to her feet and chastised those who were going to condemn her to death. He also frequently told all his followers WE ARE ALL SINNERS and he preached that if you ask for forgiveness you shall be forgiven. As for your asinine comment about him not liking “Progressive” ideals you are just wrong, wrong, wrong. He was the Progressive thinker of his time, which in the end is why he was crucified. He challenged the normal, the conformity minded people (like yourself), and told people that what was really important to his father was that we love one another and ask forgiveness for our sins, not all the traditional church dogmas and traditions that they have been taught. You need to spend more time understanding Jesus and less time understanding religion and humans telling you what God is all about.

      • Roger Cotton

        Socialism is a political ideology that is counter to what Jesus taught. God gave us Free Will. Being forced by Big Government to “donate” is not the same thing as charity. Charity is an individual’s choice. Redistributing tax monies in order to replace individual charity is Socialism. Jesus never espoused this.

        Misquoting or misinterpreting the Bible is easily done by Progressives. Which is ironic, considering they view religion and God as superstition.

      • cjmarley

        Cherry picking and not including the full context of the statements they use from the Bible is easily done by baggers.

      • Chris Anderson

        and progressive bigots and haters.

      • Why5ks

        Roger you are being typical, taking single isolated factoids and professing them to be the absolute entirety of an issue. First, being a Progressives isn’t a derogatory term as I know you think it is. Which is the first indication of you limited ability to conduct a rationale discussion. Second, most Progressives I know do not have a problems with God. What most of us have a problem with is small minded people and their religions. Religions and God are not the same thing. God is a concept/being/entity that is omnipotent and the creator of all that is around us. Religion is the creation of a power structure to control the belief systems of those people looking for guidance and comfort from their creator. I’m sure you do have a problem with collecting taxes and being forced to donate to the poor, but have no problem when those same tax dollars are donated to the Industrial Military machine to spread death and destruction all around the world. That seems mighty Christian of you, I’m really sure Jesus would approve of your choice.

      • Chris Anderson

        I believe that taxes should be paid to Ceasar. 10%. 10% to God is good enough for Ceasar. Limited givernment. The progressives have ruined the American work ethic. They want to continue the slavery of the welfare system. Progressives want to keep black and other minorities subjective to their “white feelings of superiority” Progressive is just another name for NAZI.

      • Why5ks

        I’ll take you up on that 10% tax, straight across the board and get rid of all the deductions. Good luck trying to convince you Republican leaders to swallow it. They won’t because most wealthy people and corporations pay less than that. One in 4 major corporations have paid zero in taxes in the last few years. As for your Nazi reference, you need to go do a little research. I know you’ve heard top Republicans and Rush and Beck use that comparison but they know their followers will never try to understand if the comparison is a good one or not. You are doing just what they want, passing along the uninformed insult to try and demonize the opposition.

      • Chris Anderson

        Having had grand parents in the Holocaust, I know full well about Nazi’s first hand. and you young man are spewing skinhead Nazi propaganda. You know nothing about what you are talking about. Have you ever traveled to a socialist country? Or have you sat in your grandmothers basement all these years thinking up ideas while living off the givernments dole? have you every owned your own business? Paid those taxes, filled out those givernment forms? if not? then shut up.

      • Why5ks

        Well first, I am not a young man. Second, I do know what I am talking about, you have the right to disagree but that doesn’t make me wrong. Yes I have traveled to socialist countries, and I have sat on the front line defending us during the Cold War. This country was not founded on Christian principles, that is a complete lie. This country was founded on principles of the Masons not Christianity. Just because there is reference to God in the Constitution means nothing, God does not equal Christianity. I also, have owned my own business and have been in management of a few companies for over 15 years including being a District Manager in a large National company. I have raised 5 children of my own and I also have 2 step children. I have been in the work force for over 50 years and have been gainfully employed for all but a total of 5 months in that time. Even if it meant having up to 5 jobs to pay my bills and support my family. I have never lived on the dole, as you say, but I have never looked down my nose at those who do. I am a disabled vet who has continued to be employed since being discharged, even though I could have played the game. Don’t dismiss everyone as a taker just because they disagree with you. I’ll stack my resume of live experiences with anyone if that is what is required to speak up, but thankfully it is not. As for Nazi’s, you obviously have forgotten how Nazis used propaganda to isolate and demonize groups of society to create the enemy that we are all afraid of? You know how the Republicans demonize illegal aliens, welfare recipients and women. That doesn’t even begin to describe how they are demonizing Obama for doing most of the exact same things that Bush did and pushed through a long time Republican policy now labeled as ObamaCare.

      • Maani

        Actually, Roger, while Jesus Himself did not necessarily espouse redistribution of wealth, it is nevertheless the “preferred” economic system of God. How do we know? Look at Acts 4:31-35. Note specifically that this was under the DIRECT influence of the Holy Spirit:

        “And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common…Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.”
        Get that? FROM each according to his ability to provide, TO each according to need. That is about as close to Marxist socialism as one can get. It is actually called “communalism” (NOT communism). And, as noted, the disciples were “led” to it directly by the Holy Spirit.

      • Roger Cotton

        There are no calls for government to redistribute wealth in the Bible.

        There shall ever be the Poor. This is because Human Nature is such that some will be too lazy, stupid, infirm, or oppressed by those who seek to use them.

        No amount of legislation or forced charity will ever change Human Nature.

      • Maani

        Roger: You are correct: there are no calls for GOVERNMENT to do so. What the Scriptural passage underscores is that PEOPLE should do so, and specifically Christians. As for “there shall ever be the poor,” please do not take Scripture out of context. Jesus made that comment in a very specific context; He was not suggesting that there SHOULD always be poor, since, if we followed His example, there would not be.

      • tnoiset

        Whom did Jesus chastise? He just asked a simple question, and the accusers answered. Through that simple question He taught a great lesson. But all of the rebuking I’m seeing here …. He only found necessary when cleansing the temple. And how many times did he feed people? Was it because they were poor? No. Jesus is not interested in cleansing our government’s floor, only in getting our hearts focused on their original intent.

      • Chris Anderson

        And Jesus would condemn the Dems for their stand on Abortion and homosexuality. Period. Jesus was the perfect Jew. He followed every law, perfectly. But he was just. Ye who is without sin……He would tell the homosexuality to go and sin no more ant to follow HIM. God destroyed Sodom. He told the woman at the well to sin no more. You can’t pick and choose.

      • Why5ks

        You are a nut, Jesus would have said no such thing. He would not judge people at all, that is the whole point. It was not his to judge, just to show the way and never abandon anyone. It is only for God to judge. Stop trying to force your own selfish and petty emotions and needs on to Jesus and God.

      • Chris Anderson

        Why5ks: Where did you get that idea? Jesus judged all the time. Obviously you are not a born again believer. Otherwise you would not have said such hateful, bigoted, and racist remarks.

        John 4,15…The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”
        16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
        17 “I have no husband,” she replied.
        Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”
        19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”
        21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”
        25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”
        26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”

        Jesus’ command to “go and sin no more” is simply a reaffirmation that “God is Holy, and Man is Sinful,… flee the wrath to come”. That once you trust Him for salvation, you will always, and must always continue to trust Him and His work done on your behalf, not in your own works.

      • Why5ks

        You’re absolutely correct I am not a “born again” Christian, I got mine right the first time. Nothing in what you posted shows Jesus judging this lady in any way, and as I said before he is merely telling her the way to be with his God. It was God who did the judging in your example, not Jesus. What did I say that was racist, bigoted or hateful? Seems you just want to throw out insults to hurt me, which trust me you can’t because I do not give you that power, because you have no argument to refute what I am saying. You will need to did a lot deeper if you want to disprove what I said about Jesus, as for what I said about people trying to imbue their human emotions, short comings and frailties upon God or Jesus all I have to do is quote any number of the plethora of TV Evangelicals, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggert, Robert Schuler, and the list goes on and on. I don’t even have to include many of our delusional politicians who attempt to create a religious bridge to explain their unchristian actions.

      • rose1957

        So how many of the 613 commandments have you broken today? That’s right, 613 of those babies. You might want to read through them before you whine about picking and choosing.

      • Truthseeker

        Thomas (5Ks), there is nothing wrong with conformity per se, as long as you are conforming to the truth. Progressives tend toward godlessness, which undoubtedly Jesus opposed. Progressives believe that truth us relative and that the highest form of being is self-actualization, while Christians, as did their Christ, believe in the tranacendancy of God and absolute truth as embodied in Him.

      • Why5ks

        It must be nice to know more about Progressives than they know about themselves. I, even though I am a moderate, know quite a few Progressives. Very few that I know come anywhere close to believing what you describe. Most Progressives I know have a belief in God, but have a disdain for religion. They are strong believers in that for our Democracy to survive we must find a way to include everyone. You know how our Declaration of Independence says, “all men are created equal.” Most people who I know are Progressives are very moral people, who place their trust is people not in the politicized doctrine of religion. It is just amazing how you say there is nothing wrong with conformity, which to most people means “conforming to what I believe.”

      • Charles Vincent

        This country is a republic not a democracy the founders hated democracy.

      • Why5ks

        It is a Democratic Republic. The founding fathers didn’t hate Democracy, they were firm believers in “Checks and Balances”.

      • Charles Vincent

        Ehh we are properly called a constitutional republic, and yes the founders did dislike the idea of making this country a democracy;
        http://tenthamendmentcenter DOT com/2010/06/29/the-founding-fathers-rejected-democracy/#.Uqk7ZH-9KSM

      • Five Iron

        Roger, I am sure the firemen who would put out your house fire, even though I hope you never have to go through one, don’t think like you. Fire and Police are 100% socialistic policies. You pay for their services, even though it may only benefit you neighbors and you never use them. That is not redistribution….that is civilization. Welcome, we are glad you could join us.

      • Its true. He was the highest Moral human being to ever live- And he has risen AMEN.

  • Brett

    There are such an unending number of hypocrisies in today’s Republican party that it’s really no chore to write a column about them.

    One that has always puzzled me is the Republican’s consistent push to reduce education funding – whether at the national or state level – while at the same time adopting the term “Job Creator” and trying to infuse it into our vocabulary such that it is synonymous with business owners and other ‘successful’ people.

    So …. if I really, truly, honestly believed that small business owners were the critical “job creators” that Republicans have claimed (and actually, I do buy that argument – I think small business owners are critical to our economic success) …. wouldn’t I want to make more of them? Wouldn’t the return on that educational investment trump the expenditure? Wouldn’t that be a path to job creation and wealth development? Wouldn’t I be championing low-interest educational loans? Wouldn’t I be doing everything I could to provide equal-access, quality education?

    But… they don’t. They argue that small business owners are crucial; but they don’t want to create any job creators. Just another example of Republicans saying one thing and doing another.

    My take on it is that you have to say “Ok, what are their REAL goals? They’re saying one thing to try and get my vote, but they’re doing another. What’s the goal of what they’re actually DOING, not what they’re SAYING?”

    With education, I’m pretty scared by the obvious conclusions when you start with the premise that Republicans a more highly educated populace (a premise that is 100% consistent with their actions).

    Back on topic with your column, though … it’s always struck me that in the war between social programs (supported by liberals) and defunding (supported by conservatives); conservatives have the ultimate weapon to prove their position. [I understand their position to be that social assistance should be local and/or private, and that it would be more effective and efficient if it were not federally supported and/or mandated.]

    Anyway, their ultimate weapon is really simple: proof.

    If it’s true that private programs are the most efficient way to support the poor, then put the federal government out of business by doing it! Make a concerted, decade-long push to create assistance programs all around the country operating at the local level without federal assistance, supported entirely by the charity of big-hearted Republicans.

    It’s unfortunate that you’d be taxed in the meantime while you’re also supporting programs like this, but surely in the long run it would be a massive return-on-investment: at the end of this successful push you’d be able to stand up in public and declare hands down that you proved you were right. The rest of us would have no choice but to say “Yup. I guess you were” and we could move on with defunding government-supported public programs. And from then on you’d have what you wanted: a federal government out of the business of helping the poverty-stricken. You’d win. Surely that’s worth it.

    So just go do it, Republicans. If you’re right, put your money where your mouth is and give me irrefutable evidence. Show me how private monies and programs, with no federal or state assistance, can largely take the poor off our streets, feed people who eat once every couple days, clothe people who are wearing shreds, and educate people comparably to what’s available to the rest of us. I’m ready to be convinced.

    But I’m sure as hell not ready to say “Yeah, let’s cut the support net and just hope you guys are right.” That’s just not going to happen. You can yell and shout and scream all day long, but I’m not going to “hope” you’re right and come around to your position. So if you want to win …. you’ve got a way: you just need to do it.

    • jerryg

      Two points. I prefer to think jobs are created by consumr demand…people spending their money. Business owners who hire people without expecting it to improve their business will ultimately fail. On private charity…just look at history. Private, church-based, individual, etc. programs have always existed and have NEVER been adequate. Too many people, given the option, choose not to participate. Their model has been tried…we know what it looks like… read Charles Dickens.

    • AThinker

      I like the idea that our children can read and write. – a skill not taught in public funded education.
      Give the people the power to educate and our children will learn to read and write.
      It is a foll who throws money at what replaced what was working.

    • cjmarley

      We definitely cannot rely solely on private charities and programs to take care of the needs of the poor. They rely mainly on the donations of the people in their community and those donations have been lacking especially when you have people like the conservatives who don’t see why helping the poor is any of their business…that the only way “those people” will rise up out of being poor is to refuse to give them any help. Does anyone truly believe that by taking away the programs that help these people will reduce their taxes? If so they are very wrong. The tax money that goes to the programs for the poor will just be put towards other things that the conservatives LIKE to throw the money at. I’d much rather see my tax money given to those who need help…PEOPLE…not corporations.

      • Susan Salisbury

        The first problem with your statement is that you are really, really ignorant. The truth is that all the studies that have been doen show that conservatives, by a huge margin contribute more of their own money and time to dharity than liberals do. You hypocrites think you are generous because you lazily and selfisly vote to take away someone else’s money and give it tothe government that promises to distribute some of it to the poor. Very little of it it gets to the poor. Republicans are not opposed to helping the poor. They are opposed to giving money to bureaucrats and people who don’t need it. You are clearly not interested in real debates where FACTS are bandide about. You are interested in patting yourself on the back for voting for the left which takes poor people’s money and opportunities and gives it to fat cats who are friends of the Dems. Nancy Pelosi is a millionaire many times over. There are many more millionaire Dams than Republicans in office

      • Laurie Moore

        Your whole paragraph just shows how totally ignorant you are. Why don’t you go check your facts before speaking.

      • Jennifer Broekman

        Those statistics about giving hold mostly because conservatives get to count contributing to their religious institutions as charity, whether it helps anyone who isn’t exactly like them or not.

      • Beverly Levitt

        I know that the churches that these horrible people in your eyes donate to in our community are the churches with food pantries, free medical clinics, programs for high risk youth and programs for the elderly or disabled. What a shame that their donations would be counted to help a church help those less fortunate in their community right? Good grief.

      • Jennifer Broekman

        Some of the churches people donate to do provide such programs, but not all of them. Some of those programs are not thinly veiled attempts to convince non-believers-in-that-particular-mythology to become believers-in-that-particular-mythology. But that doesn’t come close to meaning that every donation to a church goes to selflessly help the needy.

        Good grief, indeed.

      • George Bruck

        giving money to your church so they can send missionaries to germany or bibles to somalia is not charity, its bullshit. and saying that the conservatives contribute more….that may be true in dollar figures but not in percentage of assets. the wealthy tend to be conservatives. if they give 2% of a million dollars of course thats more than 10% of 30k.

      • Collean

        The poor contribute more of their income than conservatives do. Conservative only contribute to cause that further their domination….. building schools in other countries where children will be taught their version of christianity. Their poor offerings usually only help their own that have fallen on hard times. If you only help yourself, how are you being generous?

      • Beverly Levitt

        Where do you get the misinformation that Conservatives are all wealthy? We are every day blue collar, hard working folks, who give every extra cent and bit of energy we have to help those less fortunate, regardless of religion, race or culture. Many I see helping charities have lost their jobs, some have lost their homes, all are Conservative and giving all they can regularly through labor and devotion. You speak complete poison based on nothing factual. What do you do daily, weekly or monthly to help those less fortunate and before you help them must they fit a criteria and not have Conservative or Christian beliefs? Truly the most ridiculous thing I have read.

      • Chris Anderson

        That is a very weird statement: Poor and conservatives. Are there not poor who could be conservatives? are there not extremely wealthy leftists? you are a hypocrite. I know very poor people who will not accept givernment handouts. They will accept handouts from other Christians in trade for honest work (something you know nothing about) And what if I want to send my own money to help build schools overseas. Who cares, it is my $$ Bradgelina adopt black kids. Are you saying they are wrong for going overseas and helping others? What about Oprah? she has built two schools overseas. should she close them down?

      • Independent and proud of it

        So besides making the claim, what proof do you offer?

      • Beverly Levitt

        Truly sick of hearing this dribble. Murder is mentioned in the bible and the abortion of a living being, that can feel pain and already knows comfort and can feel the emotions of it’s mother in the womb is murder. As far as Conservatives not caring and not helping those in need, show me something that is not propaganda for a change. I run a non for profit that helps both horses and special needs and at risk children of all races and religions at no charge. I work long nights to support the brunt of this charity and don’t expect to ever make it any other way. We are not a religious charity, but I am a Christian, meaning I believe in Jesus. You folks talk as if those who believe in Christ are criminals and more each day you treat Christians as such. As a Christian, I do not claim to be a perfect human, nor do I claim that my beliefs should be yours. What I do know as a Christian is that it is my duty and my passion to help God’s innocent creations, being his children and his animals. I do know that I should pay forward daily and I live my life without riches in this manner. I am SURROUNDED by Conservative Christians, who are blue collar, every day folks, struggling like most of this Nation, that devote tirelessly their time, labor and efforts to help with this charity in our community. as well as many others. From the homeless to hospice these folks are doing their level best to make a difference every day of their lives. They are also the ones to donate not only to this charity but to many others across this great Nation. Your article and the comments here are meant to be a further division in this Nation, anti-Christian, bigoted and pure dishonesty. I wonder, out of all these hateful remarks and assumptions, how many of you get off your duffs daily, weekly or even once a month to lend a hand to the ones struggling in our Nation and how many of you get your feel good snootiness from cutting that check once in a while without getting your hands dirty? Our Nation is in a horrid state of division from the behaviors of both the Democrats AND the Republicans. The two party system that feeds division and hate has done more to destroy the foundation of this Nation than any other singular thing in our history. Why do you feed into this? Why not instead join hands for the betterment of mankind as a whole, whether Christian, Jew or a believer in Aliens, it is an individual right to not only believe what one believes, but to practice their beliefs. A God given right in my family and one though you may try to shame, make illegal, and destroy, you can’t take from an individual. Time to wake up because both sides are doing nothing for this Nation but damage and you are contributing to complete ignorance.

      • Collean

        Private charities usually have a religious bent they make you follow in order to get there help. Salvation army makes homeless listen to a sermon before they feed them or give them a place to sleep for the night. How about they just help people and keep their religion to themselves

      • Maani

        Collean: As someone who has worked with (not for) the Salvation Army, I can assure you that you are wrong. There is no such requirement. In fact, the Red Cross and Salvation Army (both overtly Christian) and Medicin Sans Frontieres (founded by Christians, but not more secular) have provided emergency and disaster relief globally for decades WITHOUT REGARD to gender, age, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or any other factor, and WITHOUT evangelical pressure. And the Red Cross and Salvation Army provide local shelter and food (and often much more) to the homeless and poor without such pressure. Yes, there are religious services available at all S.A. sites. However, these services are NOT required in order to receive assistance. Peace.

      • Christo Max

        The red cross is not “overtly christian”. It’s one of the largest humanitarian groups. If you noticed something overtly “christian” about that group, it was most likely due to the person you were in contact with. Many christians join red cross, but it’s not “overtly christian.”

        Further, Salvation Army has discriminated in the past. Particulary in regards to the GLBT community, which is why Target Corp, at one point, wouldn’t allow them to chime their donation bells in front of their stores here in Mpls.

      • Maani

        The Red CROSS (the word was used deliberately) was founded by Henry Dunant, Gustave Moynier, Louis Appia, Theodore Maunoir, and Guillaume-Henri Dufour – all devout Christians (Appia was an evangelical minister). It was initially out of Dunant’s outrage – sparked by his Christian sense of duty – that the organization was formed, and the majority of its members (those providing disaster and emergency services) during WWI and WWII were Christian.
        As for the SA, you are conflating their alleged discrimination on political-social matters with their complete LACK of discrimination in the way they provide relief services worldwide.

      • Christo Max

        The American Red Cross was established by Clara Barton, a nurse and humanitarian. The red cross symbol (since you decided to emphasize it IN ALL CAPS) has no religious meaning to it. You may be referring to International Committee of the Red Cross, which is still considered a HUMANITARIAN (read: not christrian) organization. Perhaps you should read the missions of these organizations before you type your derpy replies.

        As far as SA, if they aren’t providing their relief services to a particular group – whether it’s local or global – still makes them discriminatory. And considering their “political-social matters” tend to seep into their services, then it isn’t really “conflating” anything.

    • Jennifer Broekman

      Republicans aren’t interested in new businesses. They’re interested in existing businesses. Just look at their protectionist policies.

      • Charles Vincent

        Tarp bailouts for big business signed by lots of progressive democrats anyone? You are a myopic hypocrite ma’am, please broaden your horizon.

      • George Bruck

        have you forgotten the first bailout was done by the shrub, with all democratic rules for oversight removed resulting in millions simply vanishing? very convenient of you. Then Obama’s extension of bailouts was passed only after a majority of rules and oversight was removed by the conservatives.

      • Charles Vincent

        And you forgot the bailouts and corporate cronyism from the Bill Clinton era and the destruction of the Glass-Steagall act by Clinton. Don’t be so one dimensional, you really need to see both sides of the equation.

    • David Watson

      RE: reduce education funding — it’s easier to control dumb sheep who buy into UFOs, then smart people who are not so gullible.

      RE: Small Business owners — that was the first thing Bush JR got rid of that Clinton had set up – support of Small Business owners. Instead he turn the Gov support over to Big Business and crushing Small Business.

    • Truthseeker

      Brett, you are equating government spending on education with better educated students, when it can easily be demonstrated that more money actually corrupts the educational system. Those cities and states with the highest level of per-student spending have the poorest result. Why? Because more money corrupts the system.

  • dveed

    Jesus was NOT a “Christian”. He was a Jew and followed Jewish Law, among Jews in a Roman occupied Jewish country. Your lumping all Republicans together and fake strawman arguments show why the Jackass is the “Progressive” party’s symbol. Taking by force from one person to give to another is theft – stealing plain and simple. Jewish law executes homosexuals and baby murderers. That’s why he never mentioned it; it was already established and he AREED with it. Not judging? According to Christianity EVERYONE will be judged by Jesus and God. In 10-20 years you won’t have a penny to give to your poor or welfare BUMS. You will be BROKE with NO government assistance or services available for anyone. Europe’s fate will be yours. And the Jihadi’s will have you for lunch. When Islam rules, you’ll cry for the bad old days of Christianity. You WILL convert; or you WILL die, infidel.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      And you need to take your meds.

      • dveed

        Really? Go to Dearborn Michigan and spout your stupidity

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I don’t understand. Dearborn has the largest Arab-American population in the US and when I lived in Michigan was doing far better than Detroit.

        Might want to read this one: http://inthesetimes DOT org/article/15433/decades_of_discrimination_and_corporate_chaos/

        “While it is true that many of Detroit’s mayors had serious flaws and made countless mistakes, they did not cause the city’s decline. In fact by the time the keys to Detroit were handed to the Black leadership,
        Detroit was beyond rescue and they were left to deal with up the mess created by a perfect storm of federal transportation policy (driven by the auto industry and its allies in Congress) and federal housing initiatives, both of which combined to seal the city’s fate. Detroit’s first black mayor, Coleman Young, and those that followed may not have
        known it, but Detroit was already on life support and they were the hospice team.”

    • Chomper Lomper Tawee

      Oh my God, that’s hilarious! LMAO…

  • FD Brian

    find me a bible passage that has Jesus blowing smoke up a rich persons ass.

    • ForeverBuddha

      And 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.”

      • dveed

        That was referring to passage through the “Eye of the Needle” It’s a geographical location on the caravan route known for its narrowness here. Camels heavily burdened with goods could not make the passage; so, the goods were off loaded and sent separately through. Wealth is a burden to the spiritual side of life. Correct translation would be “Eye of the Needle”

      • Brian Frang

        NO. That’s a myth. There was no location anywhere NEAR there called the Eye of the Needle, at least not during Jesus’ time. The most likely answer for the phrase, actually is that the Aramaic for “camel”, “gamla”, can also be translated as “thick rope”, depending on the context. And given the reference to a sewing needle, the metaphor suddenly makes sense. He’s saying that you’ve got a better chance of pushing a thick rope through the tiny hole in a sewing needle than a rich man has of getting into heaven. Or he was talking about a literal camel, but that would make no sense.

      • dveed

        It’s a ‘myth’ you can go visit.

      • Brian Frang

        Show me, on a map. There is NO historical evidence of ANY such rock formation even existing before the 9th century, at least under that name. Or even such an interpretation.

    • Cathryn Sykes

      He also said some pretty forceful things about the moneylenders and animals sellers who charged the faithful inflated prices in the Temple at Jerusalem.. Got out a whip and scourged them. Said they had turned his father’s house into a den of thieves.

      • dveed

        Had he really done that, the Roman Soldiers would have killed him on the spot.

  • dveed

    Jesus was NOT a “Christian”. He was a Jew and followed Jewish Law, among Jews in a Roman occupied Jewish country. Your lumping all Republicans together and fake strawman arguments show why the Jackass is the “Progressive” party’s symbol. Taking by force from one person to give to another is theft – stealing plain and simple. Jewish law executes homosexuals and baby murderers. That’s why he never mentioned it; it was already established and he AGREED with it. Not judging? According to Christianity EVERYONE will be judged by Jesus and God. In 10-20 years you won’t have a penny to give to your poor or welfare BUMS. You will be BROKE with NO government assistance or services available for anyone. Europe’s fate will be yours. Republicans are talking about big FEDERAL (central planning) government; NOT limited local government.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Uh, Christianity is named for Christ. And where does Jewish law advocate executing homosexuals and baby killers. You really are demented.

      • Matthew Reece

        I found it for you.
        “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” -Leviticus 20:13

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Old Testament, the “Book of the Jews” as Lewis Black says, and Leviticus also says not to eat shellfish. Does that mean we should burn down Red Lobster or I should be stoned for eating shrimp? Leviticus 19 says we shouldn’t eat leftovers after three days.

        You gotta decide what you gonna follow. The Old Testament or the New Testament. Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality.

      • dveed

        You are not a Jew. It does not apply to you. It was written for Jacob’s family and those who chose to join them – ONLY. Again – he agreed that they should be executed or else he would have mentioned it.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        How do you know I’m not a Jew?

      • rose1957

        You can’t have it both ways! Either you follow ALL 613 commandments or you don’t get to throw that into the face of everybody who doesn’t want to condemn gay people.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Leviticus also advocates animal sacrifice, stoning adulterers and prohibits tattoos.

      • Matthew Reece

        That it does. I am not advocating such actions; I only found what you asked for.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I follow the New Testament. You know, Do unto others; what you have done for the least among you, and so on.

      • dveed

        Do unto others is in the Hebrew Bible in two different places. Jesus said NOTHING new. Try reading Matt. 5:18 and tell me, just – when – did the heavens and Earth pass away? Read :19 and look in the mirror.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        But according to the Bible life begins at first breath.

        In Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”

        Again, to quote Ezekiel 37:5&6, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.”

        In Exodus 21:22 it states that if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death. It should be apparent from this that the aborted fetus is not considered a living human being since the resulting punishment for the abortion is nothing more than a fine; it is not classified by the bible as a capital offense.

        Source: http://joeschwartz DOT net/life.htm

      • dveed

        Actually this is true. Are you sad your mother gave birth to you?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        No, but I’m sad your mother didn’t drown you at birth.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Try Matthew 24: What you have done for the least among you, you have done for me. Even Lewis Black says “the Old Testament God is kind of a prick.”

      • dveed

        Boy are you stupid. God is God. He DOES NOT CHANGE. He is alone. There is no other. Worship of a man is the highest form of idol worship.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Do unto others is Luke 6:31. What is your point, if you even have one?

      • dveed

        You can read! Again, It DOES NOT APPLT TO NON-JEWS.

      • dveed

        “[A man] shall not lie with another man as [he would] with a woman, it is a to’eva” (Leviticus 18:22). Sexual intercourse between two men is forbidden by the Torah, as stated above, and is a capital offense. (Stoning)

        Killing is prohibited as one of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17), but the death penalty is prescribed only for willful murder (Ex. 21:12, 14; Lev. 24:17, 21; Num. 35:16–21; Deut. 19:11). Aborting a human being IS willful murder.

      • rose1957

        His name is Jesus. He was given the title of Christ, or “anointed one,” by His followers.

    • Cindy Mello

      Republicans don’t seem to mind that “taking from one to give to the other” ideology when they give billions of dollars in subsidies to the wealthy and corporations. Same thing. It’s called corporate welfare. That doesn’t seem to bother them at all. Corporate welfare is theft. Legalized theft.

      • dveed

        Again – lumping everyone together. Welfare is theft – period. Envy is the 10th Commandment

      • Brian Frang

        Matthew 22:17-22
        “17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

        18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

        19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

        20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

        21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

        22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.”

        This was a line SPECIFICALLY about paying taxes (as that’s exactly what “tribute money” is), so that completely invalidates your “institutionalized theft” argument. Jewish law actually requires abortion in certain situations, so, that either invalidates your “strict adherent to Jewish law” or abortion argument, and he specifically intervened to STOP the execution of a woman convicted of adultery, for which death is ALSO prescribed by the Old Testament, saying “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, and was also known to say “1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

        2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

        3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

        4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

        5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

        Matthew 7:1-5

        That blows a hole in your “Jesus would support execution of homosexuals” argument.

        And then there’s the whole “eye of a needle” thing. While it’s not entirely clear what the exact definition is, it IS known that, in Jesus’ time, there was NO mountain pass called the Eye of the Needle in that area, so-called “camel-doors” were NOT called “Needle’s Eyes” (but rather “plums”), and there’s nothing to suggest, biblically, that Jesus went anywhere near one of those places any time in his life, so it’s obviously neither of those two. If you REALLY want to argue translation, you should note that the word “gamla” can mean either “camel” OR it can mean “a thick rope”. So, what Jesus was most likely ACTUALLY saying is that you will be able to fit a thick rope through the eye of a needle (which are, of course, not meant for thick ropes, but for thin string) before a rich man will enter heaven.

      • Chris Anderson

        You are all full of progressive crap. Remember: There were two types of currency in the Roman-Jewish day. Hebrew money and Roman money. You gave Ceasar $$ that you were paid by the Romans for work, food, etc. Within the Hebrew community, they paid with their own $$. Shekels, Talents, mite. etc. Being a perfect Jew, Jesus did condemn sinners. He told them that their sins were forgiven and to GO AND SIN NO MORE.

    • Bambu Utila

      Just a quick question, you call yourself a faithful Christian, right?

      • dveed

        I’m a Jew. Unlike your local yokel Jew I’m an educated one who knows his religion, history, and why Christianity is false.

  • Robyn Brown

    The writer of this…piece has clearly read only the stories of the bible and nothing more. biblical principals he did not touch on include Christ’s statement that he did not come to change any part of God’s existing laws, for example. Nor did he mention the verses in the bible dealing with how God created us and had a plan for us before we ever saw the light of day, how “fearfully and wonderfully made” we are and how Jesus loves the little children. It’s from these that a reasonable person concludes abortion is not Gods idea. Also included in the principals of the word is that charity is for widows and orphans only. Men are expected to work and take care of their families or themselves if they are single. This is mentioned in both old and new testament. Jesus never had to ask anyone why they needed anything, he already knew and I would add, nobody ever asked him for money or material things. Healing was usually the concern. Although he does illustrate how God provides with the loaves and fishes -GOD PROVIDES. That is a concept of faith and if you don’t have any you also give up the concept that GOD provides for his children, not the taxpayers. Taxpayers do not feed thousands with 2 fish and a few loaves of bread, not now and not then. Your article is so full of these kinds of misrepresentations I could continue for a page or two, but I have to get back to my own education. I’m paying for that myself by the way. This is the second time I’ve done that, as a changing economy requires I learn new skills, actually a whole different career to be marketable. Wanna know how I’m doing that? I work and live within my means. I do everything I can for myself and then I have faith in God to do the rest and he always has. I finished nursing school debt free, working for $7.50 an hour full time until the last year, then part time. It’s amazing what you can accomplish when you stop complaining about how you can’t help yourself because it’s too hard and you get to work IN FAITH. You don’t need to give away freedom to take other peoples money so you can barley get by, you have been given the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. See it doesn’t come to you, you have to pursue (EARN) it. Nobody can do everything, but everybody can do SOMETHING.

    • Anna Strakele

      I am a Christian, but I am not blind to the world as you are. God says He will provide. Ok. Super. Where is the provision for the children starving to death in Africa and on the streets of America???

      Furthermore, why were WE commanded to provide for the poor also?

      Lastly, how do you know that welfare laws isn’t God’s way of providing?

      You should be thrilled that your tax money is feeding needy families.

      Claps for you for making it through college debt free. Awesome. But guess what? NOT EVERYONE CAN DO THAT. You’re the example of a privileged person that they are talking about. An extremely low percentage of people can actually make it through college without getting into massive debt. Besides, you worked for a while, so you had money saved already. Now go ask the kid who grew up working at McDonald’s to help pay for heating in his parents 2-bedroom house that they could barely afford why he’s put off going to college, or why he’s graduating with over $100,000 in debt. Did you happen to know that the average amount of debt each student in this country has IS over $100,000??? Very very few people make it through school debt free.

      If you are a Christian, you shouldn’t have to be told to help the poor. You should just do it, and you should WANT to do it. You should feel really good about it too.

      And saying that men shouldn’t get any help is just misandry. Which is the opposite of misogyny. Men are people. People need be treated equally regardless of sex. Men deserve as much help as women.

      I found your post callous and ridiculous and you are the person the post and article are describing. You claim to be a Christian but reject Jesus’s commandments and assume unknown and unspoken things from the text.

      Not only that, but people like you are the reason Christianity has such a bad connotation. Why would a faith based on a loving God and forgiveness have such a bad connotation, you ask? Because the people who represent it are selfish and mean and hateful and judgmental and evil. I love Jesus, but the way He is represented by people like you and our government members… If I hadn’t found true Christianity at my church, there isn’t a doubt in my mind that I’d still be unsaved. My church is the only one I’ve ever attended where the spirit of Jesus is THERE because the people in the congregation truly have Christ in their hearts!!!! Pseudo-Christians think they do, but the reason they are so angry and bitter and fearful and mean all the time is because they don’t. That’s how people are without Jesus. Their lives and hearts haven’t been renewed. They’re still wandering around in the dark because they do not know the light. I certainly hope that someone introduces them to the real Jesus. Because otherwise, when they die, they’re gonna end up somewhere very different than where they expected to be.

      • Robyn Brown

        You make many assumptions. I am far from a privileged person, where you got that I have no clue. I guess you didn’t understand what I said. I got through school debt free because I PAID FOR IT. Did I have a bunch in savings? No. I lived on my own without support of parents or any spouse. I paid my bills by NOT paying for cable TV, NOT driving a new car, Cell phones were still not in the possession of the average person then so I didn’t have to worry about being tempted to overspend on the latest and greatest phone. I worked 2 jobs until I had to stop to add full time school. Instead of taking a full time college load (because I couldn’t afford it) I took as many classes (usually one or two) as my money and work load would allow. Here is a news flash: THERE IS NO LAW THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE GRADUATED COLLEGE BY AGE 24. I never had savings and when I did have to go full time for clinical training – the last year- I signed up for class with ZERO money and NO IDEA how I would even pay tuition to start class. My car was 10 years old and falling apart, it actually only lasted until Christmas. However I earned that spot in the program and I wasn’t gonna miss out for quitting, I did EVERYTHING I could do, even when it didn’t make any sense IN FAITH. That is what faith is. Every semester is was the same story, I had no clue where the money for school would come from, I had my phone shut off, I was wearing rags, eating soup and Ramon noodles, my roommate moved out leaving me with DOUBLE the bills, also at Christmas time but I would not quit. God provided, he is a provider, just like he says he is. Why are there starving children? That is a great question for you ask God, you are a Christian, right? You have a relationship with him, right? Then you know The word says God is no respecter of persons, what he does for one he will do for any of his children, so go ask him where the problem is for people cuz you wont believe me if I tell you. Pumpkin I didn’t say men shouldn’t get any help – I said the bible says charity is for widows and orphans. I didn’t write that and able bodied men should be working or searching diligently for work and not nit picking what comes along or living off women ( a major epidemic in this area)

        As for my helping the poor, yet again you are just spouting off where you know NOTHING about it. I’ve helped many people and even raised 2 kids that were NOT mine. You assume I don’t help anyone and you assume that the welfare issue is black and white, and it’s not. Govt. assistance is appropriate in many situations and I don’t begrudge it to anyone who is trying to help themselves in some way, or to any veteran who’s served our country, not even as a temporary solution. I do oppose it as a means of life, most conservatives feel the same way. The minute you want people to support themselves some idiot screams you are starving the helpless and killing children. Stop with the over drama. Most conservatives are FAR more concerned with the money being shipped over seas, than what’s spent on govt. assistance for American citizens. I guess you are just so busy believing every thing you read you don’t know that. Please explain to me how you know Jesus but think he’s got a “take from the rich and give to the poor” philosophy? He said to care for the poor, not support the government taxing you to death so they could TELL you they are taking care of the poor. Face it, we don’t have any idea where our money is really going.
        I’m neither hateful mean spirited, but I am responsible and hard working. I understand the concept of consequences for bad choices and mistakes are sure NOT a life sentence and they are not my business, until I have to pay for them. See that’s how freedom works, you are free to make your own choices BUT you have to deal with the consequences of those. If you accept other people paying for your life, you accept their concern for where there money is going. You don’t blame others or say I love Jesus, but he won’t help me and if he helped you it’s because you are privileged. That’s not biblical. I do not reject any of Christ’s commandments but sister “love the poor” is not the same and “enable people to do nothing”. One last thing. Judgmental. The favorite buzz word of liberals. What is judgment but assessing a situation and making a decision about it. Nothing to get riled about, used to be called common sense. While you are calling ME judgmental, realize that YOU have judged ME. I notice when people throw that word around they tend for forget that. God gave us brains for a reason, I submit to you it most probably was so we could assess situations and draw a conclusion about right and wrong and then what to do and YOU use that process every day a million times – so watch the name calling.

      • Anna Strakele

        Jesus most definitely did have a take-from-the-rich-and-give-to-the-poor ideal. The rich were commanded to give everything they had to the poor. Not that the poor were to give what little they had to those who already had everything.

        Why is it such a problem for people to fulfill Godms commands through government taxes? I would much rather my tax dollars be going to people in need rather than a bunch of violent wars.

        And who says that welfare is supporting everyone who uses it foreverand that everyone on it is lazy and not trying and drunk and high every day and has the best technology? My experience with families receiving welfare through my church, jrotc, and my friends who’s families are in a financial crisis is that the parent or parents are working as much as they can, wherever they can, downsized their living space, only have a very old cellphone and are doing everything they can to provide for their families. The last family I took care of for Christmas with jrotc said he and wife didnt want anything, only get things for the children. But we cared about all of them, and we gave both parents a jacket and kit of toiletries. In total we probably spend $90 on both adults and $100 on each of their kids. And the parents sobbed with joy because someone cared enough to give their family love and time and gifts for Christmas. They couldn’t even afford the $30 jackets we got for them. They were the cheapest yet still acceptable at Walmart.

        It was not this mans fault that he needs extra help. He’s doing everything he can che doesn’t have the education to get a better position and doesn’t have te money or resources to get more college. These people shouldn’t be punished for being stuck in a cranky situation. There are rich and poor in every society. They deserve care, not blame for all the country’s problems. Not judgment and assumption.

        That being said, I definitely believe that people on welfare should be drug tested three to four times a year randomly. And I also think there should e a limit on how long they could be on welfare. But I still think they need help. I think a percentage of welfare given to each family should go solely to education at the nearest community college so they can get more education and have a fighting chance of getting a higher position at their job or have the skills to go into a more lucrative field.

        For the most part, its not a poor persos fault that they’re poor. They are limited by who they are birthed to, their location, their oportunities, their school district, their mental state (severe depression or things like Down Syndrome can make it so people just can’t work/ can’t get a life-sustaining job.

        Also, so much of our welfare and Medicaid goes to unplanned teenage/poverty-stricken pregnancies and births. And if people are against abortion, then antis must take responsibility for what happens when babies that they forced others to have come into the world. I am a pro-choice Christian. If poverty can be avoided and if the foster care system can shrink, it’s the right of any woman to choose that. Jesus never spoke on abortion and there is no evidence in the bible that a fetus is a person, let alone a person equal to a born person. I see no reason to be against it. But I don’t want to start an argument about that. I’m jut pointing out that those who are against abortion for financial reasons should take responsibility for forcing another costly person into the world. And considering most people on welfare are kids, many of them unwanted, I see it as even more of an anti’s responsibility to pay welfare.

      • Rarron

        Whoop de doo. You’re so special.

        There are NO gods.

      • dveed

        How do you know: that welfare laws isn’t God’s way of providing” ? It is simple. God forbids stealing another person’s property. Welfare is money (property) taken from someone against his will by force, or threat of force, and given to another. Do you think that is God’s way?

      • cjmarley

        so stop paying your taxes then

      • Anna Strakele

        Because welfare is taken out of our taxes and God wants us to pay our taxes. It doesn’t matter if we WANT to pay our taxes. We have to, not only according to the United States but according to God. God uses our taxes to accomplish His will and our coand to provide for the poor.

      • dveed

        You are supposed to cough up 10% MORE for the poor, widows and orphans AFTER your pay your taxes.

      • Beverly Levitt

        I can’t even fathom where you are coming from in your reply to this woman. No where did she rebuke charity. She rebuked those who won’t help themselves. And how is working for a measely $7.50 an hour and making your own way by earning your way make her privileged? Where does she imply or say she doesn’t believe in helping the innocent or those who aren’t able to provide for themselves? What she said is we have the right to pursue and she is totally correct in that statement. There is a huge difference in charity and entitlements. When people become caught in this system, many fail through it to lift themselves back up, an ability that the majority in this Nation can pursue, instead they wind up trapped and dependent. I don’t believe that it was taught anywhere in the Bible to teach generations to become dependent, nor was it his wish for us to not earn our way. His teachings of helping those who become poor, were clear but he is not suggesting that we create an environment that keeps them poor of which this Nation is guilty. Families need help, individuals need help to pursue their rights to freedom to prosper, not be held down by a system that cripples the population through never ending dole outs to those capable after a hand up of working their way out. He wanted us to help the poor, but he also teaches us to work. Those who can’t obviously should be tended.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      So explain this one…
      Deuteronomy 15:7-11

      “If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord
      your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your
      hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and
      lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest
      there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh
      year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly on your
      poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord
      against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely,
      and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for
      this the Lord your God will bless you in all
      your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to
      be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your
      hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

      • dveed

        That’s Jews talking to Jews. No one else. Jesus sent his disciples to Jews ONLY. Paul (who never met him) went to the non-Jews

      • cjmarley

        So you’re saying that passage only applies to Jews and no one else?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        If that’s the case, why do so many right-wing “Christians” like to quote the Old Testament when it suits them?

      • Rod

        Right wing cherry picks from whatever section will work for them.

  • Drumhead

    Talk about warped and twisted?! You didn’t get the First Amendment right, you misrepresented (or just don’t understand) the teachings of Jesus, and you claim to know the motivations of peoples’ hearts (“liberals might really dislike Republicans but conservatives hate President Obama”). And people actually read this drivel?!?

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Uh, conservatives have voiced their motivations and hatreds quite openly.

      • Beverly Levitt

        And I suppose you will claim Liberals have not? We are God’s children and until we stop following the dribble of a two party system, teach our young to pursue what they want, quit thinking that cutting an occasional personal check is doing your part and get out, get dirty and do your part to help people rise above their challenges instead of taking what someone earned to hand it to someone who can earn it, but won’t have to because those better off because they chose to pursue prosperity were unjustly punished, we are doomed. Where I’m from it’s called class envy. I live humble and live a life of paying forward each day. We need to be charitable, we need to lift those who are down and help them through work, faith and determination pursue a better life, most certainly we need to ALWAYS tend to those who are elderly, sick and unable to find their way. But there is a vast difference in giving one who has become poor, a hand up to better their lives and one that locks them into an entitlement system that in the end kills the need or motivation to get up and pursue the betterment of one’s life.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Liberals by definition are far more tolerant. We do not believe in judging, making laws telling people what they can’t do, proclaiming others will burn in Hell if they do not believe as we do.

        I have spent my career as a physician caring for those less fortunate, the people on Medicaid whom my colleagues wish didn’t exist. I do this because 40 years ago the State of Illinois paid for my college and medical school education, something for which I will be forever grateful.

        And it is difficult if not impossible to better one’s life when those with far more power game the system. You want people to be self-sufficient? $7.50/hr ain’t gonna do it. Neither will low-income jobs that replaced the high-income jobs outsourced to India and China.

  • Grog Troglodyte

    I suggest some of you people read Zealot. Jesus was not what the committees of the church put forth. The successive councils of Nycea bended the real Jesus to the Jesus of Prophesy. The religion created was to appeal to the middle class in Rome. He was a Jewish rebel opposed to Rome.

  • Aaron68

    I don’t care to argue that Republicans have demonstrated hypocrisy, as have plenty of Democrats. To be perfectly clear, though, Jesus never preached his message as a guide for government policy. Just as our Constitution draws a line separating government policy from religious values, Jesus’ message of “render unto Caesar…” clearly established a line separating religious values from government policy. People, right or left, who seek to use the US government as the enforcement mechanism for Christian values are no different from the Israelites of the old Testament that demanded Samuel anoint a King to rule them. No government of man is equipped to uphold God’s law, and too many Christians are guilty of the same pharisee-like behavior Jesus denounced.

    • Anna Strakele

      Jesus’s message is for everyone and everything and every situation. His message is supposed to apply to our lives AND government.

      That being said, considering all the “Christians” in our government are actually not Christians, now is not the time to implement Christ’s word in government. Only when people who truly have Christ in their hearts and are willing to rule lovingly and charitably like Jesus wanted should we allow people to enforce the word of Christ. But those who do not believe in Jesus (and I mean the pseudo-Christians in our government) should not attempt to claim that their actions are in the name of God, let alone blessed by the hand of God. The people in our government are shameful. Until we have true Christians running for government, the only people we should have in every government position is an atheist. And I say that as a Christian.

      • michael071

        A government run by and consisting of “true” Christians would be a theocracy. The Pilgrims and Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay area had a theocracy. Their repression and persecution of others led to the founding of Rhode Island and other entities. Thankfully those New Englanders evolved away from theocracy.

        Before you even think of a theocracy as any type of solution I suggest studying examples such as Iran since 1979 and Geneva under Calvin.

        I would not want to live under those types of governments.

      • John E. Conway

        Considering most of these guys espouse the notion that we need a return to christian values and want our laws based on christian values, perhaps they should learn christian values first?

      • LateNightLarry

        Perhaps THEY should learn true christian values first… not their made-up anti-Christ values they’ve been spouting for the last five years.

      • Sally Strange

        perhaps they should learn christian values first?

        There is no objective way to determine Christian values. They are whatever each individual Christian wants them to be. As such, setting up a government populated by “true Christians” is a recipe for abuse of power.

      • Independent and proud of it

        Yes. I absolutely agree. That’s actually the conservative position — smaller government is better for the people to prevent large scale abuse of power. Your blind spot is that it’s not just Christians who would abuse power. All you have to do is look at THIS administration and see abuse of power. (I’m not accusing just Democrats, btw, I’m just realized they can’t be absolved, either, which maybe you DON’T realize.)

      • TheKnowerseeker

        True Christians don’t create theocracies. Why? Because they recognize that no person is God-holy, and no person isn’t a hypocrite. Only Jesus can fairly hand out punishments for breaking Jesus’ laws. Let people stick to enforcing man’s own laws, made for practical purposes based on the sense of justice common to all people, Christians and not. Let the majority rule.

        Unfortunately, both liberals and conservatives are not at all interested in government Of The People, For The People.

      • Gary Menten

        The Constitution and Supreme Court disagree with you, as do many other religious groups. It is NEVER the time to implement Christ’s word through government. Government in the United States is designed to be secular. It may not favor one religion over another or religion or over non-religion. The government has no role whatsoever enforcing the word of Christ no matter what it actually means or who is preaching it.

      • TheKnowerseeker

        True, though lately the government, in liberal hands, has been favoring non-religion over religion in the courts.

      • Luis Alfredo Martinez

        And who is to say who is a true Christian, first you have to live a life in the same manner that Jesus lived and follow his teaching to the letter not cherry pick like so many pastors do then you would have a right to pick, but in this day and age greed and hate is what these so called preachers preach.

      • TheKnowerseeker

        The Right preaches greed and hate, while the Left preaches abomination and hate. (Each hates the other.)

      • TheKnowerseeker

        The laws of man’s government tend to be influenced by Biblical morals, yes, and when Christians are in power, they may feel great empathy for those morals. However, they still should not try to make governmental law be copies of The (Biblical) Law or any other religious law. Man is not qualified to enforce God’s laws; let man stick to practical legislation, for only he (He) who has never sinned is qualified to throw stones.

      • Luis Alfredo Martinez

        So what you are saying is that you want the True Christian to implement the laws in this country, right, and who is to decide who is a true Christian and who is not since even these Pastors of yours live high on the hog off their own followers, who then will make such decision, you would have to wait until God comes down to make that decision, because I would not trust any zealot Christian making that decision for me, I would rather have separation from Church and State than your alternative, and by the way I am a Catholic Christian.

    • Twinsfantravis

      Aaron68- right on, man. Everything you are saying is correct. If he meant his message to be adopted by a government, he would have made himself a government official, not a carpenter.

      • Izzy66

        but anti American Women’s personal and Constitutional Right to Privacy regarding her reproduction is Ok to Legislate under ‘moral and religious’ grounds? Smacks of sexist and double standard, not a worthy moral teaching.

      • Concerned1

        Depends on if you believe that right to privacy amounts to killing. I do not have the right to kill my kids privately at any age. That would be morally wrong.

      • mdw

        A fetus is not a person so your analogy is wrong

      • Fred Raby

        I believe a fetus is a gift from God, What you decide to do with that gift is on your head alone.

      • Gary Menten

        Your religious beliefs are just that: YOUR religious beliefs. They do not constitutionally apply to anyone else. So if you believe that a fetus is a gift from God, that’s fine. Live out your life according to your beliefs and go in peace, however please do not feel free to impose them on the rest of us through government intervention.

      • Fred Raby

        What makes you think I was trying to impose anything? I was merely sharing my beliefs. I believe that’s still Constitutional

      • Gary Menten

        Yes, of course it is.

      • TheKnowerseeker

        I also believe that stealing is evil. So are you telling me not to “impose” that belief by trying to stop thieves when I catch them? Or demanding that the police do so?

      • Jimbuffalo

        what is it, a loaf of bread? obviously sleeping through science class….

      • dosssva

        An egg is not a chicken. Not even a fertilized one.

      • Jimbuffalo

        Really? What is it, then? A wolf? Your convenient obfuscation does not change the reality. Do you contend that an unborn child (sorry, fetus) is not human?

      • dosssva

        Can an egg breathe? Lay other eggs? A fetus is a precursor to a fully developed human. It cannot survive outside of its host, much like an egg yolk. Not until the final trimester when it is developed. In the early stages, a fetus is a collection of cells, much like an egg yolk, that may or may not come to full term depending on a myriad of circumstances of which abortion is only one.

      • Jimbuffalo

        Hmmm…Still confused about the human species vs. chickens? Let’s see.

        Is your collection of cells not human until it can reproduce? Does one wait until puberty to be classified as human? Or wait, must it sustain breath on its own? Is that the point when the cells become human? When it breathes? Does “it” become human only at birth?

        Oh wait!

        You seem to indicate it could be human at +/- 28 weeks…the third trimester…but that must be a mistake in your writing. So before the third trimester then, “it” remains non-human and just a collection of cells? In your rationalized world of chickens, then, it is “final” (third) trimester when this collection of cells becomes human? Is that the equivalent of 28 weeks gestation?

        Hmmm…confused…but what about the “collections of cells” born at 26 or 23 or 22 weeks of gestation – and survive – are they not human because they didn’t make it to your “final” trimester? Even if they can breathe?

        How do you arbitrate what is human based on such specious logic?

        Your assertion that this collection of cells must come to full term or at least to the “final” trimester seems arbitrary to me. Is your “collection of cells” that is stillborn – one of your myriad of circumstances, perhaps -still not human?

        Hmmm…you should do some research. Take a look at ultrasound imagery of these collections of cells. The science may convince you otherwise.

      • dosssva

        Anymore questions or do actually have something to say?

      • Jimbuffalo

        No. Thanks anyway. You’re too easy. Appreciate your bringing up a two year old thread! Nice to revisit. Thanks, too, for not quoting scripture (as you did previously) to mask your ignorance and denial of embryonic science, human DNA, premature birth. Keep studying and keep an open mind. You’ll understand someday.

      • TheKnowerseeker

        Yes, a fetus (“baby” in Latin) *is* a person. Ever took a gander at abortion photos or any videos of abortions? You might be shocked and horrified; I was/am.

        I was pro-choice before then…. Now I’m pro-life.

      • Melania Gulley

        i have looked at the pics. And yes its not pretty but no they are not people.. they are for lack of better words parasites or symbiots and can not survive outside the womb until a certain point of gestation. Yes I have children and my opinion and reality and truth still holds. Even God doesnt give them personhood in the bible till they draw their first breath outside of their Mothers womb

      • Booga20

        You’re a pathetic parasite…what moron….that’s my right to say…:)…

    • fairness_rules

      An excellent review! Insightful thinking, thank you!

      • Independent and proud of it

        It’s an excellent review of what the filters on the goggles of Democrats allow to pass through as “truth” — and is no more true than the hogwash the other side claims is true,

        It’s only when people stop listening to such dribble and actually make the politicians explain how the programs work that people can make an informed choice. Reading claims that “Republicans hate the poor” and trying to claim that as true is mindless and kool-aid drinking behavior. Take a look at yourself.

      • Tom Weaver

        If you’re so concerned about SNAP, for example, then there are plenty of places where you can read, in detail, how it’s supposed to work and its limitations. You don’t have to “ask the politicians” anything, and they have already provided you the answers in written form.

        Conservative complaints aren’t for the most part cold-hearted. They usually center around two complaints: (1) The government is a poor agent at social safety, and (2) the social safety net removes ambition.

        But the problem here is not necessarily with these two complaints directly – it’s that conservatives have no alternatives other than no alternative. In the history of mankind, the only time that things like starvation have been successfully handled have when a government stepped in and provided some kind of universal services. Direct charity has never been a truly effective tool.. You don’t have to spend much time working overseas in countries without some form of social safety net to see what happens when a government limits its job to protecting negative rights. Personally, I’d rather live with knowing that a small percentage (under 5%) of able people receiving public assistance have resigned themselves to “the dole”, rather than scores of people starving in the streets.

      • Independent and proud of it

        Sp, 40 people starving in the streets is your magic number?

        I’m not sure if I would disagree with you or not, but I think if you asked the average American if they would be willing to have 19 households all chip in to completely support a 20th, for as long as the 20th desires that support, you wouldn’t get people agreeing that would be proper.

        Secondly, suppose we had a society where the government guaranteed that every individual would have food, clothing, shelter, and health care. Do you think there would be a lot of incentive for people who didn’t have a lot of drive to go out and get work and contribute, if they were not forced to do so? I realize a lot of people would, but I don’t think the number who wouldn’t is as low as 5%. I think it is actually quite a bit higher than that.

      • Tom Weaver

        You’ve misunderstood the numbers. 5% (or less) of those accepting public welfare do so on a more-or-less permanent fashion. Only about 1% of Americans are on welfare. Thus, it’s roughly 1 in 2000 who have resigned themselves to be on the dole. That’s not a good thing, but 95% do end up getting themselves off of strict welfare.

    • AntieQ

      If the majority of Americans want to do the right thing for our own people, where does the bible say we cannot do that? And since we do NOT have a theocracy, what difference would it make? What I see is a whole lot of conservatives that wear their fake “Christianity” like a badge of honor, while practicing the most vile behaviors their so-called Lord and Savior spoke most strongly against. The same group that gave us two unfunded wars and a collapsed economy, are now trying to blame and further punish the most vulnerable victims of their failed policies. This isn’t really about Christian values. This is about the hypocrisy of elected officials who only pretend to be Christians to get themselves elected, but only worship wealth.

      • Aaron68

        You are welcome to do what your heart tells you is the right thing, just don’t use our secular legal system to compel me or anyone else to do what the “majority of Americans” believe Jesus wants. God is not subject to the whims of the majority.

      • Tom Weaver

        The Old Testament isn’t solely concerned about negative rights – and in case you didn’t notice, the very rulers that some of the prophets excoriated for not taking care of the poor and disadvantaged were the ones that ran a completely non-participatory government.

        That’s right – in the Old Testament, the prophets advocated for the government using a believer’s tax money to create a social safety net.

        It’s also pretty easy to skate out of your responsibilities as a citizen in a participatory government by pointing to things like Paul’s discussions about a cheerful giver – and completely ignore strictures about giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Have you seriously spent time thinking about exactly what God thinks actually belongs to Caesar – especially when Caesar is you?

      • Aaron68

        I’m curious to know which prophets excoriated rulers for not setting up taxpayer funded safety nets. The Bible asks us all to help the poor and disadvantaged. I’ve never seen where it demands we establish secular governments that help the poor and disadvantaged on behalf of ourselves.

        At the end of the day, Christians are called to live by the spirit, and “against such things, there is no law.” Acts of kindness, patience, generosity, forgiveness, and so forth are to be the hallmarks of Christianity. Someone that takes that attitude that these things can be replaced with the appropriate voting record is missing the point entirely. If Jesus is the lamp that lights your path, then that is your path to walk. No elected official can walk it for you.

      • Tom Weaver

        Anything a ruler did was taxpayer funded. Thus, excoriations to remember the widow, orphan and alien were, by definition, taxpayer-funded safety nets. Thus, God expects governments to care for its citizens. Thus, we, as a actors in a secular, democratically-elected government, are expected to remember the disadvantaged of our time. Not too hard to understand.

      • Aaron68

        Again, where are these excoriations directed at rulers you are referencing? The “rulers” prior to the book of Samuel were Prophets, Priests, and Judges. The early Old Testament Israel really had no formal central government besides God himself. The excoriations I have read are directed at every individual person, calling on them to be willing to give freely, not calling on them to elect officials that will take from the people and redistribute on their behalf.

        God does not expect government to care for its citizens, he expects us to be governed by HIM. (again, 1st Samuel provides a warning about what would happen if Israel put a king between themselves and God). If we as Christians choose to be governed by God, then our own acts of kindness and compassion are to be the safety net called for in the Bible, not the government in Washington or your state capital.

      • Tom Weaver

        Try reading the books of Isaiah, or Jeremiah or other prophets that God sent during the period of the two kingdoms. God did expect his kings to care for their citizens – just as he expected everyone to care for those around them. Apparently you are surprised to find out that God expects us in the collective to behave similarly to the way that God calls us to act as individuals. I’m not sure why, really.

        No one anywhere has claimed that God instructed us to create a democratically elected republic. But that’s irrelevant. We have one. The question is, what do you, as part of the rulers of this nation, do?

      • Aaron68

        Isaiah: “Stop trusting in mere humans,
        who have but a breath in their nostrils.
        Why hold them in esteem?”

        Jeremiah: This is what the Lord says:

        “Cursed is the one who trusts in man,
        who draws strength from mere flesh
        and whose heart turns away from the Lord.

        “But blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord,
        whose confidence is in him.

        What I do is not important to my point. My point is that how the politicians we vote for govern us is not how we should measure our devotion to Christian values.

      • Tom Weaver

        This article isn’t about who should we turn to for our salvation, or who is “best” at providing it – it’s about whether we, as a governing collective of citizens, should concern ourselves with the marginalized.

        It seems pretty clear to me that in a world that conforms to God’s will, part of that world is a government that cares for its citizens in more ways than simply preserving their negative rights (which, no doubt, is a message that his prophets delivered – even more often than one about caring for the marginalized). God’s word tends to back that up, providing examples where both the temporal and spiritual “governments” that either confirmed, or should have conformed, to God’s will provided positive acts of charity.

        As an aside: don’t take this as a call for universal panhandling. For the able-bodied, Levitical law gave them access to food, but only if they worked for it.

      • Aaron68

        We are in agreement for the most part. Our difference lies in who should organize this collective citizenry that concerns itself with the marginalized. The Christian perspective, or at least my interpretation of it, is that such an organization should be left to the church, where individuals are guided by a devotion to Christian values and not coerced by threats of jail time for tax evasion. One thing in the New Testament that is made clear is that motivation does matter, and devoting yourself to good deeds for the purpose of appeasing earthly spectators is antithetical to Christian values. Therefore, Christian values cannot be carried out by earthly governments, even if the end result is the same.

      • Tom Weaver

        My point was that in the Old Testament, God did expect his earthly government to foster positive rights as well as negative ones – and a ruler’s income was tied to required taxes. I’m not sure that that requirement goes away just because the government to which we have an input is a secular one suddenly means that we are free to ignore Christ’s commands.

        Should we then be free to choose to create an oppressive and unjust government? If not, why not, since you have disassociated our responsibilities as citizens from our responsibilities as Christians.

      • Aaron68

        You have not provided any biblical basis for your theory that God demands governments to engage in acts of charity on behalf of the people in order to satisfy his laws. You cannot simply make the claim that the Old Testament says so without citing your claim.

        And yes, we should be free to choose to create an oppressive and unjust government, but it would be foolish to do so. That’s EXACTLY what God, in 1 Samuel chapter 8 Warned against, yet allowed to come about anyway. EVERY TIME mankind creates his own government to rule in God’s stead, that is exactly what it will be. Humanity is flawed, and bad trees do not bear good fruit. Only by acting in accordance with God’s plan, can we as individuals claim a place in the Kingdom of God.

        This is why it is flawed reasoning by the right who claim that God must be represented in Washington, and it is flawed reasoning by the left to condemn Republicans in Washington for failing to live up to that. It simply can never happen. God does not have a place in our government. God is a government unto himself seeking any who choose to accept and abide by Him.

      • Tom Weaver

        Once again – there are specific admonishments against the *rulers* of Israel and Judah to remember the widow, the orphan and the alien. Unless you think that “remember” means, learn their names?

        You are still avoiding my more important question, though. It wasn’t whether we are free to create an unjust and oppressive government – that’s clearly the case. It wasn’t whether we as humans can ever do anything perfectly – that’s absurd. My question was whether you think that as a Christian, you *should* deliberately try and create a government that is unjust and oppressive – because that’s what you are implying by disassociating your Christian self from your secular self when it comes time to participate in government. You are saying that there’s one set of rules and morals that you follow as an individual, but that you are freed from those strictures when looking at your role in government because actions taken as a collective are often required as an individual. That goes for everything, of course – laws against arson, thievery, rape, murder, what have you. The state enforces those rules of good citizenship, too – so by your logic, we should remove those strictures as well, so that you are free to follow God’s will by your own volition.

        What you seem to be doing is deliberately avoiding your personal responsibility as a citizen-governor. You have a personal input into how we set up the state that is designated by God to, at a minimum, deliver God’s justice. That it does so imperfectly is inherent in anything that humans so, and in no way absolves us from our responsibilities.

      • Aaron68

        As a “Christian”, I have no obligation to try and create any government, just or unjust, Free or oppressive. Man-made laws of good citizenship are irrelevant and subject to the whims of whatever man is appointed to lead such government. You can create it in whatever image you wish, but at the end of the day, your government is built on sand and it will fail.

        God’s admonition of the rulers for their failure is little more than a statement of the obvious. God has always said the Kings that Israel propped up in his stead would fail to protect them as he had done, and his admonition of those kings should NOT be taken as an invitation to try again.

        I’m not saying we should act to repeal laws against rape, murder, robbery, etc. I’m saying that Christians don’t require man-made laws against such things, and no government of man will protect you from those who choose to break those laws.

        I do not advocate or oppose an active role in any form of secular government. My point is simply that any role you do take in a secular government should not be considered “Godly”. No party can represent Christian values in a secular government, because a secular government by its nature is not Christian. That is not to say Christians cannot be in secular government, but their actions in office should not be mistaken for Christian acts of charity and kindness, and Party Platforms should not be mistaken for Christian values, no matter how closely they resemble one another in your eyes.

      • James Jordan

        Aaron68, I agree that a secular government should not be considered in and of itself Godly. The Bible does say that God anoints and appoints who He wills, and there is a history of God appointing His people in secular governments (Daniel, the 3 Hebrew Boys, Joseph, Esther), but the people did not conform to the ungodly governmental law they were associated with. Daniel was a governor, but was thrown in a lion’s den because he would not conform to the unlawful dictates of the King (the same with the 3 Hebrew Boys).
        Another distinction or example that shows the stark contrast between government and religion in our day and time is the First Amendment. America says you have freedom of speech (say whatever you want), the Bible says don’t lie, don’t slander, don’t speak evil of dignitaries, be “slow” to speak. As a Christian, ww have to be able to distinguish between what means to be a citizen of the US and a citizen of the Kingdom of God.?

      • Aaron68

        It is a difficult task sometimes, but in a free society, those things are usually not in conflict. The more our personal lives are dictated by secular government regulation, the less power we have to live according to the dictates of Christian values.

        However, this particular column is even more complicated, because it it asks us to be able to distinguish between what it means to be an agent of the US government and a citizen of the Kingdom of God. Is taxing the rich and giving to the poor in keeping with Jesus’ message the same way as giving of your own wealth out of compassion and a spirit of generosity? I think not.

      • Eugene Staten

        Bull… As a Christian, you shall do right by others in both your private life as well as your job.

        If your job is political then you are to demonstrate your Christian values in your voting and your debates.

        While it is not for us to create a theocratic, Christian government our values should be lived within the halls of democracy.

        We are Christians, not split personalities.

      • disqus_PxMGbpLOCq

        We could run around in circles about this. There is government. There are church institutions. The goal of each is to help (all) people flourish and prosper. We need to stop arguing about who is paying for it or making me do this, and implement fair processes for this to happen whether we call it secular or religious. We need laws of government the same way a business needs policies and procedures, or a church has its mission and belief statements….so that people know what is expected of them.

      • Aaron68

        If we could agree on what a fair process was, we wouldn’t be arguing about it, would we? That’s part of the problem, and exactly why we limit the scope of our government. It gives Christians the right to implement whatever process they desire to help people, without forcing obligations on anyone else. There is a great quote from C.S. Lewis on this matter.

        “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

        Christ warns many times the inherent corruption that comes with wealth and power. Governments are not immune to this warning simply because they are acting with the blessings of a majority of their subjects. If you want to help your fellow man, by all means do so with your own energy and resources. Do not pass that obligation on to your elected representatives and believe yourself righteous for doing so.

      • disqus_PxMGbpLOCq

        Yes. Christ understood that societies had government that collected taxes and said to render those to them, and also render some to God. There is a price to be paid to live in society with its protections and services, and maintenance of an economy that supports its citizens…there is nothing wrong about that. Supporting the poor, elderly and disabled prevents crime, keeps bodies from cluttering our streets and sidewalks, keeps some members still producing work, keeps us from narcissism-good for the soul/society, provides jobs to care providers, etc… it is a part of the social contract. I have never had any problem with that. Of course you can put limits, and that is where the disputes are, from 0 of the libertarian utopia to whatever. Reality is, though it seems “unfair”, taxing the rich sustains a better economy for everybody’s benefit better than not taxing them…while they still live high on the hog. Like Bill Gates has said, “I can understand wanting to have millions of dollars, there’s a certain freedom, meaningful freedom, that comes with that. But once you get much beyond that, I have to tell you, it’s the same hamburger.”

      • Aaron68

        Jesus never called upon us to render money to God. As Christians, we have no social contract with God any more than we have a social contract with friends and family. We do for each other because we love and care for one another, not because we have some enforceable obligation to fulfill.

        Galatians 5 is where you find the simple summary of what I am saying. Christians are not judged by the government policies they support. The mechanism that identifies them is purposefully and explicitly distinct from government policy.

        At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter if Bill Gates cares about whether he has 50 Billion dollars or 50 million. Taxing his wealth for the benefit of the poor, or voting for someone else to do so, is not the measure of Christian piety.

      • disqus_PxMGbpLOCq

        Matthew 22:21New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

        21 They answered, “The emperor’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
        Jesus also practiced and validated Jewish tithing as in Matthew chapter 23
        Regarding using money (either taxes or tithing) as a measure of Christian piety (particularly in a country that some like to claim is based on Christian faith:
        Matthew 25:
        41Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44“Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45“Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life

        It is true, there is no written social contract, that is loosely doing the right thing by loving your neighbor, or in preserving community security, law and order, public health, etc…..

      • Aaron68

        Again, you are talking about using the government as a proxy for your own good works. Jesus was talking about you feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, etc. He was not advocating you vote for politicians that promise government programs that will do that for you. That is not piety. Plenty of atheists advocate such programs.

        Give to God the things that are God’s. Praise, worship, prayer, obedience, witness, etc. Nothing in there requires money. It was the emperor’s face on the coin because the coin was the emperor’s. God has no use for your currency.

      • disqus_PxMGbpLOCq

        We use the government as a systemic administrator to process the good works. There is nothing wrong with that at all…it is secular, but if you are religious, and want to view it as a way for you to fulfull the command to help others, there is no problem with that at all. Yes, you can define what you give to God, tithing was often herbs, produce, whatever, so no it doesn’t have to be money, just traditionally that is what is done. No worries Aaron, you don’t have to tithe money, we all got the taxes though.

      • Aaron68

        No, we don’t. The government would be prosecuting blasphemy laws and crimes like homosexuality and adultery if we used it as the administrator of Christian virtue. I hope we can agree that it shouldn’t be used as such. The government in Washington DC is far more bloated and probably more corrupt than the Temple priests that Jesus railed against in the New Testament. The entire Bible can be boiled down to the single fundamental message to cast off our secular and material distractions, reject the corruption of human institutions, and to seek out and serve the will of God. Our secular institutions are not the means to that end, they are distractions from it.

      • Truthseeker

        Aaron and Tom, your joint use of the word “collective” scares the hell out of me. As a survivor of the Cold War, that term gives me the chills every time I hear it. Christians should view their world as one based on individual responsibility. There is nothing particularly virtuous about belonging to a certain group. Each individual is responsible to God for his or her behavior. “Collective” thinking, throughout all of human history, has eventually led to mass graves.

      • Aaron68

        I believe that was gist of the point I was.making, albeit less dramatically.

      • dosssva

        So what did Jesus mean when he said, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”? It sounds like you’re trying to rationalize the removal of safety nets. Do you really believe that individual acts of charity could stem the hunger and poverty? Are there even enough churches to do so? Why, if paying taxes could help the poor, would you, as a Christian, feel coerced?

      • Aaron68

        When Jesus said that, I believe he meant that the sacrifice needed to live a life in service to God is too difficult for many people to make, especially the wealthy. It is also exceeding difficult to become wealthy if you have denied yourself and taken up a cross for Christ (Matthew 16:24, and Matthew 6:21-24)

        Can individual acts of charity stem hunger and poverty? I don’t know. Probably not. Matthew 26:11, Jesus said there will always be poor among us. What is poverty, though? Not having food or clothes may be poverty, but Matthew 6 again spells out that God cares for those in need if they are in his service. As Christians, we are obliged to be the ambassadors and administrators that care, but ultimately, it is God that provides.

        Taxes could help the poor. But I think we can agree that they generally do not. The entire revenue stream from individual income taxes taken in by the IRS barely covers 1/4 of all federal spending. The taxes collected from the bottom 50% of taxpayers doesn’t even cover foreign humanitarian and military aid. If you take into account the entirety of what our government pays for, do you really think taxes are benefiting the poor? (1 Samuel 8:10-18)

      • Eugene Staten

        So, fight against welfare given to foreign countries in the form of military aid.

        In both old and new testaments, we are commanded to feed the widows and orphans.

        And in the old testament, many of the laments of the prophets was over the nation, as an entity, ignoring the poor, widows and orphans.

      • Aaron68

        The nation as known by the prophets were God’s chosen people. The prophets were not lamenting the tax and spend policies of the King so much as the collapse of moral values of the people. Just like many people do today in the US. You can take your message to Wall Street just as easily as you can to Washington. We are called to join the Kingdom of God, not a Republic of man. Keep your eyes on things above, not on worldly things. Voting for whichever candidate you think is the best representation of Jesus and demanding the government tax you is not the Christian mentality Jesus expects of you. Getting elected to office so that you can tax others and distribute their wealth in a more “godly” manner is not what Jesus expects of you. Jesus warned against doing your works in public so that others could see, which is exactly what political optics are all about.

      • Eugene Staten

        The prophets were lamenting the people being sti gy and without compassion. I get it, you want to excercise your right to be compassionate on your own terms, to pick and choose how and when you will show your Christian kindness.

        Unfortunately, 80 percent of christians dont give to any cause.

        So, compassion as a choice and you choose that we be assholes.

        You balk at millions helping the poor but say nothing about billions buying weapons for foriegn governmet and enriching military industry.

      • Aaron68

        All compassion is by choice. If I steal your money and give it away, you are not being compassionate. The right to be compassionate on your own terms is the only way a person can be compassionate at all. There is no such thing as forced compassion.

        How 80% of Christians choose to give is immaterial. This is about the distinction between secular, institutional tax and welfare programs and christian values.

        I have said plenty on the matter of our foreign military aid, but it has not been brought up here before. So allow me to state plainly that I do not support Israel as being some divine godly settlement. I am fundamentally opposed to our interventionist foreign policy and the misguided war on terrorism.

        If it is to be said that Republicans do not represent Christian values, it is because they have taken Christian values to mean what the author of this column has twisted it to mean–the political acts of a secular state in the place of our own individual obligations to show love to each other and discipline in ourselves.

      • Eugene Staten

        A cohice to be compassionate may also playout as understanding the need of the community to care for its less fortunate, at the very least, help to make opportunity affordable enugh foe one to be able to legitamately change his circumstances.

        You see, the truth about compassion is it is abundantly given to one’s own while begrudged when it comes to “others”.

        When things are left to market and human kindness, society will fail, because scripture proves humans are selfish and greedy and “greed” is the root of all of our social ills, not community compassion.

      • Aaron68

        There is a distinction between the community coming together to care for the needy and elected politicians using the force of law to take from community members and redistribute. Christianity has nothing to do with the actions of a worldly government. Christian values, by definition, cannot be expressed through government.

      • Kriquette

        As a christian don’t you realize we no longer live under the old testament and the book tells us so! We live under Christ!

      • Kriquette

        iF WE LIVED UNDER OLD TESTAMENT WE WOULD BE JEWISH! Christ’s birth made us Christians duh hence the name!

      • Tom Weaver

        We no live directly under the strictures of the Old Testament, that is true. But as Paul frequently points out, the lessons taught by the Old Testament are as valid to the Christian as to the Jew. In fact, Jesus himself points this out as recorded in Matthew 5. Only a Christian young in their faith throws away the Old Testament as useless and unimportant.

      • Independent and proud of it

        No one says we can’t do what the majority of Americans want? But when has that stopped progressives? Has the Affordable Care Act EVER received more than 50% popularity in the polls? No. But it’s one of the left’s big dreams, so despite the fact that it is clearly NOT what the American people have ever asked for, is not what they voted for in Obama (let’s face it, 2008 was an anti-Bush, anti-war vote), it got rammed down the throat of the American people anyway.

        So if you are going to talk against hypocrisy, let’s not claim that liberal political views on the economy are what the American people want. (That isn’t to say there aren’t some Democratic positions that aren’t more popular than Republican views, but not their economic policies. Reagan was VERY popular largely because he rolled back a lot of the poorly designed welfare programs that Democrats wanted to expand.)

        As far as the collapsed economy goes (and I am for the president’s suggestions on Wall Street reform), you’ll have to admit that it was the direct actions of the Clinton administration that led to abandonment of regulation of the types of securities highly responsible for the Wall Street collapse. (FrontLine, hardly a conservative program, has done a great job discussing this … you should take a look sometime), and President Bush’s proposals to give greater regulatory attention to GSEs was flatly rejected by Harry Reid and other prominant Democrats — so while I agree that the unfunded wars are to be placed on Republican shoulders, I actually think that the major causes of the collapse of the economy lie more on Democratic shoulders than Republican.

        So get real.

      • Sally Strange

        Has the Affordable Care Act EVER received more than 50% popularity in the polls?

        Consistently, so long as you describe the actual content of the law.

      • Independent and proud of it

        Actually, no. No poll is that sophisticated. What the polls have done is describe small portions of the law, and generally popular portions of the law.

        If you think there is a poll that has ACTUALLY described the contents of the law, I’d like to know about it and read the questions posed, because I would be surprised if they could get approximately 2400 pages of the bill and approximately 20,000 pages of regulations down to a few simple poll questions.

        So get real, and don’t try to justify your opinions with lies. It’s OK if you like Obamacare, but don’t lie to support your opinions — that’s not OK.

      • Kriquette

        You sir are either a liar or delusional,,,

      • Independent and proud of it

        Secondly, you could argue that people are not sophisticated enough or knowledgeable enough to fully understand a poll question asking about Obamacare overall — that they don’t understand the legislation. You might be able to make that case, I don’t know what evidence you would have. But certainly making that case rather weakens the point I was trying to refute; i.e., doing what the majority of Americans want. You can’t make the claim “we need to do what the people of the country want” and then say “but they don’t really understand what it is they want.” You can have one, but you can’t have both.

        That’s a big VALID criticism of a lot of progressives (maybe not the movement, but a lot of the people who support progressivism) — they think they know what is better, and in fact are just a bunch of elite snobs. (Whether it is valid or not is open to debate, but it certaily is a criticism with at least some evidence to support it on some positions.)

      • dave bowen

        Exactly. Republicans think the American voter is forgetful,naive,apathetic,uninformed,gullible,and just plain stupid. In fact,they count on it. It is, after all the only way they can win,by hoping people buy into their “Big Lie” tactics.Progressives think they know what is better? Conservatives are convinced of it,and demonize anyone who does not agree,even within their own political party. These right wing wackos that have hijacked the Republican Party are the real RINOS and have insulted the legacy of Lincoln,T.R. and Ike. The letters GOP used to mean something. Grand Old Party. Now it means Get Obama Party,and they do not give a damn who gets hurt,or how much damage they do to the country in order to reach that goal. The Republican House should be sued for dereliction of duty,violating theiroath of office,and betraying the will of the people.

      • George Bruck

        i suppose you have forgotten all about the tax breaks for corps that move overseas, tax cuts for the wealthy, a botched war in Afghanistan(the intent of which Obama accomplished in short order) and an un necessary and unfunded war/occupation of Iraq…….very convenient.

      • Independent and proud of it

        (a) I don’t see how any of that relates in any way to the Affordable Care Act.

        (b) I support what Obama has done regarding Iraq — and I wish he would get us COMPLETELY out of Afghanistan. I wish he actually WOULD keep his promise to get us out.

        (c) You will have to be a little more specific on tax codes you want to talk about … I am definitely middle of the road there. Some positions perceived to be conservative I like, and some positions perceived to be liberal I like.

        (d) I think you assume I think of Obama the way the Tea Party thinks of him. I don’t. I support the added Wall Street regulation, for example. You have done the ass part of assume.

        (e) None of this means I have to think the ACA is good legislation. You can think something is completely f**ked up without the intentions were bad.

      • Muttboi

        No you need to get real! Most of your post is a joke!

      • Booga20

        You’re a joke..

      • TheKnowerseeker

        And now we have gay marriage being rammed down our throats, including down the throats of the left’s beloved racial “minorities” that happen to be Christians. And next it’ll be gay adoption. And the left’s war against Jesus “progresses” on and on….

        Furthermore, the left is trying to force and indoctrinate us and our children into believing gay is OK through public school teachers, lawsuits, and through other sneaky forms of bullying and brainwashing. All of the MSMs and most of the corporations are allying with the agendists to try to beat this into our heads and into law.

        Yes, I don’t like the Republican Party much because it openly promotes greed and true bigotry, and treats any form of financial aid as anathema; I *used* to be registered Democrat, but this intense push of the gay agenda in the last ten years has completely alienated me and my theology from that party. I guess when I can, I will vote Reform Party to try to get the money out of politics… but when I can’t, I am forced to choose the lesser of the two evils: the GOP over the Democrats.

      • Kriquette

        It isn’t being rammed down my throat or the majority of Americans! I am a christian! And I believe God loves gay people no less than he loves the rest of us! I find homosexuality not mentioned once in the new testament! I believe in the separation of Church because I don’t want someone forcing a state sanctioned religion on me! You are just a bigot!

      • TheKnowerseeker

        Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:9–10

        Also, Jesus Himself reaffirms the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman (as defined in Genesis) in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9.

        God loves every person; that’s why He sent His only Son to die on the cross for our sins. Thus, He loves the homosexual and every other sinner, but not the sin, including homosexual behavior. “Repent and sin no more”, as Jesus said. It is hard for me to believe that you are a Bible-believing, born-again Christian if you’re not aware of these things already….

        Opposition to gay marriage is not state-sanctioned religion; it is based on what The People do or do not want, from their own individual reasons, and ~50% of Americans do not want gay marriage. (An even larger percentage of Americans do not want the legalization of gay marriage — supported or not — to tread upon the religious rights of other Americans — no polls yet, but I’m guessing about 75% — but that is exactly what is happening now through lawsuits against Christian wedding businesses.)

        You really shouldn’t call people names; it just reflects badly upon you.

      • Silence Is Golden

        Hey, guess what, you don’t have to be gay. It’s that simple.

      • TheKnowerseeker

        Which has *nothing* to do with my post. Want to try actually refuting it?

      • Daniel Nicolosi

        I don’t believe in your book of fairy tales. So why should I be subjected to it in a country supposedly of the separation of church and state?

      • TheKnowerseeker

        This isn’t a country of separation of church and state. Show me where it says that in The Constitution.

      • Daniel Nicolosi

        Lmao. “Rammed sown your throat”? Show me proof like a wedding certificate that shows you are forced to marry someone of the same sex.

      • TheKnowerseeker

        We’re being forced to *endorse* it. Kept up with the news lately?

      • Kriquette

        Reagan was a GD criminal! He closed all the funding for CETA, the program that took over for the man power act, Which was an educational program that took poor families off welfare by educating the head of house hold in well paying jobs! I went to CETA school of practical nursing! Mine was the last class. We graduated the year dear ole Ronnie got shot! He is also the president who began tearing away and public aid to the poor and mentally unstable. He emptied all the government funded mental hospitals and did away with all the charity hospitals like Wayne County hospital in Detroit, And Northville psychiatric and Walter P Ruther Psychiatric in South eastern Michigan in the early 80’s! So do not tell me what a great president he was!

      • Chris

        The affordable care act i#s what the bat-shit crazy rights would pass….how many of you crazies cam remember how many times Obama had to do a rewrite on it?! Obama had far better opinions on it before hand…..but no the Republicans are some of the most money hungry rats around….all t he y care about is the $$ signs involved instead of the health of the coubtry. So get off your high horse blaming Obama for this shit, bc to the one finger you are pointing at him four of your own damn fingers are pointing right back into your horrible smug little faces…..And Blaming ECONOMIC problem’s on the clintons?! You are obviously a fox news fan bc you are VERY wrong…bill Clinton had the HIGHEST surplus of any recent president….clean out your eyes and watch something other than fox news and maybe you can learn something

      • Booga20

        What a bunch of damaged idiots…you and the 15 that clicked the up arrow…

      • Truthseeker

        The number one elected official who pretended to be a Christian to get himself elected is our current President. If Christianity were outlawed, there would not be sufficient evidence to convict our current President.

      • dosssva

        There isn’t now imbecile.

    • DoctorButler

      You’re right, but your missing his point; Christianity is indeed at odds with government, which is why it should be a non-point in deciding policy.

      The GOP, however, almost ceaselessly uses it as an emotional distraction when bamboozling their ignorant voter-base.

      That’s the problem. It shouldn’t be brought up period, it’s unconstitutional.

      • Aaron68

        From the column:

        “But I’ve never quite understood where Republicans get off claiming Christianity. Why, because many of them go to church? Because many of them read the Bible? The policies they support sure as heck don’t represent real Christian values.”

        I’m explaining why this is a fallacious approach to an argument. Christian values stop becoming Christian values when they become secular policy. Christianity (as I understand it) is a deeply personal experience that guides your own individual values and actions. By dumping the values and actions onto someone else, you are undermining the experience.

    • Faith1

      Times sure have changed since 2013.

      • Aaron68

        No, things haven’t changed at all. People are still depending on the force of government to do good works instead of bravely addressing the evils of the world on their own. Look at movements like Black Lives Matter and what they are protesting. How many police shootings could be avoided if a brave Christian spoke to kids like Tamir Rice directly about holding a gun at the park instead if calling the police?

        Government “compassion” is a myth. This is exactly what the prophet Samuel warned the Israelites about when they demanded a king.

    • shoupart

      If Jesus never preached anything intended to be a governmental guide, doesn’t it seem logical to conclude that Republicans (or Democrats) shouldn’t use his message as one to guide modern-day policy?

      • Aaron68

        Yes. Republicans should not use his message as one to guide modern-day policy, and Democrats should not write columns excoriating them for not using his message to guide modern-day policy.

      • shoupart

        I agree! But it seems to be that’s it’s perfectly fair game for ANYBODY, regardless of political affiliation, to call out hypocrisy when they see it, and that includes Republicans claiming Christian values and acting to the contrary.

  • AThinker

    Seems someone one forgot – “The soul that Sinneth it shall die”.
    So far as I can see that leaves both sides of the aisle in deep trouble.
    This author, however, has either not read the whole book, or he just ignores the parts He doesn’t like.

  • Clayton

    The author of this article is right on. How in interprets the Bible and the US Constitution shows wisdom. Jesus is Lord, not America.

  • Cathryn Sykes

    Actually, Jesus didn’t suggest that it might be nice to help those who needed help. He made that perhaps the defining requirement for getting into heaven.
    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.
    Sadly, far too many people who claim to live by the Bible actually rarely read the Bible. Instead, they get a verse or two each Sunday, in church or on their local “Christian” channel, heavily interpreted by their pastor or a TV evangelical….verses often out of context, where context counts. The oft-quoted “Those who do not work will not eat” verse beloved of Randians takes on a different meaning when you read the context and find out it refers to people who had a “Why bother?” attitude towards working because they thought Jesus was going to return day after tomorrow and waft them up to heaven. And there are far too many Chrisians, IMHO, who, like many religionists the world over, think that ritual is all that matters. Go to your church or temple or shrine or mosque each week, get dunked in a tub, have “holy” water sprinkled over you or pray in a certain ritualized way and you have a solid ticket to heaven. I sometimes have to point out to my S. Baptist friends that Jesus did NOT say that those who were “born again” WERE going to heaven. He said that no one who was NOT born again would go to Heaven. In other words, being born again is NOT a guarantee; it’s a minimum requirement!

  • JellicleCat60

    ReTHUGliCONS: Worse hypocrites EVER

  • FFVison

    I have to disagree about the being hopeful part. True, all the points that they brought up about not being hopeful and being fearful of all sorts of stuff is true, they seem not to care much about the environment. One of the things that they should be fearful of and motivated to change their attitude about, the very planet we all live on.

  • Monastery

    Let’s not pretend that Liberals embrace God or Christianity, okay.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      No need to pretend since we liberals do embrace God and Christianity.

      • dveed

        Ask Nancy Pelosi that. How about Sandra Fluke who can’t afford $9.00 a month for her birth control and wants us to pay for her Aids medications when she gets it from her slutty lifestyle.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What does birth control have to do with Christianity? Nothing as far as I know. You are a pathetic waste of space.

    • jchastn


  • Monastery

    Christ never advocated for the forced takeover and redistribution of
    wealth. He advocated for charity. And you’re an idiot if you think
    republicans and conservatives aren’t charitable. They’re MORE charitable
    than socialists and liberals, because they understand that charity
    belongs to the private discretion of the individual. Socialists don’t
    bother to give from their own pockets except as they funnel money into the government for redistribution.

    And I laugh when they take money from OTHER people’s pockets, presumably for third parties, and call THAT charity.

    Christ NEVER commanded that the State cease and redistribute money. EVER. It’s a wet dream of those of you who seek to invoke Christianity for your purposes.

    Funny, because you have no use for Christianity when it comes to Scriptural references to the sin of homosexuality or anything resembling the abolishment of birth control.

    Cherry picking Scripture. What a farce.

    • cjmarley

      If charity actually worked in our country there wouldn’t be any call for welfare programs. But it doesn’t work…it’s a broken system. It HELPS…but it’s severely lacking because those who are not in need of the help do not help with what the charities need in order to provide assistance to those who are need of it. Now that the SNAP program is being gutted by the conservatives watch how fast those charities start to struggle (which they already are…it’s just going to get worse) to help those who need it most…children, elderly and disabled vets.

  • a_leah

    I wish people with true Christian values would GO BACK TO CHURCH. Good, mainline churches are declining in membership while conservative churches seem to be growing. It should be the other way around.

  • michael071

    Everyone judges other people. Not just Republicans.

    Republicans tend to go beyond judging other people to condemning other people and trying to use the government to impose Republican ideas on others. It is that old “it’s my way or the highway” mentality.

    Republicans take judging others too far.

  • Susan Salisbury

    this is more preogressivist nonsense from a person who obviously neither believes in nor practices Christian belief nor knows anything about the constitution. First of all the First Amendment does NOT prohibit private people from doing anything….It is directed toward government action. This screed is a hideous perversion of the first amendment suggesting, as it does, that people are prohibited about talking about religion in conjunction with policy issues. Second, while Jesus tells us that we should help the poor He never told us to arrange for the government to do it. At Jesus time the government was the Romans. He was executed by the Roman government.
    This is also part of the ocntinuing demoniszation of people who disagree with progressives. We have come to expect that . Stalin was a progressive. Kim Jung Il was a progressive. The goal of the progressive ideoloy is to stifle dissent and crush opposition by nay set of lies and propaganda and, when possible force and brutality. Christ was neither a Republican nor a Democrat and you clearly have no respect for Chrisitanity or Christ.

  • bigguy 1

    This is so wrong on so many levels that it is impossible to know where to begin. As some others have commented there is a huge difference between the church and the government. If I see a beggar on the side of the road and I give him food and clothes that is called charity. If I see that same beggar and hold a gun on someone else and demand that they feed and cloth that person that is called extortion and is a crime. That is the difference between the government demanding that I do it and me having sympathy and doing it on my own. Scripture is misquoted and taken completely out of context to try to prove points which shows a lack of discernment at best and maybe purposeful misleading.

    • jchastn

      Good try at excuse making. The social safety net is the only reason why you have ANYTHING. It is probably the only reason why rich people are still living. If people in this nation truly start to starve, they will kill all the rich.

  • Nicholas

    Jesus said love one another. Abortion is not in the bible because the writers could not fathom that happening, but it did say “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” So The anti-abortion is basically covered under though shalt not kill and love thy neighbor. it’s about respecting life. Republicans are often blind to how they don’t live like Christians. abortion is not one of the areas they are wrongs even a blind pig finds a truffle. I am more about preserving a woman’s right of choose before she is pregnant. then supporting her threw any pregnancy and after. No getting around it abortion is ending a life. You can justify is as much as you can killing a 23 year old who still lives at home with out a job.

  • shopper

    I’ve seen pictures of Billy Graham at his 95th birthday surrounded by people like Trump, Murdoch, Palin, etc. Think he may have been the only Christian in the picture and he is also a little far to the right. The difference being that he believes in what he says and the others say it to further their own ends. Rev. Graham at least would want to help the poor. However, he did make lots of money preaching his beliefs and didn’t give it all away. Too many of today’s popular preachers keep all that they get. Sad Christians.

  • Steve Hughes

    That guy also FAILED to mention all the Dietary Restiction and other O.T. laws from no pork to no tattoos. But my favorite is the oine that states if your daughter is not a virgin at her weding she is to be stoned or burned to death, for playing the whore. Just a few paragraphs after the comment about homosexuality. Bet he don’t want to talk about that one.

  • Al Briones

    It all boils down to one simple fact they are non-believers. They are the very type of people that Christ showed his righteous anger at “Hypocrites” they are from the father the Devil.

  • Connie Fisher

    So well said. Ghandi said,” I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

  • fairness_rules

    A lot of truth in this article. Republicans keep mixing politics and religion claiming their religious beliefs have a Christian foundation. From what I read in the Word, Christ had very little to do with the politics of the day.

  • Chris Anderson

    And Jesus would condemn the Dems for their stand on Abortion and homosexuality. Period. Jesus was the perfect Jew. He followed every law, perfectly. But he was just. Ye who is without sin……He would tell the homosexual to go and sin no more and to follow HIM. God destroyed Sodom. He told the woman at the well to sin no more. You can’t pick and choose. Take the Bible as what it is: the perfect representation of what GOD wants us to be. It shows that man is no where perfect. But those who follow Christ and believe in Him as God/Man will be saved.

    • Christo Max

      I’m so glad religion is dying in this country. Relics like yourself will NOT be missed.

  • Wendy30

    The problem, Aaron68, is that Republicans support their political stance against abortion and homosexuality as being a “Christian value.” As the article pointed out, this is inconsistent with their stance on other things, such as the glorification of the wealthy and the vilification of the poor. They need to take a consistent stand and either just admit they want a theocracy or get their faith out of their politics altogether and stop using Jesus as an excuse for their anti-choice and anti-gay stance. They are trying to have it both ways, but they either need to use Jesus as the justification for their political beliefs or they need to use the constitution (my preference), but they can’t use both.

    • jchastn

      If they want a Theocracy they should go somewhere else. Our constitution doesn’t allow it. But that is NOT what they want. They want a white male nation where women are subservient and the poor die in the streets and black people work for white people and gay and lesbian people stay in the closet and only come out to the White men who kinda like it “that way” now and then.

  • Kristinfan413years

    Liberal “noble and wise”

  • Shrek

    Garbage article. But, from the left, nothing else is expected.

    You know, keeping people in poverty to ensure they vote for the democrat party isn’t really “helping” the poor.
    The democrats only defining people as a particular race, or sex, or sexual orientation, doesn’t really count as ‘not judging others’.
    Continually spouting the litany of wrongs committed by: white people, the rich, the conservatives, business owners, employers, bosses, non union workers, and religious leaders, then reminding all that those wrongs will never be corrected.. .isn’t providing hope. (its scaring the population to get votes)

  • Maani

    Sadly, all too many Christians – both Republicans AND Democrats – would not know Jesus if He bit them on the ear. The “Church” (both Catholic and Protestant) has, in large part, gone so astray from what He did and said during His life and ministry that He would probably not recognize Himself in many of their ideologies. Is it any wonder that so many Christians are leaving “organized, mainstream, hierarchical” churches – which tend to be dogmatic, doctrinaire and ritualistic – for “alternative” churches and fellowship groups that focus more on who Jesus actually was and what He actually did and said? It is actually quite sad.

  • Bret Thomas

    While I do agree with some points, this article makes some
    very gross overstatements and theological mistakes:

    1) “I guess their opposition to abortion and homosexuality is where they stake their biggest claim to following “Christianity”…… And guess what? He never once spoke about homosexuality or abortion. To judge your conviction to Christianity based on either of those issues means you’re assuming what Jesus would believe. And isn’t it quite arrogant for anyone to assume they would know what the son of God would believe on two issues he never even spoke
    once about?”

    I’ve heard this argument before and it is an extremely weak argument for many reasons. First you have to understand the culture and who Jesus’ ministry was directed toward for most of his ministry. It was directed at Jews. It was well established that homosexuality was a sin and commonly viewed as an evil perversion. Also the disciple’s did not write down everything that Jesus said, so it is quite possible He did say something about it. Second Jesus clearly gives guidelines for marriage being between one man and one woman in Matthew 19:4-5.

    However what is most troubling about this view is how inconsistent it is. If you follow the logic that “Well Jesus didn’t talk about it so it must be ok” then you must be consistent. For example, Jesus never spoke of racism or rape. By this logic it should come to reason that, if you are being consistent, these things are ok as well. But of course these things are not ok!

    What this view does is it picks and chooses what parts of Scripture fit your lifestyle. And that is NOT true Christianity. Scripture calls US to change, not do a dance around what we feel is acceptable but to completely give our minds, body, soul and our lives over to serve our King.

    2) Helping the poor

    This is a greatly misunderstood subject in Scripture with both sides (for this articles sake Rep/Demo) making mistakes. Scripture does call us to help the needy and the poor that is true, but it gives balance to this idea. For example 2 Thessalonians 3 says “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat”. This is an important concept for both to understand. The key word being “unwilling”.Clearly there are people in our society that cannot work due to a disability or other circumstance. However there are some that are unwilling to work as well. Scripture tells us that those people shall not eat. That is where the balance comes in; to help those in need but we are not called to blindly help the unwilling.

    Matthew 26:11 Jesus makes this even
    clearer. He says “The poor you will always have with you, but you will not
    always have me.” This is a reference to Duet. 15:11. In Matthew 26 is when
    Jesus has His head covered in an expensive perfume by a woman while He is sitting at the table. Jesus is not rebuking giving to the poor, but He is
    showing there is a time for charity and social justice, but that right then was
    not the time. Again showing balance.

    Now some may reference Luke 12:33 in which Jesus says “Sell your possessions and give to the poor.” This is not saying we should do this and not own anything. Jesus is speaking about where your heart is. Is it in God or your possessions.

    3) Not judging others

    This one I don’t even feel I have to address. The author is judging Republicans because they are judging others! Matthew
    7:3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”

    Clearly this was a slanted article which does have some truth but those truths are exaggerated greatly. Both sides have their issues but both have their strengths and that is what makes our country great, that there are
    options and freedom to voice differing opinions.

    • Jesusisdemocrat

      With all due respect, you are wrong.

      The Golden Rule and non-violence covers rape, etc.,. The Bible, especially the Gospel is filled with concerns about the poor, and you pick out one verse (out of context) to try to argue against that. That could literally be anathema to Christianity.

      Pointing out egregiously judgmental and extremely common practices of those who loudly tout that they are Christian is not against what Christ was saying in Matthew or elsewhere.

      Oh, and Jesus was dead when the quote about not working was allegedly said.

      Very importantly, the one instance where Jesus became angry was in response to those making money in God’s name. The greed in the neo-con unholy alliance with a perverted Christianity is the literal, modern money-changers, or as in John, “Den of merchants”.

      • Bret Thomas

        “you pick out one verse (out of context) to try to argue against that.” In what way did I quote Matthew 26:11 out of context?

        “Oh, and Jesus was dead when the quote about not working was allegedly said.” What does Jesus being dead have to do with anything? As a Christian I believe Jesus was resurrected and is still alive today. Scripture clearly tells us this. But more importantly, Scripture is Scripture. Meaning that all Scripture is Holy Spirit inspired. It is bad Theology and a slippery slope to pick and choose which parts of Scripture are correct and which are not, which is what you are doing by discrediting 2 Thessalonians 3.

        “Very importantly, the one instance where Jesus became angry was in response to those making money in God’s name. The greed in the neo-con unholy alliance with a perverted Christianity is the literal, modern money-changers, or as in John, “Den of merchants”.

        I do not know what you are making reference to. What you say is true but are you making reference to Republicans being like the money changers? I do not see what your point is.

      • Jesusisdemocrat

        The “Unholy Alliance” IS the new Rep. party! They tout, as Christian, a perverted Capitalism OFTEN in Jesus’ name!!!
        Do you eat pork. ANd I’m sorry, but even the NT is contradictory. If Paul contradicts Jesus…I go with Jesus!!!

      • Bret Thomas

        1)”Do you eat pork.” Yes I do. Here is why:

        Acts 10:9-16
        Peter’s Vision

        9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

        14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

        15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

        16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

        2)”If Paul contradicts Jesus…I go with Jesus!!!”

        I would agree, if this was true. Please tell me where Paul contradicts Jesus anywhere in the NT (of course with proper understanding of Scripture, history and context). This is a common ploy by Muslims to undermine Scripture, all of the examples I have seen have fallen short.

      • Jesusisdemocrat

        It is NOT poor Theology to see that men wrote the Bible. Also, the traditional view (up until a few years ago, was that the Bible was inspired as in “Not literal, but inspired” and to be interpreted with quite a bit of variance.
        Often there is a verse that does not go along with the large part. The entire “Chapter/verse” organization was not even done until several hundred years after the Bible was “Put” together, which was several hundred years AFTER Jesus died.
        If one wishes to really understand Jesus and the Bible, they must also study history, especially of early Christianity,
        Much of what Paul cites is not even included in the Bible because it is lost.
        There are basically two small mentions of homosexuality in the Bible, taken together with all of what Jesus preached against, it just doesn’t get close enough so that the entire focus of some people is that (especially as opposed to the not-judging part that Jesus talked ALOT about). Also, abortion, the other big thing cons get most upset about, is NOT in the Bible at all; it can be argued, from the Mosaic law books, that a person was not a person until they were one month old!!!

      • Bret Thomas

        “It is NOT poor Theology to see that men wrote the Bible. Also, the traditional view (up until a few years ago, was that the Bible was inspired as in “Not literal, but inspired” and to be interpreted with quite a bit of variance. ”

        It is up to you to decide whether you believe that Scripture is inspired. If you don’t then sure you can cherry pick which parts sound good and which don’t.

        “Often there is a verse that does not go along with the large part.”

        This is why context is important. I agree history, original audience, and culture are so important. For example, Paul did not write the letters to us in 2014.

        “There are basically two small mentions of homosexuality in the Bible, taken together with all of what Jesus preached against, it just doesn’t get close enough so that the entire focus of some people is that (especially as opposed to the not-judging part that Jesus talked ALOT about).”

        Again context is important. Yes there are 2 “small” mentions of homosexuality in the NT. Does this mean they are irrelevant? Of course not. This speaks to the culture of the time. It was clearly known in 1st century Judaism that homosexuality was a sin. The reason it is mentioned is because the Gospel was being spread to the Gentiles and they needed to be told.

        It is not judgmental to say homosexuality is a sin according to Scripture. Would you say I am judgmental for saying adultery, stealing, or getting drunk is a sin also? Why do homosexuals get a pass when these are listed right next to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6?

        Abortion is a whole other discussion that we can go into. I will say this about what Scripture says about abortion:

        God knew David before he was born:

        Psalm 139:13-15
        “You did form my inward parts, you knit me together in my mother’s womb…you knew me right well; my frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret…”

        God speaks to Jeremiah showing that the child in the womb is a person:

        “Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.”

        The entity in the womb is a baby:

        “And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.”

        This is the same word (brephos) Luke uses in Luke 2:12,16 “You will find a baby lying in a manger.” Luke 18:15,16 meaning infants and 1 Peter 2:2 “newborn babes.”

        The following concerning John the Baptist:

        Luke 1:15
        “He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even before his birth.”

        God knows the personalities of the unborn:

        Genesis 25:23
        “two nations are in thy womb” (Jacob and Esau) “and two manner of people.”

        Paul writes:

        Galatians 1:15
        “But when He had set me apart before I was born…and had called me through His grace.”

        These being the case, I’m sure you agree murder is wrong according to Scripture. And if, based on the examples I just gave, life begins in the womb and to terminate that is murder.

        As far as “that a person was not a person until they were one month old” is derived from Leviticus 27. I take this stance on this passage of Scripture:

        THE GIFT OF PERSONS (VV. 1-8)

        Persons and well as property could be devoted to God, thus the first section of the chapter deals with the various categories of persons who might be vowed as an offering to God. It is assumed that these persons would either serve in ministry related to the tabernacle, or would at least serve the priests.

      • Jesusisdemocrat

        Abortion: 1) We are known spiritually before birth. Numbers makes it quite clear personhood begins at one month (I disagree, but…). 2) Further in the Mosaic Law, there is no personhood account if someone causes a women to have a miscarrage, it’s not even a property issues unless the women is hurt. Interestingly, the translated text states “and if there is no other harm”, however, the original Hebrew states “and there is no harm” showing quite clearly, causing a miscarriage is NOT harm.

        My point about the Bible and homosexuality is that the neo cons concentrate on the two alleged sins of abortion and homosexuality, while NOT considering the warning of Jesus about judgement THROUGHOUT Matthew and other places. The hatred for those perceived as guilty of that alleged sin is the real sin. Also, the concentration on something that is NOT mentioned anywhere in the Bible, with actual verses that, more than anything, are evidence that it is NOT murder, is ridiculous.

        Additionally, as I initially argued, the anathema of making Jesus a supporter of the “Unholy” alliance of a perverted Christianity that supports not capitalism, but what is more Fascism, is blasphemy!

      • Bret Thomas

        Again we disagree and I must not have made myself clear. The idea of “personhood” as you put it was a Jewish tradition to give value to families so that they could give value to the amount each family should tithe to the priests. It was a way to determine what we call net worth. That in no way negates or diminishes the value of human life before one month of age.

        I agree however that the church has done a horrible job at handling the homosexual issues. While I do believe it is a sin, it is not the capital sin that some in the church have made it out to be. I have my own sexual sin which is no different that those who sin in homosexuality.

        As far as Jesus being Republican or Democrat, He is neither. Jesus did not come as some political figure nor can His message and life be conformed into one parties view.

      • Jesusisdemocrat

        In the Book of “Numbers” the cites about the personhood was told as given directly by God. I do not agree with this as right, but only as information as to whether abortion before viability is wrong, especially is it murder.
        As to my moniker, it is intended ironically ever since the extremists’ have taken over the “Loud” aspect of Christianity and claimed a very different “Jesus” (as opposed to the Gospel one), as there own; even to the extent that he supports a perverted capitalism which is more akin to Fascism. Thanks for you comment.

  • Independent and proud of it

    For a person who criticizes Republicans for baselessly attacking Obama, you have sure used a lot of slurs without facts. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

    I am not a Republican and I don’t like a lot of what they do, but I am not a Democrat because of people like you, who drink the liberal cool aid without looking at the claims at all.

  • Izzy66

    Render unto Caesar? Interesting how Republicans point to no evidence in the bible of Government providing for the poor. However, they have no problem with Legislating laws regarding Women’s reproductive rights on religious grounds.
    They LOVE to invoke morals and religion when it TAKES AWAY something, but its Socialism whenever Jesus’s Teachings Cost Money to DO something.
    “Rather to have a camel pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man entering the Kingdom of Heaven” implies everything about the love of money being more powerful than the love of mankind. Republicans personified.

  • Concerned1

    I am a moderate Republican, and do not agree with many right wing thinkers, but I believe in the teachings of Jesus and agree with Him, morally. This article doesn’t distinguish between personal belief and politics, which is a huge tenet of Conservatism. Many believe in the moral concepts he sites; they just don’t want government FORCING them to do it. In other words, let ME make the choice to give to the poor, NOT the government. If I’m forced, then it is morally meaningless to me as a person. The article also generalizes on every issue without actually giving examples and backup proof of its arguments. The fact that 3 out of 4 of his sentences are run on sentences and don’t actually contain a subject and a verb, tells us something about his intellect and discipline.

    • jchastn

      Excuse me, but your comment is garbage. Religious conservatives say they love Jesus but they don’t want the Government to give to the poor, make healthcare available and affordable or do anything charitable. They want to pass laws that are discriminatory against gays because their religion says they should hate gays, but when their religion says “feed the poor, heal the sick” they DONT want Government to do that. That is totally hypocritical.

  • Chris Ericksen

    “God helps those that help themselves”
    The writer of the column states that Conservatives and Republicans hate, judge, speak badly of others criticize and so forth, but by making these statements doesn’t he realize that Liberal also do the same thing, by at least nothing else than making statements so critical of anyone opposing what they believe and espouse… an ideal situation, voters and politicians would identify weaknesses in our government and society, and agree to work together for the good of the American People,..The people in D.C who are in elected office who are supposed to be representing us….regardless of party….need to go….while we are supposed to be represented, we are being screwed

  • Ken Te Wano

    This is where so many Christians who claim to know the Bible (Heavenly Constitution) speak Kingdom yet know very little about it because they dont prioritize their focus on the Kingdom of God 1st and his righteousness. What Jesus wants them to know rather than settle for their brand of religion they are in. Jesus brought to earth a Kingdom not a religion sadly because of the great misrepresentation of many Christians they easily fall in this category that has added to the already confusion that exists. The Church and the Kingdom are not the same the focus of the Church was suppose to be the Kingdom, yet they focused inward to what they built in vain, rather than Seek the Kingdom of God on Gods terms not their own and what would be manifested because of their obedience would of being the real McCoy, the culture of Gods Kingdom on earth yet because of their disobedience and trying to re-invent the wheel with their own doctrines , they continue to mess up, share their opinions about things that are not their concern. They focus on man-made governments when its clear Jesus said Seek ye 1st the Kingdom (Government) of God and his righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you. Jesus Government is neither democratic, republican, socialist which has caused Christians to be on opposite sides of the Political Platform all destined to fall by the power of gods Kingdom once preached, taught then demonstrated. A Kingdom not in word but power… but what a Christians doing sharing their opinion, making damning statements, rather than influencing society as ambassadors of any Kingdom does. Christians give gays, media, politicians a piece of their mind rather than Jesus mind, Christians are messed up by false doctrines all claim to be family yet doctrines divide them even today.. so fix your own how do i say this ” shit ” first and make sure you’re lined up to Gods Kingdom 1st. How can appropriate Kingdom you claim to be in when you don’t seek, study it first just naming everything Kingdom like conferences etc and all you know is Church which is not the same. People don’t want to go to your Church they want to see the Church in the world not representing their own brand of religion but the true church manifesting the culture of heaven on earth. Today we should be know by who we submit to not who we are affiliated to, Jesus didn’t bring religion, or Christianity ( A derogatory term we settled for) no he brought a kingdom, I am an ambassador of Gods Kingdom not a member of some Church, in Kingdom they have citizens not members lets get it right… get out of this nonsense just because he or her has the name Christian like Obama, Bush unless they submit to Gods government God no respecter of persons…. their titles, positions, fame mean nothing to God if its not for his glory alone. Gods not threatened by a one world government he is just waiting for his Church to get over themselves and get on with the job Preach the Gospel of the Kingdom not Gospels of convenience , other gospels, false gospels etc

  • Ken Te Wano

    Jesus message was about his Government coming to earth, Christians still trying to hold on to their preferred party stop debating about something God is abolishing, start manifesting Gods Government on earth his rule and reign in you to take authority over every situation and circumstance in your life. Wasting time on man made governments , fighting against your own brothers and sisters… Obama or Bush isnt Jesus.. so a message to Obama supporters and black people especially Black Christians the man aint Jesus wake up today already.. forget these Rev Sharpton dudes they got their own agenda as well

  • Rarron

    The next time a “Christian” says “We should create laws based on the god of the bible”, ALL Americans should recoil in shock and fear for your democratic constitutional republic. Here is why:

    (Note these “christians” do not say the teachings of Jesus Christ, they have no desire to feed or clothe the poor or the children or heal the sick, why take care of the dirty moochers. They specifically say the “god of the bible” for a reason. They like the judgmental and authoritarian passages only. They don’t like and won’t follow the teachings of socialists like Jesus who cared for the poor, challenged conservatism and eschewed and judged the rich and powerful. They do not mention Christ because they don’t and won’t actually follow his teachings, christianity to them is a tool to control the masses, convince them to vote against their interests and win elections)

    I am so tired of fundamental Christians saying crap like this. The god of the Bible was literally a monster who ordered infanticide, murder, rape, genocide and many other crimes we attribute to sociopaths and psychopaths. The god of the bible (their versions of the bible especially) if you actually read the bible was an angry and jealous entity, hardly a guy anyone would want a personal or any relationship with. He was to be feared and obeyed.

    As an omnipotent and omniscient being he was either the kid that roasts ants with a magnifying glass and tortures small animals or he was a Barney Fife screw up, and hence neither omnipotent, omniscient and in both cases NOT infallible. If he is omniscient, how did he not know how big a mistake original sin would end up being and that it would lead to wiping off the entire planet of virtually all life, especially the humans so precious to him. If both omniscient and omnipotent, why ever create Satan or allow him to exist at all. His omniscience and omnipotence make him directly and ultimately responsible for every bad deed done by Satan (or any other evil person) he has the foreknowledge and power to correct the problems beforehand yet chooses to allow the evil to exist and the deeds to occur, is that not also evil and immoral? Is he not omniscient and omnipotent enough to exercise the butterfly effect successfully?

    We do not need laws based on the god of the Bible unless we want immoral and insane laws like the ones quoted in red below. Are you willing to stone your children for disobeying you? That would be one of the laws prescribed by the god of the Bible.

    Exodus 21:15 — “Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.”

    Deuteronomy 21:18-21 — “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

    Let’s not even get into the moral conundrum of someone who would impose an infinite punishment for a finite crime aka Hell. Especially one one that the omniscient god knew the individual would commit when sky daddy first set everything in motion and every day afterward.

  • bcmugger

    Republicans donate nearly 2X more than democrats to charity.

  • Sally Strange

    Those are nice values. They’re not unique to Christianity.

    Christianity is as Christianity does. And Christianity does a lot of damage.

  • rep who follows those 5 values

    i think you are extremely confused, separation of church and state was to keep the state out of the church….

  • Bert27

    Its ridiculous to claim the first amendment protects people “from religion” and that a persons religion shouldn’t inform their policy views. I don’t subscribe to any religion and was skeptical of god before I was of Santa Claus but people have every right to shove their beliefs in my face. Maybe you’re living in a different world though, I’m a New Englander, no one here is religious, abortion and gay rights are non-issues and face about as much, if not more resistance from Democrats (see Rhode Island). If living in a rich blue state has taught me anything though its that Democrats pay lip service to the poor but for all the money they take from people very little every goes to people who need it.

  • Fred Raby

    I can’t speak for Jesus, or the democrats, or the republicans but I can say that in my 67 years on this Planet one thing I’ve learned is if you poke a stick into a hornets nest your going to be attacked

  • Niamb

    The author needs to add the word some in front of most of his statements. Some Republicans are pro-choice,I know I am, but some are not. I would say most Republicans support aid to the poor and the unemployed as do most Democrats. Republicans overwhelmingly support education, however, they also believe in fiscal responsibility in government and in one’s personal life. The author paints with a very broad brush and the qualities he attributes to all Republicans are a gross exaggeration and mirror his own prejudices, not reality.

  • Gary Menten

    As tempting as it may be to do so to argue over what Christ really meant when he allegedly said this or that, the moment one does, it distracts us from the central issue that the word of Christ (or any other religious figure) has no special meaning under the Constitution.

  • Luis Alfredo Martinez

    First the Christian right tells everyone that this is a Christian Nation when they know full well that it is not, this nation was founded on the principle of separation of church and state and yet they want to impose their beliefs on others and insist that their Bible is the only one to reign supreme, I have news for them, the original bible was the Hebrew Bible which later was added other writings from the apostles of Jesus after they were long dead and no one really knows for sure if they even did write those writings, Jesus Christ followed the Hebrew religion and never said that there was to be an alternative one.

  • Dave the Sage

    We are guaranteed freedom of religion in this country, not freedom from religon. That’s one of the first mistakes made by the athor in this article right off the bat and it seemed to get worse from there.

  • ProgressiveWinner

    It is preposterous that right wing people think they have any sort of majority on their radical attitudes….they absolutely do NOT!! They are in the minority!!
    1.) America decided long ago by a very large majority that Right of Choice is preferable to Government dictated births on religious grounds. The lefties simply can’t accept this reality. So the battle of words rages on. STOP IT!!
    2.) America has always been more progressive than regressive. We have always been more interested in the future and willing (eager) to overcome past shortcomings. Our lives are much better than in the 1800s before Unions achieve the 40 hour work week, overtime, minimum wages, etc. Benevolent rich people did not one day decide to pay a working man a fair wage….ALL those rights were fought for; with speeches, organizing, riots, fights, guns and blood….you right wing people really ought to try reading American history.
    3.) Why is it you are so strong against abortion and then after the child is born, you are against assisted day care (so the family can work for their own income) you are against Head Start (So kids get education at an earlier age and ultimately do better for themselves and for our society), you are against paying your fair share for public education (America became greater because more of our citizens were educated), you are against funding for Music, Art, Recreation and other complimentary facets of education that make our society wiser and more appreciative of all of mans accomplishments), and finally you are against college education assistance….The USA is competing on a world stage and you right wing FOOLs vote to cut our legs out from under the whole country…..But you sure don’t miss any opportunity to keep taxes low for the wealthy. You completely fail to recognize that the rich corporations are stripping you of your shirt and pants while you listen to Rush Limbaugh and other propaganda specialists and believe their lies and falsehoods. You cannot grasp that he is paid over $70 million a year by the corporations to feed you their line of BS and make it sound “logical” to you. You are so incredibly gullible it is actually laughable it it wasn’t so pathetically damaging to the US.

  • kyle

    The bible says to HATE evil. If there is an act of evil, anything going against the word of God, Jesus Christ. The bible. Evil is to be eschewed! Repeated many times. People believe Christians are not to be hateful people.wrong!! God says to eschew evil. Love thy neighbor yes!! Not the acts of thy neighbor. Eschew evil acts. The bible also teaches the church is to help the needy. Not the government. So in the separation of church and state the poor is to be helped by noone. If there is no God allowed in the country than no help to the needy should be allowed either. If my God is not allowed in this country. Why is it what offends all the people gets taken away, only to offend the majority of the people, God believing people. The liberal government and media only show that which offends themselves. Never do they show a Christian or Christian beliefs or values being offended. Fear God. He is the almighty. The ONLY way to eternal happiness is through him. God bless the American people. God help the American people.

    • solerpower68

      God bless the AMERICAN people. Yeah, you definitely DON’T get it, buddy.

  • Smooth

    Fuckin’ ‘A’! Clifton hits it right out of the park! I am sick and tired of see these “Christians” wearing their morality on their sleeves and then take up the “do as I say, but not as I do” attitude! They’re no more Christian than I am Jewish…and I’m not Jewish! IMHO, people need to call out these so-called “Christians” for who they are…BULLSHIT ARTISTS!

  • common sense

    Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

  • Lindsey

    with all due respect, pro-life people need to look at the bigger picture. Pro-life means ONLY until the child is born. After birth NO Food Stamps, No money, No Food, No job, No Health care coverage, NO ACA,= Baby Dead! With all due Respect to those people who continue to claim that they are pro-life need to look at the Republican Party’s entire platform. They are cutting EVERY safety net that will help a baby and mother survive after the baby is alive.

    • Dot

      The aren’t pro-life, they are pro-fetus.

  • Lindsey

    I would love to understand how you want to force the mother to keep the child. However you are all for Doing away with Food Stamps Guess what that means the child goes Hungry, you are all for doing away with the ACA guess what No insurance to pay for the child to be born at the hospital means no Medical Coverage for the child which means child gets sick it DIES. No money from the parents to clothe and care for the child it gets taken by the state and becomes the tax payers problem to care for it oh wait we took away all social safety nets that would help care for the child it DIES! Do you not see a repeat of the damage that the republican party is doing?? Are you really that off that you don’t get what the entire party’s platform in REALITY does stand for!

  • Allan Craig

    Liberals are the LAST people to preach to anyone about fucking tolerance.

    • Dot

      Examples, please. I will admit I am intolerant of bigotry and hypocrisy. I have no problem what you do in your church as long as you are not harming other people. If you want to hold poisonous snakes, fine, but don’t put others in danger. If your religion says you can beat your wife and kids, because they are your property, that’s not ok. If your wife wants to consider herself as your property, fine, as long as you do nothing to harm her. You may not kidnap your child and send them to a reeducation Church camp to beat the gayness out of them. But you can worship pretty much anytime you want, but you cannot force others to do the rites of your religion in a public school. You are free to home school or create a church school. As I said, we believe you can do and believe anything you want as long as you don’t force it onto others or harm anyone other than yourself. So, if that’s intolerant, so be it.

      • Dot

        Oh, and there is an evangelical church in Kansas City who has a member who has sexually molested his daughter and granddaughter. They defend him and say he is just a sinner who should be forgiven. They have talked the victims into forgiving him, instead of turning him into the police. One of the relatives who do not belong to the church found out and called the hot line, but the police couldn’t do anything, because the victims kept quiet. I think the entire church is guilty of child abuse, and should be thrown in prison. If that’s intolerant, so be it.

  • Nondescript Member

    “Our First Amendment is pretty direct. ‘Freedom of religion’ which is also means freedom from religion.” So, I suppose The United States of America also means ‘The United States from America’. It’s non-sequitur logic at best. Worse, it implies that ‘A’ is and is not ‘A’. That’s an actual symptom of a mental health issue. Our Constitution in no way states that we have a right to be free from religion or even from the influences of religion. You’re dishonest for saying otherwise.

    Forcing others to help those who cannot help themselves is not a Christian value. Jesus said, “Go, and do likewise.” He never said, “Go, and force others to do likewise.” You and I cannot escape our responsibility by passing laws that force others to do the work for us. Besides, government is extremely inefficient, and these laws that take (together with the bureaucracies that waste) my money prevent me, logistically, from carrying out Jesus’ command to help those who cannot help themselves. These laws reduce my ability to even meet the needs of my immediate family.

    Hypocrisy is a human condition. It is neither exclusive to any political party nor confined to politics. You proved this yourself when you judged Republicans as being judgmental. I hope that one day all americans will learn to obey the entirety of ‘the law and the prophets’ as Jesus summed them: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” Make no mistake; no amount of laws will force us to love each other.

  • Stephen Carlile

    First of all, if any of you had ever read the constitution, or understood it, you would know that the constitution does not forbid anyone from interjecting religion into politics, public lives, business, etc. The constitution prohibits the federal government from interjecting, or interfering, or infringing on an individual’s religious beliefs. Second, the constitution does not state, nor mean, that you are free “from” religion. Third, the founding fathers prohibited the federal government from establishing a federal (national) church or religion, i.e., the Church of England, and, in fact, encouraged the teaching of Christianity in public schools. They also required new states joining the union to establish Christian principles into their state charters. It helps to know the truth, and if you actually read our founding documents, you would know this. Quit being sheep, led to the slaughter. Do not listen to the propaganda of those who mislead you. Read this country’s history, and the actual documents of the founders, not someone else’s interpretation of the documents. They are lying directly to your face.

  • Terry Bersola

    On one thing I take exception to while whole heartedly support. I have to contest that just because Jesus didn’t speak about homosexual or abortion or any other sin, doesn’t automatically follow that there is justification for it. Let us make a huge jump of an assumption that Jesus grew up in Judea and Israel. Is that too difficult to imagine? No, because it’s true. Therefore, growing up we can assume he was taught Hebrew and Jewish teachings. The commandments, the laws of Moses, and Jewish Scripture prevailed. As a child, Jesus himself engaged the priests in the temple. HE knew very well what the Scriptures taught. It is a weak argument to say that because He never mentioned homosexuality nor abortion it must be okay. Nonsense as he didn’t speak about beastiality nor pedophiles either. Can then one make the assumption that these He would condone as well. He never mentioned something He knew as being ungodly and found both in Old and New Testaments, meaning He neither condoned nor corrected the established morals He grew up in. It is still sin according to Scripture to either take innocent lives and to continue to live in sexual immortality. While we cannot condemn nor judge how Christ will judge and deal with each individual, we can reveal what Scripture does say. We each have all sinned and we each shall stand before Christ at judgment for whatever evil or good we have done. HE, alone determines. We were given by God free will to choose between right or wrong, and we each individual will answer, not our friends, nor our church, nor anyone else, but we alone must account for ourselves. We are to love one another, but abhor that which is evil. In other words love our brothers, but hate the sins.

  • Kenneth C. Fingeret

    Hello Allen Clifton and Everyone, I thins that their core beliefs are also covered by the seven deadly sins brought about by their actions and deeds!!!!!! The seven deadly sins. Pride, Envy, Wrath, Gluttony, Lust, Sloth and most importantly GREED!!!!