The Best Example of Right-Wing “Christian” Ignorance You Might Ever See

hateful-christiansYesterday I wrote an article titled Five Key Christian Values and How Republicans Don’t Represent Any of Them.  The whole premise of the article was that, as a Christian, I listed five key beliefs I feel real Christianity should represent (based on the teachings of Jesus Christ) and how conservatives don’t represent them at all.

I knew that writing this would undoubtedly bring out conservatives who would call me an idiot and defend the hypocrisy within their party.  As these people often claim to represent “Christian values” yet, judging by their policies, seem to completely contradict nearly everything about Christianity.

Then, while browsing through a few of the comments, I ran across maybe the best example of right-wing ignorance about Christianity I had ever seen.  It was a comment that just blew me away with the level of hatred, ignorance, pettiness and absolute stupidity it displayed.

First, here’s the comment:

“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.”

Just lovely, isn’t it?

Let me just go ahead and break this stupidity down.

“Jesus was NOT a Christian.”  

There are two ways to look at that.  First, I guess technically some could say he wasn’t a “Christian” as the whole premise behind Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ was the one true son of God.  So, can you really be a member of a religion based on the belief in—you?  But then, I guess he could really be considered the first Christian as “Christianity” is supposed to be based on his life and teachings.

Either way you want to look at it, this person’s statement is absolutely ridiculous.

“Taking by force from one person to give to another is theft – stealing plain and simple.”  

Well, considering I’m sure the person who wrote this comment drives on public roads (paid for by money taken from taxpayers by force) and odds are they went to public school (again paid for by tax dollars taken by force), this person proudly displays not only ignorance, but complete hypocrisy.  With that mindset, we would have no tax revenue and we’d live in a third world country based on this person’s definition of stealing.  Also, this person lives in the United States.  You know, a country built by slavery and genocide.  So, to their point, we should turn the country back over to Native Americans, burn our Constitution and live with a “survival of the fittest” mentality where there are no laws, rules or structure.  Because laws, rules and structure (as enforced and built by government) are accomplished in part by using tax dollars—which again, are taken by force.

Oh, and let’s not forget all the parts of the Bible that warn against greed.  And we can’t forget a little something along the lines of to those that much is given, much is expected.  To be frank, this person just seems to be another imbecile who likes to pick and choose what they do and don’t want to believe in the Bible.

“Jewish law executes homosexuals and baby murderers.  That’s why he never mentioned it; it was already established and he AGREED with it.”  

This one just might be my favorite.  A man who defended the stoning death of a woman found guilty of adultery, would have supported the murder of homosexuals and women who wish to have control over their own bodies?  So, let me get this straight.  Jesus wasn’t here to change anything in the Bible, nor challenge “laws.”  However, he came to the defense of a woman sentenced to death for violating one of the Ten Commandments and one of the Seven Deadly Sins (lust)—both things found in adultery.

Wasn’t her death sentence in response to the violation of these laws which this person claims Jesus supported?  Why would he have then intervened in her death, telling people not to judge her unless they were free of sin themselves, if he agreed with all of these laws?

But I do like how this person blindly assumes they would know what Jesus did or didn’t support—even though there’s not a single account in the Bible of him referencing abortion or homosexuality.  Simply saying, “He supported these laws that’s why he didn’t mention them” is about as moronic as you could possibly get.  It’s basically saying, “I have no proof that proves he was against homosexuality and abortion, but my church has told me he was, so he was.”

“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.” 

Ah yes, and the best “Christian” part of this whole comment.  First, yes, Christianity says we will be judged.  But by who?  Well, they said it—God and Jesus.  Not another human being.  So here’s a good way to live your life: You do your thing, don’t judge others for doing theirs, and let’s let God and Jesus “judge” when it’s all over.  Sounds pretty simple, doesn’t it?  In fact, with this comment, this idiot not only proves my point about how judgmental conservatives are, they also clearly state that it isn’t a human’s right to judge another human—that’s up to God and Jesus Christ.

Then we move onto the “welfare BUMS” with bums in all caps.  I mean, just lovely.  Can you get more judgmental?  Can you get more spiteful, petty and hateful?  These characteristics are some of the ones I listed in the article that conservatives don’t follow—and this idiot proves my point perfectly.

They also prove the fear mongering and paranoia I talked about in the article as well.  Fearful and afraid of the future.  Always claiming we’re headed for “doom.”  Everything you know and love will be destroyed!

The entirety of the whole comment just drips with irony and ignorance if you go back and read the article I linked.  In it, I talked about conservative hate, ignorance, fear, judgement and lack of acceptance—and this fool showcased nearly every bit of that small-minded right-wing “Christian” mentality.

The worst part is, this person really believes they’re a Christian.

But like I’ve said countless times before, people like this parasite aren’t Christians.  Conservatives follow some cult-like mixture of parts of the Bible blended with political ideologies.  They’ve really created some hybrid of a political party and religion that I call “Republicanity.”

Republicanity — not true Christianity — is exactly what people like the individual who left this deplorable comment follow.

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.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Bruce L Arvidson II

    @Allen Clifton Your evaluation of the comment were good and correct, EXCEPT the first one. The person that wrote the comment is right about christianity. If you believe there was a person named jesus, he was NOT a christian, he was a jew. The term christianity comes from the belief that you are following in the teachings of jesus christ. Christianity was not a religion during jesus’ lifetime. Jesus Christ can not be considered the first christian, because he was never referred as such. He was always considered a prophet by the jewish standard. He is still considered only a prophet by the jewish community to this day.

    But the rest of the article is right in pointing out how idiotic these extremist religious fanatics are.

    • Jim Ritchey

      While Jesus was most likely an Essene Jew, the description ‘Christian’ was first used by the Bishop of Alexandria to describe followers of Christ’s teachings. It means, literally, those who are ‘Christ-like’. As the first ‘Christ-like’ person, it would follow that Jesus was the first Christian. 😉

    • Brian Frang

      And the author made that exact point: It depends on how you look at it. He never said Jesus was or wasn’t a christian, he said that depending on your definition, he could be considered the first.

  • Guest

    I like how they didn’t use ‘your’ correctly as well! It’s “YOU ARE”! Geez, I guess this should be a time to realize how the public school system is failing?

  • LAI

    I agree with you 100% on this
    topic. As a Christ follower, I am forever ashamed of how people that claim to
    be Christians behave. Their actions have no resemblance to the teachings of
    Jesus. I would like to point out that
    while in the Gospels Jesus never says anything about homosexuality the subject
    is addressed in the books of Leviticus, 1 Corinthians and Romans. Abortion was permitted under Roman law but is
    never directly addressed in the Bible.
    There are passages that can be referenced to infer general principals,
    but I believe the pro-life movement is happy to stand firm on the 5th
    Commandment. In the end, we will all
    have to stand before God and account for our lives. All I can do is try to be as Christ like as
    possible and follow his teachings which include but are not limited to caring
    for the poor, marginalized, widowed, orphaned, incarcerated etc.

  • kdl

    In the old testament, which a lot of right-wing christians like to follow, there are a number of references to feeding the poor: One of the sins punishable by death was “Thou shalt not afflict widows and orphaned children.” That meant you made sure the poor were cared for. Also, in the book of Ruth, the wealthy landowner makes sure the reapers in his field leave some of the crops behind for the poor to gather.

    • strayaway

      “There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as caring and sensitive because he wants to expand the government’s charitable programs is merely saying that he is willing to do good with other
      people’s money. Well, who isn’t? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he will do good with his own money— if a gun is held to his head. ” -PJ O’Rourke

      Jesus did tell people to help the poor. One question is whether he was telling them to do it individually, by individuals forming charity collectives to do so, or by hiring hitmen or using the police powers of government to do so.

      • Angela Walker

        We always have to watch out for people who like to quote PJ O’Rourke. They rarely comfortable dealing with facts. And when you cap it with “the police powers of government” you may as well throw in the towel at that point, pookie. You’re coming on strong with opinion without supplying anything even vaguely resembling factual backup.

      • strayaway

        I must have touched a nerve as in some people who like to consider themselves virtuous because that take someone else’s money and give it to the poor. PJ just phrased it better. So you have a study that shows that anyone quoting O’Rourke’s opinion is uncomfortable with facts? It’s ok. You can all go back to thinking of yourselves as virtuous because it was just an opinion.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        hey fuckface—- how about shitbags ( huge companies) who pay NO TAXES or get HUGE subsidies from US govt because they ( huge companies) have eloquent and well-funded lobbyists and accountants? That’s taking MY taxes and GIVING TO THE WEALTHY as the wealthy must REALLY NEED IT. I am well aware that many poor are lazy. are U well aware that MOST poor are troubled or not very bright or may have been screwed by bad stuff happening to them that they didn’t anticipate? are U well aware that many people in this country ( as well as all other countries ) get screwed by the wealthy as a GAME because the poor do NOT have the financial resources to fight the inequity when it comes their way? I don’t give a damn about jesus and religion but I am quite well-sighted enough to see regressive white trash crybabies preaching a cherrypicked “religion” when it suits what they like– just like scumbags who ONLY watch FOX “news” and stultified one dimensional trash such as that. I agree that MOST politicians wan na look good with OTHER peoples money- I do find it laughable that when rightwingers do it,,,,they claim JEEEEESUS spoke to them advocating the dispersal of OTHER peoples funds to THEIR states and agendas. The prohet jesus did say help the elderly and sick and children. he DID NOT say screw any of the sick and children and elderly. The rightwing trash in this country DO want to ( in practice,,,not theory) screw all those whom they do not see or know. TEA PARTY trash exemplifies this bavardage

      • strayaway

        Calling people “fuckface” probably reflects your upbringing. Say hello to your mother. She must be quite a lady. General Electric pays no taxes ant the head of GE was made the czar of the President’s jobs commission. The1% is the only economic group to have become wealthier under Obama, as under Bush. Everyone else’s standard of living went down. I hear you. If you don’t like that situation why did you presumably re-eect Obama? Oh, and I seldom watch TV let alone Fox. I start my news day with BBC world news if you want to rail at the British.

      • You’re obviously a troll. If you had any sense, you’d see that socioeconomic inequality has widened over many years, and also that what we give to the poor is dwarfed by what our corrupt politicians give to both corporations and themselves. But, again, troll. And, even as I write that, I do so full well knowing you’ve somehow achieved whatever dull-minded orgasm people like you realize when touting B.S. and accomplishing nothing productive whatsoever. Sleep well, Perfect Example of People As Virus.

      • strayaway

        So what was your solution, to vote for Obama again? Numbers are not your friend. You better stick to mild insults. You are obviously a true believer.

        “Research by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez shows that since the Obama recovery started in June 2009, the average income of the top 1% grew 11.2% in real terms through 2011.

        The bottom 99%, in contrast, saw their incomes shrink by 0.4%.

        As a result, 121% of the gains in real income during Obama’s recovery have gone to the top 1%. By comparison, the top 1% captured 65% of income gains during the Bush expansion of 2002-07, and 45% of the gains under Clinton’s expansion in the 1990s.”

      • XCellKen

        And how well would the 1% have done under President McCain (And VP Sister Stupid) ???

      • strayaway

        No better probably. I actually thought that Obama was the preferable of the two candidates, close call, but voted third party.

      • melloe

        You seem to think you are well informed, so I suppose you are aware that those legislations ( Including one to close the loopholes that allow those at the top to rake in most of the gains ) that might have equalized the disparity were all stopped by the right…Obama don’t make laws and the right don’t want the top rich dudes to have to pay their share ( most of them being rich ), and those same rich being the ones funding their expensive campaigns, has nothing to do with it of course.

        Your whole argument is a FAIL

      • strayaway

        melloe, On Christmas Eve of 2009 when everyone including the press was distracted, President Obama signed an executive order transferring billions of dollars of bad bank loans to Freddie Mac (US taxpayers) for full face value. It was a wonderful present to put in the bankers’ stockings. They received full full face value for a lot of underwater loans and the taxpayers were stuck with the difference. This was huge and Republicans didn’t force the President to do this. Sure, rich Republicans always look after the rich but the 1% has prospered under Obama even more than under Bush. Don’t forget that during 40% of this President’s reign, Democrats controlled both the House and Senate.

        More recently, the company that screwed up the health web site for $600M on a no bid contract was given the job of fixing it. No one went to jail. No one got fired. It might have helped that a top executive of this company and his wife are close social friends of the Obamas, that one of this company’s officers is a former classmate of Michelle, and that two of its employees are the daughter and son in law of Valerie Jarret. This smells of cronyism and is set against the background of over 4.2M Americans losing insurance coverage since and because of the rollout of the (un)ACA. Again, what did Republicans have to do with this corruption and millions of Americans losing their insurance?

        Your whole argument is a FAIL.

      • Skip Patterson

        Run along little boy. Your propensity for ludicrous thinking and ignorance is starting to wear thin now.

      • strayaway

        Skippy, You are so compelling that I accept your marching orders.

      • Debbie Lass

        yes the top 1% is increasing and the bottom percents are decreasing….but why is this? because the republican congress wont let Obama tax the wealthy more….you do realize there was a time in this country of good economy standing with much higher taxes on the wealthy than we have now…yet wealthy make tons more today than they ever have. The stock market keeps going up, record high dow numbers…this has nothing to do with what Obama has or has not done…it has to do with the fact that the distribution in capitalism is huge, our pay for what we do hasn’t gone up nearly as much as the wealthy corporations ceos and owners….and they do what? invest in the stock market to make themselves even wealthier while we continue to be able to afford anything as much as before because our wages don’t rise as much as cost of living does….A proposal to raise the minimum wage languishes in committee, student loan rates are expected to rise over the next few years, House Republicans are set to introduce a massive food stamp cut, and Republican House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio has proposed a “non-controversial” budget plan which would avert government shutdown but extend across-the-board sequestration cuts. Meanwhile, the economy continues to gradually add more low-wage jobs.

      • strayaway

        Debbie, you’re not thinking. Bush cut the taxes on the rich but the rich are doing even better under Obama. Obama let the rich keep half of Bush’s tax cuts so there must be some other reason the rich are doing better under Obama than under Bush. The stock market keeps going up because the Federal Reserve has been printing $85B/month. it has to wind up somewhere. What better place than in the stock market making the 1% richer? They printed that money so guess what? They buy stock with it. I’m all for a raise in state minimum wage levels because that will cut welfare spending and advance robotization which will raise productivity but it should be paired with import taxes or jobs will flow out of the Country to cheaper labor markets.

      • hardwroc

        stray, notice how the BUSH tax cuts have NOT been changed ! Has Obama NOT been extorted into extending them by holding extensions for unemployment, and other things used as leverage to force their passage? Say yes, you acknowledge these tactics, and you’ll buy some credibility.

      • strayaway

        Bush issued a 10 year tax cut for the rich. Obama made half of those tax cuts permanent. If Obama was so concerned about unemployment he would stop siding with the Republican establishment and the US Chamber of Commerce in allowing the rapid flow of US jobs overseas while encouraging the flow of legal and other aliens into the US to compete at remaining jobs for lower wages. Remember, this is the President who, on Christmas Eve 2009, signed an executive order transferring mega-bank bad debt to US taxpayers for full face value. (Merry Christmas)

        “The buck stops here” -Truman

      • hardwroc

        And the right is repelled by the concept of a minimum wage increase, that could easily be demonstrated to stimulate the economy with more spending by that group and increasing demand, and jobs.

      • Ray

        Lol the 1% had more gains under Obama because they made all the money they lost in Stock market crash (caused under bush’s term) back when the economy improved. Takes money to make money and the poor generally don’t have money in the market. Way to imply causality and ignore the third variable :).

      • strayaway

        Ray, You make a valid point except the ‘recovery’ is due to trillions of dollars being spent by both the federal government and the Federal Reserve, spending and printing trillions of dollars to sort of put a band-aid on the cancer to make the numbers look better. Unfortunately, much of the Fed money wound up in the hands of the rich. This policy sort of works for awhile as it did when the Weimar Republic used it.

        Also, look up today’s article “PBS Drops Bombshell” available on both Wall Street Online and the Daily Kos. The consensus of their guests was that the Fed has a deliberate policy of pumping up the stock market. The last sentences of the daily Kos quote are “by making propping up the stock market a goal of monetary policy, the myopic Federal Reserve is ignoring the fact that the majority of stock market wealth is ending up in the hands of the top 10 percent, doing very little to create jobs or stimulate the economy for the other 90 percent of Americans.”

      • JessicaRabbit

        How exactly have 121% of the gains gone to the top 1%? I understand when year over year exceeds the 100%, but when you’re actually talking percents of a certain value you don’t go over it from within that value.

      • strayaway

        Lower income groups have lost ground during the Obama years. Their gains were negative. The extra 21% offsets the negative economic growth rate of the 99%. Had the 1%’s fortunes remained the same, they would have had just 100% of what they had before. Instead, their fortunes increased. Hence, the larger than 100% number.

      • scottsgirl

        You may want to take a class on government. It is not the President that controls the spending.

      • strayaway

        Consider that recently the President shut down the government instead of compromising with the Republican House when they didn’t spend as much as he wanted.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        help me out here—
        question:
        who has SOLE power 2 shutdown govt:
        ********************************************
        (a) senate
        (b) president
        (c) supreme court
        (d) house of reps
        (d) states ( individually)
        (e) states (collectively)
        (f) us treasury
        (g) all of the above
        =====================================
        your answer is….?

      • strayaway

        Congress – most recently and more specifically the Senate when it was totally unwilling to make the slightest compromise with the second House passed budget bill.

      • gemma liar

        wrong answer——but U already know that the HOUSE is the ONLY legal entity which can shut down out government.
        ====================================
        the US house is solely able to/responsible
        ****************************************************
        the ( republican held) HOUSE

      • strayaway

        You can quote the section of the Constitution that says so if you wish. The last time the government sort of shut down, the Senate refused to compromise. At least voters have since fixed that problem. I suppose the President could also refuse to sign bills or compromise as is his right.

        I was thinking about your list and came up with another way to shut down government as we know it: nuke Washington, DC. I think FEMA would be in charge then.

      • Donna Goodwin

        Republicans shut down the government, they would not approve the President raising our debt ceiling. The only way they finally appproved it was to get another tax break in the bill for the wealthy. That was the compromise.

      • strayaway

        Actually, Senate Democrats let the time run out on the second bill the House passed in which they only wanted to end Obama’s medical equipment tax on the middle class. Senate Democrats refused to even compromise on that minor point preferring instead to “shut down” the government.

      • hardwroc

        At a cost of a near trillion to our debt, that they will then rail about on a different day, after adding yet another trillion to it .

      • CateyLoveBug

        Quotation marks don’t make facts. What is your source?? BBC, Aljazeerah, Fox..simply putting something in quotes isn’t acceptable fodder in an argument..

      • strayaway

        Catey, There is no need to attack the messenger. I will help you in your quandary.

        “The numbers, produced by Emmanuel Saez, an economist at theUniversity of California, Berkeley, show overall income growing by just 1.7 percent over the period (Obama’s presidency). But there was a wide gap between the top 1 percent, whose earnings rose by 11.2 percent, and the other 99 percent, whose earnings declined by 0.4 percent.”

        -from the article titled “Incomes Flat in Recovery, but Not for the 1%” as found in the NY Times. I can be Googled.

      • Donna Goodwin

        So your point is? The republicans has not supported the President in any way, shape, form or fashion. The President has tried to create more jobs repairing our infrastructure with no support from the republicans. All they are interested in is more tax breaks for corporate America and the so called elitist. As a fact, from the get go the republicans in Congress has stated, “if the President is for it, we will be against it”, that they have lived up too. President has worked hard to get things moving for the middle class and the poor with no support from the Right.

      • strayaway

        Fellow Democrats stripped most of the infrastructure component out of Obama’s Porkulus bill on the basis that most infrastructure jobs would go to males. He has his chance. Your are wrong about Republicans not helping the president. The Republican leadership is supporting Obama’s efforts to fast track the TPP, bring in cheaper foreign labor, and restore the Patriot Act as much as possible none of which will help working and middle class Americans.

      • Donna Goodwin

        The fast track to TPP, I don’t agree with the President on. Since, the republicans are on board with this bill, it has to be bad for working middle class America or else they would not be supporting it. I believe Elizabeth Warren, Reich and Sanders know what they are talking about and I trust their judgement and too NAFTA has done nothing but hurt this country so what is there in the TPP that would be good for our economy. I am perplexed as to why the President would support the TPP

      • strayaway

        I think it is safe to say that Hillary also supports the TPP. She hasn’t come out against it anyway. Nor has she come out against NAFTA signed into law by Bill also with a lot of establishment Republican support. Our presidential candidates have been pre-selected for us lately by the 1% so we will likely wind up with Jeb and Hillary. The 1% wins either way. There is still time for grass root supporters of both parties to elect grass root candidates like Jeffers and Paul. The wall of money and media control the 1% have made a (e.g.) Jeffers/Paul contest almost impossible but not doing so and allowing the likes of the TPP to happen when our every phone call and this thread is being monitored is a recipe for tyranny.

      • hardwroc

        Hillary was considered the shoo in in 08 too. Remember what happened then, when Obama zoomed by and took the office. Now watch Bernie Sanders emulating the Obama trajectory. I have more faith in him continuing his efforts for the people, than that of Hillary or any Republican.

      • strayaway

        Best of luck getting Sanders past Hillary’s pile of corporate bribes. I agree that Sanders is the better, in so many ways, of the two of them. I would like to see a Sanders/Paul contest. I fear and expect a Hillary/Jeb contest. The latter is where the corporate money is going.

      • hardwroc

        We at least agree with the contest we’d LIKE to see, and the one we worry we’re stuck with if our luck goes bad. We have caucuses in Wash state, and I’ll be attending and participating, as I did in 07, and becoming an delegate to the county convention. There is more than blogging to help support a candidate.

      • strayaway

        I paid $10/year to join a party but after two caucuses, it seemed a waste of my time. Even at the district level, the fix was in. Party insiders called the shots. The caucuses were for show. I left.

      • Eric

        The top 1%became wealther under Obama because until the beginning of this year we were still under the Bush email tax breaks.

      • XCellKen

        How about this “Lying Fuckface” And yes, my mother already knows how I speak

      • strayaway

        To each his own. Mother must be proud,

      • XCellKen

        Yes she is. I am her little “Bundle of Joy”

      • Donna Goodwin

        Made me laugh..

      • Paul Braxton Hicks

        …I hope you don’t kiss he with that mouth.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        hey PUCKPHACE ( is that better?) I like how U ( again) cherrypick GE and eschew facts upon all other scumbag wealthy companies ( shall we also include tax free ripoff churches?) which screw America….my upbringing? Im from Kenya VIA mars and mother Russia with a kamchatkan mom. U are a crybaby which I have blasted here before– and U do stay remarkably consistent– crying crying crying bravely behind the ivory electrical internet U cower behind. Don’t try some infantile impression involving the BBC– the bottom line is that this article castigated religion ( Christianity here) and I concur whole-heartedly with that as RELIGION ( see: superstition) is for wanna bes who don’t DARE think upon their own. my mom is dead— and I pee on her grave daily as she was a devout religious woman who is dead and doesn’t care — she dead. U are dead socially and the best part is I would LUV 2 meet creeps such as you and pee on YOUR leg as I “pray” for you

      • strayaway

        Yes, that’s better. How much did the charm school boot camp set you back though? All improvements are appreciated.

      • freethinker666

        Sometimes, fuck face works, In the last 6 years General Electric made 34 BILLION IN PROFITS, Not only did they not pay one dime in federal income tax, the IRS gave them a 3 Billion dollar refund. So let me ask you this fuck face, who do you think picked up the slack.

      • strayaway

        Vocabulary is an indication of one’s upbringing; apparently not stellar in your case. You do realize, don’t you, that GE’s CEO, Jeffry Immelt, was Obama’s appointed “Jobs Czar” while he was shutting down US GE factories and sending that work abroad?

      • Cathryn Sykes

        Nice. Blaming Obama for what your pals in Congress have done. Or do you not understand how the government works?

      • strayaway

        I realize that progressives never take responsibility; that “the buck stops here” is a thing of the past. However, Obama had two years of controlling both houses, and has been president, lately with a dictatorial flair, for 6.9 dreary years.

      • Donna Goodwin

        What 2 years did he control both Senate and House? He had control of the Senate but not he House. During his 1st term he had control of the House and Senate about 90 days. Just curious as to where your facts are coming from.

      • Donna Goodwin

        The economy didn’t tank under Obama, that happened under GW Bush. Economist said, “it could take up to 10 years to get the economy back to where we were prior to GW becoming President, if we ever get back to that”.

      • strayaway

        Harding proved that an 11%+ unemployment rate could be reduced to under 4% in just two years by cutting government spending and taxes.

      • hardwroc

        Hard to fathom anyone talking individual results that require a bill by a hostile congress and senate, refusing to cooperate paying the govts light bill, without extorting some new austerity for the nation within it. What he has accomplished is heroic, and I’m certain you’d find numerous bills in the trash bin, that were killed by the GOP that would have addressed both, and I’ve heard it addressed with the usual reaction from Congress. no go. Norquist didn’t give it a thumbs up.

      • strayaway

        Clinton made a number of compromises with Gingrich resulting in producing a sort of balanced budget and some other accomplishments. Truman declared, The buck stops here”. However, with Obama, it’s all Bush’s or Congress’ fault if he doesn’t 100% get his way so he has resorted to violating his oath of office by ignoring and changing laws as if Congress had already passed an enabling allowing him to do so.

      • Brightman79

        Money doesnt belong to anyone. Thats why it is called American Currency. It belongs to this country. You have the right to earn it, but at the end of the day, it doesn’t belong to you.

      • strayaway

        What Marxist texts have you been reading? You can earn it but it belongs to someone else? Sounds like something a slavemaster would tell his slave. If you lived next door, I’d invest in a security system.

      • Daddycool67

        He’s right.
        We don’t control the value of the currency. Somebody else does.
        They can value or devalue it however they’d like. Because they OWN you!

      • strayaway

        Value of the currency is a different matter. I don’t think that Brightman79 was referring to controlling the value of currency. He said that money we earn belongs to the Country. Yes, the Fed, representing the banks that own it, deflates our currency and steals the value of our earnings. According to the Constitution, states may accept only gold and silver the value of which is determined worldwide outside the whims of our politicans. However, Congress, not the Fed, is empowered to coin money and regulate the value of money. i would think that means that Congress can devalue the worth of money relative to gold as it did during the Roosevelt administration. At least if Congress made our money worth less, we could kick our member of Congress out of office. Fed bureaucrats we don’t elect are more difficult to control.

      • chichiplus

        I think that was Andrew Carnage’s philosophy.

      • Trolling, still? Brightman79 is right, at least in terms of legalese. A slave owner would actually say: you have no rights, and even the end of your day is mine.

      • strayaway

        Never mind that the NSA might be reading this correspondence and the police state anti 4th Amendment policies expand almost unabated. It’s funny how 1984 keeps getting closer instead of further away. Yet, your head is stuck in some time warp defining slavery as it was in 1864 instead of confronting its new format. You probably even voted for people who are expanding this format. You are a good subject.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        crybaby pontificating with (again) no REAL solution. real psycho-babble only: quoting stuff he read

      • strayaway

        Yes, I read. Facts and numbers are an alternative to wishful thinking and beliefs.

      • cjmarley

        Alas…the NSA has been spying on the American people since I was a kid. They investigated illegal domestic spying by the NSA in 1975. Don’t think anything is ever going to change that.

      • strayaway

        definition of a “Good German”

        Someone who participated in or overlooked expanding atrocities while denying personal moral responsibility by appeal to his submission to supposedly legitimate authority. They might love their grandchildren, play classical music, pet their dog, and otherwise be”good “people.

        example: The American CIA agents who relied on the White House legal justification of torture were nothing more than Good Germans.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        typical crybaby,,,,,,,,,,,,,crying and offering NO real solution. keep crying as I am willing 2 wager an entire US American dollar that U are a fat /0r/bald/0r/ unappealing smarmy punk who watches football as his REAL hobby and eats crappy foods. no real solution losers are a dime a dozen

      • strayaway

        One solution that would go a long way would be to end corruption and start following the Constitution. What exactly was your solution beyond name calling and bad guesses?

      • Cathryn Sykes

        We have representative government. We elect these people based on what they say they will do. So this is not a matter of someone putting a gun to our heads.

      • strayaway

        How is Obama’s November 20 edict “representative government”? My representatives never voted to give American’s jobs to lawbreakers.

      • Skip Patterson

        I was thinking about replying to his post but realized that it would just be a waste of keystrokes and time. But I’m glad to see you took care of it. 🙂

      • Mike Williams

        Basically, what your saying is to ignore the mandate of the Bible to “Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”.
        Caesar being the government and meaning to pay your taxes.

        And adhere to “Give unto God that which is God’s.”.

        God being the church and meaning to pay your tithe.

        If charity is solely the church’s domain.

        Then why is it doing such a lousy job?

      • strayaway

        I agree that church’s and even families haven’t always done a great job but then neither has government. Consider Detroit.

      • lxUn1c0

        Deflection!

        Also, your statement pretty much undermines your argument that government-run charity is bad, while church-run charity is good.

        Private and public assistance work hand-in-hand to solve problems and build a more egalitarian society. Where would we be without the Red Cross, local can drives, and charities like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Where would we be without Social Security, FEMA, and federal crop insurance?

        The position that only public or private assistance is legitimate is dangerous and politically radical. By pitting public vs. private, you’re limiting the number of avenues through which we can try to help others.

      • strayaway

        Where did I indicate that I thought ” that government-run charity is bad, while church-run charity is good?” Please read what I wrote instead of imagining things to respond to. Federal crop insurance is set up for the rich. FEMA has been spotty or worse. Most New Jersey house owners that are “entitled” to receive benefits a year after Sandsy haven’t seen them yet because the same Obama crony company that developed the website has only distributed 2.7% of the $1.7B it is supposed to distribute for people to build new houses on a sand bar.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Uh, aren’t those Obama “cronies” the US Congress?

      • strayaway

        I was referring to CGI and its subsidiaries that receive new contracts, apparently no bid contracts, despite a record of failure.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Halliburton – No bid contracts. End of story.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        why do U argue with a closed book? that clown has the ability to change his “mind” as much as my pet TEGU can learn to play Rossini

      • strayaway

        I rate Cheney about the same, probably lower, than Obama.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        At least we can agree on something.

      • Mike Williams

        The company that you’ve labeled as a “crony” of Obama’s was first contracted by The Reagan administration. They have been doing nearly all of the technical aspects of our government. IE computers, websites, and the like. They are a multi-national company with home offices in just about every state. They have been milking the government teat ever since Reagan placed them on it.

        They are the same people who had a failed launch in 2006’s little yakked about medicare part D privatization. Their website was basically supposed to do the same thing as the PPACA website.. And it did, it failed on launch as well. Why we continue to suffer these fools I do not know. I believe we need to do this type of stuff in-house with US made equipment running unique operating systems with proprietary software. That’s just me and my knowledge of IT security. Don’t have the infrastructure? Sure we do. Just do it.

      • strayaway

        First rule: Always blame every Obama administration shortcoming on Republicans, The Buck stops with Reagan in this case I guess. The Canadian branch of this company, which Valerie Jarret’s daughter and son in law work for, had something to due with the glitches. The same company was in charge of Canadian gun registration and screwed it up so bad that the program was ended. Given that failure alone, this company shouldn’t have been given a no bid contract. As you mentioned, the whole thing should have been done in the US anyway. Whatever happened to “change”? Why give no bid contracts to companies with abysmal efforts? Why reward it with a contract to fix what it messed up? I think that the computer glitches can be cleaned up too given enough money and a different competent contractor.

      • panina

        i think americunz are just dum dum dum and need to be schlapped very hahrd becuzz they think that the world revulves around them and what they thinx they thinx

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Why do you always single out Detroit? I’m from Chicago with a long history of Democratic rule and we is doing just fine. Detroit’s problems started with white flight to the suburbs.

      • strayaway

        Because Detroit is such a mess even though it votes more Democratic than any other major city in the Country. White flight to Detroit suburbs had to do with generally increasing crime in Detroit, federal incentives to move to suburb like FHA loans on new homes, court ordered cross district school busing, and the ’67 race riot which left Detroit with virtually no grocery and other stores. I don’t think that voting Democratic, by itself, ruins a city; at least not right away. Case in point Minneapolis which is a fine city that votes Democratic.

      • Mike Williams

        I don’t think Democratic voting is the problem anywhere. UN-Educated voting is the problem. I’m not talking about how far your academic life extended. I am talking about knowing what the issues are, which ones are important to you and your community, and which bubba is going to do the least harm.

        I personally would like it if there was mandatory drivers education in this state…I would settle for a test that requires you to point out the turn signal on a car…
        But I’m not going to vote for for the one guy that says he’s going to do that, and he’s going to also make it so everyone is required to attend the HolierThanThou Christian Academy For Baptist Evangelical Center For Scientific Retardation.

        To me, Detroit is what happens when everyone believes the bullshit foisted upon them daily.

      • XCellKen

        What about all of those ghettoized trailer parks filled with Meth labs and Republican voters ???

      • strayaway

        I have one good friend who lives in a trailer park. He was a house builder wiped out in the bubble collapse of 2009 and because of all the rules and regulations favoring corporate builders in California. He is Republican. I also lived in a trailer park for six months as a student many years ago. From what I could tell, most people there were union factory workers and tended to vote Democrat. I built some decks and garages in a trailer park in California long ago. My father-n-law, retired engineer, lived in a trailer park to stretch his savings too. He was a lifelong Democrat. Most people in those last mentioned places were retirees trying to stretch their money. I didn’t get a sense of politics in either place period. So, based on my limited experience, I’m unaware of “all those ghettoized trailer parks with Meth labs and Republican voters.” My father-in-law wore a string tie so I don’t think he did meth. It sounds like some imagined elitist bigotry toward working people or maybe something you saw in “8 Mile Road” although it wasn’t clear if the folks there were Republicans either.

      • XCellKen

        California? hardly a representative sample of all trailer parks everywhere. State with most trailer parks: Texas, followed by Florida and Georgia. ( don’t remember the source) Since trailer parks are primarily a White Thang, and the three states with the most trailers are heavily republican, well, you do the math

      • strayaway

        That’s just my experience. I haven’t seen any polls saying that people who live in trailer parks are mostly republicans or have more access to meth then the rest of us. . If you do, please provide it to offer some proof that whites living in trailer parks vote more republican and are more involved with meth then others in their socio-economic class.

      • XCellKen

        I’ll do that five minutes after you provide proof of all the stupid shit you said today

      • strayaway

        I wasn’t the one demeaning working people and retirees who live in trailer parks. The ball is in your court.

      • XCellKen

        You really need to watch a few episodes of Cops…and stop being a troll jerk motha fucka

      • strayaway

        Is that your font source of knowledge and reality? I was thinking of something more like a respected polling organization than a TV entertainment program to prove your point. I hope that people living in trailer parks are reading here of how progressives despise them and denigrate them as being Republican and meth related.

      • Stevor Compton

        Oh Christ, Another BS argument about rules and regulations (many regarding the environment) that most of your mindset find so onerous. Some ARE there only to benefit the corporatists but most are there to benefit society as a whole. If we threw out ALL regulation who do you think would be the major beneficiaries? It certainly would NOT be your poor friend, who though bad timing, poor luck or poor planning, lack of assets or myriad other variables, who would be crushed by the weight of corporate assets. Another extremist Libertarian who feels the common man is being decimated by the regulations society tries to put into place in an attempt to level the playing field somewhat!

      • strayaway

        No one was suggesting throwing out all regulations. That might have been your imagination. But California has a history of making regulations that squeeze out small business owners leaving more monied with less competition. Also, please review your reading comprehension skills. I cited both the excessive rules and regulations “and” getting caught up in the housing bubble collapse of 2009 so I’m a step ahead of you.

        The first thing I tried to do when I moved to California long ago was put an add in the paper reading, “I will move or haul almost anything anywhere.” I had a friend to help and a list off all sizes of U-Haul trucks and trailers because I did not have capital. Within one week, I was threatened and put out of that business because to move someone’s furniture across town in California, one had to have a license and have a warehouse. Use your imagination and explain how that is an attempt to “level the playing field.” It wasn’t. It was to eliminate competition from the playing field. Should I have applied for food stamps and welfare instead of trying to make a living instead? I could go on with similar examples of how government served the rich at the expense of the working class… The opposite of libertarian is authoritarian so I guess you have your comfort zone.

      • chichiplus

        Same with Pittsburgh. We’re doing just fine thank you very much!

      • Mike Williams

        From NW side myself.
        Agreed, but seriously. The crime wave that Detroit tolerates is a substantial factor.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        because its the only city they can cry about,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, funny how they ( regressives) don’t ” cry” about California; which–under a democrat GOV– has now a large SURPLUS after years of massive deficits under repub rule—or how repub led states generaly have the most need for BIG GOVT assistance
        =======================================
        funny aint it?

      • Mike Williams

        When Detroit was faltering, where was Michigan?
        Detroit’s problem is one of self-indulgence and greed.
        A lack of community “spirit” or simply just not enough
        people concerned with the events beyond their own self-interests. Our federal government owes nothing to Detroit. It was not beset by a natural catastrophic event.
        Detroit made it’s own disaster.

        Let Michigan bail out Detroit.

      • strayaway

        Michigan patrols expressways in Detroit with some State troopers. Michigan offered to take over Belle Isle with a long term lease. That offer was at first rejected by the city clowncil. The most recent update I’m aware of is that the clowncil agreed to let the State run Belle Isle but wanted a shorter lease. Michigan has also sent in someone who basically has audited the City and may have to power to put together a bankruptcy plan. This too has met with resistance because the City rightfully doesn’t want to cede control. During the riots in 1967, the Michigan national guard and the federal 82nd airborne were sent in to quiet the arsonists. So there is a history of Michigan bailing out Detroit.

        There is a small renaissance beginning. Mexicans and Arabs have cleaned up some neighborhoods and started their own businesses. The downtown and new center have experienced some recent growth. Investors, including the Chinese, are starting to buy up blocks. Maybe the private sector will rejuvenate Detroit where government has failed.

        The federal government lowered import taxes on Japanese and Korean cars to financially shore up our allies back in the 70’s. That worked pretty well for our allies but not so well for Detroit. Whatever help the federal government has poured in was more than offset with that import policy.

      • Mike Williams

        I hope that the rebuilding spreads.

        I would be very cautious with foreign investment “growth” especially from China.

        They do not have anyone in mind other than themselves.
        This is beginning to sound a lot like the plot of Robocop…Perhaps Rand Paul could weigh in on that…

      • strayaway

        Detroit is so desperate that it would have a tough time refusing Chinese investment even if it could. There are now more Chinese billionaires than American. They are looking for investments. I did read one article mentioning one Chinese investor who, upon being driven around to possible investments, was so creeped out that he chose not to invest in Detroit. I think the Chinese just bought a JP Morgan building in NYC though. It’s the one in which JP Morgan has its precious metal vaults. I wondered if there is now a back door to currency transaction between out two countries now. I am mush more worried though about Chinese investments in the US should the TPP pass.

        I failed to mention that in addition to the Mexican, Arab, and downtown yuppie enclaves, art types are floating into the city to buy cheap housing and work space. Detroit elected a new mayor yesterday too. He doesn’t have much power though as the State bankruptcy guy now has the last word on financial matters. Detroit’s retiring mayor, Dave Bing, seemed like an honest man, tried hard, but was in over his head in dealing with the mess.

      • Mike Williams

        I see the problem…the last mayor was a Microsoft product…(j/k I can’t refuse to a groin kick to MS where ever it presents itself)

        That the Chinese are purchasing in areas that are critical to the stability of the US is disturbing.

        The true nature of warfare is to be ever evolving. If you can evolve a method to remove your enemy from the field with no loss to you.
        Then you will be the victor. Looks to me like the Chinese are attempting an economic infrastructure assault. But hell I may just be paranoid.

      • strayaway

        The Chinese also have a ‘problem’ of trying to use their budget surplus. They don’t want to get stuck if the dollar collapses. At least their children will own buildings, land, oil fields, and other resources worldwide in twenty years. Our kids get billed for a $17T or more debt instead. It’s like being handicapped in their future competition with an aspiring China. Maybe I’m being paranoid too.

      • melloe

        Detroit was not an accident, it was purposeful elimination of Union jobs. Planned and executed by shipping Jobs elsewhere where labor was cheaper. Some to just the South where right to work is right to pay less. Some were shipped to Mexico, and some off shore. Then they managed to get a Republican Governor who eliminated local control;/.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        I like what U wrote but GOD is NOT any church or religion

      • Mike Williams

        For me: God is a catch all explanation for the unknown. Invented by mankind to explain the unexplainable or to trick the masses into self-enslavement.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        agreed totally

      • flarrfan

        or both…

      • melloe

        I agree with your intent, but you are wrong historically.
        In Jesus day, the Jews were the government for the Jews for all but sedition ( against the Romanms or the Jewish State) or capital offences, and the reason he mentioned the jews and the Jewish leaders separately from the Romans was to separate the requirements…to show that the Jewish leaders were responsible for the Jewish people, including the poor. The Government was responsible for the poor as for them, the government was the Jewish leaders.

        Remember they tried Jesus, but wanted more punishment than the Romans allowed the Jewish ( the local Government for the Jews ) State to give, so they had to go to Pilate for a Death sentence.

        Second big error. There were two tax streams technically. to the Romans, and to the Jewish leaders of the Temple. The Leaders of the Temple were the leaders of the Jewish State, and to equate that to the tithe of the Church don’t quite work unless the church takes over the country.. These discussions were once very frequent, but the advent of the Religious right made this truth uncomfortable for their message.

      • Mike Williams

        I was referring to the bible verse regarding the instruction of “god” to man per the bible.

        Not the actual implementation or methods used during the time of Christ.

        The legal aspects and governing aspects of the era in question are intriguing. I will have to devote some time to their study. I have focused primarily on fluctuation of rule of the region and how it applies to current events… That area has been in constant conflict for over 8,000 years… Pre-Judea, pre-Judaism… There may have even been a group that traveled east and founded the Hindi belief system about the same time that the progenitor for Judaism was being hashed/hacked out.

      • regressive white trash reli

        because its is fun by humans who seek wealth and comfort for themselves FIRST ( see: tax free tithes)

      • James

        The hyperbole you used barely reselmbes the point you’re trying to quote, which is in and of itself a fallacy. In the end, no one if forcing people to do anything with their money, however, the cold hard face of reality which you clearly don’t want to accept is that tax money is needed, and while I can run down the line of explaining why, it’d be trite, and I’m not out to be obtuse.

        The Church and Government are separate, but if you want to believe in this country, and be a true patriot in the guise of those who founded it, then you will do well understand a few simple points.

        1) Our laws our based on our needs as a whole. This is a democracy first and foremost. You opposition to government assistance to those in need is completely against the teachings of Jesus Christ, This is a country of the people and if the people want to help the poor, you’re going to have to get over that.
        2) You are ignorant to the fact that you’re advocating the side of an argument that is giving excessive charity to those who don’t use and can’t really use it, other than to bolster their already excessive comfort. As companies claim the virtue of profit in make necessities increasingly difficult to obtain, you help with your voting, and argument to create dregs in our society that you then whine about wanting help.
        3) Your Christian values, while nice if you actually followed them, do not belong in politics. This isn’t the country of God, it never was, and it never will be. This is the country where no one can ever take away your right to have any relationship with any god you so please. Embrace that and stop being a hypocrite cherry picking your own belief structure to make argument because you’re ego is too bruised to accept that you’re on the losing side of many arguments.

        Cling to the idea you can manipulate perception with fallacies all you want. Your intent is clear and it resonates with your actions. If there is a god, it’s unlikely you’ll ever meet him, at this rate.

      • strayaway

        I didn’t claim any Christian values, express the notion that taxes weren’t necessary, claim to be a “true patriot”, oppose government assistance, promote corporate profits or promote “fallacies”. All of that is in your imagination. What I did was quote PJ O”Rourke and question what Jesus meant.

        If I touched some raw nerves of feigned virtue, I’m not surprised. Our laws especially serve the wants of the 1%. Insurance company CEOs are a case in point. They are profiting enormously with the passage of the (un)ACA they helped write. I didn’t say anything about being personally opposed to government help although, if asked, it should be done at the most local level possible.

      • Trolling, yet again. Seems you critique, offer vague proclamations, and then backtrack when anyone tries to hold you to anything. What do you actually believe, strayaway?

      • strayaway

        It must bother you that there are different opinions. I commend you as a dependable subject of the state.

      • Sandra

        Actually that is WRONG the USA is a REPUBLIC NOT a DEMOCRACY !!! People need to know the difference !

      • Catnip

        ‘Give Caesar what is due Caesar’…

      • Danielp563

        The Conservatives are big on this notion of private philanthropy taking care of the widows and orphans, but if you want to see this model in action, take a trip to Delhi. I pay taxes. In some ways I see government as a “Charity Collective” making sure that those who aren’t able to have their basic needs met have their basic needs met. Many of those who are hot on private philanthropy haven’t had to rely on it.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I like to tell people if they don’t want to pay taxes, find a country that doesn’t assess them. The silence after that is deafening.

      • strayaway

        One person after another seems to have reading comprehension problems. My post was responding with a PJ quote and questioned what Jesus meant in reference to the OP article. I elaborated that if anyone asked me about government charity, that it is best done at the most local level possible. That, somehow, has been interpreted as an attack on all government charity spending. O’Rourke’s point want that there should be no taxation. It was more of an attack on those who fancy themselves as virtuous because they want to take their neighbor’s property to give to the poor.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        But why do conservatives always assume someone is taking their NEIGHBOR’S property and giving it to someone else, implying that liberals don’t pay any taxes. I wish I’d known that before writing checks for $30K for estimated tax payments.

      • strayaway

        Good point. Anyone in higher income tax brackets that voted for higher taxes pay their own way minus whatever the government borrows and takes from their neighbors.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        But the government takes from everyone and spends on things someone isn’t going to like. Some don’t like the idea of their taxes going to welfare; I don’t like my taxes going to defense contractors, agribusiness or oil and gas subsidies. But presuming to know where one’s actual tax dollar goes is delusions. I like to think mine go to those causes I see as useful.

      • strayaway

        Agreed, but O’Rourke was taking a shot at smug piety involving feeling good about taking from one neighbor and giving it to another.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        no taxation? sip a cold YOO HOO and visualize a country with no taxation

      • strayaway

        I never suggested “no taxation”. Don’t let your imagination confuse you. Twice, on this thread, I’ve made a point about government charity should be carried out at the most local level possible.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        The problem is local charity, local government or otherwise, is insufficient.

      • strayaway

        Probably not on most things. The federal government has the advantage of printing money and billing things to our kids whatever the morality of that is. I don’t suspect that was what Jesus had in mind either but it would make for an interesting theological debate.

      • loudmouthgeek

        And when state and local governments need to or have to spend more money than they take in they have the advantage of borrowing that money the federal government is printing and billing to our kids. The fact is most government sponsored charity is funded federally and administered locally just like you suggest it should be. Each state gets to set it’s own guidelines for Medicaid, SNAP, WIC, and much more. Yes, there are federal standards for some programs but the state can still alter them.

      • Ultimately, our government remains in control because of our fear, inaction, etc. So, is it really the federal government doing anything, or is it the will/lack of will of the American people?

      • strayaway

        Good point. We get the government we deserve. Every generation has its own battles to fight to make the thing work. We aren’t doing so good.

      • chichiplus

        What about the poorest neighborhoods/states? Who helps them? Do they just have to tough it out?

      • strayaway

        That’s fair. Why are those states poor in the first place? My guess is that they are exercising poor choices whether it is residual racism and cronyism in Mississippi or the cooperation with an illegal invasion of cheap foreign labor in California. Many younger people especially can vote with their feet and move to other states. Michigan, New Jersey, and New York are examples of sclerotic policies retarding growth for many years. People leave when pastures are greener on the other side of the fence.

        There is a concept that the fifty states are laboratories of innovation. If a policy works great in one state, other states often adopt that policy. North Carolina is a former confederate state which has adopted improving education while Mississippi did not. Businesses have flocked to NC but not Mississippi. If I were in Alabama and had a choice between imitating NC’s success or Mississippi’ failure, the choice would be clear. But Mississippi, or Detroit, are already failures with all sorts of federal money being dumped into them as welfare payments and that obviously hasn’t worked. We wind up with federal reservations of poor people.

        Vermont tried to implement an affordable single payer health care system but was prevented from doing so by (un)ACA bureaucrats. So here we have a problem at the other end of the spectrum in which Washington is preventing states from doing something that has a lot of potential and could be copied by other states. States being forbidden from growing industrial hemp by the federal government is another example of lost profits and jobs caused by Washington. The very thing you worried about, the states at the bottom, not getting help from Washington, is offset by Washington interfering with state efficiencies.

      • chichiplus

        Remember, Jesus did not live in a democracy. Politics int that part of the world 2000+ years ago were a bit different then they are in the twenty first century in America.

      • strayaway

        I’ve thought about that too. Government then was imposed by another nation on his occupied Country. Representative government is a relatively recent concept in which, in theory, voters are the rulers. While rulers should support justice and taking care of the poor they have to be careful not to create mini-tyrannies doing so.

        Perhaps not related but King Seijong was one of the best rulers ever in my opinion. He ended starvation in Korea by issuing an edict that the Governor of any province in which a person starved would be executed for allowing that to happen.

      • Mike Williams

        Sweet…Sounds like my kind of ruler…I advocate public execution via catapult for pedophiles.

        Today’s excessively polite society would never tolerate that sort of rehabilitation program.

      • strayaway

        I have a framed picture of King Seijong (1418-1450) on my wall. For his time, he was very progressive in some Jeffersonian ways. He assembled his scholars to develop a phonetic alphabet so commoners could teach each other to read and write. Science and innovation flourished. This pre-Gutenberg press invention then printed libraries worth of books. He was a peace and prosperity king. Excess grain was distributed to the poor. Remember: this is 15th century Confucian Korea and consider what was going on in Europe at the time. Recommended reading.

      • Mike Williams

        Definitely going to research him.

      • Maybe you just don’t realize how your tone comes across. You critique others, put them on the defense, and quickly backtrack from how your words generally resonate with others. Maybe it’s not them. Maybe the common denominator is your inability to understand how you sound.

      • strayaway

        I’m not so lonely here anymore. So what were your thoughts about PJ O’Rourke’s comment? Did you have anything to add to the discussion?

      • nitalynn

        I keep telling you people that they can use your tax money to make bombs and mine to feed the poor. But then I know, you want me to be forced to build bombs too don’t you!?!?! NO!

      • strayaway

        Actually, I didn’t vote for Obama in part because I had read enough about him suggesting that he would be a hawk like Bush. I was vindicated when he stretched out Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and sent cruise missiles into Yemen, Libya, and Pakistan. So if you voted for Obama, you get to pay for the bombs or at least you can bill the children for his actions.

      • So, what, you suppose exiting those areas immediately would’ve been better for the world? At least he initiated exits and improved our standing on the world stage. No president is perfect. That’s the job: to lead, but to lead as a human among humans. The position gives us a symbol to praise or condemn, an outlet to vent upon. To expect perfection is to deny each of us the reality of our imperfection. Complex dynamics playing out across the globe means whatever decision a president makes can truly only be viewed over time; however, we’re impatient creatures.

      • strayaway

        You sound like Cheney. I don’t even think we should have been in Iraq and we should have left Afghanistan a long time ago. The Iraqi parliament initiated our exit from Iraq during Bush’s term. Obama actually tried to extend but fortunately did not agree to Iraq’s terms.

      • Daddycool67

        Here in America we don’t allow our government to interpret what Jesus or any other fairy tale character might have “meant” …. and then make laws based on that interpretation.
        In fact it’s blatantly illegal to do so according to the first amendment to our Constitution.

        Therefore ….. it doesn’t matter what you think Jesus “meant” once you decide to bring government into the equation.

      • strayaway

        Agreed. But the OP article was doing just that so we can respond to that one way or another.

      • Mike Williams

        The concept is there, however in practice we have a phukton of “morality” based laws.
        Laws written solely with religious conviction from concept to passage.
        I’m not talking about stealing, killing, etc.
        I am talking about who we have sex with, how we have sex, who we may or may not marry.
        When we may drink, where we may drink… The list is mind numbing.

        These little innocuous laws that are used to shackle freedom in the name of faith.

        When in reality, if you boiled all the bs out of the bible and left only what Jesus said.

        You get a pamphlet that pretty much says don’t be a douche.
        The rest is used to fear monger, and enslave.

      • CherMoe

        Jesus did say that “it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it would be for a rich man to get into Heaven.” He said the “poor shall inherit the earth.”

        What I object to is the “hit men” who collect our tax money in order to make rich people richer and give them more lavish lifestyles by providing extravagant tax cuts that virtually bring their tax liability to ZERO. When the poor and middle class have to pay a greater percentage of their wages in taxes than the rich do in proportion to what THEY make but they use the same services AND profit off the workers TWICE … once by cheating them in their wages and benefits and secondly, in the exorbitant profits they make on what they sell. Government is a “necessary evil” because, as you got the tiniest glimpse of what happens when it is SHUT DOWN, things start to get mighty uncomfortable. And those very rich corporations and banks start to get VERY NERVOUS at the profits they are LOSING. Maybe you should shut down the government including the military and start a “charity collective” to finance it (the military and wars) if people would so choose. Wouldn’t it be AMAZING to see that the vast majority of supporters for the military and WARS and killing would be the self-proclaimed religious right-wing and the rich.

        By the way, have you noticed the “police powers” of the rich lately, a good example being the cops who pepper-sprayed, clubbed, arrested and dragged away people from the Occupy Wall St. efforts? You seem to ignore the fact that the “police powers” of government, amongst other things, is financed and given power by the very rich who REALLY control this country. Look at what happened in Texas to women trying to speak up about reproductive rights or those who duct-taped their mouths. People dragged out of the room just for asking questions or trying to be heard. Because, uhm, government and governors and Senators & Reps are supposed to BE the voice of the people and LISTEN to the will of the people, RIGHT??? And, by the way, you say nothing about the gun-carrying mercenaries and NRA supporters swaggering around the country flashing their heat and getting up in the faces of the FAMILIES OF MURDERED VICTIMS.

        Bet you sleep good at night being one of THAT bunch. All of the above.

      • strayaway

        CherMoe, You started out quite reasonably and devolved into imagining what I was thinking and, worse, you guessed wrong. My only mention of police power had to do with collecting taxes. Every government has police powers. I wasn’t suggesting that the US is yet a “police state”; only that governments, almost all governments, reserve the right to use force and do so if necessary. Ultimately, if all other measures fail, governments use force. Larger government have more guns to, if necessary, enforce laws. The ability to tax requires police powers. Supporters of big government support expanded police powers in order for expanded government to work.

        I’m with you on your concern that some of the rich and corporations are getting away tax free. I appreciate that you suggest this to be a present tense issue and did not just blame Bush. The occupy people were in fact disrupted by our government. The women treated poorly in Texas is another good example of people who were deprived of their 1st amendment rights and rights of what they want to do with their own bodies. You did miss a fine point though. The Supreme Court ruled that government may, in the case of the (un)ACA require individuals to make specific corporate purchases. I see a lot of potential for government to empty our pockets with this precedent. Already, in the case of Kelo vs. New London, the Supreme Court allowed a government to take property for less than its value and give it to corporations. Being forced to sell things at less than market value and then being forced to buy unwanted products is a one two punch aimed at fleecing the middle class. Meanwhile, Hillary was paid $400,000 by Goldman-Sachs last week for a couple of speeches so we can kind of guess where that is going – not that Republicans offer an alternative.

        No, I didn’t say anything about the NRA because this thread has nothing to do with the NRA. We are already far afield from discussing Jesus’ tax policies.

      • KishinD

        It would be really nice if I could trick myself into believing that voluntary charitable contributions could be enough to offset the economic forces that impoverish ~50% of the planet. But what is seen cannot be unseen, and I wouldn’t even know where to begin if I wanted to return to naivete.

        So when the options are a) let the poor, old, and/or unfortunate die preventable deaths or b) have the government forcibly take and give what’s necessary to prevent those deaths, I really can’t call it a tough choice.

        I actually think under a different economic framework, charity could be quite enough, and of course I’m speaking of a form of socialism, where companies can only be owned by the members that comprise them, and every member has a stake and a say. Private ownership of the means of production and capital goods is one of the main drivers behind expanding income inequality.

      • strayaway

        I don’t think anyone here has advocated that ” voluntary charitable contributions could be enough to offset the economic forces that impoverish ~50% of the planet.” You forgot c) Spend more than government revenue and bill it to our children.

        It could be looked at as child abuse or or psychopathic societal behavior but that is what is occuring. The PJ O’Rourke reference that began this part of the conversation should be looked at in that light.

      • KishinD

        “I don’t think anyone here has advocated…”
        Nor did I assign that view to anyone.

        I’m young enough to be one of the children being handed the bill. Quite frankly, I believe it is my generation’s right and duty to refuse to recognize the debt supposedly being forced on us. I don’t want to inherit your government or its debt. I cannot justify having this generation continue to pay off bills from ww2.

        Debt is a social fiction, just like ownership, just like money. Any idiot can see, an ever-expanding economic system based on a finite energy source on a finite planet cannot function for the long term. It’s time for these systems to be replaced, and with that change, this debt can be nullified.

        The other (not mutually exclusive) option for debt is to allow it to skyrocket beyond any hope of paying it back. Debts that can’t be paid back, won’t. The economic collapse triggered by the popular realization would be the perfect opportunity to implement a more practical and equitable alternative to administrating society.

      • strayaway

        Careful. Collapses often cause such suffering that populations are drawn to dictators who promise to lead them to better times but instead lead them to even greater disasters. I wouldn’t wish a collapse on anyone.

      • KishinD

        Well of course I’d prefer a smooth transition from the “dooming the planet with greed” society to an equitable and sustainable one. But it’s not up to me. All I can do is water the seeds of this society’s administrations’ replacement.

      • midwstgirl

        Actually under the mosaic law land owners were obligated to leave grain unharvested at the edges of their fields for the poor to harvest. Debt was forgiven every seven years and alternative (lower cost) sacrifices were allowed at the temple for those of little wealth. These are just a couple for you…

      • strayaway

        The latter would put an end to long term lending. Might not be a bad idea if our government had to pay back all new loans in less than 7 years. It’s difficult to imagine how our existing $17T and growing federal debt can ever go away without hyper inflation.

      • TommyNIK

        Spoken like a true libertarian.

      • 65snake

        Isn’t government of the people, by the people, and for the people, a collection of individuals? A collection of individuals supporting a basic safety net. See, that’s how it’s supposed to work….we, the individual people, collectively decide what to do with those tax dollars.

        Sounds like this O’Rourke person simply resents having to participate in a civilized society, and is looking for a reason to reap all of the benefits while abdicating the responsibility that comes with it.

      • strayaway

        That isn’t in the Constitution which has limitations on the power of the federal government short of being amended. It was part of Lincoln’s Gettysberg Address and is alleged to have been borrowed language from an abolitionist.

        I think you are misinterpreting O’Rourke. He isn’t, for instance, criticizing churches, other organizations, and individuals who voluntarily help the needy. He is instead, criticizing those who fancy themselves as virtuous for taking their neighbor’s stuff and give it to someone else.

      • Debbie Lass

        And given the attitude of many today who claim to be Christian who see the poor as lazy and bums and moochers and not to be helped….you think they will help individually if they object so strongly to helping through their tax dollars?

      • strayaway

        I think you are being presumptuous with respect to knowing what people think. Some who claim to be Cristian probably do see the poor as lazy and bums and moochers. Others are in the trenches. Conservatives do contribute more to charity than liberals. But maybe some conservatives resent having that same money taken from them and distributed by people who don’t personally contribute as much. I don’t think that either liberals or conservatives have a lock on virtue. On the other hand, some of each are good people.

      • BiblePolice

        Didn’t Jesus say pay your taxes? Matthew 22:15-22.
        That aside any Christian worth his/her salt should never complain about giving to the poor no matter the means by which it gets to the poor.
        I mean “Christians” can fight democrats on their stance on a lot of things but to fight them against helping the poor that puts your Christianity seriously in doubt.
        Nice one though quoting P.J how about I quote someone greater.
        “Go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” – Jesus

      • strayaway

        Giving to the poor is different than being shaken down for the poor or to fight wars, finance Acorn, etc.. One is voluntary and proceeds from the heart. The other is extracted at the end of the threat of a gun barrel. The Democratic Jesus should have been trying to reform the government to donate more to the poor. If he could have just elected more Democrats to the Roman Senate, sigh… Jesus did say to give unto Caesar that which is Caesars. Paul, not Jesus, added “if anyone will not work, neither should he eat.” Maybe Paul was Republican. I personally prefer Jesus teachings of personally sharing to Paul’s but they are both somehow accepted by modern churches as complementary So take your choice. There is a Bible verse to justify many contrary things. Saint Peter O’Rourke had an interesting take, peviously posted, on your mandated morality such as it is,

        “There is no virtue in compulsory government
        charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as caring and sensitive because he wants to expand the government’s charitable programs is merely saying that he is willing to do good with other people’s money. Well, who isn’t? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he will do good with his own money— if a gun is
        held to his head.”

        If I am reading your last Jesus quote correctly, he isn’t telling people to help the poor with their neighbor’s money. He is telling people to give away their own stuff. In Acts, the early Christians gave all their money to the church, not Caesar, and lived somewhat communally. St. Peter even killed someone who held some money back from the church. That didn’t seem very Christ like either.

      • scottsgirl

        Charities donating to people is a great idea. But unfortunately in this day and age many charities – especially churches – are using their money to get rich and for political propaganda.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        If all “Christians” followed Jesus’ command, no one would have to use tax money to help the poor. Are you equally as angry about those of us who, like it or not, have to pay whopping big subsidies and tax breaks for huge corporations making billions in profit?

      • strayaway

        Yes, end all corporate subsidies, That should be prioritized over cutting social benefits. However, don’t complain when gasoline goes up a couple dollars a gallon, housing costs go up, etc.. I’m willing to pay the price for those corporate subsidies. Are you?

        One huge hidden subsidy is fighting wars in the mid-east or at lest that portion of their cost attributable to having cheap oil.

    • Skip Patterson

      You nailed that one correctly. 🙂

    • Marty Cox

      The Old Testament is basically a History of the Jews.

    • Nattxn@aol.com

      But if you mention any of the forbiden things in Leviticus they come back with “that is in the old testament”

  • davidseidenberg

    SO you just accept this as true about Judaism?: “Jewish law executes homosexuals and baby murderers. That’s why he never mentioned it; it was already established and he AGREED with it.” That’s not what Torah teaches or how it was ever implemented in Jesus’ time or any other time. Please don’t defend your Christianity at the expense of Judaism. That’s what you do when you let such statements go unchallenged, even if those words are from some crazy you disagree with.

    • Brian Frang

      Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them.” So… Yeah, that’s exactly what Torah teaches. The difference is that most Jews understand that times change.

      • TerryInIowa

        What does Leviticus say about shellfish, Brian?

      • Brian Frang

        What’s your point? First of all, I never said I AGREE with it. In fact, I made a POINT of pointing out that Jews understand how times change and are often liberal as a result, so stop getting so defensive. This is why people hate liberals, and I’m tired of getting lumped in with you hypersensitive, over-reactive douchenozzles just because I don’t happen to be a greedy pig. Secondly, JEWISH LAW STILL DOES PROHIBIT SHELLFISH, dumbass, and I was quoting a passage from Leviticus in reference to someone claiming it is not, nor has it ever been Jewish Law to execute homosexuals. And it was. You ignorant twat. Go sit in a corner and stop making us logical liberals look bad.

      • TerryInIowa

        Defensive? I must have called you names, like “hypersensitive, over-reactive douchenozzles” or “dumbass” or perhaps “ignorant twat”, but yes, I can see how simply asking about another chapter in the book of fables was a personal attack on you. Take a deep breath before you give yourself a heart attack. I’m just a computer programmer, so I probably know nothing about LOGIC. I hope you have a better day.

  • Rev. Susan

    I agree with your evaluation, too and am a progressive Christian. However, we can’t lump all conservatives into one “wing-nut” category. I have conservative Christian friends who would be appalled by this man’s comment. They would agree that it wasn’t very Christ-like. My conservative friends care about the poor, but disagree with liberal folks on how to best lift them out of poverty. Of course, the Bible says that God holds the government and leaders responsible for the welfare of the people they govern. You don’t hear those on the far-right who want “biblical values” acknowledging that. And it runs pretty much all through the Bible! Thanks again.

  • Jordan

    Plus not to mention the actual religion of Christianity didn’t start till about the 6th century.

  • Jordan

    This articles arguments and those comments left by hateful people are the perfect example of why faith is an amazing thing, and religion is not.

    • regressive rightwing trash

      aqreed,,,religion is worthless unless U are a tax free house of superstition. Faith in myself–along with hard( and smart) effort usually pays off

  • Melissa L

    He’s probably ignorant because he went to a government run public school.

    • flarrfan

      This level of ignorance more likely comes from Sunday school than any government school.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        to quote the song from the 1960’s Sidney poitier movie “LILLIES OF THE FIELD” ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ” AAAAAAA–MEN” !!!

  • rainbow goddess

    I seem to recall Jesus telling at least one person to sell everything he owned and give the proceeds to the poor.

  • Ekaterina Kaverina

    True Christians are very cheerful people. Their faith helps them love everybody regardless, so they needn’t be making decisions about what they approve or not in people or in what people do. Their opinions don’t change love.

    • regressive rightwing trash

      now THATS a true 1%,,,,,,,,,,,,99% of “Christians ( the vocal ones) are savages

  • Kiltedbear

    I am Atheist and I am pretty anti-violence, but I really would like a Rapture because I think Jesus needs to come down and b*tch-slap a few “Christians”. Even that is difficult for me to say because of the “B” word. I tried other words to make that sentence, but it just seemed to fit, and I am embarrassed because it’s a term used to describe violence against women which is not cool, yet the term just fits…

    • regressive rightwing trash

      todays Christians would have JESUS on FOX “news” ONCE,,,,and after that debacle todays CHRISTIANS would have him vanish ala jimmy Hoffa 1970’s

  • Brian Frang

    You forgot to mention the part where Jesus actually supported taxes. The “render unto Caesar” line was specifically about paying one’s taxes.

  • Scott Bennett

    please correct this sentence: “A man who defended the stoning death of a woman found guilty of adultery, would have supported the murder of homosexuals and women who wish to have control over their own bodies?” You meant to write, “defended against”; as it stands with the mistaken omission it means the exact opposite. Thank you.

  • Gary Menten

    In a universe in which evolution is scientific fact, any position that requires that you hide behind God or scripture or an interpretation of scripture to justify it, is probably wrong. If it has merit, it should be able to stand on its own without invoking God. This is not to say that a position taken up by a religious organization or those faithful to it is necessarily wrong: you can be opposed to capital punishment or abortion for instance on reasons that have nothing to do with religion or God. I am an evolutionist, totally opposed to one, and not at all crazy about the other.

    The bottom line is that if what you believe has merits, the idea should stand up by itself. If on the other hand, you simply hide behind God or scripture, you are just copping out.

  • sherry06053

    That is actually sad…I pity him – how miserable he must be. I’ll bet he has many guns.

  • Namaste

    I get a lot of what you are saying here but go back and read YOUR bible about what it says about calling another person a fool or an idiot….that seems pretty judgmental to me…you lost my respect by how you just took one person’s perspective and picked it apart. It does not seem like you really know your stuff much either!!!

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    I just love hearing people quote Leviticus, which also prohibits tattoos, bacon and shrimp. So we should stone everyone caught going to Red Lobster?

  • grwurown

    What an anchor us humans have tied so tightly around our necks. The sad part is that the blindly religious will never accept that there is no god until god tells them he doesn’t exist. GO SCIENCE!!!

    • regressive rightwing trash

      GOD does exist— GOD simply cannot be defined by a finite creature such as man. Im agnostic; learned long ago to stop trying to find GOD. Just let GOD do GODS “thing”………….. and avoid all religions

  • MarilynClay

    My only problem with this piece is the criticism that Republican cultists use the Bible differently than anyone else. It seems to me that everyone, everyone that claims to be a Christian, or to follow Christ “picks and chooses” from the Bible. It’s basically a crazy-quilt of stories, poetry and legends and oral histories put in writing a hundred years after the fact. How could it be any other way? Quite honestly, if a person can’t figure out the difference between right and wrong without consulting a book written by primitive and superstitious men of 2000+ years ago, they are just plain unable to think.

    • regressive rightwing trash

      kinda like how FOX “news” picks and chooses topics and “all star” panels?

    • Brian Frang

      Yes, but the difference is in HOW they pick and choose it. Liberals look for Jesus’ words about charity, kindness, love, tolerance and peace when they’re cherry picking the Bible, ignoring the nasty stuff about slavery and executing people for being themselves, and conservatives go to looking for how they can use Scripture to promote their hatred of anyone different from themselves, while ignoring pretty much everything Jesus ever said.

  • Brightman79

    I don’t understand why people dont realize that money is NEVER theirs. You have the freedom in this country to earn American dollars……but make no mistake, they are American dollars. They belong to America. But we have put such an importance on wealth that we falsely believe when we have it, it is ours. At any point it can be taken away because I repeat, it is “American Money!” So if you have a problem with what America is doing with its money, move or create your own currency.

  • kenneth

    I could not said it any better. I am a follower of Christ and I hold his las comand to his peopel, “LOVE one another as I have LOVED you.” Not judge people by your own personal judgement. Thanks

  • G’mork

    I had to stop reading after this incredibly racist & ignorant sentence toward the beginning of this article:

    “So, to their point, we should turn the country back over to Native Americans, burn our Constitution and live with a “survival of the fittest” mentality where there are no laws, rules or structure.”

    Really? Because white European people were/are the only ones with laws, rules and structure? Speaking of hypocrisy…

    • Tinwoods

      And what about your ignorance?

  • Jo Clark

    Dayum! What a miserable person that must be. I’d hate to spend any time around someone that hate-filled. You can just feel their rage.

  • John1966

    As an 8th grade essay, I give it a “D”. It doesn’t really rise above playground rhetoric.

    • Tinwoods

      Unlike your two measly sentences, at least the essay is correctly punctuated . Put your period before your end-quote, Kettle.

  • Karl (And Whatnot)

    Conservative here, former Christian… Never quite cared for judging others even when I was a Devout Christian. Always believed it was up to god. This article makes some good points but I feel it is a bit too generalized. Love the picture though. I will say however, This article is a bit counterproductive as it comes off quite… shall we say judgmental. At any rate, it was an interesting read, it is always interesting to hear other people’s perspective. Cheers. 🙂

  • Tracey

    The Church was allowed a tax exemption so it could better serve the poor and the needs of the children and elderly. INSTEAD we have Pastors living in posh digs, driving Lexus.. and preaching politics in the pulpit! Separate CHURCH and STATE… and make the church pay taxes if they want to preach politics! There would be no poor if the Church did their job instead of taking from the poor to live lavishly with polished steeples.

    • KishinD

      They can talk politics all they want. It would be crazy to think that your metaphysical worldview wouldn’t affect how you want this country to be administrated.

      What law prohibits and enforcers can’t be bothered to enforce is /endorsing a particular candidate/. If you, as a mouthpiece of the church, are trying to tell people who to vote for, you’re supposed to lose your tax exempt status.

  • FD Brian

    The government had to step in and assist people when they found out that is was a problem beyond the capabilities of either religion or charity.

  • sharongibson

    While there is the death penalty in Jewish law, the Sanhedrin (Jewish court) did not capriciously issue death sentences. In fact, a court that issued a death sentence once in a 100 years was considered a bloody court.

  • You’re elemental points are spot on – I agree with them. But making an argument by calling others “stupid” “imbecile” and “idiot” might make you feel good about yourself, but you’re not changing any minds, and isn’t that the point? If your argument’s valid – I think it is – it’ll stand up on its own. If you want to win someone over, a little humility goes a long way.

  • Patricia Wimmer Harrington

    All of which proves the Founders and creators of the Constitution of our country were right on the mark….separation of church and state. Those folks are free to believe whatever they want, but I’m worn out with them mucking up our government and creating disfunction.

  • Jodi

    FYI: Jewish law states a woman’s pregnancy within the first 30 says is like water, after that, we are aupposed to treat as a limb. You are supposed to think of it as cutting off an arm or leg. Jewish law permits abortion.

  • Stephen Scott

    He lost me at Jesus CHRIST is not a Christian. Mr. Clifton, keep calling out the hypocrisy of those in the GOP. They are just like the Pharisees Jesus condemned. Thanks sir!

  • Taken directly from the article above: ““Taking by force from one person to give to another is theft – stealing plain and simple.”

    According to the individual who left this comment, he or she is not apparently that well-versed in scripture as he or she believes. When the Pharisees tried to place Jesus in a conundrum, the following took place according to scripture:

    “…16And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any.17″Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?” 18But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?”

    And the response Jesus provides settles the matter for all eternity according to the very Scriptures the contributor proclaims he or she pays fealty to:

    “Whose inscription is on the coin? They answered Him, and said: ‘Caeser’s.’
    To which Jesus responds; “Render unto Caeser’s what is Caeser’s and render unto God what is God’s.”

    Obviously, the incident which, by the way, appears in ALL Four of what we refer to as the Synoptic Gospels, is clear: Citizens are to pay their taxes. Of course, the contributor most likely will take the path of “patriotism” sharing how unconstitutional the paying of taxes is, but then again, he or she would be obviously wrong!

    The Constitution makes clear that Congress can and in fact does establish taxation for the common good. Now call me naive, but whenever I personally see the words “common-good,” I think of socialistic applications of the law. And, whether those “patriots” accept this reality or not, is irrelevant: We as citizens have been taxed for years, and those taxes are used for the betterment of society. The problem with this individual is clear: He or she utilizes a “cafeteria christianity,” applying only those aspects of the scripture that suits him or her the most. Typical!

    In sum, whenever someone makes such a blatantly misinformed application such as this, use their own weapon against them, as it is about the only way they “might” concede the point.

  • Adrian Lehman-Sizemore

    it seems that the people who cry the loudest they are christian are the ones who still need to convince god! a christian will be identified by their neighbors! by the sick they comfort and seek to heal and the poor who are given a coat and a shirt and the hungry who are fed. If you feel the need to hang a sign around your neck or too sit in the front pew and pray the loudest to make sure others see you as a christian you might be doing it wrong!

  • Mary W. Matthews

    Please change your first item. Jesus was, in fact, NOT a Christian. Christianity was invented by Paul of Tarsus several decades after Jesus was executed by the Romans. Christianity is only tangentially based on Jesus’s ALLEGED life and teachings (about which the authors of the canonical gospels knew almost nothing) — it is based on the belief that Jesus was “God in a man-suit.” Since one of the most believable sayings attributed to Jesus is “Don’t call me good. Only God is good,” it’s a cinch JESUS did not believe he was God in a man-suit.

  • Jordan Sakai

    Not that I disagree with anything you’ve written, I actually totally agree with you. But you yourself use some pretty judgmental language when dissecting this post from your replies. I am an atheist, so naturally I don’t really care what Jesus thought any more than I care what Cinderella thought– but as you are a Christian, wouldn’t it be more fitting to walk the walk so to speak, and reply to this argument in a “Christian” way? Your points are valid, but made using derogatory language toward the opponent, which takes this from logical to personal, and makes you seem a touch hypocritical. I’ve had this same argument countless times with right-wingers who claim a moral correctness in their social and political beliefs (and their grasp on the first amendment church and state is really pretty poor), and I think you summed it up very well– quotable even. Also, with regards to “Jewish law executes homosexuals and baby murderers. That’s why he never mentioned it; it was already established and he AGREED with it.” there is one BIG flaw in this argument aside from the adulterous woman, prior to his death John 13:34 gives his new commandment to love others as he had, and also with regard to the following of the Law Mark 13:28-31 gives two commandments above all others– again with the love God, and love as I have loved bit (pretty much nothing about the previous 10 Laws, or anything in Leviticus). Just one of my personal favorite jumping off points in the “we know what Jesus believed” argument.

  • Gabriel Gentile

    “Jewish law executes homosexuals and baby murderers. That’s why he never mentioned it; it was already established and he AGREED with it.”

    Actually… Isn’t the Old Testament full of “God’s armies” wiping out entire societies, including women and children, in the name of God?

  • FFVison

    I like the part in The Bible where Jesus told his disciples that 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish should go only to the people that fished for the fish or baked the loaves of bread. Anything more would be socialism which Jesus was against. Remember to help yourself and no one else along the way. That would be the christian way. If anyone takes my previous statements as truth or anything remotely resembling how I feel, I pity you that you could have that little faith in humanity. A good Christian would believe that God would provide for those less fortunate, but that doesn’t excuse us from trying as well. The men that gave Jesus the loaves and fishes still gave up the few loaves and fishes that they had so that they could feed the many. Yes, Jesus made the loaves and fishes feed everyone, but it was the community that made it possible. Good Christians should help out in whatever way they can and if their faith is strong, God will provide the rest of it. A miracle does not exempt everyone from contributing to the benefit of those less fortunate.

  • William

    Better check your ad source, as there were 2 adds for Liberty University embedded in your article. Talk about hypocrisy.

  • Proud Liberal Progressive

    Wow! GREATarticle, and I agree with you 100%!!! Keep up the good work! We need MORE people like you to keep speaking out about the TRUTH! Truth!

    Of course, I am a liberal progressive democrat – and I am PROUD of it !!!

    Regards,

    Sharon O.

    Facebook sites I help moderate & create content for:
    Liberals on Parade
    Shut Down the GOP
    The Smart Liberal
    Living Blue in North Carolina
    Thr Liberal Agenda

    I also just became involved with Occupy Progressives – will be doing work for their website.

  • johnny33308

    Since the Republicans claim to be ‘Christian’ and wish for this country to be a theocracy, and also wish to eliminate freedom for women, children, the elderly, the poor and even the Middle Class, it is logical refer to them as the American Taliban. Their views fit precisely with every sort of Taliban one has ever learned about. This is the sad truth of those Tea Party people and the so-called ‘republicans’ and conservatives….they are as Taliban as one could ever be….and extremely hate-filled, as well…..but they certainly are NOT Christians.

  • xpatYankeeCurmudgeon

    Not a straw man left standing.

  • Jonathan Evan Stern

    Also, biblically speaking abortion is sometimes sanctioned. For example, if a man accuses his wife of adultery, the husband may take his wife to the priests who give her a concoction that kills fetuses. It was believed by them (the ancient Hebrews) that this potion would only kill fetuses of children from men outside of the marriage, but of course biology doesn’t work that way in reality. Also, fetuses were not referred to as babies in the Bible until a certain month of pregnancy. Prior to that they were referred to as water and a limb earlier and later on in the pregnancy respectively.

  • FiachSidhe

    “Jesus supported Jewish law”? Wasn’t the entire cause of his crucifixion over him breaking one of the most sacred laws, and proclaiming himself king of the Jews?

  • Marieke

    First of I would like to say I love reading your pieces on here. I am from the Netherlands, which still is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe, even though we as a society are unfortunately rapidly changing with the times. And we take our social system (what some in your GOP seem to call socialism or freeloading), freedom of or from religion and the belief that religion doesn’t have a monopoly on morality, kindness etc. I read you page, as well as follow several others because I believe that what happens in your country is important, not just in the USA, but also for the rest of the world.
    And even though I agree with your arguments most of the time, I don’t always agree with the tone in which it is written. In my opinion calling the other side or someone you disagree with an idiot or imbecilic does not promote an open discussion. Even though someones views seem idiotic to you.
    I believe it is the same tendencies some religious arguments have: this is the way it is and if you don’t agree you are stupid/don’t get it or a sinner etc. Or FOX news when it declares everyone that disagrees with them a socialist, enemy of Christendom or worse.

  • xbj

    What everyone knew in Jesus’ time, when women were terminating pregnancies all over the place and had been from time immemorial, was that, to declare ALL fetuses babies, would be making out God to be a sadistic, hateful, spiteful, wasteful monster giving a soul and humanity with it to a fetus HE KNEW FULL WELL WOULD NEVER COME TO TERM BASED ON THE FREE WILL HE GAVE WOMAN, AND UP TO A HORRIFIC DEATH BEFORE EVEN BEING BORN. What everyone knew in Jesus’ time, so much that it never came up UNTIL THE 1960’S!!, is that the entire CONVENIENT TITHE INCREASING and PRESERVING concept that “life begins at conception” would be, and still is, HERETICAL BLASPHEMY of the FIRST ORDER. God, who knows all things, gives humanity and a soul to each of us WITH THE FIRST BREATH, as He did ADAM and EVE. It made no difference when the lump of clay had a beating heart, nor a brain, nor a nervous system that could feel pain. NONE WHATSOEVER. Fetuses are NOT human, nor will they ever be UNLESS GOD KNOWS THEY WILL BE BORN. Even Judaic Law AGREES. Terminating pregnancies is NOT, nor will it EVER be, “CHILD” “MURDER”. Unless a fetus will be brought to term by a woman who CHOOSES to become a mother, it is nothing more than a POTENTIAL. NO. MORE. LIES.

  • Joe Bonfiglio

    What I find interesting, is that the writer accuses the commenter of hatred and pettiness, then goes on to call the commenter hateful names. It’s not okay for him to disagree with you, but it is okay for you to call him idiot and other names?? Hypocrisy anyone???

  • EatMe

    You cannot reach these crazy right-winger “christians” with facts. They have their own and lack the critical thinking skills to overcome their own blissful ignorance. Which would be fine if they were not so damned set on forcing their archaic buffoonery down everyone’s throats. Personally, I believe is sacrificing the one for the good of the many so I say, bring back the lions!

  • Muttboi

    Here is where I think if I read what you wrote correctly makes you sound as bad as the person you are talking about. When you say,” hand the country back over to the natives and then live by the survival of the fittest,” Native Americans were not barberians with no law! I really hope that you were not saying that Native Americans were some kind of alleles animals that only benefited from Europeon oppression.

  • Jason’s Robot

    Just a note regarding: “A man who defended the stoning death of a woman found guilty of adultery..”
    Jesus didn’t defend that stoning – He OPPOSED it.

    I (and you) know he defended the woman – but the wording made me think you were claiming he defended the stoning (when we all know he didn’t) – and I got confused as to what your point was just for a bit there.
    Maybe it was just me. I can trick myself into confusion sometimes.

  • David Manhart

    Once again, evangelical christians show how they are a poisen on society, and the republican party specifically.

  • Hanin Fearn

    Christians who are against the social safety net have always baffled me, and not just for the obvious reason that charitable giving and caring for your neighbor are supposed to be Christian values, but because among the laws laid down in Leviticus there includes a provision about what we would consider welfare: “When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you,” (Leviticus 23:22). Isn’t it convenient that when the laws of Leviticus permit the persecution of others, like homosexuals or adulterers, every good Christian is eager to obey them, but if one of these requires that the follower do more than simply look down on his or her fellow man, like to abstain from eating shellfish or cutting the hair at one’s temples, ( (Leviticus 11:12; 19:27) you only see Jewish people abiding by them?

  • Cliff Isaac

    Allen Clifton being a Christian simply means being a follower of Christ. So this so called idiot you speak of is correct in the regard that Christ was not a Christian. You also assert this person is a perfect example of Christian conservative hypocrisy. Yet you affirm that fact that you don’t believe he/she is a Christian. Therefore making your argument moot, and proving your own hypocrisy about being judgemental. You do this by slamming their personal stance on abortion and homosexuality/gay marriage. Also not all Republicans are conservatives and not all conservatives are Republican. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Today you have influenced my opinion that liberal Christians are just as hypocritical in their judgements of others.

  • Recoloniser

    I see your point about the sentiment conveyed in this quote. However, the statement that Jesus, if he ever existed, was a Jew is incontrovertibly true. He never did or said anything to suggest otherwise. His treatment of the adulterous woman proves nothing in terms of his turning away from Judaism, because he didn’t challenge the law. Merely the application of it. Remember that he he said himself, according to the gospel, that he had not come to change either a tittel or an iota of the law.
    As to Christianity, that was not founded as a creed with an established set of beliefs by Jesus, but by the apostles, mainly Paul. The entire Protestant faith is based on a difference of opinion with the Roman Catholic church about the nature of redemption, the latter being based mainly on the writings by Paul.
    Jesus never even used the concept of redemption as it is now viewed in both the Catholic and Protestant churches in any of his utterings.
    Jesus, again if he existed, was one of many wandering preachers who roamed the Galilee, Judea and Samaria in the 1st century CE, none of whom had the slightest intention of founding a new religion with proselytising intentions beyond Jewry. Instead, they, including Jesus, preached to the Jews and to the Jews exclusively that they should repent and turn to God in order to be liberated from the pagans, whether Hellenistic or Roman.
    It was Paul who converted this message into one of universal redemption and took to the road to bring it to the Gentiles.
    Here endeth the lesson.

  • jslup5

    So you REALLY think Jesus would be okay with abortion?? You honestly think he would tell a women “it’s your body-go ahead and murder your baby.” That’s the dumbest thing said in this whole article.