Skip to comments.Refutation of "That Nazareth fellow would be Dem today" editorial
Posted on 08/12/2005 8:32:04 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
On August 8, Free Republic member "linkinpunk" posted this editorial for us to barf about. Sometimes, I like to do more than barf. So I decided to take an afternoon or two and destroy the "arguments" (of which there are few) presented by Ms. Valdez.
It is a tricky thing when one attempts to claim God for their political affiliation. Liberals sneer who would Jesus bomb while morally conservative groups are labeled the Religious Right. The whole truth of the matter, I believe, is that God is apolitical
clearly neither Republican or Democrat. (One forum members signature puts it this way: God is not a Republican, but Satan is definitely a Democrat)
It is also impossible, if not sacrilegious, to label God as either Republican or Democrat. I believe that persons wishing to honor God and keep Him first in their lives should first examine what God Himself had to say in His Word and determine political viewpoints from that foundation, rather than choosing a political affiliation and then go mining for justification in the Bible. Hence, people who take stances such as opposing abortion and special rights for homosexual activists find themselves on the same side as the conservatives. (Why else did the media declare post-election that the Religious Right turned out in droves and helped elect President Bush?)
That Nazareth fellow would be Dem today
His Name is Jesus. Whats wrong with saying His name?
The Democrats turn their lonely eyes to Hillary: Give us a message. Lead us home.
What does this have to do with Jesus?
Even for the Wonder Woman of the Party of JFK, this is no easy task. How to decry the excesses of the Bush administration and the GOP Congress without validating the label "The Party of No"?
First, let me quarrel with the description of the Democrat party as the party of JFK. It is no longer the party of JFK. It is the party of Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and Bill Clinton. Everyone looks to JFK as a young visionary cut down in the prime of life, but it is false to attempt an uplifting of the Democrat party by associating them with JFK.
Second, it is clear that the wonder woman or any of her associates are the least bit concerned about being labeled a party of no because she (they) decry the Bush administration.
Retired Lutheran minister Daniel Bruch of Live Liberal gets right to the point: "I don't know if Jesus was the first liberal, but he was an important one."
This does not stand up to scrutiny, as we shall see.
Jesus taught love, tolerance, forgiveness, charity and humility. Don't take my word for it. Read the New Testament.
First, a word to the wise. Jesus not only taught but DEMONSTRATED the ultimate love. (Incidentally, the love that our military now demonstrates as they place themselves between danger and America, giving their lives for the cause a cause that liberals undermine daily) The word tolerance is a bit of a stretch, as it can be used to insist that we accept any person, no matter how sinful, and this is not what the Bible tells us. It tells us that God loves us more than we can imagine, but He loves us too much to let us stay the way we are.
Also keep in mind that the Lord Himself said Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34) It was also prophesied that he would cause the rising and downfall of many nations (Luke 2:34) and in the end, the Lord will come with justice and a sword (Revelation 19:15).
And its great to encourage people to read the New Testament just not as a means to push an agenda of persuading people to think Jesus was a liberal. Perhaps John Kerry can help, however, since he recently said that he read the entire New Testament in an afternoon.
It's not that long. And it's not about fire-and-brimstone fundamentalism, judging one another or dominating the Earth. It outlines a philosophy based on a really radical idea: Love your creator, love yourself, love your neighbor as yourself.
This is a common misconception. Modern-day efforts to pretty up the Bible and make it a simple, flowery book of love do injustice to the Bible. There is great love, but also great peril within the pages of Gods Word. To err overmuch on EITHER side is wrong. Hence, you get pulpit-pounding hellfire pastors on one extreme, and on the opposite, you have pastors who preach nothing but love and tolerance.
To take each one individually
. And it's not about fire-and-brimstone fundamentalism
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
judging one another
Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? (1 Corinthians 6:2)
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. ( John 7:24)
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. (1 Corinthians 2:15)
or dominating the Earth.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:28)
. It outlines a philosophy based on a really radical idea: Love your creator, love yourself, love your neighbor as yourself
Im afraid this is a rather poor outline of the entire New Testament. For instance, Im quite certain that Jesus never encouraged His followers to love themselves. In fact, He said that anyone who wants to follow Him must take up his cross and follow Him. I will not endeavor to sum up the New Testament, except to say that the focal point is clearly Christs birth, death and resurrection, and the sum of that is, Man is sinful and cannot be otherwise unless God intervenes. Therefore, God sent his son Jesus as fully God and fully man, blameless, to take the penalty for the sins of the world, thereby providing passage into Heaven.
When it comes to following this lesson, the current administration "is walking 180 degrees opposite of the person they call their savior," Bruch said in a phone interview.
That remains to be seen.
On their Web site, Bruch and daughter Sarah offer quotes and essays on liberalism that Hillary Rodham Clinton should work into her speeches.
Im unclear is this author recommending that Senator Clinton insert this material into her speeches, or is the author quoting Bruch who says the material is speech-worthy?
For example, "liberals support changes that increase personal freedom and tolerance, and exercise the liberty to empower government to the extent necessary to achieve those ends."
All pretty words that whitewash actions such as the personal freedom to kill an unborn child, the tolerance which means special rights and consideration be given to homosexual couples, and empower government, meaning defy the foundation of power to the people on which this country was founded.
Instead of trying to make their best candidate, Clinton, into a vanilla-flavored, inoffensive centrist, Democrats ought to boldly point out that liberals provided the impetus to move society toward acceptance of civil rights, women's rights, children's rights, consumers' rights, etc.
Lets keep in mind with this paragraph (and the thesis of this column, that Jesus was a Liberal) that political groups like conservatives and liberals are evolving and changing over the decades. That being said, many of the aforementioned facets are simply not true. Once again, well take them one by one.
Republicans were responsible for enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Check the record Democrats did not. (Democrats today also include known racists such as former Klu Klux Klan member and veteran-senator Robert Byrd)
Women are now liberated to abandon their children to the government-funded failures of public school, or germ-fest day care centers so that they can spend their time trying to prove that they can do anything and everything better than a big ugly man can. Hmm.
Coming from the party which supports abortion, this is a little much!
Liberals also deserve "family values" mantle because the 40-hour workweek, laws against child labor and other protections for workingmen and women were liberal ideas of old. High-quality child care is a liberal idea for today's working families.
Many of these issues were arrived at through bi-partisan support, and are not single-party issues. And we most also recall that these great moral values are hearkening back to a time when child labor was still a problem a time spanning back decades. This is a new millennium .lets try debating liberalism versus conservativism as it pertains to TODAY.
At a time when conservatives are suggesting that providing health care to workers is not an employer's responsibility, Democrats should be pointing out the inherent immorality of the existence of a "working poor" class.
Not even worth shredding obvious straw man misrepresentation, and an unjustified attack.
They should be "for" better wages.
They should be "for" national health care.
And if you achieve better wages and nationalized health care, then you should also subsidize the disabled and unfit workers. And you should also provide American workers with tax incentives to go to work. And tax breaks for going to work. And financial subsidies to purchase the means to get to work, such as car. And if they are given the means to get to work, they should be given the means to purchase fuel for their car.
You can never give too much out of compassion, and this will simply lead to a Marxist redistribution in order to benefit the common good, thereby creating a communist state.
They should be "for" being liberals. They should point out that Jesus was a liberal, too.
Because Jesus preached for better nationalized health care? This reminds me of the old pastors sermon note: argument weak, pound pulpit here. This point that Jesus was a liberal is being driven home without the impetus to do so! Jesus did not come to meddle in comparatively puny politics back then (as His disciples anticipated). He was on a far bigger course to save the entire world from their sins one soul at a time. There is no proof or persuasive arguments presented to convince anyone of this point.
It's time to say the liberal Democrats are the ones who have consistently supported the Jesus-taught principles of helping the powerless. Ditto for championing the interests of middle-class working people.
So inherently false, its difficult to know where to begin. This editorial is still following the fatigued canard that the Democrat party is the party of the working man, and Republicans are elitist wealthy rich business owners. Lets try coming back into the 21st century.
Somehow, Democrats let others define them as elitist snobs. That label, not the liberal label, is the one Democrats have to shake.
When the 2004 Presidential Candidate fakes a trip to Wendys before boarding his bus to chow down on sushi and shrimp, when his wife is a billionaire heiress and when his vice-presidential candidate is a rich trial lawyer, it certainly is difficult to understand how liberals have earned the title of elitists.
Can Hillary help them do it?
She has the charisma and the intelligence - and she has infinite patience, or Bill would be toast.
She needs the guts to take a proud left turn and loudly proclaim that the United States is not a "Christian nation" in any pinched or exclusionary way. It's a nation that honors the individual rights of pagans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others, as well as Christians.
So we boil it down to the true motive behind this column a hopeful prayer, a woeful plea that Hillary Clinton can rescue the Democrat party.
It is also nation that acts for the common good in ways that were meticulously outlined by a radical liberal named Jesus.
While the Democrat party is pushing to have the Ten Commandments removed, fabricating false television ads to attack a pro-life Supreme Court nominee, supporting abortion, gay marriage, and right-to-die movements exemplified in the Schaivo case
few will buy the absurd notion that Jesus was a liberal, or that liberals are the party of Christianity.
Okay, so it was only a tiny editorial in the Arizona Republic. I enjoy debunking such liberal myths from time to time. Call it a hobby.
Actually, the Creator is a Constitutionalist, that's why he smiled on the formation of this formerly great country.
Our Creator definately is not a Republicrat, or a Demican. But he is definately a Conservative, no doubt about it. Although I would not attempt to know the mind of God. But there are some things that are just as plain as the day is long.
"Call it a hobby."
And one you do well! Keep up !
did you send this to the newspaper, becasue if youre posting your rebuttal here and only here, its a bit of a waste.
Very well done. I just emailed it to my family...credited to you of course!!
I have been hearing this whole God/Jesus is a Republican/Democrat thing for years now. It's repulsive.
On the other hand I think we can all agree that God is NOT a Cubs fan!
The Democrats disowned JFK when they said that he never cut taxes like President Bush did. I believe the person who cried the loudest was Ted Kennedy himself.
You are so right. God is conservative. He could not possibly be liberal because the religion of the left (abortion, homosexual marriage, and so forth) are anti-human race. Which is, strangely enough, typical of God's enemies. Hm...
Thats possible, but more likely he will come back really pissed off.. at least he should be.. this world had earned it.. Course he could apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.. I see that as unlikely though..
pinkinlunk must be a Sojourner or Call to Renewal drone.
You mean like this?
Of course if you read sojo.net's garbage (i do just to keep tabs on their nuttiness) you'll realize they really do believe Jesus is a socialist and would tax everyone to fund more social programs. But they won't admit it straight out because they're too cowardly.
It seems pretty easy on the face of it to figure that Jesus would not be a big-government socialist, an athiest, an abortion enthusiast, a professional race victim, a Hollywood drunk, a condom thrower, a lifelong welfare mother, a gold-chained union enforcer, a Boy Scout hater, or any other variety of loser, parasite, and malcontent that makes up the Democrat "base".
I don't think he'll be doing any reminding, just separating goats from sheep.
And yep, then the other concerns will cease to exist.
If you're going to admonish us to attend to these laws now, then you have to look at the fact that love is not always 'giving people what they think they want.' -- which is what liberal social action groups do, while chiding conservatives for doing 'nothing' even though there are plenty of conservative social action groups out there (e.g. birthright, etc.) doing the grunt work and not demanding much attention for themselves, unlike their liberal counterparts.
Then they might have to admit socialism won't work because man is depraved and sinful. Gosh darn it and they have so much time and energy invested in that philosophy too. Tsk tsk. Certainly not worth entertaining the idea that they may have wasted it all! (/sarcasm)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
Amen to that.
This 'Nazareth fellow'?
I don't think so. ;-)
I suspect that you suspect correctly!
"Thats possible, but more likely he will come back really pissed off.. at least he should be.. this world had earned it.."
Why would He be pissed off? He already knows the nature of man and died for it!
Because.. his sacrifice was wasted not to some but to most...
He came to make religion obsolete, all of it, and did..
Mankind chose religion... even secular religion.. and pseudo-religion.. even faux religion..
-AND- All those aborted children have got be makeing a racket wherever they went..
If the rocks are not crying out for justice, then they ought to be..
My favorite on this topic is by Selwyn Duke and is entitled "Was Jesus a Liberal?"
Big if, but Jesus would be a ZELL MILLER type Democrat and up-end the tables and schemes of today's liberal Dems. He'd clean their house BIG TIME before looking further afield for problems to solve.
I agree with you on your point concerning religion and the children.
The sacrifice however, was not wasted. Refusing to accept the gift does not diminish the gift.
Check out the UN/DPI/NGO list for religious groups.
My former denomination is there, I am sure the UN will play an evil role in furthering the tribulation.
Of course God is not a republican, but He would be much closer in character to the platform of that party than to the democrat one. The left is only reacting to the last election when they were stunned to discover that most Americans cared about God and country and decidedly rejected the left as not being on the same page. They are simply trying to lie their way back into the good graces of the great unwashed.
During Desert Storm, I was in an adult Sunday School class. We were asked who we thought God backed in the war. Not one person answered naming a country. Everyone thought He was more concerned about the state of souls. It was a good class.
This is good.