OT... Jesus and bush...peep game

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jul 18, 2002
536
0
0
#1
**this was taken from a website**

----------
When telling of the judgment of the "nations" (ergo political), Jesus said, according to Matthew's Gospel:

"For I was hungry and you gave me food . . . I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me. . . . Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers . . . you did it to me."

It sounds to me like welfare, open immigration, universal health care, increased international aid and prison reform, all in one sermon.

The source for the Biblical passages is Matthew 25:35-41. Now let the debate begin:

A few points:

1) I took the words from an op-ed article. They weren't mine, though I support their implications.

2) Almost every word of the Bible is open to interpretation, much to the chagrin of fundamentalists who would wish it otherwise.

3) No one said Jesus was laying out his own political agenda. Most of the time he was apolitical: "Render unto Caeser..." and all that. The author merely implied that Jesus's words supported or justified a liberal political agenda.

If Christians in today's political environment want to keep their views to themselves, not impose them on others, no one will need to analyze the Bible for its messages. But "President" Bush has done the opposite—wearing Jesus on his sleeve, so to speak. He's advocated faith-based charity funding and school-led prayer.

Since he and other right-wingers have put the Christian faith into play in the political arena, it's our right—nay, our duty—to assess what Jesus's agenda would be. My view is that the author accurately summarized the positions Jesus would take. That makes Bush an anti-Jesus hypocrite.

That's most evident in his cheerful support for executions. But Jesus would be aghast at much of the Republican agenda. He'd denounce it just as he denounced the conservative money-changers of his time.
----------
 

EDJ

Sicc OG
May 3, 2002
11,608
233
63
www.myspace.com
#2
^I TOTALLY AgREE. BUT BUSH'S HIPOCRITE ASS gOT RE-ELECTED BY THE SKIN OF HIS TEETH CAUSE SO-CALLED CHRISTIANS CAME TO THE POLLS AND WERE BLINDED BY MORALITY ISSUES INSTEAD OF LOOKIN' AT THE WHOLE PICTURE.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,800
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#4
Not that I disagree with your point, but "opiate of the masses" doesn't really apply here. Karl Marx stated:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

This quote is more a critique of society than religion. He is saying that religion is like opium or alcohol for the lower classes of society; they use it to numb themselves from the hardships created by capitalism.
 
Jul 7, 2002
3,105
0
0
#5
2-0-Sixx said:
Not that I disagree with your point, but "opiate of the masses" doesn't really apply here. Karl Marx stated:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

This quote is more a critique of society than religion. He is saying that religion is like opium or alcohol for the lower classes of society; they use it to numb themselves from the hardships created by capitalism.
proof that you're a commie
 
Jun 18, 2004
2,190
0
0
#6
2-0-Sixx said:
Not that I disagree with your point, but "opiate of the masses" doesn't really apply here. Karl Marx stated:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

This quote is more a critique of society than religion. He is saying that religion is like opium or alcohol for the lower classes of society; they use it to numb themselves from the hardships created by capitalism.
I absolutely agree...but why wouldn't it apply here? The moral hot button issues obviously played a key role in distracting the amerikan people from the fact that they have no healthcare/jobs/money etc. and are entrenched in an unjustified war...I think people were definitely high on this "god is with us" shit when they went to the polls...the religious right was a major factor in securing this presidency for GW.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,800
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#7
No doubt religion played a key role in the elections, but the opium quote doesn't apply here because again, Marx was saying that religion is used as an escape from reality; it is used to give people hope of a better life or I should say afterlife. Religion dulls the pain caused by oppression.

The republicans have used what is called "wedge issues" for the last several decades to boost voter turnout. It is no coincidence that 11 states (highly religious states) happened to have ballot initiatives to ban same-sex marriage. This strategy is without a doubt used to motivate the christian right to vote.

Many of these voters were working-class, even poor, who were hit hard by the economic slump under Bush. But lacking any serious mass left-wing or working-class alternative to channel their anger against big business, the Republican Party was able to divert their anger by blaming society’s problems on a breakdown of “traditional values” and the family caused by gay marriage and abortion.

I guarantee if Kerry and the Dems would have truly tried to appeal to the working class of America and offered Universal Healthcare, national minimum wage of $10/hr. and other popular topics that neither party will address, many of these christian voters would not have voted Bush.
 

EDJ

Sicc OG
May 3, 2002
11,608
233
63
www.myspace.com
#8
^KERRY DID BRINg THEM POINTS UP. IT DIDN'T MATTER. FOO'S ARE TOO AgAINST FAgS gETTIN' MARRIED, THAT THAT BLINDED THEIR LOgIC ALTOgETHA.

WE SHOULD OF ALL gOT A CLUE WHEN POSTS ABOUT gAY THIS OR HOMO THAT WERE POSTED.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#9
206, there is a huge drumbeat from the right claiming that a raised minimum wage will "hurt" everyone. The wedge issues you speak of allow conservatives to pass on basic economic theory to the willing ears of those they have polarized through morality.

Claims like "Universal health care will vastly hurt our economy" "Global warming is a hoax designed to hurt American businesses" "deregulation and pseudo-monopolization is a vehicle to improve business ecology", etc. are trumpeted by Hannitys and morons everywhere.