Jesurgislac’s Journal

February 6, 2010

Classic right-wing Christianity: Jesus Christ, shut up and die!

A left-wing socialist namby-pamby liberal: “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.”

Right-wing Christians will answer: “Lord, I suppose if some people are not able to afford a swimming pool, everybody should be prohibited from owning one. If some people cannot afford to go to a private university, then all private universities should be shut down. I prefer to live in a country where people are free to make as much money as they are able to, and then can spend their money on the best products and services that they can afford.”

He will reply: “I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”

Advertisements

7 Comments »

  1. And the liberal response is not to give to the needy with the love of God, but to take your neighbors’ money and use it to set up bureaucracies to study the problem and give part of that money to the needy, because we all know that your neighber is just a selfish bastard who would never give a dime to help anyone.

    False assumption: conservatives don’t give to the needy.

    Truth: Liberals rely on taxation for charity, because they know that they certainly wouldn’t give freely. Therefore they assume that those evil conservatives wouldn’t either.

    Truth: Conservatives know that the most effective way to give to the needy is directly. When the government steals less, then there is more to give.

    Comment by M. Patterson — February 6, 2010 @ 8:23 pm | Reply

    • Selfish, greedy right-wingers talk about how it’s much better “to give to the needy with the love of God” because that means they get to give less and only to the people they want to give to. That’s the kind of “Jesus Christ, shut up and die!” thinking I’m identifying here.

      The model of Christianity is; From each according to their ability: to each according to their need. For that you need a national taxation system. And if right-wing Christians are just too greedy and too piggy to pay their taxes with the love of God, well, maybe they need to study their Bible some more. Or just do what Jesus said – help the poor and the needy – without complaining about it all the time like you do.

      Truth: conservatives know they get away more cheaply if they get to give only what they want to and only to people that they know. Also, “Giving directly” means they get to control the conditions of the gift – they get to impose requirements on it – and the people in need don’t get what they need, but only what some fatcat greedy religious right-winger has decided to give, and pet himself on his small, ragged soul for being a fine person.

      Comment by jesurgislac — February 7, 2010 @ 2:41 am | Reply

      • “The model of Christianity is; From each according to their ability: to each according to their need.”

        Actually that is the phrase popularized by German communist Karl Marx. While I concede there is a hint of communism in the bible it only applies to Christians living in commune with one another during a time directing following the death of Christ. It does not apply to outsiders as described in the book of Acts, and it’s purpose was to protect against the vast persecution of Christians which was wide spread at the time.

        Comment by Jay Burns — February 9, 2010 @ 12:13 am

      • Jay said: Actually that is the phrase popularized by German communist Karl Marx

        Of course it is.

        It’s also a thoroughly Christian sentiment, if you read the gospels, as right-wing Christians prefer not to…

        it only applies to Christians living in commune with one another during a time directing following the death of Christ. It does not apply to outsiders as described in the book of Acts, and it’s purpose was to protect against the vast persecution of Christians which was wide spread at the time.

        Ah sweet. There’s always an excuse for right-wing Christians for rejecting the message of Jesus. As the title of my blog post says “Jesus Christ, shut up and die!”

        Comment by jesurgislac — February 9, 2010 @ 8:12 am

  2. And yet, Rightwingers, Christian or not, have repeatedly year after year on average given more than those who identify themselves as liberals, in prettymuch every category you can think of (except for politics and election campaigns, which this charitable giving is by far a liberal victory) and on average exceed liberal personal charitable contributions by approximately 30%..and not with “strings attached only giving” (which does exist, I’ll grant you) but mere donations to long established charities…..which is what the previous commenter meant by direct giving….going thru taxation routes means portions of that money are used, not to ensure charitable giving, but to line pockets of already well-enough-off bureacrats working the public sector, and THEN giving a pittance back to whereever the money is needed.

    To be perfectly honest, if you took the amount of money spent to run campaigns, the losers and the winners…..a lot of poor people could be better taken care of than those politicians will ever do, no matter how blank a check they are given.

    Comment by Mike Lovell — February 7, 2010 @ 8:14 pm | Reply

    • Right-wingers have been happily quoting this statistic for a few years now. Most of them probably aren’t even aware that it comes from a book written by Arthur C Brooks, Who Really Cares?, one of the “scientific” studies produced by the “American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research”, a right-wing think-tank which was founded to promote the economic policies that led to the economic disaster of the Bush administration.

      I haven’t read Who Really Cares? (to be completely honest: it sounds like the kind of book I’d maybe pick up for research purposes if I saw it for free in the public library, or for sale in a box of used books…. not worth buying at list price) but from the kind of quotes that right-wingers love to push from it, often at second- or third-hand, it sounds like Arthur C. Brookes has studied up on How To Lie With Statistics.

      The book was clearly written as part of the AEI’s efforts to promote the idea that the best kind of society is founded on “trickle-down economics” – that the very wealthy people at the top of the heap shouldn’t be taxed because that way they’ll spend their money for the good of everyone else: the crippling inequalities that the Bush years fostered. cite.

      That the book got taken up by so many right-wing Christians who earnestly justify economic policies that cripple them, is a perfect example of how, if you’ve got enough money to buy enough propaganda, you really can fool most of the people most of the time.

      What one reviewer noted was that in among all the lavishly self-praising statistics, there was one nugget: the real factor was religion. Because of the extreme lack of state support in the US, resulting in Third World conditions for some of the poorest people in the richest country in the world, churches and other religious organisations have become a major source of support. This is ugly and stupid and wrong, but so it goes. The slant towards the right was likely to be explained by religious people in the US tending towards the right and religious people – regular church-goers – being more likely to be part of a systematic means of gathering money for charities. A form of privately-organised taxation, in fact.

      Secular left-wingers tended to give more to charity than secular right-wingers, though. Because of course, if you believe in the principles of mutual support and helping others regardless of religion, which is the trend of the left, you are likely to give to charity whether or not you are coerced by your church to do so.

      Comment by jesurgislac — February 8, 2010 @ 12:25 am | Reply

      • Not only that, the figures skew that way because it counts donating to churches themselves as charity. I personally don’t consider the perpetuation of religion an end that deserves the name “charity.”

        Comment by rebeccacityofladies — February 15, 2010 @ 5:31 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: