I'm sure that the author of this piece feels quite clever and pleased with himself. At any rate, I should hope he is happy with himself for himself because as a writer he is at best hackneyed and mediocre.
Perhaps it would help if he'd actually
read the Bible with which he claims such unsullied familiarity. Might help if he knew some actual evangelical Christians too.
Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture.
Bull.
Mark 6:11
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Mind you that's a New Testament gospel that's
directly quoting Jesus.
Acts 3:23
And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
Anyone who says the New Testament is all about tolerance and forgiveness is a liar, lunatic or illiterate. There, how's that for a Lewis Trichotomy?
And of course, it'd just be lovely if the world were that clear cut. It's not, as I'm sure the evangelicals at Christianity Today (http://"
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/february/23.32.html")would object if only Phil Zuckerman could hear them over the drowning buzz of his unsufferable smugness.
And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world.
Oh ho ho! Those wacky Southern Baptist megachurch-going cousin-marrying rednecks!
Let's see what Jesus had to say about weaponry:
Luke 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Huh. Could it be that the characterization of Jesus as a hippie is in fact a filthy self-serving lie propagated by filthy self-serving hippies?
Nah, couldn't be. Everyone knows that evangelicals are silent about war (http://"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301436.html") and that Christopher Hitchens, an outspoken proponent of the war is also a well known Christian.
Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one's money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation's poor -- especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of "socialism," even though that is essentially what their Savior preached.
No, you illiterate dunce, Jesus preached
charity. Moses Maimonides clarified the Jewish view on charity; that which is given involuntarily is the lowest form of charity. New Testament views are roughly in line; 2 Corinthians 8:12-14
For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.
For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened:
But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:
(Emphasis added)
Oh, and when you look at charity through that lens? Turns out that believers do give more. (http://"
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577")
The New Testament is extremely ambivalent towards worldly powers, saying that they are not necessarily good, but that they nonetheless exist due to divine providence, and that the faithful should submit to them. To construe the New Testament as a guidebook for those who have actually become worldly powers takes a bit of doing. Nietzsche was right; it was very much a slave morality book.
I won't bother with the rest of the article except to say that his history is hopelessly off and warped. He's trying to pitch it as a story of die-hard (Republican) evangelicals opposing moderate and secular Democrats. I would love to see how this tool explains the "Solid South's" often overtly religious support of the then pro-segregation Democratic Party, Federal interference in anti-war churches under pro-intervention Prebyterian Woodrow Wilson, and the remarkably progressive foreign policy under Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter.
This is your brain on politics.
Guest Posts
