The convenient hypocrisy of Republican Christians

[Fraggle Rocker]

Excerpted from Harold Myerson's column in this morning's Washington Post:

As Christians across the world prepare to celebrate the birth of Jesus, it's a fitting moment to contemplate the mountain of moral and mortal hypocrisy that is our Christianized Republican Party.

There's nothing new, of course, about the Christianization of the GOP. (Grand Old Party, for you foreigners.) Seven years ago, when debating Al Gore, candidate George W. Bush was asked to identify his favorite philosopher and he answered "Jesus." This year the Christianization of the party reached new heights (or depths), as illustrated by the high religious profile of candidates like Romney and Huckabee as they fight over so-called "values voters."

My concern isn't the rift between Republican political practice and the vision of the nation's founders, who made it clear that there would be no religious test for officeholders in our supposedly enlightened republic. Rather, it's the gap between the teachings of the Gospels and the preachings of the Gospel's Own Party that has widened beyond absurdity.

The actions of the president, for example, can be defended in greater or (more frequently) lesser degree within a framework of worldly standards. But if Bush can conform his advocacy of preemptive war with Jesus's admonition to turn the other cheek, he's a more creative theologian than we give him credit for. Likewise his support of torture, which he highlighted when he threatened to veto legislation that explicity bans waterboarding.

It's not just Bush whose catechism is a merry mix of torture and piety. Virtually the entire Republican House delegation opposed the ban on waterboarding. Among the Republican candidates only Huckabee and the not-so-religious McCain have come out against torture, and only Libertarian-turned-Republican Ron Paul questions the doctrine of preemptive war itself.

But it's on their policies concerning immigrants where Republican candidates and voters alike really run afoul of biblical writ. Not on immigration as such but on the treatment of immigrants who are already here. Consider: Christmas celebrates not just Jesus's birth but his family's flight from Herod's wrath into Egypt, a journey undertaken without legal formalities. The Bible isn't big on immigrant documentation at all. "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him," God told Moses on Mount Sinai, "for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."

Yet the distinctive cry coming from the Republican base this year isn't simply to control the flow of immigrants across our borders but to punish the undocumented immigrants already here, even children. So Romney attacks Huckabee for holding immigrant children blameless when their parents brought them here without papers, and Huckabee defends himself by parading the endorsement of the Minutemen Project, which makes a crusade of harrassing day laborers thousands of miles from the border without even checking their documents.

The demand for a more regulated immigration policy comes from all points on our political spectrum, but the push to persecute the immigrants already among us comes distinctly from the same Republican right that protests its Christian faith.

We've seen this kind of Christianity before in America. It's more tribal than religious [I have often commented that the Abrahamic religions reinforce Homo sapiens's tribal tendencies and therefore work against the advancement of civilization, which is the transcendence of tribalism--F.R.] and it surges at those times when our country is growing more diverse and economic opportunity is not abounding. At its height in the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan was chiefly the political expression of nativist Protestants upset by the growing ranks of Catholics in their midst, with their traditional racism taking a subordinate role. Despite their symbol of a burning Cross, it's difficult today to imagine Klansmen thinking of their mission as Christian, but millions of them did.

Today's Republican values voters don't conflate their rage with their faith; Lou Dobbs is a purely secular figure. But nativist bigotry is strongest in the Old Time Religion precincts of the Republican Party, and woe betide the candidate who doesn't embrace it, as McCain, to his credit and his political misfortune, can attest.

The most depressing thing about the Republican presidential race is that the party's rank and file requires their candidates to grow meaner with each passing weak. [This will work in Ron Paul's favor, as we libertarians have always been regarded as uncharitable curmudgeons, and Paul has even sold out our core value of "free migration for peaceful people" and advocates a moat around the border--F.R.] And now, inconveniently, inconsiderably, comes Christmas, a holiday that couldn't be better calibrated to expose the Republicans' rank, fetid hypocrisy.

 

[sandy]

This thread is bs. If I started one called "The convenient hypocrisy of Democrat Atheists" it would be shut down/cesspooled in a heatbeat.

 

[maxg]

The Republican hatred of Latinos appears to be based not on self-interest but good old-fashioned racism (or nativism if you prefer). What's bizarre is that Latino immigrants are often rather socially conservative and many are moving from Catholicism to more conservative protestant denominations after arriving in this country. Yet the Christian right is jumping on the anti-immigrant train.

They just built a Spanish-speaking Baptist church up the street from my house and I was talking to one of the members who basically said he would never have become a Christian (as opposed to a Catholic--his terminology) if he hadn't come to the US, and yet our resident CCR would deny him that opportunity.

 

[sandy]

The Republican hatred of Latinos appears to be based not on self-interest but good old-fashioned racism (or nativism if you prefer). What's bizarre is that Latino immigrants are often rather socially conservative and many are moving from Catholicism to more conservative protestant denominations after arriving in this country. Yet the Christian right is jumping on the anti-immigrant train.

They just built a Spanish-speaking Baptist church up the street from my house and I was talking to one of the members who basically said he would never have become a Christian (as opposed to a Catholic--his terminology) if he hadn't come to the US, and yet our resident CCR would deny him that opportunity.

WTF? We don't hate Latinos. WTF?

*WE HATE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. GOT IT? ILLEGALI MMIGRATION!!!*
BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

And yes, I would deny ANY criminal alien everything. He has no right to be here. He is a parasite and needs to go the hell back to wherever the hell he came from.

Illegal is illegal. There is NO spin.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

This thread is bs. If I started one called "The convenient hypocrisy of Democrat Atheists" it would be shut down/cesspooled in a heatbeat.

I doubt it. Why not try it and see?
On the other hand pretty much all the democrats in office are monotheists, mostly Christian.
But among the atheist democrats what are they hypocritical about?

 

[Pandaemoni]

This thread is bs. If I started one called "The convenient hypocrisy of Democrat Atheists" it would be shut down/cesspooled in a heatbeat.

I agree that it would and I would agree with the outcome. Most Democrats are Christian, by a vast majority. Most Republicans are also Christian. So the thread points out oddities about the theology v. political philosophy of the majority of the Republican party, whereas your proposed thread would (presumably) point out the oddities regarding the secular philosophy v. political philosophy of a minority within the Democratic party.

As if that weren't difference enough...I am not sure "atheist principles." are a single coherent set of principles at all, Democratic atheists are free to support abortion on demand, or welfare for the poor, or bailouts for the subprime-struck homeowners. Republican atheists (yes, Virginia, there are Republican atheists) are free to believe that abortion is murder, welfare is bad, and homeowners are idiots for taking out those mortgages. Because atheists do not have an agreed upon book from which to learn their values, their values are all over the place.

The oddity is, that although Christians *do* have a single book that supposedly should guide their values, they ignore that book when it suits them.

If you want to start a thread that I would support, start one on how Democratic Christian's political positions deviate from those of the Bible. That's the direct parallel to this thread.

 

[spidergoat]

Where's the part in the Bible where Jesus talked about the sanctity of national borders?

 

[Pandaemoni]

Where's the part in the Bible where Jesus talked about the sanctity of national borders?

He did say: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (right before he likened the Canaanite woman and her sick daughter to dogs). That may be more tribalism than nationalism though. Also, at the time, He was in Canaan, undocumented.

 

[shichimenshyo]

This thread is bs. If I started one called "The convenient hypocrisy of Democrat Atheists" it would be shut down/cesspooled in a heatbeat.

You are so f$cking whiney its embarrassing.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Where's the part in the Bible where Jesus talked about the sanctity of national borders?

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (“Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ”) (Matthew 22:21).

 

[Buffalo Roam]

He did say: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (right before he likened the Canaanite woman and her sick daughter to dogs). That may be more tribalism than nationalism though. Also, at the time, He was in Canaan, undocumented.

Now how about in context;

Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.”
Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”
“Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”
Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
—Matthew 15:21-28, NIV

The image Jesus has chosen is an image of endearment, not insult. The picture of supper-time, with little kids at the table, and their pet "puppies" (the Greek word for 'dog' here is not the standard, 'outside' dog--which MIGHT BE an insult--, but is the diminutive word, meaning 'household pets, little dogs'...) at their feet, maybe tugging on their robes for food or play. The puppies, dear to the children and probably so too to the master (cf. 2 Sam 12.3f: but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.), were to be fed AFTER the children (notice: not DENIED food--there was no "NO" in Jesus image--only "WAIT"). But the temporal order is clear--Jesus must take care of His disciples FIRST, and if meeting her need involved interrupting their rest and GOING SOMEWHERE, then it was going to have to wait,

But the Lord, recognized her as one of his own as a deciple, and met her needs immediately.

 

[superstring01]

Where's the part in the Bible where Jesus talked about the sanctity of national borders?

He doesn't directly, but he does admonish the Rabbis to "...render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

Also, he doesn't say anything against them, therefore, there is nothing inherently wrong with them.

Also, do you REALLY want a borderless world at this particular era in history?

~String

 

[spidergoat]

I would point out the hypocracy for Christians to limit their compassion to our national borders. Actually, many Christians go to great pains to help those in other countries. It's just the fake ones that get all bothered about using our nation's wealth to assist those that happen to be here. Personally, I recognize the practical need to preserve what we have for ourselves.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Now how about in context;

Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.”
Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”
“Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”
Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
—Matthew 15:21-28, NIV

He still likened her and her daughter to dogs. Worse, He forced her to agree that the compaison was apt before he deigned to help. Why? Because He was sent for the children of Israel and the Phoenicians weren't Israelis.

John the Baptist was the same way, as the angel said of him before his birth, "And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God." God had a plan, it seems to me.

The "tossing bread to dogs" line has also always also been associated with "casting pearls before swine" and giving what is holy to dogs line from the Sermon on the Mount (see here and note the footnote in the cross-reference). There was a real sense that these things were to be meted out judiciously, to the right people, not to the "other" (much like granting benefits to illegal immigrants).

 

[pjdude1219]

This thread is bs. If I started one called "The convenient hypocrisy of Democrat Atheists" it would be shut down/cesspooled in a heatbeat.

no one would post in it because democrat atheists keep to them selves and do not try and inflict their beliefs on everyone else.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

He still likened her and her daughter to dogs. Worse, He forced her to agree that the compaison was apt before he deigned to help. Why? Because He was sent for the children of Israel and the Phoenicians weren't Israelis.

No you are stretching, he was teaching, to the Disciples, who being Jews needed to realizes that their future mission was not only to the Jews, but to the rest of mankind.

John the Baptist was the same way, as the angel said of him before his birth, "And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God." God had a plan, it seems to me.

I see no where in this, that it doesn't allow for non-Jews to become brothers in faith to Jesus, and Christians.

The "tossing bread to dogs" line has also always also been associated with "casting pearls before swine" and giving what is holy to dogs line from the Sermon on the Mount (see here and note the footnote in the cross-reference). There was a real sense that these things were to be meted out judiciously, to the right people, not to the "other" (much like granting benefits to illegal immigrants).

Yes you really are stretching things to try and make a point that doesn't exist, Jesus came to save all mankind, not just the Jews, and here;

In this dialogue the woman is raised from one level of faith to another until she attains an extraordinary level. She goes to the apostles as we might turn to the angels and saints for help. The disciples said, "Let's get rid of this woman." They were not helpful at all. Jesus did not answer their request either. But notice what he said: "My mission is only to the lost sheep of Israel." He appeals to his official mission. She is a pagan and his mission is to those of the household of Israel. On one level this is good reasoning and shows our Lord's sensitivity to do only what he sees the Father doing. He does only what he is sent to do; he does not want to exceed it. A mission or ministry always presupposes that we are prepared to function on God's terms.

The Canaanite woman interpreted this statement to mean, "Nothing doing; I only work miracles for Israelites. Sorry" In response, she comes forward and prostrates at his feet, full length, groveling in the dust. Her cry is: "Help!" This is the prayer that Meister Eckhart says pierces the heavens. It is totally focused on one objective. This cry of desperation from a person who feels rejected by God in prayer says everything--a plea, it would seem, that would touch the heart of a stone. And yet Jesus gives no reply. What has become of the divine mercy?

But the divine mercy is not sentimentality It relentlessly puts the ultimate realities of life before her so that she can say with total honesty, "I can't do it myself; I must have your help!" And God is saying nothing.

"It is not right," Jesus says, "to take the food of the children and to throw it to dogs." How could Jesus say such a thing? The Canaanite woman is not put off by this insult any more that she was by his silence and rejection. She answers in effect, "Lord, you are right. But have you thought of this possibility? I'm not asking for the food of the children; I'm not asking for a loaf of bread. Even the dogs under the table sometimes pick up a few crumbs that fall by mistake. How about dropping me one of those crumbs?"

Jesus responds, "Oh my dear lady, your faith is terrific! You can have anything you want--the whole world, the universe, anything!" Everything belongs to those who have reached this level of faith. The cosmos was created for them. Such is the scenario; it keeps being played out in our lives. We can accept it like the Canaanite woman or back off.

 

[maxg]

WTF? We don't hate Latinos. WTF?

*WE HATE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. GOT IT? ILLEGALI MMIGRATION!!!*
BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

No you repeatedly slam immigrants (regardless of their immigration status) but then try to hide behind the claim that you really only dislike illegal immigrants (a strategy that's unfortunately all too common).

Here are some of your quotes about LEGAL immigrants (and this is just from one thread):

Criminal aliens are a bad idea all-around. And legal immigrants don't appear to be doing so well either.

Most immigrants do NOT learn English. They go into once nice neighborhoods, take over, trash them, and do NOT speak English.

Immigrants of the past were educated, hard-working, honest, decent people who came here LEGALLY. They are welcome. [Since you're talking about the past only, I assume the correct word would be "were."]

How about the immigrants accept OUR culture, learn English, and make an effort instead of ganging up together and snickering at US? How about THEY become friendly, be nice/considerate to the neighbors, and even TRY to be an American? The immigrants here gang up together, snicker at Americans, trash neighborhoods, and take whatever they can get. I see very few contributing anything.

We're spending millions trying to help these people. When are they going to take some responsibility and assimilate? Scared/shy is no excuse. They want to live here? Then they should act like Americans.

American is blending into the crowd. Not wearing sh!t that makes you look like a Halloween costume. It's speaking English. Fluently. It's acting decent, kind, considerate. Not acting like some kind of freakshow. It's driving a decent car. Not some piece of sh!t that looks like a cancer mobile. It's being a contributing member of society. Not someone looking to live off the USA.

Mexican criminal aliens and many legal ones do NOT support the Constitution, the American flag, or the United States as a sovereign nation. They hang the American flag upside down under THEIR Mexican flag

You're one of the most hateful people on this board and your pretensions of Christian love & charity are ridiculous.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

WTF? We don't hate Latinos. WTF?

That is certainly not the case here on the East Coast. There is tremendous anti-Latino sentiment. They typically manifest it as laws that theoretically target only illegal immigrants, but the laws are crafted as dragnets to bring in all immigrants. Legal immigrants, naturalized citizens and native-born citizens of Latino ancestry are migrating out of some of the redneck counties in Virginia because the definition of "reasonable suspicion" is vague. The cops pull over anyone for DWL (driving while Latino). Nobody carries their birth certificate or their naturalization papers in their car, so they end losing half a day's pay while the municipal government makes it as difficult as possible for them to prove their right to be here.

*WE HATE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. GOT IT?

You just boil over with hatred. It's hard to miss.

Illegal is illegal.

I'm almost sorry that I'll be dead when the U.S. economy collapses and people like you have to do whatever it takes to find a place to live where your family won't starve to death. A true Christian would feel sympathy for people who are so bereft of hope in countries that have been politically manipulated by the United States for a hundred years, that they leave their loved ones behind and risk death by hunger, brigandism, exploitation, and heat exposure to cross the border that marks the greatest disparity in per-capita GDP of any two adjacent countries on the planet. If I were a mean person I'd hope that some day you get to have that experience and when you finally get where you're going people curse at you for merely breaking a law. Fortunately I'm not, but from what I know of your religion your god is a textbook case of an abusive parent who loves to "test" his children with pain and suffering, so perhaps it will happen to you anyway and you will be obligated to thank him for it.

He doesn't directly, but he does admonish the Rabbis to "...render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

I'm hardly a biblical scholar but that is an oft-quoted line. It is customarily interpreted to mean that Christians are simply expected to be good law-abiding citizens who don't rock the boat and bring the wrath of the government down on their movement. It's not about the marking the borders of Caesar's kingdom.

Also, do you REALLY want a borderless world at this particular era in history?

Civilization has been a ten-thousand year struggle to overcome our pack-social instinct with reasoned and learned behavior. We've transcended from packs to villages to tribes and even though the tribes have grown we're still kind of stalled at the tribal level of civilization. I give Abrahamic religion a lot of credit for that because it reinforces the "us versus them" way of looking at society that comes with our Stone Age instincts.

Clearly we're not ready for a borderless civilization because there are still Abrahamists among us. In order to transcend tribalism and live in harmony and cooperation without borders, first we have to transcend Abrahamism.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

No you repeatedly slam immigrants (regardless of their immigration status) but then try to hide behind the claim that you really only dislike illegal immigrants (a strategy that's unfortunately all too common).

Here are some of your quotes about LEGAL immigrants (and this is just from one thread):

Now you are making a point that is not in evidence, Sandy has on many occasions stated that this is about Illegal Immigration, do you insist that she start everyone of her post with the qualifier that this is addressed about Illegal Immigration, well I will tell you that, about illegal Immigration I agree with everyone of her post, if you are here and your status is that of being undocumented, we should have you rounded up, were ever you live, work, or look for work, you should be deported, and before you go you do a year building a fence across the southern border, and when you complete your section you are moved to the other side of it.

No more nice guy, no more anchor babies, if you have a kid on this side of the Border, you go back, and its your choice, put the kid up for adoption, or take it back with you, but you don't stay.

You're one of the most hateful people on this board and your pretensions of Christian love & charity are ridiculous.

Love and Charity is one thing and it comes from the heart, not stolen by seeking into America and using our services with out the ability to pay and no intention of paying, Love and Charity is given from the Heart not forced down one throat from bleeding Heart Liberals like you who use my money to
feel good about themselves, if you want to take care of them do it with your own money, sponsor a family with your own money, not mine, you take the responsibility first.

Me I give to charity, like Sandy it is my money sent to my choice of recipients, not the States, Not Yours, and if the State and People like you didn't rip me off for so much to take care of Illegal Law Breaker, I would be able to give even more, but I have no sympathy for those who break the Immigration Laws of our Nation and use our system to send money back to Mexico, with no intention of becoming citizens, and then use our health systems with out the intention of paying, over load our legal system and jails, rape murder, maim, and steel, depress our wages, and then have the effrontery to complain about the fact that we want to enforce our laws.

Like Sandy and the vast majority of Americans, screw em', and the feet they walked in on.

NO AMNESTY!

NO FREE HEALTH CARE!

NO WELFARE!

NO INSTATE TUITIONS!

NO SCHOOLING UNTILL ALL OF THE LEGAL AMERICAN GET A COLLEGE EDUCATION!

EVERY CRIMINAL ALIEN IN OUR PRISON SYSTEM MOVED TO THE BORDER BUILDING THE FENCE!

 

[maxg]

Now you are making a point that is not in evidence, Sandy has on many occasions stated that this is about Illegal Immigration, do you insist that she start everyone of her post with the qualifier that this is addressed about Illegal Immigration...

Sorry but how do you explain the long series of quotes I provided that were about all immigrants (and in the context of that thread are clearly seperated from her posts about illegal immigrants).

Sandy may say a lot of things but I don't have to believe it just because she says it.

As for your own opinions about illegal immigrants, I don't really care. And your shouting makes me care even less.