#5: What exactly are Christian Conservatives?

On twitter, I often post in my 140 character straight-jacket that I see the term Christian Conservative as an Oxymoron. To be fair, I’m sure those on the right who place that in their bios along with references to “tea party” “NRA” “Birtherism” etc truly believe that they are Christians. However, I do have questions and would like some clarification.

When saying they are Christian Conservatives, are they also implying that Jesus Christ was himself a Conservative? If so, a fiscal or social Conservative? I debated this once on a Twitter Time Line with a man who called himself a Christian Conservative and I asked him to quote, chapter and verse, exactly what Christ said or did that fell under the tenets of conservatism. He couldn’t but instead cited that Jesus wasn’t political which I found amusing. From my reading of the Bible it would seem to me that he was clearly a political figure. At least those in Judea who were in power at the time thought so, saw him as a threat to public order, both religious and secular and had him crucified, but I digress.

By acknowledging that Jesus wasn’t a political figure, he did acknowledge that by his standards, Jesus wasn’t conservative. If he thought so, I would believe he would cite something in the Bible to back that up. As @JohnFugelsang, who Stephanie Miller calls the Ecclesiastic Mook would point out, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, was against the death penalty, offered free healthcare, commanded of his followers to sell everything and follow him, told them to feed the starving, clothe the naked, etc. All of which would appear to indicate a liberal bent on Jesus’ part. Of course, those on the right would add that Jesus demanded that of the people, not government. A fair point. But in today’s world, not exactly practical. God bless those who personally go out of their way to help those in distress within their reach, but there are literally millions just in this country where that isn’t feasible and were it not for a structured social safety net managed by the government, these people would be suffering all the more. And this net is paid for via taxes paid in by those who do have the ability to pay in. In this case, I do see taxes to aid fellow humans as a moral issue demonstrated by and demanded of Christ, using government to implement. I don’t see where Jesus would argue against this, in fact did he not say, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”?

The moral issues the right-wing bring up, all come from the Old Testament, not the new. Though Jesus was a practicing Jew (something the Right appears to have problems with too) he proposed in his teaching a new sect of the Hebrew Faith that centered more on seeing to the humanity as a way to honor God. Keep in mind that Christianity began as a Jewish Sect. It wasn’t until the Council of Nicaea when the Romans adopted it as a new State religion, full of many of the pagan believes enjoyed by the people of the time, did it become a faith of its own, separate from the Hebrews.

So to wrap up, if you want to call yourself a Christian Conservative, be prepared to cite chapter, verse and context to show how Jesus lived and preached to tenets of today’s social conservative beliefs. If you can’t accept that most if not all of his teachings fall under the liberal context and as a result, to slam liberals you have to acknowledge that you slam Jesus. Jesus was far more forgiving of Gentiles than today’s Gentiles have been of people like him. A little tolerance of those who don’t follow within your stated sense of morality is very Christ like, ie Christian. Just saying.

Rant #4: Does Nugent owe us time back?

Andy Warhol spoke of everyone getting their 15 minutes of fame, but in the case of Ted Nugent, not only is that time up, I think he owes us time back. This idiot who’s so pro gun and hunting while at the same time quite literally crapped his pants to avoid service in Vietnam tries to portray himself as a tough guy. Ted, forest animals don’t shoot back so stalking them and shooting at them at a distance is no test of courage.

Now this idiot who in his prime probably couldn’t be given the trip to Hollywood on American Idol is now saying that perhaps it would have been better if the South won the Civil War.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/06/ted-nugent-thinks-we-might-be-better-off-if-the-south-had-won-the-civil-war/

Better for who Ted? First of all, a loose confederation of states would not have become the world economic and military power the United States is. And of course the issue of allowing people to hold other people in slavery because of economic reasons should be sickening to anyone of moral character and intelligence. Oh excuse me, I forgot who this rant was about.

Ted, you’re a drunken idiot even when you are sober. Loud, violent and no talent. Give us our 15 minutes back or take one of your weapons and stand a post in Afghanistan.

Rant #3: What can Mitt Romney Boast About?

Let’s see, Mitt Romney was born into wealth so he really can’t take credit for that. But wait a minute, he made himself richer by his association with Bain Capital. Bain would use leverage buyouts to take over companies. Would borrow money against the company placing them in bankruptcy and resulting in the companies failing, employees losing their jobs, benefits and pensions. Okay, he really can’t use Bain, at least not go into the details.

There is his involvement in the Olympics. It was in trouble and Mitt was brought in to fix it and he actually did by going to the feds and taking out millions in grants to shore up the mismanagement and corruption the Olympics were experiencing. Okay, he can’t go into detail with the Olympics because it was the tax payers who actually saved the day and he’s all for letting things go bankrupt without tax payers interference. So he really can’t use the Olympics.

There is his term as Governor of Massachusetts and his crowning achievement as governor, universal healthcare that was used as the model for the Affordable Care Act known today as Obamacare. Oops, guess he really can’t use that either.

Well the man is worth over a quarter billion dollars and has his money in off shore accounts. He’s created thousands of jobs, the only issue those jobs are in China and India. Even sent Massachusetts state jobs over to a call center in India. He can’t use Staples because that was another division of Bain. Damn, what can Mitt use?

To be continued

Rant #2 on Mitch McConnell

Okay, a point I wanted to make clear last week when he was asked about the 30 million people who could lose healthcare if the Affordable Care Act was repealed, Mitch McConnell said, “That’s not the issue.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/01/mitch-mcconnell-uninsured-obamacare_n_1641033.html

Well Mitch, when asked a question, the person asking the question has an issue they want addressed, in this case the issue was from Chris Wallace about explaining what would happen to the 30 million who would be left without healthcare if ACA was repealed. That was his issue, it’s the issue of the 30 million Americans effected, it’s my issue and if you should realize that since the question was asked of you, it is now your issue. To simply reply, “that’s not the issue” is a lame, lazy ploy to avoid answering a question you know you have no answer for. It’s a dodge and worse, it’s presumptuous. How dare you tell us what the issue is! If you don’t have an answer, or your answer is embarrassing, then say that. As Abraham Lincoln once said “better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Sir, you proved to us you are a fool.

First Blog Rant

I touched on this earlier this morning. For years, the right has gotten away with casting evil labels to certain words or beliefs. It’s been very effective for them because all they have to do is like a child calling someone “fatso” on the playground, they don’t have to define any particular act in detail, they just use the word leaving many to either shy away from the word or work to defend it, totally avoiding the issue at hand.

So, the right have successfully labeled anything “Liberal” or “Socialist” as bad. They’ve done this over the years even though little specific negative connotations can actually be ascribed to those terms. Even though this country consists of a multitude of political, moral, economic and social views, the right defines those outside their narrative under a one or two-word label. Liberal, Socialist, but they never define the specific act or believe they concern themselves with and how it specifically harms the well-being of the nation. This country from its founding has been, and continues to use a combination of capitalism and socialism in building the economy and seeing to the welfare of the people. It’s a fact. Many on the right deny that this is a “socialist” country or that those on the left are striving for socialism. They often conflate socialism with fascism which is interesting considering socialism is geared to have government see to the needs of the people while fascism is by definition corporations taking control of government for their own needs minus those of the people, but I digress.

We have several socialist institutions in this country that although the right won’t see as socialist, they would fight having them eliminated. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, The Military, Police Departments, Fire Departments, EMTs, The Power Grid, The Interstate Highway System, Veteran Service, The NFL, are all examples of socialism in this country. Many of them meld with Capitalism to not only garner profit and growth, but serve a social function. With the exception of the NFL, they all see to the needs of all the people, supported by tax dollars provided by the people and governed by the needs of the people. privatize them, make them purely capitalistic, then the profit margin would leave these service unavailable to those on the lower rungs of society.

So back to the original point, the push for the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare has been vilified because it’s been called “socialist” despite the fact we already have medicare, Medicaid and veteran services that are just as “socialistic” as ACA, even less so since private insurance companies still are the primary source of delivery of service. But by that label, it’s been vilified. When asked what specifically people have against it other than socialism, the response is often, we don’t need a nanny state. But this comes from people who want their Social Security and Medicare. Even worse, they complain of the individual mandate while at the same time saying that people should be responsible for paying their own way. ACA in its present form came from the Heritage Foundation, Bob Dole, and pushed by Mitt Romney. It’s as Republican as any social program can be, yet because a Democratic Congress and Democratic President passed it, it’s suddenly labeled as Socialism and evil. People can do their own speculation as to why.

To sum up, I see no problems or sin in any particular act being labeled as Socialism, Liberal, Progressive, or even Capitalistic. I’m more concern about the act or program itself and what service it provides to the community. Rather label the act for what it does than what someone with an iron clad political agenda/ideology labels it as without citing why it’s specifically bad to the people and what do they have that they can show will work better to address a need.

That’s my first long rant. Let me know what you think and whether I should continue with this way of getting things off my chest. Thanks

Let’s give this a try

Let’s give this a try. I’ve been on Twitter for a while now and often the limitation of 140 characters has been counterproductive to my rants. So I thought I would give this a try, especially when dealing with complex issues I want to get off my chest. Don’t know how long I will be trying to do this. I’m still having troubles figuring out the technology involved, but we’ll see. I can always cancel this whole mess at any time.