Why does the right wing

[OLDMDDEM]

Why does the right wing keep spewing lies about how they feel about religion? It's obvious that they do not care about helping the needy unless they get a tax deduction for it. Stopping unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans is about the most hypocritical position they could take during a holiday season, especially this one. Of course, there are more examples but I feel that the right wing is a bunch of hypocrites that will do nothing for the poor and down-trodden unless there is something in it for them.

What do you think?

[rug]

1. For the same reason they use patriotism.

There is nothing patriotic about uprooting entire sectors of the economy and millions of jobs to different countries.

Ideologies, any ideology, are tools to be used and discarded by ruling classes as their needs dictate.

[OLDMDDEM]

2. So what you are saying

is that whatever the needs of the plutocracy, that is all that matters. If that is what you are saying, then my point is proven. They are hypocritical and have no heart for other people that are downtrodden and/or simply out of sorts. My wife and I are Dems and the rest of our family is to the right. I see this lack of empathy in them and feel that there is a need, other than religion, to not necessarily change their ideas but show them that there are "real" people that do need help whether it benefits them or not. Hopefully, that will help them show some compassion towards these people rather than think they are simply "takers" and need not be helped.

[rug]

3. I do agree with you. Religion is, and has been used by them for centuries.

But it is not the only thing they use. Nor does its appropriation by the right negate any inherent value that religion may have.

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. Why do you think they're lying?

The power of faith is oft repeated throughout the pages of the gospels; Jesus tells his followers faith in god shall ensure they never get sick or go hungry. Modern conservatives have taken this to mean if you're poor, you just don't believe hard enough. If you want to debate them on their interpretation of those passages, by all means go ahead, but I think it a bit hasty to call them liars.

[OLDMDDEM]

6. I don't

I have seen too much and heard more. Just listen to them for one day.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

45. "Jesus tells his followers faith in god shall ensure they never get sick or go hungry.

No, that's not what he says.

[trotsky]

5. Until and unless you develop the ability to read minds...

you have no right whatsoever to say they are lying. They merely have a different interpretation of your holy text. Some take Jesus' saying about rendering unto Caesar and extend that to mean he didn't want the government doing any of the work that individuals or churches should be doing - namely, taking care of the poor. What they see is a government trying to do it, so they want gov't to stop and give them their tax dollars back so they can distribute them directly as they see fit.

To instead insist that they're lying, that they are just "using" religion to advance their agenda, is a form of bigotry. You assume that if someone is using your religion to support something you don't like, they aren't a believer after all.

[OLDMDDEM]

7. Not so

I do not consider myself a bigot. What I see and interpret is exactly what I see and interpret. Anyone of right mind would come to the same conclusion. I do not care if they think like I do or not. It's what they say. Listen to them just once when they stand in front of a microphone. Listen to Boehner, or his little entourage that stands behind him during a news conference. They really cannot possibly believe what they are saying.

[trotsky]

8. You must be right.

After all, anyone who disagrees with you must not be in their "right mind."

So sorry to disagree. I'm obviously not in my right mind.

[OLDMDDEM]

23. Then

I did not say that. You could not interpret what is said during these interviews but one way. Sorry you feel the way you do.

[el_bryanto]

9. Some interesting comments from The Slactivist on a related subject

In a recent post. The bulk if it is on the "clobber verses," some evangelicals use to insist their interpretation of the bible is the right one. He also uses Jonah which is one of his favorite books to talk about the inclusiveness of Salvation.

The so-called conservatives tend to complain at this point that those of us who recognize and accept the diversity of the Bible are just picking and choosing the parts of the Bible that we like and ignoring the other parts. That complaint is quite a concession — an admission that we’re right about the diversity of the scriptures, because we wouldn’t be able to do what they’re accusing us of unless the Bible does, in fact, contain such an array of diverse perspectives. But set that aside. Is that really what I’m suggesting? No. I don’t ignore the parts of the Bible that make the case for Team Jonah, I contend with them — I contend against them. Yes, it is true that there are parts of the Bible I don’t like, so I dislike them. Actively.

Given that the diversity of the Bible is a fact, this is the only honest approach. The long argument between Team Jonah and Team Book of Jonah presents two incompatible sides. I’m picking sides. I’m siding with one side of the argument against the other side. Anyone who thinks that constitutes dismissing or ignoring the other side doesn’t understand what the word “argument” means.

Bryant

[okasha]

10. Conservatives claim that those of us

who accept the diversity of the Bible are "just picking and choosing the parts we like and ignoring the rest?"

My goodness, my goodness, now where have we heard that before?

[trotsky]

11. I know! Nuts, isn't it?

It's the same thing liberal believers like you say about conservatives! LMAO!

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. "Accept the diversity of the Bible"

When conservatives do it, it is cherry-picking. When liberals do it, it is "accepting diversity". That has to be the funniest thing I've read all day.

[trotsky]

15. Oh, it's totally different!

[Act_of_Reparation]

17. I came home and found a bag of Haribo gummi bears bereft of my favorite pineapple

It turns out my wife was accepting diversity while I was at work.

[okasha]

16. Conservatives accept the diversity

of the Bible? Really?

My sympathies on the loss of your posterior.

[Act_of_Reparation]

18. Of course.

They accept the diversity you don't want, just as you accept the diversity they don't want.

[cbayer]

20. I'm not sure why cherry picking is considered a bad thing.

Unless one is a literalist, and I don't see much of that around here, it is important and wise to cherry pick.

Or to put it more literally, why not take just the ripe, sweet cherries and let the rotten ones die on the vine?

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. No one is saying it is a bad thing...

This thread typifies a tired trope, that conservatives aren't "real Christians" because they pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow based entirely on what appeals to them. Liberal Christians do the same thing. There's nothing different or special about it.

It's infuriating to watch people denigrate one another as they try to shoehorn the oft contradictory exhortations of an Iron Age street preacher into their respective corners of the modern left-right paradigm, as if Jesus, were he alive today, would support register Democrat or Republican. The whole thing is childish and, frankly, beneath us.

And, as a tertiary point, there's nothing inherently wrong to cherry picking as long as it is honest. From what I've seen here, it almost never is.

[cbayer]

22. I agree with you.

Both groups cherry pick and what they pick is what defines them and makes them different from each other.

While there are charlatans who actually aren't real christians but use christianity as a means to an end, there are very real christian conservatives.

I don't know what would be infuriating about that. When I lived in the south they told a completely different story about "The War of Northern Aggression". I live with a Brit who has a totally different take of the Revolutionary War than I do.

I support religious believers who interpret their religion to support things that I support.

What have you seen here that's not honest?

[Act_of_Reparation]

36. What have I seen here that's not honest?

The honest things I've seen would make a much shorter list, but for the sake of both our schedules I'll list but a few of the more stunning gems.

I have seen it claimed:

- Jesus was crucified for sedition.
- Jesus was an anti-imperialist.
- Jesus was egalitarian.
- Jesus was in favor of income equality.
- Jesus' message was one of love, compassion, and brotherhood.
- Jesus was a revolutionary.

Taking inspiration from select passages which speak to you personally is one thing, and one thing to which I am entirely unopposed. All the same, I draw inspiration from certain historical figures--Jefferson, Madison, Twain, Russell, to name a few. But unlike myriad liberal believers, I wouldn't think to present these people as anything but what they were.

Jefferson and Madison both owned slaves. Twain, for all his anti-imperialist sentiment, lived opulently in a Hartford mansion festooned with decor plucked straight from far off British and French colonial possessions. Russell, a radical leftist throughout the entirety of his life, nevertheless held onto his noble title, and (presumably), all the benefits it thus conferred.

That is the honest way to present these men, and an honest narrative of their lives would be the product of their virtues and their vices, not one to the exclusion of the other. But that's what happens here all of the time. Believers, dissatisfied with the Biblical narratives as they stand, mine the text for palatable quotes and create from whole cloth narratives that simply are not in keeping with what was actually recorded.

It's fine to pick and choose which Biblical passages you like. It's fine to disagree with the parts you don't like. Shit, it is fine to disagree with the whole damn narrative (I certainly do). But it is not fine to misrepresent the text as something it is not. It's simply dishonest.

And so is, by the way, the claim that anyone who takes a believer to task for these discrepancies is a fundamentalist or a literalist.

[cbayer]

37. There is a difference between admiration for a historical figure and what a religious believer

holds to be true about those they feel are somehow divine.

In the religious narrative, these people are not mere mortals with the normal human faults, but held to a much higher standard.

While I think many christians can see jesus's weak spots in an achilles heel sort of way, you can't really expect them to define his "vices".

I don't think that someone who takes a believer to task for discrepancies is a fundamentalist or a literalist. But I do object to those who demand that anyone that believes must believe in every word or they are hypocrites.

I'm not sure there is that much difference in being a fundamentalist/literalist and insisting that others are somehow false if they are not.

[Act_of_Reparation]

38. You've missed the point completely

In the religious narrative, these people are not mere mortals with the normal human faults, but held to a much higher standard.

While I think many christians can see jesus's weak spots in an achilles heel sort of way, you can't really expect them to define his "vices".

I'm not saying Jesus had virtues or vices, I'm saying an honest interpretation of scripture is one that incorporates the totality of his alleged positions, not merely those you find tasteful.

That is precisely what most of the aforementioned claimants have done. They have quote-mined the text and produced narratives which are in keeping only with their preexisting worldviews--they have presented Christ as the person they want him to be rather than how he is described in the only texts testament to his life and works.

The remainder, meanwhile, have simply made shit up, and there's certainly nothing fundamentalist or literalist about criticizing people who have so abjectly failed in their exegeses as to draw conclusions utterly unsubstantiated by the text.

Again, I find nothing wrong with people picking out palatable bits of inspiration from the Bible. But you cannot honestly present the Bible, or its message, as the sole product of those limited passages. Just because you like the bits about loving thy neighbor and giving to the poor doesn't mean all that other shit about the imminent end of the world and tacit approval of slavery isn't there or deserving of mention, because it is.

But I do object to those who demand that anyone that believes must believe in every word or they are hypocrites.

So you are in disagreement with the OP, then?

[cbayer]

42. Of course I missed the point completely.

It's just too complex for my feeble mind.

[Act_of_Reparation]

43. If I thought that were the case, I wouldn't have bothered responding to you in the first place

But if you're dead set on conceding the argument with dismissive hand-waving, I doubt I can do anything to stop you.

[cbayer]

44. I would respectfully suggest that when you start your response with something like,

"You missed the point completely", it might be you who is being dismissive.

At any rate, that is sure how it comes across.

I will take the time to get past that first statement and read your response tomorrow.

[okasha]

40. I recognize one of those assertions as mine--

that Jesus was crucified for sedition. Do you have a reliable text that argues that he was executed on some other charge? If so, please share it with us.

Crucifixion was a punishment reserved specifically for pirates and other bandits, slaves (cf. the thousands crucified at the end of Spartacus' uprising) and enemies of the Roman state. Since Jesus wasn't a pirate or a slave, that pretty much leaves sedition, which is corroborated by the sayings and actions attributed to him in the gospels.

[Act_of_Reparation]

41. Nice try, but not.

Do you have a reliable text that argues that he was executed on some other charge?

That's not how the burden of proof works. You made the claim, you back it up.

Crucifixion was a punishment reserved specifically for pirates and other bandits, slaves (cf. the thousands crucified at the end of Spartacus' uprising) and enemies of the Roman state. Since Jesus wasn't a pirate or a slave, that pretty much leaves sedition

Speculate all you want. At the end of the day, it is what it is: speculation.

Yes, crucifixion was generally reserved for thieves, slaves, and treasonous citizens, but by no means was this an absolute rule. It was also dispensed upon criminals of low social standing, or non-citizens of high standing the Romans wished to severely humiliate.

The fact of the matter is, despite scholarly consensus on the historicity of the crucifixion, there is absolutely no written record of it, much less the charges dispensed. The only sources we have to cite are the gospels, which say the crucifixion was largely the doing the pharisees, who pressured Pilate into arresting and executing Jesus under threats of riots.

However plausible it may seem, you simply do not have the evidence to run around making declarative statements no historian with a shred of academic integrity would agree with.

which is corroborated by the sayings and actions attributed to him in the gospels.

"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's?"

Yeah, that's some seditious shit right there.

[okasha]

46. Sorry, but you're wrong again.

Claiming to be King of the Jews and the proclamation of a Kingdom not subject to Rome was flat-out treason. Inciting riots (occupation of the Temple) was rebellion against the state. The two "thieves" crucified with Jesus were lestai--highway robbers or bandits, forerunners of the Zealots--not shoplifters or pickpockets.

Citizens, by the way, were exempt from crucifixion. The treasonous variety were beheaded (cf. Paul), strangled, or offered the chance to commit suicide. Frequently their entire families were executed with them, including minor children. High-ranking non-citizens were marched though the streets in their conqueror's victory celebration, then executed in prison, again usually by beheading or strangulation (cf.Arsinoe of Egypt, Vercingetorix, Caractacus.)

It was the Sanhedrin (Sadducees, not Pharisees) who are said to have urged Pilate to execute Jesus.

Keep trying.

[Act_of_Reparation]

47. Do you not understand what "evidence" means?

You have nothing to directly support a charge of sedition, and nothing to rule out other explanations. You can't prove Jesus was a rebel and not an auxilia charged with desertion, or a slave, or a brigand. Everything you have presented is circumstantial, based on accounts of dubious historicity and blatant bias (the gospels) and social conventions that were by no means absolute (the dispensation of crucifixion).

Just like you have no evidence to support this:

The two "thieves" crucified with Jesus were lestai--highway robbers or bandits, forerunners of the Zealots--not shoplifters or pickpockets.

As I've already pointed out, there is only academic consensus on two events in Jesus' life: his baptism and his crucifixion, and even these are rather flimsily supported. While we may certainly speculate to our hearts' content, we don't really know why Jesus was crucified. Pilate left no records, there are no primary sources describing the event, nor are there any primary sources cited by the two secondary sources we have on hand.

The evidence isn't there. We just don't know.

[trotsky]

26. As has been pointed out to you innumerable times...

the very notion of what constitutes a "good" cherry comes down to one's personal viewpoint.

The cherries that look sweet and ripe to you look rotten and moldy to someone else. You will continue to struggle to be taken seriously when you show again and again you don't understand what you're saying.

[okasha]

32. Congratulations!

You missed the target by a clean 180 degrees.

Let me put it as literally and simply as I can. Conservatives do not accept the diversity of the Bible: instead they subscribe only to an assortment of "clobber texts," which they feel negate or are more authentic than all the rest. "The Bible is evil" contingent in this DU group likewise do not accept the diversity of the Bible: instead they subscribe only to those very same "clobber texts," which they feel negate or are more authentic than all the rest.

It's something the two groups have in common. Isn't that sweet?

[Act_of_Reparation]

33. You obviously haven't spent much time talking to religious conservatives

When you're busy slapping yourself on the back with self-congratulatory proclamations of your own theological superiority, it is understandable that you may become a tad... well... insulated.

But that's okay. I'll put into this into really small words and short sentences, as not to distract you from your otherwise very demanding schedule.

Conservatives do not accept the diversity of the Bible: instead they subscribe only to an assortment of "clobber texts," which they feel negate or are more authentic than all the rest.

Conservatives believe very much in the same passages you do. They argue against things like social security and universal health care and any other social safety net program because they believe it is the responsibility of individuals to dispense charity upon the poor, that it is beyond the reasonable power of the government to "coerce" (their words, not mine) people into handing over their shit.

Even if your summation were in any way accurate (which, clearly, it is not), you'd do well to take note liberals do essentially the same thing. How many times has it been said, "I believe some parts of the Bible are divine inspiration (meaning, the parts the speaker agrees with), while the rest is the work of man (meaning, all the parts the speaker does not agree with)"? That sounds quite a bit like an arbitrary assignment and negation of authenticity to me.

"The Bible is evil" contingent in this DU group likewise do not accept the diversity of the Bible: instead they subscribe only to those very same "clobber texts," which they feel negate or are more authentic than all the rest.

Wrong again, on both counts.

First, the Bible isn't evil. The Bible is an inanimate object.

Secondly, I can prove the Bible isn't all it's cracked up to be without using the most glaring examples of moral and philosophical antiquity.

[okasha]

34. You seem to be responding to your own posts,

rather than to anything I said. Please feel free to keep talking to yourself. I don't mind.

[Leontius]

39. Have at it we all await your attempt.

[trotsky]

35. It's remarkable how you can be so assured in knowing what someone else thinks.

A fundamentalist-like certainty, one might say.

You certainly have their "you are my enemy, you are evil, and I hate you" attitude down pat, that's for sure, so perhaps I'm selling you short and you do understand how they think.

[trotsky]

19. Absolutely!

They embrace some parts and oppose others. That's what "accepting the diversity of the bible" means, right?

[el_bryanto]

24. I think the point might be more that

Conservative Christians would say there is one way to read the Bible and if you don't read it my way you are a false believer - some Atheists have made similar comments, suggesting that Liberal Christians are fooling themselves if they think they can read the Bible in a way that is different from our Conservative friends.

Bryant

[trotsky]

25. I have never heard an atheist say such a thing.

What I *have* heard are claims that both sides cherry-pick and embrace the parts of the bible they like, and reject the ones they don't. Which happens to be exactly what is being said in this thread.

[el_bryanto]

27. OK - assuming Christians want to keep believing in the Bible, in which would you advise them

to read it?

Bryant

[trotsky]

28. Oh, my opinion is irrelevant.

I don't actually hold opinions due to honestly looking at the data available and coming to a conclusion that happens to be different than the one you do. I'm just an anti-Catholic crank.

[el_bryanto]

29. I feel kind of bad for you and your fellow anti-Catholic cranks.

Despite your best efforts, even here at DU, 89.23% have at least a somewhat positive opinion of the pope, while only 3.08% have a negative view point.

And you guys try so hard to trash every thread that is the least bit positive towards this Pope, and yet you can't seem to move the needle.

Bryant

[trotsky]

30. 90% of Americans had a positive view of G.W.Bush after 9/11.

And nothing us "anti-Bush cranks" at DU did managed to move that needle either.

I am sorry you don't like other people expressing their opinions about the current pope, and that you feel the need to call them names in order to devalue those opinions.

But I am entitled to my opinion, and you can't stop me from expressing it. No more than the Republicans could by labeling us "terrorist-lovers" or "America haters" after 9/11.

[el_bryanto]

31. Well keep at it. nt

[cbayer]

12. The pope has recently taken these RW christians to task for their positions on

social/economic issues.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=103602

The religious right was formed and co-opted by the neocons to serve their political purposes. They were promised legislation that would turn back the current legislation regarding a woman's right to choose and GLBT civil rights.

Many of them realize that they were used and there is some pushback within the evangelical community.

Religion has been, is and will continue to be used by politicians to achieve political gains. Some of them might even be sincere when they spew their hypocritical BS, but, imo, most of them are not.

[trotsky]

13. Interestingly, the pope sides with the evangelical right when it comes to those issues...

namely, reproductive and LGBT rights.

But it's a good thing you can also read minds and tell us that when politicians are pushing right-wing issues they are obviously atheists and certainly not sincere believers.