Balls and Walnuts
more than you ever wanted to know
These guys give Christianity a bad name
Politics. Nothing but politics. Maybe because it’s the end of a rough week, or I pushed myself hard at the gym today, or I had too much sake at the NWTEC Internet Cafe tonight mit mein frau. Or maybe I’m just itching to have y’all tell me I’m full o’ kaka.
First, as hypocrisy insurance, let me mention a few Jews who give Judaism a bad name: Joseph Lieberman, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Joseph Lieberman. Did I mention Joseph Lieberman? Because at least Wolfowitz and Perle (AKA The Prince of Darkness) don’t try to pass themselves off as Democrats.
I think I’ve made my respect for Christianity — real Christianity — quite clear, although perhaps I didn’t say it as well as John Scalzi said it back in 2004. I see Christianity as a wonderfully progressive, liberal religion. As John says, “I wish more Christians practiced it.”
Here’s what raised my ire. From Georgia10 at Kos:
Too much wingnuttery for one day. Via Atrios, we learn Missouri is considering a bill making Christianity the state’s official religion. Mississippi is set to follow in South Dakota’s footsteps and ban almost all abortions. Tony Blair proclaims God led him to invade Iraq. In Kentucky, state legislators are asked to go on record as to whether they’ve “accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.” Separation of church and what again?
Lots to brux over here, but that bit about Blair really got me going. From The Independent:
Tony Blair has proclaimed that God will judge whether he was right to send British troops to Iraq, echoing statements from his ally George Bush.
In my experience, folks who say “God will be my judge” don’t think they’re going to hell. As for me, if there is a hell, I suspect that folks who commit mass murder of innocent women and children will get front row seats.
More:
He agreed that his politics could be described as Christian “in terms of the values and the philosophy”. He also confirmed that religion illuminates his politics. “If you have a religious belief, it does – but it’s probably best not to take it too far,” he said.
Roger Bacon, who has been trying unsuccessfully to meet Tony Blair since his son, Major Matthew Bacon, 34, was killed in Iraq, said last night: “This would explain why he won’t see the parents. How can he speak to us when God told him to send the troops out to Iraq so our sons could be killed?”
It doesn’t take much imagination to recall Cindy Sheehan and George W. Bush.
Here’s a question for you: can the leader of one of the most powerful nation’s in the world get through his term of office without committing one or more damnation-worthy atrocities?
Lest you think I’m being partisan, I suspect Bill Clinton is going to hell, too (if there is a hell, which I doubt), and not because he lied about a blowjob. From Counterpunch (Bill Clinton’s Hypocrisies on Iraq, by Mike Marqusee):
Throughout his eight years in office, Clinton applied a ruthless sanctions regime that took the lives of at least half a million Iraqi children. He subjected Iraq (with British help) to the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam, ostensibly to protect the no-fly zones established in 1991.
Have Dubya and Blair racked up a half million dead kids yet? I don’t know the stats. I know they’ve been trying really hard.
And they’re not done.
D.
Post Script: At Daily Kos, SusanG itemizes the facts regarding George W. Bush’s Culture of Death, in case any of you had any residual doubts.
As you know, I detest the modern trend to bare ones religion like a fashion accessory. For an elected official to hide behind the judgement of God, is just so much hogwash. It’s the defence of the weak, trying to place a barrier of higher power between themselves and accountability. They will be judged as they always are; at the polls.
X
I’m going to contradict Tis I, X, as I don’t believe Blair is weak in the least. He’s highly intelligent and more dedicated than most PMs, that combined with his faith and belief in his own destiny makes him a very dangerous man. And sadly, I don’t believe people vote on what their leader is doing half a world away (if they did, he wouldn’t be PM now!), all they care about is their economy and whether they can afford their summer holiday. Can only hope he’s satisfied with upping Thatcher and goes soon.
Comrade Jesus spoke the truth to power without a hint of rancor. For that, the powers in place nailed him to a tree. And I don’t think any of us Christians can comfort ourselves with that name, and with being a “good person.” It takes more than that, though I’m not always sure what.
I’m with Jona on what most people care about. Unless gas prices go above $3, most people here are too busy watching television to care about what atrocities their government is committing in their name. So it was in ancient Rome, folks.
Amen Blue Gal – Keep the masses happily entertained and they will not raise their butts off the couch to go protest about something.
It’s all so depressing 🙁
Hmm, I may get into some murky waters here. I stand by my use of the word weak. Having no religosity myself, I make decisions based on my intellect. I weigh the pros and cons and go forward in a manner I deem best. If I screw up, I’m the one responsible. I’m accountable. Not some higher power, not my faith, ME.
So that’s where I’m coming from when I find these faith sheilds weak. Too often these days leaders are distancing the ‘I’ from the accountability/judgement factor. Instead they offer us their faith, (which we can judge if we dare), when faith should have nothing to do with whether the decision was right or wrong or whether we have a right to judge that decision.
X
I agree that this is weak in the sense that it is morally and ethically limp behavior. On the other hand, the purposeful manipulation of your electorate’s religious sentiments, as Dubya has done (and perhaps Blair?), might be seen as a very clever, if evil, maneuver.
Yup, evil sounds about right as a description for those two.
If I were still a Bible literalist, I might postulate that W. is the antichrist, and the fundamendalists are the ones who “take the mark of the beast” in Revelation.
Wouldn’t it be just like God to make it all upside down from what the people expect? The parallels between the events of Biblical times and today are a little freaky. Proving yet again that history repeats itself until we learn the lesson we’re supposed to.
God, I hope we figure it out this time.
Google “George Bush Antichrist” and you’ll find several websites which critically evaluate the concept.
Speaking as an outsider (of course!) I find it amusing. Amusing the way the ending of Dr. Strangelove is amusing.
We have some very similar thoughts about so-called Christianity in this country; it’s almost eerie. It’s true–at its base, Christianity is, and should be, a liberal religion. It’s a religion of forgiveness, of giving, of sharing, of helping, of loving. Not of judgement and greediness and self-righteousness. Thanks for the reminder.
American style christianity
I am really puzzled about the way christianity is interpreted by American christian, especially Mr. W.Bush and his kind.
“Forgive your enemies” was the core message Jesus lived and died for. There simply can be no doubt about this, on the base of what he said and the decisions he took in life, as described in the bible. Tortured and cruzified: “Father, forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing”.
Why forgive ones enemies? Because otherwise the circle of retaliation would never end.
However, it seems American political christians just (“compassionate conservatives” and so) do not emphasize the core message. Instead they take the words of the bible literally and twist the meanings beyond recognition. How can they accept the words of the bible being exploited and twisted for political purposes? To me, this is true blasphemy.
A historical flashback to the introduction of Christianity in Scandinavia
Scandinavia used to have a warrior religion before christianity gained ground here. The old belief included the “blood revenge” tradition: If somebody killed or hurt someone in your family you would have to kill somebody in the murder’s family. Then someone in the murder’s family would have to kill someone in your family, etc etc.
The core message of the old faith was rather clear:
If you were a brave warrior you would die in the battlefield, and after your dead you would go to heaven.
Heaven was an eternal battlefield where you would fight to dead every day, have great parties in the night and then fight again the day after… forever and ever. That was heaven!.. 🙂
Hell on the other hand was haunted by the restless souls of all the cowards on earth. They were wandering unhappy around in the darkness forever… An unimaginable scary place! One would end up in hell for: either dying by being stabbed in the back (=running away form the battlefield) or dying of age.
Quite different from the christian message!
On Iceland the conversion into christianity was the result of a national vote. The critical argument was, that the “blood revenge” tradition of the old religion fed on itself in a vicious circle, causing considerable losses of human lifes. The christian message of “forgiving the one that you hate the most” must have been a real bitter pill to swallow at that time, but so the destructive circle of retaliations could stop.
I wrote this out of memory from what I have read and been told from eg. my grandmother, so it may not all be precise and correct
Best regards, Anne, Dane.
Hm, this comment is quite excessive for a comment… Hope it’s ok. I have been thinking about the issue for a while and when I saw this discussion it just came all out I guess…
I don’t mind the long comment at all, Anne. Thanks for stopping by — I found what you had to say very interesting indeed.
Thank you 🙂
Regards, Anne
Ps. I like this blog. I might link to it from my blog, if it is okay?