Thursday, January 26, 2017

Jesus Christ Superstar

"You seem to forget this," is how I started my comment at a friend's Facebook post.  She is a diehard pacifist religious-left person.  Like me, she too is trying to make sense of how the country could have elected a horrible human being as the president.  Unlike me, she is also trying to understand how Christians could have voted for the orange monster.

(Of course, as a good Christian, she doesn't call him names, unlike me who chooses to use words and phrases like: Orange Monster, Demagogue, Fuhrer, Maniac, Tyrant, Horrible Human Being, Asshole, and sometimes those in combinatons.)

I continued with my comment, by quoting from a Pew report:
Those who supported Republican candidates in recent elections, such as white born-again or evangelical Christians and white Catholics, strongly supported Donald Trump
The white/born-again evangelicals voted in a higher percentage for trump than for Romney or McCain or Bush.  Imagine that!


Which means only one thing: Jesus and his teachings didn't stop his followers from voting for a horrible human being!!!  His greatest hits were immaterial to the bible-thumping moralizers?

So, why did the bible-thumpers vote for the fuhrer despite his extensive rap-sheet?  Even before the elections, the NY Times' religious-conservative columnist, Ross Douthat, provided a defense:
Tax rates go up and down, regulations come and go, but every abortion is a unique human life snuffed out forever. Hillary Clinton’s support for legal abortion at every stage of pregnancy may not be a sufficient reason to hand the Oval Office to a man like Donald Trump; I think that it is not. But given pro-life premises, it is a far more compelling reason than the candidates’s differences on tax policy or education or family leave.
And that’s without getting into the legal and regulatory pressure that a Clinton administration could bring to bear on conservative religious institutions, the various means that liberal legal minds are entertaining to clamp down on religious dissent from social liberalism’s orthodoxies. Asking Christian conservatives to accept a Clinton presidency is asking them to cooperate not only with pro-abortion policy-making, but also their own legal-cultural isolation. If you can’t see why some people in that situation might persuade themselves that Trump would be the lesser evil, you need to work harder to imagine yourself in someone else’s shoes.
I.e., the fertilized egg that might be prevented from entering this world a baby is infinitely valuable, which means that the vote went for the candidate who refused to answer questions on whether his past girlfriends or wives have had abortions.
Not accepting anything other than marriage as between a man and a woman was so important that they voted for a candidate who is on his third marriage, and has had relationships with several women.
...
The list of glaring contradictions is endless.

I suppose the religious-right is delighted with the awesome good White Christian, with spotless family values, as the president, after eight tyrannical years under that lying Kenyan-born Muslim who had four wives!

Sad!!!


2 comments:

Ramesh said...

Just goes to show that the fig leaf of religious beliefs in just a fig leaf. They voted in direct contradiction to their beliefs.

But I want to raise issue with you on the colourful adjectives you have listed for your lord and master. The list has one oddity - fuhrer. I know you use it in the context of Hitler, but its simply a generic word for leader in German. A better choice would be Duce, which means the same in Italian, but is now almost exclusively associated with Mussolini.


Bo "alt-truths" is this space please :)

Sriram Khé said...

My religious-left friend/neighbor engaged with me on this topic, and she wants me (and you) to know that Christians like her are simply disgusted at how the religious-right have hijacked Jesus and his teachings ...

The model for her is this group: https://shar.es/1OIvVQ

Posts popular the last 30 days