Leftists hijacking Jesus September 25, 2011

This photo was taken at an Anti-Tea Party rally.  Apparently there are a lot of people out there that think taxes are not high enough, and that there is not enough government intrusion and regulation in our lives.  But all sarcasm aside, this protest sign is disingenuous on a host of levels.  Start with the “brown-skinned” premise.  Was he as light-skinned as northern Europeans and their descendants in the western and southern hemispheres?  Most likely not.  But the fact that Jesus and was a semite does not make him “brown-skinned,” especially not compared to those of sub-Saharan African ancestry.   Sorry, but those are the facts.

The “free health care” angle is also disingenuous.  Yes, Jesus cared for people; the New Testament has many wonderful accounts of Jesus healing the sick, helping the crippled walk and helping the blind see.  But He did those things:  he did not farm it out to somebody else, and did not take credit for what others did.  Those who advocate nationalized healthcare do so mostly on the grounds of “compassion,” but like other government programs in the name of such “compassion,” such advocates over look the obvious fact that it is very easy to be “compassionate” when you are doing so with other people’s money.  Jesus did not need other people’s money to administer his own free health care.  Rather, Christ’s very actions demonstrate the effectiveness of do-it-yourself conservatism.

Saving the best for last, it is about time somebody tackled this undue association of “socialism” with Our Lord and Savior.  Christ was a Jew, by his own admission.  As a practicing Jew, he was expected to abide by the Ten Commandments — they were handed down by His father, after all.  Commandment No. 8 could not be simpler:  Thou shalt not steal.  When a thief violates this commandment he (or she) is essentially redistributing wealth/income.  The only difference between what a thief does and what governments do in the name of wealth redistribution (which, hello, is what socialism — and liberalism —  is all about) is merely a matter of legality.  When Jesus suggested that the wealthy ought to sell their possessions and give the bulk of those proceeds to help the poor, he never mentioned a thing about the wealthy being forced to give up their wealth.  If they were/are to do so, they do so on their own accord, out of their own free will.  To force them by any means would be to violate our Heavenly Father’s rule of allowing people to exercise their free will, which in itself is a reminder that our status as freeborn citizens is a birthright given by our Lord.

The irony in all of this is that many people who advocate big government liberalism are already wealthy, and are well-aware that government will not tax their wealth, only their income (which, in many of their cases, is practically nil).  Taxing income is the biggest entry barrier towards other people attaining their own wealth.  In addition to this blatant phoniness, they enlist the help of liberals who are not wealthy by playing on their half-baked ideas of Christianity, while ignoring the faith’s true message.

The above sign might make for a clever sound bite, but it remains an obfuscation of the fact that Christianity and liberalism/socialism are two opposite things, and you cannot adhere to both at the same time, for doing so would be in violation of Commandment Number One.  Simply put, those who worship the small “g” (government) violate that commandment handed down by the big “G” (that would be God).

What is truly interesting is that the very same folks who try to hijack Jesus into their secularist ideology make up the very same factions who attempt to surpress Christianity in the public square at every opportunity.  This is yet another example of how the respective religion and ideology are, in the end, very much opposed to one-another as Doug Giles not-so-subtly points out.

While I’m at it, what mainstream conservative has been referring to B. Hussein Obama as a “brown-skinned, anti-war socialist” anyhow?  Do I detect yet another strawman argument from the left?  Note to libs:  that was a rhetorical question.