jump to navigation

Leftists hijacking Jesus September 25, 2011

Posted by intellectualgridiron in Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

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.

Important Perspectives on “Overpopulation” July 20, 2011

Posted by intellectualgridiron in Politics.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe has just written an excellent piece in which he once again debunks the modern-day Multhusians.  The term, in case the dear reader is unaware, is rooted in Thomas Malthus, the 18th Century doomsayer who was famous for warning everybody who would listen that population growth would eventually outstrip the food supply.  Yet, as Jacoby points out, the world’s population has grown almost sevenfold in the past 200 years, yet people today, on average, have a higher level of education, are better-fed, more productive, and lead more comfortable lives than ever before.

On a micro-level, Jacoby begins the article with the glorious news that David and Victoria Beckham have just welcomed their fourth child into the world.  The news is glorious in that two famous people with very good genetics are passing those good genes on for future generations to enjoy.  Moreover, the Bible, particularly the book of Genesis, teaches us that babies are a blessing.  But the usual, if not insane, voices have criticized the happy couple on the supposed grounds that they are being “environmentally irresponsible.”  The dirty little secret of such critics, though, is that they reject Biblical teachings, and instead espouse an Earth-worshipping paganism, in direct violation of Commandment No. 1.

This is insane on two levels.  Mark Steyn has pointed out that for every “eco-abortion” done in England or Germany, that is just one more kid that people will have in Yemen or Somalia.  Worse yet, those who advocate “eco-abortions” are, in essence, advocating economic stagnation.  Economic growth and population growth are closely linked — indeed, they are practically one and the same.  Given, an increasing population means an increasing amount of people who need jobs in order to make a living.  What fuels job growth is demand for productivity — demand that will never materialize if the population is not big enough to support it.  Is it just me, or do most of these zero-population advocates already have a decent net worth that would insulate them from the reality that many of us have to contend with?  The astutue analyst Michael Barone said it best:

“Now some people say that low population growth is desirable. The argument goes that it reduces environmental damage and prevents the visual blight of sprawl.  But states and nations with slow growth end up with aging populations and not enough people of working age to generate an economy capable of supporting them in the style to which they’ve grown accustomed.  Slow growth is nice if you’ve got a good-sized trust fund and some nice acreage in a place like Aspen. But it reduces opportunity for those who don’t start off with such advantages to move upward on the economic ladder.”

The reason that yours truly refuses to succumb to the “overpopulation” hysteria is that all the empirical evidence tells me that there is no such thing.  Dr. Thomas Sowell said it best:

“The next time someone tries to sell overpopulation hysteria, ask them to name just one country that had a higher standard of living when its population was half of what it is today.”

Kudos to the Beckhams, not only for passing on their good genes, but also for doing their part in helping to raise the world’s standard of living.