Shorter Jason: Jesus loves you. Well, OK, not you poor people. He doesn't give a fuck about you. Losers.
AFTERSNARK: Well, you just knew Jason would have to weigh in with something suitably idiotic, like being upset with the idea of those poor folks getting "endless amounts of money" to live on. So let's see just how compassionate conservatism was going to lend a hand, shall we?
First, we find some members of the New Orleans City Council who might as well be channeling Jason himself:
New Orleans doesn't want its poorest residents back — unless they agree to work.
That was the message from three New Orleans City Council members who said government programs have "pampered" the city's residents for too long.
And if they agree to work? No problem -- Jason's ideological buddies will fuck them over there as well:
President Bush yesterday suspended application of the federal law governing workers' pay on federal contracts in the Hurricane Katrina-damaged areas of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The action infuriated labor leaders and their Democratic supporters in Congress, who said it will lower wages and make it harder for union contractors to win bids...
Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, accused Bush of "using the devastation of Hurricane Katrina to cut the wages of people desperately trying to rebuild their lives and their communities."
Miller said: "In New Orleans, where a quarter of the city was poor, the prevailing wage for construction labor is about $9 per hour, according to the Department of Labor. In effect, President Bush is saying that people should be paid less than $9 an hour to rebuild their communities."
How about that, Jason? First, you take people who never had much in the first place, and have them lose even that. Then you tell them they can't return home (if there's even a home to return to) unless they agree to work. And if they accept those terms, you pull the rug out from under them by cancelling the federal minimum wage guarantees so that wealthy corporations can exploit them with crap wages to get even wealthier.
And the amazing thing about all of that, Jason? None of it bothers you. Even a little bit. How Christian of you.
BY THE WAY, JASON, I love this challenge of yours in the comments section:
Gee, CC, perhaps you could point out where in the Bible it states that the government should give endless amounts of money to people for them to live on.
Gosh, Jason, I don't know ... how about this from Matthew 5:42: "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
I think we've finally established that, between you and me, Jason, only one of us actually knows anything about Scripture and Christian compassion. And it's not you, is it?
23 comments:
Obviously you haven't been reading the southern GWB Bible.
“God helps those who help themselves.” Bush:14 2
http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html
edwin
Hmmm ... I never made it to the book of Bush. I always got tripped up by the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:40-42:
"And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
Fucking socialist.
Ok I'm on a roll...
Jesus of Nazareth Says, "Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you."
Jesus favors more handouts for welfare cheats.
Jesus of Nazareth Says, "Judge not, that you be not judged."
Jesus is soft on crime.
Jesus of Nazareth Says, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's."
Jesus will raise your taxes.
Jesus of Nazareth Says, "Do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the cheek, turn him the other."
Can we trust Jesus to fight the war on terror?
Jesus – Wrong on social services. Wrong on crime. Wrong on defense. Wrong for America.
I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message.
http://www2.warnerbros.com/madmagazine/files/onthestands/ots_446/jesus.html
(Originally from mad magazine.)
edwin
Gee, CC, perhaps you could point out where in the Bible it states that the government should give endless amounts of money to people for them to live on. As I said in my earlier post, the government is not a charity. I realize that leftists like yourself think it should be, but it's not. Living off the government is not going to motivate people to find work and housing. It's well past time for a lot of people to find those things. If they truly need additional help, there are plenty of charitable groups out there, and some of them probably can even help these people find jobs and housing.
You know, Jason, you're absolutely right. Enough of this charity bullshit. Let's start with these parasitic freeloaders:
As the big Mardi Gras weekend officially kicks off, some New Orleans police officers are learning they are no longer welcome on their cruise ship home.
FEMA says on Monday it gave officers who already have other housing, for instance FEMA trailers, 48 hours notice to get off the ship. The ship has to be entirely empty by March 1. But, the officers say that notice came a terribly busy time, with carnival parades, and they say they have trailers, but not power.
PANO President Lt. David Benelli was working the St. Charles Avenue parade route Thursday night. He said, "I'm working with a police officer down the street doing this parade. He was told that he has to get off the boat in 48 hours because he has a FEMA trailer. Now, when he told them I have a FEMA trailer, but I don't have electricity, that didn't matter, they still have to get off the boat in 48 hours. This is an absolute outrage."
Fuckin' A, dude. Those people have jobs, and they have trailers and are they happy? Fuck, no, now they want power. Ungrateful assholes, the lot of them. You give a cop a FEMA trailer, and he just wants more.
What can you do, eh, Jason? Some people are just never happy, are they? Lazy fucks.
And why should I care what the fuck is "said" where the hell in your freaking bible, Jason. You are a slave to lies passed down from way back. Grow up and think for yourself.
Perhaps you are unable...
Unfortunately, Jason/Jinx appears to have confused Right-Wing Biblical Political Ideology with being correct.
Gosh, Jason, I don't know ... how about this from Matthew 5:42: "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
That refers to individuals, CC, not governments.
You know jack squat about what the Bible says. All you know is a few out-of-context blurbs you picked up from skeptic websites.
What about people who are extremely poor or have some kind of permanent disability and were unable to relocate? They're stuck in one of those FEMA trailers with no relief in sight. The economic situation in Mississippi and NO is still unable to support the population; there are simply not enough jobs to go around.
It's a catch-22; they can't leave because they can't get a job and make money, and they can't get a job and make money because they can't leave.
Again...what of the disabled? If their aid is yanked what happens to them?
Should we just take our cue from Dickens; '...then let them die, and decrease the surplus population'?
hear, hear Shannon
"are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?"
Is Jinx not a tightfisted bastard? Is charity not a christian virtue?
what of the pararble of the man with two shirts?
thanks for the blogrolling CC
And, not surprisingly, I was more than happy to give Jason enough rope to hang himself, since he writes:
That refers to individuals, CC, not governments.
which clearly suggests, Jason, that you as an individual would have no trouble following Jesus' admonition in Matthew 5:42 to give to those who ask, is that right?
Is that right, Jason? Is that what you just said here? That, according to that bit of Scripture, you would, without hesitation, give to anyone who asks of you?
And notice that that verse says nothing about motivation, or need, or anything else. It talks simply of "asking."
So let's hear it, Jason. We're all waiting for your next excuse as to why that clear directive from Jesus doesn't apply to you, since we all know it won't.
There's a weaselly little excuse coming from you, Jason. There always is.
You know jack squat about what the Bible says. All you know is a few out-of-context blurbs you picked up from skeptic websites.
Okay Jason, please enlighten us. Just how, pray tell, is it invalid to interpret Matthew in the way that CC has? (Go nuts, feel free to refer to actual apologetics sites and real theology all you like)
Actually, if Jason wants to play this game, I'm going to ask him whether he agrees with a single verse of Scripture I'm about to reproduce.
If you read through this entire thread, it's obvious that Jason uses Scripture as the only rationale for his beliefs. If it's in Scripture, he claims to follow it (that is, of course, a ridiculous, bald-faced lie, but it's his claim).
If it's not in Scripture, then Jason sees no reason to follow it. So here's the verse, and I want to know whether Jason agress with it or not. No weaseling, no apologetics, a simple "yes" or "no":
Deut 21:18-21: If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
That's it, Jason, absolutely clear and unambiguous -- a rebellious son shall be taken to the gate of the town and stoned to death. And the question here is simple: Do you agree with that or not?
Note: In order to clamp down on Jason's inevitable weaseling, I will simply delete any reply of his that does not consist of either the single word "Yes" or the single word "No." That's it, there are no other options.
Well, Jason? We're waiting.
*Crickets* ...
hello,
I just thought that I would have to weigh in on this debate, given that I was one of the people who attempted to post when Jason felt was a 'rude' comment on his blog. Apparently, if you merely disagree with him, it constitutes rude. Admittedly, however, I did at one point refer to him as a "cancer on Christianity," but I stand behind that.
I find it both interesting and funny that, instead of focusing on the main message of the New Testament, which is to love God and love your neighbour, he managed to find Paul's exhortations to the Thessalonians which seems to fit his argument.
I have become increasingly facinated with this idea of the Christian Right. As a former Christian (so yes, I know an awful lot about theology) in a non-US country, it had never even crossed my mind that Christianity could be a cause of the right. The very fabric of it, woven into it, is loving compassion particularly for those who have less than you.
Where is the logic in the Christian right, then? Is it the american hertiage of un-fun puritans that has created such a bizarre bastardization of a potentially positive religion?
Perhaps I should not get too worried about 'logic' and 'Christian Right' going hand-in-hand. Jason is a shining example of the kind of logic that guides this movement:
"Now, it is true that this passage is aimed primarily at Christians and specifically to the Thessalonians, but it is a teaching that is applicable to everyone."
Why is it applicable to everyone? If it is aimed at a particular group of people, why does it apply to everyone? OR, if this contextual comment DOES apply to everyone, then why this response by Jason:
"Matthew 5:42: "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
That refers to individuals, CC, not governments."
So, if something that refers to a specific group refers to everyone, does it logically follow that something that refers to individuals does not refer to individuals that make up a governing body?
But of course, it does not matter because I am sure I will be charged with the fact that
I "know jack squat about what the Bible says. All [I] know is a few out-of-context blurbs you picked up from skeptic websites."
It's true. My biblical knowledge comes not from 6 years of immersed study of that particular document, but rather websites, and I am sure everyone else's does as well.
The ultimate insult/dismissal by Jason: "I know more than you do, nah nah, nah." Explain away this one, Jason.
As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, there really is no intellectual debate happening here. Rather, there's Jason getting slapped stupid without even realizing it, using incredibly lame Christian apologetics that even a moderately intelligent 12-year-old would realize were embarrassingly feeble.
The analogy I've used before that seems to fit best can be found here. I'm sure I don't have to explain it to you.
And, so far, no "Yes" or "No" reply from Jason. I imagine he's huddling with all the rest of his Christopathic friends over at Theology Web, trying to come up with a suitably zippy comeback which I will, of course, delete if it consists of anything but one of the words "Yes" or "No."
This really is too easy.
Christofascists, I call them
We use to talk about "Christian Love".
Wasn't it because the government let the levees disintegrate in the first place that the damage was as extensive as it was?
It is easy to make judgements from our easy chairs. No amount of government help will give these people back what they had. Jason should try spending a few months in their shoes instead of throwing a few bucks their way.
By the way Katrina, very eloquently put.
Well, I guess we better be patient waiting for Jason to get back to us with his theological musings.
Apparently, Jason's taking some time off from denigrating black people he doesn't know to weep quietly and pray fervently for white people he doesn't know.
No problems, Jason, we'll leave the porch light on here for you.
Whoops, that was Jason who, predictably, went on and on about how he just couldn't squeeze answering a "Yes" or "No" question into his busy schedule.
Maybe next time.
It really was hard to delete that last comment of Jason's since it was the most delightfully splendid example of his complete lunacy but I did say I was going to remove anything that didn't correspond to a simple yes or no answer to my earlier question so, ethically, I really had no choice, did I?
However, I was amused by this statement of his in that comment, which I will happily share:
I don't have time to sit around all day everyday and answer your inane and ignorant posts about Christians, Christianity and the Bible.
Apparently, though, Jason does have time to sit around "all day and everyday" and leave idiotic comments.
In short, he can dish it out but he can't take it. Fucking pussy.
The long and short of it is that Jason can't back up what he claims Christianity means.
It's called 'argument by assertion'. He can assert whatever he likes all day. But he sadly can't back it up with anything concrete.
Post a Comment