Disclaimer

Is the Term “Right-Wing Christian” an Oxymoron?

July 9th, 2012 | Posted by Rich in Blog | Featured - ()

by Rich Abete


In some states, Evangelical Christians comprise more than 50% of the Republican electorate. In addition, the Republican electorate is, in 2012, almost exclusively right-wing in ideology. It is therefore accurate to say that generally, right-wing Christians make up the majority of Republican voters. The question is, “Is the term or the notion of a right-wing Christian an oxymoron, either literally or essentially?” Put in another way, is saying the term right-wing Christian tantamount to saying something like “gay Nascar?” Alright, alright, give me a break! Of course there are gay folks who enjoy and even participate in that predominantly red-neck, macho sport, but you get my point, right? Would it have been more accessible to have said, “Straight Judy Garland fan”(for those still scratching their heads, Judy Garland is a gay icon — I don’t get that either)?  To clarify, my point is this: the words right-wing and Christian are often mistakenly juxtaposed, for few things are more poorly matched or antithetical.

To be clear, I do not pretend to be a biblical scholar or a theologian, but I am more than passively acquainted with those all important words in red. In addition, I am a politico-phile and on occasion have a more than pedestrian command of the English language. So let’s just say this: At least Ibelieve that I have an informed opinion on this rather touchy topic. You may agree or disagree… and you may have clarity of thought or be defensively deluded. That’s your business.

Let us review some facts (even though they will be dismissed by right-wingers as having a liberalbias). First, let’s see what an objective source says about the two terms we often hear together… mistakenly, in my opinion. According to Dictionary.com, “right-wing” means conservative, which in turn means: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones and to limit change. As evidenced by their behavior of late (like the past 32 years, for instance), we can safely characterize right-wing as the latter definition. When considering Rick Santorum’s desire to restore the tradition of clubbing your woman and dragging her into your double-wide cave if she gets uppity or demands too many rights, this makes perfect sense. To further define right-wing in the context of today’s political environment, we might consider its antonym, liberal (a word, incidentally, that would nicely precede the word Christian,which means free from narrow prejudice and bigotry.  On the political continuum of communist to fascist, right-wing or conservative and liberal are indeed opposite each other.

According, again, to Dictionary.com, the word Christian means: of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or his teachings.  Ah-ha! Therein lies the rub: Jesus’ teachings, including his words and actions, were incontrovertibly liberal. Sure, RWC’s will vehemently negate that fact, but I would argue that being a follower of Christ, one who is Christian in more than name, would likely entail the belief that the words in red do not lie.

Again, I am no authority on Jesus, but what I do know is that it takes but a brief moment of studying the New Testament to discover that Jesus taught and demonstrated love, tolerance, compassion, charity, truth, generosity… and free universal healthcare ;) . And he specifically engendered all these wonderful traits when addressing the least among us, or those in need. Furthermore, he made it crystal clear that paying one’s fair share of taxes is essential for civil society (…render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…) and didn’t consider taxation a form of state-sponsored theft as do more and more on the far right. Considering these things, it only follows that utilizing tax revenue to administer to the sick, elderly and poor (the least among us) is the Christian thing to do.

Jesus also taught that is it is essential to welcome foreigners into your country and home, and treat them with the utmost respect, generosity and kindness. Consider the plethora of mean-spirited and draconian anti-immigration measures that have been proposed by Republican governors (again, a majority of whom are Christian) in the last few years. Jesus healed the sick and fed the poor, yet the Republicans have traditionally opposed Medicare and Food Stamp programs that do just that, and have proposed to slash funding for such in the recent House GOP budget. Jesus preached equality among men and women, yet the right-wing has historically sought to suppress the rights of all who are not white males, and has of late launched a soft war on women’s rights to reproductive healthcare. Jesus taught peace, yet most right-wing Christians are militaristic hawks. He warned against worldly riches, yet the GOP seems to put the pursuit of mammon above much else.  And the list goes on…

Here’s where RWC’s implore that they give to charity and give to their churches that in turn administer to the poor and needy. They insist that Jesus meant for individuals, families and churches alone to ameliorate the suffering of those in need. The problem with that sentiment is, Jesus made no such distinction. It would seem that achieving the objective is what is important, not necessarily the means. And while it is admirable, worthwhile and necessary for individuals, families and churches to perform such functions, there is infinitely more need than there is capability from such sources. The government is the only entity with the ability to adequately address the existing need in this country. If taxes are OK, then what’s wrong with helping folks in need with the proceeds? Answer: Nothing.

This is the point in the debate when RWC’s call all liberals baby killers. That, of course, is a non sequitir and a ridiculous assertion to boot….and clearly for another post!   

 

, , , , ,

HOTM: Willard Mitt Romney

May 30th, 2012 | Posted by Rich in Blog | HOTW - ()

by Rich Abete

In our previous incarnation as JWAD, we had a similar feature which highlighted GOP hypocrisy which was called Hypocrite of the Week. As one can easily imagine, the Republican presidential primary season provided endless fodder for our posts. In fact, every major candidate running earned the title HOTW over a several month period, with one glaring exception: Mitt Romney. The reason Mr. Romney was excluded from the fun certainly wasn’t because he was not a hypocrite. Apparently, it was just a matter of saving the best for last. Now that he has the Republican nomination in the bag, it’s even more urgent that folks realize what a pathological hypocrite he actually is.  With that, I give you Mitt Romney, Hypocrite of the Month.

According to Dictionary.com, hypocrite is defined thusly:

hyp·o·crite

[hip-uh-krit]

noun

1.  a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2.  a person who feigns some undesirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

According to the above definition, Mr. Romney is such a perfect hypocrite that his picture, as they say, should appear next to the word in the dictionary. It seems that just about every position that he has stated publicly, belies or contradicts a position he publicly held previously. There is a difference between one’s opinions evolving around an issue and straight up pandering. As I have previously written, Mr. Romney is a political shape-shifter and a chameleon (sans the darting tongue). How can one lead without consistent public beliefs, never mind core convictions?

Let’s begin with an obvious example: Mr. Romney’s position on Universal Healthcare and the so-called individual mandate. While the governor of Massachusetts only a few short years ago (2003-2007), he signed into law a version of market-based (no, not socialism) universal healthcare coverage that included what has now become anathema in GOP politics, the individual mandate.  Mr. Romney (and many Republicans) was as recently as a 2009 op-ed piece an enthusiastic proponent of the law and the mandate…that is, until President Obama lifted the Romney plan to use as a blue-print for the Affordable Care Act (incidentally, also market based and not socialism) and signed it into law.  Mr. Romney has now made his pledge to “repeal Obama Care” a central theme in his campaign.

Mr. Romney once advocated a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but he lurched so far to the right to pander to the rabidly right-wing Republican primary electorate that he put his fellow xenophobes…um…Republicans, to shame.  He actually strayed so far from what had been his consistently moderate view on immigration, to actually advocating self-deportation of the more than 12 million folks that are in the U.S. illegally.

On the issue of climate change, the former governor of Massachusetts once espoused a mainstream and commonly held view that man was contributing to the change in climate, once popularly referred to as global warming. He probably arrived at this reasonable assumption based on the conclusions of 98% of climate change scientists. However, once stepping into to world of Republican primary politics, Mr. Romney quickly adopted the position that climate change science is just theory and may even be a hoax. His 2011-2012 primary opponents, of course, all concurred.

In 2002 while campaigning to be governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney stated, “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard.” In order to be a viable presidential candidate for the Republican Party and appeal to the Republican electorate, he is now predictably ardently Pro-Life and believes that abortion should be illegal.  Unlike many in his party, however, Mr. Romney does acknowledge that there should be an exception for rape and incest victims who become pregnant.

Because Mr. Romney has been lately engaged in a knock-down, drag-out Republican primary battle with veritably every one of his right-wing GOP opponents nipping his heels at one time or another, the public positions of the former moderate governor have all predictably lurched far to the right as outlined above. The question becomes, did he hypocritically pander to become the governor of the bluest of blue liberal states in 20002-2003 and lie about his personal beliefs to get elected, or has the real hypocrisy taken place in his five year quest to reside at Washington’s most exclusive address? Perhaps not even Mr. Romney knows what he truly believes anymore. I suppose we’ll never find out unless…I can’t even bring myself to write it.  I’ll leave it at this: Get out and vote in November!

 

 

, , , ,

HOTW # 10: Rand Paul “Like Father, Like Son”

January 28th, 2012 | Posted by Rich in Blog | HOTW - ()

(by Rich Abete)

I’ve been reading lately that Ron Paul’s current Presidential bid might just be all about paving the way for his son, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in 2016.  That is a truly frightening proposition. What makes the phrase President Rand Paul more disturbing than President Ron Paul is only one thing: plausibility. Unlike his father, Rand Paul is young, articulate, handsome, unburdened by a long record or racist newsletters, and, most importantly, not an overt wacko. In other words, he’s electable. As such, when a glaring example of Rand’s hypocrisy was reported on Monday, it became incumbent upon me to perform my civic duty and deem him our new Hypocrite of the Week (HOTW).   

They say, “The fruit doesn’t fall very far from the tree.”  Whether it be nature or nurture at work, the old adage typically has some validity. In the case of Senator Paul, he and his father, Presidential hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), can both be described as, among other things, arrant hypocrites (see HOTW#7: Deconstructing the Constructionist: Ron Paul http://jwad.org/2011/12/hotw_ron-paul/). As is the case with some libertarians, virtually all small government conservatives and all right-wing Christian leaders, “keeping the government out of your personal business” is just a hackneyed platitude that is tossed quickly out the window once your business gets really personal.

For instance, on Monday, Paul the Younger, a self-described libertarian, was detained when refusing to comply with a TSA pat-down, according to a Tweet by his father that read, “My son @SenRandPaul being detained by TSA for refusing full body pat-down after anomaly in body scanner in Nashville. More details coming.”  To be fair, the pat-downs are more than a little intrusive and Mr. Paul’s refusal to comply is perfectly congruent with his libertarian ideology that rejects government intrusion in personal business and infringements on civil liberties. What’s ironically disturbing in this case, is that Dr. Paul was en route to Washington to speak at a huge Right to Life rally, an anti-choice organization whose singular objective is to cause the ultimate intrusion into the personal lives of women and families.

Leading up to Dr. Paul’s successful Senate bid in 2010, many inconsistencies in his libertarian positions were identified that tainted his supposed ideological purity. For instance, while repeatedly decrying “government handouts” and “governmental intrusion in health care,” it was revealed that he had collected perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars from Medicaid and Medicare, programs he frequently derided.

More recently, in May of last year, Dr. Paul temporarily blocked the renewal of the The Patriot Act to add amendments that critics said weakened the law, but civil libertarians believed necessary to relieve some of the inherent infringements upon civil liberties contained in the law.  He said it was worth potentially putting the nation at risk to stop the government from “blatantly ignoring the Constitution.” But, later that day… when appearing on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News, the good doctor proposed a far more breathtaking infringement on civil liberties and trampling of the First Amendment, that, to the point, blatantly ignored the Constitution.  Specifically, Dr. Paul said that individuals attending radical political speeches should be thrown in jail!  Here is the text from the interview:

DR. PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.

What do you call it again when you preach one thing and practice another?  Oh yeah…Duh!

, , , , , , ,