| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fredric L. Rice" |
| Date: |
16 Dec 2004 09:12:07 PM |
| Object: |
Christ's moral values would be condemned by the GOP |
Christ's moral values would be condemned by the GOP
December 16
By Randolph T. Holhut
DUMMERSTON, Vt. - What does the term "moral values" really mean?
Does it mean opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage and "filth" in
popular culture? Or does it mean sticking up for social and economic
justice?
Sex and economics always seem to be the divide on morality. There will
always be people who fit into H.L. Mencken's definition of puritanism: "The
haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." But the people who go
into conniptions over sex don't seem to be as upset when you point out to
them that the gap between rich and poor in the United States is now the
widest it has been since the 1920s.
The question that needs to be asked is whether we allow "moral values" to
be defined as concern about taking care of those that Jesus called "the
least of my brothers" or merely concern about all things gonadal?
I come down on the side of the former. I am no longer a practicing
Catholic, but I was profoundly influenced by the church's clear advocacy of
social justice. Perhaps I was lucky to have been part of the church during
the years immediately after Vatican II when Catholicism was at its most
vibrant, and lucky to have been in a parish where the priests weren't
hard-line conservatives. But I don't recall ever hearing anything from
Leviticus at Sunday Mass. and very little of the wiggier books of the Old
Testament. It was the New Testament that was emphasized. It was things like
Chapter 25 of the Gospel of St. Matthew, and the words Jesus said in
describing how God would ultimately judge us, that ultimately stuck with
me:
"For I was hungry and you gave me food...I was a stranger
and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was
sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you
visited me. ... Truly I tell you, just as you did it to
the least of these, my brothers, you have done it for me."
The New Testament is filled with examples of Jesus talking about economic
justice and how the most important ethical/religious test is how we treat
the least of our brothers. I don't think Jesus would be too happy looking
at George W. Bush's America.
Remember during the 2000 campaign when Bush said Jesus Christ was his chief
political influence? When you look at the things Bush has done as
president, you can see how empty that claim is.
It was Jesus who said that "it was easier for a camel to go through the eye
of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" and deemed
"the love of money" as "the root of all evil."
It was Jesus who tossed the moneychangers out of the temple, and flatly
said that one "cannot serve both God and Mammon."
It was Jesus who turned a few loaves and fishes into enough food to feed
the multitude who gathered to hear him preach him the Sea of Galilee, and
didn't care who got fed.
It was Jesus who warned about the people who make a big show of their faith
on Sunday morning and are less than godly the rest of the week. "Beware of
practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them," warned
Jesus.
When you strip the teachings of Christ down to the essentials, they are
about love for your fellow man and about an active display of that love.
That is precisely what is lacking from the version of Christianity that
currently controls the Republican Party,
It's bad enough that groups like radical cleric James Dobson's Focus on the
Family are trying to push their version of morality onto the nation. It's
even worse when they are trying to push their economic beliefs, too.
"Taxing the rich is such a negative approach," Charles Jarvis, a former
Reagan administration official who now is executive vice president of Focus
on the Family, recently told the San Francisco Chronicle. "The question
(social justice activists) should be asking is what creates economic
well-being."
The answer to Jarvis' question, in the view of the supply-side Christians,
is more tax cuts for the wealthy, privatization of Social Security and the
elimination of nearly all social welfare programs. Their free- market
version of Christianity wants to the rich to be richer, and never mind
pointing out that trickle down economics never works.
This isn't about Christianity. It seems to be the same old reverse Robin
Hood scam that the Republican Party is so good at. For all the talk about
the rise of the "moral values" voter, one of the best indicators of whether
you voted Republican in 2004 was not how often you go to church but how
much money you make.
Political scientist and blogger Phil Klinkler was cited in The Village
Voice last month offering these choice statistics: in the 2004 election, 58
percent of folks making more than $100,000 a year voted for Bush, compared
to 54 percent in 2000. This income group made up 18 percent of the
electorate in 2004, up from 15 percent in 2000. By comparison, Bush got
roughly the same amount of votes from heavy churchgoers (59 percent in
2000, 61 percent in 2004) with roughly the same turnout (42 percent in
2000, 41 percent in 2004).
All the constant nattering about morals does is obscure the real deal:
Republicans have succeeded in replacing the words "conservative ideology"
(or "class warfare," if you prefer) with the term "moral values."
"They (the GOP) have reworked the political calculus so thoroughly that
liberal definitions of what is or isn't a moral value don't count,"
concluded Rick Perlstein in The Village Voice last month. "It's as if
liberals didn't have any values at all."
And it worked. People voted for Bush because they believed he shared their
values. Even though the winning margin was apparently provided by the
people who believed they would benefit economically from four more years of
Bush, the corporate press and the Democratic Party establishment continues
to believe the so-called "values voter" made the difference.
If there was a real push for moral values, George W. Bush wouldn't be
president. The real value that Bush and his staunchest supporters seem to
believe in is as long as someone other than them gets screwed, all their
policies are good. Let Social Security be destroyed. Let the poor pay more
taxes. Let some other family's son get blown to bits in Iraq. Love,
tolerance and helping your neighbor is a sucker's game. Acquiring and
maintaining power is all that matters.
That President Bush can wrap the most reactionary policies in American
history in the cloak of Christianity is a perversion of the central tenets
of that faith. That he can get away with it is even worse.
Randolph T. Holhut has been a journalist in New England for more than 20
years. He edited "The George Seldes Reader" (Barricade Books).
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=19116
---
Stop Elmer Fudd web site: http://www.ElmerFudd.US/
Covert text file server: http://www.notserver.com/
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
