Sunday, February 11th, 2007...10:44 pm
Ditto Heads in Drag
Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggert - these TV preachers have been a despicable lot. But not for the reasons many on the left think. These men were ordained as Christian ministers, and as such cannot be faulted for upholding the standards of that faith. What kind of freedom is a freedom to practice a religion - but only if one doesn’t take it seriously?
What is despicable about such men is that they cannot or will not admit to the fact that they are being taken for fools, or at least the parishoners they represent. They continue to shill for the current administration and for the war in Iraq, even when the reason for it changed seemingly every day as the lies were exposed one by one.
Soren Kierkegaard pointed to the essential flaw in democracy as being its incapacity for repentance. We would never trust a person who can never admit when they are wrong. Why do we accept such behavior from the state?
Berdyaev points out in Slavery and Freedom the incongruity between the immoral actions we honor in the state yet would never condone in an individual person. Watching the likes of Robertson et al shill for a regime that despises them, as opposed to standing as a prophetic voice for justice and truth is what turns our stomach.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Does anyone think that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Bishop Spong inhabit a higher moral plane than Pat, Jerry, and Jimmy? How so? Does anyone believe these men take anything about the religion they profess to represent seriously? Of course not. They don’t even make a pretense.
So before we have to endure another whiny rant about how “scary” some neutered little sychophant Bush shill is, would someone please take a time out? Get real.
We didn’t turn the world upside down to create a bunch of ditto heads in drag.
3 Comments
February 13th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Very appropriate subject. These phonies[Biblical harlots] and their false doctrines[Biblical fornications] ie: the rapture must be exposed and refuted by using the Bible. They, in Biblical terms, agents of the anti-christ. The anti-christ is not against Christ,overtly, but is instead of Christ and posing as christ. They are an the elements of the MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL-CONGRESS-CHURCHIANITY RELIGIONIST-COMPLEX, the beast. The anti-christ uses the Bible extensively with false doctrines which are described in the Bible[kjv] as fornications because and the preachers of these fornications are described as being Biblical harlots.Those congregations where these blasphemy’s occur are gathering places of Satan where they and their families are abused and insulted by the preachers with foul accusatory names. Then these preacher begs for donation from those whom he has just insulted, abused and delivered false doctrines AND THOSE FOOLS WHO WERE INSULTED, ABUSED AND LIED TO, GIVE THEM MONEY. This dynamic can be seen on TV the televangelists.Now if a political operative[Rove, Norquist] observes the televangelists they can easily conclude they are phonies and that their congregations are fools, ripe for political manipulation through bribery of the preachers.This is all for now.
May 5th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I’m afraid I must disagree with your contention that “These men were ordained as Christian ministers, and as such cannot be faulted for upholding the standards of that faith.”, since their actions do not appear to reflect in any way the doctrine espoused by the christian prophet, Jesus of Nazareth.
While they may uphold the current standards of those who claim to subscribe to that faith, since they themselves are principally responsible for crafting the current version of said religion, that is obviously circular reasoning.
Indeed, even a cursory glance at the ‘new testament’ (the ‘old testament’ being a somewhat modified version of the torah) shows a “messiah” of the most flamingly liberal variety, who claims that rich men cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (Robertson, Falwell et al are nearly multimillionaires), divides the food of a few wealthy merchants among a teeming mass of starving people (biblical-era progressive taxation), urges his followers to Not fight back against their enemies (’turn your other cheek to them’) and rails against hypocrisy over all.
And he says nothing about abortion or homosexuality; not a (expletive deleted - ed.) thing.
In light of the passivist, quasi-socialistic strain of philosophy espoused by the christian prophet jesus, it is totally appropriate to judge those who claim to espouse this doctrine by the standards explicitly set down by their own prophet.
Doing so shows Messrs Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Haggard etc. to be judgmental, militant hypocrites who do not reflect the doctrine that they claim to hold dear at all, in fact quite the opposite. They espouse state sponsored aggression (we call it pre-emptive war these days), the “supreme international crime” of Nuremberg, and validate and support the fascistic architects of said crime.
They are not innocent dupes, they are as cynical and murderous as the monsters they have helped to elect. To claim that they innocently support the party that they believe most represents their ‘christian’ interests is to turn a blind eye to the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:03 am
Scipio,
The point wasn’t that Robertson et al are innocent in their support of the regime, but rather that they are complicit with it by not holding it to the standards of the Christian faith.
We aren’t here to argue theology with anyone, as there are plenty of places for that. But your interpretation certainly doesn’t fit orthodox Christian doctrine by any stretch of the imagination.
Within the bounds of orthodox Christian theology, these preachers are certainly within their rights to oppose and condemn homosexuality and abortion. If liberals believe in freedom of speech and religion, they have to recognize that. Period.
Now, the way they go about it may be vicious or wrong-headed. It may be lacking in true compassion or wisdom. And they may be complete hypocrites about it.
The true Christian argument against homosexuality and abortion boils down to the fact that people were made to be something higher. Slavery to sexuality (and there are many “heterosexual” varieties of such) is still slavery, and not what we were made for. This is the perspective Berdyaev would take. We were made for freedom, not slavery, and the crass outward forms that are much lamented are actually lesser than the inward forms, from a Christian standpoint. Freedom begins in the heart, not by some governmental decree or social standard.
Our goal is to encourage serious thought and discussion about the future of true liberalism, not silly right or left wing chest pounding and ranting. Such involves looking for the highest, not the lowest, in opposing viewpoints.
Leave a Reply