logictortured.com Blog

Why aren’t the Religious Right Jewish?

September 18, 2009 on 10:33 pm | In Logic, Religion | No Comments

I recently wrote about how the Religious Right are not actually pro-life, but are merely pro-rule. I.e., members of the Religious Right put the rules of the Old Testament above any life.

A friend commented essentially asking why members of the Religious Right ignore the New Testament. You know, all of that wimpy-hippie-love crap that Jesus was alleged to have said, such as “it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.”

I’ve noticed that Christianity is at a fork in the road. Right now there is a huge division between how Whites and Blacks perceive and practice Christianity.

White Christianity is very rule driven and is anchored in the Old Testament. On the other hand, Black Christianity is anchored in the New Testament and is based on forgiveness and second chances.

The question must be asked, if the Religious Right loves the Old Testament so much, why aren’t they Jewish?

In thinking about that question it’s quite clear that Jesus offers one thing Judaism does not. Forgiveness? Nope. Eternal salvation? Nope.

Jesus offers judgment. I.e., an enforcer of Judaism’s vast rules.

To put it another way, Judaism isn’t rule driven enough. Sure the rules are great and all, but how come there’s never a cop around when you need someone to enforce those rules? Enter Jesus.

This can be seen in Matthew, the earliest chapter of the New Testament. Matthew was selling Christianity to Jews. He did that by arguing that Christianity was actually more Jewish than Judaism.

The Jesus in Matthew says he will impose even stricter versions of Mosaic law. For example, in 5.21 Jesus broadens “Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment” to,

“But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.”

In 5.27 he broadens the rule against committing adultery to,

“anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

In 5.31 he takes the Mosaic rule about divorce that says, “‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce” and broadens it to,

“But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”

Basically, what Jesus was saying in Matthew was that the Jews were slacking off and he was the new Sheriff in town to make the rules tougher and ensure they were enforced. And anyone who fails to comply would spend an eternity in damnation.

Now that Jesus would be elected governor of Texas in a mother-fricken landslide!

Update – 03-15-10:

Amy Sullivan over at Time.com’s blog asks, “Why Does Glenn Beck Hate Jesus?” It’s not just Beck, it’s nearly all of the Right.

Are the Right really pro-life when they’re also against government healthcare?

September 17, 2009 on 7:10 pm | In Logic, Religion | 2 Comments

Some people find it odd that while most right-wingers are against abortion, they’re also in favor of the death penalty. To a lot of people, holding such simultaneous beliefs would be contradictory. However, to a Christian such beliefs make perfect sense.

The Bible says “Though shalt not kill.” But it doesn’t really mean that. The Old Testament is filled with god-sanctioned killing. What it really says is that you shouldn’t murder someone, i.e., kill an innocent person.

So while the Bible says it’s wrong to kill an innocent person, it also says it’s perfectly acceptable to kill a guilty person. So to someone on the Right, there is no contradiction with being against abortion and in favor of the death penalty.

However, even with that understanding, it still appears contradictory that the Right are seemingly pro-life when it comes to abortion but are completely against government provided healthcare to innocent people and children.

Once again, the Right sees no contradiction. To the Right, any person who would need such help would not be truly innocent. They would be guilty of being poor. Of not being able to provide for themselves. Of not being self reliant. To a right-winger, someone who cannot pull themselves up by their own boot straps is a moral failure. And to help someone who is unable to help themselves is also seen as immoral as such help enables the person to continue his lazy sloth-like ways.

So the Right sees nothing wrong with fighting tooth and nail to ensure that the innocent baby is born, and then with turning around to fight just as hard to keep the government from providing that very same baby healthcare or food.

To me this mindset perfectly explains why we don’t call anti-abortionists “pro-lifers.” They’re not actually pro-life. They only seem pro-life in very limited situations where it fits their belief system. What they proclaim to be a “pro-life” belief is in actuality a mere rote following of a rule that was written down a few thousand years ago. In any other situation they have absolutely no desire to protect life.

To put it another way, the Right are not pro-life, they are pro-rules. Life is only to be cherished when an accepted rule says so. To a right-winger the following of their rules is more important than life ever will be.

This can be seen in right-wing nutjob Michele Bachmann’s statement that members of the Right should commit suicide rather than let even moderate healthcare reform be passed. Bachmann would take her own life, the lives of her friends and family, and the lives of her supporters rather than to give one poor child necessary healthcare.

The rule against providing for those who cannot provide for themselves is infinitely more important than that of any life. Especially the life of the sick child and the life of anyone who stood by and allowed the help to be given by the government.

Update – March 9, 2010:

I have no idea if this posting is true, but it perfectly explains the Right’s actual view on life:

I work with the sweetest girl who, I thought, had a good head on her shoulders. Today I made a comment that I needed to get my kitteh fixed. She then told me that she had an appointment to get her cat fixed but she had to cancel. I naturally asked her why and she said that the cat had already gotten pregnant. I told her that they could still do the surgery and she said that she could not be part of any abortion.

OK. I can understand that. She has a stance on abortion, doesn’t surprise me as she is so nice and wouldn’t want to put the cat in danger. I then asked her what were they going to do with the kittens. She said,”I guess Tim will put them in a bag and take them to the river like he did last year.

W.T.F.

I almost choked. She is so brainwashed by her church and Christianity that it is OK to kill the kittens after they are born as long as she is not party to an abortion. I couldn’t speak. How can people be like this? She lives with a guy, not married, and they have a child but she will kill the kittens after they are born? GODDAMMIT.