Jesus vs. the GOP

Jesus vs. the GOP May 6, 2017

Jesus vs GOP

The contrasting quotes come via Jonathan Bernier on Facebook. In making the meme, I chose two images of Jesus interacting with people with preexisting conditions.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John MacDonald

    If God would just intervene and cure all illness …

  • Neko

    Of course the Australians have better healthcare than we do –everybody does. ObamaCare is dead! But our healthcare will soon be great.

    –President Trump

    • jh

      I think you forgot to put in the really tiny fine print… It will be great healthcare for insurances and rich people and healthy young adults. It’s funny but the republican idea of insurance is the opposite of what the purpose of insurance is. Insurance is for when the shit hits the fan. It’s a hedge against bad things, not a reward for being okay.

      • Neko

        Yes. I posted ironically. Trump tweeted this after his spinmeisters tried to walk back his compliments toward Australian (single-payer) health care.

        Trump’s so clueless (or cynical) it’s mind-boggling.

    • Alexi Trevor Malmgren

      We have had it in AUstralia for 30 years . OUr current Prime minister Malmcom ” Turnbully ” Turnbull was said to be planning to reduce stuff . Thing is here not voting is a crime ( punishable in thoery by a fine of AUS$25 , that my dad says they have never enforced ) So elections must be on saturday if you can;t vote then you MUST vote Early or geta postal vote ) . Unlike in the US where only religious fantaics vote so they put thier guy in . That is where you need compulsury voting too in the US .. When you have a dem president and a dem congress you need to get the pressure on them to do that

      • Neko

        I’d say the chances of making voting compulsory in the United States are slim to none. The country has a long history of voter suppression to maintain white supremacy, and the same dynamics, and even the same geography (the old Confederacy), persist. As we witness every day, the economic elite who claims ownership of the country would rather destroy it than make it more equitable. And there’s a deep cultural antipathy in the US to government coercion. It would be a non-starter for the Dems.

        It’s true the religious right is politically formidable. Every time you think they may finally be back on their heels they revive like the undead. The “left,” such as it is in the US, is hobbled by internecine conflicts and obviously learned nothing from the 2000 debacle that installed George W. Bush. The left is energized now, but the midterms are a long way away and gerrymandering remains a daunting obstacle.

  • Al Cruise

    “Only those who are well may see physician -GOP ”

    “The question is not what anybody deserves. The question is who is to take on the God-like role of deciding what everybody else deserves.” Thomas Sowell (1930).

    Careful thought should go into answering that question, especially if one has a role in the final answer.

    • This was Sowell’s argument against certain estate taxes.

      I have no idea what “God-like” is supposed to imply, but we already fund the government to build our roads, sustain our military, and educate our children. Is it really a step into totalitarianism to fund the government in maintaining standards of healthcare. Most developed, democratic nations already do this.

      • Al Cruise

        Yes it was about death taxes. The truth and irony in the quote are indisputable. Giving power to all three houses is “God-like ” and we are starting to see the consequences of that. Healthcare for everyone should be a right not a privilege based on income, however who we put in power becomes the determining factor, not moral arguments, or the standards in other countries.

        • The quote is not universal, and is especially disputable when the context is changed.

          I completely agree that healthcare should not be a privilege based on income.

          I’m not sure what you mean by “giving power to all three houses. All three houses should be empowered with checks and balances; that’s how our system of government works.

          And I completely disagree that our rights should be determined by who holds office. Our rights are determined by law and constitution.

          • Al Cruise

            “Our rights are determined by law and constitution.” How well is that working out?

          • Actually, pretty well.

            Which is why citizens frequently protect their rights by appealing to law and constitution; and why even an executive order from the president can be struck down by courts.

            You can argue that our law and constitution are imperfect; you can also argue that there are gray areas open to interpretation. I will agree.

            But it’s patently untrue to say that our law and constitution don’t work. They work every day.

            If all you believe in is the power of politicians, then you must be a monarchist or a totalitarian.

          • Al Cruise

            “If all you believe in is the power of politicians, then you must be a monarchist or a totalitarian.” Not at all, the constitution and laws are only words on paper and only have power if the leaders respect and abide by them. Conservative/religious leaders will always place their interpretation of the Bible ahead the constitution and secular laws. “And I completely disagree that our rights should be determined by who holds office.” Watch out when the Supreme Court goes to a strong conservative/alt-right/religious fundamentalist majority. You will see rights change “bigly” as Trump would say. Who we place in power does matter.

          • Only words on paper? No. if the leaders don’t respect and abide them, they can be sued, impeached, imprisoned, and their orders rescinded. We have already seen such limitations placed on the Trump administration.

            I too am disturbed by the power the supreme court has to lean towards conservative interpretations of law; but that still does not give them carte-blanche to overturn the constitution. They can interpret the bill of rights, but they can’t abolish it.

          • Al Cruise

            Agreed. If the constitution was more than just words on paper then slavery would have been abolished the day after it was written. Remember Jim Crow laws were in place until the 1960’s. People who have conservative/religious views will always hold them over any constitution or secular law. Politics becomes the vehicle for them to implement those views upon the population in spite of any constitution or laws. It does matter who we place in power.

          • The original constitution didn’t abolish slavery; it codified slavery. The abolition of slavery required a constitutional amendment.

            Of course it matters who we place in power (no one ever said otherwise). But the powers of our leaders are granted by law and constitution. That’s why there is a separation of powers in Washington.

          • Al Cruise

            “But the powers of our leaders are granted by law and constitution.” Here is were you are very naive. You get a populist movement happening [like what is happening now] and it continues to grow legs and the separation of powers disappears and becomes unified and convinces the majority of the people it’s for the better of the country. Who will have the power to oppose it.

          • John MacDonald
          • It could happen. But I don’t think we’ve quite arrived at 3rd Reich Germany, just yet.

            In the meantime, we are a nation of laws. Yes, people break them and bend them on occasion.

            But without them, we would already have a dictatorship.

          • Al Cruise

            “But I don’t think we’ve quite arrived at 3rd Reich Germany, just yet.” Agreed. We have a president who’s chief adviser is a white supremacist. The camel doesn’t have his nose in the tent yet, but he is standing outside staring at the tent.

          • And what holds him back? The fact that judges can rescind his executive orders (they already have), congress can fail to pass his initiatives (they already have), and he can be sued or impeached for breaking the law (watchdogs are just waiting for the right opportunity).

            I haven’t lost faith in the rule of law and constitution just yet.

            Don’t get me wrong. We have some despicable leaders in power right now. But they have limited power, and that’s made evident by their temper tantrums every time they have a failed attempt or a public rebuke that they can’t censor.

  • jh

    isn’t it just another facet of prosperity gospel thinking that runs throughout christianity? Oh, the Israelites won a battle!!! God is with them. Job loses his wife and children, wealth, and health but God blesses him with a replacement family and wealth and health. You accepted Jesus Christ so now, you are in and the losers are going to be tortured/aren’t as important as you are.

    The idea that pre-existing conditions, including rape, are the fault of the victim is just the necessary logical conclusion to prosperity gospel thinking. (Note – this is in all the religions I have observed. Christianity is just one example. One could pull this into Star Wars and say that the Rebels won because “the force was with them”.)

    • Neko

      That’s a broad-brush application of the prosperity gospel, which refers to a specific belief system within Christianity that many Christian denominations/sects reject.

      • John MacDonald

        “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Mark 10:25

    • John MacDonald

      I found this interesting quote online about Jesus’ view of the needy:

      “Not only did Jesus feel compassion for the poor but he also took a personal interest in their needs. He and his apostles had a common fund from which they gave to needy Israelites. (Matthew 26:6-9; John 12:5-8; 13:29) Jesus encouraged those who wanted to be his followers to recognize their obligation to assist needy ones. He told a rich young ruler: “Sell all the things you have and distribute to poor people, and you will have treasure in the heavens; and come be my follower.” The fact that the man was unwilling to part with his possessions showed that his love for riches was greater than his love for God and fellowman. Thus, he did not have the qualities required to be a disciple of Jesus.—Luke 18:22, 23.”

      • There’s virtually no evidence for a “common fund” for the needy, beyond Judas’s purse (the purpose of which is debatable, and exists only in the latest gospel). Jesus’ advice seems to be repeatedly not to hang on to money: distribute whatever you have to the needy right away – nothing about putting it into a fund.

        This makes sense for an apocalyptic preacher, declaring that the kingdom of heaven is at hand and that one should “take no thought for the morrow”.

        • John MacDonald

          Perhaps a hint of vilification of the rich, too:

          “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Mark 10:25

          Maybe a touch of sour grapes on the part of Jesus and his poor friends toward the rich – as Nietzsche said.

  • See Noevo