I’m also not sure why — maybe it’s because of the new year, turning my mind to new starts and new opportunities — but I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the kind of world we’re creating. I got a huge push in that direction the other day from a client who was doing pretty well on probation…until his mother told him she was sorry he was born, that he was a mistake. And he decided to show her just how bad he could be. He’s a really good kid at heart. Just lost. No, not lost: thrown away. *sigh*…

Last night, on one of my law blogs, I wrote about “Building a Nastier World Through Law.”

This commentary from Keith Olbermann could have used the same title.

What is it about us — especially, it seems, the most religious amongst us — that drives us to make the world such an ugly place? You want to turn people towards your version of “G-d” instead of away from any version of “G-d”? Try modeling your deity’s behavior, rather than trying to play the role which — by most accounts in most religious writings — has been reserved to your diety alone.

A “light shining on a hill” does nothing more than illuminate. It does not attack. It does not control. The light itself is just what it is: a light.

Whenever a human being performs an act of integrity, honesty, kindness, compassion, or self-sacrifice, he is revealing godliness in the world. “Kiddush Hashem” literally means “sanctifying the Divine Name.” …

Conversely, whenever a human being performs an act of meanness, cruelty, avarice, dishonesty, or selfishness, he is hiding God’s presence in this world. “Hillul” comes from the Hebrew word for “empty space”; a Hillul Hashem makes the world seem empty of God.

Every action is a stone thrown into an infinite pond; the ripples it causes go out in ever greater circles, endlessly. (Sara Yoheved Rigler, “Now You See G-d, Now You Don’t: Unmasking the Divine on Purim” (February 29, 2004) Aish.com.)

Do those of you who work so hard to enforce your vision of what the world should be upon others think you convince them by your methods? If you tell your children you think they were mistakes and you wished they’d never been born, do you think this inspires them to a higher level? If you strip others of their unalienable rights — let’s even put it in your terms: their G-D-GIVEN rights — to freedom of choice, to live the way they choose, to exercise free will — do you think you turn them towards your deity, or compel them in the other direction?

Let’s see if we can’t do our part to heal the world — at least a little bit — this year.

On the other hand, for those who can get past being offended, it’s something that I think we all — but particularly right-wing religious zealots — should sit down and seriously think about.

I received an email recently — I won’t say from where, since I think I’ve possibly already damaged that relationship enough with my response. That email contained a forwarded message explaining that there had been a snowstorm which knocked out power to some very large number of people in the northwestern United States.

According to the email, nobody from FEMA showed up. The federal government did not send food and water, or any other kind of support. And yet, somehow, the people survived. They got off their butts and took care of their own problems. They managed to fend for themselves, as they always had.

What a sharp contrast, the letter noted, between that situation and what happened in New Orleans. There — in New Orleans — the stupid black people sat on their asses complaining that they weren’t being taken care of by the feds. They didn’t do anything to help themselves. Instead — as they’ve done for generations — they expected to remain on the government dole and be taken care of. The lazy no-good bums have only themselves to blame for what happened to them in New Orleans.

I sent a reply that asked only something like,

How many of the homes in the Northeast were washed away by the snowstorm? How many of the people had nowhere to live because of the snow? How many dead bodies lay in the streets? Were the living able to find drinking water? Was it putrid? Did it contain decaying animals and people and sewage? Was all their food gone, too?

The last paragraph of the response back to me after my reply said:

Many “poor” people make careers out of being poor. It becomes the family “business”. They don’t try to educate themselves. They are surrounded by opportunities, but, decline them. They blame others for their own choices. In Louisiana, many people had the opportunity to leave and would not leave.

Ah…those stupid, evil, poor people. If only they would choose a different career. Of course, they just have so much fun being poor!

Anyway, after that is where I probably really screwed up. Given that this person is related to me (by marriage) and so far as I know claims to be a christian, I probably should not have sent back the reply that I sent back. But here’s what I sent back:

Apparently my semi-rhetorical questions were too obtuse. People trapped in an area where they cannot get out because of flooding, where people are dying in the streets and there is disease and decay all around for as far as their eyes can see and where simply trying to get out is dangerous aren’t in the same boat as the fictional people you mention who choose generation after generation to live off the government dole. Furthermore, the note you sent out to which I responded attempted to compare people living in actual intact houses on dry land with people whose houses had been washed away or flooded out who were surrounded by dead bodies and putrid water. Frankly – I love you dearly, [named deleted to prevent further irritation] – but there’s just no comparison there. If you now want to change that and compare your family or my family to less intelligent poor black people, that’s really a different argument.

Nevertheless, I continue to be amazed — and this is one reason I’ve come to believe the best thing that could happen in America would be a revival of the persecution of christians, so we could rid ourselves of them and build a better world — that so-called christian people constantly complain about the poor.

Proof that Jesus was not God and that christianity is a farce can be found simply by comparing the views of our so-called christian nation with the words of the christian bible.

Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way.” (Matthew 15:32 (New International Version).)

If only there had been some christians there to back up the disciples. You may recall that they said, “Where could we get enough bread in this remote place to feed such a crowd?” (Matthew 15:33 (New International Version).) The christians could have chimed in and said, “Yeah! They should learn to fend for themselves! They haven’t even tried to help themselves! They just keep following you around! Tell them to go find their own food!”

Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matthew 25:40 (King James Version).)

Fortunately, the United States government isn’t as stupid as Jesus. We probably spend more money on war and killing in one month than we spend in one year on food for the stupid poor people who won’t learn to take care of themselves.

As for the admirable couple who had [reference deleted to prevent further irritation] and never asked the government for anything, I think they should thank their lucky stars they did not live in New Orleans when the flood hit (and they should also be thankful they didn’t live anywhere else in the United States during the 1930s when many like [references to various real people deleted to prevent further irritation] would have died without some kind of assistance on occasion). Just because we weren’t born into families with less intelligence and/or black skin doesn’t mean we would survive in those kinds of circumstances. And it also doesn’t mean that those who have been born into families with less intelligence or black skin have no right to live.

If I’ve offended you — and, believe it or not, that wasn’t the goal; I just don’t know any other way to get my point across any clearer — I’m sorry that you’re offended. I may be an ass sometimes the way I put things, but I figured I can’t really be Jeremiah, so I have to emulate Balaam’s Ass instead. (See Numbers 22:28-30.)

I could have added any number of other instances from the christian bible on this topic, but I didn’t. For example, I could have mentioned the time Jesus told a rich man,

Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. — Mark 10:21 (New International Version).

He didn’t say, “Go tell all the poor people how wretched they are, expecting to live off your kindheartedness and your gifts. Tell them to get off their asses and go to school or something.”

Compare that with the message of Luke, chapter 12 (with an extra close look at verse 33). Consider it in light of the reward the centurion of the Italian Regiment received because his “gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.” (Acts 10:4 (New International Version).) Hell, even we heathen Jews (you’d be surprised how often I hear that I’m going to burn in hell for being a Jew who doesn’t “accept Jesus” as my “personal saviour”) know that God commands that we take care of the poor! See Exodus 23:10 and Leviticus 19:10 for example.

And what could be plainer than this?

If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to.

There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land — Deuteronomy 15:7-11 (New International Version), emphasis added.

Still, on the one hand, I feel like one of these days I’m going to have to learn to stop trying to point out the obvious bigotry and hypocrisy of christianity — at least when I’m talking to my own family. On the other hand, there is, as I said, a serious disconnect here between what right-wing christians (neo-Pharisees) think and what Jesus is said to have said, done and taught.

But I suppose I should remember what happened to him, nu?

Jerry Falwell — possibly the world’s leader in faux christianity — has publicly stated what I’ve known about the movement to which he belongs for some time now: They’re offensive.

The fact is, Falwell told ABC News, “we’ve gone on the offense now. We’ve put them on the defense. We’re kicking their butts, and they’re unhappy.” — Kiehl & Tucker, “Falwell defends Christmas from ‘grinches’” Fresno Bee (December 4, 2005) p. A24, col. 2.

Before I go too much farther, let me state this: I have nothing whatsoever against calling a thing what it is. So if some store puts up a sign that says they’re selling Christmas trees, I’m not going to get my shorts all in a twaddle and storm off to spend my money somewhere else. If someone wants to refer to December 24 as “Christmas Eve” and December 25 as “Christmas,” I’m going to be non-plussed. And if someone wants to call Jerry Falwell — or his compatriot Bill O’Reilly — an ignorant Satanic twit, I’ll certainly commend their honesty, but it’s not going to change my life. I’m all for speaking the truth and calling something or someone what they really are, but unless someone else’s confusion is causing actual harm, I’m perfectly willing to let them refer to a Christmas tree as a “Holiday Tree,” or vice versa, if that makes them feel good.

Falwell, on the other hand, is not content to allow Christmas to be recognized for what it actually is.

Long ago — and you’ll get various dates depending on which “scholar,” which denomination of christianity, or possibly which version of the evolution of Christmas you read about — christians co-opted, or appropriated, certain pagan traditions celebrated during the month of December. I’m not going to give you a history lesson here — this is, after all, a Balaam’s Ass post and a history lesson is off-point — but those who are interested can learn more from the following sites:

• Christian Churches of God: The Origins of Christmas and Easter (No. 235)
• eSORRTMENT: Christmas’ pagan origins
• Wikipedia: Christmas

For a view of the origins of Christmas that denies any connection to pagan traditions, see the Catholic Encyclopedia on CD-ROM (where else?), whose Christmas entry is excerpted here.

Whether you consider that Christmas is just one of the earlier demonstrations of how organized christianity adapts itself to the world, co-opting non-christian traditions and making them over so that people can feel comfortable celebrating them without feeling that they’ve turned their backs on “the real God”; whether you think Christmas “was always about Christ”; or whether you think it really doesn’t matter, one thing is for sure. There is a right way to honor God and there is a wrong way. Falwell’s way of “kicking butt” whenever someone doesn’t go along with his view is decidedly wrong.

But Jerry Falwell is not the first religious leader to suggest the idea of kicking someone else’s butt over doctrinal disagreements.

When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread — which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other.

But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus. — Matthew 12:2-14 (New International Version).

Falwell and his followers are at war with the rest of the world. Why? Because the rest of the world has refused to do that which Falwell and his followers have decided is right. Falwell and his followers decide what the law is and anyone who doesn’t follow the law of Falwell had better watch out. Because, unlike Jesus, Falwell and his followers are “kicking butts.”

What would things be like if Falwell and his followers actually followed the teachings of Jesus, or if they read what the Apostle Paul had to say?

When the Pharisees brought a woman supposedly caught in the very act of adultery — a sin punishable by death in their day — and cast her before Jesus, there are two things he did not do. First, he did not stone the woman, in accordance with the scriptural teachings as they were understood by the Pharisees and their followers. Perhaps more significantly — for purposes of this discussion — he did not threaten to kick their butts if they did not accept his interpretation of scripture. He simply said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7 (King James Version).)

Fundamentalist Christianity, however, is in some ways worse than the religion of the most fanatical Pharisees. At least with the Pharisees, “they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.” (John 8:9 (King James Version).)

And what of the Apostle Paul?

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. — Galatians 5:16-26 (New International Version).

Paul did not say, “The fact is, we’re going on the offense now. We’re going to put them on the defense. We’re kicking their butts, and they’re unhappy.” He said, “You — we — as true Christians…. There’s no need for us to get all wrapped up in promulgating and following rules. I’m not going to kick your ass if you don’t listen to me, but here’s the way it is: Let yourself be lead by the Spirit.

And, as Paul stated, that Spirit demonstrates “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” Butt-kicking store owners who have the gall to assume that Jews like me might not want to be wished a Merry Christmas isn’t in that list.

A weekly Torah portion I received in my email this morning from Rabbi Kalman Packouz illuminates another way to think about this:

The Torah states:

“And when Rachel saw that she did not bear children to Jacob, Rachel envied her sister. (She envied her good deeds. She said, ‘Were she not more righteous than I, she would not have merited sons.’ -Midrash cited by Rashi) And she said to Jacob: ‘Give me children, if not I am as a dead woman.’ And Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel; and he said, ‘Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?’ ” (Genesis 30:1-2)

Why did Jacob grow angry at Rachel? What is our lesson?

Rabbi Yeruchom Levovitz cites the Sforno who explains that Jacob grew angry at Rachel because she said, “Give me,” implying that her bearing a child was dependent on Jacob, rather than on God’s will. His anger was for the Almighty’s honor and this took precedence even over his love for Rachel.

Nevertheless, we find in the Midrash (Braishis Rabbah 71:7) that Jacob should have controlled his anger. Despite the justice of his rebuke, he should have appreciated the immensity of Rachel’s suffering and not have spoken so sharply. For this lack of consideration he was punished.

The Chofetz Chaim’s son wrote that his father was particularly careful not to hurt the feelings of beggars, although sometimes these unfortunate people say things that could arouse one’s anger. The Sages comment in the Mechilta on Mishpotim that the prohibition against vexing a widow or an orphan includes anyone who suffers. Causing such a person even a slight discomfort is forbidden. — Rabbi Packouz, “Dvar Torah based on Love Your Neighbor by Rabbi Zelig Pliskin” Aish.com Shabbot Shalom Weekly (December 4, 2005) received via email and available online.

Note that even though Jacob was right, he was punished for getting angry with Rachel. A truly Judeo-Christian point of view might be that people who mistakenly fail to wish holiday shoppers a happy adaptation of the Mithraism should be pitied instead of having their butts kicked.

Ironically — and very much unlike Jerry Falwell and his followers — Jesus went “on the offense” and began “kicking their butts” exactly once in all of the so-called “New Testament.”

Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a ‘den of robbers.’’” — Matthew 21:12-13 (New International Version)

That’s right. The only time you ever read about Jesus kicking anyone’s butt is inside a religious institution! And the reason? Because the people there were making a mockery of the place. Instead of a house of prayer, they had transformed it into a store focused on selling religious items. I realize this doesn’t totally fit today, because Jerry Falwell never abuses the church in that way. (The SEC charged Falwell’s church with “fraud and deceit” in the issuance of $6.5 million in unsecured church bonds. Falwell claimed that the SEC was “technically” incorrect as God himself was supposedly underwriting the bonds.)

Point is that with all that was going on in the world around him, the only time Jesus ever actually attacked anyone, it was inside “a house of prayer.” His response to those on the outside was always to make a few low-key statements and let others decide how to behave on their own.

If Christians — and Falwell and his followers are free to join in as well — really want to change the world, they won’t do it by kicking butts. It is not by accident that the Book of John referred to Jesus as “the light of the world.” (John 1:9 (New International Version).) And it was not by accident that Jesus supposedly said,

“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.

In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. — Matthew 5:14-16 (New International Version).

Light doesn’t kick people’s butts. Light does not directly threaten people. Light reveals things.

You want to do what Jesus suggested? You want to live a life that attracts people to your God? You want them to praise your God?

Or do you just want to kick some butt?

But that’s not all it is. It’s an explanation of what the Republican Party is really about and a recognition that there are more than two colors in the world. The political spectrum is not limited to “us” against “them.”

What I ended up with, then, is one-part Balaam’s Ass and one-part that is just well, political commentary about asses.

Peter Sean Bradley has been talking about days of old as well. He appears to think that “the Left” is stuck in those old days. I find this particularly ironic since, in my opinion, I’m what used to be “slightly left of center,” but is increasingly labeled “Radical Left” these days. That is, when people like me aren’t being described as hate-mongerers because we believe the gap between rich and poor is growing, and that this is wrong; because we believe that the War in Iraq was immoral, that we were tricked into it for reasons that had nothing to do with “freeing the Iraqi people” until All the President’s Men realized what a powerful meme that was; that we believe world opinion counts for something; that we believe health care and education are important and not — as the governor of California thinks — that nurses and teachers are special interest groups.

But, more importantly, people like me aren’t all all that much like me. Perhaps one reason “the Right” gleefully notes that “the Left” appears to be in a shambles is that there is no monolithic left.

Mr. Bradley’s argument is focused on an article by Keith Thompson, writing for the San Francisco Chronicle. The article is interesting because it describes — and this appears to be the reason both for the title and content of Mr. Bradley’s article — Mr. Thompson’s break with “the left.” (Mr. Thompson doesn’t capitalize the term.) Among Mr. Thompson’s complaints:

Susan Sontag cleared her throat for the “courage” of the al Qaeda pilots. Norman Mailer pronounced the dead of Sept. 11 comparable to “automobile statistics.” The events of that day were likely premeditated by the White House, Gore Vidal insinuated. Noam Chomsky insisted that al Qaeda at its most atrocious generated no terror greater than American foreign policy on a mediocre day. — Keith Thompson, Leaving the left I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives — people who once championed solidarity (May 22, 2005) San Francisco Chronicle, SFGate.com.

Now, if that were what the Left was all about, I couldn’t be considered Left at all. About the closest I could come is that I think the Bush Administration might have been able to do something to stave off what happened at the World Trade Center, if they had wanted to do so. But at the time, no one knew how to turn Al Queda into the War To Free Iraqi Oil Bring Democracy To The Iraqis. Large numbers of Americans do not want to believe — and I don’t blame them one bit — that our leaders would start a war just for oil and munitions profits, but I believe there’s plenty of evidence to make that case, so perhaps that’s enough to make me a hate-mongering leftist.

And, after all, there has to be some way to make me a hate-mongerer. Because I’m clearly neither a supporter of George Bush or of the Republican Party. And these days, not being a supporter of George Bush and Republican policies is ipso facto proof that you are evil, or at least a supporter of evil (and isn’t that the same thing?). They have, after all, put God back in the Whitehouse. It’s just a little unclear whether that means they put Bush in the Whitehouse, or some other God.

Personally, I think they mean the former, because the God in the Whitehouse appears to have more in common with Hieronymous Bosch than the New Testament. I mean, seriously, when was the last time someone from the “christian” element in control of the Whitehouse talked to anyone about the Sermon on the Mount, or, particularly, that portion of it known as the Beatitudes?

The truth is, though, that while the Right may be becoming increasingly monolithic, the left is variegated. The Left is something more like an Impressionist painting.

Characteristic of impressionist painting are visible brushstrokes, light colors, open composition, emphasis on light in its changing qualities (often accentuating the effects of the passage of time), ordinary subject matter, and unusual visual angles. — Impressionism (May 24, 2005) Wikipedia (last visited May 29, 2005).

The “vision” of the Impressionists “seemed strange and unfinished to their viewing public.” (Impressionism, supra.) Furthermore, their focus was an “emphasis…on overall effect rather than upon details.” (Ibid.)

Similarly, many of us who cannot side with Bush and the Republican Party cannot do so because we are focused on openness instead of secret governments. We’re concerned about the changing quality of life — changing in a way that seems to us not to bode well for the ordinary lives of ordinary Americans. We’re perhaps seeing things from an angle that is not available to the average individual indoctrinated by the Right. Our vision seems, to those on the Right, strange.

And those on the Left who are like me will readily admit that our vision is unfinished. Our vision, after all, calls for something closer to the utopianism of the central portion of the Sermon on the Mount reproduced in Matthew 5:2-12.

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven.

Let me throw in a disclaimer here: I am not a Christian. Nor do I wish to be. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending upon your point of view, my own beliefs are more closely aligned with some atheistic form of Judaism. I have studied neither Humanism nor Reconstructionist Judaism deeply, but from what I’ve seen, some mix of them perhaps comes closest to my own point of view. I do, however, read both the Jewish and Christian Bibles frequently, relying upon the Jewish Publication Society’s version of the Tanakh, as well as the Zondervan Bible Study Library on my computer, with its nine English versions of the Christian Bible, as well as Greek and Hebrew versions, both of which I have some minimal ability to understand. But this is one reason why I refer to some of my more religious posts, such as the current one, as Balaam’s Ass posts. (For more on Balaam’s Ass, see Numbers 22:21-38 (KJV).)

Perhaps because I’m not a Christian, I don’t find myself forced to adopt the rigidity of the Right respecting their twisted interpretations of the Bible when reading the Beatitudes. After all, I don’t believe that God, or any other supernatural Being, wrote it. I recognize it as an empathetically-inspired utopian ideal, parts of which are impossible and parts of which are perhaps not even worth striving for. I am not, for example, going to follow the example of Barnabas in my desire to exemplify the spirit of the Beatitudes. (See Acts 4:36-37.) And one thing I share in common with the Republicans is that I refuse to follow the teaching of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 19:21.

But if I were a Christian, it seems to me that this would be my focus. If I were a Christian, I’d take a few serious lessons from the Impressionists. I’d paint the world with openness. I’d recognize the unfinished aspects and focus on painting the world with light.

Christianity today — at least the advertised version, the version that curries favor and is incestuously curried for its favors by the Republican Party — is placing a lot of emphasis on legislating the morality of others. They share more in common with the Pharisees of John 8:3-6 than with the Jesus of John 8:11.

How is it, if the GOP has become the POG (Party of God), that the light of the world resembles nothing more than a blowtorch? Whatever happened to focusing upon improving one’s own moral life before turning to one’s “brother”? And isn’t it significant that Jesus’ words here use the word “brother”? Couldn’t this be an indication that providing advice to another member of the Church is okay after you’ve resolved your own issues, but perhaps you could adopt Jesus’ approach to those outside the Church?

Jesus said, “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.” (Matthew 10:14 (NIV).) He didn’t say, “If anyone will not welcome your or listen to your words, take control of the government and alter the laws to force them to follow (your understanding of) my desires.”

Is it not significant that the only time Jesus appeared to physically express his anger and attack anyone, it was in the temple area? (Matthew 21:12-13.)

The fact is, though, that none of what I’ve just said is what the “christian” forces in the Republican Party are about. What they’re about really boils down to what politics, in general, has always been about: Power and Control.

George Washington supposedly saw political parties as “fractious agencies subversive of domestic tranquility.” (“Farewell Address (1796): George Washington,” from J.D. Richardson, Compilation of Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 1 (1907), 213, part of Basic Readings in Democracy on the U.S. Department of State website.) “It was his fear of what parties would do to the nation that led Washington to draft his Farewell Address.” (Ibid.)

Politics in his day, and increasingly thereafter, was not tremendously unlike what we’re seeing today. The Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans (not the same as today’s Republican Party) were at each other’s throats. And this wasn’t just limited to words, either. Just as today, the vehemence of their disagreements sometimes lead to violence. There was the famous incident involving Awon Buh and the peanut butter. Or, for the history buffs amongst us, the incident in which Aaron Burr, once Vice-President of the United States, shot and killed Alexander Hamilton, former secretary of the Treasury and one of the writer’s of the Federalist Papers. Later, in 1858, there was a bloody melee on the floor of the United States Congress.

Things are no different today. When it boils down to it, the struggle for political power in America is a (barely) civilized form of war. The party in control right now is not concerned about godliness; they’re concerned about control. And since the days of cavemen, no better means of control has been found than convincing others that God is on your side and then silencing the “heretics” who might try to explain that God’s message and your message are not one and the same.

The problem right now is that it works better if “the enemy” is not some pluralistic entity. “They” have to be as monolithic as “us.” That way, when one of “them” disagrees with another of “them,” “we” can declare victory. Our “two-parties-only-please” political system encourages this.

In the end, I’m not so sure that Mr. Bradley’s crowing over Mr. Thompson’s break with the left, though, is justified. Mr. Thompson does appear to have fallen into the trap created by the neo-conservative right; he asserts that he is leaving “the left.” So it seems he’s accepted the neo-conservative myth that there are essentially two monolithic voices. But it’s not clear that Mr. Thompson has abandoned a liberal point of view.

And therein lies the proof of what I said near the beginning of this article. Mr. Thompson’s “break with the left” notwithstanding, “the Left” is not only comprised of the likes of those Mr. Thompson takes to task in his article. There are others of us, still proud to be considered Left rather than Right or even the status-quo-supporting Centrists.

Perhaps, in the end, what Mr. Thompson really ought to consider is whether, like the Republicans who really do seem to have room these days only for the most extreme elements of the neo-conservative religious right, he is in danger of allowing only the most radical voices to claim title to “the Left.” I don’t favor that option. As I said above, I’m proud to be considered part of the Left; I’m not ready to give up the title.

And frankly, I don’t favor allowing the extremists on either end of the misconceived political spectrum lay claim to the moral high ground.

This is another of my “Balaam’s Ass” articles. You all know that story, right? That’s the one where one of G-d’s prophets refused to give out His message, so He resorted to using a donkey. For those who think I’m just being crude, “ass” is the word used in the King James Version for “donkey.” And since when I write these kinds of articles, most Christians think I’m just being an ass, it seems appropriate.

It also fits because, frankly, I don’t particularly like writing Bible-based messages. To me, they feel like a waste of time — besides which I feel compelled to re-read sections of the Bible to check my memory and I don’t care all that much for that, either. But once they come to me, I can’t shake the feeling that they have to be said. Some people seriously believe they’re Christians, but don’t actually read the Bible; they never understand how they’ve lost their way. And that’s why I finally created a whole new category called “Balaam’s Ass” for these kinds of articles.

Anyway, read on for your message.

If I carefully controlled just about everything that you were able to hear about me and you never got a chance to meet me, I’m pretty sure I could convince you all that I’m one of the smartest and kindest guys in the world.

My blog, of course, would have to dramatically change. Part of controlling things so that you would come to have this opinion is that I’d have to tell you what you want to hear — or, at least, things you that would make you feel good about me. If I ever told you anything bad, I’d have to tell you that I wasn’t involved in it.

Even though I’d trash the hell out of either my enemies or fellow party members if they got in my way, I’d have to make sure you didn’t know I was responsible for the trashing. I could help this along by hiring a strategist who would take most of the heat — and, actually, it will be his job to plan these things, so I can “honestly” disclaim responsibility. I’ll make sure it appears that I’m taking the high road. After all, as I keep telling you, I’m a Christian in the White House.

Similarly, if I continually hooked up with friends who were doing bad things, I’d have to convince you that a) these things weren’t really so bad and/or b) it was a mistake and/or c) I wasn’t really involved in that aspect of things. Halliburton and other issues involving the rape of Iraq and America by overcharging the military, or the incredible rise of gasoline prices over the last few years. None of this would be my fault. It would just be a coincidence that I was a failed oil businessman before taking over as President of the United States.

And you’d buy that. I don’t care how many bloggers you have. Me and my friends own the mainstream press! Who’s going to read a blog when they can watch the Bloviator on Faux “News”? (Besides, we’re working the blogosphere, too.)

Part of the reason you’d buy all this is because I’d continually tell you that I’m a Christian. I’m a god-fearing man. I don’t get blowjobs in the White House (not even from my wife). And if I do, well, you’re never going to hear about it.

Fact is, under my watch, you’re never going to hear about anything that happens in the White House. I don’t care what it is. Good, bad, or indifferent — what I’m doing is off-limits to you. Oil executives in secret White House meetings to figure out how to get the price of oil to $4 per gallon? You’re not going to hear about that. Those oil companies say we need a war to get Iraq’s oil? They got it, but you’ll be convinced it was a just war. All my Administration had to do was keep trying reasons until we found one you could live with.

And to ensure that things stay this way, I’m going to run the first American regime in history that will feed hundreds — that’s right hundreds — of “news” stories telling you what a great guy I am, how terrific my policies are and give you plenty of reasons to continue to be happy that there is a Christian in the White House.

In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government’s role in their production. — David Barstow and Robin Stein, “Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News” (March 13, 2005) The New York Times.

Just try to overcome that!

And you’re never going to complain about this. For one thing, you don’t really care. Again in part because of my control of the news, you’re not going to get any information about how these things can impact you; anyone trying to warn you just won’t be heard. If, somehow, they are — well, we have ways of dealing with them, don’t we, Mr. Plame?

Even Ms. Amanpour, of whom America was so enamored during the peak of the Iraqi War, was neutralized when she started to get out of hand and reported a few things we didn’t want heard:

I mean, having covered so many of these conflicts and having been at almost every US military intervention of the ’90s and basically the last 14 years, and to be frank, having supported many of them, I am still very uneasy about this one and particularly the relationship between the media and the administration. I stood in Baghdad at the end of the war and did what I thought were perfectly routine reports about the looting that was going on and the various beginnings of–I mean, you could use the word chaos… and the Secretary of Defense basically accused people like me of selectively editing, of misrepresenting the truth. If you remember, there was a–a famous quote of his, “Oh, that same old vase… that keeps coming out over and over again.” Now that’s funny and it probably got a lot of laughs by the Pentagon press corps, but it’s not helpful because it seeks to deny what’s actually going on. — Ms. Amanpour, quoted in Betsy Vasquez, “CNN’s Christiane Amanpour joins the chorus of top ‘mainstream’ media people saying they’ve been bullied to the right by the Bushies” (September 16-30, 2003) Vol. I, Issue 1., The Moderate Independent.

Sure, you’ll occasionally hear stories about how we allowed a male prostitute into the White House. You’ll hear that he pretended to be a journalist and lobbed softball questions to the Administration. But you won’t care about that. After all, didn’t I tell you there’s a Christian in the White House?

Besides, who’s going to tell you those stories? I dare you to search Google for “Jeff Gannon” — you won’t find a single mainstream media story about it. You’re only going to hear about this crap from biased bloggers, that pretend-rag, the New York Times and foreign newspapers, like the Guardian Unlimited in Great Britain.

Who you gonna worship? The Christian in the White House, or liars and foreigners?

Let’s face it: As long as I continue to tell you what you want to hear, you’ll ignore reality.

And by the time you decide to read Acts 20:29 through 20:35, it will be too late.

It’s the joy that comes from knowing something even the smartest of Christians don’t.

Fact is, Christians don’t have a clue what their G-d wants or expects of them, because so few of them have taken the time to read what was purportedly written to them by their G-d.

Viki, guest-blogging at Chepooka today, posted a letter said to be written by self-declared American Follower of Christ, Paul Harvey.

Paul asks — as do people of non-Christian religions everywhere in America today — “what’s the big deal about prayer in schools?”

But as another famous American pundit has said, “I’m not making this up”: Paul Harvey thinks Jesus is full of shit! After all, it was Jesus who reportedly said:

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. — Matthew 6:5-6 (New International Version)

But Paul, complaining because Christians can’t use the loudspeakers at high school football games to pray, notes,

If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.

That’s true, of course. And all very nice. But it misses one critical point: The Constitution of the United States has no bearing on what happens at football games in Jerusalem. Yet to some people — Paul Harvey, President Bush and quite a large number of neo-Pharisees excluded — it still means something in the United States.

Paul says,

I don’t think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world’s foundations.

Okay, Paul! Then you won’t mind a prayer of thanksgiving and a request for Satan to watch over our football players! It’s just a short prayer! Try that and see whether those foundations don’t vibrate a little. I don’t know, Paul: I suspect the angry, stampeding mob looking to stomp the cheeks of anyone offering that prayer will shake more than their fists; gnash more than their teeth.

Speaking of cheeks, Mr. Harvey points out that:

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.

Oddly enough, there doesn’t appear to be anything in the Bible — certainly not in the words attributed to Jesus — that says, “Turn the other cheek for a little while. Then get sick of it and force the other side to accept that ‘you won’t take it anymore.’” Could you just imagine Jesus ripping himself from the cross with the words, “I’ve had enough of this crap!” as he decimated those who put him there?

Mr. Harvey says,

It’s time the majority rules!

Well, that’s fine. In the United States, the majority does “rule.” But they do so within the confines of the Constitution of the United States of America. Why? Because the Constitution was expressly designed to protect the rights of the minority from the overbearing power of the majority. This cry — “it’s time the majority rules!” — in that context can be seen as a call for the abolition of the Constitution of the United States.

Frankly, I love the United States of America. Unlike numerous liberals — rightly teased relentlessly for it — who say they’re going to have to leave the country if this or that conservative agenda prevails, I’m willing to fight for the same ideals that drove our Founders to establish this country in the first place.

My suggestion? If Christians don’t like the Constitution of the United States…if Christians cannot handle the idea of freedom not just to practice their religion, but for others to enjoy the constitutional freedom from having religion imposed upon us in a way that Christians would not tolerate if the situation were reversed and we were imposing our religious practices upon them at every public event, then I suggest Christians consider moving to another country (if any will have them).

Just quit trying to overthrow the government established by the liberal, freedom-loving Founders of the United States who came here to escape hypocritical theocrats over 200 years ago.

I’ve dropped a few comments today on foreign blogs — “foreign” meaning “not mine” — after spending the morning reading about the so-called “War On Christmas.”

Before I explain why this is more Republican marketing and there is no such war — and in case there are any readers who aren’t aware of my own willingness to participate in the celebration of a holiday not my own — let me point out that the “Santa” on the left there is me.

I’m not anti-Christmas.

I am, however, in opposition to the neo-Pharisees who suggest that unless Christmas is celebrated their way, there must obviously be a Satanic Liberal-driven War On Christmas; Christmas is losing; the very future of Christianity is at stake. This year, greetings of “Happy Holidays,” for many of these types, are akin to suggesting “May the Devil be with you always.”

Worse than wishing them “Happy Holidays,” though, is making them endure yet another Christmas without little Jesus babies everywhere. More specifically, they want them dominating government buildings since, in their opinion, Christian symbols, the flag and so on are all part of the same class; the Might and Power of G-d and the Might and Power of the United States are interchangeable — indeed, indistinguishable.

Angels soar over a crèche. And there is a Baby Jesus in the crèche. But he is proportional to the rest of the crèche, which appears to take up the entire wall, floor to ceiling — or, as the World Net Daily complains “the baby Jesus is virtually invisible.” Maybe if the crèche itself hadn’t been so overwhelmingly elaborate, the baby Jesus would have stood out more. But then they’d complain about “the small and insignificant crèche scene.”

The World Net Daily would have you believe that because Baby Jesus is proportional to the rest of the display and because he’s lying down in a manger surrounded by statues of his admirer’s and swirling angels above — which, last I heard, were primarily judeo-christian symbols of G-d — he might as well not be there.

They also note, incidentally, that “some Americans notice the White House website lacks even a single mention of Jesus” — although a search of the website today (December 26, 2004) turns up 51 pages with the word “Jesus,” including the President’s Christmas Message.

Presumably, the neo-Pharisees are ticked off because, like President Reagan so many years ago, George Bush didn’t make a big deal this year out of using the name “Jesus.” Search Reagan’s Christmas cards for mention of Jesus — you will do so in vain; it is not there.

In fact, it’s possible that someone read the First Amendment to the President: so far this year, speeches preserved on the White House website have only invoked Jesus about a half-dozen times, including in January, when Laura Bush brought up Jesus and the story of the 5,000 loaves while at the Souper Bowl of Caring; in April, when the President’s Easter Message invoked the name “Jesus”; or on the White House webpage memorializing the day a questioner at a town meeting compared George Bush to Jesus in terms of the load he had to bear for the world.

But we must remember that Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven. And these neo-Pharisees should also be forgiven. It’s not hard to see how they missed the fact that Bush invoked Jesus in his Christmas Message in 2002:

During Christmas, we gather with family and friends to celebrate the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ. As God’s only Son, Jesus came to Earth and gave His life so that we may live. His actions and His words remind us that service to others is central to our lives and that sacrifice and unconditional love must guide us and inspire us to lead lives of compassion, mercy, and justice.

The true spirit of Christmas reflects a dedication to helping those in need, to giving hope to those in despair, and to spreading peace and understanding throughout the Earth. George W. Bush, “President’s Christmas Message” (2002) White House website.

The problem here is that the President — as he is wont to do — became confused. He mentioned Jesus’ name — sure. Unfortunately, he also mentioned what Jesus really stood for!

Christians may worship the Jesus who — as Laura Bush noted at the Souper event — fed people. Christians may aspire to emulate the man who himself shunned riches. (After all, pretend, for the moment that the stories are true. Jesus could have been born anywhere he wanted, but he chose a stinky, smelly, no doubt bug-infested — it was a barn, after all — animal-filled, dung-paved manger.) Christians, in other words, might recognize service to others that is central to their lives, sacrifice, unconditional love, compassion, mercy and justice as concepts often associated with Jesus. Neo-Pharisees know better.

For neo-Pharisees, emulating Jesus is kicking pregnant women out into the streets when the temperatures are averaging 29 degrees at night. Being like Jesus is interrupting classes at school because they teach science. Answering the question “What would Jesus do?” is bullying kids who are not Christians because they’re not Christians. (Could some neo-Pharisee show me where in the New Testament this happens? I’ve only read it a few dozen times and translated only 5 New Testament books from Greek to English, so I might’ve missed it.) Best of all, neo-Pharisees have Jesus doing all this not at their own private schools, but in public schools.

And make no mistake about it: It’s not the Christians who are complaining about our government not working sufficiently hard to spread their message. It’s not Christians complaining about being forced to live in a country of all the people, by all the people and for all the people. It’s the neo-Pharisees.

In the words of Jesus,

These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. — Mark 7:6 (New International Version).

Perhaps if they’d put their lives where their mouths are, there would be less need for anyone to worry about any “War On Christmas.”

In the long run, there is no War on Christmas. Even non-Christians like myself have no problem with the celebration — even when done in public — of Christmas. Speaking for myself — because that’s the only person I can speak for — I have a problem with the neo-Pharisees, who seem to believe that unless Christmas overwhelms everything else, it’s not good enough. I have a problem with neo-Pharisees who believe that a Christmas crèche with giant baby Jesus in their own front yard instead of in a core building representative of the government of the United States isn’t good enough. I have a problem with neo-Pharisees. Not with Christians or Christianity.

For in my experience, Christians put their lives where their mouths are, if they feel they have to speak to be a witness to their G-d at all. Neo-Pharisees must not only speak the name of Jesus, they must shriek it; they must yell it. And they must get the government to help them with this. For they are not stupid.

They recognize that since they do not live the message of Jesus, there’s no other way they can spread his name.

Now I have to tell you up front (in case there’s anyone reading who doesn’t know this already): I’m a Jew. Consequently, I’m not a Christian.

I do, however, read bibles — both Jewish and Christian — often. And I can tell you the majority of people out there claiming to be godly, or Christian, seldom appear to be either one, or the other.

I think the reason this happens is that Christians just don’t spend enough time with either their Bibles or their G-d. To really know someone, after all, you have to spend some time with them.

If you can’t find that person often enough — if, perhaps, they’ve moved away from you or you’ve moved away from them for some reason — the next best thing is to read any writings they may have left you. This may be done out of some sense of mourning; you longingly read over what someone recorded about what they said. So, you read it to know more about them. Maybe you decide to read what they said, or remember the kinds of things they did, so you can emulate their ways and cause other people to think of them.

Sometimes, you only have other people’s memories of them. But if you happen to be lucky enough to have something they, themselves, either wrote or caused to have written — even better! And, in the case of the Bible, which Christians will tell you are G-d’s words — and remember that the Jerry Falwell-types will tell you that every one of those words is literally the word of G-d — well, what more could you possibly ask for?

But Christians apparently aren’t familiar with these words. That’s why the director of a homeless shelter could say, “Jesus would have done the same thing” when he kicked Valan Garland and her three boys — Xavier, 1, Javonte, 3, and T’Keel, 5 — out into the streets because she had a man in her room. A man in her room!

The man, it turns out, was her uncle, who came visiting prior to Christmas with his wife, Valan’s aunt. Who knows what hanky-panky an eight-months-pregnant woman, her three babies, her paternal aunt and uncle might be up to in her room at the homeless shelter!

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. — John 8:3-6 (New International Version).

I think we can all agree that you don’t want to run a homeless brothel. Rules that forbid temporary residents from bringing men into their rooms for sex are entirely justified. And I’ll also agree that violations should have consequences. As the Reverend Oliver S. Robinson said when he kicked Garland and her three babies out into the below-freezing night, “We have to have rules and order.”

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. — John 8:7-9 (New International Version).

But what we’re talking about here is a homeless woman, with three babies, sitting in her room talking to her aunt and uncle. I’m sure this little pleasure would have been just as enjoyable outside; after all, the weather forecast for this week in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, calls for temperatures as high as 29 degrees.

According to the Reverend Robinson, his shelter is a credit to the community. That may very well be. It seems clear, however, that the Reverend himself is not.

Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” — John 8:10-11 (New International Version).

Ah…perhaps I was wrong about the “good” Reverend. It appears he was right. Jesus did say, “Go now.”

The reason their claims are illegitimate is that the neo-Pharisees who collect about George Bush honor him in virtually direct proportion to the horrors they would heap upon Jesus, were he alive today.

Proof of this is found in the way they use the Christian Bible. Even more so, by their acts. “Each tree is,” after all, “recognized by its own fruit.” (Luke 6:44 (New International Version); note, of the half-dozen different versions of the Christian Bible I own, I find the NIV to be one of the better translations, so unless stated otherwise, all quotes from the Christian Bible mentioned in this post are from the NIV.)

While neo-Pharisees are very vocal and visible in their claims that they want to build a nation “under G-d,” the fact of the matter is that they do nothing of the sort.

What, after all, would a nation “under G-d” look like?

For one thing, it would look more Jewish.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17 – 5:20.

Imagine a nation of people running around actually obeying all of the Law and the Prophets! Not just until they become Christians, at which point their mantra becomes “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven!” No! Imagine that they obeyed the law until heaven and earth disappear!

But that’s so “Old Testament,” you’re thinking.

Ignoring the insult to the Tanakh, the fact of the matter is that the so-called “New Testament” wasn’t written at the time Jesus is purported to have said the words noted above. He could only have been referring to the Tanakh and other Jewish writings. And he didn’t say, “Friends . . . Children, Christians aren’t perfect. Just forgiven!” In the original Koiné Greek version, he said, “not one iota” of the law would change. In the Hebrew Stuttgartensia, he said, “not one yud.” A “yud” is a Hebrew letter that looks a bit like a fat apostrophe.

On the upside, America would be a very moral nation with loads of well-fed, probably agrarian-based people. On the downside, there would be periodic deaths by stoning for a variety of sins, such as accidentally cursing. (Leviticus 24:16.) Businesses wouldn’t do so well, either, because we’d have to add the words of Jesus to the mix.

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth . . . Matthew 6:19.

Companies that make obscene profits while the people starve or go without health care would have to be eliminated.

An article over at the Blue Bus today — an article which, by the way, inspired my writing today — notes that George Bush wants to get rid of the business deduction for employer-provided health insurance. In its place, the Administration wants to push through “major amendments that would shield interest, dividends and capitals gains from taxation, expand tax breaks for business investment and take other steps intended to simplify the system and encourage economic growth, according to several people who are advising the White House or are familiar with the deliberations.” (Lizard Queen, Bush plans to cut tax break for employers offering health insurance (November 19, 2004) Blue Bus.)

What part of “I desire mercy” — defined as a :readiness to help” others in need (Matthew 9:13) or as “readiness to help, to spare, to forgive” (Matthew 12:7) — does this fit with? What part of “do not store up for yourselves treasures” does this fit into?

Instead, we get George W. Bush and his Minions. While George Bush was governor of Texas, executions rose dramatically. Apparently, it’s the Christian belief that the death penalty must be enforced. What’s not mentioned is that the death penalty in the Bible is quite limited. In the Tanakh, only specific crimes warranted the death penalty. In fact, in Numbers 14:10, G-d wanted to strike down all the Jews following Moses because they wanted to stone people who had not committed any crimes worthy of stoning. (For those who don’t know, “stoning” doesn’t mean that you give them free access to unlimited marijuana. It was a horrid method of execution. Usually, the target of the stoning would be buried up to their neck, to prevent them from running. Then stones — rocks just small enough to throw, actually — would be hurled at their heads until they died. This is still done, by the way, in some parts of the world today.)

The simple truth of the matter is that the policies of the Bush Administration and the neo-Pharisees don’t fit with any of the principles outlined by Christianity’s Jesus. They’re more reminiscent of the young man who asked Jesus what he must do to possess eternal life. He already claimed to keep the commandments, which is more than neo-Pharisees can say. After being told by Jesus that he should develop that spirtuality that accompanies a self-sacrificing character. And the way to do this was by selling all that he had and giving it to the poor. But the young man was crushed. He had a great deal of possessions and he valued his acquisitions. (See Matthew 19:16 – 19:24.)

Instead of practicing the moral values of their supposed G-d, we get a call for the restoration of “moral values” by the legal enforcement of Calvinist Christianity.

So for the sake of your tradition (the rules handed down by your forefathers), you have set aside the Word of God [depriving it of force and authority and making it of no effect]. You pretenders (hypocrites)! Admirably and truly did Isaiah prophesy of you when he said: These people draw near Me with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but their hearts hold off and are far away from Me. Uselessly do they worship Me, for they teach as doctrines the commands of men. Matthew 15:6 – 15:9.

What I’d like to see is a return to the days when the way to spread Christianity was to give up your worldly goods and move from town-to-town healing and feeding people. Then perhaps we can believe these people are concerned about the moral fabric of America.

Because instead of talking about it, or trying to legislate it for others, they’ll be demonstrating it in their own lives.

Imagine that, letting “your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16, emphasis added.)

That problem is with what to call them.

Whenever I write about them, I risk stepping on the toes of others who use the term “Christian” to describe themselves. For example, there are people who actually read their Bibles and then actually try to bring the Spirit of the Bible to life in their own lives. They take to heart the words of Matthew 5:16; their lives are a demonstration of the words of Jesus as recorded in the Christian Bible and of the example he set by the way he lived.

Stepping on the toes of those kinds of Christians is not acceptable in my book.

So what can I do about that?

First, let’s dispense with an argument I frequently hear, even from well-meaning Christian friends, even after I make clear what they should already know (that they are not my targets). These friends think that it’s inappropriate for me, a Jew, to comment upon Christianity. Sometimes their argument is that Bush’s Minions aren’t really Christians.

And my logical arguments about the incorrectness of that way of thinking fall on deaf ears. So let’s try a religious argument instead.

Consider me Balaam’s Donkey. (See Numbers 22:21 – 22:33.) Let’s take a look at the road ahead.

Religions have operated pretty much the the same throughout recorded history. And in the days when Jesus purportedly lived, the Jews were divided into sects just as other groups then and now. The Christian New Testament mentions two of those: the Pharisees and the Sadducees. A detailed examination of the differences between these sects is beyond the scope of this article, but the Pharisees were frequently taken to task by Jesus because they were thought by him to be ultra-(self-)righteous Jews, focused more on the dissection of the words of Jewish sacred writings than on understanding the spirit behind them.

The Pharisees were men — women had their “place” in those days, and it was felt that their natural inclinations were inimical to religious leadership; they were more inclined to pervert men’s desires from righteousness than to encourage righteousness. This was, so the argument went, their nature. So you might say that the Pharisees “kept women in their place” by not allowing them much in the way of real political — which in those days meant religious — power. But, as I was saying, the Pharisees were men of great ambition. And they were not dissuaded from doing whatever it took to obtain and maintain powerful positions whence they could enjoy the holy burden (no-bid!) of the communal coffers — and strike down those who would put it to other, perhaps more social, uses.

The Pharisees, so the story goes, ruled Israel with iron fists, influencing even the Romans who occupied the territory at the time. This well-established theocracy, it was said, was ultimately responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, for standing against them.

Some Jewish scholars will tell you that the Pharisees were misrepresented in the Christian Bible; that they were unjustly maligned by the Christians, who at that time constituted a newly-emerging sect of Judaism that was in continuous conflict with the Pharisees. In the view of these scholars, the Christian New Testament presents a caricature of the Pharisees, rather than a veridical picture.

Be that as it may, the conservative “Christian” right-wing that has propeled George Bush to power and which strives to turn America into a theocracy is the philosophical descendant of the caricature. Like the Pharisees of the Christian New Testament, they would rule with an iron fist, deciding themselves — rather than leaving it to G-d — what constitutes sin, who has sinned and strictly enforcing the rules against those who they determined to be sinners. Unlike the Pharisees, however, they don’t have their own distinct name to differentiate them from other Christian sects.

One consequence of this lack of a distinct name is that all other sects of Christianity, whether good or bad, may be viewed by non-Christians as being just like the neo-Pharisees. Of that I have little to say; I am not an apologist for Christianity.

Another consequence of this, however, is that it is difficult for my Christian friends to read what I have to say about these worshippers of Bush without feeling that I’m attacking those who worship the Christian G-d.

This is probably an intractable problem.

I don’t know if I can unilaterally decide to refer to these people by the more fitting label of “neo-Pharisees.” Unless I incorporate an explanation into every future blog article in which I use the name “neo-Pharisee,” new readers coming along after this current article won’t know what I’m talking about.

On the other hand, if “neocon” fits, perhaps there’s nothing that makes “neo-Pharisee” more difficult. And it is an appropriate label. Furthermore, perhaps if this label gets some traction, those well-intentioned-but-misinformed Christians — note the lack of scare quotes — who sided with the neo-Pharasaic “Christians” to re-elect Bush, might reflexively distance themselves from the neo-Pharasaic Republicans in the future, in the same way that they reflexively voted with them this time because they mistakenly believed this was the path to “restoring moral values” in America. (More on that in my next article.)

I think what I’ll start doing is using either scare quotes around the word “Christian” when I talk about Bush’s Minions, or I’ll go ahead and call them neo-Pharisees and link the term back to this article.

What do you think? I’d be interested to hear your view. Feel free to use the comment form below.

(Neo-Pharisees in particular should note, however, that comments are moderated. Although I’m a supporter of the First Amendment and will not ordinarily block or censor your posts, trash-talk, when unaccompanied by anything else, may result in your comment not getting posted.)