Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
ChloeB

Republican Jesus™

52 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

So we should treat Obama, or minorities in general, with kid gloves like the media does, He shouldn't be held responsible or criticized because he is a different color? I thought the main objective was to treat everyone as equal including all that comes with it...good or bad. There is an old saying about what is good for the goose is good for the gander. We women are still considered a minority, especially in the corporate world or the political arena. Another old saying comes to mind....If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.

He shouldn't be shown hanging from a tree ....

By the way he is not a different color.. he's african black and caucasion. America is a diverse nation. Different color from who? All the other presidents. Yes. So dont draw pictures of him hanging from a tree.

Edited by SpiritWriter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He shouldn't be shown hanging from a tree ....

I think it is in poor taste regardless of who is president, but it doesn't prove racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is in poor taste regardless of who is president, but it doesn't prove racism.

A black man hanging from a tree is a racist statement. Really. You should look it up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A black man hanging from a tree is a racist statement. Really. You should look it up.

I don't have to "look it up" I've seen it up close and personal. There are times of blatant racism and other times it is business as usual. The only difference is the people who are looking for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have to "look it up" I've seen it up close and personal. There are times of blatant racism and other times it is business as usual. The only difference is the people who are looking for it.

Yes you can say this or say that but it WILL be interpreted that way and so in my opinion whoever depicts that image has no problem portraying a racist image. Say you were the first woman president and they drew a pic of you with a slutty outfit. Would you deny it was a sexist image?

A pic of a hanging is worste than that in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you can say this or say that but it WILL be interpreted that way and so in my opinion whoever depicts that image has no problem portraying a racist image. Say you were the first woman president and they drew a pic of you with a slutty outfit. It would be sexist. But you couldn't deny it was a sexist image.

A pic of a hanging is worste than that in my opinion.

There has been much hate thrown at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, including effigies of hanging and sexual remarks/jokes, but I don't recall an outcry of sexism.

Politics is dirty business, always has been. For anyone that thinks they can be immune to it is a fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider the RJ ™ as either a literal or a comprehensive model--that's why I began with the word "Elements" above. It is a metaphor for an agenda-izing psuedo-majority (the "first" Nixon couched it in the term "Silent Majority") who have hijacked Jesus for their own atavistic purposes. And if one thinks the "Democratic Jesus" of the '60's is a foil in this tournament of metaphors, well, "DJ" was at least more scripturally accurate. I never heard of the J-Man tokin' on a J, but he did imbibe wine, and took massive flak from the Pharisees for it. He loved to wave the sign of peace, too.

Excellent response, yes, I think Democratic Jesus is more biblical. And not that I'm praising the Democrats or Obama, not my point here, just that these people who are so vocal in the good ol' traditional Christian values and how this country needs to get in line with that, well this article does show the attitudes of how they think and it's not really anything like Jesus is in the bible, but you attach Jesus to something or Christian, just that alone gets a bunch of voters, but their traditional downhome Christian values contradict a lot of what Jesus taught. It's like in that movie Talladega Nights, they just make Jesus however they want him to be:I like to pictureJesus in a tuxedo T-Shirt because it says I want to be formal, but I'm here to party, lolol. Sure, why not? He's just became a political paper doll to be dressed up whatever way suits them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this was intended as humour, but I'm going to be a little pedantic and address two or three specific comments:

Or maybe just enough to wipe out a schoolroom filled with kids when their excellent parenting skills manifest themselves in the next Columbine tragedy. - Is the author of this article truly blaming Republican Christians for school shootings based on poor parenting skills?

Republican Jesus™ hates The Gay. They’re sinners, after all. It says so right there in the Bible next to the part about shellfish being an abomination. - The Bible doesn't actually say eating shellfish is an abomination. It says that shellfish are "unclean". The term "abomination" in the Old Testament is a highly religious term, used often to describe idolatrous practices. When the Bible says that a man who lies with another man is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), it's commenting on homosexual acts done within the context of idol worship (homosexual sex was a common act of worship to many of the deities surrounding the nation of Israel). So while I do get the gist of what the author is saying, it is theologically incorrect to label eating shellfish an "abomination".

Of course, this ignores the fact that lesbians (a well-known subset of homosexuality) have the lowest rate of STDs, including AIDS, among all adult population groups. - This may have something to do with the fact that women have no penis to penetrate. Male homosexuals (another well-known subset of homosexuality) have the highest rate of STD's, including AIDS, among all adult population groups. I'm not using this argument to say it's wrong, simply pointing out a biological fact.

Other than that, all I can say is that I've never met a Christian who adheres to the teachings of Republican Jesus™. Must be an American thing.

Oh I just know I'm going to regret getting in another homosexuality discussion with you, but JUST to clarify, here goes..............PA, the point is, if God is punishing homosexuals with STDs and AIDs, why target only males while females have the lowest. The point of that is to show how full of it they are saying that. I think we know the biology.

And yes, these attitudes are prevalent more in the southern states of the US, where I live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red herring.

I am absolutely not Christian, and I am absolutely concerned about creeping islam, and so should you be.

And, for your information, Islam is not a race.

Playing the "racist" card to excuse the islamic threat to modernity is cheap, polemical, dishonest and ignorant.

I worry about that too, I worry about any religion whose aim is getting in control of government, just like Republican Jesus and his sex-obsessed bible gang wanting to cram their religion into policy to dictate what I can do with my body and hijack birth control I find quite threatening, for example.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like in that movie Talladega Nights, they just make Jesus however they want him to be:I like to pictureJesus in a tuxedo T-Shirt because it says I want to be formal, but I'm here to party, lolol. Sure, why not? He's just became a political paper doll to be dressed up whatever way suits them.

lol Isn't that what everyone does though? Pagans pick and choose what "branch" they adhere to. My own beliefs are more closely related to Pagan and Native American beliefs. When I first started investigating into them I was told I should take my own path and there was no doctrine . That is exactly what Christians and other religions do....they pick and choose what they take from their holy books and apply it to their personal interests and biases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol Isn't that what everyone does though? Pagans pick and choose what "branch" they adhere to. My own beliefs are more closely related to Pagan and Native American beliefs. When I first started investigating into them I was told I should take my own path and there was no doctrine . That is exactly what Christians and other religions do....they pick and choose what they take from their holy books and apply it to their personal interests and biases.

It's different how they use their Jesus and bible card to demand they're right and that it is by command of their one true God and holy book that is how the world or country should be ran, anyone who disagrees is wrong and against Jesus and God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I just know I'm going to regret getting in another homosexuality discussion with you, but JUST to clarify, here goes..............PA, the point is, if God is punishing homosexuals with STDs and AIDs, why target only males while females have the lowest. The point of that is to show how full of it they are saying that. I think we know the biology.

And yes, these attitudes are prevalent more in the southern states of the US, where I live.

I was simply pointing out what thought processes they used by stating a fact I felt the author disingenuously left unsaid.

Why is it I made three points and only the controversial one gets addressed? I could also have pointed out the inaccuracy of the comment on Obama and racism but it was addressed by others. As an Australian viewingAmerican politics, GWB got more heat than Obama ever has. But that aside, the author also blames Republican parenting for school shootings (not parents, parenting -poor parenting skills) as well as butchering Leviticus to make it say something it does not. But poor PA, only my comment on homosexuality gets picked on :devil:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was simply pointing out what thought processes they used by stating a fact I felt the author disingenuously left unsaid.

Why is it I made three points and only the controversial one gets addressed?

Your other 2 points were the first, you missed the point of what sarcasm is and the other you gave us a lesson in the differnence in unclean and abomination, neither of those 2 really felt like worth my commenting on, I really don't know what to say to either. The point about homosexuality and STDs and AIDS you made, I felt like the article was pretty clear in the point in was trying to make, but I guess you didn't, I clarified.

I could also have pointed out the inaccuracy of the comment on Obama and racism but it was addressed by others. As an Australian viewingAmerican politics, GWB got more heat than Obama ever has. But that aside, the author also blames Republican parenting for school shootings (not parents, parenting -poor parenting skills) as well as butchering Leviticus to make it say something it does not. But poor PA, only my comment on homosexuality gets picked on :devil:

PA, ya said your own self that you realized it was mean to be humor!! Now it's all butt hurt and drama time with you. Butchered Leviticus!!! Blamed parents for school shootings!!! Picking on PA!! I mean come on really?

And my whole point in saying what I said and how I said it about thinking I would regret this, (and just how this played out, can you imagine why I would ever feel that way and yet here we are) was that I didn't want to turn this into another debate thread about homosexuality, just wanted to put that out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Your other 2 points were the first, you missed the point of what sarcasm is and the other you gave us a lesson in the differnence in unclean and abomination, neither of those 2 really felt like worth my commenting on, I really don't know what to say to either. The point about homosexuality and STDs and AIDS you made, I felt like the article was pretty clear in the point in was trying to make, but I guess you didn't, I clarified.

PA, ya said your own self that you realized it was mean to be humor!! Now it's all butt hurt and drama time with you. Butchered Leviticus!!! Blamed parents for school shootings!!! Picking on PA!! I mean come on really?

And my whole point in saying what I said and how I said it about thinking I would regret this, (and just how this played out, can you imagine why I would ever feel that way and yet here we are) was that I didn't want to turn this into another debate thread about homosexuality, just wanted to put that out there.

Hey Chloe, I was attempting a bit of sarcasm with my "poor PA, always being picked on" comment, I hoped that would come through with the devil smiley (apologies if it didn't come across to you that way). As to the rest, I'm all for humour, and I do acknowledge it was attempting to be humorous. But to me, humour is when you take something true and then turn it on its head somehow. Sarcasm is NOT outright misrepresenting a person's point of view. It is not simply calling Republicans bad parents with poor parenting skills (are Democrat parents better? Are their children less likely to be psychopathic?). Hence while some of it did come off as humorous, I just had to be pedantic and point to flaws that took away from the humour. Deliberately misrepresenting a person's political view and religious ideology isn't sarcasm, it's demonisation (my opinion on that one). Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Of course there are. What infuriates me is the attitude that anyone who disagrees with Obama's politics are racists. People claim that effigies of Obama hanging from a noose or portraying him as a monkey are racist when in fact those same kind of images were extremely common of Bush while he was in office. Apparently many people have a short attention span, a selective memory or looking for racism where there is non.

I have never seen such an extreme double standard in my life.

My point was to say that there are some who will hold racists views, and you agree indeed they are.. I also am well aware of those ready to chant racist towards people who speak out against Obama...People LOVE to play the race card when it suits, I am most aware of this, I think everyone is..

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worry about that too, I worry about any religion whose aim is getting in control of government, just like Republican Jesus and his sex-obsessed bible gang wanting to cram their religion into policy to dictate what I can do with my body and hijack birth control I find quite threatening, for example.

I am admittedly not following party-political details in the US, but I have certainly not seen that "hijacking birth control" is a part of the Republican party platform. I am aware that there was one particular nutcase who pontificated about "legitimate rape", but I understand he was quickly rebuked by his party collegues.

On the other extreme, do you agree with Obamas policy of giving morning-after pills to under-age girls over the counter? I found that rather astonishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I also am well aware of those ready to chant racist towards people who speak out against Obama...People LOVE to play the race card when it suits, I am most aware of this, I think everyone is..

Totally agree. Even in the bare-knuckles context of US party politics, the talking point "if you oppose Obamas politics, you are racist" is beyond the pale.

I am astonished to see this kind of intellectual garbage appearing here.

Edited by Zaphod222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree. Even in the bare-knuckles context of US party politics, the talking point "if you oppose Obamas politics, you are racist" is beyond the pale.

I am astonished to see this kind of intellectual garbage appearing here.

You are astonished by it, I am not surprised by it...Nothing surprises me any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I am admittedly not following party-political details in the US, but I have certainly not seen that "hijacking birth control" is a part of the Republican party platform. I am aware that there was one particular nutcase who pontificated about "legitimate rape", but I understand he was quickly rebuked by his party collegues.

On the other extreme, do you agree with Obamas policy of giving morning-after pills to under-age girls over the counter? I found that rather astonishing.

Astonishing, why? Yes, I absolutely agree with it if it helps prevent less unwanted pregnancies, more teen moms, and more kids for the taxpayers to support. The pill is the same drug as birth control pills, just a higher dose, to prevent pregnancy, most people are crying it's an abortion pill, which it's not. http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecnotru.html So yes, I'm totally for it, they're having sex anyway and it's not stopping, if some can get themselves down to the drug store the next day to try to prevent a pregnancy, well I can't see anything bad about that. Condoms are better of course, but it doesn't always happen, obviously as we see before these pills were offered. Uwanted pregnancies lead to more abortions, and people who are against abortion, I can't see why they aren't for this, unless they're ignorant and cry like stupid Glenn Beck and think it's an abortion pill.

Edited by ChloeB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just to be clear, I didn't say I had never heard of this, I said I've never met a person who believes in any of that.

Actually, Para, you didn't say it that way. You said the claim is "ridiculous," implying that you don't believe it. "Ridiculous" can also denote something which is laughable; unworthy of credulity. However you cut it, millions of people believe that racism plays a significant role in the criticism of President Obama. Whether or not you have "met" them is immaterial. You know they exist.

Millions of people exist who deny the Holocaust.

Sadly, I have met a couple of them.

Had I not met them, they would still exist, I would know of them and would still disagree with their execrable nonsense. I might even find it ridiculous.

Edited by szentgyorgy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree. Even in the bare-knuckles context of US party politics, the talking point "if you oppose Obamas politics, you are racist" is beyond the pale.

I am astonished to see this kind of intellectual garbage appearing here.

Do you recall W. pontificating, "If yer not fer us, yer wi' da terrists!" and a majority of his followers screaming, "If you don't support the war you're unpatriotic!"???

How soon we forget. Bush got a pass and countless waves of the flag for US state terrorism in Iraq. Yes, there are many Americans who won't wave that same flag for an African-American president, and of that number many do in fact name his race (which, by the way, is mixed--like all the rest of us) as a factor. The fact that there is "no such thing as a pure racial strain" (Bruce Cockburn, Canadian singer-songwriter-guitarist) should give us Americans even more pause to rethink our analyses--cereberally, and not anally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Para, you didn't say it that way. You said the claim is "ridiculous," implying that you don't believe it. "Ridiculous" can also denote something which is laughable; unworthy of credulity. However you cut it, millions of people believe that racism plays a significant role in the criticism of President Obama. Whether or not you have "met" them is immaterial. You know they exist.

Millions of people exist who deny the Holocaust.

Sadly, I have met a couple of them.

Had I not met them, they would still exist, I would know of them and would still disagree with their execrable nonsense. I might even find it ridiculous.

Maybe you need to go back and re-read my post. Show me where I said the claim was "ridiculous". I have searched through all my posts in this thread (including the ones after this comment), and not once have I used that word. What I said was:

all I can say is that I've never met a Christian who adheres to the teachings of Republican Jesus™. Must be an American thing.

All I can say is that I've never met a Christian who adheres to the teachings of Republican Jesus™. It doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means I've never met one.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you need to go back and re-read my post. Show me where I said the claim was "ridiculous". I have searched through all my posts in this thread (including the ones after this comment), and not once have I used that word. What I said was:

All I can say is that I've never met a Christian who adheres to the teachings of Republican Jesus™. It doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means I've never met one.

You are correct, Para---I apologize for my error. I was quoting someone else's exclamation and confused it with your quote. My bad. Sometimes it gets real hot in this here cauldron.

But no excuses. I'm sorry I misquoted you. Take care,

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 60's, Jesus was a Democrat. He touted Civil Rights, and opposed the war in Viet-Nam. I think he did some serious weed, too.

But hey, we all grow up. Can't be a hippie weirdoh all your life. Word is, he got a job (advertising, I think). He took one look at how much taxes were withheld from his pay check, and he became a Republican on the spot. He also thanked himself that he didn't have to pay union dues on top of that.

As to one of the lesser issues, Of course, he's white - he's half Irish. On his father's side.

The Democrats (Kennedy and Johnson) were the ones who escalated the Vietnam War not the Republicans. 10,000 hippies protested the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

@ChloeB: The Republicans (Lincoln) were the Northern Aggressors in the civil war. So Republican Jesus didn't let them lose, if anything he helped them win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats (Kennedy and Johnson) were the ones who escalated the Vietnam War not the Republicans. 10,000 hippies protested the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

@ChloeB: The Republicans (Lincoln) were the Northern Aggressors in the civil war. So Republican Jesus didn't let them lose, if anything he helped them win.

Papa, that's the point about the scuffed lines of demarcation in the 60's--the Democrats were eating their own, starting with LBJ's hatred of JFK, expanding to the cannibalism of the Democratic party---RFK to "Clean Gene" McCarthy to '4 dead in Ohio' and more at Jackson State to the McGovern/Eagleton-oops-McGovern/Shriver debacle. The 60's produced strange bedfellows and the era continues to resist easy analysis to this day.

As for the Republican War to Preserve the Union, anybody who can read or go to the movies or video shop can figure out that the Republican Party of the Civil War and Reconstruction has as much in common with today's 'GOP' as slave-owning Southern democrats of the 1860's and democrat racists and segregationists through the 1960's have in common with Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama. History proves that the words "democrat" and "republican" are facile, malleable and subject to constant change and interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.