Republican Jesus

Liberal propagandist Stephen Colbert had this to say:

Here's the central thesis that Colbert, representing all liberals, is putting forth: That Conservatives are wrong to seek to limit the size and scope of Government. That efforts to reform social spending are anti-Christian. That reducing any spending by Democrats is anti-Christian. That by opposing Democrats we are violating the teachings of Jesus!

Democrats talk a lot about Jesus. A common meme among them is "Republican Jesus," the notion that Conservative political values are hypocritically opposed to the values and teachings of the very religion to which Conservatives overwhelmingly belong.  Here's an example:

Well, anyone familiar with the actual teachings of Jesus knows about things like the Parable Of the Talents in which Jesus discusses a rich man who entrusts his wealth to his servants. The good servants (according to Jesus) invested their master's money and earned a profit. The bad servant buried the money in a hole and thus did not "increase it." None of the servants were stupid enough to give the money to Liberals to spend as they saw fit. Rather, Jesus directly advocated investing money to increase wealth.

Wait a second, liberals scream, what about this?

Oh, so now Lord Obama is our Caesar?!  Our emperor who owns all money? Is that what liberals are claiming? Because I thought our Founding Fathers had studied Rome and determined it not the best method of government. I thought they decided that a man, democratically elected, and bound by the Constitution and the democratically-enacted laws should hold the office of the Presidency. Jesus said it's wrong for Christians to take part in the democratic process and seek to curtail the spending of the government? That's news to me.

Probably be news to Jesus as well.

Let's take another look at the liberal's "Republican Jesus:"

Yes, Jesus performed the miracle of the loaves and the fishes.  He fed the multitude.

For how many days? Did he feed them for the rest of their lives? Did he feed generations of people? More importantly, did he command the multitude to steal from the rich for their food? He had a perfect opportunity to do so. As related in Mark 6:

When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. And he began to teach them many things. And when it grew late, his disciples came to him and said, “This is a desolate place, and the hour is now late. Send them away to go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.”

If Jesus agreed with the Democrat's point of view about forced charity through taxation, this would be the exact time and place for it to come out. He would have taught the multitude that they should go to the houses of the rich and demand as their right free food and money because the rich "weren't paying their fair share." And then Jesus would have organized (if that word can be applied) an "Occupy Galilee" rally complete with ratty tents, foul smelling hippies, mountains of trash, and copious drugs. But that's not what happened.

Wait a second, isn't Jesus famous for teaching and preaching about giving to the poor?

Yes, that is correct. But because Liberals like Colbert got everything they know about Jesus from Hollywood movies, classic after-school specials, and hippie folk songs, they don't really know what they're talking about. If they did know anything about the New Testament they'd be familiar with 2 Corinthians 9:7 which tells us "each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

That's right, the Bible comes right out and states that taxation, when "given to the poor" is wrong.  When Republicans oppose the concept of collecting compulsory taxes to redistribute to the poor, they're not violating the teachings of the Bible, they're doing exactly what The Book says.

In the Sermon on the Mount, as related via Matthew 6, a direct quote from Jesus tells us:

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others." 

Doesn't sound much like the Liberal elite, does it?  With their ostentatious activism and charitable foundations and most of all, incessant demands that taxes be increased "for the poor."  How often do we see a Limousine Liberal like Colbert ostentatiously "call awareness" to a problem? How often do we hear these same Liberals call for increased taxes on other people to "give to the poor?"

At the other end of the spectrum are the Conservatives, the people Colbert excoriates for opposition to Big Government and raising taxes. But it turns out they were quietly following the Word of Jesus when it comes to almsgiving.  In the early 2000s social scientist Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at liberal bastion Syracuse University, a man who had been raised by liberals, decided to take a good look at who is really more charitable: Liberals or Conservatives.  His findings shocked him: Conservatives donate approximately 30% more of their income to charity than Liberals despite the fact that Conservatives earn, on average, 6% less. He published his findings in his 2006 book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism. He also discovered that:

"...there are three cultural values that best predict charitable giving: Religious participation, political views, and family structure. Ninety-one percent of people who identify themselves as religious are likely to give to charity as opposed to 66 percent of people who do not. The religious giving sector is just as likely to give to secular programs as it is to religious causes. Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more. Finally, people who couple and raise children are more likely to give philanthropically than those who do not. The more children there are in a family, the more likely that a family will donate to charity."

At the time of Brook's publication, John Stossel worked as a journalist for ABC News.  He relates in an editorial column how ABC's 20/20 program was able to devise a simple experiment to validate Brook's findings. Stossel went on to supply the statistic that conservatives are even 18% more likely to donate blood.

But let's get back to Stephen Colbert's implicit accusation that Conservatives are hypocrites to oppose taxation and demand welfare reform.  The real hypocrisy is that liberal's think this about Jesus:

For them, Jesus exists solely as a stick with which to beat the faithful. I think William Shakespeare, in his play The Merchant of Venice, summed up Liberals like Colbert best:

“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

An evil soul producing holy witness

Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,

A goodly apple rotten at the heart.

O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!” 

But the fact is, Conservatives would not oppose taxation to benefit the poor were it not for the rampant fraud and abuse. Think of it this way: Suppose your next-door neighbor comes to you and says he cannot afford food. Would you give him money? Most Conservatives (as Arthur Brooks discovered) would. Liberals would not, they would tell "the poor" to go and tax (steal) from "the rich."  But if you're a Christian and you gave the money, then suppose, after a hard day of work, you came upon your neighbor lying drunk on his lawn, surrounded by the beercans he had purchased with your money. Would you loan him money again? Perhaps. Would you suggest he get a job and pay for his own beer? I would.

At the governmental level, I object to seeing moms with five kids redeem their SNAP food stamps while clutching an iPhone. I object to all the Lexuses and BMWs parked outside Section 8 housing. I object to the amount of gold jewelry worn by the people in the welfare line. Liberals answer this with another example of "Republican Jesus:"

You know what? That's exactly what Jesus would say to today's welfare masses. As a matter of fact, here's what he did say, as related by John 5: 

"My Father is working until now, and I am working."

Yeah, that's right, in the approximately 18 years before his Ministry and even during it, Jesus worked his trade as a Teckton (carpenter). He did not demand money from "the rich." He himself got a job.

Maybe the "hungry masses," with their iPads and premium cable TV and medical marijuana cards, should do the same.