The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus
Being that I am of both the Republitarian persuasion and the Christian persuasion, I have been wanting, for quite some time now, to write a post dealing with the correlation between my faith and my politics. I have, unfortunately, put it off, and put it off, and put it off some more. However recently in the Conservative Punk message board I became involved in a debate with one of the regular liberal posters about a comic found in Al Franken's book Lies, entitled "The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus," and a rebuttal to it that can be found at lyingliar.com, some of which I myself contributed, originally from my Planet Franken website (http://planetfranken.tripod.com/). There was a lot of nitpicking back and forth, but the basis of the topic is this: Would Jesus, given his nature, have supported or opposed supply side economics? Or, more importantly, would he have taken a side at all? To give you an idea of my own position on the issue, the following is what I wrote as my initial response in the message board:
----------------
If you want to go through and pick apart every word in the Supply Side Jesus article, knock yourself out, but I have neither the time nor the interest, so I’ll just speak briefly about the root of it. The question is whether Jesus would support supply side economic policies the way many conservatives do. Al Franken seems to suggest that it is against Jesus’ character, and likewise many liberals have argued that Jesus would have supported government programs to help the poor. While I don’t agree with this (Jesus always spoke on the individual level and appealed to people’s hearts and consciences, not to mention being an advocate of free will), and while I think it is foolish for any of us to try linking Jesus with any branch of economic theory (he simply wasn’t concerned with such things), it is a valid argument to make.
The problem that myself and others have with the Supply Side Jesus comic is not unlike the problem you had with Dennis Prager’s “Are you a liberal” list, but it even takes it one step further. Not only does the comic put a fiercely negative (dare I say slanderous) spin on the beliefs and priorities of conservatives, suggesting that conservatives are all obsessed with their own greed and couldn’t care less about anyone else, but it does so by employing the image of someone whom many conservatives take great inspiration from and find to be a sacred figure. Yes, I know, Al Franken claims his book to be “satire,” and that’s fair enough, but the arguments must nevertheless be examined on their own merit. After all, satire often contains the most passionate agendas of all (which is why Oscar Wilde spent a great deal of time in prison).
Al Franken made his point and he is certainly at liberty to do so. I even enjoy his musings from time to time, and as far as liberal commentators go, I think he is one of the more entertaining figures out there. Nevertheless, “The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus” is nothing more than a snide attempt to mock religious conservatives by using their own faith against them, taking bible verses out of context and advocating big government by suggesting that those who support supply side economics are driven entirely by greed. If Dennis Prager had written anything similar against liberals, you of all people would be fuming.
And the problems with the comic are numerous. I have outlined many of them before, but it really comes down to the idea of suggesting that people who support supply side economics are, in effect, going against the teachings of Jesus. This is the central problem right here. If Jesus thought that government was the answer to poverty and such things, he could have appealed directly to Caesar and not wasted his time teaching the masses to be generous and pure of heart. Generosity isn’t paying your taxes (and NO, I’m not saying I’m against taxation); generosity is having the heart to give and to show love when nobody is holding a gun to your head. Most conservatives I know care very deeply about the poor. My church does a great deal for the poor in our community and even internationally.
While we’re on that subject, most of the people whom I know personally in my church don’t view economic policy as a top priority when voting. They pay their taxes, live day to day, and vote primarily based on who supports the pro-life movement and cherishes traditional values, even if he or she is a big domestic spender. If anything, Al Franken went after the wrong people in his satiric piece against supply side economics. It would have made more sense had he gone after wealthy businessmen, and not the Christians of Middle America, the majority of whom couldn’t be any further from the mind of “Supply Side Jesus.”
And yes, there are Christians like myself (and to a lesser extent, the president) who support supply side economics (but if you haven’t figured it out, I’m not at all like most Christians), but the majority have other priorities. The pastor of my church is a hardcore Republican, but he doesn’t know GDP from GMC. He feels that it is his job to serve his community and the children of God, and to stand up for what he believes are godly values. And this guy has done a hell of a lot more for the poor through his money, love and personal attention than Al Franken has by signing the check for his income taxes and patting himself on the back. I’m just saying...
And maybe (after you get over the initial disgust from remembering that most conservative Christians are pro-life) you’re saying to yourself, “Well yeah, maybe not all conservative Christians are concerned with supply side economics, but the point is that a large portion of people who do support supply side economics claim to be Christian.” Sort of like the “All Catholics are Christian but not all Christians are Catholic” response, and it is well put. If you thought of that one, give yourself a pat on the back. To respond, however, I say that it’s basically inconsequential. Many people just tend to support whatever their chosen political party supports, many people hold on to the values with which they were raised, and then there are many (like Chuck Norris, for instance) who spend years supporting Republican policies and then convert to Christianity later in life.
There are any number of reasons why any number of people would support any number of policy combinations, but I say it is inconsequential because I still don’t believe—unlike Franken—that it is Un-Christian to support supply side economics. I would never suggest that Jesus “advocates” such policy, that would be foolish, but I think that’s my point. Jesus didn’t come to earth to change government. He came to earth to change people’s hearts and minds, and to give people an opportunity for salvation. He didn’t promote “programs” (or a lack thereof), he promoted love, humility, generosity, compassion, forgiveness...these things transcend government. I don’t support supply-side economics because I think it’s God’s will, but nor do I think I am in opposition of God’s will by supporting limited government. My political philosophies are for my country, and my personal philosophies are for my God.
Alan Colmes makes a very similar argument to the Supply Side Jesus bit in his book “Red, White and Liberal.” He has a chapter called “Jesus Was A Liberal,” and while I don’t agree with the majority of the points he makes, I respect him for making them, mainly because they were articulated clearly and thoughtfully, completely free of any slander or smear. I was able to think critically about his points and examine my own beliefs because I didn’t feel as though he was trying to make a mockery of my livelihood. But, I suppose that’s why Al Franken hates Alan Colmes so much, and why he embarrassed himself at a 2003 White House Correspondents Dinner by making a scene and excoriating Colmes for not being liberal enough.
The point is, if you honestly want to persuade people to consider your liberal positions on a conservative site, it might serve you well to cut out the smear and arrogance. Yes, Al Franken and Ann Coulter are a lot of fun as far as political pornography goes, but you can’t just come around smearing people and acting like the cock of the walk (“Yeah, I can refute this idiot’s argument, no problem…”), and then act shocked and appalled when people get in your face about it. Something to think about. I mean, hey, if you prefer that approach, then by all means knock yourself out, but then don’t accuse us of being mean or unfair when we respond in a less than flattering manner. I only bring it up to clarify why I responded the way I did earlier.
Anyway, if you still believe that Al Franken’s slanderous comic is worth defending, let me just ask you this: Do you believe that to support supply side economics is immoral? OR, if you consider yourself a moral relativist, do you believe that supply side economics falls into a Christian definition of immorality? I hope I have been clear in my explanations as to why I do not hold that view, but that is largely what the argument boils down to. “The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus” is a sardonic attempt to demonstrate that supply side economics is in contrast to what Jesus taught, a notion which I find extremely erroneous. If, however, you disagree, and feel that such policy is without justification from a Christian or moral standpoint, then let’s just go from there.
I have no desire to follow you through multiple threads on the same topic, and as such I have no intention of doing so. I don’t even recall much of what I wrote two years ago, and there’s certainly no point in nitpicking about the various sub-points in Bushnell’s article. So if you are genuinely interested in the correlation between Christian theology and supply side economics, let’s just focus on that, right here. You lay out your opinions on the topic and I’ll lay out mine. Anything else in this context would be an utter waste of time.
Being that I am of both the Republitarian persuasion and the Christian persuasion, I have been wanting, for quite some time now, to write a post dealing with the correlation between my faith and my politics. I have, unfortunately, put it off, and put it off, and put it off some more. However recently in the Conservative Punk message board I became involved in a debate with one of the regular liberal posters about a comic found in Al Franken's book Lies, entitled "The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus," and a rebuttal to it that can be found at lyingliar.com, some of which I myself contributed, originally from my Planet Franken website (http://planetfranken.tripod.com/). There was a lot of nitpicking back and forth, but the basis of the topic is this: Would Jesus, given his nature, have supported or opposed supply side economics? Or, more importantly, would he have taken a side at all? To give you an idea of my own position on the issue, the following is what I wrote as my initial response in the message board:
----------------
If you want to go through and pick apart every word in the Supply Side Jesus article, knock yourself out, but I have neither the time nor the interest, so I’ll just speak briefly about the root of it. The question is whether Jesus would support supply side economic policies the way many conservatives do. Al Franken seems to suggest that it is against Jesus’ character, and likewise many liberals have argued that Jesus would have supported government programs to help the poor. While I don’t agree with this (Jesus always spoke on the individual level and appealed to people’s hearts and consciences, not to mention being an advocate of free will), and while I think it is foolish for any of us to try linking Jesus with any branch of economic theory (he simply wasn’t concerned with such things), it is a valid argument to make.
The problem that myself and others have with the Supply Side Jesus comic is not unlike the problem you had with Dennis Prager’s “Are you a liberal” list, but it even takes it one step further. Not only does the comic put a fiercely negative (dare I say slanderous) spin on the beliefs and priorities of conservatives, suggesting that conservatives are all obsessed with their own greed and couldn’t care less about anyone else, but it does so by employing the image of someone whom many conservatives take great inspiration from and find to be a sacred figure. Yes, I know, Al Franken claims his book to be “satire,” and that’s fair enough, but the arguments must nevertheless be examined on their own merit. After all, satire often contains the most passionate agendas of all (which is why Oscar Wilde spent a great deal of time in prison).
Al Franken made his point and he is certainly at liberty to do so. I even enjoy his musings from time to time, and as far as liberal commentators go, I think he is one of the more entertaining figures out there. Nevertheless, “The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus” is nothing more than a snide attempt to mock religious conservatives by using their own faith against them, taking bible verses out of context and advocating big government by suggesting that those who support supply side economics are driven entirely by greed. If Dennis Prager had written anything similar against liberals, you of all people would be fuming.
And the problems with the comic are numerous. I have outlined many of them before, but it really comes down to the idea of suggesting that people who support supply side economics are, in effect, going against the teachings of Jesus. This is the central problem right here. If Jesus thought that government was the answer to poverty and such things, he could have appealed directly to Caesar and not wasted his time teaching the masses to be generous and pure of heart. Generosity isn’t paying your taxes (and NO, I’m not saying I’m against taxation); generosity is having the heart to give and to show love when nobody is holding a gun to your head. Most conservatives I know care very deeply about the poor. My church does a great deal for the poor in our community and even internationally.
While we’re on that subject, most of the people whom I know personally in my church don’t view economic policy as a top priority when voting. They pay their taxes, live day to day, and vote primarily based on who supports the pro-life movement and cherishes traditional values, even if he or she is a big domestic spender. If anything, Al Franken went after the wrong people in his satiric piece against supply side economics. It would have made more sense had he gone after wealthy businessmen, and not the Christians of Middle America, the majority of whom couldn’t be any further from the mind of “Supply Side Jesus.”
And yes, there are Christians like myself (and to a lesser extent, the president) who support supply side economics (but if you haven’t figured it out, I’m not at all like most Christians), but the majority have other priorities. The pastor of my church is a hardcore Republican, but he doesn’t know GDP from GMC. He feels that it is his job to serve his community and the children of God, and to stand up for what he believes are godly values. And this guy has done a hell of a lot more for the poor through his money, love and personal attention than Al Franken has by signing the check for his income taxes and patting himself on the back. I’m just saying...
And maybe (after you get over the initial disgust from remembering that most conservative Christians are pro-life) you’re saying to yourself, “Well yeah, maybe not all conservative Christians are concerned with supply side economics, but the point is that a large portion of people who do support supply side economics claim to be Christian.” Sort of like the “All Catholics are Christian but not all Christians are Catholic” response, and it is well put. If you thought of that one, give yourself a pat on the back. To respond, however, I say that it’s basically inconsequential. Many people just tend to support whatever their chosen political party supports, many people hold on to the values with which they were raised, and then there are many (like Chuck Norris, for instance) who spend years supporting Republican policies and then convert to Christianity later in life.
There are any number of reasons why any number of people would support any number of policy combinations, but I say it is inconsequential because I still don’t believe—unlike Franken—that it is Un-Christian to support supply side economics. I would never suggest that Jesus “advocates” such policy, that would be foolish, but I think that’s my point. Jesus didn’t come to earth to change government. He came to earth to change people’s hearts and minds, and to give people an opportunity for salvation. He didn’t promote “programs” (or a lack thereof), he promoted love, humility, generosity, compassion, forgiveness...these things transcend government. I don’t support supply-side economics because I think it’s God’s will, but nor do I think I am in opposition of God’s will by supporting limited government. My political philosophies are for my country, and my personal philosophies are for my God.
Alan Colmes makes a very similar argument to the Supply Side Jesus bit in his book “Red, White and Liberal.” He has a chapter called “Jesus Was A Liberal,” and while I don’t agree with the majority of the points he makes, I respect him for making them, mainly because they were articulated clearly and thoughtfully, completely free of any slander or smear. I was able to think critically about his points and examine my own beliefs because I didn’t feel as though he was trying to make a mockery of my livelihood. But, I suppose that’s why Al Franken hates Alan Colmes so much, and why he embarrassed himself at a 2003 White House Correspondents Dinner by making a scene and excoriating Colmes for not being liberal enough.
The point is, if you honestly want to persuade people to consider your liberal positions on a conservative site, it might serve you well to cut out the smear and arrogance. Yes, Al Franken and Ann Coulter are a lot of fun as far as political pornography goes, but you can’t just come around smearing people and acting like the cock of the walk (“Yeah, I can refute this idiot’s argument, no problem…”), and then act shocked and appalled when people get in your face about it. Something to think about. I mean, hey, if you prefer that approach, then by all means knock yourself out, but then don’t accuse us of being mean or unfair when we respond in a less than flattering manner. I only bring it up to clarify why I responded the way I did earlier.
Anyway, if you still believe that Al Franken’s slanderous comic is worth defending, let me just ask you this: Do you believe that to support supply side economics is immoral? OR, if you consider yourself a moral relativist, do you believe that supply side economics falls into a Christian definition of immorality? I hope I have been clear in my explanations as to why I do not hold that view, but that is largely what the argument boils down to. “The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus” is a sardonic attempt to demonstrate that supply side economics is in contrast to what Jesus taught, a notion which I find extremely erroneous. If, however, you disagree, and feel that such policy is without justification from a Christian or moral standpoint, then let’s just go from there.
I have no desire to follow you through multiple threads on the same topic, and as such I have no intention of doing so. I don’t even recall much of what I wrote two years ago, and there’s certainly no point in nitpicking about the various sub-points in Bushnell’s article. So if you are genuinely interested in the correlation between Christian theology and supply side economics, let’s just focus on that, right here. You lay out your opinions on the topic and I’ll lay out mine. Anything else in this context would be an utter waste of time.
posted by Kris Avalon at
5:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home