"Big Sister" has finally found Jesus. We’re happy for her. She found him where every liberal does. Not in Scripture but in a piece of liberal legislation and open-border advocacy.
Shrillary Clinton finds President Bush’s immigration policy contrary to what Jesus would have enacted. How does she know? For in her mind, any policy not advanced by liberalism and the Democrat party is necessarily wrong and, therefore, against the wishes of Jesus.
Liberals like Shrillary are so sanctimonious that even absent any specific, black on white scriptural citation, they are absolutely sure they are the repository of what Jesus would have said if asked on "Meet the Press."Yet, when truly religious people quote direct, word for word pronouncements in Scripture pertaining to an issue such as abortion or homosexuality, that person is labeled "mean spirited" by liberals. Worse, that person is guilty of violating Jesus’ cardinal principle of "separation of church and state."
Rarely, can one extract from Scripture policies required of national governments and states regarding such issues as immigration and social security. Only a child would look at religion’s call for compassion, and its requirement for charity among members of a community, as a mandate that countries provide all of life’s needs — for free and on the back of law abiding citizens — to those who illegally enter her borders. The general notion of compassion can not be used exploitatively to declare that God favors open borders.
Does compassion mean a population is not allowed to save itself from disease and crime from those here illegally, because to do so would be "not" compassionate? Does sensitivity demand a person forfeit his security and national culture to please others? Maybe, in the name of universal brotherhood we should share our spouse or one of our needed bedrooms?
Such conclusions are childish and absolutist and result from a non-serious examination of what compassion means and what it does not require. Shrillary’s mention of Lazarus sounds good to those college students smoking cigarettes on Paris’ Left Bank but not to those of us who are obligated to craft a world where responsibility for family, a particular community, and a particular country requires we look at religious concepts not as political fodder but guidelines on how to balance personal needs and obligations with societal aspiration.
Serious biblical thinkers long ago determined that what the Bible requires from us on an individual basis can not be extrapolated onto counties containing millions. What works between individual people or within shared-value communities is often disastrous when applied across the board.
The family, for example, is a semi-socialist unit where each member has certain rights in the family’s economic pool. Husbands and wives voluntarily share equally their earnings, and children are entitled to be fed and clothed even though they bring no money to the unit. However, socialism is corrosive and always fails when undertaken by a country.
Parents and extended families must provide medical needs to those for whom they are responsible. However, free medical to 300 million residents in a country results in inferior medical treatment, treatment delayed, and levels of taxation leaving taxpayers with little for their own chosen needs.
When it comes to charity, one gives only according to his means and is not required to bankrupt himself so as to help others. Nor can one demand from others that they undertake his charity responsibilities. In the name of "compassion" (charity), Americans are being asked to watch as their hospitals and schools go bankrupt, depriving them the services for which they work and shell out. Illegals are demanding that we undertake their bills. In lockstep, liberals demand compassion for the takers, but show indifference and cruelty to the givers.
Crime, disease and possible infiltration of terrorists — all in the name of "compassion". The total cessation of rule of law — all in the name of "compassion."
No, the Bible is not stupid nor should we accept the stupidity liberals are demanding in its name. In fact, unknowst to many, the Bible believes in law. It is not a book dedicated to emotion. It is not Barney. Biblical concepts are deep, beyond simplistic definitions and understandings fit for toddlers: "Mommy says we must always share all our toys" — give our country to whoever decides they want to have it.
It should be obvious that "fair weather friends of religion" are always there to periodically use religion for their purposes and tell us — who live by it daily — how we are to define religion. Besides, nothing gives the non religious person more pleasure than defining a religious concept and then accusing us of "hypocrisy" for not living according to his/her definition of that religious concept.
Truth be told, thus far I like all the Mexican illegals I’ve met. What I can not abide is the dumbing-down of religion by liberals to advance their cause and the use by liberals of the term racism to silence legitimate points of view.
Big Sister is trying to show she is "religious." It is what she needs to do to win in 2008. So, she has reversed her previous, more sensible position. Indeed, some of the "liberation theology" priests are impressed — just as they were with Daniel Ortega.
As usual, she, like Bill, demonstrate how they believe in nothing except that which is politically expedient for the moment. They’ll latch on to the next political fad — whatever it will be. Islam, anyone?