Religious left: Jesus frowns on Paul Ryan, deficit reduction

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, as well as several dozen other leftist Catholic clergy, have decided that Jesus Christ does not approve of GOP Rep. Paul Ryan’s 10-year deficit reduction plan. According to these left-wing heirs to the previous generation’s Falwellian “Moral Majority,” Ryan fails to meet Jesus’ criteria “for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the jobless.”

The Wisconsin Republican is made to look frightfully evil. Only a look at the truth reveals otherwise: Ryan’s budget wants to grow government by 3 percent a year. President Obama’s budget, which presumably is God-approved by the Bishops, wants to increase the government by 4.5 percent a year. So what the lefty clergy is telling us is that adding 3 percent to federal spending a year is a really evil thing to do.

The Old Testament tells is that “a gentle answer turneth away wrath.” Not in today’s hyperspending era for pols, where any talk of lessening cradle-to-grave dependency for “Julia” turns you into a heartless cur. Is it any wonder why those worried about the deficit are pessimistic about the future. Efforts to even slow the growth of government are attacked as assaults on kindness, Christianity and morality.

The real moral of this tragedy is that when the deficit is too great to ignore and U.S. credit is as worthy as Greece’s, it’s the poor who will take the most pain.

Pols and others serious about reducing the deficit can expect such tactics from opponents, secular or otherwise. They’ll offer no serious counter-proposal that will reduce the deficits long-term and preserve Social Security, tax-funded retirement plans, or Medicare. Instead, they will describe budget-cutting as cruel, callous, Randian, unchristian, hateful … choose your adjective.

Demagoguery, or appeals to divine justice, are preferred tactics of those without facts.

Share
This entry was posted in The Political Surf and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Religious left: Jesus frowns on Paul Ryan, deficit reduction

  1. Myth Buster says:

    “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” Mat 23:9
    Not sure how Jesus feels about Tea Party hack Paul Ryan, but it’s pretty obvious how He feels about Catholic Clergy

  2. PolishandProud says:

    it’s no secret that you are a dyed-in-the-wool, support the GOP at all costs republican. Got that. But attacking the catholic church with your name-calling is uncalled for. The church has always had the position that the poor need to be taken care of. They see the GOP turn the war on poverty into the war on the poor and they have taken a stand against that. Good for them. They should. As should any other priest, bishop, reverend or pastor as well as all God-fearing born again true christians. The GOP model is a a disgrace: Cut all social programs, health care and education but keep tax cuts for the rich and increase Defense spending. That is immoral. The church wants to see the deficit reduced, but not on the backs of the poor.

    • Myth Buster says:

      Mat 23:9 is hard to understand in some way? How do you think Jesus feels about Priests calling down His body and blood into the Sacrament? How does He feel about Priest Confession rather than seeking forgiveness from Him directly? How does He feel seeing Pope Benedict XVI and JPII carry the Pagan Twisted Crucifix? How does He feel when we set up a Grove on Dies Natalis Solis Invicti aka Christmas? How does He feel when we let our kids hunt for Ishtar’s Eggs at Easter?
      Uncalled for? Vatis=Divining; Can=Serpent. How does Jesus feel when His Vicar faces Baal’s Shaft in St Peter’s?
      Time to wake up. Jesus is only going to put up with this nonsense for so long

    • Hadenuf says:

      Then let the Bishops and the Church pay for the poor. They love taking care of the poor, including the hordes of illegal aliens they want to import, with other people’s money. Funny, I don’t recall anything in the New Testament about Jesus agitating for the Romans to raise taxes on others to support his work.

  3. midwinter says:

    “leftist Catholic clergy.” That’s a frakking riot, right there.

    I swear, I’m about to the point that when I see someone in America called a “leftist” or “left-wing” I’m just going to quit reading.

  4. rthoms says:

    I usually enjoy reading your takes on issues, even though I don’t usually agree with your position, but this one seems totally out of line and somehow vindictive in some way.

  5. Brent Glines says:

    I think people are missing Doug’s point. For myself, I don’t object to the Catholic Church wanting to care for the poor. That is a worthy calling. I object to their invoking the name of Jesus to solve that problem using unaffordable big government programs. When you start bringing in the tax collectors and the money lenders, Jesus would probably be the first to seek to drive them all out.

    If we want to provide for the less fortunate, I think Christ would suggest charitable giving, from the heart. Invoking the IRS to involuntarily rob Peter to pay Paul would not have been what He had in mind.

    • Granter says:

      Glines objects to the “Catholic Bishop’s “invoking the name of Jesus” when their organization proclaims together against the immoral abuses to the poor in the Ryan budget. But, Glines HIMSELF, has no problem self-righteously explaining what Jesus “would probably be” doing and “I think Christ would” be suggesting . . . evidently all from his OWN revelations.

      Is Glines asserting an axess to the will and mind of Christ for which presumably the Catholic Bishops and ALL must show obeisence?

      I don’t know if the world needs one more self-appointed prophet . . . but I suspect it’s not Glines!

      • Brent Glines says:

        I do say I THINK this might be something Christ woudl suggest, don’t I. In other words, I am expressing my opinion.

        Doug doesn’t quote the Bishops, so it’s hard to say, but they may just be expressing an opinion as well, and that’s fine. Since it’s from the Bishops, they might word it a bit more strongly, but I’ll have to look it up first to know for sure.

        In the meantime, reading comprehension. Granter should try it sometime.

        • Granter says:

          Glines criticizes (‘objects to’) the Catholic Bishops invoking the name of Jesus while Glines HIMSELF evokes the name of Jesus in his criticism of the Bishops — I assume that ALL were expressing THEIR OPINION. The self-righteous hypocrisy of Glines is obvious –no one said “Thus sayeth the Lord” or “It came to pass” or “It is written”, but when Prophets express “their opinion” it is unclear if they are speaking just for themselves and their periodicity or channeling Jesus for all. (see Spring conference)

          In the meantime, Glines’ SELECTIVE reading comprehension makes for a very poor advocate and a worse apostle/prophet.

    • Erick says:

      When Jesus was confronted with a hungry multitude, he performed a no-cost miracle and they were all filled. When the sick and afflicted were brought to him, he again performed a no-cost miracle, and they were healed. I don’t mean to cast aspersions on the scriptural narrative, but suffice it to say, applying the whole “WWJD” principle to economic and social policy, really isn’t at all helpful or insightful. Perhaps we could ask, what would Jesus do if he were constrained by the limiting factors of both resources and capabilities, and threatened by the risk of financial ruin. I’m satisfied that the “WWJD” question can be somewhat relevant for charting a course in our personal development, but not for managing any kind of public policy.

  6. Brent Glines says:

    2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

    If Jesus were to express an opinion on welfare programs and the Ryan budget, maybe this might be it.

    • Granter says:

      The problem with the “scripture chase game” is NOT finding scripture to justify ANY partisan bias. But rather, finding ANY partisan bias that CANNOT be justified with a scriptue or two or three . . . . If Glines’ new Prophetic zeal leads him to this “new light” then he should just start posting as an anonymous and communal member of the Myth ‘borg’ — they have much more experience with this sort of thing. If not — my Concordances and Commentaries are at the ready; though, I cannot claim any divine calling!

  7. lasvegasRichard says:

    This article is totally incomplete if not disingenuous. Show us a breakdown of itemized costs. Who exactly gets the shaft in paying for his so called budget ?

    • Granter says:

      Richard

      Doug is writing a column to sell newspapers that make red meat conservative patrons joyously squeal wth outrage over the antics of “leftist” pols and partisans. Include “a breakdown of itemized costs”? It’s out of the question — Doug would lose 90% of his readership — that stuff is boring — WE WANT BLOODY accusations and hysterical finger pointing!
      Note how Doug includes only ONE statistic, the 3% vs 4.5% growth of government numbers (This wasn’t even mentioned in the published details of the Bishops’ objections, nor does Gibson enumerate ANY of the objections) then Gibson procedes to an unwarrented smear job on “leftist” Catholics, Bishops Dems. “Julia” and “bleeding hearts” everywhere, based on the 3% v 4.5% numbers. (who needs analysis or cause and effect when blood-sport is afoot?)

      I am embarrassed that a capable and responsible columnist/journalist would allow himself to be reduced to a “hackjob” in order to do the biding of those who revel in the WORST kind of commentary.

  8. Michael Trujillo says:

    Never mind the fact that he’s quoting Paul, not Jesus, by referencing 2 Thessalonians. That won’t matter to Glines, aka Owain. He’ll have some excuse for how this passage somehow makes his point.

    • Brent Glines says:

      Never said I was quoting Jesus, Mike. That was kind of the point; Jesus didn’t say that, but if he WERE to express an opinion, that might be what he would say. See how that works now?

      Looks like people other than just Grantor need to work on their reading comprehension as well. Just because you WANT it to read that way, doesn’t make it so.

      • Granter says:

        Glines writes:
        “Jesus didn’t say that, but if he were to express an opinion, that MIGHT be what he would say.”

        Jesus didn’t directly express an opinion about the poor? A simple reading of the New Testament — red letter edition for those with selective editing comprehension problems — gives the lie to THAT deception (I particularly like the Parable of the rich young ruler who would not follow Christ because he was very rich.)

        With all that Christ DID say about the poor, why would Glines need to fabricate opinions for Christ based on what Jesus MIGHT have thought?

        • Brent Glines says:

          Crap, Grantor, are you incapable of reading the words printed on your screen? Did I not say, “If Jesus were to express an opinion on welfare programs and the Ryan budget…”

          I don’t care how close a reading of the New Testimate, that is not something you are going to find.

          You’d think that between you and MOT, you guys could come up with at least one coherent brain equivalent between the two of you, but I guess not.

          • Granter says:

            Glines has posted:

            1. I object to their (Catholic Bishops) invoking the name of Jesus . . .

            2. When you start bringing in the tax collectors and the money lenders Jesus would probably be the first to seek to drive them out.

            3. I think Christ would suggest charitable giving, from the heart.

            4. Invoking the IRS to involuntary rob Peter to pay Paul would not have been what He had in mind.

            5. Since it’s from the Bishops, they might word it a bit more strongly, but I’ll have to look it up first to know for sure.

            6. If Jesus were to express an opinion on welfare and the Ryan budget, maybe THIS (Thessolonians 3:10) might be it.

            7. And finally the inscrutably obtuse, “I don’t care how close a reading of the New Testimate that is not something you are going to find. ??? (This is nonsense)

            With all that Christ DID SAY about the poor,why would Glines need to fabricate hypothetical scenarios about what Jesus MIGHT, MIGHT,MIGHT have said ! (assertions 1, 3, 4, 6,)
            — why does Glines prefer a pre-fabricated hypothetical Christ whom Glines can manipulate into preposterous utterances, to the REAL Christ of the New Testament,who is a great deal more than a RINO who needs editing from the likes of Glines?

          • Brent Glines says:

            Granter posted:
            1. I object to their (Catholic Bishops) invoking the name of Jesus . . .

            That’s a lie. What I said was, “I object to their invoking the name of Jesus to solve that problem using unaffordable big government programs.”

            “7. And finally the inscrutably obtuse, “I don’t care how close a reading of the New Testimate that is not something you are going to find. ??? (This is nonsense)”

            No, this is Granter demonstrating his inability to read, since he had previously said, “Jesus didn’t directly express an opinion about the poor? A simple reading of the New Testament — red letter edition for those with selective editing comprehension problems — gives the lie to THAT deception.”

            Now I never said Jesus never expressed an opinion about the poor, so maybe Granter is lying again, or maybe he remains illiterate. Hard to tell which with Granter.

            What I said was, “If Jesus were to express an opinion on welfare programs and the Ryan budget…”. If Granter can find a quote from Christ in the New Testiment on the Ryan budget, or on our welfare programs, he’ll need to supply chapter and verse.

            His last comment about RINOs makes no sense at all. Is he saying Christ is a RINO? Is he saying I am a RINO? Does he even know what RINO means? Since it’s incoherent, it’s hard to say.

    • Myth Buster says:

      Wrong Mike, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” Gal 1:11-12
      The bible, both Old and New Testaments came from the same source; the Holy Ghost.

      • granter says:

        Glines writes:
        “If Granter can find a quote from Christ in the New Testiment on the Ryan budget, or on our welfare programs, he’ll need to supply chapter and verse.”

        Well, I know it’s ridiculous and even dishonest to think that Christ would mention Paul Ryan or the ‘Ryan’ Budget, or the welfare programs of the United States — but Glines doesn’t . Glines posted this two days ago.

        2Thessalonians 3:10 “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”
        (Followed by this insolent and disrespectful comment)
        If Jesus were to express an opinion on welfare programs and the Ryan budget, maybe this might be it.

        Glines wants to attribute something purportedly written by St. Paul, but then depict that it MIGHT BE JESUS advocating for Paul Ryan and the U.S. budget?!?! OUTRAGEOUS

        At no time does Glines EVER quote Christ Himself — in fact, throughout his postings Glines CONTINUOUSLY reports what Jesus ‘MIGHT SAY’ without ever quoting ONE WORD of what Jesus DID SAY! (What is he afraid of?)

        When challenged about this and other absurdities Glines equivocates that he DID say “might , maybe, and if” and whines that it’s ‘just his opinion’.

        I am surprised at how low the Glines’ ‘opinion’ is willing to stoop in service to his morally deficient PARTISAN Gods.

  9. Myth Buster says:

    Tea has no Etymological source. It refers to Tammuz, for whom the T is marked on one’s forehead in ash on Ash Wednesday. Women wept for Tammuz on the porch of Solomon’s Temple as the Glory of the Lord departed by the exact route God in Flesh would later take to Golgotha. Tam means Purify; Muz means Fire. Paul Ryan likely has no idea of what he does, inserving the Tea Party, but Masonic Luciferian Dick Armey sure does.

  10. Myth Believer says:

    “Isn’t that shameful, isn’t that humiliating?” you will say, perhaps, wagging your heads contemptuously. “You thirst for life and try to settle the problems of life by a logical tangle. And how persistent, how insolent are your sallies, and at the same time what a scare you are in! You talk nonsense and are pleased with it; you say impudent things and are in continual alarm and apologizing for them. You declare that you are afraid of nothing and at the same time try to ingratiate youself in our good opinion. You declare that you are gnashing your teeth and at the same time you try to be witty so as to amuse us. You know that your witticisms are not witty, but you are evidently well satisfied with their literary value. You may, perhaps, have really suffered, but you have no respect for your own suffering. You may have sincerity, but you have no modesty; out of the pettiest vanity you expose your sincerity to publicity and ignominy. You doubtlessly mean to say something, but hide your last word through fear, because you have not the resolution to utter it, and only have a cowardice impudence. You boast of consciousness, but you are not sure of your ground, for though your mind works, yet your heart is darkened and corrupt, and cannot have a full, genuine consciousness without a pure heart. And how intrusive you are, how you insist and grimace! Lies, lies, lies!” WELCOME TO THE CLUB “Notes from Underground.” And now I will crawl back into my hole.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>