Should The Catholic Church Excommunicate Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas?
It is interesting that the antithesis of Christianity has always been Conservatism. In the Arch-Liberal, Jesus' cultural and sociological struggles with the Ultra-Conservative, Chief Herodian Priests and the even more Conservative Roman military and governors, Jesus was viewed as the radical, arch-Liberal, rabble-rouser, the defender of the disenfranchised, the marginalized, the sick and the infected/shunned, (Lepers), by those who profited from the misfortunes of others. Were Jesus living in the flesh, today, like Chavez of Venezuela, he would nationalize all industries which profit from the unfortunate; Oil and fuel and energy companies, the entire medical industry including the legalized drug dealers who advertise on TV, arms dealers and defense contractors, water companies and all utilities. Do you recall the destruction of the booths of the temple profiteers? Jesus arguments were hyperbolic debates demanding acceptance of all regardless of physical or mental condition. All these, he insisted were children of God. He argued further that the minions of Satan were like whited sepulchers, gleaming and bright on the exterior, full of maggots and things dead within. He further argued that men of goodness should sell all they have and give it to the poor. The unseen soul, he indicated is manifested by the fruits of one's labor and closeness to God and therefore cannot be measured by wealth or health and those who cannot comprehend these things may be associates of the Cult of Evil. Jesus referred to a cosmic battle. Ninety-five percent of Jesus' miracles, including the food miracles were miracles of empathy, and as such were dedicated to helping people, rather than those whose approach to life was based upon violence, hypocrisy or Imperialism. The Chief Herodian Priests were Ultraconservative, they had to be to serve a king like Herod and his sons, (Off with their heads-Herod") (Although Phillip was sympathetic to Jesus and less aggressive than his brothers.) and the Romans were farther to the Right than Attila the Hun. Denying that Jesus was a Liberal is a hypocritical attempt to excuse one's own support of avarice, bigotry, mass murder, genocide, abortion, capital punishment, torture, Imperialism and worse. Denying Jesus healing mission by calling it anything but widely empathetic and loving of those with an intellect, open-mindedness and good will toward others, is somewhat like denying that GW Bush, Attila The Hun, Stalin, Mao or Hitler are/were not Conservative. The very Act of Creation and of retrofitting man to receive an intellect and a soul is an act of generosity, empathy and Liberality. The entirety of Jesus life was one of giving, never taking, and right up to refusing to defend himself. That Jesus' attitude and approach to dealing with problems and people, his progressive empathetic feelings for others, could be interpreted as anything but extremely Liberal, would be news to him and to the early church. Jesus abhorred tightly close minded, unforgiving, and acquisitive, one-upsmanship, bellicose, shamelessly profit oriented, self-promoting, self gratifying and manipulative, covetous mode, one who supports a regime in any nation or community which is not a Christian, but a hypocrite, as Jesus, in so many ways, so often displayed and said. When encountering even strangers who were traditional rivals/enemies, as Jesus demonstrated empathy, as with the story of the Good Samaritan, and the Samaritan Woman at Jacob's Well, as well as his healing of a Roman's slave and a Samaritan or Gentile woman's issue of blood, is the epitome of empathy and generosity, both of which, as a part of a person's character IS liberality. Defending a woman under the threat of Capital punishment for adultery is empathetic and is generous and liberal. To move through the lives of those around us spreading, empathy and generosity, for not only one's own nationality and faith, but of that of all men, is an imitation of Christ and is courageous, not sycophantic. The voting record of these three men, Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas, is the antipathy of Jesus. Those who support their efforts are no less contemptuous of humankind. Their voting has encouraged and sponsored horror and death for millions. They have continuously supported the greedy/avaricious, the Super-wealthy corporate raiders and the mounting idea of President as Dictator. As such their attitudes are closely related to fascism and although below from the Free Dictionary is a series of definitions of fascism, the definitions need an update. The power of the New Dictatorships are cradled in the hands of inhumane/inhuman corporations, which runs its mechanical life with a dictatorial sort of beast which honors the worst of all worlds, and welcomes a close dictatorial, fascistic reality, all of which is far worse than anything than a human reaction of men possessed of God and followers of Jesus. They have not merely benignly practiced their black arts, but have aggressively (Scalia). Therefore I must ask, should Alito, Thomas and Scalia be excommunicated by the Catholic Church? I do not include the other two Catholic Justices here, because we/I have not seen enough of their voting yet. If you think they should have been included let me know, but Kennedy has often sided in with the more Liberal Justices and Roberts is still an enigma to me. The rest have not acted ina way consistent with Jesus' philosophies of life and have been contemptuous of the people who are suffering and have added materially to that suffering, and not in accordance with the Liberality of The Catholic Church and it's Model the Arch-Liberal Jesus. fas·cism (fshzm) n. 1. often Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control. [Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.] fas·cistic (f-shstk) adj. Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, "bundle, (political) group," but also refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Fascism [fash-iz-zum] Noun 1. the authoritarian and nationalistic political movement in Italy (192243) 2. any ideology or movement like this [Italian fascio political group] Fascist nadj Should The Catholic Church Excommunicate Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas? Yes ! No!
Invite Your Friend(s) to Vote:
View All Polls