And who among you say that the Tea Party are hypocrites for attending church every Sunday and discriminating against the
The real title of this sermon by dougbutchy
poor by voting against every measure, at every level of government, that benefits them?
All four Gospels quote Jesus' words that "the poor we will always have among us," in answer to his apostles' condemnation of his acceptance of anointment with expensive perfumes. The anointing is preparation for his burial, answers Jesus, and the poor they will always have among them while he will not always be there.
For all of his predictions of blessings for the poor in the afterlife, and misery for the rich, who have less chance of reaching heaven than a camel to be threaded through a needle's eye, Jesus' prophecy is borne out by the Tea Party and vultures capitalists' discrimination against the poor, bleeding them to the level of the poor women in the New Testament who gives her last pennies to the poor.
Well, they'll happily help themselves to those pennies. I don't know whether such magnanimity toward the rich will be rewarded, though Jesus says that their suffering in poverty will be.
The poor we will always have with us and will always be discriminated against, despite Jesus' predictions. Granted, some of the vultures are Jewish, but so are most of those warned by the Son of God to be more compassionate.
One specific arena in which conservatives make sure that we'll always have poor people among us is voting rights, a huge issue since the late June, 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court striking down section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA), which badly cripples section 5. Together they assure that regions most likely to discriminate against the poor will be answerable to the Justice Department (DoJ) each time they attempt to implement discriminatory measures.
Discrimination against the poor of every description has thus been assured: indigent senior citizens, Native Americans, African Americans, and college students likely to vote liberal, at least some of them indigent, especially with the college loan debts that cripple their futures so heavily. Unless section 3 can be put to good use--the difficult "opting in" provision that will be far more troublesome to enforce because it requires proof of intentional discrimination, which culprits can rationalize to their hearts' content.
And proposed legislation is attempting to double the interest rates of these college loans.
Something is very rotten when the proportion of SCOTUS ideologies do not reflect those of the country they purport to represent at the judicial level. I'm not talking violations of the Constitution, which is being treated like toilet paper these days. I'm talking hypocrisy at a higher level. Since the conservatives are also violating the precepts of Jesus, a mortal sin, shouldn't they be (a) barred from attending church or (b) forced to obey the precepts of the Son of God they profess to worship and follow?
If they are mingling church and state so freely, we can certainly justify such measures.
The next question is whether vulture capitalists attend church. I know that at least some of them do. Tea Party members presumably do, as do a large proportion of others who are antichoice.
What good is religion otherwise? As a vehicle for vulture capitalists to thank God for the bounty they enjoy while others line the streets shaking paper cups filled with nickels and dimes?
There is condoned segregation in religious houses of worship also.
But adherence to biblical precepts invites other unsolvable issues, even when we attempt to update principles to the twenty-first century, this polluted era ushered in by a shotgun presidential election.
It can be argued that this stolen election, which straddles both years claimed to herald the twenty-first century, was the agent of the most heinous policies in history, resulting in the most global-level death and ruin ever within the brief span of ten years? And then some?
This postulate requires an assumption that an accurate election might have saved countless lives and livelihoods, which is reasonable. Certainly the environment would have been better off, but that's another issue.