"Cowboy from Hell" by Mark David Taylor
The Far Right conservatives of this country are doomed to spend eternal life in the Hell of their own beliefs, and though they cling to the scripture of the Bible to justify their hypocrisy and soothe their guilt and greed, they must have overlooked an important passage in the New Testament of the Bible. Otherwise they would not be so reluctant to help the less fortunate, to be compassionate to those who are different from them, and to not be so hard on those they disagree with.
During Ted Kennedy’s funeral mass at the Our Lady of Perpetual Help Basilica in Boston on Saturday, one of the presiding priests read a passage from the Gospel of Matthew which in the beginning of the passage perfectly described Ted Kennedy’s political life. But towards the end of the passage (Matthew 25:42-43), it suddenly sounded as though Matthew was describing many of the obstructionist Republican lawmakers we’ve seen since Barack Obama became president. It sounds like fire and brimstone damnation for the self-righteous Far Right conservative factions in United States politics.
Matthew 25:42-43
For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
Conservatives fail on each point. They are against government programs that provide shelter and clothing for the poor. They are against the government providing food for those who are hungry, and judging by the last few weeks, they are against the government having anything to do with looking after the sick.
Of course they have a swift retort to this argument, because while they are against any government participation in caring for individuals, they would argue that they are all for “faith based” organizations to carry burden. Mention any type of government entitlement program or government provided care or welfare for the less fortunate, and they are crying socialism and fascism, and painting Hitler mustaches on everyone.
The fact of the matter is, citizens pay taxes to the government and for those taxes, they should be able to expect government action that provides equal access to prosperity, equal rights for all, decent health care for all citizens, access to a decent education, and the opportunity to enjoy the basic human necessities such as a home, clothes on their backs, and food in their stomachs.
Greed is what kills a nation and the people who live under the rule of greed, regardless of whether its origins are public or private, suffer greatly and lose all hope and self-respect. Workers should get a fair wage, enough to rise out of poverty. If someone gets sick, they should be able to get the quality care they need when they need it. All children should have access to an education so when they become adults they will be in a position to contribute to society as opposed to depending on it.
These assurances are not the job of faith based organizations, and though much of the burden for economic stability and jobs depends on the responsible custodianship of the top business people who own and run the majority of the companies that employ our citizens, history has shown that we cannot trust these privileged individuals to act without greed and indifference. Because of this, assuring that everyone plays by the rules, and plays on an even field is the job of government. Just as it is the government’s job to catch the few who fall through the cracks and are unable to provide the basic needs for themselves and their family.
Oh yes, and on that judgment day, the day that the Conservative Right preaches about with such wishful fervor, those who go to church every Sunday and pretend to care about those in need will be judged by their actions outside the walls of the church. Those who have fought to deny any such legislation that would regulate the greed of big business, provide better education, provide homes and feed the hungry, care for the sick, and help those who have fallen through the cracks, they will surely burn in Hell, if there really is such a thing as Heaven and Hell.
And if there is, I will surely see them there for having even doubted the very premise of its existence. Anyone got a light?
Photo credit: "Cowboy from Hell" by Mark David Taylor - Creative Commons Public Domain
Comments
So I guess you know personally every single conservative to claim "conservatives will go to Hell"? Hmm.
To equate the personal "giving" in Matthew with government programs is laughable. If I support the military, does that make me a soldier? Why does supporting government "charity" make one "charitable"? It doesn't, genius. Real personal charity, the kind that every human knows when they see it, is by far expressed in the deeds of individual conservatives in a manner far exceeding individual (and here I'll place you) liberals.
From "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism."
- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household
- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
..there's more, but I'm out of spac
Christian,
The article above is a commentary on the bible verse that was read. I frankly don't believe in the literal concept of heaven and hell, so that indicates that all I was writing was more of a symbolic observation than a literal commentary.
It is the Fundamentalist Christians who believe in those concepts but can't seem to live according to them. Though I never go to church, never pray, never make any publicly display of any religion, I sometimes think I live my life more according to Christ than most Righters do, because his philosophies are more of a mind set than a form of organized ritual.
David,
The point of the article is to point out that there is also room for compassion in government. Why is it so difficult to picture having not only people that give, but also compassionate politicians. Just as government is not the answer for everything, like legislating morals and personal lifestyle choices, individuals, charities and faith based efforts do nothing for issues like providing quality health care for everyone. Thanks for the comment.
Your begging the question. Charitable and faith based hospitals are in fact spread far and wide across this land providing quality health care. Anyone reading this can think of "St. Fill-in-the-blank" hospital, no less than 25 miles from their home. You seem to think they're not able to be as compassionate as government (or whatever), which is a joke, because they're not providing health care for "everyone". The rub here is, neither will Obamacare. The CBO projects that millions will remain uninsured after Obamacare. Your feign of government compassion in medicine a house of cards.
David,
You are "begging" my question. Why is it so inconceivable for government to be compassionate, or if not the government itself, the representatives of government?
It's impossible because money talks louder than compassion and caring about others every day. Leave it to the individuals and leave it to the charities. Yes that's much better instead of spending money on a budget that is part of the public record, just like Bush's "non-budget" multi-billion dollar war. That's the fiscal conservative way. Sweep it under the rug and hope nobody lifts the corner.
I wonder where the Cowboy buys his clothes
"Compassion" is a human quality, it arises (or doesn't arise) solely from the human heart and no where else. You seem to think compassion is akin to something like "justice". Yet justice does not arise out of the human heart, if it did we would have no need for the court system. But you seem to think that a governmental "system", some sort of apparatus, can be designed to produce "compassionate" ends.
There's a difference between the system and people working within the system. Of the latter, there is the potential for compassion to be found, because individuals can be compassionate. Many times this involves bending or breaking the rules of the system, right? But you seem to be arguing for the former, for a system that naturally produces compassionate ends. This is why you keep asking, "Why is it so inconceivable for government to be compassionate?"
I think that's...nuts.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!