1. He "ate with prostitutes" -- I don't see how this is a particularly "liberal" position, but anyone can explain who wants to. Given Clinton's shenanigans, I'd be cautious here.
2. "threw out the money changers (capitalists)" -- I am sorry, but the moneychangers were employed by the Temple and were NOT individual entrepeneurs. There is no "capitalism" here as an economic system.
3. "believed the rich should give to the poor" -- I don't see how this is particularly "liberal" either; I know of few on any account who don't like charity. Some do object to government sponsorship of redistribution of wealth, and if that is what in mind, we won't find that with Jesus. Of course in his day, the rich constantly gave to the poor, as it happens: It was part of the natural patronage system, but I don't think Colmes would approve of a return to that.
4. "preached the golden rule" -- again I need to ask how this is particularly "liberal". It isn't explained.
5. He "had a problem with the conservatives of the day, the Pharisees" -- all right. So "liberalism" means religious liberalism? This makes no sense in showing that Jesus was a political liberal.
6. "opposed their stoning of sinners" -- not exactly. Colmes is not educated in the fact that the Romans held the right to execute; the challenge to stone the woman was a trap of the "render unto Caesar variety," an attempt to make Jesus choose between sedition or adherence to the law. It is not an opposition to the death penalty.
7. "[opposed their] quoting from Scripture" -- I do not see where Colmes gets this one, and Jesus quotes Scripture far many more times than his opponents.

So Colmes' quick list is in pretty shabby shape, with little justification and even less scholarship. What else?

1. Jesus "championed" persons despite these states.
2. Liberals "champion" despite these states.
3. All people who "champion" for others despite class are liberals.
4. Therefore, Jesus was a liberal.

The breakdown occurs when we ask the critical question, "What did Jesus champion these on behalf of?" Colmes makes some effort above, and beyond, to link Jesus to "liberal" causes, but his efforts involve serious decontextualizations, such as saying of "Love thy neighbor as thyself,": "So why do some conservatives insist on being less than loving toward neighbors not like themselves?" Apparently "loving" to Colmes means following some (unspecified) agenda, but if it does not fit the contextual meaning of agape, it doesn't work. (One thing it did NOT mean was, "not correcting moral faults" or "setting others up on welfare at your expense".)

A section follows in which Colmes burns a straw man that conservatives would "have you believe Jesus was the world's first advocate for the white man and that he looked like David Duke." [211] Aside from a single person who wrote him a letter, however, he provides not one quote to justify this as a "conservative" position. Someone perhaps needs to have a word with the (even liberal) Hollywood producers who continually cast Jesus with actors of clearly Anglo-Saxon (in some cases blue-eyed!) descent. Ted Neeley of Jesus Christ: Superstar sure looks more like David Duke than I do.

Now to some issues Colmes tries to draft Jesus into:

In a section following Colmes warbles somewhat over Christianity in American history. I don't have anything readily available on most of this for reply, but that Colmes appeals to the Treaty of Tripoli is enough to tell us that he needs to retake American History 101 before speaking again.

Another section following concerns us little. Colmes critiques those who say that God put George W. in the White House and asks, in light of Romans 13, whether Bill Clinton was put there by God as well. I'll give Colmes a better answer than James Dobson: Either one may or may not have been put there for whatever reason -- we just don't know -- but whether direct divine action was taken or not, God remains sovereign. (The same goes for a section following on the subject of whether September 11 was a specific judgment by God. I happen to think not -- if God had something in mind, He can do things a lot more comprehensively than something that kills only a fifteenth the number of people who die in auto accidents alone every year.) We're also not worried about whether Islam is or is not "evil" as Franklin Graham said. We're more concerned about whether or not it is true. Colmes' politically correct "we each find our own way" stance does not resolve the problem of contradictory traits between the deities of Christianity and Islam. One or both must be wrong; both cannot be right. That's simple logic.

Little remains of interest to us as Colmes veers into matters of Pat Robertson and modern personalities. There are brief comments on homosexuality borrowed from Alan Gomes (see here for a correction on Lev. 18, and here on Gomes' absurd attempt to make an issue of laws against i.e., tattoos as a parallel!) Colmes offers an ironic comment about how easy it is to "pull a quote from the Bible and use it to justify your view" -- that is so, and Colmes has provided evidence of it. However, it is NOT easy to do so when contextual and historical data is at hand. Despite Colmes, there is no way to say, "Jesus was a liberal" -- one may as well say that Julius Caesar was a Free Soil candidate.

Alan Colmes sits on the ideological left side of the nighttime talk show Hannity & Colmes. On your screen, he's the guy on the right. Unlike so many loudmouth liberals, Paul Begala and James Carville come immediately to mind, Colmes is a civil liberal. Although I rarely agree with him, I can listen to him. His non-combative approach has not been generally accepted by other liberal antagonists. He is described by one critic as Hannity's "supposedly liberal counterpart." Other epithets are less kind: "an on-air punching bag," a "runt," "wishy-washy," "a milquetoast," and "a conservative at heart." But if you think these are bad, consider this email Colmes received from a self-described liberal:

When you talk I fantasize about shooting you. I pretend I have a pistol in my hand and shoot you all over. I pretend to shoot you in the head and in your torso. . . . If you died I would celebrate.

While Colmes' "fight fire with water" style has not endeared himself to rabid, fire-breathing leftists, it has placed Hannity & Colmes at the top of the point-counter-point talk show heap. FOX has pulled way ahead of CNN's Crossfire, an irritating verbal slugfest that I no longer watch.

Capitalizing on the popularity of the show, Colmes has followed Sean Hannity's publishing success by writing Red, White, and Liberal: How Left is Right and Right is Wrong. I suspect that it is not doing as well as conservative books since it has been discounted 50% in some stores! At that price, how could I resist getting a copy after I learned that the title of one chapter is "Jesus Was A Liberal"?

I'm thankful that Colmes claims to take the Bible seriously. But like so many liberals, he reads into the Bible his own liberal ideology. Consider the following: "Jesus ate with prostitutes, threw out the money changers (capitalists), believed the rich should give to the poor, and preached the golden rule. He had a problem with the conservatives of the day, the Pharisees, and opposed their stoning sinners and quoting from Scripture" (210).

Let's take his last claim first: Jesus opposed "quoting from Scripture." This is nonsense. Why would Jesus condemn in others what He Himself did? Jesus often confounded His critics by quoting Scripture. He answered the devil by citing three passages of Scripture (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). This was not an unusual practice. Paul commended the Bereans because they "searched the Scriptures daily" to see if what Paul was saying was true (Acts 17:11). Jesus objected to the misquoting and misapplication of Scripture. In fact, Jesus would have objected to the way Colmes uses the Bible.

Colmes has turned Jesus into a pro-homosexual, socialistic, religious pluralist (210). Where Jesus says "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me" (John 14:6), Colmes has Jesus accepting all religious beliefs. Since "homosexuality doesn't come up in the four Gospels of the New Testament," Colmes argues, "Jesus wasn't that concerned about it" (230). Well, Alan, rape, having sex with animals, and tripping blind people don't come up either! The Word of God is more than the words of Jesus in red letters (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16�17).

It's true that Jesus sat down with sinners, prostitutes and tax-gatherers. But for what purpose? Colmes seems to imply that Jesus was not bothered by their lifestyle choices, that He had manifested a "live-and-let-live" ethic. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Yes, there were those who criticized Jesus for being in the same company with these social outcasts. But notice how Jesus responds to His self-righteous critics: "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are ill. But go and learn what this means, 'I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Matt. 9:12-13).

Liberals continually tell conservatives, by under-quoting the Bible, that Jesus said, "Do not judge." The in-context version is "Do not judge lest you be judged yourself. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you" (Matt. 7:1�2). Jesus was not rejecting the act of judging. He was calling on those who judged to be consistent, to use the same standard for everyone, including themselves. Jesus judged on a regular basis. He described those He sat down with as "sinners." They had a spiritual illness that needed a spiritual remedy that only Jesus could administer. He didn't call for a new government program or higher taxes to solve personal and social problems, and He didn't accept any excuses for their sinful behavior.

Liberals fail to recognize that there is nothing wrong with "righteous judgment" (John 7:24), the very thing Jesus was doing and enjoins His followers to do (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:1�2). Jesus expected the people He encountered and forgave to make a lifestyle change. Jesus intervened in the execution of the woman caught in adultery because of the misapplication of Matthew 7:1�2. The woman's accusers were not applying the law to themselves, a clear violation of the law (Deut. 17:17). She had been caught "in the very act" (John 8:4). Where was the man? It's obvious that the woman was used to set up Jesus, and the guilty man was probably one of their own. Jesus called them on their duplicity. Even so, Jesus did not let the woman off the moral hook. Notice what He said to her after He took on her unrighteous and hypocritical accusers:

And straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" And she said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go your way; from now on sin no more" (John 8:11).

How would a liberal have acted in the same situation? What instructions would he have given to the woman caught "in the very act" (John 8:4) of adultery?: "From now on make sure your partner wears a condom and please get checked regularly for HIV. I'm not here to judge your lifestyle choice. What takes place between consenting adults is none of my business. Go in peace my child." The reason Jesus was not a liberal is because He believed in sin, labeled it as such, and expected people to change their so-called lifestyle choices when their sin was pointed out to them. Jesus confronted the Samaritan woman and her immoral lifestyle (John 4:17�18, 39).

Talk about misreading and misinterpreting the Bible. Colmes claims that Jesus' condemnation of those buying and selling in the temple is a wholesale indictment of the free market system called capitalism. Jesus' judgment of the temple money changers is about where the buying and selling were taking place not the fact that they were supplying a valuable economic service. Notice the Scriptures Jesus quotes (Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11) to justify His actions against the temple moneychangers and their customers: "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer'; but you are making it a 'robbers den'" (Matt. 21:13). Jesus isn't condemning buying and selling or making a profit. Later in the same gospel, Jesus condemns the person who had been given a talent by his master and hid it in the ground (Matt. 25:25). Jesus describes him as "wicked," "lazy," and "worthless" (25:26, 30) because he did not invest it. Jesus commends those who made a profit (25:16�23).

If Jesus is teaching an anti-capitalistic message, then we would have to ask Mr. Colmes if he and his publisher hope to make a profit on the sale of his book. Why isn't he giving it away, and why is the copyright for Red, White, and Liberal in his name? These are very pro-capitalist actions.

Colmes equates today's conservatives with the New Testament Pharisees. He gives the impression that the Pharisees were considered the best people of their day because of their meticulous application of the law; and yet they were the biggest hypocrites. The Pharisees were not "the best people of their day." The best people were men like Simeon (Luke 2:25), Zacharias (Luke 1:6), Joseph (Matt. 1:19), and the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:33), and women like Anna (Luke 2:36), Mary (Luke 1:46�56), and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6). Elizabeth and Zacharias "were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord" (Luke 1:6).

The commandments of God were neglected by the Pharisees (Mark 7:8). They "nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep [their] tradition" (7:9). Jesus did not come "to abolish the law and the prophets" (Matt. 5:17; cf. 23:23). It's the liberals who set aside God's commandments regarding marriage, sodomy, and abortion in order to keep their liberal tradition. If conservatives have harsh words for liberals who support immorality in the name of God, we are in good company. James B. Jordan sets the record straight on the true character of the scribes and Pharisees:

The scribes and Pharisees that Jesus encountered were grossly, obviously, and fragrantly breaking the Mosaic law, while keeping all kinds of man-made traditions. Jesus' condemnation of them in Matthew 23 certainly makes this clear, as does a famous story in John 8. There we read that the scribes and Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman taken "in the very act" of adultery (John 8:1�11). How did they know where to find her? Where was the man who was caught with her? Apparently he was one of their cronies. Also, when Jesus asked for anyone "without sin" (that is, not guilty of the same crime) to cast the first stone, they all went away, because they were all adulterers.1

It was Bill Clinton's deeds that shocked Christians, and they would have shocked Jesus. Like the woman caught in adultery, Jesus would have told Bill Clinton, "from now on sin no more." Instead, the former liberal president, whom Colmes describes as "Our Greatest President," split hairs over the definition of "is" and justified his actions with Monica Lewinsky as "not having sex" because intercourse did not take place.

Colmes claims that Jesus "believed the rich should give to the poor." Let's assume that Colmes' analysis of Jesus is correct on this point. This is a far cry from saying that rich people should be taxed and that the government should give indiscriminately to the poor even though they might be sluggards, lazy, and thoughtless about the future (Prov. 6:6�11; 13:4, 18; 19:15; 20:13; 21:25-26; 24:30-34; 28:19). A person who refuses to work is not to be assisted: "If anyone will not work, neither let him eat" (2 Thess. 3:10).

The Gospel narratives do not call on the Roman empire to help the poor except by limiting the State's power (Luke 3:13�14; Matt. 22:21). He makes it clear that it's an individual and collective responsibility of the believing community to help the poor. David Chilton's comments are helpful on this subject:

The local administration of charity is crucial. It ensures that funds go to those who are truly needy, rather than to professional paupers. The charitable aspects of the tithe did not mean simply a handout to everyone who lined up. Charity is to be dispensed by responsible leaders of the covenant community who are in daily contact with the needs of the people. The general principle still holds: those who won't work don't eat. Those who attempt to live by a welfare ethic are quickly exposed in a locally-administered program, and will be unable to get away with "mooching." Even in charity, God's law teaches responsibility.2

Governments rather than individuals are most often responsible for oppressing the poor since they have the legal means to set up and enforce obstacles. Liberals like Colmes believe that redistributing wealth by taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor will create an equitable society. This is the great liberal myth. Taxing policies designed to create social programs inhibits economic expansion in the business sector. Without an expanding economy, businesses can't grow. If businesses can't grow, they cannot hire new workers.

Liberals believe that the remedy for economically displaced workers, a condition their policies created, is to raise more taxes and subsidize the unemployed. This is state-sponsored slavery under the guise of compassion. It has the effect of squelching the incentive to work and creates a perpetual underclass that is constantly appealed to by liberals so they can stay in power. Those dependent on the State most often vote to increase the power of the State out of self-interest. Murray Rothbard observes:

State poor relief is clearly a subsidization of poverty, for men are now automatically entitled to money from the state because of their poverty. Hence, the marginal disutility of income foregone from leisure diminishes, and idleness and poverty tend to increase further, which in turn increases the amount of subsidy that must be extracted from the taxpayers. Thus, a system of legally subsidized poverty tends to call forth more of the very poverty that is supposedly being alleviated.3

Private charity eliminates the political empowering of a poverty class. The incentive of governments is to keep people dependent and grow the base by classifying more people as below the poverty line. There is little motivation of the poor to abandon dependency because the initial rewards from employment are minimal. Why put in an eight-hour work day, travel to and from a job, pay Social Security, federal, and state taxes for only a little more than what can be gotten by sitting at home and receiving a check at your subsidized apartment?

Since the implementation of the "Great Society" program in the 1960s, the number of those designated as poor has increased. What have we gotten with the infusion of more than two trillion dollars of tax-payer money to help the poor? Charles Murray's analysis shows that "Progress [against poverty stopped coincidentally with the implementation of the Great Society's social welfare reforms. . . . Huge increases in expenditures coincided with an end to progress."4

Conservatives, many of whom are Christians, understand that a free economy, private property rights, and substantially reduced tax liability are the best remedy to help the poor. Those who can't work and take care of themselves can be cared for by the generosity of the people through churches and private agencies. With less money taken in taxes, more money can be given to charity work.5

Alan Colmes is a nice guy, but he knows very little about the Bible. One wonders if he is equally misinformed on the other topics he addresses. Liberals tend to use the Bible only as a club against conservatives. Verses are taken out of context to make points already held by liberals. No doubt conservatives can share in this guilt, but at least we believe the Bible and see it as a comprehensive standard. There's much more that Alan Colmes says about Jesus and ethics, but I'll save my comments for another time.

Notes:

1. James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), 267.

2. David Chilton, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators: A Biblical Response to Ronald J. Sider, 3rd rev. ed. (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1996), 55.

3. Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State (New York: New York University Press, [1962] 1975), 818.

4. Charles Murray, Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950�1980 (New York: Basic Books, 1984), 63.

5. See John Jefferson Davis, Your Wealth in God's World: Does the Bible Support the Free Market? (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984); Robert H. Bremer, American Philanthropy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, [1960] 1982); Marvin Olasky, The Tragedy of American Compassion (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1992).

Chapter 37:
The Manipulations of Supply Side Jesus...

Friday, October 17, 2003
Blog by Dan Ewert

You probably knew that, Al Franken, that terribly clever guy, came out with his book, �Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them � A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right,� a couple of months ago. But did you know that it had comics in it as well? Yes, for the semi-literate in Al�s constituency or for those readers who can�t stomach a book without pictures, there are short comic strips in the book. You can find one of them here; it�s the story of Supply Side Jesus. It argues several different things. Among them that supply side theory is wrong (not that it doesn�t do what it claims to, but that it�s immoral; see pages 1-4), that conservatives are against helping the poor and sick (pages 4-6), that work ethic is wrong (pages 4 and 6), and that Christian evangelists and Christians in general are money-grubbing hypocrites (page 7). So let�s look at these one by one.

Interestingly, even though the strip repeatedly criticizes supply side theory that putting more money in the hands of consumers instead of the government increases the overall economy and betters everybody�s financial situation, it never says anything that would lead you to believe it doesn�t work. In fact, it pretty much admits that it does indeed work. Through consumer spending, people in the comic got jobs, average income went up, and social mobility increased. And the only thing Franken can say against this is that supply siders are �hucksters.� Uh-huh� great retort. It�s a little difficult to be a mere huckster when such easily measurable improvements are actually borne out by the theory. And if supply-siders are just selling snake oil, how can you criticize them when the snake oil is working and doing exactly what it was claimed to do?

Franken also portrays conservatives as not wanting the help the sick and poor. Supply Side Jesus refuses to feed the lepers because that would make them lazy and he refuses to heal them because that would exonerate them from their own personal responsibility. This also relates to the Christian hypocrisy claim. Nobody ever claimed there isn�t a place for helping the less fortunate in society. However, the government shouldn�t be involved in it. And that�s the big disconnect here. Franken wants the government to dole out all the money in a more socialized system. Conservatives think welfare should be in the realm of private charities that are far more responsive to the poor�s needs and are vastly more efficient than government bureaucracies.

The point that a good work ethic is bad is probably the most surprising. Franken again alludes that the rich are just hucksters. Never mind that they likely put in a great deal of honest effort to get where they are. No, instead everybody should be entitled to the exact same stuff. It doesn�t exactly work out that way and nor should it.

The last criticism about some Christian evangelists is probably the only one that has a little bit of truth to it. And when I use that term, I�m referring to a few select ministers of gigantic churches. They actually do have policies where those who donate a lot of money to their ministries get special treatment and special access to the preacher himself. That�s wrong in many different ways and can unfairly color what may be an otherwise upstanding organization. You get no special treatment from God for having more money and a church should be equally blind to it.

Now as for Christians in general, they should adhere to a gospel of good works, compassion, and generosity. Again, though, this is a matter for private entities to engage, not the government. Liberals like to use this as a guilt trip against Christians if they oppose a growing welfare state. They�re criticized for not wanting to help the poor when this is what Jesus commanded. Now me, I�m all for helping the poor and downtrodden and that�s exactly why I don�t want the government involved. Under the current system, my money is involuntarily taken away from me and used to fund programs that are unresponsive, ineffective, and eye-poppingly inefficient. Scant little of what I put into the system actually makes it to the people who need it. Since modern welfare is run by the government, then it�s a bureaucratic monopolistic colossus that faces no competition, no threat of being dissolved, and is guaranteed an almost unlimited supply of income whenever it needs it. Under those conditions, the majority of the money it receives is eaten up in administrative overhead. I�d far prefer to take that same money and give it to organizations that will use it wisely and efficiently. Yes, absolutely, the poor should be helped, but Jesus said give unto Caesar what is Caesar�s and give unto God what it God�s. Under the liberal notion, we should give everything to Caesar and let him sort it out.

"Shouldn't you feed the lepers, Supply Side Jesus?"

"No, Thomas. That would just make them lazy."

"Then shouldn't you at least heal them, Supply Side Jesus?"

"No, James. Leprosy is a matter of personal responsibility. If people knew I was healing lepers, there would be no incentive to avoid leprosy."

-Al Franken, from Lies...pp. 316-317

It pains me that I even have to write an entry entitled "Al Franken on Jesus Christ." I mean, it's bad enough that Mr. Franken has to constantly make a mockery of followers of Christ, but to go after the big man himself? That's just petty. Now, as always, Al Franken can do no wrong. He would argue that his unflattering and blasphemous depiction of our Lord is meant to challenge our conservative perceptions in light of His teachings. The Supply Side Jesus comic is a sick joke; it's The Last Temptation of Christ without the empathy.

When Jesus first makes his appearance in the comic, he proclaims that ten craftsmen were able to feed their families because of the purchase of his luxurious robe. Apparently, Pastor Al is trying to illustrate the absurdity of the trickle down theory. Jesus goes on to say, "The goldsmith who made the trim and the filigree was able to hire an apprentice because I had paid him so handsomely." Then Jesus boasts about how people benefited from his haircut, manicure and pedicure. This rubbish is nothing new for Pastor Al, though. He has been griping about supply-side economics since his first political screed was released in 1996. Here he is implying that conservatives are hypocrites for proclaiming faith in Christ while endorsing an economic theory that, in his opinion, favors the rich. Jesus, after all, was poor, right?

So does supply side economics conflict with the teachings of Jesus? Of course not. It isn't based on the teachings of Jesus, but it does not contradict them, either. I deal with supply side economics in another entry, but I'll stick with the spiritual message here. Jesus easily could have made himself the man in Al Franken's comic. He could have been wealthy and powerful, with legions bowing before him. In Matthew 4:9, the devil said to Jesus, "All these things I will give thee, if thou will fall down and worship me." Jesus replied by saying, "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, 'Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.'"

One of Jesus' central teachings was the danger of greed, not wealth. The supply side Jesus of Pastor Al's comic proclaims, "It is easier for a rich man to enter Heaven seated comfortably on the back of a camel, than it is for a poor man to pass through the eye of a needle." Obviously, this is a bastardized rendition of Matthew 19:24, where Jesus states that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again, this is a warning against greed, not wealth. People like to quote the famous cliche, "Money is the root of all evil." Well, biblically, that quote is incorrect, because the entire verse reads that "The love of money is the root of all evil [emphasis added], which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows" (1 Timothy 6:10). Money has the power to corrupt those who allow themselves to be enslaved by the selfish pursuit of it, and it is from that corruption that the evil arises.

According to Supply Side Jesus, "If you are prosperous on Earth, that means that God is rewarding your rugged individualism. If you are poor, it is a sign that God frowns on your reliance on handouts." Now does anybody honestly believe that that was Ronald Reagan's message? Does anyone believe that to be George W. Bush's message? Only irrational liberals who want to believe it in order to fuel their predisposed hatred.

Al Franken doesn't want you to believe that the lower classes benefited from supply side economics under the administration of Ronald Reagan, but they did, and the evidence for it is overwhelming (again, I deal with that on my Reaganomics page). Al Franken doesn't want you to believe that lower classes are benefiting from George W. Bush's tax cuts, but they are, and the evidence for it is overwhelming (I deal with that on my George W. Bush page).

Let's go back to Supply Side Jesus' stance on lepers (see top of page). On PlanetFranken, the Republican Party is a big country club where thousands of Ebenezer Scrooge clones get together and discuss how they can serve their interests by screwing the poor. During the time of Jesus, leprosy was the epidemic in Israel, and Jesus extended his hand to those inflicted. Then if Pastor Al's implication is correct, our current Republican president should be ignoring whatever epidemic is plaguing us right now. Thank God Al Franken is dead wrong on this one.

The biggest and fastest-growing epidemic in the world right now is the AIDS virus. You can sort of call it our modern day leprosy. People are dying from AIDS every single day, and it has been reported that one in every nine people in Africa carries the virus. So is President Bush sitting on his throne, saying "AIDS is a matter of personal responsibility," and "If people knew I was trying to cure AIDS, there would be no incentive to avoid AIDS?" Absurd! Let's do something that Al Franken doesn't do often enough. Let's look at the facts:

From whitehouse.gov:

In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush announced the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a five-year, $15 billion initiative to turn the tide in combating the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. This commitment of resources will help the most afflicted countries in Africa and the Caribbean wage and win the war against HIV/AIDS, extending and saving lives. Specifically, the initiative is intended to:

-Prevent 7 million new infections.
-Treat 2 million HIV-infected people.
-Care for 10 million HIV-infected individuals and AIDS orphans.

Wow. Supply Side Jesus would be disgusted.

I particularly love the frame where Supply Side Jesus is throwing coins into the enthusiastic crowd and declaring, "Twenty shekels for anyone who votes for me!" Wasn't it Pastor Al's hero, Bill Clinton, who offered people overnight stays in the White House in exchange for political advancement contributions? I believe I read that in Ann Coulter's book, Slander, and Al Franken certainly hasn't objected to it. Just a thought.

To sum it all up, I'm not trying to dispute Al Franken's views on the effectiveness of supply side economics (at least not in this particular entry). He has every right to disagree with that particular approach. The thing that upsets me is his representation of our cherished Lord and Savior to create a spurious connection between economic conservatism and religious hypocrisy. It's garbage! It's an insult to all of us who actually choose to live our lives by biblical principles! Al Franken cannot stand the fact that the majority of God-fearing Christians support the Republican Party (as polls reveal time and time again), and so he has decided to attack us by using our Lord in a metaphor that desecrates the political affiliation we hold dear. Not only is that completely infantile, but it gives us strong insight into Al's true motivation behind such books as Lies and Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot. As he declares on page 107 of Lies, "I F---ing Hate Those Right-Wing Motherf---ers!" Now tell me, is this a man who genuinely cares about the poor? Is this a man who is motivated by compassion for the oppressed? A regular Oscar Schindler? Let the evidence speak for itself. This is a man who is motivated by spitefulness and hatred. Truly compassionate liberals should be ashamed that such a man is speaking on their behalf. At the risk of being audacious, I can't help but liken Pastor Al's intentions to those of Judas Iscariot:

Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, "Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?" This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

-John 12:4-6

I know that's very harsh, and I may grow to regret making the comparison, but it's important to consider. Like Judas Iscariot, Al Franken has feigned a concern for ordinary people in order to camouflage his true, self-serving intentions. Jesus (the real Jesus) said in Matthew chapter 7, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Think about that. If you are a fair-minded person, and you want to understand Al Franken's intentions, just look critically at his work and what he is trying to accomplish. It's sad, really.

Does the Bible promote Communism?

Acts... is Luke's account of the formation of the Church after Jesus' death. The book is almost a socialist tract, full of admonishment to the rich to share their wealth with the poor. The communist motto, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is derived from Acts 4:32-35. Here's the whole passage:

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great ppower gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.[Al Franken, Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them (Plume, 2004), 222-223.]

After quoting the verse above and Acts 2:44-46, theologian Dr. Wayne Grudem explains:

...it is a great mistake to call this "early communism," for (1) the giving was voluntary and was not compelled by the government, and (2) people still had personal possessions, because they still met in "their homes" (Acts 2:46), and many other Christians later still owned homes, such as Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12), Jason (Acts 17:5), Titus Justus (Acts 18:7), many Christians in Ephesus (Acts 20:20), Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:8), Mnason of Cyprus (Acts 21:16, in Jerusalem), Priscilla and Aquila in Rome (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:9), Nympha (Col. 4:15), Philemon (Philem. 2), and other Christians in general to whom John wrote (2 John 10).

Immediately after the description of such amazing enerosity in Acts 4, there is in chapter 5 the story of Ananias and Sapphira, who lied about the sale price of some land. But Peter tells them there was no need to do this:

"While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? After after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God" (Acts 5:4)

It is significant that this story occurs immediatley after the paragraph that says "they had everything in common" (Acts 4:32). It reminds us that all of that generosity in Acts 4 was voluntary and was not intended to nullify the ideas of individual ownership or inequality of possessions. When Peter says,

"While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?"

he affirms the idea of private property and keeps us from the mistaken idea that the church was establishing a new requirement that Christians give up all private property, or that Christians all had to have equal possessions. Acts 5:4 guards against such misunderstandings. [Wayne Grudem, Business For The Glord Of God (Crossway, 2003), 54-55.]

I should note that Franken admits he "grew up knowing zip about the New Testament and still know next to zip." [p. 222] Well said, Al!

More on Communism and the Bible: Should Christians Have All Things in Common? and Red Bible?

Anti-Franken Links:
oFrankenlies.com
oPlanet Franken
oSpinsanity on Franken
oThe Smoking Gun on Franken

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------