Monday, January 9, 2012

Crazy Cow Lady Cracks Christ Conundrum

WorldNetDaily columnist Patrice Lewis, who lives on a 20-acre spread with her husband and two children, describes herself as "a practical constitutional conservative stay-at-home gun-toting homeschooling cow-milking rural-living Christian mom."  But she's also a keen observer of pop culture, aware of all internet traditions and abreast of the latest trends, as witnessed by her prompt comeback to this year old bit from the Colbert Report:
It all started with a quote I recently read, attributed to comedian Stephen Colbert:

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus is just as selfish as we are or we’ve got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition … and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.
Without condition? This got me thinking.
As some of you may recall, the last time we caught Patrice thinking, she reflected on how the Pill caused women to "rut like cattle," admonished men to "keep their wicks zipped" and ladies to "keep their bloomers buttoned," then wrapped up by telling us she was off to give her cow an abortion.
Now it always amuses me when people with no apparent interest in Jesus as a Messiah will try to pigeonhole Him into supporting their own socialist agenda in the name of “compassion.” But the question here is whether or not Jesus would approve of entitlement programs.
Like his modern followers, Jesus believed in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps; and he would have led by example, too, except he wore sandals.
Progressives like to claim Jesus was a socialist. They say welfare is morally equivalent to the teachings of Jesus, who urged us to have compassion on the poor and destitute. Liberals, from their position of lofty superiority, say we “must have no personal wealth beyond our needs.”
That doesn't actually sound like any of the liberals I know -- certainly none of the ones I've voted for -- and for a second there I thought Patrice was propping up a strawman, but then I noticed she used quotation marks, so it must be true.  I would have liked a link, or a citation, or even just a name, but even I know that any liberal who confided our ulterior agenda to a gun-toting cow-milker would only do so on deep background.
To prove their point, they cherry-pick various Bible verses to support their logic. But of course the devil can cite Scripture to his own purpose.
Lately he's been strip mining Leviticus for good gay-bashing quotes.
Progressives long for a utopian society of complete equality, a land of neither rich nor poor. Human nature being what it is, such a utopia can only be accomplished and maintained through centralized economic management and forced income redistribution. Thus, what progressives ultimately want is communism.
Well, they're pretty sneaky about it, because the "progressives" in the current Administration and Congress don't even seem to want single payer health care.  But the bigger question is, now that progressives want communism, what's left for communists to want?  I haven't had a chance to ask one, but if I had to guess, I'd say either "catabaptism," or "toaster pastries."
But the historical track record of communist societies isn’t too good when it comes to charity and mercy. Communism has killed 100 million people in the last century. Trust me, 100 million dead people is not compassionate.
Unless they all simultaneously broke a leg while running at Pimlico and had to be shot.
And that’s why conservatives oppose entitlement programs … because they lead to socialism. 
Which leads to communism, which is why Christ's weird injunction that the wealthy give their worldly goods to the poor in order to store up treasure in heaven inevitably turned the late Roman Empire into a egalitarian hellhole that was only rescued from oblivion by the meritocratic job creators of feudalism.
First, welfare creates a dependent class of voters who are guaranteed to vote for more entitlements. Second, entitlements don’t help the poor. Indeed, they cause poverty, not cure it.
Food Stamps allow people to live -- indeed, to wallow -- in poverty, whereas the traditional method of forcing the poor and destitute to starve to death or emigrate to America put a efficient period to their misery, although it occasionally led to public health problems (e.g., dozens of dead Little Match Girls rotting in alleyways after the Spring thaw, or severe Irish infestations).
The proof is in the pudding. If the trillions of dollars we’ve so far spent on entitlements cured poverty, we would have no poor people in this country. None. 
Poverty is like chickenpox -- once you've had it you can never catch it again.  Unless there were, say, a major economic downturn, with high unemployment and a widespread housing crisis, but really, how likely is that?  Anyway, this is why I never give money to the homeless, because they'll just use it to buy tapioca.
Jesus did not come to influence the government leaders of the day. Rather, he came to offer salvation and guidelines to the individual.  
The rugged individual.  So I guess this means you guys don't want to elect Christians to office, or legislate morality anymore?  Because it's too collectivist?
We – not the government – have the responsibility to care for the poor and destitute. Jesus’ message was not one of forcible seizure of individual wealth and unchecked redistribution of that wealth. It was a message of personal charity and compassion.
Yes, there was that whole "render unto Caesar" thing, and some might say "We the People" means we are the government, and are delegating certain tasks to it which we can't easily perform ourselves, such as issuing Social Security checks to widows and orphans, but in reality, Jesus was only interested in private altruism.  He was like a personal trainer for your soul and his message was simple: Let the Poor go to Bally's.
But liberals don’t see it that way. They look at Acts 4 and conclude that because the early Christians adopted a communal lifestyle, then communism is the biblical ideal. But this entirely misses the point. The early Christians voluntarily engaged in communal living as an endurance mechanism against prosecution. It was not forced by government mandates; in fact, it was a survival tactic against a hostile government bent on their destruction. Savvy?
I am, indeed, hip to your lingo.  And of course, once Christians finally did get control of the government, they gave up that hippie shit and devoted themselves to private enterprise and the destruction of their enemies, just the way Jesus would have wanted it.
Social justice, one of the buzzwords of the progressives, is not the same as caring for the poor. Forced redistribution of wealth is not charitable. It’s easy to get the government to do your “charitable” work for you.
Yeah?  Try raising taxes.  Hell, try raising the debt ceiling.  (Argument not valid in cases of corporate welfare, because I freely admit, I've never had a hard time getting the government to handle that for me.)
Government programs of theft and entitlement do not make someone compassionate. 
However, Title XII, a government program of wire fraud and emolument has been shown to make participants increasingly puissant.
Those who advocate the theory that Jesus was a socialist point to the rich man who was instructed to sell everything he owned and give his money to the poor, and then to follow Jesus (Matthew 19:21-24). The man went away crestfallen because he loved his wealth more than God. Jesus said, “It is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.” Progressives read this and then somehow make the extraordinary leap of logic that the government must seize and redistribute all wealth (while conveniently ignoring the “follow me” part). 
 Actually, I think they read this paragraph and think, "Was that the quote?  I thought it was something really catchy about a camel and the eye of a needle..."
Of course, Jesus was talking to an individual and suggesting an individual course of action.
It's unfair to infer a larger meaning from any of his words, because that's not how parables work.  They're very surgical.
He didn’t tell the rich man to pass a government program to take everyone’s money and give it to the poor. He didn’t hold a gun to the rich man’s head and tell him “donate or die.”
Although if the Gospels contained credible reports that Jesus pulled a Glock .380 on the moneychangers, even progressives would have to admit that was a legitimate miracle.  Or at least a really cool episode of The Wire.


Jimbo said...

Marvelous commentary. An entitlement program is something you're...well...entitled to because you did something to merit it. So, we pay FICA and Medicare taxes and get Social Security and Medicare. Corporations bribe politicians and so they get corporate welfare and ludicrous tax breaks and everybody walks away happy. Except of course, rugged individuals like Patrice and her capitalists cronies want the whole entitlement pie for themselves. Oink!

R. Porrofatto said...

IIRC, the word "entitlement" when describing Medicare & SS is based upon a specific legal definition, i.e., a right to receive a grant of benefits as provided by law. Goopers use the word as a pejorative to invoke uppity welfare queens grabbing for undeserved taxpayer largesse.

Ms. Lewis is a piece of work, excellently declawed here, but I do like her notion of an "historical tract record of communist societies," as drawn by a Stalinist Jack Chick, I imagine.

Jimbo said...

Hey, she's the Cow Lady; she thinks in tracts of cow pasture, intractable and ridiculous arguments and, of course polemic tracts on the evils of the Liberal State.

heydave said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
heydave said...

"I" am so glad "we" finally got over that "silly" restriction on the "use" of quotes. Punctuation kinda "sucks" when you think about it.

Helmut Monotreme said...

It always sounds like envy to me when wingnuts bring up that "communists killed 100 million people". Its like they're mad that capitalism came in second or something. According to a quick google search, about 200 million people died in wars, and other politically caused deaths in the 20th century. (the estimates ranged from 160 million, to 220 million) so, even taking her 100 million deaths by communism as given (a big logical leap), it's not even clear clear that the communists came in first. So I can't tell if she's down on communism because it killed the most people in the 20th century or because it couldn't quite kill more people than capitalism.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

We can thank Frank Luntz for the phrase "entitlement program".

Kathy said...

People who pay into insurance programs all their working lives are "welfare cheats" because they think they are "entitled" to payments from the policy! But to the corporations/government who collected the money, it's vicious "redistribution of wealth"- They worked to get that money!

Not only are corporations people, they're Christians as Jesus really meant them to be.

histrogeek said...

I do like how the conservative get all worked up because 5 Bible verses referring to pedophilic idol worship get ignored, while they make this tangled web of interpretation to justify letting the "least of these" starve.
And wow what strawman Stalinist kicked her ass?

Jim Donahue said...

The Colbert profile that ran in the NY Times magazine last Sunday is well worth a read:

Methinks he gets the whole "Christian" thing a lot better than Mrs. Cow Pie here.

Anonymous said...

Gun-totin', cow-milkin' Patrice reminds me of the nursery rhyme beginning, "Cushy cow bonny, let down your milk..."

Or eat Patrice's lead!

D. Sidhe said...

Extremely belated happy birthday to Doghouse Riley. I usually have some clever explanation about how I actually on-time noted your birthday by arranging gravel in your driveway telepathically or something, but this/last year I just suck. Here's hoping my not getting around to saying happy birthday till January will be the worst thing that happens to you this year.

Dr.BDH said...

Robin Hood: The poor are going to be absolutely thrilled. Have you met them at all?
Randall: Who?
Robin Hood: The poor.
Randall: The poor?
Robin Hood: Oh you must meet them. I'm sure you'll like them. Of course they haven't got two pennies to rub together but that's because they're poor.

Time Bandits 1981

Mitt Romney as Robin Hood

Sharon said...

Leave the communism, take the cannoli.

Anonymous said...

Helmut Monotreme - she's mad because Christianity came in second !

KWillow -- Corporations, being intangible, have solved the "eye of the needle" problem ! Thanks to Justice Roberts, a rich man’s money, but not the rich man himself, can go to heaven ! Win-win !

Stacia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stacia said...

Patrice has indeed uncovered a previously unknown fact about life in Jesus' time. Clearly, there were entitlements back in the days of Jesus because how else do you explain the existence of the poor people he said we should be nice to?

Frankly, we need more scholars like her in the research of the ancient Roman Empire.

I am delighted by her insistence that Jesus didn't intend for his advice to be taken by just anyone, though. It was only for the people who paid for his consulting services.

Stacia said...

(The worst thing about re-posting a comment when you screwed up is that the second word verification is NEVER as funny as the first.)

Carl said...

In fairness, if Jesus had any clue...which raises the whole omniscience thing, but I digress...that governments could be of the people, by the people and for the people, he'd probably endorse socialism.

Remember, when asked how one could follow Him, He recommended giving away all your earthly possessions for a greater reward.

I'm surprised Patrice ignored that passage.

Not really.

Anonymous said...

So does this mean Ayn Rand is God, and Jesus is Her Only Son?

Spearhafoc said...

Ah, so the "giving to the poor" thing is a voluntary act for individuals to do, not something the government can mandate?

I take it you say the same thing about prayer in schools?

What's that?


round guy said...

He didn’t hold a gun to the rich man’s head and tell him “donate or die.”

I would contend that Jesus saying essentially "Give away all your money to follow me or burn in hell for all eternity" is the definition of holding a gun to someone's head.

Christopher said...

I would contend that Jesus saying essentially "Give away all your money to follow me or burn in hell for all eternity" is the definition of holding a gun to someone's head.

Lemme quote Acts 5:8-10 for you. The context is that everybody was selling their land and possessions and giving the proceeds to the communal pool of money. Ananais and Sapphira kept some back for themselves, and here's what happened to the latter:

And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

I give her credit for at least sort of trying to engage with her opponents arguments, but I then take it all back for the way she distorts scripture.

Incidentally, it is amazing how little of the Bible you have to read before you find stuff that challenges this kind of silly reading of the scripture.

Carl said...

I would contend that Jesus saying essentially "Give away all your money to follow me or burn in hell for all eternity" is the definition of holding a gun to someone's head.

While Christ did say "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven," he is pretty adamant that by accepting his teachings is a gate-opener, and apart from addressing the few instances of wealth, he never specified abandoning all material wealth.

P. Curtin said...

Great post. Is there a logical dilemma to be gleaned from the fact that your blog does not belong to its self-titled world?

Scott said...

Thanks, P. Glad you enjoyed it.

It's part logical dilemma, part cri de coeur, depending on that day's level of general exasperation.