Re: MD Individuals and Collectives

From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Sep 21 2005 - 04:43:01 BST

  • Next message: hampday@earthlink.net: "Re: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)"

    [Case to Platt]
    Once again I see a disconnect between a party that espouses religious values
    then twists them into something unrecognizable.

    [Arlo]
    Of course. Although it is more a deliberate manipulation, or pandering to,
    "religion" with the sole aim of garnishing the vote-power.

    You'll always find the ones who shout "Jesus!" the loudest to give them power of
    another's life are the one's who completely ignore it when it comes to parting
    them from their wealth.

    We must stop abortion, but once children are born we can neglect them like good
    Christo-Republicrats. We must stop euthanasia, but leave the sick and infirmed
    who are without means of payment to die in squalor. We must crusade against gay
    marriage because Jesus condemned it, but at the same time we can drive by
    homeless people in our Lexuses (Lexi?) and Buicks content in the good old "Gods
    and Clods" reasoning that the poor deserve to be poor, the homeless deserve to
    be homeless, and the hungry deserve to be hungry. After all, we are better than
    them. To have some moral compulsion shoved in our faces about feeding the poor,
    why that's anti-American, Marxist gulagagging*. Buuuuuut... that won't stop us
    from feeling good about how "moral" we are, will it?

    *Gulagagging. A play on "lollygagging", think of it is "gulag" plus the
    repetitive "gagging" of us with propaganda laden fear tactics.

    At any rate, back to the point. The party faithful, I believe, don't even really
    partake of such sanctimonious hypocracy. They don't try to convince themselves
    they are devoutly religious, indeed, they use it only when it serves them. Like
    Platt. Who has stated in this forum that "until the MOQ is accepted, we should
    rely on Judeo-Christian morality" (not exact, and I think to be fair he
    included "common law"). So here's a guy who is admittedly not a devout
    Christian, who holds no qualms about flying the JC banner to support his belief
    that gays should not be allowed to marry, for example. And yet when pressed to
    the "inconvient rest of the Bible", you know, the part about loving thy
    neighbor, and all that Marxist jazz, he says that, well, there are certain
    parts that should not be used. Certain parts?! That's bloody well 98% of the
    book!

    Point, the rallying cry is not out of admiration or devotion to the words of
    Jesus, or the message of the religion, it is to use certain parts to mobilize
    religious citizens into voting for a party that is most assuredly NOT the party
    Jesus would join (which would likely be the Socialist Workers Party, Carpentry
    Division...).

    In the meantime, however, the Lexuses and Buicks keep driving by. Blasted poor.
    Why did God even bother to make such wretched creatures.

    Arlo

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 21 2005 - 04:48:49 BST