10 Bible Verses Violated by the Republican Party

Please note this article is not another case of a Democrat insulting the Republican party and their religious members.  I don't like either political party and I've lost hope in the current political system until major changes are made.

While I've lost most  interest in national politics,  some things still catch my eye. But what bothers me the most, and always gets my attention, is when a politician campaigns on a the premise that their allegiance to their God makes them a better person than the other candidate. Fast forward a few months after their election and there they are obstructing ethical (i.e. Godly) legislation  for their constituents only to make their donors happy.

If a politician's  adherence to the Bible is what makes them a good person and good elected official, what do they become when they no longer adhere to the Bible?

You can understand why I feel my arguments made here are sound: The voting and campaign records of Congress are widely-available public records, and since 7 out of the 10 Bible verses I used are from either Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, meaning that 70% of this is literally the Gospel truth (I hope that means the other 30% is the naked truth)

------

see also: Republican Talking Points Flowchart

Advertisement:

Comments

Leave a comment
  • republicans CLAIM to be a christian group but their actions leave much to be desired.

  • In reply to dbenedetto:

    Of course, we know that Mitt Romney gave nearly 14% of his income to charity where as Joe Biden was about 0.5%. This is only a sample of two, but says a lot. I think we need to be careful about over generalizations.

  • In reply to salisbury56:

    "This is a sample of two but it says a lot. I think we need to be careful about over generalizations".

    LOL, Salisbury you are the best!

  • I'll believe your bi-partisan disgust when I read a similar list about the Democrats.

    Here, I'll start you out with one for the masters of theft, the Dems:

    "Thou Shall Not Steal".

    I'll grow old waiting for your Dem list, be honest.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    You think I am a liar and you read my blog?

    I praised Ted Cruz and Rand Paul's filibuster a few months ago, that was pro Republican. I must missed your comments then.

    You also disregard the scope of this article: politicians who wrap themselves in religion then legislate in a way that Jesus wouldn't. I'll hate on any politician that does that, regardless of party. That's a much bigger issue to me than partisan politics. If you can find an example of an issue that democrats collectively voted on that was antithetical to the religions they tout, I will add it to my list if you can put a Bible verse to it. It would be more hits for me, so it's in my best self-interest.

    The ball is in your court with this one, homey.

    So you are now suggesting blog topics for me? What have you ever written that is of merit for me to consider your suggestion?

  • In reply to TRSlyder:

    If you can't stand the criticism, maybe you should either find other work or be more balanced.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    (Matthew 7:2-3)"For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Richard Davis:

    The issue for me, also independent, is that most Democrats don't claim to be Christian or they don't take the Bible as directly as do most Republicans. The majority of Republicans do--and they're the kind who say only the Bible must guide religious beliefs. Therefore, they have an obligation to actually practice what the Bible teaches, which is that we must care for the sick, the poor, the immigrant, and anyone else in need of our help. Our money is not ours--it belongs to God. I left the Republicans for that reason--I am conservative, but not mean. For the Republicans to call themselves the Christian party makes them very hypocritical, or at least those in the Tea Party, which is where most of the selfish, greedy viewpoints come from. All I hear is rants about how people who are poor, foreign, or sick might actually receive care and how they don't want to sacrifice for them. I am also pro-life and that doesn't mean "Don't kill your baby--wait until it's born and we'll do it for you." It means that I support life at all stages and that I have a responsibility to the lives of those children I begged moms to save.

  • In reply to Terrie Bittner:

    Richard Davis has only one philosophy: Blame everything solely on the Muslim Kenyan. Not being conversant in the New Testament, I don't know if that is supported anywhere (especially since there weren't Muslims until about the 8th Century).

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    You'll grow old waiting for anyone to take your comments seriously, Richard.

  • I agree with Mr. Davis, you definitely are not being intellectually honest. Tell me you are not aware that politicians fill those bills with extra pork, seems you are lying or naive, and I'm being nice.

    How about, bearing false witness against your neighbor? Your interpretations of events are as shallow as any zealots interpretation of scripture. I do not begrudge anyone for having a 'Will Ferrel' sense of the world, but you'll only get what you give.

    Amazing, that a non-partisan would do such extensive work building such a case against one party and religion. Sounds like you have some shadow work to do. Into the belly of the whale, Jonah 1-17.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Why are you trying using the bible against me?

    That's like if I accused you of not living by the biker code or Omerta or the Code of Hammurabi. If you're accused of not adhering to something you don't follow, it's a woefully feeble attempt at insult.

    I was being intellectually honest, you didn't understand the scope of this article- which of course follows logically, as you said agree with Mr. Davis, who also failed to grasp this concept.

    The article was very simple and limited in its scope- it was just about religion/humanity and voting records. Apparently you wished it were about pork, but it was not. It was about religious hypocrisy, I thought the succinct headline would indicate that but I was unable to penetrate your defense.

    I agree with you that Democrats legislate like a-holes too and stuff bills with pork. But I'm not familiar with Bible verses that say, "Jesus told the Ephesians, 'Don't be a d-bag legislator and stuff bills with unnecessary gains for your district'. But I am aware of Bible verses about helping feed the hungry, sheltering the homeless and embracing the outcast. Which works out well, because that's what the article was about.

    So within my small scope, all I had to go on to were the bible verses I could recall about dealing with fellow man (preferably those spoken by Jesus) and then I checked to see if the Republicans- as a group- had voted against any of those Bible verses. It turned out they had. You are welcome to take those quotations and google for instances of Democrats violating them. Go ahead and do it and blog about it, and I'll read it and comment. You spoke as though there is a treasure trove of anecdotes there, so go find 'em and let me know.

    Conservatives love to defend racial profiling with, "All of the 9/11 hijackers were Arab men, so we should profile Arab men." . Well all the NAY votes against the Sandy Hook Assault Weapons ban legislation were Republican. And as you may have read, they were nearly all on the NRA payroll. That implicates itself. The Republicans are also the only political party trying to replace modern science with the Bible's millenia-old religious fables in schools. These are the kids that are going to pay our healthcare, 4zen. Would you rather them understand science or not?

    Since it's only Republicans proposing this, we should profile them.

    I'd hate my own mother's politics if she proposed doing any of that nonsense. Those politics deserve to be derided.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    I'll tell you one thing, TRSlyder has never been intellectually honest. But then again, I have no idea what intellectually honest means.

    TRSlyder, dont you know that crazy political people label you as the party they hate if you dont 100% agree with all their party's beliefs? I guess I could only expect that kind of knowledge from an intellectually honest person... which, as 4zen noted, you clearly are not.

  • In reply to DanTello:

    DanTello, by intellectually honest, I was referring to the fact that, tho TRSlyder may have stated some literal facts, I believe, intellectually, he knew there was more to the story he was telling. But, that probably wouldn't be as funny would it?

    Don't get me wrong, it's ok to be funny, I even tried to be in my post to Aquinas, I just took exception to the fact that this was being passed off as honesty. Take care all.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    4zen, thank you for reading and commenting- first and foremost.

    Now this isn't to say my feelings are hurt or my day was ruined, but I do take offense to suggesting I am dishonest. I get paid a nominal amount for blogging, it's not my 9-5 job, and I don't use my real name expressly because I want to blog honestly.

    The truth, as I suggest you know, is that I'm not a political or theological expert. I know some about both, but I spent about 5 hours on Google gather bible quotations and researching this.

    My point is that all I wrote I just discovered recently via Google. If a simpleton like me can compile enough evidence against Republicans that you feel roused to defend them, then you ought to have no problem hitting Google to find some facts that support your case.

    Doing so would serve your argument so much more effectively than saying, "I bet you researched some stuff you didn't report.".

    I'm intellectually-honestly telling you that I did not. I am inviting you to look for yourself and get back to me, or stop calling me intellectually dishonest.

    If I accuse you of lying about secretly harboring purple aliens from Jupiter, it would be incumbent upon me to prove that purple aliens from Jupiter actually exist.

    It's intellectually dishonest of you, 4zen, to accuse me of being dishonest because you a assume there is a pool of facts somewhere I didn't refer to, that you are too lazy to prove the existence of.

  • In reply to TRSlyder:

    And I thank you for replying and writing an entertaining blog.

    Don't read too much into the intellectual honesty thing. I did explain in my first post a little. I had a hard time believing that you don't know that most bills are killed because they contain 'pork', meaning other issues usually tied to some nefarious small special interest group, both sides do it. Believing that a bill is killed because it might help poor starving children, just delays getting anywhere, which is the continual state of our gov't.

    I believe the extremists, on both parties have got too many fingers in the broth. IMO, the zealot faction of the the right is so ridiculous, I find them no threat, but the fiscal conservative part of the right is being lumped into this and getting no voice.

    I find myself relating to moderate democrats and fiscal conservatives, but the current administration is full of progressives that I feel are dangerous. If I felt that BOTH sides were getting their do criticisms, I wouldn't have much to say. Thanx.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    I'm with you on pork add-ons to bills being just as evil as voting against sound bills. And I'm aware of how some bills with a lily-white name can be voted down not because of it's legislation, but because of un-related pork.

    That's why I went out of my way in my intro to mention that Washington needs a major overhaul (like eradicating pork, which is a function of too much money on K-Street and in the elections [which is a function of unnecessarily long election cycles]) in order for it to ever work again.

    At least we have some political common ground

  • Your post is spot-on. Mr. Davis and 4zen do not mention that the National Council of Bishops has condemned the Republican House's slashing of $40 billion in food stamps. The program raised 300,000 last year out of poverty. Doesn't such an act violate the Gospel's central message: to love thy neighbor?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Oh no!! Aquinas, you partisan hack! Don't ruin a teaching moment for this kid. You'd sacrifice this person's intellect to justify your pension. I'm sincerely disgusted.

    Run for hills boy, if this is your advocate, you might as well turn to the bottle.

    Aquinas, I love your respect for The Father and culture, but when it comes to politics, I have more trust in the Syndicate.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    I am glad you agree, Aquinas. Growing up Catholic, I've always had a lot of respect for how charitable Catholics were to our local homeless and in-need. I'd love to see that aspect of Christianity in politics from any party.

  • I've made pretty clear, especially on Aquinas Wired, that I don't share the religious background of most of your quotes, and could care less (and would prefer not) if politicians were good Christians. Pope Francis also indicated that the zealots don't speak for the Catholic Church.

    Since you were talking lists, I was thinking more about the list of sins in the Yom Kippur prayer of "Al Chayt," said about 10 times by the very religious. While they apply to all of us, they certainly apply to the sanctimonious politicians. There are about 4 pages of them in the usual Orthodox or Conservative prayer book.

    On a related note, I wondered how many were violated by the Rabbi caught womanizing, gambling, and giving a false identity at the casino, but it appears that he rewrote the Reform prayer book. So, while he had to repent at home, he apparently had a less exhaustive list to consult.

  • Perhaps everyone throwing snarky comments should go back & read T.r.'s first, three paragraphs. He's neither pro-Dem or pro-Rep. When commenters throw in "most democrats" this and "most republicans" that, my eyes glaze over. This article brings to light a certain truth: many politicians (often republican) use the Bible to promote their agendas; however, when the rubber hits the road, unless the issues meet their donors' approval...not so much. As a Christian and increasingly disenchanted registered Republican, this bothers me.

  • "(Matthew 11:28) Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest."

    Jesus said, "Come to ME", not government. Good job on ignoring what the Bible actually states and misinterpreting it the way you want.

  • "( John 14:27) Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives."

    Again, it's the peace that JESUS gives, not government.

  • In reply to Nate Whilk:

    Nate Whilk, I was waiting for someone to make a comment like that, so thanks.

    So you think that Bible is not intended for people to read and then act in accordance with Jesus's teachings? I was always taught the Bible was more like a roadmap for Christians to follow in Christ's footsteps and it would lead them all the way to heaven.

    But what you are suggesting is that the Bible is not intended for that purpose. So what it is then, Nate? A work of fiction? Or science fiction (given the miracles)? Escapist literature? A breezy beach read?

    I realize that the movie Rambo was made as escapist entertainment and the viewer is not supposed to act like Rambo. It's there just to entertain you. If you like Rambo, you are just Rambo fan, it's not like anyone calls themself a Ramboian and then spreads the word of Rambo

    But it sounds as though you are suggesting that the Bible more closely resembles Rambo than a teaching tool- you just read about Christ, but you're under no obligation to act like him in any way. If that is the case, why are you called, "Christians" or "followers" or Christ? Why not just "fans" or enthusiasts?

    That is very interesting and innovative scholarship on your part.

  • '(Mark 10:25) "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

    Then the Koch brothers better hope God and Saint Peter don't read this article about how much money they spent on elections in 2012 alone. I mean, they are objectively extremely rich and that verse is the Gospel truth and all.....'

    Obama is rich by anyone's standards.

  • In reply to Nate Whilk:

    But Obama is not cutting food stamps.

  • '(Hebrews 13:5) Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.”

    'That's painfully ironic'

    Indeed, but not in the way you think. That's for EVERYONE, including people on welfare and YOU YOURSELF.

    Good grief. Could you POSSIBLY be more hypocritical?

  • In reply to Nate Whilk:

    Yeah, those people on welfare really have a lot of money. Nate, you remind me of what Santayana once wrote: "the Bible is a wonderful source of inspiration for those who don't understand it.."

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Forgive them, Aquinas Wired, for they know not that they are morons.

  • In reply to Nate Whilk:

    You speak as though you're holding proof that I am obsessed with money and driven by greed and I don't love what I have. All false assumptions.

    I'm ready for you to present that evidence, otherwise you just made a baseless claim.

    Furthermore,

    1) that most certainly does NOT apply to me because I don't claim to be Christian.

    2) Could I possibly be more hypocritical? Yes. I could call myself a staunchly principled Christian then deny the least of Jesus's people access to health care or food.

Leave a comment