Before the primaries

I saw this on Facebook the other day, a reference to Proverbs.  It was with reference to the fact that the middle class have begun to suffer.  But before you make this a “liberal” or “Democratic” argument, it had actually come from a fellow pagan.  His particular politics are currently unknown.  While I am not sure now, what scripture in Proverbs he used, there is something comparable to it found in the Tanakh.  Proverbs 22:7-9  The rich rule the poor and the borrower is a slave to the lender.  He who sows injustice shall reap misfortune; his rod of wrath shall fail.  The generous man is blessed, for he gives of his bread to the poor.  Also, Proverbs 22:16  To profit by withholding what is due to the poor is like making gifts to the rich—pure loss.

These were supposed to be wisdom words that had survived pretty much intact, from the time they were jotted down many thousands of years ago.  The problem is, in this era of super-politicized religion, these are wisdom words that also get thoroughly ignored.  With the above scriptures in mind, how would the Republicans currently running for state-wide political offices and at the federal level, actually match up to these admonitions?  Well, they want to pull the plug on the Affordable Care Act; that is first on the agenda.  Even though 76,061 Idahoans gained new health care coverage through the Idaho run state insurance exchange. (Statistics according to The Inlander.)  Well, Idahoans who could apparently afford the insurance now, than was possible earlier.  So, do the GOP have a particular moral argument against the ACA?  Not one that I can see.  No more than providing subsidies and tax breaks for the people least in need of them, has anything in common with the above scriptures.  To profit by withholding what is due to the poor is like making gifts to the rich—pure loss.

Do you remember that Judge who wanted to put his own ideas about the Ten Commandments, to be engraved in stone and installed in a very public area of a very public building?  I think of what he did then, years ago, as all ego.  So apparently, the dude is still around, last name of Moore, I believe, and has this video making the rounds that the first amendment is solely for Christians.  Well, may I advise here that an actual Christian, whether in government or as a private citizen, would surely turn his or her back on all forms of corruption?  Would follow the sage words of one King Solomon, about how you are supposed to treat your fellow man?  But that is not apparently how “conservative” is to be defined today.  One may claim “morality” by “bible belief.”  Or one can claim “how much better I am to you,” through “a strict constructionist” interpretation of the bible.  But if people are suffering through no fault of their own, then “how much better are you,” if you fail to act on their behalf?  

Remember the Ryan budget?  Remember how quick he was to take a hatchet to those safety nets?  Remember where his tag line was, to limit government?  Yet, do we also recall how quickly he was using the “money saved” as obvious gifts to the rich, in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, etc. Which brings to mind this question, when was the last time he read any of the bible?  Took to heart those scriptures found in Proverbs, that no matter what his position is in society, righteousness is found only through assistance given to other people.  Very specifically, poor people.  So, then King Solomon was a follower of Karl Marx, is that right?  Or did Karl Marx find something that he liked in Proverbs and used it as a basis for his socialist arguments?  That is something to think about.

Now for the definition of “conservative” out of a forty year old dictionary.  Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc and to resist change.  Well, those above mentioned safety nets, had certainly been around since the time of FDR.  Or consider when the SCOTUS decision was made that put an abrupt end to laws outlawing voting discrimination; those laws had been on the books for decades.  Or the SCOTUS decision that permitted unlimited money from shadowy PACs into any political campaign. Obviously, this kind of political thinking is in complete disagreement with the above definition.  The next definition also includes a person being cautious or moderate, precisely: acting with all due deliberation.  And as it pertains to Judge Moore, the third definition would be a real laugh riot:  Traditional in style or manner, avoiding showiness.  The dictionary gives reference to a type of clothing.  I am thinking about his ego boosting display of the Ten Commandments.  Very grandiose, very showy.  So who is this guy again who thinks he knows who the “Christians” are?  Further, that the first amendment is applicable only to them?  The Bill of Rights had certainly been established as law and institution, if you will, for better than 200 years.  An actual conservative would abide by the thinking of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and etc.  As it would be in his personal interests to do so.  What you deny to others, can also be denied to you.  “The burning times” were not solely the bane of “accused witches.”  Fires were also lit for Christians, who failed to follow the official line of thinking, sent down to them by the government.  Which is why James Madison tried to protect the personal liberties of the faithful, so that they wouldn’t be entrapped like that again.  

Proverbs had a lot to say about the fools and the wicked.  I’d suggest the people check with King Solomon first, before they go out to vote.  It would probably be to their better interests.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: