copyright © 2004
by Robert L. Blau
Two men vie for the people's support. I
am amazed that any clear-thinking person could have any question as to
whom to follow.
On the one hand, we have a strong leader with
conservative values, a man of God. With a strong hand, he
smites the enemies of God and adheres to all biblical precepts.
His opponent is a weak, wishy-washy person with radical, heterodox
ideas. Just consider that, far from taking action against the
enemy before he can strike,
this liberal has spoken against taking appropriate retaliatory action
even after the enemy has
struck. Further, while claiming to be a religious man, he argues
that religion should be kept out of government. Often, he flouts
the Law, arguing for "sensitivity" and "nuance." The Law is the
Law. It has no nuance, nor has any enemy ever been defeated by
"sensitivity." Also, he claims to have performed meritorious
service for the people, but there are witnesses who have debunked his
claims. This man would also be very bad for the economy, as he
would not prevent frivolous law suits and preaches class warfare.
Perhaps there are some who do not believe how far
out of the mainstream this charlatan really is. Perhaps it is
necessary to offer proofs. According to this liberal, this is how
we should respond to an enemy attack:
Whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And also:
Whosoever shall compel
thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Love your enemies.
I'll tell you what: You stand over there with your love, and I'll
stand over here with a stout bow and a quiver of errors, and we'll see
who wins.
On keeping religion out of government, he says:
Render therefore unto
Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are
God’s.
The examples of his flouting the law are numerous, but here are two:
- A woman was caught in the act of adultery. The Law is
very clear that adulterous women must be stoned, and yet this pretender
set her free with his nuanced
arguments.
- He sent his disciples out and told them, "Stay in that house,
eating and drinking whatever they give
you" and "When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set
before you." He told them not to be bound by the dietary laws!
Here is the proof that he is in favor of frivolous law suits:
If any man will sue
thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
Here is his incitement to class warfare:
It is easier for a camel to pass
through the eye of a needle
than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
Now, what kind of incendiary rhetoric is that?
As for his claims of service, the Disciples for Truth have provided eye
witnesses in refutation. They say that the "loaves and fishes"
bit was just an order-out to the local deli. They documented the
location of the rocks used for the "walk on water" caper.
That's why I'm supporting
Caiaphas. Strong leader. Conservative values. Man of
God.