Strong Leader, Conservative Values, Man of God
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.