notice: this is a repost of a 3AM essay when everyone else was sleeping...
I know many kossians are non-religious, but please, read on through before denegrading and bashing. Be openminded!
I don't understand why conservatives insist that Jesus wanted certain things in society to be the way they are, and to be so bigoted and casting out in regards to others.
Jesus, for his time, was an ultra-raging liberal.
The Roman empire decided to eradicate him because he was stirring up Judea and inciting revolt in the area with his ideas of social equality, and love and brotherhood.
Forget all the fluff and stories in the bible: the true central tenant is this: He. Was. A. Liberal.
He stood for social equality at a time when there were slaves. He preached brotherhood between rival tribes of Israel and in the region (Pharasies, Samaritains and the like). He spent his time with the poor and needy, healing the sick. Jesus, if he practiced what he had today, would probably not even been seen by many of the very Christian people who proclaim to be his followers today.
Wether or not you believe in the bible or in the philosphy known as Christianity, or hate Christianity or have been disillusioned by it, all this has absolutely nothing to do with the simple fact that wether divine or not, man or God, half-man or half-god, Jesus was real. There are Roman records at the time.
Moreover, as simple as the fact he existed (all else beyond is basic personal beliefs), there is another simple fact: Jesus was a liberal.
Neitzche proudly proclaims:
"Which of them has won for the present, Rome or Judea? But there can be no doubt: consider to whom one bows down in Rome itself todya, as if they were the epitome of the highest values- and not only in Rome but over almost half the eart, everywhere that man has become tame or desires to become tame: three Jews, as is known, and one Jewess (Jesus of Nazareth, the fishreman Peter, the rug weaver Paul, and the mother of the aforementioned Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: Rome has been defeated beyond all doubt."
I may be so bold as to interpret this: Rome (read conservatism) was defeated in time by Jesus' philosophy (read liberalism). So, extrapolation and grammatical substitution read thus:
Conservatism was defeated in time by liberalism.
Another thing I do not understand is that conservatives say that the founding fathers wanted religion in the consitution, and that they must go with the founding father's "intent".
Of course they have to go by "intent". All the documented surviving literature is contrary to that of what they believe.
Moreover, John Adams, one of the founding fathers, was a faithful man. Son of a preacher, he visited Philadelphia for the consitutional congress in 1774. He wrote to his wife, Abigail, constantly every day of his life.
Upon visiting a Catholic church in Philadelphia, he wrote this:
"The music, bells, candles, gold and silver were so calculated to take in mankind that I wonder if the Reformation had ever succeeded... I feel pity for the poor wretches fingering their beads, chanting Latin, not a word of which they understood...But how shall I descibe the picture of our Savior in a frame of marble over the alter at full length upon the Cross, in the agonies, and the blood dropping and streaming from his wounds?"
Adams was confused and distressed by the overornate and wrought symbolism everywhere, compared to his church where "unfettered daylight through clear window framinings allow for no dark or shadoweded corners."
It is of my opinion that faith is good. Religion is a tool to help produce faith for the masses who would not be able to comprehend it otherwise. And therein lies the problem: with such a machine to help sway thousands of millions of people come the great temptation to subtly slip in your own message.