What Megyn Kelly Gets Really Wrong About Religion

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/megyn-kelly-santa-christianity_b_4454023.html

Sean McElwee
Writer

Posted: 12/16/2013 4:09 pm

Megyn Kelly said some pretty dumb stuff on Fox News about Jesus (dumb by Megyn Kelly's low standard, not by Fox News' geologic standards) yesterday. She claimed that he was "white" and that "just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn't mean it has to change." Which is ironic, because that sounds a lot like how Richard Cohen defended Clarence Thomas from sexual harassment accusations. But the factual inaccuracy of the comments (and the fact that Jesus's skin color is now considered news) isn't the problem. The problem is that this marks the latest iteration of a concerted campaign to turn the closest thing Roman-occupied Palestine had to Che Guevara into a banal, white, suburbanite.

This campaign was exposed earlier this year when Christians were astounded to find out that the Catholic Church is concerned about poverty. But anyone vaguely familiar with religion built around the man who said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God," (Matthew 19:24) should be aware that Catholic teaching has always been skeptical of concentrated wealth and greed. In Rerum Novarm, Pope Leo XIII writes,

Justice, therefore, demands that the interests of the working classes should be carefully watched over by the administration, so that they who contribute so largely to the advantage of the community may themselves share in the benefits which they create-that being housed, clothed, and bodily fit, they may find their life less hard and more endurable.

G.K. Chesterton said, "You will hear everlastingly, in all discussion about newspapers, companies, aristocracies, or party politics, this argument that the rich man cannot be bribed. The fact is, of course, that the rich man is bribed; he has been bribed already. That is why he is rich."

And what of the story of Lazarus? Lazarus is a beggar who waits outside of a rich man's house and begs for scraps. When both Lazarus and the rich man die, Lazarus ends up in heaven, while the rich man ends up in hell. When the rich man begs for water, Abraham says, "Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish." (Luke 19:25) Yet when Republicans read the Bible (theology escapes them), they find only, Paul's exhortation to Timothy, The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat." (2 Thes. 3:10b) (I need not delve into a discussion of Pauline theology, but I would like to note that Lenin believed this verse to be the basis of a Communist society).

more at link

[trotsky]

1. Hey, it's your new favorite author again!

I see he still hasn't figured out basic logic, though. That's unfortunate. Well he says things you like to hear so I guess he's got that going for him.

(Jesus) said nothing about contraception, evolution, gay rights, climate change or nuclear weapons. Yet his followers have fought, in his name, against all of these things.

He's right - Jesus said nothing (that we have record of) about any of those items. Yet that hasn't stopped his followers on the left to embrace Jesus as an advocate for their stance on them JUST LIKE THE RIGHT WING DOES. Shocker!

If he's going to condemn one side based on his logic, it applies to the other side as well. Poor, sloppy reasoning.

I also feel bad for that rich guy in the Lazarus story - maybe he was a dick and had everything he wanted for the 50 or so years he had on earth. Does that really justify torturing him for eternity?

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. I'm not a religious man; but ...

I have read the bible ... the whole of Jesus' message to man spoke, very specifically, to man's relationship to man and the environment ... which is what I understand those on the Left are speaking of in their "embrace" of Jesus.

[trotsky]

3. Yep, they definitely interpret it that way.

And the right has their preferred interpretation. That's why, as a non-religious man myself, I can only hang my head in frustration when they scream "you're not following Jesus!!" to each other.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. But isn't that a false equivalence thing ...

when you attempt to have the right's interpretation of hate, exploitation and exclusion (which misses Jesus' entire message to man) to be the same as the Left's interpretation of love, good stewardship and inclusion?

If I say, "I believe everyone should be treated fairly" (without mentioning gay marriages) and you say, "No gay marriage" ... which is the more proximate interpretation of Jesus' message?

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. Not really

While the right ignores the message, the left ignores the rationale behind the message. Christ's anti-materialism has a decidedly apocalyptic bent, and he states repeatedly throughout the Gospels he is opposed to material wealth insofar as it is obstructive to one's glorification of God. The ideal person, according to this message, is one who divests himself of all material possessions to live an ascetic lifestyle as an apocalyptic preacher. The left's ideal society is one in which everyone may live comfortably... Jesus' ideal society is one in which everyone is willingly poor and wholly devoted to one single enterprise: gettin right with gawd.

And this is just one issue we're talking about. There's plenty of less-palatable passages liberal believers dutifully ignore. I'm fine with that in principal, but they don't seem to realize that in doing so they put themselves in an untenable position when they decide to criticize the right for "not following Jesus".

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. As a non-religious person ...

Christ's anti-materialism has a decidedly apocalyptic bent, and he states repeatedly throughout the Gospels he is opposed to material wealth insofar as it is obstructive to one's glorification of God. The ideal person, according to this message, is one who divests himself of all material possessions to live an ascetic lifestyle as an apocalyptic preacher. The left's ideal society is one in which everyone may live comfortably... Jesus' ideal society is one in which everyone is willingly poor and wholly devoted to one single enterprise: gettin right with gawd.

I find that a very narrow understanding of Jesus' message ... as his "getting right with gawd" thing revealed through BEING right with your fellow man.

[trotsky]

8. You have your interpretation.

Others have their own. Good luck convincing them they're wrong.

[Act_of_Reparation]

10. Protestants would largely disagree

I find that a very narrow understanding of Jesus' message ... as his "getting right with gawd" thing revealed through BEING right with your fellow man.

Jesus states repeatedly throughout the Gospels the only way into the Kingdom of Heaven is faith in him. While Catholics generally believe good works are necessary to a good life, they still maintain good works alone won't get you into heaven. Ya gotta have faith, as they say.

Many Protestant sects, on the other hand, particularly those of a Calvinist stripe, maintain faith in Christ is the only consideration. Good works, they assert, are a manifestation of one's faith, not vise versa, as you say.

Who is right?

Obviously, I think they are both wrong, but neither party is in a position where they can accuse the other of being out of line. Both positions are supported by the text.

[trotsky]

7. Nope.

Just two different interpretations.

Jesus also spoke about judgment, the fire that won't be quenched, etc. The left tends to ignore/dismiss those parts.

And as I've noted before, much of the right wing's stance regarding taking care of the poor can come down to an interpretation of whether Jesus wanted us to use government or not. The right wing doesn't think we should. The left wing does. Neither can prove the other wrong.

[el_bryanto]

9. There is a false equivalence here, but I respectfully disagree that it's the one mentioned above

The false equivalence is when you imply that Liberal Christians and Conservative Christians are acting exactly the same - we are both screaming at each other.

Consider for a moment the question of what a real America is - consider what Conservatives say about Liberal Americans. "Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy." - Ann Coulter. That's the Conservative Mindset - Liberal Americans aren't real Americans; Liberal Christians aren't real Christians. And this attitude goes back to the Clinton era at least.

In comparison while some Liberal Christians do impugn Conservative Christians for not following the principals they believe come from Jesus, it's not as frequent and it's more of a recent development.

So when you say "they scream "you're not following Jesus!!" to each other," a more accurate representation of what happens is "Conservative Christians have been screaming "your not following Jesus for some 20 years at least, and some Liberal Conservativee have started screaming back."

Bryant

[trotsky]

11. I see it myself all the time right here on DU.

People put the word Christian in quotation marks when referring to right-wing Christians, or use modifiers like "so-called" or "fake."

As to when each side started it, I don't think there's much point in trying to figure that out. Bottom line is, each side thinks the other isn't following Jesus properly, yet neither can prove it.

[el_bryanto]

12. That's because very few Christian Conservatives post at DU -

that probably skews your results don't you think?

Do you feel the same way about the debate of what constitutes a real American? That there's not much point to figuring out which side started it, but that both Liberals and Conservatives are equally guilty at this point of accusing the other of not being good Americans and yet neither can prove it?

[trotsky]

13. Not sure I understand your first question.

I know conservatives do it, that's obvious from the media.

I know liberals do it, that's obvious from this site.

So what was your point there?

[el_bryanto]

14. The point is that it's a false equivalence

It's like when a kid gets bullied by a bigger kid but eventually swings back - are both kids equally culpable? Or isn't the bully a bit more culpable? In this example Christian Conservatives are the bully and Christian Liberals are the bullied.

Bryant

[trotsky]

15. But I'm not assigning blame.

I'm simply pointing out that both sides claim the other isn't following Jesus, and they have no way of proving to each other who is right.

[el_bryanto]

16. "I can only hang my head in frustration when they scream"

You aren't assigning blame to one group over the other, but it does kind of sound like you wish they would both shut up; perhaps I'm misreading you.

Bryant

[trotsky]

17. Yeah, I think that kind of back-and-forth is absolutely pointless.

It's religion - one person's interpretation is just as valid as anyone else's. ESPECIALLY for a revealed religion like Christianity - who are you to say god hasn't revealed a new message to someone else? If you accept the bible, or the book of Mormon, you already accept that principle.

I have posted this quote many times in here but it really sums up my thoughts on whole religion-in-politics mess:

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

"Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing." -- Barack Obama, 2006

[el_bryanto]

18. Great quote by Obama by the way

But this is a religion forum - which sort of begs the point - what is the purpose of a religious forum at DU? Should it even exist?

As for the back and forth - I think I'd be fine saying Conservative Christians have their intepretation and I have mine - but I do rankle a bit when they say so regularly "You aren't a real Christian because you aren't Conservative." I think that's where many DU Christians are coming from.

Bryant

[trotsky]

19. Yet so many of those DU Christians are perfectly willing to say

"You aren't a real Christian because you aren't liberal."

The DU Religion group is to discussion religious news or issues. Obama's quote refers to making policy and law.

[el_bryanto]

20. I should ask you to pull up citations - but I'll take your word for it

It is an overly aggressive response to being attacked so regularly by Christian Conservatives, so I have a bit of sympathy for it.

What is the value of discussing religious news or issues in your opinion?

Bryant

[trotsky]

21. I would take me some time but I'd be happy to do so,

especially since you seem to think it never happens.

I find great value in confronting attitudes toward non-believers that are held even by some progressive believers. I think there is much to be discussed on religious news items, things we can stay informed about when it comes to events that even if you aren't a follower of a particular religion, impacts all our lives. (Such as Catholic takeover of hospitals, to name one big example.)

[el_bryanto]

22. Where did I say it never happens? Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth?

My very next line was explaining why I think it does happen.

So basically the purpose of the Religious forum is for Non-Believers to challenge DU Believers?

Bryant

[trotsky]

23. You wanted citations - obviously you've never seen a single instance of a DUer saying...

that a right-winger wasn't a "real" Christian or some variation thereof. Seemed like you were doubting it happened at all. My apologies if that is not what you meant.

The Religion group is whatever its participants want to make it. I gave one example of a discussion topic. Wound up today, are we?

[el_bryanto]

25. That was more a comment on how you asked for citation after citation in our previous conversation

I'd make clearly rhetorical arguments and you'd ask for citations.

As for being wound up, no more than usual.

Bryant

[trotsky]

24. FYI, some citations:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3156483
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4095947
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3698343
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=156085
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=81812

Those were within the first few results of the following Google search:
"real Christian" site:www.democraticunderground.com

There are other ways the same sentiment has been expressed, many times. If you want, I could do some other searches on the other phrases I have seen. But I think the above info documents my claim well enough. Let me know if you are not satisfied.