Jesus was a torture victim; Caiaphas was a law professor

19 comments ↓

#1 fw on 09.18.08 at 9:03 am

agreed. stupid comment.

juvenile actually. so…

what about the two wars, and our economic meltdown and issues like abortion….

next…..

#2 Ryan on 09.18.08 at 9:47 am

I don’t think this phrase is great at all, clever at the outset but highly inflammatory. It wrongly assigns moral freight to the vocation of lawyer and diminishes the sacrifice of our Lord, indeed dimishes the seriousness of Christian concerns and voices in the election. In addition it paints the two presidential candidates in a good/evil fashion that has nothing to do with their political positions. In the end its a stupid comment that does not further or open discussion.

#3 Kurt Onken on 09.18.08 at 9:57 am

Heard this one from a caller on a radio talk show a couple of days ago: “Jesus was a carpenter. Karl Marx was a community organizer.”

#4 Joe on 09.18.08 at 10:21 am

Ryan - it is great because of how it so quickly destroys the imagined impact of the phrase it responded to. Of course, it is objectively a stupid phrase - but that is the point.

#5 Rich Shipe on 09.18.08 at 10:56 am

Great article. Thanks for the link to it, Dr. Veith.

Others have said this before me but the sixth problem with the analogy that this author doesn’t say is that Pilate voted present much like Obama has done during his time in the US and Illinois Senates. Pilate allowed the killing of Jesus but he went out of his way to let others decide the fate of Jesus. Just like Pilate, Obama deferred to others rather than making a decision himself.

And yes, politics has become idiotic and stupid. Very sad. I don’t think the blame goes to the politicians though. Blame goes on us, the people. The consumer gets what he demands.

#6 Anon on 09.18.08 at 11:36 am

Which two wars? Haiti? Bosnia? Somalila?

Economic meltdown is the result of four terms of Democrat-style economics. In the past, we’d have two terms of that, then two terms of economic austerity to make up for it, then two terms of profligate vote-buying. After 9/11, instead of economic austerity, the Bush administrations, and the Democrat Congress which gave us change these last two years, continued with Democrat-style spending, only on national defense instead of vote-buying. (generalizations all) The economy can’t take that.

The framers were wise enough to require Constitutionally that only the federal government could coin money, and that it had to be specie - actual precious metals. The whole Federal Reserve system of debt-’money’ is unConstitutional, and as the framers knew from their reading of history - very destructive.

Rich, i would recommend Paul Meier’s very historical novel _Pontius Pilate_.

#7 Sam on 09.18.08 at 12:10 pm

I’m new to Lutheranism (my wife and I joined a church last year), and, while I haven’t been surprised to find political conservatives in the pews, I am disturbed by the almost pathological (at the very least, childish) hatred of Obama on this blog. It troubles me, particularly given the total absence of even mild criticism of McCain/Palin. Am I naive in hoping that this blog represents the fringe of the LCMS?

#8 Don S on 09.18.08 at 1:18 pm

Sam @ 8: I guess I don’t see what you are seeing. I see sharp political discourse coming from both sides, but certainly not pathological or childish hatred. “Hatred” is a very strong term which is much misused in society today as a label to dismiss arguments one doesn’t agree with. I wonder if you might be more specific as to examples of “hatred”, as opposed to disagreement, that you find on this blog.

In the context of this thread, I think Christians are rightly and understandably upset by, and tend to react emotionally to, the Democratic Party’s recent usage of the phrase “Jesus Christ was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor”, for cheap political purposes. First, it is a phrase which reflects a complete ignorance regarding the very tenets and underpinnings of the Christian faith. Second, taken most charitably, it completely demeans and degrades the Christ’s purpose for being on Earth, and the ultimate sacrifice he made for our sins. It grieves me that our country has moved so far away from the Christian faith that its political leaders could even consider making such a statement, let alone that they would have absolutely no comprehension as to why it was offensive.

#9 truth seeker on 09.18.08 at 1:27 pm

Sam, no, it does not represent the fringe of the LCMS. Most will be staunchly republican supporters, primarily because MOST (not all though) republican politicians are anti-abortion. I do think that there are plenty of unrecognized anti-abortion democrats (like myself) that are unfairly stereotyped as pro-choice by republicans, not just on this blog. But, unfortunately, most democratic politicians at least at the national level are pro-choice.

#10 TK on 09.18.08 at 4:55 pm

Sam, I totally understand what you are saying and I have noticed the same thing on the internet, but not in my church per se. However, you have to consider that the internet forums tend to attract a certain type of personality, no matter WHAT the basic premise of the site is. People with opinions tend to seek ways to share and learn with others and blog are great ways to do that. You just have to balance what you hear with other venues. Newspaper opinion sections, talk radio, various clubs tend to have the same occurrence of very specific opinions.

#11 tODD on 09.18.08 at 6:14 pm

I’m pretty certain that responses like this do nothing to eliminate the problem they seem designed to solve — that of stupid or petty comments ruling our public discourse. They just extend the stupidity.
Which is fine, if all we want is for our side to win. But if the original comment should have been ignored, then so should this response. The question is: what do we want? Tit-for-tat on stupidity, or meaningful discussion? It’s a choice for all of us to make.

Don, what basis do you have for referring (@9) to “the Democratic Party’s recent usage of the phrase”? All I can find is a reference to Rep. Steve Cohen saying it. Do you have evidence of it being a party-wide thing, or are you trying to implicate more people than you should?

Sam (@8), as you have already read, this blog isn’t the fringe of the LCMS — at least not as far as political opinions go. And I’d agree with Truth Seeker (@10) that the preponderance of pro-Republican commenters stems from the partisan devide on abortion.

What I’ve never understood is how it came to be the presumed default Christian mindset that nearly ALL Republican politicians and/or stances (other than abortion) are good, and vice versa. As in, “I’m a Christian, so I think global warming is a hoax, and I will always complain about taxes since there shouldn’t be any, and any war that Bush starts is a good one, and any tactic (domestic or otherwise) that can in any way be justified by labeling it as “anti-terror” is A Good Thing, etc.” A caricature? Of course. But I (obviously) really don’t think it follows that Christians should side with Republicans on most/all issues.

That said, Sam, those of us who are theologically conservative but do not toe the Republican party line* are out here. Most of us tend to be quieter on this blog than are FW and I. But we’re here. Make some noise.

*Oh, I know, someone will want to say that he doesn’t toe the Republican party line either, though he’s no liberal. Fine, then I’m not talking about that person!

#12 Susan aka organshoes on 09.18.08 at 11:10 pm

Ryan and tODD: read the article which contained the phrase, the one linked in Dr. Veith’s post. It explains the context of the quote. It’s not something the author is positing as worthy of consideration. It’s debunking the now rather famous line started at the Washington Post, carried to Congress by Rep. Steve Cohen D. Tenn, echoed by Donna Brazile on CNN, and used by Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press.
Silly and offensive original statement; just as silly second statement. It’s just a throw-away line in the article; not a position the author is taking or advocating. It’s a clever debunking.

#13 Don S on 09.19.08 at 12:36 am

tODD @ 11: Donna Brazille said it first, on 9/7 on CNN’s The Situation Room. Rep. Steve Cohen then said it on the House floor on 9/10. Susan Sarandan, that stalwart mouthpiece for the Democratic party, has also uttered the phrase. To my knowledge, no Democratic party spokesman or leader has repudiated the remark, or explained why it is blasphemous. I did not mean to imply that every Democrat agrees with or promotes that statement, however, and I apologize if I gave that impression.

#14 Don S on 09.19.08 at 12:42 am

Obviously, in post 13, I was referring only to leaders in the party. As the article linked by Dr. Veith states, the phrase was apparently first devised by a Washington Post blogger on 9/4, and has been repeated endlessly by left-wing bloggers and other media.

#15 kerner on 09.19.08 at 8:19 am

If I may lapse int old curmudgeon mode for a moment, I remember the rise of liberalism in the 60s. At that time, liberals were rejecting Christianity wholesale in droves (religion is the opiate of the masses, etc.). It remains true today that political liberals are much more likely to reject so-called traditional values and the faith that generates them than political conservatives. So, I’m not surprised at all that Christians have become concentrated on the republican side.

#16 tODD on 09.19.08 at 12:27 pm

Susan (@12), I think you missed the point of my first few paragraphs (@11). If, in fact, the original “Jesus was a community organizer” line was stupid (it was) and the sort of nonsense we don’t want in our political discourse, then replying to it in kind isn’t a “clever debunking”, it’s merely engaging in the same nonsense, and perpetuating the idea that nonsense like that is valuable in our discourse. It is the childish equivalent of flinging mud back or saying “You are also a poopy-head!” Do we not teach our children that the best thing to do is ignore stupid taunts?

Don (@13), so if I am to understand, you believe the “Democratic Party” either consists of or is represented at a significant level by: a TV reporter, one Democratic Representive, an actress, and some people on the internet? I mean, as you concede, obviously not “every Democrat” agrees with or promotes that statement, but just as obviously, this is not attributable in any meaningful way to the “Democratic Party”. It wasn’t clear if your claim to the contrary (@8) was still in effect.

#17 Susan aka organshoes on 09.19.08 at 1:18 pm

I think you missed the point of the author’s use of the sentence, tODD.

#18 Don S on 09.19.08 at 1:31 pm

tODD @ 16: Donna Brazille is not a “TV reporter”. Quoting from Wikipedia: “Donna Brazile (born December 15, 1959) is an American author, educator, and political activist and strategist affiliated with the Democratic Party”. Continuing, from the same article:

“Brazile has worked on several presidential campaigns for Democratic candidates, including Jimmy Carter–Walter Mondale in 1976 and 1980, Jesse Jackson in 1984, Walter Mondale–Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, and for Richard Gephardt in the 1988 Democratic primary.

After Gephardt lost the primary in 1988, Brazile served as deputy field director of the Michael Dukakis general election campaign. On October 20, 1988, she made headlines by telling a group of reporters that George H.W. Bush needed to “‘fess up” about unsubstantiated rumors of an extramarital affair. Said Brazile, “The American people have every right to know if Barbara Bush will share that bed with him in the White House.”[2] The Dukakis campaign immediately disavowed her remarks and, at the suggestion of campaign manager Susan Estrich, Brazile resigned the same day. Four years later, the same issue, the relationship of George H.W. Bush and Jennifer Fitzgerald would be briefly rehashed during the 1992 campaign against Bill Clinton, who had his own extramarital affair rumors.

In the 1990s, Brazile served as Chief of Staff and Press Secretary to Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia, where she helped guide the District’s budget and local legislation on Capitol Hill. She advised Bill Clinton’s campaign for the presidency in 1992 and for re-election in 1996.

In 1999, Brazile was appointed deputy campaign manager and was later promoted to campaign manager of the 2000 presidential campaign of Vice-President Al Gore, becoming the first African-American woman to manage a presidential campaign.

[edit] Democratic National Committee Service
After the post-election fight over votes in the 2000 United States presidential election in Florida, Brazile was appointed Chair of the Democratic National Committee’s Voting Rights Institute. She currently serves as a superdelegate for her work for Bill Clinton.”

Quite a Democratic Party resume, wouldn’t you say?

#19 tODD on 09.19.08 at 2:40 pm

Susan (@17), there’s the author’s use of the sentence, and there’s how it seems to be received by some on this page. I understand the author’s intent in using the line. But the “great phrase” is excerpted here without that context (only a link). Why? My point remains: what’s the value in discussing any such comments like this?

Don (@18), sorry, should have looked her up. I only know that she shows up on pundit shows, but I don’t actually watch much TV (except in video clips on the Web).

Anyhow, I’ll rephrase my question (@16): do you believe the “Democratic Party” either consists of or is represented at a significant level by: one Democratic superdelegate, one Democratic Representive, an actress, and some people on the internet?

Leave a Comment