I see that Rush Limbaugh, that
paragon of virtue and insight, has announced that the Pope is a “Marxist.” As usual, Limbaugh betrays the true
sentiments of himself and many other professed Christians, the more fundamentalist,
the better, by his criticism of others.
Far be it
from me to do scriptural analysis, but since Christians seem to live, or claim
to live, by the gospels it seems only fair to analyze their collective actions
through that lens. Essentially every description of the lifestyle of Jesus (or Jeshua Bar Joseph, or whatever; the
name Jesus is Latin, not Aramaic) and his band of followers seems to be precisely
Marxist as far as shared resources, equal treatment of all, disdain for personal
wealth, etc. So what is Limbaugh really saying? It comes out sorta like this: “In
claiming that The Church, and Christians
in general, should be more like Jesus in their/ its actions, the Pope is endorsing
the beliefs of Karl Marx, who preached
the absence of God in human society (“pie in the sky when you die”)” Confusing , huh? Well, if Limbaugh has ever made sense to you,
then I cannot help you in any event.
Of course,
what really disturbs Limbaugh are several things. He hates positive media coverage being given
to a Roman Catholic, whom he as a professed Protestant Christian (if Ann Coulter
can claim it, so can he) dislikes because he is a religious bigot and
professional hater. Secondarily, he fears anyone who calls for social equality,
spiritual, economic or whatever. In an economy run on the basis of need or
merit, Limbaugh would be cleaning urinals. Obviously America and the rest of
the industrially developed world has long ago split their view of Christian economic
behavior from a scriptural one. World empires with either theocratic governments
or state churches with significant influence have all been paragons of enforced
inequality of condition and, usually opportunity as well. Italy, Britain,
Russia pre1917, France, and to a somewhat lesser degree, the USA have all built
their economies on the back of cheap, and sometimes slave, labor 1800 years
after Jesus declared the brotherhood and equality of man.
Realizing the
threat to wealth and control this credo posed is not a recent occurrence. Very
early on the heads of The Church made sure to do a number of things. The first
was to convince secular heads of state of their (the Church’s) positional
authority and power in the state. The second was to endorse the erasure of the
myth of social equality by gender and by economic status, which the gospels
depict. The third was to dismiss as invalid a number of contemporaneous
scriptures which depict a story different from the big four. Fourth, in the
late 700s, Charlemagne’s father Pepin, sold his soul to Rome for the Pope’s endorsement,
which resulted in Charlemagne being crowned Holy Roman Emperor on his accession.
These perks of wealth and position were perpetuated with scarcely a blink of an
eye after the Reformation in the newly Protestant nation states of Europe.
So, by about
800 AD, the concept of divine right of kings, state sponsored religion, enforced
social stratification and access to holy writ limited to those who could read,
which meant almost exclusively priests, was well established. Building on this
framework, the gap between haves and have-nots grew, fueled by greed, lust for
personal power and endorsed and enforced by the religious establishment. It is
the loss of this which men like Limbaugh fear, since if forced to work for a
living, his fat ass would starve in a refrigerator box in an alley.
Clearly, a true
Marxist world (true social equality) would not work in our world. The only
place a truly communal society can exist is out in the desert where several
hippies with a bong could probably get along for a while until they ran out of
either pot or Fritos. Limbaugh simply fears the loss of his “stuff” as do we
all. Unfortunately, but predictably he has seized on the legitimate call to
compassion for all mankind by the most human and humane Pontiff in decades to
fire off a barrage of venal and transparent criticism. Fred Phelps would be
proud.
No comments:
Post a Comment