Fundamentalist Endorses Greed Candidate: Big Surprise

So, Jerry Falwell Jr. (of Liberty University), endorsed Donald Trump, who has almost no values preached by Jesus and many values Jesus warned against (e.g. pride, greed, wrath). Camel passing through the eye of the needle and all that (Matthew 19:16-26).

But, hey, the Falwell clan and Liberty University have never been about the Christianity of Christ, but rather the Christianity of Reactionary-ism and the Republican Party. Or more accurately, the version of Christianity that Republicans have found useful to hold/gain political power by recognizing and exploiting the red meat that this brand of Christianity feeds on.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." --Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Falwell, Jr. is merely extending his father’s practice of politicizing Christianity for his own purposes; and making Republicanism and Fundamentalism a blurred distinction. The shame of their act will be paid for one way or the other. Either in hell, if it exists. Or by the march of progress that steamrolls them as it did Falwell Sr.

Falwell Sr. concocted God in his own image – by preaching a gospel that re-enforced the Old Time Gospel’s Hour preacher’s philosophy, politics, prejudices, etc. So, what’s new? That’s what every believer does. It’s called projection. There are as many flavors of God as there are theists.

The peak of Falwell Sr.’s absurdity was when he wrote a 1994 World Net Daily article rationalizing how God was Pro-War. Why did Falwell do this? Because Falwell Sr. loved the Republican Party because they promised to roll back progress that Falwell opposed (e.g. “the Gay Agenda” and all that fear-mongering claptrap). The GOP was Falwell’s ticket to impose his own version of what he thought God wanted (something all believers of all faiths do, by the way). Also, Bush Jr. was endorsed by Falwell Sr.

So naturally, Falwell Sr. had to rationalize and justify the unconstitutional Iraq War 2 because his reputation was on the line. So, Falwell did what all good religionists do – dig through their holy book to find verses to justify what they already want to “prove” beforehand. After all, it’s not as if God actually sat next to Falwell and spoke into a recording device to share "his" actual thoughts on the matter. Funny how God talking to people never happens in reality. Only in stories. But, I digress.

Justifications and Rationalizations always originate in the mind of believers. It’s the nature of belief. And, it’s the nature of not having actual empirical or testable means to verify what you believe. You essentially have to make stuff up that sounds good enough to be believable by the non-discerning and has no means of being disproved.

That’s how you end up with Christians on opposite ends of an issue (e.g. gay marriage), yet each fervently and honestly believing the same Bible proves their points. Obviously, this cannot be the case. At least if one is to believe in inerrancy and guidance by a Holy Spirit. But, alas, a better explanation is that it’s just a book held needlessly in high esteem that has been used by individuals to justify what’s in their minds already. For better or worse ... throughout the centuries.

Every step of progress in the United States has been made with constituencies of believers of the same faith coming down on opposite sides of the progress and yet all claiming equal backing by the same God (ex. Abolitionism).

In the ebb and flow of U.S. culture, we’ve had periods where progressive religious forces have prevailed (e.g. those that were part of the now out-of-style “social gospel.”). Of course, today the pendulum has swung the other way, largely as a reactionary mood emanating from the rapid change and progress of the 1960s. It’s hard to imagine that 50+ years later.

But, as you can see with modern events, reactionary-ism is global and not limited to fundamentalist Christianity. They won’t admit it, but fundamentalist Muslims and Christians share more in common than they may care to acknowledge. They may differ in means to achieve their goals, but they are largely anti-science, anti-education, anti-progress and anti-modernity.

The Second Amendment is not Absolute

In fact, no amendment is absolute. Let’s take a few examples.

Amendment I – free speech. Yell “fire” in a crowded theatre and you’ll soon discover that this particular form of free speech is deemed a danger to the public and there are often penalties for exercising it. Societal good trumps this particular expression WITHOUT throwing out the entire amendment. No slippery slope here.

Amendment XV and Amendment XIX – extended voting rights because the right to vote was never absolute from the get-go. Women and slaves were excluded. Yet, even now, after having those exclusions removed, voting rights are still not absolute. Ask prisoners who have been stripped of their right to vote. Permanently in some cases when they are unable to exercise that right even after they’ve paid their debt to society. This does not kill voting rights altogether. No slippery slope here, either.

But for some reason, many Americans imagine that putting restrictions on certain expressions of Amendment II (e.g. owning weapons deemed as assault or military grade) will lead to ban/confiscation of all guns. Apparently, this amendment is more prone to a slippery slope than the others.

Those who believe in an absolute interpretation of Amendment II, dig up quotes of activists who want to ban guns outright, saying that there are “enemies” of Amendment II in its entirety and therefore caution and vigilance for this amendment is particularly warranted.

In the first place, these people are not “enemies,” but fellow-citizens exercising Amendment I to petition their government. Secondly, given how many gun-owning citizens there are compared to complete-gun-ban citizens, this isn’t even a realistic concern. And even if there should come a day when there are more of the latter than the former, it will be democracy at work. Because no amendment is permanent (see Amendment XVIII).

The framers put mechanisms in-place specifically for inserting AND removing constitutional amendments. And the first ten amendments (a/k/a The Bill of Rights) are no more sacred than any of those added later. To think otherwise is to suggest that the politicians and citizens of 1789-1791 have a right to permanently control certain existential aspects of citizens ever-after.

We can show admiration and gratitude for the framers and early citizens, but they were not divine, all-wise or flawless. They, like all humans ever born, were bound by space and time and tried to make rational decisions within the circumstances and constraints that existed at that time. This is what allows us to temper hindsight criticism (e.g. re: slave-owning framers) based on the fact that they were human – flawed and prone to make imperfect choices/compromises.

To elevate them, or somehow attribute near-divinity to their spoken and written words as if they were the second coming of Mount Sinai, is absurd. We can revise their words, decisions, amendments, etc. when circumstances deem it necessary for OUR times. And we can do so without denigrating or demeaning their legacy. It’s as much our right to add, revise and remove their effects as it was their right to declare independence. After all, rights do not come from government, let alone politicians that create those governments.