Every time liberals wish to find some sort of justification for their beliefs and actions, they either collect the support of popular people try to compare themselves to some higher moral authority. Among these comparisons is one that I think is the most ridiculous. It goes something like this: “Christians should accept homosexuals and their lifestyle, same sex marriage and abortion rights. You know, Jesus didn’t follow the mainstream thinking of the time. He was a radical. He challenged the laws of the day. He reached out to all people.” This type of comparison is simplistic and flawed.

While it is true that Jesus Christ was compassionate and taught compassion and acceptance of those on the fringes of society (the lepers, the crippled, the poor), Jesus cannot be deemed a radical in the context of the modern definition of the word. This Son of the Living God never tolerated or even expressed toleration for the violation of the laws of God. As an example, Jesus saw people selling animals and changing money in the holy temple – the house of God. He turned over their tables and went after some of them with a whip. Now we are being told today that if some anti-war protesters want to cause a scene using fake blood in the house of God on Easter Sunday, it is “unchristian” to show them out and not permit them to use the holy building for promoting political propaganda. In light of what Jesus did to those money changers, it would obvious that Christ would not have tolerated it.

Another fact that liberals who use this flawed comparison continually ignore is that Jesus did not defy the laws of the land. He defied the traditions and customary laws of his Jewish contemporaries.  Critical to the argument is Christ’s reason for his defiance. These customary laws which he spoke out against were contrary to God’s laws. This is the reason he fought them. Not because he was a radical “fighting against the man.” When questioned about paying taxes to Caesar, he taught to “...render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”  

Interestingly enough, most liberals I know use this argument as if it were written on a page out of the liberal handbook for arguing when you are uninformed. The reason I use the word uniformed is that 99% of the liberals who use this argument look upon Christianity with very low regard and/or believe that Christianity is merely a movement created to control the masses.

If liberals are looking to attack intolerant religion, why haven’t they gone after radical Islam? Women are subservient in this truly intolerant religion. Homosexuality is completely unacceptable in radical and moderate Islam. The Taliban executed women in public in the name of meting out religious justice. Are there no outcries against this? Radical Islamists believe in killing anyone who does not believe as they do and they believe they are justified by God for doing this.

Why don’t liberals protest that type of atrocity?  What would happen to protesters who went into a mosque in any predominantly Muslim country and pulled a stunt like those Easter Sunday protesters did in a Catholic church this year? What would happen if they broke up the daily prayer with a call for the equal treatment of women and homosexuals or ending their murdering of the innocent in the name of Jihad? I think the answer is obvious.

So was Jesus a radical?  My answer is an emphatic no. He was an enforcer of God’s laws. This does not by any stretch of the imagination equate him with the social demagogues of today who make a living at being fashionably against anything.  The question of what Jesus would have tolerated is still highly relevant as measuring stick of morality, but of equal importance is the obligation we have to take responsibility for sound decision making that addresses our contemporary issues, problems and needs and to make these decisions based on adequate education, experience and understanding – not on emotionalism or the increasingly popular sport going after Christians. That’s the newest Lowe point.

Yes, you can add another black conservative to the list. My name is Christopher Lowe and I have been fighting the urge to create my own blog for too long. Now begins my first step. First of all, I am proud to say that I am a flag flying, America loving, traditional, family oriented, military revering, God fearing son of a veteran of two wars. I love this country with all my heart and truly believe that America is the light and the hope of the nations.

In my first post, I want to take on a topic that I feel very strongly about. That is Charles Barkley’s assault on conservatives. On CNN’s The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer  “Sir Charles” had this to say:

Hey, I live in Arizona. I have got great respect for Senator McCain. Great respect. But I don’t like the way the Republicans are taking this country. Every time I hear the word “conservative,” it makes me sick to my stomach, because they’re really just fake Christians, as I call them. That’s all they are. But I just — I’m going to vote Democratic no matter what.

…BLITZER: All right. One quick point before I let you go. You used the phrase “fake Christians” for conservatives. Explain what you’re talking about.

BARKLEY: Well, I think they — they want to be judge and jury. Like, I’m for gay marriage. It’s none of my business if gay people want to get married. I’m pro-choice. And I think these Christians — first of all, they’re supposed to be — they’re not supposed to judge other people. But they’re the most hypocritical judge of people we have in this country. And it bugs the hell out of me. They act like their Christians. And they’re not forgiving at all.

BLITZER: So you’re going to get a lot of feedback on this one, Charles.

BARKLEY: They can’t do anything to me. I don’t work for them.

BLITZER: You feel comfortable saying all that?

BARKLEY: I feel very comfortable saying I’m pro-choice, and I’m for gay marriage. Very comfortable.

BLITZER: But you can’t lump all these conservatives as being fake. A lot of them obviously — most of them are very, very sincere in their religious beliefs.

BARKLEY: Well, they should read the part about they’re not supposed to judge other people. They forget that one when it doesn’t fit what they want it to say. “

Well something that bugs the hell out of me is having the finger pointed at me by someone who is making a blanket statement of judgment against all conservatives. He take the stance that because we don’t accept or make accommodations for homosexuals to be married or change our country’s enduring stance on preserving the sanctity of  innocent human life, we are fake Christians.

He also implies that because we are pro- traditional marriage or pro- life, we are unforgiving. We’ll I have never heard a conservative say that a person’s homosexuality was something that needed the forgiveness of conservatives. Sexual orientation is the business of that person and is not some offense against myself or any other conservative. If Mr. Barkley feels that there is something about homosexuality that gays should apologize for, well, that is his opinion, not mine.

Unfortunately, this kind of uninformed, misbegotten name calling is indicative of the type of thinking that liberals substitute for intelligent reasoning. It is common practice among liberals to “make up” for a lack of knowledge about facts by settling things with insults or personal attacks.

The bigger issue here is the outright and unabashed drive by secular leftists to wipe out Christianity. Don’t be fooled by people like Charles Barkley who selectively adhere to whatever part of the bible they can use to further their own causes. Barkley’s cause is the acquisition of political power and he knows that the only chance he as to realize that is by courting the fast growing Liberal juggernaut. He intends to run for the governorship of Alabama in 2014. He also said he doesn’t care about taxes being raised because it won’t affect him. How that for a man of the people? Let’s hope that the people of Alabama see through this absurd anti-conservative rhetoric and take a good look at the emptiness of etiquette, profound shortsightedness and general judgmentalism that dwell there. And that’s the newest Lowe point.