The Trinity of Robertson, Falwell and Swaggart, the American Axis of Good,
has been busy preaching to its flocks on the evils of the religion of
Islam.
These scholars, who only a short time ago thought Muslim was a coarse
weave fabric Jimmy encountered under his liaisons in the cheaper motels,
are today world-renowned experts, with Falwell credited with inciting
riots in India.
Falwell called Muhammad, the founder of Islam, "a terrorist ... a
man of war," while another reverent man of God, noting that one of
Muhammad's many wives was but 9 years old, labeled him a
"demon-possessed pedophile."
That is hardly the worst that has been said, but it does highlight the
Right's usual prurient preoccupation with sex and violence.
Any historian will explain how inappropriate it is to measure the
behavior of the people of one age by the moral standards of another.
Muhammad's conduct, occurring more than 1,300 years ago, when warfare was
business as usual and females were married while still children, was
consistent with his contemporaries, even Christians.
Of course, that is beside the point to Robertson, Falwell and Swaggart,
men determined to judge the seventh century by their more modern
14th-century sensibilities.
If one is keeping score, it is just as easy to point out the evils of
Christianity. Tens of thousands of men, women and children, both Christian
and non-Christian, have been terrorized and sped into the arms of their
Maker on the point of a sword, or toasted on church bonfires, all in the
name of Christ. It is a subject that seems to rarely come up in Sunday
school for some reason.
Of course, the gentle Lamb of God did not commit such violence, but
that actually creates a problem for the American ayatollahs.
Throughout the Cold War, Vietnam, and the Gulf War, the Right has had
nothing but scorn for doves. If Jesus was alive today, wouldn't he be
considered just another naive, longhaired peacenik?
Haven't the ranks of the Right always celebrated the man who kills for
his convictions and gets all the chicks? Haven't they found the guy who
never married, never dated girls, and just threw wine-and-bread parties
with the boys a little suspect? The American cultural icon is Rambo, not
Mr. Rogers.
If the right-wingers really studied the matter, they'd find they have
more in common with Muhammad than with Jesus. Muhammad was a merchant, a
businessman and entrepreneur - a capitalist. Before Jesus walked off his
job, he was a carpenter, a common laborer - and with his talk of
brotherhood, no doubt would have been a union man.
He hung out with the dregs of society: the poor, prostitutes, tax
collectors, and finally thieves. Not exactly the kind of person to whom
you would entrust your most precious and eternal possession: your stock
portfolio.
Jesus revealed his anti-business agenda as soon as he threw the
money-changers out of the temple. To the orthodox for whom taxation is
government organized theft, Jesus' clear advocacy of paying taxes by
"rendering unto Caesar" is a complete abomination. Scholars are
still divided over whether the raising of Lazarus was to escape the death
tax or an intent to pay it twice.
In addition to depriving the mortuary services industry of business,
Jesus had a bad habit of healing the blind, lame and sick without prior
approval from health maintenance organizations. He also offered these
treatments without regard to ability to pay, an early attempt at universal
health care.
The Right is thankful that this has as much chance today as it did
2,000 years ago - barring another miracle.
Yet more subversive acts were the turning of water into wine and the
multiplication of the loaves and fishes to feed the multitude. Supply-side
economics and the careful management of scarcity would be utterly wrecked
by cheap and plentiful goods on the market. Profits would collapse, CEOs
would lose their jobs, and the specter of want would be lifted from the
land.
What a capitalist nightmare. The unemployed rabble-rouser from Nazareth
was obviously pushing for a welfare state.
Jesus mollycoddled the poor and went out of his way to condemn the
rich. His warning that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of
a needle than for a wealthy man to get into heaven was typical socialist
blather. The affluent have had to devote themselves to breeding smaller
camels and building larger needles ever since.
And in answer to that age-old question - what would Jesus drive? - he
did not ride an elephant into Jerusalem but a donkey, clearly an
endorsement of the Democratic Party and the liberal socioeconomic agenda,
not the Republican.
Perhaps it is time the furious Pharisees quit barking up the wrong
tree.
