The foolish man

Well, this Muslim does not think much of Delay’s remarks. But, I would not make the leap and assume that he is making a particular swipe towards Muslims – after all a whole lot of the people who died in the tsunami were hindu or buddhist. And a lot of them were probably Christian as well. It just sounds like unbelieveably bad taste. Did he do a word search thinking that any bible passage about floods would be topical? Either he is incredibly stupid or incredibly callous – or both.

This is in a Congressional PRAYER SERVICE??? Excuse me, but would that not be a religious event, individually participated?

This parable is a central message of Christ: hear God and do what he says. It is taught constantly to small children. It prompts us to be non-hypocrites, and it does not form a basis for self-righteousness even against non-believers, because the failure of Christians to pass the message to non-Christians is a first cause of their non-belief.

May be viewed as tactless in implying that non-christians heard, did not obey and got punished – if you are actively seeking ways to generate hate against Christians. Get a life.

To Chrisper and John T. Kennedy: I did not necessarily think he did it deliberately (as I thougth I said above) and nor did Ted (as his title of the post, I think, makes clear) but although we can agree it’s a very nice parable, the current context should tell any person using common sense that it is open to mis-interpretation. As ted said, there are death and destruction passages in the Quran that could have been used as well and would have been easily recognized as being in very bad taste given the scope and range of the tsunami. I think that Christians as well as others should be careful when making public announcements that the texts they choose are truly contextual to the situation. In this case, I don’t think this was a good time for this parable to be used, and can’t fathom why DeLay would think that it was.

Did he do a word search thinking that any bible passage about floods would be topical?

Well let’s be thankful for small mercies, at least he didn’t quote from the book of revelation! or the big flood and noah’s ark and all.

I mean, it’d bad enough as is, but just think how much worse it could have been….

Delay’s choice is of a piece with the noxious fundie emphasis on faith over works. (In W’s mind he’s goin’ ta heaven.) And I agree with ajax

you know damned well that DeLay, being more a politician than a human being at this point, knows the context he spoke from

Remember Robertson and Falwell on 9/11. Nothing is out of bounds when feeding the base. Any bad stuff that happens to people you hate is God doing some smiting; any bad stuff that happens to you is the fault of gays and liberals and foreigners. As Digby points out the Christian Right has been almost unique in its lack of charity here.

“As Digby points out the Christian Right has been almost unique in its lack of charity here.”

So pray for them.

If all he did was read the passage, I don’t think the criticism is well-founded.

All right then, I suppose it’s ok if instead of calling DeLay an insensitive asshole, we simply read those two words from the dictionary. As a metaphor of course. We could have chosen another pair of words, like, I don’t know, respectable citizen, but the choice was totally random, so no criticism can be made.

Actually, the stuff about the People of Ad and their doom are a pretty good fit, particularly if you factor in the archeological discoveries that the trade city of Ubar collapsed quite literally because it overused its water supply and created a sinkhole under itself. Whether you take the water-usage thing literally or as an analogy for oil, Ubar-America parallels (scriptural or scientific) are both scary and resonant.

A cute item here: Biblio-quiz: The Bible, the Quran or “Mein Kampf”?

But I think he could’ve easily found better quotes; especially the last one seems totally out of place.

You know, it’s probably not the most PC thing for me to say, but, well…

I just plain don’t like Christians. They’ve pissed me off far too often. There, I’ve said it, now the healing can begin. Or whatever.

I can’t believe there’s so much back-and-forth about this. Maybe folks outside the US, or folks not particularly up on American politics, don’t appreciate just what a ghastly prick Tom Delay is. Based on everything I’ve ever heard about the man, and on the context, one and only one interpretation of his remarks seemed conceivable: “The Lord just opened up a big ol’ can of biblical whoop-ass on the heathens (in his mercy, of course)–are you paying attention, you evil secular humanists?”

It didn’t occur to me for one moment that there were any possible alternative explanations for these remarks. But apparently quite a few people really want to give the man the benefit of the doubt, or they think the American theocratic Right has suddenly learned how to “do nuance.” Not bloody likely.

DeLay is indeed a shame to his country, his party and (apparently) to his religion.

George, that would be his nominal religion. Delay’s about as unchristian as you can get.

“May be viewed as tactless in implying that non-christians heard, did not obey and got punished – if you are actively seeking ways to generate hate against Christians. Get a life.”

The first is exactly what DeLay intended; and I certainly do not believe all Christians, or any but a small minority hold such stark and cruel views.

DeLay may be on the downhill slide;but this along with the Texas shenanigans making his indictable behavior retroactively legal and emasculating the prosecutorial process does more than enrage me. This is not Cynthia McKinney. This is one of the 2-3 most powerful people in the nation, and one of the most powerful legislators in American history.

DeLay has accomplished great things for the Republican party, but is a corrupt martinet. That Karl Rove and Tom DeLay have held the prominence in the party for over a decade reflects on each and every Republican, and no party member is morally unstained by this willing association.

The only moral course for the rest of us is ostracization of all Republicans; you should not sup with those who encourage evil.

y81,

Of course I understand that Jesus is speaking metaphorically. I don’t have a problem with the existence, or the message, of the Bible passage. I’m not criticizing Jesus. I have a problem with DeLay choosing this particular passage at this particular time. At best, it’s startlingly insensitive; at worst, it’s a callous thumb in the eye. Why not read the parable of the sown seed instead? Or, you know, any other passage?

I really don’t appreciate being told what I “haven’t bothered to study and don’t understand.” We don’t know each other.

y81, seems to me one difference between the Luke passage and the Matthew parable is culpability — the Luke passage directly states that the people killed by the falling tower were no more deserving of death than any of the rest of us — they were “no more guilty than any of the rest of Jerusalem”. But in the parable that Delay selected, those who build their houses on sand are directly responsible for their fate. Do you see no difference here? The two (in the contexts in which they were respectively read) seem to me to have precisely opposite messages.

y81, seems to me one difference between the Luke passage and the Matthew parable is culpability — the Luke passage directly states that the people killed by the falling tower were no more deserving of death than any of the rest of us — they were “no more guilty than any of the rest of Jerusalem”. But in the parable that Delay selected, those who build their houses on sand are directly responsible for their fate. Do you see no difference here? The two (in the contexts in which they were respectively read) seem to me to have precisely opposite messages.

yabartleby: “Delay’s choice is of a piece with the noxious fundie emphasis on faith over works.”

??? This makes no sense at all.

Look at the context. Delay’s chosen text is the last bit of Matthew’s version of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7, I will quote from the NIV). One of the points Jesus is making in the passage Delay read out is that self-proclaimed “faith” without works will not be recognized. The last sentence before the passage De Lay read is “by their fruit you will recognize them.” (7:20) Among the “words” which hearers are to put into practice are: “Love your enemies” (5:44), “do not resist evil,” (5:39), “do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth” (6:22), and “do not judge.” (7:1)

Delay may not have realized what he was reading, and its (I think still today) revolutionary implications. But if his prayer is understood as an appeal to his fellow Christians to put their faith into practice, it takes on a different appearance. Try reading it as not about the victims of the tsunami, but about those who are hearing it read out to them.

I am no fan of Tom Delay, but I don’t fully understand the furor here. Especially I don’t understand the anti-Christian animus of some commenters. The passage, in context, is addressed to Christ’s “hearers” and is a challenge to them. It is explicitly not about judging others. It is about doing God’s will — where that means, as Matthew also tells us, feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, inviting in the stranger, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, and visiting those in prison. (25: 35-36)

oh, and since indeed the passage he _chose_ to quote is only the last bit in the whole sermon, ask yourself, why on earth did he not _choose_ to quote the bits about feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, inviting in the stranger, clothing the naked, caring for the sick… which might have been a little more appropriate to a disaster situation? or any other passage from the vastity of the bible that might have been appropriate? something about grief, hope, prayer, consolation, etc. etc.?

It’s not that hard, people do it at funerals all the time, usually by managing to avoid such crass insensitiveness.

It’s a good sentiment, and if the metaphor was anything other than houses collapsing in a flood there wouldn’t be a problem with it. But since that is the metaphor, it wasn’t a very tactful choice right now.

I don’t know DeLay’s form, but I’m quite willing to believe it didn’t occur to him how offensive this might be. Is it plausible he liked the sentiment so much he completely missed the tact issue?

I don’t know DeLay’s form, but I’m quite willing to believe it didn’t occur to him how offensive this might be. Is it plausible he liked the sentiment so much he completely missed the tact issue?

Perhaps…but as to the first question, his “form” tends to the delusionally messianic:

“He [God] has been walking me through an incredible journey, and it all comes down to worldview. He is using me, all the time, everywhere, to stand up for biblical worldview in everything that I do and everywhere I am. He is training me, He is working with me.”

As to whether he might have inadvertantly caused offense to non-Christians, consider this:

“Ladies and gentlemen, Christianity offers the only viable, reasonable, definitive answer to the questions of ‘Where did I come from?’ ‘Why am I here?’ ‘Where am I going?’ ‘Does life have any meaningful purpose?’ ” DeLay said. “Only Christianity offers a way to understand that physical and moral border. Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world — only Christianity.”

Dear y81:

You wrote:
It’s amazing to me, the venom poured …toward a philosophy you haven’t bothered to study and don’t understand.

Is it really that amazing? (I think it is passing strange to argue about Scripture on a secular, political blog, but Vox Populi,.. etc.) I don’t know..In Luke, Chapter 6 , which is kind of a parallel to Matthew, Chapter 7, Jesus says “Woe to you when all speak well of you, for their ancestors treated the false prophets in this way.” Luke 6: 26 [Note: citations are to the New American Bible]

and

“Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way.” Luke 6: 22-23

The comments in this thread are pretty mild compared to what Jesus seems to have been talking about. There’s no “hate,” “exclud[ing] and insulting,” “denounc[ing anyone] as evil on account of the Son of Man. At worse, some comments seem, at least to me, to contain mistakes about some parts of the bible, which are expressed very emphatically. With all due respect, I don’t think that’s amazing. Christians themselves have been arguing about these things for 2000 years, and especially since the Reformation.

Continuing in this tradition of disputation:

You wrote:

“Do you not understand that Jesus is speaking metaphorically?
He doesn’t mean that floods are a punishment from God, he means that the ills of the world will sweep you away if you are not anchored in the ontological substrate.”

I’m not sure I agree with you. I don’t understand what you mean by “anchored in the ontological substrate.”

This is my take on the text.

Jesus seems to be speaking literally here:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’ “ Matthew 7:21-23

Then he uses two similes (not metaphors, I erred) which apparently illustrate or clarify the literal statements:

“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.” Matthew 7:24-25 (emphasis added)

And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.” Matthew 7:26-27 (emphasis added)

Moral: One who listens to Jesus’ words ( relating “the will of [His] Father) and:

a.) conforms his/her conduct to comport with them (“does the will of [Jesus’] Father,” “acts on” Jesus words), will be saved (“enter the kingdom of heaven”);

b.) does not conform his/her conduct to comport with them (doesn’t “do[] the will of [Jesus’] Father,” “does not act on” Jesus words), will not be saved (“I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’ ”).

Is my exegesis in accord with yours?

Salman Chaudhry – All Christians believe that Christianity and Islam are seperate religions. Only Muslims believe that they are not. While both believe in the God of Abraham, Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Muslims do not. This belief is a non-negotable tenent in the Christian relgion. Christians do beleive Muhamad was a prophet from God. Its my understanding that this is a non-negotable tenent in Islam.

y81:

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

Dan Kervik:

TD:”The text in question is a parable, an extended metaphor, if you will. I don’t think any Christian sect takes it to mean God will drown the bad guys.”

DK: “Of course they do. We see this sort of reaction all the time from at least some Christians here in the US. These are the same people who blamed 9/11 on homosexuality and abortion – God’s decision to punish the Sodomites of the liberal northeast.”

No doubt there are some Christian sects whose doctrines hold that God punishes those individuals and/or groups that displease him by causing bad things to happen to them in this life, e.g. sickness, death, mass disasters, etc. The famous post 9/11 remarks of the Reverends Fallwell and Robertson explicitly professed such beliefs. It was not my intention to argue otherwise.

My comment referred only to the specific text DeLay read. On its face, and in context, it does not refer to any kind of divine intervention or retribution on this earth, in this life. I don’t think any Christian sect, even those which believe that God operates that way, interpret the “house on the sand” story as an explicit or implicit allusion to such an operation. Perhaps I should say that I don’t know of any Christian sect that holds this view.

As Michael Kremer wrote, “The passage … is addressed to Christ’s “hearers” and is a challenge to them. It is explicitly not about judging others. It is about doing God’s will — where that means, as Matthew also tells us, feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, inviting in the stranger, clothing the naked” etc.

I would add that the critical verses are particularly well known, – “building a house on the sand” long ago entered the secular vernacular, and indeed is now a cliche.

Further, as I understand the DeLay story, he read the passage at some sort of religious service for Congresspersons, in a church, lots of them read from the bible (perhaps some spoke in tongues and/or handled snakes). The more that read, the higher the odds that someone would do the house on sand routine. (heh- Tom DeLay, Speaker of the House Upon the Sand)

In any event, if all DeLay did was read Matthew 7:21-27, this does not in itself support the charge that by doing so DeLay “t[ook] a swipe at the tsunami victims,” or displayed insensitivity or tactlessness.

You wrote: “I wouldn’t at all put it past DeLay to take a swipe at the tsunami victims.” Neither would I. But what he said can’t reasonably be interpreted as doing so.

DeLay says all kinds of nasty things. But his notorious propensities are not grounds for imputing a malicious intent to a statement he makes that is otherwise innocuous.

I can’t read Tom Delay’s mind. But it seems obvious to me that there are two possible interpretations of what he meant, and no one has mentioned the second:

1. “Jesus predicted floods for people who disobey him; this is to be taken literally; therefore, since south Asia had a flood, it’s because they don’t obey Jesus.”

Or:

2. “A physical flood has happened in Asia, and we all see how destructive that is. But Jesus said that the same thing would happen in the spiritual realm to those who don’t obey him. We in this room should be sure to obey Jesus so that we don’t experience a spiritual ‘flood’ just as devastating as what happened physically in Asia.”

Why are people leaping to the first interpretation, when the second interpretation not only makes sense but is much more in keeping with how conservative Christians actually talk all the time?

DeLay’s a LITERALIST. He don’t do metaphor. His skills at Biblical exegesis are on a par with, say, your basic Pet Rock. Subtlety, nuance, contemplation… the signs of those about the Devil’s work.

Jesus said “I’m a-gonna smite me some evildoers” and he MEANT “I’m a-gonna smite me some evildoers.” He did NOT mean “Don’t ya’ll be evildoers so I won’t have to smite you too.”

It’s an absolute truth in DeLay’s cosmology that DeLay and his friends and fellow travellers cannot possibly be evildoers since Jesus talks to them directly.

DeLay’s version of God does in fact take a direct personal hand in every happening of every bit of daily life. There are no accidents.

The Shrubberies are in control NOT because they lied, cheated, twisted, bent, and broke laws, but because God wants them in charge as evidenced by the fact that the lies, cheating, and lawbreaking worked.

I suspect that if DeLay’s sorry about ANYTHING related to the tsunami, it’s that the DNC wasn’t having a post-election conference in Phuket.

(Incidentally… I DO know the man slightly, since before he became the Second Coming (when he was merely another East Texas pol on the make). Suffice it to say that when he went mano-a-mano with a cockroach, and the cockroach lost, evolution became somewhat less credible…)