Fundy blogger goes after Mad Magazine for it's depiction of Christ.

[Jara sang]

Uses scripture to refute MAD's assertions. Thanks to Pete of 'The Onion'/abortion fame for pointing out that satirical news, fake news and cartoons are indeed a threat to our way of life. Pete this post is for you and so is this T-shirt.



http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:nt6j-_UxazUJ:1g3.com/hc/2004_09_12_archive.html+%22mad+magazine%22+abortion&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Taxes, would Jesus have approved?

Josh Claybourn pointed out a Mad Magazine bit on the DailyKos which imagined what a Bush campaign ad would look like if the President was running against Christ rather than John Kerry.

The folks at Mad Magazine show screen shots from a fake Bush television ad attacking the Christ's position on everything from welfare and taxes to the war on terror. The ad contains several Biblical quotes followed by an interpretation of each quote as applied to the current political climate. In every case, the President and Jesus are at odds.

There are a few of ways to look at this Mad bit. (1) Mad Magazine is trying to make the point that the Bush Campaign twists other candidate's (read John Kerry's) words, and they demonstrate this by taking Christ's words and twisting them. (2) Mad Magazine really believes that John Kerry's political positions are more compatible with Christ's teaching than the President's, and are juxtaposing Christ's word and the President's positions to prove their point. (3) Mad Magazine believes that John Kerry and Jesus Christ are moral equals. (4) Mad Magazine did not really have a point they just saw a chance to trash both the President and Christ at the same time and took that opportunity.

I would like to take these points one at a time. First, if Mad Magazine is trying to make the point that the Bush Campaign twists John Kerry's words --and the Bush Campaign is in fact twisting John Kerry's words-- then the point is politically valid. While it was wrong for them to use Christ in this manner, if this was the point they are not applying to Jesus political positions which he would likely not have held. So the joke would still have been in poor taste, but was, perhaps, not as bad as it might have been.

Second, if Mad Magazine thinks that Jesus and John Kerry hold similar positions then it is clear they did not understand the Bible verses which they quote. For example, John Kerry is clearing planning to raise taxes should he be elected president. But it would be an error in interpretation to imagine that Christ's words, as Mad Magazine quoted them, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's," could be used to draw the conclusion, as Mad Magazine would be doing in this instance, that "Jesus will raise your taxes."

You see there is, at least, one major problem with applying a pro-tax ethos to the Christ based on this quote. In Matthew 22:21 (also Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:19-26), the passage which the Mad Magazine people quoted, Jesus skillfully avoids answering the question about paying taxes which the Pharisees and Herodians tried to use to trap him.

Consider the passage, in verse 15 we read, "Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him (Jesus) in his words." (I am using the New International Version). Okay, so the Bible clearly states this is a trap. Next we read that the Pharisees send folks to ask Christ this question, "Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

Got it, so the trap was the question. But why was it a trap? I will let scholar F.F. Bruce explain.

"It was, indeed, a very delicate question," Bruce wrote in his book, The Hard Sayings of Jesus. "After Herod the Great, king of the Jews, died in 4B.C., the Romans divided his kingdom into three parts, giving each to one of his sons. ...The sons of Herod received taxes from their subjects, as their father Herod had done. The Herods were not popular, but religiously they were Jews, so no religious difficulties stood in the way of paying taxes to them." Bruce later points out that there was a contemporary theological teaching which said that Jews should not pay taxes to gentiles. "But (one of Herod's boys) Archelaus's rule in Judaea proved to be so oppressive that, after nine years, the Roman emperor removed him to forestall a revolt, and reorganized Judaea as a Roman province, to be governed by a prefect appointed by himself. From now on the people of Judaea were required to pay their taxes to the Roman emperor Caesar."

Okay, so imagine there are two sides in Judea. On one side the people, who did not like paying taxes and possible had a theological reason for not paying them to Caesar. On the other side the Roman prefect who required those taxes. If Christ had said, "pay your taxes," as the people at Mad Magazine imagine, the some Jews would have considered him a trader and would have lost respect for him. But if Christ had said, "don't pay your taxes," the prefect would have put him in jail since the Pharisees would have run full speed to tell him what Christ had said. So the Pharisees thought they had Jesus.

Jesus recognized the trap, in verse 18, he said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?" Instead, Christ says to them (and here I read from Luke 20:24), "Show me a denarius (a silver Roman coin). Whose portrait and inscription are on it?" The bad guys say, "Caesar's" in verse 25, and Christ says to give to Ceasar's what is his, and to give to God what is God's. Note that the phrase had a second part, "and to God what is God's."

You see Christ avoids the question. Jews at the time believed that making a portrait of any human was a form of idolatry, see the Ten Commandments. So in effect, Christ did not say "pay taxes," instead he questioned the orthodoxy of those asking the question, why where they looking at let alone handling an idol. Then Jesus suggests that they ride themselves of this idol, by giving it back to Caesar, and pay respect to God by honoring his commandment against idol worship.

Got it? Christ turned it on them. Nice work.

So it is clear that on at least this issue John Kerry and Jesus are not as similar as Mad is suggesting, if in fact that was their point. I would also argue that Kerry and Christ differ on the issue of abortion, homosexual marriage, etc.

Third, if Mad Magazine is suggesting Christ and Kerry are moral equals, they are damned since Kerry is far from being a moral leader and whole incapable of saving anyone's soul even his own. This is, in fact, the worst of the four possibilities and, in truth, I doubt Mad Magazine had this one in mind.

Fourth, if Mad just saw the opportunity to poke fun at the President and Christ at the same time and took that opportunity, then I suggest the consider that the wicked never win. And making fun of God incarnate is a very wicked thing indeed.

Basically, the Mad piece was in very poor taste, and not funny. I was rather upset, I must confess. Not so much because the piece was attacking the President or policies which I support, but because it was using Christ, my Lord, in such a disrespectful way.

[regnaD kciN]

1. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

:spank:

[pepperbear]

2. you forgot 1 more reason, there, booboo.

There are a few of ways to look at this Mad bit. (1) Mad Magazine is trying to make the point that the Bush Campaign twists other candidate's (read John Kerry's) words, and they demonstrate this by taking Christ's words and twisting them. (2) Mad Magazine really believes that John Kerry's political positions are more compatible with Christ's teaching than the President's, and are juxtaposing Christ's word and the President's positions to prove their point. (3) Mad Magazine believes that John Kerry and Jesus Christ are moral equals. (4) Mad Magazine did not really have a point they just saw a chance to trash both the President and Christ at the same time and took that opportunity.

but of course, it's couldn't be the 5th reason:

5. THAT THE GOP AGENDA IS NOT THE MORAL EQUAL OF JESUS CHRIST, THOUGH THEY PRETEND IT IS.

SIGH..nope! Just good old fashioned conservative victimization again. Thanks, there, Sparky.


NOW HOW DO THEY KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH THAT?

:banghead:

[Raydawg1234]

4. Because Jesus hates queers!

:sarcasm:

[Lisa]

5. and a possible #6 ....

6. The magazine is using hyperbole and extrapolation, both established rhetorical techniques, to argue that people should stop twisting Jesus's words for political gain, and actually start working on the things he expressed concern about -- like poverty, oppression, and violence. (And why does a satire magazine have to step up and say this, when governments and political parties have so many resources at their disposal? Oh, right -- they're too busy trying to frighten and polarize people, so they can grab more power. Just like ... oh yeah ... the regime that put Jesus to death.)

[pepperbear]

6. yep. that's it right there.

thanks Lisa!

:hi:

[LostInAnomie]

3. That is the longest, most ridiculous explanation of "Render unto Caesar"...

... that I have ever heard.

Eh, but what else can you expect from morons who get indignant about Mad magazine.