Add This

Monday, January 17, 2011

Wild Beast

I am guessing that many public figures fear for their lives these days, after the Arizona shooting of the congresswoman, Gabrielle Gifford and others. The killer could be a crazy person, a religious zealot, or a political gun-totin' wack-job — or any combination of the three. But no, the media assures us there are no facts linking Loughner to any religion or political group. Hmmm…I’m not so sure the media is being completely transparent with us, the readers. I certainly have read some articles lately with a certain “slant” to them.

But, I couldn't believe my eyes when I read about the Baptist Minister who was about to protest at the funeral of the nine-year-old girl who got slain. Christina Taylor Green was born on the day the World Trade Center was destroyed. I could not help but wonder why the religious group would use this tragedy to make headlines. Doesn't religion have a bad enough name already without adding their tacky spin on the tragedy?

Two Jewish groups have demanded an apology because of Sarah Palin's comment about "blood libel." It seems to me she did not even understand what the term means. But, that's what you get when you read a “Bush-league” script. Here is a well-researched discussion and explanation of the term “blood libel,” which includes an historical background: Interesting that both Gabrielle Gifford and her boss are Jewish. I realize that most Christians do not believe in karma. However, the term could be taken to mean “consequences for your actions,” could it not? Does not the Bible say similarly, that one reaps what one has sown?

When my partner and I heard about the shooting and the map with the cross-hairs on the Democratic congress members, we instantly saw the connection. My partner asked me, "What would you say if you were Sarah Palin? My reply was,

"I am so sorry, America. I was wrong to create that hateful map. I confess I was jealous of the democratic win. I just couldn't take it. I see now that my actions are not without consequences, as are everyone's. I take full responsibility. From now on I will speak out against guns. Furthermore, I resign from politics!"

It was a stretch, I know.

My partner raised an eyebrow, "Hmmm...Gun enthusiasts might view her as a traitor." He hesitated, then continued, again raising his other eyebrow, "...maybe with consequences.” We felt that such a response might elicit the respect of the sheeple* again and she might actually have a chance at the presidency. But we were both wrong. She went into complete denial about her part in the plot. By plot, I mean the one about taking back the lost Republican seats. And all the Tea Partiers rallied round their northern idol. Then, to be sure of their power, these fine Christians went out and bought more guns, feeling self-righteous; while clearly portraying a mob mentality.

Is this how far religion has to go before someone sees it has too much freedom? Sarah Palin calls herself a Christian, but she certainly does not act like the Jesus I have read about in the Bible. Perhaps as a "good" Christian, she may recall the scripture where the Roman officer came to arrest Jesus. Peter took out his sword to defend his Lord. What did Jesus say, "Let's put cross-hairs on the Romans"? Not in my Bible. If I remember right from my Bible-thumping days, the scripture at Matthew 26:52 says, "...Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword."

Of no consequence?

I wonder whether the wild beast of Revelation (Chapters 13-14) could refer to the composite religions of the world who keep grabbing for more power. The woman riding the beast is drinking blood: could that be the greedy governments who gave the religious beast its power? Enough lobbying dollars can buy a lot of "freedom for religion," can't it? As far as I am concerned, religion has too much freedom and is one of the biggest threats to life and liberty. Voters’ tax dollars as well as religious donations have fed that blood-thirsty beast and it got too big — too powerful. Can humanity or governments control that religious beast any longer? I believe it is a “religious” or even an "ideaology" beast (not political, like the Jehovah's Witnesses believe). Why? Because the beast was receiving worship, as religions profess they give God. Religions claim to be worshiping God, but their actions do not align with true spirituality. Humans hate and kill one another in the name of God — not “Christ-like” at all in my books. Why are religious members not held to the standards of their own Holy Books?

So, just how did the beast and the woman rider end up? Read Revelation chapters 13 and 14 and let me know what you get out of segments. My impression is that the beast turns on the woman, devours her; then the beast, in turn, is destroyed by a power greater than itself.

In the 2009 attack on Gabrielle Gifford's office, the Republicans blamed “skateboarding kids” for the broken glass. I speculate that the Republicans will never own up to the part they played in stirring up the masses to such violence as we have seen in the past several years in the political arena.

I have never liked guns. And now I believe more strongly than ever that there must be some controls on buying weapons. According to the Huffington Post, in 2009’s town hall meeting in Tucson, “the threat of violence led [Gabrielle Gifford’s] aides to call the police after one attendee dropped a gun.” The short article is found at The red flags were waving a warning of the threat to safety even back then, but everyone was too busy to notice until an entire group of innocent people were viciously attacked.

“Classic American denial,” is what Frank Rich of the New York Times wrote at “…speedy ‘closure,’ followed by a return to business as usual, followed by national amnesia.” People go back to their treadmills and forget about the tragic events they just witnessed.

How much worse must the threat to safety and freedom become before governments take action? Oh yes, I forgot — how can governments possibly help when they are at the very root of the issue?

* sheeple: (from Wikipedia), (a portmanteau of "sheep" and "people") is a term of disparagement, in which people are likened to sheep. Source:

sheeple: plural (no singular), (derogatory slang) People who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leaders say or who adopt popular opinion as their own without scrutiny. Source:

sheeple (my definition): Co-dependent people who select someone to lead them and subsequently follow along blindly, no matter how stupidly their leader behaves.

Update March 25, 2018
Well, the tables have turned. You won't believe who is behind the 2018 Women's March. Just when I thought things couldn't get any worse, they did. Here is a video from Laura Loomer, an independent journalist, that explains:

Use your own discernment.

Author's website: Phoenix of Faith
Copyright ©2011.
Permission is granted to copy this blog
only if it is distributed freely.

No comments:

Post a Comment