"Stone-Faced" Bush Preached to About Material Wealth

[DrFunkenstein]

KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine - A clergyman implored his affluent congregation, including President Bush's family, to jettison their material possessions, gently mocking George H.W. Bush's struggles on the golf course to drive home his point.

The Very Rev. Martin Luther Agnew preached Sunday to a packed Episcopal church just down the road from the Bush family's seaside estate. Its oceanfront parking lot was filled with luxury cars made by Jaguar, Mercedes, BMW and Volvo, testament to the wealth of the summer visitors at this southeast Maine resort.

"Gated communities," Agnew said, "tend to keep out God's people." But, he said, "Our material gifts do not have to be a wall."

The sermon culminated with a joke about the first President Bush's battle to chip a golf ball out of an anthill. Swinging the club in a mock re-enactment, Agnew said Bush had swung twice and whiffed completely, wiping out hundreds of ants.

The former president sat stone-faced through this parable, even as his family, including the current President Bush, looked at him and smiled.

The Bush family that gathered at the front of the church Sunday morning is wealthy by any measure. They convened here at the 11-acre family compound owned by the former president and perched on the Atlantic Ocean. It is worth millions of dollars.

The current president lists among his assets his Texas ranch, worth between $1 million and $5 million. He also has U.S. Treasury notes valued at $5 million to $8.7 million. He sold his share of the Texas Rangers baseball team in 1998 for more than $15 million.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=4&u=/ap/bush

[I Lean Left]

1. Far and away, the best part of the article

is all the talk about the family's wealth. Estimated worths and values, etc. The more this is said, the more he looks silly for calling Kerry a wealthy elitist.

[Poiuyt]

2. It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle

than for a rich man to enter in the kindom of God.

That's why I stay so poor!

[DrFunkenstein]

3. Bush Got $41,000 Tax Cut; Cheney Got $88,000 - How About You?

Bush's 633-hectare Texas ranch is valued at $1-million to $5-million and he has U.S. Treasury notes valued at $5-million to $8.7-million. The president also has certificates of deposits with banks around the country valued at $600,000 to $1.25-million.

Cheney has $15-million to $75-million salted away in tax-exempt bond funds and $2-million to $10-million in stocks that a global investment-management firm is handling for him.

The White House has pointed out they joined 109 million other Americans also benefitting from the tax cuts. In Bush's case, he and his wife paid $41,000 less last year than the previous year. In Cheney's case, the reduction was $88,000.

http://www.rense.com/general53/pers.htm

Anyone know if these numbers are less than the amount following the first tax cut?

[I Lean Left]

4. Not so much.

n/t.

[DrFunkenstein]

6. Death Taxes Bringing You Down?

It's not easy when you make over $200,000 dollars a year and these liberal elitists want to tax your inheritance. Damn you latte-sippers!



Yes, the Bush twins confessed that they drank soy lattes at Starbucks. Why don't these liberal elitists come back down to planet America and realize that we earned that inheritance!!!

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

5. that doesn't include the money they have stashed off shore

[DrFunkenstein]

7. How Do You Feel That Cheney Has $75 Million Exempt From Taxes?

Sounds like he already had a nice tax break from the word go...

[spanone]

8. He's a real common man, born with a whole set of silverware in his mouth.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. What, me rich?

[necso]

10. "Our material gifts"

This is a phrase that well captures the convenient, Old Testament view of material wealth that characterizes the "neo" Christians (or as I would call them, the "false Christians").

An Old Testament view of material success is that it is a sign of God's favor. This Old Testament view is very convenient for the elite (or just the plain greedy) because it gives a "Christian" cover to doing exactly what their self interest dictates. By this slight of "hand", these people can turn what is considered a "vice" into what seems to be a "virtue" -- or at least nothing "bad". But, of course, this is not really the case. Greed, and all the other ills that go with heedlessly grabbing and hoarding wealth and power are not Christian virtues.

The New Testament on the other hand conveys an entirely different message, which a previous post (or posts by this time) has so aptly summarized. But even beyond the (somewhat belatedly recorded) teachings of the Christian Christ, we can look at how Jesus and his followers lived, to see what Christian behavior should be. Jesus himself is recorded to have done only one act of violence --- overturning the tables of the money changers in the temple. (My Christian friends can correct me if I am wrong here --- I do need to read the Gospels again, and soon.)

This is clearly a message that there is something very wrong with turning the practise of religion into the pursuit of (or a cover for) self interest and particularly the accumulation of wealth. So wrong, that Jesus would take physical action against the practise, bringing him to the attention of both the Jewish and Roman authorities, and bringing on him their wrath. Here, Jesus all but spits in the face of the phony religious and very real civil authorities. Here, he attacks them where it really hurts --- in their wallets.

Powerful message that!

Someone who is a "follower" of Christ today, might do well to emulate the behavior of Christ, like his original followers tried to do.

Indeed, I believe that there may actually be, Christians, who are into this kind of thing.

But if this true, why aren't these true "followers" of Christ screaming their heads off about how so many of their fellow "Christians" are not "followers" of Christ at all, but rather the modern version of money changers in the temple --- the very same sort of venal people, who are similarly perverting, degrading and betraying the practise of Christianity, and enlightened principles as a whole?

Are we non-believers such a contemptible lot, that we must be the target of their unhappiness and not those who corrupt and degrade Christ's message?

Is there no New Testament version of the Noahite laws, laws by which we can judge the actions of believers and non-believers alike?

Certainly the Torah would indicate that the Jews (with only the Old Testament to guide them) could set such standards, and recognize a righteous gentile --- or a really bad Jew. Can not our Christian friends come up such a standard, based on the Gospels, and in doing so, enlighten us?

I have no problems being "weighed" against such a standard. But perhaps they are concerned about their own "weight" or that of their associates. Perhaps they would not like what they see when they use this glass to view how so-called "Christians" really "follow" Christ.

I can appreciate the reverend's message, but it lacks the thunder with which those "Christian" voices, that I normally hear, usually hold forth.

I "get it", Reverend, but your message is lost on these people --- they simply aren't "followers" of Christ, they are followers of something entirely different --- and I wonder that you permit them in your flock, posturing and posing to hide their shame. --- Guess you want that money, too.

But I suppose that you consider that you are only being polite! I believe in courtesy too, but I do not use it to provide gentle cover to a message this stark. Some things, at some times, because of their great "weight", need to spoken of, and acted on, forcefully.

Read that part about Christ in the temple again.

[SemperEadem]

13. you cannot serve both God and money

you have to choose.

[DrFunkenstein]

18. Unless You're Republican

Where neo-con and Jesus-freak can live and breathe in harmony.

[ronabop]

19. FYI...

Neo-cons rebut the poverty/giving/sharing/socialist aspects about Christ with things like a fairly literal interpretation of the parable of the talents, see Matthew 25:14-30.

[necso]

20. Nice reply.

But ignoring the obvious point, that this is a parable about building one's faith and spreading the message, there are a number of grounds on which to dispute such an interpretation. (That the parables are not meant to be interpreted literally, is apparent, prima facie, on reading them.)

First, it is not consistent with the acts of Jesus as recorded. After all, it is the acts of a man that best show his principles, that have the most weight and that convey the most direct message. If the acts of Jesus (or any man) seem to contradict his words, then I say go with the acts.

Second, it is not consistent with the overall picture created by the word of Jesus concerning wealth (but it is consistent, as a parable, with some of His other teachings about faith and spreading the word). It also directly contradicts at least one other parable that I seem to remember.

The neos do not use honest biblical scholarship. They have a set of biases that they seek to find justifications for. So they pour over the Bible looking for words that they can interpret to their own ends. The New Testament being so much less amenable to this sort of thing than the Old, it is only natural that they should stretch the point in this, and, I am sure, other cases.

A serious scholar, particularly one seeking an ethical teaching, would study the entire text and try to put it in a structured and consistent context. This done, the neos interpretation of this fragment would stick out sorely.

I could go on to a discussion of early Christian literature and practices and how these are thought to be widely divergent even to the point of using completely different texts and believing quite different things. Let it suffice to say, that if one does not take as a given that the New Testament is the "absolute it", one might be very cautious in defining what is the "essential" message of Christ.

I do not think that if one were to construct some set of "Noahite-like" laws based on Christ's words and acts as portrayed even in just (and even using all) the New Testament, that: "Thou shall always get your master 100% return on his money or thou shall be cast into the darkness." would be one of them. Indeed I am not sure than one can portray this interpretation of that parable as a consistent part of Christ's message in any way.

But, of course, the neos do not care about any of this, it is enough for them to merely claim a thing is true, to make it so.

Perhaps, I have simply missed the Gospel on free market theory and supply side economics, along with that one on social darwinism and that special fuck-everybody-but-us Gospel that they seem to be using.

Thank you for the input. Is this really as good as they can do?

[ronabop]

21. I will respond in kind.

"Is this really as good as they can do?"

For the most part, yes. They also have bad interpretations of the prodigay son. Er... prodigal. Oh, and Psalms tales about wealth (and wives) gained in the name of god.

They also lack basic scholarship about J, E, D,and P versions of the OT, the history of Acts, the multiple messiah cults (etc. etc. etc.). As a rule, bible thumpers know nothing about their text.

I doubt most of them would know what a septuagint is, unless the US has a new weapons system of that name.

I'm not sure what you will do with the drunken sailor (45 jokes, 11 words!), but the best of luck of fitting that many species into so few cubits... are you ponting to the the "noahite" rules for survival?

-Bop

[necso]

23. About Noahite Laws.

"Through their interpretation of the Noahite covenant, the rabbis deduced seven Noahite laws which are obligatory for all people. We Jews are bound by this first covenant and its enunciation of the universal obligations binding on all humanity."

.......

"To the Gentiles who were not prepared to enter the fold of Judaism, a moral code, known as the seven commandments of the sons of Noah, was offered by rabbinic tradition. By righteous conduct based upon these fundamental laws, taught the rabbis, the non-Jew could earn divine approval. The seven laws are derived exegetically from divine demands addressed to Adam (Genesis 2) and to Noah (Genesis 9) — the two individuals considered the progenitors of all mankind, and are thus regarded as universal moral codes."

.......

"The Talmud and Midrash canonized this notion in lists of commandments believed to have been given to Adam and supplemented in a new revelation to Noah. The generally accepted list consists of seven items, with respect to: 1) idolatry; 2) blasphemy; 3) homicide; 4) incest and adultery; 5) robbery; 6) eating the flesh of a live creature; 7) establishing a system of justice. Although in theory these commandments were explicitly revealed to Adam and Noah, what they prohibited was thought to be self-evident to any human mind and conscience:"

Perhaps my framing was not the best. I find myself using terminology in the way that I was taught (or think I was taught), when there is perhaps a more universal (or proper) way to speak to the matter.

I find the Noahite Laws an interesting concept though.

[David Zephyr]

11. Mr. Bush, Meet Your Self Chosen "Favorite Philosopher, Jesus".

I think that Jesus would have admired Rev. Martin Luther Agnew.

[NJCher]

12. Must be hell to be bush

The other day, Roland Martin made a fool out of him.

Today his minister pokes a joke at him and:

The former president sat stone-faced through this parable, even as his family, including the current President Bush, looked at him and smiled.

Looks like bushbaby has lost his sense of humor.



Cher

[liberal N proud]

14. He probably didn't get it

Bush was probably clueless to what the Reverend was talking about. The ruled after all do not apply to him!
I was in church the Sunday following the Democratic convention, when our minister started his sermon with a Salute and the line Reporting for duty. No one got it there, I told my daughter that we were probably the only ones in the church beside the minister that watch the convention.

[Maine-i-acs]

15. Brilliant parable, Reverend:

2 chip shots in the sand = 2 wars started in the name of fighting Terrorism.

Hundreds of dead ants: US soldiers.

Wish I had the whole sermon in print.

[JonP]

16. Nice sermon but . . .

I wonder how long before the Very Rev. Agnew finds himself in GitMo for this? :-)

[Spiffarino]

17. Martin Luther Agnew?

Did anybody else do a spit take?

[enigmatic]

22. I'm surprised W's preacher isn't Rev. Ike! n/m