FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Obama to Nominate Jesus Christ to Supreme Court

Print
Written by Author Unkown   
Thursday, 22 April 2010 16:39
Pick Jesus art photo, 06/15/09. (photo: Bill Steber)

Pick Jesus art photo, 06/15/09. (photo: Bill Steber)


This article was originally credited to Rick Chertoff, who we have since found is not the author. We apologize for the error.


resident Barack Obama is expected to nominate Jesus Christ, an immigrant originally born to a virgin mother in Bethlehem, to fill the new vacancy on the Supreme Court. Although Mr. Christ is over 2,000 years old, He is immortal, so Democrats and Republicans expect that He will serve on the high court forever or until He decides to start the End Times. Republicans are expected to fight the nomination on the grounds that Mr. Christ would radically move the Court to the left. The GOP is also concerned that, despite decades of controversy and speculation, Mr. Christ has never revealed his position on abortion. Mr. Christ, according to many authorities, is expected to oppose the death penalty in all forms. Michael Steele, the head of the GOP national committee, issued a statement: "Christ is a complete mystery to us. He won't reveal His physical appearance and many of His positions are unknown or the subject of speculation. He is a stealth candidate. Why won't He reveal himself? Who does He think He is?"

Republicans are reportedly outraged that Mr. Obama even considered Mr. Christ, who has been widely quoted for his sentiments supporting the poor over the wealthy. In a Facebook post, former half-term Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin called for an investigation into the Bethlehem chapter of ACORN because of what she termed the "highly suspicious" coincidence that both President Obama and Mr. Christ had each spent three years as community organizers. In her post, Palin also wrote that "More and more of good God-fearing smalltime Americans from hardworking smalltime towns from great parts of this real America, West, South, East, North, are seeing more and more every day that Christ is a community organizer. We don't need another community organizer in the White House!"

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) asked, "We're not even sure where He was born. Why is He afraid to show us his birth certificate?" Bachmann also announced that she would vote "no" when the Christ nomination came before the House of Representatives. Later, her congressional staff released a statement saying that the Congresswoman had forgotten that the House does not vote on judicial nominations.

According to Rush Limbaugh, "Christ doesn't know anything about free enterprise. This is part of the Obama conspiracy to drag us to socialism. If this guy is approved, I'm moving to Costa Rica." Sobbing, Glenn Beck attacked Christ's support for the separation of church and state, telling his audience "You know who else wanted a separation of church and state? Hitler."

Several Catholic priests were contacted for comment but refused to discuss the issue, and, even though they weren't asked, all empathetically denied that they had personally molested any children.

Democrats are optimistic about their chances of shoving Mr. Christ down the throats of Americans using normal constitutional and parliamentary procedures. Many Democrats are hopeful that Mr. Christ's past associations with prostitutes will earn him at least one Republican vote, that of Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).

If confirmed, Christ will be the first Supreme Court Justice who has at least one American city named after him: Corpus Christi, Texas.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+33 # Guest 2010-04-17 23:48
Love it, not far from the truth. Doesn't matter who Obama nominates the GOP will be against whoever that may be.
 
 
+10 # Guest 2010-04-18 00:31
Well, excellent example of what fools we mortals be.......to think we would like to be like Jesus Christ....prepo sterous,,,,,we desire a Casino lifestyle society...no manufacturing,n o jobs, plenty of gambling......

.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-04-18 00:38
Well, preposterous; we do not desire to be like Jesus Christ; we desire a Casino lifestyle of gambling, no manufacturing, no jobs, just gambling....cel ebrity gambling, and gamblers who are also owners of large manufacturing plants with robotic laborers...they match up with robotic gambling machines.. both deliver short term profits for the price of electricity.
 
 
+21 # Guest 2010-04-18 01:18
that is hilarious.
thanks for the "lightness of some political humor".
 
 
+28 # Guest 2010-04-18 01:40
As is often the case, satire captures more than mere reporting can. I congratulate the author and wish for more of the same style.
 
 
+11 # Guest 2010-04-18 03:29
Classic.
 
 
+22 # Guest 2010-04-18 03:30
Just think of the criticism Mr. Christ would get for the clothes he wears and that nasty long hair and beard! They would double up on the Tea Bag parties even.
 
 
+10 # Guest 2010-04-18 04:43
This is GREAT!
 
 
+7 # Guest 2010-04-18 05:36
Good one !
How phucking true.
DS
 
 
+9 # Guest 2010-04-18 05:41
Thank you, Mr. Chertoff.
You have made my day.

You are in trouble, you know?
 
 
+18 # Guest 2010-04-18 07:15
I'm waiting to hear the response from the RNC's mascot......... .. I think his name is Judas.......
 
 
+4 # Guest 2010-04-18 23:16
...and the other could be "Lucifer" or better known as "Satan" the God of Evil.
 
 
+7 # Guest 2010-04-18 07:28
AMEN! THAT IS THE GOSPEL!
 
 
+17 # Guest 2010-04-18 07:28
And his parents did not have the good sense to refuse to go to Bethlehem for the Census!
 
 
+6 # Merschrod 2010-04-18 07:55
This article is as blasphemous as the parties spoofed! Great job.
 
 
+7 # Guest 2010-04-18 08:27
When I came up with this concept recently I thought it was too true to consider writing about.

I'd bet if Licoln was somehow ressurected he would be found unaccpetable by the GOP as being entirely to liberal for their taste.

Maybe Reagan would be acceptable but Reagan lacked any intellectual credentials and would be rejected by the bar association as a scofflaw with no experience in legal affairs.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-04-18 08:57
No, the Republicans would probably support the Democrats wholeheartedly if Obama were to choose someone like Harriet Miers, or someone like Samuel Alito or John Roberts, or someone like Scalia or Clarence Thomas. That would not be a problem for the Republicans. That would not give them any heartburn. Perhaps Obama should let people like Bill O'Rielly or Rush Limbaugh select the candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court. It would interesting to see what they would say about Obama publicly if Obama allowed this happen.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-04-25 02:20
Quoting Harold Mencher:
No, the Republicans would probably support the Democrats wholeheartedly if Obama were to choose someone like Harriet Miers, or someone like Samuel Alito or John Roberts, or someone like Scalia or Clarence Thomas. That would not be a problem for the Republicans. That would not give them any heartburn. Perhaps Obama should let people like Bill O'Rielly or Rush Limbaugh select the candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court. It would interesting to see what they would say about Obama publicly if Obama allowed this happen.

jUSTmEE

I'm afraid I have to disagree --the Republicans will feel duty-bound to oppose ANY nominee President Obama proposes. They don't have it in their genes to compromise. The Republican definition of "bipartisan" is "vote as we vote; do what we want --no compromises allowed."
 
 
+7 # Guest 2010-04-18 09:44
So if everyone knows this then why not just nominate the best judge with the best chance to balance out the Roberts - Scalia - Alito - Thomas alliance? Since only the good die young those four will be with us for an eternity so we better get started right away!
 
 
+4 # Guest 2010-04-18 11:35
[quote name="mugguy"]S o if everyone knows this then why not just nominate the best judge with the best chance to balance out the Roberts - Scalia - Alito - Thomas alliance?

It would be for the same reasons that the Democrats and Obama didn’t put up a single payer medical bill to begin with in the health care debate.

Because the Democrat's and Obama's objectives are the same as the Republican's objectives.

Remember, both parties are bought and paid for by the same industries.

The challenge for Obama is to keep it looking like he is a progressive while advancing the policies of the lobbyists or donors.

As long as the public will buy Obama’s excuse of trying to be bi-partisan, he will continue to be a corporatist.
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-04-18 15:33
Arlen, I would agree with you about Obama & the Dems with one exception, judge selections for the federal judiciary. In most other respects, I would have to agree with you, that Obama is putting on one hell of a show trying, on one hand, to fool his voting base, the one that won him the presidency, into thinking that he's a liberal & a progressive, at least in thought & spirit, but, on the other, in terms of his actions, he appears to be supporting the Bush agenda in terms of his war policies, his financial policies, & Bush's policies of illegal spying on Americans & torture & indefinite detention & assassination without any due process, & so forth & so on. I personally feel that I'm now living a 3rd Bush term. If Obama were to select a judge that is truly middle-of-the-r oad but not a liberal, it won't be because that's what he wants, but because it would be the easier route to take without causing a major battle with the Repubs. Obama is a wimp.
 
 
+4 # Guest 2010-04-18 21:33
Arlen Comfort, It was, I believe, Benito Mussolini (Il Duce)who said: "Corporatism is Fascism" And he should know !! Quoting Arlen Comfort:
[quote name="mugguy"]So if everyone knows this then why not just nominate the best judge with the best chance to balance out the Roberts - Scalia - Alito - Thomas alliance?

It would be for the same reasons that the Democrats and Obama didn’t put up a single payer medical bill to begin with in the health care debate.

Because the Democrat's and Obama's objectives are the same as the Republican's objectives.

Remember, both parties are bought and paid for by the same industries.

The challenge for Obama is to keep it looking like he is a progressive while advancing the policies of the lobbyists or donors.

As long as the public will buy Obama’s excuse of trying to be bi-partisan, he will continue to be a corporatist.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-06-20 17:45
Hightower put it nicely. He believed that this country needs a second political party. At least China has a meritocratic corporacracy; whereas ours is just a corporacracy. Over all stirrups in all birthing rooms should be Dante's arch: Abandon hope all ye who enter here.
 
 
+8 # ProfPeteB 2010-04-18 10:04
I wrote something your article it in a short story some time ago.

Yours is funnier, mine was serious. Read Chapter 5 in THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV in which Jesus returns during the Inquisition Jesus and is threatened with death by the chief inquisitor a 90 year old Cardinal, who eventually releases Jesus, however, then banished him from Planet Earth.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-04-18 10:57
The constitutional raison d'etre of the judges of the supreme court is not to favor the 'left' or the 'right' - or any other 'group. It is to be the final arbiter of laws that are being sought to pass as to their faithfulness to the original intent in re the Constitution of the States united of America.
It is not the constitutional intent that the judges of the supreme court 'make' law; it is to faithfully honor their oath to God to preserve and protect the Constitution.
 
 
-1 # Guest 2010-04-25 02:39
Quoting dann:
The constitutional raison d'etre of the judges of the supreme court is not to favor the 'left' or the 'right' - or any other 'group. It is to be the final arbiter of laws that are being sought to pass as to their faithfulness to the original intent in re the Constitution of the States united of America.
It is not the constitutional intent that the judges of the supreme court 'make' law; it is to faithfully honor their oath to God to preserve and protect the Constitution.

I don't disagree with the substance of what you say, but please read the frigging Constitution and the laws and decisions that have followed before embarrassing yourself by trying to insinuate your religious beliefs into the issue. That oath MAY be made BEFORE God (or Krishna, or Buddha, etc.), or it may simply be an affirmation, but it is an oath of one's personal honor made TO the people of the United States. There is no religious test to hold office in the U.S. --yet, at least.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-04-25 16:06
Quoting dann:
The constitutional raison d'etre of the judges of the supreme court is not to favor the 'left' or the 'right' - or any other 'group. It is to be the final arbiter of laws that are being sought to pass as to their faithfulness to the original intent in re the Constitution of the States united of America.
It is not the constitutional intent that the judges of the supreme court 'make' law; it i@s to faithfully honor their oath to God to preserve and protect the Constitution.


Supposedly, but 4 of the 5 cons ALWAYS rule based on ideology, not the constitution. On occasion Kennedy upholds the actual constitution.
 
 
+17 # Guest 2010-04-18 11:29
Incidentally, if Jesus had returned in 1968, he would have been denied entry to Disneyland. Longhairs were turned away at the gate. That would have included most of the Nation's founding fathers, too. No wonder we revolted?
 
 
-31 # Guest 2010-04-18 14:56
Same old silly crap from a liberal wannabe writer. Republicans hate the poor, want to execute everyone, hate opera.
 
 
+4 # Guest 2010-04-18 15:06
I wished Obama would nominate Jesus Christ to the Supreme Court. He would prove to the nation that the supreme hypocrisy Party (GOP) and the five Conservative Supreme Court Justices doesn't, didn't, had no intentions of believing in anything. Jesus is, was and will be used as a cover name only, to cover up their hypocrisy and their belief in money or wealth taken from the the poor!

Besides, I heard "Jesus" was alive and well in Juarez, Mexico. He was seen driving a taxi cab!
 
 
-7 # Guest 2010-04-18 21:39
Quoting Harold Mencher:
Arlen, I would agree with you . . .
THANKS FOR THE SUPPORT HAROLD, BUT YOU SAY:
If Obama were to select a judge that is truly middle-of-the-road but not a liberal, it won't be because that's what he wants [[[WE WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT HE WANTS JUST WHAT HE DOES AND THAT IS MORE CORPORATIST THAN WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.]]] but because it would be the easier route to take without causing a major battle with the Repubs. Obama is a wimp but because it would be the easier route to take without causing a major battle with the Repubs. Obama is a wimp.


TRY ASSUMING HE IS NOT A WIMP, THEN WHY MIGHT HE SELECT A JUDGE THAT IS TRULY MIDDLE-OF-THE-R OAD BUT NOT A LIBERAL? COULD IT BE THAT HIS SELECTION WILL BE TO MAKE SURE HE DOESN’T OFFEND DEMOCRATIC DONORS? ANY THOUGHTS ASSUMING HE IS NOT MAKING DECISIONS BECAUSE HE IS A WIMP.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-04-19 11:39
Allow me to make a correction. When I stated that Obama was a wimp, I should've also included all the Congressional Dems in that statement. As much as I despised & hated Bush, he didn't play games when he was pres. He didn't believe in negotiating or compromising with the Dems. He steamrolled over them. When he had a chance to fill two vacancies within the U.S. Supreme Court, he sent his Senate hatchet man at the time, Senator Arlen Specter, now an honored Dem, to relay the threat of the nuclear option, the complete repeal of the filibuster by a simple majority vote to prevent the Dems from blocking his 2 nominations, Alito & Roberts, to the Supreme Court. It worked! The Dems caved in & allowed both candidates entrance to the most important court in our nation. If Obama and Harry Reid weren't wimps, Senator Arlen Specter, now a Dem, would be sent back to the Repubs with exactly the same threat that they used when they controlled the Senate.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-04-19 23:17
Quote:
If Obama and Harry Reid weren't wimps, Senator Arlen Specter, now a Dem, would be sent back to the Repubs with exactly the same threat that they used when they controlled the Senate.
I WILL TRY ONE MORE TIME TO GET YOU AND OTHERS TO IMAGINE JUST FOR THE MOMENT THAT THE DEMS DIDN’T CAVE IN AND THERE ARE NO WIMPS IN THE CONGRESS. WITH THAT EXCUSE GONE, WHAT ELSE COULD BE THE CAUSE OF THE DEMOCRATS ACTIONS?

ONE POSSIBILITY FROM YOUR EXAMPLE OF THE NUCLEAR OPTION, REPEAL OF THE FILIBUSTER TO PREVENT THE DEMS FROM BLOCKING HIS 2 NOMINATIONS TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THE DEMS CAVED IN.

COULD THIS ISSUE HAVE BEEN DECIDED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS BY BOTH PARTIES IN ORDER TO GET THE JUSTICES THAT THE CORPORATIONS WANTED WHILE KEEPING IT LOOKING LIKE IT THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PARITIES?
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-04-20 14:54
What you state is pure conjecture, that both the Dems & the Repubs got together secretly behind closed doors, in a cooperative effort to come up with a plan on how to get Alito & Roberts into the U.S. Supreme Court without showing that the Dems have the same common interests as the Repubs. This would be analogous to the good cop/bad cop depiction. That's too much of a Rube Goldberg process, to come up with such a twisted plan showing that the Dems are the good (but weak) guys, and the Repubs as the bad, but strong guys. The Dems complained & whined loudly & publicly for days & days about how the Repubs were destroying the Democratic system. I guess you also believe that both parties get together every 2 years to decide what candidates are going to win seats in Congress, the Repubs or the Dems, & once every 4 years as to who is going to win the presidency. I guess what happened in the 2000 pres election was a big show put on by both parties.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-04-20 22:02
[quote name="Harold Mencher"]What you state is pure conjecture,
Yes, it is conjecture. But, if I am correct it may not be as hard to pull off working together as you imagine.

Assume you had given each of the two parities millions and you have lobbyists befriending each politician and you now have legislation you want passed. Would you not call representatives from both parties and talk to them about how we can get this done. I think you would. From there on it would become a part staged part ad-lib performance. If you remember the major media is owned by like minded corporatist the they will facilitate the passage of the bill while pretending to be an unbiased observer.

You are correct this is all conjecture but to me it is a more believable scenario than believing that the Democrats are stupid, whiny wimps.
 
 
-1 # Guest 2010-04-21 09:22
I guess that we can agree to disagree. Arlen, believe me, I do not support Obama or the Dems any more than I support the Repubs. Since Obama became president-elect , even before he took the reins of power in January of 2009, his actions were telling me that he was going to screw his voting base. Whether or not he did this out of weakness or because it was his plan to begin with, is no longer important. The fact that he did what he did, the fact that we, for the most part, continue on the same path that Bush left us, has forced me to vote for the Green Party come November and in 2012.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-04-18 23:38
Why do people try to blur the lines of clarity when things are confusing enough?
 
 
-6 # Guest 2010-04-19 00:12
For those of you who believe that Jesus has not revealed Himself,

please let me assure you that he has. If he has not revealed Himself to you, perhaps you haven't yet accepted that it is possible to experience the Presence of Jesus. Just be open and willing and I trust that sooner or later you will be Graced by His Presence.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-04-19 07:04
Republicans expected to announce they are nominating the devil for supreme court justice. This move is to combat the recent nomination of Jesus Christ by President Obama.
 
 
-27 # Guest 2010-04-19 07:56
This could never happen because:
1.Barack Obama doesn't believe in Jesus
2.Barack Obama thinks he IS Jesus
3.Jesus would forgive anyone, guilty or not.
4.Jesus would never agree to wear a black robe.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-04-25 02:43
And all this refutes the premise that is stated in the article just how?
 
 
+4 # Guest 2010-04-19 11:52
The Republicans would object about having another Jew on the Court.
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-04-19 11:52
It is a wonderful thing to laugh out loud; whoever wrote this is a genius!
 
 
-3 # Guest 2010-04-19 16:05
Interesting to me that Obama as a senator was one of 25 Democrats who actually voted to filibuster Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito, and Miguel Estrada the first Hispanic nominee for an appellate court position By Bush was filibustered and blocked by Democrats. Obama nominee Sotomayor was not filibustered or blocked by the Republicans, nor was Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer, extremely liberal nominees and both Democrat Clinton's nominees. In fact 9 Republican senators voted FOR Sotomayor; the total vote was For: 68, Against 31 The vote for Alito was For: 52 Against 48, so where do you get off making a blatantly outrageous statement like that. Perhaps you should do some research before you make a total fool of yourself.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-04-19 16:58
The Republicans would crucify Mr. Christ!
 
 
-19 # Guest 2010-04-20 03:26
More Mindless Dribble for the Mindless Dribble. With the yes men occupying the Left side of the Aisles these days it's no wonder why the Obamination is happy to use you to destroy what's left of the Constitutions Guarantee's and the Bill of Rights. I find it hard to believe that I and others served and sacrificed so much just to turn this nation over to a bunch of idiots who take their freedoms for granted. That's the only real crime here. But who needs Al-Queda to destroy America when you've got the DemonRat party? However, when you're all sorry you blindly worshiped this Arrogant , Bigoted, Socialist, Master manipulator and Liar Just remember that the same rights you vote to deny others is also to be denied you in due time.
 
 
+10 # Guest 2010-04-20 18:22
Quoting Manuel:
More Mindless Dribble for the Mindless Dribble. With the yes men occupying the Left side of the Aisles these days it's no wonder why the Obamination is happy to use you to destroy what's left of the Constitutions Guarantee's and the Bill of Rights. I find it hard to believe that I and others served and sacrificed so much just to turn this nation over to a bunch of idiots who take their freedoms for granted. That's the only real crime here. But who needs Al-Queda to destroy America when you've got the DemonRat party? However, when you're all sorry you blindly worshiped this Arrogant , Bigoted, Socialist, Master manipulator and Liar Just remember that the same rights you vote to deny others is also to be denied you in due time.


Your statement is an indication that you have not read the Constitution or the Bill of Right. It is also an indication that you have not read the Bible. Jesus is for the poor, it was him that kick the money lenders out of the church.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-04-26 10:34
It is true that Jesus is for the poor. But, no where in the Bible does it say that Jesus is against the wealthy. He threw the money changers out of the temple because they had assembled in the 'temple of their god' to make their money. They were perverting sacred ground. He did not rebuke them for the sole purpose that they were rich.

As for the constitution, it IS beginning to unravel.....due to too many opportunists in BOTH political parties.
 
 
+5 # Guest 2010-04-21 17:46
Manuel, Obama & the Dems haven't destroyed our Constitution or our Bill of Rights. They just haven't undone the massive damage caused by the Bush admin. What planet have you been living on for the 8 yrs of the Bush admin? It was the Bush admin that passed the Patriot Act, which really was the "Unpatriot Act," which allowed massive violations of our Constitution & our Bill of Rights, literally tearing them to shreds. The Military Commission Act was passed because Bush got caught with his pants down illegally torturing prisoners. It was passed to give legal immunity to the criminals who violated the Geneva Conventions, which violated our Constitution. Based on our Constitution, international treaties can't be violated anymore than our domestic laws can be violated. The FISA Bill was passed because Bush got caught with his pants down illegally spying on American citizens without a warrant. So, please don't blame Obama for this. It was Bush.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-04-25 02:56
Interesting capitalization. Did Bush write you style manual? BTW, just which rights have you been denied under Obama? Certainly not the right to be incoherent or flat out wrong.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-04-21 14:17
I agree with Arlen Comfort's "conjecture". When other explanations don't fit the evidence, go with the one that most clearly does.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-04-21 20:28
It really doesn't matter who's theory is right or wrong. It really doesn't matter, does it, at least not to me since I will be voting the Green Party in future elections. Whatever theory is correct, the ultimate effect is the same, the continued downhill slide of the United States as a Democracy and a country that respects the rule of law, both domestically and overseas.

The biggest fools of all will be those people who voted Democratic in 2006 and 2008, but plan on voting Republican in November and in 2012 because they're steaming mad at Obama. That will be like cutting their noses off to spite their face.
 
 
-4 # Guest 2010-04-23 07:18
Nice try to anoint a liberal agenda, but... the "Christ" in this article is NOT the Christ in the Bible. Is, as always, a manufactured "Christ" according to their own imagination. I guess they are more than ready to embrace the AntiChrist. (No, that's not Obama, no matter the similarity in their oratory abilities)
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-04-25 02:49
Quoting L Rivera:
Nice try to anoint a liberal agenda, but... the "Christ" in this article is NOT the Christ in the Bible. Is, as always, a manufactured "Christ" according to their own imagination. I guess they are more than ready to embrace the AntiChrist. (No, that's not Obama, no matter the similarity in their oratory abilities)

So please describe the "Christ" in your Bible --is he one who favors the wealthy over the poor? Or maybe the one who favored theocracy? Or the one who advocated ignoring the least among us? Just how does this Christ differ from "your" Christ? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
 
-4 # Guest 2010-04-23 09:42
I can see the humor in it but it's clearly written from the left leaning perspective. Any conservatives (or pseudo-conserva tives) out there want to write a humorous rebuttal?
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-04-25 02:52
Quoting secular conservative:
I can see the humor in it but it's clearly written from the left leaning perspective. Any conservatives (or pseudo-conservatives) out there want to write a humorous rebuttal?

What's "left" about it? is there one attribute of of the Christ described above that is not consistent with the Biblical accounts, or that that any Christian -left or right- should disavow?
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-04-25 02:09
All I know is this foreigner Jesus dude better keep his ass out of Arizona; showing the police his hands and side isn't proper identification.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-04-25 03:02
Great stuff! Typical Republican mentality. Republican are just reactionaries who will make every effort to block any attempt by the Democrats to move the nation forward. I just don't understand why the Democrats continue be play by the rules and just accept Republican nominations? The Democrats need to learn the play dirty before Supreme court if filled with more neo-NAZIs and KKK members like Clarence Thomas.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-04-28 10:31
Great dialog. Some quotes come to mind. More thoughts at my blog "The NPR Interview with Jesus, on www.bstrait.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/the-npr-interview-with-jesus.

“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” - Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906), U.S. reformer, suffragist

“Every man thinks God is on his side. The rich and powerful know he is.”
- Jean Anouilh, French dramatist, playwright

“You can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out he hates all the same people you do.” -Anne Lamott, Author
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-05-05 10:26
So now the delusional Liberals think
that their Supreme Court nominee will have Christ like qualities
and the conservatives will disagree with these qualities. OK liberals,
put the crack pipes down. This is too much. The author of this article
should embarrassed for writing this trash.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-05-12 22:38
Open to another viewpoint? Read "THE NPR INTERVIEW WITH JESUS."

http://bstrait.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/the-npr-interview-with-jesus/
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-05-18 11:22
This is awesome.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-06-05 11:40
Why bother,
You obviously delete all the stuff that says you haven't a clue who Jesus is.

All these comments sound like third grade communists wrote'em.

I'll just pray for ya!
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-06-20 20:34
I agree with you Art. A humorous rebuttal seems a waste of time as the basis of this analogy about Christ Jesus is twisted to fit an agenda.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN