Burned by the Fundies...

I was hoping for a chance to take on the "compassionate" fundies out there claiming that Jesus would have wanted a man's house to burn over a (comparatively) trivial amount of money. Fundies Say The Darndest Things gave me the ideal opportunity tonight, with the post that follows....join me below the fold and check your cognitive dissonance at the door: plenty will be available at the buffet of lunacy about to unfurl.

- - - - -

[Gene Cranick's rural Tennessee home was allowed to burn to the ground by the fire department because he never paid a $75 fee for being just outside of the city limits.]

The fire department did the right and Christian thing.

Astonishing declaration right out of the gate. What happened to, whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me? Jesus wants his house to burn down? WTF?

The right thing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be no difference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christian thing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing to do.

Obviously not, given this chump's blind, black-and-white opinion.

If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christian thing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused about Christianity, or both.

Leave it at that. You're just confused across the board. Perhaps to the point of requiring professional help.

In this case, critics of the fire department are confused both about right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they have fallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only about softer virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscular Christian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.

Oh, I see. Christianity as it has been defined for centuries is just "too gay" for the modern right-wing dude. Gotta beef it up. Bring a little NASCAR into the game. Go a little more OT on the NT, so to speak.

The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must accept individual responsibility for our own decisions and actions.

Funny. I thought it was all about holding out forgiveness and loving your neighbor as yourself. Silly me.

He who sows to the flesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing and reaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.

This is a reference to Galatians. What the genius poster is missing - or, more fairly, conveniently ignoring - is that the verse goes on as follows: "And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone..."

Inconvenient, aren't they, those extra passages about "doing good"? And, also, I'm confused. How is failing to douse a fire the opposite of...shall we say...pandering to our baser impulses? I worry we're getting into Christine O'Donell masturbation territory here...

We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others who will not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly.

Not a bad principle on the face of it. But where's the compassion, pal? Ever been in a jam? Needed a helping hand? I seem to remember your Jesus getting up in people's faces about how awful it is to be a hard-hearted SOB. Maybe you need to do some re-reading.

The same folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailing out Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out Wall Street firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companies for making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?

Well, how about this for a difference? The big-business bailouts happened because of years of de-regulation, when government opted out of its role to act as the people's watchdog and right-wingers like this rube gleefully supported their giveaway-to-themselves like it was some kind of righteous, noble cause and not a naked grab for money, money and more money, at the expense of the middle class. Whereas the South Fulton fire department had a possible life-and-death dilemma put in front of them, and they cast their lot on the side of death, over a missing $75 subscription, an on-the-spot offer from the homeowner to pay whatever was necessary...and, I daresay, a share of their expenses already having been funded by Mr. Cranick's local taxes.

In short, these "folks" this poster speaks of are rubes and idiots, being conned by the machine yet again and wrapping their naivete in religion. Way to go.

Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 on something other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice to accept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christian claim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himself made.

Sure he has a legal claim: he's a taxpayer, and if any portion of his taxes supports this fire department - which I am betting is the case - then he has a right to expect more than just spectatorship from them. No moral or ethical claim? Spare me from this guy's morals and ethics, if so, because they clearly don't intersect with the public good, but stop at the point he might have to open his wallet or his heart.

The "Christian" part doesn't apply. Civic services are a civilian matter. See that prefix "civi-" in there? As in, "civilization," "civilized" and "civility"? All words having to do with the way people interact with one another on a human level. A level which this bozo has clearly not seen in a while.

And perhaps the scarier part of all this? There is a longer version of this post, in which we learn that this dude has a "radio program." Let's hope it's no more than ham radio.

Also, here's his follow-up, after his friends and foes alike raked him deservedly across the coals for this tripe.