Ive often wondered this myself.........
Phil Zuckerman: Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus
e results from a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and ) reveal what social scientists have known for a long time:
White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture.
Since the esteemed professor is a well-known atheist, I am not sure he is the best judge of "the actual teachings of Jesus".
Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture.
Mercy and forgiveness between people, yes. I haven't read any commentaries that call for lawlessness. You don't apply the concept of "love thy enemy" to a nation state. It is for personal application (IMHO).
Furthermore, Jesus was primarily talking mercy in light of the fact that we all have faults so that no one would think themselves better than others. He did not call for those faults to be embraced.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:17-20
What are some of those laws?
He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. But if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbour, to kill him with guile, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die. - Exodus 21:12-14
Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty. Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer...so you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. - Numbers 35:30-33
Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent.
MLK demonstrated the power of this when he and his followers were brutally beaten on live TV. While they lost that battle, that helped win the war.
And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership,
Are Evangelicals the people who own the most guns, or are they just supportive of gun rights? I think most people who own a gun hope they don't ever have to use it against another person. Maybe they are hunters? I don't own one, but I support the right of others to do so. That might be the motivation for others. There is a biblical basis for self-defense:
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. - Exodus 22:2-3
The question then is: was this later turned on its head by Jesus?
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
There are a few interpretations of the first part (turn the other cheek). The first is to either not respond to aggression or even invite further aggression.
The second is that this was a cultural reference. At the time of Christ giving a backhand to someone of a lower class was an expression of authority. If the servant turns the other cheek inviting another blow, the slapper had to decide whether to backhand them with their left hand (used to wipe their *****) or strike them with an open hand which was how one challenged an equal. The act then serves as a way to express that they are equals.
The third is that it is a clarification of "eye for an eye". Not that you were to allow someone to beat you, rob your house and rape your wife. He was speaking out against personal vengeance.
not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world.
Various countries? What group opposed the invasion of Afghanistan? I thought that was the "good war"?
As far as war in general goes, there are different arguments made. I had mostly come down on the side of the idea of the "just war" (that is a war meant to protect those who are innocent...WW II for example). After the last ten years I have become less comfortable with the use of military force especially when it is not so clear who is truly "innocent".
That being said, I do believe that we need civil government, police and military forces to maintain civil order (that which is Caesar's) and enforce the rule of law. I think the NRA types are generally thinking that an armed citizenry can protect itself when necessary (keep the government honest), but I think the people would be no match for the U.S. military (even with semi-automatic weapons).
