Herman Cain: Jesus Was Killed By A 'Liberal Court'

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain wrote last December in a RedState column titled "The Perfect Conservative" that Jesus was killed by a "liberal court."

The column claims Jesus as a conservative. "He helped the poor without one government program. He healed the sick without a government health care system. He feed the hungry without food stamps," wrote Cain. "For three years He was unemployed, and never collected an unemployment check."

Cain then describes Jesus' death:

But they made Him walk when He was arrested and taken to jail, and no, He was not read any Miranda Rights. He was arrested for just being who He was and doing nothing wrong. And when they tried Him in court, He never said a mumbling word.

He didn’t have a lawyer, nor did He care about who judged Him.
His judge was a higher power.

The liberal court found Him guilty of false offences and sentenced Him to death, all because He changed the hearts and minds of men with an army of 12.

According to CNN, Cain belongs to Antioch Baptist Church North in Atlanta. A few senior members of the church said they don't necessarily agree with Cain's views but respect him.

Cain described his faith to the Associated Press recently, and vowed to challenge Rick Perry for the evangelical vote. "People are realizing that he is not the only Christian conservative in this race," Cain said.

"You know, I don't wear my Christian faith, which has been my faith since I was 10 years old, on my forehead," he said. "But people can see it on my website and when they read my credentials they can see I'm a staunch Christian conservative, and they are saying 'wait a minute.'''

Cain also said over the summer that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney could not win the presidential election because of his Mormonism. "It doesn’t bother me. But I do know it is an issue for a lot of southerners. If you don’t win South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, you can’t win the nomination."

Cain ended his RedState column on a cheery note: "We must be the Defending Father and the defenders of the perfect conservative. That’s why I proudly wish one and all a very Merry Christmas!"

Comments

[Angelo Nasios]

11:54 PM on 11/22/2011

Liberal courts??? The sanhedrin is just like the 1% who controlled everything and Jesus represented the 99% who was bring reform. The sanhedrin did away with Jesus (via the Romans who were the only ones who could Crucify) because he threatened their power, wealth and monopoly over religion and politics. Herman Cain needs to learn more about his own Faith and not to make poor analogies that make him look like a crazy fool. Cain also shows a lack on knowledge of the Gospels. He sais Jesus "He never said a mumbling word." It depends on which Gospel you read. One Gospels says he did not respond to the sanhedrin, others say he did respond.

[Angelo Nasios]

11:47 PM on 11/22/2011

Politicians need to stop talking about religion and theological issues. They know nothing about religion and theology. They have not gone to school to learn and study the meaning of scripture and they take everything out of context and butcher the message(s) to twist into into some sort of appeal to the Christian/Conservative voter. They need to keep their religious opinions to themselves because their view is unimportant and irrelevant to the real social issues that need to be focused on. Stop using religion as a means to gain support from voters.

[Jilian Rose Parker]

10:04 PM on 11/20/2011

What does the cult of Christianity have to do with the presidential elections? Enough with the cults suppressing this country;'s progress. SMH

[Angelo Nasios]

11:49 PM on 11/22/2011

I agree! We have an unwritten requirement that you must proclaim your faith in order to become president. I wished we had Buddhist president lol

[faster]

12:11 AM on 11/06/2011

Funny man, Cain. Liberal court? Ran a kangaroo court and executed Jesus? That doesn't sound liberal to me, but it DOES reflect very common right-wing thought. Is it possible he confused the liberals somehow with people like Bush, Palin and Bachmann?

Let's look pragmatically at how liberals would try someone like Jesus versus how today's conservatives would. Who in America opposes capital punishment most? Liberals. Which, if he had a choice, would he have chosen as his judges?

I think you know. To conservatives, human life isn't precious at ALL if it's a liberal's life. THEY are the "sifted few." Warhawks, greed-glutted, hate-filled, absolutist; uncaring who dies without medical help, who loses their homes, or may want to work, but can't - that's today's conservative.

Cain is black, but he's no friend of racial equality. He'd condemn ME as a lazy bum. I'm on SS disability. No other income. I can hardly walk. For all my career I worked VERY hard, enough to disable my spine. But to him, I'm still a leech. I know, as nobody can know better, what this man is really made of.

Should someone tell him there are multitudes of Americans with no health care, are very poor, are NOT lazy bums, would slather to have a job, and whom he is able to shrug off as not worth bothering about? Nah. Maybe I shouldn't remind him that those Americans, like me, may be poor, but we still have a VOTE.

[Will Comment]

03:30 PM on 10/29/2011

Bible verses, for fun and edification:)

James 5:1-5 (NIV): Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.

[jwcmass]

12:35 AM on 11/02/2011

Thanks for sharing that passage Will. It is one that should ring loud and clear to the 1%, and to all who put their trust into simply amassing a fortune, thinking it will always solve every problem. This actually echoes many of the things that Jesus taught (as has been posted many times in this thread) and also is firmly a part of the Hebrew Scriptures (aka the Old Testament). Especially in the prophetic books. Prophets (I am not talking about fortune-telling; Biblically speaking, a prophet is one who speaks for God -- and all Christians are called by their baptism to be prophets) had NO hesitation to challenge the kingdoms of ancient Israel to care for those who could not care for themselves (especially widowed women -- who had no real source of income if they could not re-marry, and children -- who of course are the most vulnerable and innocent members of our society.) MANY times those who were outwardly religious, but whose values were not in accord with these teachings were excoriated by the prophets. (who often paid a heavy price for challenging the government). Now while they couldn't envision the political system we live under today (it was an almost unimaginably different world), but they certainly knew where society's values should be. Cain, and those who advocate what has become known as "The Prosperity Gospel" -- whose primary focus is material, not spiritual, have turned this lengthy tradition of teaching on its head.

[slimdave420]

11:21 AM on 10/29/2011

And here I thought it was gods plan all along.

[aHazMatHoney]

10:26 AM on 10/29/2011

Shut up, Herman! No, really, I mean shut up! You DO realize, don't you, that Jesus didn't use those services because they didn't exist!? You do realize that it was the do-nothings, the "conservative equivalent" who had a problem with Jesus? Nobody cared about the poor back then anymore than they do today. The 99% were much more clearly defined. Jesus was crucified for countering people like you who maintained that "If you don't have a job, it's your fault" and 'If your family is starving to death, it's your fault."

Jesus didn't drive around in a tricked out Benz, or bed half the choir, or pass the collection plate 10 times every service, or wear shoes that cost more than most people's "house payment," or restrict his followers to one specific race, or go around spewing crap out of both sides of his mouth, or spend the "church's" money on unauthorized trips to Disney World, or gambling at the casino, or using his television program to tell people it's okay to leave your wife if she's got Alzheimer's, either. So, what the HELL is your point, Herman?

[Jilian Rose Parker]

09:59 PM on 11/20/2011

Did Jesus charge to be healed by him or did he give away free healthcare?

[tpk]

12:24 AM on 10/29/2011

Another pearl of wisdom from Cain.
Thx, Herb, my 18 inch pearl necklace is almost done.

[mrld20]

06:18 PM on 10/28/2011

Herman what you don't realize is that when you look at Jesus' teachings and place him on the political spectrum (although he was apolitical) he was a liberal...

Hanging out with lepers, prostitutes, the mentally ill, tax collectors, the disabled, the poor, the needy, the broken, and the starving... Seems like a liberal to me... His teachings on the poor and nonviolence def make him a liberal!

[jwcmass]

12:46 AM on 11/02/2011

I would go even farther and say that he was a radical. He envisioned a COMPLETELY different society than the one he lived in. (This is what is meant by the Kingdom of God -- which Jesus stressed over and over. This has two meanings. One is obviously personal, God reigning in our lives and hearts. But the other, just as important, is making those values real on the ground. ("Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven"). However, contrary to what many of his own followers thought, this Kingdom would NOT come about by use of force (many wanted another David -- a warrior to overthrow Roman tyrannical rule) -- but that was not part of Jesus' plan. It had to start with the transformation of people's hearts and values. Sharing and caring for each other, instead of trying to get wealthy at the expense of others (remember, Cain has been a LONG-TERM advocate of either eliminating minimum wage, or keeping it as low as possible -- to the point that we now have an underclass of people living in POVERTY -- who are WORKING full time jobs.) ctd.

[jwcmass]

12:49 AM on 11/02/2011

p2 Jesus would have acknowledged the dignity of work (ALL work -- no matter how menial) -- and the idea that those who do so should be able to live in a state other than dire poverty. Interestingly, there was a recent story in which New Testament scholars were looking at the Greek word which described Jesus' "occupation" -- and there are those who think that "carpenter" may not be the correct translation (one also wonders just how carpentry would work in an area that was even then had few trees.) Anyway, these scholars think a better translation would be a "day laborer" -- like one who takes ad hoc jobs from whoever is hiring that day. The early church actually lived "in common" -- those who had excess shared with those who did not, and all those with needs had those needs met. It wasn't called communism, because we are talking 1900 years before Karl Marx even coined that phrase, and created those ideas, but that is what it was. The important word would be COMMUNITY -- where all were treated in a loving manner. And it was LOVE that was the motivating force.

[Varys]

08:50 AM on 10/27/2011

So, Herman Cain is proposing that Jesus solve world hunger.

Well, Jesus, get crackin'

[jwcmass]

12:52 AM on 11/02/2011

Well, I think Jesus might say that unlike any other time in world history, we are producing (or capable of producing) enough food to feed every human being on the planet an adequate diet. (Even as we reach a population of 7 billion.) The problem isn't production (unlike in the past, where a famine could starve many people). It is distribution, and HOW that food is distributed. The problem isn't that there isn't enough food -- it is the lack of will -- apathy-- which causes so much hunger and thirst for potable water.

[Warren Harrison]

01:14 AM on 10/27/2011

Well if Cain wants to look at Our Lords Crucifixion politically, then lets look at the real facts. The Romans crucified Our Lord, who were a dictatorial tyrannical government. The Israelite people are
the ones who said to "Kill Him". They were a religious people who had no government and they were under Roman rule. The Romans and Israelites were neither conservative or liberal. They were simply people living according to their times. When men like Cain present history the way they want to perceive it, they then become questionable in their presentations in the future.

[jwcmass]

01:01 AM on 11/02/2011

I agree with most of what you say -- especially about how different the political situations were. I would just differ with one thing -- the overwhelming majority of the Jews who were in Jerusalem (and being Passover, the city would swell to several times its normal population -- remember, Jesus himself came from Galilee.) -- this was when Romans were most nervous about a revolt (which did come about 30 years later). Jesus would have been seen by Pilate (especially after his actions in the Temple) as either a potential leader of an uprising, or as someone who would be a focus point for rebels. Either way, he had to go. But such was Jesus' popularity with the ordinary people, that the Romans dared not try to arrest him in broad daylight (that likely would have touched off a revolt). It would have to be a fait accompli, and Pilate would have expected the leaders of the Jewish community (who were WIDELY seen as collaborators with Rome -- in fact when the revolt broke out, they were the first ones killed by the rebels.) to conduct the actual arrest, and present the fig-leaf of the arrest being conducted by JEWISH leaders, rather than by Rome. ctd.

[jwcmass]

01:02 AM on 11/02/2011

p2 Remember, the Gospels (the EARLIEST ones) were written at about the same time as this revolt, and the Christian community at that time didn't exactly want to appear to be claiming that a Roman was responsible for the judicial murder of their God. This is why Pilate looks more and more innocent with each Gospel (in the order they were written -- Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John).

[soma77]

09:22 PM on 10/26/2011

Why do Republicans spread fear, hate and division? Is that all that is in their hearts? They take Christianity and treat it and Jesus like they are con men and women. No Dignity so they keep going lower and lower to spread their hate.

[BlueIndependent]

11:33 AM on 10/27/2011

You should probably do some reading on conservative philosophy. I am not one, but have read some material and I'll speak generally as to why they try to create division. It is their strategy for attempting to bring about the betterment of society. It's not an inherently bad strategy, but the way it's applied - and very often who it's applied to - is usually the problem. There is also an aspect to the philosophy that seems, to me, to rely on individual, subjective positions as a way of determining truth, especially when two ideas are competing. The incessant spinning, to me, seems to be an attempt to continue competition so that perceived better ideas win out over perceived bad ones, which then are supposed to disappear. Tactics like spreading fear of something or intentional/unintentional misrepresentation is OK if the perceived bad idea loses at the end of the day.

[soma77]

09:07 PM on 10/27/2011

Thank you, you expressed that very clearly.

[Poster9999]

04:47 PM on 10/26/2011

Where to begin. The spin on this one is truly extraordinary even by today's low standards.

"you are your brother's keeper"
"easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven"
"I in you, you in me"
"Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you."

THAT JESUS??? HE was a conservative?

The Roman court that sentenced Jesus to torture and capital punishment and that gave in to the crowd that asked that he NOT be pardoned... THIS was the liberal court that killed him?

And this is just the off-the-top-of-my-head low hanging fruit.

On the bright side the Jews have been bearing the guilt of killing Jesus for many centuries so it's good that liberals can take a turn and give them a well deserved rest. Jewish liberals..? Well, it's just not your day, is it? Also, of course Jesus wasn't on food stamps. The guy could make one fish into a hundred fish and turn water into wine, PLUS he wasn't afraid to eat grasshoppers when the going got tough. I guy like that would never go hungry.

[jwcmass]

01:07 AM on 11/02/2011

Poster, you have the essential facts down very correctly. Many practicing Christians have gotten this wrong (Mel Gibson and his movie come to mind). I would only add this. Jesus was EXTREMELY popular with the vast majority of Jews in Jerusalem at that time. It is believed that the event which brought about the arrest was Jesus' actions in the Temple (overturning tables and such -- Rome had a tower from which they could see EVERYTHING happening in the Temple area. Pilate, who feared revolt, would have seen this as a dangerous event, and Jesus as a threat (whether willingly or being used by others) who had to made an example of. But the fact that the arrest took place at night should be telling. They didn't DARE try to attempt an arrest during the day. That would likely have touched off the revolt that Rome feared so greatly. Excellent post. Already a fan, but definitely faved.

[Poster9999]

09:28 AM on 11/02/2011

My history is shaky here, but as I understand Rome ruled the area, but they had the Jewish religious order in charge as a sort of puppet government. I thought it was the temple that felt most threaten by Jesus as he was challenging their teachings and accusing them of hypocrisy, etc. Rome just wanted to keep order and prevent rebellion which is why I thought Pilate's offer to pardon Jesus was genuine in order to pacify the masses. Wasn't it the temple that had people in the crowd chanting to kill Jesus? In a sense when Jesus said "give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's" wasn't he sort of saying he wasn't looking for a fight with Rome? It's been so long I'm not even sure where I got this impression.

Don't know if you remember but suggested "Conservatives Without Conscience" to me a while back. I've got about 4 books going right now but that's one of them. It's just what I had in mind. Thanks for the recommendation.

[fr33d0mhawk]

03:02 PM on 10/26/2011

If conservatives were in any way like Jesus, there would not need to be a government program, because nobody would be hungry, homeless or without healthcare. So much for the "Christian Conservative" line of bunk. Last time I checked, Christian Conservatives were cheering madly at the thought of a man dying of a preventable illness in a gutter, just like Jesus would do, kick sand in the face of the meek. Cain must have meant the Neocon Jesus, David Koresh, because Koresh was the Perfect Conservative, raped children, bought loads of guns and murdered his own people. Koresh was such a perfect Conservative Christian, that he inspired another nearly Perfect Conservative Christian, McVeigh, to murder hundreds of innocent people in a federal building, its what the Neocon Jesus would do. Cain would commit genocide against anyone left of Limbaugh and claim it was merely killing enemies of Jesus, that the enemies aren't even human, the are demons or dogs. The truly scary part is how many neocons will agree with what I have written, but will be too embarrassed to admit it.

[mickydean]

07:42 PM on 10/27/2011

I know your not as simple minded as you appear on your post, so you get the benefit of the doubt. You seem to know little or nothing about Christians precepts, so do some homework before you construct what you believe to be truths.

[cilantro518]

11:28 AM on 10/26/2011

I read a comment on here that said if Jesus were alive today, Rick Perry would be one of the people who would crucify him. Is tit for tat OK? If you compare the political parties then and now, the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, more closely resembled liberals. They did not believe in a resurrection, nor did they believe in angels. Jesus demonstrated that both were wrong. The Pharisees were wrong because they loved their wealth and power and did not care about justice; the Sadducees were wrong because they refused to believe anything existed beyond the physical world. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

[jwcmass]

01:18 AM on 11/02/2011

There is a lot of confusing of political and religious ideas here. You are correct about the Sadducees beliefs, but they were NOT liberals as we understand that term. They were the elite, and they were WIDELY seen as being collaborators with Rome. (In fact, when the revolt did come, 30 years later, the Zealots (another Jewish sect) assassinated virtually all of them (in many ways there were elements of a civil conflict among the Jewish community). Ironically, Jesus would have been viewed as a Pharisee himself, as he shared many of their beliefs. He would have been FAR more critical of the Sadducees than the Pharisees. The reason we see the conflict with the Pharisees was again, due to the Roman-Jewish war (67-73 CE) in which the Temple was destroyed. Up until that time, Judaism was quite diverse, with a number of different sects. What united them all was the Temple -- it was the HEART of Jewish worship, and the unifying factor in their faith. ctd.

[jwcmass]

01:22 AM on 11/02/2011

p2 With that gone, and the war over, the only remaining major sect was the Pharisees, and they had to try to find a war forward for Judaism. What would bring about the unity without the Temple. Well, to the Pharisees, it would be the Torah. They also decided (and this led to great hostility) that Christians were not really a Jewish sect any longer -- because their Gentile members did not observe the teachings of the Torah. This led to a great deal of bitterness, particularly among Jewish Christians -- who felt they were being excluded from Judaism. That played a HUGE role in what was to follow - and even influenced how the Gospels were written. Remember, NONE of the Gospels were written near the time of Jesus' ministry. The EARLIEST were written at least 30+ years later. The reason for this was simple -- Early Christians thought that Jesus' return would occur within their lifetimes. It was only as the first generation was passing, and it seemed clear that Jesus' return was NOT imminent, that it was decided to write the Gospels, for future generations who had no living memory of that time.