Republican Party Bankrupt; Reorganizes As A Church

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Troubled by dwindling membership and numerous setbacks, the 155 year-old Republican Party filed for financial, intellectual and moral bankruptcy and announced its reorganization as a tax-exempt church. The new GOP will be officially called The First Church Of Jesus Loves America And Latter Day Lower Taxes Anti Foreigner Old Time Heterosexual Do As I say Not As I Do Affluence Ministry Hoop N' Hollerin' Revival Gun Lovin' Banker's Club Outreach Hootenanny, Inc but will still use the name "Republican Party" for most functions.

Experts think that few consumers will notice any difference.

The last ditch move is widely seen as 'the only hope' for the embattled political organization, according to many observers. In recent days, the Republican Party had been the the object of a takeover bid from Rupert Murdoch's ironically named News Corp., until it was discovered that Murdoch already had a significant ownership in the GOP. Other attempts to save the sagging brand had failed, including the attempt by Michael Steele to raise capital by licensing the GOP's trademarked elephant symbol for an athletic clothing line.

Democratic Party leaders could not immediately be reached for comment as they were solving problems and doing things.

Republican officials wasted no time in taking advantage of their new found status as a religion and began punishing infidels, giving each other impressive titles and handing out funny hats. Meghan McCain was spotted in Phoenix being fitted for a custom tailored iron maiden while Colin Powell was locked in a tower high above Dallas, where his cries of agony could be heard from as far away as a BBQ place that former President George W. Bush frequents.

His Most High Holiness Newt Gingrich read a prepared statement that said in part, "Thus begins a new era in American Politics and so we declare the beginning of a new calendar. We look forward to crushing our enemies during coming Year One Federal Crusade and are assured by Holy Priestess Of Eternal Cable New Appearances Liz Cheney that the mighty hand of her Father shall smite our foes with your tax deductible contribution."

In a move that left many puzzled, conservative icon Rush Limbaugh did not seek an exalted title and opted instead for 'Rush LaVey'.

Reaction from the religious community was generally negative. Some holy insiders said the GOP appeared to 'miss the entire point of spirituality' while others were primarily concerned about competition. In heaven, Jesus Christ - a strong supporter of Barack Obama in the 2008 election - wept.

Comments

[popart]

that is so funny.....G.O.P. God's Own Politics ....I love it.....sort of like Scientology.....a made up religion based on irrational thinking. Could work.

[ObjectiveRealist]

@Zanti, please re-read. The final paragraph was certainly not a blanket criticism of the religious community, quote:
Reaction from the religious community was generally negative. Some holy insiders said the GOP appeared to 'miss the entire point of spirituality'
/quote
Unless I have egregiously overestimated you, you are a member of the "religious community" who believes exactly that about the GOP interpretation of faith -- it appears to 'miss the entire point of spirituality' does it not? The author has actually taken pains to admit that some members of the religious community, including you if your self-description below is accurate, share his moral objections to the problematic members of the religious community, GOP and conservative movement.

"... while others were primarily concerned about competition."
Those others, aspiring theocrats themselves, are the *portion* of the religious community being singled out for ridicule.

quote:
In heaven, Jesus Christ - a strong supporter of Barack Obama in the 2008 election - wept.
/quote
I suggest that if you're really a Christian, it's your turn to be forgiving of such a minor, and humorous outburst of partisanship.

[Zanti]

First of all, his use of "holy insiders" suggests a high level of sarcasm. Since when are the faithful called "holy insiders" except as a dig?

Re missing the point of spirituality, what he's describing is an inadequate response to the fantasy instance of the GOP becoming a church--instead of outrage, mainline people of faith protest that the GOP's version of faith is false but make no further statement or move in response. In other words, the mainline faithful are primarily concerned with covering their behinds. Given that the aspiring theocrats are mentioned in the same sentence (from which both quoted clauses come), we're clearly meant to consider the two groups of believers together. In fact, the second clause follows from, and amplifies, the first.

It's called writing.

What the author is saying is that, no matter how much the GOP ups the volume on its religious opportunism, the religious are going to do one of two things: 1) condemn the GOP in token, hey-don't-look-at-me fashion or 2) try to figure out how we can get some. 1) goes with the stock criticism that decent people of faith do nothing about the bad Christians, as if we have any control over what they do. But try, especially in a democracy, to force the other side to vote for your guy. Tell me how it goes.

Calling my intentions, integrity, etc. into account is the definition of ad hominem. Why the need to do so?

[ObjectiveRealist]

You're obviously determined to take offense, where none was given.

quote:
Re missing the point of spirituality, what he's describing is an inadequate response to the fantasy instance of the GOP becoming a church--instead of outrage, mainline people of faith protest that the GOP's version of faith is false but make no further statement or move in response.
/quote
We saw in the last national election that decent people are leaving the GOP in droves. I would assume that includes decent people of faith.

quote:
In other words, the mainline faithful are primarily concerned with covering their behinds. Given that the aspiring theocrats are mentioned in the same sentence (from which both quoted clauses come), we're clearly meant to consider the two groups of believers together. In fact, the second clause follows from, and amplifies, the first.

It's called writing.
/quote
More specifically, it's called satire, and such a thorough treatment of those who are not the problem, in a satirical essay, is an unreasonable expectation.

quote:
Calling my intentions, integrity, etc. into account is the definition of ad hominem. Why the need to do so?
/quote
I did not commit any argumentum ad hominem. I am, however, increasingly amused by how badly you practice what you preach. "Love your enemy as you love yourself." Jesus would be terribly disappointed in you if he were more than a fable.

[MJinCanada]

I'm really surprised that no one brings up Robert Heinlein's story "If This Goes On" and Nehemiah Scudder.

From the Heinleinsociety.org concordance:

Nehemiah Scudder
1. Religious demagogue whose followers overthrew the United States government and instituted a theocracy. This dictatorship controlled the country for several generations until it was itself overthrown by resistance movements. His followers included Venus colonials, but the movement apparently was dominant only in the United States. He is also called the Prophet.
("If This Goes On—"; briefly mentioned in "Logic of Empire")
2. He was elected President in 2012, with 27 percent of the popular vote (votes were cast by 63 percent of registered voters, who were less than half of those eligible to vote) but 81 percent of the Electoral College votes.
(To Sail Beyond the Sunset)

[Zanti]

Yes, we're perilously close to becoming a theocracy. All that's getting in the way is the fact that a clear majority of Americans just voted a Democrat into the White House--and a black Democrat, at that. And the fact that our nation enjoys an unprecedented diversity of faiths, owing to our founder's wisdom in not allowing a state church to be formed. Establishing a primary church in such an environment would take (no pun intended) a miracle, since no two believers are going to agree on what that church is, what its functions would be, etc.

And we're only talking about those believers inclined to install a primary church--a group that's plenty small. Oh, and keeping in mind that the mere presence of a state church is a far cry from a theocratic rule, the state-church model being very different from the church-rule model.

Other than these things, we're almost there.

[kjstjohn]

I am constantly amazed by the liberal atheists who think that faith is the problem and fantacize about an America without Christians. The liberal Christian is politically indistinguishable from the liberal atheist (with the possible exception of the issue of tax deductibility of contributions to churches).

On the other hand, the gap between a liberal atheist and a conservative atheist can be monumental as Ayn Rand clearly demonstrates.

You will note that the more politically-savvy atheist commentators on this site are careful not to insult liberal people of faith because they know that all liberals' votes are needed to combat the right wing and its scary, authoritarian churches.

[Zanti]

"Theocratic rule," I meant. Without the "a."

[desertman]

In the next election cycle, things need to be drastically different. Democracy is not Augusta National Golf Club as some in the GOP think. It's a messy free-for-all, and in a two-party system, the GOP will not survive if it doesn't accept the fact that the Democrats are its enemy and that it must begin to play for keeps. That means finding another Lee Atwater - only meaner - and not apologizing when we get him.

[ObjectiveRealist]

Bring it on!

[Athena123]

How about a Palin/Limbaugh ticket? We could all use a good belly laugh in these difficult times, no?

[KHAAANNN]

This would be funnier if it wasn't so close to the truth.

[dakotawoman]

But it's the TRUTH of the thing that makes it so funny in the first place!!!!!

HILArious!!!

[Beernuts]

The interesting thing about true irony is how close it must be to the truth to be hilarious. The only thing missing from the new church and its liturgy was the march of the remaining lemmings to the edge of the cliff. Happy landings!!

[karela]

Amen brother!

[swampthing]

Horrifyingly close to reality.

[tcagle]

The only church that guarantees you'll go straight to hell, along with the rest of the country.

[fdrwuzright]

"The First Church Of Jesus Loves America And Latter Day Lower Taxes Anti Foreigner Old Time Heterosexual Do As I say Not As I Do Affluence Ministry Hoop N' Hollerin' Revival Gun Lovin' Banker's Club Outreach Hootenanny, Inc" Sad but true description of not only the Republican Party,but of fundamentalist "Christian"churches.......

[johpen]

Maybe the GOP should be named First Church of Christ of the Latter Day Morons. You know its bishop- rev Dubya Bush

[JimReed]

The religious community has demonstrated in recent years there is nothing the Republican party can do along those lines that would get a negative reaction from them. Remember, this is the party they sold their souls to, so they would expect nothing less.

[mamacat]

That was funny!
But remember, it wouldn't be funny, if it didn't also have some truth in it. If the nuts in the GOP were not really so wacko, this whole schpiel wouldn't have made any sense.

[SgtLucifer]

Hilarious, Sir. Please keep it coming, & and don't be so charitable to the Democrats or Obama. None of them can be trusted. Aren't they all politicians, capable of lies and deceit.

[karela]

It's a mistake to be so cynical. If we give up, how will that help? If we all believed as you do, we'd quit working to make it better and the result would be that it would get much, much worse. No leader is a Saint. They're all human beings. But Barack Obama is the best shot that we've had in a very long time. He's intelligent, cool headed and kind. He's also plenty tough enough. We could do a whole lot worse. We have in the past. It's good to not be a patsy, but it's also good to be grateful and to work for the good of our country and the world. Hope may seem like a panacea to some, but hopelessness is `not going to save us.

[Hopalongpoppyseed]

I agree: "...detraction and spite find a ready audience. Adulation bears the ugly taint of subservience…malice gives false impressions of being independent." Tacitus, “The Histories”

[Athena123]

I agree with you. I'm not sure if the nation can be saved, but if anybody can do it, it's Obama. Hopefully he has taken Americans away from the edge of the precipice.

[Zanti]

"In heaven, Jesus Christ - a strong supporter of Barack Obama in the 2008 election - wept."

How charming. Jesus vs. the "religious community." I see.

Like many others in that religious community, I strongly supported Barack Obama in the 2008 election. Imagine, Lee, the awful situation our party would be in sans the support of Democratic believers. Almost makes you want to stop marginalizing our presence, does it not? (Just kidding. Don't change on account of me.)

I remember hoping that, with a progressive believer in the White House, the volume might go down on the Sam Harris stuff. It's still early, but the prognosis isn't good....

[kjstjohn]

Zanti, I don't think Mr. Swanahan was taking a swipe at religion here.

Progressive and moderate Christians are going to sustain a little collateral damage as critics address the social, political, and literal carnage brought on by right-wing fundamentalists.

In my opinion, we need to keep focus on the underlying problem. We need to be witnessing to the fundamentalists to help them see that their words and actions distort Jesus' teachings, not going after the critics of the fundamentalists.

[Zanti]

"Zanti, I don't think Mr. Swanahan was taking a swipe at religion here."

But he did. He used the last paragraph to blanketly criticize the "religious community." This is the sort of capitulation to neo-atheism that I'm tired of seeing. The bad behavior of Christian rightists is not the fault of the Christian left. Just as we don't blame the body politic for the stupid voting choices of the right, we should recognize that non-Yahoo believers are simply not to be blamed for the kind of hypocrisy and greed in the name of faith that we've come to expect from Gingrich. Who, in my opinion, is an example of insanity brought on by ego.

I'm tired of concessions being made to the religion-is-poison folks. Their point of view rules around this place, and, while I'm happy bloggers like Mr. Stranahan are willing to recognize moderate to liberal Christianity, they need to show it a little more respect. No, I'm under no obligation, morally or otherwise, to have my liberal values insulted because a bunch of Dawkins groupies can't reconcile them with THEIR values, as if those values were owned by them. Is their support of the Dem Party more important than yours or mine? Does their vote count more? It's one thing for my support for the party to be taken for granted--it's another for it, in effect, to be insulted.

[ReedYoung]

You're absolutely right. Mr. Swanahan was taking a swipe only at the Republican Party and its most loyal supporters, the aspiring theocrats who have no proper place in adult political discourse in the United States. Mike Huckabee, George Walker Bush's faith-based birth control strategy for Africa, and the attention devoted to the religious affiliations of the Presidential candidates last year, among other things, prove that more writing like Swanahan's is needed, to remind people that their faith is a private matter, between themselves and God. My contribution to that effort, for now, is simply to ask the faithful to take the most complete mental inventory they can of all the things they have ever prayed for and consider whether they would want it all published, uncensored, on the front page of the New York Times or whatever 'blog or TV show is most popular among their friends. That is how private faith should be, and how impenetrable the wall of separation between church and state should be.

[karela]

I'm a big Jesus lover too, but I think he probably does feel sad when He sees some of the things that have been done in His name, don't you? There is, and should be, a difference between trying to live one's life with the life of Christ as a model----------and using His name to justify horrendous things like doing things that result in a million Iraqi deaths, torturing prisoners, killing doctors who disagree with you, making gay people die in hospitals without their loved ones, hoping the country will fail so your political party can win-------It's an endless list and it's all been done, supposedly, in the name of Jesus. The Jesus I know and love would be sad about that. His name has been usurped for an ugly purpose. Jesus chased the money lenders away because they were defiling the Temple. Should we stay quiet when they defile the name of Jesus?

[CaptainObvious]

"It's an endless list and it's all been done, supposedly, in the name of Jesus."

Sadly, most Americans still think that "taking the Lord's name in vain" has something to do with using swear-words.

[Zanti]

"Should we stay quiet when they defile the name of Jesus?"

No. Neither should we stand for being grouped in with them. Doing so makes as much sense as blaming Yellow Dog Dems (like me) for the votes of Republicans. it's just simple common sense, not to mention courtesy.

[MJinCanada]

Actually, it was the money-changers and the guys who sold sacrificial doves that Jesus drove out, because he disliked commercial ventures intruding on worship. (GB Trudeau already got heat last week about "moneylenders".)

But I agree wholeheartedly that Jesus would not approve any of the pain, suffering, death and destruction and outright lies and hatred being dealt out in his name.

That sort of evil is the true meaning of blasphemy.

[Dunelm]

I recommend some of you read Rob Bell's new book--"Jesus Wants to Save Christians." Mr. Bell is a pastor who also abhors what the far right have done to the name of Christianity. I am reminded of Ghandi's statement, "I would be a follower of Jesus is it wasn't for the Christians."

[HesDanTheMan]

"the volume might go down on the Sam Harris stuff. It's still early, but the prognosis isn't good...."

What does that even mean?

[Zanti]

That even means that I imagined the religion-is-poison crowd might tone things down a little, given that we have a progressive Christian Democrat in office. That they might recognize the awkwardness of continuing with their shtick when to do so is clearly a cut against their own side.

But that presumes a degree of maturity on their part that, like their ability to understand metaphor and analogy, does not seem to exist.

Does that even explain it?