I'm not a fisker by habit but this little gem is just too snarky, insulting and dishonest to pass up. The original article already rather lengthy and I'm afraid this will end up being a very long post.

Was Jesus a big winner in the last election? You'd sure think so. If the pundits and Religious Right zealots are correct, the Son of God scored a knockout victory on Nov. 2.

We've had it drilled into our heads that something known as "moral values" was decisive in the election. Some worked-up commentators have even said we're on the brink of a second Great Awakening.

As one who would greatly welcome a national move toward what I define as moral values, I'm not as optimistic as many. Exit polls did indicate that 'moral values' was the key issue to roughly one quarter of the voters, yet the term is ambiguous enough that I don't find it terribly significant. Voting for moral values could be defined as a vote for or even against abortion or same-sex marriage or even simply voting against a candidate perceived as less than honest.

The election was a decisive victory for the President and for the Republican party. The President's percentage of the national vote was the largest since Reagan while the Republicans increased their margin in both chambers of congress. Was the election a victory for Christians? I'm not convinced it was. Definition of marriage initiatives were overwhelmingly passed in 11 states but only a fool would tack a Christian label on all Republicans (or a pagan one on all Democrats).

All this hype about the God talk swirling around in our culture prompted me to do a little research (a big departure from how I usually prepare for writing a column). I cracked open my Bible and started rereading the Gospels.

And you know what? I can't see what all this sanctimonious values rhetoric has to do with Jesus. I've compared what I read in Gospels with what I've been hearing from the Religious Right, and I've concluded that the holier-than-thous must have traded in their red-letter editions of the Good Book for red-state versions that omit most of Jesus' teachings.

The truth is, if you depend on the Christian right for your theological sustenance; you probably won't recognize the Jesus of the Gospels.

Actually, I don't find that the truth at all. I regularly read all of the words and while there is always room for improvement, I find the position of the right as compatible with the Word of God as that of the left, as much as any political viewpoint can represent a religious philosophy.

Jesus was quite a troublemaker. In fact, I'm thinking the Bush administration would have a special place for Jesus were the swarthy Nazarene to take up his ministry today in the U.S. of A.--in a cell with other Middle Eastern men awaiting deportation.

I appreciate the attempt at humor but it just doesn't fly, at least for those who understand that those who are being deported are those with terrorist ties. However, I'm certain you garnered much laughter from the "John Ashcroft is reading my email" crowd.

If you read carefully, you might notice that Jesus was disruptive only within the religious establishment. He was never rebellious toward the Roman government. Some scholars believe that this frustrated some of his disciples and Judas' betrayal may have been an attempt to force Jesus into a political confrontation with Rome. Fortunately for us, Jesus had more important things on his mind than politics.

Let's recall what the Jesus of the Gospels espoused. "When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you," the sandal-wearing rabble-rouser was known to say.

That sounds pretty good, but it makes you realize that JC would never have reached "Ranger" or "Pioneer" status in the Bush fund-raising machine.

Jesus never reached an appreciable status in any political or religious group. Your point? Could it be that you are trying to insinuate the Republican party and its donors never give money to charities that help the poor? Any evidence to support that assertion?

I do agree that the poor are usually not present at the fundraising banquets - for either party. (I would not consider myself poor but I don't have the kind of cash flow required to attend either.) The poor are also not usually invited to business luncheons either, but not because businesses are deliberately trying to starve the poor. The real reason is that the purpose of that kind of meal is to conduct business during the lunch hour.

When I eat dinner tonight at my house, there will not be any poor present. Is this evidence that I hate the poor. The only way to make an accurate judgment is to look at the whole of my time and spending. In the last year I have had those I would define as poor sit at my table maybe 4 or 5 times. Yet in the same span, I have given money to support the underprivileged here in Texas and also in Mexico, Honduras, Florida (hurricane relief), India and the Philippines. One banquet does not a lifestyle make.

Then, of course, there's Jesus' encounter with the rich ruler who said he was a righteous man because he'd followed the Ten Commandments since his youth (though he gave no indication that he'd ever erected a monument dedicated to them in a public place).

Jesus told the ruler: "There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

When the ruler started looking glum, Jesus responded with his famous kicker: "How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Holy class warfare! No wonder Republicans have switched out the Jesus of the Gospels for a low-rent moralizer preoccupied with what other people are doing with their bodies.

If you want to get picky about it, Jesus actually was concerned with what people did with their bodies (try here and here), not because he was a killjoy, but because he was concerned about the souls of the people.

Question: How many people did Jesus ask to sell all they have and give it to the poor? One. Only this young man who had the arrogance to state that he had kept every commandment perfectly his whole life. The request of Jesus exposed the idolatry within this man's heart; deep inside he worshiped material wealth. When Jesus talks about how hard it is for the rich to enter Heaven, some of the early manuscripts actually say "How hard it is for those who trust in riches…"

We never hear Jesus rebuking Joseph of Arimetha for his wealth - yet the scripture states that he was a disciple of Christ: " As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus." We know he was a generous man, donating (loaning?) his own tomb to Jesus for a few days, yet Jesus never asked him to give up all his wealth.

I Timothy 6:10 is often misquoted as saying Money is the root of all evil when it actually says something much different: The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. If money actually is evil, then giving it to the poor could not be considered a good deed.

I've no intention of turning this column into a Sunday school lesson, so I'll ease up on the Bible quotes. But go ahead and read the Gospels for yourself, and see if you can reconcile the Jesus you encounter in those texts with the Jesus the Religious Right wields as a battle-ax.

I agree that there are some on the right who wrongly wield heavily excerpted versions of the Gospels to accomplish their own specific goals. It is not really that much different that what you just tried to pull off in the preceding paragraphs.

If you're a thoughtful, independent-minded person, I'll bet you read the Gospels and wonder: Where in America does this Jesus dwell?

I understand that you are distraught from losing the election, but do you really think this kind blanket insult toward the denizens of Red States is going to help your cause? I know thoughtful, independent-minded people on both sides of the political spectrum. They are usually easy to identify; just look for someone who understands and respects the position held by the other side.

Where in America is the Jesus who sides with the poor and the outcasts? Where in America is the Jesus who disdains those who wear their piousness on their sleeves? Where in America is the the Jesus with the prophetic voice, the radical who dares to tell the powerful what they don't want to hear?

I know it might be hard for some to understand, but some of us actually believe that the current form of welfare is not only failing to help the poor but contributing to their ranks. I believe that there has to be a system to catch those who are down and out, but I find immoral a system which perpetuates the lower class. You can call me a hater if you choose, because I believe the main solution this policy provides is job security for the government.

Is he in the pews that fill every Sunday morning with the smug and complacent? Is he in a political party that fights for tax cuts for the rich while neglecting the needs of decent, hard-working Americans? Is he among the "God-and-country" demagogues who push an idolatrous nationalism and who see military service as the supreme form of sacrifice?

More blanket insults aimed at people of faith, and toward those whose saw their tax rates decline. You pegged us to a T…we are the Red-Staters, smug, complacent, indecent and never hardworking. We are smug enough to think that the role of government is not the provision of all our needs. We are indecent in our love for this nation and the freedoms it provides, unique among all other nations in this world. We are complacent in our support for our military as they follow the established rules of war in fighting those we insensitively regard as enemies.

Your questions might not end there. You may observe that other things are missing from our fashionable "moral values" rhetoric.

You may, for example, notice the absence of any critique of an economic system that turns Jesus' birthday into an opportunity to jump-start consumer spending. Or any critique of corporate control of the public's airwaves, which helps ensure the culture is saturated with sexuality and violence that appeal to the lowest common denominator but generate huge profits.

Where is the righteous conservative Christian politician who makes these things campaign issues, who talks about them as moral issues?

Obviously you are not listening to what we have been saying. There are many of us who have long criticized and refuse to participate in the commercialization of Christmas. I have heard countless cries for airwave decency from the right, countered by charges of censorship from the left. Covering a bare breast is censorship or fining a radio host for violating established decency laws yet a tiny cross on a city seal must be removed - to protect the public.

I have no doubt that the Christian right and their leader, George W. Bush, are sincere about their faith. But I also have no doubt-- to paraphrase one of America's pre-eminent theologians, Stanley Hauerwas--that sincerity has precious little to do with Christianity.

I do find it interesting that you would label George W. Bush as the leader of the Christian right. He is the Commander-in-Chief of our country and the leader of the Republican party - but he is a political figure, not a religious one.

The essence of Christianity is not sincerity but Christ, yet is there such a thing as insincere faith? Thus the pithy statement on sincerity makes for great copy yet it says absolutely nothing since it is both completely true and untrue at the same time. That is unless the reader sees the implied third meaning which is: The Christian right is not really Christian.

This "moral values" talk doesn't do much to sustain Christianity, either. The phrase is as banal as the hacks (of both the political and journalistic variety) who are busy fetishizing it.

For political operatives, the phrase's beauty lies in its meaningless. It can be made to mean anything, and, in a culture with no meaningful moral narratives, it can be turned into a cudgel that's useful for political ends but has nothing to do with any coherent religious tradition.

I think you are ignoring the history of this nation and the meaningful moral narratives our culture has held. I read the history of this nation and see a foundation for our government and society based on Judeo-Christian values. There always has been a coherent religious tradition although it is currently in decline. To me, your argument counters your own point: you yourself seem to be the political operative who is trying to craft this phrase into a cudgel for your own political end which is the opposite of the established religious tradition.

In the spiritual vacuum that exists in this country, the Christian right is well-positioned to argue that its menagerie of fears and chauvinisms--piled into a box labeled "moral values"--constitutes a serious moral narrative. It doesn't, but the Religious Right's contribution to the denigration of Christianity will continue unabated until other Christian communities come up with a compelling alternative.

I think you need to get off the "all gay-marriage, all the time" bus and take a look at what our values really are. It is my opinion that it is the buffet-style Christianity, a little of this chapter and a verse from over here, in order to manufacture a faith that matches an existing lifestyle that is the greatest threat to Christianity in the United States. Fortunately, it is countered by those humble individuals who daily try to reconcile the words of the scripture and the teaching of Jesus into their daily lives.

The trouble is, our society seems to lack the kind of exemplars who could build that alternative. What we need are the spiritual descendants of Martin Luther King Jr. and Dorothy Day, people who are willing to endure the enmity and scorn of the political establishment and mainstream culture.

I'm not interested in a charismatic national figure to build an alternative Christianity. What I would like to see are pastors continuing to pray for their cities and to be fully supported by their parishioners. I want to see more Christians getting serious about what they believe and putting their faith into action through service and giving. I think we need a balance between fellowship, worship, discipleship and evangelism, and our churches need to grow not only inwardly but also outwardly.

Maybe those people are out there, but I don't see them. That's why I'm not optimistic about the survival of the Christian tradition in our culture. What many view as a great spiritual revival looks a lot to me like another stage of rot in American Christianity's corpse.

Can the cadaver rise up? It doesn't seem hopeful. In contemporary America, the Jewish Palestinian whom many call their messiah has become just another Middle Easterner to be ignored or reviled.

I do not see the beliefs and voting habits of conservatives as the death knell of Christianity in American but I do agree that there are significant threats to Christianity in this country. The greatest threat from the outside is the movement to erase all evidence of the Christian tradition from our culture and our history books. Revisionism has transformed the establishment clause to read Separation of church and state. Freedom of religion has been changed to Freedom from religion.

There is also a threat from within: the natural decay of a vital faith into a casual half-hearted relationship with God. This is the natural decay, a spiritual entropy, which afflicts us all and is only kept at bay through deliberate communion with God and outreach to others. There is also the buffet-style Christianity described above, which is a threat from both within and without.

I believe we have to fight all these battles; first the internal, and then the external. And contrary to the rhetoric from the left, the battle lines are against the kingdom of darkness, not the red/blue state borders.