hypocritical hypocrites

Well, the Catholics have a new Pope, Leo XIV. The hopeful prognostication: He’s even more progressive than the last. The bastion of even more change progressively. And the newest comparison being made is Leo is the “Christ,” where Trump’s the “anti-christ.” But I get it, the Catholic church, like all religions are losing congregants. Thus, the need to fill the pews, both literally and figuratively. Only, the figurative part being cashable donations. And the only way to fill those pews is to continue changing the dogma of the church; more accepting, less judgementing. Wasn’t Jesus the first liberal, accepting of all without judgement?

And in the old and new testaments are two different versions of God. One hard and incriminating, the other loving, accepting. Jesus being the Father, Son, Holy Ghost. The old stacked with laws beyond one’s ability to stay within the boundary’s set; shackled. While the new removed them allowing the adage: Love the sinner; hate the sin. No judgement here. Only, what were Jesus’ last words when the woman caught in the act of adultery and church leaders wanted her stoned: Then neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin (John 8:11). Two parts clearly laid out. No condemnation, but do not continue doing such. Except today, sin is no longer clear cut. Acceptance of one’s proclivities, no matter what they might be, is being normalized. Which begs: At what point does normalizing reach full stop? Because a hypocrite everyone is and will fully become.

And in the realms of hypocrisy, even the Pope decries America and its borders. Yet the Vatican is encompassed with a wall and gates, thereby keeping those out who they want out. And while the church is the richest church, its NGO (non-government organization) status has it taking millions of American taxpayer dollars and using them to import illegal aliens into the country. And while the church cries over government interference, its battle cry: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (First Amendment). Although, its only intent being the government would not institute a religion; think king. Better, just think!

And condundrumly, in all the vociferating, if the church is tax exempt, how can it receive taxpayer funds? Does this not go back to the separation of church and state? Or is the separation thereof a one-sided opportunistic fleecing of the taxpayer while destroying the country by obfuscating the border through the flooding of illegals into the country? The church getting richer, while the poor, poorer? Especially the taxpayer having to pay for the importation, then satiation of the very illegals the church is pushing through. And what were Jesus’ words there: The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me (Matthew 26:11). But I get it, He laid down his life for us, whereas church leaders today, not so much. They pontificate about the government’s Judasocracy while we need to just keep those donations flowing: Remember, the poor you must remember.

Now, America has another dilemma, guns. Otherwise known as the Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. And the new Pope like the last will weigh in there also: Get rid of the guns. Only, the inverse of weighing in on the church: Don’t. Let’s forget the priests and child abuse scandals, that wall of separation of church and state? And history, let’s not remember why the Framers wanted the populace armed: … the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of (Federalist 46). Ahh yes, the concern or fear of tyranny of the federal.

Only, we’re not witnessing tyranny today unless one points their finger squarely at the Republican Party while excusing the oligarchical tyranny of Democrats. Or the Democrat Party’s instigation of riots in the streets and on college campuses by pro Hamas agitators or just agitators because they lost and Republicans won the last election. Yes, those peaceful riots. I know, J6 was an insurrection, whereas the summer riots of 2020 where the house was literally burned down were “mostly peaceful.” And when it comes to America needing to be more like other nations gun wise: … in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms (Federalist 46). So yes, surrender your guns, trust the government, believe Party is working in your best interest, including church agenda, while any semblance of morality goes out the window. And never mind the mental health issues the nation faces today. Let three-year olds decide their gender. Jesus would, right? He being the King of liberals, or is it the Jews? Only, ask yourself: As things continue to devolve; What would Jesus really do? Like the money changers in the temple: It is written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a ‘den of robbers’ (Matthew 21:13) as he turned the money tables over (literally), then cracked the whip and chased them out of the temple. Oh well: I guess the double standard of hypocrisy is the standard bearer of government and church progressivism. Plus, if one’s fealty isn’t in lockstep with Party, then they’re unamerican while Party eviscerates the Constitution. And the Bible: It’s all about interpretation, and interpretation is all about how much money one’s interpretation will generate. Thereby interpretation is open to change, and change is good, no?