Tuesday morning, Mr. Delay read this timely passage from Matthew at the 109th congressional prayer breakfast (who even knew there was such a thing?).


Saith DeLay:

"A reading of the Gospel, in Matthew 7:21 through 27.

Not every one who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven; but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

Many will say to me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?

"Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you: depart from me, you evil doers.'"

Everyone who listens to these words of mine, and acts on them, will be like a wise man, who built his house on a rock:

The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew, and buffeted the house, but it did not collapse; it has been set solidly on rock.

And everyone who listens to these words of mine, but does not act on them, will be like a fool who built his house on sand:

The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew, and buffeted the house, and it collapsed and was completely ruined."

He finishes reading, says nothing more, and sits back down.

Moral of the story. Don't build your house on a beach???

I have a feeling a LOT of conservative Christians will be having this conversation some day.

--PunkDavid

The dude's gonna fall hard this year.

Is he the anti-Christ??

In his defense, it WAS a prayer breakfast and maybe he gained something from this text in light of the recent tragedies.

You don't think it was pro-Christian bullshit?

At a prayer breakfast?

You don't think he's implying that people's houses were washed away by Tsunamis because they didn't believe in his god?

He could have been, although many killed were Christian. Who knows what he meant? It was completely left open to interpretation.

Prayer Breakfast sucks!

I thought he was reflecting on the pending indictment against him, and that no matter what might happen, he is doing the Lord's work, so he's alright.

Jesus, that hadn't occurred to me when I read it the first time.
In that light, this passage was either very thoughtlessly chosen, or extraordinarily arrogant and hatefully chosen. Either way fuck Tom DeLay.



If that's the case, he REALLY misinterpreted the meaning of this passage. But what do you expect?

--PunkDavid

I dont think there was any reference to the contemporary issues regarding natural disasters (that would of course reflect an understanding of current events) and even so I dont believe it is a poor choice of words. He was simply trying to manipulate his actions so that they could be viewed in a more noble manner, he failed, end of story.

So, you don't think DeLay has an understanding of current events?

I think at best, it was extremely insensitive to the tsunami victims, even if they didn't even cross his mind in his choosing the passage.

--PunkDavid

Without directly defending DeLay:

1) It was a prayer breakfast

2) Why the fuck can't anyone mention a flood anymore? When did geological phenom become fucking politically incorrect?

3) The passage about building your house on sand refers to building your faith on pride.

4) Not all Christians are Conservative, not all Conservatives are Christians, and being either Christian or Conservative never exclusively categorizes an individual as having "lost it".

Come to think of it, insensitivity toward tsunami victims is probably more evident in the massive pissing match the whole world charity thing has so sadly snowballed into.

Who here's donated?

As for DeLay, yes, ElPhantasmo, he'll get his.

As the 109th Congress convenes today, Republican lawmakers make a surprise move in the ethics scandal surrounding Majority leader Tom Delay. We speak with DeLay biographer Lou DuBose. As the US Congress swears in its newest members as part of the 109th Congress today, Republican lawmakers took a move on Monday that some political analysts say was intended to strip Democrats of ammunition against the GOP in the ethics scandal dogging Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

House Republicans suddenly reversed course Monday, deciding to retain a tough standard for lawmaker discipline and reinstate a rule that would force Majority Leader Tom DeLay to step aside if indicted by a Texas grand jury. Already, three of DeLay's associates were indicted by a Texas grand jury in September in connection with illegal fund raising. The prosecutor has said the investigation is not yet finished.

The surprise dual decisions were made by Speaker Dennis Hastert and by DeLay who asked GOP colleagues to undo the extreme act of loyalty they handed him in November. Then, Republicans changed a party rule so DeLay could retain his leadership post if indicted by the grand jury in Austin. Republicans gave no indication before the meeting that the indictment rule would be changed. A spokesperson for House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, said Republicans pulled back on the discipline rule because "the issue simply became too hot for them to handle."

Democrats on Monday toughened their own indictment rule. Previously, only committee chairmen were required to step aside if indicted. Now, the same rule applies to House Democratic leaders. The House will debate all new rules proposals Tuesday, the first day of the 109th Congress. Another Republican proposal would allow relatives to accompany a House member on a trip financed by a special interest group or nonprofit organization. Current rules specify a spouse or child may go along.

Lou Doubose, author of a forthcoming biography on Tom Delay called, “The Hammer: Tom Delay, God, Money and the United States Congress.”

Since you quoted me...



The perfect time to read a prayer or Biblical passage. No objection there.



It became politically incorrect on December 26th, and it will remain so until the tsunami in Asia is not the top story on the news anymore and the first thing people think of when they hear "flood" and "houses built on sand". The part that was in poor taste was that the passage implies that, if taken literally, God smote those who built their houses on sand because they were evil doers. I don't take things like this literally, but it's easy to see how some people, both Christians and non-Christians alike might interpret his choice of this passage at this time in this way.



Correct you are, sir. If only people who are most religious than you were as good at detecting allegory in scripture, the world would be a fine place to live.



Agreed.

--PunkDavid

Well, sucks for them. So the insensitivty is not the result of poor timing or selection of passage on DeLay's part, but rather, it is the result of the ignorance of those who know nothing of Christianity as allegory?

I see nothing wrong with it.

Just as I saw nothing wrong with Eddie Vedder sticking Bush's facemask on a microphone around, near, or somewhat relative to the timing of the beheadings of captives in Iraq.

Tsunami needs to change her s/n then, I suppose.