Sean Hannity, Evildoer
You may have noticed that right-wing Christians like Sean Hannity go out of their way to call themselves "compassionate conservatives," and claim that they are the ones who are truly interested in, and able to, help the poor.
It's not an unfair characterization to liken Sean Hannity and his brethren and sistren to false prophets in the literal Biblical sense. Why? Let's look at what the Old and New Testaments have to say about false prophets.
False prophets are condemned in general over and over again:
Beyond such general condemnations, however, many Biblical passages about false prophets seem particularly addressed to the circumstances surrounding today's right-wing pseudo-Christians:
People love to hear false prophets,
so much so that they literally even request false prophecy:
This is especially so when the false prophets tell people that the evil they are doing is wonderful:
And Sean Hannity certainly does that, and his audience just eats it up. Keep telling your listeners, Sean, that our earth-destroying SUV's are wonderful, and that the poor are just a bunch of lazy bums who made bad choices in life and now must live with the consequences. 
Keep telling them, because they love to hear such false prophecy, that our nation is so wonderful and perfect that any criticism of it can be summarily dismissed as "blame America first" rubbish. This type of false prophecy was most famously expressed as crying "Peace, peace" when there is no peace:
False prophets like Hannity literally "strengthen the hands of evildoers," to use an appellation much in vogue of late:
It's appropriate that these false prophets aid the evildoers, since these false prophets are really speaking the evil in their own heart:
In other words, a false prophet is one who turns people away from God's commandments (like Sean Hannity does from the Matthew 25 injunctions), even if such prophet otherwise produces signs or wonders that come true (e.g., huge Nielsen ratings?):
Indeed, false prophets often appear to be the exact opposite: Sean Hannity oozes pious declarations of religiosity, but his words are – as the Sermon on the Mount puts it – akin to a ravenous wolf in sheep's clothing; Hannity does not just strengthen the hand of evildoers, he is an "evildoer."
As it is elsewhere put in starkest terms, "even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light":
Indeed, if Satan were going to appear on earth, he would speak sweet, beguiling words which on the surface express the intention of helping people, but whose real effect would be preventing the amelioration of – indeed actually increasing the amount of -- human suffering. Is not this a description of right-wing pseudo-Christians to a tee?
Right-wing pseudo-Christians are, in essence, not practicing Christianity. They are practicing their own wolf-in-barely-disguised-sheep's clothing brand of Satanism. 
To all those who listen favorably to these false prophets walking among (or more accurately broadcasting to) us, the Bible warns you:
Others Who Decieve
In addition to false prophets, there are others described in the Bible who mislead, who speak and teach falsely. Indeed, at times the Bible almost seems to be explicitly describing Sean Hannity.
There is the fool, who "speaks folly, and his mind plots iniquity… to leave the craving of the hungry unsatisfied, and to deprive the thirsty of drink." Note the "deprive the thirsty of drink" condemnation – it eerily predicts Hannity's opposition to providing emergency water stations in the desert to avoid the continuing tragedy of undocumented aliens dying of thirst in such border desert regions:
And there is also, as described in the passage directly above, the knave, who "devises wicked devices to ruin the poor with lying words":
Such "lying words" are the endless false excuses of right-wing pseudo-Christians about why we don't need to help the suffering, or better yet, the claims of these cut-and-kill conservatives that their policies which kill the poor actually will help them. 
Political leaders can also mislead the people:
Does not a mental image of that famous right-wing pseudo-Christian George W. Bush immediately come to mind? Can you not hear an echo of his fractured syntax as he claims to be a "compassionate conservative" helping the poor, while in deed he continually shreds the safety net and directs tax cuts to the wealthy? 
Finally, there are yet unnamed others who preach falsely:
Note that these persons
"serve" "their own appetites" – could that be a fair
description of those who insist on their right to waste all the oil they want
to in their beloved SUV's, who insist on their right to aggrandize unto
themselves ever-more-obscene proportions of the
nation's – and world's – income and wealth?
Could the "fair and flattering words" be the beguiling lies of Limbaugh and Hannity?
Sean Hannity et al can take comfort in one thing, however: unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament does not seem to require that we kill these false prophets, but merely that we "avoid" them.
So Sean Hannity and other right-wing
pseudo-Christians should be shunned by true Christians.
Yes I do, and he well deserves it. To be quite honest, I've tried to keep invective against Hannity to a minimum in this essay, but now that it's been brought up as a separate subject, I'm going to let 'er rip a little. Please allow me to bluntly lay out some of the thoughts that have occurred to me as I've witnessed and contemplated Hannity's most un-Matthew-25-like behavior over the years.
At the very least, Hannity is a moral illiterate. He's shrill, shallow, repetitive and, above all, cruel. Think Sean "Heart of Stone" Hannity.
Hannity coarsens the public dialogue, lowers the bar of acceptable cruelty, by widely broadcast example makes it perfectly acceptable to say we shouldn't provide water for people dying of thirst in the desert.
God will not forsake them, but Sean Hannity will! Hannitian cruelty –and Biblical violation -- obviously know no bounds.
Did you ever see Sean Hannity get excited and happy when suffering people are helped? No, he lights up only when an aid program is defeated or the government is demonized. He worships the Golden Calf of anti-governmentalism and marketism.
Oh yes, he also lights up when discussing the need to execute criminals or go to war against tiny, impoverished Third World nations.
Hannity complains that Democrats accuse him and other right-wing pseudo-Christians of wanting to kill the sick, hurt children and the elderly, and so on. Well, YES!! Killing the sick and hurting children and the elderly are the very effects of the policies of Hannity and his ilk.
It all goes back to the Equivalent Alternative Solution standard. To avoid a Matthew 25 violation, you must offer an Equivalent Alternative Solution, which helps at least the same number of people the same amount, as soon and as certainly. The right-wing pseudo-Christians virtually never do so. When an effort is being mounted to save lives – food aid, medical care, drug rehab, etc. – and the right-wing pseudo-Christian "solution" will help fewer people or not as much or will take longer to take effect, then the results of such right-wing pseudo-Christian non-EAS measures are more death and suffering.
Perhaps Hannity's Bible did not have these pages torn out. Maybe Hannity has a special unabridged version of the Bible which contains heretofore unknown modifications to Matthew 25.
What we can call the "Hannity exception clauses" perhaps provide that the sick must be ministered to "but only when such sick person is at a level of distress requiring emergency room care;" that the stranger must be welcomed "except when said stranger lacks proper immigration papers;" and of course, the catch-all Hannity exception clause: "and all such requirements to minister to those in need shall not apply when the neediness of said individuals is the result of their choices in life, including their failure to secure a more advanced level of education."
What is Hannity's worst insult? To call someone a "tax-and-spend" liberal. This truly reveals the essence of the right-wing pseudo-Christians. I ask you: who is it liberals want to "tax and spend" on, themselves? No. They want to expend their own money and the society's collective financial resources -- allocated via a democratic process -- to, in effect, effectuate Matthew 25 goals. They want to spend it on "the least of these." You can criticize liberal programs or methods, but the "tax-and-spend" epithet really criticizes the goal itself. Because what do the right-wing pseudo-Christians offer instead? At best barely half-measures, but most often, nada. Zilch. Nothing.
In fact, the cut-and-kill conservatives want to accomplish the opposite of Matthew 25, they want to have more money for themselves and the richest among us: the Hannity mantra is "Me, Me, Me. I want the money. I need a bigger house. I need a bigger car. The money is MINE."
“Tax-and spend liberals”? How about deny-and-destroy, cut-and-kill conservatives? Deny and destroy health, dreams, lives. Cut funding for life-and-death programs, and surely people will die as a result. The answer to fraud and waste isn’t to kill the program, abandon the goal and let the people die. The answer is to FIX IT or DO IT ANOTHER WAY!
And please don't tell me that if only the cut-and-kill pseudo-Christians paid less taxes, they'd have more money for charity. First, as discussed above, charity alone is not sufficient to accomplish the Matthew 25 mandate. Second, only a small fraction of the tax savings or corporate welfare doled out to cut-and-kill pseudo-Christians and their allies will ever be put to even charitable, let alone systemic-problem-solving purposes.
Contrary to Hannitian pseudo-Christian philosophy, the Pope reminds us that we are all (still) our brother's (and sister's!) keeper:
Sacred Scripture continually speaks to us of an active commitment to our neighbor and demands of us a shared responsibility for all of humanity.... No one can say that he is not responsible for the well-being of his brother or sister (cf. Gen 4:9; Lk 10:29-37; Mt 25:31-46). Centesimus Annus
Unlike the Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II, who teach a "preferential option for the poor," Sean Hannity seems to think that there's a preferential option for the rich!
Instead of liberation theology, Hannity's is an oppression theology. 
Sean Hannity preaches the exact opposite of the Jesus Christ of Matthew 25. He fosters to millions a form of anti-Christianity:
Do not love your neighbor as yourself
Do not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or heal the sick.
Right-wing pseudo-Christians like Sean Hannity think Christianity is defined as opposition to abortion, homosexuality and pornography – interestingly enough, three things Jesus never mentioned even once, did he?!
Imagine Sean Hannity interviewing Jesus Christ!
If Jesus Christ came back today and began walking the earth preaching as he did before, Sean Hannity would call him a bleeding heart liberal who doesn't live in the "real" world, and would then add for good measure that Jesus Christ is a homeless bum who deserves his position because he didn't bother to get a proper education.
Hannity and his worshippers are truly Mephistophelean wolves in Christian sheep’s clothing.
It's truly incredible how Hannity and his demon-possessed, pseudo-Christian brethren, his devils-in-Christian clothing sistren, all these mean-spirited, let-everyone-die-because-it’s-their-own-fault bastards, try to pass themselves off as Christians!
Hannity and his ilk must be a morally and spiritually retarded evolutionary offshoot from the rest of humanity.  Either that, or there really must be a Devil that possesses them, because no 21st century humans could act the way these right-wing pseudo-Christians do.
I watch Sean Hannity the way many people are compelled to view an automobile accident scene – it’s repulsive and vile to look at, but you can’t take your eyes off it. With automobiles, it’s physically mangled bodies. With Sean Hannity, it’s a spiritually mangled soul – possessed by the real Evil One, Satan himself! 
Hannity's Self-Delusion and His Path Ahead
Some of the things Hannity says show an incredible blindness:
Bible teaches whoever is great, the greatest among you shall be your servant,"
he added. "That was the example of Christ. I mean, He didn't come here to
be served; He came here to serve. He came here to heal the sick, He came here
to let the blind see, help the crippled, exorcise demons, preach to the world
and to ultimately sacrifice His life so that we may live and be reconciled.
That's the example, but you have to be an active participant."
Gee, so how does Sean Hannity choose to be an "active participant"? By working to deny effective solutions if they involve the evil government, and offering no Equivalent Alternative Solutions of his own. Sean Hannity must be self-delusional.
"Some may say that this initiative is not consistent with some of my earlier positions," wrote Mr. Helms. But he continued, "in the end our conscience is answerable to God. Perhaps, in my 81st year, I am too mindful of soon meeting Him, but I know that, like the Samaritan traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho, we cannot turn away when we see our fellow man in need."
Sean Hannity and company should heed these words, not wait until they’re old and gray before opening their eyes. Most are far younger than Jesse Helms’ 81, but any of them could still die tomorrow, or (as may you the reader) in the very moment you are reading this.
The most pathetic thing is, Hannity really does think he's a good Christian. Hannity probably thinks that God approves of what he does, just like self-deluded humans have done since Biblical times:
But as shown earlier, Hannity is in reality just another in a long line of false prophets that the Bible speaks of, and fortunately for him, the New Testament does not require killing such false prophets, but merely avoiding them:
So Sean Hannity should be shunned by good Christians as the false prophet, Satanic, even anti-Christ-like figure he is.
And when he does eventually face divine judgment, Hannity will not, I suspect, receive such relatively mild punishment as shunning.  The only question –
Wait! I sense a Heavenly presence in the room… a "corrected" version of the Lazarus passage in Luke is coming to me. Let me quickly write down these words before they vanish again into the ether:
I am now receiving an alternative corrected version:
There isn't a circle where false prophets as such are put, but one should be created. There really should be a special circle of Dante’s Hell reserved for those like Hannity who mislead by preaching peace while they wage war.
If there can't be a separate circle, I have two alternative suggestions:
1) In the eighth, next-to-deepest circle of Hell, Dante placed Mohammed. Dante was strongly anti-Islamist, and felt Mohammed deserved this place in Hell not only for being a false prophet, but for creating a schism in Christianity. We in the modern era know better, and we would rightly take Mohammed out of Dante's Hell altogether -- and we should rightly put instead in that eighth circle one Mr. Sean Hannity for his incessant and deadly false prophecy. And while it's true that Hannity has not caused a schism in the Roman Catholic church, perhaps he should be causing one, with all true Christians refusing to be part of any Church establishment which has not excommunicated Hannity and his ilk for their virulently anti-Christ-like behavior.
2) In the deepest circle of Hell, eternally tormented in one of the three mouths of Satan himself, is Judas Iscariot, for betraying Jesus. A fourth mouth should be added into which Hannity would most properly be placed. Worse than Judas, Hannity betrays and helps kill Jesus not once, but thousands if not millions of times, every time Hannity advocates letting any of "the least of these" suffer and die: 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'
Of special note in our Matthew 25 context, is the nature of the people's evil described in the next verse:
 As noted in the text above, Pope John Paul II has condemned this type of demonization of the poor. These types of alluring yet false platitudes are a staple of right-wing pseudo-Christian political dogma.
 How delicious this Biblical passage to appropriately turn back on himself George W. Bush's declaration that if you aid an evildoer terrorist, you are an evildoer terrorist!
Some critics say [the college] Ave Maria reflects Mr. Monaghan's conservative political agenda more than any religious or educational need.
"Tom Monaghan has the agenda of a right-wing Republican, and he happens to confuse that with the teachings of the Catholic Church," said Richard P. McBrien, a University of Notre Dame theology professor. "I wish he had spent this money the way a really good Catholic would: helping the poor; helping inner-city schools, which are being suffocated through lack of money; helping the aged and the infirm. Those are the teachings of Jesus Christ."
Confusion is one explanation, but the fervent, sustained anti-Matthew 25 agenda of right-wing pseudo-Christians who are intelligent enough to know better, seems to me to call for a concept more like Satanism.
 Ironically, given Sean Hannity's Tourette-syndrome-like liberal-bashing, the King James version of this passage uses the word "liberal," not the term "one who is noble," to approvingly describe those who act acting according to God's wishes: "8. But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand."
 In the context of the misleading nature of false prophecy, I would be remiss not to at least briefly note how right-wing pseudo-Christians engage overall in an amazingly selective, and thus distorted view of the Bible. Let's contrast their disparate treatment of two issues: economic justice, and abortion.
Nowhere in either the Old or New Testaments is "abortion" forbidden. All sorts of horrible acts are explicitly condemned and/or proscribed, but not abortion. During the times when both the Old and New Testaments were written, the Jewish community did not forbid abortion. Anti-choice Christians simply make up an entire Biblical justification for their anti-choice position based on the inferences they read into a few Biblical passages.
I don't say here that they're right, and I don't say here they're wrong about abortion. What I do say is, it is strange indeed that right-wing pseudo-Christians expend extraordinary amounts of time and energy to ensure the forbidding of an act not explicitly forbidden in the Bible, yet they spend comparably little time fostering the actions that again and again they are explicitly commanded to undertake: to save the hungry, naked, thirsty, and sick as Matthew 25 enjoins us, as well as to more generally ensure that the poor are not oppressed, economic justice is established, and immigrants are welcomed and treated well, as the Old Testament repeatedly commands us. This is so even though the Matthew 25 injunctions are matters of life and death to millions, if not tens of millions of already-born, unquestionably human beings every year. Right-wing pseudo-Christians don't seem to apply to Matthew 25 the same absolutist black/white analysis that they employ in their broad interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill," even though Matthew 25 is explicitly stated in black-and-white terms: the hungry, naked, sick, thirsty, etc – no exceptions -- must be helped, with the gravest of all possible consequences if you do not do so.
Compare the pseudo-Christian right's lackadaisical, let's partly accomplish these economic justice/feed the hungry type goals, not necessarily as our top priority, not necessarily right now, and let's depend for our success on the voluntary efforts of private citizens who almost certainly don't have the resources on their own to really accomplish all of what needs to be done – with their total, immediate, mobilize all resources of both private citizens and the government to 100% stop right now all abortions.
What the Bible doesn't explicitly speak about, they devote unlimited amounts of time and effort to. What the Bible does explicitly command, they relegate to a relative afterthought.
In other words, what the Bible, and Jesus in an incredibly powerful oration tells them to do, they do not do – and indeed prevent others from accomplishing; but what Jesus never even asks them to do, that task they spend virtually all their time on!
Right-wing pseudo-Christians apparently think Christianity is defined as opposition to abortion, homosexuality and pornography – interestingly enough, three things Jesus never mentioned even once, did he?
On an even more absurd note, if possible, I saw this fundamentalist minister on a talk show who was foaming at the mouth about how the Bible mandates we spank our children, and that our not doing so is the cause of all our problems with them. The thought of spanking children obviously got him very excited. He obviously had severe psychological problems that should be treated immediately. After thinking about it for a while, I decided that while there is a difference in the kind of obsession, there's not much of a difference in the degree of psycho-sexual dysfunctionality and attendant misreading of religion between this spanking-obsessed minister and the homosexuality-pornography-obsessed right-wing pseudo-Christians.
Back on point, right-wing pseudo-Christians might do well to spend more time reading and trying to implement the words of the Biblical prophets, than on conjuring up and seeking to enforce by writ of law a Christianity that doesn't exist.
 Indeed, while right-wing pseudo-Christians constantly accuse liberals of engaging in "class warfare" and wanting to engage in unjust transfers of wealth, it is really the right-wing pseudo-Christians who are guilty of those sins. The entire right-wing pseudo-Christian agenda is "voodoo economics, the transfer of wealth… from the poor and the working classes to the rich."
Isn't it interesting how trademark false labeling is a Bush family tradition? The father promised a "kinder and gentler nation," while the son fancies himself a "compassionate conservative." Neither appellation, of course, could be farther from the truth.
 In addition to the Papal writings linked to in the text, an additional New Testament passage comes to mind:
Is there anyone who has more of the "world's goods" and wants to share less of them with "his brother in need" than that archetypal right-wing pseudo-Christian, Sean Hannity? (Tax cuts for the rich, anyone?) And is there anyone who not only doesn't "love" "in deed and in truth," but also does not even love in "word or speech" more than he? Hannity is the complete package: word, speech and deed in contravention to Matthew 25.
 Liberation theology is a social justice-oriented form of Christianity. It is especially popular among impoverished, oppressed people in the Third World.
While Jesus said he came to bring "good news to the poor," Sean Hannity comes to bring them horrific news of continued misery, suffering and death.
 In psychological terms, they are nothing other than sexually repressed fascists who selectively utilize Holy Scripture to justify enforcement of their anhedonic dogma.
 Hannity loves to say that he "Hannitizes" people, by which he means that he converts them to his way of thinking. To that I can only reply, "If you've gotten Hannitized, you need to get exorcized."
 As one writer to this site put it using a deft touch of understatement:
I must agree with you. Sean Hannity is the most unchristian man i have seen in a long time. I actually feel sorry for him because he probably will be sincerely shocked when he passes over to the other side and isnt fawned over the way he anticipates he will be. He's like a pharisee in his sanctimoniousness.
 I've never physically stood near Sean Hannity, but if I did, I wouldn't be surprised to smell the stench of brimstone already emanating from his rotting soul.
© 2003-04 All rights reserved