I don’t think that it is silly at all, if only because it is absolutely true. Can it be denied that the ruling class (and to some extent, the middle class) have a grossly disproportionate influence in the manner in which, for example, governments formulate and implement economic policies?
Is it just a co-incidence that these same Western ‘democratic’ governments (ex. in the U.K., the United States, Australia – where I live) bow to pressure from special-interest groups (ex. the NRA and oil barons in the USA), for fear that upsetting these groups will result in their particular party being banished from office?
Can it be denied that the constant tax-cutting for the rich that we see in the West (and the subsequent deterioration of their economies) is a direct consequence of pressure from the rich elites, on the government, to reduce the amount of tax they pay?

I could go on, but I think that I have made my point. Am I being overly-simplistic? Perhaps, but I seriously doubt that, come election time, the government that just happens to be in power (or the so-called opposition parties, who seem to have very similar agendas by the way) place the true interests of the majority – the working class – first. I am not that naive.

Yes, I understand what you mean, that Jesus Christ could not possibly have been a communist in the modern sense of that term; i.e. a Marxist-Leninist. True.

What I meant to say was that both Jesus Christ himself, and the early first-century Christians themselves, came far closer to endorsing and practicing a socio-economic system that was much closer to communism than anything else, and that they would today be absolutely horrified at the way in which these people (i.e. the self-proclaimed ‘Christian Conservatives’ – an oxymoron if ever there was one) have deliberately distorted one of the central messages of the New Testament, this central message being the renunciation of material wealth and the desire for it.

Fundamentalism is a real threat to liberal society,

And why is liberal society the supreme good to which all others must be sacrificed?

The parables are just that; parables (i.e. hypothetical, fictional stories) that were never meant to be taken literally, their express purpose being the conveyance of a message that would otherwise have been lost to most of the listeners of the first century.

To think, to believe, that Jesus Christ endorsed fat-cat, corporate greed is the sheer height of stupidity and ignorance. If anything, the central economic message of the New Testament is the renunciation of all that keeps capitalism going today (i.e. private property, selfishness, greed, injustice), and the adoption of extreme left-wing asceticism. Jesus Christ was, so far as economic theory goes, a communist. That much is patently obvious to anyone who actually bothers to read the New Testament without bias, which these silly people have obviously not.

There is absolutely nothing – nothing – within the entire Bible that could be (mis)interpreted to suggest that it supports the exploitation of the poor; just the opposite in fact.

The people responsible for the ‘Conservative Bible Project’ are idiots and worse – damned heretics the lot of them!

Curiously, Andrew Sullivan explicitly spoke out in defense of unassertive, non-threatening, nation-exalting Christianity just yesterday on his blog. He quotes from an interview with the “Economist” by the blogger Damon Linker:

“[W]hen religion is liberal—when it makes few supernatural claims, when it is doctrinally minimal, and when it serves mainly as a repository of moral wisdom—it can play a significant role in a liberal society. But the relationship between traditionalist religion and liberal politics is far more contentious… A deeply devout Christian—someone who places his faith at the centre of his life—will tend to think of himself first and foremost as a member of the one true church working toward the establishment of the kingdom of God under Jesus Christ, if not in this life, then in the next.”

To which Mr. Sullivan breathily appends, “Fundamentalism is a real threat to liberal society, and without a revival of moderate, humble faith, we are in real danger.”

Mr. Linker seems to merely making a statement of opinion about the relationship between religion and democracy. Mr. Sullivan then goes and turns it into a value judgment on the validity of “moderate, humble faith” – by which he apparently means a Christianity that makes no demands and presents no truth.