They Profess to Know God

But by their actions they deny him.

Back by popular demand, Aesop’s Executive Summary:

• The CGNA has descended into unhinged territory with its latest email blast titled "SATAN AT WORK IN CORAL GABLES," requiring a public response

• The Jesus image they blame Lago for was actually created by this newsletter in November 2024 as satire of Kirk Menendez's political vulnerability and religious posturing

• Kirk Menendez has been falsely telling residents that Lago created this "sacrilegious" image "during Lent," despite it being published four months before Lent began

• The CGNA issued a "clarification" that awkwardly acknowledges Aesop's Gables as the source while still blaming Lago, labeling this newsletter as his "surrogate publication"

• Religious imagery has been used in satire for centuries, including by Michelangelo himself, and using such imagery to critique political hypocrisy is not inherently blasphemous

• The real issue is Kirk's performative piety contrasted with his political machinations—a classic case of using piety to mask questionable behavior

• Despite the foregoing, this post concludes with a video apology for those offended by religious satire

---

The Yoko Ono of Gables politics

Notwithstanding a few gentle jabs here and there, I've heretofore avoided taking any big swings at the increasingly unhinged Coral Gables Neighbors Association, aka the CGNA. Doing so never quite struck me as worthwhile, for as far as intelligent and effective political advocacy goes, one would be hard pressed to find a less capable purveyor than the CGNA. Without a doubt, if the scene below is a metaphor for the state of local political discourse, then the vast majority of us are the Chuck Berry to the CGNA's Yoko Ono:

Of course, as anyone versed in Beatles lore can tell you, Yoko Ono was not, as popularly mythologized, the sole reason the Fab Four imploded. But she certainly didn't help matters, and so it's perfectly reasonable to wonder what could have been had Paul or Ringo or George been a little more frank and assertive when John first brought that screeching bag of literal disharmony home to meet the band. Who knows, maybe if someone had put his foot down just a tad bit sooner, they might have pumped out at least one more masterpiece before calling it quits.

Which leads me to believe that perhaps giving the CGNA what is essentially a free pass hasn't been the wise and noble strategy I once thought it was. Granted, the only thing growing at a faster clip than their irrelevancy is their collective detachment from reality, and that’s hardly a recipe for sustained credibility in most corners of our community. But still, when a so-called "neighbors association" sends out an e-blast as unhinged as the CGNA's last, it becomes incumbent upon those of us with a platform to call them out on it, if for no other reason than to inoculate the yet-uncorrupted against their particularly virulent strain of lunacy.

“SATAN AT WORK IN CORAL GABLES”

Lest you dismiss it as yet another instance of cutesy Aesopian hyperbole, I should clarify that the header for this section is actually the verbatim subject line from the CGNA's latest email:

Yes, I too find an immediate and unironic ALL-CAPS invocation of Satan to be a strong indication that a sober and rational analysis is about to follow. As a rhetorical technique, I find it is second only to "A MESSAGE FROM MY TURTLE, MR. MUNCHIE, ON THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS" as a way of letting your audience know right away that you're definitely not off your rocker and should be taken very seriously.

Now if you're like me, the suspense was really killing you at this point. Who, oh who, was the CGNA referring to here? Because, you know, unlike yours truly, the CGNA is so unbiased and objective that you can never quite predict who they're going to target at any given moment:

Ok fine, I suppose some of you saw that coming. But hold on a second, that image—which is hilarious by the way—looks awfully familiar. Where have I seen it before?

Yes, yes, that’s right. It’s mine! It’s an image I used in a November 2024 post titled “Looking Long Into the Abyss (Part 1.5),” which I shared on my woefully neglected Instagram account the same day. And the context of that image?

The inherently thin ice under Amos’ feet grows thinner by the day and, fittingly, appears destined to melt away fully come spring. That’s because Kirk—the Holy Father of KFC and patron saint of political expediency—looks like he will need a divine miracle to win reelection in April, the kind that would make turning water into wine look like a cheap parlor trick. Which is bad news for Amos, for Kirk is the way and the truth and the life. Amos cannot remain in the Gables except through Him.

Damn, that was pretty accurate if I may say so myself. But that's beside the point. Why would the CGNA blame Lago for this? I know, they think I'm on his payroll—because why else would anyone defend him? But then why go even further and disingenuously imply that Lago is intentionally mocking Christians during Lent? I say imply, of course, because if you read it closely you'll see the CGNA used suspiciously weaselly language to avoid a direct assertion.

Kirk, on the other hand, was not so careful. Here is a text message to a resident sent by Kirk himself explicitly accusing Lago of launching a “sacrilegious attack” “mocking [his] faith” “during Lent.”

Now I'm not the world-class Christian scholar that Kirk is, but the last time I checked Lent doesn't fall in November. In fact, I'm fairly certain November is about as far removed from Lent chronologically as you can get. So why is Kirk texting residents to falsely accuse the mayor of attacking his faith during Lent via an image that was last posted four months ago and by someone who very much isn't the mayor? Surely, the many lawyers among you can appreciate the significance of the ‘and’ in Kirk’s text above.

Of course, the glaring irony here, which I am sure was completely lost on Kirk, is that the only people actually guilty of sharing this allegedly sacrilegious image during Lent are Kirk and the good folks at the CGNA.

But I guess it's not blasphemy so long as it's in service of noble political objectives.

The art of deliberately missing the point

I suppose I should defend myself against all the literally holier-than-thou harpies out there clutching their pearls over this image:

First, I, too, am a Christian. So nice try.

Second, I think you’re confusing Christianity with Islam, the latter of which imposes a strict prohibition on the portrayal of its prophet. Christianity imposes no such prohibition, hence the countless depictions of Jesus hanging on walls anywhere from the Louvre to your abuelita’s house. In fact, “The Last Supper” is one of the most widely reinterpreted scenes in art history. And I hate to break it to you, but Jesus sits right smack in the middle of that one, thus countless characters, from Tony Soprano to Homer Simpson to John Locke (whose body is taken over by a literal demon) from Lost have been figuratively depicted as Jesus in both celebratory and derisive fashion. You’re entitled to adhere to whatever personalized ad-hoc religious dogma you like, but you have no right to impose it on me.

And third, if you take exception to the use of religious iconography more broadly as a vehicle for satire, you might want to avoid centuries of art ranging from Daumier to Dali to Monty Python. You may also want to steer clear of a little place called the Sistine Chapel, particularly its ceiling, on which an obscure and irreverent artist named Michelangelo used religious iconography to mock Papal Master of Ceremonies, Biagio da Cesena, by portraying him as Minos in a depiction of hell, replete with donkey ears and a snake biting his genitals.

But here’s where the rubber really meets the road: all those aforementioned harpies—I mean like all six of them—either know all this or otherwise don’t care, which is what makes their selective outrage all the more loathsome. These people may be dumb but they’re not stupid, if you know what I mean. They understand perfectly well that my depiction of Kirk as Christ was not derisive of Jesus but rather derisive of Kirk. They know as well as anyone that it wasn’t Kirk’s faith I was mocking, but his excessive and highly contrived public piousness.

Indeed, they grasp the fact that I, along with many others, take particular exception to Kirk’s preaching water while drinking wine and his reliance on ostentatious displays of supposed Christian virtue to counter signal his great many vices; that I, along with many others, revile his habit of sharing Bible verses that celebrate honesty while lying through his teeth about his shady past; that I, along with many others, despise his subtle-as-a-neon-billboard tactic of positioning himself as a ruthlessly persecuted Christ-like martyr for whom being subjected to legitimate questions about his integrity is the equivalent of being nailed to a cross.

They're all free to pretend otherwise, but the rest of us should be willing to admit that one of the oldest archetypes in the book is the sanctimonious hypocrite who weaponizes piety to mask moral bankruptcy. The Bible-thumper who quotes scripture by day while indulging every deadly sin by night. The self-proclaimed paragon of virtue whose theatrical displays of faith serve primarily as camouflage for decidedly unholy appetites and ambitions. The mega-church pastor who preaches about charity to others while using church donations to buy Bentleys and private jets (it’s all so they can more effectively spread the word of God, they always claim). Their piety isn't devotion, but rather armor, a shield against scrutiny and a sword against critics.

This has been the playbook of charlatans since time immemorial: wrap yourself in righteousness to divert attention from your depravity. Invoke the divine to elevate the profane. Hide behind holy texts while living unholy lives. So when Kirk positions himself as some modern-day martyr, complete with Instagram-ready prayer poses and carefully curated biblical quotes, while simultaneously engaging in the kind of underhanded political machinations that would make Richelieu blush, you’ll have to forgive me if I come off as a tad contemptuous. I’ve had enough of the big lies.

And if despite all this, you find I still offend your delicate sensibilities, then I recommend you excommunicate yourself from this particular parish. The unsubscribe button is but one righteous click away.

As for the rest of you, I trust you’ll agree that it’s high time someone took a gander under the hood of the CGNA. Stick around.

---

P.S. As I was writing this post, the CGNA issued a "clarification" email that somehow manages to both acknowledge I'm the source of the image while simultaneously doubling down on blaming Lago. The mental gymnastics required to admit that it wasn’t Vince Lago while still maintaining that it’s all Vince Lago’s fault would be impressive if they weren't so transparent. At any rate, the CGNA is clearly aware of the precarious game it’s playing.

P.P.S. Upon further reflection, I now realize that the centuries-old tradition of using religious iconography for the purposes of satire is just plain wrong. Moreover, it is I, ultimately, who is responsible for your feelings. Therefore I have decided to issue an apology to all who were offended; an apology that, because of the gravity of the offense and the depth of my remorse, I have elected to issue via video recording. Frankly, I never thought I’d reveal my identity this way—it’s almost surreal. Please find my sincere video apology here.