Defending paytriots?
Rather, defending against the common (profane) use of an event in Scripture meant to be something else with an entirely different meaning. That is the very meaning of using God's name in vain. It is using the sacred to promote another cause.
Your use of it generalizes it, waters down the intended meaning. The temple controllers had usurped their positions while pretending to serve God. Despite the fact they hated Rome, they had purchased their way into their positions assigned them by the Roman authorities. They used GENTILE powers to give them their authority, yet they hated the Gentiles and changed the coin of Casar so that they wouldn't take "filthy" money. Christ Jesus was not simply casting out these "money changers", but he also uttered the Words that went with it: My Father's House is a House of prayer for ALL people. Here He was pointing to the fact that He was to be the Propitiation not just for those among the circumcised but also for those among the uncircumcised, the Gentiles, whom these moneychangers hated, but from whom they had received their authority over the Temple.
This message is part and parcel to the Gospel, and your profane use of a picture relative to that scene, for your cause, waters down the Gospel. This is no joking matter because the Gospel is for saving souls from eternal condemnation. Your use of it belittles that and obscures what it is meant to convey.
Surely, you can make your argument without having to resort to misapplying Scripture for common cause?
>>9202706 lb