Ok, I can't resist. These phrases: "wasn't American and never spoke english - was a long-haired brown-skinned. . . anti-slut-shaming middle eastern Jew" When lumped together with the rest of what is mentioned here is clearly an attempt by the author to produce the guilt-by-association-effect. It's called "poisoning the well." As if those who reject those things in the middle of the quote are likely also racists and biggots who think Jesus was an American. Seriously?
We do not have evidence to affirm as the quote does that Jesus was anti-public prayer. What we have is evidence that Jesus was anti-arrogant long-winded public prayer and there is a clear difference. Context is everything. Especially since Jesus preached publicly (Matt. 5) and prayed publicly (Luke 23:34) from the cross.
I wonder if the author of this truly intends for anyone to take seriously the idea of Jesus speaking one way or the other specifically about modern birth control or abortion to a 1st century crowd.
As far as the other items about health care, wealth, the homeless and such . . . ok.
Since there was a request for scripture to rebut these statements. Specifically on the issue of homosexuality, Jesus speaks of God's intended design for sex partners (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9).
Lastly, a Facebook friend of mine was asking for "red letters" on this. This begs the question which truly gets at the heart of the matter. For what reason are we invoking the words of Jesus at all? If it is because we think Jesus was a great moral teacher, but he was not divine or Scripture inerrant, then invoking his name is little help. If it is because orthodox Christians like myself do view him to be God incarnate, then God the Father's (who was referenced by the poster) message in Old Testament scripture clearly does speak at least to the issues of homosexuality and the personhood of the unborn. Moreover, Jesus affirms and references the validity of the Old Testament (Matt. 4, Matt. 5:18, Jn 10:35, Matt. 22:29, Jn 17:17 etc.) All of this is not even to speak to what NT writers have said.
So, the question really becomes, "what do you think about the nature of Christ." if he was not God incarnate, then the original exploration is of minimal significance. If he was God incarnate then at least what is said about homosexuality and abortion in the meme does not attain because the Old testament covers these areas either directly or indirectly. I suppose that the author knew that Jesus must be divorced from God the Father and the rest of scripture in order to even hope to make a case.