Amos's River of Justice

Category: Foundations

Unspoken questions wind their way through the national conversation. Where are we going? What can we expect in the future? Will we survive? How can we prepare? Anxiety is increased by omens in the sky and the weather. In myth and religion we hope to find promises and instructions. We hope to rediscover our foundations. But we also find lamentations. We are not children who deny the possibility of destruction and death. Not now. The worst is already upon us. We’ve seen families swept away in the flood and burned in the fire. Let’s face the future like wise men and women. Let’s sit down together like elders of the tribe. Let’s mourn what is lost and love what remains.

  • Political Zionism is an Anachronism

    Political Zionism is an Anachronism
    Political Zionism

    Morris Jastrow1 wrote in 1919 that Israel is a ‘glorified ghetto’. When you think about it, the conditions of Jewish life before the Enlightenment have been perfectly reproduced in Palestine. It’s no wonder the Israelis and their allies are cracking up. Political Zionism is an anachronism.

    Many Israeli leaders have claimed religious sanction for their treatment of the Palestinians. At the center of the current bombardment of Gaza is Benjamin Netanyahu, who claims to be following the admonition of Moses (Deut. 25:12–19) that “The Eternal will be at war against Amalek throughout the ages.” 

    This implies that Israel is commanded to wage a holy war of extermination against Amalek (Deut. 25:12–19), for in the early days “the wars of Israel” and the “wars of the Lord” were synonymous expressions (cf., e.g., Judg. 5:23).

    But, unfortunately for Netanyahu, even his supporters did not buy his analogy. His supporters don’t necessarily object to the carnage, just the rhetoric. They worry that announcing a holy war is not a good look for him. But his use of a story from ancient Israel to justify his war reveals the central mistake of the Zionists.

    Zionism does not understand the Hebrew Prophets or Jesus

    The use of the Old Testament in this way reveals that Zionism is a movement out of place and time. According to Morris Jastrow, this movement ignores what was accomplished by the Hebrew Prophets and Jesus. Jastrow calls Jesus the successor of the Prophets.

    Political Zionism is an anachronism

    Jastrow had sympathy for religious and economic Zionism. But as a political measure, Zionism was an anachronism. However, the political aspect has dominated since 1897. (p. 31) The only way the Zionists could have pulled this off is by ignoring or denying the religious aspect.

    The Prophets: From Ancient Israel to Judaism

    If Christians and Jews understood how the Old and New Testament fit together they would reject Zionism immediately. But instead, they are led by dramatic verses taken out of context, such as the story of Amalek. In fact, the Zionist movement itself is out of context.

    The Zionists seem unaware that the Prophets made major changes in the religion of ancient Israel. These changes are recorded in the Old Testament. The central concept that resulted from their teachings had to do with nationality and citizenship.

    Antiquity interpreted religion in terms of nationality. The basis of nationality and citizenship was a nation’s language and gods. This influenced the organization of religion, including the ancient Hebrew religion.

    The Hebrews had a national deity, whom they called Yahweh. He was their protector within the boundaries of their own territory. Within those borders, they were the chosen people of Yahweh. The groups around them were no different. They had been chosen by some other god.

    What was the message of the Prophets?

    However, for the Hebrews the ancient concept of religion changed with the rise of the Prophets. The Prophets taught that Yahweh is unlike other gods. His concern is conditioned on the obedience of his followers to certain principles. These principles involved ethical distinctions between right and wrong.

    But, this was not a theoretical lesson on ethics. The Prophets announced that Yahweh had rejected his people because of the oppression of the poor by the rich, the injustice in the courts of justice, and rampant crime. They said Yahweh would punish the people for their sins unless they would mend their ways.

    The Prophet Amos was the first to preach this message. He was followed by Hosea, who made the same prophecy. Then came Isaiah. Isaiah emphasized that sacrifices and tribute are an abomination to Yahweh, and that he does not want his worshippers to defile his holy place by coming there with unclean hands.

    These teachings represented a new (religious) language. Their significance lay in the emphasis on the conduct of the individual as the test of religion. From this point onward, the group was considered to represent an entity composed of individuals.

    In this process, the national Yahweh was transformed into a universal Jehovah. In other words, Judaism made its first appearance at that time. Judaism is a religion based on a monotheistic conception of divine government, which makes the conduct of the individual the test of religious life. But this transformation would soon be tested.

    The effect of the Babylonian exile

    Hebrew nationalism was made extinct after a Babylonian monarch, Nebuchadnezzar, destroyed the Jewish state. As a result, the Hebrew religion changed. It came to worship a God who was no longer tribal and confined to a specific territory. It worshipped a God who was universal, a God who was concerned for all mankind. The experience of exile and the new understanding of God that accompanied the exiles cut the bond between religion and nationality. The transformation into Judaism was complete.

    It is a fact of the utmost significance that the great contribution of the Jews to the world’s spiritual treasure was made not while the national life was flourishing, but as it was ebbing away. The Prophets with their revolutionary doctrines made their appearance when the northern Kingdom was beginning to show symptoms of decline, and the movement reached its height after this kingdom had disappeared and the national existence of the southern Kingdom was threatened. The religion of the Prophets is the swan song of ancient Hebraism, and the example of a people flourishing without a national background had to be furnished to the world in order to bring the new conception of religion to fruition, which divorced religion from nationality and made it solely the expression of the individual’s aspiration for the higher life and for communion with the source of all being. The ancient Hebrews disappeared. It was the Jews, as we should call the people after the Babylonian Exile, who survived, and they survived despite the fact that they never recovered their national independence in the full sense of the word.

    Jastrow, p. 38

    The theocratic state

    Judaism changed the people from a political to a religious unit. However, this process proved to be too much for the masses and they yearned to go back to their nationalistic ways. Jastrow defines what they were going through as the ‘wrenching of the political from the religious life’. He thought the strange phenomenon of a Prophet who is also a Priest was a response to this difficulty. But it was a step backward.

    The Prophet-Priest Ezra created a new code. Ezra’s code was combined with the two earlier codes in Exodus and the Book of Deuteronomy. This framework of early traditions and tribal experiences became the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch served as the basis of religious life. It also recognized the solidarity of the Jews as a political unit. The result was that Israel was so dominated by the priestly ideal that a theocratic state came to be.

    The ministry of Jesus

    Second Isaiah and the other ‘writing’ Prophets after the Babylonian exile opposed this development because the theocratic state led the Jews to focus on national aspirations.

    Beginning with Amos, the Prophets before the exile had envisioned a time when the Jewish people would set an example for the world to worship the ‘supreme Author of all being‘. But the theocratic state reattached the religion to what remained of the national life. This was the situation Jesus confronted in his lifetime.

    The universal Jehovah had not entirely put aside the rule of the tribal Yahweh. Yahweh was still viewed as the special protector of His chosen people by the side of His traits as the God of universal scope. The crisis came in the days of Jesus, who, as the successor of the Hebrew Prophets, drew the logical conclusion from their premises and substituted for the national ideal that of the ‘Kingdom of God…Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s’. By such a single saying Jesus broke definitely with all nationalistic aims, which even during the period of Roman control, strict and complete as it was, the Jews did not entirely abandon.

    Jastrow, pp. 41-42

    According to Jastrow, it is an error to suppose that the Jews rejected the religious teachings of Jesus. They could not have rejected his teachings. Jesus taught in the same spirit as their own Prophets. What they rejected was Jesus’s uncompromising insistence that religion was a matter between the individual and his conscience. They were prevented from accepting this idea both by their own traditions and attitudes and by the religious concepts that surrounded them.

    When St. Paul came to give the doctrinal setting to the teachings of Jesus, and to interpret the meaning of his life with its tragic end, he laid the chief emphasis on the salvation of the individual through the acceptance of the belief in Jesus. The sins of the world were washed away through the blood of Jesus as a vicarious offering for mankind. Every individual was offered the opportunity of securing salvation for his soul by accepting Jesus as his saviour…

    Jastrow p. 45
    Did something similar happen to Christianity?

    However, Jastrow also identifies a continuing tendency to connect religion and nationality among Christians. He blames this on the Church’s ‘Zionistic temptation’ to become allied with Rome. I hesitate to bring this up because of the fear that some denominations will feel justified in their criticism of Catholicism. But it’s important to remember that many Protestant denominations built forts around their own theology. If I’m not misunderstanding Jastrow, I think this Zionistic tendency can be interpreted differently.

    It could be argued that it was the Roman emperors who first legalized Christianity and then made it the official religion of the Roman Empire. If the Church fathers agreed to this, perhaps they mistook it as a universalistic alliance. Jastrow does say (p. 45) that this alliance appeared in a form that at first appeared international.

    Conclusion

    This article demonstrates that political Zionism is anachronistic. Christian and Jewish Zionists are trying to carry out a scenario that no longer exists, and can’t be defended in the scriptures. In fact, they are going in the opposite direction to what their own Prophets intended. If we look again at Netanyahu’s use of the story of Amalek as justification for bombing Gaza, it becomes clear that a tribal Israel ruled by a nationalistic God is a thing of the past. The wars of Israel and the wars of the Lord are no longer synonymous. Israel’s God became a universal God when the Israelite nation was destroyed and the people were carried away to Babylon. Then Jesus, as the successor to the Prophets, reinforced the Prophetic teachings.

    Christianity, as we have seen, broke at its foundation with Jewish nationalism. It definitely cut the thread that bound religion to the limitations inherent in associating religion with the group.

    Jastrow p. 44

    Next it will be necessary to understand the difference between the religious practice of Christian Zionists, orthodox Christians and Jews.

    1. Morris Jastrow Jr. Ph.D, LL.D, Zionism and the future of Palestine: the Fallacies and Dangers of Political Zionism, The Macmillan Company, NY, 1999 ↩︎

  • Defeating Zionism

    I recently wrote about Morris Jastrow‘s 1919 book about Zionism. In the last century, events have transpired with no relation to the understanding he tried to convey. The result is that in spite of his efforts, Zionism has prospered. But, as I read his words, I am certain that his voice still matters. Jastrow’s book is an important source for defeating Zionism.

    Relgious belief or geopolitical maneuvering?

    Readers may think Jastrow’s approach is too simple, that it merely deals with mistaken notions which led Jews to accept Zionism. Some prefer to focus on manipulation by Western imperialists. In my opinion, geopolitical maneuvering is important, but it should not be the first priority. I suspect changes in Jewish religious beliefs are central to the success of Zionism.

    I’m not implying that we should be led by Jastrow alone. But his experience and education provide important information about the changes that took place in European and American Judaism in the late nineteenth and early 20th century. This is important because we may be seeing the effects of these changes today.

    However, an important misunderstanding about his religious views might distract from his usefulness. Therefore, before I talk about Jastrow’s book I will share my understanding of where he stood in relation to changes taking place in Judaism in his lifetime. I’m not an expert on this period of Jewish history, so I’m using an article that explains this relationship. I encourage the reader to check the article for accuracy.

    Did Jastrow repudiate traditional Judaism?

    A key aspect of Jastrow’s development, his relationship to Judaism, was misunderstood in his lifetime. According to Wikipedia, Jastrow repudiated traditional Judaism in 1886. But the The New York Times article cited by Wikipedia might be misleading, especially for gentile readers.

    The two most important factors in Morris’s experience were rising anti-Semitism in Russia, the U.S., and Germany, and the situation of liberal Judaism in America. Jastrow took issue with the influences on his religion during this period. Both Morris Jastrow, Jr. and his father, Marcus Jastrow, held similar opinions on this. Marcus, who had a PhD from Halle and was the rabbi of Philadelphia’s Rodef Shalom congregation, defended Judaism from both uncritical adherence to tradition, and extreme radicalism. Therefore, the NYT article is misleading when it says Morris Jastrow Jr. repudiated traditional Judaism.

    Morris Jastrow’s education and professional background

    In 1881, Jastrow earned a baccalaureate from the University of Pennsylvania. Then he sailed for Breslau to attend its Jewish theological seminary. His plan was to return to the United States after completing his education. Then he would prepare to take the place of his father.

    When Morris returned to Philadelphia, he began a rabbinical apprenticeship, but it only lasted for a year. One Sabbath, he gave the final sermon to his congregation. This is the speech mentioned by the NYT. According to this account, it was a long and pessimistic speech.

    He did not say in the speech what he would do next. But it turned out he had already accepted a professorship in Semitics at the University of Pennsylvania.

    This would not have been a surprise to his father. His reasons had to do with the forces he had encountered in Europe and America, and the role of Jews and Jewish learning in the late 19th century university.

    Jastrow’s response to secularization

    The process of secularization influenced several Jewish scholars in Jastrow’s generation. Some moved away from liberal Judaism, but for Jastrow, religious considerations were central in his choices. Leaving the rabbinate did not mean he would disengage with religion.

    Careful parental nurturing, a combination of an American and a European education, an apprenticeship under their father’s supervision, all helped cultivate a generation which would complete the evolution of an alternative to Orthodoxy and indifference.

    Wechsler, Harold S. “Pulpit or Professoriate: The Case of Morris Jastrow.” American Jewish History, vol. 74, no. 4, 1985, pp. 338–55. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23882681. Accessed 3 Dec. 2023.
    Jewish life in the late 19th century

    During the late 19th century, Western institutions of education did not admit Jews. Applicants were required to be members of a denomination. In addition, religious instruction was limited to dogma. But in Jastrow’s lifetime, these institutions were undergoing a process of liberalization. Many Jews were being offered academic positions in this period.

    This was a critical time in world Jewry. But there were differences between American and European liberalization. In America, Jewish life was congregational. In Europe it was communal. This meant that America was more open to liberal Judaism than Europe.

    The political situation

    The political situation also influenced Judaism. Increasing nationalism was one of Jastrow’s concerns. On the one hand, he couldn’t understand how people could give up their right to popular government or recognize anyone as superior due to birth position. He could not identify at all with the German brand of nationalism. At the same time, he thought nationalism was a healthy corrective for German materialism.

    Jastrow also had a conflicting interpretation of Treitschke’s claim that the ‘Jews are our misfortune’. Jastrow himself blamed the German Jews for a type of materialism that he observed during his stay in Europe. Therefore, he attributed Treitschke’s criticism to a lack of patriotism and idealism among German Jews. However, he also disagreed with the German idealists who identified German Jewry with Judaism. In his opinion, there was a drastic contrast between the Jewish Religion and the Jews in Germany.

    Jastrow also disapproved of the Jewish pursuit of the professions for the purpose of material gains, honor, influence and power. His own conception of idealism was that the only legitimate rewards for the professional are the benefits to mankind.

    Due to his experiences and observations in Europe, Jastrow concluded ‘that Germany will not be the land whence Jewish thought and Jewish enthusiasm for and attachment to the Jewish religion will spring‘. For a while, he was more optimistic about America. It all depended on the quality of Jewish leadership.

    But during his years in Europe this outlook changed. He was especially concerned about the rise in America of Isaac Mayer Wise. When Wise finally ‘cast his lot’ with the organized Reform movement and assumed its leadership, Reform’s universalism became the outlook of one faction, and American Jewry was permanently divided. Unity became impossible.

    The competing influence of Isaac Mayer Wise

    Before Jastrow left for Europe, Isaac Mayer Wise organized a domestic seminary for the education of American rabbis. Jastrow’s father had criticized Wise’s extreme liberalism and considered his personality inappropriate for leading America’s only seminary. It was partly due to Wise’s influence in America that Jastrow’s father sent him abroad for his education.

    When Jastrow Jr. returned home, he volunteered his services as a lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania. This gave him a year to think about his future. By the end of the year, he had decided to leave the rabbinate. In the speech reported by the NYT, he shared with his congregation his observations about the rising generation of American Jews.

  • Christian Zionism Explains Everything

    If you’ve wondered during the last twenty years at the overheated rhetoric of both Israel and the Western powers, Dr. Stephan Sizer will connect the dots in a video entitled The Historical Roots of Christian Zionism, It’s Theological Basis and Political Agenda. According to Sizer, Christian Zionism is the culprit behind the militant turn. Christian Zionism explains everything.

    (more…)

  • Peace is the Only Choice

    Five parties are involved in the carnage in the Middle East. They are Israel, the United States and her allies, the Zionists, AIPAC and Hamas. It’s no surprise that it’s complicated. All of the parties have real reasons for being there, however in some cases the real reasons are not stated outright. I believe this is largely due to the long history of the Jewish people and the way they were shaped by their experiences. Many factors have gone into the present turmoil, but there are two sides to every story. Peace is the only choice for Palestine and Israel.

    (more…)

  • In Gaza Death Comes for Everyone

    In Gaza death comes for everyone. On October 7, we were horrified. Hamas attacked Jewish people on the border of Israel and committed carnage. Then, we were alarmed about Benjamin Netanyahu’s threats against Gaza. We beg him not to act out his own rage and the rage of the people of Israel. But he does not hesitate to wreak havoc. Now, each bomb that falls on Gaza falls on us too. We had such great hopes for a new direction for the world. Netanyahu signals that a new direction will not start in Israel.

    Netanyahu’s Western allies have not stopped him either. They have encourage him in his course of action. So, we petitioned God to help the Palestinians. But that was before the hospitals and refugee camps were destroyed. Because he did not come to their aid, we can only hope God has taken the dead to paradise, and that he is not ignoring us as well. But that is small comfort for the loving parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles and children left behind. It is small comfort for all of us.

    If there were to be divine intervention at this time, I would fear for the Israelis. They have satiated their rage and hubris as if there is no God. Can it be that Israel will be allowed to continue? If so, we clearly do not understand. All of those people–Jews and Palestinians–have already suffered, and many have died. Nothing will undo that. What satisfaction can anyone hope for now?

    These are dark days, but they are not without purpose. Gaza tells us that Death comes for everyone. It’s time to forsake the vanity of comfort and security. It’s time to relearn that the chief purpose of this life in preparation for the next life. I’m not saying we should give up on this life. We must put this life in its place. Let’s begin.

  • Why Worry About Same-Sex Marriage and Trans-ideologies?

    Why worry about same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies? This article is not a rejection of same-sex partners and trans people. It’s a request for the missing narrative about hetrosexual relations and how they affect social organization. Currently it is being drowned out by a particular version of a patriarchal narrative.

    It is more efficient to talk about heterosexual relations

    The problem is one of focus and proportion. If this conversation is supposed to be about organizing a just society for our children and grandchildren, the same-sex marriage and trans-rights movements should not be dominating it. But the goal is not to fight same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies. It is to supply the missing parts of the conversation. Women need to talk about heterosexual relations and marriage. Failing to recognize this need assures that an agenda will be imposed on them, and therefore on their posterity, while they are not paying attention. This is because the female role is recognized and valued by the powers that be, much more than it’s valued by women themselves.

    Same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies impose on women

    Gay and trans people deserve freedom from violence and discrimination, but this can be said about every minority group in the world. We all deserve freedom from violence and discrimination–including women. However, same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies have not only taken over the converstion, their practice dominates and imposes on women. Same-sex marriage increases the market for adopted and surrogate children; trans-ideology tells women they have no right to deny biological men access to women’s spaces. Women don’t even have a right to tell biological men they are men. The movement appears to be in a state of denial that it is women who will create the families of the future. However, it is not in denial. Appearances can be deceiving.

    An over-emphasis on Same-sex marriage and trans ideologies, and an underemphasis on women, is anti-social and unsustainable.

    How are these movements anti-social? Women are the center of family relations. Movements that impose on women while refusing to admit this imposition are antisocial. How are they unsustainable? They are unsustainable because they depend on the misfortune of other people.

    The anti-social aspects of the trans movement include biological men invading women’s spaces and women’s sports. The anti-social potential of same-sex marriage comes about when the partners feel entitled to adopt children. This potential may be increased by same-sex marriage. It makes a son’s homosexuality more acceptable to his parents. Same-sex marriage equalizes the son’s social status with heterosexual marriage, and it implies grandchildren. While this might seem to improve relations within that particular family, it imposes on other families. This happens regardless of whether same-sex couples really want children. it is possible that same-sex partners would not choose to adopt without family pressure.

    Same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies are not the problem.

    If we believe these movements are anti-social and unsustainable, what can we do about them? That is probably the wrong question. I believe these movements dominate the conversation because heterosexual relations are taken for granted. Women take them for granted at least as much as men do. In fact, it’s likely that women take heterosexual relations for granted to a much greater degree. Women need a conversation about heterosexual relations and marriage in general, preferably with input from the parents of women.

    For example, someone could propose that the key factors in a properly organizated society are: marriage customs which involve parents and which are understood by each family in a community; an economy that does not extract excess wealth from the citizenry; a cleansing of racist and misogynistic beliefs and doctrines. They could also set priorities. For example:

    1. Marriage customs within the family must include financial protection for brides and their future children. This requires the citizenry to be able to hold on to its wealth.
    2. If the citizenry is to hold on to its wealth, the modern state must go. The modern state is structured to extract wealth from the people.
    3. The influence of the Greeks, starting at least as early as Plato, must be purged from our religion, education, and philosophy. Greek influence is imperialistic and misogynistic. At its core is a disguised rivalry between patriarchy and motherhood.

    Change must start with families

    The goal is not to fight same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies. The goal is to focus on heterosexual relations. Several posts will be necessary to expand on these factors. Unfortunately, even though the conservative ruling class claims to support traditional families it is likely they will not support this. And in my opinion, we should not be under any illusions that we can prevail in the event of a debate. Then what am I suggesting?

    Why worry about same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies? I believe they are a symptom. I’m arguing that the problems we face today cannot be solved under our present cultural, social and economic conditions. If we don’t understand this, our efforts will be a waste of time and energy. We may be able to implement smaller measures, but even under the best scenario we will still be left with the system that led us to this place. The goal is not to fight same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies. The goal is for women, (and the parents of women) to supply the missing narrative about heterosexual relations and marriage, and how these relations influence society

  • Bourgeoisie Manipulation

    This article proposes that we live under the influence of bourgeois (middle class) manipulation, examining how the bourgeoisie might manipulate society to serve their interests.

    In a previous article I questioned whether we, the voters, owe anything to the Enlightenment or to the Enlightenment’s champions, the Freemasons. Since Enlightenment ideals helped pave the way to modern democracy, this led me to wonder what it means for our republic if we question these things. What does democracy owe to the Enlightenment and Freemasonry?

    The Bourgeoisie Takes Power

    It was evident that Enlightenment democracy was not for all of the people as soon as the bourgeoisie achieved independence from the English aristocracy. They immediately began to oppress the less privileged. They began by taking over the commons and literally fencing out people who had depended on the commons for their livelihood. Anyone found in these enclosures was suddenly considered ‘poachers’ and given severe punishments, including hanging.

    Bourgeoisie Manipulation
    The Commons

    This supports the premise that bourgeois manipulation replaced monarchy. My question is, what does that mean for the people’s ability to imagine a new type of society? One might conclude that any cultural attributes we have were manufactured by the privileged classes, many of whom mistrusted the masses and feared an ‘excess’ of democracy. We are defined by ‘them’.

    But Don’t Workers Imagine a New Type of Society?

    Some might argue that they identify as workers and they imagine a time when they will own the companies. However, that implies continued dependence on those companies, not to mention a similar worldview. The category is too restrictive because it doesn’t take in all of life. For one thing, it doesn’t consider the type of work or how it fits into a larger worldview. Or even what that larger worldview might be. This vision might even be said to replace or suppress other manifestations of human culture. However, the most important fact may be that the category itself is not stable.

    The Very Category of Worker is Considered Expendable

    The plan to win back worker’s rights is premised on the fabled post-war boom. But the post-war workers’ boom took place during a time of industrial strength, which no longer exists. Without industry there are no jobs. If there are no jobs, there are no workers.

    The category of workers only exists in relationship to industries. Unfortunately, workers have never resisted the general trends in industrial activity. They have always fought for working conditions and monetary compensation within the system. The flaw in that approach becomes evident with the rise of automation and artificial intelligence.

    The tendency of technology to replace workers is a contemporary version of the enclosure system in that it ignores the plight of the humans who are affected. The working class has not risen to the challenge of criticizing this in a meaningful way, which has a lot to do with the failure to develop a larger worldview. Real meaning must be based on a livable future for all the creatures on the planet.

    The Bourgeois Class Thinks the New Age Will Belong to Them.

    Will the bourgeois class maintain its safe position in the new age? Probably not in the way they imagine. If a recent video is any indication, they believe they will morph into the leaders of the new age. This video, Changing of the Gods, seems based on an assumption of the establishment’s continuing control. Under this assumption, recent history becomes  a series of signposts on the way to an identical worldview. Consider, for example, their treatment of the rise of feminism. It includes a clip of feminist CFR member, Gloria Steinem.

  • Question the Far-Right’s Claim to God’s Favor

    The right wing’s narrative describes a world in which evangelical Christians and their allies have God on their side.   Normally I wouldn’t disagree–according to Christian doctrine, God is on the side of the human race.  But they are actually saying God approves of their politics.  They apparently assume this will convince believers to vote for them and paint the political opposition as evil.  In my opinion, the left must respect religion enough to question the far-right’s claim to God’s favor.  This doesn’t require a personal calling from God.  It just requires the patience to listen to the far-right’s claims and compare them to the Bible.

    Since Evangelical Christians believe Donald Trump is a messianic figure, the relevant verses would be those that refer to the messianic age.  In Ezekiel 47 the Lord God showed Ezekiel a vision of abundance and blessing and joy.

    Afterward he brought me again unto the door of the house; and, behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward: for the forefront of the house stood toward the east, and the waters came down from under the right side of the house, at the south side of the altar.

    Then brought he me out of the way of the gate northward, and led me about the way without unto the utter gate by the way that looketh eastward; and, behold, there ran out waters on the right side.

    And when the man that had the line in his hand went forth eastward, he measured a thousand cubits, and he brought me through the waters; the waters were to the ankles.

    Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through the waters; the waters were to the knees.  Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through; the waters were to the loins.

    Afterward he measured a thousand; and it was a river that I could not pass over: for the waters were risen, waters to swim in, a river that could not be passed over.

    And he said unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen this?  Then he brought me, and caused me to return to the brink of the river.

    Now when I had returned, behold, at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.

    Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed.

    And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live wither the river cometh.

    And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from En-gedi even unto En-eglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.

    But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt.((Ezekiel 47:1-11))

    Ezekiel is then told that the fruit of the trees will be for meat and the leaf will be for medicine.  The leaf will not fade and the fruit will never be consumed because their waters issued out of the sanctuary.  And finally, the Lord God describes the borders whereby the twelve tribes of Israel will inherit the land.  This is not a Zionists’ dream, however.  At least not the Zionists we know.  Nor is it the dream of American wall-builders and imprisoners of immigrant children.

    And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.

    And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord God.((Ezekiel 47:22,23))

    This does not sound like Donald Trump and his supporters at all.  Instead, it seems to describe the hopes of progressive supporters of Bernie Sanders.

    Some say the Son of man is not a single person.  The Son of man is a collective.   Of course, Bernie has no intention of being a messiah.  You may recall the day he waved away Birdie Sanders, the bird that landed on his podium during a campaign speech.  He is a politician after all, not a religious leader.  But what about the rest of us?  We thought for a few glorious moments we saw the end of the old regime, and we projected all our hopes on this amazing candidate who appeared out of nowhere.  And they were hopes of peace and fairness and inclusion.

    See also: The Israel Lobby is Spending Millions to Defeat Progressive Democrats https://youtu.be/djZVm1n_XNA
                       Is the GOP Morphing into Christian Nationalism? https://youtu.be/kQQd90mbbDs
                         Reverend Calls Out Marjorie Greene  https://youtu.be/OExYtrfXotQ
                            Lauren Boebert Wants a Biblical Citizenship Test  https://youtu.be/oDQyj8C8PoE
                             American Heretics: The Politics of the Gospel (Christian Nationalism Documentary)  https://youtu.be/B-ePCiUgD0Y
                                The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American  https://youtu.be/nVEqYk-hjNM
                                  The Psychology of Christian Nationalism  https://youtu.be/nVEqYk-hjNM
                                     Baptist Leader Speaks Out: Christian Nationalism is Not Christianity https://youtu.be/vZukWuT9lcA

  • Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Enabler

    The Republicans have spent decades trying to repeal Roe v Wade.  They were out of step with reality when they started.  Now that their cherished conservative dream has finally come true, they are even more out of step with reality.  Although Republican madness is obvious to millions of people, five conservative justices, including Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme enabler who voted to repeal Roe v Wade, are bursting with pride.  Pro-life organizations are also touting this as a victory.  Their stupidity is exceeded only by their short-sightedness.

    The decision to repeal Roe v Wade was made with the help of a doctrine called Originalism.  It’s not clear if anyone really believes in Originalism, least of all, its inventors in the Federalist Society, but it doesn’t matter.  It has been very useful for conservatives who are intent on getting their way.  In fact, that has become the definition of conservatism: People who are intent on getting their way.  If only their ‘way’ was good.

    What is Originalism anyway?  In the 1980s John M. Olin set up the Federalist society and paid it to make the courts rule in his favor in cases involving his polluting company.  The Society promptly wined and dined judges, sponsored university courses to teach Originalism, and generally helped Olin avoid the nasty consequences of his polluting ways.  Amy Coney Barrett has been a member of the Federalist Society twice.  Nevertheless, the blind and the stupid applaud her latest ruling.

    What does Originalism say?  It says that the original public meaning of the constitution is binding today.  Given that the people who wrote the Constitution saw the world very differently than we do today, it is reasonable to fear that this doctrine will have regressive and oppressive effects on American society.  Confronted with this fact, Originalists agree that some amendments to the Constitution might be in order, but the constitution has to be amended democratically.  Democratic principles are the basis of their doctrine after all.

    There are a few problems with this defense.  The media is not democratic.  Neither is the electoral system.  If they were people of good will, Originalists would assure themselves that democratic institutions and principles are working before they impose binding meanings on their society.  But although Originalists claim neutrality, they act as if the proper functioning of democratic institutions is beside the point.  In fact, they deliberately weaken those institutions.  That is not a neutral position.

    This shady, cut-rate, half-baked doctrine is not the sum total of the problem.  There is also the dishonesty and irresponsibility of the politicians who foisted Originalist justices on the Supreme Court, in plain sight of the people whose democracy they have stolen.  Last but not least there are the simple, lazy, complicit souls who have failed to develop their capacity for discernment.

     

  • Lords of Chaos on the Supreme Court

    It seems the Supreme Court Justices are lords of chaos.  Leaking the Supreme Court decision on Roe v Wade was like waving a red cape in front of a bull, or a MAGA cap in front of a progressive.  It has brought out the worst in progressives and put anything good we might have done on hold.  Of course, this follows the sudden and meaningless war in Ukraine.  This has been a disaster for the progressive conversation.

    The Roe v Wade leak is not just about abortion, just like the Ukraine War is not just about Ukraine.  They both serve to drag your attention away from climate change, voting rights, and anything else that needs your attention.  The lords of chaos want to stop you from having a coherent conversation.

    I saw a clip today in which pro-life agitators goaded pro-choice protesters into a frenzy.  How they relished taunting those women.  How they loved rubbing it in!  How they basked in their Supreme Court ‘victory’.  Then the pro-choice protesters screamed their slogans a little louder, and the pro-lifers drowned them out anyway.  What a glorious hate-fest!  And all because the lords of chaos on the Court leaked an opinion that hasn’t been decided yet.

    Sewing chaos and division has been the establishment’s favorite tactic since that first Trump rally was shut down by Sanders’s supporters in 2016.  They try to get both sides all riled up, or afraid, or confused, or all of the above. They know if they can make us fear and hate each other, we will be ineffective.

    The lords of chaos on the Supreme Court may very well undo Roe v Wade, and the harm for women will be real.  But if the leak brings lasting hatred and confusion and division, it will have served its main purpose.  As long as we’re fighting each other, we can’t fight them.

    See Also: https://youtu.be/_d0URbems8M
error: Content is protected !!