Today's "Prophetic" Preachers

"Edward Kaplan, the rabbi's biographer, later told me: "Heschel saw the Hebrew prophets as being in sympathy with God's point of view, what he called the divine pathos. Heschel's judgments about American racism, economic inequality and the unjust Vietnam war were passionate and extreme." Still, Mr. Kaplan emphasizes, that the rabbi "was suspicious of politics as representing the perspective of expediency, which often includes lying."

"The problem is that to win votes and to tell the truth presents an inherent conflict," said Mel Scult, a professor of Judaic studies at Brooklyn College, in an interview. "The prophet is a social critic who speaks out and disregards the consequences." Which might be a little hard to do if he's the one in power. Still, Prof. Scult argues that, in Heschel's interpretation, a political figure "could be prophetic if he had the courage." "

The issue at the moment, though, is not that any political figure is trying to be "prophetic". The problem is that preachers who are trying to preach in the "prophetic tradition" and, accordingly, deliver fiery and controversial sermons -- are getting themselves and their preferred candidates into deep trouble.

The Founding Fathers were very wise to create freedom of religion, so that the preachers of every denomination can preach in their own way. As long as their preachings are not inspiring their congregants to do bad things in the surrounding community, there should be no problem. In the case of Wright, Pflegler and Hagee, they and their churches have done many good things for the outside community, and no bad things that I'm aware of. Let each church and its congregants judge what its preacher is saying and how he says it -- not outsiders. Outsiders only need to be concerned with what effect these sermons are having on the outside community. If that is the test, then these three preachers pass with flying colors.

This Blog Entry Says It All

Oh good, another entry in the pastor war! It seems that the media insist I pick the next President based on their religious associates so here goes: On one hand, I get McCain, whose former spiritual advisors and endorsers openly preach hate of gays, Jews, Catholics, and advocate war against Islam. On the other hand, I get Obama's former pastors and spiritual advisors, who angrily preach that black people have been screwed by white America. If you believe the candidates truly believe this stuff - even a little bit - what's the worst that happens if you elect Obama...we actually try to help black inner city society instead of ignoring the problems. In the McCain (and Hillary) worst case scenario, we get WWIII. Still not a hard choice, even with the crazy pastors.

Posted by: Pastor wars | May 29, 2008 11:07 PM

Jesse Jackson vs. Louis Farrakhan

You're right. Those white racist Republicans are totally one-sided. I'm glad you see that.

About 25 years ago, Jesse Jackson got into deep trouble with the Jews because he told a private joke to a friend in which he referred to New York City as "Hymietown" -- and that private joke was overheard by the world.

Jackson was instantly labeled an Anti-Semite by everyone.

However, some years later, at the request of the government of Israel, Jackson went on a personal mission to Libya (or one of the other Arab countries he was friendly with) to negotiate for the release of an Israeli prisoner that Arab country was holding. I believe Jackson's mission was successful, and the Israeli was freed and returned to Israel.

No real anti-Semite would ever have undertaken such a mission -- to free a Jew.

Farrakhan has done a lot of good for the black community, and he is highly regarded by many blacks. But as far as I know, Farrakhan is still an unrepentant anti-Semite. I don't know of any good deed he has ever done for the Jews, or any good word he he's had to say about Jews.

So, I think there is a big difference between Jackson and Farrakhan, when it comes to the Jews. I don't think blacks should have such high esteem for Farrakhan as long as he remains a virulent anti-Semite. Obama was quite right to denounce Farrakhan.

Chuck

Black History in America

Starting in the 1890's, following Reconstruction, laws were passed in the South which encouraged the arrest of young blacks on flimsy, minor, absurd charges. When the black men couldn't pay their legal fees, fines, etc., they were sent to jail, and then the jails farmed them out to big businesses as pretty much slave labor. They ended up working in mines, factories, etc., at heavy labor, without being paid at all.

One of the companies which used this form of free black labor was U. S. Steel. There were many others as well. So, while this type of "new slave labor" was taking place in the South, many of the profits were being reaped by companies in the North. That's what this new book by the Wall Street Journal writer is about.

The Tuskegee syphilis experiment involved 400 black men. This "New Slavery" victimized many thousands of blacks.

Black people in America learn their black history and know about all these things. This history is not taught to whites in their schools. That's why blacks and whites can't talk to each other. Most whites are ignorant of the full story of how blacks have been treated in America.

And, today, the airwaves are polluted by white racists who keep fanning the flames of ignorance and bigotry -- Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, etc., etc.

But when one black man starts talking publicly about these types of outrages -- Jeremiah Wright -- he is lynched by the media. Wright is a huge threat to where the white media racists are coming from, since he is bringing all of this negative history out into the open.

Wright went too far when he made unsubstantiated claims about AIDS. He would have been on much stronger ground had he confined himself to the outrages that really happened, and are well documented, such as the ones I've mentioned above.

Hopefully, when he comes back, he will stick to the actual proven horrors, and then there can be a real discussion. Not from the pseudo-patriotic dirt bags I've mentioned above, who only knew how to spew garbage, but from real Americans who want to know the truth.

John McCain's "Integrity"

John McCain has the "Integrity" of a man who has traded in all of his principles to get the Republican nomination.

Eight years ago -- in 2000 -- McCain opposed Bush in the Republican primaries.

Today, McCain is For everything he was Against in 2000, and he is Against everything he was For in 2000.

McCain is the very model of Integrity -- at least, by Chris Mathews' standards.