Blog

I Evaluate Eric Erickson’s Evaluation of Pete Buttigieg’s Evaluation of President Trump (who thinks he is above evaluation)

Eric Erickson has an interesting article at The Resurgent discussing Pete

Eric Erickson

Buttigieg’s interview last Sunday on Meet the Press. It’s entitled, “Pete Buttigieg Shows Why Progressive Christianity is a Hypocritical Farce.”

You can read the entire piece, which contains a video clip of the T.V. interview under discussion, by clicking on the title above. Or you can read a brief excerpt provided below.

I am writing this post for several reasons:

First, I found Erickson’s article interesting.  I agree with his argument about Buttigieg’s moral relativism with respect to Buttigieg’s decision to lead a gay lifestyle, including his marriage to another man.

Erickson is right to point out that Buttigieg can’t call out President Trump’s hypocrisy for ignoring Biblical commands to “help the widows and the orphans” while simultaneously ignoring the New Testament’s condemnations of same-sex intimacy.

Nope, that doesn’t wash, Mr. Buttigieg.

Pete Buttigieg

Buttigieg’s judgments on this score not only look like cherry-picking from among the select pieces of scripture he happens to like (or dislike), it IS cherry-picking of the most obvious sort.

Secondly, however, Erickson commits a few blunders of his own that make me hesitant to call him an ally in my concerns about filtering our political thinking through the presence of God’s kingdom on earth. (Again, check out my book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America).

My concerns begin with the title of this article — “Pete Buttigieg Shows Why Progressive Christianity is a Hypocritical Farce.”

The title raises a number of troubling questions which Mr. Erickson never tries to answers.

How does he define Progressive Christianity?  What is it exactly? A writer really shouldn’t be attacking something that he makes no effort to describe.

And why should I accept Mr. Erickson’s assumption that Pete Buttigieg is a (if not the) representative of said Progressive Christianity? Has Mr. Buttigieg ever made that claim for himself? Has an official spokesperson for “Progressive Christianity” ever claimed Pete Buttigieg as its chosen candidate?

Nope and nope. So, I have to ask, on what basis is Erickson implying that connection now? In fact, what the heck is he trying to say by making such a suggestion???

Nope, Mr. Erickson. This is an underlying assumption of yours that I’m not willing to share. Such ill-conceived innuendo does not constitute an argument.

Furthermore, demonstrating one respect in which Buttigieg is being hypocritical (an extremely human trait by the way, displayed by all of us at one time or another) is a far cry from proving that the entirety of Progressive Christianity (however that is defined) is either hypocritical or farcical.

You are grossly over-reaching Mr. Erickson, which always makes me suspicious that there is something other than a concern for proper Biblical interpretation and its consistent application animating your arguments.

I think I smell a purely political agenda brewing in the background; partisanship disguised in the popular garb of Christian conscience.

Actually, in a round-about fashion, Erickson ends up showing us that his view of Christianity is every bit as skewed by partisan loyalties as is Buttigieg’s.

In his article chiding Buttigieg for publicly denying the possibility that  president Trump might be a Christian, Erickson begins by pointing out how “badly” Buttigieg himself performs while “trying to play a Christian on television.

The implication is clear: Erickson can’t believe that Buttigieg is a genuine Christian, either.

Ouch.  I can’t help but wonder if Erickson is “trying to play a Christian” at The Resurgent?

In one way, I agree with Buttigieg.  I do not find Trump’s profession of Christian faith the least bit believable, either. The man is a career criminal who admits that he has never felt the need either to confess his sins or to ask God for forgiveness. Trump’s past, as well as his present, suggest that our president is a sociopath.

And that, sadly, assures us that our current president is (for now, at least) a son of perdition.

On the other hand, I don’t know know much about either Mr. Erickson or Mr. Buttigieg, and I can’t judge either man’s faith in Jesus. (Perhaps I will write another post in the near future about how a Christian may or may not pursue a gay lifestyle.) However, I’ll happily remind them both that being a Christian means submitting the entirety of our lives, in every respect, to the teaching and the Lordship of the resurrected Jesus.

That Jesus was not a progressive or a conservative or a democrat or a republican.  Christ’s only partisanship is to the eternal glory of his heavenly Father. Thus, he remains the eternal Son who requires that his followers seek after God’s kingdom, first, last, and always.

Here, finally, is that excerpt I promised:

“Buttigieg said he thought evangelicals backing President Trump were hypocritical because when he goes to church he hears about taking care of widows, the poor, and refugees, but Trump does not do that. Buttigieg went on to draw a distinction. In his professional conduct, Trump does not take care of widows and refugees as scripture commands and Buttigieg is right on this. Then Buttigieg continues that in Trump’s personal life as well he falls short of Christian behavior (he is right on that part too, by the way, but then we are all sinners). You can see the full, unedited exchange here.

“Interestingly, Buttigieg goes on to note that evangelicals are too focused on sexual ethics these days. He seems to be arguing that they need to drop that aspect of their faith, as he has. Then comes the pivot exposing Buttigieg’s own hypocrisy.

“Buttigieg thinks the President is not really behaving as one who believes in God because, as President, Donald Trump is not taking care of the widows, the orphans, the poor, and the refugees. Chuck Todd asks Buttigieg about his position on abortion and Buttigieg’s response is that abortion is a moral issue and we cannot legislate morality.

“This is why progressive Christianity is so corrupt and flawed. As much as Buttigieg makes a valid critique on the President’s behavior and evangelicals excusing that behavior, Buttigieg wants to reject the inconvenient parts of faith he does not like. He is a gay man who got married; he does not think homosexuality is a sin despite express statements in scripture, and he thinks abortion is a moral issue and we cannot legislate our morality. Buttigieg wants to use the social obligations as Christians against the President, but wants to avoid any implication on the personal obligations of Christians in terms of clear Biblical sexual ethics and how we are to live our lives applying our faith even for ‘the least of these.’

“He wants to have it both ways and in reality is showing he is no better a Christian than Donald Trump. What is particularly damning here is that Buttigieg claims to be governed by some moral code and he claims he will lead as a more moral President than Trump. At the same time, he claims we cannot do exactly what he is proposing.

“Everyone has a moral code and we all conduct our actions by our moral code. Buttigieg just wants a pass on his moral code, which is all about not taking inconvenient stands on parts of scripture that might make his life a bit uncomfortable. He will wield it against the President and abdicate when it comes to himself.”

Julian Assange’s Arrest, Another Nail in the Coffin of a Free Press

Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, was arrested by British police yesterday after 7 years of refuge in London’s Ecuadorian embassy.

Julian Assange at Ecuadoran embassy

It’s another sad day for the freedom of the press worldwide, and one more example of the way the U.S. bullies other nations around the world, forcing them to do America’s dirty work. (Watch reports here, and here.)

The United States is undoubtedly seeking Assange’s extradition to this country where the Trump administration is eager to charge him with conspiring to hack U.S. computers and stealing military intelligence in 2010.

A number of pundits are also linking Assange to the debunked and moribund Russia-gate conspiracy because they apparently don’t have anything better to do with their useless careers.

The entire affair would all be a colossal joke were it not for the extraordinary abuse suffered by Mr. Assange and the horrendous consequences entailed for a free press.

Here are just a few of the problems:

To begin with, the Obama Justice department worked for years to dig up enough evidence to charge Assange with the very same crime that the Trump administration wants to charge him with today. Yet, they failed to discover a scrap of incriminating evidence.

Assange is the victim of an American vendetta. Wikileaks has embarrassed the world’s sole super-power, and super-powers don’t take their humiliations  lying down.

None of this should be happening. If Trump’s Justice Department has found the evidence that eluded all of the Obama administration’s best efforts, then they should make it public, pronto.

Furthermore, Assange is not an American citizen, so it’s impossible for him to commit “treason” against the U.S., despite the many accusations made by ignorant U.S. officials.

Assange is an Australian.

For the U.S. to put a foreign national on trial for supposedly breaking U.S. security laws would set a dangerous precedent to set. But then, no one has ever accused American politicians, including Donald Trump, of excessively long-range thinking.

Many American journalists regularly print stories that rely on the breach of foreign intelligence laws.  Is Trump, or any other president, going to hand U.S. journalists over to China or North Korea or Russia or whoever else wants them when that foreign country accuses them of printing stories that reveal their foreign state secrets?

I don’t think so.

Ahem….why, then, should an American president think he has the right to do this to an Australian who has never lived in the U.S.?

Wikileaks is a publication outlet for whistle-blowers around the world.  If you are unfamiliar with the types of materials they have published in the past, check out the the following report from RT with Dan Cohen to hear about only a few of the many valuable “secrets” that have been exposed through Wikileaks.

Both Assange and others who work with Wikileaks have always maintained that they are not hackers. Yet, the U.S. continues to accuse Assange of hacking, which he obviously denies. Naturally, he could be lying, but then why has no one ever produced the kind of evidence needed to prove Assange a liar?

Wikileaks has always described itself as a publishing clearinghouse, of

Assange taken from the embassy

sorts, for the documents obtained by whistle-blowers around the world.  It will accept such material, review it with the help of other intelligence agencies, make their own editorial decisions, and then release the (redacted) material for world consumption.

Their publications typically expose the corruption and criminality of governments and world leaders. In this regard, Wikileaks provides an extremely valuable service to the world.

This means that Wikileaks is a journalistic enterprise; it is a news outlet. As many others have pointed out, prosecuting Julian Assange and Wikileaks is the equivalent of prosecuting the New York Times or the Washington Post or Fox News for publishing and/or broadcasting government documents that have been “leaking” to them.

The establishment press’s insistence that Wikileaks is not a journalism organization is absolute rubbish, plain and simple. Many of these other journalists and newspapers have happily printed leaked intelligence information that was first handed over to them by Wikileaks.

If Assange is prosecuted, then the editors of all those newspapers, magazines and TV networks should be next in line, and the conservative pundits who actually believe that such prosecutions would be a good thing haven’t the foggiest notion of what it means to be truly “un-American.”

Both Assange and the numerous whistle-blowers from whom he has received documents over the years all insist that neither he nor anyone affiliated with Wikileaks have been involved in obtaining documents themselves by computer hacking.

The two best known whistle-blowers have been Edward Snowden and

FORT MEADE, MD – JULY 30: U.S. Army Private First Class Bradley Manning is escorted by military police as he leaves his military trial after he was found guilty of 20 out of 21 charges, July 30, 2013 Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. Manning, was found not guilty of aiding the enemy, was convicted of wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the internet, is accused of sending hundreds of thousands of classified Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and more than 250,000 diplomatic cables to the website WikiLeaks while he was working as an intelligence analyst in Baghdad in 2009 and 2010. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Bradley (now Chelsey) Manning. They both insist that Wikileaks received their hacked intelligence documents when they were offered to them but had nothing to do with taking the information from government computers.

Frankly, I view both Snowden and Manning as national heroes. The American public only knows about the U.S. government’s illegal, anti-Constitutional programs of warrantless, worldwide wire-tapping and surveillance because of the material Snowden handed over to Wikileaks and other outlets.

Similarly, we only learned the truth about U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan

Edward Snowden

and Iraq, including the astonishing levels of civilian casualties during the Iraq War, because of Manning’s communications with Wikileaks.

American citizens have a right to know about the crimes committed by their government.

Despite the repeated hue and cry about these whistle-blowers “having American blood on their hands,” no one has ever produced a single piece of evidence to show that these leaks actually put a single American life “at risk” anywhere in the world.  Sure, the accusation makes for a dramatic propaganda talking-point, but in the words of a well-known T.V. commercial, no one has ever been able to produce the beef.

The collaboration between conscientious whistle-blowers like Snowden and Manning together with publication outlets like Wikileaks, provide an essential service to all the people of the world who care about freedom, democracy, justice and accountability.

Finally, since Assange is being accused of conspiring to hack U.S. intelligence computers with Bradley Manning in 2010, let’s recall what all of that entailed.

Remember, first, that Manning has always denied any involvement by Assange. His military trial, where he was convicted, failed to produce any evidence to the contrary.

Manning was working with military intelligence in Iraq when his superior officers ordered him to investigate and arrest the Iraqi “insurgents” distributing anti-American, “terrorist” leaflets allegedly fomenting violence against the new U.S. backed government.

Child wounded by U.S. forces

When Manning had the leaflets translated, he discovered that they were not advocating terrorism or violence of any sort. They were actually political fliers offering legitimate criticisms of the new government.

Manning went to his superior officers with this information and informed them that the group was not threatening violence or terrorism. Rather, they were merely an opposition political party doing what politicians do in a democracy – arguing against the establishment. The leaflets were simply an example of democracy in action.

Manning’s superiors told him to be quiet and do what he was ordered to do; namely, find the critics, confiscate their materials, have them arrested and thrown into jail.

That was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back.

Manning disobeyed his orders, downloaded a treasure-trove of classified material documenting American crimes, atrocities and mismanagement. He then handed it all over to Wikileaks.

One of the pieces of information released by Wikileaks was the now famous film from an Apache helicopter that came to be called the “Collateral Damage” video.  I used to show it to my classes at Calvin College.

“Collateral Damage” was filmed through a helicopter gun site. It shows the indiscriminate slaughter of over a dozen civilians, including two Reuters

** EDS NOTE GRAHPHIC CONTENTS ** This is an image obtained by The Associated Press which shows naked detainees with bags placed over their heads placed into a human pyramid as Spc. Sabrina Harman, middle and Cpl. Charles Graner Jr., above, pose behind them in late 2003 at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Iraq. (AP Photo)

journalists, walking in an Iraqi suburb. The film concludes with the murder of a father and child who were gunned down when the father stopped his van in order to pick up the wounded and take them to a local hospital.

The family’s van was riddled with bullets. Fortunately, one of the two children inside survived. You can hear the helicopter pilot talking with someone at ground control as he gets the van in his sights. After unleashing the storm of lethal bullets, one of them notes that the pilot had just shot an innocent family with children.

The pilot responds by saying, “Well, that’s what happens when you bring your kids into a war zone.”

The man’s callousness is stunning. His arrogance and stupidity, remarkable.

Never mind that it was actually America that brought the war zone into this family’s backyard; that this father was picking up his children from school when he saw strangers bleeding to death on the side of the road; that he was the Good Samaritan riddled with bullets by the heartless Pharisees of American imperialism.

The Collateral Damage video was only the tip of Manning’s iceberg of previously concealed U.S intelligence, demonstrating once again that both the secrecy and the national security designations are typically used to hide national embarrassments and conceal government crimes.

People like Chelsey Manning, Edward Snowden, and Julian Assange deserve medals of honor, not senseless, interminable persecution by abusive governments hell-bent on hiding their flagrant crimes against humanity behind a bogus curtain of national security.

Every world citizen who cares about democracy, truth and equal justice for all must protest and stand against Julian Assange’s illegal arrest.

Otherwise, Assange’s eventual trial and certain conviction on Trumped-up charges will be one more nail in the coffin of a free press.

Christian Nationalism is Not Only Un-American, It Is Anti-God’s Kingdom

Perhaps you heard about the controversy stirred by Rep. Stephanie Borowicz’s recent (March 25) opening prayer in the Pennsylvania state legislature.  If you haven’t watched it yet, take a look below:

Personally, I hesitate to describe this exhibition as a prayer.  It’s more a sermon, or a spiritual rant.

Was it an accident that Rep. Borowicz chose to “pray” in this way on the very day that Pennsylvania’s first Muslim-American legislator was being sworn into office? If you believe that, then I’ve got some Florida swamp land to sell you, real cheap.

I don’t doubt that Rep. Borowicz sincerely believed that she was offering a necessary Christian witness when she stepped up front and spoke as she did. But that is no excuse for her colossal mangling of an opportunity, her deliberate insult to a new colleague, or the anti-Biblical ideology of Christian Nationalism woven throughout her speech.

Doesn’t she make friends with her colleagues? Doesn’t she show them love and respect, getting to know about their personal lives? Doesn’t she speak with them individually about the work Jesus has performed in her own life?

Rep. Movita Johnson Harrell, Pennsylvania’s first Muslim legislator

Wouldn’t she communicate more effectively on a one-to-one basis, in personal conversation?  Was this all for the benefit of the camera?

Finally, I am convinced that the brand of Christian Nationalism expressed in her prayer is one of the most significant impediments to the church’s witness today. No, Rep. Borowicz, America is not and never has been a “Christian nation,” raised upon the shoulders of exclusively Christian founders.

Neither is America’s “greatness” a product of the blind, unthinking support we give to the racist state of Israel.

Andrew Seidel has a good article at Religion Dispatches entitled, “Penn. Legislators Jaw-Dropping Prayer Showcases America’s Christian Nationalism Problem.”

I have excerpted a portion below:

The prayer was jaw-dropping—literally. Watch Speaker Turzai, who introduced Borowicz. As she begins, his jaw drops, and then it drops again. By the end, he’s shooing her off the dais.

“This was 103 seconds of sectarian division and proselytizing and it speaks for itself: ‘at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess, Jesus, that you are Lord.’

That Borowicz meant for the prayer to intimidate non-Christians seems self-evident. It’s probably less clear to many observers that Borowicz’s prayer is also a symptom of the virulent strain of Christian nationalism under which America is suffering.

Christian nationalism is a political theology that claims we’ve “forgotten . . . God in our country,” as Borowicz said, and that we must return to that golden age of the American founding. This is wrong.

The Founding Fathers chose to keep state and church separate precisely because religion is divisive and they were seeking to build a pluralistic nation. They didn’t build that nation or secure our freedom with theology or prayer, but with a Constitution that draws its power from We the People, not We the Christians.

“Religion only unites believers of the same stripe, it excludes all others and often calls for worse. An early Wisconsin Supreme Court justice put it eloquently: “There is no such source and cause of strife, quarrel, fights, malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the state, as religion. Let it once enter our civil affairs, our government would soon be destroyed.” Borowicz’s proselytizing prayer is a perfect illustration of the division religion sows when mixed with our government.

“Brimming with sectarian arrogance and division, it was easy to miss the outright errors in Borowicz’s prayer: ‘God, for those that came before us like George Washington at Valley Forge and Abraham Lincoln who sought after you in Gettysburg, Jesus, and the Founding Fathers in Independence Hall, Jesus, that sought after you and fasted and prayed for this nation to be founded on Your principles in Your words and Your truth.’

“These historical moments were probably meant to be poignant ties to Pennsylvania and American history, but they lacked ties to reality, history, and nuance.

“For instance, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is typically rendered to include the phrase, ‘…that this nation, under God, shall…’ But history is a bit more nuanced, and unclear. Lincoln’s first two versions of the speech, written by Lincoln himself, don’t include the ‘under God’ and we cannot say for certain that he added those words during the speech itself.

“Borowicz’s other two examples are clear: Neither happened. Washington did not pray in the snow at Valley Forge and the delegates at the Constitutional Convention did not fast or pray. These are invented myths, not historical moments.”

Finally, I’d bet my bottom dollar that Rep. Stephanie Borowicz is a product of home-schooling, and that is where she first learned, not American history, but the American mythology embedded in her legislative lecture.

Question: does God respond to prayer requests based on myths?

Learn About America’s Socialist History

Folks  on the Right screech the word Socialism as if it were the safe-word in a BDSM Vampire movie. Rarely, however, do they appear to know what they are talking about.

For example, how many understand the differences between socialism,

Daniel Hoan – Politician, USA*1881-1961+- 1916-1940 Mayor of Milwaukee – (Photographer: Sennecke- Published by: ‘Tempo’ 21.02.1929Vintage property of ullstein bild (Photo by Robert Sennecke/ullstein bild via Getty Images)

social democracy, and democratic socialism,?  They are not the same.  Bernie Sanders is usually described as a democratic socialist when in fact he is a social democrat. They are two different beasts.

Furthermore, corporate socialism is thriving in this country, but we will never hear a whiff of criticism about that form of socialism from cable news.

I have no hopes that America’s pundit class will ever learn to offer intelligent, historically aware, fully informed political commentary (because that would never serve the interests of the corporate status-quo), but I have found a good article describing a small slice of socialism’s important contributions to this country.

It is written by  John Nichols for The Nation magazine. It is  entitled “When Socialism Was Tried  in America — And Was A Smashing Success.”

The entire article is well worth reading. I have posted a select portion below:

“Polling tells us that young voters are more comfortable with socialism than capitalism. Older voters may still be susceptible to Republican appeals rooted in Cold War hysteria, but the challenges posed by the existential crisis of climate

Mayor Hoan speaking to a crowd of Milwaukee workers

change and the radical transformation of our economy in an age of AI-driven automation are going to make everyone far more open to radical responses. And many of the best of these—especially those that call for expanding the social-welfare state—will draw from historic and contemporary socialist thinking.

“Democrats can get ahead of the curve and disarm Trump and the trolls by embracing the opportunity that Milwaukee offers to talk about socialism as it has existed and succeeded in the United States. For American socialists in the 20th century, Milwaukee was a political mecca, a city that tested and confirmed the validity of their ideas. Vladeck, then the manager of The Jewish Daily Forward (these days known simply as The Forward), called it an example of “the America of tomorrow.”

“Socialists were proud to point to Milwaukee, which had a Socialist mayor for most of the period from 1910 to 1960, as a model of sound and equitable governance. And they were not alone: During Hoan’s 24-year tenure, Time magazine reported, ‘Milwaukee became one of the best-run cities in the U.S.’”

How Typically American to Punish Poor Brown People Twice

In 2009 the Obama administration encouraged a military coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Honduras, Manuel

The democratically elected Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya

Zelaya.  This fact is not in dispute.  Hillary Clinton, then Obama’s Secretary of State, admitted as much in a 2014 interview.

Together Obama and Clinton helped to install a right-wing dictatorship that continues to rule over the Honduran people to this day. Not only has this dictatorship overrun the civil rights of the Honduran people, it works hand-in-glove with the drug cartels terrorizing all of Central America.

Those cartels use local gangs of enforcers to extort protection money from poor and middle-class business owners, often driving them out of business and killing anyone refusing to cooperate. These gangs, operating with the

Honduran gang members

silent approval of government leaders, are the primary cause of Honduras’ skyrocketing murder rate.

So, guess what. The U.S. bears the lion share of responsibility for the problems facing Honduras today.

If this is not familiar to you, please take a few minutes to watch two video

Lucy Pagoada

explanations. The first features Lucy Pagoada, an Honduran immigrant explaining the situation in her native country, and why she fled to the United States.

The second is an episode of On Contact with Chris Hedges. He interviews Professor Dana Frank, author of the book The Long Honduran Night: Resistance, Terror and the United States in the

Prof. Dana Frank

Aftermath of the Coup. She poignantly explains America’s role in transforming Honduras into a failed state.

Now, President Trump is threatening to close America’s southern border. He refuses to receive any more applicants for asylum and is ending all foreign aid to Honduras, Guatemala and San Salvador (two additional nations where the U.S. has meddled with disastrous effect).

So, let me get this straight.  First, we intervene in these nation’s internal affairs. We help to overthrow the Honduran government and install a corrupt dictatorship.

Then we support that dictatorship even as it enriches itself at the people’s

Honduran anti-coup protesters arrested

expense by allying itself with violent drug cartels. We stand by and watch as the dictators’ neo-liberal economic policies exacerbate poverty, unemployment and violent crime because those policies benefit U.S. corporate interests.

Then when the poorest of the poor flee for their lives, seeking asylum and a better life in the U.S., our esteemed president stigmatizes them as criminals, rapists, the “worst of the worst.”

He takes away their children, locks them into cages, loses hundreds if not thousands of those children due to poor record keeping, and closes the

Honduran refugees tear gassed

border. For the coup de’grace he orders border patrol agents to shoot these helpless, refugee families with tear gas and rubber bullets.

All the while, President Trump continues his xenophobic rants insisting that this southern “invasion” – vast weaponized caravans of brown invaders intent on destroying the American way of life – is THE greatest national security threat facing our country today.

And many Americans listen.  Too many are persuaded.

They are persuaded because they have never bothered to follow the news. They are persuaded because don’t know anything about our history of

Children cry next to their mother in a caravan of Honduran migrants near Ciudad Hidalgo, Mexico. (CNS photo/Edgard Garrido, Reuters)

Central American interventions.

Worse yet, they don’t care to learn.

They are too busy gulping down the poisonous swill of U.S. exceptionalism to hear the cries of innocent Hondurans crushed beneath the colossus of American geopolitical power.

We are witnessing a textbook definition of oppression unfolding before our eyes. It is more than a national disgrace; it is wickedness incarnate.

America is the beast risen from the abyss.

In Israel Fascism Can Smell Like Democracy

Perhaps you have heard about the strange campaign ad recently released by Israel’s Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked. It describes her favorite perfume

Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked

called Fascism. But she believes it smells like Democracy.

I am posting a copy of the ad with accompanying English translation below.  Take a look:

 

Throughout her political career, Shaked has objected whenever the Supreme Court has (periodically) defended the civil rights of Israel’s Palestinian citizens.

She despises “liberal” activists who condemn Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and described all Palestinians as inherently violent people who deserve to be eradicated.

She was a prominent advocate for Israel’s recently approved Jewish Nation-State Law which explicitly defines Israel as a state of, for and by Jews and Jews alone.

In other words, Shaked’s ad is mocking anyone who fails to understand what has, in fact, always been the truth about Israel — Israel’s political Zionism provides democracy for its Jewish population and no one else.

At least Shaked has the cajones to discard political double-speak. Unlike most politicians, she says what she means.

George Orwell once wrote that “political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Nothing embodies Orwell’s maxim on the political abuse of language more graphically than Zionism’s stranglehold on the definition of “acceptable discourse” concerning Israel.

Take, for instance, Israel’s insistence on referring to itself as the only democracy in the Middle East.

Shaked believes in that lie as much as any successful politician in Israel. It’s a given.  What sets her apart however is her willingness to say what she actually means, what in fact every Zionist politician means by those words.

Israel has never been a democracy for all its citizens. But that stark reality has always been obscured by the smoke and mirrors of Zionist propaganda and its successful redefinition of words like democracy.

Shaked, on the other hand, is a rare phenomenon:  she is an honest Zionist.

She has publicly declared that if genuine democracy (e.g. equal treatment for everyone before the law) happens to threaten Zionist Israel’s status as an exclusively Jewish state populated and governed by a Jewish majority (which it certainly does), then Israel must give up its pretense of democracy.

That is the point of her ad.  And, even though few will admit to it, that is why her ad has caused such a stir within Israel and around the world.

Shaked is not playing the traditional Zionist word-games.  And for that, at least, I admire her.

She presents the ugly face of political Zionism for what it is: a mask.

It may be a lovely mask for Israel’s Jewish majority – just as Shaked could be a model if she wanted a new career – but for Israel’s Palestinian minority, Zionism has always meant fascism.

The Great March of Return, One Year Later

An estimated 40,000 Palestinians gathered in Gaza today (read the entire article for the figures listed below), as they have every week for the past year, in order to celebrate the anniversary of their Great March of Return rallies protesting their 12 year confinement.

As always, they were met by armed Israeli tanks and soldiers on the opposite side of the fence. That’s right. It’s sling shots against tanks.  And it’s not really a “border.” Israel has no internationally recognized borders. Palestinians and the Israeli military face-off at a prison fence.

During today’s rally, 4 more people were shot dead, 3 of them teenagers. 40 more people were wounded.

Over the past twelve months,  the Israeli army has murdered 194 people, including women, children (41), medics (3) and journalists (2).

More than 29,000 people have been wounded, over 7,000 by live ammunition resulting in 120+ limb amputations.  Evidence indicates that much of this ammunition is of the exploding variety deliberately used to cause maximum tissue damage.

Let that number sink in: 29,000 people shot, many permanently injured and maimed for protesting their illegal imprisonment.

It’s called mass murder, maybe even genocide.  The one thing it is NOT is Israeli self-defense.

Israel is not protecting a border; it is executing ethnic cleansing.  According to Israeli sources, as reported by U.N. investigators, “No Israeli civilian deaths or injuries were reported during or resulting from the
demonstrations.” Only 4 Israeli soldiers have been injured, none killed.

So the score is Israel — 29,000; Palestinians — 4. Not much of a match, if you ask me.

As usual, the world remains silent in the face of Israeli bloodletting.  Well, almost.  The United Nations recently released a 22 page report from its Human Rights Counsel detailing and condemning Israel’s persistent violation of “international humanitarian law.”

The Council concluded that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza.  But since when has a U.N. report changed national behavior?

The Israeli government immediately condemned the report, as it always does whenever anyone tries to call them to account.

Israel’s U.N. ambassador, Danny Danon, responded with the tried-and-true “poor me, I’m the victim” defense,  insisting that the “council is blinded by hatred of Israel.

No nation has fine-tuned the self-pitying instrument of perpetual victimhood as masterfully as Israel. It is her favorite tool in the propaganda arsenal. If you can’t dispute the facts, attack the messenger knowing full well that your fellow bullies will eagerly join you in the fray.

Sure enough, the United States remains Israel’s favorite partner in international bullying, having consistently blocked such investigations whenever possible.

And the #1 American enablers of Israel’s brutal criminality is not the pro-Zioniist lobby AIPAC but the conservative Christian church. (Check out these article: here and here and here and here. )

So, once again, just as the German Christian church embraced Adolf Hitler; just as Christians of the Confederacy defended slavery; just as the Pilgrims of Massachusetts Bay slaughtered Native Americans to make way for their New Zion; so American evangelicals blissfully bless Israel’s weekly massacre of encaged Palestinians without a twinge of doubt, shame, or guilt.

There is no greater testament to the death of the evangelical social conscience and the self-absorption of American Christianity.

 

Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing Preach Partisan Politics

(This post is the 4th in a series that deals with the cultural captivity of the church.  You can read previous posts here, here and here.)

“The political process has failed. Capitalism has failed. Socialism has failed. Libertarianism has failed. Marx has failed. Populism has failed. Anarchism has failed. I say this not because of any glaring flaws in any of those ideas (in theory any of them could potentially work in an alternate universe), but because we are hurtling towards extinction in the fairly near future, and none of them have saved us.”

That is the opening paragraph to a recent post by one of my favorite commentators, Caitlin Johnstone. The post is entitled “Your Plans for Revolution Don’t Work. Nothing We’ve Tried Works.” (You can read the entire post by clicking on the title.)

Ms. Johnstone insightfully  discusses the many ways in which every political party and social movement has “failed.”

They have failed in the sense of not making this world a better place to live, despite all their promises; not lifting the world’s masses out of poverty and starvation; not ending senseless wars; not leveling the playing field for everyone, especially the disenfranchised, enabling them to have an equal say in their future; and especially, by not getting to grips with the inevitability of an uninhabitable planet overheated by global warming.

Despite her best efforts to sound hopeful, her post concludes on a note of despair:

“What we’ve tried up until now hasn’t worked, so if there’s anything that might work it’s going to come from a wildly unanticipated direction, from way outside the failed mental processes which have accompanied us to this point. We need to open ourselves to that kind of idea.

“That’s basically all I’ve got to offer today. A helpless but sincere plea for humanity to try something new, spat out onto the internet in the Hail Mary hope that it might plant some seeds and loosen the soil for something unprecedented to open up in human consciousness. Sometimes that’s all that we can do.”

My heart always goes out to atheists and genuine, secular humanists such as Ms. Johnstone.  I have heard many such laments over the years, going back to my own youthful days in the 1960s.

As a Christian, I want to talk with Ms. Johnstone and let her know that there IS a solution to all of humanity’s problems.  And it does, in deed, “come from a wildly unanticipated direction, from way outside the failed mental processes which have accompanied us to this point.”

Our salvation comes from heaven, from eternity, in the man who walked through Palestine 2,000 years ago and will one day return, the Lord Jesus Christ.

But I know exactly what she would say: “Your answer is one of the reasons I reject your religion. You offer the proverbial ‘pie in the sky, by and by.’ The human race needs rescue now!

Well, Jesus intends his people to have a specific answer to that question, too. It should go something like this:

“Look to the Christian church! Look at the inter-racial, multi-cultural people of God and how they love each other. Observe their service to one another AND to the rest of this world. Look at their efforts to be peace-makers. Look at the practical ways they implement God’s commitment to equality, justice and forgiveness wherever they go. Look at how seriously they take their duty to care for and to preserve God’s creation.”

Yet, I suspect that Ms. Johnstone would laugh in my face. That gospel message is tough to communicate, mostly because it is so very, very difficult to see in real life.

Where is the evidence?  Where is that church?

God’s vision for his church is especially difficult to defend in Trump’s America where false teachers like Robert Jeffress (pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, TX and ‘spiritual advisor’ to the president) parade themselves on national television spouting the false gospel of Christian nationalism, and the church’s identity with Republican party politics.  (You can watch his most recent 9 minute appearance on Fox News here, complete with a much deserved take-down by another atheist commentator, Kyle Kulinski.)

I pray you are horrified after listening. (Hopefully, I can add to your horror when you read my dissection of these false doctrines in my book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America).

I don’t disagree with Jeffress’ discussion about the growing number of American’s disaffected by organized religion.  But the hypocrisy embedded in his diatribe is mind-bending.

Mr. Kulinski’s  merciless roasting of pastor Jeffress is spot on and entirely deserved.

Coupled with his own utter lack of self-awareness, Jeffress and his ilk are cardboard caricatures of true ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

While mocking preachers that merely repeat the things that people “hear on CNN or the Rotary Club,” he goes home to offer the same repetitious, sectarian message from his pulpit as he does on Fox News.

He dares to equate “the never-changing truth of God’s word” with the chest-thumping partisanship that binds him to the heart of Fox News executives and the American president.

He maliciously likens Republican voter turn-out with Christian commitment, suggesting that it is a litmus test for piety.

He simultaneously, suggests that anyone who disagrees with him — people like Caitlin Johnstone, Kyle Kulinski, me, and many of my friends — anyone who does not vote for his Republican party-ticket as lacking in “deeper convictions.”

Apparently, the 70% of white evangelicals who put Trump in office and continue to support him do so because “they believe in absolute moral and spiritual truth and vote those convictions at the ballot box.”  Unlike anyone else who votes his or her conscience?!?

Are you kidding me?

This is the non-gospel according to Jeffress and most white, American evangelicals today: anyone who believes in the morality and the spiritual truths of the gospel will vote Republican.

It is false teaching, plain and simple.

It puts political partisanship over devotion to Christ because it confuses political partisanship with devotion to Christ.

Any and every “Christian leader” falling into this trap deserves to be defrocked. For they are not spiritual leaders at all, but wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Clan-Jeffress,  one and all, are false shepherds leading God’s flock in paths antithetical to the paths of our Lord and Savior.

All of us in the American church share responsibility for our failure to provide men and women like Kyle Kulinski and Caitlin Johnstone with genuine, thorough-going examples of real (which means radical), transformational Christian community in this world.

In many respects, we all continue to live “like sheep without a shepherd.”

But false shepherds like Robert Jeffress pose a heightened danger to the church, for they deliberately lead God’s people like lemmings to a cliff.

It doesn’t take a prophet to predict that the choppy, partisan waters below that spiritual cliff will one day drown Pastor Jeffress and his partisan congregation in the same brand of hopelessness and despair that now washes over Ms. Johnstone.

Israel Loves Collective Punishment

Osama bin-Laden’s writings explain that the 9/11 Al Qaeda attack on the Twin Towers was a response to US imperialism in the Middle East; particularly the presence of American troops on Saudi Arabian soil.  That was a defilement of the holy land, in his eyes.

Bin-Laden justified the mass-murder attack in the heart of New York City because, in his mind, all Americans were equally guilty for the crimes of U.S. forces around the world.

Bin-Laden saw American civilians in the same way that many 19th century military commanders viewed Native Americans.  They were all equally guilty of resisting white settlement.  Therefore, all of them, including women, children and the elderly, were legitimate targets for white retribution.

Israel thinks the same way about Palestinians. As a nation, Israel stands in the same moral league as Osama bin-Laden and Col. John Chivington (the man responsible for the Sand Creek massacre of Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians in 1864).

Gaza bombarded again

Once again, Israel is bombing the people of Gaza after several Israeli’s were tragically killed when their home was struck by a rocket fired from within Gaza.

Personally, I wish everyone would stop dropping bombs and firing rockets.

Both sides are behaving like Osama bin-Laden.  But there is no question that Israel remains the aggressor, the instigator of this entire horrible tragedy. How long will this Zionist state keep the people of Gaza locked up inside their open-air prison, with minimal food supplies and no –that’s right, NO – sources for clean drinking water anywhere?

Israel has always used this strategy of collective punishment.

I have seen it with my own eyes.

We were living with friends in the West Bank during the run up to Israel’s last assault on Gaza in 2014, Operation “Protective Edge.”

Three Israeli settlers from one of the many illegal settlements popping up

Operation Brother’s Keeper, every member of the Hamas political party was arrested and jailed

around the West Bank like mushrooms on steroids were kidnapped and later found dead. (I may write about the supposed search and rescue efforts – called Operation Brother’s Keeper – which swirled around us that summer in a future post.)

Israel had identified two suspects, though they never released any evidence to verify their definitive claims. Israeli officials said the two men were members of Hamas (the party that now governs Gaza), even though Hamas representatives not only vehemently denied the connection, but insisted that Hamas had nothing to do with the kidnappings.

The Hamas argument was entirely believable, given that Hamas was in delicate negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (the group that governs the West Bank) to form a unity government. Jeopardizing those negotiations with such a senseless stunt, knowing that it would bring down the wrath of Israel, made no sense at all.  (By the way, Israel’s government at that time hated the idea of a unified Palestinian government.)

We had become friends with an independent photojournalist that summer.  One evening she learned that the Israeli military was entering Hebron on a search and destroy mission. They intended to arrest their two suspects or at least let the Palestinian community know the consequences of not handing them over.

Our journalist friend intended to document the mayhem, and I was going along to take photos of my own.  Late into the night we searched for transportation to Hebron, but every effort failed.  Reports were circulating about gangs of Jewish settlers roaming the streets, together with the soldiers, attacking Palestinian cars and pedestrians.  No one was willing to drive us.

In the morning, we caught the first public bus to Hebron.  My friend had heard that Israel soldiers had bombed two Palestinian homes.  Since the soldiers were unable to find the two suspects, they located two family homes of the suspects’ relatives and destroyed them completely.

Eventually, we found both homes.  The shell-shocked families led us through the ruins.  Nothing, absolutely nothing, was left intact.  You can see it all for yourself in the accompanying photos.

Anything that was breakable was broken.  Everything shreddable had been shredded. All foodstuffs were torn from their bags or containers and strewn everywhere.

Both families were made to sit at a table and watch as the soldiers ridiculed them, hitting, kicking and slapping them, insisting that they tell them the whereabouts of their accused cousins.

Finally, once every nook and cranny of the homes were made unlivable, the soldiers walked upstairs to detonate a bomb in the family room.

Both explosions sent concrete walls flying through the air, opening large, gaping wounds blackened by flames. Fires raged throughout the remains as both families were forced to watch their belongings go up in smoke.  Once the soldiers left, they were free to put out the fires as best they could.

As I walked through the ruins, taking in the heartlessness and injustice of it all, I thought of General Sherman’s strategy of eliminating the American Indian.  His subordinates received explicit commands to kill, burn and destroy everything and everyone they met.  Attacking an Indian village meant that nothing was left standing.

Collective punishment has always been at the heart of Israel’s Palestinian policy.

Imagine that you are awakened late one night by soldiers kicking down your front door. Your children are pulled out of their beds and everyone is made to sit at the kitchen table.

Then the soldiers inform you that your second cousin (on your mother’s side) is suspected of a serious crime.  If you don’t tell the police where to find him, they will destroy you home.

Think about that.

Your cousin is suspected of a crime.  He has not been arrested or charged, much less tried or convicted. No evidence of your cousin’s involvement has been presented anywhere. Not in court; not on a charge sheet; and certainly not in the media.

The government can simply make a naked, unsubstantiated accusation. And on the basis of that accusation, your home will be demolished.  Why?  Because you are related to the accused.

Yep.  That, my friends, is what passes as “justice” for Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation.

Similar situations occur over and over again, month after month in the Occupied Territories.

And people wonder why rockets fly out of Gaza…

An Example of Why We Need the Equality Act

Take a few minutes to watch Carter Brown  tell his story of what happened once his boss and co-workers learned that he was transgendered. He is a perfect example of why we need the Equality Act.

The human inclination to shame, ridicule and stigmatize those who are “different,” who stand outside the established social norms, may have an a-moral, sociological  explanation, but this kind of behavior has no place in either the Christian church or a “civilized” society today.

Human nature requires that legal protections are created to protect Mr. Brown and others subject to similar workplace discrimination.