Common Dreams: Pharisee Nation

[BlueInRed]

This was really different than most articles on this topic. I thought some might like to see it.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0215-21.htm

Pharisee Nation
by John Dear

snip
Last September, I spoke to some 2,000 students during their annual lecture at a Baptist college in Pennsylvania. After a short prayer service for peace centered on the Beatitudes, I took the stage and got right to the point. “Now let me get this straight,” I said. “Jesus says, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers,’ which means he does not say, ‘Blessed are the warmakers,’ which means, the warmakers are not blessed, which means warmakers are cursed, which means, if you want to follow the nonviolent Jesus you have to work for peace, which means, we all have to resist this horrific, evil war on the people of Iraq.”

With that, the place exploded, and 500 students stormed out. The rest of them then started chanting, “Bush! Bush! Bush!”

So much for my speech. Not to mention the Beatitudes. . . .

A Culture of Pharisees
We have become a culture of Pharisees. Instead of practicing an authentic spirituality of compassion, nonviolence, love and peace, we as a collective people have become self-righteous, arrogant, powerful, murderous hypocrites who dominate and kill others in the name of God. The Pharisees supported the brutal Roman rulers and soldiers, and lived off the comforts of the empire by running an elaborate banking system which charged an exorbitant fee for ordinary people just to worship God in the Temple. Since they taught that God was present only in the Temple, they were able to control the entire population. If anyone opposed their power or violated their law, the Pharisees could kill them on the spot, even in the holy sanctuary. . . .
snip

[tom_paine]

1. Powerful, moving...

:kick:

[cornermouse]

2. I believe this is what comes shortly before the fall.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

3. The more things change

The more they stay the same.

[Dissent Is Patriotic]

4. Simply stated...

easily understood, sure to be ignored. We in the so called "reality based community" are the "christians". We see real pain, real need, real injustice, we see a realistic way to ending gross inequity. We are mistakenly sitting by while they claim the title of "faith based", the moral, the upright, it is nauseating. I am not religious but I always notice in myself, and others that post here, a streak of kindness, of caring. I am not imagining this. We need to find a way to get through to these faith based people, to let them know that their faith is not in God, or Christ, but rather in whatever is the opposite of reason. They are believing what is unreasonable, because they are mistakenly equating irrational, unreasoned thought, with unpopular Jesus-like martyrdom. It is an unfortunate comparison, that is wrong, and yet sickly empowering. Where will it end?

[Tux]

5. Er

I, for one, welcome our fundie, Pharisee, Christian conservative overlords.

[applegrove]

6. Wise words. Finally some leadership appears.

[kineneb]

7. well written, and what I have been saying...

all along...beware the hypocrits. If you hold up BushCo to the ideal, they fall 'way short. Sort of look like the Romans, they do. Invading other countries for their natural resources. "Pax" Americana indeed. No pax to be found anywhere.

[Blower]

8. Wow, that says it all

and Pharisees worshipping bizarre idols--

[SharonAnn]

9. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Powerful, cogent piece.

As Jesuit educated Democrat, I really understand now where some of my perception comes from on these issues.

We had 5 semesters of Philosophy (required) in undergraduate school, along with 4 semesters (required) of Religion. And the Religion classes included Foundations of Christianity, a study of Judaism, its history, its theological underpinnings, its situation at the time of Christ, etc.

We really had to think about this stuff, study it, analyze it, and write about it in order to graduate.

[scarletlib]

10. Amen! Amen! Amen!

I stopped calling myself Christian many years ago. I do not know if a god exists or if Jesus was divine. Like this man states though, I do know than Jesus was non-violent. His ministry was to the poor and the downtrodden and he preached love for one another.

I have tried in my own inept way to follow his teachings.

I am so sick of what this country has become. It is strange. Most of the folks I work with feel like me. I guess because I have spent my life in the trenches working for and with the poor. Even though, I must admit, I still have not done enough for them.

I have only met a few people who supported this war and this administration. There fierceness and anger shocks me.

[nashville_brook]

11. duh -- where has HE been?

oh yeah, and powerful stuff. blah blah blah.

dang, i'm in a crappy mood.

[rodeodance]

12. thanks for the post

[nashville_brook]

15. i'm never that pissy online -- i apologize

i'm just freaking sick and tired of the good guys losing. the pharises have been in power since reagan. i cannot believe i live in a world where dan rather damn near lost his job for no good reason and brit hume can get on the "news" and spout any partisan shit he wants. i can't believe the FCC is STILL talking about decency.

i'm tired of being an adult in a world made safe for children.

how about making the air and water safe?
how about safe medicine?

and where the hell has he been? how did it get past him all these years that collge campuses are hotbeds of paleolithic coonservatism? he's shocked, just shocked! that he was booed and walked out on. holy cripes!

[BiggJawn]

16. We can excuse his confusion...

He obviously read too much of that swill from Lynn Cheney and Jowley Joe LIEberman about our campuses being "Hotbeds of Liberal Sedition"...

I work at a college, even the Liberal Arts Majors write LTTE's opposing a woman's Right to Choose and supporting the Neverending War.

[BlueInRed]

18. um...

I didn't get that he was even a little bit shocked by the whole thing. I got the impression he told the story to make the point that the Christian right didn't seem remotely interested in what Jesus taught if it happened to be in opposition to what their own views were on politics, war, etc. It appeared to me to be a very public challenge to the very views you mention.

[n2doc]

13. awesome article

kick:

[Zebulon]

14. Filled with inaccuracies

The Pharisees supported the brutal Roman rulers and soldiers, and lived off the comforts of the empire by running an elaborate banking system which charged an exorbitant fee for ordinary people just to worship God in the Temple. Since they taught that God was present only in the Temple, they were able to control the entire population. If anyone opposed their power or violated their law, the Pharisees could kill them on the spot, even in the holy sanctuary.

Unfortunately, the author falls prey to misconceptions and gross generalization.

First, there was no such thing as "the Pharisees". There were a number of Pharisaic sects, with wide disagreement among one another. They were not a united movement.

Second, the Pharisees largely opposed the Romans, but were realistic enough to know that outright revolt would lead to brutal oppression. History demonstrated the accuracy of that fear.

It was the high priesthood which controlled the temple, not the Pharisees. And the high priesthood was, at that time, a Roman appointee.

The Pharisees never taught that God was only present in the temple. This is a false and ridiculous assertion. It was the Pharisees who encouraged the development of synagogues as places of worship and study.

It is disheartening that a Catholic priest would display such gross ignorance.

[BlueInRed]

17. It's too bad you missed the point of the article

The gist of your post seems to be to discount what Jesus had to say about the Pharisees, almost in the manner of a dispute between Christianity and Judaism, which is obviously not the point of the article. The gospels and Jesus' teachings on the Pharisees make no such distinctions between subgroups, although I am sure that those who follow Judaism rather than Christianity will dispute the accuracy of the teachings. The article was not posted as a dispute between two religions, but was to point out that the Republican Christian right does not really follow the teachings of Jesus as they claim.

The gist of the article is that the so-called Christian right doesn't follow the essential teachings of Jesus, but rather seems to follow the very principles that Jesus strenuously opposed. The gospels did not draw fine distinctions between groups of Pharisees, but rather criticized them as a group who imposed heavy legalistic burdens on average people, while ignoring issues of compassion, mercy and love. The point of the article is that the Christian right insists it follows the teachings of Jesus, while in fact honoring and following the teachings of Jesus' opponents.

This is an article about the hypocrisy of the so-called Christian right for not following the true teachings of Jesus, not about Judaism vs. Christianity or the historical accuracy of the gospels. Regardless of the historical issues, it seems pretty clear that the Christian right is not following Jesus' teachings on love, mercy, compassion, peacefulness, money, etc.

[Zebulon]

19. Re: It's too bad you missed the point of the article

I'd say that the author obscured his own point.

This is an article about the hypocrisy of the so-called Christian right for not following the true teachings of Jesus

And with this, I agree.

not about Judaism vs. Christianity

The author makes it into just such a thing, though. Would it have been acceptable, for example, for the author to make a point by comparing Republicans to false and stereotypical caricatures of blacks?

[BlueInRed]

20. I understand, partially a result of what I quoted

It certainly would have been more persuasive if he'd stuck to the gospels instead of wandering off into history and issues that might unduly divide people of related faiths.

And perhaps I should have exerpted another portion, for there was much in the article that made it clear what he was objecting to was the Christian right's refusal to follow the teachings of love, mercy, compassion and nonviolence. The part about the Pharisees was several paragraphs down into the original article and with the limits on not posting more than 4 paragraphs, it really wasn't clear what the essence of his article focused on.

[Zebulon]

21. Re: for there was much in the article that made it clear

for there was much in the article that made it clear what he was objecting to was the Christian right's refusal to follow the teachings of love, mercy, compassion and nonviolence.

And I have no disagreement with him, or you, here.