Anti-Semitism is Anti-Humanity. Who are we scapegoating these days–family members, friends or foes, peoples or nations? Who are we blaming for all our problems, conflicts or woes? Blaming in many ways is irrational because we all contribute in varying degrees to the problems we face. Moreover, blaming paralyzes us, exhausts our energies that could be better used to addressing our problems by collaborating with others on solutions to the problems we face.
This is exactly what Jesus meant when he insisted that his followers “Stop Judging” and “Stop Condemning” for these are dead ends that prevent us from correcting problems with honesty, humility and a deeper humanity. This does not mean we should not speak out against wrongdoing , but without the condemnation because no hurtful action occurs in isolation of a troubled relationship for which all parties bear responsibilities. We must ask ourselves when we are tempted to blame a person, a group, a nation for something, “What have I done (or our leaders done?) to contribute to this problem, this conflict, these negative feelings?”
Even more importantly, ask “What approach will better address this conflict, these feelings to blame, to scapegoat : Name-calling, demeaning, belittling another? OR -asking “How can we work together to alleviate our conflicts and the prejudices we have embraced?” “What’s honest about our issues and complaints with another? What’s irrational?” “What are the true sources of our problems?” We need to ask God for greater maturity and wisdom in addressing feelings of conflict and blame and take care to act in ways that let grace take hold of us.
Heed this WARNING:
A friend asked me why, as a priest, I continue to comment on politics. Here’s why:
My politics aren’t limited to any one realm but they are informed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus was very critical of all peoples in power and in institutions that run without mercy just as God is mercy. Jesus would condemn terrorists, communists and greedy capitalists equally as each in their own way (terrorists most explicitly) contribute to the suffering, and yes, death of many peoples far beyond “self-defense.” It’s a social sin that governments build up armaments at the expense of fare trade food, health and education for their people. I certainly think Kim of North Korea is filled with evil and so is his nuclear tests, and he should be handled with harsh criticism and sanctions, but hasn’t our country set the example of “might makes right” long ago? Not that we shouldn’t be able to defend ourselves and innocent people–and, yes, hindsight regarding our pacifism to Hitler early on was a terrible mistake, but, all the same, if we spent an equal amount on diplomacy and support of our poorest citizens, and assist, when we can, other countries to do the same, there would be far less to criticize. Peoples who have basic needs met are far less likely to revolt, turn to violent revolutions, racisms and the like. In the 1986 the United States Bishops Conference issued a researched paper calling for Justice in the Economy (See Below) Wall Street and Conservative Catholic Economists crucified the contents saying that religious leaders need to keep out of non-spiritual matters. However, Jesus received the same hostility when he began his public ministry (See Luke’s Gospel Chapter 4) and his criticism of established norms of state and church put him on the Cross. (He called Herod “a fox.” And “render to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is God’s “is not about separation of Church and State but pointing out the limits of the state because, for believers, all belongs to God. All prominent Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox scholars have affirmed this for almost a century, but people still hold on to old world views and old ways of interpreting the scriptures. The point of the Cross was to put a mirror onto society and its violent, selfish aspects to forgive and transform them. Not simply forgive and let business continue as usual. Nothing should stay the way it is because it worked in the past. People forget the Bible is as much future-oriented as it informs us of the past. At any rate, that is just some of the basis for my informed, prayerful sense that religion and politics must be kept in dialogue and that religion considering Jesus is asked to take a critical stance and look at the consequences for as many people as possible, not just a few, in reviewing current trends and legislations.
Meanwhile chick this out http://www.usccb.org/upload/economic_justice_for_all.pdf
I watched ALL of the Republican debate on CNN. Here’s my gut response: Jeb Bush comes across as the most humane (and yes, he had more energy); John Kasich quite sensible. The rest? Ugh. I take particular umbrage with Marco Rubio. Could anyone be more myopic? His tirade against environmental concern is so extreme. Is there no middle ground with him? If some jobs are lost, wouldn’t more jobs be gained in the new technologies? Has he no concern for clean air and water? He likes to drink water. God help him.
Trump was a bit more cordial than the last time. He is so very entertaining.
Carly Fiorina comes across as a solid hawk, perhaps even more than most of the men. Do you think she overdid it to show that she is a strong person? I don’t know. But I applaud her statements not to fund Planned Parenthood (NO reason tax dollars should support abortions not only because it’s a great moral issue but also because the tax paying public is so divided on the issue. PP will have no problem getting funds from the private sector anyway) and I appreciated her passion against legalized marijuana as a gateway drug. For all that, I think all of the candidates want to take funding away from PP.
Sadly Jeb didn’t get to summarize his tax plan, although Carson and others did. Having read Jeb’s in the NYTIMES, it definitely seems reasonable. Carson’s tithing (10 %) across the board for everyone is intriguing, but he’s not a viable candidate and the tithing thing doesn’t seem practical on some levels, although it would totally simplify everything. Plus it’s biblical!
I wish these debates would focus more on the issues than the usual political rants and idealistic speeches. The moderators don’t ask penetrating questions! E.g. on the hot issue of the Iran deal: during the considerable number of sanction years, Iran has built up considerable uranium deposits and, without any Western communication , sources say it would be ready to build a bomb in the next three months. So what good did the strict sanctions do? They only isolated a sick and diseased country and allowed its leaders to do what they wanted while the common people suffered there. Why would no one state the obvious here? Sadly, central points like these are never brought up in most debates. At least some of the potential candidates did state the obvious: with or without this agreement the USA can bomb Iran any time it likes. And so can Israel for that matter. So what is the big deal here? In the past, some diplomacy with an enemy has had greater potential than none at all even when war became inevitable. And as Kasich repeatedly stated, we gain more support from Europe when we at least try the diplomatic way first.
Have a wonderful day. You deserve it!