The High Priests Gathered to Praise the Dems - but the Prophets Were Missing : IntentBlog

intent is the emerging asian consciousness giving birth to a global mind shift

Featured Posts

The High Priests Gathered to Praise the Dems - but the Prophets Were Missing

Rabbi Lerner - August 28, 2008

For all the media chatter about how far we've come since the Democratic Convention in Chicago,1968, or the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr's. "I Have A Dream Speech," if you were expecting that the words of the prophets had moved from the subway walls and tenement halls into the mainstream of the Democratic Party you'd be sadly disappointed.

I thought I might find that voice at the Dem's Faith Caucus on Tuesday,Aug. 26. I was wrong. One minister I spoke to at the Dems' Faith Caucus meeting on Tuesday (Aug.26) put it this way: "Don't expect anything here to upset the Democrats apple cart-this is about winning, not about speaking truth to power."

Unless the power is elsewhere-in the Republican Party or in the Bush Administration. There was no lack of attacks on the perceived political enemy. And no room for Jesus' admonition to stop criticizing the blindness of the other until one dealt with one's own blindness.

Speakers at the faith caucus were some of the smartest, most principled , and in my view, most admirable voices in the religious world of the U.S. (whoops, not including Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. who were in short supply in this caucus). They were articulate and powerful in their critiques of Bush and of McCain. And they were positively ecstatic when it came to praising the Democrats for even having a faith caucus for the first time in its history.

There are two possible directions for a faith caucus. A faith caucus can be, and at the moment it fully is, a cheerleading squad for the Democrats, bringing to the churches, synagogues, mosques and ashrams "the good news" that the Democrats policies miraculously happen to coincide with the message of our holy scriptures, and on top of that, that they intend to expand funding of local religious communities as long as the specific programs funded operate within the bounds of separation of church and state.

The other direction is to be a prophetic voice within the political party, bringing to the attention of the leaders the voices of the most downtrodden, demanding that the party live up to its own principles and that it move beyond the rhetoric of peace and justice to really embody that. A prophetic voice would have asked the following questions:

*Why did the Democrats promise to end the war in Iraq in 2006, then go on to fund it in 2007 and 2008? How many dead and wounded Americans and Iraqis should be on the conscience of the party that controlled both the House and the Senate and yet voted hundreds of billions of dolloars to continue the war that they promised to end? If cutting off funds would have caused a split in the party, why should that be more feared than a split from God's command to pursue peace and justice?

*Why did the Democrats promise to restrain President Bush, then refuse to consider impeachment, but instead vote to extend his powers to violate the Constitution by increasing surveillance on American citizens?

*Why did the Democrats fail to challenge the tens of billions of dollars of windfall profits made by the oil companies, rather than passing legislation to appropriate much of those profits to be used to help poor people pay for the heating oil to survive the winter heat and the gas to enable them to get to work?

*Why did the Democrats not challenge the underlying assumptions of the War on Terror-that security comes through domination and "power over" others, and instead embrace the Strategy of Generosity that underlies the Network of Spiritual Progressives' proposed "Global Marshall Plan" now articulated in HRes. 1078 as proposed by Congressman Keith Ellison and backed by 19 other Congresspeople?

*Why did Senator Obama embrace the death penalty for childhood rape-do we really believe that as people of faith we should keep quiet when our candidate talks of extending rather than contracting who our society puts to death?

Of course, the FaithCaucus might have done both of these things, but it did not. There was not a single speaker addressing our disappointments with the Democrats in Congress (though nationwide Congress' current approval rate under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi stands at 1/3 the level of approval of George Bush-it's now at 9%).

Meanwhile, in the halls many delegates whispered to each other about the fall in Obama's polling since his campaign started moving to the "center," abandoning its own ideals, and in the process losing its most important asset: the excitement of young people around the U.S. who had allowed themselves this past Winter and Spring to abandon their cynicism and believe that this would not be "politics as usual" with the liberal candidate talking peace, justice, an end to militarism and poverty and then qualifying those to death in the actual policies they would back.

Of course, Obama's lofty rhetoric Thursday night may reinvigorate the hopefulness that won him the nomination in the first place. Yet people of faith really failed him and the Democrats when they spent so much time praising and so little time asking Obama and the Democrats to realize that in the 21st century taking spiritual values seriously in politics requires looking at the spec in one's own eyes-- and it is that kind of help that makes the absence of prophetic critique in the Faith Caucus not only ethically disappointing but substantively a betrayal of the best interests of the Democrats and of the Obama candidacy.

But don't speak too soon-the wheel's still in spin, and Obama might yet transcend all his advisors and his cheerleaders and return to his most visionary self.

Digg this entry Add to Del.icio.us Share on Facebook Subscribe

Posted by Rabbi Lerner at August 28, 2008 10:47 PM

Comments

But Obama is the Prophet!(snark)

I agree, the Faith show at DNC was simply political pandering.

1. Posted by John on August 29, 2008 12:16 AM

Good post.

You're saying the Dems avoided the tough fights in their last two years, when they had a majority in Congress.

This logic - it's about winning, not about rocking the boat - is a killer to the whole Democratic party and they don't realize it.

Obama can sail to the White House on a dream - and it has been proven, time and again, that the public will get excited by a dream and vote for it.

Or he can suck the wind out of the sails by exactly the kind of avoidance and pandering you cite in your post.

I wonder if Obama - and the Democratic leadership - truly understands that that would give the election to McCain.

Honestly, I don't think they get it.

Americans want to see leaders that fight for the things that make this country America - rights, freedoms, privacy, the ability to pursue your dreams without government and religious oppression or racial prejudice stacking the decks against you.

We'll vote for ability of every one - not just the rich - to have a good education, health care, and for the nation to have a good physical and governmental infrastructure that serves the needs of the people - not rapes the national treasury for unnecessary war-mongering.

In spite of last's nights hoopla, I still don't see solid evidence that the Democratic leadership gets it - and it will be yet another lost opportunity that they wake up from with a wicked hangover the morning after.

So many times the opportunity for reform - totally with the support of the voters - has been handed to them on a silver platter and they dropped the platter on the floor.

How many times have the Dems snatched defeat from the jaws of certain victory?

They better wake up, and now would be a good time.

2. Posted by yogi-one on August 29, 2008 09:29 AM

Good post.

You're saying the Dems avoided the tough fights in their last two years, when they had a majority in Congress.

This logic - it's about winning, not about rocking the boat - is a killer to the whole Democratic party and they don't realize it.

Obama can sail to the White House on a dream - and it has been proven, time and again, that the public will get excited by a dream and vote for it.

Or he can suck the wind out of the sails by exactly the kind of avoidance and pandering you cite in your post.

I wonder if Obama - and the Democratic leadership - truly understands that that would give the election to McCain.

Honestly, I don't think they get it.

So many times the opportunity for reform - totally with the support of the voters - has been handed to them on a silver platter and they dropped the platter on the floor.

How many times have the Dems snatched defeat from the jaws of certain victory?

They better wake up, and now would be a good time.

3. Posted by yogi-one on August 29, 2008 09:31 AM

David Sirota:

Obama Speech: Convention Address Makes Economic Populism Central Thrust of Election 2008

If his convention speech tonight is any indication, Barack Obama has (finally) signaled that progressive economic populism is going to be the central thrust of Democrats campaign in the stretch run of the 2008 election.

The speech is probably the most populist national speech Obama has given.

Here are the key snippets:

__________________________________________________
"We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job - an economy that honors the dignity of work...

Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it...

It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road...

I will make certain those [health care] companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most...

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses..."
__________________________________________________

This is strong stuff - the kind of thing I was talking about when I wrote a newspaper column back in June entitled "Countering Race With Class." That column said the only way for Obama to counter the GOP's cultural populism is with a full-throated economic populist message.

For a while now, I have wondered why it has taken him this long to get back to this same economic language that he used in the Democratic primary. It probably is a mix of factors: The Wall Streeters whispering in his ear, Democrats' typical (self-defeating) move to the right in general elections, and the virulent free-market fundamentalism that the New York Times says he embraced at the University of Chicago.

But now, he has to win an election - and he knows that Democrats have won red-states like Ohio not by pretending to be Royalist Republicans, but by being economic populists and tapping into the uprising that I described in my new book (in fact, Obama himself invoked uprising language explicitly tonight, saying, "Change happens because the American people demand it - because they 'rise up.'")

That his newfound courage is partially rooted in election opportunism doesn't negate its value. If he continues with this kind of posture, he not only will win the election, but will create a mandate that helps force an Obama administration to fulfill the economic promises it is making. And that more than anything would, indeed, mean real change.

4. Posted by Freyja on August 29, 2008 09:42 AM

Dear Rabi Lerner,

Thank you for speaking about the conscience of the party that has been controlling both the House and the Senate (Democratic) and its failure to "walk the walk" after "talking the talk". The public at large has allowed itself to be mesmerized by the lofty rhetoric and promises. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE HAVE FAILED TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE ACTIONS OF THE POLITICIANS THEY SUPPORT.

The National Journal Magazine in its rating of Senators, BASED UPON THEIR VOTING RECORDS, has rated Barack Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate - even more so than Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont, a self-described "Democratic Socialist".

Barack Obama's State of Illinois has A LAW THAT DICTATES BABIES MUST BE LEFT TO DIE. Babies who somehow survive attempted abortions MUST BE SET ASIDE AND ALLOWED TO DIE. They MUST NOT be given food, water, or even basic human love and kindness. They are JUST LEFT ALONE TO SUFFER DEATH. Barack Obama worked tirelessly in leading the way to get this barbaric law passed when he was an Illinois State Senator. This report was in the Washington Times (August 23rd) in a Letter to the Editor.

This barbaric law reminds me of another occasion of barbarism that Americans were forced to witness when on March 31, 2005, Terry Schindler Schiavo (a brain damaged person) in Florida was allowed to die by starvation by edict of her husband and his lawyer after a long battle with the parents of Terry Schiavo to save her life.

When were spiritual values completely discarded by our lawmakers, allowing the horrific miscarriages of justice that we are witnessing today?

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

5. Posted by "Betsy" S. on August 29, 2008 01:17 PM

Go Obama!!!

6. Posted by Char4 on August 29, 2008 03:12 PM

"Betsy" Troll, stop posting outright lies and babykiller smears.

"Barack Obama worked tirelessly in leading the way to get this barbaric law passed when he was an Illinois State Senator. This report was in the Washington Times (August 23rd) in a Letter to the Editor."

Which is bullshit and outright distortion of his pro-choice record, and Illinois state legislative record.

Washington Times has no journalistic integrity, if you cared to know about their history. No surprise you get your info from Wash Times and National Review. The National Review's model to rate liberals and conservatives, btw, was debunked long ago (even before the IOWA primaries) as being clearly flawed. Moreover, being liberal is a great asset if it means progressive politics. And Rabbi Lerner is for progressive politics.

As a low info paranoid, and royally screwed by the right wing smear machine, you are free to believe shit, but don't keep SHOUTING and posting smears and lies again and again here.

7. Posted by Mr. Welsh on August 29, 2008 06:21 PM

Dear Mr. Welsh,

What is your definition of "progressive" politics?

Sorry to see how "bent out of shape" you get over these discussions. Hope your blood pressure isn't off the charts.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

8. Posted by "Betsy" S. on August 30, 2008 01:22 PM

Sorry, but you just can't get a minyan of 10 righteous men. I base that on the words of the Gita. If you get one, he stands alone and is apt to get crucified. We muddle along together and Barach offers hope from the muck and mire. Hope- it's no small acheivement. Without it, we all commit suicide- n'est ce pas?

Ideas being the radiance of the mind are not to be avoided. -Evans Wentz Tibetan Yoga and Secret Doctrines. They might not become concretized but they are the carrot before the horse. We run the race.

9. Posted by Sherry on August 31, 2008 05:36 AM

Dear Rabbi, Sorry to be so cryptic, if that's the word, in my previous post.

I wanted to tell you that I've been reading some photocopies of Kabbalah text given to me , in class, by a Conservative rabbi from an Hassidic family.
I am very happy to learn that redeem in Hebrew means to return. Very happy to learn this. All the printouts he gave us are very yogic. It is amazing that the ones he chose to copy are such.
I have been wondering how a mystic gets to where he is without yoga. It must be the inherent value of fervent aspiration and the reading and pondering of scriptural texts.
When the Buddha said to follow Right Belief I don't think he meant mine over yours.
Just a thought,
Yours,

10. Posted by Sherry on August 31, 2008 12:51 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Featured Posts

The High Priests Gathered to Praise the Dems - but the Prophets Were Missing

Comments

Post a comment

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories