“Gaza Doesn't Need Our Tears, It Needs Our Anger”

Recent U.N. reports about extensive starvation and incipient famine in Gaza spurred me to write this article about the current crisis there and to suggest how we should respond.  

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian journalist and political commentator. Last week, I happened to come across her August 14 newsletter with the heading that I have used for the title of this blog post.**

A year earlier (on 8/18/24), Johnstone boldly posted this statement with which most USAmericans will strongly disagree:

The US is the single most murderous and tyrannical regime on the planet and retains its power by creating a mind-controlled dystopia where the public is brainwashed with propaganda, and its politicians fearmonger about the nation falling to "communism" or "fascism" if you cast the wrong vote.

Granted, Johnstone’s statement is somewhat exaggerated, but Israel’s war against Hamas occurring in Gaza, which has led to the worsening of the chronic hunger/malnutrition situation there, is due partly to the multifaceted U.S. support of Israel and its Prime Minister, Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu.

The U.S. has provided substantial financial assistance to the State of Israel since its formation in 1948, as well as additional funding and military support since October 2023. In contrast to most current issues, especially on the U.S. funding of Israel’s warfare in Gaza, I stand in opposition to both political Parties.

Perhaps now Johnstone’s 2024 statement could/should be updated to refer to fearmongering about the U.S. falling to radical Islam (such as is seen in Hamas).

The famine in Gaza is due to genocide, not war. Some news sources, such as BBC and Al Jazeera, refer to what is currently going on as the “Israel-Gaza war.” But that term has been rightly rejected by theologian Miguel De La Torre in “This is Not a “War,” his perceptive August 14 essay.

The designation which should be used is genocide, for as De La Torre asserts, “Israel, with the military backing of the United States, is engaged in the genocide of the Palestinian people—wiping out those who refuse to self-deport so settler colonialists can complete the full occupation of Palestine.”

A week after De La Torre’s essay, “The Conversation” posted, “Israel’s plan for massive new West Bank settlement would make a Palestinian state impossible,” (see here).

 “Israel’s razing of Gaza is … about the erasure of a people, a culture and a history that expose the lies used to justify the Israeli state.” This is the sub-headline of Chris Hedges’s hard-hitting article in opposition to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people from 1948 until the present.

Reflecting on the way the Palestinians have been mistreated by Israel for more than 75 years now, Hedges expresses the type of anger that Johnstone calls for in her lament, and at the head of his August 22 “report,” Hedges uses the following image of “Beelzebibi” by Mr. Fish (cartoonist Dwayne Booth). 

“Be angry but do not sin” (Ephesians 4:26). Yes, the New Testament admonishes us to be angry, and the genocide-induced famine in Gaza is an appropriate target for our anger as Johnstone asserts.

As a pacifist, I do not agree with the concept of just war, for I don’t think one can participate in war without sinning. How can killing people be sinless when Jesus commanded us to love our enemies? But I think there can and should be what can be called just anger.

Many of us want to show concern, sympathy/empathy, compassion, and so on to people in need. But in many cases, anger is more appropriate than merely expressing shared grief and shedding tears.

Sympathetic tears are appropriate when there are natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods, wildfires, droughts, and the like. But when widespread suffering is deliberately caused by humans, anger is the better response.

That is Johnstone’s point: the death and destruction in Gaza is entirely human-made. That is the reason the dire situation there elicits our anger rather than our tears.

If there is any hope for Gaza, it will come by increasing numbers of people heeding the words of theologian Augustine of Hippo: “Hope has two beautiful daughters, their names are Anger and Courage. Anger that things are the way they are, and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are.”

_____

** Here is information about the three articles I cite in this blog post:

Gaza Doesn't Need Our Tears, It Needs Our Anger (Aug. 14) by Caitlin Johnstone (b. 1974), an Australian journalist and activist.

This is Not a “War”: Israel and Hamas by the Numbers - Good Faith Media (Aug. 14) by Miguel De La Torre (b. 1958), a Cuban American who is a professor at Iliff School of Theology in Denver, Colorado. (I am pleased that he is also one of my Thinking Friends.)

Israel’s Assassination of Memory - The Chris Hedges Report (Aug. 22) by Chris Hedges (b. 1956), a USAmerican journalist, author, and commentator. 

Why Disillusionment Can Be a Good Thing

 Like many people, I have generally thought of disillusionment as being something "bad," but in a recent sermon, my pastor talked about how disillusionment can be a good thing. In that message, Pastor Nanette read an excerpt from Barbara Brown Taylor’s book The Preaching Life, and right away, I ordered a used copy of it. 

Barbara Brown Taylor is an American Episcopal priest, academic, and author. She was ordained in 1984, and The Preaching Life (1993) is the first of her many published books. It is largely autobiographical (Part One) and a collection of sermons (Part Two). Pastor Nanette quoted from the first chapter, “A Church in Ruins.”

In that chapter, Taylor (b. 1951) writes about how in the 1970s, when she was in college, many students and other young adults were becoming increasingly disillusioned with Christianity. In that connection, she then wrote about a young father who was grieving the loss of an infant daughter.

The devastated father said, “If God is going to let something like this happen, then what’s the use of believing at all?” To this, Taylor remarks: “His disillusionment is emblematic of the post-Christian era, when the perceived promises of Christendom lie broken and the existence of God—never mind the omnipotence of God—seems a fantasy.”*¹

In that context, Taylor surprisingly avers that perhaps disillusionment “is not so bad.” She explains:

Disillusionment is the loss of illusion—about ourselves, about the world, about God—and while it is almost always painful, it is not a bad thing to lose the lies we have mistaken for the truth. … Disillusioned, we find out what is not true and are set free to seek what is.

What an important insight!

So many people who have rejected Christianity or faith in God have done so because of having harbored some illusion, some lie they mistook for the truth. But many who became disillusioned were, indeed, liberated from some lie and set free to seek and to find the truth.

Sigmund Freud wrote/spoke much about religion/faith in God as being an illusion. One of his most famous books is The Future of an Illusion (1927; Eng. trans., 1928). In the sixth chapter, he states, “Religious doctrines are all illusions, they do not admit of proof, and no one can be compelled to consider them as true or to believe in them.”

In that same chapter, Freud wrote, “What is characteristic of illusions is that they are derived from human wishes. … The illusion of religion is fulfilled in the belief in a God who protects us and compensates us in a future life.”

Back in October 2014, I posted a blog article titled “Was Freud a Fraud?” My conclusion was that, indeed, in many ways, he could be considered so. And now (with the help of ChatGPT), I am more convinced that my criticism of Freud then was well-grounded.

Many of Freud’s main assertions were illusions, in the sense that they did not admit of proof (as they were neither empirically verifiable nor falsifiable) and no one could be “compelled to consider them as true or to believe in them.” Just like many religious beliefs, they may be true or false, but they can’t be scientifically proven to be one or the other.

Just as many religious people need to be disillusioned, that is, liberated from the lies they have mistaken for the truth so that they can seek and (ideally) find that which is true, it is the same for those who embrace “scientism,” people such as Freud and philosopher Daniel Dennett.*²

Dennett (1942~2024) is one of the "four horsemen" of what has often been called the “new atheism.”*³ Dennett is often quoted as saying, "There's simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion."

Well, since they are already dead, perhaps I don’t need to be polite, but it seems clear to me that Freud and Dennett did devote their lives to an illusion. They badly needed to be disillusioned, but never were, as far as we know.

Disillusionment is the best thing that could happen to present-day people whose worldview is similar to Freud’s, Dennett’s, and others who embrace scientism and complete secularism.

What, though, could be better than being liberated from lies and finding the truth that sets one free!

 _____

*¹ When I read those words, I wrote “Oord” in the margin, referring to theologian Thomas Jay Oord, the author of a seminal book on this issue about whom (in January of this year) I posted a blog article. Oord rejects the idea of God’s omnipotence (as it is usually conceived). If you want to (re)read that post, click here.

*² Scientism is the belief that science is the only valid path to knowledge and that scientific methods should be applied to all areas of inquiry, dismissing philosophy and/or religion as illegitimate or inferior.

*³ The other three are Christopher Hitchens (1949~2011), Richard Dawkins (b. 1941), and Sam Harris (b. 1967).  

What about Pastors Promoting Politicians?

Last month, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service stated that churches and/or pastors could endorse candidates running for political office, despite the Johnson Amendment of 1954.*¹ Should we now think it is acceptable for pastors to promote voting for politicians by name? 

Why was the Johnson Amendment passed and long uncontroversial? Lyndon B. Johnson was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1948 and successfully ran for re-election in 1954. During that re-election campaign, he was opposed by some tax-exempt organizations, including churches.

Johnson thought it was not fair for tax-exempt groups and their leaders to engage in direct support or opposition to candidates running for political office. His amendment was passed with little opposition and has long been widely recognized as upholding the principle of separation of church and state.

Even though the amendment was drafted by a prominent Democratic Senator, it was signed into law by President Eisenhower, a Republican. There was widespread agreement across the political spectrum that mixing tax-exempt status with partisan political endorsements was inappropriate.

From the beginning, though, there was some opposition to the enactment of that 1954 amendment.

What was the basis for disapproval of the Johnson Amendment? Even though they thought it was absolutely right for their churches to be exempt from paying taxes, some conservative Christians thought the Johnson Amendment was an infringement on their freedom of speech.

Since they saw the amendment as a freedom of speech violation, they thought it was unconstitutional and needed to be nullified or just ignored, as to a certain extent, it has been through the years.

Pastors, they claim, have the responsibility to speak out on moral issues, and doing so naturally includes mentioning the names of politicians who are aligned with what is deemed to be immoral. Such opposition has grown over the years among those affiliated with the Christian Right and now with MAGA.

With the growth of the latter groups over the past decades, conservative pastors have largely felt constrained to speak out, especially in opposition to abortion and LGBTQ rights and against politicians who are pro-choice and pro-gay.

In recent years, Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, has been one prominent pastor who has expressed strong disapproval of the Johnson Amendment. He has been one of Trump’s most ardent supporters, and in April, he voiced that disapproval at the Easter prayer service in the White House.

At the President’s request, soon afterward, he sent a letter to Trump, outlining what he called “wrongful weaponization of the law” and the “unlawful targeting” of his church. He has also said, “What a pastor says in a church service is none of the government’s … business.”*²

Jeffress and many other conservative pastors think they have the right to give moral instruction to their “flock,” including guidance in political matters. On the website of Jeffress’s church, however, they claim that their weekly telecasts are seen by hundreds of thousands of viewers.

Any pastors who have their sermons streamed on the internet have no basis for saying they are just giving moral instruction to their church members. To promote political candidates, as Jeffress is wont to do, is a clear violation of the Johnson Amendment.

Why is ignoring the Johnson Amendment now a bad policy? Since politically conservative church members overwhelmingly vote Republican, if pastors in such churches promote political candidates, that will make little difference. Most conservative evangelicals will vote for Republicans no matter what.

On the other hand, since members of progressive churches (such as the one I am a member of) overwhelmingly vote Democratic, pastors of such churches mentioning the name of a candidate will make little difference.

The problem is in churches where the adult members are politically “purple.” Pastors promoting candidates by name in such churches could and probably would influence many to vote for the candidate promoted by the pastor. This is why the Johnson Amendment needs to be heeded.

On July 30, over 1,000 charitable nonprofits launched a national sign-on letter to defend nonpartisanship and public trust (see here). The letter strongly objects to efforts by the Trump administration to weaken the Johnson Amendment, which protects nonprofits from partisan politics.

As Amanda Tyler says, this ignoring of the Johnson amendment “threatens to turn churches into PACs”—and that can’t be good for either the government or churches.*³

_____

*¹ According to Wikipedia, “The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code … that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization in the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to universities and churches. The amendment is named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas.” In July 1954, it was enacted into law.

*² This was reported in a July 30 article in the New York Times (see here). The title of that article is “How Conservative Christians Cracked a 70-Year-Old Law,” and if you are interested in reading more about this issue, I recommend that article. Also, I didn't quote from it, but here is a link to another good article, published yesterday, on the subject. 

*³ Tyler is the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee [BJC] for Religious Liberty. The BJC’s roots go back to 1936 when the Southern Baptist Convention [SBC] established an organization that grew into what became the BJC. The SBC ceased funding the BJC in 1991