Brickner also described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity:Sarah Palin was in the church when dude said this. Look I have no idea, how Palin feels about Jews or Israel or much else. As a general standard, I think all politicians should be judged on their individual merits. My beef isn't with Palin--it's with professional hyperventilators who have no problem denouncing Rev. Wright as a raving antisemite, who love to talk about the wave of antisemitism sweeping over the ghetto, but have nothing to say about this sort of thing. It's disgusting, weak and the stock and trade of intellectual cowards.
"Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. It's very real. When [Brickner's son] was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment, some of that conflict, when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment -- you can't miss it."
UPDATE: Commenter Brenda offers a much-needed correction:
That sermon was acutally from the head of Jews for Jesus, guesting at the church, not the regular pastor. I think your point still stands, and Brickner certainly received an effusive introduction from said pastor, but let's be as accurate as possible if we're going to make this case.UPDATE #2: From commenter Ano:
So, which is it? Do Wright and Palin-Pastor matter, or don't they? This type of post kind of makes it sound like you want a double-standard going the OTHER way (Wright = OK, Palin-Pastor = significant).Not at all. For my money, neither matter. Like I said, I have absolutely no idea how she feels about Jews. But I want people who go around hollering about Wright to be loyal to their own standard. Feel me? That goes for the critics--and it goes for reporters who insist that Wright is a problem among Jews.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Her church also offers CURES FOR HOMOSEXUALS!
How wonderful for them. Sheesh.
As someone who grew up as an Orthodox Jew and who comes from a community of believers, many, many Jews are far too committed to Israel - they will vote for people who promise good things to Israel at the expense of the USA, and really don't care about uniting with anti-semites. Throw in the utter fear of Islam and anyone who sounds slightly Muslim and this sort of stuff just doesn't matter. Wright and Palin and anti-semitism is nothing more than post-hoc rationalizations for explaining what you already believe.
I understand the instinct to want to play tit-for-tat with Rev. Wright.
However, I see the present attempts to scare Jewish voters regarding Palin as nothing more than the mirror image of prior attempts to scare Jewish voters regarding Obama. You can say all you want that the real point is to expose "teh hypocrisy" and the double standard, but in reality the point is to get this negative information out there.
If our belief is that candidates shouldn't be expected to walk out or raise an objection any time they go to church and someone ends up saying something offensive, then we should act according to that belief, and not abandon it just because the smear happens to work in our favor this time.
Jewish voters are already highly distrustful of evangelical candidates. There's no need to go around trying to scare them with trumped-up images of Pat Buchanan and the like.
Wright and Palin and anti-semitism is nothing more than post-hoc rationalizations for explaining what you already believe.
I think there are a number of issues that you can describe the same way--people make the decision based on a gut feeling and then find a way to justify it, even if they have to twist logic into a Gordian knot to make it work.
On a somewhat tangential note, it turns out that one of Michele Obama's cousins, Capers Funnye, is America's most prominent black rabbi.
http://www.forward.com/articles/14121/
A rabbi in the Obama family? Mazel tov!
Between Barack and Michele, can their extended family possibly represent any more demographics? I love this family.
That sermon was acutally from the head of Jews for Jesus, guesting at the church, not the regular pastor. I think your point still stands, and Brickner certainly received an effusive introduction from said pastor, but let's be as accurate as possible if we're going to make this case.
More importantly than that (because I always thought the Rev. Wright stuff was insane), we have her actual words in a speech she gave her own little self in her church. How scary is it that someone things that the war Iraq could be a mission from God?
The idea of her being Commander in Chief of our actual military is frightening to me. But in stead of discussing this, we're stuck in the 1992 cultural wars.
linkie:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
George Stephanopoulos: "Governor Palin, does your pastor love Israel as much as you do?"
At any rate, this takes the Reverend Wright crappola off the Republican menu of options. There is no way they can trot out that shit if Palinty has these nutjobs in her closet.
Who needs Hagee now?!
Bristol Palin is a closeted Jew for Jesus.
Pass it on.
BTW (and since you asked), I'm pretty sure that should be "stock in trade," i.e., the goods that such people deal in.
Maybe I should use "old curmedgeon" as my handle for grammar posts?
I saw that earlier this morning and already the folks on the right were quick to dismiss this as nothing and meaningless compared to Rev. Wright.
Frankly this scares me a hell of a lot more.
The evangelical base is not only in bed with, but in flagrante delicto with the current and (oh please no) future administration. They have a real say when it comes to domestic and foreign policy. What kind of power do Rev. Wright and his South Side parishoners have to make any kind of radical changes to government policy?
Zero.
I'm beginning to think that I would prefer another four years of George Bush than put the country in the hands of McCain and Palin. We already know what Bush is capable of, I don't even want to imagine the kind of plans these two have in mind should they end up in power. They make Bush and Cheney downright lovable in comparison.
Its simple. Brickner is not black. What's the upside of faking outrage over him. The payoff of playing blacks of againsts whites is big though.
Thats the beauty of Obama's race speech. He points out that as long as we continue to let these people play us by pushing these racial buttons, we will never be able to tackle the big problems - healthcare, global competitiveness, etc, - that can only be solved if we can unite in a post-racial way.
So, which is it? Do Wright and Palin-Pastor matter, or don't they? This type of post kind of makes it sound like you want a double-standard going the OTHER way (Wright = OK, Palin-Pastor = significant).
Fill in the blank:
Wright = Palin-Pastor = ?
? = {OK , Not OK}
Brenda, thanks for the correction. So, the parallel is more like Father Pfleger's sermon at Trinity, yes?
I agree with Steve in the second comment.
I find it all too likely Palin herself subscribes to a really, truly scary Christian supersessionist form of philosemitism.
But when Jews have to choose between different brands of antisemites, creepy pro-Israel or the anti-war sort (see Mearsheimer and Walt), it's no surprise they pick the pro-Israel ones. The basic problem here is too many people trying to manipulate Jews rather than accepting what Jews actually want as legitimate.
Yeah, these accusations, followed by counter-accusations of hypocrisy, always seem to follow the same weird construct.
It goes a little something like this...
Voter A: You wore red shorts! It's awful, and terrible, and super awful!
Voter B: WTF? Really? Why should we care about that?
Voter A: Because it is a terrible, terrible thing that gives me a clue about your deeper personality. Or something.
--next day
Voter A (wearing red shorts): Hi
Voter B: Hey, wait... didn't you say red shorts is terrible?
Voter A: You said they didn't matter! Hypocrite!
Voter B (scratching head): WTF?
The double standard exists because of the people involved in upholding it. If liberals who were as disingenuous as Hannity, Limbaugh, et al. were as influential and aggressive as they were, you'd perceive that slant a lot more. Its as simple as that.
What's worse, that these right wing media blowhards are blatant hypocrits, or that we actually expect them to apply the the same standards to themselves that they hold everyone else to? This has never happened. It won't start now.
Palin is not my messiah
According to Wikipedia, there are 3,060 Jews in Alaska. Do you think the eminently provincial Governor Palin really has enough familiarity with Jewish folks to have a real opinion on the matter?
You know I dont think it paints either one of thecandidates as bad for having been in church when the controversial sermons were given. If anything, it should remind those "holier than thou's" out there that you're gonna hear a little bit of crazy form time to time no matter where you go to church.
"Pray... for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
This quote keeps getting interpreted around the blogosphere as Palin equating US intervention in Iraq with God's will.
It's clear from the quote that she is NOT equating the two: asking people to pray that the US does the right thing and that the US plan is God's plan demonstrates ample awareness that the two might not be the same thing. Praying for our country's leaders to be guided to do the right thing is hardly the controversial stand this is being made out to be.
As a Jew (who is "pro-Israel", at least would be considered so on the left), I disliked a lot of Reverend Wright's views on foreign policy. A lot of what he said suggested perhaps too much sympathy for Arab terrorism, though I get the sense it's borne of empathy for the "underdog" as much as anything else. I never got the impression he was anti-Semitic.
Brickner is a raving anti-Semite -- as bad as Farrakhan or worse.
I actually think the situations parallel rather nicely. Wright is friendly with Farrakhan, Palin's pastor with Brickner. Palin should be obligated to denounce and reject Brickner at a minimum and perhaps even quit her church.
The fact that this isn't all over cable news as we speak is, frankly, probably due to racism. A black preacher saying controversial things just seems to be more newsworthy to CNN than a white preacher saying even worse things.
According to Wikipedia, there are 3,060 Jews in Alaska. Do you think the eminently provincial Governor Palin really has enough familiarity with Jewish folks to have a real opinion on the matter?
It is a peculiar fact that some of the most virulent anti-semites have had almost no contact with actual Jewish people.
I heartily agree with your latest update.
I thought it was wrong to attack Obama over Wright and I think it is wrong to attack Palin over this guy. But I'm being consistent, I said about Wright that is perfectly reasonable for a person to attend a church where they dont; alwasy agree with what is preached, grown-ups can think for themselves.
What I want to see is someone like say Rod Dreher or Ross Douhat who each spent days on their blogs writing post after post about Wright and the deep concerns it created about Obama respond. They both have been of course gushing about Pallin every since she was announced, as yet no comments from them on this.
But I want people who go around hollering about Wright to be loyal to their own standard.
You expect intellectual honesty in politics? The people hollering about Wright are partisans - de facto surrogates, really, of the Republican Party. That's like saying you want McCain's campaign to do ads admitting to all the times their man's voted for tax increases.
Ta-Nehisi writes:
Actually, I think you could phrase that a little more strongly.
When the Rev. Wright controversy burst into the headlines, the thing I couldn't wrap my mind around was that to the extent Barack Obama stands for anything, it's an abiding faith in the American creed of opportunity and self-improvement. He already had an extensive public record. There was never a hint in it that he shared Rev. Wright's more controversial beliefs (or, more precisely, that he embraced the good reverend's more extravagant flights of rhetorical excess.) In fact, there was a mass of evidence to the contrary, in his statements and positions taken over the years. That, I have to say, was my objection to the coverage. The burden of proof ought to have been on Obama's critics to demonstrate that he shared his pastor's values. But since every bit of evidence pointed the opposite way, and since Obama himself immediately, clearly, and unequivocally separated himself from those views, the resulting firestorm was absurd. This was exemplified by that wonderful moment in the debate when Obama denounced Farrakhan, and Tim Russert insisted he reject him as well. How many times does the man have to say that Farrakhan doesn't speak for him?
So that's my standard. When someone is accused of associating themselves with a repugnant figure, however indirectly, I first look to the public record to determine if that association accords with that person's expressed views. If that record is unclear, or if the association is sufficiently deep, it's reasonable to ask them about it directly. And then we should be prepared to accept their answer.
So to me, the proper analogy to Brickner is Farrakhan. Both were guests who appeared at the behest of the pastor of the candidate's longtime church. But Palin was actually in attendance. And this was just three weeks ago. And, most crucially, we have no idea whether Palin agrees with Brickner. Add that up, and you'll see that this isn't Wright redux; it ought to be far more troubling.
Someone should ask Palin about this. If she doesn't agree with Brickner, she needs to say so. Why? Because we know very little about Sarah Palin and her beliefs. There is no record at all against which to judge this incident. And if she thinks terrorists are killing Jews because God is punishing them for refusing to convert to Christianity, well, that's more than relevant. I think most voters would like to know that. I know I would.
If Rev Wright was closely looked at, and Obama blamed for his utterances, Palin's pastors(or mentors) also need to be looked at.
But I also still believe that just like Obama was not responsible for wright, Palin should not be held responsible for her pastor.
This is all part of the vet process!
Cynic,
It is even farther removed than that, as far as I know Farrakan never actually appeared at Obama's church, IIRC a magazine published by them gave Farrakan an award recognizing him for his community service programs.
Also, as a Jew I've always found Jews for Jesus to be pretty despicable. But listening to this sermon I'm struggling to hear what's so anti-Semitic about it. The bit about the terrorists is a lot more ambiguous than you or Ben made it out to be. There's a recording here:
http://wasillabible.org/sermon_files/2008_Sermons/wbc080817.mp3
So Asher you don't find it anti-semitic to think that terrorism against Isreal is God's judgement handed down against the Jews for rejecting Jesus?
Seriously?
I just listened to that whole thing--it seems pretty clear to me. The whole sermon is about Jews as the epitome of unbelief in Christ. And then he goes on to argue that judgment is the price of unbelief. He puts the current crisis in that same context, essentially saying that the lack of peace in Israel is due to the lack of belief among the Jews. That sermon was almost literally antisemitic, in that it basically argues that there'd be peace in the Middle East if Jews just converted--in other words if there were no Jews.
I think everyone here should listen for themselves. I'm open to the possibility of having missed something.
Well, a) it's not entirely clear that that's what he's saying, and b), no, I don't. It's no more anti-Semitic than the Pope saying that he doesn't hate or despise Jews, but nevertheless believes that we're all headed to Hell if we don't accept Christ. I think that's a perfectly acceptable religious belief to have. As for terrorism in Israel being God's judgment against us - yeah, it sounds pretty harsh. But half of our own Bible is more or less chronicles of God's punishments for those who failed to become Jews, or good Jews. For instance, see Wikipedia on the Book of Joshua:
One difficulty in this book arises out of the command given by God to completely exterminate "anything that breathes" in the cities in the land to be inherited.[4] During the conquest God commands his people to kill inhabitants of numerous cities (often including women and children). No explicit justification is given in the book for these atrocities.
At many points in the Tanakh God orders men to kill other people for their faithlessness including at the scene of the golden calf when 4,000 Jews were slain for idolatry.
Then there's the fun in Exodus when God kills off every Egyptian first-born son. Or this passage in Isaiah, where God has this to say about non-believers:
“I looked, and there was no one to help,
And I was astonished and there was no one to uphold;
So My own arm brought salvation to Me,
And My wrath upheld Me.
“I trod down the peoples in My anger
And made them drunk in My wrath,
And I poured out their lifeblood on the earth."
So I just have a tough time saying that it's anti-Semitic to claim that God might punish Jews for not being Christians when our own tradition is replete with stories of God literally killing people off for not being Jews.
Yeah, I'm not religious--in part because of the things you just outlined. I'll leave it at that.
I agree that this double-standard is frustrating, but it doesn't worry me. Obama may become the first black President of the United States. He has a chance to make such an incredible breakthrough. And I have complete faith that Obama and his people understand the lay of the land and how to win this thing.
The situation reminds me of what I've heard about Jackie Robinson, Branch Rickey and breaking the baseball color barrier. The pioneer is always going to face a double-standard. He has to be beyond reproach while the status quo attacks mercilessly and with impunity. But that's why these people are heroes.
I think one might argue that it's best for Obama if these fringe issues aren't the focus of the election. He won't get points for withstanding the double-standard. And there's so much fodder with which to attack McCain, if only the public and the media would focus on what's really important and what's really at stake.
Brad L: Let me fix your story for you.
TV idiot who supports Voter A's candidate: Red shorts are bad! It's awful, and terrible, and super awful!
Voter B: WTF? Really? Why should we care about that?
Voter A: I dunno, I just left the TV on. Hey, when do the new episodes of House start?
--next day
Voter A (wearing red shorts): Hi
Voter B: Hey, wait... didn't you say red shorts is terrible?
Voter A: No, that was some idiot on TV.
Voter B (scratching head): WTF? I think that if your talking head says red shorts are bad, you shouldn't show up wearing them.
I'm sure there are a few fools who really believe Write was evil and Palin's pastor is OK. But as I recall, no one outside the media realy cared about Wright. If anything, I thought it helped Obama, by drawing attention to the fact that he is a church going christian (and not a Muslim).
I think this material coming from Palin's church is pertinent and a legitimate target for rigorous inquiry on the part of the press. The Wright stuff struck me as bullsh*t primarily because we always knew that Obama didn't believe any of the more vituperative stuff from Wright. He had two books outlining how he felt about race, history and American identity. He had policy positions. He had a public record and life that easily refuted the more outrageous insinuations.
Sarah Palin ... not so much. We don't know her positions on anything having to do with religion, race, and policy. (Except that we're in Iraq to kill the infidels, which is not comforting.) So while it might not be time to the Obama campaign produce ominous commercials for the nice retired Yiddishers in Florida about the Alaska messhugana, they better be gaming the press, putting out surrogates, and spreading the word. There's many ways to attack.
I know we're supposed all high minded and principled, but it's time to throw some punches on stuff like this. It's such utterly offensive beliefs about fellow human beings that make fundies incompetent caretakers of our government. They need to be called out.
I’m a Jewish believer in Jesus. Most blogs and news services have posted the same one paragraph of the six-page transcript of David Brickner’s message, giving the false impression that he is saying that a bulldozer attack by a deranged Palestinian is God’s judgment on the Jewish people. Please read or listen to the entire message for yourself at the Jews for Jesus website, www.jewsforjesus.org, so that you can see Brickner’s remarks in context. Please also take a look at Mr. Brickner’s comments concerning his message at Wasilla Bible Church, as well as an interview by Christianity Today with Mr. Brickner about this issue, at that same website.