"Letter From Birmingham Jail" as A Foundation of American Democracy

  • Thread starter Thread starter donbosco
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 29
  • Views: 400
  • Politics 
Batt Boy said:
If you read Rohr's latest and get drawn into other readings of Ezekiel 37:1-10, you might like this. Fascinating to me.

Ballad of the Bones and Other Poems: Reece, Byron Herbert: 9780877971009: Amazon.com: Books
Click to expand...
Rohr has changed my life and my view of the world in countless ways, but this passage was the one that made me question everything --

The scapegoating ritual described in Leviticus 16 offers a helpful perspective on Jesus’ death. On the “Day of Atonement” the high priest, Aaron, was instructed to symbolically lay all the sins of the people on one unfortunate goat, and the people would then beat the animal until it fled into the desert. It was a vivid symbolic act that helped to unite and free the children of Israel. Instead of owning their faults, this ritual allowed people to export them elsewhere—in this case onto an innocent animal.

The image of the scapegoat powerfully mirrors the universal, but largely unconscious, human need to transfer our guilt onto something or someone else by singling that other out for unmerited negative treatment. French philosopher and historian René Girard (1923–2015) demonstrated that the scapegoat mechanism is foundational for the formation of most social groups and cultures. We need another group to be against to form our group! For example, many in the United States scapegoat refugees who are seeking asylum, falsely accusing them of being criminals. This pattern is seen in many facets of our society and our private, inner lives—so much so that we might call it “the sin of the world” (note that “sin” is singular in John 1:29).

We humans largely hate or blame almost anything else rather than recognize our own weaknesses and negativity. “She made me do it.” “He is guilty.” “He deserves it.” “They are the problem.” “They are evil.” We seldom consciously know that we are scapegoating or projecting. It’s automatic, ingrained, and unconscious. As Jesus said, people literally “do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).

We hate our own imperfections in other people, and sadly we often find the best cover for that projection in religion. God and religion, I am afraid, have been used to justify most of our violence and to hide from the shadow parts of ourselves that we would rather not admit. Yet Jesus revealed the pattern two thousand years ago. “When anyone kills you, they will think they are doing a holy duty for God,” he said (John 16:2).

The Scriptures call such ignorant hatred and killing “sin,” and Jesus came precisely to “take away” (John 1:29) our capacity to commit it—by exposing the lie for all to see. Jesus stood as the fully innocent one who was condemned by the highest authorities of both “church and state” (Jerusalem and Rome), an act that should create healthy suspicion about how wrong even the highest powers can be. Maybe power still does not want us to see this. Much of Christianity shames individuals for private sins while lauding public figures in spite of their pride, greed, gluttony, lying, killing, or narcissism.

As John puts it, “He will show the world how wrong it was about sin, about who was really in the right, and about true judgment” (John 16:8). This is what Jesus exposes and defeats on the cross. He did not come to change God’s mind about us. It did not need changing. Jesus came to change our minds about God—and about ourselves—and about where goodness and evil really lie.
 
lawtig02 said:
Rohr has changed my life and my view of the world in countless ways, but this passage was the one that made me question everything --

The scapegoating ritual described in Leviticus 16 offers a helpful perspective on Jesus’ death. On the “Day of Atonement” the high priest, Aaron, was instructed to symbolically lay all the sins of the people on one unfortunate goat, and the people would then beat the animal until it fled into the desert. It was a vivid symbolic act that helped to unite and free the children of Israel. Instead of owning their faults, this ritual allowed people to export them elsewhere—in this case onto an innocent animal.

The image of the scapegoat powerfully mirrors the universal, but largely unconscious, human need to transfer our guilt onto something or someone else by singling that other out for unmerited negative treatment. French philosopher and historian René Girard (1923–2015) demonstrated that the scapegoat mechanism is foundational for the formation of most social groups and cultures. We need another group to be against to form our group! For example, many in the United States scapegoat refugees who are seeking asylum, falsely accusing them of being criminals. This pattern is seen in many facets of our society and our private, inner lives—so much so that we might call it “the sin of the world” (note that “sin” is singular in John 1:29).

We humans largely hate or blame almost anything else rather than recognize our own weaknesses and negativity. “She made me do it.” “He is guilty.” “He deserves it.” “They are the problem.” “They are evil.” We seldom consciously know that we are scapegoating or projecting. It’s automatic, ingrained, and unconscious. As Jesus said, people literally “do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).

We hate our own imperfections in other people, and sadly we often find the best cover for that projection in religion. God and religion, I am afraid, have been used to justify most of our violence and to hide from the shadow parts of ourselves that we would rather not admit. Yet Jesus revealed the pattern two thousand years ago. “When anyone kills you, they will think they are doing a holy duty for God,” he said (John 16:2).

The Scriptures call such ignorant hatred and killing “sin,” and Jesus came precisely to “take away” (John 1:29) our capacity to commit it—by exposing the lie for all to see. Jesus stood as the fully innocent one who was condemned by the highest authorities of both “church and state” (Jerusalem and Rome), an act that should create healthy suspicion about how wrong even the highest powers can be. Maybe power still does not want us to see this. Much of Christianity shames individuals for private sins while lauding public figures in spite of their pride, greed, gluttony, lying, killing, or narcissism.

As John puts it, “He will show the world how wrong it was about sin, about who was really in the right, and about true judgment” (John 16:8). This is what Jesus exposes and defeats on the cross. He did not come to change God’s mind about us. It did not need changing. Jesus came to change our minds about God—and about ourselves—and about where goodness and evil really lie.
Click to expand...

I don't know why moral human beings bother with the gospel of John. Ironically, those pronouncements in Jn. 16:2 can be persuasively historicized as acts of projection on the part of third-generation Jesus followers to put into relief their own status as martyrs and true believers over and against evil (which is to say, indifferent) Jews. Moreover, how does one impute "the church" to the gospel of John? No doubt Rohr is taking historical liberties--there was no church in 30 CE.

Girard has become a touchstone for the right--see Peter Thiel. But this scapegoat argument is a second-order theodicy on a gospel that is already, in itself, a theodicy: why did Jesus die (and not whoop ass)? why is it best that he died (and did not yet whoop ass)? Why do bad things happen to the most innocent people?
 
Last edited:
breepf said:
I don't know why moral human beings bother with the gospel of John. Ironically, those pronouncements in Jn. 16:2 can be persuasively historicized as acts of projection on the part of third-generation Jesus followers to put into relief their own status as martyrs and true believers over and against evil (which is to say, indifferent) Jews. Moreover, how does one impute "the church" to the gospel of John? No doubt Rohr is taking historical liberties--there was no church in 30 CE.

Girard has become a touchstone for the right--see Peter Thiel. But this scapegoat argument is a second-order theodicy on a gospel that is already, in itself, a theodicy: why did Jesus die (and not whoop ass)? why is it best that he died (and did not yet whoop ass)? Why do bad things happen to the most innocent people?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't care nearly as much about the theodicy of Rohr's comment (or certainly its historical accuracy) as I do what it says about human nature and group political dynamics. With a few minor edits, all theological implications could be removed and his comment would be just as accurate and powerful, in my view. While the theological elements do speak to me personally on some level, that's not at all why I found his observation to be prophetic.
 
breepf said:
I don't know why moral human beings bother with the gospel of John. Ironically, those pronouncements in Jn. 16:2 can be persuasively historicized as acts of projection on the part of third-generation Jesus followers to put into relief their own status as martyrs and true believers over and against evil (which is to say, indifferent) Jews. Moreover, how does one impute "the church" to the gospel of John? No doubt Rohr is taking historical liberties--there was no church in 30 CE.

Girard has become a touchstone for the right--see Peter Thiel. But this scapegoat argument is a second-order theodicy on a gospel that is already, in itself, a theodicy: why did Jesus die (and not whoop ass)? why is it best that he died (and did not yet whoop ass)? Why do bad things happen to the most innocent people?
Click to expand...
By the way, your point about Girard is an important one and I don't want to discount it. I remember reading a couple of years ago about Thiel's connection with him. And now we have Thiel's protege Vance occupying the second highest office in the land. I read about it some at the time but in looking again this morning, I found this more recent article, which is pretty dang amazing. As frustrating as the internet can be at times, it's so nice to have access to stuff like this. Whether one agrees with it or not, it's really provocative commentary. Just thought I'd share, as this is a board that seems to value esoteric thought like this.

From Philosophy To Power - Salmagundi Magazine

René Girard’s Legacy This past summer, I was surprised to encounter a face I knew in two most unexpected places. The first was in a photo montage accompanying an article written by Josh Kovensky of...
salmagundi.skidmore.edu salmagundi.skidmore.edu

A few quotes --

Peter Thiel and J.D. Vance both exemplify how the knowledge of scapegoating can be misused, even by those who claim to appreciate Girard’s philosophy.

Consider a real scenario involving J.D. Vance, who claims Girard’s work opened his eyes to his own tendency to scapegoat. In a 2020 essay titled “How I Joined the Resistance: On Mamaw and Becoming Catholic,” he wrote that Girard’s “theory of the scapegoat…made me reconsider my faith.” Girard taught him how we “shift blame and our own inadequacies onto a victim.” Recognizing these patterns in his own life, he vowed, “That all had to change. It was time to stop scapegoating.”

Yet four years later, during the presidential campaign, Vance helped spread false rumors about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. Alongside Donald Trump, he promoted the debunked narrative that these immigrants were stealing and eating pets. By amplifying these baseless claims, Vance engaged in classic scapegoating, targeting a vulnerable community as a source of societal problems. Vance inverted the concern for victims to justify marginalizing immigrants, claiming to defend residents supposedly harmed by outsiders. This inversion demonstrates how easily Girard’s ideas can be misapplied to perpetuate the scapegoating they warn against. Vance knows from basic mimetic theory that certain “preferential signs” tend to attract and justify the actions of violent mobs—Girard’s “stereotypes of persecution,” which include social marginality, cultural differences, misfortune, and economic vulnerability.

The Haitian immigrants in Springfield fit these stereotypes to a T. They are socially marginal, arriving in a small Ohio town with few resources or connections. Their cultural differences—speaking Creole, maintaining traditions unfamiliar to the locals—set them apart in a community unused to such diversity. Their misfortune is evident: refugees fleeing political instability, arriving with little beyond the hope for a better life. And their economic vulnerability makes them easy targets for resentment, as they are perceived to compete for limited jobs or strain public resources.

Another stereotype of persecution Girard identifies is “behavioral deviance.” In this case, the Haitian immigrants were accused of bizarre acts like eating their neighbors’ pets—an absurd but potent fabrication that reinforced their otherness and justified hostility against them.

Mobs intuitively gravitate toward such signs because these markers make it easier to project blame and vent violence. The Haitian immigrants become scapegoats, bearing the burden of a community’s unresolved tensions and fears.

Vance stated on the record, “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.” This admission underscores his willingness to propagate falsehoods for political gain, directly engaging in the scapegoating mechanism Girard cautions against.

Rooted in either staggering hypocrisy or self-deception, this approach allows Vance to cast his non-Haitian constituents as the “real” victims—along with their cats—while explaining away, to himself and others, the harm inflicted on the immigrant community—a perfect example of how the concern for victims can be inverted to justify one’s own scapegoating.
 
Sorry, I know it's really annoying to post one thread after another without a response, but I just wanted to say that I would LOVE to hear input on this from our Trump supporters like Ram or calla. Seriously. I really, genuinely want to understand how MAGA responds to this type of thing. Maybe we could create a cone of safety on this thread where comments will be responded to without aggression or condescension. I personally struggle greatly with how people could support the MAGA agenda in light of these human realities, and I'd really like to understand how those of you who post here think about it.
 
lawtig02 said:
Sorry, I know it's really annoying to post one thread after another without a response, but I just wanted to say that I would LOVE to hear input on this from our Trump supporters like Ram or calla. Seriously. I really, genuinely want to understand how MAGA responds to this type of thing. Maybe we could create a cone of safety on this thread where comments will be responded to without aggression or condescension. I personally struggle greatly with how people could support the MAGA agenda in light of these human realities, and I'd really like to understand how those of you who post here think about it.
Click to expand...
Bumping for Ram, if he can pull himself away from the SCOTUS thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top