Showing posts with label Rabbi Daniel Lapin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rabbi Daniel Lapin. Show all posts

Thursday, November 7, 2019

Two Opposing Religions in an Ongoing Uncivil War


Rabbi Daniel Lapin was talking with Glenn Beck on radio, the third hour Thursday morning. It was a conversation worth hearing, about deep ideas.  

Let’s start with a definition of a religion, because that’s key to understanding some of the later comparisons. In the quotes of the transcript, I’ll refer to DL (Daniel Lapin) and GB (Glenn Beck).

Glenn Beck (left) and Rabbi Daniel Lapin
screenshot from here (subscription may be required)

DL: What it is that distinguishes a religion from, you know, a model railroad society, if you like, is that a religion has to tackle and answer the three basic questions, the fundamental questions. You know, if you’ve got an inquisitive kid sitting next to you on an airplane, the kids asks the three fundamental questions: where are you from, where you’re going, and what do you do?
Having established that, he takes on the first question for a comparison between his religious view and something more pagan.

DL: So, where are we from? How did human beings, capable of moving from being land bound creatures in 1902 to 2019 when we’ve got 10,000 airplanes in the air at any given moment. Anybody who remains an atheist in contemplating the fact that it’s not otters or beavers or camels or cows or kangaroos that have achieved this. It’s a being touched by the finger of God—a creature called human beings, made this leap into the air. We’re extraordinary creatures. But how did we get to this planet? And, as far as we know in the moment, uniquely in this vast empty universe? We’ve got to answer the question of how we got here.
And I answer that, that a God created us in His image and put us here. My answer is quick, brief, and simple. And nonprovable, by the way.
The religion of secular fundamentalism, which I think is a better term than—you’re right; I withdraw atheist—secular fundamentalism is the official state religion of America. But why are they a religion? Because they answer that question. They say, by a lengthy process of unaided materialistic evolution, primitive protoplasm turned into bookkeepers and ballerinas. That’s what happened. Now, that’s not provable either. But it’s a belief.
He planned to go on to the second big question. But Glenn detoured him with a question about heresy. Fundamentalists of a religion cannot withstand heresy. As Rabbi Lapin says, “leftism” in America is a religion of secular fundamentalism.

DL: And that’s what it is, because otherwise there’s no way to explain why a group of gray-haired old ladies in on the upper east side of New York have to file a lawsuit against a Louisiana parish for teaching creationism. What they are doing is just what the Moslems did when they invaded the Iberian Peninsula in the 7th Century—basically demolish the Catholic churches and turn them into mosques. You cannot withstand heresy, if you are a devoted believer in your faith. And right there in front of you, right there in your face, somebody is committing heresy, you kill ‘em. And so, what is the connection between a group of ladies on the upper east side of New York and a Louisiana parish? The Louisiana parish has the audacity to violate their belief system—that we are here through a process of lengthy unaided materialistic evolution—by daring to teach creationism. Well, of course that’s outrageous.
He talks about the two cultures occupying the same real estate. And later in the discussion this comes up again. Glenn quotes from a 19th Century Librarian of Congress wrote at the behest of Congress. There’s also an illustration of a map of the United States, with trees, one bent and gnarled running into the South, representing slavery, and the other is very straight and runs across the North, representing the blessing of liberty. (I’m not always sure where Glenn is quoting, but I’ve tried to put those portions in quotes to differentiate.)

GB: It says, “This map represents those colonies by two trees, whose striking contrast will be apparent to the most superficial observer. But not more, though, than the historic facts that make them appear. The student of history here can see at a glance that it would require him years of hard study to glean from textbooks, and many will see the moral of this subject here for the first time. It’s said that history repeats itself. We do not claim that it does, but there is a similarity between the first colony of the Old World and the first colonies of the New World.” The first colony of the Old World—what would you say that is? The first colony of the Old World?
Glenn Beck talks about the two trees described by
the Librarian of Congress
screenshot from here (subscription may be required)

DL: Garden of Eden?
GB: Yeah. And I would never have thought of it that way. I thought that was interesting. “The first colony of the Old World was established in the Garden of Eden, where good and evil existed, and the evil caused the downfall of man. So it was in the New World. Good and evil came here also. Good to Plymouth, bad to Jamestown. As the tree which bore the forbidden fruit caused the curse to be brought upon man in Eden, so did the tree of slavery Jamestown. There was constant warfare in the Old World between good and evil, and there has been in the New World. The evil of Jamestown has always been, and to this day, at war with the good of Plymouth. Much of the trouble in the New World was caused this way.
In 1620 each colony planted a tree, the tree of liberty, then quite small, was planted by the Pilgrims upon the Bible at Plymouth, where it receives God’s blessings, which accounts for its wonderful growth. The tree of slavery was brought from the Old World, and the people of Jamestown also planted this tree.”
It goes on to compare Lincoln to Father Abraham, who cuts down the tree of slavery.

I’m interested in the history repeating itself concept. Glenn and Rabbi Lapin talk about it as, not necessarily a repeat of events, but a repeat of spiritual beliefs that tend to play out the same way.

The discussing began with Glenn asking about a Fox News reporter who got fired recently for saying that, if the Democrats are claiming to believe in God, he didn’t recognize their God. “I think it’s more like Baal,” he had said. And got fired for that. But Glenn thinks he’s right. That led to discussing the definition of religion.

But later they talk about parallels between ancient pagan religions and what we see today. And it’s very uncivilized.

GB: OK. The reason why I say that I think this guy from Fox was actually onto something is not that they knowingly are worshiping. But we are unknowingly doing all of the same things their worshipers did. Can you go into that?
DL: Sure. Yes, certainly. One of the outstanding characteristics of both Moloch and Baal—and you’ve spoken about this many times; I’ve heard you—is that they used to sacrifice their kids. Now you’ve got a little bit of this as well among the Egyptians, during the pharaoh time. But, in practice, this worship means that you sacrifice your children as a way of expressing your fealty to this.
Well, how you do it and the reasons you do it are probably not that important. But we do it here.
In other words, right now in America there are two cultures. And you can find some of the nicest small towns in America which are basically governed and shaped by those who worship the big G of God. And then you’ve got cities like New York and Detroit and Baltimore and Newark, and many many other cities today, on the west coast, California particularly, that are run by those who worship something else entirely.
Now, where are the lives of young males sacrificed? It’s clear.
GB: Where?
DL: In these cities that are run by secular fundamentalism, young men in disproportionate numbers end up in the criminal justice system and in jail. Their lives are sacrificed completely. And that is an exact fulfillment. In other words, “What we do is so important that we don’t care if it costs the lives of our sons.” And that is what the culture is saying. We are so devoted to a lifestyle with absolutely no divine restraints.
‘Cause, after all, what has held Western Civilization together for centuries is really the essential rituals and restraints and rules of religion. We want to toss all of that out. None of that holds. We want to do whatever we choose to sexually, and we want to do whatever we choose to financially, which usually means taking it away from those who have created it and bestowing it upon those who are living multi-generational dysfunctionality.
So, as long as we can do the things we want to do, the fact that our sons end up dead and in jail—that’s just a fair price to pay. If you’re a believer in Baal or secular fundamentalism, that’s a deal with the devil you absolutely make. And you can see it. Just look at America.
GB: You’re also sacrificing your newborns, which they did.
DL: Absolutely.
GB: To be a follower, you had to have orgies and sex, get pregnant, and then you would return and sacrifice your newborn and celebrate, literally celebrate the death of that child. And that’s what we’re seeing with people who are touting Planned Parenthood.
DL: And if you think about it, it’s the most unbelievably selfish lifestyle. What you’re saying is, “I want to do whatever I darned well choose to, and if the next generation has to pay for it with their lives, so be it.”
What we’re seeing, Rabbi Lapin says, is what we see whenever societies follow this pattern.

DL: Because, in primitive societies—and all societies are stripped of faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob eventually devolve into primitivism. And we see that, by the way, today also with piercings, body piercings going on, very indistinguishable from the cannibals of New Guinea of a hundred years ago. Body piercing is an expression of primitivism and tribalism. And, when you strip away Biblical Judeo-Christian values, then automatically we devolve down into that.
There was another gross detail of paganism that is reappearing: feces. It happened during Occupy Wall Street. It’s showing up in city streets wherever homeless are allowed to live on the streets. In cities that used to be beautiful, but now they’re unsafe, stinking, and disease-ridden. And they’re all led by secular fundamentalists.

He said he’d been told over the years by law enforcement officers that, when homes were broken into in very wealthy neighborhoods near Los Angeles—well, I’ll use his words:

DL: They would tell me what the scene of a break-in sometimes looked like. When they had come to a place that had been robbed, usually on the west side of Los Angeles—Brentwood, Santa Monica, Beverley Hills, Beverlywood—in those upscale areas, when those houses were broken into, they almost invariably discovered that those who broke in had left a fecal business card behind, usually on the living room carpet. That’s what they did.
People who didn’t work for their wealth, but wanted to live off others—like slaveholders, expressed their contempt by defecating in the homes they broke into. And he added,

DL: We’ll also find that in low-grade street language, one of the worst invectives you can hurl at somebody also has to do with that part of the anatomy.
So, this is very primitive. This is very basic. This is basically toddlers who are 30 and 40 years old, still acting like toddlers. Baal is central to that.
We tend to think of people in our day as too sophisticated, to “evolved,” to fall for pagan worship; they’re not likely to call their god Baal, or even recognize what they do as their form of worship.
But without God, our loving creator, who defines good, and requires that we value life, family, truth, and property rights, there can be no civilization.

We are, again, at a point of repeating history. There was Cain against Abel. There was a civil war in ancient Israel between the north and south, over moral issues. There was the dichotomy between Jamestown, with slavery, and Plymouth, with the biblical blueprint for how to grow a civilized nation. There was our American Civil War between North and South, over moral issues—specifically, slavery. And today there is a split between people with Judeo-Christian values (including non-believers who nevertheless live by these values) and those who throw out those values and live by a creed of, as Rabbi Lapin puts it,

DL: We want to do whatever we choose to sexually, and we want to do whatever we choose to financially, which usually means taking it away from those who have created it and bestowing it upon those who are living multi-generational dysfunctionality.
In the Spherical Model, that dichotomy is also north (freedom, prosperity, and civilization) versus south (tyranny, poverty, and savagery).

It's not true, Rabbi Lapin says, that violence never solves anything. Violence usually solves difference. He doesn’t advocate that; he’s for solving them with the ballot box. But doing nothing allows the problems to continue festering. Not good news. And there’s no good non-apocalyptic future he’s laying out here. No one is willing to budge. He asks Glenn,

DL: Are you ready to crawl into your cave and say surrender? I don’t think so.
GB: No, I won’t. No, I won’t.
DL: And neither is the other side. I wish I could sing a lullaby and make everything good, but our job is not to massage people with warm butter; it’s to tell the truth.
As long as we love God—and the freedom, prosperity, and civilization that come from following His guidance—as much as the secular fundamentalists love their god—which brings slavery, poverty, and savagery—then telling the truth is what we must keep doing.

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Finding the Right Words


One thing we learn from the midterm election is that we aren’t communicating well with one another. Some of us feel marginalized because we hear only opposing views in mainstream communications: entertainment, broadcast news, most cable news, academia. It’s an uphill battle when the controllers of the means of communication refuse to let you share the platform. They even denigrate you—calling you vile negatives like, racist, sexist, homophone, transphobe, bigot, hater, white supremacist—creating a climate in which your voice is not only invisible, but avoided as contemptible.

There are other means, alternative sources, for messaging. I use those all the time to try to get at the truth. But having a totally separate, parallel communication system doesn’t get through to the ones who would be our friends and agree with us on many things, if only they could hear us and come to know who we really are.

I don’t know the solution yet. I keep looking. Finding the right words, and then finding the means to get those words heard are still likely paths. I haven’t given up on them.

I’m ready to celebrate when, occasionally, the right message does get out. I wrote about an example last time, with the appearance of my new Congressman Dan Crenshaw on Saturday Night Live, participating in an uncharacteristic apology from SNL.
Dan Crenshaw
at a house meeting in October


What worked so well for Dan was his total unwillingness to be offended. Maybe that toughness comes with being a Navy Seal. But since I first learned about him, during the primary election, what caught my interest was his ability to say things that were more than just the basic principles of freedom, prosperity, and civilization that I’m always looking for; it was his ability to inspire other people to come join the believers in those things.

I had a couple of friends on Facebook who posted his SNL appearance by the time I had. They liked him, and they liked what he said—even though they don’t like pretty much anything most conservatives think. This may not be a representative sample, because these are people on the opposite political spectrum who already accept me as a friend; we just don’t talk politics.

Anyway, as a follow up, Dan was able to write an opinion piece for The Washington Post, that furthers the message about how to get along:

I woke up on the Sunday morning after the show to hundreds of texts about what Davidson had said. A lot of America wasn’t happy. People thought some lines still shouldn’t be crossed.

I agreed. But I also could not help but note that this was another chapter in a phenomenon that has taken complete control of the national discourse: outrage culture. It seems like every not-so-carefully-worded public misstep must be punished to the fullest extent, replete with soapbox lectures and demands for apologies. Anyone who doesn’t show the expected level of outrage will be labeled a coward or an apologist for bad behavior. I get the feeling that regular, hard-working, generally unoffended Americans sigh with exhaustion—daily.

Was I really outraged by SNL? Really offended? Or did I just think the comment about losing my eye was offensive? There is a difference, after all. I have been literally shot at before, and I wasn’t outraged. Why start now?

So I didn’t demand an apology and I didn’t call for anyone to be fired. That doesn’t mean the “war…or whatever” line was acceptable, but I didn’t have to fan the flames of outrage, either.
Meanwhile, a couple of other conversations I came across today showed what we're up against. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, on Glenn Beck Radio, was discussing how to understand the opposition. Glenn showed a clip of protesters at a Ben Shapiro speech on a college campus. There wasn’t a protester who could identify an idea or a statement of Shapiro’s that was offensive; they just knew that everything about him was so offensive that he shouldn’t be allowed to speak.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin on Glenn Beck Radio Nov. 15, 2018
(subscription required for viewing)


Rabbi Lapin talked about that as an ideological, worldview difference. And he said it wasn’t much different from historical incompatible religious/political disagreements, such as when Muslims (the Moors) overtook the Iberian Peninsula, or when Galileo was silenced for disagreeing with the ruling church’s worldview on the solar system:

Look, this is about competing faith systems. Literally, competing religions…. It’s not different from any time there’ve been clashes between competing and incompatible faiths. Ben Shapiro stands for—as do you, for Heaven’s sake, for so many years, Glenn—for a worldview based on a Judeo-Christian biblical model. And the mobs on the campus stand for a vision that is based on the Tower of Babel, essentially. I mean, nine verses at the beginning of chapter 11 in Genesis provide a complete matrix of understanding of the tension that is taking place there. Of course they don’t want to hear what he says. Why would they?
He's saying that the protesters see Ben Shapiro as a heretic. And for them to maintain their power, they must silence him. At least in our century, in our country, it’s done without beheadings, so far.

Then I read about a Seattle man who was running for city council, until yesterday. Christopher Rufo wrote an open letter explaining his withdrawal from the campaign. It was for the safety of his family. Here’s some of the abuse he describes:
Christopher Rufo and family
image from here


I had hoped that this would be a campaign of ideas, but I quickly discovered that the activists in this city have no interest in ideas. Since the campaign launch, they have harassed and threatened my family nonstop. I was prepared to take the heat, but unfortunately, they have focused their hatred on my wife and children. They've made vile racist attacks against my wife, attempted to get her fired from Microsoft, and threatened sexual violence. They have even posted hateful messages to my 8-year-old son's school Facebook page. I know that as the race progresses, the activists will ratchet up their hate-machine and these attacks will intensify significantly.
This is what is done by people who call this man—and any of us who disagree with their “social justice” religion—racist, bigoted, an any other evil epithet they think might have an effect. But these people are tyrants. They’re extremely concerned about race, but are against Martin Luther King’s advice to see the content of character rather than color of skin—so by any rational definition they’re racist. And their methods are the very definition of fascist: coercing agreement.

Mr. Rufo’s case isn’t an isolated incident. This is what is happening, with greater frequency, wherever those who love tyranny, poverty, and savagery rather than freedom, prosperity, and civilization gather and foment the angry mob.

Dan Crenshaw gained respect from the opposition because he didn’t take offense. Ben Shapiro doesn’t take offense when he’s attacked; he just insists on security so he can get the message to those who haven’t heard it—and who are now, because of the protesters, even more curious about what he’s saying that someone doesn’t want them to hear.

Unfortunately, sometimes the mob is too dangerous. And the infrastructure—the law enforcement and justice—in the city of Seattle were deteriorated beyond what could make it possible for an alternative voice to be heard even in a campaign.

We can’t have much of a dialogue with the actual tyrannical fascists in the mob. But outside the mob, where people are less angry, and where we get along with them in business and community, and they acknowledge that we’re human and good (although they may think we’re singular exceptions), we may be able to have discussions. Or maybe get conversions.

Further in the Rabbi Lapin interview, he said, “When people’s hearts change, so do their politics.” Conversion is a goal well beyond peaceful coexistence. I’d like that too. But first things first.
What do we do when there are two polar opposite sides on a political issue? Dan Crenshaw’s got an answer to that too:

There are many ideas that we will never agree on. The left and the right have different ways of approaching governance, based on contrasting philosophies. But many of the ultimate goals—economic prosperity, better health care and education, etc.—are the same. We just don’t share the same vision of how to achieve them.
How, then, do we live together in this world of differing ideas? For starters, let’s agree that the ideas are fair game. If you think my idea is awful, you should say as much. But there is a difference between attacking an idea and attacking the person behind that idea. Labeling someone as an “-ist” who believes in an “-ism” because of the person’s policy preference is just a shortcut to playground-style name-calling, cloaked in political terminology. It’s also generally a good indication that the attacker doesn’t have a solid argument and needs a way to end debate before it has even begun.
Similarly, people too often attack not just an idea but also the supposed intent behind an idea. That raises the emotional level of the debate and might seem like it strengthens the attacker’s side, but it’s a terrible way to make a point. Assuming the worst about your opponents’ intentions has the effect of demonizing their ideas, removing the need for sound counter-reasoning and fact-based argument. That’s not a good environment for the exchange of ideas.
I’m glad Congressman-elect Crenshaw has had the opportunity to get this message out. I hope these opportunities keep coming to him. So far he’s had the right words to say at the right times, in a way that people who wouldn’t normally listen end up tuning in—and finding where we can agree. I pray he’ll always have the right words. And I’ll keep listening, because I think the right words plant the seeds for a great, positive effect.

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Collectivism vs. Capitalism


Back in late March to early April of 2011, just a month into writing this blog, I wrote a series called “Anything Evil about Capitalism” parts I, II, III, and IV. (The first two define the terms wealth and capital, to prepare for making moral judgments in the third. The fourth is to additionally address inherited wealth. These ideas review portions of the Economic Sphere portion of the Spherical Model.) Over the weekend I watched last Friday’s episode of the Glenn Beck TV show that supported the assertion that capitalism is moral. Rabbi Daniel Lapin was the guest teacher wielding the chalkboard. So much of it was clear and sensible, I wanted to share it. [To see the video requires a paid subscription, but it's the first hour of Friday, April 26, 2013.]
Rabbi Daniel Lapin on Glenn Beck show, 4-26-2013
(note: erasing "freedom" and replacing with "$" was part of
the discussion, not the actual formula)

He also starts with defining terms, specifically defining collectivism and materialism, to prepare for making a comparison with their opposite. Here’s a part of the conversation:
Rabbi Daniel Lapin: We’ve been talking about collectivism, a whole lot. It’s one of the favorite words of the left side of the political spectrum. And I thought it would be helpful if we identify, first of all, what they say it is, and then what it really is.
Collectivism is, as it’s usually defined, as any kind of political, or social or economic philosophy that stresses our interdependence with one another. You and I agree with that. We couldn’t live without each other. We know that; we understand that.
Glenn Beck: Yeah, no man is an island.
Rabbi Lapin: We get it. That’s not what collectivism really is. What collectivism really is is a formalized, deliberate structure…deliberate attempt to create a moral matrix to legitimize taking things from one group of people and giving it to another. That’s what collectivism is all about. It’s essentially finding a framework of virtue about stealing.
He goes on to say that the “manure” that fertilizes the idea of collectivism is materialism, “the fundamental conviction that nothing that isn’t material matters in the world.”
Then there’s a need for more definition:
Glenn Beck: Define materialism. Because in my own head I was thinking it was about having all this great stuff. But you’re talking about that there is no spiritual part of the world, that it is only the material make-up.
Rabbi Lapin: Well, I can actually call upon an expert from the left to define materialism, no less an authority than, you might remember, Willie Brown, former mayor of San Francisco, speaker of the California State Assembly. Now, I'll give you in almost exact terms how he defined materialism.… What he said is, “If I cannot eat it, wear it, drive it, or make love to it, I’m not interested in it.” That’s a pretty good definition of materialism. If I can’t actually see it, touch it, make use of it, exploit it, benefit from it in some way, it doesn’t exist. In other words, there is no such thing as love. There’s no such thing as loyalty. There is no such thing as awe. There’s no such thing as staring at the heavens in wonder or biting into an apple and just wanting to thank somebody for giving that to you. None of that is true, because it’s all just firing of neurons in your cortex and your spinal column. There’s no mystery in life; it is all thoroughly basic and scientific.
This discussion of materialism clicked a lot of understanding of the enemy mind, connections I hadn’t made before. I expect some of that will come up in future posts. But this post we’re mainly limiting to the morality of making money. The definition discussion prepares us for the blackboard instruction. It contains this chart, which he then explains:

 

While he’s discussing that first line, he gives one of the best definitions of capitalism I’ve heard, and that’s what caught my attention.
Rabbi Lapin: If materialism and collectivism encourages competition about being a bigger victim, what does this [making money] philosophy engender? Competition to provide service. How beautiful is that! It’s figuring out, to recognize that you will succeed best at making money if you are obsessively preoccupied with supplying the needs of your fellow human beings.
In referring to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, and the technological products they’ve provided, Rabbi Lapin says, “The money they make is testament to how many of God’s children they pleased.”
Which is better? Making wealth for your use by providing service to others, or requiring wealth from service providers to provide goods and services to someone who did not earn it? Clearly, the answer is making wealth through service is more moral.
But what about those who can’t provide for themselves? The best answer is for those whose love makes them feel responsible for the weaker members of society to provide for them willingly. And where those closest can’t do enough, then the caring larger public of service providers will offer help. I’m more willing to trust that goodness to a people whose goal is to find ways to serve than I am to trust a people who look for ways to take wealth from service providers.