The Bible and Politics (and Israel and Russia and . . . )

[JW Insider]

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I always learned that you don't take sides in politics. In our family, this meant that you also don't discuss politics. Discussing it inevitably turns to offering opinions that favor one ideological side over another. But in a recent topic on the forum, several other JWs and/or those who have been associated with JWs brought up issues that appeared to take sides for or against the two major U.S. presidential candidates, as of April 2024. As factual commentary, this doesn't bother me in the slightest. In fact, if one favors one candidate over the other, this doesn't bother me either.

But I just had a serious discussion about our (JW) view of politics with an 86-year old Witness, who thinks just like my own family always had. It started with the current jw.org front page article on:

Does Bible Prophecy Point to the Modern State of Israel?

When you read the article you also get pointed to other articles:

Will Armageddon Begin in Israel?—What Does the Bible Say?

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Zionists?

If you read more and go to specific links, you can also find articles on Human Rights Organizations, Russia and the European Court, etc.

Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia

Russia Withdraws From the European Court

Or even end up linked to a mildly amusing article such as:

Who Is to Blame—Russia or the Tourist?

But the conversation, next post, made me think of our general stance on political discussion.

[JW Insider]

The conversation went like this:

ME: I'm just now seeing the new article on the front of jw.org, about whether Bible prophecy points to literal Israel. That seems to be on everyone's mind.

THEM: Absolutely. One of my studies just asked that question and I went through the usual scriptures, especially Galatians  6. I hadn't seen the article yet. I wish I had.

ME: Yes, the article uses Matthew 23:37 "your house is abandoned to you" and Galatians 6, and Romans 11.

THEM: I think I used Romans 11, too. 

ME: I just noticed that the article says one thing that might be confusing though. “A dulling of sensibilities has happened in part to Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, and in this manner all Israel will be saved.” (Romans 11:25, 26) . . . By the expression “all Israel,” Paul meant all of spiritual Israel.

ME: continuing . . . Actually, I don't think that will make sense to most people though. I mean, ultimately, yes, it's spiritual Israel that is saved. We know that from Galatians 6, but in this context people are going to notice that Paul actually was speaking about the two olive trees and the LITERAL Gentiles getting grafted into the tree representing LITERAL Israel. 

THEM: But it means all of spiritual Israel will be saved.

ME: That's the only way it works out in the long run, yes. But doesn't it make more sense that as many of literal Israel as possible get saved because it's these people of the nations who now have Jehovah's blessing, and this makes some of natural Israel jealous? And that helps lead to the salvation of as many natural Israelites as possible. (Romans 11:11)

etc., etc.

Who is right on this point is not important here, it's the next part of the conversation. Next post . . . 

[JW Insider]

Here was the general conversation, skipping a part where I had just explained how 30,000 Palestinians, largely women and children, had been killed, and the majority of major news outlets were still equivocating about whether Israel had gone too far. But when half-a-dozen mostly "white" aid workers were killed, suddenly Nancy Pelosi (friend of the aid organization founder), Joe Scarborough, Elizabeth Warren, and a bunch of others turn on a dime to stop giving Israel a free pass -- embarrassing their own man Biden. 

THEM: Well, anyway, we don't take sides about literal Israel, and we don't discuss political sides of who supports whom.

ME: But that last part is just information, even history.

THEM: History is one thing but the Bible says don't speak against the King. What's that it says in Ecclesiastes?

(Ecclesiastes 10:20) . . .Even in your thoughts, do not curse the king, and do not curse the rich in your bedroom; for a bird may convey the sound, or a creature with wings may repeat what was said.

ME: Yeah. That's where we get the expression: "a little birdie told me." Basically, it means that someone on Twitter will turn you in. Or all the government agencies will be listening in on Twitter.  

THEM: Very funny. You mean "X."

ME: Yeah, but they still call them "tweets."

THEM: But still we don't take sides, we don't even say anything against any ruler, whether he's good or bad. We only pray that they make decisions that are good for us. 

ME: I don't think it's wrong to say something against a ruler. Don't you think Hitler was a bad ruler?

THEM: But he's not a king now is he? He's dead.

ME: I mean even when he was alive.

THEM: Well, of course, because he was attacking Jehovah's people.

ME: But it would have been wrong to say he was bad while he was attacking millions of Jews?

THEM: [changing subject] But look how respectful Paul was talking to Felix, he never said a word against him.

ME: Maybe not, but Luke tells us he was probably looking for a bribe. That's pretty negative.

ME: continuing . . . And Jesus called Herod a fox.

THEM: Well maybe he was "foxy" -- "crafty" not always a bad thing.

ME: You don't believe that . . . and even if it was a good thing, then Jesus was taking sides.

THEM: Anyway . . . it's wrong.

[JW Insider]

My overall point is that most Witnesses I know in the United States are very political and don't even know it. Often much more political than their neighbors who vote. There are certain limits to what we will say about our political views, but I think we don't recognize that those political views often come out inadvertently in other ways.

In fact, I've seen strong political views among Witnesses who only use the line "we don't take sides in politics" when they wish to shut down an argument they disagree with.

My parents and many relatives were of the type that said they wouldn't be fooled by all the lies and exaggerations from MS-NBC supposedly on the "progressive left." Nor the lies and exaggerations from FOX News on the supposedly "conservative right." But that didn't stop them from being fooled by thinking that CNN was not mostly "state-sponsored media" that would cherry-pick stories now and then to keep up the ruse that they weren't. As long as they continued to support corporate sponsors, including "Big Pharma" and "Big Military Industrial Complex," it was clear what side they were going to take. And although Trump was golden to all networks for his ability to spout controversy, one of his biggest sins for CNN was the fact that he went 4 years without getting the USA involved in any new wars. 

We were watching CNN once, not on purpose, and although many segments were introduced with "Brought to you by Pfizer" one was introduced "Brought to you by McDonnell-Douglas." As if any of us watching were about to go out and buy McDonnell-Douglas fighter jets and missiles for accessories. Of course, even the segments brought to you by Pfizer weren't really for any of us to be swayed in our pharmacy choices, either. As with all corporate media, those ads are really just payments to CNN; they are all just a way for corporations to PAY (bribe) the news writers and commentators to realize on which side their bread is buttered. They are merely buying influence.

----

All this was probably just my own rationale to excuse my own tendency to throw in opinions about politics, politicians, and the mainstream corporate media. There are no easy answers to how someone should go about getting their news, or how to feed their own opinions. But I would be happy to hear about the various sources people use when trying to find the "truth" about various world events. 

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But I would be happy to hear about the various sources people use when trying to find the "truth" about various world events. 

Journalists who go rogue often do it for me.

https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust

RFKjr is turning out a fine source as well. Look how he says 60 years ago most people (80%) trusted government and now 90% do not:

https://x.com/vigilantfox/status/1777710201937732085?s=61&t=fM8K_zHB-Zw9l_mM_4QHqg

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

As long as they continued to support corporate sponsors, including "Big Pharma" and "Big Military Industrial Complex,"

Just once I’d like to see a Pharma ad in which the actors, rather than acting out the touted benefits of the drug, instead act out the side effects of the voiceover—gasping, clutching their throats, turning blue, hair falling out, doubling over, dropping dead, straining on the toilet to ‘go’, swiveling about in dizziness.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Journalists who go rogue often do it for me.

https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust

The link was excellent. I remember my parents going to pbs and npr but only after Walter Cronkite was no longer THE source. In those days I trusted the NYT the way my doctors still trust the Lancet or the BMJ. 

Rogue reporters have explained a lot about how we were fooled for so long. Tucker Carlson is often the new best source  on several topics and has ditched much or most of his prior ideological baggage from 4 or 5 years ago. 

Clayton Morris from “Redacted,” also a former Fox News commentator, still carries more of that baggage than Tucker I think. I like that Clayton’s wife, Natalie Morris, raised as a Jehovah’s Witness, is consistently anti-war. anti-bigotry, and anti-woke, and neutral where she can be. But for some topics they are spot on. For that matter Fox itself is often the best of the bunch for being less inclined to be influenced by current State propaganda. 

[TrueTomHarley]

43 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The link was excellent. I remember my parents going to pbs and npr.

He even says he drives a Subaru:

I’ve never heard a Tucker excerpt I didn’t like. That said, I haven’t heard too many. None of those other people do I know. In the early days of Covid, however, I forwarded a Joe Rogan interview with Dr. McCullough to HQ, hoping that if they found it as informative as I did, they would overlook Joe’s explosion of profanity towards the end. Probably, I put myself on their radar screen as much as you during your recent visit, during which they said to themselves,  “What is it this politician would like to tell?” Others: “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign deities.”

[JW Insider]

22 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I forwarded a Joe Rogan interview with Dr. McCullough to HQ,

It’s amazing how people like Joe Rogan have become better than most modern journalists. I’d listen to him more but his show is too long for me and I need a summary first.  I met Dr Peter McCullough in Tampa when he was staying directly across from my wife and I in our hotel room. My son and I talked to him in the lobby briefly. I am not quite as impressed with him now that he has tried some questionable methods to turn his own work into a money-making machine. But Rogan and McCullough were both very good sources about Covid. 

I am more and more impressed with Tucker on the majority of his current shows: Putin, covid, exposing the idiocy of Christian Zionist supporters, etc  He is going where no man with his popularity has gone before.

Alexander Mercurion is another example of the best news commentary on the Ukraine war but he is too detailed and will give a two hour program on the day's battles and predictions and comment on both sides of the news reports. You get a much better sense of who is doing more spinning and who is doing more straightforward reporting. It's useful, or at least interesting, but who can give 10 hours a week?

Scott Ritter does well with shorter summaries on shows with Danny Haiphong for example. But his own super-pro-Russian biases come through too often. 

There are a couple of excellent resources for Gaza-Israel reporting from people who have lived and worked in both Palestine and Israel. But people tend to defend the indefensible even if they are generally giving correct info. They try to read excuses into bad actions by Hamas. Scott Ritter does this too. 

[JW Insider]

39 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He even says he drives a Subaru:

I always get confused when a Subaru comes up behind me because in my rear view mirror it says U R A BUS. 

[JW Insider]

Don’t know if this happens to you. But when I bring up Gaza I get a version of this AIPAC ad on the page. As I did just now: (I strongly dislike AIPAC)

[TrueTomHarley]

11 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Don’t know if this happens to you. But when I bring up Gaza I get a version of this AIPAC ad on the page. As I did just now: (I strongly dislike AIPAC)

Nothing but sales scams for me. Just recently I had the CO in my car. He saw the ‘Messages’ app onscreen and could not stop talking about the number I hadn’t acknowledged. (693) ‘Yeah, I get so many spam calls, I don’t always go through my messages,’ I told him. ‘Clearly!’ was his reply. He kept carrying on, even said he wanted to get a picture, so I swiped the screen to show another set of apps and distract him. Unfortunately, he there saw Viber with 43.