Explanation to Pfleger video
I feel as if I do need to explain the Pfleger video posting.
Though I do believe that Pfleger is correct in his view that we, as Caucasians, feel as if we "automatically deserve" extraordinary treatment, I do in NO WAY condone the comments made by Pfleger. I believe to attack a person to make a point in essence negates the point you are trying to make. That is why I made the comment that this is odd behavior form a Catholic priest. I am disappointed that a man who claims to "represent" God can attack a person in such a vicious way.
So,
1) I would agree with what Pfleger was trying to say–that we just assume we deserve special treatment, but . . .
2) I believe he MUST apologize to senator Clinton and seriously re-evaluate the comments that he has made in attacking another person.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Ah, yes, the ideology of Karl Marx — class, envy, hate, and guilt — in a Social Christian Democratic setting.
It is an interesting proposition to assign attributes to an arbitrary class (the class you call Caucasian in this instance). Though it may indeed be the case that you and others of the class you created expect “extraordinary treatment,” it is another case entirely to assume that all members of the class share your views. This action is termed projection, where “one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others.” It is also termed condemnation.
Keep in mind that I am not a member of your defined class of Caucasian. And, I certainly do not hold its views.
The belief that one deserves something from someone else is the ideological brother of envy. And, to assign evil thoughts and attributes to a class of people is no worse than to attack the individual. That said, to state that it is invalid to attack the person is to forget that Jesus condemned the Pharisees and Herod throughout his ministry on Earth.
Finally, God does not want us to be captives of envy, hate and guilt, yet the speaker and you — through your agreement with his statements — are simply inciting envy and hate while assigning guilt. Not very biblical at all.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:41 am
Great point Jim. I always enjoy your perspectives. I have received many comments about this post (not recorded here). I am surprised at what feelings this has conjured up. Let me make things clear:
1. I am not on Pfleger’s side. I agree that we can assume certian rights. But in no way do I condone or accept entirely what he is saying.
2. I do not believe that he was right to attack senator Clinton in such a way. I am concerned that someone would “attack” by making fun of someone else.
Your point about Jesus’ relationship with the Pharisees is correct, but there is a difference. Jesus didn’t making fun of this group. He did though, pointingly, condemn their actions and attitudes.
Thanks for the comment though and please keep it up.
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
From the Marxist to the Sophist, where is your philosophical resting place?
You made a claim outside of, and in support of, Pfleger; a claim that I find very offense and wrong. Yet, you now sidestep your real point and state otherwise. Sophistry.
You most certainly stand beside Pfleger – reread your posts. Based on what you’ve written, it’s not OK to make fun of someone, but it is OK to create caricatures of groups of people and assign vile attributes. Huh?
At most, I can assume that, according to you, only Pfleger’s delivery was off. His ideology and values are identical to yours.
Ryan, Let your yes be a yes, and your no be a no. And when you formulate the collective you call Caucasian, do not include me.