Posted on 08/08/2015 12:50:14 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
In his book The Profits of Religion: An Essay in Economic Interpretation, Upton Sinclair makes an interesting observation: (page 299/300)
And now the War has broken upon the world, and caught the churches, like everything else, in its mighty current; the clergy and the congregations are confronted by pressing national needs, they are forced to take notice of a thousand new problems, to engage in a thousand practical activities. No one can see the end of this - any more than he can see the end of the vast upheaval in politics and industry. But we who are trained in revolutionary thought can see the main outlines of the future. We see that in these new church activities the clergy are inspired by things read, not in ancient Hebrew texts, but in the daily newspapers. They are responding to the actual, instant needs of their boys in the trenches and the camps; and this is bound to have an effect upon their psychology. Just as we can say that an English girl who leaves the narrow circle of her old life, and goes into a munition factory and joins a union and takes part in its debates, will never after be a docile home-slave; so we can say that the clergyman who helps in Y. M. C. A. work in France, or in Red Cross organization in America, will be less the bigot and formalist forever after. He will have learned, in spite of himself, to adjust means to ends; he will have learned co-operation and social solidarity by the method which modern educators most favor - by doing. Also he will have absorbed a mass of ideas in news despatches from over the world. He is forced to read these despatches carefully, because the fate of his own boys is involved; and we Socialists will see to it that the despatches are well filled with propaganda!The Desire of Nations
So the churches, like all the rest of the world, are caught in the great revolutionary current, and swept on towards a goal which they do not forsee, and from which they would shrink in dismay: the Church of the future, the Church redeemed by the spirit of Brotherhood, the Church which we Socialists will join.
Within two short paragraphs, there's three really important observations.
First, this viewpoint of Sinclair's that churches don't do anything practical. What he means, of course, is those of us who believe in the Lord and engage in worship on a regular basis. That's a waste of time. Alternatively, he also means (somewhat) charitable work, since as a rule progressives look at charity as insufficient. Real charity obviously comes from and is enforced by a heavy handed redistributive government regime.
Second, this notion that the Social Gospellers spend more time reading newspapers than they do(did) 'ancient Hebrew texts'. I have little doubt that he is including 'translated ancient Hebrew texts' within that. This explains a lot about how corrupt the Social Gospel was, since it was more about being socialist Christianity than it was about being Christian. Which makes sense that if the Social Gospellers had abandoned their bibles and instead were reading only newspapers, they would not be very well versed in the Word as they should be. Particularly since those news dispatches were, by Sinclair's own admission, filled with socialist propaganda.
And finally, Sinclair points out how the Church of the future will be redeemed by the spirit of Brotherhood. This ties together the first, second, and third. The "spirit of brotherhood" means collectivism. Once the churches have embraced collectivism, then socialists can join.
But how are the first second and third tied together? This is a process that Sinclair is explaining. This is the process of how one or more churches can become infected and corrupted by socialism or "social justice". Create a crisis in an attempt to get people's eye off of the ball, get them reading more newspapers filled with propaganda, and the abandonment of the Truth is all but certain.
Interesting. Thanks for the post
in these new church activities the clergy are inspired by things read, not in ancient Hebrew texts, but in the daily newspapers.
Journalists claim that journalism is “the first draft of history.” They also claim to be objective. Yet there is no way to even try to be objective without first examining your own motives to scrutinize the possibility that where you stand is influenced by where you sit. If you claim actually to be objective, you are starting out with the assumption that you don’t even have motives of your own. Obviously, that assumption forecloses the possibility of seriously examining your own motives - and thus implies that you cannot be even trying to be objective.So here we are, with a journalism which makes risible claims to objectivity, also claiming to be the first draft of history. Since we know that they tend to make false claims, we can reject the later claim out of hand. In reality, journalism is biased in favor of its own reputation and against anyone whose claims to deserving credit derive not from mere words and criticism but from action taken “actually in the arena.”
The extent to which those fatuous claims of journalism were accepted in the past has been tragic.
In the here and now, we have a journalism, Fox News Channel, which gained high ratings by staking a claim to “Fairness” and “Balance.” The Republican Party, disgusted by the effect of having a “debate” (joint news conference) conducted in by other “news” organizations in prior election cycles, awarded the opportunity to conduct its first “debate” this year to FNC. FNC responded, not by conducting the kind of softball questioning to which other news organizations subject Democrat politicians but by earning the applause of those organizations by treating the Republicans the way they would have done.
FNC has their “in group” applause, and all it cost them was their fair and balanced reputation for being different from those other organizations - and thus meriting the attention of viewers who demanded that.
FNC can, of course, redeem its reputation. All it needs to do is to subject Democrat presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton, to a level of pressure proportionate that it applied to Donald Trump and the rest of the Republican field. If Donald Trump had a 20% rating and FNC raised five issues about Donald Trump, and each issue received three minutes’ grilling by FNC on live TV, Hillary has an 80% rating and two dozen issues at least as serious as Trump’s five. A proportionate treatment would require FNC to grill Hillary, not the same as they did Trump, and not five times as much since she has higher ratings, but at least twenty five times as much. At a minimum. I wish FNC all success in that endeavor. But I don’t like their chances of pulling it off.
BEEP!
Who is he?
The name if familiar, but I don’t recall where I heard it from.
Upton Sinclair, the great social “commentator” of his day.
Probably best known in the Twenties and Thirties. A “Muckraker”. The Sixty Minutes of his day.
Don't know what to otherwise tell you.
Also was the author of “The Jungle”.
Alright.
That’s where I heard that name before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.