Building the Obamanation
Barack Obama is being praised by his critics and criticized by some of his admirers, for the moderation of his appointments and pre-coronation decisions. To me, the selection of familiar faces like Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, and Robert Gates reveals not statesmanship but fear. The poor fellow does not have the faintest idea of how to steer the country through war and financial chaos, and he has to find people with sufficient experience to know where the light switches are and what sort of envelopes to put the boodle in-- no matter how much they might differ from him on basic policies. And, knowing most politicians are crooks and liars, he must believe it hardly matters what Joe or Hilary may have said in the past, so long as they still maintain their lust for wealth and power.
To the extent he has ever though about anything--and the evidence would suggest the estimate of "not much"--Obama probably remains the White-hating Marxist who picked Jeremaiah Wright as his guru and who has been celebrated by Louis Fararkhan as the Messiah (or at least the voice of the Messiah.) But it hardly matters. He is much the protégé of the Cook County machine as Rahm Emmanuel and Rad Blagojevich. Does anyone seriously think that Illinois' governor is in trouble because of his principles?
My favorite selection is not any member of the Cabinet but Obama's choice for inaugural preacher: Rick Warren, the world-famous pastor of Saddleback Mountain Church, advocate of the profit-driven life, the Gantry of Gantrys. What a lot this says about the infanticidal President-elect's committments and the allegedly pro-life Preacher Warren. They make a perfect pair-what chuckles they must have when they get together to compare notes on the rubes who give them money. How Sam Francis would have loved this great moment in our history! Where is H.L. Mencken when you need him? Even he could not have done justice to Blago, Obama, and Warren.
Entries(RSS)
Speaking of voice, here's a little ditty I penned a few years ago:
Escaping Rockford’s Winter Wonderland
Sirens scream, can’t you hear ‘em?
Fire trucks skid, they can’t steer ‘em.
What a beautiful sight!
A house burning bright,
Lightin’ up our winter wonderland.
Gone away are the snowbirds
All that’s left are the crow-birds
They’re croaking of death,
As we run out of breath,
Shovelin’ out this winter wonderland.
In the meadow we will build a snowman;
Rockford air will turn him dirty brown
We’re deciding that it’s time to go, man.
We pack the car and head South out of town.
Later on we’ll perspire,
It’s too warm for a fire,
We’ll be putting on shades,
Sipping rum in the Glades,
Escapin’ from our winter wonderland.
Lawsamussy. This is quite a discussion!
I think we all (Catholic, Protestant) agree that the Holy Spirit inspired the Holy Scriptures. Scripture affirms this ("all scripture is given by inspiration of God"), and so does tradition. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on the concept of "illumination," which is something that Protestantism has held to from the beginning. Here's a handy quotation from an old pastor, now in glory, which sums up Protestant thought generally on this topic:
"You are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them."
Historic Protestantism was not anti-confessional or anti-credal—quite the opposite. And this includes the Baptists (general and particular). The Southern Baptist Convention was, from the git-go, a decidedly credal and confessional body. They were firmly a part of the Westminster-London-Philadelphia tradition. It was Alexander Campbell who introduced this foreign "no creed but Christ" mentality, and ultimately he left an early Baptist association for his own primitivist "non-denomination." Before he left, he did much damage.
My dear former professor Thomas J. Nettles was a champion of Southern Baptist history and dogma. He has written numerous books and articles calling the SBC back to her credal and confessional heritage. He left Trinity for Southern to be a part of this revitalization of Southern Baptist theology under the great Al Mohler. His work with the Founders Ministries is invaluable for Southern Baptists.
Here's a quotation found in Dr. Nettles' "Missions and Creeds" essay, under the section "Creed-protected Unity." It's from B.H. Carroll, founder of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary:
"The modern cry: 'Less creed and more liberty,' is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jellyfish . . . and it means more heresy. Definitive truth does not create heresy—it only exposes and corrects. Shut off the creed and the Christian world would fill up with heresy unsuspected and uncorrected, but none the less deadly."
What Rick Warren needs to do is return to the historic confessions and creeds of his own church. Saddleback is technically a Southern Baptist Church. But Warren is no B.H. Carroll (or J.P. Boyce or E.Y. Mullins, etc., etc.). His is the spirit of Alexander Campbell.
Aaron Wolf, a great and good man from the Protesting Tradition writes : "Lawsamussy. This is quite a discussion!"
And as always Aaron, you have brought light into the darkness with your easy manner and soft smoking, good smelling pipe and large slippers. I hope you and your family enjoy a Merry Christmas in The Rockford Wonderland where I hope to join you this summer when
"Later on we’ll perspire,
When it's too warm for a fire,
Wearing dark glasses,
Sipping rum with molasses ,
Escapin’ from the Rockford wonderland"
or words to that effect. Robert
Robert,
I like the song, and I like the rum better. It's gettin' close to that time of the year when, before leaving the office for Christmas Eve, I play Shirley Q. Liquor's "I'm Dreamin' of a Black Kwanzaa" and hoist a glass.
But in all seriousness, what could be better than celebrating the birth of He Who Is Worthy to Open the Book and Loose the Seals Thereof—the Root of David? I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas as well!
One thing we should all be able to agree on is that the homosexual activists are shrill fanatics if they think a paper tiger like Warren represents a threat to them.
On Formalism: Growing up in a Southern Baptist Church that was considered decidedly conservative (although perhaps somewhat moderate in temperament) during the Baptist wars of the 80's, I knew that liberal Baptists existed, but like the Dodo bird I had never seen one.
When I moved to Macon, GA, we visited several Baptist Churches, with one of our main criteria being that they sing hymns and not P&W music. What we found, and this always baffled me, was that the more formal and old school the service was the more liberal the church was. (A quick litmus test being whether they had women deacons or ordained female staff.) This seems counter intuitive, but it is true nonetheless. (I can name names if anyone disbelieves me.) And the P&W style churches were the more doctrinally sound. (I think Macon has more than its share of liberal Baptist Churches because of the influence of Mercer University.)
I came to the conclusion that this was largely a class based thing. The old school more liberal churches were old town and old money. The P&W but conservative doctrinally churches were middle class. So doctrinal conservatism is I believe in the eyes of some, a middle class thing as is less formalism.
Red Phillips @ 106
"I came to the conclusion that this was largely a class based thing."
Unitarian-Universalist Churches are probably the least doctrinally formal of denominations. And they are almost totally upper or upper-middle class, and profoundly left-liberal in their politics. A friend of mine is studying to be a minister in that denomination, and she was shocked at the thoughtlessly elitist and high-class snobbery of the church members, coupled with knee-jerk liberalism of the most absurd sort.
Phillips, you touch on a very important aspect of American social status. Here in America, the higher you rise in class, the more to the political left you are expected to move.
Whenever I try to explain this to Europeans, they are incredulous. They all think that "a rich American" is always a right-wing Republican. But anyone who spends any time in the Hamptons, or suburban Maryland, or the Harvard Club knows very well that in order to be socially acceptable in those places you have to spout liberal rhetoric.
And the same is true for many churches. Congregations that are "old town and old money," as you say, are also going to aspire to the exalted status that comes with having "progressive" opinions.
This is only something of a personal theory, since I have never thrown it out for public criticism. However, it may have some validity: The low-church-anarcho-Protestant movement (which I was weaned as, but now repudiate) seems to be largely a secularly-informed interpretation of Christianity. When individualism was entreched in the hearts and minds of society it produced anti-authoritarial congregationalism. When romaticism was entrenched it flowered in Pentecostalism, holiness movements and Charismaticism. Now that we have a relativist society with New-Age-Rock as the only music heard by anyone out in the world, that is what the new seeker-friendly churches offer. And while they may claim moral and theological conservatism, the practice frequently bespeaks something else such as: the winking at unwed motherhood, the blind eyes to adultery and fornication, the fact that coveteousness is glorified, parents are not honored, etc. ad nauseum. And the New-Age-Rock muzak has saturated well...eveything.
The fact that many fundamentalist or evangelical or pentecostal churches have patriotic musicals on the Sunday before Independence Day is nothing more than the jingoism of the Bushes, Clintons et al come to roost in the pews.
I fear for the young generation of kids brought up in these churches. They see a huge disjoint between practice and preaching. And the preaching is going the way of Unitarian-Universalistic inoffensiveness. Unitarian-Universalist churches (except for a small surge during the new-age boom 15 years ago) have extremely low attendance, with good reason. If we all eventually make it to heaven why not be a Stalin or Jeffrey Dahmer on the way...
Dr Fleming @ 100: "They take the scientific errors of the Old Testament literally but not the admonition of Our Lord."
I've always found this strange. Notably, the scientific errors of the Old Testament were never part of the creeds of the ancient Church.
Isn't the notion that Christ was speaking figuratively when establishing the 2nd Dominical sacrament contradicted in the 11th chapter of St Paul's letter to the Corinthians?
I think you coined a new term, "Anarcho-Protestant." Perfect.
Wow, 109 comments already.
Pictures and video could work where the written word is no longer understood.
Bruce @ 109
Dr. Fleming hit the nail on the head when he said that. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals have an unreasoning psychological attachment to the literal interpretation of statements in the Bible that are most obviously mythic and figurative. And they have come up with intellectual embarrassments like Creationism and Intelligent Design, which only make right-wing progress harder.
And before the Bible-thumpers start hollering, let me add that yes, I believe the world was created by God, and yes, He designed it. It's just that He didn't leave any fingerprints for pseudoscientists at a Baptist cow-college to find.
@joseph salemi
But does that mean that only Christians understand God? Nothing is worse that being told by a Christian that non-Christians are deluded. The non-Christians let Christians be and do not tell them how they ought to think. But often it is not the other way around. I respect Christianity as something which is a part of the Western civilization and see nothing wrong with prayer and such in schools in a dominantly Christian country. And it is true the liberals do more harm without realizing it. In fact, in terms of values, it is the Christians I can relate to than the liberals, putting aside differences of religion. Also, why are the most rebellious among Americans brought up as strictly Christian? Like the Madonnas...?
Also the other day, I had to explain to someone from the Bible Belt why religion is not a bad thing. But he was against religion altogether and was an angry young man.
gargi @ 112
The great Angelic Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, used to say the following:
"Truth, no matter what its source, is from the Holy Ghost."
Many different religious traditions have some idea of God, and of moral values, and of the human soul. Sometimes those ideas are wrong, and sometimes they approach truth, and sometimes they are merely confused. I would never say that all non-Christians are "deluded." I might want to see them converted to my faith, but I would not presume to think that EVERYTHING they believe is false or pernicious.
I don't know about Madonna's upbringing, but from her wildly erratic approach to religion I'd say she was simply the typical Hollywood airhead.
gargi @ 113
When you have been raised in the intellectual dormitory known as the Bible Belt, it is a perfectly natural reaction to be against all religion. All that shouting and testifying and whooping would turn any intelligent young man off. It's a shame.
"The non-Christians let Christians be and do not tell them how they ought to think."
gargi,
Non-Christians have never left Christians alone. Many of them have been militantly trying to destroy Christianity in sundry ways for well over 200 years. Do you honestly fail to see a definitive anti-Christian attitude in the academy, media, government, and also in the global corporate world? I recommend reading this article by Srdja Trifkovic, longtime writer at Chronicles.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/TrifkovicMartyr.php
Josh Cooney @ 116
Gargi is probably speaking of the average non-Christian man in the street, who like most ordinary people is just concerned with getting by, and has no real desire to proselytize. I know a great many devout Moslems here in New York City, and none of them has ever attempted to convert me to Islam, or even to discuss religion.
As for "academia, media, government, and the global corporate world," well... that's a totally different ball game. Those are venomous and and evil institutions of long standing that have a life independent of the individuals who serve them at any given moment. Why those institutions are the way they are is, of course, what a great deal of the discussions here at Chronicles addresses.
@josh cooney
Zoroastrians do not persecute Christians, nor do Buddhists and Hindus. There are the non-Christians I know. They do not believe in proselytizing except for crazy Hare Krishna sects which are a modern phenomenon. Communists persecute all religions.
"And before the Bible-thumpers start hollering, let me add that yes, I believe the world was created by God, and yes, He designed it. It’s just that He didn’t leave any fingerprints for pseudoscientists at a Baptist cow-college to find."
Joseph, you are an ass. Intelligent Design is not an intellectual embarrassment. God most certainly did "leave fingerprints." Read Romans Chap 1.
And perhaps the reason Christians attempt to convert people is because they think their immortal soul hangs in the balance.
Red, from the heart of the Bible Belt.
@119
Red,
It is part of our Christian tradition that one can know God the Father through the things He made ( Men and Women, the swarm of animals,the change of seasons, the heavens above, the spectacles of life and death, etc.) I am glad that we have thoughtful Protestants on the blog such as yourself, PcH, Dr.Wilson, Aaron Wolf and several others who have a great and simple love of God which drives out the fear which too many Catholics have of being mistaken as "one of those people". As General Lee said before Gettysburg, now we need to whip those people attacking us, not just defend ourselves against them. And of course he lost the historical, literal battle as Christians have been doing since the Crucifixion. He did, however, win the hearts of his countyrmen and men of good will even today. And you have won mine many posts ago. Keep up the good work and Merry Christmas to you and yours.
The Bible belt may be the only thing keeping this country from a complete multicultural and Marxist transformation.
"The Bible belt may be the only thing keeping this country from a complete multicultural and Marxist transformation."
I tend to agree with you.
One of the most evil things the McCain campaign did was respond to people saying there was something wrong with Sarah Palin having worshipping God as part of a Pentecostal Congregration by saying: "She isn't a Pentacostal."
You see, to the Multiculturalist Marxists who were allowed by an angy and vengeful God to be given effective control of John McCain, there could be nothing more in need of apology than for a woman to have been a Pentacostal and to have cultural and social ties to something that calls to mind the Bible Belt.
I'm not Pentacostal, but if Sarah Palin is she shouldn't have to deny it. They also made her deny she ever supported Buchanan or said nice things about the Alaska Independence Party.
Pentacoatal + Pentecostal.
Cristos never changed any bread or wine into his body or blood during the supper or at any other time. Read it in Greek, it says no such thing.
"Do not pray as the heathen, with repetitous prayers" (Hail mary, full of grace, da da da da da dad adad da)
Just when you thought it was safe to go online, someone wants to give Greek lessons but does not know how to spell the Christos. The Devil, as is said, can cite Scripture and almost always to no good purpose. One might just as easily conclude from Christ's teaching on prayer that we should only pray alone in a closet and only the words only in Greek of the Lord's Prayer. Alas, it is not only from his money that a fool is parted but from every stray thought that passes through his "mind." What a waste of band width!
Buddhists and Hindus don't persecute Christians? Interesting. Maybe not downtown, at the community center or on Sesame Street.
If we must allegorize those sections of the Holy Scriptures which bother scientists, good bye miracles...prophecies...virgin birth, resurrection, etc.
Intelligent Design an intellectual embarrassment? But the Randian sucklings who couldn't hold a purposeless candle to Nietzsche aren't? You'll have to try harder than that.
Would that our bad guys could rise to the level of degeneracy of villains past.
@127
Buddhists and Hindus don’t persecute Christians?
NO THEY DO NOT. These people like to be left in peace as far as religion is concerned.
You look at the history of Portugese in Goa and you will understand what persecution of other religions entails.
@127
intellectual design
Probably Tom Crusie's University of Arts and Sciences would make a course on this a degree requirement.
@127
intelligent design
Probably Tom Crusie’s University of Arts and Sciences would make a course on this a degree requirement.
Yes, gargi, Buddhists and Hindus do persecute Christians. On the Aid to the Church in Need website (churchinneed.org), speaking of Burma/Myanmar, it says, "There have also been cases of soldiers destroying Christian churches and attempting to force Christians to convert to Buddhism."
In Cambodia, local "Buddhists, claiming that they are not respected by Christians, have also been known to demolish and burn Christian houses while shouting 'Long live Buddhism' and 'Destroy the Christians.'"
In Sri Lanka and Vietnam, Jesuits aren't allowed to bring in foreign religious workers and Christian "face violence and social pressure."
In India in the northeastern state of Orissa, for three and a half days in the Christmas season of 2007, nine "Christians were killed, 90 churches were burned, 600 homes were destroyed, and thousands lost their homes and belongings as they were forced to flee their villages into the forest." In the summer of 2008 after the Maoists killed a local Hindu religious leader who had opposed conversions to Christianity, local Hindus blamed Christians for his murder and began attacking them, first in Orissa and then also in other areas. Thirty Christians were killed and seventy churches and institutional buildings were destroyed, along with hundreds of Christian homes and shops. "Clergy were singled out for attack, and two nuns were gang-raped in separate incidents."
Voice of the Martyrs also has a website (persecution.com) that lists stories of Hindus persecuting Christians in Orissa and Karnataka.
@131
This is hype.
There are many tribals in India. Missionaries are anxious to convert them and have an agenda. Often the conversion is by force or by luring poor, simple people through money. I have seen this myself. This is against the law and when the missionaries go too far sometimes, the government has to intervene. I myself have seen aggressive missionaries. They have even tried to convert me! There are some tribal groups that have been won over by the native religions and some have been converted by missionaries. There has been infighting between different tribal groups. This is fighting amongst tribals, that is tribals fighting tribals, and not HIndus or Buddhists persecuting Christians.
Moreover, Hinduism is a non-proselytizing religion unlike Christianity and Islam. Buddhism is also non proselytizing but accepts anyone. Aggressive missionaries do not respect the local traditions and culture of non-proselytizing. It is the same with aggressive Islam. The local relisions exist in harmony, Christianity and Islam cause problems.
And I do not believe in the hype of missionary newspapers, I believe what I have personally seen and know of the area. With their aggressiveness, Missionaries do not respect the local culture, often they are very uneducated and have an agenda.
You see just as Christians would get upset when Jews and Muslims were to start proselytizing in massive numbers and not respect the local culture, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians also do not like Missionaries. They want to follow their own religion in their own country and do not want to follow a Semitic religion. They allow other religions to exist, when they exist in peace and are not aggressive and want to convert the entire nation. Just as Christians want to be Christian here in the USA and this a majority Christian country that wants to remain MAJORITY Christian. Do you understand?
This French Journalist who has lived there for 30 years and understands the local culture is a far more credible source:
http://francoisgautier.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/a-french-journalists-view-on-india-and-its-media/
Sorry for my comment. The site is about Obama and the discussion has digressed. It seems to me that pseudo-"sickularism" is doing a lot of harm everywhere, as it is doing in the USA.
I should think it was possible to reject "Intelligent Design" theory--who needs it?--and Scientology and Randianism on the grounds that all three are more or less ideology, as opposed to attempts to find out the truth. Christians have the greatest truth about the universe, but it does not follow that the Scriptures do not include historical and scientific errors. To believe that would require such a suspension of reason as to make us no better than Mormons. I think one can believe the world is roughly spherical--as opposed to square and flat--and that the value of pi is not exactly three without rejecting miracles. The Old Testament was not a book--indeed it is not a book at all but a highly diverse collection of books--of science, and it distorts the Faith to pin too much on mere words, even divinely inspired words. Christians use the OT scriptures because our Lord used them and thus we should use them as he did, which was hardly ever literally but allegorically.
Neopagans like to distinguish between the monotheisms that persecute members of other religions and the more generous polytheisms. There is some truth in this. Greeks and Romand were scarcely interested in a man's religion so long as he did not threaten public order, decency, security. Egyptians and Hindus are so accommodating that they accept whatever they like in any religion. On the other hand, Christian missionaries were often murdered by pagans, both in Europe and elsewhere, and today the Hindus, under the gentle instruction of the Muslims and in resentment against the assumed superiority of the West, are turning hostile toward Christianity. To stick to the bigger question, though, Christianity is, in fact, not distinctive in using force against nonbelievers--quite the contrary. Yes, some of the Crusaders like Richard I did abominable things, and, yes, the Church tried to stamp out heresies, but one should note that in the former case Richard was in a serious war and in the latter that in the case of the heresies and schisms that were most gravely persecuted, nearly every one was a threat to the order of the Church as well as to the social order. Persecutions are usually a sign of a society in crisis, as has been observed by sociologists many times.
In all these cases, one has always to ask, "compared with what, compared to whom?" Yes, Christians have engaged in persecution but this is bad compared with what/whom? Certainly, the Church after Constantine and Theodosius did nothing remotely comparable against recalcitrant pagans, and if one is going to point to the "Dark Ages," we have to remember that our ancestors were violent barbarians, who were only taught mercy by the Church. It took 1 thousand years to Christianize Europe and since the 15th century, the tide has gone in the other direction. Anyone who contemplates the events of postChristian Europe in the 20th century will find it difficult to draw up an indictment against Christian cruelty.
@TJF
Also in a place like India, you have people who belong to the native religions--this is something in their blood and passed down from their ancestors. So that is why people are unwilling to convert. Missionaries that have been in States like Himanchal with mostly an upper caste population despair that despite all their work, they have hardly won any converts. I have noticed that loyalty to Islam is great for Arabs for whom Isalm is in their blood, but if you take an educated Iranian, he will tell you that Isalm destroyed their culture and that Isalm was something imposed on them. That is what my Iranian friends tell me, and they are quick to give up Isalm in the USA and assimilate with the dominant culture. However, I am not speaking for all, but just the ones I know. And it is the same way with Parsis--Iranian immigrants who came to India after Iran became Muslim. They are tolerant peoples, but do not convert to any other religion as their religion is handed down through blood. And they have been free to practice their religion in India in peace.
With countries like Japan and Korea, people are less resistant to conversion. If Japanese can become Buddhists--that is take up a religion from India, then they can also easily become Christians, although Japan is still very much attached to its Buddhist past. Similarly for Koreans, who have mostly given up Buddhism in favor of Christianity. And I have noticed that Koreans in their desire to assimilate take up the waspiest denominations such as Unitarianism in the USA.
But when people come to the USA, they have to accept the majority culture and adapt to it--otherwise they just create touble for themselves. This is the way I see it.
Big time opportunist Boddy Jindal seems to realize that if you want to go into politics here then first you must accept the majority culture and ways.
Red Phillips @ 119
Many thanks for your kind Christmas message. I'll remember it.
Josh Cooney @ 121
It's a losing strategy to fight ignorance with ignorance. People who take every single line of Scripture literally may be kind and loving individuals, but they are intellectually crippled. Read H.L. Mencken on this question.
To all in the discussion on religious persecution:
Every religious sect, if and when it gets the upper hand politically, will be tempted to use secular power to enhance its own position and to hobble its enemies. This says nothing about the truth or falisty of the sect in question; it simply is a reflection of our fallen human nature. We all abuse our powers.
In my opinion, some sects (like the Buddhists and the Hindus) that in the past seemed to be rather tolerant -- indifferent, if you prefer -- to the existence of other religious parties have become somewhat more pugnacious as a result of the general rise of partisanship and political argumentation over the last century.
We live in an age of intense contestation, division, rivalry, political conflict, ideological clashes, and general orneriness. Yes, yes... all this existed in the past too. But with the spectacular growth of communications mechanisms since 1900, all this tension is exacerbated. You can't escape an argument or political dispute today, when rapid media make it possible for you to duke it out with someone in Borneo or Australia by just sitting at your computer terminal.
Is it entirely fair to say that Mr. Jindal's conversion was an act of cynical opportunism? Considering the fact that he is a politician--and a Republican to boot--it is not unlikely, but his immigrant parents were professionals, perhaps not very religious to begin with, and there would he many reasons for a high school kid to adopt the religion of his schoolmates.
Quite so. And if you have never really taken religion that seriously to begin with, then changing from one sect to another is just another "lifestyle" option, like deciding on your next vacation getaway. It's all profoundly American.
He is certainly very capable and dedicated, no doubt. But he seems to over do it at times--especially his story about participating in the "exorcism" --which I do not know what to make of. This is perhaps, however, just a personal bias.
If Mr. Jindal wrote a piece for the New Oxford Review, which I think he did, I highly doubt his conversion is a cynical ploy.
Obama strikes me as no more marxist than the standard liberal, and thus not deserving of the label (marxist, not liberal). Despite the similarities between American social-justice liberalism and Marxism, and their shared roots (the idea of positive liberty), there are very real, significant differences between the two philosophies and muddying them by using "marxist" as an epithet helps no one. "Liberal" is bad enough.
Obama's turn in that comical, absurd church always struck me as a PR move - a way to ingratiate himself with the African American community from which he is obviously and in many ways apart. Black people in America historically have used the church as both a place for catharsis and worship. They go, they hoot and holler, and they leave. What was actually said by Rev Wright never really bothered me - the man is obviously a bug-eyed clownish child. What bothered me was the act itself - the jumping up and down, the bugging-out of eyes, the perverse, undignified ridiculousness of it - it is a childish, uncouth, uncivilized thing Rev Wright does on that stage, and I see nothing Christian about it whatsoever (although, to be fair, I have only watched the offending clips and nothing beyond that - I simply couldn't, the ones I did see were hard enough to watch). I can understand why a black person might sit through the rhetoric, and I can understand even more how a biracial politician raised exclusively by whites might sit through it for the reasons I noted above, but I do not understand how any adult could sit through that performance without cringing in embarrassment and running out the back, never to return.
As for Obama's appointments, they, in my opinion, speak more to him being a standard, run-of-the-mill left-wing statist/status-quo perpetuator than to his lack of experience. Indeed, they seem like the exact picks a very experienced democrat, fully enmeshed - and happy - in the machinery of the elite political class in Washington, would make. What is striking about them, I find, is how they serve as a refutation to the image his supporters concocted for him, as a harbinger of a "new politics" and so forth. Although it's unfair, I think, to judge him on the appointments alone, before he shows what he will do with them, I think it is fair to judge the appointments themselves, and to speculate as to what they might mean.
Even Ann Coulter (for a time) made the profound mistake of looking down her nose at Mr. Wright, one of the very few blacks in human history with any brains whatsoever.
So I suppose I'll forgive you, Toddard, considering that you seem to care a sights less about politics than Ann Coulter does.
S.L. Toddard @ 141
B.O. is a CULTURAL Marxist, not necessarily a political one. Discussants at this site use the phrase "cultural Marxism" to refer to a generalized attitudinal position of hostility to Western culture, traditional Christianity, and the integrity of white nations as a whole. This attitude is not automatically connnected with the sociopolitical ideas of Karl Marx any longer.
I doubt if there are very many political Marxists left, except in college English departments, or a few Womens Studies programs.
Mr, Salemi, let's see. I think you reeled off "pseudoscientists," "cow colleges," "intellectual embarrassments," "intellectual dormitory," "shouting and testifying and whooping," etc. What were you expecting? A red carpet welcome? Perhaps you could just tattoo "Elitist Ass" on your forehead and save the typing. I would much rather my kids go to one of them Baptist cow colleges than get indoctrinated in God hating at Ivy U.
Intelligent Design is an entirely legitimate area of scientific inquiry. What can and can not possibly be explained by chance. The hostility to Intelligent Design comes from doctrinaire naturalists and materialists, for whom it has to be by chance. It just has to.
Everyone interprets certain verses literally and some not depending on where they are coming from. Nowhere does the Bible say the world is flat. In fact it says "circle of the earth" at some point. And the pi issue can be explained many ways. Most simply it is rounding. How many decimal points were they supposed to carry it out to?
@ 142
Mr Johnson, I'm not sure what you're saying in any part of that post. First, are you being facetious in claiming Rev Wright has "brains"? And what does the sentence about Ann Coulter mean? I care "a sights (sic) less about politics" than Ann Coulter does, based on my thinking of Jeremiah Wright as a clown? I'm really baffled. Connect those dots for me, if you would. What I understand is that you were apparently part of the conversation that left me in hot water with everyone here, and that you seem to be taking a swipe at me. Beyond that I'm truly at a loss.
@ 143
Mr Salemi, that may be the case, and perhaps Dr Fleming meant "cultural marxist" - he will have to clarify that if he's inclined to do so. It seems to me, however, that when neoconservatives and what-now-passes-for-conservatives (I include no one here in either of those categories) call a liberal a "marxist" they are more often than not doing so to paint the liberal in question as an extreme liberal, that is to say *so liberal he's actually a literal Marxist*. In other words, implying that the term "liberal" doesn't do the person's socialistic tendencies justice, because he is in fact nothing less than a Marxist.
@ TJF
Dr Fleming, our disagreements aside, I find your defense of traditional Christianity profoundly moving. I was baptized and raised a Catholic (a condition to which my father, a Lutheran, had to agree to marry my mother) and had fallen out of the Church, but have recently felt its absence strongly. Your work here, and John Zmirak's over at Takimag, have very much exacerbated that feeling of absence, of loss, even. I don't mean that as an objection or a condemnation; what I mean to say is that I find your defense sincerely moving in a very real and spiritual way, and in a way that tugs me back towards the Church. There is so much I love about it, but other things as well - significant components or aspects of Church doctrine - that I simply *do not believe*, so I'm left with an excruciating dilemma. There is nothing worse, in my opinion, than a cafeteria-catholic. I retain, still, my distaste for people who call themselves Catholics but cherrypick articles of the faith and reduce the entire religion to a new-age, feel-good self-help course. How, I wonder, could I return to the Church without being one of *them?* I don't mean to ask you personally - I know you're not Ann Landers. And I understand that, as far as you know me, you dislike me. All the same, though, what you've written has moved me sincerely, and I appreciate it sincerely, and thought to express how as sincerely as possible.
Thank you.
@ 144
Mr Phillips, are you arguing from a fundamentalist perspective?* And if so, are you familiar with Hebrew cosmology, and the term "firmament"? The explanation of the firmament, and how it separates the waters beyond from the earth, and how the stars are fixed in it, and how gates in the firmament let the sun and moon in and out, and allow rain to pour in - how does that alone not put paid to the notion of inerrancy as understood by Fundamentalists? There is no firmament, there are no windows in it, the sun, moon and rain do not pass through it - period.
To put it more judiciously, how do fundamentalists explain away the firmament and its description in Genesis?
*If not, feel free to disregard. I am only basing that assumption on the one post, and could very well be entirely wrong, and if so please forgive me.
>First, are you being facetious in claiming Rev Wright has “brains”?<
No I'm not. His boy won, remember?
Even Ann Coulter, who is a far smarter than you are (whether you consider that statement a "swipe" or not), underestimated Mr. Wright, and especially she underestimated how many people out there agreed with his strongly worded and in many ways well argued attacks on the murderous evils of American Foreign Policy.
You think the Black Panthers were out in force for Wright's stupid little wayward boy for the sake of said stupid little wayward boy?
If you think that, I suggest you go hang out with Sen. John McCain! ...And leave us alone...
@ 147
I don't even know where to start with this logic-free, error-ridden catastrophe of a post. Are you drunk?
"Are you drunk?"
No. It was self satisfied whites like yourself who were drunk on complacency and thus failed to take Mr. Wright's words seriously.
We didn't bat an eye when we murdered all those innocent people during WWII, and if Mr. Wright's followers understood the wrongness and evil of that fact better than Mr. McCain's followers did, the logical moral conclusion is that McCain was far inferior as a moral leader relative to Mr. Wright.
But you probably don't care about morality, or the sanctity of civilian life during wartime.
Toddard writes: " I retain, still, my distaste for people who call themselves Catholics but cherrypick articles of the faith and reduce the entire religion to a new-age, feel-good self-help course. How, I wonder, could I return to the Church without being one of *them?"
You are already on your way, Toddard. Find a holy priest or monk to hear your confession, be sorry for your sins, attend Mass and then just wait to see what happens next. You are a good egg and at least one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is understanding. Of course I say all this because your post reminded me of the conversion of Charles De Foucauld about whom I have been reading all day. He was a lapsed Catholic of sorts, a French Cavalry Officer, aristocratic playboy, and much more. During his exploration of Morraco, he was moved by the desert and the simple faith of Muslims.( some of them tried to kill him in Morraco and others eventually did years later in Algiers )When he returned to Paris he asked a priest to give him further instructions in the faith to answer questions which had estranged him from his baptismal promises but the priest replied, "simply make your confession and receive Holy Communion." He was Beatified in Rome last year. Grace is a strange thing to consider and even stranger to experience. Good luck and God Bless.