Comments

There Are 76 Responses So Far. »

1. 1 Comment by Sean Scallon on 5 September 2008:

   Agreed, very well said.

   I like Sarah Palin the Alaska Governor. I don’t think I will like Sarah Palin the vice-president.

2. 2 Comment by Justitia on 5 September 2008:

   “I can understand very well why people who believe in voting for “the lesser of two evils” will support him, but I would like them to understand that they are, by their own account, voting for evil. I fully concur that it is a good idea to vote for a candidate who does not favor unrestricted abortion rights, but I would also like to suggest that if killing babies is wrong in America, it is equally wrong to kill them and their siblings and parents in Iraq, Iran, and in all the other places in the world this quick-on-the trigger candidate is likely to start wars.”

   You hit the nail right on the head Mr. Fleming. Christopher Ferrara just recently wrote an article on the Remnant Newspaper website stating why, since McCain’s choosing of Palin, he would vote Republican this year. In it he claimed that since the Republican Party platform does not support abortion as does the Democratic Party and with the “conservative” V.P. pick of Palin by McCain then we ought to vote Republican. My first thought was, “wait a minute! True, abortion is it a big issue, but it is not the only one. What about the immoral and illegal Iraq fiasco? Does that not qualify as an evil which I, as a Catholic, cannot lend my support toward? McCain picked Palin so that the conservatives, real or in name only, would come flocking to his standard and save his campaign. Why so many on the right who were not voting for McCain before and now are do no not realize that they are playing right into the trap laid for them is beyond me.
   Mr. Fleming you are right on point. May I ask what you would suggest us to do in this situation?

3. 3 Comment by TJF on 5 September 2008:

   Probably there is no one perfect response to this election. If the menace of Obama outweighs, in your mind, the menace of McCain, then support the GOP. If there is an honest Third Party that reflects something you believe strongly in, go ahead and throw away your vote on something more promising than the GOP, or if you wish merely to repudiate the bipartisan state, then vote for any Third Party candidate–or feel free to write my name in. It is a pretty safe bet since I did not even win an election for Student Body Secretary (High School), though I came close after I made a speech ridiculing student government and begging the students not to vote for me. Or you can do what I often do and will probably do this time, refuse to vote for anyone you don’t know personally. By this rule, I was able to vote for Buchanan and Ron Paul but not the Bushes. It is a good rule, if only because it reminds us that you have no business trusting anyone you do not know.

   The question of what to do brings to mind a similar question asked by Charles Péguy as France entered WW I. What should the French do as a nation to mobilize against the Boche? Nothing, because while every patriotic Frenchmen should enlist–as the already middle-aged poet did–to mobilize the nation with propaganda and industrial organization would be to accept Prussianization and France would cease to be France. The first thing, then, to understand is that there are far more important questions to address before worrying out which scoundrel sits in the White House. For example: how much Latin your children are learning in and out of school, how regular you have been in attending church, reading Scripture, and praying; what books and music should be reforming your soul; what good am I failing to do for members of my family or neighbors; how well have I controlled my temper and how effective have I been in witnessing to the Truth; what contributions have I made to the improvement of the social and cultural life of where I live; how many gift subscriptions to Chronicles have I paid for….

   A patriotic Christian has the right and duty to do what he can as a citizen, but when those civil duties begin to get in the way of higher duties, he should draw back and reflect.

4. 4 Comment by dwright on 5 September 2008:

   I was watching tv last night and McCain was with his entourage rehearsing at the podium going over the points, prompters etc.
   There, glued to his one arm and smiling like a Cheshire cat was Joe Lieberman hanging with him all the way.

   This image is enough for me not allowing even for his usual war salivating comments and speeches. Lieberman reminded me of the Catholic rite of confirmation where one had to have an older sponsor to bring you fully into the faith. He’s also there for reassurance to those who fully pull the strings of power.

5. 5 Pingback by The Southern Avenger » Is Palin Really Pro-Life? on 5 September 2008:

   [...] Link By jackhunter | Posted in Blogroll, The Back Channel, Uncategorized « Lindsey Graham is Delusional [...]

6. 6 Comment by Justitia on 5 September 2008:

   @#3

   “The first thing, then, to understand is that there are far more important questions to address before worrying out which scoundrel sits in the White House.”

   Mr. Fleming, I believe you are correct sir. Thank you for your response.

   Matthew 10:28 And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.

7. 7 Comment by TJF on 5 September 2008:

   What did Christians do in the age of Nero or Domitian? Did they scheme to put a Christian on the throne? Did they stage anti-infanticide demonstrations? No, they led the best lives they could and bore witness to the truth. We need not get apocalyptic about the bad times we are in, since it is our fault if we fail to lead the lives we know we should and do not cultivate our gardens (to quote an enemy) but also our minds and the minds of our children and friends. Don’t let the sun set on you without reading one good thing or doing one halfway good deed. If only I could follow this every day.

8. 8 Comment by Red Phillips on 5 September 2008:

   I don’t want to start another religion thread, but I think Catholics sometimes make more over the issue of rebaptism than it actually means to evangelicals. Evangelicals believe that baptism must be by the proper mode (immersion) and have the proper timing (post conversion). So any infant baptism or prior sprinkling would not be considered valid. Only a minority would consider it invalid if the mode and timing was right but it was done by an unlike denomination. A Baptist insisting that only a Baptist baptism was valid, for example. I don’t really think the issue of rebaptism tells us much about what Gov. Palin thinks about Lutherans, Calvinists, Catholics, etc. Just what evangelicals believe about baptism.

   I think being a member of a Pentecostal denomination, if anything, might reflect more outside the mainstreamness. Pentecostals have traditionally been held at arms length by other evangelicals.

9. 9 Comment by TJF on 5 September 2008:

   I defer to Aaron Wolf on the question of rebaptism, but it was regarded as a heresy by Anglicans and Lutherans, indeed, a heresy promulgated by the wickedest of antinomian sects, the Anabaptists. Thus it is hardly a defense of AOG to say that it has embraced a view of baptism that permits them to reject the validity of sacraments long revered by Christians. If they follow their anabaptist model, they might just as well go on to repudiate private property and monogamy.

   I have known too many Pentecostalists and anabaptists not to know how they regard the Catholic and the Orthodox. For example, they send missionaries to Russia, the Balkans and Latin America precisely because they regard the Catholic and Orthodox churches as unchristian. I was told this explicitly by representatives of the Slavic Gospel Association and have run into the same argument casually on repeated occasions. Similarly, these people have told me that the fate of Middle Eastern Christians, oppressed by Muslims and Israel and now by the US, is insignificant because they are not really Christians.

   Now, I am not at all disturbed by the beliefs of uneducated eccentrics–and I am speaking from experience with AOG preachers–but I do think that Catholic and Orthodox Christians should beware of politicians who belong to sects that detest them. I also know that many Evangelicals and Baptists regard Lutherans as only half-Protestant, Catholics in disguise. And, to anticipate the question, I would not vote for a Catholic-hating Evangelical unless I had sound practical motives. The fact that they claim to be some kind of Christians–though they seem to much of their time brooding over some recently invented eschatology–cuts no ice with me. If people who watch Left Behind movies are Christians, then why not Mormans and Jehovies?

   In my experience Catholic and Orthodox priests are far more tolerant of Evangelicals and Pentecostalists than vice versa. I remember once mocking the extravagance of Pentecostalists and Mega-church hooters-and-hollerers to a learned priest. He rebuked me and said that Christians who had rejected the blessings of the sacraments had been given a lesser satisfaction but one not without precedent or value and that we should rejoice with them that they had what consolation they had. I stood and stand corrected and know that my Evangelical friends often lead more sober and Christian lives than most Catholics and Orthodox. This does not alter, however, the fact that Catholics are generally hated and condemned in the Evangelical and Pentecostalist world. Under such circumstances, ecumenical cooperation in politics would seem an idle dream.

10. 10 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 5 September 2008:

    I think Catholics sometimes make more over the issue of rebaptism than it actually means to evangelicals.

    But the measure from the standpoint of orthodox Christians who believe in infant baptism is not what evangelicals “mean” by rebaptism, but the creeds: “I believe in one baptism for the remission of sin.”

    From the standpoint of orthodox Christianity, rebaptism is a renunciation of that article of the creeds. The question of whether the evangelical’s guilt over this objective rejection is mitigated by whatever confused thoughts might have been going through her mind when she requested or accepted “rebaptism” is for God to take into account when He judges her. For us, here and now, we know only what the creeds and the Fathers teach.

11. 11 Comment by Aaron D. Wolf on 5 September 2008:

    Really, no one believes in “rebaptism.” Various Christian denominations and sects disagree on what is and is not a baptism. Sarah Palin likely believes that her infant baptism was not a baptism at all. And the Assemblies of God place more emphasis on the “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” anyway. They talk about “water baptism” the way Yankees talk about “water skiing.”

    The Assemblies of God, along with Baptists and nondenominational evangelicals, do not believe that baptism amounts to anything more than an act of obedience to God’s command. On this and numerous other issues, I disagree with them, as do my Roman Catholic and Orthodox friends. Then again, we friends disagree on a number of things as well.

    I cannot say whether Sarah Palin or her family rejected infant baptism out of ignorance or because they knowingly and willfully despised the sacrament. If I were . . . since I am a betting man, I’d bet the former. The logic of their church’s rejection of infant baptism rests on one or more errors on Original Sin. The “age of accountability” itself reveals a false understanding of the nature of faith. Then again, my Catholic and Orthodox friends and I don’t define “faith” quite the same, either.

    The Assemblies of God confess the Holy Trinity. On that, all Christians agree with them. Their views on faith, Original Sin, baptism, and other things are not necessarily damning, but they are dangerous to faith. Deo vindice.

    By the way, their Bible reads the same way mine does: “Let them be keepers at home.”

12. 12 Comment by Allisio Rex on 5 September 2008:

    Sarah Palin may, in fact, come out to be the right choice among other members of the old club who’ve been around too long. Her “Christian beliefs and practices” must be put aside at this point in our history. America is falling apart and we need a strong and new presence in politics and she fits right in.
    The fact that Palin is somewhat involved with the Alaskan Independence Party is a plus and sincerely hope that she pulls through on the victory lane this coming november.
    In fact, I have more trust in her fighting abilities than I have for McCain,a man who has done nothing substantive in serving the needs of those who have repeatedly sent him back to the U.S. Senate and nothing to stop the invasion of our country by third world anti-Americans.
    I’m tired of listening about wars and foreign policy. Americans need help. They need jobs,housing, access to good medical care,a better quality of life, and more humane Federal and State Laws.
    In regard to the author mention of “Christians and Catholics”,it appears that far too many have forgotten that the Roman Catholic Church is the first “Christian” institution established in Europe.
    It used the term ” Catholic” to mean “Universal” but this shouldn’t give any solace to fundamentalist/protestant cults by implying that they are the real “Christians” when in fact the are a bunch of rebels who have manipulated religion for their own selfish interests.
    Actually, this fits well into their own culture: Roman Christians are forgiving, loving and more inclusive. Protestants, by any name, are mean spirited, distant and unfriendly people.
    I close by saying that there is a Cult in South Carolina called “Bob Jones University” which teaches its members that “Catholics”are not “Christians” and that ” they don’t love the Lord!”
    These fakers deserve a ” Roman Treatment” and you know what that is!

13. 13 Comment by Bob on 5 September 2008:

    >It is not at all clear to me that she does not regard Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists in the same light.

    Dr. Fleming, please. Do you honestly believe she’s heard of Calvin, Luther, or Anglicans?

    Being acceptable to Christ is the equivalent of being acceptable to good Republican folk. Thus, she’s going to Heaven. And she’s no different from the majority of American Christians of all denominations.

    How was it that Richard Niebuhr put it? “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”

    Welcome to America.

14. 14 Comment by Bob on 5 September 2008:

    >For example, [Pentecostals] send missionaries to Russia

    Absolutely, and not only them, but Billy Graham types and Bill Bright types (not sure, is Bill Bright considered Pentecostal? No matter, he’s still unorthodox with his “spiritual breathing”)!

    >Evangelical friends often lead more sober and Christian lives than most Catholics and Orthodox.

    Maybe. But what is the most sober thing any Christian can do other than rely completely upon the finished work of Christ as being sufficient for salvation? An excuse for debauchery? No! But surely a thing worthy of a couple glasses of wine and nice fat cigar!

    If only evangelicals would learn that life is worth living because Christ, and Christ only, has made it that way!

15. 15 Comment by Chuck Hicks on 5 September 2008:

    Correction, Bob. Billy Graham worked with, not against, Orthodox priests in Eastern Europe. He did not beckon the faithful out of their churches into Baptist congregations, but challenged them to make their faith in Christ personal and real.

    I had the pleasure of attending an Orthodox vespers service with friends in Charlotte, NC (I am Anglican). At the end of the service the Archbishop of the diocese (OAC South) emerged from the iconostasis and gave a short exhortation, noting the spiritual heritage Charlotte has in Billy Graham, and how Orthodox faithful ought to follow Graham’s example in sharing their faith with friends and neighbors.

    This underscores Dr. Fleming’s point about the magnanimity of some Catholic/Orthodox ministers toward evangelicals. Billy Graham operates by the same Spirit.

16. 16 Comment by robert m. peters on 5 September 2008:

    Dr. Fleming @ 3 and 7

    No better advice can be given. Having read those two post, I am feeling even better about the dinner I had with my mother at noon -homemade slaw and catfish -, the work I did in my yard, cleaning up after Gustav – the staff of the gods, and looking at the pictures of my first grandson which came today by e-mail attachment. Before I could remember, my mother and father, along with aunts and friends, read to me. Now, my mother who cannot see well at all asks me every night to read to her. We are re-reading I’ll Take My Stand. She first read it during her seven years of living in a boarding house while a single young woman teaching in a small rural school in a town which no longer exists. I first read it as a teenager one rainy day, having discovered it among the many books my mother had collected.

    As per your two posts, it has been a good day.

17. 17 Comment by Bob on 5 September 2008:

    Chuck Hicks, thanks for the correction. I just remember a bunch of evangelicals from my circle of acquaintances talking about going over to Russia after the collapse and spreading the Gospel, and I thought it was telling that none of them were aware of … who they were dealing with.

18. 18 Comment by Jon W. on 5 September 2008:

    John Knox was a reformer of the 16th Century, and had this to say about the Queens of his day leading nations and people.

    “
    For who can denie but it is repugneth to nature, that the blind shall be appointed to leade and conduct such as do see? That the weake, the sicke and impotent persons shall norishe and kepe the hole and strong? And finallie, that the foolishe, madde and phrenetike shal governe the discrete and give counsel to such as be sober of mind. And such be al women, compared unto man in bearing of authoritie. For their sight in civile regiment is but blindness; their strength, weaknes; their counsel, foolishnes; and judgment, phrensie, if it be rightlie considered.
    ”

    The man did not mince words, did he?

    Indeed, the position of women in this country at its inception is reflected in the view expressed by Thomas Jefferson that women should be neither seen nor heard in society’s decision making councils. See M. Gruberg, Women in American Politics 4 (1968). See also 2 A. de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (Reeves trans. 1948).

    If you consider modern American elections as merely a game-show, then clearly the Veep for the Republicans scores well, simply for giving sarcasm a respectacle place in political gamemanship. If you’re inclined to vote on things that are not connected to leadership, then you must vote for a moose hunter. None of the others measure up. There is nothing to like about people from the city who don’t hunt, fish or cheer on a good hockey fight. The dame is regular folk in Alaska, and a joke to the intellectual crowd in the city. That alone gets my game-show vote.

    America is a matriarchal society, so you will not find leadership in public life. You can vote or stay home, leadership will not appear after the election results are in.

19. 19 Pingback by Palin, traditional Christianity, gender roles and a faith sold cheap « R. Justin Shepherd | PART-TIME PUNDIT on 5 September 2008:

    [...] its mission statement contains the phrase “defend(ing) Western Christian civilization.” Here, you will find the editor’s evaluation of the Palin phenomenon (I urge you to read the whole [...]

20. 20 Comment by Daniel Maxwell on 5 September 2008:

    “Similarly, these people have told me that the fate of Middle Eastern Christians, oppressed by Muslims and Israel and now by the US, is insignificant because they are not really Christians.”

    Amazing, is it not? I got into an argument with a co-worker over this very point. He argued that the Iraqi/Palestinian Catholics/Orthodox are not really Christians, so it doesnt matter if the Muslim militias/IDF kill them en masse.

21. 21 Comment by Red Phillips on 5 September 2008:

    Pentecostals believe that the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit spoken of in the New Testament are still extant today, as do Charismatics. I think the Pentecostals differ from the Charismatics in believing that there is a separate baptism of the Holy Spirit apart from the experience of salvation. And many Pentecostals put a particular emphasis on the gift of tongues. Almost all Baptists and most other “Baptistic” evangelicals believe that the sign gifts ceased to exist with the Apostles or the closing of the canon of Scripture. While a Baptistic Pentecostal and a Baptist agree on many things, this difference has historically been a very significant one because of the profound difference it makes on how a service is conducted. I think most Baptists would be much more comfortable in a PCA church service, for example, than they would in a CoG service, despite sharing many Baptistic distinctives.

    The problem is that if the sign gifts really did go away then what in the heck is going on in those Churches?

    Evangelicals do not so much reject the validity of the sacrament of baptism as they do the concept of a sacrament which we call ordinances. We believe Baptism is commanded and is not optional, but it is a memorial and symbolic event. It has no significance regarding salvation per se. As they say in Baptist churches when someone is baptized, it is an “outward sign of an inward change.” We feel this is the uncomplicated explanation of what we see in the examples in the Bible and it is an extension of sola fide. To invest any sort of salvific value in Baptism or the Lord’s Supper is to flirt with works. Of course, Lutherans believe in sola fide and are still sacramental. So it is probably fair to say that evangelicals who consider these matters think that is a “vestige of Rome.”

    Clearly these are significant differences, but I don’t think it is fair to compare Mormons, who totally reject the creeds on many matters, with Left Behind watchers who do not.

    Regarding Israel, even if dispensationalist premils are entirely right in their interpretation of Scripture, it still does not necessarily follow that America has some sort of Divine affirmative obligation to protect (“bless”) Israel. If Israel is necessary for the fulfillment of prophecy then God will take care of them. This is the point that needs to be made with evangelicals, and it can be made without attempting to debunk the whole interpretive scheme. My impression is that dispensational pre-millennialism is falling out of favor among “thoughtful” evangelicals, but it will be a long time before that reaches the masses.

22. 22 Comment by Chuck Hicks on 6 September 2008:

    “Regarding Israel, even if dispensationalist premils are entirely right in their interpretation of Scripture, it still does not necessarily follow that America has some sort of Divine affirmative obligation to protect (“bless”) Israel. If Israel is necessary for the fulfillment of prophecy then God will take care of them. This is the point that needs to be made with evangelicals…”

    Very well stated, Mr, Phillips. It serves to remind evangelicals of the need to distinguish Jewish people from the State of Israel.

23. 23 Comment by Wood Cutter on 6 September 2008:

    Dr.Flemming, good piece! I think that part of the problem of those that prefer to hold their nose and vote without investigating why they are holding their nose has something to do with the age of convenience that we live in. Many people have an inner voice saying that something may be wrong but that little voice is soon squashed by the larger influence of the post modern materialistic world we live in that says we need to live as kings and queens instead of taking the time to investigate what is really going on. Keep up the good work.

24. 24 Comment by robert m. peters on 6 September 2008:

    Mrs. Palin is a product of post-Enlightenment liberalism which is a belief in the autonomous individual. She is also a product of the feminist movement, the radical extension of the belief in the autonomous individual.

    There are only a few, very few, of us pre-Enlightenment, ante-moderns left who do not believe in the autonomous individual but who believe that humans are social creatures born into relationships which carry with them profound obligations to the commonwealths of family, of Church, of local community and to a republican polis.

    Radical feminists do, however, grasp a truth which they do not understand; that is, to be truly feminist, one must be totally emancipated from the notion of being a social creature and become the ultimate autonomous individual. Many so-called conservatives today believe that you can have it both ways, i.e. play at being mom (social creature) while pursuing a career (autonomous individual). Some indeed do it better than others; yet, in the end, the social commonwealth, namely the family, must suffer to one degree or another. Mrs. Palin, as much as I admire her in some way, is such an example.

    As to the radical feminist, one must say that their ultimate autonomous individual, for them the female, devoid of any social responsibility save for those which please the feminine self, is also the alienated individual. Behind the silly and superficial series Sex in the City lies this fundamental reality: all of those women, in character in the series and movie, and as real persons, actresses, are alienated individuals. They do not like Mrs. Palin because she has managed, so it would seem, to maintain a tenuous objective correlative to being a social creature while playing the feminist role. She has not yet, not quite yet, become the alienated individual which they have become. That is, I believe, the genesis of their hate.

    Most likely, Mrs. Palin’s next generation, that of her children, will complete the process to alienated individual. Her daughter seems to be well on the way. Although she is allegedly a Christian, she chose her compulsion – a primeval desire for sex which she has in common with slugs and seahorses – over the oughtness which a truly social creature has for the commonwealths of God, of family, of Church and of community. The desire of her family for her to marry is an attempt, most likely to fail, to make her and the equally alienated urchin with whom she fornicated get back into the role of social creatures. I do not believe that the Zeitgeist under whose thrall modernity and post-modernity have their being will allow that to happen.

    Thus, the reality is that conservatives and liberals, right and left, Democrat and Republican are all actually post-Enlightenment liberals. All of this talk of “family values” is meaningless. At best, it is the empty vestige of the old order which has passed away, save in some nooks and crannies like here at Chronicles, just like a dad, if he exists in post-modernity, “giving away his daughter at marriage.” In the liberal sea in which we swim, its a fun thing at which dad, or stepdad, or mom’s newest boyfriend, gives away a daughter, a stepdaughter or girl of his girl, perhaps with a tear. Once, not all that long ago, actually, it meant that the father, the protector of the daughter – physically, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually – was giving that awesome responsibility off to another man – the groom becoming husband. No one was an autonomous individual; each stepped from one social relationship to another, from one household to another, from one commonwealth to another, having and receiving profound obligations which went with the important roles therewith associated.

25. 25 Comment by The young fogey on 6 September 2008:

    I stopped being played by the culture wars years ago.

    Whatever good political views she used to have became irrelevant when she signed onto the McCain ticket, and the Zionism means she’s right out.

    If as rumoured in some quarters the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates step aside and draft Ron Paul I’ll vote (as I did for him in Pennsylvania’s primary).

    If not I’m staying home.

26. 26 Comment by TJF on 6 September 2008:

    My intemperate comments about Pentecostalists has generated far deeper replies than my original screed. At the back of my mind was a question I did not quite formulate, and it is this: Setting Palin aside, on what basis can which groups of Christians collaborate politically? It is not really a question of credal statements since, as we all know, comparatively few Methodists or Presbyterians or Catholics actually know very clearly what their churches teach, but what is the emphasis? I have never felt especially uncomfortable with Baptists, because, although they lack nearly all sense of the sacraments, they–at least many I know–are earnest about their faith and their lives, and they do not get so easily distracted by theories (Double Predestination) or Millennialist mythologies. But in the hip Evangelical churches whose members tune into Rick Warren and TBN, I find nothing but an endless search for novelty and excitement wrapped up in nearly all the delusions of American society–a boundless acquisitiveness, an unconditional faith in the divine destiny of America, a self-centered and self-imposed ignorance of everything you cannot buy with a credit card. Other than try to convert them to some bona fide Christian faith, I don’t know what is to be done with such people.

    Young Fogey raises an interesting question, indirectly, and that is: Would it be right for Ron Paul, quondam Republican who renounced his party to join the Libertarians and then returned to Congress as a Republican, to bold the party again after running in the primaries? I am not suggesting he would be guilty of a great crime, but would it not be a symptom of the libertarians’ inability or refusal to be loyal to anyone or anything except their own will? I like Ron and voted for him, but he is beginning to act a bit like Churchil, who betrayed the same party twice and called it an act of genius.

27. 27 Comment by jack bailey on 6 September 2008:

    Not to vote because everything is evil means not voting at all from at least Reagan on or more likely Goldwater. But there is a cost in nonvoting and that is what one needs to worry about. NOt voting does not make the evil go away.

28. 28 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 6 September 2008:

    jack bailey (@26):

    There’s a cost in voting, too, especially if (as you seem to be arguing that we should do) that vote is always cast for the lesser of two evils–in other words, for evil.

    Your comments here and on my piece, however, imply something else: that the only vote that matters is the vote for president. Perhaps I’m reading you wrongly, but in both places, when you mention nonvoting, you seem to forget entirely that there are other races, other levels of government.

    This obsession with presidential politics is part of the liberal problem, not the conservative solution.

29. 29 Comment by Chuck Hicks on 6 September 2008:

    Mr. Peters (#23), that was powerfully stated. God bless your mother and you as you re-read *I’ll Take My Stand.*

30. 30 Comment by Daniel McCarthy on 6 September 2008:

    Though I’m not in the Ron Paul inner circle by any means, I can say from my time on his campaign earlier this year there there is no chance he’ll run as a third-party or independent candidate. His organization, the Campaign for Liberty, is aiming influence the GOP from within–to provide an noninterventionist, sound-money grassroots lobby organized along the lines of something like the Christian Coalition.

    Dr. Paul’s third-party excursion in 1988, like Pat Buchanan’s in 2000, may have been necessary to give voters an honorable alternative, but it also illustrated to all involved why third parties are ineffective as anything but vehicles of protest.

31. 31 Comment by jack bailey on 6 September 2008:

    “This obsession with presidential politics is part of the liberal problem, not the conservative solution.” Once more, if you do not vote someone wins by default. Is it not so? You can argue that it does not matter who wins but it’s still by default. Once this default voting is over, you can start applying conservative solutions all you want. Or not. That’s where the problem is. it’s not so easy to sneak conservative solutions in after the fact.

32. 32 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 6 September 2008:

    it’s not so easy to sneak conservative solutions in after the fact.

    Give me a call in four years, jack, and let me know how many conservative solutions you were able to sneak into the McCain White House. I’ll bet it will be the same as the number of conservative solutions that the “Obamacons” would have been able to sneak into the Obama White House: zero.

    But, by all means, if you think you’ll be able to drive McCain to the right by voting for him, follow through on your dream.

33. 33 Comment by Red Phillips on 6 September 2008:

    I have heard that Paul will endorse both Barr and Baldwin. Or basically say both are acceptable to him. I like Chuck Baldwin, and it would be good for Baldwin to get Paul’s endorsement, but Paul would be wise not to endorse one or the other. He has been able to hold together a libertarian and conservative coalition like no one else can. Were he to endorse either one, it would alienate part of his coalition.

    There is a militantly secularist libertarian element that likes Paul but can’t stand Baldwin or the CP.

34. 34 Comment by Matt on 6 September 2008:

    One point of contention:

    “I fully concur that it is a good idea to vote for a candidate who does not favor unrestricted abortion rights, but I would also like to suggest that if killing babies is wrong in America, it is equally wrong to kill them and their siblings and parents in Iraq, Iran, and in all the other places in the world this quick-on-the trigger candidate is likely to start wars. Let us not reduce ourselves to the leftist caricature of pro-life activists who only care about babies before they are born.”

    One of the stated objectives and or/reasons for going into Iraq was not the killing of the innocent citizenry–they were not the targets, nor did they provide reason to be. The stated objective of an abortion is, and can only be, to kill an innocent child. Furthermore, in the specific instance of Iraq, a dictator was deposed who did, in fact, target his innocent citizenry. Under Hussein, they were the target that they did not deserve to be–akin to an abortion. I do not deny that innocent citizens have been lost during the war and that is certainly unfortunate. However, I do not think it is accurate to equate a possible result with an intended result. Additional note: it was Hussein who was willing to create attacks on his own people and then blame Americans–much like terrorists will hide in churches, or in the middle of very populous towns, often taking families hostage in their own homes so as to use them as a moral shield against their attackers.

35. 35 Comment by TJF on 6 September 2008:

    Jack Bailey raises a question that is both practical and theoretical. On the practical level, let us just say that various people have various ideas about the outcome of a McCain victory, and if you are going to advocate this as a preference, it is necessary to become quite specific in outlining the positive results, not on the basis of what McCain says but on the basis of his record and his party’s record.

    On the theoretical level, I think there is no absolute answer to the question of whether it is right to vote for the lesser of two evils. Suppose an extreme case: Would you rather be dismembered by Ed Gein or eaten by Jeffrey Dahmer. Or a less extreme case, would you rather be oppressed by Nazis or Stalinists. Some would say it depends on whether you are a Jew or a Ukrainian, but in fact both dictators persecuted Jews and Ukrainians on a massive scale.

    Pragmatically, one has to decide how much less evil the lesser is, but surely there is a point at which one can truly say, “I will not vote in an election in which my vote will only reinforce the lie that elections are free and fair and that the candidates present a real choice. Does anyone remember the episode of the Prisoner in which Patrick McGoohan is lured into running in the phony election for the #2 spot? That was clearly McGoohan’s take on the politics of 30 years ago, and things are much much worse than they were then. I am not saying that it is necessarily wrong to vote for a major party candidate, but I do think that those who refuse to vote have a point in refusing to collaborate with a system they regard as oppressive.

36. 36 Comment by Matt on 6 September 2008:

    One additional note:

    It would seem that to support Obama would be inconsistent with a statement in the first sentence in the quote I reference above:

    “I fully concur that it is a good idea to vote for a candidate who does not favor unrestricted abortion rights…”

    Is it not Obama who not only opposed a ban on partial birth abortions, but also, while a state senator in Illinois, opposed a bill that would have protected the lives of infants who survived abortion attempts?

    I would also like to ask, to further buttress my point above, that to use the terminology of an infant surviving an abortion, does this not imply that if an infant does not survive an abortion then they would have been killed, thus revealing the intended result of an abortion?

37. 37 Comment by PRAXIS OBNOXIA on 6 September 2008:

    I recently got this book on the New Vatican II Rite of Baptism. It seems that the New Modernist Rite is null and void, and thus all people baptized need re-baptism conditionally, this would include Sarah Palin I’m afraid. No one is validly baptized in a invalid or dubious rite, and if Sarah Palin received that, she cannot be counted as a Christian. I’m sorry to say it is this, but’s true. If you don’t believe read the book PRAXIS OBNOXIA:

    http://www.lulu.com/content/3824207

38. 38 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 6 September 2008:

    Matt (@35):

    Who is supporting Obama? Or are you suggesting the refusing to support McCain is the same as supporting Obama, even if you vote for neither?

39. 39 Comment by TJF on 6 September 2008:

    If opposition to abortion is the only issue that matters to a voter, he may as well sit this one out.

40. 40 Comment by Jacob Aitken on 6 September 2008:

    While I am a conservative Calvinist, many of the neo-con evangelical comments about Rome (not here, in the news, etc) do appall me. While I do have issues with some of the claims of Rome and Constantinople, I realize that for centuries they have been the glue that has held society together. And they have produced cultural stalwarts: Dante, Flannery O’Connor, and others.

41. 41 Comment by Jacob Aitken on 6 September 2008:

    contd.,

    I became very sympathetic to the claims of Constantinople after reading of the Kosovo struggle. I then spent the next few months reading the theology of Eastern Orthodoxy. Few endeavors have been as intellectually and spiritually forming as that.

42. 42 Comment by Chesterbelloc on 6 September 2008:

    I think it’s proper to take a hard line on these dispensationalists, whose fantasies grow more bizarre with every year. I am a young man and no saint, but even I can pick up the Bible and discern the basic spirit of Christ and His mission. How someone can warp the Bible into these awful warmongering heresies is beyond me. Their own souls must be as warped as their interpretations. The sins of pride and presumption, I suppose.

43. 43 Comment by Chuck Hicks on 6 September 2008:

    Chesterbelloc (#40), you are making a sweeping caricature of dispensationalism that isn’t accurate.

    Dispensational theology has its roots in quietist/pietist thinkers such as Isaac Watts and John Nelson Darby. These and their followers frowned on voting, let alone participating in political machinations to bring about The End. As Red Phillips earlier alluded (#20), they were content to leave prophetic details involving Israel entirely to God. Their quietism is based on Darby’s heavenly/earthly duality. Politics, in his view, are beneath the interests of a right-thinking and spiritual Christian.

    It seems the only paleconservative writer who accurately critiques dispensationalism is Paul Gottfried. He rightly distinguishes between this quiet branch of theology and the pop Evangelical Christian Zionism represented by John Hagee and the late Zola Levitt. Those two and others like them want to see a conflagration in the Middle East — it sells books, tapes & DVD’s and, in the process, might speed along the Parousia.

    Geo. W. Bush & co. are no dispensationalist; the intricacies of that theological system are beyond their facilities. Neo-conservatives aren’t planning Armageddon but simply striving for world domination. Israel is their strategic ally in the quest for control of the most volatile and resource-rich region of the world. That some evangelicals see this as the opportunity to bring about The End is nothing more than sad.

44. 44 Comment by Kearney Smith on 6 September 2008:

    In reference to Palin’s church-going, I detect some ridicule of the doctrine (or lack of it) in the protestantism of the small or rural churches.

    But it seems to me that many of these groups are akin to High Church faith in one regard: they have not abandoned religious stands in favor of feel-good acceptance of all the fashionable changes in society. Their concern is still wishing to please God.

    I’m not Roman Catholic, so I can’t speak with any authority on its doctrine, but from what I am able to tell the Catholic Church too has remained more stedfast in beliefs even when they no longer deemed fashionable.

    On the other hand, many of the older, established denominations of protestantism have virtually abandoned paying any serious attention to scripture and especially to parts of it that they consider out of date. They spend more time proving that they are sensitive to special needs of minorities, etc., than in salvation of souls.

45. 45 Comment by Red Phillips on 6 September 2008:

    Everyone frets about the dispensationalists. The dominionist post-mils fret about them. The non-interventionists fret about them. The anti-Zionism obsessives fret about them. Perhaps they’ll do everyone a favor and grow horns.

    I grew up in that system. I have thrown up my hands on the end times now. I don’t think the Bible is clear about the matter beyond Jesus will return. But so much animosity leads people to say things that are really caricatures and distortions (knowingly or unknowingly). Dispensationalists are not trying to bring about Armageddon. Anyone who is would be a serious crank. They think modern Israel is equal to the Israel of the OT and there are prophesies yet to be fulfilled trough them. Since Israel of today is the same as Israel of the OT then the Biblical admonition to not be on the bad side of Israel applies. That is it. Now that leads to some seriously flawed foreign policy for some, but it is not sinister. Again, dispensationalists are not trying to usher in Armageddon. I attend and have attended churches that are almost entirely that way, and I have never once heard that suggested. To do so would be extremely presumptuous. They are just overly supportive of Israel (including militarily) for religious reasons.

    At least they have a theological rational for their support. Why don’t people fret as much about Catholic or Calvinist supporters of Israel? They don’t have the benefit of a theological excuse.

46. 46 Pingback by The Art of the Possible » Blog Archive » Paleo Shadow on 6 September 2008:

    [...] Fleming of Chronicles does not approve of Sarah Palin or the swooning over [...]

47. 47 Comment by Chesterbelloc on 6 September 2008:

    @ Chuck

    To clarify, my disgust was directed at the modern dispensationalists like John Hagee. That being said, is it much of a surprise that things got taken in such an odd direction? If, after nearly two thousand years, someone can decide that the old covenant-new covenant-second coming paradigm just isn’t good enough anymore, then isn’t anything possible? Indeed, I understant that Darby was the one to propose that the the church needed to be raptured out of the way before God could culminate his covenant with the Jews. This leap from the Old Testament, over the new covenant and teachings of Christ, to a literal interpretation of Revelation, was present in dispensationalism from the very beginning, and seems to be the reason it is devoid of Christian compassion today. Bad tree, bad fruit.

48. 48 Comment by JMB on 7 September 2008:

    Red Phillips, #43: I agree with your explanation on dispensationalists. I too grew up in a Baptist church that agreed with dispensationalist eschatology, which of course was agitated by the Lindsey/Hagee/Lahaye crowd.

    A great point about GWB administration; these are not dispensationalists, per say. Certainly they are neo-conservatives, influenced by the Israeli lobby, but they are not Lahayeites. I once belonged to an organization that brought together evangelicals, economic libertarians, free market zeitgeists and others of a generally more conservative political worldview. This collection of people got along relatively well because they all had at least one unifying political goal–the defeat of liberal candidates who were a threat, more or less, to most of the goals this organization collectively advocated. However, beneath the veneer, there were libertarians who viewed the evangelicals (most of them protestants) as goofy quacks, but ultimately harmless. There were a few paleos like Joe Sobran and Lew Rockwell who thought the evangelicals were dangerous, however. These paleos were, likewise, seen as wayward by the evangelicals.

    Now, I think there is some paranoia on the smart of some paleos with regard to dispensationalists. Unless the dispensationalists are alligned with a more seemingly intellectually credible movement, like pro-Israeli neo-conservatives, these dispensationalists–most of them patriotic, well-intentioned men and women of Christ–are relatively uninfluential. The president’s overtures to hagee and other dispensationalists are meant to pacify and, in some way reward these people for their financial and political loyalty to the GOP. The likes of the mayor of Jerusalem’s support of dispensationalism is a practical recognition of the benefits of support from men like Hagee, i.e. the Israeli positions on Palestine are never far from the headlines.

    So, the bottom line is that our venting ought not be focused on LaHayeites, but rather those former trotskyites who would entangle us further into the affairs of countries not out own. Besides, I know very few evangelicals who read paleo-conservative blogs.

    What would be a interesting development would be a discussion with evangelicals about the alternatives to pre-millenialism dispensationalism. I am convince3d that many would reconsider their churchs’ adherence to this new doctrine if presented with the truths of dispensationalism’s origins. Instead of condescendingly castigating them as ignorant and simple in blogs they do not read, engage them. You’ll be surprised at how many would probably reconsider.

49. 49 Comment by TJF on 7 September 2008:

    Let us not too quickly dismiss the potential menace of Millenarians and Zionists. Both put speculative teachings above the plain truths of the Gospels, and both tend to hate those who do not belong to the sect and cheerfully consign their fellow-Christians in the Middle East to oppression and extinction. I once tried to argue with a Presbyterian Zionist who supported Robertson. I asked if he really thought that the God the Father preached by Christ his Son would encourage the killing of innocent people. No need to ask what the answer was. In reverting to a Jewish interpretation of the Pentateuch, these people think that the Creator of the universe tells people to murder strangers, simply because no one has yet taught them the truth. With this attitude, we have entered into the mindset of terrorists like John Brown and Osama. No one who advocates murder can have understood much of what Christ and His Church has taught. This is a good example of what happens when unreflective and unlettered people think they have a right to think for themselves. I have great respect for many of the early reformers, but what a Pandora’s box they opened without meaning to. Dr. Luther would have dealt severely with the Greekless, Latinless, Hebrewless zeroes who create cults and call them Christianity.

50. 50 Comment by Clark Coleman on 7 September 2008:

    I find it rather discouraging that so many paleos really think that McCain is going to start numerous wars if he is elected. Our nation is war-weary and no president, of either party, is going to start another one.

    To make an analogy, during the 1972 election, the nation was so weary of the Vietnam War that it would have been inconceivable that any president would start another war of comparable size somewhere else. McGovern was the leftist peacenik, Nixon was the evil warmongering escalator of the war, yet Nixon won the election and we were almost entirely out of Vietnam 13 months later.

    The die has been cast in Iraq. Whoever is elected will try to get out gradually. Obama and McCain will not do it the same way at the same speed, etc., but the mood of the nation is clear and they are not deaf. All of the paleo paranoia about the neocons on this issue is just out of touch with American politics right now. This is not 2002.

51. 51 Comment by TJF on 7 September 2008:

    The question is not what he will be able to do but what he would like to do and will do if he gets the chance. Lets say we are Jewish businessmen. this guy Hitler will save us from the Reds and while he may be a raving Jew-hater, the German parliament won’t let him do anything about it. Right? People who believe–with justification–that Obama will be a nightmare–may be right in voting for McCain but it is very dangerous to pretend that he is anything other than what he seems: a mentally and emotionally unstable egomaniac who loves war for its own sake, a corrupt politician who preaches reform, a Republican who cannot even be loyal to his own party.

52. 52 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 7 September 2008:

    #48 – The American people war weary? If only. This is not 1972. At the time of that election, Nixon had already withdrawn the vast majority of American troops from Vietnam and was working on getting the others out. McGovern wanted the same thing – only faster. In this election, both major candidates threaten Iran and Pakistan with war and promise to send more American troops to Afghanistan. McCain (“we are all Georgians”) even threatens Russia. McCain, as Dr. Fleming has stated, clearly loves war for its own sake. Obama on the other hand waxes militant to appease a militaristic electorate.

    It is possible, perhaps even probable, that an inner establishment which wants to rule rather than ruin the world will restrain McCain as they have so far restrained Bush. But, again echoing Dr. Fleming, war is definitely what McCain will do if he gets the chance. And as long as only foreigners are being slaughtered on a massive scale and taxes are not being raised, he will wage war to the bloodthristy applause of the majority of a corrupt American electorate.

53. 53 Pingback by Scott Richert: One Catholic’s View of Palin « The Paleocrat on 7 September 2008:

    [...] Thomas Flemming takes her Zionism and Pentecostal Dispensationalism to task [...]

54. 54 Comment by TJF on 7 September 2008:

    #36: “I recently got this book on the New Vatican II Rite of Baptism. It seems that the New Modernist Rite is null and void”.

    Has anyone heard of the author Patrick Pollock or on what grounds he would claim to speak with authority on the sacraments? On Scott Richert’s column, I have been pointing out one problem of modern Christians: the combination of ignorance and effrontery. There is no respect for authority or tradition, especially among many ultra-traditional Catholics, truly more Catholic than the Pope. Over the past few years I have seen writings by a nice young Catholic American historian, who without showing any sign of having made a serious study of the Church’s traditions, utterly rejects the Church’s social teachings in favor of the theories of a Jewish atheist, Ludwig von Mises. There is also a very earnest Catholic lawyer who lays down dogmas with the aplomb and authority of Leo XIII but, again, without showing any evidence of a serious training in theology, Latin, Greek, or anything else one would want to know before challenging one’s Church. But nearly everyone today, Catholics and Protestants alike, is his own Pope, and some of them are well on the way to becoming their own God. Hence, it might be a mortal sin not to vote for John McCain.

    All the misplaced confidence in Ms. Palin, a modernist-feminist whose actions belie her promises, is one result of this sad condition into which so many of us have fallen. Our impudence keeps us ignorant, and our ignorance reinforces our impudence. Real learning requires humility and acceptance of authority and tradition; otherwise we end up chasing our own tails. But we Americans are children, and if the occasional adolescent repeats something he has heard from the grownups–the better men and women of earlier times–he is sure to be denounced for arrogance. I am reminded of a friend in graduate school who told me that his comparative ignorance of Greek and Latin would give him a fresh slant on ancient literature. Naturally, he ended up at Brown.

55. 55 Comment by Daniel Maxwell on 7 September 2008:

    “Over the past few years I have seen writings by a nice young Catholic American historian, who without showing any sign of having made a serious study of the Church’s traditions, utterly rejects the Church’s social teachings in favor of the theories of a Jewish atheist, Ludwig von Mises.”

    No doubt you are referring to Thomas Woods.

    I think it is inaccurate to say though, that he has simply ‘rejected’ Catholic social teaching.

    (I am not sure if von Mises was an atheist, either)

56. 56 Pingback by Politeuma · All Babies on 7 September 2008:

    [...] ~ Thomas Fleming [...]

57. 57 Comment by J.M. on 8 September 2008:

    This thread is having the worst effect on me. Should I err in judgment, and post a line that is written in less-than-exemplary English, I feel I will be judged upon my less-than-exemplary grammar. I suppose I should retire now lest I be judged… I am a man who is stirred by my inner Yeats, but this appears inadequate. Heretofore I refrain from further posts. In my estimation, Mr. Camp has brought, upon this conversation, interesting points (but illegal as to the purview of our esteemed moderator),as they are being disregarded due to their problematic content. As such, I will refrain and await further response. Is this really the future of Chronicles? I expected more from my favorite publication… I read, nor interpreted no vulgarities from Mr. Camp, et al. If we are to be judged upon our written words, I am sure that Mr. Fleming would open himself to an inspection of his written words, seemingly impeccable, through all these many years…. Please…

58. 58 Comment by TJF on 8 September 2008:

    Read Mises’ book on Socialism, if you have any doubts. Whatever he may have thought about the possible existence of supranational beings, he was hostile to Christianity, which he regarded as a superstition that lends itself to tyranny. I said nothing of my friend Tom Woods and have no wish to make this a personal issue. Everyone makes mistakes,I no less than anyone. There are at least a dozen American historians who are self-proclaimed Misesians. Woods has, I believe, withdrawn his most extreme criticisms of Catholic social teaching but has not withdrawn his allegiance to Mises. Put quite simply there is almost no common ground between any traditional form of Christianity and Misesian liberalism. My point, however, was not to attack Mises and his followers–Mises’ as philosopher (as opposed to his economics) is so negligible a figure as not to be worth refutation, but to suggest that earnest young men today seem incapable of accepting tradition and authority and even when they do, they then use tradition as a stick with which to beat authority.

59. 59 Comment by J. M. on 8 September 2008:

    TJF

    While it´s true that many young catholics, don´t accept authority, I think you have to accept that the Church desintegration was the direct responsability of the changes in doctrine and liturgy that arose from Vatican II and from the popes who accepted it, from Paul VI to B16 (the very “council was a complete departure from Tradition), so if truth be told the ones to be held accountable for the church current situation are its “popes”

    “The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”4

    The Ottaviani Intervention, Rockford, IL: Tan Books.

    And in reference to the new Mass I have only this to quote from the Bull Quo Primum:

    Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
    “Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”2

    One doesn´t have to know latin to understand something´s not quite right with todays “bishops”, (because most of the them aren´t worthy that name, just look at Mahony or Niederauer) and the current power structure, and I don´t think infallible statements become fallible over time.

    “In my experience Catholic and Orthodox priests are far more tolerant of Evangelicals and Pentecostalists than vice versa. I remember once mocking the extravagance of Pentecostalists and Mega-church hooters-and-hollerers to a learned priest. He rebuked me and said that Christians who had rejected the blessings of the sacraments had been given a lesser satisfaction but one not without precedent or value and that we should rejoice with them that they had what consolation they had.”

    How dare this “priest” say something like that? Protestantism is an antibiblical man-made religion, responsible for the loss of millions of souls, and I´m not trying to be mean, I ´m just trying to put the things right, because as you said before the ridiculus ecumenism preached by heterodox hierarchy in Rome is not shared at all by protestants.

    God Bless

60. 60 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 8 September 2008:

    Sarah Palin’s political views seem to be conservative yet inchoate. Her rise seems almost accidental. After giving birth to three children and being a stay-at-home mother, she won a seat on her small town city council and later moved on to mayor, both part-time jobs for towns the size of Wasilla. City managers do the heavy lifting in small-town municiplities so her workload was small. She may even have been a Buchanan supporter during her early career. When the dry-rotted Alaska Republican Party showed weakness in 2006, Sarah Palin pounced, won the Governor race, and placed herself above her family duties. And now the odious John McCain calls. Sarah Palin the mom gives way to Sarah Palin the politician.

    Although Sarah Palin’s recent Republican Convention speech was brilliantly given, a closer read of the speech reveals almost no substance. Conservative policies were sparingly mentioned. It was mostly a speech that regaled John McCain and ridiculed Barack Obama. Sarah Plain is plainly just John McCain’s tool to energize conservatives for the November 2 vote, after which he plans to ignore the very conservatives that thrilled to Mrs. Palin’s words on Wednesday. Given the malleability of Sarah Palin, look for the neo-conservatives to step in to give her an ideological framework, including support for military intervention all over the globe.

    McCain will probably stumble to victory two months from now because he is not Barack Hussein Obama. Conservatives will be betrayed for four years, starting first with an immigration amnesty marshaled by McCain’s particular friend Lindsey Graham and the dying Ted Kennedy. A McCain victory will set back conservatism just as George W. Bush’s victory in 2000 was a set back. Didn’t Yogi Berra say something about deja vu happening all over again? And some people think Berra was just a dumb catcher.

61. 61 Comment by Red Phillips on 8 September 2008:

    It isn’t just the millenarianism. I don’t think pre-mil dispies in Argentina think Argentina needs to militarily defend Israel. It is some awful combination of millenarianism and Americanism that makes for the volatile mix. That America has been granted by God some special status as defender of Israel and for that matter, freedom everywhere. When stated like that it sounds absurd, but that is how many think whether conscious or not. I don’t think it is just outright bloodlust.

62. 62 Comment by TJF on 8 September 2008:

    Red, you may be too good a man to comprehend the evil that may be lurking in the hearts of self-described Christians. I do not say I have any idea, but these people are as indifferent to the fate of Arab Christians as, say, Nazi guards were indifferent to the fate of Jews. I do not at all believe that everyone who worked in the camps wanted to kill people, but for various reasons–fear, greed, laziness, convenience, envy–they worked in a system that dehumanized its prisoners. How many of these guards, I wonder, professed to be ultra-pious Christians? I would guess rather few. So that is the conundrum to which I have no answer: How is it that people who say they worship the Prince of Peace support political movements that kill fellow-worshippers as well as Muslims? I can imagine someone accepting their mythology but drawing the line at violence. I have met Muslims of this type. At the very least, their conscience has been so dulled that they give assent to what is patently evil. Few of them would kill anyone, I suppose, or even sign a document arranging a murder. But their consciences are so deranged as to make them morally dangerous, which is why I refuse to have anything to do with them. We are all capable of evil in a weak moment, but these people openly advocate evil.

63. 63 Comment by Daniel Maxwell on 8 September 2008:

    Thomas Fleming @ 56

    Mises was wrong about some things, and even Murray Rothbard admitted as much. Whereas Mises might have been hostile to religion, Rothbard (and the modern day ‘Misesians’) are by and large very friendly to religion, if not religious themselves. Rothbard at times seemed so friendly toward Catholicism that shortly before his death, I had hoped he would actually convert (from his Dietism, or perhaps religious-friendly agnosticism?).

    “I said nothing of my friend Tom Woods and have no wish to make this a personal issue….Woods has, I believe, withdrawn his most extreme criticisms of Catholic social teaching..”

    Indeed. I actually not read any of Woods criticism of Catholic social teaching, beyond the critique on economics (which had some merit). I apologize if you thought I was ’stirring the pot’.

    Red @58 makes an excellent point. Does the phenomenon of militant Christian Zionism so prevalent among the ‘pre-mil’ dispies in the states appear elsewhere ?

64. 64 Comment by TJF on 8 September 2008:

    In Human Action, Mises declares that his praxeology must be independent of religion, and my impression from reading is that he was almost obsessively hostile. Murray was very impressed with Mises’ theory of praxeology but to me it seemed entirely too thin to be of any use. This was one of those things we agreed to disagree on and did not speak much of it. Of the Misesians I have known well, none was hostile to religion. Murray was very favorably disposed, though I do not think he was in a process of conversion. He was persecuted vicariously for his wife’s Christian faith. David Gordon had an historical and cultural interest especially in theology, but, then, David is interested in everything. Hans Hoppe struck me as more or less indifferent, though he may have changed. Of the self-described Christians among the Misesians, none seems at all to have grappled with the fact that no liberal theory, certainly not Mises’, is compatible with traditional Christian teaching. Lord Acton was one of the greatest of liberals (at least so far as ability and education are concerned) but he could never fit his Catholicism into his liberalism or vice versa. He said something like that as a liberal he was a bad Catholic. I am not suggesting that a mere human can tie up all the loose ends of his loyalties, but this is a pretty big divide to paper over. A liberal Catholic is something like a Jewish Nazi, but it does not seem to bother them.

    TW’s critique of Catholic social teaching was entirely without merit, primarily because he was a) trying to square the circle, and b) had not made a concentrated study of the matter. In fact, he seems to have accepted a kind of Liberation Theology view of the social encyclicals, which he proceeded to refute. Unfortunately, the deeper her went into his criticism, the more it was clear he was rejecting the teachings of Christ. For a Christian, this is a problem. Like all of us, he has a lot to learn and he has considerably nuanced his criticisms. I have been discussing this very issue with a rather deep political thinker, Claude Polin and hope to publish an article from him. As a non-Christian, Polin does not face the same problem as Catholic liberals.

    Thanks, by the way, for your useful comments. I was not quite well over the weekend and I hope I did not respond too harshly.

65. 65 Comment by Daniel Maxwell on 8 September 2008:

    No, you were fine but I suspected I err’ed in naming Woods when you kept his name incognito.

    But you’re 100% correct. Catholics do run into a problem with (classical) liberalism. I am no exception. To some, it seems I am celebrating greed. Lord Acton, one of my favorite classical liberals was also accused of this. Indeed, one has to find a middle ground. But I think liberal ideas ARE compatible. For instance, probably around half of American Catholics favor ‘Universal Health Care’. They say it will mean the sick get cured, regardless of their ability to pay. The (classical) liberal Catholic answers, but that means the state decides who lives and who dies. Indeed, in the UK if youre in your 60s and you have Cancer and need chemo – they will simply tell you you ‘are not worth it’ and let you die.

    The one ‘Misesian’ you did not mention was Lew Rockwell. He is probably the most religious of the whole group, but he keeps his faith to myself as of late (he used to write some pieces on Catholic politics but its been a number of years since I’ve seen one.)

66. 66 Comment by Chuck Hicks on 8 September 2008:

    Gentleman, I’m still baffled at this notion of “militant Christian Zionism so prevalent among the ‘pre-mil’ dispies…”

    To reiterate (and heaven knows I don’t want to beat a dead horse), real dispensationalists are thoroughly apolitical. Visit a Plymouth Brethren meeting and discover for yourself. They would laugh out loud if not weep over the misrepresentations here. They are no more interested in secular power and warfare than the Amish. Moreover, they rarely discuss eschatology in their meetings. The chief aim of dispensationalism is not to predict The End but to foster (rightly or wrongly) a less worldly Christian.

    So, to answer Mr. Maxwell’s question (#60), no, you do not find in “dispies” worldwide a fixation on a Middle East conflagration — which proves that this phenomenon is distinctly American in nature and indicative only of an abuse of dispensational theology.

    Hagee, Van Impe, et. al. are not dispensationalists; they have neither the theological aptitude nor exegetical skill to lay that claim. They are simply sensationalists.

    I suspect Dr. Fleming never intended the topic to get off in this ditch, but please, let’s be careful and accurate in identifying the war-mongers and charlatans in Christendom.

67. 67 Comment by Daniel Maxwell on 8 September 2008:

    Mr. Hicks, no disrespect was intended. Some years ago, when I lived in Maryland, there were some dispensationalists (friends of my mother’s) who were as apolitical as you mention. I did not mean to imply that they are all blood thirsty savages. However, here in Ohio, many are the more militant type (one co-worker of mine is a perfect example of one) So maybe they are not ‘real dispensationalists’ but the Zionism caught on and seems to have spread.

    “.., but please, let’s be careful and accurate in identifying the war-mongers and charlatans in Christendom…”

    I would not go so far as to say ‘charlatans’. One should be careful on judging another man’s devotion to Christianity as we know not what lies in a man’s heart. To be sure, there are some were it seems justified. Good example: Joel Osteen. In my view, what the man promotes (pray to God and get rich!) is downright blasphemy.

68. 68 Comment by Chuck Hicks on 8 September 2008:

    Well stated, Mr. Maxwell. Thank you for the needed reminder.

    Laying this aside, I agree wholeheartedly with one of the key points in the original article: voting for the “lesser of two evils” is still evil.

69. 69 Comment by Chuck Hicks on 8 September 2008:

    I’m sorry — that should read “…is still voting for evil.”

70. 70 Comment by TJF on 9 September 2008:

    I would rather not speak of Rockwell, whom I knew well once upon a time, except to say that he evinces little interest in Catholic moral theology.

    This is not the place to discuss this, though I would be happy to set up a discussion in a few weeks on the question of liberalism and the Church. A few anticipatory points: 1) It does not matter what most Catholics think, what matters is what the Church teaches; 2) The Church’s teachings on social justice, going back to Christ and his apostles, are a complex that is best viewed through the lens of Aristotle, Cicero, and St. Thomas. They have nothing to do with either socialism or liberalism. 3) Liberalism evolved as a subversive movement to undermine all traditional authorities, that of the King, the Church, the aristocracy, and ultimately, of property-owners, husbands, and parents. There are many splendid insights in the liberal emphasis on personal dignity, but its philosophical foundations in Locke et al are quite simply false and false in a way that subverts the Christian understanding of man. At the heart of liberal theory stands the emancipated individual who possesses some magic quality known as rights. This rights-bearing individual is a fantasy who does not now and has never existed.

    The Christian/Catholic view of man acknowledges him as a corporate being whose identity is defined in part by his obligations to parents, friends, nation, etc. Where this became confused, at least in retrospect, is when liberal nation states emerged and began making their own set of false claims on people. At that point it became rather easy to mistake socialism for Catholic morality. But Catholic thought was fixed long before the invention of the modern state, and the best way of understanding it is to invoke what has been called “the well-known principle of subsidiarity. At the very least, this principle tells us that the government of the US should not be doing what the states can do better; that the states should not being doing what cities and counties could do better; that cities and counties should not be doing what neighborhoods and private associations can do better; and that for the most part these lowest communities should not be doing what families can do better. On a practical level, it means that roughly 90% of what the federal and state governments do is a usurpation of authority. On this basis, Rothbard and I shook ands and struck a deal that there was no point in quarreling until we had stripped government of 90% of its power. At that point we could engage in polemics.

    To sum up. The dichotomy between liberty-loving liberals and the Catholic tradition is entirely false. In fact, from an historical sense, liberalism, in destroying every bond between man and man and replacing them with the cash nexus–to paraphrase Marx and Engels–prepared the way for an inevitable socialist revolution. The way back to sanity and strictly limited government is not to attempt to reconstruct the liberal state–which got us into this mess, as so many people at the time said it would–but to recover a deeper and more ancient sense of the human person and society. Liberal economic theory and analysis is not to be despised as a part of this reconstruction, since on a pragmatic level it shows how futile and destructive are the redistributist policies of the socialist state.

71. 71 Comment by Red Phillips on 9 September 2008:

    Amen to # 67. A discussion of liberalism and the Church is much needed as most conservative Christians are basically liberals of a sort, but have no idea they are. Many conservative Christian think liberalism is mandated by the Bible.

72. 72 Comment by Daniel Maxwell on 9 September 2008:

    I agree with much of what you said Dr Fleming.
    I think though, in terms of what ‘liberal’ means in the Catholic world it would be a bit incorrect to start a discussion of ‘liberal Catholicism’ as most will assume the American usage of the word (today meaning social democrat). Even more specifically, as I am sure you know ‘liberal Catholics’ are the ones at National Catholic Reporter who constantly invoke socialist theories “..in the spirit of Vatican II’”. They are the same crowd who thinks Roman Catholic ‘Womenpriests’ is a legitimate Catholic movement worthy of support. This I am sure you already know, as you’re probably more religious than I am.

    My usage as I am sure you know is the Classical Liberal, IE, a Grover Cleveland Democrat.

    “I would rather not speak of Rockwell, whom I knew well once upon a time, except to say that he evinces little interest in Catholic moral theology”

    Well, aside from a few emails/suggestions I’ve sent him, I dont know him. I wrote Rothbard a letter way back in 1994 (I think to his Las Vegas office? I think he moved back to Manhattan by that time) but never got a reply, so I didnt have the pleasure of meeting him before his tragically sudden death, either. I will not comment further on the LvMI and your differences, except to say I think they are not as different as you might believe. Like you said, let’s worry about that 10% difference *if* we ever get there. Lord knows the state hasnt shrunk any since Rothbard’s days.

73. 73 Pingback by Of Greater Importance « Mormon Paleo Thought on 10 September 2008:

    [...] comment 3 from this article.  It’s a good reminder for us all that there are more important things to worry and fret [...]

74. 74 Comment by Red Phillips on 10 September 2008:

    Hmmm… The numbers changed. # 67 is now # 70.

75. 75 Comment by Patrick on 10 September 2008:

    I think all of these articles have been very insightful. They have pointed out that the Christian Right, and other neoconservatives as well, seem to have decided that winning one batte against abortion is worth losing the entire war against feminism, relativism and secularism.

    Bu the trouble is, that approach is equal to a doctor treating a symptom but not addressing the disease. Abortion is a vicious evil, but it istill only a sympton of the bigger disease. Yet the New Right seems to be perfectly willing to further the interests of moderism and feminism by putting a woman in the White House (yes she is only running for Vice President THIS time, but it is clear that she is being aimed at the White House, either through the death of a 72+ year old President, or as his annointed successor). And putting a woman in the White House has been a mian goal of feminism for years.

    This is tantamount to losing the war just to win one battle.

76. 76 Comment by M.J.Harrington on 23 September 2008:

    Daniel Maxwell

    It is inaccurate and shocking for you to say that in England in the NHS they will not give you chemotherapy for cancer if you are over 65. I live in Devon, England and I know two people around 65 who have had chemo from the NHS and are managing.In the country as a whole there must be thousands.

    The real problem with the NHS is if you have a problem that needs treatment but is not urgent. Then you can wait and wait.This fact explains the paradox of a country with a National Health Service free at the point of consumption in which more and more people take out private medical insurance.

    However if you are badly injured or otherwise have a serious or chronic illness the NHS, metaphorically speaking, is a godsend.