God, the Afterthought
The Democratic Party didn’t quite succeed in banning God from its platform, but it did its best to ensure that no-one would listen to him by putting a liberal clergyman who talks about anything except God in front of a deserted stadium. That checked the God box without allowing the Maker of Heaven to get a word in edgewise.
Rabbis from the wrongly named Conservative movement are used to preaching to empty rooms, but there was something surreal in the image of the Los Angeles Sinai Temple’s Rabbi David Wolpe blessing a deserted stadium late Wednesday night long after the Democrats had departed. Named by Newsweek the most influential American rabbi, Wolpe beamed empathy and gestured eloquently to the vacant stadium. After the last-minute vote by acclamation to return God to the party platform, Wolpe’s benediction had deep symbolic overtones. Clint Eastwood talked to an empty chair, while Wolpe talked to ten thousand empty chairs.
Rabbi Wolpe proposed gratitude that “our nation is founded on the highest principles of freedom and resourcefulness and creativity and ever-renewed strength, and we understand that those worthy ideals stand alongside the commitment to compassion, to goodness, our sacred covenant to care for those those are bereaved and bereft, who are frightened and hungry and bewildered and seek shelter from the cold.” He talked of “teachers with strength of soul and wild, wonderful visions.” And he added:
Ours is a holy charge. A single moment, a touch, a glance, a word can change a life. Our children look to us with aspirational eyes, with the hope that their world will be kinder, sweeter, smarter than the world we have known. Each of these changes touches all of us, for you have taught us that we must count on one another, that our country is strong through community, and that the Children of Israel on the way to that sanctified and cherished land, and ultimate to that golden and capital city of Jerusalem, that these children of Israel did not walk through this wilderness alone.
The wild and wonderful rabbi from Los Angeles put religion squarely in the middle of the helping professions, somewhere between social work and psychotherapy, and Israel into a generic communitarian mix. That raises a question: if rabbis only echo what the politicians say, why not have them speak after everyone else is gone? I hope I’m not the only one who found Wolpe confusing. In 2001 he set off a storm with a Passover sermon that insisted that the Exodus never happened (because archaeologists can’t prove it happened). If he doesn’t think it happened, why bring it up now?
Contrast this with the benediction concluding the Republican National Convention that came from the country’s senior Catholic cleric, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York. He said in part:
Almighty God, who gives us the sacred and inalienable gift of life, we thank you as well for the singular gift of liberty. Renew in all of our people a respect for religious freedom in full, that first most cherished freedom. Make us truly free by tethering freedom to truth and ordering freedom to goodness. Help us live our freedom in faith, hope and love, prudently and with justice, courageously and in a spirit of moderation. Enkindle in our hearts a new sense of responsibility for freedom’s cause and make us ever grateful for all those who for more than two centuries have given their lives in freedom’s defense. We commend their noble souls to your eternal care as even now we beg your mighty hand upon our beloved men and women in uniform. May we know the truth of your creation, respecting the laws of nature and nature’s God and not seek to replace it with idols of our own making.
Those are beautiful words. Strong was the warning against making idols for ourselves — that is, worshiping the work of our hands, rather than the author of Liberty. The whole of the Republican convention delegates remained in place to hear Cardinal Dolan after Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech, unlike their Democratic counterparts, who walked out on Rabbi Wolpe. Viewers of CNN, though, did not hear Cardinal Dolan, because Wolf Blitzer was too busy trolling the punditeska for instant comments on the Romney speech to allow Dolan to be heard. Fox News carried the cardinal’s benediction rather than the pundits.
In our neighborhood, there aren’t yet many candidate signs in yards. However, in the past few weeks, a healthy crop of “Protect Religious Freedom” signs have appeared. Interesting and quite heartening.
I still think this whole “religious freedom” issue is a trap being set by the Left to make the Right look like hypocrites over Shari’ah Law.
If so, they will get their own heads got in their own ‘trap’.
Totalitarian Sharia Law is the enemy of religious freedom because you are only free to practice Islam under Sharia Law – as it is in Saudi Arabia and increasingly so in other Muslim nations. Islamic Sharia Law violates the individual’s sacred God-given right to liberty. Muslim worship and prayer is protected by our first amendment, but Sharia Law is outlawed by our first amendment because it violates the first amendment. We are not obliged to tolerate Sharia Law because it is subversive of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
“In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live [Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution].” Samuel Adams
Are you saying that the Left believes that Sharia Law is a religion?
I thought that Islam was the “religion” and sharia law was to enforce said Islamic doctrine.
It is good to learn something new everyday.
What a curmudgeon.
No, what I’m saying is that the Left is trying to bait the Evangelicals into screaming for Religious Freedom, and then will have their Media talking-heads say “You say you’re for religious freedom, but you refuse to allow Muslims THEIR religious freedom to practice Shari’ah in America. Why are you such a Hypocrite?”
Shariah is not religion. Shariah is a totalitarian legal system constructed to oppress those who do not bow to the Islamic Empire.
In particular, shariah imposes duties and penalties ON THOSE OUTSIDE THE RELIGION. Catholic teachings do not say that Protestants cannot build steeples higher than the local parish; Shariah says non-Muslims cannot build any building taller than what a Muslim owns. Jewish dietary laws do not say non-Jews cannot raise pigs; Shariah DOES.
Further, Shariah requires non-Muslims to pay tax to support and propagate Islam — which is a direct violation of the concept of religious liberty in the United States. Read Jefferson’s “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom”. It also imposes penalties for the open practice of other religions — another violation of the American definition of religious liberty.
The only people who think this might be a “clever trap” are those ignorant of both religious liberty and Shariah.
The right to freedom of religion has natural limits, just as do all other natural rights. For instance, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Muslims have the right to practice any aspect of their religion that does not violate our laws or threaten to overthrow our government. Sharia does both of these and threatens grave bodily injury to the neighbors of sharia compliant muslims as well.
We have no duty to respect anyone’s rights beyond the natural limits of those rights. This is the proper approach to take to sharia law and any attempts to integrate it into American law.
As I understand Islam, Islam and Shariah law are inseparable; the law and the religion are the same. This makes Islam/Shariah illegal under the US Constitution because it is placing religion at the heart of the law.
Religious freedom is not applicable to INVENTED Hate and Death Arab Supremacist CULTS Kitsune
Unless the signs also say “Defeat Barack Obama” they might as well not bother.
In order to usher in a ‘new world order’, the socialist/Marxist/communist mish mash of society, it is intrinsic to eviscerate G-d.
For if one believes in individual responsibility, as opposed to governmental/collective control, then surely one becomes closer to a higher power.
It goes without saying, that those who despise Judeo/Christian want America to be put in her place. At the same time, the accommodations given to Islam are high on their to do list. Why? Because Islam seeks to supplant the Constitution, and freedom and liberty. The enemy of my enemy….
In any case, read ‘The Thug-in-Chief Hell Bent On Disarming Christian Patriots…Ordered His Racialist AG To Turn Up The Heat’ (8/20/12) – google -’Adina Kutnicki’….
“In order to usher in a ‘new world order’, the socialist/Marxist/communist mish mash of society, it is intrinsic to eviscerate G-d.”
That’s exactly what the New World Order/Unity in Diversity messianic muslim Baha’i are trying to do. The Baha’i are trying to replace G-d with allah.
I googled Smoking Gun Hilary Huma Your name was at the top of the results.
I think those signs are the same as vote for Romney signs, put up by those people that know the evil nature of obozo supporters who would tear down the Romney signs and damage the property, but can’t do that with these signs.
Good point. After the loud no (three times) the DNC gave to the idea of simply putting the word god back in the platform, the “protect religious freedom” sign speaks clearly to those in the know. Although I also like the idea of putting out an empty chair. But, again, that would speak only to those who follow the news and many (probably most) do not. But either is preferable to inviting a leftist to set a Romney sign afire and burn a circle in the lawn underneath it.
IMHO, the bottom line is that those who oppose God and His law will hate the Jews and those who hate the Jews will hate God and His law.
Of interest, former Congressman Robert Wexler (D, FL) was on the platform committee (can’t remember where I saw this) and as a Democratic Middle East “expert” certainly had a hand in the redaction of mentions of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, as well as points opposing Hamas, Hizballah and Palestinian “Right of Return”. Wexler served in 2008 and will serve again in 2012 as Obama’s principal surrogate debater in the Jewish community. He’ll be debating Amb. John Bolton at a synagogue in Lower Merion (Phila. Suburbs) on 9/11.
This affair evokes for me the remarks of Chaim Weizman to Anthony Eden following Kristallnacht in 1938: “The fire from the synagogues may easily spread from there to Westminster Abbey and the other great English cathedrals. If a government is allowed to destroy a whole community which has committed no crime save that of being a minority and having its own religion, if such a government, at the heart of Europe, is not even rebuked, it means the beginning of anarchy and the destruction of the basis of civilization. The powers which stand looking on without taking any measures to prevent the crime will one day be visited by severe punishment. (http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/evian/conclusion.html)”.
Hoping to cross paths with you on the RJC Philadelphia outreach, MarcH!
Thanks werewife. I’ve been told I look like a mean Barry Manilow. Remember to wear comfortable shoes! Shabbat Shalom
Excellent comments, Marc H. I agree 100%
Thanks very much.
Thanks, Spengler, for that very nice essay. I also thought Rabbi Soloveichik’s benediction was very appropriate and an inspiring way to begin the convention. ‘Wild and Wonderful’ is a good name for Rabbi Wolpe. It brings back memories of something from the sixties, although I can’t put my finger on it.
The whole Democratic Party convention, in fact, brings back memories of the sixties. Different strokes for different folks. There were people of every color and age, except – as the Economist Magazine pointed out – for working class whites and white senior citizens. Those two groups seem to have disappeared from the Democratic Party’s Rainbow Coalition. Instead of saying how the Republican Party doesn’t look like America, why doesn’t somebody point out that neither does the Democratic party.
The left’s golden boy, Jon Stewart, kinda nails it:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/06/gold-the-daily-show-on-democratic-tolerance/
Stewart lurks behind enemy lines and performs selective assassinations.
Keep plugging the God stuff. Young Americans couldn’t care less. It’s just another losing issue for the GOP, and will further cement a new generation of Democratic voters. Keep it up.
Young Americans will care a great deal when it dawns on them that God is the source of our equal unalienable human rights to life, liberty and fruit of labor in creative pursuit of happiness. If government (a small group of other people after all) is the source of “human rights” then human rights cannot be equal or unalienable – some will get more rights than others – especially those people in government – and some people’s “rights” will be revoked by self-serving government. Nothing is more self-evidently irrational than believing that, for example, your rights to life and freedom of speech come from another man, or from a group of other men. “Human Rights” endowed by other people cannot be unalienable – they will be reversible. God gives equal human rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), while Constitutions are supposed to equally defend human rights. The Constitution of the Godless Soviet Union was acknowledged as the source of human rights in the 1930′s – but hey – they only murdered about 25 million of their own people – and besides it could have been worse – Godless Communist China murdered 65 million of their innocent civilians. I can just hear them now – as they sent their people off to the gulags – or just before shooting them behind the ear: “Rights and morals are dictated by society,” “Your unalienable rights come from the constitution, which was written by people and enforced by people…Your magic imaginary friend in the sky, however, doesn’t exist.” Kiss your freedom goodbye, and very possibly your life too, because men with that kind of power – the power to bestow human rights – will become little gods with the power to take them away – and you will become a serf – a prole – at their mercy.
“It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.” James Madison
“It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.” John Adams
“Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty, in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature” Samuel Adams
“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased.” Alexander Hamilton
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” Thomas Jefferson
“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph… Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but ‘to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER’ and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.” Thomas Paine
Thank you David for this keen observation.
What I think that this otherwise fine article and the comments I have read might be missing is the most striking feature of Democratic Party populist demagoguery this last week. The Leader is merged with the audience and they worship themselves as angelic and even God-like, with their antithesis the Republican Party portrayed as the demonic “money power.” I wrote about the protofascist aspects of this strategy here: http://clarespark.com/2012/09/05/proto-fascism-and-the-democrat-peoples-community/.
I just finished part two of this series: http://clarespark.com/2012/09/07/charisma-and-symbolic-politics/. We don’t want religion because it interferes with the charismatic leaders, including those on the mass media. Scary.
Yes, the last party to invest so much in their chief politician called the idea “fuhrerprinzip”.
The flagrant disrespect and even contempt I see for the Orthodox Church on the Right of late is also very concerning to me. If the Right can rationalize that trampling on people’s freedom to worship undisturbed is ok because it’s ‘Putin’s KGB Church’ than the Left can rationalize open season on ‘the Republican Party’s woman hating Catholic Church’. Alinsky tactics are the same whether they’re applied in Russia or America.
Well, I for one, didnt praise Pussy Riot for their criminal actions. I think they got the sentences they deserved, they also got the attention they sought for their message….the reason they choose to break the law, instead of respect the rights of others, whilst protesting.
This should in no way be misconstrued as support for Putin or the ROC’s leadership support of his regime. I am sympathetic to that criticism, however, Im not sympathetic to obnoxious feminist law breakers, who no doubt have other issues with the Church, and like the Anti-Semite at an Anti-Israel Rally, relished the idea of defiling the Church, with extra gusto and glee.
Just as a note, the band wasn’t imprisoned so much for insulting Putin as they were for insulting and desecrating the church.
http://issuesetc.org/2012/08/28/1-media-coverage-of-a-punk-rock-protest-in-a-moscow-orthodox-cathedral-terry-mattingly-82812/
Who is this “the Right” you speak of?
Supply the names of at least 10 leaders of prominent, leading organizations of this “the Right” – with links to quotes of what they said that so distresses you, Mr. X.
Are you upset that most Americans considered a two-year sentence to be excessive, especially since word is floating ’round the blogosphere and news media that two weeks is the more typical punishment for such an offense in Russia?
Maybe you’re ignorant of the fact that Catholic churches in the U.S. that have been much more atrociously vandalized by gangs claiming they are making a political statement and the vandals are rarely prosecuted at all. You might agree that such government inaction is wrong too. But such a long sentence as one that Putin arranged also seems wrong to Americans.
Think about it.
Can we convince Romney to repeat Putin’s words “The state is obliged to protect the feelings of believers”?
How pathetic to throw in the mention of Jerusalem! It does not even fit into the context of the sentence – the Children of Israel did not walk to freedom to Jerusalem. He was obviously told to put this in, so the democrats could use it, camera only on Wolpe. This is how the democrats can mention Jerusalem and Israel without prompting boos – empty building.
It’s an islamic thing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Moses
Moses is considered to be a prophetic predecessor to Muhammad. Muslim scholars, such as Muhammad Ali have generally attributed the tale of Moses as a spiritual parallel to the life of Muhammad, considering many aspects of their lives to be shared.[5][6][7] Islamic literature also describes a parallel between their believers and the incidents which occurred in their lifetimes. The exodus of the Israelites from Egypt is considered similar to the migration (hijra) made by the followers of prophet Muhammad.[8] Moses is also believed by Muslims to have foretold the coming of Muhammad, who would be the last prophet (family tree with prophets on right).
According to Islamic tradition, Moses was one of the many prophets Muhammad met in the event of the Mi’raj, when he ascended through the seven heavens.[9] In Muslim belief, Moses is regarded as having urged Muhammad during his Mi’raj to reduce the number of prayers until they were only five remaining, which are regarded as being the five obligatory prayers. Moses is revered as the receiver of a Divine scripture known as the Torah, which was believed to be corrupted by the Israelites as stated in the Quran. Moses is further revered in Islamic literature, which expands upon the incidents of his life and describes the miracles given to Moses as attributed in the Quran and hadis, such as him being honoured by God’s speech.
As for Christians, why would they believe in Mohammad as any kind of prophet because there is no need for him after Jesus came to earth. He’s just a guy that wrote a book, waged wars and slept with an underage wife while married to other women
David, I join with other readers in their well-deserved compliments to you for but another perceptive and well-written essay, this one comparing Rabbi Wolpe’s benediction at the Democratic convention and Rabbi Soloveichik’s invocation and Cardinal Dolan’s benediction at the Republican Convention. In effect the differences between Wolpe on one side and Soloveichik and Dolan on the other reflect the difference how Democrats and Republicans generally view religion.
Even secular Republicans, and probably most Republicans are secular, generally respect “traditional religion”, meaning religion that is far more than glorified social work, and also more strongly support freedom of religion, as opposed to the watered down “freedom of worship” (hat tip – Hillary Clinton). As you point out, today Democrats, who for perhaps as long as a century welcomed traditional Catholics and traditional Jews alike into their ranks and respected their beliefs and traditions, now generally can hardly hide their contempt for them as well as for conservative and evangelical Protestants.
Now to on to my point. Obama’s 2009 appointee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Chai Feldblum, is reported to have said or wrote that sexual rights must prevail over religious rights. It is coming to that in the United States, if has not already arrived. I am sure the majority of Democrats, certainly the party’s movers and shakers, as well as sll their flaks in the Main Stream Media, would strongly agree with this statement whether or not properly attributed to Ms Feldblum. It is quite appropriate that the Democractic Party has secular saints, like womanizer Ted Kennedy, lover of pubescent boys, Harvey Milk, and let us not forget their newest secular, that giant among the intellectual giants of the Democratic party, “Saint” Sandra Fluke (pronounced “Fluck”; but the question is why?) who wants us all to pay for her birth control products and if they fail for her abortion.
The National Catholic Conference of Bishops (NCCB) is the official organization of the Catholic hierarchy in the US officially authorized under Catholic Canon Law. My former classmate who is a Catholic priest and pastor in Rhode Island wrote in December 2011:
“The NCCB is a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC (Democratic National Committee). Except for abortion, euthanasia and perhaps birth control (at least when it is a public statement), gay marriage. As to immigration, medicare, medicaid, budget reduction, lowered taxation, arms control, United Nations membership, etc the bishops are right there with Obama, Pelosi, etc.(try reading their documents)!”
The good father states my feeling exactly, and I am still a practicing Catholic. He did leave out that there is not a defense budget cut that the NCCB will not support to fund social programs. And I am afraid to inquire what the NCCB’s official position is on the State of Israel versus the Palestinians (so-called). As far as Islam and Muslims, the NCCB has forgotten 1400 years of history and considers Islam and Muslims as benign as Methodists or Presbyterians. I refer to and strongly recommend Daniel Greenfield’s 9/19/2012 article in his Sultan Knish blog, “The Mirage of Moderate Islam”. In his article, astute blogger Greenfield compared the Mirage of Moderate Islam which so many in West (and even in the Republican Party) eagerly accept, to a mirage of palm trees and cool flowing water in the desert created by hallucinating travelers who are deluded due to thirst and exhaustion. I am sure like most of West, the NCCB, and perhaps the Catholic Church, is also deluded by and has fallen for this Mirage.
However, and here is my point, the Catholic Church in the United State rejects the cool and hip Democratic Party’s positions on sexuality, especially on abortion, same sex marriage, and regulations mandating that all health insurance employers, provide for their employees including religious employers, must offer birth control and abortifacient products as well abortion under that insurance. The Church has drawn its proverbial “line in the sand” so to speak and hopefully will not budge. So even though on most issues the NCCB is generally in lock and step with the Democratic Party and its statist policies, because the Church rejects the Party’s positions on broad issues affecting sexuality, traditional Catholics are no longer welcome in the Party and most party members, as well as their Main Stream Media flacks, despise the Church.
And it is unfortunate indeed that the NCCB and the bishops do not see any correlation between the Democratic Party’s positions on more and bigger social welfare programs, more regulations, more taxes etc, that is its position favoring bigger and more intrusive government in general, and the Party’s statist and socially intrusive positions on sexuality.
FWIW, the NCCB is now USCCB. Aditionally, the leadership has moved to more ‘conservative’ leaders. I mean this in terms of Catholic theology, not US politics. In this case, it means a stronger opposition to abortion, birth control, etc. Which in the past had been ignored as part of the ‘seemless garment’ analogy.
Basically this means that the newer leadership is more likely to approved of sanctions on wayward politicians (eg denying communion to certian ones) then they had in the past. But it still doesn’t seem that effective.
Part of the problem is that when your business is showing that G-d is merciful to mankind, it is hard to be, well a disciplinarian. (See Gergory VII and Frederick IV about 1070-1090 for a historical example). I get the problem they face, but wish they were a little more willing to apply discipline.
Additionally I wish that more Priests and therefore Bishops had minors (if not majors) in Economics. While I’ve been interested in the varrious degrees that priests get – I know of one Bachelors in Chemistry and one in Psycology – I would help if they had more of the breadth of human learning.
A minor trend for priest coming to their vocations a bit later in life has considerably broadened the educational base. My pastor, who received his calling in his 30s, has a BS in engineering and earned an MBA while serving in the armed forces. While Father doesn’t like many of the financial aspects of running a small parish with a large building debt he makes sure the seminarians he mentors learn that being knowledgeable about finance is part of the job of being a priest.
I had a recent meeting of the USCCB carried by EWTN on in the background a few months back. There was a vigorous discussion about the need to consider other means of helping the poor besides government programs as well as recognizing that current levels of government spending are not sustainable. It seems some of the younger bishops are economic as well as social conservatives.
Reply to AC: AC, I stand corrected, the NCCB is now the USCCB as you say, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I want to also correct a second error in my 9/6/12 posting. Blogger Daniel Greenfield posted his fine article “The Mirage of Moderate Islam” on August 19, 2012 at his SultanKnish blog, not on September 19, 2012.
I agree with you that quite a few Catholic bishops individually are vocal, if not outspoken in support of traditional and canonical Catholic theology and teachings, including to name only two, Cardinal Dolan of New York and Archbishop Charles Caput of now of Philadephia but of Denver until 2011. There are of course others and there have been other bishops in the recent past, Cardinal O’Connor Of New York (d. 2000) is one who comes to mind. But as you point out their combined efforts seem to have little effect. It certainly has had little effect on wayward Catholic clergy and colleges and no apparent effect on Catholic, so-called, politicians and politically active people like Caroline “as a catholic woman I am leaders. And I fully understand the Church can do nothing to prevent Catholic politicians from advocating and supporting positions that violate the Church’s basic precepts, such as on abortion. And firmly believe this is the way it should be because we all have our “free will” and in this country anyway we still have our right of “free speech”. However the fact that we have free will and, in this country, are blessed with the right of free speech does not mean every exercise of our free will and free speech rights does not have consequences. The Church can certainly make religious and laymen who claim to be Catholic choose between New Age secularism and the canonical teachings of the Catholic Church. The bishops and pastors can certainly do a much more effective job reigning in Catholic clergy by showing them the door and reigning in politically active Catholic laymen by refusing Catholic sacraments and even burial rights in consecrated ground, to wayward Catholic politicians. But they lack the will to do it.
Earlier this year the Vatican issued a report of the US’s Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) to which most Catholic religious orders of women belong. , The report titled “Doctrinal Assessment Of Leadership Conference of Women Religious” LCWR leaders and members appeared shocked at the Report but also were defiant. They accused the Vatican of using a flawed process even though any reasonably astute observer could readily see that the findings in the Report were correct if not understated. However the good sisters were not going to change because in their mind they were doing God’s work and that’s that. I expect there will be little practical effect of the Report. The good sisters will go on with their feminism and post-Christian New-Age theology without missing a step and they will have no price to pay.
In the 1980s Cardinal Krol of Philadelphia denied burial rights to actress Grace Kelly’s brother. Her brother was a private person, not politically active at the time of his death and may never have been politically active. But he had remarried after a civil divorce. I support the Church’s position on marriage but I felt and still feel that this was overly harsh. Senator Ted Kennedy, long time vocal liberal Democratic politician and public person who, among other transgressions, changed his position in the 1970s to go with the flow of the Democratic Party, that is to strongly support abortions rights. Kennedy, as his niece Caroline Kennedy has done, chose Democratic Party positions antithetical to Catholic Church teachings over the Catholic Church canonical teaching. For this, he should have forfeited his right to receive the sacraments and to a burial on consecrated ground on his death. Of course none of this happened. Caroline Kennedy is about 50 and appears in excellent health. But if she were to drop dead tomorrow she would not be denied Catholic burial rights for going on the airwaves at the Democratic Convention not only to support the Democratic Party’s positions on abortion rights including late-term abortion, that she deceptively misnamed “reproductive rights”. Again the bishops can do not have any authority to stop her from exercising her right of free speech, nor should they. However the bishops and her pastor can refuse her the sacraments to make her choose between the New-Age secularism of the Democratic Party and what she claims is her Church.
I can understand that the bishops are interested in the material welfare of the Catholics and Americans in general. We all are or should be. In supporting defense budget cuts, as well as nuclear disarmament, however they act as if they are totally oblivious to the dangerous world we live in and that the Unites States military is the only reason why the West, with its freedoms few outside the West enjoy, continues to survive in this dangerous world. The bishops have denied this but their denials ring similar to the LCWR sister denials to charges that they do not observe and teach canonical Catholic teachings. In supporting social programs and objecting to budget cuts the bishops are totally oblivious to the effects of social spending on federal and state government budgets and on society, including societal conduct, and the economy in general. Briefly put, conservative often talk of the “unintended consequences” of government spending, programs and intervention in both the economy and society at large. The bishops are totally oblivious to these unintended consequences. Finally there is their de facto support of illegal immigration. Most illegal immigrants are of Hispanic origin, coming from Mexico, Central America, South America etc. Contrary to popular belief, most Hispanics, including those who are voting US citizens, are secular and it is likely only a minority are practicing Catholics. The Hispanic vote is overwhelming Democratic by a two to one margin, that is they vote for the party of abortion, same sex marriage etc. This is why the Democrats support illegal immigration and vast stretches of our southern border with Mexico is not effectively under US control. As blogger Daniel Greenfield has pointed out, if Hispanic voters voted Republican by a two to one margin, there would be a 30-foot high electrified fence with concertina wire on top all along the Mexican border with manned concrete pillboxes every couple of hundred yards guarding it. The bishops are totally oblivious to these facts.
One final point. In my 9/6/12 posting on Spengler’s Article, I wrote “the bishops do not see any correlation between the Democratic Party’s positions on more and bigger social welfare programs, more regulations, more taxes etc, that is its position favoring bigger and more intrusive government in general, and the Party’s statist and socially intrusive positions on sexuality.” This is true. And like Democrats, the USCCB generally supports large scale social spending and opposes budget cuts in social programs while always favoring defense budget cut and efforts to curtail our nuclear defense as if ignorant of the dangerous world we live, and by effectively supporting illegal immigration, and in general supporting large scale governmental intervention in both the economy and society. None of this is canonically required. This allows religious like LCWR religious and politicians and leaders who do not support canonical Catholic teachings to assert they are supporting Catholic doctrine and can readily refer to the USCCB positions on the above mentioned issues over the years even though the positions the USCCB has taken on these issues is not canonically required. LCWR religious and politicians and leaders can then asserts that all they do is disagree with the Church on women’s reproductive rights (ie abortion) and same sex marriage etc. but not on the real important issues like government social spending and defense budget cuts etc.
providing a wider, more comprehensive view of Catholic thoughts, issues, and perspectives.
That “mirage” you refer to is taqiyya and a generally accepted and well used tenet of Shia Islam, particularly with respect to the ongoing ‘stealth’ jihad and concealing their true intentions. And it’s working by all accounts.
The debate I seem to continually engage my spouse in is “what would Jesus do?” Her argument is wouldn’t he love the Muslims, just as He loved other outcasts and non-believers (Democrats included)? Or would He cast them out as he did the money changers in the temple? Jesus was radical in his own way, so I don’t know the answer and it confounds me.
As disappointed in the NCCB as you are, and I agree with most of your comments, for the first time in my 50+ years of attending church, I am hearing a political appeal from the pulpit. They are drawing the line, but it may be too little too late. They have wedded themselves to a party that is now openly hostile to God (or even the concept of God); their differences on doctrinal issues seem trite in comparison.
Good call out on the progressive Jews, Spengler. They are as disconcerting as Catholic Liberation Theologists. Traitors to the faith they profess.
It’s not their banning G_d from their platform that concerns me, it’s what they want to replace Him with.
The problem with replacing God with anything else is that there is no other concept that provides quite the same backstop for the rights and inherent value of the individual, not even the Constitution- because it applies only to the law, instead of to, well, everything…
If man is made in the image of God; then, since God lives and gave life to man, each individual naturally possesses a sacred unalienable right to life and self-defense. If man is made in the image of God; then, since God is free, each individual naturally possesses a sacred unalienable right to liberty – man is born free. If man is made in the image of God; then, since God is the Great Creator, each individual naturally possesses a sacred unalienable right to his/her own creativity – a natural right to property created through individual labor.
Equal rights (to life, liberty and fruit of labor in creative pursuit of happiness) are a function of equal human value. Unequal human value is a function of measurable human value, whereas equal human value is a function of infinite human value. Measurable human value is a derivation of man evolved devoid of God’s image, whereas infinite human value is a derivation of man created in the image of God. Thus, as Thomas Jefferson said, liberty is the gift of God – because rightful human liberty is a function of equal human rights derived from infinite God-given human value.
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” Thomas Jefferson
“If you take away mans belief in G-d, it is not that he will beleive nothing, but that he will believe everything’ Chesterton.
“In 2001 he set off a storm with a Passover sermon that insisted that the Exodus never happened (because archaeologists can’t prove it happened). If he doesn’t think it happened, why bring it up now?”
Because it’s a step away from creationism. It’s embarrassing. It distracts from the point.
I think Democrats might finally show some respect for religion if gays were given marriage rights nationwide; it would certainly be a bad trade, but it looks like the only way out. Gays are a sort of faux-chosen mockery of revelation, born cursed as they are only to test the will of the elect. Yet, they do not need a baptism or circumcision or jihad or anything else. They just exist. They are here first, and everyone else has to find a way around their quasi destiny. If Republicans try to put myth against myth, they will lose. Beaten to the punch.
The Exodus strategy is the best one here, to use their own weapon instead of complaining and doing nothing. Attack them on materialistic grounds, explicitly mentioning the physical weaknesses and maladies that literally plague homosexuals. All that is left is the myth, and it’s a boring one that people will not just learn to ignore, but ignore anyway. Democrats would be left crying in the corner.
“I think Democrats might finally show some respect for religion if gays were given marriage rights nationwide”
Unfortunately, I remember when this same “logic” was used when the sodomites simply wanted to be left alone in the privacy of their own bedrooms without interference from ‘the state’
Amazing how in a few short years this has magically changed to everyone must celebrate and participate in public displays of their acts and accept active recruitment campaigns in schools under the guise of ‘tolerance’.
The democratic party as presently led will never respect religion other than as an opiate for the masses and a tool to confuse and enslave the faithful.
Well, I for one, didnt praise Pussy Riot for their criminal actions. I think they got the sentences they deserved, they also got the attention they sought for their message….the reason they choose to break the law, instead of respect the rights of others, whilst protesting.
This should in no way be misconstrued as support for Putin or the ROC’s leadership support of his regime. I am sympathetic to that criticism, however, Im not sympathetic to obnoxious feminist law breakers, who no doubt have other issues with the Church, and like the Anti-Semite at an Anti-Israel Rally, relished the idea of defiling the Church, with extra gusto and glee.
The the spectacle of adding the amendment to the platform that carried by voice vote (actually, it didn’t but Mr. Villiraigosa passed it anyway) was utterly shocking- even the good Mayor was obviously astonished at how far his own party has swung to the left.
It was chilling moment, but at least we now have the benefit of the curtain being finally pulled back to reveal the interior of the Democratic party, which has unequivocally replaced God with the government. And as for the portion of those boos reserved for Jerusalem’s identity, as one Dem commentator slipped up and mentioned on NPR today, “That was worth about five delegate votes.”
Why any person of faith would be a member of this party is beyond me. As a Catholic, I’m pretty familiar with living with unresolved philosophical differences- but when a group one belongs to is that entirely antithetical to one’s supposed beliefs, something has got to give.
That opposition to the “Jerusalem” statement came not just from the growing prominence of “progressives”, but from the growing number of Arab- and Muslim-Americans in the party. Much of the shouting came from the Michigan and Minnesota contingents which included a significant number of Arabs and Muslims. One delegate said to a reporter that Jerusalem includes many Muslims and Christians, so why should it belong to the Jews? Yes, the Democratic Party is changing.
Those who deny God simply wish to reign in God’s place. It is no different for those who wish to impose their religion on others. They too wish to acquire God’s power for themselves. Acceptance of God should yield personal restraint for the individual and a society that is composed of such individuals who engage in some personal restraint. Politics, then, becomes essentially a Godless profession, except where individuals propose limitations on power as a policy goal. When self-restraint vanishes, God permits the destruction of the individual and/or the society such people inhabit. It is quite automatic, so we doubt God’s involvement. But it happens so regularly that it becomes a law of the universe – undeniable by anyone with open eyes.
Jerry–
Not all who deny God, are looking to reign over men. Many rational individuals who deny God may only be asking for physical evidence of a being that others insist exist. They are not saying they are God and want dominion over others. It is often the religionist who are also guilty of imposing their views just like leftist. The most recent case is where the Louisiana legislature approved tax dollars being used to subsidize Catholic schools. Why should my tax money be used promote either leftist or religious doctrines in schools? Both are an imposition and a violation of individual rights.
My view is that both leftist and religionist are suseptible to using the power of the state to impose their views on others if given the chance.
Doubt about God’s existence is light years from denial of God’s existence. Rational people doubt. Denial only comes from a very special breed of people who are ensconced of personal and/or ideological thrones.
That’s why a common acceptance of the concept that certain rights are ‘unalienable’, ‘under God’, is so important. It assures that no fallible human being has the power to take them from you. Unalienable rights are not subject to the ever-changing whims and fashions of Man.
Life, for example, is of God—and only of God. When man takes control, the lives of those he may dislike—or, in the case of abortion, find inconvenient—are no longer sacred, and everything rapidly descends into madness.
Basing western law on the ethics of the Judeo-Christian God, means that each citizen’s life is sacred, regardless of his age or race or politics, etc. When you assert that an innocent baby can be disposed of for materialistic or utilitarian considerations, then you are really asserting that no man is sacred. Unfortunately, today’s abortion supporters are ultimately fated to discover how dispensable they, themselves, are. It will come as something of a shock.
You are talking about vouchers, yes? Why should your tax dollars subsidize trapping children into failing schools where their parents have no recourse to anything better and know their children will be doomed to receive a crap education (i.e. the current public school systems many children are locked into)? Why do you hate the children so?
I look at vouchers this way – the money in a vouchers is the money parents would set aside to save toward their children’s education if the government wouldn’t consistently rob them of it via taxation. What business is it of yours what schools those parents would choose to send their children to?
Why do you care so long as those children demonstrate the ability to read, write and do arithmatic at their appropraite grade level?
This is the way it is done in European countries – the money follows the child, not the other way around.
DNC COnvention “We belong to the government”. Sorry Dems but the gov’t belongs to us. The only one we belong to is God.
Apologies to posters who waited until for their contributions to be approved. The system requires it, and I do not work on Shabbat.
This inside-baseball type of analysis is fine BUT the generalization that matters, overlooked yet again, is that leaving the Democratic plantation has been easier for Catholics than for Jews. And, it seems, it still is.
[An aside: Some of the muddiness may come from the way the word Evangelical is often used sloppily to mean Protestant (in this article too, it seems). Tens of millions of Protestants in the land will disagree, often vehemently, at being tagged as Evangelicals. Mix up the two and you generate more heat than light.]
This election may well turn on how many Jews vote for Romney. Hobson’s Choice? Perhaps, but maybe also an opportunity for altruism. Nobody said it was easy. It is reasonable to say that this is the most important American election in every Jew’s lifetime. The votes will be long remembered.
Business-as-usual won’t cut it.
The Democratic party may have a contempt for religion, but among Catholics, alas, the feeling is not reciprocated. Many, even the majority, of Catholics are still devout Democrats. That is not just the case among C&Eers, that is the case among devout, active members. Modern Catholics are deeply socialist (most especially clergy) and the anti-military rhetoric of the Democrats resonates with them as well. Those concerns trump culture of life issues and even religious liberty issues, I fear. What it will take to wake the Catholic Church up to the menace the Democratic Party poses to it, I do not know.
“Many, even the majority, of Catholics are still devout Democrats.”
The real problem is most “Catholics” are not…Catholic. They were baptized Catholic as babies & that was their last connection to the Catholic Church. They don’t go to Mass or other services, their kids don’t go to Catholic school, they don’t follow Catholic doctrine & they don’t donate to or work for Catholic causes. They’re just the usual “free stuff” Democrats who wear a Catholic name tag for survey purposes.
Well, carolannie, I agree with almost everything you wrote. Still, recall the parable of the Prodigal Son. Note that the wayward son never stopped being his father’s son despite all the horrible sins the son had committed against his father. You may also recall the words of the poet who wrote that home is the place that, no matter what you’ve done, they have to take you in.
Similarly, the Catholic Church teaches that anyone given a Christian baptism under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church always remains a Catholic. We are family. We are not to follow the example of the Prodigal’s elder brother; rather, we are to be ready and eager to welcome our lost bretheren should they choose to repent and come home.
Yes, this is another teaching of Jesus that is hard to accept.
The tale of two conventions that Mr. Goldman relates to us here in his Pj Media blog showed quite a contrast between the grassroots leadership and national officers of America’s two incumbent political parties. My wish is that the events of the past few weeks will awaken the consciences of Jews and Christians – especially Christians of the Catholic faith – and lead them away from voting for candidates and supporting political parties that embrace covetousness, godlessness, and death.
Unfortunately just like progressive Jews and Catholics, progressive leaders have also hijacked protestant churches including the Methodist church. Their leaders can’t seem to figure out why attendance has slumped, money isn’t coming in, and having a jazzed up contemporary service doesn’t necessarily get the people back. When you read a list of where you offering money goes, liberal socialists groups and some leaders actively participate in progressive meetings you stop giving. We just about quit attending when the minister basically told us to vote for Obama. Just like Hollywood, why would I want to give my money to those that wish to destroy our country and founding beliefs.
The Democratic Party is deeply religious, what it lacks is religious tolerance. The Democrats worships the State, much like the Muslims, and the Democrats rabidly turn on anyone who disagrees with them, again like the Muslims. The Democrats make sacrifices to the God of Oppression, like the Muslims, and they make pilgrimages to the Shrine of Sameness, just like the Muslims. All of that talk in 2008 about Obama being a Muslim was just silly because there’s no material difference between a Muslim and a Democrat. The evolution is now: Liberal -> Progressive -> Muslim but all are totalitarian thugs who revile freedom, liberty and individuality.
Nicely put.
Maybe this could be added the leftist/Democratic Party dogma and is similar to Islamists: destroy the exceptional or successful.
Both today’s leftist and Islamists are deeply nihilistic. They want to tear down anything that promotes success in modern life–like capitalism, successful businesses, life sustaining energy production, modern global banking, a powerful American military to protect these things etc. They seem to be primarily motivated by envy, a hatred for US greatness and an overriding hatred of life.
…there’s no material difference between a Muslim and a Democrat.
I accept the premise in terms of their shared love for totalitarianism.
However, once Islamists completely succeed in infesting free peoples with their abjectly repressive rules, their libertine Leftist bedfellows will be the first to fall to the sword.
David – Gut gesukht. One nit-pick: The Democrats are not liberals, they’re Leftists. There is nothing at all liberal with the positions they take (except the liberal use of other people’s money).
Also, let me echo what others have observed: That despite it all, a majority of Jews will still vote for Obama. I wondered what it would take for that majority to be convinced not to vote for the Democrats.
Shabbath shalom
I’m still a little stunned at hearing all those people booing God and Jerusalem at the Democratic convention, not just once, but THREE TIMES. And each time the booing seemed louder than the previous time. Not only do I think the omission of God from the Democratic platform was intentional, but I also firmly believe that the Democratic party has been taken over by a bunch of European-style secular socialists that want nothing to do with religion. And to have that anti-religion animosity so plainly on display at the convention was simply stunning. People of real faith have a real choice to make this fall. And it looks like the base of the Democratic Party wants nothing to do with religion.
I suspect the leadership just wanted to resolve the controversy quickly, so they put the two changes together in one voice vote. Had the “God-given” and “Jerusalem” amendments been voted on separately, we’d have a better feel for what they found most troubling. (We already know that Arabs and Muslims in the Michigan and Minnesota delegations oppose recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.)
When the party is dedicated to screwing the chicken, the rooster doesn’t crow.
Great article. After the Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks conducted a vicious attack on all religious institutions in Russia. All church property was siezed without compensation. The Red Army looted many icons and relics. Many bishops and priests died a violent death. Religious thought was considered as superstition, and as an impediment to the creation of a progressive society. Same thoughts that are expressed by our modern day Democrat Party.
96%. That’s how many religious folks the communists killed when they came to power. “a lot” is a scuffle between friends. 96% is a campaign of extermination.
Yet neither Lenin nor his successors found it possible to completely demolish the Orthodox church. They allowed it to survive in a strait-jacket where the clergy themselves were either closely monitored or where they were actually secret police agents who had gone to a special school. Just imagine going to a church where the clergyman was an active KGB agent!
I think the Communists deeply feared some kind of grass roots anti-Communist movement in the churches that would be safe from the scrutiny of Communists.
I remember being quite surprised by a statistic I heard once Perestroika began and it became possible to practice religion openly in the Soviet Union. Apparently the fastest growing religion was not Orthodox Christianity, the dominant religion for centuries before the Bolsheviks came to power, but Hare Krishna, which was essentially alien to the country.
I don’t know if that statistic was accurate but if it was, I’d be curious to hear an explanation of it. What would make people in a country that had denounced religion for most of the preceding century suddenly adopt one that was completely foreign to their culture? Had they been brainwashed against the Orthodox church and thus seized on Hare Krishna as a “better” religion? Why Hare Krishna over all the other options they had?
Going from 1 to 2 practitioners in a country will make a faith the “fastest growing”. Rate of growth says nothing about prevalence or acceptance.
1. God is.
I seem to remember that when Jews dissed God they got 40 years in the wilderness to think about it.
When Christianity dissed God they got Muslims and the 30 years war. (Doubled the response for double the diss.)
I only hope that God is selective (Ds only) this time around. If God does banish the libs to the wilderness, we conservatives must get on our knees and pray for guidance…and hope that we do not fail…to honor God first and foremost.
Michael,
Alas, no such luck. We are all in this together. The divine wrath that you (justly) wish for the anti-religious left will also fall on many good and righteous people. Read the prophet Jeremiah.
Heads up, folks. A big part of the deligates at the Democratic Convention booing God and Jerusalem teach our children in public schools.
Sadly, the people who say they believe in G_d will vote for Obama.
Why is it so hard for people to see the wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Obama funded (with our tax dollars and w/o Congresses approval)and instigated Arab spring, this administration is now giving billions in debt forgiveness and cash to places that are actively crucifying people based on religious or political beliefs that are not like the Muslim brotherhood.
Does the fact that Obama and the democrats omit G_d from the platform surprise you?
If this does,………
I recommend a scholarly treatise of the sociology of American religious history(American Grace, Putnam and Campbell). Filled with statistics, it states, for the first time in our history, our major parties are segregated by religious belief. Democrats believe in an all powerful government, no religion; Republicans (most) believe in God, some religious tradition. The split started in the “long Sixties” (1963-1975) due to the pill, abortion, extramarital sex, and dope. Bill Clinton would be an example. Sandra Fluke, Planned Parenthood, and most of the Catholic Democratic leaders would be others.
Roughly 1/3 of Americans vote conservative, 1/3 vote liberal and the middle 1/3 select our President. From the text, the Democrats face a problem: the two most morally conservative blocks in American polity are Black Protestants, and Catholic Latinos. Historically they have voted D, but are in turmoil today. They were drowned out when they wanted God reinserted in the Democratic platform.
This election was going to be decided on our abysmal economy; these two blocks have suffered more than any other. Obama says trust me; I will make things better. The key issue is whether you can believe him, either on social, or economic issues. He is under suit for violating religious freedom, by scores of religious institutions. In Illinois, he pushed legislation which permitted a doctor to kill a born infant if their abortion attempt failed. GM bondholders are eating dog food, their loans to GM were torn up by Obama. We are going bankrupt as he pours fortunes over his green energy buddies (Solyndra, smart grid, etc.) None will work, thus we will get poorer.
The only way Romney can lose is if he adheres to the white country club image of his party. Ignore the skilled speeches, we have a clear choice.
Its one thing to not be religious,or to be of a different view but to boo and hiss and be totally disgusted by the religious is something ive never seen before! The democrat party has turned the page in a book i want no part of!
The question is whether it is possible anymore for 2 such incompatible cultures to remain one nation. More and more I suspect the answer is “no”. If that’s true, then what next?
Good question.
What’s next is America relearning its first principle: individual rights. When everyone respects individual rights, opposing dogmas held by people do not matter. We trade and work with people of very different views all the time in America. We have for over 200 glorious years.
Right now the lefist are the most dangerous violators of individual rights, but the religionists have their impositions, too. Insisting that a “potential life” has the same rights and government protections as a fully developed human being and thus denying the rights of the woman carrying that potential life is imposing a religious view on her, for instance.
Your post suggests you embrace a ‘religion’ that imposes on others as well. It’s secular in cosmology , imperative in philosophy, and destructive in practice.
I’ll bet you’re glad your mother didn’t share your views.
“Honey, let’s name him, ‘David.’”
“Nah! Hand me that phonebook! Let’s get rid of this thing before it becomes a ‘full-functioning’ person who needs a diaper change when I want to sleep!”
“Insisting that a “potential life” has the same rights and government protections as a fully developed human being and thus denying the rights of the woman carrying that potential life is imposing a religious view on her…” David Wall
Human life is present when a zygote implants into the mother’s uterus; at that point the zygote is no longer “potential life” but actual human life with a direct connection the mother who becomes the custodian of new human life. Referring to an implanted zygote, embryo or fetus (unborn children) as “potential life,” as a justification for abortion, is a repackaging of the Nazi eugenic idea that there is “life unworthy of life.”
The Judeo-Christian religious view is that we are all equally endowed by our Creator with an unalienable right to life, and that the right to life begins at the beginning of life, and that the right to life supersedes a mother’s privacy right to choose death for the unborn child. A mother choosing abortion prior to the point of independent fetal viability (26 weeks) violates the Judeo-Christian view of the child’s unalienable right to life, but this should not be considered criminal since the mother is the custodian of the child’s life. She will have to explain herself to God, but she should not have to explain herself to a judge or jury. Abortion is criminal after the point of independent fetal viability because at that point, given today’s level of medical science, 90% of unborn children will survive outside of the mother. At the point of independent fetal viability the child becomes his/her own custodian of life, and at that point the sin of abortion becomes the crime of murder. Murder is a Judeo-Christian religious view which is imposed on everyone in a descent and just society.
Correction:
Outlawing murder is a Judeo-Christian religious view which is imposed on everyone in a decent and just society.
Paying lip service to God while plotting to gut Medicaid (throw granny off the cliff) and hoping to blast hundreds of thousands of Iranians to smithereens ain’t any religion I want a part of.
What the conservatives are “plotting” is certainly NOT what you say.
But the tens of millions of babies murdered by the pseudo-culture of death and selfishness of the leftists are a fact, that could and should keep all of us awake at night.
Why not comment on something that has happened, such as reality, Mr. President’s record?
“Paying lip service to God while … hoping to blast hundreds of thousands of Iranians to smithereens ain’t any religion I want a part of”
Well, how do you feel about “hoping to blast” thousands of Iranians who are key in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ nuclear weapons development, global terrorism (including the killing of an estimate of hundreds of U.S. service members in Iraq and Afghanistan) and internal repression efforts? I bet there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians (victims and associates of the very brutal 2009 repression of the Green Party) who pray that they have a painful death.
The only thing you’ve mastered, Master, is drinking the Kool-Aid.
And you can’t even get that right, since it’s Medicare, not Medicaid, that your stupid handlers reference when it comes to granny and cliffs.
No, Medicaid is also targeted by R/R. MEDICAID is what pays for many of the 6 million plus elderly in nursing homes, the indigent grandparents (having spent down all assets on medical care) and the hundreds of thousands of disabled people unable to care for themselves. Many of them need 24 hour medical attention, way beyond most families’ ability to pay. These, the most vulnerable among us, are the ones the Republicans are targeting. Yes, aborting a fetus, a form of human life, is disgusting, but so is throwing granny and the Downs kids and the severely retarded off a cliff, a concept even knuckledragging illiterati should be able to comprehend.
It is not even necessary to try to “save” on Medicaid and other needed social spending. The freakin’ debt is a chimera used to scare you, the masses, and it is only partly real; much of it is owed by one part of the government to the other. You can’t compare sovereign debt to a household budget, since no household has a printing press spitting out dollar bills that everyone in the world is eager to acquire. We’re printing them too slowly right now; there is a huge pent up demand in the economy and things are going to take off soon. Yeah, the Democrats suck on gun control and immigration, but you can’t have everything.
“We’re printing them too slowly right now…”
Please tell me you don’t vote.
Do some research on debasement of the currency and runaway inflation. I, for one, don’t look forward to having to buy a loaf of bread with a billion dollar bill.
No, you print them responsibly to match the needs of the economy. I’m German, and have heard firsthand the stories of the inflation of the 1920s.
But aside from acting outraged, you didn’t actually disprove my comment. Reagan spent like a drunken sailor, and the debt just vanished as the economy grew. So yeah, the debt is kind of serious, like a bad headache, but its not cancer.
RC pretty much took you to school on the economy so I will take a different approach in response….
Are you kidding??
“…but you can’t have everything.” Okay so you pick: illegal aliens using Medicaid or Downs syndrome kids?
The rest of your comment is just too irrational to rebut. Clearly you are not a thinking person. You are the perfect obamanot.
Master of Disaster,
Your position on the printing press is sparse but generally correct. The reserve currency follows different rules than all other currencies for obvious reasons. Furthermore, the valuation of the United States easily wipes out the debt -> Navy, Energy, Patents, Constitution, Agriculture, Fed, Labor, Manufacturing, Education, Religious Tolerance, Dependent Neighbors, Conservatively Progressive Culture. Inflation would harm China, not the US. Obama promised the Chinese that he wouldn’t do that but maybe we will get a chance to test their gullibility.
of course disaster man ,you are on the side of the genocidal ones as they decimate Syria by killing each other off,women and children included.
The godless wretches of the democrat party and Israel’s God hating godless left cannot bring themelves to mention the Holy One of Israel who is the Zion in Zionist.
This is what their anti-settler,anti-Zion war is all about.
From the perverted professors who brainwash the youth with their vile agenda to the Peace Now,Btslem, groups
they have one thing in common with the god they serve.
The arrogance and pride of haSatan is etched on their faces.
The days of the godless left in Israel are numbered because they have chosen the losing side in their war against God and his faithful Jewish remnant.
These sons of Belial, offspring of Dathan and Abiram have marked themselves for their ignoble end because everyone who fights God is a loser at heart and soon to meet their just reward.
For God will save Zion And build the cities of Judah,That they may dwell there and possess it.
Also, the descendants of His servants shall inherit it,And those who love His name shall dwell in it.
Psalm 69:35
It’s not that the Democratic party left Jehovah out of the party anytime recently, The Almighty hasn’t been there for one hundred years at least. It’s just that they don’t (can’t) hide it anymore.
The policies of the party prove it. They’ve been trying to replace Jehovah with government for a very long time. It doesn’t even turn their faces red anymore to stand and oppose everything godly. The other nights DNC exercise was to try and prevent the Republicans from beating them over the head with a bigger stick. Didn’t work. The Democrats are still going to get beaten by a huge stick and it will have Israel and Judah written all over it.
Poor Democrats. Most are people whom God failed to grant their wishes. They don’t understand God is not in the granting of wishes business, but is in the hereafter business.
“We Americans unite faith and freedom in asserting that our liberties are Your gift, God, not that of government, and that we are endowed with these rights by You, our Creator, not by mortal man.”
I’m here to tell you that democrats flat out believe that “our liberties” are not inalienably bestowed by a Creator but are meted out piecemeal by self-proclaimed élites in government.
That is the divide at stake in this election. That is why Obama considers the United States Constitution, placing limits on the powers of government, a litany of “negative liberties”.
At least twice in recent years, Barack Obama has cited the Declaration of Independence and left out the phrase “endowed by our Creator”.
One week ago today in front of soldiers at Ft. Bliss TX, he re-included the phrase in his recitation. Last night again, in his speech, he included the phrase.
We call this “repositioning for perception”.
Don’t believe it for a frigging minute.
As Mayor Villaraigosa crammed the ‘God’ vote down the throats of the unbelievers I was left with the image/voice of Nancy Pelosi telling the House “you have to pass the bill to find out whats in the bill”. And of Harry Reid shoving this monstrosity on the Senate and us on a Christmas Eve. Merry Christmas indeed! Democrats don’t care about what the masses want or don’t want – they only care that they get what they want – and in the case of the ‘God’ vote the delegates got a taste of what millions of Americans got but never asked for. Hey delegates – its only a taste yes – but I hope it leaves a lasting bad taste in your mouth.
“The American Jews will be a smaller, but far more devout, community a generation hence.”
as we say, from your mouth to G-d’s ear.
Yea, the democrats really do HATE the Jewish religion; no doubt about that. But so what;
Obama will get at least 80% of the Jewish vote (OK, down from what? 90% in 2008). And, lets be real; Jewish Americans inhabit, on average, the upper middle class to wealthy socio-economic statrum and they will donate a good amount of $$$ to the democratic party to see Obama re-elected. Jewish and black voters will always vote democrat; nothing will ever change that.
Not that the democratic party just hates Jewish folks; they also hold in contempt the US Constitution, US History and capitalism and of course the wealthy (unless it is they themselves that are wealthy, in which case private planes, several vacation homes, luxury massive SUVs are all OK for them to use)
They have really become a neo-communist party:intolerant, arrogant, not shy of promoting violence to achieve their totalitarian goals. Despite the sordid and sickening history of communist nations, today’s democrats – led by their communist in chief , Obama, just believe that communism will succeed here in the USA because they, the democrats and Obama, will be running the show. The former USSR, etc., just did not make it because they simply did not have Obama, Pelosi, etc., to run the show.
Don’t think for a minute that the democrats are not, at heart, hard core believers in Marxist/Leninist religion.
The political influence of Jews in America has never rested in the ballot box, but rather in their disproportianate political contributions. From what I have been able to glean that well is going dry for the Democrats.
Doubtful but you have to give them credit, they are always looking to new voting blocks. Which is why they have their sights set on the hispanic vote-legal or illegal. Makes no diff to them.
The same was thought of Canada’s Jews, that they would always vote Liberal. Over the last decade, Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Conservative Party, think of having President Paul Ryan) has flipped that around.
How badly? Ken Dryden, a bright legal mind and much-liked hockey legend, lost in the last election… because he ran for the Liberal Party in a Jewish riding. It can be done.
As he always does, Harper had a plan, and he executed it. If you want the magic template, all you have to do is ask the guy up north. But I’ll give you a hint… Harper eloquently connected the dots between, and took concrete action against, Leftist anti-semitism and accompanying incidents of threats, vandalism, and violence against the Jewish community. The same situation exists in the USA, so the door is open for a GOP candidate to stand up and do the same.
The Democratic Party has room for people of opposing ideas — those who advocate atheism, same-sex marriage, allowing openly gay people to serve their country in the military, allowing women to have control over their own bodies, etc. etc. The Republicans, on the other hand, would like to take us back to the Middle Ages. They haven’t had a new, interesting idea since Abe Lincoln was president.
The longest expansion in US history? Winning the Cold War? Saving America from economic collapse and military defeat? Hey, we Republicans are God’s children, too — cut us a little slack.
When you say
“allowing women to have control over their own bodies”
do you include the female babies that are murdered before birth ?
I don’t see much “allowing” there.
I see a lot of horror there.
And, do you include the elderly women whose fate will be decided, in Obamacare, by the death panels ?
I guess that the list of these exclusions would get longer and longer under the totalitarian regime that the subversives are trying to build.
Unluckily the unborn babies have no way to make a phone call to a political commissar to avoid torture and death.
Hedonism never produced a successful civilization, it has killed off quite a few though.
Be careful what you wish for.
Marge, you clearly value the right of women to control their own bodies. So why don’t women use that right to employ birth control to prevent unwanted conceptions? Wouldn’t that be a better solution than taking no precautions, becoming pregnant, and then resort to an abortion to terminate the unwanted baby?
Wouldn’t birth control – whether she uses it herself or insists on her partner using it – be a MUCH better choice than choosing not to use birth control and then murdering a baby?
Funny — you say the Democrats have room for opposing views, then give a list of items in which dissent is NOT allowed in the Democrat party.
I think your grasp of what “tolerance” means is weak, at best.
If the GOP wants to survive it better allow some folks into the Big Tent that remember Ike’s 1960 Farewell Speech. Other than on foreign policy I’d say Republicans though are fairly united this year. But I should warn PJMers that — especially if Mitt Romney blows this one — all bets are off. In that case it will be the gray hairs who presided over the expulsion of the hated Ronulans who will find themselves literally locked out or being escorted out by off duty cops in 2014 and 2016 instead of the other way around. The center of the GOP will not hold. The only thing that keeps the Dems together after all is each group getting the stash. What will keep Repubs together if shared loathing of Obama won’t, even in the event Romney wins? You cannot keep rising demographics out of the GOP forever or have the mean age of precinct chairmen be 70 or 80.
Anyway main point is Paul may be gone but his ideas are not and the next candidate to tap into his movement and donor lists won’t have the baggage or newsletters for Ace of Spades, Jamie Kirchuk and all the disparate crowd that attacked the septugenarian to point to. They’ll have to actually debate the notion of pulling back on our overseas commitments at a time when we’ll be even more broke and the dollar will be worth less than it is now, even if Romney wins it will take four years minimum for him to balance the budget. There is no way we get austerity in domestic programs without some defense cuts. I’d rather see us cut down in an orderly way (do we still need 10 carrier battle groups when China still hasn’t mustered one and Russia’s fantasies of building a carrier remain a pipe dream) than toss a lot of vets on the street in an economy that still can’t produce enough jobs.
Happy weekend to all Spengler fans.
All in on Identity Politics, then?
Promise special privileges and preferences to Hispanic European Catholics and White European Christians and watch the permanent majority for the next 100 years coalesce?
There it is, plain to see: Everything is always about religion.
I’ve been a Roman Catholic all of my life. I found it ironic that a nun would speak about social justice at the Democrat convention after God was booed, after the word was put back into the party’s platform. Didn’t she find that disgusting as I did?
It’s likely her “gospel” is more Marx than Christ.
I suspect her order is dying for lack of new vocations.
People fail to notice that what the “progressives” through the Democratic party are trying slowly wipe out tradition religion and replace it with a new one, a form of statoltry. What they are trying to do is much like building a new bridge. If you tear a bridge down to build a new one, people would notice it and it would cause disruption. But if you slowly replace the old bridge brick by brick, beam by beam, it would cause little disruption. Once the new bridge was built, most people would even notice it was new bridge.
Sherob, If you want to give birth to every egg that meets with a sperm in your body, go right ahead. Just don’t require me or other women to do it.
As to Democrates advocating death for older people, that is another stupid Republican right-wingnut non-idea.
You seem to take my questions as political jokes or sarcasm. That’s not the case.
Morality is something to be debated seriously.
Those babies do suffer torture and death.
And the death panels are unluckily very real, the procedure to appoint the commission of bureaucrats deciding the treatments (or the omission of treatment) is clearly stated in the law.
The simple fact that you don’t like what I try to think about does not mean that the problems are not there.
Here is an idea. Keep your legs closed and their wont be a recurring issue of sperms meeting eggs in your body.
It’s called taking responsibility for ones own actions. Some people think that women are incapable of doing so. Others respect women enough to be responsible for their own actions.
I am sad to read your comment. May you come to know your great and awesome Creator Who creates life in your womb.
Oh boy, here comes Marge.
You needed some privacy ruling from some good ole boys on the Supreme Court in 1973 in order that every egg spit out by your ovaries didn’t meet up with some g.d. sperm?
You couldn’t figure out how to manage that problem without those good ole boys making some ruling, Marge ?
As for “death panels” and Obamacare, you’re apparently not familiar with the 15 member board of non-medical bureaucrats that will be making judgments as to who, and who is not, eligible for certain medical procedures as a function of age and stage in life.
Or Dr. Zeke Emanuel’s (Rahm’s brother) QALY (quality adjusted life years scale) that rations what you can and cannot have, medically speaking, as a function of age and stage in life.
Don’t get too upset, Marge, when your beloved progressives (primarily beloved of eugenics) turn you down for a medical procedure you want and/or need.
The Left does have a religion: Marxist flavored Messianism if you believe Niall Ferguson.
Like all good revealed religion, it hates all other revealed religions and wants to put them out of business. If they were an unbeliever, all religion is meaningless folly. Old Paul Kruger believed the earth was flat. No harm there really, you believe in this and that, well just fine, it is not important because it is delusional and no problem until it harms others.
If the Left were non-religious it would just laugh, but it doesn’t.
There are two kingdoms in the earth rising parallel to one another, the Kingdom of Light and the kingdom of darkness, you can label each any way you please. As such there are multitudes in the valley of decision, where there is no middle ground, to declare which one they are aligned with. You will know them by their fruits. Even so, let it be.
The Democratic Party didn’t quite succeed in banning God from its platform, but it did its best to ensure that no-one would listen to him by putting a liberal clergyman who talks about anything except God in front of a deserted stadium.
I think the cartoon linked here is an apt picture of the above:
God and Man at the DNC
Hilarious, thanks.
Whew! Sounds as if all the superstitious religious wingnuts hang out here. Yuk. Bye. You can all continue to preach to your buddies in the choir I’m outta here.
Marge
Not capable of intelligent rebuttal.
Chickens out.
Typical.
As they say: Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
Ah, irony. Someone calling out religious people for making religious comments on an article about … wait for it … religion.
“superstitious religious wingnut”
I like it, thank you.
Better than
“murderer of babies”
anyway…
“Sounds as if all the superstitious religious wingnuts hang out here.” Marge
Manifesto-thumping Marxists and other Leftists either conceal or remain oblivious to the fact that they have formed a religion where the State is worshiped – because the State, as they see it, is the greatest power on earth – Praise the holy State. Since the State is a small group of other people – they worship an oligarchy – a new priesthood – of which they all hope to be Cardinal members – so they end up worshiping themselves.
“The religious aspects of socialism may explain the extraordinary attraction of socialist doctrines and their capacity to inflame individuals and to inspire popular movements. It is precisely these aspects of socialism which cannot be explained when socialism is regarded as a political or economic category. Socialism’s pretensions to be a universal world view comprising and explaining everything also make it akin to religion. A characteristic of religion is socialism’s view of history not as a chaotic phenomenon but as an entity that has a goal, a meaning and a justification. In other words, both socialism and religion view history teleologically… Finally, socialism’s hostility toward traditional religion hardly contradicts this judgment–it may simply be a matter of animosity between rival religions… It is certainly true that socialism is hostile to religion. But is it possible to understand it as a consequence of atheism? Hardly, at least if we understand atheism as it is usually defined: as the loss of religious feeling. The term “atheism” is inappropriate for the description of people in the grip of socialist doctrines. It would be more correct to speak here not of “atheists” but of “God-haters,” not of “atheism” but of “theophobia.” Such, certainly, is the passionately hostile attitude of socialism toward religion. Thus, while socialism is certainly connected with the loss of religious feeling, it can hardly be reduced to it. The place formerly occupied by religion does not remain vacant; a new lodger appeared.” Igor Shafarevich
http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html
“The real power; the power we have to fight for night and day is not power over things but over men… The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others… We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we’re doing… Power is not a means, it is an end… The object of power is power… Always there will be the intoxication of power… We are the Priests of Power.” George Orwell – 1984
“Whew! Sounds as if all the superstitious religious wingnuts hang out here. Yuk. Bye”.
Bye … watch out for those tricky sperms meeting with eggs (see #38).
If you meant that in a more literal sense, e.g., a border, success would ensue.
Poignant and suggestive post. If it is broadly (though not exclusively) representative, what commentary might the post offer about the country on account of it now having an incumbent in the White House one who is chief of the–shall we here call it–”Irreverent” party … and more so if the incumbent is re-elected in 2012?
“…these children of Israel did not walk through this wilderness alone.”
That’s true. Until they came to the Red Sea, they had a thousand case workers from the Egyptian Government watching out for them. Then the Republicans destroyed the dikes and all the case workers drowned. And we know how things turned out for the Hebrews after that, don’t we? Of course we do! Some right-wing religious nut took over. If the Jews had just continued belonging to the Egyptian Government, none of that would have happened.
Lesson learned.
Not to mention the tour guides from Amalek. That was one of the odder statements in Wolpe’s rhapsody.
I assume he was talking about God. I just put in terms a Democrat would understand.
Marge: Wingnut I may be; religious I am not. In essence, your comments seem to be neither about right and wrong, nor about religious belief, but rather about money. I, for one do not see that you have the slightest right to have me pay for your fun or for its consequences. That would not be a proper way to achieve the control of your body which you seek. True, poverty is a fact of life, so having to pay for contraception could interfere with your pleasure. But it is practically certain that the fellows involved (I assume there are fellows–otherwise there would be no problem) would be happy to contribute to a little before-and-after fund, if only you were to ask them nicely. People with more experience than I would advise you just to be sure to get it in advance.
True, poverty is a fact of life, so having to pay for contraception could interfere with your pleasure.
Sandra Fluke, recent Georgetown law grad and all around Obama favorite, kept saying contraception (in the form of “the pill”) costs upwards of $3000/year, when, in fact, the cost is something like $9/month at Wal-Mart.
Sandra has apparently been practicing for her new profession where lying has been raised to an art form.
Remember marge is a progressive or prog wanna-be. She ,like all progs, do not want responsibility-they shun that because they have never matured past 13. They cannot think of the consequences for their actions only that because they are progs, they think they can do whatever they wish. So having unprotected, promiscuious sex is your problem not hers. marge is julia. Incapable of being a mature, fully actualized adult.
Ironic in that prog women think they are in charge of their bodies but in reality they are not. They want the government to be in charge of their bodies.
Also notice how easily she disabuses the idea of a baby as a human. THAT should inform us all as to the real nature of the left.
The Republicans, on the other hand, would like to take us back to the Middle Ages.
There, folks, is the voice of the TWANLOC (those who are no longer our countrymen).
This feels like a bad marriage….at first you argue and try to make up, then the fights get longer and more bitter, and finally reach the point of screaming invective.
Is anyone else sick to death trying to reach the other side? I know that I am, and I have lots of practice, being the sole conservative in a family of democrats.
We are no longer one people, we no longer share the same values, or the same vision for this country.
Can we please have a divorce?
Infant Christendom
http://www.leithart.com/2012/09/06/infant-christendom/
Jesus Christ is always the mover and shaker when I have entered the 9 heavens transforming heaven to his will and I believe this will be the same as I prepare to enter the 9th, God willing
Charity has historically come from the generosity of the people, neighbors of the needy, often but not always inspired by their religion. The Democrats want to replace this voluntary charity with government-sponsored mandatory charity. Guess what happens to most of the charitable gifts when administered through a bureaucracy.
Hear! Hear!
(And if you haven’t heard the plan yet) liberals get the NE and SW with a statewide corridor connecting the two. Social conservatives get the SE, libertarian conservatives the NW.
Who’s with us? Speak up!!!
Sorry, that’s @Beth but is directed to everyone.
I don’t think a “divorce” would ever really work out, as they would still depend upon our funding (as we are the producers) to keep them going. I prefer the idea of a plan that includes defeat as a prominent objective. Once defeated, they have a choice: either join us or we’ll put you in reservations.
DO NOT give the SW to Leftoids, rhymes with Hemorrhoids.
Although every election map shows NM as very blue, in fact the blue parts are all in the north, the urban areas, Albuquerque, Santa Fe.
We’re very red in the southern half of the state and Arizona is all red.
This Arizona thing in particular, along with Kansas, was the only way to make this work. Boarders can be pushed and pulled in order to minimize the need for people to relocate, but those sacrifices would have to be made. Why?
1. Hispanics, the majority of whom are democrats. But beyond the wishful musings of conservative, they (as a group, though certainly not as individuals) will likely never come over to our side. And their population is swelling beyond the capacity of conservatives to maintain their dominance in Arizona forever. Besides, they make up a critical demographic of the democratic party. Hard to beat the tide.
Poor Kansas is going to get steamrollered as well. One, because they are the lynchpin of the design and two, because you have to give the liberals some agricultural land. After all, they will probably end up with at least half the population.
2. The idea that the country could be divided with the least interference requires connecting the uber liberal NE to the equally liberal SW (California and perhaps Oregon). Meanwhile continuity of boarders and a minimizing of gerrymandering will make things easier in the long run. But the liberals would have to give up at least Washington State and–depending on final population numbers–Oregon as well in order to give the libertarian conservatives access to the sea and at least some urban areas.
Without making these compromises–and without splitting liberal land in two–this is the most logical way that has yet been put forth to actually make this work. Of course, any other ideas would be welcome.
I was thinking more along the lines of escorting liberals to Canada or Mexico, their choice. Jefferson only offered un-Americans Canada.
Great idea! But how about we try the easy way first?
then it always hits me:Who am i given this great chosen to enter the 9th but fear comes into my heart,could I be an AntiChrist enemy of holy and prayer takes away such shame knowing about the great Divine Plan of all the ages of how children going to hell are redeemed for heaven so i prepare
Isaiah 1
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.
18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the good things of the land;
20 but if you resist and rebel,
you will be devoured by the sword.”
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.
21 See how the faithful city
has become a prostitute!
( this fits perfect with the history of the 9th heaven now becoming more forest after abandoned by all)
I wonder how well Binyamin Jokolski is. His Jewish World Review JWR has I am sure played a not insignificant part in some of the events you outline.
David Goldman your final prayer is very apposite & also holds true for the rest of the western world too.
Too many words about nothing. Religion is superstition.
Keith-let the people decide at the lowest level, the county. I don’t think that states with large cities should be able to overwhelm the rural areas. Since I live in a conservative rural county in California, that issue is near and dear to my heart!
Each side outlines the rules each region would run on, say libertarian, conservation, communist/socialist.
Each county decides. All voters of opposing persuasions loose the franchise. However, they may still live and work in their original home, they just can’t vote, run for office, or work in the educational or judicial systems. That means that if you are a conservative, you live with the consequences of your decisions. Same for the socialists. Everyone pays for their own decisions at the lowest level. Everyone is free to move to an area that will allow them to retain the franchise. Over time, people will filter to their natural “home”.
I must say I do like the idea, in that it would create so little disturbance. The only problem I see is that if we don’t create our own distinct countries, one side will forever be stepping on the sensibility of their neighbors. I’m also afraid we’ll never be able to get away from the propaganda machine if we remain essentially side-by-side.
And, by the way, have you seen the NW? Its really rather stunning. Selling your home and starting a new life up north might actually be not so bad. Of course a major separation would not happen overnight. We would give it five, ten years or more if need be for people to be able to move their businesses and homes in as orderly a manner as is possible.
The key is to be sure everybody calmly agrees that we just don’t share common ground anymore, goodbye, good luck, and we wish each other a happy life living as each sees fit.
Oh, and one more thing. Do you really want to be living that close to a society that will soon implode? I would just as soon be as far and as safely away from that catastrophe when it occurs. Country by county, you’re certain to be effected by the maelstrom.
er…sounds like you missed the benediction that Timothy Cardinal Dolan gave at the Democratic convention. it was wonderful. it was pro-life! I’m surprised he wasn’t booed. the delegates were in the hall for that–they probably didn’t know WHAT to think!
Keith, I am in favor of a slow separation, I think it is the kindest and most humane way of finalizing this divorce. Enough drama already!
Plus, where is the room for argument? The socialists in conservative areas will know that if they want to be heard, there is a place for them, where their money will be well on programs they support. Same for conservatives in socialist areas. Over time, I believe that either reality will bite the socialist enclaves when they have to fund their pet projects out of their own pockets, or we will reach the point where we indeed have two separate nations.
I also love my County. It is conservative, and a nice place to live. I’m not so sure I want to just hand it over to the loco weeds in Sacramento.
The areas that are likely to become more dangerous as the State hits the wall (LA and SF) are several hours north and south of our County. Not to get too doomsday, but there are ways of ensuring that our borders are protected if things get out of hand.
Well Beth, you can assuage your conscience by swapping your place with some liberal who had invaded Wyoming.
Ultimately, what I would love to see is western Canada coming along and joining it all up straight through to Alaska. The eastern provinces can hook up with the US NE. At that point, libertarians from all over the world would have a home and it (and likely the SE) may just end up as the last refuge of Western civilization. God knows, Europe is finished.
Just remember: the Rocky Mountains are the marrow of the world.
Which God are you talking about? The God the piloted the 9/11 attacks or the God that was crucified, or the God that parted the Red Sea?
Or do you just want votes?
I can’t speak for Spengler, but is suspect he was referring to the God that created the universe – the same One who created individuals in His image – so all are thereby in natural possession of equal unalienable rights to life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness.
If you really want the answer you should take Spengler 101. I respectfully suggest that you start here: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JG08Aa01.html – America’s special grace.
Historic Baths: Cleopatra’s and the 2012 DNC’s!!! After this week, Team Obama’s poll numbers will be going down the drain.
A fan of the Mountain Men?
I think you are giving away too much territory. Most of the country is red once you get away from the big cities…Jefferson was right to regard cities as bad for the moral health of the citizenry.
Not so sure about Europe being finished…..the elites have pretty effectively stomped on their average citizen, to the point where I expect a serious backlash as their economies go south and tensions ratchet up.
For example, in Spain with a 24% unemployment rate, is the average Spaniard going to take kindly to a continued influx of hostile immigrants? Or in France, at what point are the overtaxed, unemployed French going to get tired of their cars being bbq’d by Islamic squatters?
Old Chinese curse, may you live in interesting times.
I think the phrase for the Demunists’ philosophical derailment is ‘naive realism.’ In rejecting God and grounding ‘rights’ and, indeed, human existence on the collective will of the state the Democrats reveal themselves the heirs of the Nazis and the Soviets. And, yes, it can happen here because their ideology is a spiritual/mental disorder. It might be time to buy weapons and ammunition.
Past that time, there is likely to be racial violence and civil unrest when Obama loses.
This IS an incredibly important observation and commentary, thanks so much for it.
Cardinal Dolan’s Closing Prayer denounced everything the Democratic Convention spent all week cheering about… Surprisingly, none of the delegates were seen levitating or vomiting pea soup while the Cardinal spoke.
How could rabbi wild and wonderful even stand and deliver such words after witnessing that the people he is supporting obviously vocally do not support his G-d, nor his people the JEWS???? – at least half of the delegates angrily yelled 3x like in a Roman coliseum- the delirium and wild faces of the participants during the secular speeches said everything to me. They love and worship MAn and not Hashem.
I am wondering why and how can Jews be so duped, be such willing patsies for these neo-fascists?
“that golden and capital city of Jerusalem,
(he used the words “capital city” an idea, a policy, that they just booed)
and did not the fact that those he is supporting walked out on HIM, turned their collective backs to him and his words not cause his head to explode with cognitive dissonance? make him finally SEE who does not have his back??
May Hashem turn their hearts, my fellow Jews and RABBIS!!!! are deaf and blinded by Odumbness.
Isaiah 62
1. For the sake of Zion, I will not be silent, and for the sake of Jerusalem I will not rest, until her righteousness comes out like brilliance, and her salvation burns like a torch.
2. And nations shall see your righteousness, and all kings your glory, and you shall be called a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall pronounce.
In line w/Spengler’s discussion above, Prof. Wertheimer of the Jewish Theological (Conservatvie) Seminary (JTS) has published another gutsy analysis (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/first-new-yorks-jews-then-americas/) showing that Orthodoxy seems to be the only Jewish stream with a future. I especially like his take down of “do-your own-Judaism” type Jews. I’m surprised the JTS faculty and students don’t lynch him:
“The increasing lack of any specific identification beyond merely calling oneself a Jew suggests a turn to what might be called Jewish minimalism by a growing population of New York Jews … who claim no Jewish religious denomination or who report they are Jewish only in nonreligious ways score low not only on measures of religious participation, as we might expect, but also when it comes to joining and volunteering for secular Jewish organizations, feeling an attachment to Israel, or giving to Jewish causes of any type. It is time to put to rest the fable, common in some circles, that those who do not identify with a denomination are an innovative breed of intrepid pioneers intent on carving out a new form of Jewish identity. Overwhelmingly, such people are progressively disengaging from every aspect of Jewish life … (e)ven as they do so, the increasing population of the city’s Orthodox Jews is going in the opposite direction … Orthodox identification is a marker for highly distinctive patterns of living. Orthodox Jews of all types choose to marry relatively early and have far more children than most other Americans, let alone Jews. At considerably younger ages than their non-Orthodox counterparts, they become enmeshed in Jewish communal life as they seek out educational opportunities for their children and a social support system for themselves
By contrast, non-Orthodox Jews tend to marry late, bear few children, and intermarry at high rates; their way of life gives them little incentive or need to engage in Jewish life until they are close to age 40, if at all”.
“GOD…IN OR OUT…LET ‘THE WON’ DECIDE!”
God’s children just voted against Him.
Aren’t they’re just the little hellions!
But . . . there is “precedent”–Lucifer,
Rejected Heaven in rebellion.
Then, again . . .just a fabrication,
Right? “God’s Greatest, Whitest, Little Lie”!
Don’t forget, lots do it EVERY DAY!
So, this isn’t really a big thing.
“Nothing to see here, just move along.”
There’re still lots of Angeles to sing,
Praises to the Creator and King,
Right? So what if we no longer believe?
But, but, what about “In God We Trust”?
That’s EVERYWHERE? How can we cope?
Documents, buildings, EVEN OUR MONEY!
Could “Printing Press Bernanke” hope,
To print ENOUGH TRILLIONS—he’s no dope,
Right? It would take a “miracle”…of sorts.
Maybe we should “just vote Him back in”?
Now, there’s real POWER anyone can see—
God’s creations will now “switch places”!
We’ll just vote Him back in—you and me,
Oh, “THE WON”—He’s our TRUE Deity,
Right? HE has to make this decision!
I’m glad we had this conversation!
For “convenience” we’ll keep God in this nation!
[Hey, in a year, Islam will require us to change EVERYTHING,
Right?—If Obomuslim wins.]
Mr. Goldman, you’ve just been witness to an awkward attempt at a changing of the guard. I say awkward because liberals don’t use principles so much as identity, and so when the Dem Party uses it’s informal religion of political correctness (formal version Critical Pedagogy), it conflicts with itself.
The new kid on the block, thanks to a new demo of Muslim groups in lobbies and on campuses, was at once catered to and kicked in the guts by this mixed message of no Jerusalem, no god. In the victimology/ethnic wing of the Dem Party, Muslims, not Jews are the new ally. The problem is that, ethnicity aside, (Muslims are largely non-white), Muslims are more conservative than conservatives and more fanatic than Jerry Falwell. Dems don’t do god like that so something’s got to give.
Add to this the other loving victims of the Dem Party, gays, and you have the potential for enormous conflict. All this of course could be easily solved if the Dem Party simple adopted principles devoid of ethnicity, gender and considerations of stereotypes of systemic past failure or as liberals put it, discrimination.
The enemy of my enemy idea will only hold gays and Muslims under one tent for so long. All it will take is one gay activist in Dearborn, MI and the cat will be out of the bag – forever. Let that be followed up by a “Hunky Mohamed” contest to rival the gay “Hunky Jesus” contest of over 3 decades in San Francisco, and the crap will fly.
I cannot let this just pass:
“Ribono shel Olam, Almighty God, You commanded Moses many years ago: Ukratem dror ba’arets le-khol yoshveha, “Proclaim liberty throughout the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof.”
This verse, toward the end of Leviticus, is probably the most intentionally misinterpreted phrase in the entire Torah. It is not talking about liberty in the sense of individual freedom and ending the institution of servitude/slavery. Rather, it means that at the end of 49 years all indentured servitude ends of individuals, land or other property. Then after the 50th year of the cycle (the jubilee) the entire process of acquiring such titles begins again. The original verse is simply not congruent with modern notions of liberty at all.
The Liberty Bell’s inscription perpetuates this fraud, however innocently, and Rabbi Soloveitchik does nobody any favors by repeating it. Indeed, someone of his stature and education knows this, which makes his using this false meme even more disgraceful.
Frankly, I am not sure which display of Rabbinic ignorance is worse; Wolpe’s paen to modern secular-humanism that sidelines G-D’s words or Soloveitchik’s corrupting those words.
CR,
I respectfully disagree. Rabbi Lord Sacks, the chief rabbi of Great Britain, has a commentary on this verse to which I refer you:
http://www.ou.org/torah/article/covenant_and_conversation_imagination#.UEyMm42PXzg
Rabbi Sacks writes:
The sedra of Behar sets out a revolutionary template for a society of justice, freedom and human dignity. At its core is the idea of the Jubilee, whose words (“Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof”) are engraved on one of the great symbols of freedom, the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. One of its provisions is the release of slaves:
If your brother becomes impoverished and is sold to you, do not work him like a slave. He shall be with you like an employee or a resident. He shall serve you only until the jubilee year and then he and his children shall be free to leave you and return to their family and to the hereditary land of their ancestors. For they are My servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. Do not subjugate them through hard labour – you shall fear your G-d . . . For the children of Israel are servants to Me: they are My servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt – I am the Lord your G-d.
The terms of the passage are clear. Slavery is wrong. It is an assault on the human condition. To be “in the image of G-d” is to be summoned to a life of freedom. The very idea of the sovereignty of G-d means that He alone has claim to the service of mankind. Those who are G-d’s servants may not be slaves to anyone else. At this distance of time it is hard to recapture the radicalism of this idea, overturning as it did the very foundations of religion in ancient times. The early civilizations – Mesopotamia, Egypt – were based on hierarchies of power which were seen to inhere in the very nature of the cosmos. Just as there were (so it was believed) ranks and gradations among the heavenly bodies, so there were on earth. The great religious rituals and monuments were designed to mirror and endorse these hierarchies. In this respect Karl Marx was right. Religion in antiquity was the robe of sanctity concealing the naked brutality of power. It canonized the status quo.
At the heart of Israel was an idea almost unthinkable to the ancient mind: that G-d intervenes in history to liberate slaves – that the supreme Power is on the side of the powerless. It is no accident that Israel was born as a nation under conditions of slavery. It has carried throughout history the memory of those years – the bread of affliction and the bitter herbs of servitude – because the people of Israel serves as an eternal reminder to itself and the world of the moral necessity of liberty and the vigilance needed to protect it. The free G-d desires the free worship of free human beings.
Rabbi Sacks’ explanation helps understand the objection to enslavement and why the Torah concept of individual servitude is more like that of an indentured servant, much like that practiced in early colonial America in which a convict or debtor would serve a master for a specified period of years to work off a debt or make penance. Nevertheless, the verse cited here does not mean what he, Rabbi Soloveitchik nor the Liberty Bell want it to mean; the freeing of people from an autocratic, tyrannical sovereign. Its meaning is much more pedestrian; that even in a holy, righteous society in which the only sovereign is The Holy One there is a cycle by which the old debts, attachments and ownership transfers are nullified. If Rabbis Sacks and Soloveitchik wish to make a point about human rights and servitude only to G-d, not to mortal men, they do themselves a disservice wrenching this verse out of its intended meaning.
A strange take from John Adams here on religion in his 1770 diary: (I can’t say that I understand the bottom line here; I suspect that it is “religion is all well and good, but there are certain realistic principles which actually must be followed, and you won’t find these in Jesus or Paul. Check out #2, especially.)
August 19. Sunday. Last Friday went to the light-house with the committee of both Houses.
Mr. Royal Tyler began to pick chat with me. “Mr. Adams, have you ever read Doctor South’s sermon upon the Wisdom of this World?” “No.” “I’ll lend it to you.” “I should be much obliged.” “Have you read the Fable of the Bees?” “Yes, and the Marquis of Halifax’s Character of a Trimmer, and Hurd’s Dialogue upon Sincerity in the Commerce of Life, and Machiavel, and Cæsar Borgia—Hard if these are not enough.” Tyler. “The author of the Fable of the Bees understood human nature and mankind better than any man that ever lived; I can follow him as he goes along. Every man in public life ought to read that book, to make him jealous and suspicious, &c.”
Yesterday he sent the book, and excellent sermons they are; concise, and nervous, and clear. Strong ebullitions of the loyal fanaticism of the times he lived in, at and after the restoration; but notwithstanding those things, there is a degree of sense and spirit and taste in them which will ever render them valuable. The sermon which Mr. Tyler recommended to my perusal is a sermon preached at Westminster Abbey, April 30, 1676, from 1 Corinthians, iii. 19: “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” The Doctor undertakes to show what are those rules or principles of action, upon which the policy or wisdom in the text proceeds, and he mentions four rules or principles. 1. A man must maintain a constant, continued course of dissimulation in the whole tenor of his behavior. 2. That conscience and religion ought to lay no restraint upon men at all, when it lies opposite to the prosecution of their interest. Or, in the words of Machiavel, “That the show of religion was helpful to the politician, but the reality of it, hurtful and pernicious.” 3. That a man ought to make himself, and not the public, the chief, if not the sole end of all his actions. 4. That in showing kindness or doing favors, no respect at all is to be had to friendship, gratitude, or sense of honor; but that such favors are to be done only to the rich or potent, from whom a man may receive a farther advantage, or to his enemies, from whom he may otherwise fear a mischief…
20. Monday. The first maxim of worldly wisdom, constant dissimulation, may be good or evil as it is interpreted; if it means only a constant concealment from others of such of our sentiments, actions, desires, and resolutions, as others have not a right to know, it is not only lawful, but commendable; because when these are once divulged, our enemies may avail themselves of the knowledge of them to our damage, danger, and confusion. So that some things, which ought to be communicated to some of our friends, that they may improve them to our profit, or honor, or pleasure, should be concealed from our enemies and from indiscreet friends, lest they should be turned to our loss, disgrace, or mortification. I am under no moral or other obligation to publish to the world, how much my expenses or my incomes amount to yearly. There are times when, and persons to whom, I am not obliged to tell what are my principles and opinions in politics or religion. There are persons whom in my heart I despise; others I abhor. Yet I am not obliged to inform the one of my contempt, nor the other of my detestation. This kind of dissimulation, which is no more than concealment, secrecy, and reserve, or in other words, prudence and discretion, is a necessary branch of wisdom, and so far from being immoral and unlawful, that it is a duty and a virtue. Yet even this must be understood with certain limitations, for there are times when the cause of religion, of government, of liberty, the interest of the present age and of posterity, render it a necessary duty for a man to make known his sentiments and intentions boldly and publicly; so that it is difficult to establish any certain rule, to determine what things a man may, and what he may not lawfully conceal, and when. But it is no doubt clear, that there are many things which may lawfully be concealed from many persons at certain times, and on the other hand, there are things, which at certain times, it becomes mean and selfish, base and wicked, to conceal from some persons.
You are missing Rabbi Sacks’ point: the jubilee for Hebrew slaves was the beginning of the emancipation for all slaves. As he quotes Maimonides, God did not abolish slavery at a single blow, but started Israel on the path to its abolition. There is a straight line between the Jubilee and the abolition of African slavery in the 19th century.
No, I got it. And I agree with you that it is germane to the whole discussion of servitude and freedom (though Rabbi Sacks’ progression of liberties up to the modern area seems far from authoritative). Nevertheless, Rabbi Sacks’ analyses and conclusions seem more consistent with the other set of verses he cites from later in Parshat Behar. I just learned over the parsha in some detail with Rashi and Ramban in preparation for my son’s bar mitzvah. It seems to me he brings in “Proclaim liberty throughout the land…” as a “sweetener” if you will due to its recognizability from the Liberty Bell and, as much as I despise the reference, Charlton Heston’s last lines in C.B. DeMille’s production of The Ten Commandments. I cannot see how it fits with the rest of his discussion, though, considering the plain meaning from the words themselves and the basic historical discussion of the verse’s meaning. Indeed, I think the verse is brought out of context, by Rabbi Sacks, Rabbi Soloveitchik and countless others, precisely because of its prior use by people ignorant of the actual biblical narrative. I find that silly and absurd and, frankly, it calls to question the wisdom of those who perpetuate the meme.
Well, this is certainly consoling to a Catholic, aware as everyone must be of how liberal Catholics have usually outnumbered conservatives, including in the clergy. Thanks very much Mr Goldman. I had read, however, that Archbishop Dolan was to speak at Charlotte as well. Am I wrong?
Human beings exist in a purposeless and chaotic universe. Some humans react to that reality by imagining a divine creator of existence who asks only to be praised and worshipped in return for the favor thus creating an illusion of purpose and order. There is no harm in finding consolation in that sort of illusion but such fantasy provides an unsustainable basis for the formulation of public policy. Moral and ethical standards based on the rational observation of empirical phenomena offers the only reliable and consistent foundation for a successful civilization.
“Human beings exist in a purposeless and chaotic universe. Some humans react to that reality by imagining a divine creator of existence who asks only to be praised and worshipped in return for the favor thus creating an illusion of purpose and order.”
“Religion is the opium of the masses.” Karl Marx
“Marx foresees fifteen, perhaps even fifty years of civil war for the proletariat, and Mao Tse-tung is ready to accept the loss of half of humanity in a nuclear war for the sake of establishing a socialist structure in the world. A call for sacrifices on this scale might sound convincing on the lips of a religious leader appealing to a truth beyond this world, but not from convinced atheists.” Igor Shafarevich
http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html
“It is not true, as is sometimes said, that man cannot organize the world without God. What is true is that, without God, he can only organize it against man.” Henri de Lubac
The universe has purpose, but remains chaotic in some ways, if it was created by an omnipotent Creator. The universe is only purposeless if it is eternal and uncreated – with no connection to a Creator. Some humans react to the latter possibility by imagining this is the only possible reality, thus irrationally overlooking or rejecting the possible reality of Divine purpose and order. There is harm in ignoring or rejecting the consolation of Divine creation because it provides a sustainable basis for the infinite and therefore equal value of all individuals, and therefore a justification for their equal rights and their equality before the law. Moral, ethical and legal standards based on recognition of the self-evident (rational) and sacred nature of human life offers the only reliable and consistent foundation for a just society.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident [rational], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [sacred] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” American Declaration of Independence
Can you explain, as an atheist, whether or not all individuals possess equal value, and if so why?
Stonewall – Thanks for taking care of this reply to the usual incoherent atheism, but I doubt you’ll receive a coherent response to your challenge.
“Rabbis from the wrongly named Conservative movement…”
HA!
“… are used to preaching to empty rooms.”
HA again! I was laughing all morning.
You may have to atone for this.
David, Looking forward to your post about the Embassy/Consulate attacks. Here’s what I wrote to the smart guys at ZenPundit:
http://zenpundit.com/?p=14268#comment-85744
It is very hard to accept that ‘no one is in charge’ and that people in the Administration can be this naive. If there is no conspiracy whatsoever, than I’ll put on a tin foil hat anyway. I mean seriously people where the heck does Egypt get a billion dollars to buy a German submarine from?
I haven’t posted on the embassy attacks because I don’t have a lot to add to Andrew McCarthy’s reading: that this was staged to elicit the disgusting response that the Obama administration offered, and push the West towards a ban on anti-Islamic speech. Obviously someone chose to make an issue out of an obscure Youtube post; somebody translated the trailer into Arabic and released it and got the sermons going in the mosques. The question is, wes Geistes Kind es sei? A number of possible answers occur to me, but at this point it’s pure speculation.
I can’t speak for Cleve, but as an atheist myself I will say that of course all individuals possess equal value. No individual has the right to control another individual. This value does not have to be given by God in order to be valid. Neither do individual rights. You stated earlier that “if government is the source of “human rights” then human rights cannot be equal or inalienable”. This is true, but just because one does not believe in God does not automatically mean that rights must therefore come from government.
If God gives these rights, why do we not find them being enjoyed by human beings at any time in history until after the Enlightenment period? During this period of history men began to develop in rational, independent thought, and began to realize that they did not need to submit having their every thought and action dictated to them by the Church and the State. They could govern themselves through reason. They found the truths to be self-evident – meaning they arrived at the knowledge through reason, not revelation. Most of them had a belief in God, also, but the key to governing themselves was the ability to reason. They came up with limited government and the rule of law, not of men. This works for the religious (no two of whom believe in exactly the same thing, or even the same God) and for the non-believer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE4S2uvFPZI&feature=player_embedded
Interesting Political ad making light of the DNC’s weakness with Jewish voters. I also couldn’t help post it due to it’s background music, Dave’s favorite/anti-favorite German composer.