Month: October 2004

From the Washington Post:

The Vatican is becoming increasingly alarmed at what it regards as official anti-Roman Catholic sentiment and secular trends in Europe, as government after government approves measures on abortion, family law and scientific study that run counter to Catholic teaching. …

…”It looks like a new Inquisition. It is a lay Inquisition, but it is so nasty,” Cardinal Renato Martino, who heads the Vatican’s Council for Justice and Peace, told reporters this week in response to the dispute. “You can freely insult and attack Catholics and nobody will say anything. If you do so for other confessions, let’s see what would happen.”

A comment made by theologian David B. Hart in response to a letter in the latest issue of First Things seems apposite.

The letter writer, a Mr. Gary Inbinder, wrote:

Some think Western culture and civilization so decadent that it is no longer worth saving or defending. They are wrong. For all our faults, we in America are still engaged in a worthwhile experiment in human liberty. This side of the Parousia, we remain the best hope for makind.

Hart replied:

…I Should say, however, that “Western civilization” (which for me, I must be clear, means “Christendom”) is something of which I would never despair, however much I might despair of the present state of Western culture. …

…Neither, however, do I grant that America is, this side of the Parousia, the best hope of mankind. That title I can accord only to the Church, which springs up and flourishes in whatsoever places the Spirit–who is notoriously unpredictable–chooses. Seen thus, there are certain respects in which it may be the case that at present Nigeria is more important for the future development of mankind than the United States. I love my country, but here we have no enduring city, and one should avoid hyperbole.

Also, this essay by Robert Louis Wilken captures nicely the importance of a comprehensive Christian culture, of “another commonwealth, one that has its face, like the faces of angels, turned toward the face of God.”

From Jeff Taylor at Counterpunch:

1. Do you live in a swing state? Which one?

Yes. Minnesota.

2. Are you still planning to vote Nader? Why?

Yes. Because Nader is by far the best candidate running for President in 2004. He’s an honest, humane, informed, and intelligent man. He shares my ideology (populism). I agree with him on most of the issues (but not all–we disagree on some social issues).

3. If Nader wasn’t running, would you vote for Kerry? Explain.

No. I would not vote for Kerry under any circumstances. I’ve been familiar with John Forbes Kerry since he was elected to the Senate in the 1980s as an inspiration for all self-satisfied yuppies. Like Bush, Kerry was born into wealth and tapped for Skull & Bones while at Yale. I think Kerry has always been an ambitious and opportunistic politician with a commitment to plutocracy, militarism, and imperialism (despite occasional rhetoric to the contrary). I disagree with Kerry on every major issue of the day. There’s no rational reason to vote for a man I neither respect nor agree with. If Nader wasn’t on the Minnesota ballot, I would either write-in his name, vote for a different third-party candidate, or not vote at all.

More here.

Of course, those of us living in Pennsylvania won’t even have the option of voting for Nader and living to regret it (or not), thanks to the stalwart efforts of the Democrats.

It’s a veggie two-fer today! From the American Spectator:

Bashing the animal-rights movement has become a genre of conservative article. The latest I saw is one by Daniel Flynn, and he makes clear that there’s a lot to “bash.” Animal-rights fanatics in Britain have been threatening not only biomedical researchers, but their children. Flynn traces their lunacy to the crackpot ideas of Peter Singer, who (while favoring infanticide) morally equates animals and humans and has even opposed taboos against sex with animals.But decrying the excesses of activists is one thing; it still doesn’t tell us if their cause is just.

One night in Kansas in 1856 the abolitionist John Brown and his sons dragged some proslavery men out of their homes and hacked them to death with long-edged swords. Surely an excess, but it hardly means the abolitionist cause was wrong.

More here.

A conservative critique of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from Bill Luse.

(via Paul Cella)

By day, I shop for organic produce in local health food stores and farmers’ markets. I talk with people about what’s in season, new vegan recipes, the next fermented food craze, and how to displaced cooked, junk foods – excuse the redundancy – in our families’ diets. I meet many people who are trying to reverse the hardship and disease that our modern food and medical industries have wrought. These are thoughtful people, open minded and willing to make huge changes in their lives. They are taking responsibility for their own health.

By night, I socialize with freedom lovers. I feel a true sense of relief that I can comment against taxes, inflation, government schools, in fact all manner of regulation and coercion. These people agree with me and show admiration for my choices in life. They are a fellowship of honest, moral and wise people. Libertarianism is a club in which I am proud to have membership.

More here.

The American Conservative has published it’s endorsements for the presidential election. Those fractious paleos just couldn’t agree on one candidate!

Unfortunately, this election does not offer traditional conservatives an easy or natural choice and has left our editors as split as our readership. In an effort to deepen our readers’ and our own understanding of the options before us, we’ve asked several of our editors and contributors to make “the conservative case” for their favored candidate. Their pieces, plus Taki’s column closing out this issue, constitute TAC’s endorsement.

Pat Buchanan for Bush

Scott McConnell for Kerry

Justin Raimondo for Nader (!)

Howard Phillips for Peroutka (Constitution Party)

Alan W. Bock for Badnarik (Libertarian)

Kara Hopkins for “The Right to Remain Silent”

Taki for Peroutka

Bill Keezer and Kevin the Big Hominid both have good posts on the intersection of religion and politics.

In response to Kevin’s question about whether it’s possible to separate one’s religion from one’s political beliefs and actions, I’m inclined to say it’s not. If my conscience is well-formed by my tradition, how can I somehow turn that off when I enter the voting booth? But does this require that I attempt to legislate my religious beliefs?

I think it doesn’t require it, for a couple of different reasons. First off, it might be imprudent for me to attempt to legislate my religious beliefs, since the wheel of fortune will eventually turn and I might find myself as part of a religious minority. I think it was C. S. Lewis who said he wouldn’t want to legislate Christian marriage for all of England any more than he would want Muslims to outlaw alcohol!

Secondly, I think we can find embedded in our traditions reasons for not being quick to impose sectarian religious doctrines on others. Christians are called to be humble, and one aspect of this humility is epistemic humility. That is, we shouldn’t assume that we already posess the whole truth, and this ought to lead us to engage in respectful dialogue with those who hold different views. This is not a position rooted in skepticism, or Enlightenment rationalism, but one rooted in the virtues a Christian should exhibit. I suspect there are tendencies in other traditions that would point in a similar direction.

Finally, I would distinguish between a sectarian religious belief and a moral belief which may be shared widely across traditions (I realize this distinction can get fuzzy in practice). If I think abortion or the death penalty are wrong, I can seek to persuade my fellow citizens that those things are wrong based on premises that they accept from their own traditions. I can’t accept the Kerry line (if it is the Kerry line) that opposition to abortion is a matter of faith that must remain essentially private. Kerry clearly doesn’t think that care for the environment or economic justice must remain matters of “private” belief, even though those positions can be, and often are, rooted in faith.

If American conservatism is individualist social-contract theory combined with anti-statism, then it has very little in common with Christianity, according to James W. Skillen:

George F. Will, drawing from what he considers “the best political book in years” (John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge’s The Right Nation), writes in a recent column that “the emotions underlying conservatism’s long rise [in America] include a visceral individualism with religious roots and anti-statist consequences” (Washington Post, 10/10/04). According to Micklethwait and Wooldridge, religiosity is what “predisposes Americans to see the world in terms of individual virtue” and to be skeptical of government.

This is why American Christians ought to be conservatives, right? And doesn’t it also mean that in today’s culture Christians should vote for the evangelical and politically conservative George W. Bush rather than for the politically liberal John Kerry, who happens to be Catholic?

Regardless of how you choose to cast your vote on November 2, to presume that religiously political conservatism harmonizes with Christianity is a serious mistake….

More here.

(via Byzantine Calvinist)

This is a very powerful movie based on the experiences of Allied POWs in a Japanese prison camp during WWII. These men lived under horrific conditions and were forced to construct a railroad between Thailand and Burma.

The heart of the film, though, is in the prisoners’ struggle to maintain their dignity by studying philosophy, literature and music, and, ultimately, by forgiving their captors. The narrator is a young Scotsman who eventually went on to become dean of the chapel at Princeton University.

Highly recommended.

Via Michael Gilleland comes this sermon from Fr. Jim Tucker – “A Primer on Prayer.” I’ve found that many pastors seem averse to offering this kind of “nuts and bolts” advice on living the Christian life. But some of us are in great need of it!