Ed. What happens when a man enters the world with the affections ordered toward, say, five different women or another woman and another man. Do those relationships qualify for marriage too? Following the thinking of the new Episcopal bishop, it should.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) Mon Jun 19, 2006
Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.
Jefferts Schori, bishop of the Diocese of Nevada, was elected on Sunday as the first woman leader of the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church. the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. She will formally take office later this year.
Interviewed on CNN, Jefferts Schori was asked if it was a sin to be homosexual.
“I don’t believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us,” she said.
“Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender.”
Jefferts Schori’s election seemed certain to exacerbate splits within a Episcopal Church that is already deeply divided over homosexuality with several dioceses and parishes threatening to break away.
It could also widen divisions with other Anglican communities, including the Church of England, which do not allow women bishops. In the worldwide Anglican church women are bishops only in Canada, the United States and New Zealand.
Three years ago when the Church last met in convention, a majority of U.S. bishops backed the consecration of Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay bishop in more than 450 years of Anglican history.
The Robinson issue has been particularly criticized in Africa where the church has a growing membership and where homosexuality is often taboo.
Jefferts Schori, who was raised a Roman Catholic and graduated in marine biology with a doctorate specialization in squids and oysters, supported the consecration of Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay bishop in more than 450 years of Anglican history.
The 52-year-old bishop is married to Richard Schori, a retired theoretical mathematician. They have one daughter, Katharine Johanna, 24, a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force and a pilot like her mother.
Asked how she reconciled her position on homosexuality with specific passages in the Bible declaring sexual relations between men an abomination, Jefferts Schori said the Bible was written in a very different historical context by people asking different questions.
“The Bible has a great deal to teach us about how to live as human beings. The Bible does not have so much to teach us about what sorts of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear — there are rules in the Bible about those that we don’t observe today,” she said.
“The Bible tells us about how to treat other human beings, and that’s certainly the great message of Jesus — to include the unincluded.”
This is a once great church gone mad. Ann Coulter siai that the Episcopal Church was one that had no God. It has no rudder, it is lost in the morass of current idiology, the feel good all incusive faith. The general faith of the pagans not the specific faith of the diviny inspired faith of Christianity. The time will come that the descendats of these people will have no faith but Allah. They do not know enough of the historical faith to keep it, cherish it and defend it. They will compromise until the Muslims take them over, better Muslm than this mamby-pamby watered down Episcopalian non sense. My grandmother would roll over in her grave if she knew what had happened to her once Holy Church
Ron, you do understand that the Episcopal Church is where it is partially due to the “seeker sensitive” movement that started in Protestant churches several decades ago. This movement was not solely a liberal one, and its effects are also seen in the emotionalism of conservative Pentecostals.
Much of this, I believe, comes from a general re-evaluation of the concept of Hell. Some find no tension between the concept of a loving and enlightened Being and one who can simultaneously allow (or even cause, if you’re a Calvinist) the eternal torture of various souls for a single error in the course of a life, but I think many do (probably more so than in the past). These two concepts seem to react in a way such that they cannot co-exist. Thus, you either believe in a God who’s merciful, forgiving, patient and kind, or you believe in one who’s quick to anger, severe and indifferent (at best) or possibly even sadistic. The more you believe in the former, the more the latter notions seem absurd (and vice versa), at least to those of us raised in an era when we are taught to love without conditions or strings attached.
I’m sure you’ve read “Sinners on the Hands of An Angry God”. Where, today, would you hear such a sermon? Outside of a Fred Phelps protest, you’ll not hear it from many pulpits, I think.
So, if you want a more hardline theology, you’re going to have to roll back more than the Episcopal Church to what it was. You’re going to have to ask everyone to return to previous notions of God that are no longer really held by a great number, liberal OR conservative.
Ron writes: “Ann Coulter siai that the Episcopal Church was one that had no God.”
Takes one to know one, I guess. Apparently no one is able to figure out what Ann Coulter actually believes, or where, if anywhere she goes to church:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/
Godless_author_Coulter_unknown_at_church_0608.html
Rumor has it that she goes to Redeemer Presbyterian in New York. But no one knows her there, and she’s not a member.
Of course, the most moving expression of faith from Coulter was from Rivera Live a few years ago: “”Let’s say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I’m not married.”
Forget the Episcopal church for a moment. The larger issue is that in America Christianity is largely dead and gone. In the “liberal” churches, no one really believes all the old doctrines any more.
But in the “conservative” churches I don’t think they do either. What I have noticed is that for many conservative Christians, the traditional doctrines constitute a kind of litmus test used to separate out the sheep from the goats. But the doctrines aren’t much more than that. Let me give you an example —
Some years ago I was having a conversation with a very conservative Christian. He was ranting about how the evil liberal churches don’t believe in the Incarnation any more. I asked a simple question: “How does the doctrine of the Incarnation shape and inform your spiritual life?” His response? To attack me(!). How dare I question, & etc.
In other words, I don’t think this dude cared a rat’s behind about the Incarnation. Rather, the Incarnation was a useful tool that he could use to beat up people he didn’t like. It was a way he could feel good about himself — “I believe in the Incarnation, and you don’t!” Good for him . . . .
For a lot of people the traditional doctrines are kind of like flags they wave in order to show whose side they are on. But for a lot of these folks, the doctrines do not penetrate very deeply into their lives. So you can “believe” in the Incarnation and everything else, and be a cruel and heartless person, and still be a member in good standing in church.
Two thousand years ago there were riots in the streets of Alexandria over the doctrine of the Trinity. Today I doubt you could get ten people in the street rioting over the doctrine of the Trinity, if you could find ten people in the same city who cared enough about it to riot.
No, the issues that really get conservative Christians going today are not theological but social and political. The Trinity isn’t going to bring people out into the streets, but abortion, gay marriage, and Terri Schiavo will. This leads to the strange situation in which conservative Christians fawn over celebrity pundits who agree with them on these issues, even when those pundits are not Christians.
So you have conservative Christians who love and vicious and hateful and Jewish Michael Savage. (Nice adopted last name.) They love the libertine and oft-divorced Rush Limbaugh (whose first name seems particularly apt in light of his drug of choice). And they can’t get enough of the frequently fornicating Ann Coulter, who when not having sex with the boyfriend du jour is writing books about how terrible liberals are. For a lot of Christians, apparently all you have to do to secure a place in the rapture is to be right about abortion, gay marriage and Terri Schiavo.
All of this speaks to me of a religion not just in decline, but in free-fall. But don’t worry. It’s the Episcopalians who are the real problem.
Note #2:
James K’s post above is really good, not because of the either/or that he gives as the direction of current theology and feelings in the pew, but because this very either/or (dialectic) IS the disease of the western Christian. The history of western Christianity is full these little dialectics (e.g. grace vs. works, forgiveness vs. punishment, etc. etc.) and reveals an underlying way of thinking – way of “doing” theology that is itself flawed. The dialectical way of thinking (thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis) is very important and very useful to man’s intellection. HOWEVER, it is not the end all and be all of thinking, rationalization, or intellection of our world and our God. In fact, when used in theology, it leads to more problems/untruth than anything else.
The western church, going all the way back to the Blessed Augustine at least, has been dabbling in these dialectics and it has brought nothing but grief. The Filoque is in large part a conflict between the western, Augustinian dialectical conception of the Trinity, and the eastern non dialectical (and thus more accurate) doctrine. Look at the dialectic James K accurately describes between a “loving” God and a “wrathful” God. A dialectic places the PERSONAL attributes of God into a box (more accurately, it reduces what is properly personal to the attributes themselves – a subtle but critical distinction) and then opposes them to each other. We then are left looking for a synthesis – a way to reconcile these opposite and in many ways irreconcilable attributes. Of course we can’t (sometimes opposites are just that – opposites and can not be reconciled with each other) so we are left hanging, and with nothing to do but choose one or other of the “extremes”.
What the western church needs is not a “return” to any dialectical theology, but a fundamental critique of it…
Yes, it is good. James hits on a key point. I’ll post something later on it.
Well said, Jim – your whole post, really. Why people think Ann Coulter (or Rush Limbaugh) has any business defending Chrsitianity is beyond me.
This was really on the money:
“Why people think Ann Coulter (or Rush Limbaugh) has any business defending Christianity is beyond me.”
I don’t know too much about Ann having only read a dozen or so of her columns. She does strike me as an intuitive conservative. What I mean by that is that is she TENDS to write from principles that conservatives agree with. In our current political/culture and punditry environment, there are a lot of people out there who call themselves (or are labeled such by others) as conservatives who are in fact libertarian (and thus antithetical to Christian principals). The Terri case really revealed allot of these people as core libertarians. Thus, if you look past her attack-dog-no-holds-barred style, her writing is in principal at least sound. Now, that does not mean she is a conscious or even unconscious Christian, but when it comes to the polis and it’s governance she does tend to be conservative.
Rush on the other hand, is someone I listen to regularly, usually about an hour at lunch. This really means only about 13 minutes do to the ridiculous amount of commercials on talk radio these days. He is also someone who I would say TENDS toward conservative principals, but has a problematic libertarian streak. This streak seems to be to waning however as the years go by, but still has a prominent place in his “optimistic America” and other similar attitudes he takes. Still, he came down on the right side of the Shivo case and along with Ann he has a recognition of foundation of western culture, and Christianities place with in it. They both may not be able to articulate is as well as Burke, the editors of First Things, or Fr. Jacobse, but they obviously have a basic grasp of Christianities importance to the health of our culture . Not sure why this is “beyond” Juli.
In fact, based on what Juli says and her apparent approval of the quotes from Jim (whose posts I do not read as he is an admitted non-Christian) it would behoove her to go read up on a heresy from the 4th century called “Donatism”. Obviously I can not take communion with either Ann or Rush, but I certainly could run a country with them, or form a civil society, or even have a pleasant dinner conversation. I could not do the same with many on the “religious” left…
Christopher writes: ” . . . her apparent approval of the quotes from Jim (whose posts I do not read as he is an admitted non-Christian) . . .”
Christopher also writes: ” . . . that does not mean she [Ann Coulter] is a conscious or even unconscious Christian . . .”
Christopher, again: ” . . . he [Rush Limbaugh] came down on the right side of the Shivo case and along with Ann he has a recognition of foundation of western culture, and Christianities place with in it. . . . I certainly could run a country with them, or form a civil society, or even have a pleasant dinner conversation.”
How wonderful it is when other people make my points for me, and better than I could.
Note that Christopher does not even read my posts because I am “admitted” non-Christian — something that don’t recall admitting. (Fundamentalists tend to think that I”m the Anti-Christ. Rabid atheists tend to think I’m a religious fanatic.)
Anyway, because of my non-Christian-ness Christopher, so he says, cannot bear to read my posts. Even though I was a fundamentalist Christian for ten years, read the Bible countless times, studied theology, read books on Eastern Orthodoxy, none of that matters to Christopher. I am fatally outside the camp.
But when it comes to Ann and Rush, Christopher softens and mellows. Sure there’s no evidence that either of them are Christians in any sense. Sure Rush was an addict for 8 years. Sure he’s been divorced three times. Sure Ann is a harpy sex machine. But, you know, Ann and Rush, they have a “grasp” of Christianity, and understand it’s importance. Chris could even hang out with them, and chew the right-wing fat. (Advice to Christopher: if you go to dinner with Ann Coulter, and she eats off your plate, get a good broad spectrum antibiotic from your doctor.)
Christopher feels a kinship with the addict and the harpy, not because they are Christians, and not because they are social conservatives in their own lives; clearly they are not. Rather, it’s because they condemn liberals and preach — not do, but preach — social conservatism.
And this is a very new development in Christianity. It is a version of religion in which social and political concerns are paramount, and theology takes a back seat — except when it is needed to separate the conservative sheep from the liberal goats.
Note 3: What I think troubles many of us in this “culture war” thing is not that people do not live up to their own standards. We all fall short, we all are guilty of suggesting that others “do as I say, not as I do” and we all are capable of holding beliefs that we do not always abide by. I also don’t think it’s hypocrisy to say “Don’t make the same mistakes I made”: that’s merely good and generous advice!
What many find troublesome is not that Rush or Ann have problems with drugs and alcohol (among other things) while claiming to uphold Christian values, it’s the fact that they are apparently unwilling to extend the same leniency and grace to others that has been extended towards them. I don’t know whether Ann’s schtick is real or a put-on (I’ve read it’s more the latter), but her mode of discourse creates a polarization among people to the point where resolutions to problems become more difficult, not less.
Of course, liberals do this too, but I don’t think it’s to the extent that they label conservatives with terms that would imply the necessity of a harsh reprisal. In this country, people found guilty of “treason” (another Ann Coulter title) are sometimes executed. It is assumed that people who are “godless” go to Hell. Instead, liberals write books like “Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot” which, though hardly flattering, doesn’t necessarily denote something worth eliminating someone over or sending them to a fiery pit.
Perhaps we shall one day be able to debate difficult issues without the polarization we currently see … but I’m doubting it.
JamesK writes: “What many find troublesome is not that Rush or Ann have problems with drugs and alcohol (among other things) while claiming to uphold Christian values, it’s the fact that they are apparently unwilling to extend the same leniency and grace to others that has been extended towards them.”
I don’t mind that. It’s a free country, and Rush and the rest of the nasty pack are free to say whatever they want, making money all the way. What baffles me is that Christians give these people a free pass, in some cases almost to the point of veneration.
A lot of these right-wing pundits are simply not very nice people. The whole point of their books and shows is to keep their followers in a continual state of outrage. In that they are very successful. But in my reading of Christian literature, it does not appear to me that anger and outrage are virtues; quite the opposite. You do see it occasionally, but not very often. And when you see it, it typically is related to someone oppressing or taking advantage of the poor.
JamesK: “I don’t know whether Ann’s schtick is real or a put-on (I’ve read it’s more the latter), but her mode of discourse creates a polarization among people to the point where resolutions to problems become more difficult, not less.”
Yeah, exactly. Once you proclaim that liberals are evil and stupid, where is the room for dialog? Where exactly do you go from there?
JamesK: “Of course, liberals do this too, but I don’t think it’s to the extent that they label conservatives with terms that would imply the necessity of a harsh reprisal.”
You can see that on the liberal side, but in recent years that’s been more of a response to the barrage of that stuff coming from the right-wing pundits.
The whole demonization of liberals I find particularly troubling. Recently, someone in this venue said that “liberals love government. Conservatives love God and then people.” When I read that, I didn’t know how to respond to it. And I realized that I didn’t know how to respond because the statement is silly. It is so lame, so disconnected from reality, so overly-general that it is impossible to respond to it.
I know all sorts of liberals. I know a liberal who cared for his mother-in-law in his own home while she was dying of cancer. I know a Catholic liberal who worked for years assisting people who came to the U.S. from the wars in Central America — people who were terrorized, sometimes tortured, whose families had been murdered by death squads. I know liberals who denounce waste in government and needless programs. I know a liberal who denounced “feminazis” long before Rush popularized the phrase. I know liberals who work to make government more efficient and more accountable. I know a liberal couple, “elitist” professors both, who started a privately-funded scholarship program for the education of African girls, after their wonderful daughter died in the service of the Peace Corps in Africa. I know liberals who speak well of certain conservatives, and vote for them, even when they don’t agree with them on everything.
To people such as Limbaugh and Coulter, and to some in this venue, all these people are evil, godless, reprehensible, without virtue.
When I hear people such as these intentionally attacked and slandered by unthinking and cruel comments, it makes my blood boil. And I am reminded of the passage in the gospels — “Many will say to me in that day saying, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
Note 9. James writes:
I’m not really interested in responding to your conversation with Jim and Juli (sorry guys, but there is not much substance there) but I’d like to comment on this Franken title.
The title always struck me as indicative of the paucity of Franken’s thinking. He actually capitalizes on Limbaugh’s success and influence here, riding Limbaugh’s coattails, in the guise of the humorous pundit he like to project. If he were as bright and independent that he wants us to think, the word “Limbaugh” would never have graced the cover of his book. The truth is that without “Limbaugh” in the title, no one would have noticed his splash.
Fr. Hans writes: “If he were as bright and independent that he wants us to think, the word “Limbaugh” would never have graced the cover of his book. The truth is that without “Limbaugh” in the title, no one would have noticed his splash.”
This is because most liberals criticize particular conservatives, not conservatives in general. Had that book been written in the style of the conservatives, the title would have been “Conservatives Are Big Fat Idiots.”
Think about it.
Fr. Hans: “I’m not really interested in responding to your conversation with Jim and Juli (sorry guys, but there is not much substance there) . . . ”
The only thing there is a discussion about the intentional slander, defamation, and demonization of people on the other side. The right-wing wants to bolt the Ten Commandments on public buildings, but I suggest they read them first, in particular #8: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Unless he’s a liberal, I guess. Then it doesn’t matter.
Note 12. Jim writes:
Maybe. My take on it though is that Franken’s ideas aren’t compelling. Liberals seem agree with me. His “Air America” garnered only mediocre ratings in New York City, certainly not a conservative bastion.
Christopher is suggesting I err in the direction of Donatism by dismissing people with good ideas just because they may not be Christians, but he won’t read what Jim writes because he (in Christopher’s judgment) is not a Christian?
Aside from some apparent confusion about what Donatism involved (we’re not talking about receiving sacraments from Jim Holman, let alone Coulter or Limbaugh), this seems like an inconsistent approach to fellowship with those outside the fold. Moreover, Jim writes about Christian faith and life in a way that suggests to me that he “gets” it and thinks deeply about questions from a Christian pov. In sharp contrast, for some people in pop culture, Christianity seems more like window dressing, or sloganeering.
That was Jim’s point, in part, and maybe insofar as the discussion concerned simply Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, both sort of self-styled, caricatured windbags, I’d agree with Fr Hans that the subject didn’t have much substance – because AC and RL do not deal in substance but in entertainment. The problem, however, is that many sincere Christians *do* lap this sort of stuff up – Jim isn’t making that part up – and seem to lack discernment.
That is of course not to say that we can’t read and listen to the opinions of non-Christians; we do it all the time. I just don’t look to them to defend the faith.
Quite apart from questions of political and social values, I was struck by this observation from Jim, which did seem to me to involve a question of substance:
This rang true to me, and not just wrt contemporary conservative Christians. I was raised in an evangelical church, and in the years when I was struggling with my own faith, it sometimes struck me that for some in the church, faith seemed to amount to a checklist of doctrines that they could assent to in the way that one assents to facts learned in geography class. Even at my most disaffected, I knew that Christian faith had to be more existentially grounded (to use another buzz phrase).
“Christopher is suggesting I err in the direction of Donatism by dismissing people with good ideas just because they may not be Christians, but he won’t read what Jim writes because he (in Christopher’s judgment) is not a Christian?”
I stand corrected! I don’t read Jim’s posts because (unless there has been a recent conversion) He is an admitted non-Christian, and when I did read them they were always thoughts/reasoning’s from a materialistic/ relativistic/ secularists viewpoint. Now, that does not mean they are not “valid”, but this site is http://www.Orthdoxytoday.org. I am only interested in comment from an Orthodox perspective, or at least a Traditional Christian perspective (e.g. an orthodox Roman Catholic or a devout southern baptist). I understand he is an acquaintance of the web master and has been posting here for years. Based on the replies and quotes from others, he is still an un-repentant modernist. This may be interesting to some – not to me.
Still, I understand why some would want to engage him. I have faith that it is not my vocation to engage Mr. Holman.
I do chose to engage Ann and Rush occasionally. You seemed confused as to why a Traditional Christian such as my self would want to, and exactly what was Christian or even conservative in their message. Thus my reply.
“This rang true to me, and not just wrt contemporary conservative Christians. I was raised in an evangelical church, and in the years when I was struggling with my own faith, it sometimes struck me that for some in the church, faith seemed to amount to a checklist of doctrines that they could assent to in the way that one assents to facts learned in geography class. Even at my most disaffected, I knew that Christian faith had to be more existentially grounded (to use another buzz phrase).”
Having come from the opposite end of the spectrum (I was raised a Unitarian – and traveled through “liberal” Christendom {Episcopalian for a bit} before finding Orthodoxy) I have little experience with this. Also, I have never met a Traditional (or otherwise) who “laps up…RL and AC”. In fact, everyone I have ever discussed them with takes them with the appropriate grain of salt and discernment, or has an uninformed and/or irrational hatred of them. Never met the true “ditto head” although no doubt they are out there somewhere. Not sure of their influence however. Is there some sort of imminent RL/AC inspired Christian “Zombie” movement? If so, please point me to the website where I can donate to cure…;)
Note 14. Juli wrote:
Actually, what I said was that the three-way conversation between you, Jim, and James, didn’t have much substance, not that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter don’t.
In fact, I think that Limbaugh and Colter have a lot of substance. I think they are clear thinkers, tap into a large unrest in the culture about the liberal moral and political currents, and articulate their ideas clearly and often responsibly. Are they entertainers? Yes, sometimes they are. Do they go over the top? Sometimes Coulter does but Limbaugh uses cooler language although I am sure he’s crossed the line here and there.
You paint listeners of Limbaugh and readers of Coulter as unthinking lap dogs. Trust me, they aren’t. A lot of responsible people agree with a good portion of Limbaugh’s and Coulter’s thinking. These people are not stupid.
Good grief. where did I imply all the faults in the world are the cause of the Episcopalians? I am merely saying that their feel good, no consequence world, and afterlife have really not left any room for God at all. If there are no rules, there are no imperatives. If there is no sin, there is no need for redemption. Without that need, what is the use of any God. Why the incarnation, we need no salvation. We can do anything, live in any manner, as long as we feel good. Oddly sounds like hedonism to me
JamesK rehashes the liberal talking point (in note # 9) that political/cultural discourse in this country is “polarized” and that this = bad. Of course, conservatives have the suspicion that what liberal really mean by this is that people should agree with them. I am of the opinion this state of affairs (i.e. the “cultural war”) is a good thing – and we need more of it.
In any case, I was reading Jonah Goldberg’s column today and noticed he speaks to the point in particular reference to the media:
Polarization utimately leads to political and social instability.
After World War II many European nations found themselves extremely polarized with conflict between the remnants of resistance groups, many of whom had aligned themselves with the Communists and rightist factions, many of whom had collaborated with the Nazis, threatening to flare-up into civil war. One of primary goals of the post-war U.S. Marshall Plan was to establish strong political parties of the Center as a anti-fascist, but non-communist alternatives. The importance of the Centists Christian Democrat and Social Democrat parties of Europe was their critical success in restoring a sense of national unity, consesus and cohesion.
It should therefore, be a source of concern and anxiety that there are right-wing Christian groups, known as Dominionists or Christian Reconstructionists, active in the United States today promoting policies of division and alienation. The media organs of the right-wing Christians actively depict Americans of more moderate beliefs using the most inflammatory language and inference to depict them as evil and as enemies of people of faith. For example the titles of Ann Coulter’s three latest books, and which she says describe the people who disagree with her extreme political views are Godless, Treason and Slander. Ms. Colter has argued repeatedly that people with political views different from hers should be hung from streetlamps “as examples” , shot with machine guns or otherwise executed. No serious person and certainly no Christian could ever support with this vile, hateful woman.
The main target of the right-wing Christian groups are those American instititions that foster a sense of community and national collective responsibility, such as the public schools and the social security program. Any institution that is designed to encourage a sense of neighborliness, community feeling and collective responsibility for the well being of our fellow citizens is attacked the Christian right with rabid fury.
Much of the Christian rights malevolent hatred for the rest of America is driven by their Millenialist philosophy in which they see themselves as the small elected few designated for salvation and everyone else despised by God and destined for eternal damnation. The new Christian End-of-Times video game “Left Behind: Eternal Forces” provides right-wing Christian children with the visceral thrill of gunning down political liberals on the streets of New York City.
“No serious person and certainly no Christian could ever support with this vile, hateful woman.”
LOL! I support her! I certainly support her reasonable efforts to end the holocaust for example (mostly by being resolute in calling a spade a spade – in this case a dead child a dead child). Your rhetoric is meaningless – I don’t think you have ever really read her column. Check out:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/contributors/anncoulter.html
“The new Christian End-of-Times video game “Left Behind: Eternal Forces” provides right-wing Christian children with the visceral thrill of gunning down political liberals on the streets of New York City.
Posted: June 23, 2006 | 3:50 pm ”
Well, this may be no worse for the state of their souls than reading the New York Times, or your posts Dean…;)
Back to the issue of polarization – I notice how Dean (and most typical liberals) have a problem with polarization in principle. Dean seems to think that it was not the ideas that these groups were espousing, but the simple fact that they were espousing different ideas (in his Europe example). It’s not communism, or fascism, or secularism, or Christianity IN PARTICULAR that is the problem, just the fact that there is more than one idea in the market place of ideas – and that people disagree. Christianly speaking, we don’t compromise our morals based on the fact that our neighbor disagrees with us. I wonder what it is that allows liberals to always seek a compromise – no matter how repugnant the compromise is? Do we compromise on things like the holocaust? I would argue liberals do – is this a symptom of liberalism or a simple lapse of morals?
No, Christopher, I have no problem with labeling bad ideas for what they are. I’ve held them myself, I’m sure. There is a distinct line, however, between labeling a concept as “foolish” and labeling the holder of that idea as a “traitor” or a “godless heathen”. Two people can hold opposing ideas and still remain civil and refrain from inaccurate statements (isn’t James Carville married to a staunch Republican?).
Incidentally, and as I’ve mentioned before, I oppose “political correctness” and “speech codes”. While I understand their intent (refraining from giving offense to the sensitivities of others), in the end they simply stifle discussion and understanding and actually increase polarization.
Note 19. The real reason that Coulter is being vilified is that in her latest book she articulates something that makes ideological liberals very uncomfortable: liberalism functions as a religion. It’s a profound point and Coulter’s direct writing style and take no prisoners approach gets the idea into circulation and that makes the liberal establishment very uncomfortable.
No amount of dire warnings about wack-jobs on the right changes this fact. If you could put the emotion aside for a moment, you might recognize that a cultural shift is occuring. You don’t need to agree with her ideas to see this.
Christopher’s comment (Note 21) is very good. The left opposes polarization in principle. In practice this translates to everyone must think as they do. The problem is that killing the unborn, defining marriage out of existence, killing the infirm, removing all vestiges of religion from the public square, and more elements of the liberal moral vision are not things a lot of people can or will accept.
Note 2. James, upstream I said I would get back to you on your observation about hell. Read this essay. It is long, too polemical in places, but the part on hell about halfway down is very good. Print it out. The River of Fire
Fr. Hans writes: “The real reason that Coulter is being vilified is that in her latest book she articulates something that makes ideological liberals very uncomfortable: liberalism functions as a religion.”
Well that’s an old saw that has been around for years. What I have seen is her public comments about the 9/11 widows, and the monumentally cruel comments directed towards them. But perhaps that’s what we would expect from an actual non-Christian.
Fr. Hans: “The left opposes polarization in principle. In practice this translates to everyone must think as they do.”
Not at all. A democracy depends on conversation. If the dialog starts with “liberals are stupid and evil,” where do we go from there? How is dialog possible?
If you want a society polarized along moral and religious lines, you risk the disintegration of the democracy. You risk turning the country into religious/moral factions. In other words, if you like the idea of having a civil war 20 or 30 years from now, polarization is the way to go. It’s not the differences of opinion, but how we deal with these differences that matters.
Fr. Hans: “The problem is that killing the unborn, defining marriage out of existence, killing the infirm, removing all vestiges of religion from the public square, and more elements of the liberal moral vision are not things a lot of people can or will accept.”
Well, this is basically about abortion. Even liberal Oregon voted against gay marriage. As far as “public square” religion there is plenty of that going on. And I defy you to produce anything in the New Testament that in any way supports “public square” religion. Go ahead. I’m listening. “Killing the infirm” is either Terri Schiavo or Oregon physician-assisted suicide. A clear majority of people in the U.S. were in favor of the Schiavo decision, which is why the Republicans backed off so quickly. Under Oregon’s PAS, every year a few terminally-ill patients, mostly older people with cancer, take advantage of that law.
So what we’re talking about is abortion. (And it’s always abortion, isn’t it.) And I claim that abortion is mostly a metaphysical, not moral issue. In other words, nobody reasonable advocates aborting nine month old fetuses. This is all about the status of the fetus at earlier stages of development.
Most people I know, liberal or conservative, don’t like abortion. But they don’t consider a fertilized egg to be a person. In other words, most people are able to discern the difference between an acorn and an oak tree. Most people understand that, while a fertilized egg MIGHT eventually become a person (around 50 percent don’t), it is not a person at that point. I say most people, because not all people agree with that.
So it’s not about the “killing” of the unborn, but about the point at which the fetus becomes a person, which ultimately is a metaphysical, not moral question.
In the Orthodox tradition, the fetus is always a person, even when a single cell. And good for you! The problem is that most people don’t agree with that. And I don’t think that they are cousins of Hitler merely in virtue of that belief.
But tell you what. Go ahead and continue to demonize your opponents, and see what happens 30 years from now. After a couple million people have been killed in the civil war your polarization accomplished, see how you feel about polarization then. Maybe not so nice, huh?
Note 24: I’m glad Mr. (Fr?) Kalomiros stated this:
“Atheism is the denial, the negation of an evil God. Men became atheists in order to be saved from God, hiding their head and closing their eyes like an ostrich. Atheism, my brothers, is the negation of the Roman Catholic and Protestant God. Atheism is not our real enemy. The real enemy is that falsified and distorted ‘Christianity’.”
Atheism (when it’s not simply indifference or being used as a foundation for political ideologies) is often an expression of an actual moral rejection of barbaric and twisted doctrines. I’ve read of many self-professed “ex Christians” who’ve walked away from their faith due to either being unable to accept the misrepresentations they’ve been taught as children or even because of the unfortunate things done to them by other Christians or those who profess to speak for God.
The article rings true. There can be a “painful” element when one takes those initial steps in struggling to be good and in overcoming one’s tendencies towards embracing evil in the face of the shortcomings of ourselves and others. I believe they call this “mortification”, and for good reason: those efforts can feel like a death of sorts!
Yes, not much new there. Political ideologies and so-called secular world views can and do function as religions; this is fairly obvious and not limited to the left. On both left and right, sometimes people give lip service to Christianity while their real allegiance is to an ideology that could literally be called godless – which becomes a sort of idolatry. I believe that was what Jim was talking about. C. S. Lewis called this “Christianity and ___”
It’s an “old saw” to people who understand it, and frankly many liberals don’t. But, as the knowledge moves into the culture it makes them very uncomfortable as the old progressivist ideals start to crack and crumble. (They were assumed to be self-evidently true.)
BTW, C.S. Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man” is more relevant to this discussion.
Note 25. Jim writes:
Jim, you make this too easy. Abortion is a metaphysical issue? Of course it is! It’s precisely this misconception that metaphysics can be divorced from morality that contributes to the cultural divide. Morals and metaphysics cannot be separated. A person* cannot live with the internal division such separation would force. He must either change his morals or his metaphysics to bring himself into some kind of interior stasis. (*Psychopaths excepted of course.)
But this is exactly what Coulter is saying! In abandoning the moral precepts of the received tradition, the metaphysics have to change. So, we get moralisms like you provided above such as “the acorn is not an oak” and other pithy bromides (always reductionist, btw) intended to soften the sting of turning the womb into a tomb. Brought forward, we even see a political party, captive to the relative morality of the hard left, agitating against any restrictions on the dismemberment of healthy nine month old pre-born children! These actions (not ideas, but actions) don’t arise in a vacuum. These moral decisions have, at their base, metaphysical ideas.
There is a touch of irony here. All the words spent on attacking Coulter’s character yet you end up making her point. Or, maybe Coulter is sharper than you are, and can see things in your position that you cannot.
And why is it “always abortion”? Because abortion is the flashpoint of the conflict between moral (or more correctly, metaphysical) visions. If this were the 1930’s, we’d be having the same discussion over eugenics.
Demonize my opponents? I don’t recall writing any personal attacks against my opponents. What you wrote about Coulter though… That’s why I said the three way conversation wasn’t substantive. Truth be told, I thought it was offensive, both to Coulter and the readers of this blog.
Father: Your defense of social polarization and Anne Coulter’s inflammatory , insulting rhetoric made me so upset last night I hheded to praye for God’s help to find the correct words to respond. So here goes: let the words of my keyboard and the meditations of my heart be pleasing in His eyes.
When it comes to politics and morality Cardinal Bernadin’s moral doctrine of a consistent ethic of life is a good place to seek guidance. It is important to note some of the main reasons Cardinal Bernadin developed this moral and ethical framework.
First he developed it because he recognized that the moral of objectives of both conservatives and liberals were both deficient. The consistent ethic of life identified moral defieciencies with “both the Republican Party over capital punishment, war, and economic issues, as well as the Democratic Party over abortion, embryo-destructive research, and euthanasia.” So our first takeaway is that neither conservatives nor liberals are “without sin”, and therefore neither can claim a monoploy on morality, and therefore should exercise humility before casting stones.
Second, Cardinal Bernadin developed the Consistent Ethic of Life as part of his Cathoilic Common Ground project, because he saw polarization as a negative and debilitating influence on the church. ” It originated in a concern that unnecessarily polarizing differences among church leaders and members hinder efforts to build the church community and to carry out its mission.” So if we accept the premise that reconciliation and dialogue our important for the Church to carry out its mission, we would also acknowlege the polarization, demonization and inflammatory, insulting remarks directed at people we disagree with (Coulter) are unhelpful towards that end.
Polarization is counter-productive because it discourages communication and understanding and heightens rather than diminishes differences between factions with opposing views.
Linguistic expert George Lakoff has done some inriguing research into the different ways conservatives and liberals use language, often attaching different meanings and associations in the the same words. The word Family, for example has different a meaning for Republicans and Democrats.
So the process of dialogue and reconciliation between liberals and conservativesis already handicapped with a communication hrdle before it begins. For this reason we need to be extra patient when listening to people with opposing views to make sure we understand them correctly. We shouldn’t rely solely on assumptions and presumptions and pretend like we don’t have to hear the other die out.
God bless you. Have a nice day.
James writes:
Yes, it can be, but the other side is that a rejection of truth occurs even apart from the misconceptions. Look at Judas for example. Also, despite some of the errors of the west, there are still some very bright lights: Flannery O’Conner, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, etc.
I’m not saying these things to negate your observation, but to point out that Kalomiros’ polemical tone can make the case seem open and shut in our soft culture that values sensitivity over substance. He cuts a wide path and while much of it is certainly true, I tend to localize it more, ie: the determinism of John Calvin, for example.
Also, people are not the passive actors that many today seem to think. Each person has to search out the truth to the measure he is able. It’s an obligation each one of us carries within us, although clearly many don’t follow through with it, and others even claim there is no such thing as truth. Awareness of the obligation (along with the inability to live with a parched soul) might be why people like O’Conner, Chesterton, and Lewis for example, weren’t held captive by the misconception.
Still, having said all that, the Orthodox notion that the love of God and the fire of hell are one of the same, posits a radical freedom that reaches into the heavens. This definitely is hidden from many in the culture.
Note 30. Dean, I don’t recall defending “social polarization.” I do recall saying that if agreeing with Coulter is socially polarizing, then the only way not to polarize is to agree with her detractors — social liberals in this case.
But I still think the reason Coulter raises ire is because her ideas hit close to home. And many times her ideas are right.
I think though that you aren’t following a distinction I make with some regularity. In my writing, conservative is not synomous with Republican, or liberal with Democrat. I know that in your thinking this distinction collapses because you do really think like a Progressive. No insult intended here Dean, but in your writing you see politics as the main engine driving culture. I don’t. I see ideas driving culture, and while watching politics is interesting, even illustrative at times, to me politics is a lagging, not leading, indicator of the cultural temper.
For this reason Cardinal Bernadin’s plan isn’t compelling to me. These weighty moral issues transcend politics (which is not to say they don’t have a political dimension), so his political approach and the analysis that results (ie: both parties are wrong in places, etc.) are, well, deficient. Put another way, it’s a Progressivist approach to bridging the moral divide. This is one reason I think, why the idea has not caught on, even though many people can agree with the morality of the positions.
Further, the presumption in Bernadin’s approach is that everyone is acting on good motives. I don’t believe that. I think the abortion lobby for example, really doesn’t care about the mother, and they certainly don’t care for the child. Yes, I know that they say they do, and there might even be a few true believers among them, but basically its driven by a rebellion against things noble and good (and profits). The moral weight of such a view cannot be counter-balanced by such positions as pro-capital punishment for example.
On the other hand, the way to reach Bernadin’s (laudable) goals is just start working towards them. The Democrats have a seed of hope here in the attempt by a courageous handful to get the party back to its historical pro-life position.
Ultimately, all this hinges on how we see religion, both as cultural force and in terms of its place in the individual’s life.
Back to “social polarization.” I’d lighten up on this a bit. Remember Christ and the Pharisees? Makes Coulter (and Franken) look tame.
Fr. Hans writes: “All the words spent on attacking Coulter’s character yet you end up making her point. Or, maybe Coulter is sharper than you are, and can see things in your position that you cannot.”
Let me be clear. I don’t have a problem with most of Couter’s message, though obviously I don’t agree with her. She has a point of view — hopefully sincere and not just designed to sell books — and assuming that she is sincere I respect her view. My problem is in the manner of her delivery. For example, her attack on the 9/11 widows is unconscionable. It is inexcusable. It’s just rude, and shows no sense of decorum. There are limits; she has gone beyond those limits. What that show me is that whatever her religious beliefs are — and frankly, it is difficult to discern what they are — those beliefs have not penetrated very deeply.
The recent article you recommend shows that:
I don’t find her position as originating in faith. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t see it. (Interestingly, you say that the article you mentioned is “polemical,” but I didn’t really feel that. The usual way that the protestant doctrine of hell is articulated is probably the single greatest cause of people turning away from Christianity. It is monumentally destructive, and something that no thinking person should or could accept.)
Fr. Hans: “Jim, you make this too easy. Abortion is a metaphysical issue? Of course it is! It’s precisely this misconception that metaphysics can be divorced from morality that contributes to the cultural divide. Morals and metaphysics cannot be separated.”
I don’t believe that most people separate metaphysics from morals. But put yourself in the shoes of a “regular” person. The idea that a fertilized egg is a “person” is difficult for most to believe. I mean, I know a number of people who are highly concerned about ethical issues, but when it comes to abortion in the early stages they just don’t see the issue. Nature certainly treats fertilized eggs as supplies and not as assets, to put it in business terms, since around half of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted. In other words, there is an important metaphysical difference between what something may eventually become, and what it is now.
Fr. Hans: “Demonize my opponents? I don’t recall writing any personal attacks against my opponents.”
When people use terms such as “culture of death,” and “abortion holocaust,” the obvious implication is that people thus characterized are virtually Nazis. Perhaps that’s not what you intend, but that’s how most people would interpret it.
Fr. Hans: “If this were the 1930’s, we’d be having the same discussion over eugenics.”
Let me tell you that the person who recommended The War Against the Weak to me is a friend who is a liberal in every sense of the word. This is why I object so much to the way the term “liberal” is used. In fact, I would guess that the author of the book is himself a liberal. If you and Coulter want to denounce liberals in general, great, but you’re going to alienate a lot of people who would be allies of you in many issues — ethical, thoughtful, articulate people who might not agree with you on abortion but who agree with you on many other issues. In other words, there are people who would be with you on many issues, but not the whole package. To what extent do you want to drive them away?
Note 33. Before I answer, what article did I recommend that included that quote? It doesn’t sound like something I would endorse, unless it’s part of a larger piece.
It’s part of “The River of Fire,” which you recommended just last night.
I think the quotation in question may be from Fotis Kontoglou.
“Polarization is counter-productive because it discourages communication and understanding and heightens rather than diminishes differences between factions with opposing views.”
Strange, it again seems like we are talking about a symptom while ignoring the disease. Seems like Dean is complaining about something so broad here -sort of like complaining about our fallen condition. Or, he could be talking about something abstract – like there are times when groups with differing ideas/plans/methods/way of life choose to communicate, and times when the don’t (this = bad).
I think the problem in our culture is the opposite, in that we are not “polarized” enough. We don’t have enough Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaugh’s expressing the real and irreconcilable differences between liberalism and conservatism, or between traditional western culture and Godless liberalism (to use Ann’s phrase).
Ann may be “insulting” to some – but why not myself? Well, I’m not a godless liberal. That liberals find the simple and irrefutable truth of their godless (and anti-Christian) philosophy “insulting” would be strange except we live in a time where liberalism has been the dominate philosophy for so long.
I suspect those liberals who are not trying to hold together incompatible philosophies (e.g. Christianity and a godless polity like typical American liberalism) are not so easily “insulted”. It is the “religious left” who seem reactionary when talking about Ann and Rush…
Christopher writes: “I think the problem in our culture is the opposite, in that we are not “polarized” enough. We don’t have enough Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaugh’s expressing the real and irreconcilable differences between liberalism and conservatism, or between traditional western culture and Godless liberalism (to use Ann’s phrase).”
Well, I’m glad to see you’re doing your part to increase polarization! Of course, you’re so polarized that you don’t read anything I write so you’ll never read this. Congratulations. Anyway, out of courtesy, I’ll address this so you as if you would read it.
Does it occur to you that the very people you wish to polarize all live next to each other? Perhaps you should ask yourself, once all these people are polarized, what next? What’s step 2 in the plan? When everyone gets good and polarized, what happens to “blessed are the peacemakers?”
Also, did it every occur to you that Ann Coulter is an example of the godless condition that she denounces? Or is it a matter of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Christopher: “Ann may be “insulting” to some – but why not myself? Well, I’m not a godless liberal.”
To be completely honest, I think it’s probably because you’re not a Christian either. And I don’t mean that as an insult or personal attack in any way. Obviously, it is impossible to have complete knowledge of a person through an internet list. But in just what what you’ve written I have a hard time discerning anything of the Spirit there. You obviously have all the “right” beliefs. You obviously dislike all the people you are supposed to dislike. You’re angry and sarcastic toward all the things you are supposed to be angry and sarcastic about. You’re quite good at it really.
But I have to tell you that the Spirit isn’t there. As an outside observer I’ve read a number of Orthodox books. Many times I’ve had the feeling “almost thou persuadest me . . . ” I’ve had that same feeling with some of what I’ve read here, in particular Michael’s posts. But when I read your stuff, most of the time I don’t see God there. At least not the God that the Orthodox authors I’ve read have written about. Some other god maybe.
Don’t know if you folks have read Seraphim Rose’s book Nihlism, but I highly recommend it. IMO, he would come down on both the self-styled conservatives and the liberals as partaking of the same font that leads away from God because they both see the cure for cultural ills as political and therefor man-made. Isn’t it really arguing over which species of disease caring flea will kill your faster?
All political approaches seek to divide in order to gain and maintain power.
Note 35. Ok. Thanks Juli. I didn’t remember reading it.
Note 38 – Michael,
I am not sure who exactly you are referring to when you say “self-styled conservatives” but true conservatives would not fall under Fr. Rose’ warning. In fact, if you read the introduction to “the Conservative Mind” you will find that one of his six principles explicitly warns against the hubris of man made “progress” and utopian thinking that leads away from the “enduring moral order” (i.e. God). It is the marxists, progressives, liberals/socialists, and all the other forms of modern political thought that leave God out of the political (and personal) equation. Only conservatism even seems aware, let alone takes it into account, the flea to which you refer…
…
Christopher: I am very insulted by your suggestion that one cannot be a Christian unless one embraces all the political views held by Anne Coulter. Anne Coulter does not speak for Christianity; Anne Coulter barely evens goes to Church. She is a political agent-provacatuer who exploits Christianity by selectively citing certain teachings of Christianity that appear to support her extreme and hateful ideology. Much of Ms. Coulter’s violent, misanthropic and malevolent comments are in fact at polar opposites with the teachings of the Christian faith.
One indication of Ms. Coulter’s immature and mentally unstable character is her use of sweeping generalizations and need to use the most insulting language possible when discussing peple with views different from her own. I tried to find a liberal commentator, Al Franken or Michael Moore who said things about as inflammatory about conservatives as Ms. Coulter’s comments about non-conservatives, but was unsucessful in finding anything that can even match the pure insane malevolence of these :
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter
“Christopher: I am very insulted by your suggestion that one cannot be a Christian unless one embraces all the political views held by Anne Coulter.”
Woe, easy there big boy. I never said that. I said (upstream) that she TENDS to be conservative. I am not sure of her libertarian leanings but most popular pundits these days do have at least a streak of libertarianism. Still, she does get the big questions right, like abortion, “gay marriage”, Terry, etc. Thus, her political viewpoints do seem to draw on the well of traditional western culture which today is supported only by conservatives. Still, the level of your passion about her does seem strange given you allegedly agree with her on these critical issues (by virtue of the fact you are an Orthodox Christian).
“he is a political agent-provacatuer who exploits Christianity by selectively citing certain teachings of Christianity that appear to support her extreme and hateful ideology. Much of Ms. Coulter’s violent, misanthropic and malevolent comments are in fact at polar opposites with the teachings of the Christian faith”
Well, she may exaggerate for affect but then so does the Golden Tongue (St. John Chrysostom). Not that I put her in the same league. She may not be a Christian, I don’t know. Simple fact is, she supports a Christian polity (or something a Christian can agree with at least) on the big questions/concerns of our time. Perhaps you are so insulted because, in fact, you don’t support a polity that a Christian could agree with on abortion at least (no doubt other things as well). As to her alleged “hateful” ideology, not sure what you are talking about here. To call killing a child “killing a child”, and to call a person a “Godless liberal” who is in fact a real life “Godless liberal” is to simply call a spade a spade. I think we need more of that, not less in our culture. Why would you be insulted by that?
As to your quotes, they are quite funny! The essence of comedy is to mix truth with exaggeration – anyone can recognize that here. Truth is, liberals do hate anything I recognize worth preserving in America (traditional morality, private property, etc.). Fact is if women did not vote a more conservative governance would have resulted (not that I really support abolition a women’s right to vote). Rush is always saying things like “Talent on loan from God” and “I know liberals like every inch of my glorious and naked body”. It’s comedy – entertainment. Of course they have a serious side/message to, but we need to laugh a little otherwise the pure darkness and evil of the liberal plan for our lives would be quite depressing.
Hey, I occasionally watch SNL and I laugh at the obviously liberal comedy about Bush, Traditional Christians, etc. Your not a humorless wretch are you Dean? I say again, your not a humorless wretch are you Dean? I think the real source of your passion is what Fr. Jacobse alluded to: She reminds you of your own hypocrisy when it comes to things like abortion, etc.
Note 42. Dean writes:
Try to understand the differences in styles this way Dean: Coulter uses the language of exaggeration and satire. The hard left uses the language of benevolence (“fairness,” “diversity,” “compassion,” ‘concern,” “rights,” “death with dignity,” — you know the drill). What liberals find so disconcerting about Coulter is that her exaggeration and satire exposes the malevolence behind the benevolence.
Some of Anne Coulter’s stuff is pretty good. She was one of the brave few conservative pundits that stood up on both the Dubai Ports and Harriet Miers fiascoes. She has been up front with criticism of the president when he deserved it, which is frequently. So, to her independence and consistency of thought on many issues, I pay tribute.
Is she a Christian? I have no idea. I tend to think that she is a political Christian. Meaning simply that she supports traditional Christian morality in the Old Testament sense, but probably (my impression) from an instrumentalist view. A lot of people, left and right, have the same tendency. Since they want people to be good citizens and good neighbors, they want people to follow the Christian faith because being a Christian requires both attributes.
However, that is putting the cart before the horse. No one submits to the discipline of the Cross because he wants to be a good citizen. One submits to the discipline of the Cross because one believes in the Day of Judgement (among other things such as loving God and seeking union with Him). Instrumentalists seek to use the faith for a social end, but a stripped-down ‘public faith’ quickly decays into oblivion.
Does Coulter really believe or is she merely of that type that seeks to build good citizens rather than saving souls? Again, I can’t say but I really tend to think that she is functionally agnostic. (She believes in something, thinks its necessary to good order, but doesn’t really expect to be judged by it.)
This is a typical conservative failing – all 10 Commandments and no Beatitudes.
The typical liberal failing is all Beatitudes and no 10 Commandments.
Obviously, as an Orthodox Christian, I insist on both.
Coulter does set my teeth on edge frequently. She says things I wouldn’t say, though it is likely that sometimes what she says needs to be said.
One thing I would say about some of her extreme stuff, however, is simply this. The anti-American, anti-war liberal exists. That is for sure, but I don’t think it is a typical animal. In fact, the typical liberal Democrat has more likely been pro-military and prone to military interventions than his Republican counterpart. That has, of course, now changed, and it has changed in a way that Coulter actually not only accepts, but in fact trumpets. Here’s an example of actual conservatism from the National Review site in which the author is critiquing Jonah Goldberg’s proposal for a “League of Democracies” to carry out nation building around the world:
Foreign policy wise, Coulter is firmly in the traditionally liberal camp. And if the ‘conservatives’ of her stripe accept the foreign policy imperative of nation building, then dear Christopher and Father Hans, they most certainly have faith in government that matches that of their liberal counterparts. While they may pay lip service to God, their belief in the power of the Pentagon to build nations and in the power of Democracy to ‘end history’ is the same substitute religion of the religious leftist, only with a veneer of traditional (orthodox) Christianity. William Jennings Bryan would be right at home among Republicans at this point.
They are every bit as millenialist and Utopian as that old blowhard socialist was.
In fact, what we are really down to are differences over abortion and homosexual rights. Forget gender equity issues, the conservatives already gave up on those. Forget affirmative action, the conservatives gave up there also. Immigration? The White House is leading the retreat.
Limited government? Coulter and the others can’t be for limited government, not while believing the federal government can build foreign nations.
Sorry, two issues: sexual morality and preservation of life (domestically) are about it. Sure, the patriotism argument rears its head, but liberals aren’t barred from playing that game, no matter how much Republicans have been blasting them lately.
As Carl Oglesby, President of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), said at an anti-Vietnam War rally in Washington in 1965:
Mainstream liberals (John McCain, Lieberman, etc.) are just as pro-military, hawkish, and military interventionist as Anne Coulter ever dreamed of, and the hard left knows it.
There are differences that are real, but on such a narrow range of issues that most of this is just hype.
Fr. Hans writes: “The hard left uses the language of . . . ”
What you call the “hard left” is largely a fiction created by the right. While there are people on the “hard left,” much of what you call the left are really moderates.
Take the Terri Schiavo case. Polls revealed that most Americans were not with the right on this issue. A Fox news poll revealed that
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101826,00.html
Surely 61 percent of the country are not in the “hard left” category.
It’s interesting that the right-wing rarely talks about the “center.” This is because the center is not with them on many issues. Thus, they have to create the fiction that this is all a left vs. right issue.
The conscious strategy of the right is to portray all their opponents as “leftists.” But it’s a lie. I reapeat, it’s a lie, an intentional lie, in order to try to gain political advantage through painting their opponents as extremists. People concerned with the truth should be concerned about that. Are there extremists on the left? Surely there are. Are most in the center or on the left extremists? Surely not.
Fr. Hans: “What liberals find so disconcerting about Coulter is that her exaggeration and satire exposes the malevolence behind the benevolence.”
Not at all. Many people criticize the left. Some of the criticism is justified. What people — not just “leftists” — object to about Coulter is that she is an extreme right-wing mouthpiece for whom decorum and civil discourse are options and not requirements.
And this is how she is marketed. Just this morning I saw a TV ad promoting her appearance on, not surprisingly, a right-wing “news” show. The ad was basically that we should watch the program in order to hear what outrageous things come out of her mouth.
So Coulter is sort of the “professional wrestling” version of the political pundit. If you like Coulter, then I suggest watching some “evil” wrestler get bashed over the head with a folding chair. Same thing, different venue. Coulter’s evil wrestler is the liberal. What I think is funny is that Christians admire Coulter, and then bemoan the “decline” of western civilization. No kidding.
Note 45. By “hard left” I mean the idea generators, the people who develop and introduce hard left ideas into the culture and not the rank and file as such. Take Terry Schiavo for example. No one can imagine being in a situation like hers and generally respond to polls from that viewpoint. However, if they read George Felos’ book, or knew of Peter Singer, or were aware of the writings of euthanasia ideologues (why do I always get the creeps when I think of them? — probably because of the real evil there) for example, their opinion would change. We’ve already seen this with abortion. When liberals dominated the debate, the majority of people were against restrictions of any kind. When the truth started to emerge however, opinion shifted. The same thing happened with civil rights.
Who on the left criticizes the left? I can point to a lot of conservatives criticizing Bush and the Republicans, but who criticizes the left except the right? I haven’t seen any worthwhile self-reflection on the left since the New Republic came out with an article over a year ago, maybe longer, as I recall.
As for Coulter, she is not seeker-sensitive, you are right about that. She offends liberals. You are right about that too. But Coulter as an “extreme right wing mouthpiece for whom decorum and civil discourse are options and not requirements”? Well, that’s a mouthful. Remember, some of the loudest criticism comes from those who applauded giving Michael Moore a honored seat at the Democratic Convention. Not the brightest move in the world, but one that reveals the character of a good measure of criticism coming at her.
Note 45 – Glen,
Just wanted to note that Ann has been quite critical on the Bush/Kennedy amnesty plan, as well as the Bush take on affirmative racism. This makes me think she draws more from the well of conservatism than the Republican leadership…
Note 48: You won’t get any argument from me that Coulter is more conservative on the issue of immigration than the Republican leadership. In fact, I prefer her to the Republican leadership, at least she’s intellectually honest most of the time.
But, as I said, I still think that her commitment to foreign nation-building (if it’s real) tends to suck her and others like her to the left side of the spectrum, even domestically. It is hard to balance the idea that the proper role and competency of the U.S. government is opening schools, building hospitals, and running the economy of a foreign country but then argue that the same government is incapable of doing the same things domestically.
As Hayek pointed out, one favorite slogan of the socialists post-WWI and post-WWII was, “If planning can win a war, then it can win the peace!!!” or “If it was good enough in war, then it’s good enough in peace!”
In those passages, Hayek explicitly explored the twins of war and state centralization. The war state is a centralizing state, and since Coulter is extremely pro-Iraq nation building (in the tradition of so, so, so many liberals) the net effect is a serious left-ward drift of economic issues and issues of government power. She just isn’t credible on domestic spending or government over reach, while still being on the side of foreign nation building.
At the same time, a commitment to foreign nation building, or even building this nation through government fiat, bespeaks of a kind of ‘Government faith’ that is exactly what we criticize in terms of the hard left. ‘The government can build bridges, schools, protect us from terrorists, blah, blah, blah.’ Some of which the government can actually do, but much of which it can’t.
As for social issues, I don’t have any disagreements with Anne Coulter on anything that she’s ever written, but I don’t think I’d express myself the way she does.
There is a moderate left in this country. I’d refer to the average rank-and-file trade unionists as falling into this category. They tend to favor more government intervention, more populist economics, but also tend to be more conservative on social issues. They like a heaping dose of government control over the economy, but aren’t happy with abortion rights or the social agenda of Nancy Pelosi.
Their home was the Center-left Democratic Party of Truman and Kennedy. There are Democrats of that stripe still in existance, but most of them have been crowded out by the Michael Moore crowd and have resurrected themselves as moderate Republicans. The Democratic Party could win them back, but the bizarre social agenda has to go away first.
Of course as Thomas Franks points out in his book “What the Matter with Kansas”, all this cultural/religious polarization is just a convenient smokescreen to divert attention from the growing economic polarization in America. Conservative Christians have played a valuable, if unwitting, role running interference for an economic elite waging class warfare on the rest of America.
Conservative Christian have used cultural issues to smear and discredit those poltical forces who would come to the aid of the beleagured American middle class. They have diverted attention at critical times from the the blatantly un-Christian and immoral behavior of Republicans who last week, for example killed a proposal to raise the minimum wage, which would help the poorest of workers, while passing a bill to repeal the estate tax, which would further enrich the the very wealthiest of Americans. One can well imagine these Republicans in the afterlife with the rich man dressed in purple, beseeching Father Abraham to “have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.” Luke 16:24
Two economic trends are clear. 1) Wages for middle-class Americans have stagnated and barely kept pace with inflation, despite large increases in the productivity of American labor, and 2) The gap between rich and poor continues to widen as an increasing proportion of national income flows towards
the wealthiest Americans. Economic theory holds that gains in productivity allow increases in profit to be passed on to workers in the form of higher wages without causing inflation. Since 2000, however the overwhelmingg majority of income generated by increases in productivity have gone to owners and shareholdres instead.
The cover story of last week’s Economist magazine was entitled “‘Inequality and the American Dream’ The Economist analysis finds that under Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush, working Americans fared poorly, but did somewhat under President Clinton:
We are losing our democracy in America and it is quickly being replaced by a kleptocratic oligarchy whose chief goals are cutting the taxes of the very rich and diverting government spending away from the poor and towards subsidies and lucrative, poorly supervised contracts for private, politically connected corporations. Conservative Christians have been their willing enablers and henchmen.