FrontPage Magazine | Dennis Prager | Nov. 13, 2007
The current issue of Rolling Stone magazine, its special 40th anniversary issue, reveals almost all one needs to know about the current state of the cultural left. The issue features interviews with people Rolling Stone considers to be America’s leading cultural and political figures — such as Al Gore, Jon Stewart, Bruce Springsteen, Cornel West, Paul Krugman, Kanye West, Bill Maher, and George Clooney, among many others.
It brings me no pleasure to say that, with few exceptions, the interviews reveal a superficiality and contempt for cultural norms (as evidenced by the ubiquity of curse words) that should scare anyone who believes that these people have influence on American life.
First, the constant use of expletives.
As I wrote in my June 5, 2007, column, “‘Buck Fush’ and the Left,” “Higher civilization has always regarded the use of expletives in public (outside of, let us say, theatrical performances) as a form of assault on civilization . . . .”
That is why the amount of public cursing on the left and the way curse words are accepted as part of public and formal discourse may be as significant to understanding the left as anything the left says. It is the left’s way of showing rejection of the values of the middle class and of America’s Judeo-Christian civilization.
Typical examples:
. . . more
“That is why the amount of public cursing on the left and the way curse words are accepted as part of public and formal discourse may be as significant to understanding the left as anything the left says.”
So does this make Dick “Go F* Yourself” Cheney technically a member of the “left”?
James, Why don’t you bother to actually read the entire article rather than post a comment that shows you did not. Prager actually addressed this comparison inside the editorial:
You fit the group Dennis mentioned and you predictably provided us with the exact knee-jerk response he predicted. Too funny!
JamesK writes: “So does this make Dick . . . ” & etc.
Permit me to give you a little advice about this anti-left stuff. The right loves this stuff, and there is a huge market for it. It’s not designed to be fair or accurate in its characterization of a whole group of people. It’s a product designed to keep the faithful on the right in a continual state of outrage and umbrage, and it works. Because it’s a product, you can’t argue against it. Products aren’t “true” or “false” they simply are. Arguing against it is like saying “your cigarette is false!”
If you try to argue against this stuff, you’re just rising to the bait. With the blog under new management I’m personally going to ignore the stuff that isn’t worth responding to and limit my posts here to more substantive issues. Your mileage may vary.
Jim, With all your talk of fairness and balance you still fail to condemn the disgraceful and immature acts and conduct of the people the article talked about. This is where you lose your credibility and show your inherent desire to coddle the people you ideologically agree with. The editorial by Dennis was not “bait” but a solid commentary on the lack of decency and maturity of the individuals who are held up as cultural icons by prominent Democrats and many on the left. Once again, when given the opportunity, you do not criticize them, even on simple issues as decency, intelligence, and reasonableness of public discourse.
Jim the anti-Christian blathering you engage in is also a “product” that is why you are constitutionally unable to get beyond the same 1 or 2 posts expressing your umbrage and inabilty to understand basic Christian tenets and how they might apply to dealing with other human beings.
Chris B. writes: “Jim, With all your talk of fairness and balance you still fail to condemn the disgraceful and immature acts and conduct of the people the article talked about.”
The article already did that, didn’t it?
Chris B.: This is where you lose your credibility and show your inherent desire to coddle the people you ideologically agree with.”
I don’t know if I ideologically agree with them or not. I don’t know who Kanye West is, but I’ve heard his name. I don’t like Cornell West. I’ve watched George Clooney on TV and in the movies, and I think he is a pretty good actor; beyond that I know nothing of him. Is Tom Hanks part of the cultural left? I have no idea what his views are. I thought he was a member of the Orthodox church. Chris Rock and Bill Maher are in the “tradition” of raunchy comedians, and their TV shows have expletives all the time; so that’s no news. I speak for myself; none of these people speak for me.
I don’t subscribe to Rolling Stone. I have never read it. I didn’t read the article in question. I have no idea if Tom Hanks uttered two expletives in one paragraph or in one hundred pages.
More to the point, why is it my job to condemn the language used by people who I may or may not agree with on various issues? This may come as a surprise to many here, but I read a lot and judge for myself. I really don’t care what some entertainer says about this or that issue.
Chris B.: “The editorial by Dennis was not “bait” but a solid commentary on the lack of decency and maturity of the individuals who are held up as cultural icons by prominent Democrats and many on the left.”
The article says almost nothing about what these people said. It is not in any sense a review of the article. Prager reads the article and manages to find nothing positive in any of the interviews. It’s a hit piece. And you know, if you want to post that here, that’s fine with me. Most people here like that stuff. This blog has a perspective and you have every right to choose the articles that will be discussed.
But it is one-sided. If you want to look at what right-wing entertainers have to say, consider the frequent profanity-laced and racist statements of the right-wing rocker Ted Nugent. Out of respect for the sensibilities of people here, I refrain from citing any specific quotations. As far as the general topic of civility, much could be said about Ann Coulter and other right-wing pundits. We will never read about that here.
Chris B.: “Once again, when given the opportunity, you do not criticize them, even on simple issues as decency, intelligence, and reasonableness of public discourse.”
When the management of the blog changed, it made me reflect on why I post here. Upon reflection, I realized that I need to be more focused. I’m interested in understanding how Orthodox Christians think, and by extension, how the religious right thinks. I’m interested in religion and morality and the specifics of social issues.
I realized that I don’t want to serve as some kind of “spokesman” for “the left.” I don’t want to be drawn into the “evil left, good right” discussions. Been there, done that, got the tshirt. I want to try to get beyond the typical disagreements, as much as possible. In that sense, the posted article under discussion does function as “bait,” in the sense of drawing those of us on the other side of the political spectrum into the kind of discussion that has usually been unproductive. It’s not that you intended it as bait, but that it can function as bait for those on the other side of the political spectrum.
You know, if the folks here want to read stuff like this, more power to them. In the future I just don’t want to be drawn into to discussions of this kind of piece.
Michael writes: “Jim the anti-Christian blathering you engage in is also a “product” . . . ”
No, it’s not a product. I post here my own personal views, based on my own experience and study. I’m not going to be quoted in 10,000 blogs. My intention is not to outrage. If I wanted to be a “product,” this is not the venue I would choose.
I’m interested in understanding how Orthodox Christians think, and by extension, how the religious right thinks. I’m interested in religion and morality and the specifics of social issues.
No you are not – not in a positive, constructive sense. You are interested in “debating”, or countering Christianity. In that sense you are anti-Christian. You have stated as much in the past, and almost every post you make bears this out.
Your sentence says it all “…Orthodox Christians think, and by extension, how the religious right things”. As we all know, the “religious right” is exactly that straw man that you claim is being made of the left, except of course it is what the left (i.e. anti-Christian or “anti-foundational” modernists) akes of Christians.
In that sense, you are a typical example of the anti-Christian left leaning neo-pagan modern, which is why Fr. Jacobse tolerated you. He wanted this blog to be a honey trap, a place that attracted “debate”, because he used you as you use him, someone to as you said once “to sharpen my philosophy” against. Really, though, not to sharpen or even better explicate fundamental principles, but to shape the “rhetoric” that arises out of and rests on those fundamental principles, as neither Fr. Jacobse nor any other Orthodox Christian is going to take seriously a materialistic, modern world view (because they already have and found it wanting – thus their possessed Christianity).
As I have already stated, I think this sort of blog or discussion or public debate violates at least two commandments of the Gospel. The first is the express admonition by St. Paul (and I believe Peter says it also) to not engage in endless “debate”. The second is more subtle, but the Fathers talk about it, how you can harden someone’s heart against the Gospel by turning it into an “idea” which can be debated. One has to be careful not to turn the Gospel into a gnosticism, but the Fathers recognized the futility and harm that can be done by helping it to be an object of derision and “deconstruction”.
SO were left with what we have had for quite a while around here. Dean and Jim and JamesK endlessly debating Christians, simply because (for what ever reason) they refuse to acknowledge and grasp the very basics of any other world view/philosophy other than their own. Jim has as much chance of admitting a “rage” on the cultural left as he does admitting that ride he took on the alien spaceship: He can’t remember it, in that he has displayed zero ability to admit his world view (which is solidly “cultural left”). How can you discuss something if you are not even aware of it (or in denial, or deny it as part of a rhetorical strategy)? It would be quite sad if Jim and Dean and Jamesk really were so ignorant of their own philosophy of life/universe/everything that they are as dim-witted as they appear here. I grant them more than that however, and at least give them the credit of being Trolls (instead of being truly ignorant). At least a Troll has an understanding of what he is and who he is “debating”.
No, it’s not a product. I post here my own personal views, based on my own experience and study.
It’s a product of your own nietzschean self – your philosophy IS anti-Christian. If you are as dim-witted as you are trying to make yourself out, you really do not understand how it is you do outrage and offend us Christians. As you say, “My intention is not to outrage. ” and yet you do. A man of honor, even if he does not understand, would still realize this and stop Trolling. You however, like the philosophy you take, do not have any honor. Nietzsche understood this better, and understood he was anti-Christian and revealed in it. Like so many on the modern left, you want to say that intentions are all that matter – what the actual consequences is not really important or interesting to you – as long as you feel good about it, it must be OK.
None of this is surprising, given the fact that the modernist/nietzschean philosophy does not recognize moral realities like honor.
SOOOOO, it will be interesting to see where Chris takes this blog. Is it going to continue down the yellow brick road of the liberal round table, where the Wizard of actual conviction recedes forever over the horizon (just like the liberals/modernists want it), or will it be something else…
Christopher, how’s that blog of yours coming along?
Christopher writes: “SO were left with what we have had for quite a while around here. Dean and Jim and JamesK endlessly debating Christians . . . ”
I think it’s been a week since Dean posted anything. Until yesterday JamesK hadn’t been around here for, what, maybe a couple of weeks. My most recent posts were simply questions about what specific social programs people here would support, and why.
My post yesterday was a suggestion to JamesK that getting sucked into these “liberals are evil” discussions is pointless. JamesK’s comment yesterday consisted of exactly one sentence. Of the 20 articles now displayed on the main blog page, I have commented on exactly 3 of them. Others on the “left” — Phil for example, hasn’t posted here in months. We never select any of the lead articles. We don’t set the rules for posting and commenting on the articles. And we’re always outnumbered. At this point it’s difficult to see how the “liberals” are cramping anyone’s style around here, or that this is somehow a “liberal round table.”
Christopher writes: “He [Fr. Hans] wanted this blog to be a honey trap, a place that attracted “debate” . . .”
What’s interesting is that without the “liberal” side, the rest of the people here typically don’t even post anything. Of the 20 articles on the main blog page 14 have no comments at all. In one article with comments the comments consist of you saying “I’m sorry I missed his speech” and Chris B. replying “yes, he’s good.” People don’t need to come here in order to read Dennis Prager, and without the other side of the issue being presented you’re certainly not going to have 900,000 visits to the blog over the last 18 months.
For all the hand-wringing and protest over the liberals, it’s that side of the issue that creates most of the discussions, and it is in those discussions that we hear the most from the home team. On the recent thread dealing with social programs poster Irene said “Great writing here, very thought-provoking.” Without the liberal point of view there probably wouldn’t have been any writing at all on either side.
Your idea of eliminating the liberal point of view would be a terrific way to drastically reduce the number of blog visits and to eliminate most of the discussions. It would also eliminate most of what is said here about Orthodoxy. As the old saying goes, be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it.
“I think it’s been a week since Dean posted anything. Until yesterday ….Others on the “left” — Phil for example, hasn’t posted here in months. “
Oh yes, your all innocent of anything the mean “religious right” would say…;)
or that this is somehow a “liberal round table.”
That’s not surprising. Anytime anyone gets to the truth of the matter, the more you deny it.
For all the hand-wringing and protest over the liberals, it’s that side of the issue that creates most of the discussions, and it is in those discussions that we hear the most from the home team. On the recent thread dealing with social programs poster Irene said “Great writing here, very thought-provoking.” Without the liberal point of view there probably wouldn’t have been any writing at all on either side.
Jim has a point here. I think both Fr. Jacobse & perhaps Chris has a fear that without they honey and subsequent flies, the blog would bog and be boring. That however is an impoverished view of blogs, discussions, and most anything else. It also ignores the poison (both spiritually and practically) that endless “debate” is in of itself. What would be truly interesting is not yet another “debate” between Christians and modernists but some actual discussion of Orthodoxy and it’s contribution to the culture.
Go back and look at the archives last year, 2 years ago, 3 years ago (not sure if this blog has archives). It’s the same old story, same old low “debates”. Also, I don’t think Irene was referring to the contrarian, anti-Christian propaganda your a part of. If she was, give her 2 or 3 weeks and let her see what it truly is about.
Your idea of eliminating the liberal point of view would be a terrific way to drastically reduce the number of blog visits and to eliminate most of the discussions.
Actually, I think the blog visits would build up over time. Yes, most of the discussions would be shorter. No 200 posts about whether Terri S was human or not. The vast majority of folks do not have the inclination to endure yet another “faith vs. reason” debate. Anyone truly interested in Orthodoxy would not really want to here the propaganda of the anti-Christians yet again (they get enough of that walking out their front door). The “liberal round table” is a rigged game – for liberals. The world has plenty of that. Orthodoxy can do better…
It appears I was under the mistaken impression that the Orthodox sought to influence and change their culture. How wrong I was! In that sense, they are very much like the hyper-Calvinists who reject evangelizing since, after all, God already knows who His elect are. Why bother going through the motions with those who by mere fact that they do not share their beliefs simply underline the idea that they are beyond help.
This is unlike other variants of Christianity where great effort is expended in explaining not just what their beliefs are but how those beliefs came to be. The whole field of apologetics seems to be anathema to the Orthodox. Apologetics? Why, that would be like explaining nuclear physics to a frog. It’s a waste of time and would just irritate the frog.
So, to those Orthodox who don’t feel this way, it might be beneficial to remember that if you wish to change society’s views, you may be called upon to defend your own and why the views of those around you need to change.
‘In each of us there is a mystery greater than we realize. And it is in communion with God that we are able to catch a glimpse of it. Learn to pray. Truly, you are capable of it.’” –Solzhenitsyn in “The Red Wheel”
If a person is unwilling or unable to pray, the arrogant words of an unworthy sinner such as myself will avail nothing to reveal the majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church.
“Truth is not just an abstract idea, sought and known with the mind, but something personal—even a Person—sought and loved with the heart, Jesus Christ”
Fr. Seraphim Rose
Et All:
Conservative: traditional or to preserve-how far do ‘we’ go back? In the 15th ct. the ‘bad word’ was used in Scottish poetry and in pseudo Latin in Shakespeare. It was so well known that the poets would turn the lettering around-gxddbov or fuccant. It was use without ranchor up to the 17ct. In the Germatic, source area for the Anglophone, could be used to ‘Strike’ or ‘penetrate’ -wood, earth or anything. Is the old new again?
There was a discussion piece-last week-about the Democrats use of God’s influence on their lives and/or their channeling God. It was set up so as to ridicule them. I wrote a few lines of W’s God conversations and the piece dissappeared.
You could think of Putin as an archconservative, many do in Europe and Russia. Terms, as such, don’t always mean what they mean. If you write in the context of no context you must rely on analogy as truth.
Sincerely,
J R Dittbrenner
JamesK repeating the charge (yet again – as he has for the last 3 or 4 months now) that some Orthodox do not want to evangelize or make a rational defense of the Faith reveals only his own ignorance and stubbornness. Or is it his own pain and suffering as a “gay man”?
A basic text on Christianity would be helpful for you James. Try Carlton’s “The Faith” – you can purchase it at Amazon or a book seller near you…
Christopher, keep in mind that when most people speak of “apologetics” they mean the reduction of the Gospel and the person of Jesus Christ to ideas so that they can be debated. At the heart of the admonition not to engage in “doubtful disputation” is the realization that Christianity is not about ideas at all. Christianity is about one’s encounter with the Living God in the Person of Jesus Christ and the decision(s) that flow from that encounter. Those decisions include how one responds to such things as homosexual behavior, euthanasia, war and all of the other exestential dilemmas with which we are faced in our falleness.
For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, the Church is her own apologetic. For these people nothing else is required. For those who refuse to see, nothing will suffice. She needs no defense other than us following our calling. Those who are not Christian have nothing useful to say as to how Christians should respond.
Evangelisim is not about “winning converts” it is living the life we are supposed to live as described in Ephesians 4. Evangelism is about sharing the life we have been given. That does not mean we have to be “nice” in order to do it.
JamesK has been given apologetic after apologetic but since it is not reductionary and it doesn’t fit into his syncretism, he refuses to listen.
Michael writes: “Christianity is about one’s encounter with the Living God in the Person of Jesus Christ and the decision(s) that flow from that encounter. Those decisions include how one responds to such things as homosexual behavior, euthanasia, war and all of the other exestential dilemmas with which we are faced in our falleness.”
What exactly is it that “flows from” the encounter? This is where it gets a little confusing, because there are all sorts of views expressed here, and it is not always clear which views are an organic part of the religion and which are optional.
I’m wondering if an alignment with conservative causes is something that flows from Orthdoox faith, or whether it is an option. Given that most of the articles are attacks on liberals, it seems to me that an anti-liberal stance must be part of Orthodoxy.
Take, for example, the lead article on Al Gore. He is a hypocrite because he bought a big house five years ago that uses a lot of energy. This was virtually identical to an article posted here a year ago, the only difference being that this article had a picture of the house and also said good things about George Bush and his house. And then a while back there was an article about how Al Gore was a hypocrite or had a conflict of interest because is started an environmental-based investment company. On top of that are the many other little digs and jabs at Al Gore that happen the rest of the time — and all over environmental issues.
Given the continual appetite here for anti-Gore stuff, and the number of articles and posts that reference his various hypocrisies, conflicts of interest, mistakes, lies, etc., is that kind of opposition to Gore something that is an organic part of Orthodoxy, or is that an issue over which Orthodox Christians might differ?
Jim asks, “What exactly is it that “flows from” the encounter?” Depends on the nature and depth of the encounter. However, I think it is fair to say that Christians who strive for a living communion with Jesus Christ, Orthodox or not, tend to be what is considered more politically conservative.
Certainly, as “liberal” polticians identify themselves with the depravity of abortion, sexual license, tryannical governments that oppress fellow Christians, euthanasia, policies that in the name of the “greater good” or “individual rights” ravage and destroy children, families and communities, it is less likely you will find folks in the “liberal” camp who have been touched by Jesus.
You will find folks who would support what is considered to be the “liberal” approach because the rhetoric about caring for the poor and not fighting wars sounds good. It is a movement of empathy that is understandable. Often that movement is checked when the “liberal” context is examined and the actual results are considered.
IMO, Orthodox should not be at home in any political camp whatsoever. We are called to be more radical than any politician or poltical party can accomodate. The fact that few, if any, of us live up to that does not invalidate the call. We should challenge inhumanity, depravity, corruption and lust for power where ever it appears without lapsing into political ideology of any type. That is the prophetic role of the Church . At the same time we should demonstrate what it means to live a life in submission to God’s love and forgiveness. That is evangelism.
In many parishes in the United States, such activity is occuring. It is quiet and imperfect, but it exists by the grace of God. The Church is not here to “change the world”. She is not an instrument of utopian ideas. She is here to call us out of the world into the Kingdom while we are yet in the world. The Incarnation of Divine Word of God makes that possible.
You either accept the gift or you reject it. The decision is straight forward and simple. Once the gift is accepted, real human growth is possible as we are transformed and transfigured by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the Church, together with others. That transformation will have an effect on everyone else that includes action in the world that may or may not be political in content.
God is the undivided Trinity, we cannot pick and choose a part of Him. It is all or nothing. Fortunately, He does allow us to approach the all gradually, it is not always an easy or clear journey–only the end is clear. We all make many mistakes, especially as we attempt to act in the world. We are, most of us, still of the world, so our actions will suffer from the same mix.
Michael writes: “However, I think it is fair to say that Christians who strive for a living communion with Jesus Christ, Orthodox or not, tend to be what is considered more politically conservative.”
That certainly is my impression. In my time on this blog I have sensed a kind of tension for the Orthodox posters. On the one hand there is the religious aspect, and the issues directly connected with it. On the other hand there are other conservative issues that don’t really flow from Orthodoxy to which the Orthodox are often drawn due to personal inclination. But as you say, though drawn to those issues you don’t want to become imprisoned in any particular ideology.
In the latter case, I think that is due to the fact that specific issues have come to be identified with certain political parties and philosophies. For example, immigration tends to be a conservative issue; social programs tend to be a liberal issue. That kind of identification makes it difficult to for both groups to bridge the gap, and find areas of common interest. In some cases the actual differences may not be as great as we might think.
For example, in the case of social programs, I think if we sat down and examined specific programs in detail, and how they actually operate now (and not 30 or 40 years ago) there would be more agreement than disagreement. Even liberals pay taxes, and we don’t want to see our hard-earned money flushed down the toilet either. On the other hand, any large-scale program, military, social, or otherwise, will have waste, fraud, and abuse, and in that context perhaps the real difference of opinion between conservative and liberal might be our respective willingness or unwillingness to tolerate those things.
It is an unfortunate fact of impersonal internet discussions that those kinds of subtle but important differences are difficult to discuss. We end up feeling a need to defend “positions.” More than once in this venue I’ve fired off a post and then thought “why did I say that? Do I really think that?” At this point, for every post I send to the blog, I usually delete at least one other post, and the post that is sent is toned down quite a bit. Over the years I have learned that the most important tool in internet discussion is the “delete” key. Some here would no doubt wish that I used it even more frequently.
I suspect that were you and I to have a face to face discussion over a beer and a hamburger that we would have a very different kind of discussion than what we typically have here. The internet is a good tool, but it is not a perfect tool.
To add to what Michael says in post 16, classical conservativism (not libertarian or neo or whatever) has at it’s heart a “classical western”, which is to say Christian, view of man (i.e. anthropology). That is it gets man right, in what makes him tick and what he is, and thus it’s ideas about how man ought to relate to one another (i.e. politics) is based on reality of man.
“liberalism”, or “modernism” is essentially a hodgepodge of Cartesian, Kantian, and most importantly Marxist view of man, what he is, and what makes him tick.
This is why Christians, to the extant they are consistent, fall on the “conservative” side of things. Unfortunately “conservative” in America is confused because it tends to allay itself (for prudential reasons) with all sorts of folks (e.g. the libertarians).
Russell Kirk said it this way:
Ten Conservative Principles (1993)
1. First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
2. Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
3. Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
4. Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
5. Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
6. Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
7. Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
8. Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
9. Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
10. Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
On the other hand there are other conservative issues that don’t really flow from Orthodoxy to which the Orthodox are often drawn due to personal inclination.
Not really. See Kirk’s ten principles. There is much more to conservativism and it’s affinity with Christianity than the obvious issues like “abortion”. Private property for example (see #7 above).
For example, immigration tends to be a conservative issue; social programs tend to be a liberal issue. That kind of identification makes it difficult to for both groups to bridge the gap, and find areas of common interest. In some cases the actual differences may not be as great as we might think.
This is liberal talk. A conservative, such as myself, would say that the actual differences are pretty substantial and significant. Part of the liberal utopian dream is that most differences between men are “One Big Misunderstanding”, and that given enough patience and charity we can ‘talk through’ our differences. This is a core idea behind the “liberal round table” (see Stanley Fish in First Things). Conservatives recognize that this is not so – there is no real reconciliation with the Marxist view of man for example.
It is an unfortunate fact of impersonal internet discussions that those kinds of subtle but important differences are difficult to discuss. We end up feeling a need to defend “positions.”
Only to those who do not understand the “positions”. Positions are short-hand for whole philosophies and sets of premises that can not (and should not) have to be explained over and over and over and over and over. The differences between these “positions” are often not very subtle, and often quite easily discussed.
I suspect that were you and I to have a face to face discussion over a beer and a hamburger that we would have a very different kind of discussion than what we typically have here.
I doubt it. You would still be a modern, post-human, brains-in-a-body euthanasia supporter who would not understand a Christian principle or “position” if it whacked you up side the head. The beer and the hotdogs could not cover that fact up, and only a false sense of social niceties would keep us from discussing any significant issue with any sort of forthrightness. I don’t do the “liberal round table” in person any more than I do on this blog, and I doubt Michael does either. Neither should any Christian…
For an expansion on the ten principles, see:
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/rkc/detail/ten-conservative-principles/
Christopher writes: “See Kirk’s ten principles.”
People here should read Kirk’s ten principles. What is so interesting to me about the blog here is that the definition of conservatism, and the body of issues deemed to be of interest to conservatives, seems to change on a daily basis.
Kirk warns against destroying customs and conventions in a zeal for the earthly paradise. But folks here were enthusiastic for the war in Iraq. You thought it was “worth a try,” in order to, in some unspecified way, “bring democracy” to the Middle East by putting fundamentalist Islamic parties in power. When unqualified political ideologues were placed in charge of the reconstruction in Iraq there was silence here. When the occupation went sour, discussions of Iraq virtually disappeared from this venue. When billions of dollars disappeared, literally entire shrink-wrapped pallets of currency vanishing, there was total silence here. When yet other tens of billions were squandered on shoddy and sometimes non-existent construction there was silence.
The concept of the unitary executive has been greatly expanded under the Bush administration. We kidnap people off the street and send them to other countries to be tortured. We ourselves torture, and we have an attorney general who is unable to say that waterboarding is torture for fear of placing those who have done it and allowed it in legal jeopardy. We imprison people indefinitely without trial on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. On the blog here there is silence. (But imagine what would be said here if a Democratic administration did any of the above. We’d never hear the end of it.)
Abortion is denounced almost every day here, but on the day that Pat Robertson endorses a pro-abortion Republican candidate the lead article here is about . . . Hillary Clinton.
So on a day to day basis here, it is impossible to know what constitutes conservatism. Nonetheless, this amorphous and incoherent concept of “conservatism” is held up as the ideal, and used to beat liberals over the head. In that sense the blog here is not conservative; it is part anti-liberal and part partisan Republican. George Clooney is denounced for using the “f” word, but when Republican Senator Larry Craig tries to put the “f” word into practice in an airport rest room nothing is said. If the folks here actually become conservative some day, you let me know.
Christopher: “Part of the liberal utopian dream is that most differences between men are “One Big Misunderstanding”, and that given enough patience and charity we can ‘talk through’ our differences. . . . Conservatives recognize that this is not so . . .”
Ok, so in the context of the Orthodox church having an effect on society, you’re going to swagger up to the liberals and dictate to them “how it is,” without discussion or compromise. Coming from someone who is a member of a religion that makes up less than one percent of the population in the U.S., that’s quite an interesting strategy. Let me know how that works for you.
Christopher says :
Unless you can be more specific in what you mean, I have to emphatically disagree with your assertion. The anthropology of western Christianity is directly linked with the modern. It does not get “man right” as it separates man from God in a direct reversal of the Incarnation. As a foundation for political thought, it is just as flawed as modernism. David Hart was making that point, IMO, in this essay Christ or Nothing. In western Christianity man is linked to God only by legalism, not through genuine communion. All legalism eventually breaks down into relativism.
Which leads me to Principal number one in the Kirkean Decalogue: There is an enduring moral order. Based on what? Culture, tradition, simple stubbornness? None of these are really enduring enough to form the foundation for moral continuity. For Kirk’s statement to be considered true it has to be founded upon the divine reality or, once again, moral relativism is the only logical outcome. Like all political philosophy it is much better out of power than in power. In power, the logical inconsistencies, temptations to abuse of power and essential relativism of all political philosophies are revealed. The principals are not betrayed so much as their weaknesses as governing principals is shown, espeically when applied by sinful men.
Even if one assumes a divine reality as the foundation of an enduring moral order: which divinity? All forms of traditional faith have an associated moral order. It is important to be clear which is the foundation of “conservative” moral order. Christianity, Islam, Ba’hai, Judaism, paganism, the 12-step program’s “higher power”? There is nothing inherent in the rest of the decalogue particularly inconsistent with any of them as far as I can tell. There is certainly nothing peculiarly Orthodox.
All political philosophy is materialistic, pragmatic and ephemeral. All are capable of being used to destroy rather than to build; to degrade man rather than honor him. Some are obviously worse than other but just because conservatism seems to avoid some of the worst pitfalls does not mean it should have unwavering our allegiance.
Michael writes: “All political philosophy is materialistic, pragmatic and ephemeral. All are capable of being used to destroy rather than to build; to degrade man rather than honor him.”
Michael, are there any Orthodox scholars who have written on Orthodoxy and politics, or the possibility of an Orthodox political theology? Over the last few years I’ve read a lot of material on Orthodoxy but I don’t recall anything on that topic. If anyone is working on that, an article or link posted here would be quite helpful.
Jim I don’t know of any. I tend to think that the phrase “Orthodox political theology” is an oxymoron. The general focus of Orthodox theology and spiritual practice is the Kingdom of God, not as a rejection of this world but as a fulfillment of it, but not in a utopian sense. It is simply that as man is changed by the grace of God, our microcosmic nature means that the rest of creation will also be changed.
I have often thought that a through study of the Justinian code would provide the best model, but that is just a wild guess on my part.
Note 22 Michael,
While I am the first to side with those Orthodox who see fundamental flaws in western theological tradition (going back at least to the Blessed Augustine’s misunderstanding of personhood in the Holy Trinity, and thus man’s personhood), I don’t think you can say that western man’s fundamental view of man was un-Christian or anti-Christian until very recently. Certainly, any average Catholic or Protestant through the nineteenth century would hold a fundamentally Christian view, if not precisely Orthodox (and thus truly “Catholic”) understanding. Think of a C.S. Lewis for example, who wrote solidly from the western tradition, and his Abolition of Man. That’s not to say that the west did not produce “modernism” and the like, and the false views of humanity that go along with them, but “Christendom” held sway for most for most of the last 20 centuries for those in “the West”.
Which leads me to Principal number one in the Kirkean Decalogue: There is an enduring moral order. Based on what? Culture, tradition, simple stubbornness? None of these are really enduring enough to form the foundation for moral continuity.
If you start to dig, you find what is essentially natural law of one various stripe or other (depending on whether the conservative author is protestant or Catholic). The source is of course Christianity, the law written on the heart.
The principals are not betrayed so much as their weaknesses as governing principals is shown, especially when applied by sinful men.
Interesting thought. Is it “applied”, or “because of” the fallen world the principles (and their imperfect application) are found wanting? I will have to think on this.
All political philosophy is materialistic, pragmatic and ephemeral
Well, it necessarily deals with a large body of practical questions, but the very first of Kirk’s principles recognize a non-materialistic metaphysic which all subsequent relations and practical questions must bow to. As he notes:
“Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.”
Ok, so in the context of the Orthodox church having an effect on society, you’re going to swagger up to the liberals and dictate to them “how it is,” without discussion or compromise.
Nope, we are going to remind them of the truth in their heart of hearts, we are going to “win” with conviction and the convicting paradigm (i.e. Christianity). We are NOT going to achieve anything by agreeing to the liberal rules of the game of the “liberal round table”, which right on cue (you and Dean are often such prototypical modernists/liberals I still have a hard time believing your real people) you define as “discussion” and “compromise”.
“how it is” is not liberalism, which is without conviction and thus the best you can get is a “compromise”. “how it is”, the truth of life, the universe, and everything is of course God’s truth and law written on each and every human heart…
Others on the “left” — Phil for example, hasn’t posted here in months.
Still reading, though, from time to time.
Christopher writes: “I don’t think you can say that western man’s fundamental view of man was un-Christian or anti-Christian until very recently.”
For many centuries there was an active political theology. By that I mean that issues related to political authority, law, and the organization of society were seen as intimately connected to divine revelation.
Probably back as far as the 17th century that view began to change, probably in part as a result of the 30 Years War, which resulted in the death of large numbers of people, most through starvation and disease. The Wikipedia article notes that
Though not entirely about religion, there was a large religious component, and the fault lines often followed religious lines.
Eventually in Western thinking a new view of politics developed, a view that no longer relied on divine revelation, in which political disputes were not resolved by an appeal to divine revelation. This led to the death of political theology and the birth of modern political philosophy.
In one sense, Christopher is right, that in recent decades there has been an increasing loss of the Christian consensus. But at the political level, political philosophy began to replace political theology several centuries ago. Thus we ended up with a Constitution that doesn’t mention the word “God,” prohibits religious tests for public office, and more importantly, does not include any religious mechanism for settling political disputes. (E.g., constitutional issues are decided by a court, not a “council of bishops,” or other religious body.) That doesn’t mean that the U.S. is a “secular” nation, but rather that religion per se does not play a significant official political role.
Michael writes: “All political philosophy is materialistic, pragmatic and ephemeral. All are capable of being used to destroy rather than to build; to degrade man rather than honor him.”
But I think that political theology is particularly dangerous. There is a reason why the West abandoned it long ago. Religion tends to deal in absolutes. Thus we end up with Christopher’s “no compromise,” and even “no discussion.” Once you take compromise and discussion off the political table, the only option left is armed conflict. And we know where that leads.
Jim Holman might be right that this article is an “anti-left” piece whose real purpose is to rile up the masses (more inciteful than insightful?), but it reveals at least a little bit about the way Dennis Prager thinks, or at least the way he assumes his audience thinks.
Prager makes the point that Dick Cheney whispered his obscenity, while the celebrities interviewed in Rolling Stone are making public their curse-words. But that’s not quite accurate: they uttered curse-words in an interview to be published in Rolling Stone. So, while Prager holds these utterances to a standard of “what should be said in public,” a more appropriate standard might be “what will readers of Rolling Stone consider to be inappropriate language?” Prager considers the venue of Cheney’s cursing to be a mitigating factor, but gives no consideration to the venue that the listed celebrities have chosen. No one is forced to read Rolling Stone, and obviously, its editors felt the language Prager singled out was appropriate for its readers.
Further, while Rolling Stone does not identify the celebrities in question as representatives of the cultural left, Prager assigns this identity to them. In truth, they’re almost all “pop culture” figures, only incidentally leftist. (A discussion of why pop culture runs more leftist might be interesting, but I submit that is a feature of pop culture itself, not leftism.)
But Rolling Stone’s primary focus is not politics, it’s rock and roll. RS is a magazine for “the rock era.” Prager cites these figures as examples of the left’s way of showing rejection of the values of the middle class, but it’s Prager who shows that he’s out of touch with rock’n’roll.
Seriousy, Prager expresses shock that the lead singers of a punk band and a grunge band use foul language? Does he know who Bilie Joe Armstrong and Eddie Vedder are? Rock and roll may be about many things, but social niceties are not among them. It would make as much sense to criticize a sex therapist for using graphic language.
Finally, the language kritik that Prager puts forth illustrates a difference in the way that the left and right view taboos. While Prager clearly considers it off-limits to use words that have their roots in sexual and excretory functions, the left considers the most taboo words to be derogatory words that describe a group of people. So, while the celebrities in the article have no problem with the f-word or the s-word, they’d likely be loathe to thoughtlessly use the n-word (with the notable exception of Chris Rock, who has a famous comedy routine where he deconstructs black culture using the word.)
It’s interesting that the left responds more harshly to words that divide us, while Prager feels it’s worth spending time attacking words that unite us. No matter who you are, or what part of the planet you’re from, all of us engage in the function described by Prager’s “s–t.” His issue with the word is not content-based, it’s class-based.
Phil writes: “Further, while Rolling Stone does not identify the celebrities in question as representatives of the cultural left, Prager assigns this identity to them.”
Yes, with the purpose of writing an “anti-left” piece. But why did it have to be anti-left? Certainly it’s possible to critique the left without being partisan or even anti-left. In fact, there is an example of such an article by an Orthodox writer, Frank Schaeffer.
I’m sure that some here would disagree with Schaeffer’s Orthodoxy and his political orientation. But recall that just a couple of years ago Fr. Hans posted an article by Frank Schaeffer that was critical of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship. So this is not the first time that a Schaeffer piece has shown up here.
Consider this piece by Schaeffer on pornography, Porn, Violence, Free Speech, the KGB, Google, and the Democrats, published on the HuffingtonPost blog:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/
porn-violence-free-spee_b_72902.html
Schaeffer criticizes the left and challenges the left, without acting as a spokesman of the right. Sins of the right are also mentioned, even as the focus of the article is on the left. He is not afraid to engage the left by confronting them on their home turf with brutal and graphic language describing the terrible things that they are ignoring — language that I do not mention here, but leave to the reader who wants to view the whole article.
In other words, it is possible to critique and confront the left without dropping culture-war napalm on the left. As far as I’m concerned he could even have toned down the critique of the religious right and the article would have been better for it.
You guys need to get over yourselves with this anti left-right thinking. The left right dichotomy is real, pervasive, and it is useful to talk about it.
In fact, it is one of the hallmarks of a liberal to get upset over current political discourse and try to “purify” of it’s sins. This was one of the first indications that Bush was going to turn out the way he did (remember all his “change the tone in Washington” blabber – turned out it was just more liberalism).
Also you got this exactly backwards:
That doesn’t mean that the U.S. is a “secular” nation, but rather that religion per se does not play a significant official political role.
The U.S is explicitly and intentionally a secular government, but religion (rather of the Christian or modernist kind) plays very significant roles…