Opinion

Click for Keven Ann Willey's explanation of the blog and its purposes.

December 10, 2004

There goes Danforth

We didn't get a chance to get into John Danforth's exit at the U.N. Too much other stuff going on. But it deserves a note, especially with Colin Powell also leaving. Danforth's a moderate, who brings a pretty good understanding of international relationships to the job. In that sense, the former Missouri senator's very much like Bush 41.
I take Danforth at his word, that he's leaving because of his wife's health concerns. Still, there goes one more tempered voice within the Bush foreign policy team. Hope Bush thinks of that as he considers a new U.N. rep.

posted by Bill McKenzie @ Dec 10, 5:49 PM

re: Muslims

Ok, Rod, we've had this discussion before, so here we go again. It seems like you're always going on about the Muslims. Here's my question: What, if anything, do you think Islam has done for the larger good of the world? I'm not looking for an answer late on a Friday, but would like to hear your response when you have a chance.

posted by Bill McKenzie @ Dec 10, 5:45 PM

Bush's standing on the Hill

Lou Dobbs is having a discussion now on CNN about the passage of the bill to shake up the intelligence community. One analyst pointed out that Bush needed this victory to show he can control his own party next year, especially when it comes to issues like Social Security reform. That's a good point, which I've kind of overlooked in writing about and discussing the need for a new intel czar. Bush pushed for this director at the last, but he may have been pressing to show he has muscles on the Hill more than he really believed in this bill. There was a lot of speculation about that last point as the bill worked its way through Congress.

posted by Bill McKenzie @ Dec 10, 5:40 PM

re: Social Security

A Houston reader provides another take on Social Security and Bush:

There is a reason he doesn't want to pay as it unfolds via the payroll tax.

We've already been there, done that: The original 1983 increase in payroll
taxes to solve Social Security's insolvency problem.

Originally passed in 1977, the payroll tax increase was designed to be phased
in gradually culminating in 2030. It was drastically accelerated and all
increases had taken effect by 1990.

I'm certain the president doesn't want to go back to that well for a drink.
Especially considering his tax reduction strategy of the first 4 years and
it's biggest beneficiaries compared to the incredibly regressive nature of
payroll tax increases.

posted by Bill McKenzie @ Dec 10, 5:36 PM

re: Social Security

A reader responds to my entry yesterday about Bush not willing to raise taxes to pay for his plan to allow for private Social Security accounts:

Why do we "have" to change the most successful social program ever? Social Security runs like clock-work! I can attest to that.
When I retired two years, I spent maybe 20 minutes on the phone getting great advice from a Social Security employee and less than one moth later I got my first check. I tried that with my other "privatized" retirement check. It took almost a year and I had to threaten legal action to get what was coming to me. When people put down government beauracracies and tell me how great private enterprise does business compared to our government, I just think about Social Security and Enron. Just try getting a retirement check from them!

posted by Bill McKenzie @ Dec 10, 5:34 PM

Bush energy pick

I'm kind of disappointed in Bush's energy secy pick. We advocated he pick a business leader who understands the green revolution. And we suggested a name in Robert Campbell, former Sunoco head. But Bush is going with a guy whose credentials -- former prof, former no 2 at Treasury -- don't strike me as very innovative. Hope I'm wrong, and that he does interesting thing on new "green technologies." Other countries could beat us to the punch, if we don't get going.

posted by Bill McKenzie @ Dec 10, 5:31 PM

I'll give you an example

When I saw this photo, I thought, "Another day, another ad limina visit from the American bishops." Would that smart-aleck remark about my own church get me fined in England, under the proposed law? If I made that kind of remark about Islam in Saudi Arabia, I'd be liable to execution.


Along similar lines, a Swedish pastor got sent to jail for a month for preaching a sermon against homosexuality. I don't know what the pastor said; he might have been as obnoxious as hell ... or he might simply have quoted the Bible. In any case, he was imprisoned for his mere words. If he had given a sermon saying Catholics were going straight to hell and ought to be thrown out of the country, I'd still find it an outrage that the man was jailed for his speech. Thank God for the First Amendment.

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 10, 3:49 PM

Thoughtcrime in England

The Blair government is disgracefully trying to pass a law that would curb speech critical of religion under the guise of protecting people from "inciting religious hatred." This is a pathetic attempt to placate Muslims, many of whom think that any criticism of Islam and/or the behavior of Muslims is ipso facto bigotry.


Of course, the same law could ostensibly be used to quiet those who speak out against abuses or whatnot in other religions. I wonder how far I would get with some of my harsh criticism of my own church regarding the sexual abuse of children under such a law. My intention is certainly not to incite hatred, only to defend against the perversion of the religion for deleterious ends. But who wants to find oneself in court defending against a religious hatred incitement charge?


I don't believe in hate crimes laws, period. But one can at least see how a reasonable person could support outlawing racist criticism. But in the case of religion, we are talking about ideas -- and ideas must be open to criticism, even unfair criticism, in a free society. If I am to have the freedom to say that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, then I must allow my neighbor the freedom to say He Most Certainly Is Not, or, There Is No God But Allah, And Muhammad Is His Prophet. And more, if I am to have the freedom to say that the Baptists have got it badly wrong on this or that doctrine, I must also allow for others to say that we Catholics have it badly wrong.


And though I do not like anyone mocking religion, a free society must allow for that, insofar as religion deals in ideas, which should be up to critical scrutiny, even of the kind that makes me angry. I am not saying that religious people who feel that they have been unfairly criticized or mocked should sit back and suffer scorn quietly. I am saying that religious people, and I am one of them, have no right to expect the government to outlaw the speech of our critics.

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 10, 3:43 PM

Why Chet Edwards won

The national media, ok, well, CNN, has finally thought to do a feature on Chet Edwards. How'd the Democrat go against the tide and win in a Red State?

I think I saw firsthand part of the reason. I was at A&M; for a conference during the heat of the campaign, and he was there. I saw him holding court, so to speak, surrounded by interested students in the student union. I went into a session. Came out an hour later. He was still there. Listening, mostly. Talking a little.

Went into another session. Came out an hour later. There he was.

Maybe the youth vote did not swing many elections, but I think carrying the college kids in College Station might have helped swing that district for him.

posted by Michael Landauer @ Dec 10, 3:10 PM

Is this a sport?

I don't mean to knock Rock-Paper-Scissors, but I've always thought of it more as a major diplomatic tool, a conflict resolution mechanism, a beacon of fairness in an unfair world, than a sport.

posted by Michael Landauer @ Dec 10, 11:42 AM

The (alleged) perv in the parish school

St. Thomas Aquinas parish in East Dallas this week suspended the athletic director of its K-8 school after it was learned that the man had been arrested for indecent exposure. According to the news story in the DMN, Robert L. Castro was arrested on November 5, but the school didn't find out about it until this week, when someone happened to see his photo on this police website.


The alleged incident for which Mr. Castro was arrested did not occur on parish grounds, and did not involve children, says the diocese. An informed source gave me detailed (and fairly revolting) information about the circumstances of the arrest, which I'll post if I can confirm it through an official source. What concerns me is this question: what did the church school know about this, and when did it know it?


There is no reason to believe that diocesan officials are not telling the truth when they say they only learned about the arrest when someone saw Castro's photo on the police website and alerted them. But given the history of this diocese, I'd want the police to tell me directly that they alerted nobody at the school or church about Mr. Castro's arrest. If they didn't -- and I'll assume that they didn't -- then surely we need a system in place in which police notify employers of those they arrest on indecency or other sex charges, when those arrested work directly with children.


Also, it would be useful to know if Mr. Castro went through the Safe Environment training program required of all those who work for the church.

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 10, 11:16 AM

The Grinch(es)

John Sheehan, one of our Voices of Collin County volunteer columnists, wrote this. It's long, I apologize, but it's funny:

Every Voter Down in Dixie Liked Election Day a lot...
But the Demos, Who lived just north of Dixie, Did NOT!
The Demos hated Election Day! The whole Election season!
Now, please don't ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be their head was screwed on left, not right.
It could be, perhaps, that wallets were too tight.
But I think that the most likely reason of all,
May have been that their ideas were two sizes too small.

Whatever the reason, Be it the results or the gloaters,
They stood there before Election Day, hating the Voters,
They stared down from the Hamptons at all those ingrates,
Seething with an anger matching those red states.
They growled, with their Demo fingers nervously drumming,
"We MUST find some way to stop those results from coming!"
For Tomorrow, they knew, all those Dixie voting trolls,
Would wake bright and early. They'd rush for the polls!
"Why, for fifty-some years we've put up with it now!"
"We MUST stop this Re-election from coming! But HOW?"

Then they got an idea! An awful idea!
THE DEMOS GOT A MISGUIDED, AWFUL IDEA!
"We know just what to do!" The Demos laughed in their throats.
They chose an Elitist with a propensity to boast.
But, differing issues were scarce; there was none to be found.
An ordinary person this would surely confound
Did that stop the old Demos? No! The Demos simply said,
"If we can't find an issue, we'll make one instead!"
They consulted some old bags, And some old empty hacks,
On a ramshackle platform they established their tact.
They took old blue themes and worked in some red thread,
"We'll challenge the war, spread doom and some dread."

This was troubling to most, for they had supported before
What was the reason? The Voters wanted more.
They stared at the Demos and said, "Mr. Kerry, why,"
"Why are you now saying war is bad? WHY?"
But, you know, the old Demos were so smart and so slick,
they thought up a lie, and they thought it up quick!
"Why", said Mr. Kerry, "my sweet little tot,"
"I was once for it before I flip-flopped."

Election Day came, like other Tuesday mornings
Found The Demos sitting steady, ignoring the warnings.
"PoohPooh to the Voters!" they were demoishly humming.
"They're finding out now that no Re-election is coming!"
"They're just waking up! I know just what they'll do!"
"Their mouths will hang open a minute or two,
Then the Voters down in Dixie will all cry BooHoo!"
"That's a noise," grinned the Demos, "That we simply MUST hear!"

So they paused. And the Demos put their hand to their ear.
And they did hear a sound rising over the snow.
It started in low. Then it started to grow.
But the sound wasn't sad! Why, this sound sounded merry!
It couldn't be so! But it WAS merry! VERY!
They stared down at Dixie! The Demos popped their eyes!
Then they shook! What they saw was a shocking surprise!
Every Voter down in Dixie, the tall and the small,
Was singing! Without any exit polls at all!
They HADN'T stopped Re-election from coming! IT CAME!
Somehow or other, it came just the same!
Then the Demos thought of something they hadn't before!
"Maybe out themes and candidate weren't more than a bore,"
"Nah", they thought, "We'll just try hating them MORE!" "

posted by Michael Landauer @ Dec 10, 9:52 AM

Just wondering ...

... whether the president and governor sent out Christmas cards with religious content. Answer: yes. Both offered verses from the Old Testament:
-- President George W. Bush's card quotes Psalms: Let us come before him with Thanksgiving and extol him with music and song. Psalm 95:2 (NIV)
-- Gov. Rick Perry's card quotes the prophet Isaiah: The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb; and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. Isaiah 11:6

(The back of the governor's card says: Not printed or mailed at state expense.)

posted by Rodger Jones @ Dec 10, 9:36 AM

December 09, 2004

Brave new world

Scientists are starting to make "chimeras" -- living creatures that are biologically part human, part animal.


I thought about making some wisecrack here about what's the big deal about researchers inventing teenage boys in a test tube ... but really, there's nothing funny about this. I wonder what it's going to take to wake up the people who scream bloody murder about Galileo anytime somebody suggests that, gee guys, maybe the stuff scientists are up to is really evil, and somebody should do something about it.

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 9, 6:11 PM

Re: Famous atheist recants

No, Bill, it's Roy Abraham Varghese. They're bound to be related, don't you think? I just spoke to Roy on the phone, to commission a piece from him about the increasingly permeable barrier between science and religion. Science and religion are the great themes of his work.

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 9, 5:52 PM

Bush and the soldier

Bush said today that he agreed with that soldier who asked Rumsfeld why our forces didn't have enough armor. When I heard Rumsfeld's response, my first thought was that I bet Bush cringed after he heard Rumsfeld tell the soldier that you don't get all you want in a battle. That was a horrible response, and Bush's comment today strikes me as a rebuff.

posted by Bill McKenzie @ Dec 9, 5:34 PM

Bush and Social Security

I'm all in favor of Bush's push to let workers invest a portion of their Social Security contributions in the stock market. If you start early enough, you could end up with more retirement money than a person who relies on traditional Social Security payouts.
That said, I was really disappointed to hear the prez rule out today a payroll tax hike to pay for the transition to a system of private accounts. For complex reasons, the changeover to that system could cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion. We've got to pay for the change somehow, so what's the president's plan? Writing more government debt or issuing bonds doesn't seem a great idea.
We should pay for this change as it unfolds. That's the beauty of the payroll tax, which GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham has proposed.

posted by Bill McKenzie @ Dec 9, 5:30 PM

More Austin stuff

At his annual Christmas party for the media, the governor seemed as relaxed as I've seen him in a good while. He appeared comfortable in his own skin, which hasn't always struck me as so. I don't know what that means, especially since the Democratic firm of Montgomery and Associates has a poll out showing Kay Hutchison leading Rick Perry by a two-to-one margin in a gubernatorial race. Nevertheless, he was loose, witty and confident. That's not a bad way to start a make-or-break legislative session.

posted by Bill McKenzie @ Dec 9, 5:22 PM

Re: Just wondering

I wrote:

Police Chief David Kunkle, on the job since summer, is building a house in the White Rock Lake area. His address remains in Arlington until the new home is finished. (Recall that predecessor Ben Click always lived in a condo. Bill Rathburn had a condo and a weekend ranch in Mineola.)

UPDATE: A reader provides records showing the house actually is in the M Streets near Greenville Avenue. The reader adds:

I hope he enjoys the Friday & Saturday night traffic [near] Greenville Ave. I wonder if the Greenville St. Paddy's Day Party DPD mobile command post will now be in his backyard.

By the way, I got my information from a lieutenant in the DPD's public information office.

posted by Rodger Jones @ Dec 9, 5:21 PM

Austin's buzz

As usual, Austin was filled with political speculation. Here are some of the theories, which I pass on merely as political gossip:
1. If Perry gets a serious school finance bill through the Leg, then there goes Kay Hutchison's gubernatorial chances. What can she run on, if there's no longer a leadership vacuum?
2. If Perry doesn't get a big school bill passed, then Hutchison gets in the governor's race this summer.
3. If Hutchison leaves the Senate, then will Dewhurst run for her seat? I have it from a reliable source that he wants to be governor someday, not senator. But he couldn't be governor until for a while, at least until Perry or Hutchison finish their terms. That could be a wait, so what does Dewhurst do in the meantime? Don't know.
4. Speculators say State Sen. Jane Nelson and Attorney Gen. Greg Abbott are gunning for the lieutenant governor's post, if Dewhurst runs for the Senate.
5. Two Craddick Democratic allies got hammered last year. Both Democratic Reps. Glenn Lewis and Ron Wilson lost primary challenges because they were too close to Speaker Craddick. But the same fate may not await Dem Reps. Velma Luna and Sylvester Turner, both of whom are close to Craddick. They are safer in their districts. The importance there is that the two may be able to work across the aisle to get some things done. We'll see.

posted by Bill McKenzie @ Dec 9, 4:51 PM

re: Abraham Varghese

There's an Abraham Varghese who writes for the New Yorker and other outlets. He's also a doctor in Texas. (Don't know where, used to be in El Paso.) Is this the same guy, Rod?

posted by Bill McKenzie @ Dec 9, 4:08 PM

Famous atheist recants

I was knocked flat by news that the British philosopher Antony Flew has now accepted the existence of God. Flew is one of the most articulate expositors of atheism on the planet. I remember reading his work in comparative religion class back in college. And now, thanks to efforts by Roy Abraham Varghese, an Eastern Catholic layman from Garland (!), Flew has decided that atheism simply isn't tenable based on scientific evidence. Excerpt:


The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.

The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.

This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his "God and Philosophy," scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press.

Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that's too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."


Flew has not become a Christian, or an adherent of any religion. He describes himself as a "Deist" -- meaning he believes that the universe had to have been designed by an intelligent being.

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 9, 4:02 PM

Re: Do you see what I see?

This just in from Mayor Laura Miller's chief of staff, Crayton Webb, on the subject of whether the city's official cut-and-installed evergreen should be called a Holiday Tree (the official name) or something else:

"The mayor calls it a Christmas tree," he said.

"The mayor happens to be Jewish. They have a big menorah in their living room. It is what it is. It’s a menorah. Just like a Christmas tree is a Christmas tree."

As for the city's official decision that it be called the Holiday Tree, the mayor understands "the desire on behalf of the city to be inclusive," he said.

But the decision to call it the Holiday Tree wasn't the mayor's, he said.

Yule fans can take heart, Mr. Webb said, that at the lighting ceremony "it will be referred to as a Christmas tree, and there will be Christmas songs – Christmas carols will be sung."

Do you hear what I hear?

posted by Rodger Jones @ Dec 9, 4:01 PM

Texas Leg, Part II

Having just posted my general skepticism about school finance, let me throw in a positive wrinkle. My understanding is that conversations are taking place about a compromise that would cut local school property taxes by a third, replace them with $5 billion or so in new state funds, and add perhaps $1 billion in new money for schools.
So, why am I pessimistic? Because the negotiations are anything but over. What's more, we're likely to see slot machines at race tracks as one way to help raise the $5 billion or so. And the extra billion dollars are likely to come as an incentive for schools. If schools do X,Y and Z, then they'll get extra money.
I hate the idea of slots coming in, and schools don't need incentive money. They need it upfront. Many have been cutting budgets right and left.
I'm glad some people are talking about a compromise, but some of these particulars aren't good for the state.

posted by Bill McKenzie @ Dec 9, 3:57 PM

Texas Legislature

Was in Austin the better part of the last couple of days. Depending upon whom you talk to, either the House fails to pass a school finance bill or the Senate weenies out. House symphathizers think the Senate doesn't come up with enough revenue. Senate symphathizers wonder if the House will have the guts to pass a big bill to correct the school funding crisis. (700 of 1040 districts are maxed out on the amount they can charge taxpayers for their schools.)
In short, I didn't like what I heard. Sounds like the two chambers are still pretty far apart, like they were earlier this year during the special session on school finance. This is not a good place to start the debate.

posted by Bill McKenzie @ Dec 9, 3:37 PM

Re: Do you see what I see?

I have a call in to Dallas special events chief Celia Barshop to see if the seven musical acts booked for the tree-lighting ceremony at City Hall will be singing any Christmas carols.

One of the acts is the Texas Gypsies. All I could find on the web was the Crazy Texas Gypsies, and I somehow doubt this is the group. Here's a review posted on the site:

The Crazy Texas Gypsies are real, road hardened blues men. But the magic that happens when these guys get together just burns the house down. Night after night. Don’t take my word for it, go out and catch blues played from the heart and soul.

Hmm. Stay tuned.

posted by Rodger Jones @ Dec 9, 2:47 PM

Just wondering ...

Where a couple of prominent folks are hanging their hats since landing big jobs in Dallas:
-- Police Chief David Kunkle, on the job since summer, is building a house in the White Rock Lake area. His address remains in Arlington until the new home is finished. (Recall that predecessor Ben Click always lived in a condo. Bill Rathburn had a condo and a weekend ranch in Mineola.)
-- Phillip Jones, head of the Dallas visitors bureau since last fall, has bought a house in Southlake. "For the schools," he says.

posted by Rodger Jones @ Dec 9, 2:38 PM

Re: Do you see what I see?

Well, here's what I see in the city's official schedule of holiday doings Saturday at City Hall Plaza -- everything BUT Christmas.

The rundown prominently mentions Zales Jewelers, Gordon's Jewelers, Walt Disney World Resort and the Beach Boys (there's a "holiday" act for you!). Courtesy mentions go to Mickey, Minnie, Goofy, Donald, Santa Claus, reindeers, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Mayor Laura Miller, City Council member Veletta Lill, Rolling Stone magazine, Mary L. Forté, president and CEO of Zale Corporation, Rockefeller Center in New York, and various acts that will perform on the outdoor stage. Hmmm. A few choirs are listed, including one called God's Country Kids. I wonder if their song list was checked. I'll find out.

Those of you who bother to search this official site yourselves let me know if I missed any mention of "Christmas" in there.

posted by Rodger Jones @ Dec 9, 1:52 PM

Re: Do you see what I see?

Update on Holiday/Christmas tree:

I just placed a call to Mayor Laura Miller's office and left a message with Chief of Staff Crayton Webb. I informed him of the ongoing blog discussion over what to call the city's official tree -- the evergreen cut and installed at City Hall for lighting and decorations.

I asked if we could find out what the mayor thinks when she sees The Tree -- a Christmas tree or a "Holiday Tree," as the city dictates we must call it. Also wonder what she thinks we should call it.

Anyone been watching the events in Denver this year, where the mayor replaced his city hall's big "Merry Christmas" banner with "Happy Holidays"? Some unhappy plebeians there.

posted by Rodger Jones @ Dec 9, 1:24 PM

Re: Do you see what I see?

Readers are not done with the subject of what to name Dallas' official Christmas tree. The city officially calls it the "Holiday Tree." It has been installed for dedication ceremonies in from of City Hall this weekend. The blog chatter on the subject has branched into how to greet one another this time of year.

Justin writes: To state my affiliation, I'm an agnostic, married to a Jew. And, it's a Christmas Tree. That part's a silly argument. However, your reader's assertion that the US is a Christian nation, is bothersome. It's not. It's right there in the first line of the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In my opinion, just because a majority of people in this country
self-identify as Christians, doesn't make us a Christian nation.

Ed from Carrollton writes: Enough is enough. Christmas is not a "religious holiday" per se. Things evolve. Christmas has come to mean "goodwill toward all of mankind," not anything else. Christmas is a time of good tidings, good cheer, good fellowships and a toast for a better tomorrow. It is a time for the world to pause and search for a higher standard of good behavior. Even the "manger scene" is the welcoming-in of a new fellow traveler, think of it as you may.

Craig from Dallas writes: What to wish others? Wish them the good things that you celebrate in your life. If they happen to believe differently, shouldn't they appreciate that you were willing to include them in the things that are important to you?

Writes Tandi from Dallas: I celebrate Christmas, though often say Happy Holidays to acknowledge this time of year. BUT I take NO offense if a Jewish person were to wish me a happy Chanukah or if someone were to wish me a Happy Kwanza or Feliz Navidad. It all means the same to me. The kind person is wishing me a blessing of happiness for the holiday. Said person is not forcing their religion on me, but instead sharing a piece of them and giving me a gift of happiness in a manner in which they believe in. Also, how can I expect a stranger to know what religion I participate in?

Finally, from Mike: It's a freakin' Christmas tree, for crying out loud. They are either gonna have to start calling a spade a spade or stop having a tree at all.

Now, I'm not a crusader on this or anything -- just borderline obsessive when it comes to certain things. It seems to me that many people -- don't know if it's most people -- think the Holiday Tree is really a Christmas tree. It seems many of them agree with me that there's no harm in calling the tree what it is.

I'll place a call to the mayor's office to see what she thinks.

posted by Rodger Jones @ Dec 9, 12:39 PM

Re: Donald Can Take It

Another reader's take:

A reader said of Rumsfeld: "I am sure that he now truly understands the
issues that plague the troops daily, and hopefully with that understanding
will go a long way in solving problems." If what the soldiers were telling
him yesterday was news to him or he hadn't already comprehended the impact
of the lack of armor, etc. on the troops, then Rumsfeld has been way too far
out of touch. Further confirmation that he's done an extremely poor job of
planning the whole Iraq operation and even over a year into the post-major
operations period has yet to make adequate adjustments to catch up. The
result which, I have no doubt, has been many more deaths and injuries that
could have been avoided. Cause for dismissal and long overdue.

posted by jim mitchell @ Dec 9, 10:33 AM

Re: Donald can take it

A reader says:

Rumsfeld says, "You go to war with the military you have, not the one you might want or wish to have."

I'm sorry, but that's really begging the question, isn't it? Rumsfeld has been in charge of the Pentagon for four years. The equipment and armor problems are not new problems. The military we have is the military Rumsfeld has made in the last four years.

Recall -- pre-war -- the Administration crowing about Rummy's micro-management, reviewing every last detail, second-guessing the big bad 'old style' bureacracy to bring us a 'new military'. Rumsfeld's initial plans were to have only 800 armored vehicles in Iraq at this point. Current plans call for over 6,000! That's quite a planning error.

The blame for this armor shortage and equipment shortage lies with Rumsfeld and the man who hired him.

posted by jim mitchell @ Dec 9, 10:32 AM

Re: Donald can take it

A solider's response:

I have the utmost respect for Mr. Rumsfeld allowing the troops to speak with him so directly. I spent eight years in the Army as a public affairs specialist. During that time, several SecDefs visited installations where I was stationed. Troops were kept a definite arms length away from these visitors, and never had the opportunity to ask the type of questions that Rumsfeld was asked. I applaud Rumsfeld’s willingness to have a two-way conversation with soldiers under his care, and those people who arranged it. This needs to happen more often. I am sure that he now truly understands the issues that plague the troops daily, and hopefully with that understanding will go a long way in solving problems.

posted by jim mitchell @ Dec 9, 9:04 AM

December 08, 2004

The Zionist-Dispensationalist Conspiracy

A Zionist reader of Hebraic extraction writes to me, his Unwitting Dupe:


I knew that my annoying e-mails were having their intended effect! I have turned you into a tool of my vast plot to subvert the papacy and achieve a lasting gloabal Zionist hegemony! Little does the world know that Karol Wojtyla is really the son of a hassidic rebbe from Vilnius! Heh! We have achieved global dominance!


Don't be modest, bubbeleh. I have it on good authority that this state of affairs has been going on for quite some time now. The popular Muslim website Islamicity.com has been peddling a book called "The International Jew," which contains as an added bonus the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion." According to the website:


Yet today this book is almost impossible to find. You will not be able to buy it in your local bookstore, nor check it out at your local library. The truth is that in the so called "democratic, pluralist" America this book has been systematically suppressed.

The International Jew is a magnifying glass applied to the hidden sources of immorality, vide, degeneracy, and subversion. It is a threat - a threat to the international financiers who would prefer to keep information selective and geared towards a world oligarchy of self-interest.

Silly me, I thought all along that this was the hidden source of immorality, "vide," degeneracy and subversion. You crafty fellow, look how you've misdirected me!


[Note to the irony impaired: I am NOT recommending this anti-Semitic conspiracy book; I am just showing how race-hate conspiracies are alive and well, even in ostensibly respectable mainstream venues like Islamicity.com. I'm sorry to have to put a link there to the page where you can purchase the book, but I'm afraid it was necessary, else someone from the, ahem, Dallas peace and justice community would accuse me of making it all up.]

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 8, 5:48 PM

Re: Do you see what I see

A pretty typical-sounding description of Christmas:

We have been putting a Christmas Tree in our home for years. This year we put one outside with a reindeer. My daughter loves the lights. We give gifts to the poor we pick from the Angel Tree. We give gifts to our Christian friends and family members. It is a season to be jolly, like they say. ...

He's a blog reader and a Muslim friend of mine. He agrees that "Christmas" is also a cultural event, not just a religious holiday. As he says, "The spirit of giving and sharing is very much there." So, why do we have to strip the word Christmas out of everything?

posted by Michael Landauer @ Dec 8, 5:17 PM

So now you know

I've just read a delightful article from the current issue of Culture Wars, a Catholic magazine run by far-right conspiracy cranks. The long essay, which -- alas for you! -- is not available online, rips Your Humble Servant and this newspaper over its series on fugitive priests. Do you want to know who's really behind these stories, according to Culture Wars (whose lousy website is here)?


Wait for it...


Ding, ding, ding! That's right, the Jews, colluding with Protestants (the Dallas Theological Seminary kind) in what CW terms a "Zionist-Dispensationalist axis of evil."

"[C]an we say that The Dallas Morning News fits into [a] pattern of Protestant elites warring on the Church with their Jewish allies? The answer, once again, is yes, we can."

Oopsie! Guess the author is unaware that our publisher and his family are bigtime Catholics, and have been active in the local Church for generations. But why should facts get in the way of a good anti-Semitic conspiracy rant?

The article concludes that the DMN exposed the roles certain Latin American prelates have played in helping accused pederast priests escape justice in the US because -- are you following me? -- the newspaper is terrified of Catholic immigration from Latin America -- and so are our supposed allies at the Anti Defamation League. The piece also says that Jews seeking to have property taken from their families by Nazis and Baathists restored to them are part of a "global shakedown."


Elsewhere, the writer of this piece expresses shock that the Culture Wars publisher, E. Michael Jones, is considered by other conservative Catholics to be an anti-Semite.

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 8, 3:26 PM

Hey, Moe

Maybe the Pacer-Pistons basketbrawl will spawn a new film genre -- reality assaults of the rich and famous and the poor and stupid.

Prosecutors in Michigan played a slow motion tape of the incidents, stopping the tape a few times to point out specific activities of players and fans and to explain what actions resulted in what charges.

It was compelling TV --- in a train wreck sort of way. Slow motion shots of streams of beer moving across the screen, landing in someone's face, and the prosecutor identifying that as a criminal act.

Best line to describe it came from a CNN legal analyst who said it was a cross between the Zapruder film and a Three Stooges movie.
Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk

posted by jim mitchell @ Dec 8, 2:45 PM

Snow will not fall

John Snow will stay at Treasury. It's great news especially when the names being floated as a possible replacement included former Texan Senator Phil Gramm.
While Gramm and the prez probably see eye-to-eye on a lot economic issues, Gramm remains a political combatant whose style would distract from the president's broad economic agenda.

posted by jim mitchell @ Dec 8, 2:29 PM

RE: ARGH!

Rod, it's no surprise that the PA has mismanaged money. But if we want the U.S. to be an influence in the new Palestinian order, then now is the time to roll the dice. Even Bush sees that.

posted by jim mitchell @ Dec 8, 2:24 PM

Donald can take it

I'm no Rumsfeld fan, but way too much is being made of his exchanges with troops. He's a big boy, and I bet not nearly as bent-out-of-shape as some folks are about the blunt questioning.
I didn't hear rude or improper remarks. I heard troops who had serious questions for their leader. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with Rumsfeld's responses.
If you can't stand the heat...

posted by jim mitchell @ Dec 8, 2:18 PM

Argh!

The Bush Administration announced today that it's putting $20 million in the Palestinian Authority's holiday kettle. Leaving aside the fact that I begrudge these people a single penny of American taxpayer dollars (the main reason can be viewed right here), I've got to ask: hey, Palestinian Authority, what did you do with the tens of millions the US and European taxpayers sent to you in the 1990s? Did it all go into Yasser Arafat's personal bank account, worth an estimated $1 billion? What guarantees can the administration offer that this money won't go into the pockets of Arafat's successors?

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 8, 1:59 PM

Re: Do you see what I see?

I now see Samaritans.

The issue started out as a discussion over what to call Dallas City Hall's cut-and-installed conifer -- a Christmas tree or "holiday tree," as the city insists in an apparent effort to not P.O. (potentially offend) anyone.

Readers have extended the discussion to seasonal greetings. I said that if I owned a department store, I'd extend greetings to customers of all stripes.

Peter from Virginia writes: What's the problem with "Merry Christmas," along with "Happy Chanukah" and "Season's greetings?"

Nothing, if you live in a major metropolitan area, but what if your population base is such that it is overwhelmingly Christian? What if the Jewish population was so small that a minvan couldn't be filled?

What has happened is that our society is overwhelmingly concerned about other folks' feelings. This country is the most religion-tolerant one in the world, but folks need to realize that it is a Christian nation. A nation that when founded recognized that there is a supreme being. The ACLU and other secular groups want to eliminate this from our history. Why else do we see school systems telling teachers that they cann't mention to the their students why the Pilgrims were giving thanks and to whom their were giving thanks?

OK. Well, as a Christian nation, we should extend love and good cheer to our brothers and sisters without regard to their homeland. They are our neighbors. Recall the parable of the good Samaritan, regarded as an undesirable foreigner to ancient Jews.

Our own Samaritans are all around us today. And how do we respond to them this Christmas season?

(For the record: I think we should call it a Christmas tree.)

posted by Rodger Jones @ Dec 8, 11:41 AM

December 07, 2004

Re: Do you see what I see?

The subject is Dallas' newly cut conifer, installed in front of City Hall -- is it a Christmas tree or, as the city officially calls it, a "holiday tree?"

A reader, Lori-Ann, writes: As a Jew, I agree that the decorated pine tree, a tree that Jesus never would have seen since they don't have native pine trees in the Middle East, is a Christmas tree. There are a few Jews who must feel "left out" and have what they call "Chanukah bushes," but, in fact, they're Christmas trees.

However, as far as I know, Christmas comes once every December 25th. There are other holidays in December and some of them involve buying gifts. One of those holidays is Chanukah and gifts are bought for each of the 8 days the holiday is celebrated. So, should department stores wish everyone "Happy Chanukah" 8 times as many times as they wish people "Merry Christmas" or is the best policy to simply say "Happy holidays?"

Good questions. If I owned a department store, I supposed I'd slather the place with every legitimate seasonal greeting to speak to the varied clientele out there. What's the problem with Merry Christmas, along with Happy Chanukah, Season's greetings?

posted by Rodger Jones @ Dec 7, 5:58 PM

Re: Rather unusual ...

Besides, what newscast wouldn't be improved with a top 10 list and Stupid Pet/Human Tricks?

posted by Michael Landauer @ Dec 7, 5:42 PM

Re: Unusual Rather replacement

I am led to authoritative, trusted voices. On CNN. On MSNBC. But their names, their actual person, does not matter to me. I trust the entity, not the human being reading the copy. I think we have a much more sophisticated view of how news gets produced now, so the figurehead anchor matters less.

That's all I meant. And so, in that cheapened form, why not put a clown on the air? At least he's a smart, angry clown with a following and a fairly fun way of passing alojng information. Remember, more viewers than ever got their "news" from the comedy channel this year than ever before.

posted by Michael Landauer @ Dec 7, 5:41 PM

The never-ending circus

TDMN weighs in today with its third installment of recent reporting on the fugitive priest scandal. Today's story tells of Canadian abusers sent across the border into the US to work. It prompted this interesting comment from a reader of Amy Welborn's Catholic blog:


Do any of our readers consider what the reaction to these stories would be if we simply changed some of the main players in the plot?

Imagine if it weren't the catholic church, but if the international institution we were discussing were a famous and international fast food chain?

Imagine if it weren't that priests and other church leaders had molested children, but if it were the iconic red-haired clowns who during child birthday parties molested children?

Imagine if it were revealed that the policy of the fast food restaurant was to pay settlements with gag orders attached not to urge parents of children who reported these crimes to go to the police?

Imagine if were revealed that those red-haired clowns were then spirited off to treatment centers and transferred to other franchises because they had "done so much good at so many other birthday parties"?

Imagine if the defense of their corporate wrong-doing were such phrases as "it's important to note that 95% of our red-haired clowns conduct their birthday parties without molesting children"?

Imagine if it were revealed that those whose crimes were the most heinous were then assisted to gain employment in other franchises in other countries?

Imagine if it were revealed that in some cases law enforcement failed to pursue investigation and prosecution of these cases because they had such idyllic memories of their own childhood experiences at these fast-food establishments?

What would be the collective response?

I think that many individuals would boycott that international institution and quick . . .

I think that the federal gov't would scoff at the thought of that the fast-food chain could investigate itself, audit itself, and monitor itself . . . (they didn't let Enron do it!)

I think their would be a criminal investigation that would be international in it's scope . . .

Something to consider . . .

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 7, 2:09 PM

Re: Unusual Rather replacement

Michael, I'll give you the T.O.B.* Award for today. Beyond discussion of what's not going to happen, let me disagree with your notion that the "era of the trusted news anchor is dead."

Maybe night after night the viewing public doesn't rely on the type of definitive rundown that Uncle Walter provided. But I do think that human nature leads us toward authoritative, trusted voices and personalities during times of uneasiness, stress and change. Cable and broadcast networks continually seeks to fill this niche and need. For all his vaunted popularity this election year, I doubt Jon Stewart has staying power as a news source -- as opposed to an entertainment source -- to be reckoned with. (Of course, I may need salt and pepper for these words come 2008.)

* Thinking out of the box

posted by Rodger Jones @ Dec 7, 2:07 PM

A Rather unusual replacement

I have a real suggestion for CBS looking to replace Dan Rather: the network's very own David Letterman. I heard this mentioned as a joke recently, but I really believe it might be a good idea.

Letterman is increasingly serious and adept at interviewing national and world leaders. He's no dummy, either. In fact, ever since 9-11, he has taken a more serious tone in his show, at least in terms of guests. In fact, on the first show after the bombings, Rather was his guest and it was one of TV's most poignant moments of healing after the attacks.

I'm not saying this as a fan, really. I think Letterman's show is pretty dull nowadays. The writing is stale. They repeat joke after joke until it's dead three times over. But it's funnier than the Evening News.

And seriosuly, anything CBS does will be seen as either too boring or a gimmick. So why not change the nature of the newscast, draw huge audiences, lighten up the format a little bit to give Letterman a chance to be funny and political and see where it goes? CBS can't do worse than it's doing now.

Rather is done. The era of the trusted news anchor is dead, and there is no obvious replacement who would draw audiences. And the timing is right. Letterman is tired; he's an old, cranky man. Time to move him into News.

posted by Michael Landauer @ Dec 7, 1:47 PM

Re: Do you see what I see?

Readers respond to my notion that the city ought to call the de-Christmasized "holiday tree" just The Tree and hang stuff on it all year round, secular and occasionally religious, so as not to offend and invite litigation:

Mike from Arlington writes: I knew a couple, he was Jewish and she was Christian—they referred to their tree as a non-denominational night light.

Ed from Carrollton writes: Could we hang the DMN editorial board from it?

Greg the systems analyst writes: Don't forget to leave one branch unadorned at all times, for the atheists. Also, the branch that most resembles a "?" could be for the agnostics.

Don from Garland writes: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe there is evidence to show that decorating a tree in the forest for the Winter Solstice, a pagan practice, originated before Christianity. That said, I agree with you. There is way too much political correctness associated with Christmas. But I’m not sure demonizing the people & organizations that are doing this is what Jesus would want us to do.

I hope I'm not demonizing, Don. What we've got -- I think -- is a Christmas tree installed in front of City Hall. But we're afraid to call it that.

posted by Rodger Jones @ Dec 7, 1:46 PM

Re: Subjectivity

A reader writes:


I can appreciate the frustration of your friend in the RCIA class. (Yes, I tried Catholicism, too, but having been raised Baptist, just couldn't get past the whole "Mary" emphasis.) Her story makes me see how fortunate I was to have had such good instructors in RCIA -- even though I ultimately decided against Catholicism, imagine how I would have felt had the instructor not taught me what I needed to know in order to make an intelligent decision! I'm with you on this one, Rod. Instead of picking a church that represents their beliefs, too many people seem to choose a church (on some other basis I can't even understand), then try to get that church to change to their way of thinking.

What's wrong with this picture?


When I entered my first RCIA class back in Baton Rouge in 1991, I stuck around for two and a half months. It was all feelings, all the time. I kept wondering when we were going to get around to discussing the hard stuff, like what the Church actually taught. I wasn't sure if I wanted to be Catholic, and I wanted to know what I was getting into.


I finally chucked Fr. Frootloop and Sister Stretchpants, and found an inner-city Irish missionary priest. He said, "By the time I'm through with you, you might not want to be a Catholic, but you'll know what a Catholic is." I thanked him for respecting me intellectually, and on we went.

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 7, 11:01 AM

Re: Subjectivity

A friend of mine is in RCIA class at a local parish. RCIA is the class you go to if you want to explore becoming Catholic. It's where you are supposed to learn what the Catholic Church teaches. If, by the end of the nine-month process, you still want to be a Catholic, you are baptised into the Church, or received, at Easter.


I ran into my friend on Sunday, and asked her how it was going. Not well, she said. The seminarian who is teaching them can't or won't answer doctrinal questions. All he wants to talk about is feelings, and the emotions people have about the Church. The people in the class want to know what the Church teaches, and why, especially about controversial doctrines, like the male-only priesthood. But this seminarian, who is close to being ordained a priest, cannot or will not help them. I told her just to do what I did: stick it out until you become a Catholic, but teach yourself on your own, so you know what you're getting into. But there will be no getting around the fact that very, very few Catholic priests today are capable of or willing to explain Church teaching. Maybe it's because they don't believe it themselves. Or maybe they just want to be nice.


I'll tell you where building your church around your feelings gets you. I was recently in my Louisiana hometown, and talking religion with various friends, all of them Protestant. I complained about how the pastor at the local Catholic church had told us all in the homily that day how we really couldn't rely on the Gospel of Luke to tell us the truth about something Jesus said. One friend, a Methodist, said the woman who teaches their adult Sunday School class doesn't believe that Jesus was God, and doesn't believe in the Trinity.


"You're kidding!" I said. "She's not even a Christian, and she's teaching Sunday School?!" (This is a very small, socially conservative town, which added to my shock.)

My friend scowled at me, and said, "Everybody has a right to their opinion."

Mmm-hmm. A Christian church where belief in the divinity of Jesus is optional.

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 7, 9:47 AM

Subjectivity

Continuing for the third day a particular thread, I've just read an interesting account of a breakaway Catholic priest, one that sheds light on why the kind of radical subjectivity that one reader says is the only criterion for determining religious truth is unworkable.


This is a passage from an essay written by a young, newly Catholic woman who followed, for a time, a popular liberal priest out of the Catholic Church, and into a church he started himself. She quickly became disenchanted by what she found at Father Hausen's mass. Excerpt:


Many of [today's Catholic] priests are foggy, and despite their good intentions, seem utterly disconnected from the world. When, at the height of the John Kerry Wafer Watch, a woman in my RCIA class at Sacred Heart asked the presiding priest his opinion about refusing pro-choice politicians communion, he bashfully admitted that he was only vaguely aware of the controversy. Caught off guard, he wasn't able to present us with any reasoned interpretation of the controversy, wasn't able to call up doctrine or advise us at all. This was a meeting of reverting Catholics, and the numbers had already dwindled so that I feared I'd soon be the only person in the room. I could see it then, in the eyes of my classmates—confidence in this priest as a teacher was shaken, fears about anachronistic Catholic teachings were confirmed, and misconceptions of priests as mythical creatures who experience life on some higher, divine plane—disconnected from the reality and challenge of secular existence—were reinforced.

The people who have joined Hausen at Christ Hope say they yearn for a leader who lives in the world—one who is human, and struggles, and sins. Like them. And yet many of these people say they've left the Church because of the sex scandal—an unfortunate but clear reminder of the flawed humanity of many of our priests.

One of Hausen's favorite sound bites—and he has dozens, so that if you spend enough time with him he seems to run on a loop—is that religion is for people who are afraid of hell, and spirituality is for those who have been there. "I've been there," he reminds his friends in the folding chairs. He reminds them every time he gets the chance.

But what happens when personal experience is the final authority? If we only have the truths of our own existence by which to navigate, then don't we risk following a flawed compass to the wrong destination?

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 7, 9:40 AM

December 06, 2004

Where were the imams?

In Oslo, the capital of Norway, where a Muslim leader caused controversy by saying on TV recently that he could understand why a fellow Muslim in Holland murdered Theo van Gogh, a group of Muslims organized a candlelight march on Saturday to deplore violence in the name of their religion. Most of Norway's top politicians took part in the march.


Most of the imams of the city's mosques didn't show up.

Norway's prime minister had a great question for that crowd: "They say they are against violence and murders. Why don't they join us here in this protest?"

Quite.

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 6, 7:57 PM

Mfume was pushed

Columnist Armstrong Williams says Kweisi Mfume was forced out of the NAACP by Julian Bond. Why? For trying to reach out to President Bush and Republicans. If this is true, that's really too bad, for the NAACP will continue its downward slide into irrelevancy.

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 6, 6:33 PM

re: do you see what i see?

Reader responds:

Splain that to the ACLU and their brethren who see the religious bogeyman around every corner.

for the past few years i have made concerted effort to wish everyone I encounter (especially store clerks) a "Merry Christmas". I'm pleased to say that 9 times out of 10 I get a thank you in return. So pass it on.

I agree to a point. When I saw my new neighbors recently, people I know to be Jewish, I said Happy Haunukah, not Merry Christmas. But my default setting is "Merry Christmas."

posted by Michael Landauer @ Dec 6, 4:17 PM

This just in

MLB not likely to ...

Or do much of anything else in response to steroid use, I'd imagine.

posted by Michael Landauer @ Dec 6, 4:13 PM

Re: Do you see what I see?

OK, Christmas is either over-commercialized OR it's still very much a religious holiday. Which is it? I think it's an over-commercialized, over-secularized holiday with religious roots. So, with that in mind, why all the political correctness about it? Christmas is a cultural event, not just a religious one, in this country. This society is predominantly and traditionally Christian. Renaming the tree to avoid the word Christmas won't change that. And calling it a Christmas tree recognizes the cultural significance of Christmas to the people in the community; it does not advocate Christ.

posted by Michael Landauer @ Dec 6, 3:42 PM

Do you see what I see?

The city's Christmas tree has been installed and awaits decorations and lighting.

Ooops! My fault. It's not a Christmas tree, it's officially the city's Holiday Tree. That name is applied so as not to P.O. (potentially offend) anyone and invite litigation. But, let's be real; someone could dig a little deeper and discover the holiday or holidays that lurk behind this quaint tree custom. You know what they'd find -- Christmas again. And that's nothing but trouble.

Free advice to the city from this corner: Just call it The Tree. Better yet, just plant one -- a good, useful one with long, low branches. Like a live oak. You could hang stuff on it any time of year. The possibilities are endless -- Valentine's Day stuff, Cinco de Mayo stuff, Fourth of July stuff, Columbus Day stuff, and on like that. You could even have one branch reserved for the religions of the world for their important times. You'd need a committee to apportion the religion-branch space fairly and so we don't overlook anyone who typically escapes our notice, like the pagans -- err, Wiccans.

Why risk anything by putting up a dead tree at Christmas time when we can do so much better?

posted by Rodger Jones @ Dec 6, 3:33 PM

Announcing my candidacy

I am officially here on this blog announcing my candidacy for chairman of the Democratic Party. Not only do I think it's important to have someone from a Red State for that position, but I think it would be helpful to have someone with mostly Red State viewpoints. Plus I'm young and very much from outside the loop. I'm only seeking this post after being passed over for Ag, which I lobbied hard for.

posted by Michael Landauer @ Dec 6, 3:02 PM

Re: One more comment

Ah, the reader who wrote that last letter writes me a second time. We find something to agree on:


I do also think you would be interested to note that I support your
continued emphasis on the dangers of Islamic extremism. You could be
surprised to read this, given my views on other things, but I think you are
correct that we could be ignoring this issue in deference to political
correctness. Like you said, when was the last time a Christian extremist
suicide bombed anything? Christian extremists can be a pain in the [deletted],
bigoted, and condescending with holier-than-thou attitudes, but they are
rarely violent.

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 6, 1:36 PM

Re: One more comment

A reader writes:


You just said, "I criticized the reader's manner of argumentation, which is
not even argumentation at all, only making heated declarations, and when I
took issue with them, making even more heated declarations. Dialogue is
impossible under those conditions. The reader was saying that if I didn't
agree with him, that was evidence of my own bigotry. He also didn't try to
establish principles to defend his position, saying only that he feels that
x, y, and z are right in his heart. My counterargument was, essentially,
"That's fine, but that leaves you no basis on which to argue against
someone who believes exactly the opposite from you, and sincerely claims to
believe that because of what's in his heart.""

What you fail to see, however, is that you are doing the same thing. You
are asking a man to provide a LOGICAL argument about a FAITH-based
position. But one of the defining aspects of faith is that it can defy all
logic, that's what essentially makes it faith (i.e. I'm going to have faith
that you will do such and such, even though logically I don't see that
happening.). In other words, finding a logical argument to try to change
your faith-based position is essentially impossible.


That's not true at all. I wasn't arguing with the man over whether or not churches should change their position on homosexuality. My point is that for churches that teach homosexuality is a sin, as every Christian church did until virtually yesterday, this is not necessarily a matter of bigotry, but of being faithful to Scripture and tradition. The gay reader asserted -- not argued, but asserted -- that his own personal, subjective belief is the only basis from which theological truth can be ascertained. He is entitled to hold that opinion, but that being the case, there is no basis for dialogue.


Besides which, it is absurdly arrogant to tell an entire church that if it doesn't agree with you on issue X., then its failure to yield convicts the church of bigotry. As I pointed out, by that standard, everybody who disagrees with me is a bigot, because if they didn't hate me, they'd accept my position. That is immature, and not worthy of serious consideration.


The reader goes on to say:

But on that vein, let's discuss this "2,000 of Christian tradition".
Why are we even following a tradition that was devised 2,000 years
ago? A very powerful argument could be made that anything that was
thought 2,000 years ago should be thrown at as, oh, I don't know...
antiquated.


Not necessarily from the point of view of religious truth. Is "Thou shalt not kill" antiquated? Is "Thou shalt not lie"? The point of theology is to study revealed truth, within the parameters laid down by the religious tradition in which one is theologizing, and decide what can change, and what should stay. Anyway, I don't want to argue about God and homosexuality -- which is a good argument to have, but not really the one I was having with that particular reader. This or that church may be wrong about it, and for various reasons. What that thread with the gay reader was about was his angry insistence that any Christian who disagreed with his own personal belief was guilty of hate. That ends any discussion before it can begin.

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 6, 1:35 PM

Re: One more comment

Here's a good case in point, not about homosexuality. My bosses and some of my colleagues are now being lobbied by area Muslims and at least one non-Muslim member of the "peace and justice community," all of whom are angry at my blogs about Islamic extremism. They're calling my blogs hate speech, demanding that my bosses lean on me to shut up, and so forth. What you will not find in these e-mails, at least the ones I've seen, is a single concrete instance of my so-called "hate speech," and what makes what I've said beyond the pale of discussion.


My consistent point of view on this topic is that we in the media keep wanting to turn a blind eye to the presence of Islamic extremism in this country. I have routinely blogged links to examples of Islamic extremism here. The standard response from Muslims who have cared to write to complain is that the mere fact of my stating this is evidence of bigotry. If they can convince others that this is true, then it makes discussion of the very real problem out of bounds. In fact, that is precisely how Islamic extremism was given the opportunity to fester in the Netherlands for decades: anyone who suggested that it was a problem was denounced as a racist for daring to mention it.


If I am wrong about Islamic extremism in this country and/or the media response to it, then I honestly do want to hear evidence to counter my concerns. Send it to me, and I'll blog it, and if it's convincing, I'll happily change my opinion. But what I'm not interested in is this politically correct business of labeling arguments one doesn't like as some form of hate speech, and trying to get it silenced. There is far too much at stake in what the 9/11 Commission called "the war on Islamic terrorism" to allow a frank and open discussion of these matters to be tabled because it makes some Muslims and political lefties uncomfortable.

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 6, 12:30 PM

One more comment

Just another comment on the frustrating Friday thread with the gay reader who thought my criticism of the United Church of Christ was bigotry, gay bashing, whatever.


I criticized the reader's manner of argumentation, which is not even argumentation at all, only making heated declarations, and when I took issue with them, making even more heated declarations. Dialogue is impossible under those conditions. The reader was saying that if I didn't agree with him, that was evidence of my own bigotry. He also didn't try to establish principles to defend his position, saying only that he feels that x, y, and z are right in his heart. My counterargument was, essentially, "That's fine, but that leaves you no basis on which to argue against someone who believes exactly the opposite from you, and sincerely claims to believe that because of what's in his heart."


It seems to me that what's wrong with so much public discourse today is that people from all sides are unwilling to take the trouble to construct an actual argument for their viewpoint. An argument consists of a series of premisses leading logically to a certain conclusion. One disputes the argument by challenging the premisses, or the logic of the argument. It's unrealistic to expect that our debates will follow neat syllogisms, but that's the model we should be striving to follow.


This reader's assumption that the strength of his "argument" depends entirely on the fierceness of his subjective feeling is precisely the misunderstanding that makes discussion and debate impossible. It is interesting that this fellow believes, or seems to believe, that no church has the moral right to tell him that he's wrong in the conclusions he's drawn about homosexuality. I respect that he believes that churches who disagree with him are wrong; what I don't respect is his groundless claim that a church has no right to determine the conditions for membership in its own communion. What are churches for, anyway? If they're only about "inclusion," if they're only about standing for All Of Us Together, what's the point? How are they different from any club? Even the Democratic and Republican parties stand for something. How much sense would it make for a guy to tell the Democrats that he believes in every item on the GOP platform, but he considers himself a Democrat and wants all the benefits and privileges that go with membership in the Democratic Party -- and anybody who disagrees with that is a bigot?

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 6, 12:20 PM

December 03, 2004

And so it ends

The reader from the UCC thread responds with a devastating argument:


I give up. You win. The overwhelming logic of your argument has convinced me to quit being gay. Tomorrow, (I am a little too tired tonight, having spent a tough week working in an inner city high school trying to educate the deprived kids of some very poor heterosexuals), I will turn heterosexual myself, find a good woman, settle down and have some kids of my own. Your God is too powerful for me. There. Feel better?


This is an embarrassing capitulation. A hissy fit is not an argument. Oh well, on we go.

posted by Rod Dreher @ Dec 3, 6:45 PM

Know your words!!!

When I saw the item about the top 10 words people looked up in the on-line Merriam-Websters this year, Number 10 caught my eye, of course.

Defenestration: a throwing of a person or thing out of a window


How did this unfamiliar (to me) word get so popular as to rack up that many queries? Well, it seems that Defenestration runs amok. It's the name of beaucoup websites. You've got your .org, .net and .com. And waaaaay more.

You've got your defestrating techies using the term to describe the dumping of Microsoft. See the Unix Guide to Defenestration. You got people talking about intellectual defenestration. You've got defenestration as a traditional Bohemian method of assassination.. Just so you know, the word figures into an important chapter in Czech history. From one of many sources:

The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) was touched off by an incident called "The Defenestration of Prague". The Bohemian nobility was in more or less open revolt against the Emperor, and, at a meeting of the Bohemian Estates at the Hrdcany Castle in Prague on 23 May 1618, the assembled Bohemian nobles took the two Imperial governors present at the meeting, namely Wilhelm Graf Slavata and Jaroslav Borzita Graf von Martinicz, and threw them out of a window of the castle and into a ditch.

Defenestration also is cited as the cause of death of many modern notables by the authoritative (?) website NNDB (slogan: "Tracking the Whole World). Did you know that Harry Truman's secretary of defense, James V. Forrestal, was defenestrated?

Defenestration is an English rock band (don't you remember the album Ray Zero?)

Defenestrationmag.net is a humor e-zine that solicits funny articles and verse. It sends out acceptance notes in limerick. One delighted recipient posted his:

Dear author who to us submitted:
Your stuff is astounding! ADMITTED!
We'll publish it, STAT
(You know all about that).
And yes, we should all be committed.

Had enough? Want to defenestrate me? Alas, questions remain:
1) Where was I, oblivious, when this word got hot?
2) Who got the word really ramped up into currency?
3) Is it used in anyone's everyday social intercourse? In what circles?
4) Does all this babble suggest I've had enough and should go home for the day?

Answer to last question: Yep. See ya.

posted by Rodger Jones @ Dec 3, 6:27 PM