Religion

Quote of the Day

by

[The] determination to build Jerusalem, at once and on the spot, is the very force which is responsible for the intolerance and violence of the new political order � if we believe that the Kingdom of Heaven can be established by political or economic measures � that it can be an earthly state � then we can hardly object to the claims of such a State to embrace the whole of life and to demand the total submission of the individual � there is a fundamental error in all this. That error is the ignoring of Original Sin and its consequences or rather identification of the Fall with some defective political or economic arrangement. If we could destroy the Capitalist system or the power of bankers or that of the Jews, everything in the garden would be lovely.

Christopher Dawson (and here), Religion and the Modern State (1935), quoted in Michael Burleigh, Earthly Powers: The Clash of Religion and Politics in Europe, from the French Revolution to the Great War. (As of p. 152, the Burleigh book is excellent.)

Faith Based Initiative 1 Civilization 0

by

The damage is done. Ratzinger makes a comment contrary to where the Church stood before and then apologizes. Vatican could perhaps get distressed and spin it in any way it can to save face but the cost will be measured in American lives.

For my religious friends here are some inconvenient facts:

Read more

Perhaps the Mystery Isn’t All That Great

by

Some may wonder how a church can move from 4.2 million in 1967 to 2.3 in 2005, despite the fact that Christian churches in general have been growing more rapidly than the population. The answer might be found in the publisher of this Amazon entry and the publisher’s explanation. (It is extolled here and reviewed here.)

Some might think humility would be one of the key characteristics of the Christian; if so, this approach would seem more appropriate. And so would sympathy for those who risk their lives daily choosing to become policemen in Iraq. They hope to further the rule of law – one Christians have long understood as necessary for an earthly life of peace. This church offers little succor.

(And we aren’t even getting into what can be interpreted as anti-semitism in the bizarre policy of “punishing” Caterpillar.)

The statistics are from the July Layman, which is a pdf; it is reached through the Layman Online.

Evangelicals and U.S. Foreign Policy

by

I read this paper by Walter Russell Mead in Foreign Affairs last week. It is a typically excellent Mead product.

I think the main thing Mead is trying to accomplish with this article is to show unreligious people who are part of the Northeastern establishment that (1) there is a lot more to the so-called “religious right” than their stereotypes can capture, (2) that the impact of the evangelical community is going to continue to be major, and growing influence on US foreign policy, and (3) that the policies that this community is going to advocate in the future, again, may differ from the stereotypes which the non-religious establishment has of evangelicals. Basically, American evangelicalism is a vast and influential and active world unto itself that most people who are interested in or participate in public policy know nothing about. One friend commented that Mead is being more than fair to these folks. I think he is appropriately fair. But Mead�s goal is not to criticize this community, but to try to explain them to an uncomprehending and hostile audience.

RTWT.

One for Ginny

by

Austin Bay has a thoughtful essay posted over at Strategypage.com. The subject is the role of rhetoric in the political process.

Ancient Greek rhetoricians admired — and feared — powerful speakers who had the gift of emotional appeal and exhortation. My worn copy of “A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms” lists over 50 types of emotional appeals. From “amphidiorthosis” (“to hedge or qualify” a dangerous or bold position ) to “threnos” (a lament), thoughtful minds in the fourth century B.C. had analyzed every plea, supplication, ploy and gambit.

Yet there’s strong evidence a healthy democracy requires rhetorical showmanship and convincing verbal drama. (Hesoid argued that effective justice also requires it, since a ruling judge must persuade aggrieved parties justice has been served and not partisan interest.)

So Bay starts out by pointing out that artistic use of language is necessary for grand political debate, and that debate is necessary for democracy. He then uses recent remarks by Pat Robertson and Ted Kennedy as examples of how this process can go wrong.

Bay’s essay is insightful and to the point, and I urge everyone to click the link and give it a read. But what struck me was the way that these incidents have been handled in the media. Both Robertson’s and Kennedy’s remarks were hateful and should never have been uttered. I notice, however, that the press condemned Robertson while giving Kennedy a pass even though Kennedy was uttering actual lies while Robertson was merely expressing an opinion.

Why is this so?

Read more