Richard Land seems to think so.
He is wrong!
Since when did the so-called "Republican Party" become the "Christian Republic Party"?
Or is it becoming a European style party of "christian democrats" . . . w/ a looming Romney-Huckabee ticket?
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Party
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy'
Backed by the ECT [Evangelicals & Catholics Together] neo-con intellectual thugs over at First Things?
- http://www.firstthings.com/
Chris Mathews has it "right" - I paraphrase - "Since when is there a 'religious test' to be the Republican candidate for president, let alone POTUS?"
@ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22042012/
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Neuhaus - A "First Things" Manque
"Of course, the whole thing about an evangelical crackup is silly and would be easily ignored were it not that some of us are addictively amused by paying attention to the Times. And, let it be said in fairness, that there are others who still read the paper to find out what is happening in the real world. Let it be further admitted that there are divisions and conflicts among politically oriented evangelical leaders, especially with regard to the prospect of Giuliani being the Republican nominee. In the December issue of First Things, subscribers will find a very thoughtful analysis of that prospect by astute brain-truster of the pro-life cause Hadley Arkes. He carefully examines the troubling consequences for the cause if the Republicans are no longer the pro-life party, which, despite his more recent hedges, would be the case if Giuliani were the nominee."
If only Neuhaus, Arkes, Weigel, George, Novak, et. al., really grasped the philosophy of arche, they would, no doubt, be more humble.
If only Neuhaus, Arkes, Weigel, George, Novak, et. al., really grasped the philosophy of arche, they would, no doubt, be more humble.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Science, the Unruly Child of George Weigel's Mind
"So an alliance-for-humanity between science and biblical religion is in fact a matter of re-connecting a parent and its child, not of introducing two utterly different species to each other."
Who - ontologically (!) - is the true George Weigel? . . . Here - in his own words - is "who-what" he is - a "man of faith" in his own righteousness as a discerner of authentic political power - well beyond the empirical scepticism of those faith-based communities not sharing his own peculiar insight into the worthiness of GWB into whose care his "god" has placed us . . . for our own good - - -
"There is a charism of political discernment that is unique to the vocation of public service. That charism is not shared by bishops, stated clerks, rabbis, imams, or ecumenical and interreligious agencies. Moral clarity in a time of war demands moral seriousness from public officials. It also demands a measure of political modesty from religious leaders and public intellectuals, in the give-and-take of democratic deliberation."
Who - ontologically (!) - is the true George Weigel? . . . Here - in his own words - is "who-what" he is - a "man of faith" in his own righteousness as a discerner of authentic political power - well beyond the empirical scepticism of those faith-based communities not sharing his own peculiar insight into the worthiness of GWB into whose care his "god" has placed us . . . for our own good - - -
"There is a charism of political discernment that is unique to the vocation of public service. That charism is not shared by bishops, stated clerks, rabbis, imams, or ecumenical and interreligious agencies. Moral clarity in a time of war demands moral seriousness from public officials. It also demands a measure of political modesty from religious leaders and public intellectuals, in the give-and-take of democratic deliberation."
Friday, October 26, 2007
AGAIN - Liberal Moral Confusion!
Republican Hot Flashes
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, October 26, 2007; A21
Washington Post
"Has America become a mean, ungenerous, cramped and crabby nation, a deeply insecure colossus -- one that just might be taking all those Viagra and Cialis commercials a bit too personally? Is the country desperate to find scapegoats for a perceived decline in, um, vigor? Or is America still a confident land of hope and promise, a place still potent with possibility?
. . . . . . . . .
"The latest was the Senate vote Wednesday in which Republicans, supported by a handful of red-state Democrats, narrowly scuttled the Dream Act, a bill that would have provided a path to citizenship for some young undocumented immigrants -- but only those who did everything this country once found worthy and admirable in pursuit of the American dream.
"Under the proposal, men and women who fulfilled several conditions -- they had to be under 30, had to have been brought into the country illegally before they were 16, had to have been in the United States for at least five years and had to be graduates of U.S. high schools -- would have been given conditional legal status. If they went on to complete two years of college or two years of military service, they would have been eligible for permanent residency."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502234.html
"If they went on to complete two years of college or two years of military service" ???
An interesting moral equivalence - one self-interested, one selfless.
AGAIN - Liberal Moral Confusion!
Full Disclosure: I believe that universal military service - no exemptions - is the core of patriotism, the duty to be on-point, as it were, to defend the country & the nation-state!
The failure - left-center-right - to acknowledge this will be the death of this worthy republic.
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, October 26, 2007; A21
Washington Post
"Has America become a mean, ungenerous, cramped and crabby nation, a deeply insecure colossus -- one that just might be taking all those Viagra and Cialis commercials a bit too personally? Is the country desperate to find scapegoats for a perceived decline in, um, vigor? Or is America still a confident land of hope and promise, a place still potent with possibility?
. . . . . . . . .
"The latest was the Senate vote Wednesday in which Republicans, supported by a handful of red-state Democrats, narrowly scuttled the Dream Act, a bill that would have provided a path to citizenship for some young undocumented immigrants -- but only those who did everything this country once found worthy and admirable in pursuit of the American dream.
"Under the proposal, men and women who fulfilled several conditions -- they had to be under 30, had to have been brought into the country illegally before they were 16, had to have been in the United States for at least five years and had to be graduates of U.S. high schools -- would have been given conditional legal status. If they went on to complete two years of college or two years of military service, they would have been eligible for permanent residency."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502234.html
"If they went on to complete two years of college or two years of military service" ???
An interesting moral equivalence - one self-interested, one selfless.
AGAIN - Liberal Moral Confusion!
Full Disclosure: I believe that universal military service - no exemptions - is the core of patriotism, the duty to be on-point, as it were, to defend the country & the nation-state!
The failure - left-center-right - to acknowledge this will be the death of this worthy republic.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Shankar Vedantam - "Is Great Happiness Too Much of a Good Thing?"
"Americans report being generally happier than people from, say, Japan or Korea, but it turns out that, partly as a result, they are less likely to feel good when positive things happen and more likely to feel bad when negative things befall them. Put another way, a hidden price of being happier on average is that you put your short-term contentment at risk, because being happy raises your expectations about being happy. When good things happen, they don't count for much because they are what you expect. When bad things happen, you temporarily feel terrible, because you've gotten used to being happy."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093000632.html
One might very well wonder if a case is being made here for an empirical theory of happiness analogous to Lawrence Kohlberg's "levels of moral development". Of course, one must then address - hopefully in a non-pre-posterist way - issues of gender [nature] & culture [nurture]. This article is, accordingly, a useful entry into a much-needed discussion of the "place" & "places" of differing conceptions of happiness in our putatively flattening world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093000632.html
One might very well wonder if a case is being made here for an empirical theory of happiness analogous to Lawrence Kohlberg's "levels of moral development". Of course, one must then address - hopefully in a non-pre-posterist way - issues of gender [nature] & culture [nurture]. This article is, accordingly, a useful entry into a much-needed discussion of the "place" & "places" of differing conceptions of happiness in our putatively flattening world.
Hitchens - "The Subtle, Lethal Poison of Religion"
This blog entry by Christopher Hitchens - "The Subtle, Lethal Poison of Religion" -
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/09/hitchens_1.html
@ Washington Post has generated more than unsolicited 600 comments and peer commentary by 21 panelists -
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/09/hitchens_on_religion/all.html
Most of the commentary is simply pre-posterist! In general, the remarks tend to be exhibits of typical intellectualist & political habit of putting the propositional cart before the conceptual horse/s.
A non-essentialist & non-reductivist but nonetheless historically informative definition of 'religion' would have been helpful - - -
X is a religion if X has at least a majority of the following characteristics: . . . . . . . . .
Otherwise claims about the vices or virtues of religion-as-such or a particular religion are worthless and only invite self-serving defensiveness from the so-called "faithful" of all "faiths", religious & non-religious, naturalist & non-naturalist, humanist & non-humanist, X & non-X!
As it was once well put, all of us live by "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for", that is, that part of each person's web of beliefs in which we each, respectively, put our ultimate trust, only to be vindicated or not by living by those beliefs.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/09/hitchens_1.html
@ Washington Post has generated more than unsolicited 600 comments and peer commentary by 21 panelists -
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/09/hitchens_on_religion/all.html
Most of the commentary is simply pre-posterist! In general, the remarks tend to be exhibits of typical intellectualist & political habit of putting the propositional cart before the conceptual horse/s.
A non-essentialist & non-reductivist but nonetheless historically informative definition of 'religion' would have been helpful - - -
X is a religion if X has at least a majority of the following characteristics: . . . . . . . . .
Otherwise claims about the vices or virtues of religion-as-such or a particular religion are worthless and only invite self-serving defensiveness from the so-called "faithful" of all "faiths", religious & non-religious, naturalist & non-naturalist, humanist & non-humanist, X & non-X!
As it was once well put, all of us live by "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for", that is, that part of each person's web of beliefs in which we each, respectively, put our ultimate trust, only to be vindicated or not by living by those beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
