07/05: Religion of Peace Update
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
From Australia this news article. Lead paragraph
The senior cleric of the biggest mosque in Canberra has been ordered not to attack fellow worshippers after an outbreak of violence split the city's small Islamic community.
The senior cleric of the biggest mosque in Canberra has been ordered not to attack fellow worshippers after an outbreak of violence split the city's small Islamic community.
This essay, from the current Chronicle of Higher Education, points to one of the great challenges facing our nation, the loss of civil cohesion.
But, more and more, I think the student culture of incivility is a larger impediment to their success than anything they might fail to learn about Western civilization or whatever it is I am teaching.
I often hear a lot of talk about the academic weaknesses of new freshmen. Even at a relatively elite college, it's not uncommon to find 18-year-olds who have problems with reading -- so much so that almost no incentive can persuade some students to spend an hour with Shakespeare, Kant, or Gibbon.
Writing is an even bigger problem for many students. Most have never produced anything longer than a few pages. A serious research paper -- involving sources, citation, and maybe eight pages of thoughtful analysis -- has become almost entirely unknown before college. The fundamental skills that used to qualify students for admission have been eroded to the point that nothing can be assumed anymore.
But those deficiencies don't bother me all that much. I am here to help them become better readers and writers, as well as to learn the particular content of my courses. Even more than that, I want to cultivate in them a sense of pleasure in learning that will enrich their lives.
Of course, I think it is a serious problem that many public schools -- and private ones -- have just about given up teaching many of the academic skills that were once considered basic for every high-school graduate, not just the ones going to college. But what really troubles me is that schools -- no doubt, mirroring the broader culture -- have given up cultivating the ordinary courtesies that enable people to get along without friction and violence.
Emphasis mine.
But, more and more, I think the student culture of incivility is a larger impediment to their success than anything they might fail to learn about Western civilization or whatever it is I am teaching.
I often hear a lot of talk about the academic weaknesses of new freshmen. Even at a relatively elite college, it's not uncommon to find 18-year-olds who have problems with reading -- so much so that almost no incentive can persuade some students to spend an hour with Shakespeare, Kant, or Gibbon.
Writing is an even bigger problem for many students. Most have never produced anything longer than a few pages. A serious research paper -- involving sources, citation, and maybe eight pages of thoughtful analysis -- has become almost entirely unknown before college. The fundamental skills that used to qualify students for admission have been eroded to the point that nothing can be assumed anymore.
But those deficiencies don't bother me all that much. I am here to help them become better readers and writers, as well as to learn the particular content of my courses. Even more than that, I want to cultivate in them a sense of pleasure in learning that will enrich their lives.
Of course, I think it is a serious problem that many public schools -- and private ones -- have just about given up teaching many of the academic skills that were once considered basic for every high-school graduate, not just the ones going to college. But what really troubles me is that schools -- no doubt, mirroring the broader culture -- have given up cultivating the ordinary courtesies that enable people to get along without friction and violence.
Emphasis mine.
In response to this post in which I begin to offer some hypotheses on the causes of decline of the mainline, Martian Mariner posted
Are you saying that the decline of the mainline denominations started at the time of the abolitionist movement, or just that a path of thinking had been started which would eventually lead to the decline?
Also, the issue of slavery obviously split the American Church as it split the nation. How was this split viewed by congregants at the time, and how has that continued cultural difference between Northern and Southern churches (PCUSA/PCA; AmBaptist/SBC; etc..) affected the views of congregants in more modern times?
The decline of the mainline denominations did not start at the time of the abolitionists. My point was that a "path of thinking" did indeed start which had as one of its indirect outcomes mainline decline. When the story of the growth of liberalism in American denomination is told, I think the story of abolitionists is overlooked, but very important.
Regarding regionalism in American Christianity. Southern Christianity during the antebellum period viewed itself as the preserver of biblical Christianity in the face of the heretical abolitionists. In my research in religious periodicals of the period I have found Lincoln often referred to as "that godless Lincoln." The southern churches locked into a literal reading of Scripture. Some of this attitude continues today.
Are you saying that the decline of the mainline denominations started at the time of the abolitionist movement, or just that a path of thinking had been started which would eventually lead to the decline?
Also, the issue of slavery obviously split the American Church as it split the nation. How was this split viewed by congregants at the time, and how has that continued cultural difference between Northern and Southern churches (PCUSA/PCA; AmBaptist/SBC; etc..) affected the views of congregants in more modern times?
The decline of the mainline denominations did not start at the time of the abolitionists. My point was that a "path of thinking" did indeed start which had as one of its indirect outcomes mainline decline. When the story of the growth of liberalism in American denomination is told, I think the story of abolitionists is overlooked, but very important.
Regarding regionalism in American Christianity. Southern Christianity during the antebellum period viewed itself as the preserver of biblical Christianity in the face of the heretical abolitionists. In my research in religious periodicals of the period I have found Lincoln often referred to as "that godless Lincoln." The southern churches locked into a literal reading of Scripture. Some of this attitude continues today.
07/05: The McCain Paradox
I saw it again today in Ken Walsh's U.S.News piece on the ever sinking fortunes of President George Bush (here):
"[0]nly McCain [among the Republican candidates] has made [standing firm on Iraq] a frequent talking point, which is considered one reason why he has faded from front-runner status."
Wrong Again. Republican primary voters are not deserting John McCain because of his courage in the face of declining support for the American mission in Iraq. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
What explains John McCain's troubles?
Part of it is the erroneous context in which his campaign is habitually framed: the fallen front runner. Many months ago, some beltway media types named John McCain the front runner. He wasn't. There was no election going on back then. There was some public opinion polling that asked voters to pick between John McCain and a lot of guys they had never heard of. Surprise, they picked McCain. At the same time, in the same rounds of meaningless polls, McCain showed that he would win in the general against Hillary.
What do the polls say now? The polls say that the Republicans are disoriented and looking for a Messiah. Giuliani? Thompson? And there will be others.
The same beltway types now characterize McCain as the guy who blew the big lead, which is preposterous.
By the way, McCain still bests Hillary in the national polls (as does Rudy).
Cautionary Aside: Take absolutely no hope from those canvases; those surveys are still absolutely meaningless. The Democratic candidate will kick off the campaign with a 20 to 30 point lead on Labor Day. Then things will tighten significantly.
A year ago the large contingent of McCain haters in the Republican Party went to great pains to reject the bogus pronouncements from the mainstream media that McCain was the front runner for the nomination. However, now that a fallen front runner story serves them well, most of the same anti-McCain people are quietly accepting or gleefully adopting the storyline.
Why are the MSM so down on McCain? He betrayed them. They loved him when he was the straight-talking maverick who was always a thorn in the flesh of George Bush. Now, to hear them tell it, he has made a politically motivated decision to support the President and inherit his base. And, irony of ironies, there is no base to inherit.
This is a fallacy, for the most part. McCain (like Joe Lieberman) could have gained much more by deserting the President and the policy, but he (they) proved more intrepid than expedient. McCain (and Lieberman) are great Americans; either one would make a great president. PERIOD.
The other obvious MSM reason for antipathy: the fallen McCain story advances the anti-war story.
Why do the Republicans hate McCain? That is a more complicated question to which I do not have a compelling answer. But here is an overly simplistic nutshell-type explanation: For many hardcore Republicans, they also feel betrayed: Tax Cuts, McCain-Feingold, the deal on filibuster, etc. None of that strikes me as altogether fair--but that's life.
The McCain Paradox: The Bush base doesn't like him to begin with. Therefore, fidelity to the President and the nation doesn't help him with the people who would most likely admire his courageous stand. However, his convictions on Iraq alienate all the folks on the periphery who once were inclined to follow the maverick McCain. If it was an attempt at a master political stroke, it was a poorly drawn strategy.
An Epilogue: McCain is down but not out. His great advantage is his tenacity. He will be there in Round 15 throwing punches. You never know, one might land. You can't count a McCain out until they carry him away.
"[0]nly McCain [among the Republican candidates] has made [standing firm on Iraq] a frequent talking point, which is considered one reason why he has faded from front-runner status."
Wrong Again. Republican primary voters are not deserting John McCain because of his courage in the face of declining support for the American mission in Iraq. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
What explains John McCain's troubles?
Part of it is the erroneous context in which his campaign is habitually framed: the fallen front runner. Many months ago, some beltway media types named John McCain the front runner. He wasn't. There was no election going on back then. There was some public opinion polling that asked voters to pick between John McCain and a lot of guys they had never heard of. Surprise, they picked McCain. At the same time, in the same rounds of meaningless polls, McCain showed that he would win in the general against Hillary.
What do the polls say now? The polls say that the Republicans are disoriented and looking for a Messiah. Giuliani? Thompson? And there will be others.
The same beltway types now characterize McCain as the guy who blew the big lead, which is preposterous.
By the way, McCain still bests Hillary in the national polls (as does Rudy).
Cautionary Aside: Take absolutely no hope from those canvases; those surveys are still absolutely meaningless. The Democratic candidate will kick off the campaign with a 20 to 30 point lead on Labor Day. Then things will tighten significantly.
A year ago the large contingent of McCain haters in the Republican Party went to great pains to reject the bogus pronouncements from the mainstream media that McCain was the front runner for the nomination. However, now that a fallen front runner story serves them well, most of the same anti-McCain people are quietly accepting or gleefully adopting the storyline.
Why are the MSM so down on McCain? He betrayed them. They loved him when he was the straight-talking maverick who was always a thorn in the flesh of George Bush. Now, to hear them tell it, he has made a politically motivated decision to support the President and inherit his base. And, irony of ironies, there is no base to inherit.
This is a fallacy, for the most part. McCain (like Joe Lieberman) could have gained much more by deserting the President and the policy, but he (they) proved more intrepid than expedient. McCain (and Lieberman) are great Americans; either one would make a great president. PERIOD.
The other obvious MSM reason for antipathy: the fallen McCain story advances the anti-war story.
Why do the Republicans hate McCain? That is a more complicated question to which I do not have a compelling answer. But here is an overly simplistic nutshell-type explanation: For many hardcore Republicans, they also feel betrayed: Tax Cuts, McCain-Feingold, the deal on filibuster, etc. None of that strikes me as altogether fair--but that's life.
The McCain Paradox: The Bush base doesn't like him to begin with. Therefore, fidelity to the President and the nation doesn't help him with the people who would most likely admire his courageous stand. However, his convictions on Iraq alienate all the folks on the periphery who once were inclined to follow the maverick McCain. If it was an attempt at a master political stroke, it was a poorly drawn strategy.
An Epilogue: McCain is down but not out. His great advantage is his tenacity. He will be there in Round 15 throwing punches. You never know, one might land. You can't count a McCain out until they carry him away.
A few days ago, the Okie Gardener posted concerning "Bush Derangement Syndrome" (review here). An occasional reader, "JC" took issue with the Gardener's tongue-in-cheek consideration of "liberalism as a mental disease." In the comments section, JC identified herself as a "52-year-old mom, definitely left-leaning." In the process of making her point, JC characterized the Bush administration as the "most dishonest and immoral in my lifetime." To which, the Gardener disagreed with her assessment of the administration as the most corrupt of recent times and asked that she explain her evaluation.
In an off-line conversation, JC made her case in part. This was not originally intended for public consumption; she expressed a desire not to rant. But with her grudging permission, I am including this excerpt as a thoughtful albeit unpolished look into the heart of the Bush opposition. There are several good points here and there are also some things with which I disagree fundamentally, but I see it is a sincere expression of love and concern for our nation and our system. Listening to the other side...
Guest Blog: JC
The Bush Administration has a penchant for bewildering actions. I tend to blame Karl Rove for much of it, but perhaps that is too easy. Maybe Rove is not responsible for all of these terrible things that are attributed to him. Things happen up there. No one takes responsibility. Bush knows nothing, and it makes you wonder who is in charge? Anyone? Attempts to avoid responsibility make one look either dishonest and/or incompetent.
The Bush team possesses an intense ideology that propels decision making without considering all relevant facts. Evidently, the process includes suppressing facts when they do not support Bush policy. We continue to hear reports referencing the muzzling of government scientists and editing of agency reports by the White House. For leaders of the most militarily powerful nation on earth to behave in this manner is frightening. Policy should be supported by evidence...fact, science, expert opinion... not ideology.
I certainly believe that the Bush Administration purposely misled the American People and the Congress in order to get approval for the Iraq war. We were manipulated... treated as fools. I cannot forgive leaders who would treat America this way.
I also hate what this war is doing to innocent Iraqis. I read what they write online, and so many are leading lives that we can not begin to imagine. Just last night I read the blog of an Iraqi teenage girl (14 or 15 years-old) who wrote of seeing the body parts of a suicide bomber on her way home from school, a friend who was having sleepless nights after seeing a headless body, an explosion damaging their home, and on and on. Reading these things can bring me to tears... and Bush tells us "we're fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them at home". It makes Iraqis so angry to hear that. Me too.
I should add that the above-mentioned Iraqi girl sent an email Christmas greeting to her Christian friends around the world; she raises money for sick children and so on, in spite of the scary life she leads. I don't want anything to happen to her. To keep her safe, I'd be willing to live with some fear of my own.
I agree with you that there is a reflexive disgust among those on the Left for Bush and his crew, and it may be overblown on the little things.... but I don't believe it applies to important policy issues. Speaking for myself, I think about issues, and I do not oppose Bush ideas solely because they are his.
For example, I'm not opposed to his "surge" policy; however, it is not likely to work unless he does some heavy lifting on the diplomacy end, which he appears unwilling to do. And the Iraqi government needs to be accountable for some of their disastrous policies as well, which is why the Democrats are right to apply deadline pressure.
Thanks for the link to your post [refers to my post: America Perseveres]. I agree with much of it... although I think you are a bit more optimistic than I am that our system of government is holding up. I worry about hackable voting machines, money buying just about everything, TV smear campaigns, and lots of other things that give advantages to the worst among us and facilitate the wrong people leading our country.
Having said all of that (and I did start ranting, didn't I?) the Left and Right have got to find a way to join forces for the common good. I wonder if that is possible, and who might lead us there?
In an off-line conversation, JC made her case in part. This was not originally intended for public consumption; she expressed a desire not to rant. But with her grudging permission, I am including this excerpt as a thoughtful albeit unpolished look into the heart of the Bush opposition. There are several good points here and there are also some things with which I disagree fundamentally, but I see it is a sincere expression of love and concern for our nation and our system. Listening to the other side...
Guest Blog: JC
The Bush Administration has a penchant for bewildering actions. I tend to blame Karl Rove for much of it, but perhaps that is too easy. Maybe Rove is not responsible for all of these terrible things that are attributed to him. Things happen up there. No one takes responsibility. Bush knows nothing, and it makes you wonder who is in charge? Anyone? Attempts to avoid responsibility make one look either dishonest and/or incompetent.
The Bush team possesses an intense ideology that propels decision making without considering all relevant facts. Evidently, the process includes suppressing facts when they do not support Bush policy. We continue to hear reports referencing the muzzling of government scientists and editing of agency reports by the White House. For leaders of the most militarily powerful nation on earth to behave in this manner is frightening. Policy should be supported by evidence...fact, science, expert opinion... not ideology.
I certainly believe that the Bush Administration purposely misled the American People and the Congress in order to get approval for the Iraq war. We were manipulated... treated as fools. I cannot forgive leaders who would treat America this way.
I also hate what this war is doing to innocent Iraqis. I read what they write online, and so many are leading lives that we can not begin to imagine. Just last night I read the blog of an Iraqi teenage girl (14 or 15 years-old) who wrote of seeing the body parts of a suicide bomber on her way home from school, a friend who was having sleepless nights after seeing a headless body, an explosion damaging their home, and on and on. Reading these things can bring me to tears... and Bush tells us "we're fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them at home". It makes Iraqis so angry to hear that. Me too.
I should add that the above-mentioned Iraqi girl sent an email Christmas greeting to her Christian friends around the world; she raises money for sick children and so on, in spite of the scary life she leads. I don't want anything to happen to her. To keep her safe, I'd be willing to live with some fear of my own.
I agree with you that there is a reflexive disgust among those on the Left for Bush and his crew, and it may be overblown on the little things.... but I don't believe it applies to important policy issues. Speaking for myself, I think about issues, and I do not oppose Bush ideas solely because they are his.
For example, I'm not opposed to his "surge" policy; however, it is not likely to work unless he does some heavy lifting on the diplomacy end, which he appears unwilling to do. And the Iraqi government needs to be accountable for some of their disastrous policies as well, which is why the Democrats are right to apply deadline pressure.
Thanks for the link to your post [refers to my post: America Perseveres]. I agree with much of it... although I think you are a bit more optimistic than I am that our system of government is holding up. I worry about hackable voting machines, money buying just about everything, TV smear campaigns, and lots of other things that give advantages to the worst among us and facilitate the wrong people leading our country.
Having said all of that (and I did start ranting, didn't I?) the Left and Right have got to find a way to join forces for the common good. I wonder if that is possible, and who might lead us there?
~~JC
06/05: Prediction on Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney will not be the Republican presidential nominee for two related reasons.
1. Conservative Christians do not regard Mormons as Christians, instead terming them a "cult."
2. Conservative Christians believe the United States to be a Christian Nation, needing Christian leadership.
Therefore, since Mitt Romney is not Christian, he cannot be allowed to lead a Christian nation.
If, contrary to my prediction Romney does become the Republican nominee and faces off against Hillary, then Conservatives probably would vote for Romney. He may not be Christian, in their thinking, but is not seen as Anti-Christian in the same way Hillary is. (more below)
1. Conservative Christians do not regard Mormons as Christians, instead terming them a "cult."
2. Conservative Christians believe the United States to be a Christian Nation, needing Christian leadership.
Therefore, since Mitt Romney is not Christian, he cannot be allowed to lead a Christian nation.
If, contrary to my prediction Romney does become the Republican nominee and faces off against Hillary, then Conservatives probably would vote for Romney. He may not be Christian, in their thinking, but is not seen as Anti-Christian in the same way Hillary is. (more below)
Watching Fox News Sunday this morning:
Chis Dodd: The American people are so far ahead of Washington on this issue. They want a change in policy, a change in direction (full transcript here).
Dodd is only half right. Not to belabor an old point, but there is no polling data that indicates that a majority of Americans want to lose the Battle for Iraq.
Here is what America really wants:
Substitute "progress" for change and insert "right" before direction, and I think you have it.
Americans desperately want progress in the right direction.
Americans want peace, freedom, and prosperity for Iraq and its citizenry.
Much more importantly, Americans want to stop thinking about Iraq. Americans want a cessation to the killing of American servicemen in Iraq.
But, to repeat, we the people are not actually calling for surrender, regional chaos, and Iranian hegemony, all of which would likely follow our retreat out of the Middle East.
An Aside: The Democrats in Washington and on the far left are united in their rhetoric that we must leave Iraq. President Bush and his supporters remain steadfast in their mantra that we must win the Battle of Iraq.
An Obvious Compromise Solution: win and leave.
Embedded in the hearts and minds of most Americans, at least on some level, is the realization that they we must mete out a defeat to the forces of Islamism in Iraq. If Islamic holy war against the West emerges victorious in this theater, American interests suffer a debilitating blow. American defeat will bring disastrous consequences.
The Democrats are playing a dangerous and destructive political game building their future on American failure in Iraq.
The Good News for George Bush, the Republican Party and the United States of America: all the President needs to do to save us all is win. Winning has always been the key; it still is. A win in Iraq saves the Bush legacy, the Republican Party, and America.
The Bad News: The President has known this equation for four years, and we are where we are.
Chis Dodd: The American people are so far ahead of Washington on this issue. They want a change in policy, a change in direction (full transcript here).
Dodd is only half right. Not to belabor an old point, but there is no polling data that indicates that a majority of Americans want to lose the Battle for Iraq.
Here is what America really wants:
Substitute "progress" for change and insert "right" before direction, and I think you have it.
Americans desperately want progress in the right direction.
Americans want peace, freedom, and prosperity for Iraq and its citizenry.
Much more importantly, Americans want to stop thinking about Iraq. Americans want a cessation to the killing of American servicemen in Iraq.
But, to repeat, we the people are not actually calling for surrender, regional chaos, and Iranian hegemony, all of which would likely follow our retreat out of the Middle East.
An Aside: The Democrats in Washington and on the far left are united in their rhetoric that we must leave Iraq. President Bush and his supporters remain steadfast in their mantra that we must win the Battle of Iraq.
An Obvious Compromise Solution: win and leave.
Embedded in the hearts and minds of most Americans, at least on some level, is the realization that they we must mete out a defeat to the forces of Islamism in Iraq. If Islamic holy war against the West emerges victorious in this theater, American interests suffer a debilitating blow. American defeat will bring disastrous consequences.
The Democrats are playing a dangerous and destructive political game building their future on American failure in Iraq.
The Good News for George Bush, the Republican Party and the United States of America: all the President needs to do to save us all is win. Winning has always been the key; it still is. A win in Iraq saves the Bush legacy, the Republican Party, and America.
The Bad News: The President has known this equation for four years, and we are where we are.
Category: General
Posted by: an okie gardener
On this day in 878 Alfred the Saxon defeated the Vikings to preserve an independent Britain. This victory also preserved Christian culture in England. After the battle, instead of putting the Viking leader to death, Alfred baptized him and catechized him before releasing him. I urge you to read the story, a small band of men eventually preserving the liberty of their people against foreign invaders. A fine hour for Britain. Official history site.
06/05: Christians in China Arrested
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
In April several house church leaders were arrested while meeting with American Christians. The Americans also were detained. Story here.
05/05: Poison from China
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
We took note of the dog food with a lethel ingredient from China. Be sure to read Photognome's comment.
Now the NYT is exposing poison in medicines from China. Link from Instapundit.
The intent is not to poison, but to make money. Chinese society as a whole after Mao has no bedrock morality from Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, or Christianity. Anything for a buck. Oh the joys of Free Trade. The Progressive reformers and the union activists made progress in bringing justice and safety to America and we are pissing it away, drunk on cheap imports.
Now the NYT is exposing poison in medicines from China. Link from Instapundit.
The intent is not to poison, but to make money. Chinese society as a whole after Mao has no bedrock morality from Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, or Christianity. Anything for a buck. Oh the joys of Free Trade. The Progressive reformers and the union activists made progress in bringing justice and safety to America and we are pissing it away, drunk on cheap imports.
