09/02: Hillary Clinton's Faith
A few days ago I linked to an article from Newsweek on Hillary Clinton's Christian faith. Here. After more mulling it over, I intend to revisit the issue in the future. But for now, a few thoughts about the article itself.
First, the overall tone of the article is friendly, with no criticism of either Hillary or her religious mentor or beliefs. Contrast this attitude to the usual MSM writing about Christianity and conservative politicians. I know, Farmer, you have told us to quit complaining abou the calls and just get on the floor and play, but I want to be the coach who yells at the officials and points to the replay screen in order to get a call later and to work up the crowd. Newsweek published a puff piece.
Second, notice this paragraph:
Precocious and confident, 13-year-old Hillary was an active member of her Methodist church in Park Ridge, Ill., when Jones arrived in 1961 to lead the youth group. Fresh from the seminary, he was anything but stuffy in his red Chevy Impala convertible. He carried the Bible, but also the collected poems of E. E. Cummings. Hillary, politically aware even then, was a budding Republican who took after her staunchly conservative father. In long discussions at the church, Jones introduced Hillary to the left. The young minister was determined to show his white, privileged parishioners the world beyond their suburban town. He took them to the South Side of Chicago to hear Martin Luther King Jr. speak. Jones introduced each of them to the civil-rights leader.
The writer makes a not-so-subtle contrast between Republicans and the Civil Rights Movement. Only by leaving her childhood Republicanism, this paragraph implies, could she become a compassionate supporter of civil rights. There is no historical context here reminding the reader that most of the opposition to the Civil Rights Movement came from Southern Democrats, and that LBJ depended on Congressional Republicans to help pass civil rights legislation. The writer indirectly slanders the Republican Party.
In a few days I hope to address the issue of Hillary's faith.
First, the overall tone of the article is friendly, with no criticism of either Hillary or her religious mentor or beliefs. Contrast this attitude to the usual MSM writing about Christianity and conservative politicians. I know, Farmer, you have told us to quit complaining abou the calls and just get on the floor and play, but I want to be the coach who yells at the officials and points to the replay screen in order to get a call later and to work up the crowd. Newsweek published a puff piece.
Second, notice this paragraph:
Precocious and confident, 13-year-old Hillary was an active member of her Methodist church in Park Ridge, Ill., when Jones arrived in 1961 to lead the youth group. Fresh from the seminary, he was anything but stuffy in his red Chevy Impala convertible. He carried the Bible, but also the collected poems of E. E. Cummings. Hillary, politically aware even then, was a budding Republican who took after her staunchly conservative father. In long discussions at the church, Jones introduced Hillary to the left. The young minister was determined to show his white, privileged parishioners the world beyond their suburban town. He took them to the South Side of Chicago to hear Martin Luther King Jr. speak. Jones introduced each of them to the civil-rights leader.
The writer makes a not-so-subtle contrast between Republicans and the Civil Rights Movement. Only by leaving her childhood Republicanism, this paragraph implies, could she become a compassionate supporter of civil rights. There is no historical context here reminding the reader that most of the opposition to the Civil Rights Movement came from Southern Democrats, and that LBJ depended on Congressional Republicans to help pass civil rights legislation. The writer indirectly slanders the Republican Party.
In a few days I hope to address the issue of Hillary's faith.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Gateway Pundit has the news on Albert Pujols becoming a citizen of the United States. Congratulations Albert.
For those of you who are marginal baseball fans. Pujols is having a career that will have him mentioned with the greatest when baseball is talked about in a hundred years. He deserves to be in the company of Dimaggio, Williams, Cobb, et al. If you can make a way to see a Cardinals game this coming year, do it. You then can tell your grandchildren you once saw Albert Pujols play in person.
For those of you who are marginal baseball fans. Pujols is having a career that will have him mentioned with the greatest when baseball is talked about in a hundred years. He deserves to be in the company of Dimaggio, Williams, Cobb, et al. If you can make a way to see a Cardinals game this coming year, do it. You then can tell your grandchildren you once saw Albert Pujols play in person.
In his comments on the recent series of posts on denominationalism and the new Baptist coalition, Martian Mariner asked the following:
On a different point, you've mentioned the democratization of American Protestant denominations in the early 19th century and you've got an ongoing series about the decline of mainline denominations. I would add the ecumenical movement of the mid 20th century to the category, and then ask the question: What do you see as being the dominant bent of American Protestant Churches in the 21st century?
Making no predictions, here are my thoughts on 21st century American Protestant Churches. (below)
On a different point, you've mentioned the democratization of American Protestant denominations in the early 19th century and you've got an ongoing series about the decline of mainline denominations. I would add the ecumenical movement of the mid 20th century to the category, and then ask the question: What do you see as being the dominant bent of American Protestant Churches in the 21st century?
Making no predictions, here are my thoughts on 21st century American Protestant Churches. (below)
In case you missed it, the biggest story in Washington this week was the advent of a powerhouse player in the United States Senate.
Why were Harry Reid and his Sancho Panza so angry, to the point of throwing adult-sized temper tantrums?
They had been had. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell quietly outflanked the Majority Leader and his minion with a maneuver of sublime adroitness. As the world anticipated the advertised spectacle of George Bush receiving his comeuppance at the hands of the newly crowned emperors of the world's greatest deliberative body, something funny happened on the way to the forum.
The Plan.
The Democratic-controlled Senate, with the help of several celebrated Republican defectors, contrived to move a non-binding resolution chastising the President for his general ineptitude and, specifically, castigating the troop surge he and his generals are implementing.
What Really Happened?
McConnell insisted that a statement of this magnitude would require a 60-vote threshold (fairly commonplace in the modern Senate). He also insisted that the Upper Chamber consider a minority-backed non-binding resolution affirming the Senate's intention to fund the war regardless of the non-binding resolution disavowing the troop increase.
The problem for Harry Reid?
The non-binding resolution attacking the President likely did not have sixty votes. The non-binding resolution affirming funding likely had a comfortable excess of sixty votes. So, instead of a public spanking of the President, Leader Reid was likely to preside over a public endorsement and major victory for the President. Reid was forced to pull the plug on the debate.
No wonder Reid and Dick Durbin were so red in the face. Even if you did not read this story in the mainstream media, make no mistake, McConnell made his bones this week, even while maintaining his signature gracious smile and temperate tone. He may not be Everett Dirksen (or he may be), but he is head-and-shoulders above our recent congressional leadership. He will be fun to watch in the years to come.
Why were Harry Reid and his Sancho Panza so angry, to the point of throwing adult-sized temper tantrums?
They had been had. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell quietly outflanked the Majority Leader and his minion with a maneuver of sublime adroitness. As the world anticipated the advertised spectacle of George Bush receiving his comeuppance at the hands of the newly crowned emperors of the world's greatest deliberative body, something funny happened on the way to the forum.
The Plan.
The Democratic-controlled Senate, with the help of several celebrated Republican defectors, contrived to move a non-binding resolution chastising the President for his general ineptitude and, specifically, castigating the troop surge he and his generals are implementing.
What Really Happened?
McConnell insisted that a statement of this magnitude would require a 60-vote threshold (fairly commonplace in the modern Senate). He also insisted that the Upper Chamber consider a minority-backed non-binding resolution affirming the Senate's intention to fund the war regardless of the non-binding resolution disavowing the troop increase.
The problem for Harry Reid?
The non-binding resolution attacking the President likely did not have sixty votes. The non-binding resolution affirming funding likely had a comfortable excess of sixty votes. So, instead of a public spanking of the President, Leader Reid was likely to preside over a public endorsement and major victory for the President. Reid was forced to pull the plug on the debate.
No wonder Reid and Dick Durbin were so red in the face. Even if you did not read this story in the mainstream media, make no mistake, McConnell made his bones this week, even while maintaining his signature gracious smile and temperate tone. He may not be Everett Dirksen (or he may be), but he is head-and-shoulders above our recent congressional leadership. He will be fun to watch in the years to come.
07/02: The Party of Abominations
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
During the Early National period of American history, tariff policy (much more so than the question of slavery) plagued Congress as the most divisive issue of the day.
One of the great milestones in the debate over import duties was the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, which set an unprecedented standard for protectionism. Historians continue to debate the details of the congressional battle that yielded the legislation. Although this particular tale seems no longer credible to many students of the period, for a long time the standard story involved the opponents of the legislation working to make the bill so egregiously offensive that even the moderate proponents of protection would not dare to vote for the program.
But, alas, the moderates held their noses and voted for the flagrant protection bill--opting for a bad tariff bill over no tariff bill.
A few years ago, Republicans would have hooted at a Democratic Party led by Howard Dean, a Nancy Pelosi-controlled House and a ticket headed by Hillary Clinton. Smart Republicans gleefully rubbed their hands together anticipating the prospect of facing the crazy screamer, a "San Francisco liberal" and Mrs. Clinton in the ultimate battle for the hearts and minds of the American people.
Smart Republicans aren't laughing anymore.
One of the great milestones in the debate over import duties was the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, which set an unprecedented standard for protectionism. Historians continue to debate the details of the congressional battle that yielded the legislation. Although this particular tale seems no longer credible to many students of the period, for a long time the standard story involved the opponents of the legislation working to make the bill so egregiously offensive that even the moderate proponents of protection would not dare to vote for the program.
But, alas, the moderates held their noses and voted for the flagrant protection bill--opting for a bad tariff bill over no tariff bill.
A few years ago, Republicans would have hooted at a Democratic Party led by Howard Dean, a Nancy Pelosi-controlled House and a ticket headed by Hillary Clinton. Smart Republicans gleefully rubbed their hands together anticipating the prospect of facing the crazy screamer, a "San Francisco liberal" and Mrs. Clinton in the ultimate battle for the hearts and minds of the American people.
Smart Republicans aren't laughing anymore.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
The South Florida Sun-Sentinal has a good article on the future of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church and its related ministries. Link from The Layman.
In late December the pastor, D. James Kennedy, was hospitalized with heart problems. Kennedy has been an important figure among conservative Protestants and in the culture wars for over 25 years. Kennedy official bio sketch.
Coral Ridge website. I notice you can listen to an address by Alan Keyes from the site.
In late December the pastor, D. James Kennedy, was hospitalized with heart problems. Kennedy has been an important figure among conservative Protestants and in the culture wars for over 25 years. Kennedy official bio sketch.
Coral Ridge website. I notice you can listen to an address by Alan Keyes from the site.
Category: US in Iraq.archive.iii
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
We should be thankful that the Democrats won in November. Seriously.
Accountability in life is everything. Self regulation is the most dangerous of all human delusions.
The political grandstanders in the Senate and House are making fools of themselves pushing for a non-binding resolution to embarrass the President and court favor with the uninformed, nevertheless, the essential process of oversight is finally grinding into gear.
For almost four years, the Bush administration, literally and figuratively, threw good money after bad in Iraq. The November election was the wake-up call they desperately needed. The day after the election, the President tapped soft-spoken but tough-minded Robert Gates to take the reins of the stalled war effort. With Congress breathing down his neck, the President is dispatching David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker to the scene with orders to make immediate progress or else. Both of these men are unorthodox thinkers who criticized privately through proper channels many of the group-think Iraq policies that ultimately failed. They are our best chance at staving off an epoch-ending humiliation.
So many of us love the Civil War analogy. Of course, the tragically non-analogous portion of the comparison is that Lincoln ferociously prosecuted the war from the beginning, challenging and firing his subordinates until he found an Edwin Stanton and U.S. Grant relatively early on. We have waited four years for this change.
In a nutshell: Congressional oversight is necessary to win; Congressional posturing and purely political maneuvering is lethal. Congress needs to ask tough questions, hold feet to the fire, but they also need to commit to winning regardless of the potential for partisan or individual political gain.
Accountability in life is everything. Self regulation is the most dangerous of all human delusions.
The political grandstanders in the Senate and House are making fools of themselves pushing for a non-binding resolution to embarrass the President and court favor with the uninformed, nevertheless, the essential process of oversight is finally grinding into gear.
For almost four years, the Bush administration, literally and figuratively, threw good money after bad in Iraq. The November election was the wake-up call they desperately needed. The day after the election, the President tapped soft-spoken but tough-minded Robert Gates to take the reins of the stalled war effort. With Congress breathing down his neck, the President is dispatching David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker to the scene with orders to make immediate progress or else. Both of these men are unorthodox thinkers who criticized privately through proper channels many of the group-think Iraq policies that ultimately failed. They are our best chance at staving off an epoch-ending humiliation.
So many of us love the Civil War analogy. Of course, the tragically non-analogous portion of the comparison is that Lincoln ferociously prosecuted the war from the beginning, challenging and firing his subordinates until he found an Edwin Stanton and U.S. Grant relatively early on. We have waited four years for this change.
In a nutshell: Congressional oversight is necessary to win; Congressional posturing and purely political maneuvering is lethal. Congress needs to ask tough questions, hold feet to the fire, but they also need to commit to winning regardless of the potential for partisan or individual political gain.
A Waco Farmer has responded with two questions to my post on Uniting Baptists?. Each question is worthy of its own posted reply. My reply to one of the questions is here. Now, the Farmer's other question:
2. Historical question: the early nineteenth century has been depicted by most American historians as a period of "Democratization of Religion." The big idea that seems to emerge from this thesis is that the Baptists and Methodists appealed to the Americans of the Early National period. In essence, the Baptist and Methodist style was much more attractive to the consumers of religion during that era. Do you agree with that? If so, do you see our era as more consumer-driven than then?
The brief answer is, Yes. The longer answer is below.
2. Historical question: the early nineteenth century has been depicted by most American historians as a period of "Democratization of Religion." The big idea that seems to emerge from this thesis is that the Baptists and Methodists appealed to the Americans of the Early National period. In essence, the Baptist and Methodist style was much more attractive to the consumers of religion during that era. Do you agree with that? If so, do you see our era as more consumer-driven than then?
The brief answer is, Yes. The longer answer is below.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
A Waco Farmer has responded with two questions to my post on Uniting Baptists?. Each question is worthy of its own posted reply. Here is one of the questions.
1. I appreciate your recognition that the new Baptist coalition is not based on consumerism. I am convinced that Baptists united for the Democratic Party agenda is not going to be a hot commodity. In my experience, mega-churches with a conservative political bent do much better. Would you agree with that?
First, yes, in general "mega-churches with a conservative political bent" are doing better numerically than churches with a liberal political bent. Although there are some large flourishing congregations with liberal politics, and many large flourishing congregations that are apolitical.
Second, I do not want to cede these social issues to "the Democratic Party agenda." I understand your point, you are speaking of congruity of goals, I t hink. But, . . . (cont. below)
1. I appreciate your recognition that the new Baptist coalition is not based on consumerism. I am convinced that Baptists united for the Democratic Party agenda is not going to be a hot commodity. In my experience, mega-churches with a conservative political bent do much better. Would you agree with that?
First, yes, in general "mega-churches with a conservative political bent" are doing better numerically than churches with a liberal political bent. Although there are some large flourishing congregations with liberal politics, and many large flourishing congregations that are apolitical.
Second, I do not want to cede these social issues to "the Democratic Party agenda." I understand your point, you are speaking of congruity of goals, I t hink. But, . . . (cont. below)
