If a religious secular-service provider, like a Roman Catholic hospital, can ignore federal rules, then we will have anarchy. Employer-ayatollahs will control people’s freedoms. The government will be powerless to protect citizen rights.
1. Free exercise of religion and contraception.
The framers of the Constitution decided that government should not institute a national religion; nor interfere with the free exercise of religion; nor have a religious test for national office.
The Obama administration decided that hospitals and other organizations that provide secular services should, like every other provider of health insurance, cover contraceptive services. This is true even if those hospitals, etc., are sponsored by a religious organization. The Catholic hierarchy claims that this interferes with their free exercise of religion. They frame the issue apocalyptically.
2. Free exercise of religion versus privacy.
The Church’s "free exercise" claim in this controversy concerns its ability to impose its own religious doctrine upon non-Roman Catholics whom they employ.
That is, Roman Catholic-sponsored hospitals hire doctors, nurses, and others who are Protestant, Evangelical, Jewish, agnostic – there is no religious test for employment at one of the Church’s secular-service institutions.
The question is whether the federal government can make the Roman Catholic Church’s health-insurance companies provide a service that goes against church doctrine. The Church opposes a woman’s right to prevent pregnancy by external means.
Viewed narrowly, this should be easy. The First Amendment prohibits government from "prohibiting the free exercise of religion". If this controversy implicated only the First Amendment, that would tilt the issue, from a Constitutional point of view, toward the Church’s position.
But there is another civil right in this controversy. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court said that contraception was a private choice, and the government could not interfere in it. Griswold was decided in 1965; until then, Connecticut outlawed birth control.
So the issue in the present case is whether, ayatollah-like, the Roman Catholic Church, through its secular-service providers, can overwrite private choices by it’s employees, choices that have constitutional stature. It’s the Roman Catholic Church’s freedom to dictate personal choices versus its employee’s ability to make intimate personal decisions.
So the present controversy concerns the federal government’s ability to dictate limits to religiously-based secular-service providers. Specifically, it concerns the government’s ability to keep those providers from limiting their employees’ constitutional freedoms.
3. Free exercise of religion and anarchy.
The Roman Catholic Church’s position would limit personal freedom and lead to anarchy.
This is true because there is no basis to distinguish between power exerted by an institution and power exerted by an individual. So: newspapers have no greater news-gathering right than individuals. If an individual lacks freedom to go into a prison to interview a prisoner, a newspaper has no greater freedom. And newspapers have no wider freedom to publish without government interference than an individual enjoys. If Larry the lawyer can’t slander me, neither can the Los Angeles Times. There is no First Amendment distinction between Fox News and, say, me.
The same is true of religious freedom. I have no freedom to get high on LSD as part of my religious practice. It would make no difference if I accumulated hundreds of thousands of converts and passed out LSD in "churches" across the country. And it is unlawful for a man to be married to more than one woman at one time; it doesn’t matter if a church sanctions the practice.
So if the Roman Catholic Church can dictate the access of its secular-service employees to birth control, then so can the owner of Glenda’s Nail Parlor, Pete’s Pizza Emporium, and Walmart. If Walmart developed religious qualms about furnishing birth control to its insured employees, or if Glenda of Glenda’s Nail Parlor decided that all medical intervention defied God’s sovereignty over health, then the atomic religious scruples of individuals and corporations would demolish the law-making power of the federal government. Religious scruples, real or counterfeit, would loom over personal freedoms of employees and the government’s ability to protect those freedoms.
That would be anarchy.
4. Reasonably-restricted regulation.
The Obama administration has spread its rule to secular-service providers, but not to the churches themselves. The Roman Catholic Church is free to withhold contraceptive insurance to it’s employees who are employed by the Church as the Church.
But there has always been more freedom to make rules for secular services. A church pays no taxes on money that its congregants put in the collection plate. But if it operates a swimming pool that is open to the wider community, it pays taxes on pool-admission fees. Indian tribes pay no federal taxes on cigarettes they sells at their tribally-owned gasoline stations; but if the Presbyterian Church starts selling cigarettes, it has no special tax-exemption.
5. Conclusion.
The Supreme Court will have the last word about the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But if that act passes constitutional muster, it should be enforced as to secular-service providers. Americans don’t want their employers to become their ayatollahs. This is true whether that employer is Bob of Bob’s Discount Law Offices or the Roman Catholic Church.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Mitt Romney Up a Tree
Mitt Romney tells the people of Michigan that, in Michigan, the "trees are just the right height." He's said this more than once. Now, maybe, if I went to Michigan, I'd know exactly what he was saying. Maybe I too would say that the trees were the just right height.
But I’ve never been to Michigan. So I’m clueless about this. I'll bet most Americans are like me. Yet, Romney doesn’t explain. That might be because the folks from Michigan already know what he means. "Yep", they might say, "That’s right. That’s exactly right."
And it might be that Romney doesn’t explain because, forget the national audience, this is an intimate moment between Mitt and Michigan. They bond over mutual satisfaction about tree-top altitude.
As long as Mitt and Michigan keep mum, we may never know in what way the perpendicular extent of trees in Michigan is just right. The mystery invites contemplation. Are Michigan trees the right height from which to hang the people who point out that Mitt wanted the Detroit auto industry to go bankrupt?
For all I know, the state’s motto is: "Michigan: Our trees are the right height." If that’s not now the Michigan state motto, maybe it soon will be.
But poor Michigan! Think about it. If Michigan’s trees are just the right height today, that means that in two years they’ll be too tall! Then what will Mitt say? Crowds will throng around him, and he, looking uncomfortable, will say, "Boners! Those trees are perfectly right-heighted!" And nobody will cheer, because they know that he isn’t sincere.
Or, maybe (gasp) Mitt isn’t sincere now. No, hear me out. Maybe he doesn’t think Michigan trees are flawlessly lofty. Or, maybe, in fact, he has no opinion at all about tree highness in Michigan. Maybe he just can’t be bothered to think of a truly distinctive and admirable quality of the state he grew up in. His just-right-height comments might be the best thing he can think of in a state with one of the nations’s finest universities; and vast lakes on three sides of the state; and a football team that anybody else in Michigan would say they were proud of.
So what Mitt is saying might be like saying, "I like your earrings. They’re big."
Or maybe it’s a dog-whistle message to environmentalists, pitched above the ears of his constituency base. He's saying: "Hey, environmentalists! I’m one of you! I like trees!"
Or maybe it’s a cry for help. Years from now, a bitter Mitt Romney might scold a former campaign aide, saying: "I complemented tree-size, and nobody took me aside to find out what was wrong?!"
Or maybe, as a nation-crossing candidate, Romney is a spy for a foreign power, and he’s speaking in code. Maybe he was told: "Comrade, if gays-people are getting upsets, say is perfect tree height. If poor people they becoming strong, say is perfect car size. If you need is to be extracted, say is perfect size women’s boobies."
Is it a magician’s misdirection? While Michigan folks are scratching their heads and wondering why Mitt is flattering them about upward limits of limbs and leaves, they can’t be wondering why he once said that he was more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy.
The pre-primary polls in Michigan show a tight race between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. Could this be a naked pander to Michigan tree-trimmers?
Could it be a political head-fake? Mitt might expect the other candidates to seize this issue and fall over each other to catch up. One after another might labor to describe, in increasingly baroque terms, their opinion of the perfection of Michigan tree elevation. Then Mitt steps forward and says, "What Maroons! They totally fell for that!"
Or maybe, because Michigan has high unemployment, Mitt thinks folks in Michigan are stupid. So he says something that would not challenge the cognition of a semi-sentient lizard. He would have said, "Balls are fun to bounce!" But his handlers thought that was a little too condescending.
Or, look, not to throw stones from my glass house, but is Mitt Romney high? (Just the right height.)
Perhaps Mitt's comments make no sense because we’re only at the beginning of a more elaborate political strategy. Romney will keep saying that Michigan trees are just the right height, until people accept that as true as a matter of course. Then, Romney will say that Barack Obama toured the world saying that Michigan trees were the wrong height. And people will be shocked and angry at the president.
Any of these ideas could be true. Maybe none are. Maybe all are. Romney knows. Or maybe he doesn’t. Maybe the truth will fall on him like the dropping from the anus of a sparrow sitting on the limb of a tree that is just the right height.
But I’ve never been to Michigan. So I’m clueless about this. I'll bet most Americans are like me. Yet, Romney doesn’t explain. That might be because the folks from Michigan already know what he means. "Yep", they might say, "That’s right. That’s exactly right."
And it might be that Romney doesn’t explain because, forget the national audience, this is an intimate moment between Mitt and Michigan. They bond over mutual satisfaction about tree-top altitude.
As long as Mitt and Michigan keep mum, we may never know in what way the perpendicular extent of trees in Michigan is just right. The mystery invites contemplation. Are Michigan trees the right height from which to hang the people who point out that Mitt wanted the Detroit auto industry to go bankrupt?
For all I know, the state’s motto is: "Michigan: Our trees are the right height." If that’s not now the Michigan state motto, maybe it soon will be.
But poor Michigan! Think about it. If Michigan’s trees are just the right height today, that means that in two years they’ll be too tall! Then what will Mitt say? Crowds will throng around him, and he, looking uncomfortable, will say, "Boners! Those trees are perfectly right-heighted!" And nobody will cheer, because they know that he isn’t sincere.
Or, maybe (gasp) Mitt isn’t sincere now. No, hear me out. Maybe he doesn’t think Michigan trees are flawlessly lofty. Or, maybe, in fact, he has no opinion at all about tree highness in Michigan. Maybe he just can’t be bothered to think of a truly distinctive and admirable quality of the state he grew up in. His just-right-height comments might be the best thing he can think of in a state with one of the nations’s finest universities; and vast lakes on three sides of the state; and a football team that anybody else in Michigan would say they were proud of.
So what Mitt is saying might be like saying, "I like your earrings. They’re big."
Or maybe it’s a dog-whistle message to environmentalists, pitched above the ears of his constituency base. He's saying: "Hey, environmentalists! I’m one of you! I like trees!"
Or maybe it’s a cry for help. Years from now, a bitter Mitt Romney might scold a former campaign aide, saying: "I complemented tree-size, and nobody took me aside to find out what was wrong?!"
Or maybe, as a nation-crossing candidate, Romney is a spy for a foreign power, and he’s speaking in code. Maybe he was told: "Comrade, if gays-people are getting upsets, say is perfect tree height. If poor people they becoming strong, say is perfect car size. If you need is to be extracted, say is perfect size women’s boobies."
Is it a magician’s misdirection? While Michigan folks are scratching their heads and wondering why Mitt is flattering them about upward limits of limbs and leaves, they can’t be wondering why he once said that he was more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy.
The pre-primary polls in Michigan show a tight race between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. Could this be a naked pander to Michigan tree-trimmers?
Could it be a political head-fake? Mitt might expect the other candidates to seize this issue and fall over each other to catch up. One after another might labor to describe, in increasingly baroque terms, their opinion of the perfection of Michigan tree elevation. Then Mitt steps forward and says, "What Maroons! They totally fell for that!"
Or maybe, because Michigan has high unemployment, Mitt thinks folks in Michigan are stupid. So he says something that would not challenge the cognition of a semi-sentient lizard. He would have said, "Balls are fun to bounce!" But his handlers thought that was a little too condescending.
Or, look, not to throw stones from my glass house, but is Mitt Romney high? (Just the right height.)
Perhaps Mitt's comments make no sense because we’re only at the beginning of a more elaborate political strategy. Romney will keep saying that Michigan trees are just the right height, until people accept that as true as a matter of course. Then, Romney will say that Barack Obama toured the world saying that Michigan trees were the wrong height. And people will be shocked and angry at the president.
Any of these ideas could be true. Maybe none are. Maybe all are. Romney knows. Or maybe he doesn’t. Maybe the truth will fall on him like the dropping from the anus of a sparrow sitting on the limb of a tree that is just the right height.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Rebellion and Restoration
Obedience and rebellion struggle against each other like Jacob and Esau in Rebecca’s womb.
1. A short history of rebellion.
The Bible is about the fact that we don’t follow God’s directions. The chronicle of disobedience begins from the story of Adam and Eve. It’s a theme that continues throughout the Bible.
God gave the children of Israel the Ten Commandments and the laws of Moses. He promised to bless them if they obeyed; he promised to harm them if they disobeyed. From the time that the laws were given, there was a cycle of obedience and disobedience, with obedience bringing blessings and disobedience ending in the exile of Israel and Judah from the land that God had given them.
The acts of disobedience were not slight. The children of Israel worshiped the gods of the peoples whom the children of Israel were supposed to displace. Some of the disobedience is jaw-dropping. In Judges, for example, the Benjamites of Gibeah, like the men of Sodom before them, sought to rape a stranger in their city; instead, they raped and murdered his concubine. Then the other Benjamites refused to turn over the wrong-doers to justice. This led to war among the children of Israel and the near-extinction of the tribe of Benjamin.
2. A short history of obedience.
But the Bible is also about our obedience.
Noah was obedient when he built the ark. Abraham was obedient when he left his kin and home to live in the land that God would give to his progeny. Gideon was obedient when he attacked the army of the Midianites with a small number of warriors. The prophets were obedient when they preached to the children of Israel, often putting themselves in peril to do so.
Jesus is the model for obedience. The Bible says that he did not live for his own pleasure. (Romans 15:3.) He lived to please God. "My meat [food] is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.." (John 4:34.) He was obedient, even unto death on the cross. "O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." (Matthew 26:42.)
3. The duty to obey.
Jesus calls us to be godly: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48.) But if you are like me, your habit is put yourself first – your habit is to get what pleases you and to do what pleases yourself.
So our eyes, which are the "light of the body" (Matthew 6:22), are drawn to a nice car, a nice house, an attractive woman (or man), a pleasing vacation, or on-sale bow ties (speaking personally); and, if we can, we get them. And relatively little time – again, if you are like me – is spent seeking God’s will and doing it. In modern American society, we seen oblivious to the idea that God might want something other than what we want for ourselves.
It matters. If we don’t do the will of God, we sin. And who would want to increase the suffering of Jesus, who took upon himself our sins?
4. Falling short without knowing it.
I think of things that I did years ago, and I wince at my foolishness, rudeness, boorishness, or cruelty, even though my behavior seemed fine to me at the time. The same is true with becoming Christlike. As we peel away layers of self and replace it with layers of knowledge of God, we might be amazed at how rebellious we were without knowing it in times past. That process likely is never-ending in this world.
To align ourselves to the will of God is to grow spiritually, to discover our own short-fallings, and to correct them. This is putting aside those things that interfere with our obedience, and putting on things that help us conform our will to God’s.
St. Peter spoke of spiritual growth when he said:
[A]dd to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. [2 Peter 1:5-9.]
St. Peter suggests that the believer should grow spiritually. Increased obedience is a sign of that growth, and it is like chess: the basics can be learned in a few minutes. We all know the basics. We all have at least a sense of what it takes to please God. But, like chess, the practice of drawing close to God can be made more perfect over a lifetime.
5. What to do: the spiritual disciplines.
There is value in knowing God, in knowing God’s will, and in doing it. The first step in making ourselves better in these things is wanting to better align ourselves with the will of God.
And, I suggest, the second step is setting time aside to better learn to align ourselves with God.
In this set-aside time, I suggest the practice of the spiritual disciplines. The spiritual disciplines give God scope to change us from within. Without them, the effort to be godly is likely to be a strained effort to act perfectly. That effort leads to frustration and failure.
To a greater or lesser degree, most Christians practice spiritual disciplines already: we all pray, at least from time to time; we all think on God; and we all look into the Bible, at least sometimes. But none of us are perfect at the practice of the spiritual disciplines.
The basic spiritual disciplines are prayer, study, meditation, and worship. These are not ends in themselves; if we think that they are, they might provoke spiritual pride in us, and then they would do more harm than good.
A big purpose of the spiritual disciplines is to learn to die to self and to live for God. Every discipline we undertake, we should undertake largely for that reason. And we should monitor whether they accomplish that. But it probably doesn’t help if this self-monitoring is hyperactive.
6. Books to help.
There are books that give guidance. Celebration of Discipline by Richard Foster is a modern classic. The Spirit of the Disciplines by Dallas Willard is another modern classic. Space for God by Don Postema is designed for study with other persons. These are just a half-handful of the many excellent books on the spiritual disciplines, modern and ancient.
7. Conclusion.
I am far from God. I’ve shared this essay on obedience and the spiritual disciplines, but I largely wrote it for myself. None is so alienated from God that he or she should not strive against that alienation. I have gravitated back toward the spiritual disciplines over the last year or so. I intend to continue putting in time to practice the disciplines, hoping that, through them, God might improve me.
1. A short history of rebellion.
The Bible is about the fact that we don’t follow God’s directions. The chronicle of disobedience begins from the story of Adam and Eve. It’s a theme that continues throughout the Bible.
God gave the children of Israel the Ten Commandments and the laws of Moses. He promised to bless them if they obeyed; he promised to harm them if they disobeyed. From the time that the laws were given, there was a cycle of obedience and disobedience, with obedience bringing blessings and disobedience ending in the exile of Israel and Judah from the land that God had given them.
The acts of disobedience were not slight. The children of Israel worshiped the gods of the peoples whom the children of Israel were supposed to displace. Some of the disobedience is jaw-dropping. In Judges, for example, the Benjamites of Gibeah, like the men of Sodom before them, sought to rape a stranger in their city; instead, they raped and murdered his concubine. Then the other Benjamites refused to turn over the wrong-doers to justice. This led to war among the children of Israel and the near-extinction of the tribe of Benjamin.
2. A short history of obedience.
But the Bible is also about our obedience.
Noah was obedient when he built the ark. Abraham was obedient when he left his kin and home to live in the land that God would give to his progeny. Gideon was obedient when he attacked the army of the Midianites with a small number of warriors. The prophets were obedient when they preached to the children of Israel, often putting themselves in peril to do so.
Jesus is the model for obedience. The Bible says that he did not live for his own pleasure. (Romans 15:3.) He lived to please God. "My meat [food] is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.." (John 4:34.) He was obedient, even unto death on the cross. "O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." (Matthew 26:42.)
3. The duty to obey.
Jesus calls us to be godly: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48.) But if you are like me, your habit is put yourself first – your habit is to get what pleases you and to do what pleases yourself.
So our eyes, which are the "light of the body" (Matthew 6:22), are drawn to a nice car, a nice house, an attractive woman (or man), a pleasing vacation, or on-sale bow ties (speaking personally); and, if we can, we get them. And relatively little time – again, if you are like me – is spent seeking God’s will and doing it. In modern American society, we seen oblivious to the idea that God might want something other than what we want for ourselves.
It matters. If we don’t do the will of God, we sin. And who would want to increase the suffering of Jesus, who took upon himself our sins?
4. Falling short without knowing it.
I think of things that I did years ago, and I wince at my foolishness, rudeness, boorishness, or cruelty, even though my behavior seemed fine to me at the time. The same is true with becoming Christlike. As we peel away layers of self and replace it with layers of knowledge of God, we might be amazed at how rebellious we were without knowing it in times past. That process likely is never-ending in this world.
To align ourselves to the will of God is to grow spiritually, to discover our own short-fallings, and to correct them. This is putting aside those things that interfere with our obedience, and putting on things that help us conform our will to God’s.
St. Peter spoke of spiritual growth when he said:
[A]dd to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. [2 Peter 1:5-9.]
St. Peter suggests that the believer should grow spiritually. Increased obedience is a sign of that growth, and it is like chess: the basics can be learned in a few minutes. We all know the basics. We all have at least a sense of what it takes to please God. But, like chess, the practice of drawing close to God can be made more perfect over a lifetime.
5. What to do: the spiritual disciplines.
There is value in knowing God, in knowing God’s will, and in doing it. The first step in making ourselves better in these things is wanting to better align ourselves with the will of God.
And, I suggest, the second step is setting time aside to better learn to align ourselves with God.
In this set-aside time, I suggest the practice of the spiritual disciplines. The spiritual disciplines give God scope to change us from within. Without them, the effort to be godly is likely to be a strained effort to act perfectly. That effort leads to frustration and failure.
To a greater or lesser degree, most Christians practice spiritual disciplines already: we all pray, at least from time to time; we all think on God; and we all look into the Bible, at least sometimes. But none of us are perfect at the practice of the spiritual disciplines.
The basic spiritual disciplines are prayer, study, meditation, and worship. These are not ends in themselves; if we think that they are, they might provoke spiritual pride in us, and then they would do more harm than good.
A big purpose of the spiritual disciplines is to learn to die to self and to live for God. Every discipline we undertake, we should undertake largely for that reason. And we should monitor whether they accomplish that. But it probably doesn’t help if this self-monitoring is hyperactive.
6. Books to help.
There are books that give guidance. Celebration of Discipline by Richard Foster is a modern classic. The Spirit of the Disciplines by Dallas Willard is another modern classic. Space for God by Don Postema is designed for study with other persons. These are just a half-handful of the many excellent books on the spiritual disciplines, modern and ancient.
7. Conclusion.
I am far from God. I’ve shared this essay on obedience and the spiritual disciplines, but I largely wrote it for myself. None is so alienated from God that he or she should not strive against that alienation. I have gravitated back toward the spiritual disciplines over the last year or so. I intend to continue putting in time to practice the disciplines, hoping that, through them, God might improve me.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Christian Intellectuals
Some conversations stay in your mind. Some twenty years later, I remember such a conversation with my wonderful cousin Elizabeth and her very smart then-husband, Peter.
It was about religion. And in one small part of it, Peter asked which American public intellectuals subscribed to Christianity. At the time, I had no answer.
1. A glib answer.
Since then, I have wondered whether it was fair to direct toward me a question with the words "American" and "public intellectual" in it. But that answer is too glib.
2. Christianity is un-selfconsciously a religion for the simple.
A more serious answer would have been that Christianity should not be judged by a standard that it rejects. After all, Jesus knew that the simple would embrace what the sophisticated would reject. He thanked God for that; he prayed:
3. Faith depends upon more than our minds.
So, speaking to his disciples about his soon-to-come death, Jesus said:
4. But sometimes believers over-depend upon their minds.
Sometimes, I think that we believers purport to rely upon our minds to navigate faith rather than hope in the Holy Spirit to tether us to God.
It seems to me that the particular way in which fundamentalists interpret scripture has some relationship to a habit of not crediting enough the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Fundamentalists impose on the Bible a simplistic, literalist hermeneutic: the universe was created in seven days, Noah took every species into an ark, and so forth. Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe this concept of fundamentalism would be rejected by fundamentalists, but I have the sense that fundamentalists tether their whole faith to the Bible. And therefore the idea is very threatening to them, the idea that the Bible might not be entirely trustworthy in the way that they understand trustworthy, which is to say, literally true.
5. When we over-rely on reason, we resemble un-believers.
I have a sense that fundamentalists crave a way to consume scripture with the mind, and only with the mind, and without the active help of the Holy Spirit to navigate the complex thickets of scripture. Non-Christian intellectuals are like-minded with fundamentalists, in that they may be enthralled with the sufficiency of the mind. Perhaps Thomas Paine represents the non-Christian intellectual in pure form. The Age of Reason (1794) is his conversation about religion. At its outset, he writes:
6. But faith should fully-engage the mind.
But, all that said, the intellect should be fully engaged in belief. Some of the best Biblical teaching that I personally have heard is from a fundamentalist preacher in Riverside. His preaching is excellent because he brings many skills to scripture, and he has a fine mind, and he teaches with a depth of knowledge.
7. A short list of Christian public intellectuals.
And twenty years after my conversation with Elizabeth and Peter, I now know of a handful of living public intellectuals who are believers. These are persons of publically-acknowledged intellectual accomplishment, who, in their writings or in their public statements, show their Christianity. None of these are religious professionals, such as professors of theology. I can list five:
Christian Wiman – poet, university teacher, and editor of the long-published magazine Poetry.
Marilynne Robinson – Pulitzer Prize winning novelist, and essayist. (Gilead)
Annie Dillard – Pulitzer Prize winning non-fiction writer, and essayist. (Pilgrim at Tinker Creek)
Pat Buchanan – writer, political pundit, former presidential speech writer.
Jon Meacham – former Editor-in-Chief of Newsweek; Pulitzer Prize winner, biography. (American Lion: Andrew Jackson)
It was about religion. And in one small part of it, Peter asked which American public intellectuals subscribed to Christianity. At the time, I had no answer.
1. A glib answer.
Since then, I have wondered whether it was fair to direct toward me a question with the words "American" and "public intellectual" in it. But that answer is too glib.
2. Christianity is un-selfconsciously a religion for the simple.
A more serious answer would have been that Christianity should not be judged by a standard that it rejects. After all, Jesus knew that the simple would embrace what the sophisticated would reject. He thanked God for that; he prayed:
I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. [Luke 10:21 (KJV).]Christianity does not purport to rely on its intellectual attractiveness to draw believers. True, it does engage the mind. (When I was a Presbyterian, we used to say that that was what Presbyterians were for.) But there is, according to Christian doctrine, also an indispensable supernatural component to belief; and that is the work of the Holy Spirit ("Holy Ghost" in the KJV).
3. Faith depends upon more than our minds.
So, speaking to his disciples about his soon-to-come death, Jesus said:
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26 (KJV).)The Holy Spirit brings people to God. So the Fourth Century one-time rhetorician, Augustine of Hippo (Saint Augustine), in his Confessions, admitted that, intellectually, Christianity did not appeal to him, and Christian scripture seemed crude. But one day he was in a garden, and he heard a child’s voice say, "Take up and read!" Christian scripture lay nearby, and he took it up and read it. It suddenly absorbed him, and he became a believer. He believed that voice to have been supernatural. His mother had long prayed for him.
4. But sometimes believers over-depend upon their minds.
Sometimes, I think that we believers purport to rely upon our minds to navigate faith rather than hope in the Holy Spirit to tether us to God.
It seems to me that the particular way in which fundamentalists interpret scripture has some relationship to a habit of not crediting enough the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Fundamentalists impose on the Bible a simplistic, literalist hermeneutic: the universe was created in seven days, Noah took every species into an ark, and so forth. Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe this concept of fundamentalism would be rejected by fundamentalists, but I have the sense that fundamentalists tether their whole faith to the Bible. And therefore the idea is very threatening to them, the idea that the Bible might not be entirely trustworthy in the way that they understand trustworthy, which is to say, literally true.
5. When we over-rely on reason, we resemble un-believers.
I have a sense that fundamentalists crave a way to consume scripture with the mind, and only with the mind, and without the active help of the Holy Spirit to navigate the complex thickets of scripture. Non-Christian intellectuals are like-minded with fundamentalists, in that they may be enthralled with the sufficiency of the mind. Perhaps Thomas Paine represents the non-Christian intellectual in pure form. The Age of Reason (1794) is his conversation about religion. At its outset, he writes:
The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.But a bridge to God cannot be built upon intellect alone. Faith is not built upon that rock. In fact, even though I have surmised that the fundamentalists are over-focused on the Bible and on a particular way to read the Bible, I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit moves in them and guides their minds.
6. But faith should fully-engage the mind.
But, all that said, the intellect should be fully engaged in belief. Some of the best Biblical teaching that I personally have heard is from a fundamentalist preacher in Riverside. His preaching is excellent because he brings many skills to scripture, and he has a fine mind, and he teaches with a depth of knowledge.
7. A short list of Christian public intellectuals.
And twenty years after my conversation with Elizabeth and Peter, I now know of a handful of living public intellectuals who are believers. These are persons of publically-acknowledged intellectual accomplishment, who, in their writings or in their public statements, show their Christianity. None of these are religious professionals, such as professors of theology. I can list five:
Christian Wiman – poet, university teacher, and editor of the long-published magazine Poetry.
Marilynne Robinson – Pulitzer Prize winning novelist, and essayist. (Gilead)
Annie Dillard – Pulitzer Prize winning non-fiction writer, and essayist. (Pilgrim at Tinker Creek)
Pat Buchanan – writer, political pundit, former presidential speech writer.
Jon Meacham – former Editor-in-Chief of Newsweek; Pulitzer Prize winner, biography. (American Lion: Andrew Jackson)
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Warm
God is good.
Without going into reasons, my brother has my car. So with a deadline approaching, I had to ride my motorcycle from Redlands to Banning in the cold and rain to deliver a subpoena.
I had expected rain when I left the house this morning, but not much. So I wore a rain jacket, but not rain pants.
On my motorcycle driving out to Banning, my wet legs froze. My hands froze, too, because the rain made my leather gloves wet.
By the time I got to my destination, I was very, very cold. Cold enough to be strangely chatty with the stranger that I handed the subpoena to. But from this chat, I found out that there was a restaurant only two blocks away. It served Chinese food.
I walked into the restaurant and ordered hot Chinese tea. It was wonderful. I pealed off my scarf and jacket, and I ordered dinner. I hoped to wait out the rain.
The chow mein was good. The vegetables and meat in it were delicious. But I did wonder why I was paying over nine dollars for chow mein made from ramen noodles. Yet, on balance, that was a small thing.
A woman came into the restaurant and asked for tea, and she asked about various cheap menu items. I suspect that she was homeless; certainly she was poor. That’s never easy, but it’s brutal on a day like this.
Meal done, I climbed back on my motorcycle, full of food and full of tea. The rain pelted me for half the chilling 50-minute ride back to Grand Terrace. But from the beginning of the journey there was hope for early relief, because in the distance I saw a horizontal line of bright sky toward the coast; I had hope of riding into rainless weather. After about 25 minutes, the rain stopped soaking me, and I was warmer.
But not warm.
My legs were so cold that it was troublesome to work the gear-shift with my left foot and the brake with my right foot. My fingers were so cold that the clutch and hand-brake were not easy.
But, finally, I was home. And home meant a hot bath – a simple joy.
I remember scanning a newspaper article about parents in Afghanistan who had lost nine children. The last one was born and died in one winter. The parents grieved that in his entire life their little baby boy was never warm.
I remember tales of war – tales of soldiers bearing cold for weeks and months, both in Europe and, later, in Korea. That would be my experience times one-hundred, with the loneliness of being far from home, and the added risk of being shot or captured.
So my modest ordeal made me grateful for what I had. In fact, as I approached home, in gratitude, I thought of my neighbor, whom I dislike. (I suspect, rightly or wrongly, that he poisoned my trees to improve his view; and, by golly, somebody keeps reporting property infractions to city officials.) Approaching my safe-harbor, I wondered what kindness I might show him to end this feud.
This thought was grace to me more than to him, because all kindness comes from God.
Now I’m bathed, dry, warm, and setting into my evening’s pleasurable routines. I am blessed beyond my deserving.
Without going into reasons, my brother has my car. So with a deadline approaching, I had to ride my motorcycle from Redlands to Banning in the cold and rain to deliver a subpoena.
I had expected rain when I left the house this morning, but not much. So I wore a rain jacket, but not rain pants.
On my motorcycle driving out to Banning, my wet legs froze. My hands froze, too, because the rain made my leather gloves wet.
By the time I got to my destination, I was very, very cold. Cold enough to be strangely chatty with the stranger that I handed the subpoena to. But from this chat, I found out that there was a restaurant only two blocks away. It served Chinese food.
I walked into the restaurant and ordered hot Chinese tea. It was wonderful. I pealed off my scarf and jacket, and I ordered dinner. I hoped to wait out the rain.
The chow mein was good. The vegetables and meat in it were delicious. But I did wonder why I was paying over nine dollars for chow mein made from ramen noodles. Yet, on balance, that was a small thing.
A woman came into the restaurant and asked for tea, and she asked about various cheap menu items. I suspect that she was homeless; certainly she was poor. That’s never easy, but it’s brutal on a day like this.
Meal done, I climbed back on my motorcycle, full of food and full of tea. The rain pelted me for half the chilling 50-minute ride back to Grand Terrace. But from the beginning of the journey there was hope for early relief, because in the distance I saw a horizontal line of bright sky toward the coast; I had hope of riding into rainless weather. After about 25 minutes, the rain stopped soaking me, and I was warmer.
But not warm.
My legs were so cold that it was troublesome to work the gear-shift with my left foot and the brake with my right foot. My fingers were so cold that the clutch and hand-brake were not easy.
But, finally, I was home. And home meant a hot bath – a simple joy.
I remember scanning a newspaper article about parents in Afghanistan who had lost nine children. The last one was born and died in one winter. The parents grieved that in his entire life their little baby boy was never warm.
I remember tales of war – tales of soldiers bearing cold for weeks and months, both in Europe and, later, in Korea. That would be my experience times one-hundred, with the loneliness of being far from home, and the added risk of being shot or captured.
So my modest ordeal made me grateful for what I had. In fact, as I approached home, in gratitude, I thought of my neighbor, whom I dislike. (I suspect, rightly or wrongly, that he poisoned my trees to improve his view; and, by golly, somebody keeps reporting property infractions to city officials.) Approaching my safe-harbor, I wondered what kindness I might show him to end this feud.
This thought was grace to me more than to him, because all kindness comes from God.
Now I’m bathed, dry, warm, and setting into my evening’s pleasurable routines. I am blessed beyond my deserving.
Monday, February 13, 2012
That Buzz-Kill, Death.
When a celebrity like Whitney Houston dies, America locks its eyes on the television screen. Or the internet news feed. Or we pay attention to the story on the radio.
Maybe part of the reason for that is the personal connection that some of us felt to Ms. Houston through her thrilling songs. But I think there’s more to it.
I think that, yes, a talented singer died. But, also, a myth is mortally wounded.
1. The American myth: part one.
Someone once said that poor people don’t think of themselves as poor people; they think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. And that truth reflects the power of the myth of our land of opportunity: the myth that someday we’re going to make it to the high life. We hope in this.
The myth is two-fold: the first part is the myth of upward mobility. But, as people like Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman point out, America has less upward mobility than other developed countries. In America, you are likely to die in the stratum into which you are born. This is particularly true as to the top and bottom strata.
Which is why people who climb into the economic stratosphere are important to us. People like Whitney Houston who rose from a modest beginning to get riches and fame and beauty and popularity feed our cherished myth. She validated our hope.
True, some of us don’t see a clear upward trajectory. Some of us are stuck in modest jobs or have no jobs at all. But that’s what the lottery is for: it’s a dream-generator. The most that almost anybody gets from playing the lottery is that pleasurable fantasy-life between the time that they buy the lottery ticket and the time that they learn that, once again, they didn’t win. And the reason that people play the lottery at all is that, as humans, our minds are not wired to understand how giant are the odds against us.
2. The American myth: part two.
The idea that we might be rich is one piece of the American myth. The other piece is that, once rich, we’ll be happy.
We imagine that riches will bring bliss. I’ve been flush, and I’ve been hard-up. The flush times are nice; there is much less anxiety when you have money to burn. I’d much rather make a heedless reservation at an expensive restaurant than fish through my suit pockets to find money to buy a burrito at Baker’s. But the money, per se, never made me happy. And I think that it’s generally true that money satisfies less than most people expect it to.
But we cling to the myth.
3. The myth debunked.
And that two-part myth contributes to our fascination with Whitney Houston. In her death, we see a dream disturbed. She was rich. She was talented. She was beautiful. She was famous. But she threw away her talent and her wealth and her beauty with drugs. And then, as she was getting ready to contribute to the American myth with a storybook comeback, death brought to a close the story of her life.
Death, the buzz-kill.
So in Whitney Houston’s death, and in the death of any celebrity, we grieve not just for her, but for ourselves. Her death is the beetle of reality into our hope stew.
Yet the myth is persistent. People will say that her downfalls were worth it for the triumph, while they lasted, of the highs, meaning the highs of fame and fortune and talent.
Well, for anyone who has listened to her music, but didn’t have to lie next to her while she puked in her sleep, that might be true. Her music is immortal, even if her bones lie in a coroner’s refrigerated drawer.
4. Toward a new reality.
But maybe the better truth is the truth of the goodness of a humble life. Maybe there’s more joy in a life without fame and riches, but rich with friends and with enough to live on. Maybe life is good enough with a little left over after necessities for simple pleasures like short trips with friends, or good books or DVDs, or the company of children and grandchildren.
Maybe a humbler life, one with fewer highs but also fewer lows, might have made a happier life story for Whitney Houston, a life story cherished by neighbors and family, if unknown to the world.
Maybe we need a new national myth – something that is not in fact a myth at all. Maybe we should cherish the simple goodness of the humble life. And maybe that’s the valuable takeaway from all of the attention being spent on the end of a turbulent and tragic life.
______________________________________________________
On the lack of mobility in American society:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=1
Maybe part of the reason for that is the personal connection that some of us felt to Ms. Houston through her thrilling songs. But I think there’s more to it.
I think that, yes, a talented singer died. But, also, a myth is mortally wounded.
1. The American myth: part one.
Someone once said that poor people don’t think of themselves as poor people; they think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. And that truth reflects the power of the myth of our land of opportunity: the myth that someday we’re going to make it to the high life. We hope in this.
The myth is two-fold: the first part is the myth of upward mobility. But, as people like Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman point out, America has less upward mobility than other developed countries. In America, you are likely to die in the stratum into which you are born. This is particularly true as to the top and bottom strata.
Which is why people who climb into the economic stratosphere are important to us. People like Whitney Houston who rose from a modest beginning to get riches and fame and beauty and popularity feed our cherished myth. She validated our hope.
True, some of us don’t see a clear upward trajectory. Some of us are stuck in modest jobs or have no jobs at all. But that’s what the lottery is for: it’s a dream-generator. The most that almost anybody gets from playing the lottery is that pleasurable fantasy-life between the time that they buy the lottery ticket and the time that they learn that, once again, they didn’t win. And the reason that people play the lottery at all is that, as humans, our minds are not wired to understand how giant are the odds against us.
2. The American myth: part two.
The idea that we might be rich is one piece of the American myth. The other piece is that, once rich, we’ll be happy.
We imagine that riches will bring bliss. I’ve been flush, and I’ve been hard-up. The flush times are nice; there is much less anxiety when you have money to burn. I’d much rather make a heedless reservation at an expensive restaurant than fish through my suit pockets to find money to buy a burrito at Baker’s. But the money, per se, never made me happy. And I think that it’s generally true that money satisfies less than most people expect it to.
But we cling to the myth.
3. The myth debunked.
And that two-part myth contributes to our fascination with Whitney Houston. In her death, we see a dream disturbed. She was rich. She was talented. She was beautiful. She was famous. But she threw away her talent and her wealth and her beauty with drugs. And then, as she was getting ready to contribute to the American myth with a storybook comeback, death brought to a close the story of her life.
Death, the buzz-kill.
So in Whitney Houston’s death, and in the death of any celebrity, we grieve not just for her, but for ourselves. Her death is the beetle of reality into our hope stew.
Yet the myth is persistent. People will say that her downfalls were worth it for the triumph, while they lasted, of the highs, meaning the highs of fame and fortune and talent.
Well, for anyone who has listened to her music, but didn’t have to lie next to her while she puked in her sleep, that might be true. Her music is immortal, even if her bones lie in a coroner’s refrigerated drawer.
4. Toward a new reality.
But maybe the better truth is the truth of the goodness of a humble life. Maybe there’s more joy in a life without fame and riches, but rich with friends and with enough to live on. Maybe life is good enough with a little left over after necessities for simple pleasures like short trips with friends, or good books or DVDs, or the company of children and grandchildren.
Maybe a humbler life, one with fewer highs but also fewer lows, might have made a happier life story for Whitney Houston, a life story cherished by neighbors and family, if unknown to the world.
Maybe we need a new national myth – something that is not in fact a myth at all. Maybe we should cherish the simple goodness of the humble life. And maybe that’s the valuable takeaway from all of the attention being spent on the end of a turbulent and tragic life.
______________________________________________________
On the lack of mobility in American society:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=1
Saturday, February 11, 2012
A Romney Presidency: Catastrophe?
The most frightening thing about Mitt Romney rising to the presidency isn’t that he’s a cynical manipulator who would say anything to get elected. It’s that he needs the approval of the audience he’s in front of.
1. The why of the lie.
For example, Romney often repeats a line criticizing Barack Obama for making an apology-tour of the world on behalf of America. Romney's claim that Obama made an apology tour has been debunked. Non-partisan Politifact.com gives that claim its lowest rating: "Pants-on-fire". Certainly, Romney is aware of this, and he or his campaign managers have had plenty of time to look at Politifact’s analysis. But Romney keeps on making that claim.
What if he repeats this lie not because he’s cynical and manipulative? What if, like conservative David Brooks recently said, he’s other-directed? That would mean that he loves the roar of approval he hears when he makes that claim, and he loves it so much that he can’t stop repeating that falsehood.
So – the man who would lead the free world is captivated by the crowd.
So – a man with no core is seeking the ultimate approval: selection to the most powerful position a mortal can hold.
2. Obama’s core.
Say what you will about Obama: he takes chances. When intelligence sources told him that Osama bin Laden was concealed in a Pakistani compound, Obama could have razed this compound with a cruise missile. That would have ended bin Laden, but it would have started uncertainty: did we get the right guy? The debate would have been endless and world-wide.
What Obama did was riskier. Ever since the Somalian Blackhawk-Down episode (and before that, the aborted mission to rescue the Iranian hostages), everyone has known that special-ops penetrations deep into enemy territory are risky. If the bin Laden mission had gone butt-up, and it easily could have, Obama’s presidency would have been crippled. But Obama pulled the trigger.
Likewise with the Affordable Care Act (so-called "Obamacare"). In the natural pace of Supreme Court decision-making, that case would be decided safely after the November election. But then, a new party might be in the White House, and that new party might abandon the appeal; and away would go the Affordable Care Act.
By requesting an expedited Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act, Obama risks an embarrassing reversal ahead of November. But he ensures that he controls the execution of that litigation. That’s strategic risk taking.
Obama is not ideal in this regard. But he is leagues ahead of Romney.
3. Romney the people-pleaser.
If Romney has been tested like Obama has been tested, I’m not aware of it.
But Romney’s record does not provoke confidence in his emotional independence or reveal convictions set upon a rock. Running for office in Massachusetts, Romney touted himself as pro-choice. Running for office in Massachusetts, Romney characterized himself as a political moderate. Running now for the Republican nomination for presdent, Romney is pro-life and "severely conservative". Romney is what he needs to be to please the people he appeals to.
4. Style over substance.
Not long ago, Romney was getting killed in debates by the Newt Gingrich, the Edward Scissorhands of debate knife-fighting. To his credit, Romney hunkered down and turned the tables. But his method of turning the tables reveals much. He did not look into himself to find his core and argue passionately from those core convictions. He hired a clever debate coach.
5. Romney lacks a core.
If Romney lacks inner conviction, if he floats on the approval of crowds, what inner strength would he draw upon fight his way through a blizzard of national crisis?
I don’t foresee risk-taking in a Romney administration. A people-pleaser like Romney is risk-adverse and popularity-eager. That would be a problem for America. A domestic emergency or an international crisis might arise, and the way through might not be clear. But certainly the solution would not come from pandering and pleasing.
6. Talent is an insufficient.
Years ago, I attended Pasadena Presbyterian Church. We were hiring a professional singer for the choir. It came down to a sing-off between two candidates during a church-service. The first singer was amazingly talented. Her singing skills were magnificent. The second singer, not so much. But if the decision had been up to me, I would have chosen the second singer. The first singer had more talent and greater range. But the second singer – when she sang Amazing Grace, I felt moved in my heart. There’s more than talent that makes the world turn.
Slick and smooth and smart will get you far in this world. It has gotten Mitt Romney riches and honors.
But a president is not a CEO. A president might have to make a decision without knowing whether it will turn out for good or bad. Sometimes he or she has to take a profound risk upon which his or her presidency and the future of our nation might rise or fall. That takes amazing courage.
And when that time comes, we cannot have a decision-maker who’s great fret is for the favor of the crowd.
1. The why of the lie.
For example, Romney often repeats a line criticizing Barack Obama for making an apology-tour of the world on behalf of America. Romney's claim that Obama made an apology tour has been debunked. Non-partisan Politifact.com gives that claim its lowest rating: "Pants-on-fire". Certainly, Romney is aware of this, and he or his campaign managers have had plenty of time to look at Politifact’s analysis. But Romney keeps on making that claim.
What if he repeats this lie not because he’s cynical and manipulative? What if, like conservative David Brooks recently said, he’s other-directed? That would mean that he loves the roar of approval he hears when he makes that claim, and he loves it so much that he can’t stop repeating that falsehood.
So – the man who would lead the free world is captivated by the crowd.
So – a man with no core is seeking the ultimate approval: selection to the most powerful position a mortal can hold.
2. Obama’s core.
Say what you will about Obama: he takes chances. When intelligence sources told him that Osama bin Laden was concealed in a Pakistani compound, Obama could have razed this compound with a cruise missile. That would have ended bin Laden, but it would have started uncertainty: did we get the right guy? The debate would have been endless and world-wide.
What Obama did was riskier. Ever since the Somalian Blackhawk-Down episode (and before that, the aborted mission to rescue the Iranian hostages), everyone has known that special-ops penetrations deep into enemy territory are risky. If the bin Laden mission had gone butt-up, and it easily could have, Obama’s presidency would have been crippled. But Obama pulled the trigger.
Likewise with the Affordable Care Act (so-called "Obamacare"). In the natural pace of Supreme Court decision-making, that case would be decided safely after the November election. But then, a new party might be in the White House, and that new party might abandon the appeal; and away would go the Affordable Care Act.
By requesting an expedited Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act, Obama risks an embarrassing reversal ahead of November. But he ensures that he controls the execution of that litigation. That’s strategic risk taking.
Obama is not ideal in this regard. But he is leagues ahead of Romney.
3. Romney the people-pleaser.
If Romney has been tested like Obama has been tested, I’m not aware of it.
But Romney’s record does not provoke confidence in his emotional independence or reveal convictions set upon a rock. Running for office in Massachusetts, Romney touted himself as pro-choice. Running for office in Massachusetts, Romney characterized himself as a political moderate. Running now for the Republican nomination for presdent, Romney is pro-life and "severely conservative". Romney is what he needs to be to please the people he appeals to.
4. Style over substance.
Not long ago, Romney was getting killed in debates by the Newt Gingrich, the Edward Scissorhands of debate knife-fighting. To his credit, Romney hunkered down and turned the tables. But his method of turning the tables reveals much. He did not look into himself to find his core and argue passionately from those core convictions. He hired a clever debate coach.
5. Romney lacks a core.
If Romney lacks inner conviction, if he floats on the approval of crowds, what inner strength would he draw upon fight his way through a blizzard of national crisis?
I don’t foresee risk-taking in a Romney administration. A people-pleaser like Romney is risk-adverse and popularity-eager. That would be a problem for America. A domestic emergency or an international crisis might arise, and the way through might not be clear. But certainly the solution would not come from pandering and pleasing.
6. Talent is an insufficient.
Years ago, I attended Pasadena Presbyterian Church. We were hiring a professional singer for the choir. It came down to a sing-off between two candidates during a church-service. The first singer was amazingly talented. Her singing skills were magnificent. The second singer, not so much. But if the decision had been up to me, I would have chosen the second singer. The first singer had more talent and greater range. But the second singer – when she sang Amazing Grace, I felt moved in my heart. There’s more than talent that makes the world turn.
Slick and smooth and smart will get you far in this world. It has gotten Mitt Romney riches and honors.
But a president is not a CEO. A president might have to make a decision without knowing whether it will turn out for good or bad. Sometimes he or she has to take a profound risk upon which his or her presidency and the future of our nation might rise or fall. That takes amazing courage.
And when that time comes, we cannot have a decision-maker who’s great fret is for the favor of the crowd.
Ten Things I Admire about Conservatives and Republicans
- The best preacher I have ever sat in on is archly conservative, politically. But, man, can he open scripture!
- Conservatives, or Republicans at least, show up among veterans in a greater percentage than among the general population. So hats-off to them for their willingness to put themselves in harms way for their country. http://www.gallup.com/poll/118684/military-veterans-ages-tend-republican.aspx
- Church-attendance is not necessarily the same as true love of God; but, like Woody Allen said, "80 percent of success is just showing up." And Republicans show up for church in much greater numbers than Democrats. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-02-religion-gap_x.htm
- Conservatives value candidates with strong values and strong convictions. With all of Mitt Romney's attractiveness -- presidential looks, financial muscle, organization, "inevitability" -- conservatives keep looking for alternatives. And all of the alternatives that conservatives have looked at, with all of their strengths and weaknesses, have been candidates of seeming strong convictions. (The latest alternative is Rick Santorum. That man has deep convictions.) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/opinion/brooks-the-crowd-pleaser.html?_r=1
- In general, conservatives don't tolerate sexual misconduct by their office-holders. A sexual scandal that would damage a Democrat will often destroy a Republican.
- Conservatives care enough about politics to have political opinions, often strong political opinions. In a nation where too many people are politically apathetic, that's a virtue.
- Outward displays often nourish inward qualities. Conservatives are bold to show their patriotism with outward displays, like saying the Pledge of Allegiance, or singing the Star Spangled Banner with hand over heart, or exhibiting the flag of our country in front of their homes.
- Although their ire might sometimes be misdirected, conservatives oppose regrettable things. Whether people believe in choice or not, they usually agree that abortion is an unhappy choice. Pornography is a blight. Wanton freeloading off of the government by the able-bodied and able-minded is an abuse of a system meant to be a hand up for the hard up. Law-breaking almost always drags down society. These are things that conservatives oppose.
- Conservatives have iconic heroes. Love him or hate him, Ronald Reagan was a game-changer. And even liberals admire Barry Goldwater. Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican, and he casts a long shadow, and he has a legacy of bi-partisan admirers. I revere Abraham Lincoln.
- I loath Fox News. But I will say this: what they do, they do very well. Their business model is effective, and their programs are well-produced and appealing to their target audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)