Class Envy

Chuck Colson's latest article shows his envy of people with the wherewithal to live in Martha's Vineyard. This is populist conservatism - always a bizarre hybrid. He defends the rights of the wealthy by attacking the wealthy - the liberal wealthy.

To be specific he notes that a lot of wealthy liberals live in Martha's Vineyard and that some people in Martha's Vineyard are fighting to keep energy producing windmills off of Nantucket Sound. This shows liberal hypocrisy, assuming that the liberal environmentalist politicians and the people fighting to get those windmills out of Nantucket sound are one and the same.

I am assuming they aren't because if Colson had evidence that a John Kerry or Ted Kennedy were supporting the fight against the windmills, he would drop their name in a much more direct way, rather than trying to tar them by association (he does note that John Kerry voted against killing the windmill farm, although the sentence construction is confused (presumably on purpose)).

I'm not sure what to make of this

One of the Christian rights most popular themes these days is to mention that there really is evil in the world. Which in part explains the Bush Presidency; hard to argue there isn't evil around with him in the White House.

Obviously, an event like the Virginia Tech shooting makes writing on this theme easy, but I'm still unsure about Chuck Colson's latest article. He talks about visiting a Norwegian hospital where there were a lot of criminals. He asked which ones were mentally ill, and was told they obviously all were or they wouldn't have committed the crimes they did.

While the Norwegian approach would strike most Americans as very naive, the difference between them and us is one of degree not kind. We also blame crime on external factors, like mental illness, culture, dysfunctional childhood, and the like.

We are uncomfortable attributing events like this to human evil, much less to a kind of evil that seeks to undo God's creation—what Christians call the demonic.

Yet without this idea, events like this massacre can never be understood. We might learn that the killer was "mentally unbalanced" or on anti-depressants. But, absent evidence that he was clinically delusional, this knowledge will not explain why he walked onto a college campus, locked people in a lecture hall, and killed them.

So to put it another way, is there a difference between being crazy and being possessed by demons. I'm not exactly sure how we would change our law enforcement procedures if we had to assume people who committed these crimes were possessed or just evil. Have a police department exorcist? Hey maybe that Dresden Files show is more relevant than I thought.

In reality the only thing Colson wants is for us to feel no sympathy towards deranged people who do these kinds of things. Fair enough. But purposefully saying "Well they're evil and that's all the explanation we need," deliberately blinds ourselves to understanding and possibly preventing such insanity.

Fascism and Islam

I wrote on this subject a couple of weeks ago, based on a conversation I had at Democratic Underground. If you will recall, I saw some parallels between Fascism and Islamic Fascism, particularly in their ideological frameworks, and he was denying such links.

Well today we have an article by Chuck Colson arguing that there are strong links between Islamic Fundamentalism and Fascism. And just to be contrary I'm gong to go ahead and say that Colson overstates the case, particularly when he talks about their goals.

Nor can radical Islam's imperial ambitions be denied. Iran, al-Qaeda, and even Hamas talk about an Islamic empire stretching from India to the Iberian peninsula. What Morris says about aspiring to "re-create a mythical past" is evident in bin Laden's continuing references to the "tragedy of Andalusia" and Hamas's demands for the return of Seville. The Iranians take it a step further and see themselves as ushering in a messianic age.

A few problems here.

One problem with Colson is that he sees no need to distinguish between al-Qaeda, a terrorist franchise which clearly has world wide goal, Hamas and Hezbollah, local resistance/terrorist movements, and Iran and Syria, which are nation states. While there exist commonalities between them, there are also vast differences. One of the more intellectually dishonest aspects of Republican "tough-mindedness" on Islamic Terrorism is the consistent need to conflate all objectionable Islamic movements. They really aren't all the same thing.

While we are on the subject, don't American Dominionists also believe that they are ushering in a messianic age?

One other similarity between Radical Islam and Fascism; both are born out of frustration and rage. Germany and Italy felt humiliated after World War I and Versailles. Although defeated, these resentments and anger festered until something even worse grew. I wonder if there is a lesson there.

The Marriage Amendment Circus

In case you don't know the battle of the century is about to start. This may well be the defining moment in American history, a moment to make all other moments seem pale in comparison. And this moment involves the Marriage Amendment. Why is this most important of moments upon us? Because President Bush and his band of dingleberries were unable to distract us all with the immigration debate.

How do I know the key importance of this Marriage Amendment debate? Conservative columnists have told me.

The battle waged to protect the institution of marriage has arrived. For the past three weeks I have reminded my listeners, as well as my readers of this fact on a daily basis.

- Kevin McCullough

Today Mark Earley and I will be at the White House, meeting with President Bush and leaders of the pro-family movement. The president will then speak to the nation in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment. Thank God we have a president who supports this.

- Chuck Colson

This is a key moment in American history. Except it likely won't be. History is against the Marriage Amendment and everybody knows it (which is why some "Family" groups are so keen on getting this passed know. It's not a huge chance, but it's probably their last.

For more thoughtful thoughts on Gay Marriage, I point you to this old chestnut by Random Goblin, which many of you have read before.

Banality

Here's a favorite quote by H. L. Mencken.

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

Very appropriate.

Chuck Colson writes a column this week responding to a very banal column at the New York Times. The New York Times asks the question would H. L. Mencken be a blogger where he alive now. Thomas Vincigerra quickly concludes that yes, he might very well have been a blogger, and then spends three pages proposing fictional posts for said blog.

One of those posts reads as follows.

Dec. 21

Sanity has triumphed in Dover, Pa., where the boobs who tried to foist intelligent design on the local lyceums have been soundly thrashed. Judge Jones, the Bush-appointed archon who made the decision, went so far as to lambaste the school board's "breathtaking inanity." Would that this victory were permanent. It will take more than jurisprudence to retire the forces of ignorance permanently. Meantime, we can only hope that they engage in less egregious forms of buncombe - like installing the Ten Commandments in public squares, or speaking in tongues.

This naturally has Colson in a tizzy, because he sees it as an attack on Christians and Christianity.

Of course, Mencken referred to Christians as “rustic ignoramuses” when he wasn’t calling us worse things. But he also had insulting things to say about women, Blacks, and Jews—comments that today we recognize as both ignorant and offensive. To its credit, the Times would never dream of trying to be funny by calling Blacks and women mentally inferior, or by imitating Mencken’s viciously anti-Semitic comments. But when it comes to Christians, all bets are off. And like any bigot, the newspaper that celebrates itself for politically correct tolerance and exquisite sensitivity can’t seem to recognize its own blind prejudice.

Now a few points.

1. This column is pretty banal. I mean if it inspires people to seek out the prickly genius of Mencken, all for the better, but it's not very good.

2. Mencken's most famous collection of columns were the one's he wrote about the Scopes Monkey trial. There has been a recent case in Dover, Pa., involving the teaching of Evolution in the Class room. If you are going to do this banal column, writing a fictional blog post about the Dover case is pretty obvious.

3. Calling people who support teaching Intelligent Design in the class room (rather than Science) Boobs is not an attack on Christians. It's an attack on Boobs who happen to be Christians. There are plenty of Christians who do not favor forcing their religious beliefs to be taught in the class room.

Anyway I feel an emotion, presumably common to H. L. Mencken, to wit, annoyance with the whole situation.

I had a dream last night

I just finished reading Chuck Colson's latest article, in which he related an awful dream he had. His openness has inspired me to relate a dream of my own.

I was seated on my sitting crate, trying to pick the best albums of 2005, as is customary for Internet Bloggers. I was concentrating hard when, suddenly, I saw before my eyes a headline from the New York Times. It read, "Bush proclaims mandate after republican sweep of midterm elections."

The view changed. Just as in the 1960s thousands protested the president and were spied on and sprayed with firehouses. There was massive confusion and the sounds of sirens.

And then, I saw the Supreme Court, where newly confirmed Justice Alito read a surprising decision, overturning the 22nd amendment (the one that limits a president to two turns). Out side the courthouse, a wailing and the odor of tear gas.

The next thing I saw was the halls of congress where the few remaining Democratic nominees, save Joe Lieberman, were escorted from the chamber by military police, to be held in connection with their treasonous activities in questioning the President.

The President cancelled the 2008 elections, citing national Emergency. Huge detention centers dotted the landscape as all those who held liberal ideas were finally dealt with in away Ann Coulter and David Horowitz would be proud of. Our military was sent throughout the Middle East. Thousands died as we invaded Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and so on. Mandatory service in the military was the law.

I turned on the television; there was only one channel and it was certainly fair and balanced, as it presented both the good side and the better side of President for Life Bush's policy's. A group of talking heads were talking about how wise and just President Bush was. One man's voice stood out as he said, "It was all so foreseeable. Once you allow a President to rule based on his black and white religiosity, he will realize that he cannot allow others who lack his vision to rule after him. No one understood that a black and white morality implies the restraining of those who would serve the black and a surveillance of those who seem to serve the white. We don't even have the language to describe a loyal opposition anymore. Destruction was inevitable."

And that's when I woke up in a cold sweat.

After toweling myself off, I ran to the front door. There was no newspaper there. I don't take a newspaper, actually. So kind of a wasted effort. Then I ran to my computer and punched up the online version of the New York Times. There was nothing there but the normal. Fights over the Alito Confirmation and Squabbles about Iraq. As I walked out of my computer room, my knees were still shaking.

It was only a ludicrous fantasy that has pretty much no chance of coming true. We're okay, I told myself.

Or are we?

The Secularization of America

Well, I'm back. I naturally want to thank the Monster for giving me a new lease on this website. I'd also like to acknowledge that Grumbly Muffin and Cheery Jetson have done some interesting work while I was gone.

I will comment that the previous format did not allow commentators to challenge each other; The Monster has already suggested that that was a silly policy, and he is encouraging us to swing into each other at will. So Grumbly Muffin may find her statements falling under a bit more scrutiny.

At any rate, just read Chuck Colson's latest article. On the surface I agree with a lot of what he says. He talks about how the rise of Ideology has made political debate more and more difficult. People do not have an independent standard of truth; they judge facts based on their ideology. Which is why one group sees a decorated war hero; the other sees a vainglorious coward.

That said, his answer to the problem seems to be for everybody to accept his standard as truth. Which is, at the very least, overly convenient. Specifically he is referring to the Christian Faith. I wonder if his understanding of the Christian faith is large enough to encompass the Christian who believes that it is the governments duty to take care of the poorest among us and the Christian who believes that it is unjust for the Government to take from the Wealthy to give to the Poor? But even at that, it does leave hundreds of thousands of non Christians with no seat at the American table.

Why not just have rigorous standards of truth, and live up to those? I mean I know it's a radical idea, but why not figure out what the truth is in situations and make people hold to that. That will still leave plenty of room for disagreements and arguments, I should think.

Are you Afraid?

I just read an interesting article by Chuck Colson on the culture of fear in the United States.

"Despite living in the "safest society in recorded history, many people feel as though they have never been more at risk."

Why? There are institutions in American life that have an interest in pointing out, if not exaggerating, the risks associated with everyday life. These include researchers, trial lawyers, environmentalists, and even the government.

The media, in its quest for viewers and readers, then hypes these risks—often without any qualification or real-world context. Since most people lack the necessary skills to make sense of these so-called threats, the result is a feeling of vulnerability that is out of proportion to any actual threat. And the government declares alerts over every indication of danger for fear of being criticized that it failed to warn people."

Well, Colson makes some good points. And as noted before we have an Administration that has every reason and desire to keep the American People afraid.

Clones destroy God

According to Raëlians (ever wonder where they came up with that name?) leader, Mr. Raël, "If you can clone a human being, there is no God and no soul." Ah. But what are all these followers you have worshiping you, Mr. Raël? Well, I suppose everybody needs something to occupy their minds.

Chuck Colson, commenting on the Raelians, stated "the Raëlians are a metaphor, an incredibly powerful one portraying in living color the deadly logic of cloning. Cloning, you see, makes us our own god. We create ourselves in the image we choose. Raël may be mad, but he is entirely logical."

I am no theologian and I have my own reasons to be skeptical of cloning, but I have a hard time understanding why the ability to Clone proves there is no God. If God can put a soul into a fetus in a mothers womb (whenever and however that happens), than what stops him from putting a soul into a fertilized egg in a test tube? Do you think the glass stops him? "Oh no, I can't put a soul in this baby. Curse those Raëlians, they knew my one weakness. Test tubes." Somehow I don't think that's the way it works.