Stephen Roney's Blog, page 163

The Madness of King Joe

 

Recently on an internet forum I follow, an English teacher asked for podcasts she could use to teach English. Someone suggested Joe Rogan—an obvious choice. By far the most popular podcast in the world, currently. She rejected the idea: she could not introduce her students to such extreme right-wing opinions.

Joe Rogan supported Bernie Sanders in 2020.

A New York Times article I used in my own class referred to Oath Keepers as an extreme right-wing militia. I go to their web site. The oath they say they keep is to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” This is the oath all members of the military, and most police forces, take. Are they all extreme right-wing organizations? And is everyone but the “extreme right” now not prepared to defend the Constitution?

And how can everyone but a small minority be “extreme right”? Isn’t any very large proportion of the population, by definition, not “extreme”?

In a recent speech, Joe Biden began by saying that on January 6, 2021, “a dagger was literally held at the throat of American democracy.” Assuming Biden knows the English language, and is lucid enough to understand what he is saying, this is a –literally-- delusional claim.

And in the same speech in which he accuses Trump of insurrection for claiming an election could be stolen, he asserts that the Republicans are trying to steal elections by not consenting to his Voting Rights Act. If not blatantly dishonest, this is a level of lack of self-awareness that is delusional. And the latter seems the more likely explanation. Because otherwise it seems a dumb trick to try to pull.

I come to believe that the right is making a naïve mistake in taking the left seriously, and trying to argue such claims; as if they were even marginally reasonable. It might be time to simply, loudly, and at every opportunity point out that they are barking mad.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Giving to Charity Is Not Charity

 

He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars: general Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite, and flatterer, for Art and Science cannot exist but in minutely organized Particulars.

 

-- William Blake

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Jesus the Wino

 

A jotting of Cana from Giotto

1 There was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.

2 Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding.

3 When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”

4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.”

5 His mother said to the servers, “Do whatever he tells you.”

6 Now there were six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each holding twenty to thirty gallons.

7 Jesus told the them, “Fill the jars with water.” So they filled them to the brim.

8 Then he told them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it.

9 And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from although the servers who had drawn the water knew, the headwaiter called the bridegroom

10 and said to him, “Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now.”

11 Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs at Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him.

-- John 2: 1-11

Last Sunday’s gospel reading is a familiar story, but some of the details are often ignored.

First of all, it puts definite limits on the commandment to “honour your father and your mother.” Asked by his own mother to do something, Jesus refuses, and says she has no authority over him.

So much for supposing this commandment implies some duty of adult obedience.

It has to do rather with social welfare: one has a duty to provide for one’s parents, respectfully and not grudgingly, in their old age, when they cannot look after themselves. Assuming, of course, they had looked after you in youth. Before modern social security, this was a moral imperative.

But the story also kicks the slats out from under those Christians who suppose that drinking alcohol is a sin. Not only does Jesus make wine as his first miracle: according to the story, he expressly makes enough for those at the wedding to get blind drunk. At the point at which the attendees had drunk all the wine available, and, according to the headwaiter, enough that they would not be able to tell the difference between good and bad wine, Jesus makes 120-180 gallons more. He as much as assures that everyone present gets drunk, with the approval as well of his sinless mother.

A point is being made ad sharpened here: that at a time for legitimate celebration, at a festival time, drunken abandon is proper. 

This does not endorse alcoholism or habitual drunkenness—that is condemned elsewhere. It matters a great deal when and why you get drunk. For everything, there is a season.

But Christians may celebrate. 

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

On the Housing Crisis

 

Ibbitson of the Globe and Mail this the problem is solved by allowing cities to sprawl instead of having green belts. I think at best that's half of it. I think it is at least as important to tear down zoning restrictions in the city proper. For example, requiring high rises downtown to include huge amounts of parking space.

Many or most city residents don't have a car, and don't need one. Build what the market wants.

G & M article may be behind a paywall...For some reason, I was able to read it.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Philosophical Video Worth Watching

 

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Gifts of the Spirit

 

2nd Reading at today’s mass: 1 Corinthians 12:4-11

Brothers and sisters:

There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit;

there are different forms of service but the same Lord;

there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone.

To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit.

To one is given through the Spirit the expression of wisdom; to another, the expression of knowledge according to the same Spirit;

to another, faith by the same Spirit; to another, gifts of healing by the one Spirit;

to another, mighty deeds; to another, prophecy; to another, discernment of spirits; to another, varieties of tongues; to another, interpretation of tongues.

But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person as he wishes.

This list of the gifts of the spirit is a list of talents or vocations given by God.

The expression of wisdom: in other words, a teacher in the religious sense. A spiritual director, in Catholic terms. A guru.

The expression of knowledge: in other words, a teacher in the general sense.

Faith. This is listed as a special gift. Not everyone will have faith in this sense, even though also filled with the spirit. This I take to be the “heroic virtue” of sainthood: the ability to follow that path.

Healing. Being able to heal is a special talent and vocation. Nurses are more likely than doctors to have this gift. One knows it when one experiences it.

Mighty deeds refers most obviously to athleticism; although it may also mean generalship, leadership. Some translations have “miraculous powers,” presumably the ability to perform miracles. But I don’t think performing miracles, is a specific grace. It seems integrated with all the others. A gift of healing will produce miracles of healing. Accurate prophecy is miraculous as such. The saints all perform miracles. Miracles are everywhere.

Prophecy. Who is a prophet in this modern age? My answer is that of William Blake: the artist. True artists are inspired, just as the Old Testament prophets were inspired.

Discernment of spirits follows next because it refers to the talent of the art critic or person of good taste: he or she is able to discern good art from bad, that inspired by God from that inspired by dubious ambient spirits.

Varieties of tongues I take to mean the obvious, a facility for learning languages, not the “speaking in tongues” of Pentecostal services. Some people have a special talent for this, which can sometimes be genuinely miraculous.

“The interpretation of tongues” listed separately suggests to me that the talent for the receptive knowledge of language is separate from the talent for expressive knowledge of language. That is, it takes a different skill to speak or write in a new language than to read or understand it. This is in conformity with current linguistic theory. People are invariably better at one than the other.

So what? So understanding these as God-given talents implies that they cannot simply be taught. We currently ignore or fail to understand this, and do worse as a culture as a result. We do tend to accept that anyone cannot learn to be a great athlete, even with much practice. We mostly understand that going for a Master of Fine Arts cannot produce an artist. But we fail to see that two years of Teacher’s College cannot make a teacher, and five years of medical school cannot make a healer.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

A CANZUK Comment

 

The Anglophone West Indies

There is continuing turmoil in Northern Ireland over the border, now that the UK has left the EU. 

My solution is to unify Ireland on condition that it join CANZUK as a fifth member—free trade zone, integrated military, freedom of movement. The Northern Irish could have their cake and eat it too.

It also seems to me that an integrated West Indies also belongs in the pact. Individually the islands are too small to be equal partners, and indeed too small to be economically viable, but unified they would be about 4.5 million people and another arm of the Anglosphere. The opportunities offered by the larger union might be incentive for them to come together.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Should Christianity Come with a Warning Label?

 

Friend Xerxes continues to indulge his columnist habit. This time, he is light-heartedly suggesting a warning label for Christianity.

The idea of a warning label for Christianity does make sense: be prepared to die to self. Be prepared to take up your cross.  Be prepared to lose friends and family members. Be prepared to look like a fool to the world.

But Xerxes’s concerns are different.

What immediately leaped out, was “Christianity is not a cure for depression or suicidal impulses.”

I can’t imagine why he says that; it is almost the first thing he says. And it seems to me Christianity is exactly that. Depression and suicidal impulses are a result of perceived loss of meaning. The one thing Christianity does for definite sure is bring meaning into your life.

Whe he was perambulating Palestine, Jesus’s prime preoccupation was casting out devils. What do you think those devils were? The symptoms were often plainly what we would call “mental illness” of various kids.

A Catholic priest of my acquaintance used to say that there were only two choices for any of us: faith, or suicide.

Another of his warnings is almost equally odd:

“Keep Christianity and its doctrinal texts out of the reach of children, as their frontal lobes are not yet sufficiently developed to handle the complexities of Christian teachings.”

The common belief is that we have an obligation to raise children in the faith. And how is it good for children to grow up without a coherent world view?

“But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

I suspect Xerxes of buying the new atheist argument that teaching children Christianity is abuse.

He the gives a list of authors that, if you are Christian, you should not read, because they would be upsetting. He does not include Marx, or Freud, or Nietzsche, but de Chardin, Tolle, Rohr, Spong,  Merton, and Rahner.

It seems an odd list. Merton is surely revered among Catholics. Rahner was an important advisor to Vatican II. De Chardin is more controversial, but was praised by Benedict XVI, who is not generally considered unorthodox.

It is hard to figure out what point Xerxes is trying to make. That true Christianity requires you not to think? That Catholicism is an abomination on Christianity as a result?

But let’s polish our brass tacks. As what seems the climax, Xerxes wars that Christianity will cause “blindness to other faiths, intolerance of other viewpoints, and addiction to biblical proof-texting.”

Any particular viewpoint is intolerant of other viewpoints that contradict that viewpoint. Even viewpoints that claim to be “tolerant” are intolerant of viewpoints they declare “intolerant.” And we cannot escape having a viewpoint. The issue is whether we claim any right to impose or enforce our viewpoint over others. Christianity stands out for not doing this. In Christianity everything is voluntary. This is a contrast to most competing viewpoints. Including such creeds as secular humanism, liberal democracy, Marxism, Islamism, or science.

Meaning the net effect of Christianity is the opposite of what Xerxes claims.

On the issue of being “blind” to other faiths, Christianity and Christians would automatically have more understanding of and sympathy with a Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist viewpoint than would a materialist, a Marxist, or a secular humanist.

Accusing Christianity of causing a problem of Biblical proof-texting is like accusing the Constitution of causing a problem of misinterpreting the US Constitution. The solution would not be to abolish the Supreme Court. In this case, it would be to become Catholic, and rely on such expert advice. Unless, of course, your problem is not with proof-texting, but with the authority of the Bible itself.

“Mainstream Christianity is not recommended if you have religious pre-conditions, such as participation in Hare Krishna, charismatic Pentecostalism, or any Presbyterian court.”

You can be a Catholic, the ultimate mainstream of Christianity, and a Pentecostal. I am. It is called the Charismatic movement. There is no theological conflict here.

More broadly, any kind of religious background (“pre-condition”) is a better segue to Christianity than none.

“Do not be misled by Scientology, Eckankar, or Theosophy,” Xerxes adds.

If these cults are misleading, they are no more likely to mislead Christians than non-Christians, since they do not claim to be Christian. A better fit here could be “Do not be misled by Gnosticism, the prosperity gospel, liberation theology, original blessedness, or feel-good pop psychology masquerading as Christianity.”

“Take Christianity exactly as prescribed – weekly.”

The prescription is moment by moment. “Pray without ceasing.” A “Sundays-only“ Christian is not the model. And there is no such thing as an “overdose” of Christianity. The whole concept of “religious extremism” is profoundly wrongheaded. The average is not the ideal.

Is Xerxes really, as he claims, a Christian? 

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Platinum Jubilee

 

I am startled to discover that 2022 is Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee, marking 70 years on the throne. I had not been aware.

This is a big deal. No other monarch of Canada or of Britain or perhaps anywhere else has ever achieved a Platinum Jubilee. Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee was notable enough that they held a Festival of Empire in her honour.

And what has Canada planned to mark this epochal event? Apparently, an ice sculpture on Sparks Street Mall for Ottawa’s Winterlude. 

That almost sounds like an insult. As though her reign was written on water.

We can do better. Moreover, if the spring and summer of 2022 marks the end of a dread pandemic, we could all use a big party.

The federal government may have no time for the Queen, but it she is popular in much of Canada―in large part because the monarchy is the one thing that, historically, distinguishes us from the USA.

Surely Ontario or Toronto can do something significant. Time may be short, but here’s a thought. The City of Toronto, in its wisdom or lack thereof, has decided that Dundas Street must be renamed. Why not rename it in honour of the Jubilee?

It’s a significant street, right downtown, so the gesture is more than trivial. But essentially costs nothing, since we were going to rename it anyway.

We can’t call it Elizabeth Street. We already have one. We can’t name it Queen Street; ditto. But we could call it Jubilee Street.

It’s a cheerful name. It should be especially popular in Chinatown, which centres on the street. The Chinese place value on names with happy connotations. But surely any business would be happy to say they are on “Jubilee Street.”

The official renaming could be done in a grand public ceremony in Dundas Square on the 24 of May holiday. We could have a weekend of live free performances by big-name artists; televised. We could have a parade down the length of the street, then close the street for a street party the rest of the long weekend.

Some will inevitably grumble that honouring the Queen is not properly multicultural. They are exactly wrong. The point of having a monarchy is that it provides a unifying symbol other than ethnicity. Nor is the Queen of any particular ethnicity. Royal families marry exogamously as a matter of course. Her husband is Greek, and she is German. At the outset of the First World War, the king of England, the Kaiser of Germany, and the Czar of Russia were first cousins. Except that she is purely European, Elizabeth Windsor is the perfect image of multiculturalism.

We could of course have attendees at the ceremony to represent all the nations of the Commonwealth. She is, after all, head of the Commonwealth. Canada’s First Nations also claim a special tie to the Crown, and would no doubt be happy to send representatives. 

It could all make a great parade, a great concert, and a great street party.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Onward Christian Soldiers

 

Jesus engages in fisticuffs in the temple.

Another argument against religion: “Pie in the sky when you die.” It serves to reconcile people to a lot in life that they should be striving to change. It serves to perpetuate social and personal wrongs.

Christianity certainly can be and has been used to do this. The concept “gentle Jesus meek and mild” and the demand for forgiveness can be manipulated in this way.

But this is a manipulation, a falsification of Christian doctrine. Christianity cannot be blamed for it. 

There is no gentle Jesus in the gospels. He condemns the powers that be, the scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees, in uncompromising terms. He tells his followers to arm themselves. He overturns the tables of the moneychangers. 

“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” (Luke 12: 49-54)

He merely advises against fighting lost causes. That is what “turn the other cheek” is about.

He preaches forgiveness if and only if the offender has repented and tried to make amends. Otherwise, self-evidently, one is endorsing sin. “Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus teach that forgiveness should be offered unconditionally.” “If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.” (Luke 17:3)

Christianity is often blamed for “the divine right of kings.” This forms no part of Christian doctrine, and was proposed by secular rulers. Pagan religions usually see the king as a god, who rules by divine right. Christianity rejects this. In the Old Testament, kings are commonly called to account by the prophets. In the new, civil government is said to be in the gift of Satan. “It has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to.”

As a practical matter, no other religion or ideology has done a better job of righting the wrongs of the world. Christianity produced liberal democracy and the doctrine of human rights. The doctrine can be traced back through the Jesuits to Aquinas; Locke explicitly based it on the Bible. Wilberforce successfully appealed to Christianity to end slavery. MLK successfully appealed to Christianity to end discrimination against US blacks. Desmond Tutu appealed to Christianity to end apartheid in South Africa. John Paul II appealed to Christianity to end Communism in Poland.

Christianity gives guidance on when to fight, and when to hold back, “A time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” With the assurance of ultimate justice, something that gives heart and strength to those who know they are fighting for what is right.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.