Stephen Roney's Blog, page 222

On That Loathsome Hot Dog Trump

I was recently sent this “joke” about Trump by Antiochus, a leftist friend of mine.

"It's almost impossible to believe he exists. It's as if we took everything that was bad about America, scraped it up off the floor, wrapped it all up in an old hot dog skin, and then taught it to make noises with its face."

--Anthony Citrano

Just that, with no commentary before or AEter.

I knew Antiochus was a personally a really good guy. Sol I took the opportunity to rey to figure out what motivates such Trump Derangement Syndrome. Did he have any insights?

I wrote:

You know, the heck of it is, I have come to the opinion that Trump has been an unusually good president, and I have a hard time understanding why so many others do not think so. It genuinely seems puzzlilng.

I'd be interested in hearing why you think he is bad. Of course, the quote tells me nothing--just that he is "bad." Why bad? Surely with you I can have a rational and friendly discussion.

Is it his gruff, combative manner? While I can see why that could be offensive, does it really matter? Words are just words. What has he done that troubles you?

Here are important excerpts from his response, with how I responded to him. If you too, gentle reader, are victim to this pandemic, perhaps this may help.

Here is what I got, with my own responses interspersed.

AE:

I don't have to look much further than the state of the country. It is filled with mistrust and intransigence and general stupidity,

Od:

Agreed regarding the state of the country, but it does not follow that this is Trump’s fault. For strife to happen, there have to be at least two opposing sides. Either or both or all may be at fault. That is what needs to be determined. The people rioting in the streets seem to be Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Trump, by comparison, seems to be following the laws pretty syatematically and behaving himself. Blaming him looks like blaming Churchill for the Holocaust.

AE:

Especially about COVID-19,

Od:

Trump of course is not to blame for COVID. If his response has been worse in some way than that of other world leaders, I need to know why you think so.

Antiochus responds to this that he has failed to help the medical authorities get it under control.

Od:

But what does that mean? In the situation we were in, nobody knew the best course of action. We did not know what we were dealing with. This included the medical experts. They did not agree then, or now, and we know now that many of the things recommended by the WHO or Imperial College London then were dangerous and wrong.

Surely Trump can only be faulted or congratulated on matters of crisis management.

AE:

He is a liar.

Od:

I hear this all the time, and I cannot account for it. The reason many of his supporters like him is because he is so honest. How do I reconcile the two claims?

Politicians all lie. Trump stands out for making a real effort to keep his campaign promises. And a big part of his appeal is that he seems to say what he thinks—in other words, he does not lie like other politicians.

Antiochus gives examples:

AE:

From his very first statement about the size of the crowd at his inauguration

Od:

I’ll grant you that the claim was in error, but I’m not convinced it was a lie. Photos taken from the dais do seem to show all available space filled; that is what Trump saw. I think he jumped to the conclusion that the partisan media was lying to diminish him. He might well have thought that the statement Sean Spicer issued was certain to be true: that is was “the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe.” He was probably counting on increased technology use making this necessarily true. It seems it still wasn’t.

So it may have been a mistake. And it fits my observation that Trump’s critics seem to be upset only by what he says, not what he has done.

AE:

[This was] a lie that showed right away that he had to be bigger and better than anyone else

Od:

Trump is a showman, in a classic American tradition, like P.T. Barnum and Texas tall tales. He exaggerates. I cannot see this as lying: when you hear a story about Paul Bunyan, do you think you are being lied to? He looks to me like a skilled entertainer, and he is genuinely entertaining. That’s why so many flock to his rallies.

AE:

the most recent revelations from Bob Woodward, about knowing the pandemic was deadly but still telling everyone that it was nothing to be worried about, that it was going away, that they had it under control,

Od:

But Trump was saying the same thing the medical experts were saying. He only knew what they had told him; and they were telling the public that there was little risk from the virus. So were the other world leaders, and the other American politicians, and the media, and the WHO. Trump did not have had any information they did not have; and none of them were sounding a notably louder alarm than he. The WHO was still disputing in July whether the virus was airborne; and they criticized Trump’s travel ban as unnecessary.

So it seems it was only wrong because Trump did it. It seems Trump was acting responsibly to prevent panic.

AE:

Didn't pay off a porn star.

Od:

I don’t know what the truth is there; it is in dispute. When it went to court, Daniels lost. And I don’t want to pry, because I believe it is none of my business. Famous people have the same right to privacy as the rest of us; their sex lives should be off limits.

There are reasons why it should be, too, beyond their right to privacy. Famous people face massive temptations to casual sex that the rest of us do not know: members of the opposite sex are going to throw themselves at them. Should they resist all temptations, every woman alive still has a powerful motive for claiming they did not: the claim makes them famous, and famously desirable.

And, were we to impose this no adultery standard on politicians other than Trump, few could or would want to enter public life. No FDR, no Clinton, no Kennedys, no Eisenhower, no Trudeaus. And no Joe Biden.

AE:

Didn't try to get foreign governments to interfere in U.S. elections.

Od:

I think we can say we are sure he didn’t. The Russia charge was about as thoroughly investigated as it could have been, and Mueller came up dry. The transcript of the Ukrainian phone call was immediately released so that everyone could see for themselves.

Actual innocence is all but proven. If you want a president who has never colluded with any foreign governments, Trump is your man.

Antiochus then responded with a link to a CNN page labelled “Fact Check,” that claimed to list Trump’s 25 worst lies.

Od:

I know that the principal claim against him by opponents is that he lies. All politicians lie, so this makes no sense to me even if true.

But about “fact checking.” As someone who actually graduated from journalism school (Ryerson), and who has done the actual job of fact checking, I have to tell you that this current “fact check” thing is a fraud. Publications are suddenly calling articles “fact checks,” and folks think this somehow makes them more authoritative. Any good journalist or publication always used to check every fact three ways. These new “fact checks” do no more. In fact, they do less. They just use the term “fact check,” and think they can get away with anything. Saves the money they used to spend on checking facts.

The very first item is a howler. They write:

“While it's possible some women are being made to suffer such kidnapping horrors, the policy premise of Trump's ‘duct tape’ novellas -- that trafficking victims are never transported through legal ports of entry, only through the unprotected desert -- is not at all true.”

This is disputing something Trump never said. He did not say that people were never trafficked through legal ports of entry; nor would this have been meaningful to make his point. They are putting words in his mouth, as an imagined “premise.” A false quote is a violation of journalistic ethics. So is the prejudicial language: referring to his statement as a “novella.” What Trump actually said, they do not dispute.

Not worth it to read further.

And so it goes. Do not trust the “fact checkers,” or, these days, any media reports. The media have become generally corrupted. You need to go to original sources. And not just an isolated quote or clip. Careful editing can also falsify, and everybody in media these days has a political agenda.

Accordingly, I suspect you may dislike Trump in part or even entirely because you think he has said and done things he has never said or done. In fairness to the big lug, you should entertain that possibility.

Or concentrate on what he has actually done. That’s harder to falsify.


AE:

Has he ever taken responsibility for anything? He has said on several occasions that this thing or that thing or the other thing wasn't his fault.

Od:

Politicians rarely take public responsibility for foul-ups. But even then, you are overlooking the obvious possibility that Trump is right—that he was not responsible. You need to isolate an example where something plainly was his fault, and he said it was not.

And this fits with my general observation: that complaints about Trump are always about what Trump says, not what he does.

AE:

He has advised illegal activity (encouraging people to vote twice);

Od:

Trump is a showman. He is a stand-up comic. At his rallies can be funny, impromptu, for hours. This is a Trump joke—just poking opponents in the eye like Moe Howard used to do. The Democrats were insisting that voter fraud was impossible, or never going to happen, with mail-in ballots. So how can they possibly object? Were they lying?

I think he turned the tide against mail-in voting with this crack. Which was a very good deed, and very skillful, on his part.

AE:

He has re-tweeted known racists, known liars and known criminals without regard for the consequences of his actions.

Od:

As well as being again about words, not deeds, that is not even about Trump’s own words. That is guilt by association. Any one of us could be found similarly guilty of anything by this standard: six degrees of separation. You, me, Obama, Biden, Santa Claus or Mother Teresa. Even then it is an ad hominem argument: a “racist” or “liar” can make a valid argument, and perhaps do it cogently.

AE:

Leaders lead; they provide examples of honour and integrity, and this man does neither.

Od:

I disagree with you if you are saying that political leaders are supposed to be role models. God help any of us if we take politicians as our role models. This, it seems to me, is exactly why, in Canada, we have a royal family, and a governor-general: to be the role models. That is why, in the Catholic Church, we have saints. Politics is a dirty job; but someone has to do it.

The job of a leader, as you say, is to lead. Too often they do not: they just look at the latest poll, or listen to what the last commentator or questioner said, and agree with it. This is not leading, but merely following from in front. So long as they do this, it hardly matters who holds office.

Trump seems to stand apart for not doing this; for genuinely leading. He does not conform to demands to say and do what he is “supposed” to: to do what is politically correct. He will disagree sharply with a questioner from the media. He us acting not out of any ideological conviction, so far as I can tell, but out of a sense of honour. As a businessman, he keeps a contract. If he makes an election promise, he tries to deliver. He will buck any headwinds he might face.

I imagine any highly successful entrepreneur must have unusual leadership abilities. Trump comes from that world. He knows how to get things done.

AE:

His comments about his daughter when she was 13 or 14 or 15 are genuinely creepy.

Od:

Don’t know the reference; you’d have to tell me what he said. Not that this is important: whatever it was, the objection is only to words. And in this case, apparently very old words. None of us could withstand public scrutiny of everything we have ever said. #Meetoo and the blackface scandals were going quickly down that road, but it looked like they ran out of motivaton when people realized all their own favourite politicians were equally vulnerable. It wasn’t just or even primarily the other side.

AE:

His comment about just grabbing women by their genitals because he could get away with it due to his fame, are really pretty scummy. Sure, it's locker room talk, and I am as guilty as any guy of that sort of bullshit, but I'm not a billionaire businessman who has become president of the United States.

Od:

What you say is right: it was just locker room talk. As I said, public figures should not be judged by a different standard from the rest of us.

AE:

I am disgusted by this man and his lack of compassion, his lack of a sense of justice or fairness,

Od:

You need to give examples. All I can get from this is that you are disgusted.

AE:

… and his utter lack of loyalty to anyone outside his immediate family circle.

Od:

Trump was elected on a promise to “drain the swamp.” His appeal was that he was a Washington outsider, and would not be beholden to any of its cliques. It makes no sense to criticize him, then, for lack of loyalty to any Washington cliques, and for firing people.

The frequent firings may be disorienting, but it looks as though Trump knows his business. William Barr seems to be a more effective Attorney-General than Jeff Sessions was. Mike Pompeo seems to be a star at Secretary of State; Rex Tillerson was not. Kayleigh McEnerny seems to be historically good as press secretary, like her or not.

Usually, the first cabinet appointments by a new administration are the best. The cabinet becomes less impressive over time as they leave, and second or third choices take over. Trump seems to have managed the opposite.

Maybe it pays to put in a businessman as president. It’s a managerial position.

AE:

Look: gruff and combative appeal to me. He is those things, but he is those things for his own gain, financial, political and personal. He is not those things for the betterment of the country, but rather for the betterment of Donald John Trump. The frightening thing, to me, is that he sees the financial, political and personal betterment of Donald John Trump as being synonymous with the betterment of the country.

Od:

Financial benefit? If a billionaire businessman becomes president, he has to be taking a financial hit.

Political benefits? Trump is not a politician, so it seems unlikely he is angling for future political advantage. Former presidents never run for office.

Personal benefits? Being president is not skittles and ale. It takes a visible toll on the occupants. Obama went grey in office. So did George W. No family time, no privacy, the weight of the world on your shoulders. Trump is under a level of stress I doubt I could survive.

I imagine it is an ego trip. You could probably accuse any president of that motive; you don’t get there without an abnormal level of ego.

AE:

And for what it's worth, words are not "just" words. They can be weapons. They can be healers. They can be anything they are needed to be. They are among the most powerful things that we have.

Od:

I am not claiming words have no meaning or value; that should go without saying. Otherwise we would not use them, and could not use them. I agree that Trump’s words, too, have consequences. Like that joke about going to the polling station and trying to vote again. I don’t like a lot of things he has said; I was first put off by his tone. I am saying that words are in almost all cases less important than actions. The exceptions to this are pretty familiar: slander, libel, threats of violence, breach of copyright. In the other direction, legislation, contracts, great literature.

Consider these two examples:

1. Someone says they will give you a million dollars; but give you a thin dime.

2. Someone says they will not give you one thin dime, while handing you a million dollars.

Who is your greater benefactor?

I say Trump is like 2. And, for that matter, Biden, his current adversary, looks a lot like 1.

There is another reason not to make words your master: sophistry. Plato, Socrates, and Confucius warned us. So did George Orwell.

“Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Trump cuts through and against the boilerplate political discourse of the day and speaks plainly and directly, if sometimes crudely. We probably should support him for this reason alone. Many do.

And there is a third reason. If you make words as important as deeds, if you forget what your grandmother said about “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me,” that erases the moral distinction between physical and verbal aggression. That means ultimately no distinction between defeating someone in argument, and killing them.

And that means no free speech. Any more than we can have free murder.

This is fatal to civil order. There is a reason why our legislature is called “parliament”: as in, “parler,” “talk.” Democracy, or any form of stable government, is only possible so long as we can speak to each other without getting too worked up about what anyone else says.

Otherwise might makes right, we all try to bully others into submission, people die, and we end up being ruled by the strongest and most ruthless arm, rather than the best idea.

This is also why it is important to keep discussing with those with whom you disagree. The point is to arrive at truth.



We have gone this far without mentioning a single thing Trump has done in office. Isn’t this bizarre? Doesn’t this make my point?

Let me tell you why I think he’s done a good job.

He has turned the tide against free trade. I am or was actually a free trader; but it is impressive how he was able to stop and reverse that speeding locomotive in a couple of years. That’s literally a historic accomplishment. As part of this policy, he has managed in just months to negotiate major new trade deals with Canada, Mexico, Europe, and China.

In foreign affairs, he destroyed the growing ISIS caliphate as a physical entity, in what seemed to be just weeks, with a small number of troops. At the same time, did you notice—he is still the first president since Carter not to engage the US in any new foreign wars or major deployments? Now he’s pulled off peace deals between Serbia and Kosovo, Bahrain and Israel, the UAE and Israel. It looks as though general peace is about to break out in the Middle East. If it happens, this could be as big as the fall of the Berlin Wall. It could also mean an end to Islamist terrorism.

Trump is a deal-maker. It turns out to be a valuable talent for diplomacy. And he genuinely is very good at it.

Whether he’s responsible or not—who really knows?—he has presided over the strongest economy, lowest unemployment, and highest stock prices we have seen in our lifetimes, until the coronavirus hit. Obviously through no fault of his. I think the growth in general prosperity may be directly related to his eliminating government regulations. He’s apparently cut more regulations than any president.

I like his platform for next term. And he has a record of keeping his promises. Most importantly, I like his promise to allow all parents in the US school choice. As someone who’s been involved in the education game for most of my life, I think this could change everything. It is the public school system, and the way it is funded, that is keeping the poor poor and the rich rich in the US. This is why blacks never seem to get ahead; and why they now resort to rioting. Public schools everywhere are doing a lousy job at ridiculous expense and could easily be fixed if competition were allowed. They were designed from the beginning to preserve class differences and discourage independent thought. If Trump got into office and was able to pull this off, the US would take off like a rocket. And, with luck, Canada and other countries would feel pressured to follow suit.

So yeah, I hated Trump at the beginning, but now I like him.



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

RIP RBG

The notorious RBG is with us no more. May she be with the angels.

I find the news depressing. For this reason. This was a brilliant women; a woman of herculean determination, drive, and physical courage. She dedicated her life to a cause, the cause of left-wing judicial activism. She died still thinking of that cause, and not of her own imminent destination. Her dying wish, I hear, was that the vacancy not be filled by Donald Trump.

And it all looks to me like a useless, hollow life. Because the cause to which she committed it was wrong, and fairly obviously wrong. In fact, the sum total of her efforts made things worse.

And isn’t this true of most of us? Even the most brilliant of us? What is the point of all the talents we have, and all the efforts we make, if we begin from faulty premises? Isn’t it essential that we first make sure we have that right? Yet few of us seem to seriously think about those premises.

And nothing in our society, and our educational system, encourages any more any such introspection, at any level and at any point. Rather, they are discouraged. We are all in some all-fired rush to fill up time and go nowhere.

No doubt Ginsberg thought she had the right direction, and the right answers. It seems to me obvious that she did not, and I think it should have been obvious to her too that she should have doubted. For she could see that others as intelligent and committed were working as hard as she was on the other side, in case after case. And really, in order to get where she was, she had to refuse herself the time necessary to think such fundamental things through. Too busy throughout getting into that law school, getting that next credential, arguing that next case. Maybe also getting that nice house in that prestigious neighbourhood.

All for nothing, and less than nothing.

In case you, gentle reader, despair, and suppose there are no fundamental answers to be found, indeed there are, and they are closer than your own outgoing breath.

Seek the True.

Seek the Good.

Seek the Beautiful.



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

A Conservative Approach to Teaching Global Issues

A question comes over the transom from a professional publication, for inclusion in an upcoming feature: 

We would like to know what you think about the following question: "Is it possible to teach global issues in conservative context?" 

This is encouraging. It is new to see an educational field acknowledging that there might be such a thing as a legitimate conservative viewpoint. 
“Global issues,” for the uninitiated, usually means class time taken up preaching about climate change or pollution, “gender equity” (sexual politics), or “decolonization.” 
I leapt at the opportunity to insert a conservative voice. Although, to be frank, I may be taking a career risk. My response:

I think it is strictly speaking not possible to “teach” global issues in a “conservative” context. “Conservatism” means respect for the learner’s autonomy and for the host culture. Those who teach “global issues” tend to presuppose there is a “right” answer and a “right” opinion on these issues, and it is generally the opinion of the political left wing in their home countries. This approach is of course not conservative. Respect for learner autonomy and for cultural differences would mean the teacher should listen rather than teach—not imposing their own values. In most ESL contexts, the students know more about the host culture than the teacher does; and they may easily know more about global issues and global culture than the teacher does. Qualifications in TESL do not grant knowledge of global issues.

 

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

Moral Obscurity Is Not Moral Ambiguity

 

[image error] Dore: The Judgement of Solomon

Not all moral issues are clear; ask Solomon the Wise. This is why the moral codes of different religious differ. But be careful: it does not mean that morality is relative, or up for grabs. That is like saying that algebra is meaningless because it is difficult.

Two current examples:

The movie Cuties.

Critics give it an 89% positive rating. Audiences give it 12%. Audiences find it morally depraved: pedophilic pornography. Some say the exhibitors should face prison. The movie critics counter that its message is a lamentation over the sexualization of minors; they consider it an admirably moral movie.

In this case, the real issue is being missed. It is not whether the movie is pedophilia or not. It is whether the end justifies the means.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives us the answer in paragraph 1753:

A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.

Note that, apart from any other considerations, in order to make the movie, some minors—the eleven-year-old actors—necessarily had to be sexualized. The movie, further, necessarily functions as pornography for any pedophiles who see it.

So the matter is obscure because of this misdirection, but in the end morally clear: the movie Cuties should not be shown. At the same time, those who are in error on the morality should be forgiven rather than lynched.

Quebec’s Bill 21

It is widely popular in Quebec, and universally condemned in English Canada as racist and discriminatory. The bill bans the wearing of religious symbols by public workers “in positions of coercive authority”; and requires the face to be uncovered to receive some government services.

It is not racist. Again, this is missing the real issue. The bill follows established practice in French culture since the nineteenth century. It is understood as an issue of separation of church and state.

It currently affects Sikhs most seriously; but that is not the original intent. It is wrong to think that only Sikhs or Muslims go in for conspicuous religious dress. A Catholic monk or nun or cleric might otherwise conduct government business in their habit. The ritual requirement is parallel. They do not, because they long ago submitted to this requirement.

The bill, and the requirement, therefore does not discriminate among religions.

The problem is that it discriminates between the religious and the non-religious. Although meant to avoid giving government sanction to any particular religion, it actually gives government sanction to secularism, or even atheism.

The only equitable solution is to allow religious garb of all kinds.

And to avoid imputing unworthy motives to the opposition.


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

A Journal of the Plague Year

 

I say the concern with COVID, if not the pandemic itself, will be over by the end of September. 

Reasons for optimism are accumulating.

Most notably, the UAE actually seems to have an effective vaccine from China out and ready to roll. This vaccine completed stage 2 trials in July, so it has now plausibly completed stage 3. One hundred thousand people have been given the vaccine, and none have contracted COVID-19. No serious side effects reported.

So it looks as though the race is over, and China won. The numbers of new cases in China too have been absurdly small for some time—only 12 yesterday. Figures from China may not be reliable, but figures from the UAE probably are.

So now the only problem is supply. It will take some time for this or another vaccine to get to a shoulder near you, but this must boost morale. If those most at risk are vaccinated first, it should make the death rates drop fast where it is deployed.

This puts pressure on the US and UK, where they are a month or two behind. The CEO of Pfizer says there is a better than even chance that their vaccine will be out of trial and ready to go by the end of October. Three other entries are moving at about the same pace. There are other efforts in China, India, Israel, perhaps elsewhere.

In the meantime, a new study suggests that, aside from preventing the spread of the virus to others, face masks ensure that, if you get the virus, you get a low dose. With this low initial dose, your chances of being symptomless go from 40% to 80%. In effect, this is a natural inoculation. And if the threshold is really only 20% or so, as some studies have now suggested, we may soon reach herd immunity.

And then there is Vitamin D. If everyone made sure their Vitamin-D levels were high, and wore masks everywhere, the chance of a serious infection gets vanishingly small. Even without hydroxychloroquine and zinc, which the authorities still unaccountably and criminally refuse to investigate.

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

Which Nine?

 

Apparently Donald Trump has now said 7-9 countries are interested in coming in on the new “Abrahamic” peace deal. Who might they be?

A guess, more or less in descending order of likelihood:

Kuwait
Saudi ArabiaQatar
Oman
Morocco
Iraq
Tunisia
Yemen
Sudan


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

All Religions Are One; or at Least 1.5

Blake, The Ancient of Days


Atheists like Christopher Hitchens like to say that theists are inconsistent, for they reject the existence of all gods but one. They are only inconsistent in their atheism. Why Yahweh and not Zeus, Allah, Krishna, or Nanabush? Similarly, there are various religions with incompatible claims. How, other than some accident of birth, do you come to choose one faith over another? Can it be fair that everyone not of your faith is damned, only for this accident of birth?

This seems to be fair, if the various religions are incompatible in their claims. I have never really thought they are.

Let’s start with Zeus and Yahweh and Nanabush.

It is simply wrong to say that Christianity denies the existence of Zeus and the pagan gods.

Paul neatly explained Christianity in a Greek pagan context on the Areopagus:

Paul stood in the middle of the Areopagus, and said, "You men of Athens, I perceive that you are very religious in all things. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I announce to you."

This unknown god was not, in the pagan mind, just one more god. A “great high God” seems to be recognized in all polytheistic systems: in Korean shamanism, he is called Chilsong. In Hinduism, Brahman. The North American Indians claim they always knew of a “Great Spirit.” They never deny his existence; they simply stress his utter transcendence. As a result, for practical purposes, we are left dealing with a troupe of lesser gods like Zeus. These lesser gods are not really venerated by the pagans: they are appeased with sacrifices to keep them in a good mood.

Or else, as in Hinduism, they are expressions of aspects of the great high God. We see the same concept in Judaism: the sephirot.

Nor does Christianity deny these lesser gods. They are simply not the great high God—agreeing here with the pagans. They are intermediate beings, more powerful than men, immortal, but amoral. They are daemons, beings of pure spirit. They are simply no longer to be worshipped, for they, unlike Yahweh, have no power to save.

Now, as to Christians and Muslims worshipping different gods: this is nonsensical. As monotheists, both assert there can be only one supreme being; this is also necessarily so as a matter of logic. It does not mean anything that they use different names for this entity; and, in fact, they do not use different names. A Lebanese Christian prays to Allah. It is the Arabic word for God, related to “Elohim” or “El,” the Hebrew Biblical terms.

Christianity in conflict with Judaism? This would be heresy in Christian terms. Yahweh made a covenant with the Jews. Can a Christian believe that God would not keep his word? So long as a single Jew stays faithful to that covenant, it is still in force.

Buddhism is often claimed to be the odd one out, atheist, and incompatible with any of the other main religions. This is an illusion. Buddhism is simply not concerned with metaphysics. It is a psychology, not a philosophy; and is actually compatible with all religious for this reason.

What, you will say, about reincarnation? Reincarnation is a basic premise of Hinduism and Buddhism, and is rejected by Christianity.

I would argue that it should not be rejected by Christianity; because it solves two vital theological puzzles. First, what happens to the souls of unbaptized children? What happens to all the aborted children?

If life on earth means anything, if it is, as Keats has said, the vale of soulmaking, these children have not merited heaven. If dying without having sinned were enough, God is unjust to have created the world, instead of having us all born into heaven. At the same time, it seems unfair that these immortal souls have never had a chance at it. And, in the case of aborted children, because of another’s sin.

That cannot work, and, as a Church commission has recently ruled, Limbo is not an acceptable answer.

The obvious answer is that children who die before baptism are reincarnated. They get a second shot. It seems almost necessarily so.

And if so, it might as well also be true that some others might merit, and get, a second shot. For example, what if you were born in China, or India, and never heard the Gospel? Then you cannot be faulted. So, a second shot, or a third, or a fourth, if necessary, until a lifetime in which you fully encounter the Christian message, and become baptized. Then the Christian rules kick in.

Accordingly, reincarnation could be absolutely true for Hindus or Buddhists, and not for Christians.

It all amounts to less than perfect consensus; but at least as much consensus as you find in science or philosophy.




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

More Christian Privilege

 

"American Progress," 1872. Note that it is a neo-pagan Classical goddess, "Colombia," and not Jesus, leading the settlers westward in the popular imagination.

An American professor of (of course) education, Khyati Joshi, has published a book against “white Christian privilege.” Joshi, a Hindu, is fairly obviously jockeying for position in the caste system called intersectionality. She maintains that even non-white Christians, black or Hispanic, have unearned privilege over her as a Hindu. She claims that there is “systemic religious oppression over the history of” the United States.

This is odd, since the US, unlike many countries, has no established religion or church, and guarantees freedom of religion and conscience in its constitution. One would think “Christian privilege” is far less an issue in the US than, say, Muslim privilege in Pakistan, Buddhist privilege in Thailand, or Hindu privilege in India. My friend Xerxes, in fact, in his most recent column wrote about the persecution of Christians in modern India.

Joshi claims this constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion is an “illusion,” and cites court cases that ruled against the religious demands of members of minority religions. She ignores court cases that ruled against the religious demands of Christians. Nor does she examine the legal arguments.

Among the ills Joshi blames on Christian privilege are the idea of “manifest destiny,” and slavery, which she claims has “Biblical justification.”

Neither of these have anything in particular to do with Christianity. Manifest destiny was not a religious concept, and did not emerge from theologians or pastors. It was a political slogan, first proposed by a newspaperman, and embraced by some politicians. These as a matter of course appealed to “Providence” to justify their claim to a right to expand the US westward. But they were not religious authorities. Anyone is going to appeal to Providence to justify any political idea, especially one that might be challenged on moral grounds. The signers of the Declaration of Independence similarly called on Providence to justify their concept of a new state based on freedom and equality; so if one is going to credit manifest destiny to Christianity, one must credit freedom and human equality, including freedom of religion, to it as well. Except that the latter idea, unlike the former, indeed originated with and was endorsed by religious authorities.

Manifest Destiny was a minority political opinion, not itself hegemonic. Canada similarly expanded westward without any such doctrine. So did Australia or Argentina; while Russia expanded East. Greece and Phoenicia expanded West across the Mediterranean long before Christianity was thought of. Untilled land next door tends to get settled.

Similarly, slavery was no Christian institution. It was endemic across the world, and least common in Christian countries. Of course defenders of slavery tried to justify themselves as well as they could from the Bible. But it was Christian nations, most notably Britain, that determined to end it everywhere. And this was an explicitly Christian enterprise, led by Quakers and evangelicals. Far earlier, the Pope in Rome had declared slavery illicit.

Nor does Joshi note that there is clear warrant for slavery in the Hindu Vedas.

What manifestly needs to be ended is not Christian privilege, but education schools.

 

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

Cooking the Books

 Scott Adams produces pretty clear evidence that Google is playing with its algorithms for political purposes.

Google "American inventors." Check out the thumbnail portraits that show up in the top strip.

Now click on "images" and see what turns up.

Did you realize before know that the great majority of American inventors were African-American?

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

Organic Rock

It’s time to get the organ back into Rock and Roll.

Just listening to the Animals’ “House of the Rising Sun,” and remembering how good it was. Part of it was certainly Eric Burdon’s voice, but part of it too was Alan Price’s magnificent organ. Al Kooper’s organ on Dylan’s Blonde on Blonde has always made that album stand out. I never liked Jim Morrison’s over the top lyrics or histrionics, but Ray Manzarek’s organ was always the best part of The Doors.

I begin to realize that many of the most powerful rock songs I can think of had organ parts. Lighter Shade of Pale; 96 Tears. The organ, keyboards, are more musically versatile than the guitar. But more than that. The organ is a traditional religious instrument. There is something about the organ that adds great depth and strength to rock and roll. It brings rock back to its spiritual, gospel roots. And that is where its power has always come from.















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