A taboo in US (and Canada for that matter) is critically examining the religious beliefs of a politician. The thought is that their personal beliefs are their own business.
But what happens when politicians state that it is the wish to govern according to their religious beliefs or attempt to appeal to coreligionists on that basis? Perhaps society should stop giving the free pass and examine this issue more closely.
For those of you who thought Hawley is merely an opportunist - look again. He is a driven by a deeply religious ideology.
An extract from a NYTimes piece examining his beliefs. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/opinion/josh-hawley-religion-democracy.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Contributors
QuoteIn multiple speeches, an interview and a widely shared article for Christianity Today, Mr. Hawley has explained that the blame for society's ills traces all the way back to Pelagius — a British-born monk who lived 17 centuries ago. In a 2019 commencement address at The King's College, a small conservative Christian college devoted to "a biblical worldview," Mr. Hawley denounced Pelagius for teaching that human beings have the freedom to choose how they live their lives and that grace comes to those who do good things, as opposed to those who believe the right doctrines.
The most eloquent summary of the Pelagian vision, Mr. Hawley went on to say, can be found in the Supreme Court's 1992 opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Mr. Hawley specifically cited Justice Anthony Kennedy's words reprovingly: "At the heart of liberty," Kennedy wrote, "is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." The fifth century church fathers were right to condemn this terrifying variety of heresy, Mr. Hawley argued: "Replacing it and repairing the harm it has caused is one of the challenges of our day."
In other words, Mr. Hawley's idea of freedom is the freedom to conform to what he and his preferred religious authorities know to be right. Mr. Hawley is not shy about making the point explicit. In a 2017 speech to the American Renewal Project, he declared — paraphrasing the Dutch Reformed theologian and onetime prime minister Abraham Kuyper — "There is not one square inch of all creation over which Jesus Christ is not Lord." Mr. Kuyper is perhaps best known for his claim that Christianity has sole legitimate authority over all aspects of human life.
"We are called to take that message into every sphere of life that we touch, including the political realm," Mr. Hawley said. "That is our charge. To take the Lordship of Christ, that message, into the public realm, and to seek the obedience of the nations. Of our nation!"
And of course he is not alone - that is the message we hear from many evangelicals.
My impression isn't that a politician's personal beliefs are considered a purely private matter in US politics.
Is that true anywhere?
Trumpism revealed pretty starkly, to me at least, that when politicians claim to be religious, they usually mean it only in the most superficial of ways - as a sort of "team" identification. What is good for the "team" is good, ethics and morality be damned.
The proof: Trump single handedly represented the seven deadly sins in his own person - yet people who claimed to be "religious" supported him.
I would have no problems with some politician claiming that they derived their morality from their religion, assuming that was actually true - at least then, you would be able to predict what they would do in office concerning a given issue, and vote accordingly.
The problem lies more with those who are "religious" in the above-noted sense. They seem to be willing to jettison all notions of morality, including those preached by their own religion, to support the person who represents their "side". No matter that he or she is a selfish scumbag who breaks every moral commandment, and will do so in office.
Unfortunately, people who are genuinely guided by notions of religious morality appear to be in the minority. The extract from H. above is a case in point: everything can be summed up as 'do whatever it takes so my team wins', dressed up in fancier language about 'the lordship of Christ imposed on the nations' or whatever.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 11, 2021, 12:10:57 PM
Is that true anywhere?
The day a Muslim candidate for top office in a Western country isn't a topic deemed newsworthy it will be.
Evangelicals have the numbers, but I think the really important point is the nexus between evangelical leaders and right-wing (white) Catholics. It would have been unimaginable 50 years ago but I think it provides the intellectual heft of this program/ideology.
The Harvard law professor pushing common law integralism, the Supreme Court justices, caring about Pelagianism, First Things magazine and a lot of its pro-authoritarian content, even someone like Sohrab Ahmari at the NY Post - it's mainly right-wing Catholics. Also see the role played by Archbishop Burke or Vigano and the weird overlap of pro-Trump/anti-Francis ideology in the US church.
And to an extent this is all justified by the soft-version of this which you find in Douthat (Catholic) or Dreher (Orthodox): that current progressive liberal values, especially around gender and sexuality, leave no space for Christians to live in their "faith/truth". One solution, which is pushed by Dreher, is to withdraw from public life - the "Benedict option" and live in communities which define themselves. He looks at the Amish and some Muslim communities as an example. The harder line is obviously some form of integralism. The morality of Trump is entirely irrelevant compared to whether or not they provide a position of power/dominance.
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 12:12:01 PM
Trumpism revealed pretty starkly, to me at least, that when politicians claim to be religious, they usually mean it only in the most superficial of ways - as a sort of "team" identification. What is good for the "team" is good, ethics and morality be damned.
The proof: Trump single handedly represented the seven deadly sins in his own person - yet people who claimed to be "religious" supported him.
I would have no problems with some politician claiming that they derived their morality from their religion, assuming that was actually true - at least then, you would be able to predict what they would do in office concerning a given issue, and vote accordingly.
The problem lies more with those who are "religious" in the above-noted sense. They seem to be willing to jettison all notions of morality, including those preached by their own religion, to support the person who represents their "side". No matter that he or she is a selfish scumbag who breaks every moral commandment, and will do so in office.
Unfortunately, people who are genuinely guided by notions of religious morality appear to be in the minority. The extract from H. above is a case in point: everything can be summed up as 'do whatever it takes so my team wins', dressed up in fancier language about 'the lordship of Christ imposed on the nations' or whatever.
I think it naïve to think that evangelicals are not guided by their religious beliefs.
From the NYTimes article.
QuoteChristian nationalists' acceptance of President Trump's spectacular turpitude these past four years was a good measure of just how dire they think our situation is. Even a corrupt sociopath was better, in their eyes, than the horrifying freedom that religious moderates and liberals, along with the many Americans who don't happen to be religious, offer the world.
If anyone hasn't seen it I found this documentary an excellent examination of the fundamentalist mindset. Worth putting on in the background whilst you cook or the like at least.
https://youtu.be/JTfhYyTuT44
Spoilers ho, but.... Basically the problem with them is that they very genuinely believe the end is nigh. With the biblical apocalypse on the horizon they don't need to think about tomorrow. It's irrelevant what becomes of earth. All that matters is getting spirits ready for the end times.
This is a huge problem as it means you don't have politics of two approaches to fixing the world. You instead have one side who often actively wants to see the world burn to hasten the apocalypse.
Figures like Trump flirting with disaster aren't just a necessary evil to own teh libs. It's a bonus.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 11, 2021, 12:22:13 PM
Evangelicals have the numbers, but I think the really important point is the nexus between evangelical leaders and right-wing (white) Catholics. It would have been unimaginable 50 years ago but I think it provides the intellectual heft of this program/ideology.
The Harvard law professor pushing common law integralism, the Supreme Court justices, caring about Pelagianism, First Things magazine and a lot of its pro-authoritarian content, even someone like Sohrab Ahmari at the NY Post - it's mainly right-wing Catholics. Also see the role played by Archbishop Burke or Vigano and the weird overlap of pro-Trump/anti-Francis ideology in the US church.
And to an extent this is all justified by the soft-version of this which you find in Douthat (Catholic) or Dreher (Orthodox): that current progressive liberal values, especially around gender and sexuality, leave no space for Christians to live in their "faith/truth". One solution, which is pushed by Dreher, is to withdraw from public life - the "Benedict option" and live in communities which define themselves. He looks at the Amish and some Muslim communities as an example. The harder line is obviously some form of integralism. The morality of Trump is entirely irrelevant compared to whether or not they provide a position of power/dominance.
I agree. And I think what has happened is that Protestant Evangelicalism didn't have more than looking for signs of the end times and making sure you were one of the chosen. It took the right wing elements within Catholicism to give a deeper ideological/theological underpinning.
Quote from: The Brain on January 11, 2021, 12:02:34 PM
My impression isn't that a politician's personal beliefs are considered a purely private matter in US politics.
That is not what I claimed. Certainly US politicians wear their Christianity on their sleeves. My claim is those beliefs are not often scrutinized.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 12:28:08 PM
I agree. And I think what has happened is that Protestant Evangelicalism didn't have more than looking for signs of the end times and making sure you were one of the chosen. It took the right wing elements within Catholicism to give a deeper ideological/theological underpinning.
Yes.
And it leads to all sorts of weirdness - the pro-Trump Jericho March in December which had a Catholic Priest blessing an image of Our Lady of Guadelupe while an opera singer belted out Ave Maria in front of a mostly evangelical crowd. The image would later be presented to Melania Trump. It's a very weird ecumenism.
Then there's the Pope who has spoken twice now about the attack on the Capitol and there's something extraordinary about the Roman Pontiff warning against Know-Nothings subverting American democracy. But here we are.
And the Pope has said more about the attack than US bishops because they're profoundly split between pro and anti-Trump.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 12:30:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 11, 2021, 12:02:34 PM
My impression isn't that a politician's personal beliefs are considered a purely private matter in US politics.
That is not what I claimed. Certainly US politicians wear their Christianity on their sleeves. My claim is those beliefs are not often scrutinized.
If you limit it to Christian politicians then I agree.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 12:22:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 12:12:01 PM
Trumpism revealed pretty starkly, to me at least, that when politicians claim to be religious, they usually mean it only in the most superficial of ways - as a sort of "team" identification. What is good for the "team" is good, ethics and morality be damned.
The proof: Trump single handedly represented the seven deadly sins in his own person - yet people who claimed to be "religious" supported him.
I would have no problems with some politician claiming that they derived their morality from their religion, assuming that was actually true - at least then, you would be able to predict what they would do in office concerning a given issue, and vote accordingly.
The problem lies more with those who are "religious" in the above-noted sense. They seem to be willing to jettison all notions of morality, including those preached by their own religion, to support the person who represents their "side". No matter that he or she is a selfish scumbag who breaks every moral commandment, and will do so in office.
Unfortunately, people who are genuinely guided by notions of religious morality appear to be in the minority. The extract from H. above is a case in point: everything can be summed up as 'do whatever it takes so my team wins', dressed up in fancier language about 'the lordship of Christ imposed on the nations' or whatever.
I think it naïve to think that evangelicals are not guided by their religious beliefs.
From the NYTimes article.
QuoteChristian nationalists' acceptance of President Trump's spectacular turpitude these past four years was a good measure of just how dire they think our situation is. Even a corrupt sociopath was better, in their eyes, than the horrifying freedom that religious moderates and liberals, along with the many Americans who don't happen to be religious, offer the world.
The point is that if they are willing to support a corrupt sociopath, the
content of those religious beliefs must be pretty simple - 'my group must win at all costs'.
This isn't unique to religion of course, but is practically characteristic of a "true belief" in anything: that winning is the most important thing, trumping the content of whatever that belief stood for in the first place.
Quote from: The Brain on January 11, 2021, 12:39:54 PM
If you limit it to Christian politicians then I agree.
It'll be quite interesting to see how it's handled with Priti Patel (who I think has chance of being next PM which is a little underpriced) given that she has ties with the BJP and Modi. Hopefully the press will be able to handle her faith v her politics with some sense and not just slip into easy, kind of racist, anti-Hindu bigotry. Given the Guardian have already had to pull cartoons of her as a cow, I'm not hopeful.
Quote from: The Brain on January 11, 2021, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 12:30:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 11, 2021, 12:02:34 PM
My impression isn't that a politician's personal beliefs are considered a purely private matter in US politics.
That is not what I claimed. Certainly US politicians wear their Christianity on their sleeves. My claim is those beliefs are not often scrutinized.
If you limit it to Christian politicians then I agree.
Fair point
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 12:40:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 12:22:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 12:12:01 PM
Trumpism revealed pretty starkly, to me at least, that when politicians claim to be religious, they usually mean it only in the most superficial of ways - as a sort of "team" identification. What is good for the "team" is good, ethics and morality be damned.
The proof: Trump single handedly represented the seven deadly sins in his own person - yet people who claimed to be "religious" supported him.
I would have no problems with some politician claiming that they derived their morality from their religion, assuming that was actually true - at least then, you would be able to predict what they would do in office concerning a given issue, and vote accordingly.
The problem lies more with those who are "religious" in the above-noted sense. They seem to be willing to jettison all notions of morality, including those preached by their own religion, to support the person who represents their "side". No matter that he or she is a selfish scumbag who breaks every moral commandment, and will do so in office.
Unfortunately, people who are genuinely guided by notions of religious morality appear to be in the minority. The extract from H. above is a case in point: everything can be summed up as 'do whatever it takes so my team wins', dressed up in fancier language about 'the lordship of Christ imposed on the nations' or whatever.
I think it naïve to think that evangelicals are not guided by their religious beliefs.
From the NYTimes article.
QuoteChristian nationalists' acceptance of President Trump's spectacular turpitude these past four years was a good measure of just how dire they think our situation is. Even a corrupt sociopath was better, in their eyes, than the horrifying freedom that religious moderates and liberals, along with the many Americans who don't happen to be religious, offer the world.
The point is that if they are willing to support a corrupt sociopath, the content of those religious beliefs must be pretty simple - 'my group must win at all costs'.
This isn't unique to religion of course, but is practically characteristic of a "true belief" in anything: that winning is the most important thing, trumping the content of whatever that belief stood for in the first place.
You are doing what I think is the very problem - minimizing this version of Christianity as not being anything different. This is not just about winning at all costs. This is a coherent organized belief system.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 11, 2021, 12:47:22 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 11, 2021, 12:39:54 PM
If you limit it to Christian politicians then I agree.
It'll be quite interesting to see how it's handled with Priti Patel (who I think has chance of being next PM which is a little underpriced) given that she has ties with the BJP and Modi. Hopefully the press will be able to handle her faith v her politics with some sense and not just slip into easy, kind of racist, anti-Hindu bigotry. Given the Guardian have already had to pull cartoons of her as a cow, I'm not hopeful.
somehow I doubt stuff like that would happen if she was muslim...
Yet, for some reason it's only white evangelicals that are the problem.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 11, 2021, 12:56:04 PM
somehow I doubt stuff like that would happen if she was muslim...
I don't - Sajid Javid (who may also be the next PM) has had more than a few dog-whistles about his Muslim heritage as has Baroness Warsi. Not to mention the open sewer that is the replies to any tweet by Sadiq Khan.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 12:53:35 PM
You are doing what I think is the very problem - minimizing this version of Christianity as not being anything different. This is not just about winning at all costs. This is a coherent organized belief system.
I disagree that this is "the very problem".
The same problem appears to exist among Jewish politicians in, say, Israel, among Hindu politicians in for example India, and among Muslim politicians in, say, Turkey - support for scummy politicians by religious types just because they help your team to "win".
I don't see Christianity as being special in this respect.
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 01:04:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 12:53:35 PM
You are doing what I think is the very problem - minimizing this version of Christianity as not being anything different. This is not just about winning at all costs. This is a coherent organized belief system.
I disagree that this is "the very problem".
The same problem appears to exist among Jewish politicians in, say, Israel, among Hindu politicians in for example India, and among Muslim politicians in, say, Turkey - support for scummy politicians by religious types just because they help your team to "win".
I don't see Christianity as being special in this respect.
Right, I claimed the problem was not critically analyzing the religious beliefs of those wish to run for public office but merely giving it all a pass.
Thank you for confirming that very problem ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 01:05:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 01:04:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 12:53:35 PM
You are doing what I think is the very problem - minimizing this version of Christianity as not being anything different. This is not just about winning at all costs. This is a coherent organized belief system.
I disagree that this is "the very problem".
The same problem appears to exist among Jewish politicians in, say, Israel, among Hindu politicians in for example India, and among Muslim politicians in, say, Turkey - support for scummy politicians by religious types just because they help your team to "win".
I don't see Christianity as being special in this respect.
Right, I claimed the problem was not critically analyzing the religious beliefs of those wish to run for public office but merely giving it all a pass.
Thank you for confirming that very problem ;)
Okay ... my point is that, if their beliefs boil down to "my group must win at all costs", there isn't any value in analyzing their beliefs any further. All you need to know is that they are true believers.
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 01:09:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 01:05:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 01:04:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 12:53:35 PM
You are doing what I think is the very problem - minimizing this version of Christianity as not being anything different. This is not just about winning at all costs. This is a coherent organized belief system.
I disagree that this is "the very problem".
The same problem appears to exist among Jewish politicians in, say, Israel, among Hindu politicians in for example India, and among Muslim politicians in, say, Turkey - support for scummy politicians by religious types just because they help your team to "win".
I don't see Christianity as being special in this respect.
Right, I claimed the problem was not critically analyzing the religious beliefs of those wish to run for public office but merely giving it all a pass.
Thank you for confirming that very problem ;)
Okay ... my point is that, if their beliefs boil down to "my group must win at all costs", there isn't any value in analyzing their beliefs any further. All you need to know is that they are true believers.
Ok , clear you are not responding to what I actually posted. Their beliefs don't boil down to win at all costs, if you took the time to read what I posted...
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2021, 01:00:56 PM
Yet, for some reason it's only white evangelicals that are the problem.
That's because you live in crazy christian land. Over here it's not christians that make our streets run red with blood.
Ideally al the crazy believers stay in their cellars and stop pestering the rest of us.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 11, 2021, 01:01:42 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 11, 2021, 12:56:04 PM
somehow I doubt stuff like that would happen if she was muslim...
I don't - Sajid Javid (who may also be the next PM) has had more than a few dog-whistles about his Muslim heritage as has Baroness Warsi. Not to mention the open sewer that is the replies to any tweet by Sadiq Khan.
Not quite on the same level as depicting him as a pig but it'll do for the purpose of the above.
That said: I'm pleasantly surprised. Either everyone gets heckled or no one is. No exceptions because a person just follows a certain ideology.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 11:58:44 AM
A taboo in US (and Canada for that matter) is critically examining the religious beliefs of a politician.
I don't see how that is a taboo in the US. We have had articles just like the one you cited talking about the personal beliefs of figures like Dubya and Ted Cruz for years. People have been banging on about the dangers of the evangelical extremists for decades. I don't see how they are given a free pass. In what way should we do more than point out they are dangerous nuts? I mean you are quoting a pretty damning article in the New York Times, practically the definition of mainstream media, so where is this free pass? In the Right Wing media this kind of Christian religious fanaticism is, far from a taboo subject, celebrated in detail.
I mean I am well aware that these kinds of extremists beliefs are out there, but as Malthus said they don't really seem to point towards any kind of predictable behavior. Anything they need to do politically gets rationalized except when they don't. Maybe Hawley decided he would join Bernie Sanders to get direct cash relief out of Christian Charity, I don't know. But I don't think we can count on that kind of thing from Hawley on a consistent ideological basis.
Knowing Dubya was this big pious Christian didn't really prepare me for him instituting a torture regime...but maybe he was more about the Spanish Inquisition than he let on.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2021, 01:00:56 PM
Yet, for some reason it's only white evangelicals that are the problem.
Oh the black evangelicals get attacked for being dangerous extremists all the time...just by the other side.
Back in 2016 they did a study and found that Trump's biggest supporters were self-described evangelicals who don't go to church.
I think any attempt to blame "evangelical Christianity" for the Trump phenomenon is extremely short-sighted.
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2021, 01:55:17 PM
Back in 2016 they did a study and found that Trump's biggest supporters were self-described evangelicals who don't go to church.
:blink: Wow that concept kind of blows my mind.
That is probably Syt's relatives. From time to time they make noises about being Christians and thus OFFENSIVE TO LIBRULS!!!111 but I doubt they go to church much or are especially devout. Maybe Syt can correct me there.
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2021, 01:37:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 11:58:44 AM
A taboo in US (and Canada for that matter) is critically examining the religious beliefs of a politician.
I don't see how that is a taboo in the US. We have had articles just like the one you cited talking about the personal beliefs of figures like Dubya and Ted Cruz for years. People have been banging on about the dangers of the evangelical extremists for decades. I don't see how they are given a free pass. In what way should we do more than point out they are dangerous nuts? I mean you are quoting a pretty damning article in the New York Times, practically the definition of mainstream media, so where is this free pass? In the Right Wing media this kind of Christian religious fanaticism is, far from a taboo subject, celebrated in detail.
I mean I am well aware that these kinds of extremists beliefs are out there, but as Malthus said they don't really seem to point towards any kind of predictable behavior. Anything they need to do politically gets rationalized except when they don't. Maybe Hawley decided he would join Bernie Sanders to get direct cash relief out of Christian Charity, I don't know. But I don't think we can count on that kind of thing from Hawley on a consistent ideological basis.
Knowing Dubya was this big pious Christian didn't really prepare me for him instituting a torture regime...but maybe he was more about the Spanish Inquisition than he let on.
did you read past the first line of the OP?
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2021, 01:55:17 PM
Back in 2016 they did a study and found that Trump's biggest supporters were self-described evangelicals who don't go to church.
I think any attempt to blame "evangelical Christianity" for the Trump phenomenon is extremely short-sighted.
Did you read the OP at all?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 11, 2021, 12:36:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 12:28:08 PM
I agree. And I think what has happened is that Protestant Evangelicalism didn't have more than looking for signs of the end times and making sure you were one of the chosen. It took the right wing elements within Catholicism to give a deeper ideological/theological underpinning.
Yes.
And it leads to all sorts of weirdness - the pro-Trump Jericho March in December which had a Catholic Priest blessing an image of Our Lady of Guadelupe while an opera singer belted out Ave Maria in front of a mostly evangelical crowd. The image would later be presented to Melania Trump. It's a very weird ecumenism.
Then there's the Pope who has spoken twice now about the attack on the Capitol and there's something extraordinary about the Roman Pontiff warning against Know-Nothings subverting American democracy. But here we are.
And the Pope has said more about the attack than US bishops because they're profoundly split between pro and anti-Trump.
A modern day Great Schism in the making?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 02:03:54 PM
A modern day Great Schism in the making?
I forsee this in the near future: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRt2cKvJLlE
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 01:58:10 PM
did you read past the first line of the OP?
No I didn't. That is why I questioned its veracity in the first line of my post because I didn't read it.
Ok seriously, yes I obviously did read it. Was there some kind of special magic meaning I didn't get that was not evident in the words used?
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2021, 01:55:17 PM
Back in 2016 they did a study and found that Trump's biggest supporters were self-described evangelicals who don't go to church.
I think any attempt to blame "evangelical Christianity" for the Trump phenomenon is extremely short-sighted.
Evangelical Christianity in politics dates back to reagen and the invention of modern identity politics. Trump is merely the conclusion of where chasing that shit gets us.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 02:03:54 PM
A modern day Great Schism in the making?
Possibly. Mainstream Catholic theologians, especially Europeans in America have suggested that chunks of American Catholicism is basically in a state of schism.
They are borderline sede vacantists in their attitudes to Francis. In part because they perceive Francis as anti-Trump, but also because they align their project on a bad interpretation of JPII and Benedict and think Francis is leading the Church away from that - and there's nothing more disappointing to an integralist than the Church failing to do its thing. And a lot of it - which is why they may find friends in the wider Trump movement - is understood as Vatican corruption by a gay mafia covering up sexual abuse. Archbishop Vigano is key in this - he's made lots of accusations about Francis - and gave a video message to the Jericho March where he addressed the crowd as "the army of light". It's really striking and deserves to be studied.
You can kind of see this split in the furore over BLM. On the one hand you have the St John Paul II National Shrine hosting Trump during the BLM protests, at the same time you have the (African American) Archbishop of Washington calling that invitation "unconscionable". There's similar furores within the US Catholic media between a conservative/trad wing which cares more about American elections than the Pope v a liberal/moderate media and the same split in the US bishops. I think there was always a very strongly political element to conservative American Catholics but it was easier when Republicans and their leaders could be identified as in broad agreement with JPII and Benedict. They struggle more because Trump is so clearly antithetical not just to Francis but core Catholic teachings on things like immigration and the family.
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2021, 02:11:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 01:58:10 PM
did you read past the first line of the OP?
No I didn't. That is why I questioned its veracity in the first line of my post because I didn't read it.
Ok seriously, yes I obviously did read it. Was there some kind of special magic meaning I didn't get that was not evident in the words used?
No magic, it is just, much like BB, your response was not related to what I had posted, which deals with the ideology of the evangelicals who support Trumpism.
Quote from: Tyr on January 11, 2021, 02:11:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2021, 01:55:17 PM
Back in 2016 they did a study and found that Trump's biggest supporters were self-described evangelicals who don't go to church.
I think any attempt to blame "evangelical Christianity" for the Trump phenomenon is extremely short-sighted.
Evangelical Christianity in politics dates back to reagen and the invention of modern identity politics. Trump is merely the conclusion of where chasing that shit gets us.
Yeah the short sightedness is in denying or ignoring the ideology of this particular form of Christianity.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 11, 2021, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 02:03:54 PM
A modern day Great Schism in the making?
Possibly. Mainstream Catholic theologians, especially Europeans in America have suggested that chunks of American Catholicism is basically in a state of schism.
They are borderline sede vacantists in their attitudes to Francis. In part because they perceive Francis as anti-Trump, but also because they align their project on a bad interpretation of JPII and Benedict and think Francis is leading the Church away from that - and there's nothing more disappointing to an integralist than the Church failing to do its thing. And a lot of it - which is why they may find friends in the wider Trump movement - is understood as Vatican corruption by a gay mafia covering up sexual abuse. Archbishop Vigano is key in this - he's made lots of accusations about Francis - and gave a video message to the Jericho March where he addressed the crowd as "the army of light". It's really striking and deserves to be studied.
You can kind of see this split in the furore over BLM. On the one hand you have the St John Paul II National Shrine hosting Trump during the BLM protests, at the same time you have the (African American) Archbishop of Washington calling that invitation "unconscionable". There's similar furores within the US Catholic media between a conservative/trad wing which cares more about American elections than the Pope v a liberal/moderate media and the same split in the US bishops. I think there was always a very strongly political element to conservative American Catholics but it was easier when Republicans and their leaders could be identified as in broad agreement with JPII and Benedict. They struggle more because Trump is so clearly antithetical not just to Francis but core Catholic teachings on things like immigration and the family.
So is it more a conflict within US Catholicism than between US Catholics and the wider Catholic world?
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2021, 02:11:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 01:58:10 PM
did you read past the first line of the OP?
No I didn't. That is why I questioned its veracity in the first line of my post because I didn't read it.
Ok seriously, yes I obviously did read it. Was there some kind of special magic meaning I didn't get that was not evident in the words used?
I get the impression that the thesis in the OP isn't really up for discussion, but merely for confirmation.
I find that most people claiming to subscribe to a dogma of some kind subscribe to it selectively. They do things as required by their dogma when they have a deep-seated desire to do it anyway, and they ignore their dogma when it gets in the way of doing what they want to do. People selectively justify their actions by their dogma because it makes their actions and beliefs seem less arbitrary and more defensible than they really are. It doesn't just apply to religion, it also applies to political philosophies.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 02:35:46 PM
So is it more a conflict within US Catholicism than between US Catholics and the wider Catholic world?
Sort of but also sort of not.
There's clear links between this conservative wing in the US church and global movements. Steve Bannon tried to set up a "university for national populists" in an Italian monastery with backing by a fringe (but rich) American Catholic group. Similarly Archbishop Vigano, who's the former nuncio and an Italian, has said Trump supporters are defending "our homeland". There's a certain strand within global Catholicism that admires Orban, for example, which is closely linked to the radical trad community in the US - Archbishop Burke who is a cardinal is a key figure, former Archbishop of St Louis and a big figure in the trad world (once spoken of as a papabile). He also wrote a list of "dubia" or formal questions for Francis to clarify his teaching, it's very rare and widely interpreted as a challenge that Francis's teachings (this was on communion for the re-married) are wrong. There is a conservative, anti-Francis strand in Catholicism globally. And it has lots of the hallmarks of previous conservative movements in Catholicism: all their opponents are in a conspiracy, there are secret motivations to undermine the Church/civilisation itself, constant allegations of sexual deviance by the other side. Edit: It's fairly clear how they might find allies with some pro-Trumpers.
On the other hand the US thing is very political and weirdly political - I think in part because right-wing Republicans who came up in the 80s just always assumed there'd never be any conflict between their faith and their politics, so ended up reading them as one and the same. They are finding Trump and Francis discombobulating. But lots of the conservative, anti-Francis wing globally are not that political and don't particularly care about Trump or the US. Their genuine focus is that they object to Francis in their view "changing" teaching - so one of their icons is Cardinal Sarah from Guinea. I've never seen anything about him and Trump or national populism - I think he is genuinely concerned about Francis's views on liturgy or the re-married. He is political but it's been more about Islam and Muslim immigrants in Europe which is more traditionally conservative Catholic views, not the weirdness that's been going on in the US church.
But because they're anti-Francis the fightback against Francis would, in some way, restore the overlap of Church and the American right.
Edit: Massimo Faggioli (https://twitter.com/MassimoFaggioli) and David Gibson (https://twitter.com/GibsonWrites) are both really good on what's going on in the US Church and how odd it is especially when America's about to have a second Catholic President who is basically the embodiment of middle-of-the-road, standard Catholicism :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2021, 03:00:41 PM
I find that most people claiming to subscribe to a dogma of some kind subscribe to it selectively. They do things as required by their dogma when they have a deep-seated desire to do it anyway, and they ignore their dogma when it gets in the way of doing what they want to do. People selectively justify their actions by their dogma because it makes their actions and beliefs seem less arbitrary and more defensible than they really are. It doesn't just apply to religion, it also applies to political philosophies.
An evangelical politician's desire to reject all policies that do no conform to design to have government conform to his religious beliefs is not like political philosophy. It is the imposition of religious belief. Unless one wishes to ignore those distinctions and not subject the belief to scrutiny, which is the very problem.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 11, 2021, 03:01:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 02:35:46 PM
So is it more a conflict within US Catholicism than between US Catholics and the wider Catholic world?
Sort of but also sort of not.
There's clear links between this conservative wing in the US church and global movements. Steve Bannon tried to set up a "university for national populists" in an Italian monastery with backing by a fringe (but rich) American Catholic group. Similarly Archbishop Vigano, who's the former nuncio and an Italian, has said Trump supporters are defending "our homeland". There's a certain strand within global Catholicism that admires Orban, for example, which is closely linked to the radical trad community in the US - Archbishop Burke who is a cardinal is a key figure, former Archbishop of St Louis and a big figure in the trad world (once spoken of as a papabile). He also wrote a list of "dubia" or formal questions for Francis to clarify his teaching, it's very rare and widely interpreted as a challenge that Francis's teachings (this was on communion for the re-married) are wrong. There is a conservative, anti-Francis strand in Catholicism globally. And it has lots of the hallmarks of previous conservative movements in Catholicism: all their opponents are in a conspiracy, there are secret motivations to undermine the Church/civilisation itself, constant allegations of sexual deviance by the other side. Edit: It's fairly clear how they might find allies with some pro-Trumpers.
On the other hand the US thing is very political and weirdly political - I think in part because right-wing Republicans who came up in the 80s just always assumed there'd never be any conflict between their faith and their politics, so ended up reading them as one and the same. They are finding Trump and Francis discombobulating. But lots of the conservative, anti-Francis wing globally are not that political and don't particularly care about Trump or the US. Their genuine focus is that they object to Francis in their view "changing" teaching - so one of their icons is Cardinal Sarah from Guinea. I've never seen anything about him and Trump or national populism - I think he is genuinely concerned about Francis's views on liturgy or the re-married. He is political but it's been more about Islam and Muslim immigrants in Europe which is more traditionally conservative Catholic views, not the weirdness that's been going on in the US church.
But because they're anti-Francis the fightback against Francis would, in some way, restore the overlap of Church and the American right.
Interesting, how do you see this all playing out over the next few years?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 03:10:32 PM
Interesting, how do you see this all playing out over the next few years?
Globally I think Francis has made enough appointments have been enough to cement his legacy and will make more. And I think for the foreseeable, chances are the most prominent leader from the global south will be the Pope (which I think will be challenging for European/American liberals and conservatives alike). After Francis I think we'll likely get another Latin American or an African pope and that will keep the Church moving in ways that aren't in lockstep with European/American conservatism in the way that JPII and Benedict were.
I think chances are the US - in my view - schism will deepen and will spread and will probably become a formal schism at some point (which will be messy because Americans are rich and generous in funding the Church). Basically I think theology of a Church increasingly led from the global South will go in a different way from an American and European church that is primarily interested in using theology to own the libs. I think there'll be an American Catholic church that wears a lot of bling and loves Latin but behaves a lot like American evangelical churches and probably doesn't acknowledge any pope since Benedict.
As an example - a couple of years ago Francis led a synod of bishops from the pan-Amazon region. The focus was on "new evangelism" (a Francis theme) in particular with indigenous communities at the heart. They looked at new rites/liturgy (like the new Congolese liturgy), possibility of married priests but also more political issues such as protecting the environment and the indigenous peoples of the Amazon - Francis denounced the exploitation of the Amazon and its peoples by the global market. As part of the synod there was a church in Rome with a collection of religious sculpture by different communities in the Amazon. Someone broke into the church and threw the sculptures into the Tiber because they were literally pagan/evil and this was cheered on by the conservative Catholic media - one prominent American called the statues "demonic".
You move on a year and those same websites were sponsoring novenas and rosaries for the protection of various statues in the US from BLM protests. I think moments like that example are going to happen more and more.
I did nothing.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2021, 03:53:22 PM
I did nothing.
for a second i was wondering what St Francis did wrong. for some reason the name Francis doesn't click as Pope for me. Guess i'm getting even more lapsed as i age.
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2021, 02:50:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2021, 02:11:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2021, 01:58:10 PM
did you read past the first line of the OP?
No I didn't. That is why I questioned its veracity in the first line of my post because I didn't read it.
Ok seriously, yes I obviously did read it. Was there some kind of special magic meaning I didn't get that was not evident in the words used?
I get the impression that the thesis in the OP isn't really up for discussion, but merely for confirmation.
:lol:
I can think of nothing that could heal America more than a good old fashioned Augustinian-Pelagian controversy.
Let's call the Tunsians and see if Carthage is still available to hold a council.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2021, 05:24:09 PM
I can think of nothing that could heal America more than a good old fashioned Augustinian-Pelagian controversy.
Let's call the Tunsians and see if Carthage is still available to hold a council.
:)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2021, 05:24:09 PM
I can think of nothing that could heal America more than a good old fashioned Augustinian-Pelagian controversy.
Let's call the Tunsians and see if Carthage is still available to hold a council.
:lol: I have read before that Pelagius is apparently a go to heretic for American evangelicals to sum up their fears of the modern world.
I think it is part of the weird cosplay nature of this - which I don't mean to diminish the seriousness of storming the Capitol or attitudes on the right about Christianity. If anything I think the cosplaying makes it more serious. But you see Christian writers in the US posting the pictures of Copts being murdered in Egypt, or stories from Solzhenitsyn, or the early Church martyrs as an example of the environment that is being created in the US.
On the one hand it's clearly nonsense and offensive to, for example, the Coptic who face very real threats. But I think it does drive politics on part of the right (and increases the drama of the individual resister) - and yes Trump may be morally bad on a personal level, but so were lots Caesars and as long as he's "our" Caesar it's sort of fine. And I wonder how much of that is possibly shaped by the fact that America's always self-consciously had an eye on Rome as the model for a Republic, so that even now a lot of the criticisms of Trump often refer to end of the Roman Republic thinking/precedents.
Ironically from a Catholic perspective Francis has also spent all of his papacy saying the enemies of true Christianity are neo-Pelagianists and neo-Gnostics. In his phrasing the Pelagianists are people who focus so much on appearance and liturgy and rites that they become purely self-referential and trapped in their own sort of structure (it's a temptation we all have but especially the rad trads), while the modern Gnostics are sort of the "spiritual not religious" folks whose spirituality is so abstract and generalised as to, again, end up being purely self-referential.
Quote from: HVC on January 11, 2021, 04:14:09 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2021, 03:53:22 PM
I did nothing.
for a second i was wondering what St Francis did wrong. for some reason the name Francis doesn't click as Pope for me. Guess i'm getting even more lapsed as i age.
Doesn't click at all for me. We refer to him as François.
It's obviously Francisco, duh. :P Francesco, if you must.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2021, 09:27:23 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 11, 2021, 04:14:09 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2021, 03:53:22 PM
I did nothing.
for a second i was wondering what St Francis did wrong. for some reason the name Francis doesn't click as Pope for me. Guess i'm getting even more lapsed as i age.
Doesn't click at all for me. We refer to him as François.
That just makes me think of president Mitterand :frog:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 12, 2021, 09:32:50 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2021, 09:27:23 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 11, 2021, 04:14:09 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2021, 03:53:22 PM
I did nothing.
for a second i was wondering what St Francis did wrong. for some reason the name Francis doesn't click as Pope for me. Guess i'm getting even more lapsed as i age.
Doesn't click at all for me. We refer to him as François.
That just makes me think of president Mitterand :frog:
Pape François is closer to another president François i.e Hollande a.k.a Flanby. :P
Well Mitterand is unlikely to be brought up in the present tense these days.
Quote from: The Larch on January 12, 2021, 09:31:22 AM
It's obviously Francisco, duh. :P Francesco, if you must.
Franciscus. :contract: :pope:
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2021, 09:34:16 AM
Well Mitterand is unlikely to be brought up in the present tense these days.
There is this
présent de narration in French though. :P
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 12, 2021, 09:33:54 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 12, 2021, 09:32:50 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2021, 09:27:23 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 11, 2021, 04:14:09 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2021, 03:53:22 PM
I did nothing.
for a second i was wondering what St Francis did wrong. for some reason the name Francis doesn't click as Pope for me. Guess i'm getting even more lapsed as i age.
Doesn't click at all for me. We refer to him as François.
That just makes me think of president Mitterand :frog:
Pape François is closer to another president François i.e Hollande a.k.a Flanby. :P
Oh I'd already forgotten about Flanby, consigned to the dustbin of history after a few short years poor fellow :(
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 12, 2021, 09:40:33 AM
Oh I'd already forgotten about Flanby, consigned to the dustbin of history after a few short years poor fellow :(
Yeah - I feel like of all French President's he's made least impression on the consciousness :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2021, 09:41:32 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 12, 2021, 09:40:33 AM
Oh I'd already forgotten about Flanby, consigned to the dustbin of history after a few short years poor fellow :(
Yeah - I feel like of all French President's he's made least impression on the consciousness :(
You are not the only one(s). :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2021, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2021, 05:24:09 PM
I can think of nothing that could heal America more than a good old fashioned Augustinian-Pelagian controversy.
Let's call the Tunsians and see if Carthage is still available to hold a council.
:lol: I have read before that Pelagius is apparently a go to heretic for American evangelicals to sum up their fears of the modern world.
I think it is part of the weird cosplay nature of this - which I don't mean to diminish the seriousness of storming the Capitol or attitudes on the right about Christianity.
They are missing a a golden opportunity to unite America and the West against the Nestorian menace. I've heard rumors some of these heretics have been hiding out in *gasp* China.
No peace in our time with the false prophet Prestor John!
I think the theological side is interesting if you're interested in that sort of thing, but I think it's the wrong take to believe it explains the political side.
In the United States, on this topic, it is actually politics wagging the religious tail, not vice versa. I actually think a lot of people would disagree with that at first glance, but from my personal experiences and as much reading as I've been able to do on the topic I feel fairly comfortable in saying this is true. I actually don't think you really have to, for example, distinguish that much between Hawley's intellectual religious foundations and those of conservative forces in the American Catholic Church like the aforementioned Archbishop Vagano. If you want to do a theological study, there are differences. But politically...these are basically the same people.
I believe this so much that I frequently use the term "evangelical Catholicism", which I don't think is widely accepted yet but in the American political context probably will be more so over time. I basically use this term to describe the conservative American Catholics who behave, and have virtually identical political priorities, to Protestant evangelicals. I think there's a big division in our Church here between basically three groups: evangelical Catholicism (who I suspect may be the largest group, I have no proof), "mainstream" Catholics (myself and Joe Biden being good examples), and then you have the "third world" Catholics, or to steal Sheilbh's more politically correct term "Global South", these are the Catholic congregations in America who are primarily non-English language immigrant communities, and they actually area substantial number of total Catholics in America but don't get spoken about politically that much. The Global South Catholics tend to be more conservative than mainstream Catholics, but are less aligned with the Republican party's project of nationalism (which is unsurprising), and thus are more split voters if they're naturalized (many of them aren't.)
But again, the religious side of it arguably to me isn't even the most important. It's cultural and political. The American right has a project of "American Nationalism", I view movements like the one referenced in the Hawley article, the obvious similar movement among conservative Catholics, and secular movements like that espoused by the likes of Rich Lowry of the National Review (who literally penned a book defending nationalism recently), as all being closely aligned. There are people fleshing out the "Intellectual" part of this movement, but of course the vast majority of the participants in this movement are non-intellectual or anti-intellectual, and are part of the movement for similar despicable reasons people are attracted to nationalism anywhere. American Nationalism is mostly defined by being white, but I won't go as far as to say it's as simple as that. It's defined by being what these people view as Real Americans. Lowry who is mostly secular, goes so far as to say Christianity is an important defining feature--not that you have to be a true believer, but that you be what he calls a "cultural Christian." It's also important that you speak English. While a lot of these people are racists, they are willing to more or less embrace non-whites who have sufficiently adhered to other parts of the program. So guys like Ben Carson, Herman Cain (rip), Tim Scott et al. are more than accepted by this movement. The color of their skin is not white, but they have become what I honestly think the American Nationalists would view as "culturally white." As long as they are not trying to actively present and represent a non-"American" culture, they are fully accepted in the movement.
The key reason this gets so dangerous is how they define who is a real American or not almost perfectly overlaps with "who votes for Republicans" and people who don't, who represent a majority of the country, are not real Americans. That means it is illegitimate for them to participate in the political process. Places like Philadelphia and Detroit are illegitimate even moreso because of how they vote than anything else. How they vote defines them in the minds of the nationalists as not real Americans, because not voting for the Republican party means they must reject Christianity, English language, and a required phony patriotism expressed by things like standing for the national anthem and worshipping the police and military no matter their behavior. The fact that these people are also racial minorities is "icing on the cake" to explain how they aren't real Americans.
I think the left does misjudge this movement a little bit. It's easy to just dismiss it as "simple racism", and while I think this movement was certainly fueled by racism, and is full up on real racists, there's bigger issues of "folk nationalism" that I think indeed go under investigated for simpler explanations about racial grievance. Properly understood I think you start to see a lot of similarities between this movement and movements like Fidesz, Law and Justice in Poland at etc. These movements are nationalist first--and their primary MO is defining who is a real member of the nation and who isn't, and promoting the idea that those who are not, do not deserve to participate in the democratic process nor do they deserve the same regard and rights as those who are part of the nation.
Also one of the reasons I'm so convinced it is the political/cultural driving it, in my own experience I've "lost" a lot of Catholic friends to what I call evangelical Christianity. At almost every point in their "journey" to the dark side, in discussions with them, when their nationalist political beliefs clashed with core Catholic theology, what do you think they found invalid? The theology. They always found ways to basically reinvent theological reality to paint it as if the Church's teachings are in line with them, and any deviations are just "bad Catholics" promulgating bad ideas, but "real" Catholicism is perfectly in sync with their nationalism in their minds. So quite literally their religious belief is the belief that ends up being mutable, it is their nationalist belief that is immutable.
Interesting post - and there's a lot I agree with.
I think in the American context there's definitely a lot of it that is American nationalism - especially, perhaps, for evangelicals because Protestants, especially American Protestants, tend to have a sort of providential sense of their nation. I wonder if the Catholic attitude is more almost about nationalism from the perspective of "Western civilisation". I've read plenty of defences of Orban in the right-wing American Catholic media, Bannon wanted his school of national populism, I've read so many pieces over the years about the cultural suicide of Europe. So I think part of it which is perhaps more pronounced among right-wing Catholics rather than evangelicals is that American nationalism is almost the route to Western nationalism: America as the last, best hope of "the West".
And I think that's why, culturally speaking, so many of them in the Catholic wing are attracted to the rad trad style of worship. It is an expression of a moment in Western culture v modern, multicultural, inclusive Europe/America. It's why Twitter accounts of classical architecture swarm with Nazis in the comments because the contrast that is so often being drawn is with the modernist (Jewish and/or gay), the cosmopolitan (as above), the multicultural (Muslim). I'm no expert but looking at it I always feel like there's something of the Spanish far-right in all of this as well as Law and Order/Fidesz.
Again I think Palin is really interesting as the case study of this kicking off because she was explicit in saying that she was backed by "real Americans".
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 12, 2021, 11:50:07 AMIt's defined by being what these people view as Real Americans. Lowry who is mostly secular, goes so far as to say Christianity is an important defining feature--not that you have to be a true believer, but that you be what he calls a "cultural Christian." It's also important that you speak English. While a lot of these people are racists, they are willing to more or less embrace non-whites who have sufficiently adhered to other parts of the program. So guys like Ben Carson, Herman Cain (rip), Tim Scott et al. are more than accepted by this movement. The color of their skin is not white, but they have become what I honestly think the American Nationalists would view as "culturally white." As long as they are not trying to actively present and represent a non-"American" culture, they are fully accepted in the movement.
Isn't that still plainly racism though? One is acceptable as long as one acts as 'white' as one can possibly be.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 12, 2021, 11:14:17 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2021, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2021, 05:24:09 PM
I can think of nothing that could heal America more than a good old fashioned Augustinian-Pelagian controversy.
Let's call the Tunsians and see if Carthage is still available to hold a council.
:lol: I have read before that Pelagius is apparently a go to heretic for American evangelicals to sum up their fears of the modern world.
I think it is part of the weird cosplay nature of this - which I don't mean to diminish the seriousness of storming the Capitol or attitudes on the right about Christianity.
They are missing a a golden opportunity to unite America and the West against the Nestorian menace. I've heard rumors some of these heretics have been hiding out in *gasp* China.
No peace in our time with the false prophet Prestor John!
:hmm:
Nowadays, scholars do not believe Nestorius was Nestorian, as the word took another convenient meanings. Pelagianism was also greatly defined by the heresiologists, so the parallel makes sense.
Quite a potential for politically-motivated manipulations. :D
Excellent analysis, OvB. It certainly has the ring of truth to it in my ears.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2021, 12:12:23 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 12, 2021, 11:50:07 AMIt's defined by being what these people view as Real Americans. Lowry who is mostly secular, goes so far as to say Christianity is an important defining feature--not that you have to be a true believer, but that you be what he calls a "cultural Christian." It's also important that you speak English. While a lot of these people are racists, they are willing to more or less embrace non-whites who have sufficiently adhered to other parts of the program. So guys like Ben Carson, Herman Cain (rip), Tim Scott et al. are more than accepted by this movement. The color of their skin is not white, but they have become what I honestly think the American Nationalists would view as "culturally white." As long as they are not trying to actively present and represent a non-"American" culture, they are fully accepted in the movement.
Isn't that still plainly racism though? One is acceptable as long as one acts as 'white' as one can possibly be.
Only if you think cultural behaviors and race are intrinsically entwined.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 12, 2021, 11:50:07 AM
I think the theological side is interesting if you're interested in that sort of thing, but I think it's the wrong take to believe it explains the political side.
In the United States, on this topic, it is actually politics wagging the religious tail, not vice versa. I actually think a lot of people would disagree with that at first glance, but from my personal experiences and as much reading as I've been able to do on the topic I feel fairly comfortable in saying this is true. I actually don't think you really have to, for example, distinguish that much between Hawley's intellectual religious foundations and those of conservative forces in the American Catholic Church like the aforementioned Archbishop Vagano. If you want to do a theological study, there are differences. But politically...these are basically the same people.
I believe this so much that I frequently use the term "evangelical Catholicism", which I don't think is widely accepted yet but in the American political context probably will be more so over time. I basically use this term to describe the conservative American Catholics who behave, and have virtually identical political priorities, to Protestant evangelicals. I think there's a big division in our Church here between basically three groups: evangelical Catholicism (who I suspect may be the largest group, I have no proof), "mainstream" Catholics (myself and Joe Biden being good examples), and then you have the "third world" Catholics, or to steal Sheilbh's more politically correct term "Global South", these are the Catholic congregations in America who are primarily non-English language immigrant communities, and they actually area substantial number of total Catholics in America but don't get spoken about politically that much. The Global South Catholics tend to be more conservative than mainstream Catholics, but are less aligned with the Republican party's project of nationalism (which is unsurprising), and thus are more split voters if they're naturalized (many of them aren't.)
But again, the religious side of it arguably to me isn't even the most important. It's cultural and political. The American right has a project of "American Nationalism", I view movements like the one referenced in the Hawley article, the obvious similar movement among conservative Catholics, and secular movements like that espoused by the likes of Rich Lowry of the National Review (who literally penned a book defending nationalism recently), as all being closely aligned. There are people fleshing out the "Intellectual" part of this movement, but of course the vast majority of the participants in this movement are non-intellectual or anti-intellectual, and are part of the movement for similar despicable reasons people are attracted to nationalism anywhere. American Nationalism is mostly defined by being white, but I won't go as far as to say it's as simple as that. It's defined by being what these people view as Real Americans. Lowry who is mostly secular, goes so far as to say Christianity is an important defining feature--not that you have to be a true believer, but that you be what he calls a "cultural Christian." It's also important that you speak English. While a lot of these people are racists, they are willing to more or less embrace non-whites who have sufficiently adhered to other parts of the program. So guys like Ben Carson, Herman Cain (rip), Tim Scott et al. are more than accepted by this movement. The color of their skin is not white, but they have become what I honestly think the American Nationalists would view as "culturally white." As long as they are not trying to actively present and represent a non-"American" culture, they are fully accepted in the movement.
The key reason this gets so dangerous is how they define who is a real American or not almost perfectly overlaps with "who votes for Republicans" and people who don't, who represent a majority of the country, are not real Americans. That means it is illegitimate for them to participate in the political process. Places like Philadelphia and Detroit are illegitimate even moreso because of how they vote than anything else. How they vote defines them in the minds of the nationalists as not real Americans, because not voting for the Republican party means they must reject Christianity, English language, and a required phony patriotism expressed by things like standing for the national anthem and worshipping the police and military no matter their behavior. The fact that these people are also racial minorities is "icing on the cake" to explain how they aren't real Americans.
I think the left does misjudge this movement a little bit. It's easy to just dismiss it as "simple racism", and while I think this movement was certainly fueled by racism, and is full up on real racists, there's bigger issues of "folk nationalism" that I think indeed go under investigated for simpler explanations about racial grievance. Properly understood I think you start to see a lot of similarities between this movement and movements like Fidesz, Law and Justice in Poland at etc. These movements are nationalist first--and their primary MO is defining who is a real member of the nation and who isn't, and promoting the idea that those who are not, do not deserve to participate in the democratic process nor do they deserve the same regard and rights as those who are part of the nation.
I agree with that analysis and I think that is what makes Hawley's evangelical ideology dangerous. It is a short distance from defining true Americans as people who hold views consistent with the tenants of a faith which are defined in this particular way, with a totalitarian state which justifies mistreatment of the other on that basis.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 12, 2021, 12:35:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2021, 12:12:23 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 12, 2021, 11:50:07 AMIt's defined by being what these people view as Real Americans. Lowry who is mostly secular, goes so far as to say Christianity is an important defining feature--not that you have to be a true believer, but that you be what he calls a "cultural Christian." It's also important that you speak English. While a lot of these people are racists, they are willing to more or less embrace non-whites who have sufficiently adhered to other parts of the program. So guys like Ben Carson, Herman Cain (rip), Tim Scott et al. are more than accepted by this movement. The color of their skin is not white, but they have become what I honestly think the American Nationalists would view as "culturally white." As long as they are not trying to actively present and represent a non-"American" culture, they are fully accepted in the movement.
Isn't that still plainly racism though? One is acceptable as long as one acts as 'white' as one can possibly be.
Only if you think cultural behaviors and race are intrinsically entwined.
Or only if you think that there is something called "race" that isn't just a manifestation of culture.
There isn't a "white culture," there is just a culture that some people claim is "white culture" because they define themselves as "white" and define their culture as "white culture." Ditto for any of the many cultures that anyone might claim is "black culture." Culture is a manifestation of background and upbringing, not skin color.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2021, 12:10:48 PM
Interesting post - and there's a lot I agree with.
I think in the American context there's definitely a lot of it that is American nationalism - especially, perhaps, for evangelicals because Protestants, especially American Protestants, tend to have a sort of providential sense of their nation. I wonder if the Catholic attitude is more almost about nationalism from the perspective of "Western civilisation". I've read plenty of defences of Orban in the right-wing American Catholic media, Bannon wanted his school of national populism, I've read so many pieces over the years about the cultural suicide of Europe. So I think part of it which is perhaps more pronounced among right-wing Catholics rather than evangelicals is that American nationalism is almost the route to Western nationalism: America as the last, best hope of "the West".
My cousin whom I was as close with as a brother before his slide into extremism I think falls into this "Western Civilization" defender sort of Catholic. He goes to retreats regularly with other far right Catholics and is part of organizations that in prior eras I think the Church would have come down on hard for intransigence, I won't be surprised at all if people like him eventually end up in some sort of breakaway "true believer Catholic Church" separate from the actual church. In fact I think the schism between this sort of American Catholic and the actual church will be one of the most profound changes in Catholicism in the last 200-300 years, much more than the grumblings of sedevacantists after VaticanII primarily because it will likely result in a much greater number of worshippers leaving the Church and in more formal ways, establishing a true alternative Church of significant scale.
But anyway if you talk to my cousin, despite having not set foot in Europe in a good 15 years, he spends a large portion of his time ranting about the collapse of the West and the invasion of Muslim hordes into Europe. He strongly believes America is the "last bastion" and that it is under the same sort of attack as we speak, and it would not surprise me at all to find he some day runs afoul of the law due to some militant stupidity (his transgression would probably be posting some outright death threat directed towards a public official in a Facebook screed, rather than trying to break down the doors of the Capitol.)
One thought - I wonder if we'll see a return of old school anti-Catholic conspiracism among evangelicals?
The President's a Catholic, the Speaker's a Catholic, the Chief Justice and most of the Supreme Court are Catholics - the Pope's a Jesuit.
I can definitely see scope for things not going how the Trumpy/Q-ish/conspiratorial wing of evangelicalism want it to go and they start joining the dots about a globalist Catholic conspiracy :mellow:
Best not try to connect non existent dots for them :P
It would be nice, it would get them turning on each other at least.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2021, 12:12:23 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 12, 2021, 11:50:07 AMIt's defined by being what these people view as Real Americans. Lowry who is mostly secular, goes so far as to say Christianity is an important defining feature--not that you have to be a true believer, but that you be what he calls a "cultural Christian." It's also important that you speak English. While a lot of these people are racists, they are willing to more or less embrace non-whites who have sufficiently adhered to other parts of the program. So guys like Ben Carson, Herman Cain (rip), Tim Scott et al. are more than accepted by this movement. The color of their skin is not white, but they have become what I honestly think the American Nationalists would view as "culturally white." As long as they are not trying to actively present and represent a non-"American" culture, they are fully accepted in the movement.
Isn't that still plainly racism though? One is acceptable as long as one acts as 'white' as one can possibly be.
hmm... racism is all about "race", usually defined by the colour of the skin, or by a specific ethnicity (Arabs) or religion (Jews). They usually hate "n..." who act like whites, as much as they hate the "n..." who has rastas, smokes pot and listen to (c)rap music. ;)
Intolerance, for sure, intolerance of one's opinions, culture, religious (or non) values. But racism might be a bit of a stretch.
What is the word we would use if one believes his culture is the superior one and there's no merits to others? It's akin to a form of imperialism, but it's not the same as 19th/early 20th century imperialism&colonialism.
Bigot and bigotry works.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2021, 03:09:15 PM
One thought - I wonder if we'll see a return of old school anti-Catholic conspiracism among evangelicals?
The President's a Catholic, the Speaker's a Catholic, the Chief Justice and most of the Supreme Court are Catholics - the Pope's a Jesuit.
I can definitely see scope for things not going how the Trumpy/Q-ish/conspiratorial wing of evangelicalism want it to go and they start joining the dots about a globalist Catholic conspiracy :mellow:
I think that would be awesome.
There's only three ways the roots of Trumpism are going to be eliminated in this country: angry stupid white people die of old age, they die of Covid, or they learn object lessons from their own contradictions. Branding Catholics, who constitute the right's intellectual firepower on the court, traitors would be one such contradiction.
So slightly interesting kremlinology in the US Catholic Church.
On inauguration day the US Conference of Bishops issued a statement in the name of their chair Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles (and later backed up by Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco) which was pretty aggressive towards Biden. Over half of it was about abortion and the "pre-eminence" of that issue. The nuncio and the Vatican were apparently very annoyed at this and that the bishops chose to start their relationship with a Catholic President in a hostile way.
Francis's statement was a lot more upbeat on working with Biden.
Then Cardinal Cupich of Chicago tweeted this - which is rare and, in the context of intra-bishop fights, fiery:
QuoteCardinal Cupich
@CardinalBCupich
Today, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued an ill-considered statement on the day of President Biden's inauguration.
Aside from the fact that there is seemingly no precedent for doing so, the statement, critical of President Biden, came as a surprise to many bishops, who received it just hours before it was released.
The statement was crafted without the involvement of the Administrative Committee, a collegial consultation that is normal course for statements that represent and enjoy the considered endorsement of the American bishops.
The internal institutional failures involved must be addressed, and I look forward to contributing to all efforts to that end, so that, inspired by the Gospel, we can build up the unity of the Church, and together take up the work of healing our nation in this moment of crisis.
In addition a number of bishops started issuing their own statements following Biden's inaurguration including Cupich, Toobin of New Jersey and others. Since then the conference has issued four very positive statements endorsing Biden's executive actions on immigration, DACA, the Paris Agreement and the Muslim ban.
But it's really rare and striking to see a very open clash like this between the wings of the church within the hierarchy and I think part of this is about Biden, but within the hierarchy a bigger part is actually about Francis.
Meanwhile in the "political" wing of Catholicism two podcasting priests in Wisconsin (a heartland for Cardinal Burke's legacy) have been chatting about antifa being responsible for the Capitol riot - obviously there are now calls for their bishop to rein them in. And a bishop from Texas (who spoke at the Jericho March) is contradicting the statements of the Vatican and the other bishops in saying that the vaccines are not morally permissible (and, indeed, evil) because of how they're made - again mainly aimed at Francis but just indicative of these waters.
I saw one comment about Cupich's responses on Twitter from, I assume a rad trad, about how he's just a Francis appointee and how no-one would choose to have Cupich as their bishop. He then suggested that maybe communities should elect their own priests and bishops :lol: Americans - can they Catholic?
It reminded me of the Brexiteer on Question Time who in real-time noted that Northern Ireland caused issues for the UK in Brexit, so maybe one solution would be for there to be a united Ireland :lol:
What is evil about how vaccines are made?
Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2021, 10:57:45 PM
What is evil about how vaccines are made?
I'd think use in testing of the aborted fetal cell lines. I recall the Vatican releasing a statement about how that was okay.
Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2021, 10:57:45 PM
What is evil about how vaccines are made?
Because science is evil, duh. Trump itself warned you of the dangers in listening to the evilness of Biden: "He will listen to the scientists!".
In other times, another politician could have said "He will listen to the Devil!" and have the same effect.
A follow up to the common good integralism that Adrian Vermeule wrote about - another example of the very strange waters parts of American conservatism are exploring right now. From The American Conservative:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/waiting-for-our-salazar/
QuoteWaiting for Our Salazar
Portugal's 20th-century philosopher-king may be the ideal model of a leader for our times.
January 23, 2021|
Michael Warren Davis
Salazar: The Dictator Who Refused to Die, by Tom Gallagher, (Hurst: 2020), 360 pages.
Nobody wants to talk about António de Oliveira Salazar. The left resent him because he doesn't fit their profile of a right-wing dictator. He despised fascism, which he dismissed as "pagan Caesarism." Likewise, he said Hitler's racism was "essentially pagan, incompatible with the character of our Christian civilization."
Salazar rarely used his secret police to suppress political dissent. When he did, it was limited to the militant communists who tried to blow him up in 1937 as he made his way to church. After the bomb went off, shattering the windows of his car, he dusted himself off and said to his entourage, "Everything is over now. Let's go in for Mass."
Dr. Salazar opposed the Axis Powers' expansionism, beginning with Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. During World War II, he helped victims of the Third Reich escape Nazi-occupied Europe; Casablanca got that much right. He lent material support to the Allies during World War II, and he would have gladly joined the war on their side. Salazar remained neutral only for fear of driving his neighbor, Francisco Franco, into Hitler's arms.
The right, meanwhile, doesn't like to talk about him for fear of being called fascists ourselves. (What nonsense—as if our progressive friends need a reason.) We may hope that Tom Gallagher's new biography of Salazar will break that silence.
Dr. Salazar, as he was always known, was an economist by training. In 1926, a military junta brought an end to the anarchic, anticlerical First Portuguese Republic; the generals asked him to serve as their finance minister. Within his first year, he restored financial stability for the first time in a century, becoming a national hero.
Soon, by popular acclaim, the military appointed him prime minister. Over the next few years, Salazar dismissed several of his cabinet ministers and took their portfolios for himself. Thus did Salazar establish himself as dictator, almost without anyone noticing.
Salazar ruled as a Catholic, and his regime was naturally conservative on social issues. He constantly insisted upon "the intrinsic value of religious truth to the individual and society." His stated goals were to prevent "the perversion of public opinion" and to "safeguard the moral integrity of citizens." He was an integralist, or something very much like it.
Yet he gave few political privileges to the institutional church. He fit the old feudal idea of a Christian king, an officer of the church in his own right. He supported the church's efforts to evangelize the people and serve the poor, but insisted the bishops leave the business of statecraft to him. In fact, he was so disgusted by the "reforms" of the Second Vatican Council that he banned Pope Paul VI from Portugal.
In fiscal matters, Salazar was openly inspired by the social encyclicals of Popes Leo XIII and Pius IX. As an economist, he was wary of the fetish for rapid economic growth shared by fascists and communists. His priority was to wean Portugal from its dependence on trade with the United Kingdom while slowly growing the country's industrial base.
Yet he was not a nationalist. It was never Salazar's goal "to make Portugal great again," but simply to ensure the country's imperfect economy worked for the ordinary Portuguese. He espoused a kind of patriotic humility, urging his countrymen to reject delusions of grandeur offered by fascists and communists. He asked them simply to work, quietly and steadily, for the good of the country, as he himself did.
The cornerstone of Salazarism was depoliticization. As the French journalist Raymond Aron observed, "The government of Salazar tries to 'depoliticize' men, that of Hitler or Mussolini to 'politicize' or fanaticize them." Salazar recognized that Portugal's (and Europe's) woes stemmed from an obsession with radical ideologies, and not only fascism or communism. Fundamentally, he blamed the liberalism that had infected Europe during the French Revolution.
He despised mass politics and remained virtually absent from public life. "These good people who cheer me one day, moved by the excitement of the occasion, may rise in rebellion the next day for equally passing reason," Salazar observed. He also scorned political parties, which he believed serve no purpose but to obstruct good government and divide countrymen against one another. "Politics killed administration," he once lamented.
The remedy, in Salazar's view, was to rally the nation around its Christian heritage, keep peace on the Iberian Peninsula, and improve the lot of ordinary Portuguese.
And it worked. When he left after three decades, Portugal was a respected first-world power. Literacy rates had risen from 30 percent to nearly 100 percent. The economy was (modestly) booming. His admirers included such disparate figures as T.S. Eliot, Charles de Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer, and Dean Acheson, the latter of whom called Salazar "the nearest approach in our time to Plato's philosopher-king." Little wonder that, in 2007, a national poll named Salazar as history's greatest Portuguese.
Looking around our own country, it's increasingly difficult to refute Patrick Deneen's thesis that liberalism has already failed. All the hallmarks are there: overdependence on foreign markets; a stagnant and servile economy; an increasingly polarized left and right; widespread political violence; a loss of faith in our democratic institutions.
Yet Salazar's example offers a different kind of post-liberal order to those offered by left- and right-wing ideologues. Salazarism, if there is such a thing, is a kind of paternalistic traditionalism. Either a weaker or a more "visionary" leader couldn't have spared Portugal the excesses of totalitarianism. Salazar was, in his own way, a moderate.
Summing up the spirit of Salazarism, Gallagher incisively quotes the Israeli conservative thinker Yoram Hazony: "Where a people is incapable of self-discipline, a mild government will only encourage licentiousness and division, hatred and violence, eventually forcing a choice between civil war and tyranny. This means that the best an undisciplined people can hope for is a benevolent autocrat."
Events of the last year may prove Hazony right. If we Americans lack the self-discipline necessary for self-government, if liberalism is off the table, the only alternative to a tyrant like Lenin or Hitler may be a man like Salazar: a paternalistic traditionalist, a philosopher-king.
Michael Warren Davis is the author of the forthcoming book The Reactionary Mind (Regnery, 2021).
Salazar was the model of Pétain once. :P Pétain did much worse than his teacher admittedly.
Some questionable statements. I don't see Salazar joining the war on the Allied side, except on duress. As for the bad relationship with Paul VI, Paul VI taking sides for the African nationalists eventually, which included atheist marxist-leninists, is a better explanation than Vatican II.
Literacy at 100 % no, though huge progresses were made. Lastly, the modern Portuguese welfare state was mostly initiated by his little known successor Caetano, and the temporary economic boom as well. Encyclopaedia Universaiis (Britannica in France) dates the birth of modern as in contemporary Portugal with him, not Salazar.
As to not being a real fascist e.g no personality cult, no totalitarianism, no expansionism ; that's pretty much accepted, except for the Portuguese left.
Depoliticiisation is spot on though, with the role of football for instance.
QuoteSalazar rarely used his secret police to suppress political dissent.
This is line jumped out at me.
I saw that article posted on Twitter recently and it was rightly eviscerated in the comments for the amount of falsehoods it includes. The same author has a similarly barf-inducing article that touches on Franco as well.
If the American religious right is looking for examples to follow amongst the Iberian autocrats of old then it's not really in a good mental place at the moment.
I still think democracy is a better system than despotism. But then I'm not a conservative.
Quote from: The Larch on January 25, 2021, 06:55:23 AM
I saw that article posted on Twitter recently and it was rightly eviscerated in the comments for the amount of falsehoods it includes. The same author has a similarly barf-inducing article that touches on Franco as well.
If the American religious right is looking for examples to follow amongst the Iberian autocrats of old then it's not really in a good mental place at the moment.
Does he have one about the Austrian Ständerepublik? I feel he would love it, too (Christian conservative, anti-socialist; though he would have to explain away their anti-free market capitalist streak). Plus, they have a convenient martyr in Dollfuß, who was killed by Nazis!
QuoteLooking around our own country, it's increasingly difficult to refute Patrick Deneen's thesis that liberalism has already failed.
Whenever I read some pinhead's line like this, i wonder what country they refer to as "our country." The following descriptions don't match any country on earth. Maybe their country is in Middle Earth.
Quote from: Syt on January 25, 2021, 07:13:41 AM
Quote from: The Larch on January 25, 2021, 06:55:23 AM
I saw that article posted on Twitter recently and it was rightly eviscerated in the comments for the amount of falsehoods it includes. The same author has a similarly barf-inducing article that touches on Franco as well.
If the American religious right is looking for examples to follow amongst the Iberian autocrats of old then it's not really in a good mental place at the moment.
Does he have one about the Austrian Ständerepublik? I feel he would love it, too (Christian conservative, anti-socialist; though he would have to explain away their anti-free market capitalist streak). Plus, they have a convenient martyr in Dollfuß, who was killed by Nazis!
Ständestaat is as a matter of fact pretty close to the Salazar corporatist regime (
cf the corporativismo principle).
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 25, 2021, 06:19:39 AM
Some questionable statements. I don't see Salazar joining the war on the Allied side, except on duress. As for the bad relationship with Paul VI, Paul VI taking sides for the African nationalists eventually, which included atheist marxist-leninists, is a better explanation than Vatican II.
Yes - though that was part of the transformation of thinking kicked off by Vatican II where the church properly accepted democracy and anti-imperial/colonial views. Your point reminds me of conservative writers now who fulminate against priests (including Francis) who are perceived as taking the side of BLM, which they often characterise as a Marxist-Leninist, atheistic movement.
It also strikes me that Paul VI (following Vatican II) resulted in a huge shift in the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish community plus ecumenism in general. That is something I've thought about when you look at the right's opposition to "globalists" (famously in Trump's last advert of the 2016 election a word used while images of Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke and Lloyd Bankfein flashed on the screen).
I think the most interesting line is: "The right, meanwhile, doesn't like to talk about him for fear of being called fascists ourselves. (
What nonsense—as if our progressive friends need a reason.) We may hope that Tom Gallagher's new biography of Salazar will break that silence." Which plays on the victim narrative of the right, but also "if we're going to be called fascists, we might as well be fascist." It reminds me of people on the right who said they found it hard to take seriously the criticism of Trump as racist (I think they often changed their tune on this in the last year or so) because "the left" called Mitt Romney racist too.
And there is something to that line of thinking on the left as well - I look at even Joe Biden is getting attacked as a socialist you might as well just be ambitious and try to pass as much as you can.
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2021, 07:14:12 AM
QuoteLooking around our own country, it's increasingly difficult to refute Patrick Deneen's thesis that liberalism has already failed.
Whenever I read some pinhead's line like this, i wonder what country they refer to as "our country." The following descriptions don't match any country on earth. Maybe their country is in Middle Earth.
He's Professor of Political Science and holds the David A. Potenziani Memorial College Chair of Constitutional Studies at Notre Dame, author of "Why Liberalism Failed", has hosted events on the same with Orban and, like Hazony, a "national conservative": "The nation should be above all devoted to efforts to sustain, foster and support the communities that comprise it, and to combat, where necessary and possible, the modern forces that have proven to be so destructive of those constitutive communities."
Again it's not far away from Vermeule's common good integralism.
I don't necessarily think we should worry about these guys teaching at America's universities - same as we shouldn't worry about Marxists in academia. But I do think they represent a different and new strand of American conservatism - in many ways thet've built this intellectual framework around Trump's victory and I think this is the stuff that will be picked up on by Trumpist candidates in the future. I think the more interesting thing about them is the way they engage with the wider political debate (possibly because Trump was in power) so Marxist professors tend to be stuck in the academy, with limited ability to shape conversation among Democrats. Perhaps because these guys have "an explanation" for Trump - they've published in mainstream journals of the right in the US, they've held conferences with lots of other mainstream think-tankers, they've written in the Atlantic to explain their views etc.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2021, 07:37:44 AMI think the more interesting thing about them is the way they engage with the wider political debate (possibly because Trump was in power) so Marxist professors tend to be stuck in the academy, with limited ability to shape conversation among Democrats
I think Marxists are at least as far removed from Democrats than the Democrats are from the current Republican mainstream.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 25, 2021, 06:37:34 AM
QuoteSalazar rarely used his secret police to suppress political dissent.
This is line jumped out at me.
No mention of his disastrous colonial policy of trying to hold onto an empire long after the winds of change had started to blow.
Quote from: Syt on January 25, 2021, 07:13:41 AM
Quote from: The Larch on January 25, 2021, 06:55:23 AM
I saw that article posted on Twitter recently and it was rightly eviscerated in the comments for the amount of falsehoods it includes. The same author has a similarly barf-inducing article that touches on Franco as well.
If the American religious right is looking for examples to follow amongst the Iberian autocrats of old then it's not really in a good mental place at the moment.
Does he have one about the Austrian Ständerepublik? I feel he would love it, too (Christian conservative, anti-socialist; though he would have to explain away their anti-free market capitalist streak). Plus, they have a convenient martyr in Dollfuß, who was killed by Nazis!
Don't think so, I've just checked his back catalogue of articles and he only seems to have that couple of articles, he seems to focus more on current stuff. Shelbh, he seems to write about tensions in the US Catholic Church, is that how you got to know about him?
Quote from: mongers on January 25, 2021, 07:45:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 25, 2021, 06:37:34 AM
QuoteSalazar rarely used his secret police to suppress political dissent.
This is line jumped out at me.
No mention of his disastrous colonial policy of trying to hold onto an empire long after the winds of change had started to blow.
Some democracy I could mention made the same mistakes though. Neo-colonialism (à la Foccart/Françafrique) was too hypocritical for him I guess
Quote from: The Larch on January 25, 2021, 07:54:13 AM
Don't think so, I've just checked his back catalogue of articles and he only seems to have that couple of articles, he seems to focus more on current stuff. Shelbh, he seems to write about tensions in the US Catholic Church, is that how you got to know about him?
No to be honest I just saw this piece doing the rounds.
But you're right - looking him up he's editor of Crisis which is a conservative, Catholic magazine on the right but also Catholic Herald a more mainstream conservative paper and the American Spectator, plus American Conservative (which is also home to Rod Dreher of the "Benedict Option").
This is a great example why I think the Catholic angle is really important here - he's very much on the Catholic right side of the internal debate in the US and sceptical of Francis, pro-Cardinal Sarah etc. I don't think Trump thinks deeply about these issues. But I think the people who do and are trying to construct an ideological framework to explain Trump (and how you replicate 2016) are really influenced by this wing of Catholic thinking - plus writers like Yoram Hazony who is very close to the Netanyahus. Even if lots of their voters and pitch is evangelical. It's also a big part of why you'll see them talking about Salazar and Franco :lol:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 25, 2021, 08:27:49 AM
Some democracy I could mention made the same mistakes though. Neo-colonialism (à la Foccart/Françafrique) was too hypocritical for him I guess
I mean, mainly France, right?
Which is ongoing - see the latest iteration of Macron's view on Algeria.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2021, 09:02:36 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 25, 2021, 08:27:49 AM
Some democracy I could mention made the same mistakes though. Neo-colonialism (à la Foccart/Françafrique) was too hypocritical for him I guess
I mean, mainly France, right?
Which is ongoing - see the latest iteration of Macron's view on Algeria.
Precisely, though ™Winds or Change™ or not some other colonial power had to fight two colonial wars to properly decolonize. :P
Bad example, since Algeria was never part of Françafrique and Macron is quite the pro-repentance identity politics lackey to get banlieue votes, at least officially.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2021, 09:01:19 AM
Quote from: The Larch on January 25, 2021, 07:54:13 AM
Don't think so, I've just checked his back catalogue of articles and he only seems to have that couple of articles, he seems to focus more on current stuff. Shelbh, he seems to write about tensions in the US Catholic Church, is that how you got to know about him?
No to be honest I just saw this piece doing the rounds.
But you're right - looking him up he's editor of Crisis which is a conservative, Catholic magazine on the right but also Catholic Herald a more mainstream conservative paper and the American Spectator, plus American Conservative (which is also home to Rod Dreher of the "Benedict Option").
This is a great example why I think the Catholic angle is really important here - he's very much on the Catholic right side of the internal debate in the US and sceptical of Francis, pro-Cardinal Sarah etc. I don't think Trump thinks deeply about these issues. But I think the people who do and are trying to construct an ideological framework to explain Trump (and how you replicate 2016) are really influenced by this wing of Catholic thinking - plus writers like Yoram Hazony who is very close to the Netanyahus. Even if lots of their voters and pitch is evangelical. It's also a big part of why you'll see them talking about Salazar and Franco :lol:
By the way, I re-read the article in which he dealt with Franco (you can find it here if you're interested: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/2020-america-or-1935-spain/ (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/2020-america-or-1935-spain/)), and he also name drops Vermeule, which you mentioned earlier.
Btw, here are his pearls regarding Franco and Spain in the 30s. His main thesis appears to be that Franco and his gang were actually the victims and opressed for being catholics, and that they were justified in overthrowing the Republic for that:
QuoteAnd while Franco didn't start the Spanish Civil War, he sure ended it.
That's false, he sure started it, he was part of the military cabal that triggered the July 1936 coup.
QuoteWhatever you want to say about the Caudillo, he was fighting a defensive war.
No he wasn't, him and his colleagues wanted to topple the lawful democratic government of the country.
QuoteWhat would you have had Spaniards do as the Red Terror washed over their country? Just smile and take it? Even left-wing historians will now grudgingly admit that the left-wing Republicanos provoked the war by terrorizing Christians and conservatives.
Bullshit to the nth degree. The Red Terror (dwarfed by the White Terror that also took place) only took place once the government authority cracked after the military coup and uncontrolled militias started roaming around. And no sane historian will blame the Republic for provoking the SCW.
The corolary of the diatribe is, of course, that it's the left's fault that right wingers are becoming illiberal, because they feel threatened:
QuoteMy point is simply this: progressives are making us think illiberal thoughts—and just as we were beginning to sour on liberal democracy, too. If the Left forces the Right to fight a defensive war, as they did in Spain, nobody will be pleased with the outcome—least of all our leftist friends.
So yeah, it's the left the one that is provoking the right into becoming violent. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 25, 2021, 09:33:40 AMPrecisely, though ™Winds or Change™ or not some other colonial power had to fight two colonial wars to properly decolonize. :P
Bad example, since Algeria was never part of Françafrique and Macron is quite the pro-repentance identity politics lackey to get banlieue votes, at least officially.
I meant more this: "'No repentance nor apologies' for colonial abuses in Algeria, says Macron"
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20210120-no-repentance-nor-apologies-for-colonial-abuses-in-algeria-says-macron?ref=tw_i
It has struck me that despite all the deliberate culture warmonging in the UK (and all of the content about it) that even Tory ministers tend to be to the left of, say, centrist/liberal leaders in France or Belgium. It's surprising, but probably part of that Anglo-American political sphere v continental politics.
QuoteSo yeah, it's the left the one that is provoking the right into becoming violent. :rolleyes:
Yeah - the victimhood of the Christian right in the US is, I think, essential to where we are now. If it's not them positioning themselves as like the Early Church, or quoting Solzhenitsyn, or making genuinely repulsive comparisons between themselves and Iraqi Christians or Copts - or in this case the SCW. Though, note, that they're identifying with nuns and other victims of the red terror - not with the Catholics in institutional power throughout Spain who they more closely resemble.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2021, 09:54:02 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 25, 2021, 09:33:40 AMPrecisely, though ™Winds or Change™ or not some other colonial power had to fight two colonial wars to properly decolonize. :P
Bad example, since Algeria was never part of Françafrique and Macron is quite the pro-repentance identity politics lackey to get banlieue votes, at least officially.
I meant more this: "'No repentance nor apologies' for colonial abuses in Algeria, says Macron"
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20210120-no-repentance-nor-apologies-for-colonial-abuses-in-algeria-says-macron?ref=tw_i
It has struck me that despite all the deliberate culture warmonging in the UK (and all of the content about it) that even Tory ministers tend to be to the left of, say, centrist/liberal leaders in France or Belgium. It's surprising, but probably part of that Anglo-American political sphere v continental politics.
That would be complete U-Turn. Macron is a well-known demagogue telling each of his audiences what they want to hear, contradicting himself regularly such as no, but I am skeptical as for the actual policy consquences.
I see it's not Macron saying it which makes it moot.
QuoteThere will be "no repentance nor apologies" for the occupation of Algeria or the bloody eight-year war that ended French rule, Macron's office said, adding that the French leader would instead take part in "symbolic acts" aimed at promoting reconciliation.
QuoteBenjamin Stora's report
Former trotsko, still very politically engaged to the left. Colour me skeptical.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2021, 04:57:21 AM
Michael Warren Davis
He's a professional troll masquerading as a cultural critic. He's wrote the article about repealing the 19th amendment (women's suffrage) on the 100th anniversary. of its passage. He is in his 20s and a fairly recent convert.
If he's in his 20s he does a great job hiding it.
(https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/images/2017/CIC19_Speakers/MWD-Sacred-Heart.jpg)
And the convert point isn't surprising - the right-wing, political wing of American Catholicism is stuffed to the gills with a certain sort of convert. They were normally very taken by the intellectualism of Benedict and very into the aesthetics of ultra old-school clerics (e.g. Archbishop Burke). It's why, as I say, I think they're in many ways a political project within a religion rather than a religious project within a political movement.
Quote from: The Larch on January 25, 2021, 01:33:57 PM
If he's in his 20s he does a great job hiding it.
Stephen Miller is only 35, too.
(https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/cc76fae/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fa4%2F4f%2F8b7834364f1da8a08599d9c1e95d%2Fap20304580574656-1.jpg)
Quote from: The Larch on January 25, 2021, 01:33:57 PM
If he's in his 20s he does a great job hiding it.
(https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/images/2017/CIC19_Speakers/MWD-Sacred-Heart.jpg)
He does look like someone trying very hard to be taken seriously
Quote from: Syt on January 25, 2021, 01:37:07 PM
Stephen Miller is only 35, too.
So am I and I look so much better!
It is thrilling to know that evil is ageing :)
QuoteHe does look like someone trying very hard to be taken seriously
A demi-Gorka.
I'm old af and I look better than these guys.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2021, 01:41:15 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 25, 2021, 01:37:07 PM
Stephen Miller is only 35, too.
So am I and I look so much better!
It is thrilling to know that evil is ageing :)
We had a young intern join us in summer. She joined our lunch break and we talked about what we did before, and I said, "I did 6 years that, 7 years that, and I've been here for over 8 years." She was confused because she thought I was significantly younger than my 44 years. :blush: :lol:
Quote from: Syt on January 25, 2021, 02:44:11 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2021, 01:41:15 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 25, 2021, 01:37:07 PM
Stephen Miller is only 35, too.
So am I and I look so much better!
It is thrilling to know that evil is ageing :)
We had a young intern join us in summer. She joined our lunch break and we talked about what we did before, and I said, "I did 6 years that, 7 years that, and I've been here for over 8 years." She was confused because she thought I was significantly younger than my 44 years. :blush: :lol:
She did a very good job of playing to your vanity :P
Quote from: The Larch on January 25, 2021, 01:33:57 PM
If he's in his 20s he does a great job hiding it.
Young fogey, that's part of the show
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2018/12/catholic-herald-introduces-u-s-to-magazines-beauty-brains-faith/
QuoteIn 2015, when he was 22, he moved back to the United States.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2021, 03:08:24 PM
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2018/12/catholic-herald-introduces-u-s-to-magazines-beauty-brains-faith/
QuoteIn 2015, when he was 22, he moved back to the United States.
QuoteBaptized a Presbyterian and raised in the Episcopal Church, he became a Catholic in 2016.
There you have his trajectory, S.
I have nothing against youth; the likes of the National Review, New Republic, and the Weekly Standard often drew (and draw) on the talents of writers in their 20s. But for perspective this is a kid not long out of college put in charge of a pretty fringey publication. There are many Catholic Trump supporters, but I doubt their thinking is motivated by neo-Salazarist political theory or a burning desire to eliminate voting by women.
What we have here is a professional troll using the tired move of insisting on his sincerity while ratcheting up the provocation for yuks and a higher profile.
Quote from: The Larch on January 25, 2021, 03:13:09 PM
There you have his trajectory, S.
From toe in the Catholic water to Catholic Lite to more Catholic than the Pope (and they really mean it this time)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2021, 03:14:24 PM
I have nothing against youth; the likes of the National Review, New Republic, and the Weekly Standard often drew (and draw) on the talents of writers in their 20s. But for perspective this is a kid not long out of college put in charge of a pretty fringey publication. [...]
What we have here is a professional troll using the tired move of insisting on his sincerity while ratcheting up the provocation for yuks and a higher profile.
Sure but in this case and many others what professional trolls do is move a fringe idea (pushed by a Harvard law professor, say, in the Atlantic) to the attention of others. I think the last few years should have shown us is professional trolls and edgelords matter - the gatekeeping of National Review (to the extent it ever existed) has become pretty permeable.
I've seen lots of articles about national conservatism and integralism in the last few years - as I say I think it's trying to build a framework around Trump/an explanation for Trump on the right. Now it may not matter but it's worth noting and is interesting.
QuoteThere are many Catholic Trump supporters, but I doubt their thinking is motivated by neo-Salazarist political theory or a burning desire to eliminate voting by women.
That's not at all why we should pay attention - or why the Catholic bit matters :P
QuoteThere you have his trajectory, S.
Not uncommon. One prominent blogger on the Catholic right in the US was evangelical, then Anglican, then Catholic. Rod Dreher was Methodist, then Catholic, then Orthodox.
It's often conservatives who feel disappointed in their brand of Protestantism, or frustrated at the lack of intellectual fibre (especially v Benedict - who they all love), or seduced by the robes etc. So they move to something "certain" and "unmoving" and a large part of their frustration with Francis is that they feel it's suddenly started moving (and it's uglier - less Latin, fewer fancy robes). But what they want it to be certain and unmoving in relation to is not some spiritual value, but their political beliefs within the American context.
I get the feeling that the "problem" with those conservative Americans that convert to Catholicism is that they don't understand the evolution of the Catholic Church itself, mostly the post- 2nd Vatican Council era. They just want the trappings of traditionalism and grandeur.
A very interesting read on this topic in the NYTimes today
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/28/opinion/christian-nationalists-capitol-attack.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
One of the take-home points is that evangelical right wing extremists are here to stay and we can see why the GOP won't risk that block of voters by taking on Trump.
QuoteMany of those I contacted for this column described Whitehead and Perry's book, "Taking America Back For God," as the most authoritative study of Christian Nationalism.
The two authors calculate that roughly 20 percent of adult Americans qualify, in Perry's words, as "true believers in Christian nationalism." They estimate that 36 percent of Republican voters qualify as Christian nationalists. In 2016, the turnout rate among these voters was an exceptionally high 87 percent. Whitehead wrote that "about 70 percent of those we identify as Christian nationalists are white."