America, like the Christian West, is dying from sustained and relentless suicide. Having accepted that our heritage is the sole cause of sin and evil in the world, a growing number of generationals are concluding that no matter what woes may beset the world, it would be better off without the pesky Christian West, especially America. It's not a Left thing, though the enlightenment inspired revolutionary nature of the Left utilizes the old tactic of declaring as entirely evil the thing to be rebelled against. But even many who aren't on the Left are seeming to shrug their shoulders and say 'it's dumb, evil, good riddance.' You can't sustain a civilization that nobody wants to sustain.
Of course the reasons why some are dismissing the heritage of the West is because of that Woodstock era tendency of declaring everything to suck, while insisting it's everyone else's fault. In our polemical age, it's also easily done by just pointing to those other types and saying it's because of them. Or they were the problem. Or whatever. In the Catholic world, where fealty to Church should trump fealty to state, it's all the easier to start dismissing anything of value in our nation's past.
So Thomas McDonald, and then Mark Shea, both paused and said 'gee, perhaps that stenographer that had a meltdown wasn't just someone with a mental case. You never know. Maybe, just maybe mind you, it could have been God speaking.'
Really? The whole 'we've never been a nation under God, we are a vast conspiracy of Free Masons, we are a nation of evil'? That could be God talking? Even to consider the possibility means it's a possibility you're willing to consider. If that same woman had said the same about, say, the Catholic Church, would they have posted it under the title 'you never know, could be God talking'? To do that means you have to be willing to accept the premise.
While I would never, ever say that America and the Kingdom of God are one and the same, I also don't think it was all that bad. Certainly no worse than any other kingdom, nation or civilization in history. And yet two individuals who are not radical leftists nonetheless have come to the point of even entertaining the idea that this old country, to which who fewer and fewer people proudly pledge allegiance, was corrupted and wicked from the get go. Whether for secular or religious reasons, we never should have cared in the first place.
That's a bad sign. When individuals conclude their lives are worthless, have always been worthless, and there is nothing redeeming in their entire past after all, that's when you kick into high gear. From a counseling perspective, that's when you make sure serious measures are taken to help, because it can end horribly. When a nation concludes that there was never anything worthwhile after all, and it was all pretty bad from the beginning, it is on suicide alert. Those who could do something simply don't care to. And those who wish to do something to exploit it will succeed.
...You've GOT to be kidding me!
ReplyDeleteYet how does he treat a bunch of "odds" and "eccentrics" (which would include say... myself and Mrs Hoyt) 8 days later? Calls them lunatics. Yeah, "a church of odd people", unless you're the wrong kind of odd then you're not welcome in Shea's or Dan C's or some others church. How did Mark put it? The world says, “Don’t stick out or be strange. Fit in!” oh right, and it's not like one gets kicked out of his combox for sticking out or being strange... oh wait, he's just as conformist!
This isn't even hypocrisy, this somehow goes beyond it.
Oh and I can already predict Shea's response. It'll amount to: "If you were offended, I wasn't talking about you."
I know. Not that I was as bothered by McDonald's take, basically that folks should mock and make fun of someone with a clear problem. Plus, the fair observation that the media trounces on someone like this (religious), while letting crazies in Code Pink and Peta and other groups off without more than a slap.
ReplyDeleteBut then it went to the ironic: even floating the idea that she could have been speaking God's words, which means there is some sympathy toward her basic message. When, as you point out, at least Mark would be on others (esp. on the more traditional side) for things nowhere close to half as crazy.
It's also interesting to observe that folks like Dan C have had virtual freedom to say whatever (usually conservatives are stupid and evil). Mark has recently declared total war against 'Reactionaries' (basically traditionalist Catholics). He has basically said he hates them and prays reluctantly under direct command of Jesus for them. Recently Dan C. let flight at Longenecker and Dale Price. Mark responded by mostly agreeing, but not at them, but at conservatives in general. A reader asked Mark if he shared Dan's assessment of Longenecker and Price. Mark simply responded he hadn't read their opinions. I mean, I tell myself that Mark is a conservative because he says so, but it gets tougher and tougher to believe.
ReplyDeleteI know. Not that I was as bothered by McDonald's take, basically that folks should mock and make fun of someone with a clear problem.
ReplyDeleteObviously McDonald is spot on. Certainly have no problem there.
Plus, the fair observation that the media trounces on someone like this (religious), while letting crazies in Code Pink and Peta and other groups off without more than a slap.
Or maybe... Alan Grayson? ;-) It's simple: they think a lot of those people are basically good or putting effort towards good ends, so they're more forgiving and accepting of excuses. However, in their minds others (especially religious folk) are basically evil (or on the verge of evil at any moment) and so of course every action, word, etc must be scrutinized for the oncoming theology.
(this was one of the themes of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism - that by focusing all our attention and vigilance in one direction, we would miss the danger that would come from another direction)
It's also interesting to observe that folks like Dan C have had virtual freedom to say whatever (usually conservatives are stupid and evil).
Or at least he's certainly more charitable with them and less ban-happy. Some of it could certainly be that they suck up enough to him. Another is that he really is voicing things Mark actually thinks.
Mark has recently declared total war against 'Reactionaries' (basically traditionalist Catholics). He has basically said he hates them and prays reluctantly under direct command of Jesus for them. Recently Dan C. let flight at Longenecker and Dale Price. Mark responded by mostly agreeing, but not at them, but at conservatives in general. A reader asked Mark if he shared Dan's assessment of Longenecker and Price. Mark simply responded he hadn't read their opinions.
Yeah he's recently been on a "I won't bother reading what's written kick", just scroll down the post I linked to to where he talks with "Erin". You think he would at least realize that maybe his apology should be close to the same amount of words as his attack.
I mean, I tell myself that Mark is a conservative because he says so, but it gets tougher and tougher to believe.
It's easy: he's a "conservative" by the standards of Seattle (but then, Stalin would probably be a conservative there). I mean, just look at how he defended himself (again) at the link:
Dude, I'm not a liberal. I believe all that the Holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims is revealed by God. I oppose abortion, gay "marriage", ESCR, artificial contraception and support both capitalism (within the bounds of Catholic moral teaching) and just war. Hell, I voted for Reagan twice. Stop the reflexive yarking about "liberals" and use your brain.
So, per Mark, liberals can't believe what the Holy Catholic Church believes, oppose abortion or any of that stuff.
...
Not even I buy that! Heck per that standard, California must be conservative since it voted for Reagan in 80 and 84 then Bush in 88. (see one of my fave sites 270towin) Considering how he usually demands the size of government to grow (namely up as long as it doesn't step on the Church's toes) or even believes that the New Deal ended the Great Depression (only hardcore leftists believe that any more) etc...
I didn't read that debate with Erin. At least he apologized. Each time he does, I have a glimmer of hope that he'll come back. Mark in the old days was a great witness for Catholicism: take the good out of what you can, but don't be afraid to point out the bad. But keep the criticism Christ-like, don't let it go overboard, and never let it go personal (bad witness). The only time Mark banned people was for personal attacks or accusations. And it happened seldom. He would correct anyone, including his friends, when they got too heated. But he seldom banished anyone unless they refused to heed multiple warnings against the above transgressions. Plus, IMHO, he had the right priorities: Conservatism is not always right, but the traditions and the past, the US and the Christian West, have much to offer, and while we don't want to just shut the door on others, while we do want to see the good that classical liberalism had to offer, and we do want to open up to those wonderful other cultures that follow Christ and seek God, we must never lose the goodness of our fathers and their fathers before them. These are what being Catholic in America is all about. But all that was. Now, it's like some weird Catholic Jack Chick site, and the ease with which so many things are said that would have been repugnant to Mark c. 2005/2006, is astonishing. Perhaps the most interesting debate of all would be Mark Shea c. 2005 vs. Mark Shea c. 2013.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the most interesting debate of all would be Mark Shea c. 2005 vs. Mark Shea c. 2013.
ReplyDeleteI tried that once just putting in exact quotes from posts he had done earlier. He took that about as well as... well anything.
It's become pretty clear that having a conversation with Mark is really a pointless endeavor. He won't listen to a word you say and will just make up what you said so really, there's no need for anybody else to participate.