Just when I thought he’d reached his campaign nadir, he outdoes himself with a video that overtly mocks the purported messianic undertones of Obama, and covertly suggests he might be the anti-Christ. Watch it below. According to knowledgeable evangelical sources, the language of the ad is so similar to that of the Left Behind series that the message is blindingly clear. It’s both despicable and blasphemous, even as it tries to hide behind a certain whimsical breeziness. These people claimed to be pro-military– and then mocked John Kerry’s war injuries with little purple-heart band-aids at the 2004 Republican convention. These people claim to be open to Christian values, while mocking the faith in the most cynical and nihilistic manner. The only aim is power, by any means necessary. By their fruits you will know them.
Update: Yes, I have been out of town, and no, I had not seen this previous post by Policraticus.
Have you been out of town or something? That commercial was discussed ad nauseam here: http://vox-nova.com/2008/08/01/pathetic-low-for-mccain-campaign/
The notion that people will watch this ad and think of the “Antichrist” is a rather desperate attack. With all the mentions of “The One,” it’s much more likely that people would think of The Matrix.
From Time magazine:
“It’s not easy to make the infamous Willie Horton ad from the 1988 presidential campaign seem benign. But suggesting that Barack Obama is the Antichrist might just do it.”
It could have been coincidence. To be honest few of us thought the McCain Campaign was in-touch enough with Christian voters to pull something this despicable. But Amy got to the source, which sets aside any suggestion that this may be a coincidence:
“The ad was the creation of Fred Davis, one of McCain’s top media gurus, as well as a close friend of former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed and the nephew of conservative Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. It first caught the attention of Democrats familiar with the Left Behind series, a fictionalized account of the end time that debuted in the 1990s and has sold nearly 70 million books worldwide. “The language in there is so similar to the language in the Left Behind books,” says Tony Campolo, a leading progressive evangelical speaker and author.”
…..
“The visual images in the ad, which Davis says has been viewed even more than the McCain’s “Celeb” ad linking Obama to the likes of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, also seem to evoke the cover art of several Left Behind books. But they’re not the cartoonish images of clouds parting and shining light upon Obama that might be expected in an ad spoofing him as a messiah. Instead, the screen displays a sinister orange light surrounded by darkness and later the faint image of a staircase leading up to heaven…
A Google search for “Obama” and “Antichrist” turns up more than 700,000 hits, including at least one blog dedicated solely to the topic. A more obscure search for “Obama” and “Nicolae Carpathia” yields a surprising 200,000 references….
The speculation reached a fever pitch after Obama’s European trip and the Berlin speech in which he called for global unity. Conservative Christian author Hal Lindsey declared in an essay on World Net Daily, “Obama is correct in saying that the world is ready for someone like him-a messiah-like figure, charismatic and glib…The Bible calls that leader the Antichrist. And it seems apparent that the world is now ready to make his acquaintance.” The conservative website RedState.com now sells mugs and t-shirts that sport a large “O” with horns and the words “The Anti-Christ” underneath.”
Also, it’s my firm belief that mocking Obama isn’t the same thing as “mocking the faith.” I don’t equate the two.
A more obscure search for “Obama” and “Nicolae Carpathia” yields a surprising 200,000 references.
Somebody doesn’t know how to use Google. A search for those terms right now brings up 3,160 references, and the first link is to this very Time article; the next link is to someone criticizing this very ad; the third link is also to someone criticizing the idea that Obama is the Antichrist. I don’t have time to go further and see if there are any actual anti-Obama pages among the results, though no doubt there are. In any event, there are not 200,000 results or anywhere near it.
Even worse! McCain may run an ad quoting Hillary saying, “McCain has a lifetime of experience. Obama has a speech he made in 2002.” The horror. The horror.
Worse yet, NewsMax is reporting that Obama will cause the worst Depression since the one FDR caused in 1933!
Exterminate all the brutes!
I can’t speak for the McCain campaign or for all conservatives, but how about this deal? Using legal terms, we will stipulate Obama is not the anti-Christ if the left will stipulate he is not the second coming but just another politician pushing failed liberal ideology. I think that works for our side since I believe no one other than just a few loons think he is the anti-Christ.
Dude!
Deep cleansing breaths.
It’s called “humor”. Go read Douthat and get some perspective.
I blogged on this last week. The ad’s pretty funny, but it’s best left to people not affiliated with the campaign. However, I agree with Douthat: people who think Obama might be the Antichrist and the people who think the McCain campaign is cannily designing its campaign ads to exploit fears that Obama might be the Antichrist deserve each other.
Your lifelong habitation in Catholic circles is unfortunately working against you here: you’re believing all the media stuff about Evangelicals all being a bunch of Left Behind wahoos. Trust me: the ad is not suggesting Obama is Antichrist. It’s making fun of the loopy messianic that does (not “purports”) to surround Obama. How many haloes does the guy get from TIME before you can bring yourself to acknowledge that painfully obvious fact of media hype?
This ad is mocking Obama, not Christianity…or, more specifically, it’s mocking the use of pseudo-messianic rhetoric by Obama and his supporters, the majority of which has been gathered together over at the satirical website obamamessiah.blogspot.com.
The Biblical language in the ad is there to make fun of the similar language used by some Obama supporters…not as some kind of covert insinuation that Obama is the Anti-Christ (a rather ridiculous idea, to say the least).
Just my two cents…
The ad is mocking Obama, yes, but through the medium of Judeo-Christian imagery and belief. If Christians are comfortable with this politically utilitarian use of their faith, then I suppose there’s no reason to bludgeon them anymore. Still, I believe that those Christians who find this humorous or satirically appropriate have cashed in their faith perspective for political usage. If I am wrong, I suppose that our religious imagery is fair game in any campaign.
With all the mentions of “The One,” it’s much more likely that people would think of The Matrix.
I thought of a Keanu Reeves and Jim Caviezel hybrid figure.
By the way, before instantly crediting the intrepid newshounds at Time, here’s what you get when you Google Obama and “Nicolae Carpathia”
Results 1 – 10 of about 3,220 for “nicolae carpathia” Obama. (0.18 seconds) Search ResultsNews results for “nicolae carpathia” Obama
Beliefnet.com An Antichrist Obama in McCain Ad? – 17 hours ago
A more obscure search for “Obama” and “Nicolae Carpathia” yields a surprising 200000 references.
TIME – 12 related articles
So who am I gonna believe: TIME or my own two eyes?
The ad is mocking Obama, yes, but through the medium of Judeo-Christian imagery and belief.
Well, yes. That does sort of go with the whole “Obama is the Messiah” thang that he and his people love to exploit for political gain, dunnit? I share the astonishment of SB that you seem to think making fun of Obama and Co.’s continual recourse to messianic imagery and themes constitutes making fun of Christ or the Faith.
So: to recap. You *can* discern the oh-so-subtle claim that Obama is The Antichrist, but you can’t see anything weird about the messianic hype from the Obama camp. Christians who make fun of this aren’t making fun of Obama. They are mocking God.
Man, you are batting a thousand on this whole soul-reading thing you’ve got down, dude!
I just don’t see how this is blasphemous. I also don’t see how it’s a bad thing to find it funny. Obama is the one who said those t hings, and it’s not exactly a “republican” thing to call him the obamessiah, even joe-schmoe unreligious american can see it by the rhetoric thrown around by the obama campaign – Heck he even makes is own great seal!
What I especially find amusing and ironic is that MM, the one who constantly harps on the American “calvinist” view of the world being that of dualism is the one who constantly posts about “Them” and “They”.
Also, it’s my firm belief that mocking Obama isn’t the same thing as “mocking the faith.” I don’t equate the two.
They are mocking Obama at the expense of the Christian faith, which is a no-no.
If the Kerry campaign would’ve done this same thing to Bush, I wonder if there wouldn’t have been any complaints.
That does sort of go with the whole “Obama is the Messiah” thang that he and his people love to exploit for political gain, dunnit?
Not exactly. It’s the whole “let’s construe Obama’s rhetoric as indicating that ‘Obama is the Messiah’” thing. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are correct, that is, that it is true that Obama and “his people” do exploit religious imagery for political gain. Would the McCain ad be for or against such exploitation? Since, as you yourself admit, the McCain ad exploits religious imagery as a medium for mocking Obama, it obviously is not against exploiting religious imagery for political gain. In this case, the exploitation would be to attack an opponent (negative) whereas for the Obama campaign the exploitation is for bolstering image (positive). So even if Obama is exploiting religious imagery, it is a false inference to suggest that McCain’s exploitation goes along with, or is similar to, the exploitation enacted by the Obama campaign. What’s more, the only way to remain consistent in your position is to admit that it is not wrong for Obama to exploit religious imagery if it is okay for McCain to exploit religious imagery.
I share the astonishment of SB that you seem to think making fun of Obama and Co.’s continual recourse to messianic imagery and themes constitutes making fun of Christ or the Faith.
I am astonished that you initially agreed with me when I said that Judeo-Christian imagery and belief is the vehicle for mocking Obama, and now you chide me for thinking so. I’m a bit lost here since you seem to contradict yourself. Let’s break it down logically:
I assert that Judeo-Christian imagery and belief is the vehicle for mocking. You agree with my assertion: “Well, yes.”
It follows that Judeo-Christian imagery and belief is employed in a politically utilitarian manner. You would have to agree with this based upon your initial agreement with me.
Now that we have the common ground in the form of a conclusion that can become a premise in another argument, we can debate the next point. Q: Is the use of something for mocking someone equivalent to mocking that something. Recast: Is the use of X for mocking C the same as mocking X?
I submit that using X as the vestibule for mockery does not necessarily mean that X is the object of mocking. Here’s my rationale:
P1: X is used to mock C
P2: X is not mockery (from P1)
P3: Whatever is mocked is the object of mockery
P4: C is the object of mockery (from P1, P3)
C: X is not the object of mockery (from P1, P3, P4)
Thus, there does not seem to be anything in my comments in this thread that indicates that I think, as you accuse me of doing, “you seem to think making fun of Obama and Co.’s continual recourse to messianic imagery and themes constitutes making fun of Christ or the Faith.”
So where did you get such a thought? Likely, you misunderstood the difference between being a vehicle of mockery and being the object of mockery.
I hope this clears things up for you.
Good point, Katerina! Imagine is Move-on or one of those groups had put together a mocking video of all the Bush-worshipping evangelicals (plus a few token Catholics– you know who you are, Bill and Deal) saying that God had annointed Bush? I remember that weird time. Let’s throw in some footage of large crowds of evangelicals getting “emotional” (speaking gibberish is even better). Would that have been funny or offensive?
Poli – how does you exercise couple with this statement:
These people claim to be open to Christian values, while mocking the faith in the most cynical and nihilistic manner.
Maybe you yourself didn’t say it, but….
TeutonicTim,
If I didn’t say it, why would I couple it with anything I did say?
Poli:
Wow. That was windy.
Wouldn’t it just be quicker to say, “I think it’s fine that Obama and Co. exploit Christian imagery constantly for political gain, but I think it’s blasphemous when somebody points that out and laughs at it”? It doesn’t make any sense to anybody who’s not in the Obama tank (indeed, I doubt it makes any sense inside the Obama tank), but it does actually summarize what you are trying to say in plain English.
Imagine is Move-on or one of those groups had put together a mocking video of all the Bush-worshipping evangelicals (plus a few token Catholics– you know who you are, Bill and Deal) saying that God had annointed Bush? I remember that weird time. Let’s throw in some footage of large crowds of evangelicals getting “emotional” (speaking gibberish is even better). Would that have been funny or offensive?
It would be hilarious. I’ve been pointing out absurd Bush hagiography for years.
Seriously, dude: when you equate laughing at Obama’s messianic hype with blasphemy, you only serve to prove the point. Mockery of Christ=blasphemy. Mockery of Obamaco’s exploitation of Christian image=good old fashioned political satire. Don’t go all Church Lady on us, MM.
If I didn’t say it, why would I couple it with anything I did say?
Seems your the only contributor who isn’t.
Still, I believe that those Christians who find this humorous or satirically appropriate have cashed in their faith perspective for political usage.
Based on your exercise the vehicle for mockery doesn’t mean something is mocked, what exactly is wrong with considering the connection made by the mockery humorous?
Mark,
It would be quicker, but I worried that you had gotten lost in the jungle of rhetoric. Often times, a bit of symbolic logic is an apt way of clearing the brush. You ask if it would be quicker for me to make an assertion. Yes, but an assertion is nothing without an argument. I provide an argument in logical terms in order to strengthen my claim.
Based on your exercise the vehicle for mockery doesn’t mean something is mocked
What? This doesn’t make any sense. The vehicle of mockery doesn’t mean something is mocked?
what exactly is wrong with considering the connection made by the mockery humorous?
What connection? Would you please restate the question?
Policraticus,
Can you please stop responding to this nonsense and give me a call so we can go to the sports bar?
Katerina,
Absolutely! Steelers vs. Eagles tonight! Have a pleasant night, everyone!
Mark:
The “messianic” imagery that you see in Obama’s campaign comes more from your overly-active imagination than reality. He crafts a message around “hope”, a Christian idea for sure, but is is tapping into a frustration with the jaded cycnicism of Rovian-Clintonian politics more than anything else. You have to credit Repuiblicans, though, they sure know how to twist ewverything against you. No mention of religion? Why, an out-of-touch secular elitist? Use religious language? Why, this upstart thinks he is a messiah. Incredible.
He has the nickname “The Messiah” for a reason. The Rhetoric, the magazine covers, the imagery, the “Faith. Hope. Change”, the “Change we can believe in”, the joke Obama made about a light shining down from heaven telling people to “Vote Barack.” The styling of himself as a savior for America. The “Lightbringer” article.”
Let’s be honest. The ad is funny. And Obama had it coming for going over the top. Paris Hilton’s response was also funny (to a different ad). It seems the left just doesn’t like the Messiah being exposed to ridicule.
On a different vein– something has changed in recent days. Comedians now feel that Obama is fair game (before they wouldn’t make jokes about him), and his arrogance and messianic stylings are also the topic of jokes. The field of invulnerability has been broken, and Obama has been revealed to be an empty suit. That is why the left is really upset.
An empty suit that wants to kill cute babies.
And an empty suit that describes himself in Messianic terms.
Based on your exercise the vehicle for mockery doesn’t mean something is mocked
What? This doesn’t make any sense. The vehicle of mockery doesn’t mean something is mocked?
what exactly is wrong with considering the connection made by the mockery humorous?
What connection? Would you please restate the question?
OK, you got me!!! Sorry, I was typing quick while doing a major migration after hours at work, silly me…
Let me rephrase:
Based on your exercise the vehicle for mockery doesn’t mean something is mocked
The conclusion to your exercise was that although something (X) is used to mock something else (C), X itself is not the object of mockery.
what exactly is wrong with considering the connection made by the mockery humorous?
What is wrong with viewing the mockery of Obama using his own words as humorous, especially since your X (judeo-Christian tradition) is not the object of the mockery.
What’s more, the only way to remain consistent in your position is to admit that it is not wrong for Obama to exploit religious imagery if it is okay for McCain to exploit religious imagery.
What if we think it is ridiculous for the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history to exploit messianic religious imagery, and funny for him to be mocked for doing so? How does that map onto your tensor field?
So by the logic being used here, it would be possible for the following sequence of events to occur:
1. Politician A says, “I’m the messenger of God. Yes, literally. That’s what I think.”
2. Politician B puts out an ad saying, “Wow, Politician A thinks he’s a messenger from God! That’s kind of amazing. Who does he think he is, Jesus? Mohammed? Buddha?”
3. Outraged bloggers: “I can’t believe it, Politician B (not A, but B) is referring to religion in the process of mocking somebody! That’s using religion for mockery! How horrible of Politician B, not to respect religion!”
4. The rest of us: “Are you kidding? Y Criticize Politician B if you want, but what Politician A said is what started this whole thing, and is worse by any objective measure.”
Well, let’s analyze Obama’s words in that video:
“A light will shine down… from somewhere [heaven]. It will light upon you. [images of pentacost] You will experience an epiphany [e - piph - a - ny: 2. an appearance or manifestation, esp. of a deity.]. And you will say to yourself: ‘I have to vote for Barack’”.
Don’t any of you Obama apologists find this patently offensive? A light shining down from God prompting you to vote for Barack? Showing you the manifestation of a diety [epiphany]?
If you’re outraged at McCain for pointing out and poking fun at these kinds of statements, shouldn’t you, if you are intellectually honest, be outraged at Obama for saying them?
I didn’t take the goofy, messianic ravings of “The One” seriously, nor do I take the satire of his opponent seriously. BTW, I did like the black choir in the background as Obama is talking. It must mean McCain is also a racist. Right?
The ad is funny. Just like an ad goofing on McCain would be funny if teased him for being the “Maverick” and then compared it to the Mel Gibson movie of the same name (or the steakhouse chain).
The left just doesn’t like that anyone dareth to mocketh the Messiah, thy Savior and thy Lightbringer. The guy has campaign posters with his picture that read only, “BELIEVE.” It’s religious imagery.
Tony:
If the Republicans can engage in humour at Obama’s expense, why can’t Obama engage in a little self-parody? Why does the so-called “humour” of the American Right-wingers always have to be credited, while the Democrats’ humour is never allowed to be taken seriously?
Obama is no more “messianic” or “arrogant” than any other historic figure in America’s past who proposed social reform: they all used the language of Biblical fundamentalism, from William Jennings Bryan, to Teddy Roosevelt, to FDR, to Martin Luther King–and sometimes to very good, socially beneficial effect. The contemporary notion that this usage is out of bounds and un-traditional betrays you Americans’ total ignorance of your own history.
But another thing that is on display in this thread is the abhorrent theological compromise that contemporary American Catholicism has made with Fundamentalist, dispensationalist Protestantism, which has resulted in the total abandonment of economic and social justice as a value in American Catholicism. Newman said that the chief serious difference among thinking men was a theological–not a political–one, and I beieve that the abandonment of social justice teaching and “just war” theory by American Catholics comes as a result of the compromise with popularised, vulgar Calvinism that Morning’s Minion is always writing about. I think he’s dead-on regarding the spiritual culture of America.
I will repeat what I posted about this AntiChrist nonsense
For the record I am McCain support, a former Evangelical, and I have read all the books in the left behind series.
First let me say there is a subset of American Evangelicals , and Catholics I might add that are on the outlook for the anti Christ. Perhaps we all should be.
Also it is no secret that the facets of Obama and this race send the usual alarm signs that people of course grasp on.
I also have talked to these good people many times on a Internet forum and in person.That being said I had a few concerns about the ad when I first heard of it for the reasons you gave.
However after seeing it it was brilliant. That ad could have taken two tacts and tones. However it took the tact of humor and mocking. On a few of the forums I visit that include a ton of SEC football boards where Evangelicals often pipe in on politics the reaction was amusement. These were the same people that talked about look at the Obama and now look at this verse. In fact since that ad the number of posts I have seen on the Obama and book of Revelations have gone down a great deal.
McCain does not make him the anti Christ or is a sending the subliminal message he is indeed THE false prophet but a sort of a guy with not much substance and is a creation of celebrity.
I stand by that and in a way the McCain ad does Obama a huge favor. The Obama in that ad bears no resemblance to the anti Christ character in the Left Behind books. Obama initial appearance in Berlin proclaiming himself “Citizen of the World” speaking to chanting Germans was not the best thing to sooth peoples nerves in this camp. A camp that has many Populist and blue dog democrats. However McCain takes a event that perhaps could and maybe did send chill down a few spines and makes it humorous. THIS IS NOT THE ONE (or the ANTI CHRIST) but just some regular American politician.
Now this is my viewpoint but most of my neighbors and friends are Evangelicals and were biog readers of the left behind series. Though I should note that try to put all Evangelicals, Fundamentalist, and Pentecostals into one group as supporting the theological viewpoint of that book in all its facets is folly. However from the reaction I see around me the McCain ad did what I described above
Again, I REPEAT, to Mr. JH, and to “Tony” and to all the rest of you dumb asses in America who can only recognise the vulgar, stupid joke of a moronic Right-wing Republican like McCain, who is unable to employ irony in humour: when Barack is talking about “light” “shining down” and recognition that you MUST vote for him, he’s PARODYING himself–and being the EXACT OPPOSITE of the humourless prig you want to take him for–and you’re all too STUPID to recognise it!
Don’t any of you Obama apologists find this patently offensive? A light shining down from God prompting you to vote for Barack? Showing you the manifestation of a diety [epiphany]?
If you’re outraged at McCain for pointing out and poking fun at these kinds of statements, shouldn’t you, if you are intellectually honest, be outraged at Obama for saying them?
Where were all of you when Bush took the first few verses of the gospel of John and inserted “America” where the Word should be? Where was your outrage?
Michael
In case people don’t know what you are talking about, he said: “Tomorrow is September the 12th. A milestone is passed, and a mission goes on. Be confident. Our country is strong. And our cause is even larger than our country. Ours is the cause of human dignity; freedom guided by conscience and guarded by peace. This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind. That hope drew millions to this harbor. That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not overcome it.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020911-3.html
GW Bush, Ellis Island, Sept 11, 2002.
If the Republicans can engage in humour at Obama’s expense, why can’t Obama engage in a little self-parody? Why does the so-called “humour” of the American Right-wingers always have to be credited, while the Democrats’ humour is never allowed to be taken seriously?
Digby, If Obama were self deprecating, then I’d agree. I have never seen a more humorless, thin-skinned (oops, I said “skin”, does that make me racist?) and angry politician. Every other day the Obama campaign is taking offense at one thing or another.
But if Obama is making fun of himself, then what is the problem with Republicans “joining in the fun”?
Where were all of you when Bush took the first few verses of the gospel of John and inserted “America” where the Word should be? Where was your outrage?
Michael,
I wasn’t outraged at that. I wasn’t outraged at the McCain ad, and I wasn’t outraged at Obama’s religious imagery. That was the point. I was commenting on selective outrage from Obama supporters. Would you like to speak to that?
I wasn’t outraged at that. I wasn’t outraged at the McCain ad, and I wasn’t outraged at Obama’s religious imagery. That was the point. I was commenting on selective outrage from Obama supporters. Would you like to speak to that?
Exactly, Michael. Your brain is in a rut here, as I made that same point in the other thread. There’s no one around here who is acting “outraged” over Obama. All we’re saying is that it’s kind of silly to single out McCain. In fact, I said in the other thread that if you made an ad criticizing Bush’s use of religious rhetoric, that would be fair game — and that I would view it as ridiculously partisan for anyone to complain that YOU were the one misusing religious rhetoric.
And speaking of religious allusions, think about your approach here. You strained and twisted and denied every time I mentioned that any biblically literate Christian would immediately have thought of the book of Acts when Obama spoke of a “light coming down from somewhere” and giving you an “epiphany.” You didn’t recognize the allusion (you even had to ask where in the book of Acts), and so you refused to admit that anyone else could perceive an allusion either.
Of course, maybe you were just being (extremely) charitable to Obama. OK, then, how about giving a similarly charitable interpretation to the Bush quote? After all, it’s not exactly true that Bush put “America” in the book of John. Look again:
Our country is strong. And our cause is even larger than our country. Ours is the cause of human dignity; freedom guided by conscience and guarded by peace. This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind. That hope drew millions to this harbor. That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not overcome it.”
First, Bush notes that the cause is “even larger than our country.” You might come up with a way to disagree, but I think it is pretty obvious that he is going to refer to something “larger than our country,” not merely to America itself. Then he identifies what is “larger than our country”: the “cause of human dignity.” He then says that the cause of human dignity is the “ideal of America” — not America itself — and that further it is the “hope of all mankind.” By the time he gets to the quotation from the book of John, he’s no longer referring to “America” as shining in the darkness . . . rather, he’s claiming that the “hope of all mankind” — namely, the “cause of human dignity” — is what shines in the darkness.
Now you can still criticize him for referring to the cause of human dignity rather than to the Word.
Policraticus,
Here is an old post of yours where you link to a pro-Obama video and comment: “Anyone else picture Obama entering Washington, DC on a donkey when they watch this one?”
Question: In this post, were you mocking Christianity, or were you just using Christian imagery to mock pro-Obama silliness?
Michael,
What Bush said just wasn’t all that outrageous. Obama making himself out to be Messianic isn’t all that outrageous (it seems to be rather good politics).
And McCain mocking the Messiah for making himself out to be the Messiah is pretty darn funny.
As I said above a fundamental shift has taken place in recent days and weeks. Comedians are now willing to make fun of Obama (which started with John Stuart’s “It’s okay to make jokes about Obama” gag). The Holy Field of Invulnerability that doth surroundouth the Lightbringer and Messiah hath been broken by the forces of darkness. Woe unto them! And the liberal media, faithful disciples, worshipers and servants of the Most Holy Redeemer of Mankind, the Messiah, worketh mightily on His behalf to restore thine Holy Field of Invulnerability.
More of the same– now that’s change I can believe in!
For one of the best pieces of satire, read this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece
It’s satire on Obama’s trip to the Holy Land and Europe… written entirely in King James style language. Hilarious.
And in that post, Poli even linked approvingly to Blackadder’s earlier post titled “The Obamessiah”!
In this post, were you mocking Christianity, or were you just using Christian imagery to mock pro-Obama silliness?
As I’ve made clear, I don’t take the McCain video as mocking Christianity. What I have taken issue with is the reduction of Christian imagery and belief to politically utilitarian means for political gain.
Parenthetically, I will remind you that the video to which you refer was not done by the Obama campaign or the McCain campaign.
As I’ve made clear, I don’t take the McCain video as mocking Christianity. What I have taken issue with is the reduction of Christian imagery and belief to politically utilitarian means for political gain.
Poli,
Like Obama did with his “light will shine down from somewhere… (notice the pause, I bet he was going to say “heaven” and thought better of it) statement?
Agree that Obama is guilty too, and I’ll drop it.
But there seems to be a different bar set for Republicans than Democrats.
Policraticus,
Faith. Hope. Change. The 3 theological virtues.
Discuss.
Tony,
The Messiah can not make errors. Silly, if he could he wouldn’t be the Messiah.
Obama is like the charismatic man that Aristotle discusses– by sheer virtue of his own greatness he is not bound by the laws and standards we mere mortals are bound by. It’s not that there are different standards… it’s that through HOPE Obama has CHANGED and has transcended beyond standards. And mocking that fact should be punished. Severely.
I was commenting on selective outrage from Obama supporters. Would you like to speak to that?
Sure. My outrage, distinct from other VN contributors, was directly pointed to McCain’s tactic of explicitly lying about Obama, not his “use of religious imagery.” I am not convinced that Obama uses necessarily “religious” language about himself. You all see something I do not see. Yet, when Bush does so by explicitly lifting lines from scripture and placing America at the center of salvation history instead of Christ, you all say nothing. Or you continue to defend him for doing so.
You strained and twisted and denied every time I mentioned that any biblically literate Christian would immediately have thought of the book of Acts when Obama spoke of a “light coming down from somewhere” and giving you an “epiphany.” You didn’t recognize the allusion (you even had to ask where in the book of Acts), and so you refused to admit that anyone else could perceive an allusion either.
If anything, I would notice a reference to the epiphany, not to Paul’s conversion. Use of the word “epiphany” does not constitute a reference to the Bible.
OK, then, how about giving a similarly charitable interpretation to the Bush quote? After all, it’s not exactly true that Bush put “America” in the book of John.
YES HE DID: “This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind. That hope drew millions to this harbor. That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not overcome it.”
Compare with John chapter one: “What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
If you don’t see it, I can hardly take charges of being “selectively outraged” seriously.
He doesn’t say America, he said “the ideal of America,” which for an evangelical is an America guided by the hand of Providence. It’s a bit like Reagan calling America a “city shining on a hill.” Both are allusions to Scripture, and American political discourse has been filled with such allusions since the founding era.
Both are allusions to Scripture, and American political discourse has been filled with such allusions since the founding era.
And it’s idolatry. There is no other word for it. I don’t care what Bush substituted for Christ in that scripture passage — America, hot dogs, four wheelers, Budweiser — HE REPLACED CHRIST WITH SOMETHING ELSE. That’s idolatry.
I am sick of hearing people criticize Obama for supposedly using “messianic” terms like “HOPE” (OH MY GOD, NOT HOPE!!), and yet the idolatry of American exceptionalism is tolerated and even celebrated.
“… a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany … and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama” – Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.
January 7, 2008.
Clear reference to religious imagery. Discuss.
Faith. Hope. Change. The three theological virtues. Discuss.
Michael’s refusal to acknowledge reality, and trying to blame Bush for something Obama did. Discuss.
Denial. It aint a river in Egypt anymore. Discuss.
Clear reference to religious imagery.
Is it a reference to religious imagery, or is it in fact religious imagery?
Whether or not it is indeed “religious” imagery, Obama was making a joke about himself. Bush was not.
I’m not blaming Bush for “what Obama did.” I’m making a comparison and showing how if anyone is guilty of “selective outrage” it is the McCain and Bush supporters who turn a blind eye to blatant idolatry.
“They” used to throw in jail (never to be seen again) guys that criticized Joe Stalin, too.
“They” are killing opposition pols and fixing elections in [the current Catholic Socialist Justice experiment gone wild] in Chicago, no no no, that’s Zimbabwe.
Time in the tank. Anyhow, the man spent 26 years as a muslim, and in HS was a cocaine dealer. He then decided the politics dodge was a better gig. I have seen nothing that leads me to believe he’s other than a huckster. If he wasn’t running for prez, he’d make it as a pusher or three card monty dealer – he sure can talk the . . .
Hope. Idyllic idiots.
Change. I know. I’m banned.
Michael Iafrate, I usually agree with everything you write here, and, in this instance, I DO agree with you that the McCain campaign is seeking to paint Obama as some kind of vaguely anti-Christian Messiah, but it seems to me to be pointless to argue about the use of Christian Fundamentalist imagery in poltical discourse there: this kind of expression of American “exceptionalism” is part of the discourse of both the left AND the right in America, and, although you’re correct that it’s blasphemous, the average American Christians–including the Catholics–just don’t recognise it; they long ago deified their country.
Bush: I am president because Jesus put me here. (Or so people claim Bush to think)
Obama: I am the chosen one, the new Joshua, destined to lead this country into the promised land.
Exactly where is the change?
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/obamas_selma_speech_text_as_de.html
I am not offended by Religious imagery in politrics. Of course Obama uses it to a new level and that is what being made fun of .
I have to laugh when I hear people call these NEW lows and horrible negative politics. Much of this is pretty fun and light
…but it seems to me to be pointless to argue about the use of Christian Fundamentalist imagery in poltical discourse there: this kind of expression of American “exceptionalism” is part of the discourse of both the left AND the right in America, and, although you’re correct that it’s blasphemous, the average American Christians–including the Catholics–just don’t recognise it; they long ago deified their country.
You are absolutely right. Obama divinizes the United States just as much as Bush did. I just think it’s an outright lie to say that Obama is portraying himself as a Messiah. I agree that it might be pointless to argue against this type of Christianizing of American exceptionalism, in that most of the people who read VN will never be able to shake that form of idolatry because it’s so ingrained in the American mentality. But nevertheless, it needs to be denounced for what it is.
Obama: I am the chosen one, the new Joshua, destined to lead this country into the promised land.
Show us the texts where Obama says this.
Of course Obama uses it to a new level and that is what being made fun of .
Again, show us the texts.
I have never seen a more humorless, thin-skinned (oops, I said “skin”, does that make me racist?) and angry politician. Every other day the Obama campaign is taking offense at one thing or another.
Tony, even the merest modicum of Christian charity should tell you that, as the first African-American candidate in the history of politics in your country, he HAS to take himself more seriously in public than he probably wants to or even does, in private. His people, the African Americans whose sensibilities you mock even here, in this supposedly Catholic blog, would DIE if he didn’t take himself “seriously” at every single moment.
He’s walking on very thin ice in America, even if he doesn’t win the Presidency. If you right-wing Catholics had even an iota of decency, you’d cut him some slack–just as he IS cutting McCain a great deal of slack, in refusing to discuss the “old white-haired dude’s” adulteries, his trophy wife, her purchase for him of a Senate seat in Arizona and his increasingly apparent senility.
I am the chosen one, the new Joshua, destined to lead this country into the promised land.
Just read the speech you linked to. Obama does not say this in his speech. If anything, he is using Messianic language about America, not himself.
The problem, of course, is that if you all condemned Obama for what he is actually saying rather than making stuff up, it would also condemn your support for George W. Bush and the idolatry of the American project in general.
I suppose it’s easier and less dangerous to you personally to just make things up.
What I have taken issue with is the reduction of Christian imagery and belief to politically utilitarian means for political gain.
But you’re not answering Blackadder’s question, which is that your previous post on Obama did exactly the same thing. Clearly there’s a contradiction here. Did you change your mind for some reason? If so, could you put it into words?
YES HE DID: “This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind. That hope drew millions to this harbor. That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not overcome it.”
No, I already explained why the quotation from the book of John was grammatically referring back to the “ideal” of “human dignity,” not to “America” itself. If you can’t answer that point, so be it. As I said, though, it’s fair to criticize Bush for replacing the “Word” with anything else, including “human dignity.”
Michael,
It seems that you lack the ability to discuss one issue without somehow also discussing Bush and finding a way to bash him.
What Bush did or didn’t say, and how he did or didn’t say it, 7 years ago is a very different issue. Valid topic for a blog post– yes, and probably a good one too. But (possible) idolatry on the right doesn’t justify (possible) idolatry on the left.
Because Bush did X doesn’t make it right for Obama to do X (or Y). The two are separate and distinct and must be evaluated as such. Both McCain and Obama must be evaluated on their own merits, not on things said by other people 7 years ago.
Obama has the nickname “Messiah” for a reason, just like Cheney has the nickname “Swinging Dick” and “Big Time” for a reason, and Clinton had the nickname “Slick Willy” for a reason and Nixon had the nickname “Tricky Dick” for a reason. Obama is referred to as the Messiah because he and his campaign work to create Messianic and Religious feelings about him.
Obama is referred to as the Messiah because he and his campaign work to create Messianic and Religious feelings about him.
In a general sense, yes, but only in the sense that any presidential candidate will do so. But in reality, Obama is charged with referring to himself as the Messiah, which is a lie.
In what way has the McCain campaign made McCain out to be Messianic? Clinton? Gore? Kerry? Dole? Bush I? (I don’t recall any campaigns before then, but I followed all those campaigns closely). At times they might have used religious imagery to support a position or view, but they never made themselves out to be Messianic.
Have you actually watched the ad in question?
Face it Michael, your argument is as bankrupt. Obama’s use of religious imagery and his campaign’s constant attempts to paint him in religious and messianic terms caught up with him and your Golden Boy got burned. He ran a risk by taking it to a new level, and he lost the gamble. Just admit it, laugh at a funny ad, and move on.
This has nothing to do what Bush said 7 years ago (that could be a separate and valid issue). It has to do with the Messiah not being so messianic after all.
It seems that some here have real trouble recognizing that the approach of “Bush did X 7 years ago, so that excuses Obama today” is a horrible logical fallacy. All candidates and presidents must be evaluated independently and on their own terms. “Bush did X 7 years ago, so it’s okay to support Obama today” is also a horrible logical fallacy.
Those fallacies do violence to critical thinking and are insulting to logic and reason. Ratzinger has said, “Whatever is stupid can’t be Catholic, and whatever is Catholic can’t be stupid.”
Let’s stop using stupid arguments. They’re un-Catholic.
At times they might have used religious imagery to support a position or view, but they never made themselves out to be Messianic.
I’m talking about a secular messianism. Marvin and Ingle’s book Blood Sacrifice and the Nation have a good treatment of the topic. I recommend it.
I think Obama’s campaign does the usual appeals to a secular sort of messianism. But Obama’s campaign is NOT using “religious imagery” to make Obama out to be a Messiah.
Yes I have seen the ad. It was all obviously quotes out of context. I “discussed” this with the ever persistent SB in another thread.
It seems that some here have real trouble recognizing that the approach of “Bush did X 7 years ago, so that excuses Obama today” is a horrible logical fallacy.
I agree that that is a stupid approach. But it’s not the approach I am taking. I am not excusing Obama for anything. In fact, I condemn him insofar as he does the same thing Bush did: divinize America. But he is not divinizing himself or making out like he is the Messiah. It’s time to be truthful and accurate about what he is doing and what he is not doing.
In a general sense, yes, but only in the sense that any presidential candidate will do so.
Which other presidential candidates have done so?
But in reality, Obama is charged with referring to himself as the Messiah, which is a lie.
Actually, that‘s a lie, or at least a mischaracterization; Obama is charged with propping himself up with messianic imagery to convey an impression.
Michael,
you’re almost to the point where you get the joke and why the ad is really funny. The guy doesn’t claim to be the Messiah, but he props himself up with messianic imagery and conveys that impression.
The golden boy got caught.
Michael,
Most people realize that Obama does not think he is the Messiah. We have also had a ton fo omages and sotires on the other hand in the MSM secular press of how some of his supporters ( a few more than usual ) see him in unusual Messiah like ways.
THe ad is met to be fun and that is what makes it affective. McCain is not making or debunking any grand theological statement here.
Michael
I am not really making things up. If I was making stuff up or wanted too why would I give a link to the full text of his speech? But according to you I am dangerous so perhaps I cannot explain it.
Again I am showing a use of Religous Imagery. I think there is a subtle linkage there of Him ( OBAMA as a new Joshua) leading the JOshua generation.
I suppose I don’t find the linking of scriptures or their lessons or their images as representing some heresy because I guess beiong raised around AFrrican American Spirtuality that iw often full of it.
Obama has made a few over steps here and that is what is being made fun of. That is all
Digby Obama has been given a ton of slack.
However we learn to even criitcize Obama one gets charges of racism Incredible!!!! This is occuring all over the place not kust on blogs!!!!
Team Obama response is not because he is the First Presidential African American and must take him self very seriously 24/7. I was a fundamental misfire that started with his rapid response team.
I know it might shock folks but much of we see are the judgments by those folks and not the thought out views of the people themselves running
McCain is not making or debunking any grand theological statements here.
Actually, I suspect that that is NOT the truth:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1830590,00.html
Time, however, will tell if McCain is engaged in a serious effort to recruit the Christian Fundamentalist rabble who gave Ohio to Bush in 2004. My suspicion is that what’s left of the Rove alliance will try to regroup itself in order to keep a Republican in the White House. If that’s true, you can expect to see MORE of these ads with Biblical-fundamentalist resonances from McCain’s campaign.
Normally, if American Catholics weren’t what they are (completely in the dark intellectually as to the way Fundamentalist Protestant theology meshes with social-Darwinist economics), they’d be able to recognise that the religious temper of this kind of political thinking is as much anti-Catholic as it’s anti-”liberal” or anti-Muslim, etc.
I have the impression that a lot of folk writing here have, unlike myself, never spent much time in the American South and don’t understand how the genteel modern Republican racism of that region knits together so nicely with Biblical fundamentalism (curses of Ham, and the like) and have no conceivable notion of the extent to which, in the minds of country-club Republican racists down there, “liberalism” (i.e. anything that smacks of “social justice teachings”) is almost identical with “Kennedy-like” Catholicism.
It is also very difficult for American Catholics to understand how important Satan and the “Antichrist” are to the adherents of Fundamentalist Protestantism and “dispensationalism.” Even the merest HINT in an ad by McCain that Obama is the “Antichrist” will be picked up immediately by these wackos–who are CONSTANTLY awaiting the appearance of this creature under EVERY “bush” (pun intended). McCain and his operative know this: they know that the Bible-thumpers and the “dispensationalists” have recently been the most essential component of the Rove 50+1 alliance. If they don’t turn out in November for him, McCain loses.
And I suppose THIS is just a “harmless joke,” too, right, you disingenuous Obama-hating Catholic Fundos:
?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/so-funny-ross.html
Oh, but he DESERVES it, doesn’t he?—because he takes himself so seriously and he’s such a PRIG, right?
And Edwards and his dying wife DESERVE to be “outed” as an adulterer and an adultery-enabler, right?
And, meanwhile, ads like THIS one—which are the real substance of the Obama campaign—are sending out a false, “messianic” hope of “dubious” change, according to you stinking, bigoted Catholic fundamentalists (all the while that Obama refuses to say a SINGLE WORD about the senile ineptitude of his opponent), right?
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185304443/bctid1717903009
You know what? I’ve said this before on another thread here, but I’ll say it again: the mercilessness, the cynicism of what you people’s cruel theology seems to justify STINKS in the nostrils of your God!
It would be quicker, but I worried that you had gotten lost in the jungle of rhetoric. Often times, a bit of symbolic logic is an apt way of clearing the brush. You ask if it would be quicker for me to make an assertion. Yes, but an assertion is nothing without an argument. I provide an argument in logical terms in order to strengthen my claim.
Response:
Well, it wasn’t really symbolic logic (although you can actually argue for it). But the important point is that Michael is heading towards analytic philosophy :-)
digby — is there any place in the world that you haven’t supposedly lived?
Digby Redstate uses parody and people often understand it
As Ross pointed out in response to the always so excitable Andrew Sullivan
“And so they are – along with shirts that say “The Enemy of My Enemy Is McCain” and “Cheney-Bush ’08″ and “United Embittered Gun-Toting Jesus-Loving States of America.” This pattern would seem to suggest that they’re calling Obama the Antichrist as (ahem) a joke – one that’s far closer to the “Frodo Has Failed” gag than to, say, the endless, non-joking Bush-Hitler comparisons (which, for the record, have a stronger Google presence than the Obama-Antichrist meme), and one whose humor depends entirely on the well-documented tendency among journalists and Obamaphiles (but I repeat myself) to portray the Democratic nominee as some sort of messiah figure. This strikes me as just ever-so-slightly different from using subliminal messages to persuade nutty fundamentalists that Obama really is Nicolae Carpathia, which is what the McCain campaign stands accused of doing.”
McCain ad looking back was brilliant and it is the gift that keeps on giving .Seen by this post that is parroting and reprodocing the latest nutyy talking point.
As Rod Deher pointed out over at Crunchy Con in his post” Obama as Antichrist liberal freakout”
“I’m lovin’ it. Honestly, the utter freakout of media liberals about those half-baked McCain ads is hilarious to watch. These are the same people who have built Obama up as a secular messiah who’s going to come save us from the wicked legacy of Chimpy McBushitler, and when McCain starts to poke fun at the pop sanctimony surrounding Obama’s image, these folks can’t handle the teasing. If Obama becomes president, and has to undergo the usual criticism that presidents do, they’re all going to spontaneously combust trying to police the heretics.
Do they really think this kind of paranoia helps Obama? Surely they can’t. And yet…”
And yet indeed. Electing a President is a personal choice partly because they are in your face so much. The reaction of the ususal suspects is being noted far more than the ad itself now
Digby ,
I am sort of working by way backward through your post. One post because I coppyed a passted a few paragraphs has gotten caught up in the Moderation Auto thing. SO I responded to part of your concerns
As to understanding I think I do. I grew up and live in the deep South. I have family and freinds that are in the Evangelcial camp and also I read all the LEFT Behind books and I am former Evangelical.
Your understanding or veiwpoint of Republicans down here of anything that smells of Catholic SOcial Justice or Kennedy Catholcicsim is quite false I think.
Let us not forget the SOuth has a very Populist tradition. THe land of FDR lovers and people that though Huey Long was a Saint. Many of these people have been huge democrats and still lean that way to a large degree in areas
Has anybody been denied communion for voting against Obama? when that happens i will worry about his messiah-ism.
If you right-wing Catholics had even an iota of decency, you’d cut him some slack
Digby, I refuse to cut this man a sliver of slack. I will work with every fiber of my being to see that he’s never elected. Optimally, he should be so damaged that not only does he lose the presidential election, but will lose his Senate seat and can head back with his tail between his legs to Chicago for his weekly dose of “God damn America”.
He has advocated that the most helpless among us, those babies who have survived abortion be left to die. This makes him unfit to lead in my book, and no amount of “social justice” can balance that, in my book.
This is not an “affirmative action” campaign. Obama gets no slack because he’s black. If Obama wants to run with the big dogs, he’s going to have to get off the porch.
As a last note, I thought that this video was hysterical. What made it even more humorous was the reaction of you, Michael I, and “Morning’s Minion”.
You asked for it, SB-jerk:
In order: Manhattan; Georgia (USA); South Carolina (USA); France; Italy; Sri Lanka; India; Great Britain; Thailand; Pennsylvania (USA); Connecticut (USA); Arizona (USA); New Mexico (USA); and now the Federal Republic of Germany.
I also speak French fluently, Sinhala (the Sanskrit-based language of Sri Lanka–related to Bengali–moderately well), and am recovering my high school German.
The mercilessness, the cynicism of what you people’s cruel theology seems to justify STINKS in the nostrils of your God!
One of the best comments on this blog, ever.
As a last note, I thought that this video was hysterical. What made it even more humorous was the reaction of you, Michael I, and “Morning’s Minion”.
I don’t find lies humorous. It’s sad that you do.
What is indeed “humorous” is that many of you insist that the McCain ads are “just a joke,” “hyperbole,” “no big deal,” etc., and yet on the other hand insist that what they say is true, that they are deadly serious: that Obama presents himself as a Messiah. This suggests that many of you truly cannot think straight.
Well, Tony, if you want to keep Obama out of the White House, you’ve got your work cut out for you:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
McCain obviously needs your help, and your money–badly.
Try to match the $1000.00 that I’ve already given to Obama, as well as the $11, 500.00 that my family, collectively, have also given to him, by contributing to your favourite antedeluvian old fart needs some money for a complete make-over:
Well, it wasn’t really symbolic logic (although you can actually argue for it).
Point taken, Apolonio. It was more from chapter 1 of Bonevac’s two books on symbolic logic. Next time, I’ll incorporate the semantic tableaux.
But the important point is that Michael is heading towards analytic philosophy :-)
I am still resisting the seduction…I know flee into the open arms of Heidegger and Adorno!
have you young’ns realized that the ‘gulf ‘between analtyic and continental philosophy is becoming largely a thing of the past?
for example, habermas is thoroughly conversant with just about everybody, and rorty weaves all kinds of continental figures into his own stories with which he copes in the world…
Mark,
Yes, I do think that it is getting harder to distinguish between analytic and continental. I remember David Schrader and I were talking about how there isn’t really a divide anymore last year. My comment was more of a joke to Michael.
Michael,
Speaking of Heidegger, my friend Santiago Ramos told this joke to me. You know that story when Augustine saw the boy emptying out the ocean thimbleful by thimbleful? And then the angel told Augustine that the boy will empty out the ocean long before he can exhaust what can be said about God. Well, here’s a similar story.
Karl Rahner was walking around and saw a guy having sex with a pig. Rahner, with wonder, asked, “What are you trying to do?” The guy answered, “I’m trying to produce a man-pig!” Rahner responded, “That’s impossible! Plus, you are having sex with a male pig!” The guy answered, “Hey, I’ll produce a man-pig long before you can reconcile Heidegger and Chrstianity!”
digby — I was just curious, since you’re constantly claiming to have lived in some geographical region that is pertinent to any number of discussions. Quite a case of wanderlust you’ve got there, or else you’re on the run from the law. :)
Somebody really worked hard on those “jokes” Apolonio – and frankly
that somebody could have concocted a much more appropriate context/punchline than the man pig BS you offer us.
By the way you should never utter this “joke’ ever again if you want to be taken serious
as a philosopher and theologian – the fact that such crap swirls in your brain is actually rather telling.
Msgr Albacete and I enjoyed it when we heard it….man, we must really be far from that 7th mansion..
thanks, i’ll work on it.
Apolonio,
For what it’s worth, I got a chuckle out of the man-pig joke.
You are involved with C&L, I presume?
Yup, part of C-L, which is pretty much Opus Dei for lazy, bad, jerky, Catholics…those who are just pretty much just making it in the realm of grace, hanging by a thread. I remember Albacete telling me about the green book of hours C-L has. I looked at it and it looked very small. I said, “This looks very small.” And he said, “Yeah, and the thing is, you don’t have to say three psalms. Just pick one psalm for the time of the day. We’re effin* mystics, huh?”
Here’s an interesting story Albacete told me. Balthasar was here in America giving a lecture about something. Albacete, some Cardinal, and Balthasar were having dinner. After the dinner, when Balthasar was about to go out to give the lecture, there were a group of Charles Curran fans in line. Albacete and the Cardinal were walking behind Balthasar and Albacete asked the Cardinal, “What the hell are they doing here, these Curran people? I wonder what Balthasar thought of them.” After Albacete finished asking this question and when Balthasar passed through these people, Balthasar gave three loud farts. Albacete goes, “It’s the Trinity! From the bosom of God to the ass of Balthasar, He has told us what He thought of these guys!”
Is this Albacete fellow a failed comedian?
Classy.
:-)…nah, he just has a good sense of humor. It’s because in front of the Infinite, there is a sense of giddiness because of the disproportion. As he said, “The language of the inner life is not the language of experts, nor of eloquent dramatists, nor of a mature and healthy self-acceptance. The language of the inner life is a serene silence, a deep hurt, a boundless desire and, occasionally, a little laughter.”
I find Catholics who don’t have a good sense of humor to be boring and therefore, missing the whole context of Christianity. This priest is so human that you just have to love him. One day I was going to him for confession and I saw the room full of smoke. I asked, “Were you smoking?!?!” And he said, “I told Jesus that if I become priest, he has to deal with me.” He’s also a great theologian so you can talk to him about Rahner, Moltmann, the place of hispanics in America, and at the same time walk with him during confession as he smokes; he calls it “street confession.” He’s a saint.
While I have my doubts that the holy trinity of fart story really happened as told – give me a break, conveniently now there are “Charles Curran fans in the line”- Fr. Albacete certainly seems to be less a failed comedien and more a “Gesamtkunstwerk”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Albacete
I am sure this makes for some fun times at the Opus Dei Light.
Apolonio,
These are ‘inside jokes’ that are best left inside the small sectarian circles in which they’re told.
Of course, Heidegger–early or late–cannot be fully reconciled with Christianity. However, even a cursory reading of, say, the first few chapters of Ratzinger’s “Introduction to Christianity” shows the fruits of one theologian’s willingness to dialogue charitably with Heidegger as an outside, secular thinker.
The Curran joke was alot of labor for a little fizz at the end. Knowing Balthasar’s–a thinker whom I adore, btw–unfortunate habit in later yeras of uncharitably polemicizing, the joke could have just as well been directed toward followers of Rahner or any of the liberation theolgians. But my experience of such snide humor ( and I was a culprit in engaging in such humor all too often in my zealous past ,whenever I was an even more sprited young man than I am now) is that it functions for lazier academics as an excuse to not read and treat fairly the works of those who are the butt of their dismissive, swooping, howevever joking treatment.
[...] Morning’s Minion (right on cue), explains why this ad–just like every other McCain ad–is “racist” and demonstrates that the McCain campaign is sinking even further [...]
Wow, can you believe this Ad? If McCain is doing this to Obama now what do you think he’ll do to us? I’m wondering now if this POW business has also been exaggerated. Don’t trust this fellow. McCain has been showing his a_ _. This is an embarrassment for all Americans To top things off, he’s been hiding behind Palin’s skirt because he has nothing new to say other than try to distract people. He seems to be repeating some words/ideas that Obama has already said, for example “I’m for change” and “Enough!” This guy is a loser, no question about that. It is obvious by now that the less intellectuals are the ones supporting McCain. Notice all the college educated, well-rounded, more knowledgeable persons are supporting Obama. I’ve asked McCain supporting about issues he’s supported in the past. Most don’t even know and some just outright told me they support him because he is white! Can you believe these folks are putting their children’s future in a worse predicament we find ourselves in today because they can’t bring themselves to vote for a black man. Wow, that blows my mind! I don’t care if the guy is GREEN, I want a better future for my children and McCain just WON’T DO!