The right has latched onto the notion that Obama sees himself in messianic terms, and that his followers worship him as a cult leader. We see this kind of mockery all the time, even on the Catholic blogosphere. This tactic, however, is nothing other than a tried-and-trusted Rovian tactic of taking a public figure’s greatest strength (in this case, inspiring rhetoric) and turning it into a negative. It represents the inability to make one’s case on substantive policy grounds.
Those who claim to respect Christianity are the first to mock Obama with pseudo-Christian imagery. Again, this should not be a surprise– these are the same people who claim to honor military service and yet exactly four years ago paraded around a convention wearing purple-heart band aids to mock John Kerry’s war injuries. We need to recognize that this a mere political tactic. Republicans have not been able to hold their own in a policy debate since at least the mid-1990s and so need to tear into the character of their opponent, turning him into a figure of fun, destroying his credibility. In service of this goal, there is no attack that is too low, too vicious. This kind of politics is gravely sinful. And yet, sadly, many Catholic bloggers, who really should know better, are buying into this method of “defining” Obama(making inappropriate references to the second person of the Trinity in the process).
Of course, this line of attack is not grounded in reality. The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait has come out with a timely essay debunking the “Obama as messiah” storyline. He goes through the various quotes that are pulled out of context by the attack dogs, and shows that they have rather innocent meanings. He shows partisans like Charles Krauthammer arguing that Obama is saying the opposite of what he is really saying. But there’s something else going on, Chait notes, something deeper. Many Republicans feel perturbed because it is Republicans who are supposed to embrace the cult of character and personality, while Democrats are content to put forward a sequence of dry policy wonks that do not connect well with the public (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry). Here’s Chait:
“Now, it’s certainly true that some enthusiastic Obama fans have displayed unusual zeal for their candidate. Yet it was only a few years ago–before President Bush’s approval ratings tanked and conservatives decided that he wasn’t actually a conservative at all–that the right had its own personality cult. There was DC 9/11, the Stalinist-style propaganda film reimagining Bush as an action hero boldly defying the terrorists on September 11. National Review, which has published innumerable articles in recent weeks decrying Obama’s personality cult, was running advertisements for bronze busts depicting Bush in his “Mission Accomplished” fighter-pilot getup.
After September 11, James Merritt, then-president of the Southern Baptist Convention, told Bush that he had been chosen by God. Bush nodded. (Fred Barnes reported this encounter in The Weekly Standard, concluding, “The stage was set for Bush to be God’s agent of wrath.”) As Time reported, “Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment.” Claiming you’ve been chosen by God to lead the world in a titanic clash of good versus evil is pretty much the definition of messianic.
The short-lived cult of Bush, in fact, merely reprised the cult of Reagan that lives on to this day. Reagan kitsch has never gone out of style among Republicans. Numerous conservative pundits have suggested that any public policy question can be solved simply by asking “What would Reagan do?” The Heritage Foundation has a dedicated wwrd website. If, say, Brookings had inserted Obama’s name into a phrase usually reserved for Jesus, you can only imagine what conservatives would make of it.”
Can you imagine supporters of Obama talking about him in the terms that Republicans today refer to Reagan? The man has practically been deified! Even worse, Catholics have not proved immune to this treatment. In possibly the most egregious example, a blogger known as the Anchoress once sought the prayers of “that great cloud of witnesses within the Communion of Saints”, and included the name of Ronald Reagan!
Less provocatively, Catholic bloggers have written about Reagan along the following lines: “Having suffered through economic hard times and a morale deficit in the late 70′s and early 80′s, the country needed to have hope again. By 1984 most of the country felt as if they had weathered the storm and that day light was finally breaking.” There is that theme of hope again! And yet, if somebody used the exact same language about Obama, I can fully predict the mocking and derisive response. But was Reagan attacked in these terms? I think not, and nor should be have been.
This quote is especially apt in today’s environment, for the rise of Obama represents a genuinely yearning for a break with the awful Bush administration, in circumstance similar to those that inspired many people to rally behind Reagan in 1980. Whether Obama can deliver is a different story (Reagan did not), but that can only be ascertained by looking at his policies, and not falling in line behind the typical Rovian distortion. Let’s expose the hypocrisy for what it is.
Out of Obama mouth came the words “I’m the one”
And NO ONE has ever been denied communion for voting AGAINST Obama. Whereas this is the kind of support Bush enjoyed:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44152
“The Rev. Chan Chandler of East Waynesville Baptist Church in Waynesville said in a sermon before the election that anyone who would vote for Kerry should “repent or resign” from membership, according to nine members who took their complaints to WLOS-TV in Asheville, N.C”
I don’t remember a single christian voice raised in protest.
I personally find the response of some Obama supporters much more humorous than anything else.
“American Prayer”
this site is too biased to be called Catholic, unsubscribed.
Didn’t Michael Kinsey use the “Republicans go after the candidate’s greatest strength” argument in the Washington Post on Saturday?
See ya, Mike.
The Messiah meme goes much further.
Speech acts do not have their potency in and of themselves; the effects they set off in the cultural-political contexts in which they always already operate are part of the power they yield.
People claiming innocuousness with the REPEATED usage of the meme “Messiah” as applied to Obama either cannot read the signs of the times in which they live; fail to understand the passions and prejudices that such a charge activates; or are simple liars.
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Or, as the Viennese say, Vo nix kummt nix.
MM’s perpetual apologia pro vita Obamana alone is evidence enough.
It’s one thing to not like the GOP, another to brown nose Obama with sheer delight.
Chait addresses the supposed “one” comment.
Is it a mere coincidence sociologically that the places where the messiah/anti-Christ “humor” most flourishes is the American South?
This about RedState:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/8/114239/3876/820/564634
And from where does Jay Anderson and Mark Shea come?
I’m sympathetic to this argument.
But I think the behavior you decry is supposed to be a joke deriding some of Obama’s more sycophantic devotees.
“MM’s perpetual apologia pro vita Obamana alone is evidence enough.‘
So Bush’s messianism . . and Reagan’s. . . is kay because it’s unapologetic?
When you have to deny something so often and so stridently and you just can’t understand why everyone else doesn’t get it? When you have to bring in examples of other peoples bad behavior to make your point. When you are on the verge of concluding that everyone must be idiots …. Then it is time to go and take some good quiet private time reflecting on the nature of the word and your place in it.
“Everyone else” is just the wingnuts who are too comfortably at home the ‘conservative” Catholic blogosphere.
I would love any constant passer of the “Messiah” meme have to explain their actionswith, say, their local bishop and three African American children in the room.
“blogger known as the Anchoress once sought the prayers of “that great cloud of witnesses within the Communion of Saints”, and included the name of Ronald Reagan!”
THe Anchoress is not making Reagan a Messiah. In fact the whole tenor of the post is the cloud of witnesses where she through in besides Reagan -George Washington, John Admas and JOhn Quincy Adams. THis was by the way in 2005
Mark,
Who are you referring to, specifically? Who is a wingnut? Are you talking about me?
Mark D.,
The imagery is there for all to see. We may disagree with our interpretation, but I am confident that a solid case can be made that the Obama campaign has utilized messianic imagery in their campaign, and have certainly not discouraged the use of such descriptions and imagery by their supporters. The meme is so complete that unlike the rather isolated examples in the actual post, the references are everywhere in the MSM. I just read a reference to the ‘Hallowed text message’ about who the VP pick would be.
So yes, I would believe it is a rather easy defense to make, and nothing to be ashamed of.
Ross Douthat — no “wingnut” himself — offers a series of examples showing how this meme isn’t as divorced from reality as one might think.
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/dept_of_headscratchers.php
“Is it a mere coincidence sociologically that the places where the messiah/anti-Christ “humor” most flourishes is the American South?”
Mark,
Being that the South is one of the most religious part of the nation I suspect you will see a lot of this humor there. Thought the anti Chist is pretty much a world wide thing. Those Omen movies were sure popular
On another topic I think Jay is from Ohio
Mark D.
Counter-challange time, you got your bishop in the room with 3 children. You explain why you might vote for Obama in spite of his explicit support for ESCR, Human Cloning, Euthanasia, and Gay Marriage?
There are two different issues:
How all politicians more or less play on messianic imagery…
Why the right is making such and pointed, prolonged and ugly issue or Obama’s doing so…
Jeremy,
Please read the work done here be the capable posters on “Faithful Citizenship”.
I respect your decision to vote for Mr. McCain (I voted for him in the PA primary in 2000 himself, although i do not believe he is the same politician know as he was then, unfortunately), if you have reflected responsibly and come to the personal, prudential judgement that he is the candidate who in action will be most pro-life. As I have explained elsewhere, I have reasoned otherwise. And I strongly disagree with his views on abotion and ESCR. I would answer to a bishop anytime, as I have reflected long and hard about MY personal vote.
Additionally, voting against a candidate is one thing; politicking against him in a way that plays on the fear of the foreign Other to such an extent that in can play into actions such as the folied assassination attempt on Senator Obama last night is quite another.
“Why the right is making such and pointed, prolonged and ugly issue or Obama’s doing so…”
Mark I think because the Obama folks and how it developed made it so easy. I know what MM is getting at with this post and trying to porve an overall point that the charismatic leader is not a meme that is just stuck to the dems.
However just how it worked out Obama played this in a over the top fashion or should i say his supporters. MM cites a TNR article but a few months backs there were quite a few at TNR online that were tying of the Obama Messiah think from a segment of his supporters.
His charisma on the stump is being a tad neutralized by these pretty fun and light ad.
Anyway Obam at times opened himself up to this by his own ads. The Super Bowl ads was awesome he made but combined with the Obama Messiah mentality at the time that was being reported on it kinda of created a perfect storm
Regrdless Obama main problem he has right now are some funny ads mostly beiong played on You Tube. I highly suspect that is not causing the poll number problems
Additionally, there is a legitimate role for the government to play in ensuring the common good, and I think Obama’s legitimate appeal to this purpose–in accordance with Catholic Social Teaching–is viciously freramed as messianism by those who think the only legitimate roles of government are limited to only defense and the protection of private wealth and its transfer upwards, even more away fom the havenots to the haves.
Zach,
Unfortunately, I did not read anything you wrote hear until your question to me, so I cannot tell if my charge is applicable to you. Anyway, That is a question you must personally answer.
“politicking against him in a way that plays on the fear of the foreign Other to such an extent that in can play into actions such as the folied assassination attempt on Senator Obama last night is quite another.
”
HOw is McCain doing this?
Mark D.
I have read the posts, and I have listened to my Bishop’s speeches and encyclicals, and my Pastors homilies, who have had a lot more to say about the issues facing our day than VN posters. I doubt I will vote for McCain, my chosen candidate has his problems as well.
Back on to the thread, in my personal opinion, McCain’s ads have been kid glove stuff. The images of Obama in the ads are not frightening or even really mocking. He is not shown as a buffoon, or a scary ‘other’. He is shown as a young candidate riding a wave of adulation.
Random question–Where have you guys found that Obama supports euthanasia?
There is a segment of American society that has been religiously trained (by the likes of Pastors Hagee, Parsley et al. ) to look for the Anti-Christ as though he all but surely to come by tomorrow, and read the present Muslim conflict as though it is an all but certain sign of the quickly encroaching end times.
The likes of Ken Blackwell, Joe Lieberman and other McCain sympathizers purposely position Obama in this narrative in a way that can indirectly exploit the fears of this segment of the population, in their attempts to achieve a McCain victory over Obama.
The sly noting of Senator Obama’s purported weak support of the state of Israel; of his supposed sympathies with, or even identity as– a Muslim,; of his supposed deep associations with anti-American radical terrorists like Ayers; and his unusual and exceptional “charisma–all of this touches on the ugliest of American fears and passions.
If something were indeed to tragically happen to Senator Obama, some politicos would have to do some serious soul-searching.
His quote that he regretted casting the vote to intervene in the Schivo case is my core basis for believing that he is in support of euthanasia. His other policy stances on ESCR and Abortion lead me to believe that has utilitarian view of ‘silent’ life, and would be supportive of any legislation in support of legalizing euthanasia. Any one else out there have better clarity on the issue?
Katerina
I don’t think Obama “supports” Euthanasia. However I think it is the consensus of many including myself that the type of judges that he would appoint would mre incmined to find as privacy right and other rights that would enable those laws to go forward.
That is just because of judicial temperment of those likely judges. I dount Euthanasia has even entered Obama’s minds or McCains
Nothing that has been said for Obama is worse than what has been said for Bush. But conservatives didn’t mind Bush’s messianism, only Obama’s.
I think people that are so upset about these ads might need to realize that so much of this is not to reach the general public but to toy with Obama supporters and have them overreact.
I suspect that is what Red State is doing for instance. Thus over the last few weeks we have got charges that McCain is running some sly racist campaign, putting on sly ads that say Obama is the anti Christ etc etc. What is brilliant is how people just keep reacting and reacting to it.
THey should ignore it. Imagine if Bush had reacted to all the stuff that largely in the weeds and on the net about him in 2004.
Now the Obama folks to the amazement of the right have put another issue that is just the topic of conservatives blogs and right and getting hardly no play in the MSM and made a AD about it. That is the Ayers stuff. THe right is amazed that the Obama folks who get paid good money are doing this
JH, on the Anchoress point: she was praying a traditional litany of the saints and then appended a group of American presidents to it (Washington, Adams, Reagan)– I find that a little blasphemous (and yes, I know it was 2005).
By the way, nothing would please me better than for the debate to center around issues like abortion. But McCain won’t touch that with a ten foot pole, will be?
MM
McCain has been talking about the issues. He has numerous town hall meetings and such and event s where he highlights issues. The media largely ignores it. Obama no doubt is talking about issues at the numerous places he shows up. The media is largely ignoring it. Right now the the media is all abuzz about Hillary and the supposed drama surrounding that at the convention.
It would make no sense for McCain to start doing multi miliion dollars heavey issue ads when there is no multipiler affect in the media and elsewhere at this time.
McCain is now imply trying to keep his name in the news Cycle during the democrat week. Even Obam himself pointed this out yesterday when complained that the media was giving too much play to McCain ads that they know he will not do huge ad buys on
“But McCain won’t touch that with a ten foot pole, will be?”
Do you suppose it is above his pay-grade?
By the way, nothing would please me better than for the debate to center around issues like abortion. But McCain won’t touch that with a ten foot pole, will be?
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
McCain’s tactic right now is to attract the Hillary dead-enders, including a large proportion of disgruntled baby-boomer women. The last he he wants to do is to come out swinging in the anti-abortion camp.
Jeremy,
If McCain is able to oppose abortion on the grounds that human rights begin at conception, and then turn around and support stem-cell research, it may be that the issue is above his pay-grade, but it is more likely he’s disingenouous in holding two obviously contradictory propositions and knows that the less he says, the more voters he is able to fool.
MM
That might be true. Though I do wonder if McCain and his people really think they will get these Hillary Supportrs. Jimmy Carter when interviewed last night made this point about the 76 race where the FORD / Reagan thing was so nasty. Most Reagan people came home and Carter almost got beat.
I am sort of thinking this Hillary thing by McCain is a mistake and one of the first media type things I disagree with. Unless there is another reason for this and it relates to his VP choice
I’m so glad I don’t have to live in America any more, and put up with all the lies that politicians and their supporters are throwing around during this election season–that is, of course, until I come here, to see how the right-wing Catholic wing-nuts are doing.
To wit, “Jeremy”: Obama has explicitly said that he OPPOSES “gay marriage,” and is only in favour of “civil unions.” And how in the name of God you get “euthanasia” and “cloning” out of his announced postions is beyond me!
It might interest all of you to know that Catholics in Germany, at least where I live now, are HORRIFIED by your obsession with “abortion” as the only significant part of the “whole cloth” approach to life’s sacredness.
“Don’t they know that EXECUTIONS are MURDER, too?” I’ve been asked.
The issue is that Obama wants to wear the messianic mantle without being mighty in word and deed. When he begins healing the sick, raising the dead, feeding the multitude with a bag lunch and a prayer (without reaching into my pocket to do it), and possibly even walking on water, then I might begin to believe the messianic hype.
But until then, to me he’s just a Chicago carny playing to the rubes, and not a particularly good one when he’s forced to lay down the index cards.
“Don’t they know that EXECUTIONS are MURDER, too?” I’ve been asked.
Digby, can you explain to me the Catholic position on the death penalty and why executions — though perhaps justifiably opposed by John Paul II and the Church on prudential grounds — are not equated with homicide on the same lines as abortion?
But until then, to me he’s just a Chicago carny playing to the rubes, and not a particularly good one when he’s forced to lay down the index cards.
Yet another example of the breathtaking cynicism of the Right Wing.
Christopher, I will point out to you that you have not used the word “murder” in your question to me. And, in truth, I DID mildly object to the Germans’ use of the word “murder,” as well.
I don’t think that abortion, executions or killing in warfare constitute “murder,” because “murder” is, to me, a term from civil law, and I think a legitimate argument can be made that SOME instances of what is called “abortion” constitute equally as much an act of “self defense” as SOME kinds of killing in warfare. The woman has a right, I believe, to protect herself and her family from the consequences of rape, or from the consequences of bringing into the world another family member who might cause the existing family members to starve. And I know that those situations I just mentioned rarely prevail–but they do sometimes, and, if you re-criminalized abortion, you’d have THOSE cases to deal with, in your courts.
Until Catholics are able to convince the majority of people living in a Protestant, secularized society, such as America’s, that a fertilization process that takes up to 24 hours, and which may involve more than one sperm participating in a gradual fertilization of an egg, can actually be nailed down to a “moment” of conception, and that what is conceived is actually a human being, rather than a “potential human organism,” then I don’t think you can ask of civil servants or politicians who must act according to the will of the MAJORITY of the population, to cram a law down their throats that they don’t believe in. You and I may believe that even the “potential human organism” is sacred, but the politicians have to act in the name of the MAJORITY and GOVERN on their behalf.
I know that YOU think that the Roman Catholic philosophy regarding abortion is accepted by a majority of people in the United States, and I get the impression that most American Catholics writing here believe that, as well–more evidence, as far as I can determine, that so many of the various sub-cultures living in America rarely speak to each other. I say this because, being of a certain age, and having grown up mostly in the American South, I can distinctly remember a time when Protestant Christians living down there had absolutely no issue with abortion, and often SUPPORTED it, in the interests of combating the “welfare mentality.”
What you and a lot of the commentators here at Vox Nova are ACTUALLY asking for (but don’t seem to recognise it) is the withdrawal of Catholics from public life in America. You seem to be making his position on this single issue the “test” of a Catholic politician’s honesty and integrity, and, in doing so, you may be depriving the political arena in America of the ancient wisdom of the Church as it might bear on so many issues that I think are of equal weight–such as, for instance, “just war,” the rights of immigarants, economic justice, etc. I really think this is a great shame, but, if you’re determined to do it, I think you may largely get what you wish for.
Your country, however, is NOT going to change on women’s “reproductive rights,” as they call them.
And from where does Jay Anderson and Mark Shea come?
Can’t speak for Jay but I come from the South: South Everett in Washington State.
So that meme’s a wash.
MM. Whatever you say is so is so. I hear and obey. There is no exploitation of religious and messianic themes happening in the Obama campaign whatsoever. My eyes do not see what they say. My ears do not hear what they hear. It’s all a plot of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, which commanded the writing of “American Prayer”.
Vox Nova: The Church You Cannot See
Digby-
We are happy you no longer live here as well.
this site is too biased to be called Catholic, unsubscribed.
Unsubscribed? LOL
Don’t let the door smack you in the butt on the way out.
We are happy you no longer live here as well.
Play nice like you did on Hardball, Fedder.
I think a number of people on the evangelical Right used messianic imagery with respect to George W Bush during his first term. Not as much as Obama’s followers, mind you, and not as pervasively, but it was definitely there. (I’m recalling one particularly cringeworthy picture of Jesus shaking hands with a couple of businessmen in a corporate office — retch! – and it was not the only one by any means).
But another thing I recall is that messianism getting a good dose of hilarious mockery from Mark Shea too. The appearance, at least to me, is that you don’t like this round because it is (just as appropriately) directed at your guy.
But conservatives didn’t mind Bush’s messianism, only Obama’s.
I minded it and said so repeatedly. My views on the secular messianic tendencies in American politics, both left and right, are no secret. But they are inconvenient to the tu quoque escape hatch that MM wishes to build for the particularly virulent form of secular messianism that the Obamaphiles are indulging in.
What you see as “messianism” is the standard Rovian tactic: take a candidate’s perceived strong point and attack. It’ the by book, and you all fall for it. And the comparison is not really Bush– his little fit of messianism, horrible though it was at the time, was short-lived and now repudiated by almost everybody. The real comparison is Reagan who is even today described by his acolytes in far more glowing and elevated terms than that the Obamaphiles describe their man. Or to put it another way: the fringe “Obama worship” is akin to the very mainstream “Reagan worship”.
Yet another “democrats are better than republicans” post by MM, the DNC apologist and american dualist. It is getting literally hilarious to see all the pro Obama shtick coming from you MM.
Digby – We know you’re happy to be out of America. We’re more than happy to have you gone, now just quit yapping about it.
But they are inconvenient to the tu quoque escape hatch that MM wishes to build for the particularly virulent form of secular messianism that the Obamaphiles are indulging in.
The common “secular messianism” of presidential elections is to be expected. The overt Christian Messianism of George W. Bush was, and remains, explicitly idolatrous and should be particularly offensive to any Christian. But of course, it got a pass — no, it was mostly encouraged and affirmed by Christians of all traditions. And it continues to be explained away as “not as bad” as Obama’s supposed “messianism.” Encouraging his “followers” to “have hope” is incredibly mild (and sincerely a good thing in light of the politics of fear pushed by the Bush administration) compared to Bush’s willingness to be prayed over by Catholic bishops who encouraged God to allow “his choice” to be victorious in the election.
Tim: wrong. I want a debate on the issues. Then we can decide who is better on each issue. But McCain cannot play that way.
You may have a substantive point about Reagan, MM, though as usual you obscure it with … well, never mind, you’ll never really listen anyway.
But Reagan isn’t running for office, last I checked.
We know you’re happy to be out of America. We’re more than happy to have you gone, now just quit yapping about it.
Timmy, stop speaking for everyone in your careless and arrogant use of the the word “we.”
Zippy:
You beat me to the punch.
Ah! What a great picture! I should run it again! Also, don’t forget that hilarious painting of Bush at prayer, flanked by the Blessed Spirits of Lincoln and Washington, a veritable Transfiguration! And ya gotcher assortment of Bush With Halo shots too.
But I must say, the Obama campaign has yielded an absolute bumper crop of devotional language and imagery directed at His Sacred Person. Or rather, I mustn’t say it. Or even so much as think it. It’s all a lie of the McCainiacs! There *is* no messianic language and imagery in the Obama campaign. There isn’t, there isn’t, there isn’t! Laughing at Obama blasphemes God Almighty! Making fun of his use of messianic themes (which he is not doing) is tantamount to making fun of our Lord! And criticizing the use of such themes by the campaign for the sake of their desire for worldly power (which it is not doing) only proves that the critic will use religious language in the service of earthly power. So it is written here at Vox Nova, so it shall be. Amen.
r to put it another way: the fringe “Obama worship” is akin to the very mainstream “Reagan worship”.
Really? I don’t remember seeing “Reagan girl”
http://obamagirl.com/
Or the likes of:
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY
Or hear Reagan talking about the light shining upon us and knowing that we will vote for him…
Timmy, stop speaking for everyone in your careless and arrogant use of the the word “we.”
Why don’t you join him Mikey, then we would be even happier!
Ah! What a great picture! I should run it again!
NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
Ross Douthat put up this afternoon a good collection:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/dept_of_headscratchers.php
My favorite, though, is still the “American Prayer.”
What you see as “messianism” is the standard Rovian tactic: take a candidate’s perceived strong point and attack.
I don’t know if you are referring to me, but I will say that, as far as *I’m* concerned, the messianic schtick (which, you teach me, does not exist and therefore cannot be his strong point) is not what I’d call his strong point. I think his charm, his obvious intelligence (much more intelligence than his opponent, not to mention the current President), he habit of thoughtfulness and deliberation, his determination not to be a demagogue like Sharpton, Jackson, et al and, well, his likeableness are his strong points.
You will notice I have criticized none of these. That’s because I don’t consider them an affront to the Christian faith or my intelligence. But the constant recourse of the campaign and its culties to secular messianic imagery and rhetoric I do consider an affront. So I make fun of it.
What Reagan (who is seldom mentioned on my blog) has to do with anything is… well, to be expected when your principal form of rebuttal is the tu quoque and you don’t have much to work with.
Why don’t you join him Mikey, then we would be even happier!
You really are out of it. Do I not always remind people that I live in Canada, and would gladly stay if I could pick up West Virginia and drop it into Ontairo, mountains and all? Most arrogant Americans wouldn’t miss WV anyway, except for all the coal and timber ya’ll steal from us.
Douthat’s response to Chait is rather weak. He presents a list of disjointed pieces, some clearly from the Obama fringe, some from the anti-Obama paranoids, plus some emotional pieces by African-Americans (they are forgiven!), an article on why a pundit was inspired by an Obama speech, and Spiegel’s “Messias-Faktor” which is more a reflection on how the average secular European sees American politics than an objective analysis of the Obama campaign.
———————————————————————————
Chait’s response to Douthat:
“1. The Cult of Obama is no stranger or kitschier than the Cult of Reagan or the (short-lived) Cult of George W. Bush. Indeed, Bush, unlike Obama, literally believed he was called by God to lead the world. Ross is more theologically inclined than I am, so I’ll leave it to him to decide whether that’s less messianic than Obama’s primise to ameloriate the effects of climate change upon global sea levels.
2. The notion that Obama is holding himself up as a God-like figure rests upon a series of distortions.
3. It’s true that a lot of Obama supporters have unrealistic expectations of what he could accomplish as president, but that is not a good reason to vote against him.”
It remains that many supporters, including some very high-profile and important ones like Rep. Cummings (“This is not a campaign for president of the United States, this is a movement to change the world” ect.) view Obama as a transformative, redeeming figure.
This is, at the very least, humourous, and IMO quite mockable, especially in political campaign season. If people want to mock McCain or Reagan also, go ahead and have at it. One of the great things about the US is that its citizens can be as disrespectful to authority figures as they please, however foolish they make themselves. We would not like to live in places where this is not possible.
We would not like to live in a place where this is not possible.
I dissent.
I’m not talking about ideal world, where everyone is respectful.
Go through a list of countries where it is dangerous to mock a leader. We know, more or less, what these are.
Would we like to live in those places?
I say praise God for freedom of speech, even as we bemoan the large amount of junk that must necessarily come with it.
“This is not a campaign for president of the United States, this is a movement to change the world”
I’m not sure what is “humorous” about this. I am skeptical of the idea that an Obama victory won’t simply represent “business as usual” in these grand united states, but hell, if americans are really (and finally) fed up with business as usual (symbolized magnificently by John “Insane” McCain), then I welcome it. Yes, the world can be changed, and Christians are called to be part of it. But first things first: the united states has to change, deeply, at its core. Even if an Obama victory probably won’t be all that folks hope it will be, we can be absolutely sure that a McCain victory will bring more of the same, which no Christian person should settle for. Small steps better than none at all? Absolutely.
MM – Another reason for the Republican use of this meme is that they can’t imagine that good government can make a huge difference for the better in peoples lives; in fact, large parts of the right consider the phrase “good government” to be an oxymoron – thus, a presidential candidate talking about “transforming the country” must be delusional or a cynical manipulator.
What is “transformative politics”? The push for more international cooperation on the dangers that beset us? Doing something responsible in regards to climate change? A more concerted effort to deliver health care to all American citizens? Not having wealth in America effectively transferred upwards always to the 4th branch of American government, with correlative responsibilities to the common good of the whole citizenry?
Meanwhile, the top banner at BarackObama.com quotes him as saying, “I’m asking you to believe.”
What is he asking you to believe, Tom?
Mark,
As to your talk about more International cooperation. I am over whelmed on here and else where about the fears of Eastern Europe toward Russian moves in Georgia.
I mean Catholic Countries concerns such as Lithuaian, Lativa, and Poland are not discussed but just the quote “war mongering of McCain” So it appears seeing the worlds conflicts throuh just a America prism is truly bispartisan.
I will say Obama and Biden has not gone the direction of somef their supporters but it appears at times “international Cooperation” and all that talk is perhaps just talk among the base
It’d almost be worth it to have Obama elected and **** up, just to see the contortions of denial on Vox Nova. I don’t know what causes the Obama love, maybe the hope that people with philosophy degrees will get nice government jobs? =-D
“What you see as “messianism” is the standard Rovian tactic”
MM what is this obession with Karl Rove
Matt Talbot – Believe. Hope. Change. Doesn’t matter what. Obama’s emptiness is the perfect dream machine.The Left finally has its own televangelist. Belieeeeeve, brother! Obama can HEAL you!
Yeah..And John McCain puts “his country first” and “knows how to win wars”…He “believes in his country more than himself”…
What does that ever mean?
Sounds like a cult of the state to me…
“I’m so glad I don’t have to live in America any more, and put up with all the lies that politicians and their supporters are throwing around during this election season–that is, of course, until I come here, to see how the right-wing Catholic wing-nuts are doing”
Digby I am gladd you are gone too since you spend a great deal of your time talking about how crazy we are all and horrible. If I heard a American come back after living in Germany saying the same thing I would question how truly open they were of people of other cultures and people they were among
I don’t remember a single christian voice raised in protest.
Really? Did you trouble yourself to check the news reports of East Waynesville ? If that’s too difficult and too obscure an area for you, that may be part of your answer right there.
But if that is too facile a reply, Google the pastor’s name and city, and you will find a USAToday article describing how he subsequently walked out of his “divided church” under police escort. Given that, it’s a fair bet that more than one Christian voice was raised to protest him.
It might interest all of you to know that Catholics in Germany, at least where I live now, are HORRIFIED by your obsession with “abortion” as the only significant part of the “whole cloth” approach to life’s sacredness.
What’s their take on infanticide?
The other day I went to a Chinese German restaurant. The food was great but an hour later I was hungry for power.
Germans are the last people who should criticize America. They should in fact be happy they’re not a nuclear wasteland.
Someone here should do a post as to how McCain’s rhetoric dangerously/humorously flirts with fascism.
HA: I’ve lived in Germany. I don’t think that Germans, or Catholic Germans, are in general “horrified” that we’re “obsessed” with abortion. Interesting too that in Germany it is very difficult to obtain an abortion — I mean, it can be done, but compared to the situation in the US.
MM, I guess I gotta side with Mark Shea on this one. As usual.
I’m afraid fascism is and always has been a collectivist phenomenon, the very opposite of American individualism. The only fascists the USA has had were of the Left, eg Woodrow Wilson. Not to mention that it’s a leftist phenomenon in general, from Mussolini to Hitler.
What you and a lot of the commentators here…are ACTUALLY asking for (but don’t seem to recognise it) is the withdrawal of Catholics from public life in America. …this single issue the “test” of a Catholic politician’s honesty and integrity… may be depriving the political arena in America of the ancient wisdom of the Church as it might bear on so many issues that I think are of equal weight…
That being the case, it would behoove the Democrats to change their positions on abortion, so as to allow the Catholic church to add its support and votes to the many social policies they jointly support, would it not?
Or is this a situation where Catholics should simply acquiesce, so as to accommodate the “many” courthouse-burning fanatics who are pro-choice?
Yeah..And John McCain puts “his country first” and “knows how to win wars”…He “believes in his country more than himself”…
What does that ever mean?
Sounds like a cult of the state to me…
Yes.
If I heard a American come back after living in Germany saying the same thing I would question how truly open they were of people of other cultures and people they were among
When I come back to the united states from Canada, you will be the first person I email to give a report on how I think the right wing american nut jobs are doing.
Someone here should do a post as to how McCain’s rhetoric dangerously/humorously flirts with fascism.
Isn’t it obvious? Is a post needed?
As I said before, if beauty is the transcendental whose dancing sisters are the true and good, then ugliness is…
Michale as to Right Wing Nut JObs
Pleaseeee
McCain was one of th reasonable Senators according to the left not too long long ago. Now he is some SCARY War Monger that is a danger. Regardless of the fact that he not really cahnged his positons
Far Leet But Jobs, Far Right Nut Jobs snooze.. I just wish those that look down on this “partiansship” would admit they are involved in it too
I’m afraid fascism is and always has been a collectivist phenomenon, the very opposite of American individualism.
Of course, it would be good if you could recognize the contradictory elements in the american experience, particularly the right-wing tendencies in america which, for all its denunciations of left wing “collectivism,” also invoke collectivist-fascist ideas whenever it suits them, along with your standard liberal american individualism. The reality of america is a grand and complex mix of individualism, fascism and racism, calling on each whenever it suits them in order to protect “our way of life” over and against all others.
Also what do “right wing ” catholics believe in?
They are diverse as anything.
McCain was one of th reasonable Senators according to the left not too long long ago.
Which “left”? The democrats, maybe, but not the actual left.
Today’s lesson:
Democrats do not = “left”
Gerald,
You should put aside your Austria-German guilt enough to enable yourself to criticize American nationalist politicians and allow that people in Germany and Austria have not forfeited forever the right to criticize the U.S.
“If I heard a American come back after living in Germany saying the same thing I would question how truly open they were of people of other cultures and people they were among.”
I lived in (West) Germany for two years and the Germans have their own piccadillos. ..ineffective deodorants being one. One needs to speak the language to understand the culture though. Sprechen Sie Deutsch, Digby?
Not to mention the rampant Neo-Nazism in Eastern German states.
They tell me I’ve been in California for too long, but that’s nothing for someone who’s been in Canada too long =)
And Mark, I don’t have guilt, Hitler was German and Beethoven Austrian.
I’d say the Riefenstahl moments in this campaign belong to Obama.
As far as election results are concerned, I’m hoping for a cohabitation in the French sense.
Fascism accusations are a bit strange coming from Catholics – Catholicism is authoritarian, hierarchical, demands obedience, is male-ruled, regulates everything down to the smallest details and what not – the fascism in Austria was manned by devout clergy and laypeople, citing Rerum Novarum etc. as inspiration, approved by the Pope. Too bad they waged war, literally, on union people. It actually surprises me that you, Michael I., are Catholic. Especially since the ‘forces of reaction’ are back in the saddle in many places.
Mark Shea,
I should not have included you in the swipe, especially since you, unlike others accused, do not approach anythink like linking to “Moloch of the Left, Obama: Obamamessiah.blogspot” in any sidebar on your blog, but only weigh in as to what you think all of the messianism stuff poltically means.
But conservatives didn’t mind Bush’s messianism, only Obama’s.
Actually, as someone who reluctantly voted for Bush in 2004 as the lesser of two evils (or at least the lesser of 2 uninspiring, business-as-usual, types), I *definitely* minded Bush’s messianism, and was embarrassed of those who believed he could do no wrong.
A Catholic girl once told me that she voted for Bush because people in her area voted for Bush (she was from Texas), and its good to be on the same page as other people. I thought that sort of “he’s great because other people like him” approach was ridiculous then, and I find the swooning over Obama, etc, to be just as ridiculous. But then again, I don’t find either of our current presidential candidates too inspiring or strongly Catholic, so I don’t feel any need to bend over backwards to defend either of them.
Gee.I always thought Hitler was Austian-born.
Digbydolben writes :”I think a legitimate argument can be made that SOME instances of what is called “abortion” constitute equally as much an act of “self defense” as SOME kinds of killing in warfare. The woman has a right, I believe, to protect herself and her family from the consequences of rape, or from the consequences of bringing into the world another family member who might cause the existing family members to starve.”
digbydolben does appear to be rather over the top with his defense of abortion, but who knows?
Perhaps digbydolben is instead on the cutting edge of what is now considered devout Catholicism.
I was rather taken aback by his calling Joe Biden a “devout Catholic, but apparently digbydolben isonto something with now Porn Star Jenna Jameson likewise calling herself a devout catholic.
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3850
From our ‘no comment’ department » GetReligion
Testing,
“love the girls Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
But until then, to me he’s just a Chicago carny playing to the rubes, and not a particularly good one when he’s forced to lay down the index cards.
Yet another example of the breathtaking cynicism of the Right Wing.
So Matt, are you telling me that I would only have faith, and accept Obama as my personal savior, my soul would be healed? If I vote for Obama, the oceans would recede, the polar bears would rejoice and our planet would be saved?
Obama reminds me more of the Wizard of Oz: “Pay no attention to those men behind the curtain”.
Just wondering, can anyone else see my comment while it awaits moderation? Interesting new feature.
Toe Toe,
Shouldn’t you be polishing your guns?
You seem to be making his position on this single issue the “test” of a Catholic politician’s honesty and integrity, and, in doing so, you may be depriving the political arena in America of the ancient wisdom of the Church as it might bear on so many issues that I think are of equal weight–such as, for instance, “just war,” the rights of immigarants, economic justice, etc. I really think this is a great shame, but, if you’re determined to do it, I think you may largely get what you wish for.
When you’re elected pope, I’ll care what you think. Until then, I’ll stick with the living magesterium of the Catholic Church.
Tonay
“pay no attention to those men behind the corner”
Best line out of this entire thread
Fascism accusations are a bit strange coming from Catholics – Catholicism is authoritarian, hierarchical, demands obedience, is male-ruled, regulates everything down to the smallest details and what not – the fascism in Austria was manned by devout clergy and lay people.
Interesting match-up there. How very odd that of all the centuries in which the church has been around (and was for most of them vastly more authoritarian, hierarchical, male-ruled, and detail-oriented) fascism happened to arise right in the century where the church was losing its hold.
You might want to take that back to the kitchen, Gerald. It smells half-baked.
Not on Austria and Spain. Mind you, Nazi Germany had nothing Catholic about it on government level.
Fascism accusations are a bit strange coming from Catholics – Catholicism is authoritarian, hierarchical, demands obedience, is male-ruled, regulates everything down to the smallest details and what not – the fascism in Austria was manned by devout clergy and laypeople, citing Rerum Novarum etc. as inspiration, approved by the Pope. Too bad they waged war, literally, on union people.
Catholicism certainly can be authoritarian, hierarchical, demand obedience,etc…. It also has aspects that are very much the opposite of those things.
How very odd that of all the centuries in which the church has been around (and was for most of them vastly more authoritarian, hierarchical, male-ruled, and detail-oriented) fascism happened to arise right in the century where the church was losing its hold.
Depends what you mean by “losing its hold.” It lost its hold in the “secular” world when it was privatized, thus marginalized from direct influence. But it never lost hold of the so-called spiritual sphere, and indeed provided much of the justification for fascism in Europe and in Latin America.
It actually surprises me that you, Michael I., are Catholic. Especially since the ‘forces of reaction’ are back in the saddle in many places.
You’re not the first person to tell me that they are “surprised” that I am Catholic, not in the sense that they see me believing things or acting in ways that are contrary to the faith, but they don’t understand how I can have the political views that I do and still remain a Catholic when the Catholic Church has so often aligned itself with life-denying politics (such as the case of american Republicatholicism). I recognize, though, that the Catholic faith, which I will never ever reject, has both a liberating tendency and an oppressive tendency, an aspect that simply upholds the status quo and an aspect that seeks to subvert the status quo in promotion of the Reign of God. It is certainly easy to be overwhelmed by the Church’s oppressive aspects, as it seems has been the case with you. For me, it’s a question of where I find hope. The Church is way bigger than its members who seem to have Jesus all wrong. I even find hope among some of what you call the “forces of reaction,” believe it or not.
In short I hope to continue “surprising” folks like yourself for a long time to come. Catholicism, at its core, is radical, liberating, even revolutionary despite the many ways we fail at living out its full implications. Keep studying and being critical, but I hope when you study you find something about the Church in which you can place your hope.
Michael J. Iafrate writes : “Catholicism, at its core, is radical, liberating, even revolutionary”
True. But not all is as it appears. Most of what goes for “radical, liberating, even revolutionary” has the stamp of approval of the establishment.
Christ told us the world would hate us as it hates him, but what makes you think that your “radical, liberating, even revolutionary” views are hated by the world? They have certainly never struck me that way.
Most of what goes for “radical, liberating, even revolutionary” has the stamp of approval of the establishment.
I would say that, in fact, most of what goes for “radical, liberating, even revolutionary” has “the stamp of approval of the establishment” because it is actually mere liberalism that calls itself radical and liberating.
Christ told us the world would hate us as it hates him, but what makes you think that your “radical, liberating, even revolutionary” views are hated by the world? They have certainly never struck me that way.
I’m not sure why you want to make my comments about the Church about me. But I’ll bite. I would hope that my stated views reflect in some way what I see as the radical core of Catholicism, but I’m sure I barely scratch the surface. If my views don’t strike you as “radical” (as you understand the term ‘radical’) that’s fine. The real question is whether or not my views are faithful to the Gospel and to the Church’s tradition when it’s at its best. To me, that is radical.
Do I think my views are “hated by the world”? It certainly feels that way sometimes, judging from the reaction of a good number of folks who read Vox Nova. Check out the comments on my more controversial posts. I think being hated by nationalistic americans is pretty close to what Jesus had in mind when he said we would be hated by “the world.” (The Greek word translated as “the world” in the Gospels means that part of creation that rejects Christ, not simply “the world” as we understand it.)
Not on Austria and Spain.
No? I did not even mention geographical distribution. (Though I well could have — e.g., were the Catholic regions of Germany more likely to embrace Nazism than the protestant ones, with their less hierarchical, etc., outlooks? If not, what does that say about your thesis?)
The point of my post was to ask why fascism arose at a time when all the fisted qualities you associate with Catholicism were markedly diminished relative to what could be found in previous centuries. As authoritarian as you might find the Spanish and Austrian churches to be, they were even more so in previous centuries.
think being hated by nationalistic americans is pretty close to what Jesus had in mind when he said we would be hated by “the world.”
Aww, how nice. You’re bearing your own personal cross of fighting for greater government control. Interestingly enough, Jesus didn’t seem to advocate the same.
Surprisingly, that single issue is where I disagree with you and/or those with views similar, and it’s really not about Catholicism. It’s about trying to use the government to create a perverted/mutated Catholic world instead of relying charity, individual and community contribution of time, effort, and acts.
Tim: wrong. I want a debate on the issues. Then we can decide who is better on each issue. But McCain cannot play that way.
You may want a debate, but Obama doesn’t. Didn’t he bail out of the agreed co-appearance townhall meetings with McCain?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/13/no_agreement_on_obama-mccain_t.html
Which “left”? The democrats, maybe, but not the actual left.
Today’s lesson:
Democrats do not = “left”
Save your lessons for MM. He continues to label anyone that doesn’t agree with him in a dualistic manner as “the right”. Just read the first two words in his post.
Aww, how nice. You’re bearing your own personal cross of fighting for greater government control. Interestingly enough, Jesus didn’t seem to advocate the same.
This isn’t the thread to get into this (although you seem to look for any opportunity to bring it up), but that’s not an accurate representation of my views at all. Email me if you would like to discuss it further.
Save your lessons for MM. He continues to label anyone that doesn’t agree with him in a dualistic manner as “the right”.
Again, another misrepresentation. MM and I do not agree on everything, and he does not label me as part of “the right,” at least not last time I checked.
I suggest you start trying to understand your opponents a little better instead of distorting them.
Again, another misrepresentation. MM and I do not agree on everything, and he does not label me as part of “the right,” at least not last time I checked.
I suggest you start trying to understand your opponents a little better instead of distorting them.
Reading is fundamental. That statement had nothing to do with MM agreeing with you or talking about you. It had to do with you lecturing people about what “left” means, while a contributor continuously uses the term “the right” to represent some vague group of people that he disagrees with, and to him are obviously bad, horrible people. Save your lectures for MM, apparently he needs your superior intellect to tell him what he’s labeling incorrectly.
Michael J. Iafrate writes : “I’m not sure why you want to make my comments about the Church about me.”
Because anyone who has enough sense to describe himself by those terms, deserves a bit of help being pushed in that direction.
_______________________
Michael J. Iafrate writes : “Check out the comments on my more controversial posts.
I have.
_______________________
Michael J. Iafrate writes : “being hated by nationalistic americans”
Is a nice start in the right direction.
_______________________
Michael J. Iafrate writes : “The Greek word translated as “the world” in the Gospels means that part of creation that rejects Christ, not simply “the world” as we understand it.”
A Catholic doesn’t need a translation, he knows it personally.
TeutTim: That statement had nothing to do with MM agreeing with you or talking about you.
I’m aware of that. I was using it as an example to show that your claim that MM “continues to label anyone that doesn’t agree with him in a dualistic manner as ‘the right’” is inaccurate.
Well, let’s compare the two uses of the term “right” and “left” with an eye to their accuracy.
MM said: The right has latched onto the notion that Obama sees himself in messianic terms, and that his followers worship him as a cult leader.
Is this use of the term “the right” accurate? Sure seems to be, with the flurry of claims that Obama “sees himself as a messiah.” What precisely is inaccurate about MM’s use of the term in this case? Are folks on “the right” as you understand the term not saying things like this about Obama? Really?
jh said: McCain was one of th (sic) reasonable Senators according to the left not too long long (sic) ago.
As someone who would self-identify as part of “the left,” I can say that jh’s use of the term is inaccurate. The only ones on “the left” who were in any way saying McCain was “reasonable” were perhaps the democrats and other liberals. The real left would never describe McCain as “reasonable.”
My “lecture,” directed at jh, was simply a claim that his use of the term is not adequate. I see no problem with MM’s use of the term “right” in this post. If you can point to a specific problem with the first sentence of the post, please do.
Love The Girls: Are you trying to make a point? It’s late. Try again tomorrow after you get some sleep.
So, “Tony,” I wonder what you make of THIS:
‘…the law does not provide that the act [abortion] pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation…’ (Saint Augustine, On Exodus 21.22)
Too many comments to read them all – so I just add another one: Let one party and one candidate denounce the other as they wish. That’s democracy in 24-7 “news” world where the dog who stumbled in the neighbor’s yard is more important than legislative debate in the capital. “Every people has the government it deserves.” claims Kurt Tucholsky, and as sad as it is, I cannot disagree. So don’t get upset that x slanders y, cry that people care for gossip but neglect to care for substance. Here’s to buying a small island and declaring independence!
digby – what do you make of THIS (dun dun duuunnnn)
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
Frankly, “Teutonic Tim,” I think that, in its absolutism, it has as much standing as the condemnation of Galileo in the 17th century: increasingly, there seems to be NO SUCH THING as a “moment” of conception–or, at least, not one presently discernable by means of scientific proof. It means that my fingernail, because it’s “human” and has “being,” has the “rights of a person.”
I think that the principle of the “sacredness of life” could be expressed in terms that are more nuanced, and, therefore, more truthful. And I guess that “2271″ reads St. Augustine out of the Church. They should go ahead and read Thomas Aquinas out, too, because he said that “life” begins at “birth.”
And, please, don’t do what some of the right-wing nut-jobs do here, and deliberately twist what I’ve written above into something else: if the Vatican pronunciamento said “sacred” because of its “potential” for “personhood,” I’d have no reason or desire to quibble with it; I dislike it because of its moral absolutism. It reads almost like some stupid American sound-byte, and it’s designed, methinks, almost to be a political slogan. It’s simply not TRUTHFUL regarding living organisms.
Dibgy,
The Church is nor prevented from ever defining something that was once in dispute. After all it “read Aquinas out” by your lights when it defined the Immaculate Conception, which Aquinas argued against. One cannot be retro-actively a heretic — we are held only to what we know at a given time.
As for “moment of conception”, one could dispute the idea of “moment” as in “instant”, but frankly the period of time when it’s sketchy whether one has a new unique organism with different DNA from either parent is very brief. Your fingernail, on the other hand, is simply a part of you. It has your DNA, and it is not a separete, living and developing organism. (Or at least, if it is, you should probably call in some medical help.)
…it is not a separate, living and developing organism…
One of the most amazing things about dialoguing with “Catholics” at Vox Nova is the basic lack of charity in being unwilling to give one’s interlocutors the benefit of even a scintilla of doubt: I SAID I’d have no problem with the pronouncement if it said “potential for personhood.” Don’t you think that about covers “separate, living and developing…”? I really don’t think most early foetuses are “separate” from their mothers.
And, as for it’s being “very bried,” there’s new evidence that it may NOT be “very brief” at all, as sperm fight to get in and fertilize. It may take a good portion of a day. It seems to me that, if that’s true, using a “spermicide” would not constitute an “abortion.”
Ah digby!
You remind me ever so much of the ultra-super-duper fine tune hair-splitters of the Rubber Hose Right, pulling their chins about what, exactly, technically, precise *is* torture anyway and urging us all to not be so hasty in judging those who tiptoe right up crossing the line from mere enhanced interrogation to, well, you know, torture.
All the pettifogging, all the extreme nuance, all the lawyering: it’s all so familiar. Everybody who wants to avoid the bleedin’ obvious teaching of the Church, apparently, has to resort to this kind of utter bullshit.
digby – Please keep going. It’s so very obvious that you just don’t “get it” concerning the Church’s stance on abortion or contraception, or life issues. I also notice a lack of contributors correcting you.
I think the difference between the Reagan following and the Obama following is that with Obama, the ‘inspirational’ element is about all there is. Never in modern times has a candidate had so little on his resume. Bill Clinton last night tried to compare Obama to himself. That’s not accurate. The criticism of Clinton was that as AK governor, he had not accomplished nearly as much as he claimed, and so how could we expect he would do better as president. Plus, Clinton had spent his entire political life plagued with scandals. But he nonetheless had the experience. He was governor, he had leadership under his belt. Obama has none of it. Reagan had leadership experience. He had guided and accomplished. Obama has none of it. He has inspirational speeches. And that is it. And then, only when he isn’t being forced to respond on the spot to unexpected situations. So the hype and the adoration that is common in politics and on both sides of the aisle, sounds even shriller when you finally realize that excitement and good speaking is about all this candidate actually brings to the table.
So which is a greater sin: blasphemy against the Second Person of the Trinity or blasphemy against Obama? This post seems to regard them as pretty much equal in severity.
digbydolben,
So – in disagreeing with the Cathchism, you are saying that a human being is not a person from the beginning of its existence? When, pray tell, would it begin to be one? You argue that it is difficult to know when this existence begins, but that does not mean that it doens’t have a beginning. For example, for a pregnant woman there was a first moment when she was actually pregnant. True, it is difficult to determine when this actually takes place, but she is never “half pregnant” – it is not a process – she is either pregnant or she is not. Similarly with personhood. There are no “half” people. Personhood is not a process. The Catechism is saying that personhood is coterminous with being human. The fact that it might be difficult to determine this does not invalidate the truth of the statement, nor make it somehow “absolutist.”
OK, so let’s say that we don’t (or can’t?) know the very exact precise moment when life begins. All this means is that we have to err on the side of caution and not terminate whatever has been conceived in the womb. The Church has always condemned as gravely wrong the termination of whatever has been the product of conception (normally known as a child). So even if the entity in the womb is only a “potential person” (whatever that means), it is still wrong to terminate it, even if it was not always held to be the moral equivalent of murder. This is what the Church has always taught. So I’m not quite sure where all your distinctions and arguments are going.
Victor:
Actually, this post (and MM’s commentary repeatedly) tends to regard them as the same thing. Make fun of Obama’s messianic hype and, abracadabra, you are making fun of Jesus.
I assume Minitrue will release similar press statements when Secular Messianism finally reaches its zenith under the actual Man of Sin. Whenever he turns up, and “exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God”, there will be a whole arm of Ministry of Propaganda devoted to denouncing Christian ridicule of such claims as an insult to the Venerable Name of Jesus and asking why Christians would be making political hay out of their faith. It’s a clever strategy for suckering a certain portion of the population who can’t distinguish between statements like “God made the dog” and “The dog made God.” For the rest of us, it’s just bizarre.
Make fun of Obama’s messianic hype and, abracadabra, you are making fun of Jesus.
Placing the posts in the category of “Son of God” does wonders to dispell that notion.
Sam Schmitt:
It’s precisely what you write at the end of your comment: that abortion IS, indeed, the heinous taking of life–just as the taking of life in the execution chamber IS heinous, and the taking of life on the battlefield MAY BE heinous, but that it cannot be deemed the “moral equivalent of murder”–that this is an INNOVATION on traditional teaching and traditional morality (albeit perhaps a good and justified one–although that has yet to be convincingly proved), and that it, therefore, cannot be codified against in civil law. It as yet still belongs in the area of “prudential morality.” And not only that, but when the day comes that we’ll be able to more convincingly prove to a society that is, right now, essentialy pagan and neo-Christian, that abortion is a more terrible thing than they presently think, then we shall not have exhausted our credibility with a society we should be seeking to CONVERT rather than to govern, by the WAY WE CONDUCTED THIS CAMPAIGN.
I really can’t see why so-called “Christians” don’t understand why it’s not more prudent and more charitable to “light many candles” against the darkness, rather than rage against it politically.
And I also don’t understand why you anti-abortionists demonize folks (like me) who’d rather be your ally in a SUCCESSFUL campaign against abortion, rather than seeking only to appear “righteous” and “justified”–which it seems to me is all you’ve succeeded in doing in decades.
[...] Finally, Mark Shea reminds us: Remember: There. Is. No. Messianic. Vibe. Put. Out. By. The. Obama. Camp! [...]
I so hope that Obama supporters continue to spend their time “debunking” the messiah charge.