Post-Election Analysis

[inked]

continuation...

The Jesusland meme is so discombobulating to the secular elites of the western world that within a week it had become the prism through which they view every event in the great republic — even lousy movies. For as the Independent’s headline put it, ‘Alexander the (Not So) Great Fails To Conquer America’s Homophobes’. I don’t think you have to be a homophobe to find Alexander a stinker; its stinker status does not primarily derive from its mild gayness, so much as from Oliver Stone’s incoherent storytelling and a dull central performance by some Irish bloke whose efforts at characterisation start and end with bellowing every line. But, if the world’s media want to conjure visions of stump-toothed backwoods knuckle-draggers stomping out of the Jesusland multiplex firing off verses from Leviticus as they demand a full refund, why get in the way of their illusions? The Guardian’s Timothy Garton Ash, just back from a tour of America’s blue states, says that they’re crying out for Europe’s help: ‘Hands need to be joined across the sea in an old cause: the defence of the Enlightenment,’ he writes, and adopts as his rallying cry a subtle modification of Le Monde’s famous 12 September headline, ‘We are all blue Americans now’. Europeans need to ally with blue staters and Canadians and so forth and draw a cordon bleu, as John Kerry would say, around George W. Bush’s Jesusland, throttling it in its manger.

Well, good luck with that. I doubt whether a Euro-blue-state alliance is in any position to defend the Enlightenment. Even if one accepts that the modern Euro-Canadian secular state is the rightful heir to the Enlightenment, it would seem obvious that it’s got a lot less enlightened, at least in the sense of ‘freeing from superstition’. The ludicrous over-reaction by the elites to the US election results is at least as superstitious and irrational as anything the Bible Belt believes. And there’s nothing very rational or scientific about refusing to engage with your opponents’ arguments and instead dismissing them as mere ‘phobias’ — homophobia, Islamophobia, Chiracophobia.... Whatever else may be said about the evangelicals, they don’t sneer ‘theophobia’ whenever they’re criticised, even though in that case the lame trope may be almost plausible — when it comes to abnormal psychological fear of the unknown, blue staters’ theophobia is more pervasive than red staters’ homophobia.

A year or two back, I attended a lunch for a minister from California who was applying for a pastor’s gig at a New Hampshire Congregational church. My friend, the aptly named Faith, cut to the chase and asked the minister whether she believed the Bible was the literal truth. ‘Well,’ she said, somewhat condescendingly, ‘I believe these are useful narratives that we tell each other.’ Even if that’s so, is it helpful to give the game away? As it turned out, the minister was a lesbian who’d been joined in what she called ‘Holy Union’ with her partner back at their church in Berkeley, since when she’d become an enthusiastic marrier of gay couples across the Bay area. Proclaiming the Bible a series of ‘useful narratives’ is invariably a first step towards proclaiming many of them useless — the relevant portions of Romans, etc.

But if the Bible is merely a ‘useful narrative’, it’s an immaculately conceived one, beginning with the decision to root the divinity of Christ in the miracle of His birth. The promise of new life on earth prefigures the promise of new life in heaven. Once you cease believing in the latter, the former soon follows. Steve Sailer pointed out in the American Conservative the other week that George W. Bush won 25 of the 26 states with the highest fertility rate. On the other hand, John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest. If I were a Democrat looking 20 years down the road, I’d be very alarmed by this trend.

But then not many Democrats do look 20 years down the road: radical secular individualism is a present-tense culture, in America as in Europe. ‘In the long run we are all dead,’ as Keynes said. There speaks a childless homosexual. Those Old Testament big begetters knew better: a celestial afterlife is something we have to take on faith, but our afterlife on earth is the children we beget and the children they in turn beget. ‘How many divisions has the Pope?’ scoffed Stalin. Demographically speaking, Jesusland has more divisions than Eutopia. Pace Timothy Garton Ash, you can’t defend the Enlightenment if you’re too enlightened to breed. Americans remain mystified about one of the landmark events of this year: the terrorist bloodbath in Madrid that changed the result of the country’s election. Why, they wonder on this side of the Atlantic, wouldn’t the Spaniards stand firm? But what’s to stand firm for? To fight for king and country is to fight for the future, and a nation with Spain’s fertility rate — 1.1 children per couple or about half ‘replacement rate’ — has no future.

In that sense, the Bible, beginning with God’s injunction to go forth and multiply, is a lot more rational than the allegedly rational types at Planned Parenthood. I’m not an absolutist in these matters. I’m a red stater when it comes to God and guns, but I like European art-house movies where Juliette Binoche or Isabelle Huppert take their kit off. It’s a question of balance. And comparing Jesusland with present-tense Eutopia, it seems obvious which is more out of whack. What Timothy Garton Ash calls ‘the Enlightenment’ has degenerated under its present trustees into a doomsday cult with all the coerciveness of the old state religion and none of the eternal truths.

For example, for as long as I can remember, the pre-eminent eco-doom-monger on Canadian TV has been a chap called David Suzuki, who, in a poignant comment on the state of my country, recently made the ‘Top Ten Greatest Canadians Of All Time’ list. A while back, Suzuki wrote a column called ‘We Are All Animals Here’, beginning as follows:

‘The sign in the shopping mall said, “No animals allowed.” As I read it, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. It reflected a failure to admit or unwillingness to acknowledge our biological nature. We are animals and have a taxonomic classification: Kingdom: Animalia; Phylum: Chordata; Class: Mammalia; Order: Primates; Family: Hominidae; Genus: Homo; Species: sapiens.

‘Our reluctance to acknowledge our animal nature is indicated in our attitude to other animals. If we call someone a worm, snake, pig, chicken, mule or ape, it is an insult. Indeed, to accuse someone of being a “wild animal” at a party is a terrible insult.’

But apparently not at his pad; Suzuki, even at a sober wine-and-cheese do, is literally a party animal. This kind of standard ecoblather certainly has animal qualities if only in the sense that it’s barking. Everyone knows what the sign in the mall means. It may be distressing to Suzuki, but the world we live in is defined not by what we have in common with worms, snakes and pigs, but by what separates us. For the purposes of comparison, consider the Eighth Psalm:

continuation...

[inked]

continuation...

‘What is man, that thou art mindful of him...? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou hast made him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea.’

Now you can say that’s a lot of Judaeo-Christian hooey. But the Psalmist, regardless of whether he got it from God or winged it off the top of his head, has characterised the reality of our existence better than the environmentalists and scientists. The Eighth Psalm describes the central fact of our world — our dominion over the sheep and oxen, yea, and all the party animals. It was a lot less plausible when it was written, when man’s domain stretched barely to the horizon, when ravenous beasts lurked in the undergrowth, when the oceans were uncharted and the maps dribbled away with the words ‘Here be dragons...’. But, over the millennia, the Eighth Psalm has held up, which is more than you can say for the average 1970s bestseller predicting the oil would run out by 1998 and the Maldives would be obliterated by global warming.

It’s easy, in an otherwise wholly secular West, to mock the religiosity of Jesusland. But if eternal salvation remains unproved, the suspension of disbelief required of Eutopian secularists grows daily. If you were one of those ‘redneck Christian fundamentalists’ the world’s media are always warning about, you might think the Continent’s in for what looks awfully like the Four Horsemen of the Euro-Apocalypse: Famine — the end of the lavishly funded statist good times; Death — the self-extinction of European races too selfish to breed; War — the decline into bloody civil unrest that these economic and demographic factors will bring; and Conquest — the recolonisation of Europe by Islam.

But it goes without saying that Europeans are far too rational and enlightened to believe in such outmoded notions as apocalyptic equestrians. If there is ‘choice on earth’, I’ll bet on Jesusland. Happy holidays.
*****************************

I thought perhaps this should go in the Islamic influence thread, but ultimately it is more post-election analysis IMHO.

Intriguing! All faults are due to "Jesusland" as opposed to Christendom!
Paradigm shift!!! Paradigm shift!!!!!

[Elfhelm]

Is Mark Steyn a member of the moot?

[Insidious Rex]

*eyes glaze over from length*

So is Bush gonna still keep Don Rumsfeild around even after hes been denounced by a number of promonent republicans or does he just intend to keep him in position until after the January elections?

By the way how do they intend on seriously running country wide elections when they are killing people by the dozens daily. Especially people who have anything to do with the election infrustructure. How can people campeign in secret? Im not one who thinks the elections should be delayed necessarily (I think its sends the exact wong message) but its seeming more and more ridiculous a task to actually have something credible and foundation-able happen on Jan. 30. It seems like everything is falling to pieces.

[Elfhelm]

Actually, Bush is probably just glad that Rumsfeld and Cheney decided to keep HIM.

[Elfhelm]

Tada! Right on schedule, the President endorsed his Secretary of Defense. He's a caring man, Bush said. He can see the pain in Rumsfeld's eyes whenever they talk about our kids in harm's way.

I don't believe him.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Tada! Right on schedule, the President endorsed his Secretary of Defense. He's a caring man, Bush said. He can see the pain in Rumsfeld's eyes whenever they talk about our kids in harm's way.

I don't believe him.

"our kids"? I'm wondering - how many people close to you are in the military? My brother is in the Navy - just got back from Afganistan and my cousin right now is in Parris Island at Marine bootcamp. Trish's nephew is in the airforce and her other nephew just joined the army.

I think he does care - but we also have a war to fight, which many in the military understand - like my brother and cousin.

[Elfhelm]

You're right. He said "youngsters" not "our kids".

[sun-star]

Where do you get all these articles from, inked? Do you do a regular google search for "right-wing British press", or what ? (I'm just impressed you found the Spectator*. Didn't know anyone read it but me...)

(*aka Sextator)

[inked]

Sun-star,
Let me hasten to allay suspicions that I subscribe . Actually these references come from several sites and e-friends who let me know when something they find interesting is around. Just like the 'Moot. What I find challenging and fascinating is the lack of breadth in exposure to conservative views amongst the 'Mooters. One needn't agree but one should be exposed to varying ideas I think. Also, if you'll pardon the comment, I find a very dominant leftist and secularist tone to most British publications. i find it very difficult to believe that all subjects of her Majesty in the Home Isles are in fact of that political persuasion. So I must admit I find these variant views refreshing. If one refuses or has not been directed to the "fresh sea-breezes" of alternate views from history (most folks do not read Classics after all), the presence of alternate views in the current political climate is useful.

Also, I had not realized the vociferousness with which some commonplaces would be touted here on the 'Moot. Some of these I find groundless, some rooted in your standard press, and some the result of a secularism far more dominant than in the USA. All fascinating stuff. I am learning a great deal. I merely return the favor ! Not that everyone appreciates it .... .

But as the Housekeeper in Professor Kirk's house observed: one must do one's duty!

Besides, it's so much fun! It could only be better if I got paid for it in this life! But there's always hope for the next (though there may be some disagreement amongst various parties as to whether it shall be toasty or tropical )!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

One needn't agree but one should be exposed to varying ideas I think. Also, if you'll pardon the comment, I find a very dominant leftist and secularist tone to most British publications.

Well it's sort of like when the BBC reporter asked Tony Blair with contempt "so do you and Bush pray together?" it's a rather stupid and pointless question in my opinion. But it showed the contempt they have for people who are religious and open about it.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by inked

Sun-star,
Let me hasten to allay suspicions that I subscribe

Why? I do - to both the Spectator and the Telegraph. And since I think it's important to see both sides of a question, I also read the Guardian, Times and New Stateman when I can. You might want to try those.

Have you ever been to Britain?

Some of these I find groundless, some rooted in your standard press, and some the result of a secularism far more dominant than in the USA.

Obviously it gives you some comfort to believe this, so go right ahead. But didn't you read the articles you posted about Christmas being politically incorrect in the US? The "Winter Festival" parties, mayors apologising for saying "Happy Christmas", the schools refusing to sing any Christmas songs... This is secularism far beyond anything you'll ever find in Britain. But pretend it doesn't exist if that makes you happy

[inked]

Sun-star,

That was meant to imply irony or sarcasm! I do not subscribe to rightwing sites or google for them. The articles usually are presented by folks on other sites I frequent. Then, again, maybe it is easier to believe in that vast right-wing conspiracy of which Hillary Clinton was so enamoured and seems to be the bane of liberals world-wide! Sheesh, and Santa's having trouble with belief? Maybe.... nah!

The annual ACLU protectionism of persons who wear their il-liberality on their sleeves is in full swing here, as usual. Just ignore the 90% of the population who happen to celebrate Christmas (either commercially or religiously) and protect people who couldn't be PC if meant they had to swing equally! It's a game. I usually occupy myself with finding the best whiner in the lot! Now, I've brought it to your attention in GB, do you have a fav complaint?

It gives me no comfort other than the usual enjoyment of debunking the legendarium of tolerance in Europe - which is characterized by the active exclusion of Christianity as in apropos to the zeitgeist! The revelation of intolerance in the name of secular pluralism which consciously excludes only Christianity is rather ironic...and pathetic (but tolerance usually results in imitation kindness rather than true charity, doesn't it?).

No, I've never been to GB. My dream is (but you have already guessed, no doubt)... to visit the birthplaces, haunts, workplaces, and habitations of my favorite authors (CSL, JRRT, DLS, GKC, JKR) and ALL associated pubs and uni's, coupled with local churches, cathedrals, landmarks, etc, whilst testing the bitters at every opportunity, and REALLY doing a personal assay on whether English food is as bad as it's made out to be. Tour guides who will work for beer would be a nice addition, particularly if skilled in the nuances of local productions! And, since I am dreaming, perchance an opportunity to discuss issues with the ABC!

Now please recall that it is Narnia and Middle Earth refracting the light of the "green and pleasant isles" that imagination sees! If the beer is adequate and up to snuff, I can perhaps overlook that reality shan't match such verities as have been revealed!

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well it's sort of like when the BBC reporter asked Tony Blair with contempt "so do you and Bush pray together?" it's a rather stupid and pointless question in my opinion. But it showed the contempt they have for people who are religious and open about it.

I think the reporter doesn't believe Bush prays and the contempt he has is for hypocrisy. Some people who identify themselves as Christian do not believe that God would tell the POTUS to do what Bush does.

[inked]

I rather think the gaff is in the praying, not in the answers, Elfhelm. The EU has fallen so far in practice from its origins that most folk there TRULY believe religious belief is exclusionary from realpolitik having swallowed Marxist doctrine with their formula or breastmilk. It is a genuine cultural divide, seen from this side of the pond!

As to the matter of specific answers to such prayers, I do not recall a cited instance of the allegation that President Bush says "God told me to do it". Have I missed something?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I think the reporter doesn't believe Bush prays and the contempt he has is for hypocrisy. Some people who identify themselves as Christian do not believe that God would tell the POTUS to do what Bush does.

By your statement I doubt you are going by personal experience of seeing the interview - but only going by your own belief of what happened.

[Elfhelm]

Of course you're right. I may not call myself a Christian*, but I do not believe Jesus condones the behavior of my government at this time.

inked, the President was asked if he consulted with his father about something, I think it was Iraq but don't quote me, and he said that he consults with a higher Father. He meant God. He also said he prays before difficult decisions. Most of us do. That doesn't mean God is on his side, but the implication is certainly there.


* I make this disclaimer because I want to be clear that I am not representing anyone but myself in thiese opinions.

[inked]

Let me see, GW says he prays about difficult decisions as "most of us do" but somehow that implies God is on GW's side? That's not how I would take the comment. I would say GW is saying he has done all he can do to assure he is doing the right action, including personal prayer. I don't think it implies GW making claims for God as much as say the bishops in the ECUSA claim in (allegedly) ordaining a practicing homosexual to the bishopric against the express actions of Lambeth Council decisions by the entire Anglican Communion. Nor do I hear GW telling those who disagree that God told him to do it. So I think you over-reach by implication because you disagree, not because GW is making claims of the same.

[Elfhelm]

Of course I disagree! And so do the Quakers and many other Christians.
http://turnyourbackonbush.org/

I did not say that he said "as most of us do"; it was me who said that. But I do have real quotes for you.

Abbas said that at Aqaba, Bush promised to speak with Sharon about the siege on Arafat. He said nobody can speak to or pressure Sharon except the Americans. According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

Other Bush supporters have said similar things to imply that God is directing Bush's hand. For instance:

George Pataki: "He is one of those men God and fate somehow lead to the fore in times of challenge."

Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention: "Among the things he said to us was: I believe that God wants me to be president, but if that doesn't happen, it's OK.' "

Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin: "Why is this man in the White House? The majority of America did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."

Time magazine: "Privately, Bush talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment." (9/11)

White House official Tim Goeglein: "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility."

[inked]

Elfhelm,

I meant that it is certainly politically viable to disagree with Iraq. But frankly, the attribution of God's providential action in the election of GW Bush for the current hour (circa 1990 to date) is not something I personally have a problem with. My faith stance is that all things are in God's hands. Frankly I have been known to tell Him I appreciate that Al Gore didn't get elected before 9/11. ( We'd still be dithering about what to do, have left Afghanistan to genocidal factions, and probably be forced to listen to more of the derogation of the military that Clinton and last Democratic presidential hopeful put us through for 16 years instead of a mitigated 8 years. But, it's not like I have opinions or anything! )

Now, doubtless you feel free to note your opinions to the Almighty as well. I understand He listens, but is constrained only by Himself.

By the way, your reference to TM in this or another thread (I can't recall), you are not bringing up that decades old canard that it's science, are you?
No offence intended.