Andrew Sullivan Whistling Dixie

Monday, October 29, AD 2012




Andrew Sullivan, the renowned gynecologist who spends most of his time attempting to prove that Sarah Palin could not be the mother of her son Trig, on ABC This Week yesterday began the work of establishing that Obama is going down to defeat because of racism.

This is a column he wrote after the video above:

I think America is currently in a Cold Civil War. The parties, of course, have switched sides since the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The party of the Union and Lincoln is now the Democratic party. The party of the Confederacy is now the GOP. And racial polarization is at record levels, with whites entirely responsible for reversing Obama’s 2008 inroads into the old Confederacy in three Southern states. You only have to look at the electoral map in 1992 and 1996, when Clinton won, to see how the consolidation of a Confederacy-based GOP and a Union-based Democratic party has intensified – and now even more under a black president from, ahem, Illinois

I will leave to others a determination as to the skill of Sullivan as a gynecologist, but in constructing historical parallels he reeks.  A few thoughts:

1.  Race and Obama-Obama is likely to end up with some 38% of the white vote and 95% of the black vote.  I don’t construe anything from this, but if race were regarded as a factor in voting, it would seem that Obama’s overwhelming support among blacks might be considered to have a racial factor behind it, if it is assumed, as Sullivan does, that whites voting against Obama are motivated by race.

2.  What a large Confederacy-  I did not know that the Confederacy included such states as Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Alaska, the Dakotas,  Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, and, probably, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and, perhaps, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada and, in that northern bastion of Dixie, a congressional district in Maine.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Andrew Sullivan Whistling Dixie

  • Sullivan is not into loads of logic.

  • What do you call someone who calls you a name just because you disagree with him or her? Childish.

  • Unfortunately Andrew Sullivan is given a nation-wide voice, so while thinking people who are closely following these things understand that what he says is wrong, the majority of people watching ABC won’t have paid that kind of attention to the facts to realize Sullivan is wrong. And the liberal news media won’t put anyone on the air who would debunk what Sullivan says. Everything is skewed left, and therein lies the danger.

  • I’m reminded of the constant refrain from the Left during the second Bush Administration: “whenever we disagree, the Right says we are unpatriotic but opposition is patriotism.” I didn’t see what they were talking about then but, if they felt as offended as I am by the allegation that my opposition to this administration is merely cloaked racism, I may be better able to understand why they took it so personally.

  • The Left is into Narratives not History or Analysis. I call it the Dictator’s Whim. What he decides today he may undo tomorrow for convenience or whim. He has flacks to explain how the two situati0ns are totally different or deny that yesterday took place. No different than the dear old boys of the Soviet Union retouching the photos. “Those who are unaware of hist…” Oh never mind.

  • Michael Lind, who’s similar to Sullivan (ex-neoconservative, currently hysterical denouncer of all things conservative) already tried his hand at the “neo-Confederates in non-Southern states” theory during the debt ceiling fight — the Confederate “mentality” has metastasized through the Midwest, Mountain West, and red counties of blue states.

    of course for these guys the religious right = the Confederacy and really any position they don’t like = the Confederacy/some other irrational losing side of the past, anything to make it something they don’t have to debate seriously. It’s a standard leftist tactic. Of course you get crazies on both sides but on the Right you don’t get people echoing the moonbat arguments in the way the leftist intelligentsia does.

  • also that woman’s face in the screenshot is priceless

  • one last thing, I don’t read him but from what I can tell secondhand this is Sullivan’s modus operandi at this point — say something insanely hyperbolic and basely partisan, then try and intellectually defend it on his blog to portray himself as a noble, impartial seeker of truth.

    So when he suddenly starts claiming the LDS church’s past racial supremacism is the sum of all it’s ever been, it’s not a panicked response to Romney’s surge in the polls, no sir, he’s just asking questions

  • Many truly want to play this card [racist].
    It couldn’t be that Oblamma has proven his inabilities to govern…could it? Or that he has said one thing and acted completely the opposite. No. No. That’s absurd. It’s those white church going, gun loving, small business owner, Chamber of Commerce member, Constitutionalists that just can’t stand the idea of an African American being president.
    Wow. Kool aid bath in the Sullivan home.

  • As I hunker down in my house, listening to NOAA’s ongoing broadcasts and the wind howling through my trees, I am comforted to know that my wife and children are up-state, out of the track of this storm. Obama was right about my clinging to my guns and religion… I have both with me now. He was wrong about the cause and effects though.

  • Stay safe G-Veg, and that goes for all our contributors, commenters and readers in the path of this storm!

The First Gay President

Monday, May 14, AD 2012


Some things truly do not need any commentary, but this is too sweet a target to forego the obligatory ducks in a barrel:

1.  Somebody buy our rag, please!:  Newsweek has been suffering financial woes for a very long time.  Since 2007 it has lost 50% of its subscribers.  I assume that the management at Newsweek now thinks they have nothing to lose from being an open arm of the Democrat party, rather than a hidden arm of that party, which was their usual mode of operation in the good old days, for them, when the magazine actually managed to make money.

2.  Bubble people:  The powers that be at Newsweek obviously live in an ideological bubble where calling Obama the First Gay President will help him.  Most of the country does not inhabit that bubble.

3.  Halo Twofer:  The halo above the President is of course no accident.  The folks at Newsweek regard Obama as a saint, if not higher in the celestial hierarchy.  As for gays, they are by definition on the side of the angels, a somewhat patronizing attitude on TV these days where gays are trotted out to deliver lines filled with wit, wisdom and tolerance, occupying the slot previously alloted in television land decades ago to ministers, priests, nuns and rabbis.

4.  Not a Put On:  No clever satire is intended by Newsweek.  They are in deadly earnest.  More is the pity.

5.  The meaning of Gay:  Judging from my teenage daughter’s use of the term, “gay”, among the younger generation, frequently means “lame” or “weak”.  In that sense Obama is most assuredly a gay president, albeit far from the first one.

Continue reading...

63 Responses to The First Gay President

  • “Truly Sullivan is a man of many talents and his manifold skills are wasted as a contributor to a dying newsmagazine that mainly serves as liner for litter boxes and birdcages.”

    My two cats, Worf and Gabby,” have more self-respect than to enter a litter box lined with the trappings of that rag. Nor would the human whom they own insult them in such a fashion by so lining their litter box.


  • Since Bill Clinton already claimed the title of “first black president” (bestowed upon him by author Toni Morrison) I guess Obama had to claim “first gay president.” Perhaps the people behind the “war on women” meme will next try to claim he’s the “first woman president” because he is the first to truly understand just how desperately women need abortion on demand and free birth control….

  • The worst POTUS (Who thought it was possible to be worse than Carter?) is the second black POTUS.

    AS is one of the vile 13 lousiest oxygen thieves on the planet.

    Lucifer is an archangel of many talents and manifest . . .

  • Confusing polls suggesting that urban and suburban Americans are OK with same sex marriage with the thinking that we are active supporters of the practice is a grave error that is being made all over the Left.

    Most of the people I know are no more sympathetic to gay activism than they are to my belief that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. They simply don’t care and don’t want to discuss it. The subject is so far down on their lists of concerns that it barely registers.

    This is bad for activists on both sides of the spectrum and begs the question “what are the President’s handlers thinking?”

    The timing iof this devisive foray into the Social Wars is particularly mind-boggling when youconsider the issues that the President controls that resonate with middle-age, somewhat religious, married, parents. Hehas the GOP over a barrel over student loan debt but dumped the issue just as it got interesting. He has Republicans over taxes for the wealthybut dropped that issue just when the GOPwas running out of ammunition.

    His campaign staff must be more out of touch than I thought.

  • I assume that the management at Newsweek now thinks they have nothing to lose from being an open arm of the Democrat party, rather than a hidden arm of that party, which was their usual mode of operation in the good old days, for them, when the magazine actually managed to make money.

    That was Jon Meacham’s plan during their first round of re-invention. The problem was that they had a staff which thought and wrote in the manner of people recruited and trained to produce reportage rather than essays and commentary. It gave you an appreciation of an organ like The New Republic whose (much smaller) staff knows how to write this stuff. The magazine was explicitly liberal (and smug and banal and bigoted rather like … Jon Meacham). Their current editor seems to wish to re-invent Newsweek as a close kin to New York.

  • On August 2, 2010, 91 year-old, billionaire Sidney Harmon (of Harmao/Kardon) paid the Wa Post Co. $1.00 for Newsweek.

    Sidney was robbed.

  • Don, perhaps the title fits and Obama is or was a bit light in the shoes. But his sexual orientation, while now perhaps suspect, is not the story. As the Chicago Tribune headlined, “Obama’s gay marriage stance sets off money rush” According to Lawrence O’Donnell, 1 out of 6 of Obama’s fundraisers is gay.

    I’m not fan of Alexander Cockburn, but he did have an interesting take on the matter: “So the liberal progressives glory in Obama’s ‘courage’ and many a doubting heart about the President’s betrayals is lighter and more forgiving. Trashing the constitution, green-lighting torture, claiming the unilateral right to order the execution of anyone, anywhere on the planet… wiped clean off the windscreen.”

  • Rather attractive, but frightening, breastfeeding Mom, or angelic gay Obama with gay halo…

    That’s just too tough a call to make.

  • Brokeback Barack. Newsweek can’t quit him.

  • “Brokeback Barack” – Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! LOL!

  • Here we go again with the misplaced brain problem. Above the shoulders, sir.

    ” But what resonates with me the most is a theology that seems crafted from solitary introspection into a perfect, abstract unity of belief. It is so perfect it reflects a life of withdrawal from the world of human relationship, rather than an interaction with it. Of course, this kind of work is not inherently homosexual; ”

    ‘solitary introspection’ – what? study and teaching of God’s Word and Church Fathers would prohibit misplaced brainwork of me, myself, and I.

    ‘life of withdrawal from the world of human relationship’ – what, you mean chaste for the sake of integrity, prayer and finding ways to communicate help for the human race for God? Trying to relate this to us from a pure love…

    ‘this kind of work’ – A courageous man who can bear arrows of hatefulness and still care for God’s people and their souls so that they can find eternal rest from this kind of onslaught by servants of you know who.

  • This may be this campaign’s Dukakis-in-a-tank moment. I hope someone in the opposition has the brains to buy every copy of Newsweek they can get their hands on for use later.

  • Pingback: President Obama Newsweek Gay President Gay Marriage SSPX | The Pulpit
  • The gay agenda stole the rainbow colors from the Rainbow Coalition, an organization working for the advancement of Black People. Unbeknownst, Barack is playing the race card. Newsweek is enabling Obama. The Rainbow Coalition should take back their Rainbow. Let the gays find their own.

  • Not the First Dog-Eating President! That honor goes to James Buchanan. He was said to be discreet about it, but it was common knowledge among his friends. There are also rumors about Lincoln. Historians have speculated that this was the cause of the strain on Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln’s marraige. The Dog Nabbin’ Republicans, a group of pro-canine-eating GOP’ers, derived their name from this speculation.

  • 8 Gay Pope. I remember when the Pope was so maligned. It was insinuated that the Pope was a practicing gay. I did not know that it was Andrew Sullivan. Let the plagiarist, intellectual property theif be brought to Justice.

  • If Obama is so holy, he does not need a health care plan, he can heal the sick and raise the dead all by himself, and for free, so what is he waiting for? after the election when he has more flexibilty? that would be extortion, sometimes called black male.

  • …what.

    When I first glanced at this picture, I thought it was from an extreme right-wing magazine. This has to be the most unintentionally embarrassing cover I’ve ever seen. I actually feel kind of bad for Obama.

    So if I became the first female president and advocated men’s rights, would I be just another male president?

  • “So if I became the first female president and advocated men’s rights, would I be just another male president?”

    Its not that easy. Will you be advocating white, black, Hispanic or Asian rights? Will they be gay or strait rights? Will men be able to marry their pets? These things are important.

    You obviously are not a sophisticate. 😉

  • The evil POTUS and his cynical puppeteers may have provided us with yet another “teachable moment.”

    The black (separate but equal) churches talk the talk on Biblical morality in many contemporary arenas.

    In November, we will learn if the black man and woman walks the walk.

  • “Will men be able to marry their pets?” When the taxpayers are forced to fund the codification of such an abomination, the human being, man, has been redefined as a demon. When men do demonic acts, they will go to hell, but to extort money and legalize crime and codify sin as the true nature of man is a lie. People who tell lies are called liars.

  • You are excoriating Obama for the simple dignity of him recognizing the humanity of those who live a different lifestyle as yours. For almost fifty years, I was a very devout Catholic, but am now a lapsed Catholic because of hypocrisy like the opinions expressed here. Believe me, Jesus Christ would not have marginalized a person because they were gay. Unfortunately, though, the Catholic church today is more about rules and bureaucracy than it is about the teachings and life of Jesus Christ. That’s why I’m lapsed.

  • “You are excoriating Obama for the simple dignity of him recognizing the humanity of those who live a different lifestyle as yours. For almost fifty years, I was a very devout Catholic, but am now a lapsed Catholic because of hypocrisy like the opinions expressed here.”

    You understand the post Roger as well as you understand the meaning of the word “hypocrisy”. The post was focused on the over the top Newsweek cover and the equally over the top Andrew Sullivan. As to the substance of Obama being personally in favor of homosexual marriage, it is deeply cynical. He expressed his personal opinion and then said it is up to the states, which is a short hand way of him not having to do anything about it. Gay marriage proponents should be outraged that Obama thinks they can be bought off so cheaply. Of course as a formerly “devout” Catholic, you of course understand that the teaching of the Church has always been that marriage is between a man and a woman. Continuing to be for what the Church has always been for is not hypocrisy but rather consistency.

  • While he wouldn’t have marginalized the homosexual, Jesus would have condemned the sin and admonished the person not to sin again. The ultimate marginalization actually is the work of the person who, through sin, marginalizes himself from God. The ultimate marginalization of course is going to Hell. Something Jesus does not wish, but which he allows humans, in their freedom, to choose.

  • Phillip/Donald:

    You have such archaic views of Catholicism and Christ. To me, my personal Jesus was an accepting liberal who fought for the disenfranchised and marginalized –in his time, the lepers, the prostitutes et al. It’s all in the bible.

    The fact of the matter is, today’s Catholic church is more about following stupid rules like not eating meat on Friday’s during lent or fasting before Communion or stupid rituals during a boring “celebration” of the mass that. It’s about time the church got a little “real” in understanding that Catholicism is not about rules and regulations but about liberation for all humanity.

  • “The ultimate marginalization of course is going to Hell.”

    C’mon, do you really believe that a good and loving God would create a Hell to punish and torture his own creatures? That’s up there with Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast!

  • “To me, my personal Jesus was an accepting liberal”

    Accepting of all except those who have the termerity to disagree with Roger Chiocchi apparently.

    “the lepers, the prostitutes et al. It’s all in the bible.”

    Indeed, he healed the lepers, forgave the sins of prostitutes, and called all and sundry to follow Him, and His Church which He established. It’s all in the Bible.

    “stupid rules like not eating meat on Friday’s during lent or fasting before Communion or stupid rituals during a boring “celebration” of the mass that. It’s about time the church got a little “real” in understanding that Catholicism is not about rules and regulations but about liberation for all humanity.”

    This is a parody comment right? Either that or I implore you that after you are dead you order that your body be stuffed, and placed on display in a museum with a sign indicating that you are a prime example of Liberal Catholic, now extinct.

  • “C’mon, do you really believe that a good and loving God would create a Hell to punish and torture his own creatures? That’s up there with Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast!”

    Somehow Roger I suspect that Christ knows a good deal more about Hell than you do, yet.

    “And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
    Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”

  • To me, my personal Jesus

    Me, my, personal. Preening individualistic narcism expressed in one succinct sentence.

    Pick up the receiver. I’m sure someone can make you a believer.

  • You don’t get it, my friend.

    There’s a little bit of Jesus in each of us just yearning to come out and express himself. He’s a powerful presence who has been misinterpreted in so many ways by oh so many well-meaning people.

  • “You have such archaic views of Catholicism and Christ.”

    Have Catholicism and Christ changed? Or are you talking about your personal Jesus?

    “There’s a little bit of Jesus in each of us just yearning to come out and express himself. He’s a powerful presence who has been misinterpreted in so many ways by oh so many well-meaning people.”

    How do you know you’re not misinterpreting him?

  • No Catholicism and Christ haven’t changed, just the people who interpret them. All I can say is that I have a very personal understanding of Jesus. That’s what we call faith. Do you think your faith is better than mine?

  • Roger, Your personal understanding – and mine – count not in the least. Narcissic hippified luv-in kumbaya nonsense. Sorry. Can’t help myself. I will now crawl to my corner for penance. 😉

    Jesus Christ died a brutal death on a Cross to save men from sin like homosexual perversion and abortion and adultery and fornication. Righteousness and holiness come first.

  • OMG! We should be very proud of ourselves, Paul. We’ve been the first two human beings to connect via a wormhole. What century is it you’re from, the 12th or 13th?

  • @ 8:48
    ‘ The fact of the matter is, today’s Catholic church is more about following stupid rules like not eating meat on Friday’s during lent or fasting before Communion or stupid rituals during a boring “celebration” of the mass that. It’s about time the church got a little “real” in understanding that Catholicism is not about rules and regulations but about liberation for all humanity. ‘

    The Catholic Church, following the teachings of Jesus who was with God our Father before the world was created as He said, serves to protect, hallow, and teach God’s law for the love of humanity. Humanity chooses whether or not to strive to be holy or sinful. Striving to be holy, not given to being a slave to things of the flesh and world, is true liberation. Read Job, Isaiah, about Moses, Daniel, about Jonah, and the people in the Gospels you mention; courage, strength, going and sinning no more, learning about the depth of love for and by God as a gauge to what depth and richness there is for humanity to be found in the Catholic Church.

  • There’s a tremendous amount of humanity in the teachings of Jesus Christ and I cherish that. But most of the rules of the Catholic church have nothing to do with the teachings of Christ. They were made many years after his death. And the fact that in my generation in the US, the nuns filled us with guilt to get in line and follow Christ, in my opinion, was a perversion of his true message.

  • @ 10:19
    All the ‘perversions of His true message’ are probably a reason to thank Him for teaching the Lord’s Prayer, a way to order priorities.

  • Okay, here’s what it says:
    Our Father is in heaven – got it
    Holy be thy name – agreed.
    They Kingdom Come – agreed
    They will be done — ok
    On earth as it is heaven – ok
    Give us this day our daily bread – hopefully, if the republicans don’t take over!
    And forgive us our trespasses – yes, the basic message of JC was forgiveness
    As we forgive those who trespass against us – the basic essence of Christ’s message
    And lead us not into temptation – hopefully
    and deliver us from evil – of course

    Ok, agreed, it’s a masterpiece. But don’t see there how it answers the question I posed: i.e why was our generation of Catholics brought up on a foundation of guilt rather than of liberation?

  • First, The Lord’s Prayer is a prayer from someone to our Father, not a statement.

    See Matthew 6: 5 – 21. Or the whole Gospel, even the four Gospels for help.

    Verses 9 – 13:
    Our Father in Heaven,
    hallowed be your name,
    your kingdom come,
    your will be done,
    on earth as in heaven.
    Give us today our daily bread;
    and forgive us our debts,
    as we forgive our debtors;
    and do not subject us to the final test,
    but deliver us from the evil one.

    Your question:
    Verses 14 – 15:
    If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you.(liberation?)
    But if you do not forgive others,
    neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.

  • “…and deliver us from evil – of course”

    I’ve slept quite restfully during the night. Have not missed anything that I have not read in the National Catholic Reporter or heard from 70’s era priests. Donald et al have given a more than adequate defense.

    My only addition is that there is evil. The assaults on the Truth of the Church over the past 50 years are indeed evil and exemplified in those 70’s sentiments on display here.

    Hell indeed exists. Thankfully mercy and forgiveness first. But nonetheless Hell for those who resist the Holy Spirit.

  • But most of the rules of the Catholic church have nothing to do with the teachings of Christ. They were made many years after his death. And the fact that in my generation in the US, the nuns filled us with guilt

    Boo hoo.

  • “Boo hoo.”

    I’m certainly not crying over it, but trying to respond intelligently and with a spiritual sensitivity. BTW: guilt is usually used as a weapon when someone wants to control you and keep you in your place.

  • Guilt is the condition of being in a state of unrepentent mortal sin. Only the blood of Jesus Christ on the Cross may serve as the expiation for sin.

    Don’t want to feel guilty? Stop sinning and start repenting!

    No one gets into Heaven without righteousness and holiness.

  • In response to Roger’s previous question last night, “What century is it you’re from, the 12th or 13th?”

    I would have considered it an honor to have lived in the 13th century and had met St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Francis of Assisi. Alas, I live in the modern Sodom and Gommorah of the 21st century.

    In response to Roger’s previous comment, “C’mon, do you really believe that a good and loving God would create a Hell to punish and torture his own creatures? That’s up there with Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast!”

    Jesus talked a great deal about hell (Gehenna, hades, etc.) in the New Testament, over and over again. He often talked bout it more than He did Heaven. Obviously He “believed in” it. Why? Because Jesus doesn’t want any of us to go to hell, but that’s exactly where we will send ourselves by being in a state of unrepentent mortal sin. Jesus didn’t die on the Cross for nothing.

    Jesus is not some luv-in, peace and justice, hippified liberal in 1st century AD clothing. He is the Son of the Living God.

    BTW, since Jesus’ adopted father was a “teknon” (often translated as carpenter, but more properly a stone mason), Jesus likely shared in his adopted father’s work prior to his public ministry. As a result of lifting heavy stones and pieces of wood, he very likely didn’t appear as the effeminate wimp we see in so many paintings, but rather quite probably gave an imposing appearance of muscle and mass. Everything in Jesus’ day was done by manual labor, so no hippified weakling was he.

    Manly men are something liberals can’t stand, and Jesus was just as much a manly man as He was God Himself.

  • trying to respond intelligently and with a spiritual sensitivity.

    And I am attempting to be intelligently insensitive.

    BTW: guilt is usually used as a weapon when someone wants to control you and keep you in your place.

    No, it is not. Common-and-garden individuals have much about which to feel guilty. There are few people in this world who are given to reminding you of that (family members, mostly). There are few whose vocation it is to remind you of that. Teaching sisters are among those whose vocation it is (just like the sister your mother bore you).

  • Yo, Paul — that’s a leap, equating liberalness and being a “hippie” with being effeminate. Wow! I suppose there are effeminate liberals and effeminate conservatives. I see no correlation (unless, perhaps you’re a conservative homophobe). In the end, I suppose we each have our own personal Jesus. I believe he was a liberating, forgiving force, who life was an example to us all. You, apparently, believe otherwise.

    Art Deco: Perhaps that is the job of teaching sisters, but I think many of their tactics during my generation were extremely counter-productive. Heck, they made you scared of your own puberty — isn’t that a gift from God

  • Roger,

    We need to repent and convert to accept such forgiveness.

    “I suppose we each have our own personal Jesus.”

    No. There is only one Jesus – the Great “I AM”. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God….” You and I don’t get to pick and choose our personal Jesus. You and I either submit to the Great “I AM” or you and I send ourselves to burn for an eternity in hell. Those are our only choices.

    No hippified liberal weakling Jesus, but rather the Son of the Living God, Lord and King of the Universe, Savior of sinners from hell. Submit. Resistance is futile!

    Sorry. Can’t help myself for using that phrase. I’m bad! 😉

  • I believe there’s a little bit of Jesus in each of us, my friend. Perhaps that’s what makes us human.

  • Geez, Roger, I don’t know what to say. If I want Jesus in me, then I must repent and convert on a daily basis, and partake of the Sacraments. That means participating actively in the Sacraments, especially Penance and Reconciliation, and the Holy Eucharist. It means (among many other things and not necessarily in this order) reading the Bible, praying the Rosary, doing good works for others instead of selfishly pursuing what makes me feel good, and giving all honor and glory to God. It’s not a kumbaya around the camp fire luv-in. It’s actually hard work that places God first and others ahead of myself. Faith without works is dead.

  • Paul: We just have different views of Christ and Christianity,let’s leave it at that.

  • Roger,
    Do you honestly visualize your own personal Jesus as a Rabbi in a ‘wedding’ in between two persons of the same sex?

    Do you really see him turning water into vine at such a ‘wedding’ and congratulating the couple?

    Please answer me that.

  • Does anyone else see a pattern here?

    GM = Gay Marriage; GM Government Motors . . .

    I love it when a plan comes together!

    Post GM evolution:

    Thirteen Percent More Likely to Vote Hope And Change!

    Twenty-Six Percent Less Likely to Vote Hope and Unemployment!

    Clue for social scientists: That is not a good thingy for Obama.

  • Ciocchi:

    Do you believe there is such a thing as objective truth?

    Do you believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God?

    Do you believe that Christ entrusted His authority on Earth to His Holy Catholic Church?

    If not, it seems that you recognize no authority outside of yourself.

    Go forth and fabricate whatever “reality” and “truth” you prefer.

  • Ciocchi:

    Do you believe there is such a thing as objective truth?
    I’m not sure what you mean by that. Explain.

    Do you believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God?


    Do you believe that Christ entrusted His authority on Earth to His Holy Catholic Church?

    He began a church when he designated Peter as its “rock” – that church is the holy Catholic Church. Many of it’s rules were made hundreds of years after Jesus’ death

    If not, it seems that you recognize no authority outside of yourself.
    I believe that one of the gifts that God gave us his the human mind. He meant it to be used.

    Go forth and fabricate whatever “reality” and “truth” you prefer.

  • Anyone who claims to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God must believe in objective Truth. If he does not believe in objective Truth, then his claim to believe that Jesus is the Son of God is nothing more than a sham. Indeed, Truth is not a thing but a Person – the Person Christ Jesus. He is objective Truth.

    I agree with Roger that God does expect and furthermore require that we use our minds, for we are created in His image and likeness. That means that we are NOT supposed to wallow in sexual filth like a mindless baboon. To the point of this blog post – The First Gay President – that means no sexual intercourse outside of marriage between one man and one woman. No homosexual sodomy. No adultery. No fornication. No pornography.

    We are called up to use our minds and subjugate the passions of the flesh to the desires of Objective Truth Himself. That is true freedom and anything else is licentiousness, the very hallmark of godless liberal progressive Democracy – two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

  • Doesn’t only God/Jesus know for sure that they are together with the Holy Spirit one God? If that’s the case, the only “persons” with the objective truth about God is the Trinity itself. For everyone else, it’s an act of Faith. We can believe in God, but we don’t know for sure.

  • Roger – You’re right that a person can get so caught up in the rules that they lose sight of the big picture. But that doesn’t mean you should walk away from the commandments in protest against those people. It’s as wrong to try to love without following the commandments as it is to try to follow the commandments without love. We’re called to do both. And that’s tough. Tell me, have you forgiven the nuns that taught you poorly? Forgiveness is one of the commandments, and it’s tough. They all are. That doesn’t mean we get to ignore them in the name of love, any more than we get to ignore love by following the commanments. If you think about it, love and obedience are impossible without each other.

  • God bless you Roger Chiocchi
    Two things you say jump out at me– 1) concern about guilt, (which we can not run away from or deny, but which we can embrace and repent and reform our lives..
    and 2 ) concern about the authority of the Church..

    Here are some of the thoughts of other Christians about that..

    “Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart… When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name.”
    Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D..

    “Always remain close to the Catholic Church, because it alone can give you true peace, since it alone possesses Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, the true Prince of Peace.” Blessed Padre Pio…

    “It is because Christ is the sole canon of her preaching that the Church adheres so obstinately and so rigidly to His traditional message. It is for this reason that she can endure no modernism, no fraternizing with the spirit of the age.”
    Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism…

    “The Catholic Church understands its opponents, her opponents do not understand the Catholic Church.”
    Hilaire Belloc, the Great Heresies…

    “People can relate to a crucified Christ displayed in Catholic Churches, as each one of us has a cross to carry. None of us can relate to a risen Christ, as none of us has ever risen from the dead.”
    Fr. Groeschel…

    “Dogmas of the Catholic Church are interconnected. If one is rejected, such as the infallibility of the Pope, then all are rejected.” Fr. Trujillo…

    “You blind guides who strain out the gnat but swallow the camel.” Matthew 23:24…

    “The Catholic faith does not teach what we used to think and vainly accused it of.”
    St. Augustine, Confessions, 6,11, 400

    “Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation.” St. Jerome Commentaries on Titus, 3,10 386 A.D..

    “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” St Ambrose of Milan, On twelve Psalms 381 A.D..

    Saint Augustine…

    “The Catholic Church Always Has What The World Is Lacking.” G.K. Chesterton…

    “When the world goes wrong, it proves that the Church is right.” G.K. Chesterton…

    I think Chesterton also said something about our Church could boil others to rags!

    “You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid.”
    Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans, 107 A.D..

    “From what has been said, then, it seems clear to me that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one; and in it are enrolled those who, in accord with a design, are just… We say, therefore, that in substance, in concept, in origin and in eminence, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does into the unity of the one faith which results from familiar covenants, – or rather, from the one covenant in different times, by the will of the one GOD and through the one Lord, – those already chosen, those predestined by GOD who knew before the foundation of the world that they would be just.”
    Saint Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, 202 A.D..

    “It is therefore, the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the domicile of faith; this the temple of GOD. Whoever does not enter there or whoever does not go out from here, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation… Because, however, all the various groups of heretics are confident that they are the Christians, and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, let it be known: that is the true Church, in which there is confession and penance, and which takes a salubrious care of sins and wounds to which the weak flesh is subject.”
    Lactantius, The Divine Institutions, 304 A.D..

    “Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.”
    St. Athanasius, Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 359 A.D..

    “I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
     Saint Augustine of Hippo, Against the Letter of Mani, 397 A.D..

    “This Church is Holy, the One Church, the True Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall not conquer her.”
    Saint Augustine of Hippo, Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed, 6,14, 395 A.D.

  • 1. You can not believe that Jesus is the Son of God without accepting the Holy Catholic Church as the one true Church set up by the all knowing, all good, and all powerful God.

    2. You can’t forgive someone who is not sorry for what they did.

  • 1. You can not believe that Jesus is the Son of God without accepting the Holy Catholic Church as the one true Church set up by the all knowing, all good, and all powerful God.S

    So what you’re saying is that very devout Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopaleans et al and need I say devout Muslims, can’t go to Heaven

    2. You can’t forgive someone who is not sorry for what they did.


  • “Outside the Church there is no salvation”

    846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

    Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

    847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

    Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

    848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”338

  • ‘2. You can’t forgive someone who is not sorry for what they did.


    You must forgive or you will not be forgiven. Christ forgave us on the Holy Cross. That was the most evil act in Creation. And, we were not repentent.

    That is not to say you must not fight against evil. You must confront evil with charity, with no hatred or vengeance in mind.

    As Kipling in a poem wrote, “I’d just as soon respect the man I’m paid to kill.”

  • This forgiving can be done without the ability to change or like the forgiven, just try to understand the source and move on. Tough enough.

Fr. Barron Eviscerates Dandy Andy

Wednesday, April 11, AD 2012

It’s Easter, so naturally it’s time for idiocy like Newsweek’s cover story written by Andrew Sullivan.  It looks like Sullivan has added theologian to his list of other professions, which include pundit and gynecologist.  It’s about what you’d expect from the combination of Newsweek and Sullivan.  Christianity is dying and it’s because of all those stuffed-shirts who have distorted Jesus’s message.

Fr. Barron is on the case, and he completely dismantles Sullivan.  A few highlights:

The solution Sullivan proposes is a repristinizing of Christianity, a return to its roots and essential teachings. And here he invokes, as a sort of patron saint, Thomas Jefferson, who as a young man literally took a straight razor to the pages of the New Testament and cut out any passages dealing with the miraculous, the supernatural, or the resurrection and divinity of Jesus.

The result of this Jeffersonian surgery is Jesus the enlightened sage, the teacher of timeless moral truths concerning love, forgiveness and non-violence. Both Jefferson and Sullivan urge that this Christ, freed from churchly distortions, can still speak in a liberating way to an intelligent and non-superstitious audience.

As the reference to Jefferson should make clear, there is nothing particularly new in Sullivan’s proposal. The liberation of Jesus the wisdom figure from the shackles of supernatural doctrine has been a preoccupation of much of the liberal theology of the last 200 years.

The Jefferson “Bible” is, if nothing else, an impressive work of art.  Jefferson took passages from Scripture written in English, Latin, Greek, and French.  He carefully pasted the passages side-by-side.  It’s an awesome display of craftsmanship.  Of course it completely distorts the life and mission of Christ and turns our Lord and Saviour into nothing more than a wise philosopher.  It’s a good representation of Jefferson’s uber-rationalistic mindset, and part of an extended effort to de-fang the real Christ.

Fr. Barron has more.

The first problem with this type of theorizing is that it has little to do with the New Testament. As Jefferson’s Bible makes clear, the excision of references to the miraculous, to the resurrection, and to the divinity of Jesus delivers to us mere fragments of the Gospels.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were massively interested in the miracles and exorcisms of Jesus and they were positively obsessed with his dying and rising. The Gospels have been accurately characterized as “passion narratives with long introductions.”

Further, the earliest Christian texts that we have are the epistles of St. Paul, and in those letters that St. Paul wrote to the communities he founded, there are but a tiny handful of references to the teaching of Jesus. What clearly preoccupied Paul was not the moral doctrine of Jesus, but the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Indeed, by removing the miracles and resurrection from the account of Jesus’s life you’ve almost completely stripped his mission of any meaning.

And this leads to the second major problem with a proposal like Sullivan’s. It offers absolutely no challenge to the powers that be. It is precisely the bland and harmless version of Christianity with which the regnant culture is comfortable.

Go back to Peter’s sermon for a moment. “You killed him,” said the chief of Jesus’s disciples. The “you” here includes the power structures of the time, both Jewish and Roman, which depended for their endurance in power on their ability to frighten their subjects through threats of lethal punishment.

“But God raised him.” The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the clearest affirmation possible that God is more powerful than the corrupt and violent authorities that govern the world — which is precisely why the tyrants have always been terrified of it. When the first Christians held up the cross, the greatest expression of state-sponsored terrorism, they were purposely taunting the leaders of their time: “You think that frightens us?”

The opening line of the Gospel of Mark is a direct challenge to Rome: “beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mk 1:1). “Good news” (euangelion in Mark’s Greek) was a term used to describe an imperial victory. The first Christian evangelist is saying, not so subtly, that the real good news hasn’t a thing to do with Caesar.

Rather, it has to do with someone whom Caesar killed and whom God raised from the dead. And just to rub it in, he refers to this resurrected Lord as the “Son of God.” Ever since the time of Augustus, “Son of God” was a title claimed by the Roman emperor. Not so, says Mark. The authentic Son of God is the one who is more powerful than Caesar.

Again and again, Sullivan says that he wants a Jesus who is “apolitical.” Quite right — and that’s just why the cultural and political leaders of the contemporary West will be perfectly at home with his proposal. A defanged, privatized, spiritual teacher poses little threat to the status quo.

This is a great passage, and one of the reasons that Fr. Barron is truly a treasure.  I love how he completely turns around Sullivan’s argument and makes him the champion of the status quo.  It’s a really great insight, and one that completely sticks it to Dr. Sullivan.  Well played.

(Thanks RL for the tip.)

Continue reading...

25 Responses to Fr. Barron Eviscerates Dandy Andy

  • Sullivan should stick to subjects where he’s less likely to embarrass himself.

    Such as gynecology.

  • CS Lewis put paid to the notion of Jesus as only a great sage for any one who is intellectually honest:

    “Then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world Who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.

    One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men’s toes and stealing other men’s money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned; the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history.

    Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less do unprejudiced readers. Christ says that He is ‘humble and meek’ and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.

    I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

  • One quibble, Jefferson was an old man when he made his cut and paste Bible. This was the culmination of a lifetime of thinking, not a whim of youth.

  • An elderly Jefferson attempting to edit the Gospels to remove the supernatural has always struck me as either inexpressibly silly or inexpressibly sad. Tom Jefferson, on occasion, was the wisest of the Founding Fathers, and on other occasions the daffiest.

  • I am afraid that Thomas Jefferson was an alcoholic and probably had become senile. Jefferson’s bible cutting probably resulted from his trying to make his concept of God fit the Sacred Scripture. How sad.

  • “Dandy Andy.”

    Niiice. 😀

  • Mary, I doubt the senile alcoholic bit very much. I worked on the recent conservation of the bible. So I’ve examined it first hand. Only someone very lucid and dexterous could have meticulously put that book together as he did. As for his motivation, he was a complex man with many contradictions. I thing you are right about making the Bible fit his views. One of the curators suggested that Jefferson cutting up the Bible was comparable to marking up your own copy with your favorite passages underlined. I don’t buy that line of reasoning. He was making a bold statement even if he intended for the book to be for his own private use.

  • Yeah, there is no evidence that Jefferson was either an alcoholic or senile. In fact letters from his latter years reveal a rather sharp mind into his 80s. His “bible” is a reflection of long-held religious views. The man was a radical, and I don’t think it was the vino that made him one.

  • Jefferson did not call his editing of the Bible a bible. I wonder what his own statements were in response to people’s reactions to his book.
    The title he gave it was “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.”… which could have been an effort to see what mere mortals can learn from Jesus about how to live– an early version of WWJD. I read that somewhere a long time ago. I don’t know his motives but it does seem plausible.
    He was, I think, an immensely practical man, curious and intelligent– and perhaps he wasn’t discounting the miracles but wanted to see in a graphic way what he could learn from Jesus that could be applied to his own life —

  • From Jefferson’s letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803:

    The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers, and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merits of his doctrines.
    1.He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of his attributes and government.
    2.His moral doctrines, relating to kindred & friends, were more pure & perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.
    3.The precepts of philosophy, & of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.

    Jefferson also challenged the veracity Gospel and Epistle writers, noting that they wrote long after Christ had departed from the Earth. Christ was unable to write about his own life, and thus his teachings have been distorted through the years. Jefferson held that Paul had distorted the teachings of Christ. In Jefferson’s view, Paul was a “Platonist who had brought beclouding mysticism to Jesus’ clear moral teachings.”

    Jesus discounted the miracles and the resurrection not because he wanted to highlight Jesus’s teachings, but because he thought the supernatural elements of Christ’s life were just myth.

  • Thank You– there it is from the horse’s (Jefferson”s) mouth– I was wondering– I appreciate your response! I always want to see people in what I think is a good light– sometimes it’s just not that way

  • Of course, what Sullivan really wants is what most post-moderns want – a Jesus who will ratify gay marriage, contraception, fornication, women’s rights, and the rest of the leftist egalitarian agenda.

    Christianity brought to the world approximately as much egalitarianism as it could possibly handle without falling apart, summed up by St. Paul in Galatians (and I paraphrase): neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave or free, but all one in Christ. And yet in spite of this spiritual and moral truth, St. Paul recognizes slaves and masters, husbands and wives, as distinct and necessary parts of the social order with specific duties and obligations towards one another.

    It takes a mind unclouded by fanatical rage and envy to understand how it is possible to have a society in which there simultaneously exists a hierarchy and a concept of equality and how these work together to maintain peace and harmony. Such minds are an increasingly rare commodity. And so there is an attempt to re-cast Jesus as a 1st century Che Guevara, or at least a 1st century American liberal-Democrat, a milquetoast little nothing of a man who had no strong opinions on anything and simply lived and let live.

    No one can read the Gospels and honestly agree with these people.

  • The late greatest Catholic theologian the United States has ever produced Cardinal Avery Dulles (son of Secretary of State under Eisenhower and namesake of Dulles International airport on DC John Foster Dulles) has an excellent article on the whole issue of Deism and the Founding Fathers:–28

    …and in it he gives some great insights into Jefferson.

  • Pingback: rick santorum mel gibson hate jews judah maccabee |
  • Thank you Fr Barron. It was Jesus rising from the dead that has made the church what it is after 2000 years. What you wrote has once again made me feel liberated being a Catholic. Keep up the good work. God bless.

  • I read the Newsweek article carefully (as I’m sure the rest of you did), and didn’t come away with the feeling that Sullivan was calling for a revision or a stripping down of the New Testament to mere moral teachings, but rather was using Jefferson’s cut-up Bible as a mental exercise to get us to think about what Jesus said (and didn’t say), without the trappings of current political contexts and what politicians and get-rich evangelists are doing to Christianity. What did Jesus actually SAY about homosexuality? What did he SAY about marriage? What did he SAY about family values? What did he SAY about gay marriage? And what DIDN’T he say about these things?

    In fact, (as you all know, because you all read it; but it’s strange no one mentioned it above), most of the Newsweek article is about Saint Francis of Assisi. Saint F. took the words of Jesus to heart: he renounced his inheritance, gave away everything he had, and sought to serve others without ever having any power over them. He was humble. Winsome. ‘The lesser brother’. And the reluctant founder of an order that lasts to this day.

    Now contrast Saint Francis to our leaders and would-be leaders of today. They gain votes by spouting supposedly Biblical positions on inflammatory topics. But what do they want? To serve Christ in humility? To feed the poor and help the suffering? Or, maybe, just maybe, they want power. And cash. And food for their sizable egos.

    “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

  • There is merit in the intellectual exercise of examining Jesus’s teachings and life stripped of the supernatural. Jesus is a clever speaker, a provocateur, a gadfly, who reminds me of Socrates in Athens. But Jesus’s teachings and life stripped of the supernatural probably puts Jesus into the company of the top 100 philosophers. Still pretty impressive, but He’s not special without the supernatural. Jefferson’s Bible shows us that Jesus, without God, is impressive, but not enough. I’m glad Jefferson did this.

  • Thank you Father Barron!
    More Catholics need to learn from and follow his example!

  • I don’t waste eyesight or time reading the noisome opinions and grammar-appropriate rantings in Newsweek or from Sullivan (that is since March 2003 when he termed Pope John Paul II’s opposition to the Iraq invasion, “traditional, Catholic anti-semitism” – they fired the Derb for far less).

    “Twain, “If you don’t read the papers, you are uninfrmed. If you read the papers, you are misinformed.”

    I prayerfully spent the commuting days of Lent reading through the four Gospels, twice. I say, “prayerfully” because I read them in order to learn what Christ taught; to recall that through His Life, Death and Resurrection He purchased for me eternal life; and to amend my life as necessary.

    The purpose of the Gospels is to save souls, NOT to justify worldly opinion.

  • I didn’t read it either, but I did see Sullivan’s Easter morning appearance with Jake Tapper talking about this– I was irked. That seems to be pretty much my condition lately.

  • John 12: 30 – 33, Our Lord says, “Now is the time for ths world to be judged; now the ruler of this world will be overthrown. When I am lifted up from the Earth, I will draw everyone to me.” (In saying this He indicated the kind of death He was going to suffer.)

  • I will not be surprised if someone levels a charge of “hate crime” against Fr. Barron. After all, Mr. Sullivan is a man with same-sex attraction, and we all know one cannot disagree with a person with same-sex attraction without being called a “homophob.”

  • Personally, I’ll accept the Bible in its present form which has survived around 1700 years of criticism by scientist and theologian alike rather than succumb to a revisionist interpretation composed by a handful of political egotists looking to substantiate their own agendas…!!!

  • Mrs. Zummo: Thank you for the information. I believe you are correct, especially with hands on experience. Thomas Jefferson tried to separate the Son of God from the Son of Man, the hypostatic union, Christ from Christ’s divinity. Thomas Jefferson could not have been saved if Jesus was not God. May Thomas Jefferson rest in peace seeing the God-man in all His glory.

  • Jason: Every practicing homosexual came into our world through a mother and a father, and the homosexual practicioner’s parents want grandchildren. How hateful is it in not giving his parents grandchildren? “Honor your father and your mother that you shall be long-lived upon the face of the earth”. If Father Barron, a spiritul father of multitudes out lives Dandy Andy, it will not be because Father Barron did not give Dandy Andy the TRUTH to live by. Long live Father Robert Barron.

Andrew Sullivan is Certifiably Insane

Monday, June 13, AD 2011

I don’t like to write about Andrew Sullivan.  At this point he should be treated like a troll, meaning it is best to ignore him.  Every now and then it is good to be reminded that Andrew Sullivan has clearly lost his mind.

Most of you have probably read this email that Sarah Palin sent before she gave birth to Trig.  She actually published this in her book, but today it has garenerd wider attention.  It’s a rather touching expression of her faith, and is one of the most beautiful pro-life testimonies you’ll ever read.

One would also think that it’s further proof – not that any is really needed save for disturbed individuals like Sullivan – that Sarah Palin is in fact Trig’s mother.

Oh no.  This is just an opportunity for Sullivan to continue to cast doubts on the official story.

Earlier today there was a replay of the Michael Medved show where he interviewed Jonathan Kay, author of Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground.  Kay and Medved discussed the nature of the conspiracist mindset, and Kay emphasized that there is really not much point in trying to rebut these folks with facts, because they are impervious to all evidence.  Listening to Kay, and then reading Sullivan’s latest screed one is reminded of the futility of trying to deal with such people.

So can we please shun Andrew Sullivan and stop treating him like he’s even a remotely credible journalist of any kind?  No more linking – not even to rebut the man.  Yeah I know I just spent 250 words on the guy, but I guess I’m still in shock that there are people still willing to give this man a platform.  For as absolutely batty Sullivan is, the Daily Beast should be ashamed of employing him.

H/t: Midwest Conservative Journal.

(On a side note, the critics of Kay’s book as well as Sullivan ought really to read my previous post.)

Update: Andrew Sullivan actually responded to an email that I sent him.  Notice anything about the grammar?

show me some evidence. any evidence. then handle all the evidence i
have assembled.
i’m not insane. but palin sure is. when she produces the medical
records i asked for two and half years ago, i will stop asking
why not email her to ask her to clear this up? or do you suspect she cannot?

Yes, clearly we are dealing with a very lucid mind.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Andrew Sullivan is Certifiably Insane

  • “because they are impervious to all evidence.”

    Good old invincible ignorance. As for Mr. Sullivan, he long ago graduated from “freak show” to “strait jacket”.

  • Sullivan. Ugh. Yes, he is certifiable.

  • Does someone really need to produce a private medical record to some crazy just to prove they had a baby? Really. Whatever happened to trust? Is it so dead that we can’t have faith that a person is telling the truth? He trusts that people in restaurants aren’t poisoning him when he eats out. He trusts a doctor will give him the best advice about a medical procedure. He trusts that an airline pilot will not crash his plane. But he can’t trust that a woman says she had a baby had a baby? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? He’s got serious issues.

  • I try to remind myself that he’s a physically-ill man, perhaps in the early stages of dementia. But he’s also one of the great haters to ever put his thoughts to print, so he’s not blameless. Yes, best for all that he descends into a forced obscurity that will force him to seek the medical and spiritual help he desperately needs.

  • The nation would be much better situated if Sarah Palin today were VP.

    Sulli -who? It’s best to ignore such things.

    Early 2003, I stopped wasting eyesight on his vicious tripe after she accused Pope John Paul II of “traditional Catholic antisemitism” for suggesting peace as an alternative to the invasion of Iraq.

    I blame the evil, filthy liberals (repetitious again) that employ him. He is merely one of the more horrid (of the many vile) Obama-worshiping psychopaths that wrought obamination on the nation.

  • Take a pill. Few people are evil and Andrew Sullivan is not a psychopath. He was not always a hater, either. The wretched part of aging is that we deteriorate in ways those around us might have predicted. In his case, the vector was set by sexual perversion.

  • Andrew Sullivan is not a psychopath

    You’re clearly reading a different Andrew Sullivan than the rest of us.

  • Maybe I am missing the humor, here. I think a short definition of ‘psychopath’ is someone unable to feel guilt or love. I would tend to doubt that describes Sullivan. Of course, I do not know the man personally. Sidney Zion offered a while back an assessment of Roy Cohn in which he said the following: “He did what he wanted to do…that type either ends up in prison or as chairman-of-the-board.” Sullivan is neither a convict nor a captain of industry.

  • Art, you might be taking things a wee bit too literally here, but that’s okay.

  • Since 2003, I have not exposed myself to . . . OOPS!! Wrong choice of words . . .

    “. . . unable to feel guilt or love.” That sounds about right.

    Apparently, AD has a psychiatry medical license.

    I suffer from keyboard Tourrettes Syndrome.

  • No I do not. T. Shaw, you referred to him as a psychopath. Given the atypicality of that sort of person, it is generally safe to assume that a given individual is not.

  • When Sullivan produces medical records (I’ll accept colonoscopy, MRI, CAT scan or x-rays) that prove he is not suffering from irreversible cranial-rectal inversion, I’ll take him seriously.

  • I’m reasonably confident that Sullivan is not a psychopath. He is probably sane enough to be tried for a capital offense, should he ever kill someone, which while not likely is more likely than anyone who regularly visits this blog. But he is a self-righteous jerk who is not as smart as he thinks he is and who interpret everything in life through the distorted lens of his homosexuality, which makes him exceptionally predictable and therefore boring.

  • I stopped listening to Andrew Sullivan when he suggested once that Jesus was anti-family. Not a joke.