Jesuitical 14: Fordham, Coulter and Singer

Friday, November 16, AD 2012

 

Part 14 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.  Fordham President Joseph McShane, SJ, knows who his real enemy is.  Today Fordham is hosting the well known proponent of euthanasia and abortion Peter Singer at a conference charmingly entitled:  “Conference with Peter Singer: Christians and Other Animals: Moving the Conversation Forward.”  Singer is fine according to McShane, but he bitterly criticized the College Republicans recently at Fordham for sponsoring a speech by Ann Coulter.  Robert Shibley, at Professor William Jacobson’s magnicent blog College Insurrection, gives us the juicy details:

Fordham University is in a bit of a bind.

After loudly proclaiming his “disgust” with the “hate speech” of conservative pundit Ann Coulter in an email to all students, in the process slamming the Fordham College Republicans—his own students—as immature bigots who lack character, Fordham President Joseph McShane, S.J., is now faced with defending his administration’s invitation to philosopher and infanticide advocate Peter Singer to participate in a panel on “animal ethics.”

This puts Fordham in a tough spot.

Father McShane could have allowed the marketplace of ideas to function on its campus without engaging in an electronic temper tantrum. (To his credit, he did not ban Coulter from campus, although the College Republicans clearly saw which way the wind was blowing and canceled the event themselves—here’s one student’s reaction to that.) But he didn’t, and now Fordham is stuck trying to justify McShane’s statement.

In response to an email from a College Insurrection reader provided to us, Bob Howe, Senior Director of Communications at Fordham, penned the following response, attempting to explain why having Peter Singer advocating his positions on campus is totally different from having Ann Coulter advocate her positions:

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Jesuitical 14: Fordham, Coulter and Singer

  • What is it: double standard, hypocrisy, or stupidity?

    To quote that famed American cultural icon, Bart Simpson, “I’m insulted!”

    Infanticide, sodomy, etc. are promoted.

    Freedom, personal responsibility, free markets, etc. are censored.

    Anyhow, the grads will be lucky to get part-time work at “Bed, Bath and Beyond.”

  • Not being a canon scholar I’d like to know if a school can be stripped of its Catholic name? What protections are there against anyone just calling themselves Catholic regardless of the reality?

  • Peter Singer also sees nothing wrong with bestiality.

  • Paul D, i totally agree with you. The word “Catholic” should be legally protected so that entities like Notre Dame that honor pro-abortion public figures will be forced to stop capitalizing on Catholic identity.

  • I know that this is one of those stories I’m supposed to get really angry about, but I can’t. First of all, the name given is wrong. Drop the “Conference with Peter Singer” part. That’s significant because he’s one of four panelists (another of whom is an editor of First Things). The topic is the Christian view of animal rights, not infanticide. I personally wouldn’t walk across the street to attend that discussion, but I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with it.

  • I don’t disagree, Pinky, at least not passionately so. Yet Singer’s views are so odious that it is hard to just set them aside. If he were a white supremacist would we do that?

  • “The fact that the College Republicans backed down on inviting Coulter in the
    face of the attack by McShane helps explain how the election was lost this year.
    No fortitude, no victory.”

    According to the statement released by the College Republicans and signed by
    the President, VP, Treasurer and Secretary, the Fordham CR had already decided
    to drop Ms. Coulter before Fr. McShane’s 15 minute hate was emailed:

    “We made this choice freely before Fr. McShane’s email was sent out and we
    became aware of his feelings– had the President simply reached out to us
    before releasing his statement, he would have learned that the event was being
    cancelled”. — Fordham College Republicans

    Folding like a bunch of cheap tents– it’ll be a wonder if Fordham’s College
    Republicans will ever be able to get a prospective speaker to return their
    phone calls again. If they are a fair gauge of the caliber of the future leaders
    of the Republican party, we need to get used to losing elections. No fortitude,
    no victory, indeed.

  • “I personally wouldn’t walk across the street to attend that discussion, but I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with it.”

    Peter Singer is an advocate of killing handicapped kids, leaving aside his vociferous advocacy of abortion and euthanasia. He should no more be invited to attend a panel discussion at a Catholic college than any of the murderers with degrees after their names who served the Third Reich. Fordham gives this monster legitimacy by treating him as if he has a right to sit among decent human beings.

    If anyone thinks I exaggerate, go here for an overview on Singer:

    http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/

    “The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”
    Peter Singer

  • Coincidently, last evening on the LIRR, I was reading my freshman Ancient History text. One innovation in Sparta the institution of a council to usurp Spartan fathers’ right to decide whether an infant should die.

    Fordham, You’re promoting ancient, pagan barbarism, Baby. (No pun intended.)

  • Pingback: SATURDAY MORNING EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • What is happening to Catholic education? Fordham can’t stand to have an advocate for free speech yet has no problem with one whose views are totally opposed to anything the Catholic church stands for? Georgetown covers crucifixes so as not to offend a president who says he’s a Christian and welcomes him even though he is a proponent of allowing abortion survivors to die? Notre Dame – I can’t even read anything about them any more. Breaks my heart.

    I am most disappointed in the young republicans. Invite or don’t invite as you will but once invited, stand by your invitation.

  • It’s a lot different than one, Vince Lombardi went to Fordham and was in their blocks of granite. And people wonder about the “Catholic vote” ?? when we have things like this going on?? Thank goodness, St. Thomas St. Paul seems to keep to Catholic values, I’ve heard different about St. Catherine’s there but can’t be sure.

  • Richard Cancemi
    November 18, 2012 at 8:47 am · Reply

    John Collingnon, in his comment, refers to the Jesuits as a sect. This is not true; they are a Religious Order called “The Society of Jesus, hence the SJ after there names. They were founded by St. Ignatious of Loyola whose mission he vowed was to defend the Faith. In addition to the vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience, all those who joined him took a fourth vow to be Protectors of the Faith and the Pope. They were the intellectuals of the Church’s teachings and hence were also teachers in Universities. Their schools were well respected.

    During the Protestant Reformation in England they were hunted down and killed savagely because of their defense of Catholic Doctrine. As Protestantism spread throughout Europe, so too were other Religious Orders and Catholics in general. The Jesuits, in particular, were feared because of their superior intellectual abilities.

    Somewhere along their life span of the Order, some Jesuits seemed to have lost their way and had and have become revolutionary radicals. They turned their back to the Church. They were even infiltrated by Communists during Russia’s subversive reign. Many seemed to have embraced Marxist Socialism as part of their thinking and have lost their way. No all, but many.

    Father McShane appears to be among the lost, radical Jesuits supporting Secularism over Religiosity. He is certainly not representative of Catholicism nor is he representative of the original mission of his Jesuit Order. However far too many Jesuits have “lost their way”. Perhaps their intellectual training has a produced in them a hubris that dissolves the humility that is urged in their training.

    Jesuits have been known as “trouble-making revolutionaries” for a long time but those (and there are far too many) are not representatives of Catholicism. They embrace the “injustice” inherent in Marxist Socialism and lose sight of “true justice for all”. “Social Justice” is a Socialist term which they embrace. It means taking (stealing) from some to give to others. It is not to be confused with Christian Charity which is voluntary.

    Father McShane needs to take time out and meditate on his Catholicism and the mission of his Order. His support of the anti-religious ideas of the secularist Peter Singer are inexcusable as a Jesuit and Catholic. He, himself, should make use of the Confessional, if he can get beyond his own personal hubris, and seek absolution for his sinful support of heresy. At the very least, he should be ashamed of himself!

    But please, do not equate Fr. McShane and others like him with Catholic beliefs.

    I, personally would not send my children to a Jesuit School because they can’t be trusted to be objective.

    (There is an interesting book called:”The Jesuits”, written by a former Jesuit, which is very enlightening.)

Coulter Shreds Any Remaining Credibility

Thursday, January 5, AD 2012

I’ve never much cared for Ann Coulter, but her column today shreds whatever remaining credibility she had.  Her attacks on Santorum in particular reek of anti-Catholicism.  Thankfully Jay Anderson has fisked her so that I don’t have to (Jay’s comments in red).

… Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative [ED: Apparently, being “more of a Catholic” – i.e. taking one’s faith seriously – is supposed to be a bad thing.], which means he’s good on 60 percent of the issues[ED.: Got that? Being Catholic automatically means being “wrong”on 40% of the issues in the mind of Coulter. At least she’s honest about her bigotry.], but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God. [ED.: Yeah, that Santorum is JUST LIKE Ted Kennedy. Wait. What could the conservative Santorum POSSIBLY have in common with the uber-liberal late Ted Kennedy? Oh yeah. That whole Catholicism thingy – being beholden to the Pope, or something like that. Any doubts about how Coulter feels about Catholics now?]

Santorum may not be a big spender as far as professional politicians go [ED.: Or, for that matter, as far as your big-government, health-care mandating RINO boy, Dullard Flip Rino, goes.], but he is still a professional politician. In 2005, one of his former aides described him as “a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate.” [ED.: I, for one, think the Senate could use a few more such statesmen who are committed to renewing our culture, promoting virtue and traditional family values, and prizing service to others in the common good. Apparently, these things have no place in the selfishly individualistic, objectivist AynRandland that Coulter envisions for our society.]

The Catholic missionary was fantastic on issues like partial-birth abortion, but more like a Catholic bishop [ED.: Ah, there we go. What anti-Catholic screed would be complete without a few shots at the hierarchy in the form of Bishop-bashing?] in his support for No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug entitlement program (now costing taxpayers more than $60 billion a year), and a highway bill with a Christmas tree of earmarks, including the famous “bridge to nowhere.” [ED.: I was unaware that the Bishops had taken a formal position in support of any of these measures. Not sure they’ve really taken much of an interest in Alaska road projects, for example. But why let that get in the way of slapping the Bishops around?]

More at the link.

If I may add, her attacks on Rick Perry are just as poorly thought out.

Rick Perry is not electable as president for three reasons: First, he seems too much like Bush;

Only to dimwitted individuals who can’t look past the fact that he’s from Texas and speaks with a midwest Texas twang.

second, he gave illegal immigrants in-state tuition;

Really?  I mean really?  This is supposed to be a disqualifying position?  Also, he didn’t just give them in-state tuition discounts – the communist bastion known as the Texas legislature, by an overwhelming majority, did.  Meanwhile, Coulter supports the guy who gave Barack Obama the model for his health care overhaul.

But yeah, Perry signing the in-state tuition discount for illegals is completely disqualifying.

and, third, uh, oops … I can’t remember the third reason.

Oh!  Oh!  Get it?  It’s because Perry had that brain freeze at the debate.  That’s a completely original joke from Ann Coulter that hasn’t been made a couple of hundred times already by people with far more wit.

Ten years ago National Review gave Coulter the boot for her post-9/11 column.  With such slipshod reasoning as displayed here, I think they’d be ready to welcome her back with open arms.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Coulter Shreds Any Remaining Credibility

  • Pingback: THURSDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Ann Coulter… zero credit.

    She has a problem with Santorum’s vote on Medicare, but she makes no mention of Romneycare?! That’s a burden on Massachusetts and the people of Massachusetts. It’s medicare part D and then some.

    She hits Newt for sitting on the couch with Pelosi for a TV commercial, but no mention of liberal legislation passed by Romney as governor. Which is more detrimental to the citizen, an environmental TV ad or liberal legislation?

    And Rick Perry… again with the stupid, vapid in-state tuition charge. (You’d swear Texas is the most liberal state in the union the way these ill-informed pundits speak.) Dear Ann, how can you possibly have a problem with in state tuition in Texas when Romney pushed free, comprehensive health care for illegal immigrants?!

    I am glad Ann and McCain have found common ground. So much to talk about at the next GOP cocktail party!

    In regards to her Catholic disrespect, it speaks for itself. Too bad she didn’t give Catholics the level of respect she gives the Log Cabin Republicans.

  • Ann Coulter’s act got old very, very long ago. I guess she must have forgotten about what she said in regard to Romney in February of last year:

  • I like Ann. I usually disagree with her but I enjoy listening to her take.

    Her bit about Santorum acting like a Catholic bishop is something you’d hear on Republican-leaning conservative Catholic blogs.

    She also makes a legitimate point. Had Santorum been in the House in 2009, can you say with certainty that he wouldn’t have voted with Joseph Cao in favor of ObamaCare the first time around? I don’t think he would have but the fact that I’m not certain says something about Santorum.

    I do think the fiscal conservatives in the GOP would keep any Republican president in check though so that’s not a big issue for me. Apart from his electability and possible lack of leadership ability, what concerns me most about him is his overly aggressive foreign policy and his deviation from free-market economics.

  • “Her bit about Santorum acting like a Catholic bishop is something you’d hear on Republican-leaning conservative Catholic blogs.”

    Rubbish RR. This is the Republican-leaning conservative Catholic blog and you would never see any of our contributors writing anything like that.

    “can you say with certainty that he wouldn’t have voted with Joseph Cao in favor of ObamaCare the first time around? ”

    I can say that with complete certainty.

  • Coulter’s article offends me more as a reader than as a Catholic. She just doesn’t back anything up. It reads like she wrote it in five minutes. I know she often uses hyperbole to make her points – way too often, for my tastes – but in this article she isn’t even making specific charges. (Actually, the more I think about this column, the more it offends me as a Catholic. But I’m ok with being offended as long as you back it up.)

    “what concerns me most about him is his overly aggressive foreign policy and his deviation from free-market economics”

    Coulter implies the same thing about his economics, but I just don’t see that in his record, except for the Medicare expansion. I have a real problem with that vote, but frankly a lot of high-caliber people disappointed me that day.

  • Pinky, as I said I don’t mind the drunken sailor record so much because any president will be restrained by the fiscal conservatives in Congress. But Santorum wants to tinker with the economy. Republicans rightly criticize Obama for “picking winners and losers” pointing to Solyndra. Santorum wants to do the same. As did Newt. Newt supported ethanol subsidies. Santorum supports manufacturing tax breaks. And if you follow their reasoning, there’s no reason why they would stop there. Their ideological frameworks don’t prevent “picking winners and losers.” David Brooks says we elect thought processes. I’m mostly with Santorum on his social issues thought process, i.e., orthodox Catholicism. I’m just realizing this now but the person whose foreign policy thought process most agrees with mine is Secretary Clinton’s. On the proper role of the federal government, I’m with Rick Perry. On economics, I’m with Romney. Santorum is right to worry about economic mobility but special tax breaks isn’t the solution I’m looking for. Nor is hiring students as janitors.

  • Years ago, I read one of her attack liberals books. I liked it and found it readable. I find most contemporary writers to be torturers.

    Ann and I are “bomb-throwers” more adept at outraging than communicating. I wonder if she does it because she thinks her readers wouldn’t get it. Or, more likely, she actually does not “have the goods.”

    Her attacks on my two Rick’s are short on facts and evidence. Liberals are so much easier to hit up. They never have facts.

    Or, was I less critical in the earlier readings?

    Anyhow, men are from Mars.

    Women are from Bedlam.

  • One thing about Ann that has always bothered me is that she’s just a complainer. I don’t really recall her offering solutions to any problems, just complaints that person X isn’t doing enough, person Z is crazy, and person Y had the right idea but did it wrong. I’ve found myself liking Charles Krauthammer more and more as the days go by, and I’m curious to see his take on the Iowa poll (I haven’t seen anything post-caucus, only his pre-caucus prediction).

  • “This is the Republican-leaning conservative Catholic blog …” (emphasis added)

    Love it. Reminds me of when Limbaugh responds to generic condemnations of “talk radio” by saying “Let’s get one thing straight – I AM talk radio.”

  • Too many people take Ann way too seriously. She will continue to say the most provocative and outlandish comments that are convenient at the time usually with a twisted right-wing spin.
    Ann Coulter = The Lady Gaga of the Republican Party.

  • Ann Coulter is my least favorite conservative and always has been, but a couple of years ago (I think) I happened to read a column of hers that was a fairly nice tribute to her then-recently deceased father… and it referred to him being Catholic. Sounds to me like she MAY be yet another of those “recovering Catholic” types. Still, she at least gives the Church credit for being right on more issues than not.

  • Santorum wants to do the same. As did Newt. Newt supported ethanol subsidies. Santorum supports manufacturing tax breaks

    An inadvisable idea, but it is a passably transparent rule. The U.S. Department of Energy had by 30 Sept. 2010 acquired a $50 bn loan portfolio. Discretionary decisions have to be made concerning each extension of credit. You have opportunities to make stupid allocation decisions and sluice income to the well connected you simply do not have when you merely declare the profits of manufacturing tax exempt.

  • Kyle,

    Krauthammer’s article today is full of glowing praise for Santorum, which actually mildly surprises me.

  • Santorum is at 24% today in a Rasmussen poll in South Carolina, just three points behind Romney:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sc-poll-romney-27-santorum-24-gingrich-18_616105.html

    Note Gingrich at 18%. Once Gingrich pulls out, and hopefully throws his support to Santorum, Romney is going to be in very deep trouble and the GOP establishment will be in full melt down mode. Most of them simply do not realize that Santorum has an ever improving chance to win this. He raised over two million dollars in the last two days and his state polling is taking off. Romney is deeply unpopular with the base of the party and the effort by Republican elites to push him to victory is bitterly resented by the rank and file. Santorum gives them a chance to say a loud No!!! to all of this and Republicans around the country are grabbing hold of this opportunity.

  • Karl Rove and now Ann Coulter are bending over backwards to ensure the Romney gets the nomination. I wonder if it ever dawned on them why Romney can’t get past 25% in any poll? Could it be the anti-Romney vote? With Bachmann out and the novelty of the racist and 9/11 Truther Ron Paul wears out, Santorum will get another bump as well.

  • I remember in mid-December when CK was asked if Newt was peaking at the right time, if it was too early. He said “No. He’s peaking at the perfect time.” Oops. Can’t get them all right.

    And this is the part that worries me…
    “He is no austere limited-government constitutionalist. He participated in George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” ”

    Ugh. The fed is overdue for a serious downsize. The private sector has; it’s the fed’s turn.

  • Point of information (correct me if I’m wrong): Our Rick’s proposal is to cut corporate tax rates for all corporations. The rate reductions for all non-manufacturing corporations is 50%, for all manufacturing it’s 100%.

    BTW: reducing tax rates is the proven way of government fostering economic growth and development.

    Reduced tax rates are subsidies when you believe the regime owns you and is oh so liberal as to allow you to keep some of youe earnings it does not need to fund your subjugation.

    Solyndra was not “picking winners and losers.” It was political pay back to Solyndra’s billionaire Obama cash bundler.

  • “Krauthammer’s article today is full of glowing praise for Santorum, which actually mildly surprises me.”

    Santorum is from the Northeast, not like all those red-state rubes from the South and Midwest. In addition, Santorum is part of the Wilsonian GOP Establishment. Of course Dr. K is going to love him some Santorum

  • Krauthammer is a Teddy Roosevelt Republican who recognizes who our enemies are on this planet, as does Santorum.

    Although a pro-abort, Krauthammer has also called for the overturning of Roe:

    http://www.lifenews.com/2007/05/11/nat-3113/

    I have enjoyed Krauthmmer’s columns over the years, appreciating his reasoning even when disagreeing with him, and I am happy he likes Santorum.

  • Since I endorsed Santorum two days ago, despite his deficiencies on a number of issues, I’m glad to see him get support from whatever quarters he can.

    But I still think my explanation for Dr. K’s support is probably right on the money. The “making the world safe for democracy” crowd in the GOP sticks together. (And that crowd has a stronger resemblance to W.W. than they do to T.R., both of whom were from the so-called “Progressive” tradition, by the way.)

  • Santorum is from the Northeast, not like all those red-state rubes from the South and Midwest

    Mr. Santorum is from Pittsburgh. That’s the Rustbelt, not New England or the BosWash corridor.

  • (And that crowd has a stronger resemblance to W.W. than they do to T.R., both of whom were from the so-called “Progressive” tradition, by the way.)

    Actually Jay Roosevelt was much more eager to get into World War I than Wilson and blasted him regularly for his unwillingness to do so. Roosevelt also pioneered nation building in Cuba after the Spanish-American War. What is called Wilsonian foreign policy might be better called Rooseveltian foreign policy. The Republican party had a spasm of isolationism in the thirties and up to Pearl Harbor but it has basically always been activist in foreign policy, other than for that time period, dating back to the sending of Sheridan with 50,000 troops into Texas immediately at the end of the Civil War to strongly tell the French to get their gallic hides out of Mexico.

    However, for all I know his foreign policy views might well be what attracts Krauthammer to Santorum. Krauthammer has had his doubts about Romney for some time:

  • Donald: Thanks for the link, I was intending on getting towards NR sometime today. Glad I’m not the only person who reads his work (some of my conservative friends say, “Who?” when I mention his name). He has a weekly editorial/opinion column in my local newspaper, The Greenville Times (Greenville SC).

    Art: The general term “Northeast” refers to: Maine, NH, Vermont, Mass, RI, Conn, NY, PA, and NJ. I would agree, though, that Eastern PA (having spent several years living there) is more like Ohio than the rest of the Northeast region, it still technically is part of the Northeast corridor.

  • CK is interesting, and the article is a nice write-up, BUT he has a double standard here. Some say Perry is a long shot for nomination, and CK calls him a dead man walking. Many say Santorum is a long shot on winning the general, but CK calls him “first challenger to be plausibly presidential” along with several other accolades.

    I like Santorum, but he has a very tough road ahead.
    – He needs to put the personal issues to the side (Don’t worry. They will naturally come out anyway.) and make clear to the public what his policies would be. Right now, it’s muddled (ex: artificial contraception), and the MSM will happily paint his personal opinion as public policy and cry “Theocracy!”
    – He needs to continue retooling himself to move away from the petulance we saw in the early debates.
    – No more debating the audience like he did at the college on homosexual marriage. The campaign trail is not the senate. State your position and why and move on.

    This is the part of Rick that has me worried. I actually agree with a few of the positions he took, but that’s a long list.
    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/

  • The notion that part of Santorum’s appeal to many “establishment” types has to do with his being from the Northeast and not the South I would think is inarguable.

    Clearly there is a sentiment among some that a Northeastern candidate (such as Romney or Santorum or Christie) or Upper Midwest candidate (such as Pawlenty or Daniels) would help to expand the base of the party beyond what has been for the last 20 or so years a Republican “solid South”.

    Living in Ohio, I recognize that Pittsburgh and Western PA are considered rust belt. So are Buffalo and Syracuse. But that doesn’t make them any less part of the Northeast.

  • Santorum is borderline Northeast at best. Bachmann was Midwest but that didn’t help her image. The Northeast Republican image has more to do with perception than actual geography. Bush 2000 and McCain were acceptable to Northeast Republicans.

  • Living in Ohio, I recognize that Pittsburgh and Western PA are considered rust belt. So are Buffalo and Syracuse. But that doesn’t make them any less part of the Northeast.

    1. Cross-cultural contempt is a reality (lucidly expressed at one point by whathisname in the Oval Office), but you imputed to a particular individual (a man who grew up in Montreal and has spent his adult life in Washington after a run of years in Boston) a particular attitude that I think you would have a difficult time demonstrating he holds.

    2. Political boundaries and compass points are not optimal (much less exclusive means) for delineating regions. The ‘Midwest’ has two components:

    a. A savanna zone which was (until recent decades) intensely invested in agriculture and has a fairly truncated settlement hierarchy, with cities of middling and large size found only on its peripheries;

    b. A deciduous forest zone with a full settlement hierarchy and (until recent decades) an unusual affinity for heavy industry and slavic immigrants.

    Each of the cities of the BosWash corridor is a region unto itself and divergent from proximate provincial territory. I am not sure any were ever ‘industrial cities’ to the extent Chicago or Detroit were industrial cities. Economic and demographic adjustments derived from the decay of manufacturing are still ongoing in Detroit and Buffalo; not so cities farther east. (Have a look at some place names in Upstate New York and Michigan. You will see people from the one were settling the other).

    The Midwest begins at Allentown.

  • Actually, Santorum does have a (slight) Midwestern connection… he attended a Catholic high school in Chicago for a year while his dad was stationed at Great Lakes Naval Training Center.

Klavan v. The Right Wing Devils

Friday, October 7, AD 2011

 

Right you are Klavan on the Culture!  Conservative talk show personalities do owe a great debt to one group which has contributed more to their success that any other group:  Liberals.   Many liberals, through their over the top hatred of dissenting views, helped give vast publicity to the figures they hated and thus helped launch their careers and continue to give them endless publicity.  So a round of applause for intolerant liberals!

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Klavan v. The Right Wing Devils

  • Did ESPN fire Hank Williams, Jr. for “comparing” Hitler with Obama?

    Hitler’s insanity led to the righteous destruction of Germany. Give him four more years. Obama hasn’t wrecked America, yet.

  • @T Shaw: Williams didn’t actually compare Hitler & Obama, he likened the situation of Boehner golfing with Obama to Hitler golfing with Israel’s PM Netanyahu because both pairs are polar opposites & have no business being friendly to each other.

    @Don: I’ve always loved Klavan videos that you post. He’s very on-the-point with a great personality.

  • Kyle, Klavan’s commentaries are some of the funniest and most insightful videos I have ever seen. I have never watched any of his videos without laughing out loud and coming away with something to think about.

  • That would be impossible.

    Hitler killed himself over 65 years ago.

    Plus, I don’t believe Hitler played golf.

    It seems ESPN doesn’t like country music . . .

  • Most elaborate Rick-roll ever. *grin*

    T. Shaw- my folks would tell you that Bocephus doesn’t generally do country music unless he’s covering his dad’s songs….

    Gotta love Klavan– if you make someone laugh, it makes it safe for them to consider what you’ve said.

  • Okay but you gotta admit Beck really is insane.

  • I have always thought RR that Beck is fairly loosely wired.

  • Did ESPN fire Hank Williams, Jr. for “comparing” Hitler with Obama?

    -T. Shaw

    That’s the story ESPN is telling. I’m amused that in their haste to accuse Hank Williams, Jr. of crimethink, the faux-outraged reflexively linked his mention of Hitler to Obama rather than Boehner. That gave away a lot about what America’s soft-core left really thinks of Obama.

  • I just discovered this site…humor, intelligence, common sense, traditional values and God all in one place. I feel like Will Smith in “I Am Legend”. I’m not alone! I may even consider converting to Catholisism (you’re not the guys that require c right?) I’m a little old for that. The Hank Jr. episode is just the most recent example of the collective farce that passes he Free Press these days…if I can’t get get a laugh out of it…depression sets in…so thank you Mr. Klaven, Et al. for your contributions to my mental health.

Rank and File Conservatives & The Conservative Intelligentsia United In Outrage Over Mosque Near Ground Zero, Not So With Same-Sex Marriage

Sunday, August 15, AD 2010

The proposed mosque set to be built near Ground Zero, site of the September 11, 2001 attacks has brought a sweeping condemnation from both rank and file conservatives and the Conservative Intelligentsia. Now that President Barack Obama has weighed in the matter, seemingly supporting the effort, one can only imagine how this will be used in the fall elections. However, a rift has appeared to have been opened concerning the views of the rank and file conservatives and the Conservative Intelligentsia following the ruling of Judge Vaughn Walker over same-sex marriage. Many of the conservative intelligentsia, along with the establishment wing of the Republican Party has either been silent or voiced the view that the wished the whole gay marriage issue would simply go away. This has led to bewilderment from some conservative voices.

The best Catholic tie in with the efforts to build a mosque on Ground Zero came from the famed conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who is Jewish. In his opposition to the mosque being built near Ground Zero, he correctly pointed out that Pope John Paul II ordered Carmelite nuns, who were living right next to Auschwitz, to move closer to a nearby town, since the site had become a rallying point for Jewish identity. Krauthammer correctly pointed out that Christians had been murdered there too and the nuns were doing the heroic deed of praying for the souls of those who were viciously murdered. However, Krauthammer pointed out that the late Polish pontiff felt that it created the wrong perception.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Rank and File Conservatives & The Conservative Intelligentsia United In Outrage Over Mosque Near Ground Zero, Not So With Same-Sex Marriage

  • Which members of the conservative intelligentsia who aren’t also rank and file Republicans, have expressed opposition to the mosque?

  • There are plenty of natural law and non-religious arguments against homosexuality. It is not a natural co-equal with heterosexuality. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Men and woman are complementary, not only physically, but emotionally and psychologically.

    Homosexuals have significantly higher levels of: mental health problems, psychological disorders such as suicide and depression, sexual addiction and coercion, promiscuity, STDs, violence, and addictions of all kinds including alcoholism and drug abuse.

    Almost every society, primitive and complex, has had laws and taboos against homosexuality. This isn’t just a Christian thing. There will always be a visceral reaction to homosexuality because it goes to the very heart of the survival of our species.

    Where homosexuality occurs in the animal world, it is primarily a temporary condition, and when the opportunity presents itself, animals will copulate heterosexually.

    Two-parent heterosexual families, despite the exceptions, are proven over history, across cultures, as the better way for healthy child development. Healthy children produce healthy societies.

    It’s time, in my opinion, for a Constitutional amendment that establishes once and for all that marriage is between one man and one woman. Then we can put this issue to bed.

  • I was rather hoping you would offer some analysis as to WHY so many self-described conservatives are backing away from the defense of traditional marriage. I suppose it is because Americans of all stripes have internalized the notion that it is “mean” to express “intolerance” toward homosexuality. Genuine intolerance, however, including intolerance toward Catholics, remains quite socially acceptable.

  • discarding Western Civilization’s definition of marriage (2,000+ years) is simply a non starter.

    As pointed out above, it’s not just Western Civ’s definition, it has been humanity’s definition since recorded history, and likely pre-dates that as well. try more like 5,000+ years.

  • From what I can tell, those members of the conservative “intelligencia” who aren’t members of Fox & Friends or proprieters of talk radio shows have mostly remained in favor of religious freedom — as they should.

  • Try on this one, Bunky:

    “Rank and file liberal catholics and the liberal catholic intelligentsia united in outrage over tax cuts for the rich, not so with abortion.”

  • I was rather hoping you would offer some analysis as to WHY so many self-described conservatives are backing away from the defense of traditional marriage.

    I suspect you usually could not do this without making evaluations of their personal disposition and conduct, as in noting that some folk appear other-directed by default (Ross Douthat, Rod Dreher) or have been married four times (Theodore Olson), or make use of the self-description ‘conservative’ to obfuscate (Conor Friedersdorf).

    Someone on the payroll of The American Conservative or the Rockford Institute can likely also supply a dismissive commentary to the effect that those resisting this burlesque have neglected some deeper cultural deficiency which these resisters are too shallow to detect and about which we can do nothing in any case.

  • “Rank and file liberal catholics and the liberal catholic intelligentsia united in outrage over tax cuts for the rich, not so with abortion.”

    Fits alright.

  • Homosexuals have significantly higher levels of: mental health problems, psychological disorders such as suicide and depression, sexual addiction and coercion, promiscuity, STDs, violence, and addictions of all kinds including alcoholism and drug abuse.

    Same can be said of blacks. I don’t find that a convincing argument. If you’re going to oppose gay marriage on secular grounds, I think you have to rest on the procreation argument.

  • I’d postulate that people don’t feel as threatened by gay marriage as they are by Islam. Homosexuals never killed 3000 people in my backyard.

  • Tide turning towards Catholicism? Just today I read a credible report saying that in the last 10+ Catholic marriages have decreased. One point of view is that the religion is too strict and another is that it is not needed with modern thinking. I just had a conversation with a liberal who said life is a pendulum goes from one extreme to the other finding it’s way in the middle. I do not believe this that societies do go by the wayside, that they undo themselves, with no virtue to survive pop trends.

  • I don’t find that a convincing argument. If you’re going to oppose gay marriage on secular grounds, I think you have to rest on the procreation argument.

    Why don’t you try making the case FOR it? Start with an explanation of why male friendships which do not incorporate sodomy as part of their daily practice should received less recognition than those which do.

  • Art Deco, I don’t know why you want me to make the case for it but you asked so I’ll try.

    The closer the relationship, the greater the rights and responsibilities between them are. If we want to legally protect expectation interests, we will want to recognize intimately committed couples in ways that we don’t recognize mere friendships. We may also want to legally recognize friendships but that’s not at issue here.

  • RR,

    We have an association that is sterile and undertaken in a social matrix where sexual activity is treated as fun-n-games. Why should this be honored? Why is it deemed ‘closer’ than the fraternity that bound my father to the man who was his dearest friend for 48 of his 51 years? What are ‘expectation interests’? Why do you want to protect them?

    My question was rhetorical. The gay lobby wants this as a gesture of deference. The only reason to give it to them is that they will be put out by refusal. Lots of people do not get their way, and public policy is enough of a zero sum game that that is inevitable. For some, it is incorporated into their amour-propre to regard some clamoring constituencies as composed of those who are So Very Special. Then there’s the rest of thus, who are not so well represented in the appellate judiciary.

  • AD,

    We have an association that is sterile and undertaken in a social matrix where sexual activity is treated as fun-n-games. Why should this be honored?

    It shouldn’t.

    Why is it deemed ‘closer’ than the fraternity that bound my father to the man who was his dearest friend for 48 of his 51 years? What are ‘expectation interests’? Why do you want to protect them?

    I assume your father and his friend didn’t rely on each other for financial support. When people form an association with the mutual expectation that they take on certain duties, it would be unjust to allow one party to escape their duties at the expense of the other(s). It’s why we enforce contracts. If your father and his friend did have such an arrangement, it should be enforced.

  • I’d postulate that people don’t feel as threatened by gay marriage as they are by Islam. Homosexuals never killed 3000 people in my backyard.

    Neither have illegal immigrants, but that hasn’t stopped an upsurge in hostility and resentment towards them as a group.

  • Pope John Paul II ordered Carmelite nuns, who were living right next to Auschwitz, to move closer to a nearby town, since the site had become a rallying point for Jewish identity. Krauthammer correctly pointed out that Christians had been murdered there too and the nuns were doing the heroic deed of praying for the souls of those who were viciously murdered. However, Krauthammer pointed out that the late Polish pontiff felt that it created the wrong perception.

    Nobody would object if those wanting to building the mosque volunteered to build it elsewhere. But who is the more honorable person? The Jew who welcomed the Carmelites or the Jew who told them to go somewhere else?

  • Neither have illegal immigrants, but that hasn’t stopped an upsurge in hostility and resentment towards them as a group.

    They ignored the law and act to frustrate lawfully constituted immigration policy. Can we have a wee bit o’ antagonism, pretty please?

  • I assume your father and his friend didn’t rely on each other for financial support.

    I cannot say if they borrowed money from each other or not. Ordinarily, working aged men are expected to be self-supporting if not disabled.

    When people form an association with the mutual expectation that they take on certain duties,

    Human relations are not commercial transactions and the law does not ordinarily enforce amorphous and unwritten ‘expectations’ that someone else is going to pay your rent.

    Right now, RR, I am pricing insurance policies. I was offered (unbidden) discount rates by the agent if I was in some sort of ‘committed relationship’ with some other dude. Uh, no, nothing like that Chez Deco, ever. I inquired about purchases for my sister. No discount offers there.

    Maybe sis and I can manufacture an ‘expectations interest’ and get you and Judge Walker to work on our problem.

  • And if it is written?

    Are you opposed to insurance discounts for spouses or for discounts for siblings?

  • Pingback: If Liberals Lose Big In This Fall’s Election, The Professiona Left Will Mock The Religious Faithful « The American Catholic
  • This article has a lot of interesting points. However, it rambles all over the place. The essay would have been easier to understand if it was broken up into three mini essays.

    There’s no intrinsic connection between the Cordoba Mosque, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage. Why lament that some conservatives have an opinion on one topic but not the other? You might (rightfully) argue that the establishment of a mosque near Ground Zero does not carry even a tenth of the socio-moral import of same sex marriage. But the logical independence of the two questions renders party lockstep on the two issues irrelevant. Let the GOP/right/conservative rank and file make up their own minds about the relationship between these two variables.

    Gratuitous aside: I know that you and other faithful/orthodox Catholic bloggers must boost reparative therapy. To not do so would negatively impact one’s orthodox Catholic street cred. Still, one can be a faithful Catholic, live morally, and not support COURAGE. Indeed, I found the meetings emotionally intrusive and psychologically manipulative. I wish that the Catholic orthodox/conservative/right would think twice before lavishing praise on an organization and therapeutic model that at the very least has emotionally troubled some participants. Sing your praises only after attending a meeting or two.

  • Sorta Catholic, the beauty of writing an article for a blog or newspaper column is that you have the freedom to write it as you see fit. Perhaps, some would like shorter columns, while others may favor longer columns, the choice is up to the writer.

    As for Courage, the group’s spiritual mentor is Father Benedict Groeschel, his credentials are certainly good enough for me. Perhaps, the meeting you attended was not run properly. I can only tell you that the group is trying to impart the Church’s teachings in a world that has become enamored with self, and not with faith.

    As for orthodox-minded street cred, we aren’t trying to impress anyone only help spread the message of Christ through His Church. We have divergent opinions on a variety of topics, but yet we fall under the same umbrella of supporting the Church’s teachings. The longer you submit to the will of God, the more you realize the wisdom of the 2,000 year old Catholic Church. It really does make you a more content indiviudal, free from the whims of the modern world. Take care!

  • It is a shame that the likes of Beck, Coulter and Limbaugh would let their libertarian views get the best of them when it comes to SSM. Divorcing that from their preaching for conservative values is not the charitable thing to do when the eternal salvation of those who engage in homosexual acts is at stake. Frankly, by doing so, they are committing the grievous sin of omission. A priest in Texas recently made that point clear when he said that Catholics have a moral duty to oppose abortion and SSM.

  • By the way, one of my favorite journalists, WorldNetDaily’s founder Joseph Farah, hits the nail on the head of this issue in offering his take on why some conservatives are “capitulating” to the gay agenda pushers: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=192761

  • Hi Dave,

    A person that bases his or her judgement of an organization on the perceived reputation of a founder/leader/mentor in that organization commits the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority”. Now, Fr. Groschel is an upstanding authority. I respect him as a religious leader even if I do not agree with many of his points. Even so, the absolute metric for any organization is its ideology/methodology. Perhaps you’ve provided a rigorous defense of reparative therapy elsewhere on your website. If so, point me there. Otherwise, an appeal to authority without prior analysis of an institution’s ideology or methodology is rather insubstantial.

    Appeals to authority or subjective statements such as “X is trying to impart the Church’s teachings […]” sometimes hide insufficient research. Also, “orthodoxy” (i.e. strict adherence to a religion’s dogma/doctrine) does not guarantee the success or failure of a particular therapy.

  • Hi SortaCatholic, I hope your day is going well. I must say that I find these sorts of exchanges very interesting. I don’t believe my “Appeal to Authority,” is some sort of man made or earthly authority. You see I have worked for the Church in a number of capacities. I have seen the good, bad and the ugly. There is some great people who work for the Church and some really inept ones. I have always felt with all of these inept folks, the Church would have to be who she says she is to have survived 2,000 years!

    Perhaps someone at Courage might come across this and answer some of your questions. I do know that God does help us and prayer does work, but rarely in the sort of miraculous way in which we would like it to happen. God sorts and sifts us. We all have our own sets of problems, blessings, gifts, talents and struggles. I have always found Christ’s words of seek and you shall find, knock and you will be heard to be very true (Matthew 7:7-11.) In addition, I have always found this Scripture reading from Hebrews about God showing us the way through trial and struggle very revealing in my own life (Hebrews 12:5-12.) Take care!

Diagnosing contemporary conservatism's ills.

Monday, June 22, AD 2009

Apropos of DarwinCatholic’s post on the meaning of conservatism, the following comment from Francis Beckwith (What’s Wrong With The World) struck a chord:

“Conservatism–as a philosophical, cultural, and political project–does in fact have boundaries, and those have been set by the cluster of ideas offered by such giants as Burke, Lincoln, Chesterton, Lewis, Hayek, Chambers, Friedman, Kirk, Weaver, Gilder, Buckley, and Reagan. There are, of course, disagreements among these thinkers and their followers, but there is an identifiable stream of thought. It informs our understanding of human nature, families, civil society, just government, and markets.

“What contemporary conservatism has lost–especially in its Hannitized and Coulterized manifestations of superficial ranting–is the connection to a paternity that is necessary so that its intellectual DNA may be passed on to its progeny.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Diagnosing contemporary conservatism's ills.

  • DEAR GOD! YES! YES! YES!

    Christopher, this is one of those moments when someone puts fragmented thoughts into coherent words.

  • This also reminds me to write that letter to FOX as to why I think Sean Hannity should just be taken off the air.

  • I confess I don’t see much of a identifiable stream of thought among the figures mentioned. Some of them, no doubt, would have been horrified at being identified with others in the group, or explicitly disclaimed any conservativism.

    The intellectual foundations of conservativism have always been something of a post hoc affair (I’m not saying this is unique to conservativism). The way people talk, you’d think the average Goldwater voter could have quoted you chapter and verse from Russell Kirk. I doubt it.

  • Perhaps our writer would like all conservatives to be nice and polite and drink tea with pinkies upended. When the world of ideas is a moshpit where knees and elbows are needed. He forgets that William F. Buckley Jr. of blessed memory, an elite by birth, used very sharp elbows and knees in public debate. Firing Line was the model for many of the Fox News programs- Buckley would invite liberal guests, only to undress them clothing article by clothing article. In the Media World, conservatives operate at a disadvantage of numbers and resources. Hannity, Coulter, et al, even with the ratings dominance of Fox, must compensate with honking rhetoric at times. Meanwhile, El Rushbo gets bigger numbers than anybody anywhere. Mostly on the strength of his ideas.

  • Blackadder — true, it’s not that cut and dry. On that note, I had recommended this introductory essay on the other thread — on the disparate influences and intellectual threads of “American conservatism” and their points of agreement.

    I found George Nash’s The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 is also a good read.

    Regarding Beckwith’s criticism, while before my time, I’m disappointed that we don’t have a television show of the calibre of, say, Buckley’s Firing Line.

    The wasteland of Fox News’ “pseudo-conservative” television has to some degree been replaced by blogs and online interactions. Websites like “First Principles” and the various journals (First Things, Weekly Standard, etc.) which might encourage such a return to and examination of conservatism’s intellectual sources.

    Due credit to Ann Coulter, however — apparently she did recommend Chambers’ Witness in one of her books and prompted a number of them to take it up.

  • *laughs* Of course the TV guys aren’t known for their great philosophical arguments!

    They’re not dealing with highly philosophical folks who want to listen and reason– they’re dealing with folks who either already agree, or who are disposed *not* to agree and will only consider their words if they’re sufficiently startled.

    Sweet Mother, most of the folks watching will be results of the public school system– the same one that has more years of sex ed than history ed?

    Would we also be surprised at sidewalk preachers who appeal less with sweet reason than with ways to get your attention, then direct you to places you can get more information?

    Sure, they’re shallow– but they get the ideas out.

    I’d argue that right thought is less suited to this style of being spread, which is why left thought is so much more common in the area.

  • There has to be some kind of middle ground where we are able to firmly articulate our beliefs backed by a fairly in depth understanding of our historical roots. I’d agree with Frank and with Chris on the boorishness of Fox News and most of its talking heads, though I think he’s underestimating Laura Ingraham and, to a lesser extent, Coulter.

    What we’re seeing time and again in these blog debates are two groups kind of talking past one another. There are a group of conservatives that are tired of taking what seems to be the Marquess of Queensberry approach to political debate, and another concerned about the crassness of some of the political commentary. While I can understand the hesitation on the part of the latter group, it does seem that there’s a subtext to this debate as often the people who cry the loudest for a more temperate tone also want a more temperate kind of conservatism, one that abandons some of the core principles and policy positions of modern conservatism. This only angers the other side even more, and so the rhetoric becomes even more intemperate.

    And as much as it pains me to say this, perhaps we should stop being overly academic. There’s absolutely nothing wrong – and it’s in part necessary to understand the philosophic roots of conservatism. But we’re not going to make that many advances with master’s theses and doctoral dissertations (that was a very painful sentence to write). We should be able to convey the eternal principles of conservatism without boring the masses to sleep, but without the gutteral thoughtlessness of people like Hannity.

  • It strikes me that part of the thing here is that if one has a political movement which a larger percentage of its voters are actually interested in, it will have a fairly loud/populist tone to many of its spokespeople. One can only get away with having a calm, elite, academic tone to all debate if one’s actual voters are such absolute sheep that they don’t bother following any of the movement discussion.

    The solution is simply to have layered communication vehicles, some of which are okay with remaining small because of the limits of their appeal. Fox News and talk radio by their nature need to appeal to tens of millions of people. Magazines like National Review, American Spectator or First Things necessarily take a higher brow approach, and have a smaller appeal.

  • “Sure, they’re shallow– but they get the ideas out.”

    Well said Foxfier. People like Rush, Hannity, Levin, Ingraham and Coulter have to entertain in order to stay on the air. They also carry the conservative message to a mass audience, something that National Review and blogs simply can’t do. I would also note that when WFB started National Review it was attacked as sensationalist and boorish. I recall one initial review stating that the country needed an intelligent conservative journal but National Review clearly did not meet the bill!

    There is more than enough room in the conservative movement for both conservatives of the head and of the heart.

  • To the extent that Rush Limbaugh can communicate the core convictions and ideas of conservatives and/or the Republican Party in a popular medium, he has my wholehearted support.

    Where I get off the Limbaugh train is, say, his off-the-cuff loose cannon remarks — for example, on the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib:

    “This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we’re going to ruin people’s lives over it, and we’re going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I’m talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You [ever] heard of need to blow some steam off?”

    and taking a cavalier “it’s not torture if you can survive it” approach to waterboarding.

    To the extent that these kind of remarks become — given his popularity (and Hannity’s, and Coulter’s, et al.) — the public face of American conservatism for the masses and the media alike, I see that as an impediment.

    And I don’t think even William Buckley himself, despite his penchant for “sharp elbows and knees”, would have approved.

  • I believe it was William F. Buckley, he of the upended pinky and refined manners, who referred to Gore Vidal as a “fa___t.”

    So, as long as we’re talking about superficial ranting, which Buckley did plenty of times, I don’t really see the difference between him and Hannity, except that Beckwith uses him to make his alleged point.

    By the way, Beckwith compares favorably with Hannity, Coulter, et al., in his own ignorance of his tradition when he speaks of Catholicism.

  • Nemo,

    On Beckwith and his comprehension of Catholicism (as a convert to such): irrelevant and stick to the topic.

    Paul,

    Completely agree w/ your comments @ 11:03 am.

    I admit these days much of what I see — from the pundits at Fox News to the recent RNC resolution to call on the Democratic Party to rename itself “Democrat Socialist Party” to Michael Steele’s “the GOP needs a Hip Hop makeover!” and rationally-challenged articulation of pro-life principles — makes me wince.

  • I believe it was William F. Buckley, he of the upended pinky and refined manners, who referred to Gore Vidal as a “fa___t.”

    Buckley once called Vidal a queer during a heated exchange in which Vidal had referred to him as a crypto-Nazi. I doubt it was an exchange he wished others to emulate.

  • In regard to Michael Steele Christopher, we are in complete agreement. The man can’t seem to make up his own mind as to what he believes, let alone lead the RNC!

  • It’s on youtube if you’d like to see it in context, too.

    Frankly, I can’t say an accurate sexual slur rises to the level of offense of “you are a wanna-be mass murdering, eugenically-minded quasi-pagan trying to take over the world.” Not very productive, but I’d have offered to clobber the tootaloo too.

  • “I believe it was William F. Buckley, he of the upended pinky and refined manners, who referred to Gore Vidal as a “fa___t.” ”

    Buckley said it on nation-wide television, although he used the term “queer”.

    Here is a link to the video and the transcript:

    http://concordlive.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/william-f-buckley-jr-vs-gore-vidal-1968/

    As far as I know Buckley never expressed any regret for what he said, and considering it was said to Gore Vidal, good novelist but rancid human being, leaving completely aside his sexual preference, I can understand why.