[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYeZDYyJgRw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo%2Egoogle%2Ecom%2Fvideosearch%3Fq%3Dobama%2Balexander%2Bthe%2Bgreat%26hl%3Den%26emb%3D0%26aq%3Df&feature=player_embedded]
Archbishop Demetrios, head of the Greek Orthodox Church in the US, fatuously compared President Obama to Alexander the Great on Wednesday. Hattip to Politico. Actually, I think he might be on to something:
1. Like Alexander, I think during Obama’s administration he will fight a war against Persia (Iran), and, as was the case with Alexander, I hope he wins.
2. Like Alexander, Oliver Stone will make a terrible movie about Obama.
3. Like Alexander, Obama is fighting a war in Afghanistan, and, unlike the son of Philip, I hope he wins.
4. Like Alexander, Obama has certainly developed a cult following.
5. Like Alexander who he has criticized, my favorite historian, Victor Davis Hanson, doesn’t think much of Obama either.
6. Like Alexander, I suspect Obama will leave chaos to follow in his wake.
7. Like Alexander, Obama has a fondness for Greek temples.
8. Like Alexander, Obama had a love-hate relationship with a distant father.
9. Like Alexander, Obama has been acclaimed a deity in his lifetime.
10. Like Alexander, Obama really isn’t God.
What’s the Archbishop doing with this honor of President Obama? He must be pro-abortion.
BTW, that was sarcasm, in case people take my quote out of context.
Nah, probably just a sycophantic suck up. Although I would note this letter from Father Seraphim Bell to the Archbishop:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/BellOpenLetter.shtml
The Archbishop has also come under attack in pro-life Orthodox circles for having time to participate in Obama the Great’s inauguration, but not in attending the March for Life.
Here is a good statement of the position of the Orthodox Church in America on abortion, and a sound pro-life position it is:
http://yya.oca.org/TheHub/Articles/TheChurchonCurrentIssues/OrthodoxChristianAndAbortion.htm
The Good Archbishop got a little carried away. He clearly did not get the memo- It’s Safe to Criticize Him Now. Even Elinor Clift- the darling, daffy, veteran bleeding heart representative on The McLaughlin Group- has criticized Dear Leader in print. Might be a preview of Father Jenkins’ introductory speech May 17. Then again, anti-Obama address petition website already has more than 150000 signatures and rising. Now that is noble.
Over at Vox Nova, Henry (who doesn’t allow me to comment) is up to his usual dissembling in claiming that Gerald Campbell isn’t really “pro-choice.” Why?
His point is that at this point in time, the United States just can’t immediately go from where we are to the forceful laws against abortion; to do so would do violence to the system and indeed requires a tyrannical use of force (Tolkien connection: why Galadriel and Gandalf avoid the Ring, though they would do good). In this way he has said the thing is to prepare the people to get them against abortion themselves, which is better; it is better to have no laws and no abortion and laws with abortion constantly going on despite the laws (which he believes would happen).
If you’re opposed to having the law deal with abortion, then you’re pro-choice. Period. Moreover, Gerald is doing absolutely nothing to “prepare the people” to be ready (at some unspecified future date) to ban or restrict abortion. To the contrary, all of his intellectual efforts are dedicated to arguing that it would be “insane” to outlaw abortion, that the pro-choice view is “reasonable and ethically defensible,” and even that the Catholic principle of “subsidiarity” requires leaving the abortion choice with the individual woman. Face it, Henry: Gerald is avidly pro-choice and does his best to convince other people to agree with that position — not to think that abortion is wrong.
Gee, the Galadriel/Gandalf analogy doesn’t seem to me to fit with the topic of choice. It would, however, be an excellent guidepost for certain persons in power, if applied to those “tyranny of the majority” tendencies generally.
S.B.,
If Donald feels differently that’s fine, but I don’t think it’s necessary/appropriate to bring that topic up on this thread.
First they celebrate Karl Marx, then they have many bloggers that voted for Obama. Now they have a pro-choicer on their roll.
For some reason this doesn’t surprise me anymore.
Vox Nova is officially not a Catholic blog. They are pretty much leading Catholics into heresy.
Come on, now, S.B. I’m sure Mr. Campbell would never have an abortion himself, so he’s got that in his favor.
OK, back to the topic at hand.
Here’s hoping the new Alexander runs into another Diogenes.
Amen Dale.
I always keep reminding myself that Jesus promised Peter that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against the Church. That phrase alone makes me sleep good at night, especially this past election.
I’m sort of appauled that someone would think that a comparison to Alexander the Great was a compliment. I’m guessing that the archbishop didn’t mean to accuse him of being a psychopath with delusions of godhood, but that would seem to be the only meaning one could have in such a statement.
And the way some contributors go after shepherds of the Church,
You mean when certain contributors attack people like Bishop Chaput for expressing their viewpoints.
Oh, wait, that’s Vox Nova. My bad.
But yes, this thread is getting mighty off the rails. Sorry for my contribution to that development.
Mark,
[ed.]
Tito,
[ed.].
Mark,
Threats are not taken lightly here.
One more from you and you’ll be in moderation from here on out.
[ed.]
Tito,
I did not threaten you.
I simply referred to your standing with your maker, in your throwing false accusations at me.
Mark,
Thanks.
I appreciate that.
Now if you could please correct your false charge that I somehow lied here, I would appreciate that.
You’re welcome.
Tito,
I guess you are not a man enough to admit your wrongs, I see. I’ll let your childish “Vox Nova groupie” swipe go too, seeing how you are.
This place at many times reminds me of an 8th grade lunch table, with its petty tribalism.
My advice to everyone: Chill.
Vox Nova isn’t the topic here, and I don’t think there’s anything to be gained from an extended rivalry between the venues.
Your blog’s founder cannot seem to chill himself on the matter, and that’s the enduring problem.
Witness his first salvo in this thread.
My two cents (which is admittedly worth considerably less due to the Obama financial policy) I think the editors of this blog should be a little more liberal on their commenting policy. We’re big boys and girls and can read through the nastiness and pettiness. By deleting people’s comments (not talking about profanity or severe personal attacks, especially to disinterested parties) it actually makes the offending party look better and the censor look worse.
Personally, I hate deletions like that. I’ve witnessed time and time again solid (and respectful) arguments deleted on VN and the only reason I can think is that the censor couldn’t deal with it. It looks bad – very bad. There’s a few people I can think of off the top of my head that post ad hominem attacks or make snide remarks instead of making reasoned arguments. There’s no sense deleting those because the readers will see them for what they are. Why increase the frustration all around? I have a lot of respect for the contributors here due to your ability to reason and argue appropriately, deleting hinders that impression.
Again, just my .7895 cents…
Thank you for your comments Rick. As you might expect, there is some diversity of opinion among contributors here on this topic, and I think you’ll see that reflected on different contributor’s threads. In broad terms, I lean towards your position, but we’ve delegated comment moderation to each contributor for their threads.
Understood, Mark, and he’s included in my “chill” advice.
I share some of his concerns about Vox Nova. (For instance it strikes me that some members there treat the now-ex-Catholic Gerald Naus as a sort of trophy head on the wall.) But I don’t think consistenly calling into question another blog’s Catholicity is helpful, even if its arguably true in some cases.
Rick,
Yes.
For example, the founder’s claiming that a blog that engages with culture and politics is not Catholic or is Marxist, simply because they have a portrait of Karl Marx alongside 20 some other influential figures on their mast–that gives me great respect for the contributors here, in their ability to reason and argue appropriately!
And this level of astute and sharp reasoning goes on here nearly day in and day out.
I am virtually astounded by its sheer learnedness.
I mean, the Cardinal Egan piece was a work of profound thoughtfulness, charity and understanding of the complex relations between Catholicism and our ever changing American culture, as it exists in the Middle Eastern states. If I were Cardinal Egan, I would love to have been the recipient of that kind of treatment, wouldn’t you?
And did you see the discussion that the O’Malley piece instigated. The cited “prominent Boston Catholic Blogger”, Carol McKinley, actually joined in the thread discussion, really showing us her heartening intelligence and Christian regard for others. The original writer really did his homework.
Do not you just love the shepherds of the Church and the strong support and benefit of the doubt they receive here?
In light of the above, I have chosen to contribute mostlyonly whenever my amazement at such things is so great that I feel something simply must be said.
My 3 cents. Blogs have the choice between pre-moderation and post-moderation. People always complain about censorship in the case of post-moderation because they can see it whereas in pro-moderation no one ever knows what’s deleted except the commenter. Of course every comment deleted is always because the blog author is afraid to address the point, not matter how inanely argued by the ‘victim.’ When you get to a certain point, say over 500 readers, you can’t have everyone making their own rules because then your forum just gets trashed by people that have their own agendas and could care less about you. Since this is an area I’ve given a lot of thought, I thought I would offer my opinion to you.
Mark,
Thanks for crafting a thoughtful reply. However, I wasn’t casting judgment on Tito’s or any other contributor’s views or whether they should be deemed credible. I just think deletions without grave reason should be avoided. Frankly, I find many of your comments to be problematic in that they aren’t designed to engage or offer a reasoned argument. They’re too often just throwing bombs. I can see why someone would just delete it, but IMO, it does greater justice to leave it stand and show for it for what it is. So in those cases, you might actual be a beneficiary of having your comment deleted.
Rick,
Good points.
Mark,
Your failure to offer basic arguments to almost any reasoned discussion normally brings you to ad hominems and the personal attacks on others.
If you really are Catholic, then you should act like one. Your lack of charity exemplifies the major point, if not one of the major points, on Kos Nova, of the gutter level of discourse that is common among liberals like yourself.
When unable to defend abortion, you go for the personal attacks and ad hominems.
Tito,
I disagree, and I wish you had heeded Darwin’s suggestion to ‘chill’. Mark frequently does make interesting comments. I think there is a tension between the standard you demand from Mark (no personal attacks), and how you treat Mark.
As far as I know, Mark has not voiced support for abortion; he has, rather, urged more charity and circumspection when criticizing bishops, and expressed a dislike for harsh rhetoric on the subject. I think that this is a question of temperament and approach, and I do not think it’s fair to criticize Mark in this manner (particularly when many of his responses have been deleted).
As to Vox Nova, everyone has an opinion, but it’s not very consistent to refer to it as ‘Kos Nova’ and say it has a ‘gutter level of discourse,’ then turn around and claim it’s their lack of charity that bothers you. It is not charitable to describe others in that manner, and I think it harms you more than the target. As others have said, just my two cents.
John Henry,
I respectfully disagree with your opinion(s).
I was away all day in court. I appreciate all the comments. In regard to Vox Nova, or any other blog for that matter, I would request that in my threads controversies that may be underway at other blogs not be mentioned unless it is directly relevant to the issues raised in the post. In this thread the discussion seems to have gotten rather far afield. Stay polite and keep on point.
I was away all day in court.
Maybe you should spend a little less time in court and little more time blogging then!
😉
Rick, I usually have more fun blogging, but luxuries like shelter and eating keep me in court!
Given the quality and quantity of Donald’s posts, I sometimes wonder how much time he has for court. 😉
I would blush John Henry but for my stoic Cherokee ancestry!
Donald,
I agree with your statements.
It shouldn’t happen again.
I hope you had a good day in court though!
Any day I get paid for my services Tito is a good day in court. My clients seemed happy at the end so I guess they thought it was a good day also.
No problem in regard to the thread. I appreciate your efforts to maintain the standards of decorum that I would have enforced if I had been present.