On Israel

1.  Israel should have just torpedoed the blockade runners.

2.  In the event of nuclear attack on Israel, I hope that Israel’s response is not only to nuke Tehran, Damascus, Mecca and Medina, etc…but also to take out Moscow, St. Petersburg, Berlin, Paris…  If Israel dies, I hope it dies with all of its enemies burning, including those responsible for the last Holocaust and hoping for another.

3.  Of course, Israel won’t take these measures, because unlike the howling barbarians surrounding it, Israel is a civilized country.  Still, at some point even civilized nations have to resort to savage measures, since that’s all savages understand.

Primary challenge next time, pretty please

Congresscritter Connie Mack (R-HisLowerIntestine) has a remarkably banal piece in the WaPo on Arizona’s immigration law.  He compares it to lots of unpleasant things, but never bothers to actually explain what’s wrong with it.  Taking away freedoms, like the WWII internment of Japanese-Americans, blah blah blah.  The closest thing to an actual specific argument regarding the law is the end, “I do not want to live in a nation where American citizens are asked ‘Where are your papers?’ We are better than that.”  Yeah, um…guess it was really un-American of the various cops who have pulled me over to have asked for my license, proof of insurance and registration.  I’m generally irate about getting pulled over (especially if I don’t get off with a warning), but I don’t think I’ve gone so far as to call traffic cops Nazis.

Ignoble lies

Much of the visceral anger that the immigration issues provokes in me is due to the dishonesty of the political and chattering classes on the subject.  America’s actual policy is the importation of a massive number of third world peasants from our southern neighbors.  It’s a huge demographic shift, and it’s quite intentional, but no one will own up to it.  For instance, the proposals for “comprehensive immigration reform” of a couple years ago were entirely dishonest.  Securing the border?  Yeah right.  Fines, back taxes, etc…?  Of course not; the already overworked agencies responsible would never be able to keep up and would quickly and quietly be told to expedite everything, nevermind what the voters were told.

Furthermore, these lies haven’t even the veneer of nobility.  They are not for the people–benefiting those too dull to understand what is for their own good–and there’s little pretense that they are.  They will benefit a few people, of course.  The professional and managerial classes will benefit, as will the third-world peasants who are brought into the country.  But everyone working class and below will get hosed.  But our leaders don’t care; they want new clients (and voters) for the state, and cheap labor.  To hell with the rest of us.

Like bear hunting in a taxidermist’s shop

I was disappointed in Ross Douthat’s column today.  Kicking paleocons around in the New York Times is like the times in the British colonial forces Blackadder IV reminisced about, when one faced nothing more dangerous than a native armed with a piece of fruit.  There are just critiques to be leveled at various paleocons, including some that Douthat makes.  But why use a column in the New York Times to make them?  It’s like taking a harpoon gun to an aquarium for shark hunting, easy targets and no one is impressed, not even the sharks.

Instead of writing the rote condemnation, why not spice it up a bit by explaining why the Civil Rights Act is constitutionally questionable?  Douthat could still come down in favor of it by declaring that sometimes we should just ignore the constitution in favor of the national interest, but could wind it up with a chin-wagging bit about how we should always take the limits of the Constitution with the utmost gravity, even if, in the extreme, we must break them.

Such a column would hardly be great, but it would certainly be better than the one he wrote.  The average reader of the New York Times hardly needs to read another column bashing another flavor of conservative, they get plenty of that.  A bit on the constitution and limited federal power would probably be new to them, however.

I wanna love you but I better not touch

Mr. J.C. Sanders has posted a reply to my take on the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.  Since we’ve taken up this topic, I’ll leave him with the last word on the saints for this round.

First, I agree with my friend that for the average Protestant who doesn’t believe in this doctrine (and may have never heard of it), it matters little if Catholics believe in it, and going out of one’s way to pick a fight on the subject is bad form.  However, for those Protestants like myself that find ourselves in continual engagement with Catholicism, and therefor having to regularly explain and defend our Protestantism, the doctrine matters a great deal, since evaluating it is part of judging the unique claims of the Catholic church.  It is not the only such doctrine, the other Marian doctrines and the doctrine of transubstantiation are examples of other sticking points, but it is certainly an important one.

Since one cannot be a Catholic in good standing without accepting this doctrine, one must either be convinced of its truth, or convinced that the teacher authority of the Catholic church is infallible.  Debate about the latter is likely to return to the verity of those doctrines that have been pronounced by that authority.  I acknowledge that the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity could possibly be correct, but I think it unlikely.  Thus, I do not accept it on what I perceive to be its own merits, and also consider it a mark against the case for the teaching authority of the Catholic church.

Thus, I think Mr. Sanders is a bit unfair in his position, which seems to be that if this is the only doctrinal point keeping me from a brisk doggy-paddle across the Tiber I ought to reconsider my opposition, and if there are other points, why worry about this one?  This would seem to apply to any of the sticking points, effectively cutting off discussion.

2.  Having established the reasonableness of exploring whether this doctrine is merely possible or is instead likely, I’ll continue the discussion on the points Mr. Sanders found most interesting, namely, my view that denying a sexual component to the marriage of Mary and Joseph is a challenge to the Christian understanding of sex and marriage.  Of course, the Catholic side can always play the “it was a special circumstance” card, but I think there can be dialogue over the implications of that, and whether they support the Catholic view.

To begin, I find some of his analogies flawed, “In the case of a marriage in which one partner falls perpetually ill, abstinence is demanded, and yet the marriage is not less true for it; in our vows we may explicitly state that we will love our spouses ‘in sickness and in health.’”  Yes, but the marriage was not contracted with the intention that it be sexless and sterile.  Catholic doctrine teaches that those incapable of sexual intercourse are not to be married.  He also argues that, “A normal marriage is meant for two purposes: procreation and intimacy. These two purposes are mirrored in sexual relations, whose purposes are procreative and unitive. But in a sense theirs already was procreative, for a Son was born to Mary and was foster (or “step”) child to Joseph. That He came into the world through unusual means does not make theirs any less “procreative” a union. The Church has always taught that adoption (as per Saint Joseph) is a perfectly valid way for a marriage to ‘be fruitful.’”  I find this slightly disingenuous, since the Church would not (or at least, should not) marry a couple who declared their intention to refrain absolutely from sex, but to adopt children.

The following is also odd, “Mary had acted for a time as the ark in which God dwelt literally and physically. She was the Ark of the New Covenant. Saint Joseph had surely been taught Scripture, being a devout Jew, and so he surely knew about the Ark of the Old Covenant. Just as surely, he knew that it was forbidden to touch the Ark.”  Even if we accept the analogy of Mary to the Ark of the Covenant, there are some serious difficulties with this argument.  The old Ark was a sacred box, the new Ark was a living woman.  Furthermore, recall that when Christ died, Scripture records that the veil in the Temple that concealed the Ark was torn in two, symbolizing the access to God through Christ of the New Covenant.  Thus, might we not consider the marriage (including sexual relations) of Mary as also symbolic of the New Covenant?  Christ made it so that we can approach the Ark.

Also, he argues that, “Christ, however, is unique, and His temple is meant to be His alone; it would be neither proper, nor right, nor fitting for another to occupy that temple after his birth. It would not be proper for Our Lady to be focusing inward at the image of God kindled in her womb–caring for it, loving it as a mother does–when God himself stands before her, placed into her motherly care, in need of her motherly love.”  But we are told in Scripture that we are bothers and sisters of Christ, might it not be fitting for Him to have had brothers and sisters during his earthly life?  Christ is the high priest of his temple, but are we not worshipers in it through his blood?

I don’t see a convincing argument for why Mary had to remain a virgin her whole life, nor how such would not violate Christian principles of marriage.

The Virgin Queen?

My friend Mr. J.C. Sanders has a post up on the Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.  In particular, he wonders why Protestants are often so obstinate in their insistence that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage after Jesus was born–resulting in other children.

For the Catholic, then, this doctrine really is important. For the Protestant, I can see no reason for obstinate opposition, especially not where it wreaks Christian unity. I am not insisting that all Protestants must embrace this as a doctrine of their own faith. I am, however, asking that more considerate Protestant question their motives for insisting against this doctrine. What consequences does this have for Christian unity? What about for faith, for hope, for charity?

First, from a Protestant perspective, it is the Catholic insistence upon this doctrine that causes the rift.  One can be a Presbyterian or Baptist or whatever else in good standing and come down either way on the question (though deciding that Mary was perpetually virgin would probably raise some eyebrows).  It is not an essential part of the faith.  However, if I were to try to convert to Catholicism, Church teaching is that I should not be allowed in unless I accept the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.  In short, the live and let live attitude does not extend both ways.  A Catholic who tells me that I am not in communion with the true church, and cannot be in communion unless I accept the doctrine of perpetual virginity, ought not wonder why I want to make the case against the doctrine.  The Catholic church sets this doctrine as a deal-breaker, which puts me in the position of either making the deal or making the case against this doctrine.

I know that Mr. Sanders (and others) would like me to convert to Catholicism.  In that case, there’s going to be a rumble, as they must either convince me of the truth of the Catholic teaching on matters such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, or convince me that the Catholic church has special knowledge and teaching authority on these matters, authority to which I ought to submit.

Having established that, I’ll quickly lay out a few objections.

1.  Mr. Sanders argues that the Biblical language regarding Christ’s brothers is vague enough to include cousins or step-brothers from a previous marriage of Joseph.  As I am no scholar of Greek (though neither is Mr. Sanders, last I checked) I shall stipulate that the author he got this argument from may be correct.  However, this has at most allowed the possibility of Mary’s perpetual virginity, it has not proved it.  Furthermore, there is nothing in scripture to support such a doctrine.  Thus, the Catholic church presents as essential to the true Christian faith a doctrine with no Biblical basis, which can, at best, be kept from contradicting scripture through some interpretive jiggery-pokery.  Support for this doctrine rests entirely on the question of the teaching authority of the Catholic church.

I also not that Mr. Sanders does not address Matthew 1:24-25.  Quoting from the common Catholic translation, “When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.  He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.”  Of course, the footnote on the verse argues that the use of “until” does not imply “normal marital conduct” after Jesus was born, but it seems a rather weak point.  Here was a perfect place for the Holy Word to clearly present the perpetual virginity of Mary, and all it is concerned with is assuring the faithful of her virginity before Christ’s birth.

2.  Furthermore, this doctrine presents a sever logical problems.  Marriages are supposed to be consummated.  A marriage that is not consummated is, in fact, no marriage.  And the Bible is quite clear that this was, in fact, a marriage.  Husband and wife, not some sort of guardianship of a vestal virgin, as was presented in some apocryphal literature that Catholics often rely on in this matter.  A marriage with no intention of having sex is a sham, but this is precisely what Catholics ascribe to Mary, though I think they’ve been trying to carve out an exception without destroying the logical basis of the rest of their teaching on marriage.

3.  Contra Mr. Sanders, a woman never having sex with her husband isn’t a sign of faithfulness to God, but rather of disobedience.  Oh, I’m sure Mary’s a special case, except that there’s no Biblical evidence that God ever laid such a command on her and Joseph.

4.  I really look forward to a detailed explanation from Mr. Sanders on how Mary’s hymen wasn’t broken during Christ’s birth.  It’s part of the doctrine, the church just hasn’t ever bothered to explain how it’s anatomically possible.  No doubt it’s considered a miracle, but presuming the occurrence of unrecorded miracles to support unBiblical doctrines seems to be going a bit far, in my opinion.  It also seems to take away a bit from that “full humanity of Christ” deal.

Justification: Exhibit A

So…there’s been an internet kerfuffle over a video from a dance competition, where girls (7-8 years old, according to reports) dressed in lingerie and performed an extremely sexualized routine.  It’s seriously disturbing.  I think YouTube is trying to kill it, but it’s a bit late at this point.  Anyway, with sudden, massive media attention on this, some of the parents were naturally interviewed, and of course they saw nothing wrong.  A few quotes:

“Just know that the kids are doing something that they completely love to do. They compete in dance competitions… in front of family and friends.

“We’re very proud of our daughters and their accomplishments.”

“The costumes are designed for movement, unrestricted movement and to show body lines.”

There’s always an excuse if you want one.  Always.

Electing a new people

Michael Gerson perhaps states more than he realizes when he threatens the Republicans with political extermination if they support laws like Arizona’s recent anti-illegal immigration bill.

“But this must be recognized for what it is: political suicide. Consider that Hispanics make up 40 percent of the K-12 students in Arizona, 44 percent in Texas, 47 percent in California, 54 percent in New Mexico. Whatever temporary gains Republicans might make feeding resentment of this demographic shift, the party identified with that resentment will eventually be voted into singularity. In a matter of decades, the Republican Party could cease to be a national party.”

In short: resistance is futile, prepare to be assimilated.  This isn’t happenstance, but part of a intentional plan to destroy Middle America.  Not that there were meetings or secret handshakes–everyone knew what they needed to do without that sort of thing. It’s simple: 1. Import a large underclass, 2. discourage their assimilation and stoke their grievances, 3. profit.  You now have cheap labor for business, plenty of clients for the welfare state, and a voting/population block to counter the hated middle-class whites.  You don’t need a majority, just a large enough minority that politicians will be afraid to cross them.

Is this paranoid?  I don’t think so.  Over the last few years I’ve learned just how much seething contempt our nation’s leaders (in government, media, the academy, business, entertainment, etc…) have for ordinary citizens.  Gordon Brown’s “bigoted old lady” comment?  Obama’s thoughts on those clinging to God and guns?  That’s what they and their camp-followers really think.  They and their hangers-on dismiss entire states as nothing but ignorant backwaters, unfit for civilized people like themselves.  Now, I don’t fit anymore in the rural America where I grew up, if I ever did, and I’m well aware of its problems.  But its people are a damn sight better than our cocksure elites.  And I’m really pissed at the cavalier way those elites have been massively changing the demographics of this country without ever honestly telling the people what they’re doing.

The freedom of sin

One of the common jibes against Christianity is that it encourages a morbid fascination with one’s own lowliness and sinfulness.  One has to always be asking forgiveness and reminding oneself what a wretch one is, etc…  It’s so much nicer to just be over that whole sin thing.  I’m sure you know the lines, dear reader.

However, I think sin is liberating, in a sense.  Acknowledging one’s own sinfulness allows for a freedom that isn’t possible when in denial.  Constantly trying to convince oneself that one is a good person is a lot of work, and a lot of lying.  It’s easier than admitting sin in that it’s more palatable, but the continual half-successful self-deception is tiring.  We’ve all experienced it, and it’s not hard to find particularly egregious examples: people who will have sex with anything that moves tell themselves that it’s ok because they always use a condom and treat their partners with “respect;” parents who whore their children out to Hollywood think about how well they’re providing for their financial future…  Everyone’s got a justification that they half-believe, and they’re all stuck repeating the same story over and over, like Orual in Till We Have Faces.

Rebellion

“Listen ! I took the case of children only to make my case clearer. Of the other tears of humanity with which the earth is soaked from its crust to its center, I will say nothing. I have narrowed my subject on purpose. I am a bug, and I recognize in all humility that I cannot understand why the world is arranged as it is. Men are themselves to blame, I suppose; they were given paradise, they wanted freedom, and stole fire from heaven, though they knew they would become unhappy, so there is no need to pity them. With my pitiful, earthly, Euclidian understanding, all I know is that there is suffering and that there are none guilty; that cause follows effect, simply and directly; that everything flows and finds its level—but that’s only Euclidian nonsense, I know that, and I can’t consent to live by it! What comfort is it to me that there are none guilty and that cause follows effect simply and directly, and that I know it—I must have justice, or I will destroy myself. And not justice in some remote infinite time and space, but here on earth, and that I could see myself. I have believed in it. I want to see it, and if I am dead by then, let me rise again, for if it all happens without me, it will be too unfair. Surely I haven’t suffered, simply that I, my crimes and my sufferings, may manure the soil of the future harmony for somebody else. I want to see with my own eyes the hind lie down with the lion and the victim rise up and embrace his murderer. I want to be there when every one suddenly understands what it has all been for. All the religions of the world are built on this longing, and I am a believer. But then there are the children, and what am I to do about them? That’s a question I can’t answer. For the hundredth time I repeat, there are numbers of questions, but I’ve only taken the children, because in their case what I mean is so unanswerably clear. Listen ! If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children to do with it, tell me, please? It’s beyond all comprehension why they should suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony. Why should they, too, furnish material to enrich the soil for the harmony of the future? I understand solidarity in sin among men. I understand solidarity in retribution, too; but there can be no such solidarity with children. And if it is really true that they must share responsibility for all their fathers’ crimes, such a truth is not of this world and is beyond my comprehension. Some jester will say, perhaps, that the child would have grown up and have sinned, but you see he didn’t grow up, he was torn to pieces by the dogs, at eight years old. Oh, Alyosha, I am not blaspheming! I understand, of course, what an upheaval of the universe it will be, when everything in heaven and earth blends in one hymn of praise and everything that lives and has lived cries aloud: ‘Thou art just, 0 Lord, for Thy ways are revealed.’ When the mother embraces the fiend who threw her child to the dogs, and all three cry aloud with tears, ‘Thou art just, 0 Lord!’ then, of course, the crown of knowledge will be reached and all will be made clear. But what pulls me up here is that I can’t accept that harmony. And while I am on earth, I make haste to take my own measures. You see, Alyosha, perhaps it really may happen that if I live to that moment, or rise again to see it, I, too, perhaps, may cry aloud with the rest, looking at the mother embracing the child’s torturer, ‘ Thou art just, 0 Lord!’ but I don’t want to cry aloud then. While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself and so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It’s not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to ‘dear, kind God’! It’s not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. But how ? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible? By their being avenged.  But what do I care for avenging them? What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price. I don’t want the mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him for herself, if she will, let her forgive the torturer for the immeasurable suffering of her mother’s heart. But the sufferings of her tortured child she has no right to forgive; she dare not forgive the torturer, even if the child were to forgive him! And if that is so, if they dare not forgive, what becomes of harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? I don’t want harmony. From love for humanity I don’t want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it’s beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return Him the ticket.”