Month: November 2006

The burning question in 1982 was what to do in a video after around the two minute mark. This classic from the J. Geils Band illustrates the depth of the problem.

Click here to see the other entries…

This strikes me as a pertinent issue, because Mitt Romney has set himself up as a guardian of the institution of civil marriage. He certainly wants to prevent me from legally marrying my fiance. For a long time, inter-racial marriages were also taboo in the LDS church, and you can read a lively pro-Mormon discussion of the issue here. Currently, according to this site, the LDS policy is to discourage interracial marriage, but not to forbid it. Money quote from former Mormon president, Spencer Kimball:

"The interrace marriage problem is not one of inferiority or superiority. It may be that your son is better educated and may be superior in his culture, and yet it may be on the other hand that she is superior to him. It is a matter of backgrounds. The difficulties and hazards of marriage are greatly increased where backgrounds are different. For a wealthy person to marry a pauper promises difficulties. For an ignoramus to marry one with a doctor’s degree promises difficulties, heartaches, misunderstandings, and broken marriages.

When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children.

If your son thinks he loves this girl, he would not want to inflict upon her loneliness and unhappiness; and if he thinks that his affection for her will solve all her problems, he should do some more mature thinking.

We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs."

Clive Davis celebrates the astonishing Michael Apted documentary, which, in its most recent form, is called "49 Up." A group of seven-year-old children were filmed in 1963 as a case-study in British social class. They have been re-interviewed every seven years since. Their stories – at once banal and riveting – are all of our stories. Aaron and I watched "49 Up" a couple of weeks ago, and it was as good as any of the others. There are now seven re-edited versions of the documentary. They repeat sequences, of course. According to Apted on the DVD featurette, one person actually sat and watched all seven in sequence over a long weekend. He described it as an almost mystical experience into the meaning of life. I don’t recommend a marathon like that; but if you’ve ever seen the films, they are unforgettable. And profound – in a way that’s difficult to articulate.

"What seems to be guiding Althouse and Reynolds’ hatred of the term "Christianist" is that it highlights a fact which they both are eager to ignore – namely, that the political party to which they are so devoted is dominated by individuals who believe that their religious/Christian beliefs ought to dictate the American political process, shape secular law, and exploit coercive state power to constrain the choices of their fellow citizens," – Glenn Greenwald, responding to increasingly hysterical attacks on yours truly by some Republican bloggers.

Is evangelical conservatism an oxymoron? I don’t think so – as long as the evangelical’s primary political impulse is to keep government at bay from his or her religious freedom – and others’ freedoms as well. But when a progressive, benign, big government evangelicalism emerges, it is a threat to true conservatism, not a support. That’s the basic case of my book, and it’s one theme of this challenging lecture given in February last year at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. The author, Wilfred McClay, even wonders whether the shift of Republican color from blue to red isn’t somewhat symbolic of this shift. The color red, after all, has always been associated with progressive, collectivist, utopian impulses. And what is Christianism if not a progressive, collectivist, statist movement? Money quote:

There is not much of Niebuhr, or original sin, or any other form of Calvinist severity, in the current outlook of the Bush administration. That too is a reflection of the optimistic character of American evangelicalism, and therefore of evangelical conservatism. It certainly reflects the preference of the American electorate, which does not like to hear bad news, a fact that is surely one of the deep and eternal challenges to democratic statesmanship. And it is, by and large, an appropriate way for good leaders to behave. It is, in some respects, a political strength.

But conservatism will be like the salt that has lost its savor, if it abandons its most fundamental mission – which is to remind us of what Thomas Sowell called ‘the constrained vision’ of human existence, which sees life as a struggle, with invariably mixed outcomes, full of unintended consequences and tragic dilemmas involving hopelessly fallible people, a world in which the legacy of the past is usually more reliable than the projections of the future. As the example of Niebuhr suggests, such a vision need not reject the possibility of human progress altogether – which, by the way, has never been characteristic of traditional conservatism either, from Edmund Burke on. But it does suggest that it is sometimes wise to adopt, so to speak, a darker shade of red, one that sees the hand of Providence in our reversals as well as our triumphs. To do so is as needful for American evangelicalism as for American politics.

Much more politic than my own bluntness. But the same point underneath, I think.

(Photo of embryonic elephant from an upcoming documentary made by Pioneer Television.)

Their insularity and myopia are becoming impossible to miss. This National Catholic Reporter editorial says it all – and so much more brutally than you’d find even on this blog. In a world of real, pressing questions, in a church reeling from decline and continuing sexual abuse scandals, at a time when the government has authorized torture, where war rages and social and economic inequality grows, the American bishops are still focusing almost entirely on the evil of condoms and why gays are now to be seen as having an "inclination" rather than an "orientation." Money quote from NCR:

It is difficult to figure out how to approach these documents. They are products of some realm so removed from the real lives of the faithful one has to wonder why any group of busy men administering a church would bother. They ignore science, human experience and the groups they attempt to characterize. The documents are not only embarrassing but insulting and degrading to those the bishops are charged to lead. The saddest thing is that the valuable insights the bishops have into the deficiencies and influences of the wider culture get buried.

Where is this all going?

No one’s come out with a program, but we’ll venture yet one more hunch. It has become apparent in recent years that there‚Äôs been an upsurge in historical ecclesiastical finery and other goods. We’ve seen more birettas (those funny three-peak hats with the fuzzy ball on top that come in different colors depending on clerical rank) and cassocks (the kind with real buttons, no zippers for the purists) and ecclesiastically correct color shoes and socks, lots of lacy surplices and even the capa magna (yards and yards of silk, a cape long enough that it has to be attended by two altar boys or seminarians, also in full regalia). In some places they’re even naming monsignors again.

It’s as if someone has discovered a props closet full of old stuff and they’re putting it out all over the stage. …

Now that’s order.

Now that’s the church.

Bring up the lights a little higher so all can see.

Before it all fades to irrelevance.

And that, I fear, may be Benedict’s chief legacy in America.

Another poll verifies Giuliani’s remarkable popularity. And Obama is well ahead of Hillary. A Giuliani vs. Obama race in 2008 would cheer a lot of people up, I suspect.

This statement from Walter Peterson, a former New Hampshire governor and lifelong Republican, sums up a lot:

"What the people want is basically to feel like the candidates of a political party are working for the people, not just following some niche issues. The old traditional Republican Party was conservative on small government, efficient government; believed in supporting people to give them a chance at life but not having people on the dole; wanted a balanced budget; and on social issues they were moderate, tolerant, live and let live. They didn’t dislike somebody from other religious viewpoints. That was the old-fashioned conservative, but the word conservative today has been bastardized."

And, yes, New England Republicans ignored Mitt Romney’s faith and focused on the real issues. The question is whether the new, evangelical Republican base can do the same.

It’s Mormon Week on the Dish! South Park, because its creators have long been fascinated by the LDS Church, has actually produced two marvelous little skits on the origins of the Mormon faith and why many Mormons are among the nicest people you’ll ever meet. Here’s the story of Joseph Smith, in song:

And here’s the lesson of the story:

Friday Harbor, Washington State, 10.30 am.