I finally got around to reading G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy. I have seen this book quoted about as much as any other book.  Once you read the book, you understand why everyone quotes it.  I had to keep interrupting my own reading to read sections to my wife as I was going through this book.  Chesterton has a wit and a way of expressing complex truth that is just a joy to read.  This book is a book about apologetics, but it is unlike almost any other book you will come across.  The book does not attempt to prove Christianity but it presents Chesterton’s own reasons for believing.  There are a few things that I really liked about this book.  I liked how Chesterton’s own conversion was not from reading Christian apologetics but rather reading atheistic criticisms of Christianity and seeing how they lacked consistency.  I also really liked how he described Christianity in terms of a man from England setting out on a journey and accidently rediscovering England, thinking he was in some far and exotic land.  Christianity is the place of both adventure and comfort.  Finally I like the full title of this book.  It is really called Orthodoxy: The Romance of Faith.  To many people, orthodoxy sounds rather boring.  Yet, Chesterton presents orthodoxy and something exciting and joy-filled.  Even though this book was written one hundred years ago, it is quite timeless and has much to say about current atheistic attacks on Christianity.  I highly recommend this book.

Pilgrimage Statistics 

 Consecutive Days Riding:  83                              Consecutive Days Blogging: 84 

 Today’s Mileage: 6                                              Total Trip Mileage: 687 

 Happy New Year to all my family and friends! I decided to let myself have a little reprieve today.  I will be riding the bike of course, but instead of composing my typical blog ramblings I have posted several quotes and beautiful images.  They are words and images to ponder as we prepare our resolutions for a new year.  I hope you enjoy both as the gifts they are… see you tomorrow! 

Awaken to the New Year and its Possibilities!

“Go back?” he thought.  ”No good at all!  Go sideways?  Impossible!  Go forward?  Only thing to do!  On we go!”  So he got up, and trotted along with his little sword held in front of him and one hand feeling the wall, and his heart all of a patter and a pitter.   J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit 

 ”Man must have just enough faith in himself to have adventures, and just enough doubt of himself to enjoy them.”  G.K. Chesterton 

What mountains will we face in the New Year?

“We are not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be.”  C.S. Lewis 

“A friendly study of the world’s religions is a sacred duty.” Mahatma Gandhi

Embrace each new day as a gift!

“A good man is not a perfect man; a good man is an honest man, faithful, and unhesitatingly responsive to the voice of God in his life.”  John Fischer 

“Belief is truth held in the mind; faith is a fire in the heart.”  Joseph Fort Newton

How will you celebrate the beauty on your path?

“Doubts are the ants in the pants of faith. They keep it awake and moving.” Frederick Buechner 

“God’s heart is the most sensitive and tender of all. No act goes unnoticed, no matter how insignificant or small.” Richard J. Foster 

The days grow longer... the cycles of nature unfold!

“This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.” The Dalai Lama 

“Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.” “A good traveler has no fixed plan, and is not intent on arriving.” “If you look to others for fulfillment, you will never be truly fulfilled.” “If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.”     Lao Tzu

Be kind to the children... no cruel jokes please!

And he saw in a little picture,
Tiny and far away,
His mother sitting in Egbert’s hall,
And a book she showed him, very small,
Where a sapphire Mary sat in stall
With a golden Christ at play.

It was wrought in the monk’s slow manner,
From silver and sanguine shell,
Where the scenes are little and terrible,
Keyholes of heaven and hell.

In the river island of Athelney,
With the river running past,
In colours of such simple creed
All things sprang at him, sun and weed,
Till the grass grew to be grass indeed
And the tree was a tree at last.

Fearfully plain the flowers grew,
Like the child’s book to read,
Or like a friend’s face seen in a glass;
He looked; and there Our Lady was,
She stood and stroked the tall live grass
As a man strokes his steed.

Her face was like an open word
When brave men speak and choose,
The very colours of her coat
Were better than good news.

She spoke not, nor turned not,
Nor any sign she cast,
Only she stood up straight and free,
Between the flowers in Athelney,
And the river running past.

One dim ancestral jewel hung
On his ruined armour grey,
He rent and cast it at her feet:
Where, after centuries, with slow feet,
Men came from hall and school and street
And found it where it lay.

“Mother of God,” the wanderer said,
“I am but a common king,
Nor will I ask what saints may ask,
To see a secret thing.

“The gates of heaven are fearful gates
Worse than the gates of hell;
Not I would break the splendours barred
Or seek to know the thing they guard,
Which is too good to tell.

“But for this earth most pitiful,
This little land I know,
If that which is for ever is,
Or if our hearts shall break with bliss,
Seeing the stranger go?

“When our last bow is broken, Queen,
And our last javelin cast,
Under some sad, green evening sky,
Holding a ruined cross on high,
Under warm westland grass to lie,
Shall we come home at last?”

And a voice came human but high up,
Like a cottage climbed among
The clouds; or a serf of hut and croft
That sits by his hovel fire as oft,
But hears on his old bare roof aloft
A belfry burst in song.

“The gates of heaven are lightly locked,
We do not guard our gain,
The heaviest hind may easily
Come silently and suddenly
Upon me in a lane.

“And any little maid that walks
In good thoughts apart,
May break the guard of the Three Kings
And see the dear and dreadful things
I hid within my heart.

“The meanest man in grey fields gone
Behind the set of sun,
Heareth between star and other star,
Through the door of the darkness fallen ajar,
The council, eldest of things that are,
The talk of the Three in One.

“The gates of heaven are lightly locked,
We do not guard our gold,
Men may uproot where worlds begin,
Or read the name of the nameless sin;
But if he fail or if he win
To no good man is told.

“The men of the East may spell the stars,
And times and triumphs mark,
But the men signed of the cross of Christ
Go gaily in the dark.

“The men of the East may search the scrolls
For sure fates and fame,
But the men that drink the blood of God
Go singing to their shame.

“The wise men know what wicked things
Are written on the sky,
They trim sad lamps, they touch sad strings,
Hearing the heavy purple wings,
Where the forgotten seraph kings
Still plot how God shall die.

“The wise men know all evil things
Under the twisted trees,
Where the perverse in pleasure pine
And men are weary of green wine
And sick of crimson seas.

“But you and all the kind of Christ
Are ignorant and brave,
And you have wars you hardly win
And souls you hardly save.

“I tell you naught for your comfort,
Yea, naught for your desire,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher.

“Night shall be thrice night over you,
And heaven an iron cope.
Do you have joy without a cause,
Yea, faith without a hope?”

G. K. Chesterton

Ballad of the White Horse

~

" The object of a New Year is not that we should have a new year.

It is that we should have a new soul."

G.K. Chesterton

Yesterday I  talked about erecting a blessing fence between myself and others.  A blessing fence is essentially a boundary erected by you to separate your life from someone else’s life and to protect you from them.

One of the reasons I lost my life was my inability to establish, protect, and maintain healthy boundaries in my life.  I trusted everyone and gave them the freedom to roam in my front yard, to camp in my back yard, to get in my face, and to sneak up behind my back to stab me.

My unwillingness to accept the truth of original sin, which G. K. Chesterton said is “the only Christian doctrine which no one disputes,” left me vulnerable.  In my vulnerability I let people have power, control, and influence over me in ways which were unhealthy. Part of my Reclamation 2010 commitment is to set boundaries and to not let them be violated.

To this end, I had two moral victories today by refusing to negotiate boundaries which I had established.  Surprisingly, the moral victories came against one of my closest friends and the other against one of my mortal enemies.  Let me explain.

Yesterday I told you about my two closest friends who kept telling me that I failed the class on original sin.  One of these friends was one of the two people who I left outside my fence today.

This friend wanted me to do something I had decided not to do.  He plead with me, joked with me, sighed over me, and finally told me that I was in a rather snippy (not quiet the word he used) mood today.  I just kept saying, “No!” After a while I was having fun saying “No!” He finally relented and accepted the fact that I was not going to budge.  He’s not use to that from me.  But here’s the best part, I know that his friendship, love, and concern for me has not changed.

If I had given into his reasoned pleading, I would of let a part of me trickle away, again.  Friends let friends establish and keep boundaries.

Yesterday I wrote about Laban and Jacob establishing a blessing fence to protect them from each other (Genesis 31).  I told you about erecting a blessing fence between myself and some folk who I allowed to steal away parts of my life.  I joked about placing the fence on this side of all the entanglements resulting from the events which transpired.

Today one of these mortal enemies came within 3 feet of me.  He probably doesn’t know that I saw him.  When he saw me he made a mad dash to hide behind a display in a Christian Bookstore. He was contorting his body so fast it looked like he had gotten tangled up with a hive of angry bees.  Because I was committed to keeping and respecting the boundary of the blessing fence, I resisted the temptation to say , “Hello” and cause him excruciating agony, in a Christian kind of way.

The boundary protected him and me.  I am still chuckling about it, he put himself in a snare and I reclaimed a part of my life.  I wonder if his heart is still racing.

Two moral victories does not mean I have reclaimed my whole life.  There is much work left to be done and much fun to be had reclaiming my life.

One lesson I am learning is that there is more freedom living in boundaries than living without them.

Travel well, BJ

“Truth has no special time of its own. Its hour is now – always.” Albert Schweitzer

What is the biggest threat to America’s future? Some argue health care reform, some global warming or perhaps the war in Afghanistan, all serious problems. The real enemy is a far stronger and more illusive adversary then any of the aforementioned, moral vacuity.

Today, it’s difficult to imagine a Country without greed and corruption. Even Tiger Woods, a once pillar of integrity, now reveals his many surrenders to selfish desire. Oddly, Americans look to one another for moral stability, a constantly shifting platform to say the least. Over time, the proverbial house of cards grows taller with little or no attention to its most precarious foundation.

Without question, the United States has endured a myriad of challenges throughout its last decade. Some examples: 9/11, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a skyrocketing deficit, hurricane Katrina, the wildfires of southern California, the horrific Ft. Hood massacre and many others. As we rest on the brink of sweeping health care and climate reform, one can only wonder, might this be the card that brings down the house?

Thomas Jefferson remarked, “Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality.” Jefferson’s insight predicts eventual conflict when applied to a society filled with limitless self-interest. As a child I often wrestled with acting in accordance to that which I knew was morally correct. Now an adult, I must consider the possibility of a society that struggles not with the execution of moral behavior yet, identifying what is in fact, moral. The gradual replacement of morality with egoism has overgrown the path to righteousness and thus placed a “dangerous pass” sign at its beginning.

As America struggles to find its moral compass, allow me to offer some wisdom from those who personally understand the importance of truth and morality:

“If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters.” Alan K. Simpson

Simpson reveals: integrity is the only cause when rendering a decision. Conversely, a conclusion reached without integrity matters not. I imagine this is the section for which the amoral take issue. For those who challenge, “life is not that simple, it’s not a black or white issue”, I vehemently disagree. Those who argue, ‘integrity cannot always be applied to a complicated world’, either fail to understand the principle, or realize the principle derails a self-serving agenda.

While members of Congress meet to debate and most likely pass questionable health care reform, I cannot help but recognize an ever-moving and conveniently reshaped moral code. When cautioning against such practices, realize the only real change will likely come from complete and utter failure. Make no mistake, I wish failure upon no one yet realize the dire need for morality in everyone. America: everyone (and I mean everyone) wanders from the path, which will never change. Regardless, don’t ever forget your way back; our Nation is counting on you.

“Force always attracts men of low morality.” Albert Einstein

“Art, like morality, consist of drawing the lines somewhere.” G.K. Chesterton

You shall not go out with haste, . . . for the Lord will go before you, and the God of Israel will be your rear guard —Isaiah 52:12

Thoughts on the Verse:

Haste is a feel of urgency, a feeling of having to go forward/move quick. Many times this feeling comes and steals what God has for us today. Lets not miss out on what God is trying to do today because we are worried/eager about what God is going to do in 6 months. The verse insures of this by then saying that the Lord will go before us, our tomorrow will be taken care of. I have seen people who want to do more and more and forget about God’s leading. They try to pass God and do as much as they can, let me tell you from personal experience this is not a good idea. It causes us to burn out and run into a brick wall. God knows the pace and amount we can handle. If we follow God, we will see that we will be able to bless; God our community, our families, our friends, and ourselves without burning out. Lasting God tells us that He guards our rear, don’t let your past failures stop you from enjoying today.  When they try to come and stop you from moving forward, the Grace of God protects us from our past failures. So lets not let our past or future, stop us from enjoying each day.

“The key to everything is patience. You get the chicken by hatching the egg, not by smashing it.”-Arnold Glasow

“One of the great disadvantages of hurry is that it takes such a long time.”-G.K. Chesterton

]]> http://magnoliamountain.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/the-theological-importance-of-the-color-white-2/ Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:52:33 +0000 testostercone http://magnoliamountain.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/the-theological-importance-of-the-color-white-2/ http://theunemployedblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/rand-illusion/ Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:22:19 +0000 Damien http://theunemployedblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/rand-illusion/

“If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders – what would you tell him to do?”

“I…don’t know. What…could he do? What would you tell him?”

“To shrug.”

Regardless of how much you may revere the writings of Ayn Rand, it cannot be denied she made one definite mistake with Atlas Shrugged. To be fair, it’s a mistake so commonly made that it would be irrelevant anywhere else, but with Rand it takes on a unique significance. The purpose of citing Atlas, as we see above, was to serve as a metaphor for the rich and powerful whose strength, hard work and moral clarity are what support our society as we know it, and how state interference in their businesses and profits causes the world to “shrug”. However, in the original Greek myth, Atlas didn’t hold up the world. This is a misnomer that has somehow been accepted as his defining trait. In the myth, Atlas was the titan who held up the heavens. Now, if we instead apply this as a metaphor to Rand’s work, it suddenly takes on a new meaning, not terribly unlike that of another literary giant, Chicken Little. Instead of a tribute to “those who produce the most”, it becomes a tale about a bunch of gullible sycophants running around in a panic because the sky is falling.

Atlas Shrugged is a shockingly bad book. It’s long-winded and boring, and remarkably spiteful, fuelled throughout by hate. Many of Rand’s detractors will attack her abilities as a writer, which is not a sentiment I share. She was a great writer, and for the first 300 pages or so of Atlas Shrugged I was genuinely enjoying it. However, it very quickly became apparent that Rand’s characterisation of the industrialists and the “producers” resembles that of a 14-year-old girl describing her favourite pop-stars, and as for those who want to help the poor or show any regard for altruism whatsoever…well, let me tell you. I’m a geek, I’ve read a lot of comic-books in my time, and even in the most juvenile, two-dimensional of comics I’ve never encountered such a nasty, pantomime depiction of villains. It’s flat and it’s boring, and it renders the novel almost unreadable.

And then there are the speeches. Mother of god, there are speeches. There is virtually no dialog in Atlas Shrugged. Whenever anyone speaks they do so in long, drawn out lectures. Pontificating is order of the day, and it’s hard to see what the point is when everyone is just repeating the same speech over and over again. Rand was of course simply using each of these characters as a mouthpiece for her own objectivist viewpoint, and there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with that. However, it’s quite shocking to see how many people have been taken in by it.

I have posted here previously on Rand – when I had just read the book – to ask why people were suddenly more interested in a novel that promotes self-interest and laissez-faire economics at a time when unregulated greed has sent the world into the worst recession in over 50 years. Having spent some time looking into objectivism and Rand’s theories, I can say with some confidence that the people declaring Atlas Shrugged to be prophetical are talking through their colletive arse. A commenter on my previous Rand post claimed; “In America’s case, it is undoubtedly the Federal Reserve’s manipulation of the market that causes the roller coaster ride America is going through.” Similar sentiments are expressed here. There can be no doubt that the Fed’s actions were a causal factor, but to say this was the sole cause in destabilising the markets while ignoring the greed of under-regulated banks and underwriters strikes me as wilful ignorance. And what of the recessions of other countries, such as Britain or here in Ireland, where interest rates were cut in response to the recession? Ireland is an interesting example. Our recession is for the most part separate from that of the rest of the world, almost entirely a result of our own actions. And the only thing we have to blame it on is greed – greedy bankers and greedy developers – and of course a government who thought regulation meant acting as the banks’ cheerleaders.

The reason Ayn is being declared a visionary is, it is said, the Bush/Obama sponsored bailouts mirror the actions of the government bodies in Atlas Shrugged. This is simply incorrect. What’s happening now is that tax-money is being use to prop up the great and powerful captains of industry, the very same people who got us into this mess. It’s certainly what’s happening here with Nama. This is the exact opposite of what Rand was talking about.

And you know what? Rand supporters know this to be true. Check out this interview with Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, conducted before Randists succeeded in rewriting history. It is interesting, is it not, to hear him talking about public relations and positioning objectivism to benefit from the recession? Actually, the whole interview is worth reading for its “black is white” non-wood for the trees seeing. The inability of Ranists to see what’s right in front of them is quite alarming. For instance, they pride themselves on being the champions of innovation. There’s a scene in Atlas Shrugged where the hero is on retreat, having been unable to tolerate the “moochers” any longer. She finds roads and other services that are barely fit for use, and when she asks why nobody has them fix she gets an indignant “they’ve always been like that” in response. Now, keeping this scene in mind, let’s look at this article (the author of which seems to be under the impression that the sun switches off whenever a solar panel needs cleaning). Does the assertion that oil has served us fine until now and we’ve got plenty of oil and candles left sound familiar? This is just one such incident. What has struck the most during my examination of objectivism is that are many, many examples where supporters of Rand sound terribly like those she was attacking, and nowhere is this more apparent than when they’re talking about environmentalism. Here’s a situation where scientists are almost universally convinced that global warming is a reality, and the only debate left is how much time we have left to do something about it. Yet Randists are happy to reject entirely any scientific evidence that dares suggest burning fossil fuels might be problematic. After all, we’ve always done that. Alex Epstein (the one Randist who returned my emails, and who immediately dismissed my argument as “econ reporting 101” the moment I pointed out I disagreed with objectivism) has repeatedly accused environmentalists of “increasing hysteria”. Well, have a look-see here. Does this article sound just the teensiest bit hysterical to anyone?

I’ve been deliberately using the word “Randist” here, as I really don’t want to sound like I’m attacking objectivism in general. It’s not a theory I agree with, but any branch of conservatism that embraces science and rejects religious dogma is ok with me. The trouble with Randism is that, when you think about it, it actually does neither of these things. We’ve seen already seen how easily Randists reject science. As for religion, well, they may be atheists, but it has been said (by G K Chesterton, I believe, but remember it from Stephen Fry on Room 101) that the trouble with atheists is not that they don’t believe in God but that they’ll believe in anything. That’s what has happened to Randists. They claim to be the voice of reason, but there goal is the absolute and undiluted implementation of Rand’s dogma. They’ve fallen for Rand’s ploy of stating that anyone who disagrees with her is not merely mistaken but evil, and as such they are driven by the same kind of conviction we see in Christian fundamentalists and Islamic extremists. If fact, there is one religion (if we can call it that) that Randism has more in common with than any other. Atlas Shrugged is economic Dianetics. Randists are secular scientologists, peddling perceived problems and easy answers.

You might be wondering why I’m getting so worked up about this. They’re just fools who managed to be taken in by naked and at times contradictory propaganda. They would have been equally convinced by Mein Kampf if they lived in 1930’s Germany. If anyone today is really that gullible they are at best ignored. But here’s the thing; they’re winning. They’re framing public discourse on how we should handle the recession, and if this continues surely policy will follow. Well I say no more. Towards the end of the book John Galt (the Randist’s messiah) declares: “We have no demands to present to you, no terms of bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us.” Bullshit, of course, as proven by the bailouts. Still, it’s a profound moment, because we see the opposite is true. These people have nothing to offer us. We tried their idea of doing nothing during the last global economic crisis and it didn’t work then either. To all those threatening to “go Galt”, I say this: Fuck off and do it. Put your money where your mouth is. See how indispensable you are. See how badly we do without you. If you did it five years ago we might not be in this mess.

The great Stephan Colbert has more on this, so I’ll end with him.

The most courageous of the world’s elite from 193 countries hop private jets and catch limousines to gather this week in Copenhagen to brave the blustery cold and the driving snow which has blanketed northern Europe in recent days, in order to mount a last ditch effort to save the world from the perilous consequences of man-made global warming. Though it may be too late, according to eminent scientists such as Al Gore, these environmental martyrs will have to pack an extra pair of long johns, because temperatures in Copenhagen have dipped to four degrees below zero this week and Denmark is set to receive its first white Christmas in 14 years, on the coat tails of the coldest year globally in a decade in 2008.

I do believe I have solved the problem of global warming. Al Gore and Kirby team up to take on CO2.

If something doesn’t seem right with the world’s nare do wells debating the merits of confiscatory global taxes and punitively siphoning the wealth of industrialized nations to give it to “developing” financial superpowers like India and China to combat climate change, that is because it isn’t. God has a sense of humor though, as it seems every time Al Gore heads to Washington D.C., Copenhagen or some other large climate summit, record low temperatures, blizzards and snow delays are sure to ensue.

The Copenhagen Climate Council’s Manifesto (hmm) clearly states:

The story of the link between human
activities, observed global warming, likely future
warming, and the climate effects of this warming, is
becoming ever clearer: our Earth is now heating dangerously.
That the primary cause is human-generated
air pollution is beyond reasonable scientific doubt.

This despite the facts that Climategate e-mails have revealed that much of the temperature data relied on to bolster claims about global warming were falsified, and that the famous Mann “hockey stick” temperature line which has been used and abused to reconstruct the climate history of the last one-hundred years has been largely discredited as they have been truncated and spliced in a misleading way.

Why?  At Copenhagen, Hugo Chavez received racous applause with an anti-U.S., anti-capitalist rant.  Communist and Socialist protesters have a pronounced presence in the Denmark this week and the slight odor wafting through the city is evidence if the flags and signs weren’t.  Why is it that Robert Mugabe, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro and all of the other ruthless Bond-esque super-villians and tin pot dictators of the world are the most enlightened of climate change believers?  Well, as Chavez detailed in his nearly 30 minute tirade on the floor at Copen-hoaxin’ (25 minutes over his limit, in true totalitarian form), the road to climate reform cannot be accomplished without the death of capitalism (just like health care reform, Wall Street reform, and any other reform proposed by the Democrats here stateside, interestingly enough).

But perhaps I am being unfair to Chavez.  Perhaps I am twisting his words.  Perhaps, even, it would be better to let Chavez explain in his own words…

Chavez:  “There is a silent and terrible ghost in this room…and that ghost is capitalism”.  Standing Ovation.

Chavez:  “Our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism…that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell….let’s fight against capitalism.”  Standing O, obviously.

Mugabe so eloquently added later that “when these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions, it’s we, the lesser mortals of the developing sphere who gasp and sink and eventually die.”

Something about that red on Chavez... It is a power color, as Tiger Woods always says. Chavez has a certain Benito "Moose is on the loose" Mussolini look going on.

What’s funny about the mass murderers of the world and their selfless advocacy for Mother Earth is that the solution repeatedly appears to be a massive transfer of wealth from producer nations to looter nations!  Of course, the solution to dictator-induced poverty, labeled neo-colonialism, for the last two decades, was to reform the IMF and to give “poorer” nations 7% of the U.S. GDP (you’d be surprised, but this theory has been taught as legitimate in international relations courses in Universities across the nation–and yes, that totaled something to the tune of a trillion dollars a year).  I see a pattern.  Global socialism and a multi-multi-multi-polar world of equal squalor appears to be the goal.

Leftists here in America apparently concur.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week nobly pledged $100 billion a year of your money to save the planet by… Borrowing $100 billion a year from China and giving it all to… China, India, Venezuela and Zimbabwe (among others)!  Score.  Apparently what the world really needs to avert climate disaster, is not action but…  your money!  Because as Obama has so often noted, the incompetent Bush administration used the world’s atmosphere as their personal landfill–or maybe not.  As Karl Rove points out on his website,

“Under President Bush’s policies, air pollution decreased, ethanol production quadrupled, wind energy increased by more than 400 percent, and more than $44 billion in federal funds went towards climate change and energy security programs, including more than $22 billion to technology research, development and demonstration.”

Conservatives should be reticent to buy into the song and dance of the Sierra Club, and other climate hoaxers.  In today’s worldwide environmental movement to combat supposedly man-made global warming, there are many players.  There are however, generally only three types of Environmentalists of the ‘Green’ variety.  The capital “E” is important as there are many environmentalists (little “e”), including myself.  I was raised to respect God’s creation and to be a steward–to recycle, not to litter, and to leave nature as generally untouched as when I found it.  Thanks in large part to growing up in a Christian home.  Of course, one cannot deny the influence of being subjected to cartoons like Captain Planet, Toxic Crusaders, TMNT and Swamp Thing and enduring Arbor Day, Earth Day and Ficus Day (don’t laugh, I’m sure it exists somewhere).

Environmentalists of the big “E” variety, however are of a different kind altogether and have hijacked environmental groups of all kinds, just as Big “F” Feminists did in the 1960’s and 70’s.  Today’s Environmentalist is a dyed in the wool, hardcore zealot that believes whole-heartedly that man is destroying the earth.

Today’s Green movement is a confluence of three different groups of misfit toys.  These groups are not mutually exclusive and there are some rare birds like Chavez using the movement as a tool to wage war on the U.S.  There are definitely penumbras that overlap, but the end result is the same, they all accept what is nothing more than pseudo-science at best and an outright hoax at worst.  They accept it as inarguable, and they look down on those who disagree.  First, the Marxists.

Wave to the protesters, Joe!

During the Soviet zenith in the 1940’s and 50’s, Stalin found many apologists here in America and the West.  They inhabited Universities, Hollywood, the NY Times, Newsweek, and even the halls of Congress.  Marxism was in vogue for much of the 20th Century, its advocates pushing for totalitarian government, ultimate authority and the redistribution of wealth (sound familiar?).  These neophytes favored Stalin in secret and were sympathetic to the Soviet and Communist cause in general.  Glowing pieces were written on Castro and Che Guevera in the 50’s and 60’s as these monsters destroyed one of the jewels of the Western Hemisphere.  In the late 60’s and early 70’s, said individuals sided with the Viet-Cong and Ho-Chi-Minh’s underdog effort to bring working class reform to Vietnam against Imperial America.  The Communist left was a strong presence in American politics, de facto though it was.

When the Cold War ended, they vanished.  Or so it seemed.  But the day the Berlin Wall crumbled, I am certain the Sierra Club saw a massive membership increase, as Che shirted, freshly greened commies flooded local offices everywhere.  Since that time, Environmentalism as a movement has produced solutions to all of the earth’s problems–all man-made, and all remarkably similar to 20th Century Communist proposals.  Confiscatory and punitive taxes, removal of property rights, and a strong world governing body, dissolving the sovereignty of the imperial U.S.  The Communists never went away, in fact they are in the Obama Administration, praising Chairman Mao at graduation ceremonies and proposing population controls.  Instead of using bombs and pitchforks, the Bourgeois who claim to act on behalf of the Proletariat now use “carbon footprints,”  and are more Fabian in their Utopianism than Morian.

A just as large, if not larger contingent in the movement embodies a nearly religious devotion to their cause.  As G.K. Chesterton once said, “once man ceases to believe in God, he does not believe in nothing, he believes in anything.”  This correlating with the supposed “death of God” is no coincidence.  Man has an innate desire to believe in something bigger than himself.  God has written this on the hearts of even the supposedly un-believing, who are aware, unbeknownst to them, of God. It is our fallen state that sues to fill that void in our hearts, in folly.

To climate religion wing nuts, if you are skeptical you are either incompetent or on the payroll of Exxon Mobile

Al Gore couldn't steal an election, so he created his own religion! Elron Hubbard would be proud!

Three-Thousand years ago, if Belrog’s crops failed or his hut was washed away in a mud-slide, it was because he had transgressed against Zeus, Artemis, Baal or Ra.  In order to rectify this, only prompt sacrifice of first fruits or sufficient chanting would do.  With the withering of religious convictions in the late 1800’s, and the rise of Social Darwinism that inevitably followed, man’s new religion was one that worshiped self.  Amidst the “death of God,” as Nietzsche put it,  man placed his faith in the only thing that he could–himself.  A religious conviction now exists such that, if something is perceived as having gone awry, man has erected man (don’t) as an idol and subsequently arrogantly placed man in the position of a God–able to easily smite or un-smite the world.

The last group, is the looter class and suckers.  One wants something for nothing and the other is the same guy who watches History Channel specials about Big Foot, Chupacabras, UFOs, the moon landing hoax, the grassy knoll, 9/11 Truthers and Birthers.  This guy desperately wants to live in an interesting, ground breaking, turning point time of history.  This guy also tends to live in a room rented from someone else, often his parents.  So, in summary, three groups: Neo-Marxists, religious-Atheists, and suckers.  Many of them are hypocrites.  Some of them are in Copenhagen.  All of them want your money.  There, they are plotting just how to get it–and something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

David Teesdale, is a Political Science graduate and former White House intern.  Back before it was turned into a crash pad for all of Barack’s relations.  Dude, pick up the bottles and cans out of the South lawn.  Seriously.

“The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in fairy books, charm, spell, enchantment. They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery.”

-G. K. Chesterton (English born Gabonese Critic, Essayist, Novelist and Poet, 1874-1936)-

Everything that is really lovable can be hated; and there are, undoubtedly, people who hate Christmas.  It is not difficult to divide them, roughly, according to their reasons for doing so.  There are those, for instance, who hate what they call vulgarity and what is really mankind.  There are those who dislike playing the fool, preferring to act the same part in a more serious spirit.  There are those who cannot sit down to a steady meal because they have those insane American nerves which the Scriptural writer prophesied when he wrote (forseeing the life of the rich Yankee): “There is no peace for the wicked.”  There are those who object to Waits – I never can imagine why.  There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions.  There are those (equally unchristian in their basic sentiment) who hate Paganism.  They regret the Pagan quality in the Christian festival; which is simply regretting that Christianity satisfied the previous cravings of mankind.  There are some who cannot, or will not, eat turkey and sausages.  Of course, if this is simply part of a private physical necessity, it may leave the soul still in a sound Christmas condition.  But if it is a part of a philosophy, it is a part of a philosophy with which I disagree.  I hold myself in a simple abstract position towards the vegetarian and towards the teetotaler.  I can respect the thing as a regimen, but not as a religion.  As long as the man abstains from low motives, I can heartily sympathize with him.  It is when he abstains from high motives that I hold him as a heretic.

These are the people, then, who dislike Christmas and, no doubt, they are very numerous.  But, even if they are the majority, they are still, essentially, mad… – G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936), “The Neglect of Christmas,” published in The Illustrated London News on January 13, 1906

From: The Collected Works of G. K. Chesterton: Volume XXVII: The Illustrated London News, 1905-1907, edited by Lawrence J. Clipper (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), p. 100.

Yet again I should like to here quote the eminently quotable GK Chesterton. For those who read last Friday’s post (10 December), I finished by casting a shell or outline of an imaginary–what I suggested to be an ideal–legislative process. It was a process that leverages rather than compromises the efficiency of the founders’ brilliant system. Think of this post as a bridge between last Friday and this Friday’s final post in the Civility Series. This somewhat lengthy clip from Chesteron’s classic Orthodoxy is taken from his chapter called The Ethics of Elfland. My abiding trust in the ideal, and growing distrust in the actual goings-on in Washington is very much in concert with Chesterton’s musings here.

“When the business man rebukes the idealism of his office-boy, it is commonly in some such speech as this: “Ah, yes, when one is young, one has these ideals in the abstract and these castles in the air; but in middle age they all break up like clouds, and one comes down to a belief in practical politics, to using the machinery one has and getting on with the world as it is.”

Thus, at least, venerable and philanthropic old men now in their honoured graves used to talk to me when I was a boy. But since then I have grown up and have discovered that these philanthropic old men were telling lies. What has really happened is exactly the opposite of what they said would happen. They said that I should lose my ideals and begin to believe in the methods of practical politicians. Now, I have not lost my ideals in the least; my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was. What I have lost is my old childlike faith in practical politics.

I am still as much concerned as ever about the Battle of Armageddon; but I am not so much concerned about the General Election. As a babe I leapt up on my mother’s knee at the mere mention of it. No; the vision is always solid and reliable. The vision is always a fact. It is the reality that is often a fraud. As much as I ever did, more than I ever did, I believe in [democracy]. But there was a rosy time of innocence when I believed in [proponents of democracy].

I … have always believed in democracy, in the elementary … doctrine of a self-governing humanity. If any one finds the phrase vague or threadbare, I can only pause for a moment to explain that the principle of democracy, as I mean it, can be stated in two propositions. The first is this: that the things common to all men are more important than the things peculiar to any men. Ordinary things are more valuable than extraordinary things; nay, they are more extraordinary. Man is something more awful than men; something more strange. The sense of the miracle of humanity itself should be always more vivid to us than any marvels of power, intellect, art, or civilization. The mere man on two legs, as such, should be felt as something more heartbreaking than any music and more startling than any caricature. Death is more tragic even than death by starvation…

This is the first principle of democracy: that the essential things in men are the things they hold in common, not the things they hold separately. And the second principle is merely this: that the political instinct or desire is one of these things which they hold in common. Falling in love is more poetical than dropping into poetry. The democratic contention is that government (helping to rule the tribe) is a thing like falling in love, and not a thing like dropping into poetry. It is not something analogous to playing the church organ, painting on vellum, discovering the North Pole (that insidious habit), looping the loop, being Astronomer Royal, and so on. For these things we do not wish a man to do at all unless he does them well. It is, on the contrary, a thing analogous to writing one’s own love-letters or blowing one’s own nose.

These things we want a man to do for himself, even if he does them badly. I am not here arguing the truth of any of these conceptions; I know that some moderns are asking to have their wives chosen by scientists, and they may soon be asking, for all I know, to have their noses blown by nurses. I merely say that mankind does recognize these universal human functions, and that democracy classes government among them. In short, the democratic faith is this: that the most terribly important things must be left to ordinary men themselves — the mating of the sexes, the rearing of the young, the laws of the state. This is democracy; and in this I have always believed…”

On the Place of Gilbert Chesterton in English Letters
Hilaire Belloc (Sheed & Ward, 1940)
84 p.  First reading.

Belloc published this essay several years after the death of his friend G.K. Chesterton.  In it he attempts — if Belloc ever merely attempted anything — to enumerate those special qualities which Chesterton brought to his writings, and to assess his likely place in English-language literature and culture.

It might be a good exercise to begin by asking ourselves how we would assess Chesterton, before looking to see what Belloc has to say.  I suppose it is a debatable point today whether Chesterton has a place — a stable, solid, enduring place — in English letters.  He has his admirers, of course (and a happy band of warriors they are), but mostly he is ignored, especially by those who command the heights of our culture.  This may not have bothered him on the literary front, for he had few pretensions in that direction and loved his penny dreadfuls, but he devoted many pages to the promulgation of arguments, and today those arguments, despite their frequent relevance and insight, are all too rarely heard.

Yet we should not overstate his marginality either.  It is often said today that Chesterton is best known for his Father Brown detective stories.  This claim has the effect of inflating — if it is possible to further inflate Chesterton — the benign and jovial scribbler, while submerging the obstinate and jovial controversialist who so unerringly defended politically incorrect causes.  Interestingly, however, the claim seems to be untrue.  A look at which books people actually have on their shelves at home reveals that his most popular books today are, by a good margin, his phantasmagoric nightmare novel The Man Who Was Thursday, and Orthodoxy, his spiritual autobiography.  His most sustained work of religious argumentation, The Everlasting Man, competes in popularity with Father Brown, and then the long tail begins.  Meanwhile, new books on Chesterton and new volumes in the enormous Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton continue to appear.  He is not going away just yet.

Belloc identifies six special Chestertonian qualities which together define the (presumed) place he has in English literature.

In the first place, he was a national writer.  Chesterton was an Englishman to his bones.  Like Dickens and Johnson, his spirit struck roots and grew in specifically English soil.  “He is a mirror of England,” says Belloc, and “he writes with an English accent”.  His attachment to the English way of life was such that it was, for a time, an obstacle to his conversion to Catholicism, as being something that, since the 16th century at least, has been something foreign to the sensibility of his nation.  Allied to his national spirit is his special relationship to the English language.  His epigrammatic wit found expression through wordplay and rhythm.  Belloc goes so far as to claim that Chesterton cannot be successfully translated into other languages.

The second quality is precision of thought.  This might seem to casual readers of Chesterton an odd note to strike, for Chesterton is notorious for his digressive, diffuse literary style.  Aquinas he is not.  Yet it is true that he had a healthy impatience with ambiguity, and a rousing contempt for relativists and “free-thinkers” who would not take a position or say what they really meant.  I recall one of his epigrams: “The purpose of an open mind, like an open mouth, is to close on something.”  It is undoubtedly true that Chesterton had definite views and sharp insights.  Belloc’s point is a fair one.

Third, Belloc notes “the weapon peculiar to Chesterton’s genius”: his prodigious capacity for analogy, or what Belloc calls “parallelism”. A central element of Chesterton’s method of argumentation is to show the value of an argument, for better or worse, by constructing a parallel argument on another topic.  Belloc says that this ability to construct analogies was not just a literary gift, but something which Chesterton frequently introduced even into ordinary conversation.  I would add that this penchant for analogical reasoning is a consequence of Chesterton’s more basic ability to see connections between things.  He never, it sometimes seems, thought of one thing, but always of a thing in relation to other things. His digressionary tendencies were perhaps a consequence of this manner of thought, but it also, I believe, contributed to his robust good sense, for it is easier to retain one’s balance when one stands not just on one or two legs, but on several.

Next, Belloc points to Chesterton’s eminence as a literary critic. Anyone who hopes to influence public affairs needs, in Belloc’s view, a solid grounding in either history or literature.  Chesterton’s grasp of history, though solid enough, and though generally superior to that of his contemporaries, was not, according to Belloc — himself an historian — sufficiently deep and broad.  Instead, Chesterton had a deep understanding of English literature.  Belloc remarks on his particularly keen insight into Pope, Dryden, Milton, and Shakespeare (anyone who doubts the latter should read Chesterton’s superb essay on A Midsummer Night’s Dream).  Today Chesterton is regarded as one of the finest critics of Dickens.  And, of course, he wrote books on Browning, Stevenson, Shaw, and Chaucer.  He is a very fine literary critic, though under appreciated today.

A long and somewhat testy section of the book is concerned with the fifth of Belloc’s chosen points: Chesterton’s religion.  Certainly Chesterton’s friendly attitude toward religion, his defence of the importance of religion, and, especially, his own conversion to Catholicism distinguished him sharply from the leading literary and intellectual figures of his time.  Belloc takes pains to argue for the centrality of religion to history, and to stress the short-sightedness of his contemporaries who dismiss it.  He particularly wants to emphasize the importance of the Catholic Church, which is “beyond comparison the most important fact not only in European history but in the modern world to-day”, and that because of its claim to address the most fundamental concerns of human life and its claim to universality.  Of its very nature, it lays a claim, or ought to lay a claim, to the attention of everyone.  In any case, in human affairs religion is more important than politics or science or literature, and this Chesterton understood.

Finally, and appropriately, Belloc writes of Chesterton’s leading virtue: charity. It has been said that he had no enemies, for his cheerful and generous heart won the admiration even of his opponents.  This, in my judgement, is one of the most appealing things about Chesterton.  There is much to learn from such a man.

A curious omission from Belloc’s list is the Chestertonian wit, which I consider to be one of his most attractive and distinctive qualities.  True, much of his humour and energy is expressed in wordplay, and so is perhaps subsumed under Belloc’s point about his special relationship to the English language.  But that special relationship was associated by Belloc with Chesterton’s nationalism, and it seems odd to have his wit be an aspect of his love of England.  If I had been Belloc, I’d have given more attention to Chesterton’s good humour.

In the end, Belloc refrains from speculation about Chesterton’s ultimate place in the history of English culture and letters, contenting himself with the observation that a man’s eminence depends at least as much on his audience as on his own achievements.  Time will tell whether we are good enough to appreciate this good man.  In the meantime, Belloc reminds us that Chesterton himself can have relatively little interest in the matter, for, as he writes in the book’s closing sentence, “He is in Heaven.”

I have recently been made aware of a rather peculiar development. As history would eventually demonstrate for the unenlightened readers of related works, Distributism, Catholic Social Teaching and the Austrian school of thought are more than strange bedfellows, they are cuddlers.

The confusion was a mere loss in translation. Simple enough, really. If G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, Arthur Penty, Fr. Vincent McNacc and the other encyclical purists couldn’t possibly have understood the claims of classical liberal apologists. Certainly, without any room for doubt, they would have embraced the individualist, autonomous, materialistic, and morbidly Utopian world and life view of the so-called libertarians. Certainly, without any doubt.

Lest the reader be unaware of the controversy, many Catholics advocating classical liberalism are making the claim that their view of the political economy is most in harmony with Catholic Social Teaching, and strikingly similar to the concepts held by those historically referred to as Distributivists. Turns out, everyone was wrong to believe that “ChesterBelloc” was an entity at enmity with the principles and ideal society envisioned by men like Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, and Barry Goldwater.

Well, of course there are those few exceptions. Let’s not mind that  wild-eyed Roman Catholic part that believed the teachings of the Church to be foundational and central to their philosophies regarding God, man, salvation history and the political economy. Let’s ignore those passages (or entire books) coming off as radically and vehemently opposed to the economics of the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Let’s even wink at the fact that their political foes were just as demonstrably absolutist in their condemnation of tenets at the radix of Catholic Social Teaching. as the Distributists were in condemning feminism and capitalism.Yes, we must certainly turn a blind eye to these not-so-nonchalant difficulties.

All of this aside, the Austrian School and Distributism appear virtually identical. Which, come to think of it, isn’t saying much. In fact, it only declared the obvious: If Distributism ceases being Distributism and begins embracing classical liberalism in its entirety, there would be little to no room by which to distinguish between the two schools of thought.

Let me grant that I have no doubt that the Austrian Catholic apologists have their ducks in a row, coming prepared for cynics like me. The Achilles heel  of the matter is the libertarians denial of the competency, authority and jurisdiction over the supposedly secular science of the political economy. Say as much gives the power to invoke the right of line-item-veto. Cherry-pick this… toss that… play a little word revision here… and a little historical revisionism there… and there you have it! You now have the Church advocating the very thing She has, in a manner most strange, attacked and even condemned!

Difficulties become all the more peculiar as those entertaining these novel notions turn out being people otherwise deemed traditionalist in their liturgical orientation. Latin Mass Catholics or those advocating the New Liturgical Movement would seem to dominate this school of wonder. So while infiltrating places the likes of both the Mises Institute and Fisheaters.com may seem a difficult task to overcome, these folks feel right at home in either company. A paradox, that great tool and fascination of the Distributists, but certainly not one that would have have crossed their minds, much less crossed from fingers to the typewriter keys.

When all is said and done, regardless of how much the Catholic libertarian may wish to illustrate how their views are not only in harmony with Catholic Social Teaching but also with their age-old enemy Distributism, they cannot but admit that this may only be accomplished with great revision, contortion and selectivity on their part. Still more, they beg the question as to whether or not the two are compatible on the must basic, fundamental level of presupposition. One presupposing the political economy to be a mere science, the other presupposing a humane economy formed to best facilitate the advancement of the social Kingship of Christ. As a dear friend recently put it, Catholic Social Teaching advocates an “Economy of Salvation,” and I add that praxeology just can’t calculate this into its formulations.

All have gone home, the last word has been spoken, the dust will settle to the ground, and the two schools will remain no closer to a ceasefire than when the nonsense first began. And after all of this…

Here is (yet) another attempt at “conservative blogging.”  And I certainly don’t mean that as a political valuation, rather as a reference to the obnoxiously long and boring research that I typically post.

My reasons for enjoying the Episcopal Church, especially as they compare over and against the denominational experiences of my youth, have become clearer to date.  I have been involved in a wonderful dialogue with a Roman Catholic layman (one of those rare members of the laity that pursues their faith in all aspects, including the intellectual), and we have been swapping reading lists.  He directed me to this link as a matter of course in conversation.  However, the quote from G.K. Chesterton that it contains brought a flood of realization to the front of my mind.  Here’s the quote:

“Real development is not leaving things behind, as on a road, but drawing life from them, as from a root.”

- G.K.  Chesterton

This will come as no new information on this blog or even to most readers, but it finally dawned on me in that important way – the one where we differentiate between holding a fact in that grey matter between our ears and having enlightenment.  Part of the reason I love the Episcopal Church so much is because it is not trying to run away from the rest of history.  It is using the rest of its history, and what a history it is, to energize the ministry of the Church.  It embraces history as a way to refresh the present.  The common worship of saints that has transcended centuries of tradition moves behind the liturgy I participate in every Sunday. 

Moving from a denomination that could not see farther back than 1904 to a denomination that embraces all of Church history was like jumping out of a plastic “kiddy pool” on the beach and into the ocean.