Tiananmen Square protester explains how it works

"To me a rifle is not for sporting or hunting. It is an instrument of freedom."



"It guarantees that I cannot be coerced, that I have free will, that I am a free man."

The Unveiling of Wendell Berry

Reactions to Wendell Berry's coming out in support of same-sex marriage have run the gamut on the level of admitted surprise. Rod Dreher is "greatly surprised". Emily Stimpson -- who's piece gets the hat tip from me -- states "[A]t least for me, it’s not entirely shocking."

Having written the following paragraph less than a year ago, my reaction is somewhat lower on the surprise spectrum than either Dreher's or Stimpson's.

The imagined world of Wendell Berry is no less silly than the one "imagined" by John Lennon, it just has more tillable land, furry animals, and maybe a few Indian tribes running around killing each other. Berry is a user of the land and a user of resources just like everybody else he criticizes. The fact that he may use a little bit less than others is ultimately a matter of taste and not morality. I don't care what he does with his life, but he seems to care a lot what others do with theirs and has developed his own Sharia-like law based on his preferences.

I would point everyone toward Timothy Dalrymple's excellent response—as do Dreher and Stimpson—as a sensible, representative Christian response explaining why what he calls Berry's "epic slanderfest" is so preposterous.

My concern here is to merely point out why I am not surprised by this at all, and why no one who believes that ideas have consequences should expect this type of transition from Berry, if it is even indeed a transition at all and not just an unveiling of beliefs he has held for quite some time.

First of all, accusing Christians of being haters of homosexuals is merely the latest in a long line of factual errors based on personal prejudice in the non-fiction writings of Wendell Berry. In his famous Why I am NOT going to buy a computer essay from 1987, Berry refers to a computer as "expensive equipment" which, if he decided to purchase one, would be akin to and attempt to replace his wife who typed his writings for him on an old, manual typewriter. A PC with peripherals marketed to a farmer in that year would probably have cost $800.00 ($1,616.00 in 2013 inflation-adjusted dollars) and I'm guessing wouldn't be extremely unreasonable compared to equipment expenditures for a medium-sized farm. Almost anyone reading the essay would find his insistence that that acquiring a computer would be in effect replacing his wife, rather than replacing the typewriter to which he's become attached, a strange, weak and badly-reasoned argument.

Secondly, Berry has been a dissenter from mainstream Christianity for a long time, and he has been a fierce critic of Christianity for not being more like him. A good example is his Christianity and the Survival of Creation essay. He first calls the condemnation of Christianity by conservationists for its "culpability of Christianity in the destruction of the natural world" a just condemnation. Then he points out that the anti-Christian environmentalist zealots haven't read the Bible, so they don't realize that modern Christianity's supposed disregard for and rape of creation is not rooted in Scripture, or at least not his understanding of Scripture. He calls for a need to "learn to read and understand the Bible in the light of the present fact of Creation." This in turn requires "careful and judicious study, not dismissal." Ironically, he quotes Leviticus to condemn accumulating large amounts of real estate, however he obviously dismisses earlier passages in that particular book condemning homosexual acts. I'm guessing that if I suggested that real estate regulations were ceremonial or cultural my interpretation would be dismissed along with explicit scriptural condemnations of said acts which he personally finds no problem with since, to his mind, these acts do not affect energy consumption, agriculture, or the airy-fairy ideal of "sense of place in community".

So, what are we left with? The Gospel According to Wendell Berry in all it's self-righteous condescension and hypocritical inconsistency, whether it's appealing to biblical authority to support pet opinions or stereotyping Americans as conspicuous consumers because they use electricity and buy computers. Berry has always been a self-righteous scold about issues that most Christians from the time of Christ on have considered to be matters of prudence and not absolute morality. The fact that he might go the other way, regarding orthodox Christianity's moral prohibitions as matters of personal choice, should not surprise anyone. This is due to the fact that he is obviously marching to the beat of his own drum. The only question left is this: how does he get away with this inconsistency and bad-reasoning?

My theory is that he is protected by the people who have been deeply moved by his works of fiction or have been swayed by some of his down home wisdom about farming. It is sort of like the protection the media gives Obama on matters like the Benghazi cover-up or the Fast and Furious gun-running operation. Or the kind of pass that's given to film industry pedophilia of the Woody Allen or Roman Polanski variety. The obvious prejudices, logical inconsistencies and factual errors are glossed over because "Well, someone needs to say this stuff and nobody else is doing it." I don't buy either premise. Nobody needs to state inaccuracies about Christians hating gays or destroying the environment. Plus everybody on the left is doing that, non-stop, every day. And there is really no point in trying to deny a simple fact, especially not at this point: Wendell Berry is a man of the left. As such, he warrants the protection of the left and receives it.

One more thing: I commend Rod Dreher for his strong words of condemnation against Wendell Berry for his attacks. For emphasis I link to them again. It's not easy to accuse a favorite author of behavior which is "crude, simplistic, combative, vicious, and altogether deeply disappointing" or calling his words on an issue a "barely-coherent farrago of liberal clichés, ugly insults, and shallow, indignant moralizing". But I applaud and echo all his words which can hardly be called exaggerated if you read Berry's original statements.

Guns don't kill people; Democrats kill people

Another reason the media would rather talk about gun control laws than the murderers who commit gun crime: the perps are Democrats and/or come from Democrat families.

Ft Hood: Registered Democrat/Muslim.

Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.

Virginia Tech: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff.

Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal.

Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.

This shouldn't surprise people. The left is always ginning up hatred against Christians, conservatives and other groups. Oh, yes, also hatred against America is a pretty big theme on the left. So that's a skip and a jump from hating Americans in the mind of an unstable brute.

Yeah, Einstein I know that not all Democrats kill people. But the media pipe dream is that a serious NRA member is going to pull a Lanza and there is very little chance of that. Hang around us for a short time and you would know this.

Incidentally, please consider joining the NRA. I recently renewed my membership which I had allowed to lapse a few years back.

Gosh, I Wonder Why So Many Catholics Have Left The Church

Today I celebrated my own personal feast day of "scold the priest after Mass".  I propose this feast day should be established church wide across the United States, and should definitely fall on the Sunday before the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.  Because today, I was informed by my pastor, in an ad-hoc address from the altar following mass, that, in his "opinion" abortion will not be solved "legislatively" and that therefore we Catholics have to "do more" to end the culture of abortion (unclear what "do more" means specifically).   In and of itself this is a fair point, but let me give some context: on the Sunday immediately preceding Election Day, about 70 days ago, this same priest gave a homily detailing issues we are obligated to consider when deciding our vote.  And on that Sunday immediately preceding Election Day, did this same priest mention abortion even once?  He did not.  While he mentioned the homeless, the hungry, the disenfranchised and the poor, he did not mention the unborn.  He did not mention the fact that one Presidential candidate ran on a pro-life platform, and the other did not.  Therefore, it was rather ironic to be told 70 days later that Father did not believe abortion could be defeated "legislatively": but of course he's absolutely right, if the unofficial policy of American Catholic clergy is to sit idly by as 50% of Catholics vote for a candidate who not only supports abortion, but pushes through legislation that forces taxpayers to fund same.  

After mass, I told Father his position was not helpful.  Actually, I told Father that since he refused to guide Catholics on the abortion issue prior to Election Day, he was manifestly part of the problem.  And finally, given that 50 state legislatures banned abortion until 1965, and could again resolve the issue "legislatively" upon reversal of Roe v. Wade, I strongly implied Father doesn't know what the f*&@ he is talking about (alas, not in those words).  I hope Father enjoyed my personal feast day as much as I did.

Not semi-diplomatic...

...but fully diplomatic.

What Subsidiarity is all about

How'd he do dat?

If watching this doesn't make you happy, there might be something wrong with you.

Protect the Second Amendment

Sign this petition to protect the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Click the link or the picture below.

Here's what the Second Amendment says, in case you forgot.

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Source.

Est Quod Est recommends Glock.