Mark Steyn: "If you say we're crazy and violent, we'll go nuts and kill you."

George W. Bush to Mark Steyn on Muslims' lack of proportion: "If it's not the Crusades, it's the cartoons."



Mark Steyn. An International Treasure.

Martyrdom Is Not Optional

Martyrdom is not optional, but it comes in several colors.

The word "martyr" is Greek for witness. The early Christians gave witness to Christ through their death, hence they were honored with the title of Martyr. But every Christian has to give witness; that's why Pope Francis recently said this:

He encouraged Christians to turn to the Holy Spirit to remind them of Jesus' words, and guide them in preparing to be witnesses “with small every day martyrdoms, or with a great martyrdom, according to God’s will.”

So, red or white. But not both. And unlike wine choices, God makes the call.

When I first read this I thought "Huh. This fits in with something Diane and I were discussing on her Facebook page. So the Pope must want everyone to read my blog!" Actually I didn't really think that last thing. But one of Diane's friends wrote something which I thought was pretty good:

The problem with the Benedict Option (whatever it may mean as a withdrawal from general society in order to preserve the Church and the culture and society that springs forth from Her) is that it is a fundamentally incorrect analogy to apply to the societal problems of post-Christian cultures.

The Benedict(ine) option, and monasticism in general, developed as a *response* to the CHRISTIANIZATION of culture. No longer able to pursue a martyrdom of blood, Christians pursued spiritual martyrdom alone, in the desert, and eventually, with other ascetics in community. Monasticism started in Egypt, and eventually spread throughout Christendom. It did not develop as a result of the loss of faith, nor did it develop as a response to the fall of Roman civilization.

Just as the Church within a society that has become Christian creates monasticism, likewise the Church will no longer produce many monastics within a society that de-Christianizes. Small parishes, house churches, and underground churches will be the places that the faith survives, and saints are made. Monasticism will become less and less necessary, because martyrdom and ascetic challenges will no longer have to be sought out in order to be found.

Benedictine monasteries, of course, did thrive, survive and preserve culture in a West being ravaged by Pagan invasions and piracy, but to try to apply the lessons learned from "Paganism vs Christianity" to "Christianity vs post-Christianity" is to fundamentally misunderstand what post-Christianity *actually* is, how it relates to Christianity, and how it will need to be endured.

The fundamental difference, of course, is that Pagans can be converted.

"Christians and Pagans had much more in common with each other than either has with a post-Christian. The gap between those who worship different gods is not so wide as that between those who worship and those who do not…” - C.S. Lewis

The Church will return to something closer to what She was in the earliest days. Branding it the "Benedict(ine) Option" may make the future more palatable for some Christians, and it's got a nice ring to it, but as a concept it is essentially, well, pointless.

If the person who authored this wants attribution I can provide it, but I'm starting off by just stating that it didn't originate with me. I think he makes a strong argument for why there is nothing really Benedictine or monastic about this thing we keep hearing about called the Benedict Option. In fact, the very absence of any type of rhyme or reason—never mind a rule—in the chaotic descriptions of the Benedict Option by those who claim to favor it demonstrates it's dissimilarity to anything Benedictine. They are called Orders for a reason, you know.

We've pointed this out again and again but I am convinced there is no reason to stop. This is reinforced constantly; there were other people chiming in on the thread who were obviously serious, educated Catholics but who were utterly unable to explain what was even meant by the Benedict Option. They did, however, display some classic behaviors of people who are losing an argument:

1. The first reflex was to call Diane a "hater". So the conclusion is that Diane hates the Benedict Option because Dreher preaches it rather than considering that maybe Diane has contempt for Dreher because ideas for which he is responsible—like the Benedict Option—are so incoherent and cockamamie. *
2. Then there was a classic line from the Benedict Option defenders: "If you've home-schooled your children then you've used the Benedict Option." Wow, so that makes me an idiot or a hypocrite or both for ever criticizing the Benedict Option since I also home-schooled my kids at one point. I might as well be saying "hands off my medicare!" It's also sort of daunting to realize that Adam and Eve, Noah and many other Bible personages were practicing the Benedict Option thousands of years before the birth of St. Benedict. I guess they kind of got us there.
3. Then I was accused of possessing a "deep ignorance of what the Benedict Option is" because I pointed out that whenever someone mentions some example of Christian virtuous practice the Benedict Option people claim it and say "Yeah, Benedict Option! Benedict Option!" Because, well, they do—see point number 2. But actually I won't doubt my ignorance about something that no one can define.
4. Then Diane tried to order up a short overview summary of the Benedict Option and was told that there was no such thing since the Benedict Option is "merely an ongoing conversation among Christians about strategies for withdrawal from an increasingly hostile liberal society and state." So while it might be that coming up with a explanation isn't too difficult a task for their communication skills, it is too condescending an undertaking for their powerful minds.

Diane can provide other highlights from the exchange. Others added remarks which were insightful and, in Maclin Horton's case, borne out by experience. There is still the need to correct a knee-jerk proposal of the nebulous Benedict Option as a panacea in holier-than-thou circles and possibly in more sincere circles.

The man who wrote the passage I first quoted later stated this: "Saints have been made in many places throughout history - but arguably the majority have come from the ranks of the monastics since Constantine." Well, that's where people were paying attention the most—that's where they were looking for saints. It is well to familiarize one's self with a 1988 writing by JP II titled Christifidelis Laici which undertakes the hard task of describing "The Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World." It's an actual blue-print to follow. Once you read it you realize that you don't need a "Benedict Option".

-----
* - Yes, I know who Alasdair MacIntyre is. That was one of the questions thrown at me. But Googling Benedict Option produces one name over and over again and it isn't MacIntyre's.

More Topix Action

There has been a lot of action over at the famous Topix post hilariously titled "Rod Dreher is on the cover of the latest Greater B. R. Business Report" on page 6 and page 7. The most recent accusation toward Billfr and me is that we are the same person. Here's part of my response, which you can read in its entirety on page 7.

His over-sharing of these kinds of things is nauseating to normal people, yet he is praised by many for being a courageous and creative journalist by many. And yes, I admit that he had many fans, and many people who believe him to be a wonderful and insightful writer. So the least that people like Countrylad can do is admit that there are *MANY* people – more than two — who find him disagreeable and obnoxious when he bashes the Catholic church, for example, or when he goes ballistic over Mark Levin's slip-up, or when he over-capitalizes on a family tragedy, or when he goes on about the "platonic ideal of chickenness" (feel free to Google that phrase). A lot of these people have found a home at my blog to vent about the content and style of his writing and there is nothing "circular" about their reasoning and there is nothing ad hominem about their criticism.

Now I know that a lot of people here believe that Countrylad is Rod Dreher. I'm going on the record now suggesting that it is not. I know he sounds like Dreher often, but I think he is just another local log-rolling partner of Dreher's. The more I read his weak stick apologetics for Dreher by attacking the opposition the more I feel like I'm doing the right thing by continuing the steady drumbeat of criticism.

And while we're on the topic, check out this recent one-star review of The Little Way of Ruthie Leming:

Embarrassing, condescending, passive aggressive backbiting
August 23, 2013 by hallowmetrop

I bought this book because of my interests in localism, the alternatives presented by small communities in contrast to metropolitan areas, family, the South, and religion. But it was an unpleasant read, because Rod Dreher is just not a pleasant traveling companion.

Little Way is weighed down with the author's bitter grievance toward his late sister, whose great and unforgivable crime, it seems, was to roll her eyes at the fact that her brother (the author) is a pompous and prissy character enraptured by his own voice. Again and again, the book goes out of its way to paint the late sister as cruel or rude or simple or thoughtless or otherwise unappreciative of Dreher's very special talents. Dreher seldom misses a chance to condescend to his late sibling. All in all, the book comes across as driven by a deep-seated selfishness - the late sister's life is reduced to a vehicle for the author's own personal growth story: "How All the Bad Things My Sister Did to Me Made Me a Humbler Man."

On finishing this book, the predominant feeling I had was one of embarrassment at Dreher's oversharing, and sorrow for the poor sister and her kids, whose family life has been so thoughtlessly hijacked and publicized by Dreher.

The author's conversation with his niece at the end of the book captures this all too well. In talking to this teenage girl, who has just lost her mother, the author cannot refrain from losing his temper because the little girl won't side with him, Rod Dreher, in his resentment-fest against her own late mother! It's hard to believe any grown man could be so mean to a teenage girl who has just lost a parent. Any reasonably decent adult would subordinate their own ego to the wellbeing of the kid at such a moment. But for Dreher, of course, the real wronged party isn't the deceased or her daughter, but always and eternally him. This book struck me as having a deeply bitter core, and shot through with passive aggression. I went in expecting to like it, but found it unsettling and unpleasant, and I would not recommend it to anyone.

I suppose that Countrylad thinks that this was written by Billfr, Pauli, Kathleen, Keith, Pikkumatti and Diane since we're all the same person.

Winnahs an' Loosahs

At this point, discussing the George Zimmerman trial is a yawn fest. But I'm linking to this article by "Ralph" @ Truth about Guns because it is a great piece of writing, humorous too. Unless you're a Trayvon fan-girl. The obvious loosahs are the members of the proprietorial team. First Ralph owns Angela Corey:

The cherry on top was her petulant performance after the verdict as she figuratively stamped her little feet like a spoiled brat and reasserted Zimmerman’s guilt. It reminded me of the way Obama reacted to the defeat of his “common sense” gun confiscation laws. They were two serio-comic performances full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

I’d like to believe that Corey’s career is all done, but let’s keep the slithery Eliot Spitzer in mind before we toss any dirt on Corey’s political aspirations. Whatever Corey’s future may bring, one thing is certain — when Don West told the jury, “there are no monsters here,” he was flat out wrong.

Next he tackles Bernie de la Rionda.

To give the devils their due, the prosecution had no murder case to work with although they certainly did their best to fake one. De la Rionda and his team of tub-thumpers spent weeks trying to sell the jury a bill of goods, And when that flopped because the prosecution’s own witnesses turned against them, Bern Baby Bern offered the jury a new theory that contradicted the first.

This case was the perfect example of the prosecution overreaching and stepping on its own dick in the process. After being lied to for weeks, the jury reacted appropriately.

Don West gets the trophy. He's now Don West "as seen on TV".

West was also a well-known local attorney with several high profile cases under his belt before he agreed to second-chair his long-time colleague. After his opening episode of legal Tourette’s, the combative West settled down nicely. He was strong on cross, took no crap from witnesses, stood up to the judge and opposing counsel, and showed real passion. If O’Mara was the master of sangfroid, it was West who brought so much heat that he was still burning after the acquittal. His daughter was right: “dad killed it.”

Defusing Manufactured Guilt About Driving

Common sense mixed with good humor is the best way to sell conservative ideas. Another good practice is to alleviate the guilt many people wrongly have over purely preferential decisions such as whether or not to own an automobile. These are two reasons why this article by Colin Kingsbury is so worthwhile and timely. First excerpt:

Here’s the truth: Going car-free is considerably easier if you are happy spending a relative fortune to rent a small apartment in an ultra-high- density neighborhood; enjoy one of a limited number of well-paying jobs in a downtown office; rarely need to move anything larger than a week’s supply of Lean Cuisine frozen dinners; and are happy within the confines of your neighborhood. Just imagine commuting from Dorchester to an office park on Route 128, or wrangling two children and a week’s worth of groceries onto a bus, which many less-well-off Bostonians do. Only a few neighborhoods — mostly Beacon Hill and the Back Bay — have the density to support the kind of mass-transit network and local retail presence to make car ownership largely irrelevant the way it is in Manhattan. No, in Boston, a voluntary carless lifestyle is only realistic for the young and childless with the luck of working at a well-paying job near a T stop. In short: yuppies. They’re the very same people who subscribe to locavorism and sneer that food in this country is far too cheap, but have no clue what it’s like to raise a family in a dodgy neighborhood or take the bus to a low-paying job across the city.

We regulars over here at Est Quod Est laugh at the references to Zipcars and locavores, and the usual suspects show up in the comment boxes with visceral overreactions based on politically correct talking points. I tried to leave a comment over there, but after going through the tedious registration process and clumsy interface, it was partially vomited by Boston Magazine's locavore webserver. So here it is:

The comments on the piece demonstrate the relentless liberal utopian attack on sensibility. Colin K. mentions what everybody already knows, i.e., if you don’t own a car you pay more for other services and limit your available choices, on balance. So he is called “ridiculous”, “selfish”, “immoral” and “worthless” by those commenting. We are treated to brilliant statements such as “Bikers are sexier than car drivers. We just are” and “His perspective is so obviously flawed, baseless, and immoral, that it is not worth a rational person's time to criticize him.” These overreactions mostly serve to prove his point.

These kinds of articles serve a high purpose because they help alleviate the guilt which is brought to bear on a sensible populace which, without the constant PC drumbeat, would see nothing immoral about the responsible use of an automobile. It’s a little sad that we need them to be written, but that is where we are.

I invite all of you to read the comments and notice that the only variation in the "arguments" against freedom to drive is the intensity of the invective. That is all they have left.

Again, what I really love about informative and clarifying articles like this is that they help the undecided among us see the folly and the control freakishness of the left. Colin's paragraph about who really screwed up the cities drives the point home, and is not even dealt with by the angry commenters. Probably because they don't have a response.

It wasn’t cars that devastated cities, but urban planners with a terminal excess of confidence in their own genius. The midcentury notion that the world ought to be segregated into vast tracts of exclusively residential, commercial, or industrial zones linked by multilane highways is now rightly regarded as a radical and myopic shift from how cities previously grew — slowly and organically, boasting a combination of homes and businesses. Livable cities are, above all else, places where people can pursue the sort of life they want, and for the vast majority of people, that includes a car.

Most people see the sense in this. There is room in the world for bikes and cars and people who own either or neither. And the central planners should all get real jobs and just leave us alone to work it out, instead of screeching and regulating everything.

Even so, the politically correct institutions (media, universities, etc.) have an advantage because they conscript the language of morality to voice their assertions. Most conservatives don't do that, unless they are weaked-kneed and looking for mainstream media acceptance. People want to be perceived as good citizens so they go often comply with the liberals' distortion of freedom. Hopefully the next feat of a man as successful as Kingsbury will be to discover a car gene which at least 98% of us have. But if he does I wouldn't hold my breath for a Nobel Prize.

In case you missed Mark Shea's comments

I blogged a few days back on Joe Hippolito's FPM piece entitled A Catholic Writer’s Propaganda For Iran. The Catholic writer mentioned is Mark Shea who must have read both Joe's article and my blog post because he showed up in my comment box to exercise his 1st amendment rights which are universally respected here.

In fact, I want to make sure no one missed these comments, so I've reprinted them here. Here's the first one:

And EWTN/NCR has the bulging file of deranged rants from Joe [Hippolito], screaming at them about how the Church is damned by God, JPII is in hell, everybody Joe hates needs to be put to death with extreme prejudice and go to hell, nuking Muslims and Japanese is the will of God, Jesus loves capital punishment and pre-emptive war, the bishops are all going to hell, as well as many of NCR's writes (especially Yr Obdt Svt) and all his other helpful contributions to Catholic political thought over the years. I'm sure they will be on the edge of their seats listening to your appeal that they heed his wisdom. :)

Note the smiley at the end. Kind of a nice touch.

Second: Um, Joe has never had a blog. He parasitically lives off the blogs of others. If, by "doing things to people" you mean "not allowing rude wahoos on my blog" that's true. If you mean I never allow disagreements on my blog, you are either illiterate, stupid, or a liar, Jonathan.

On the other hand, I've never suggested that people who disagree with me should be murdered or prayed for their death and damnation. Joe's done that multiple times with me. Enjoy your bedfellow.

"Enjoy your bedfellow." Should we laugh at this remark? I did when I read it. Even if Mr. Shea does have some claim against Mr. Hippolito we can note something instructive here. He fills his cup of scorn and derision so abundantly that it overflows and we are all invited to take a swig.

Third: I'm not a paragon of virtue. I commit the same sins as you, Kathleen (whose writing is, after all, suffused with mockery, humiliation of others, and epithets). My point is not that I am a paragon of virtue. It is that Joe's hatred of both the Church and me is legendary throughout St. Blog's and that the editors at NCR are not unaware of it, since he has subjected them to it for years. So failure to acknowledge that little detail as Pauli makes the preposterous case for the sobriety of Joe's libel is a non-starter.

OK, I have to respond seriously to the charge that I made a "preposterous case for the sobriety of Joe's libel". Words mean something, words like sobriety and libel, and if Mark doesn't think Joe's article is accurate then he can explain why, providing examples. In fact, I'm sure he has done that on his blog, but I'll let someone else verify that. Nevertheless, libel denotes deliberate untruthfulness, or at least some type of vicious deviation from the facts, neither of which can be seen in Joe's article.

For example, referring to Rick Santorum as a "Murderer for Jesus" or referring to Santorum and Romney as "aspiring war criminals" can both be called vile attacks and distortions by just about anyone in the mainstream of America. Lines describing conservatives as possessing "deathless neoconservative faith in the Immaculate Conception of the State of Israel and its preservation from all sin, both original and actual" can easily be used as evidence for Joe's position that Mark Shea is at best a "curmudgeon who shoots from the hip and fails to understand the implications of his ideas" and at worst a "bigoted fanatic".

Now as far as sobriety goes, that's a judgement call, and I see nothing about the article which resembles a drunken rant. If Joe ranted at another time and another place without sobriety that is not relevant to my point and the point of Joe's article. It's normal and likely that past heated rhetoric may weaken his perceived reliability. But it's also a good idea to take someone's reasoned criticism presented thoughtfully according to its own merits. The only people who belabor every past lapse of an individual would be "rigorism maximumists". Wow, I just came up with that phrase! Am I clever or what?

Fourth: Jonathan (and Pauli):

You are welcome to post. However, you have to obey the rules. You're in my comboxes on my suffrage as guests. Disagreement is fine (as even a cursory read of my comboxes shows). Just be polite and honest.

I wonder what my wife is making for dinner tonight... Dang! tonight's PSR, too... And that flooring guy left a message, hope it's a low quote. Oh, that totally reminds me of something else....

Again, here's a link to his blog.

Fifth: This is Kathleen *R------*, correct?

And you seriously assert that nothing you've had to say about Rod Dreher is mocking, or aimed to humiliate, or chock full of epithets? Not to mention suffused with naked contempt for the guy?

Reeeeeeally?

Well, I suppose we'll just have to disagree about that.

No argument that I'm a terrible witness to the faith. But I'm all I've got and Jesus says to bear witness to him, so I try. Are you saying I shouldn't try? Or are you merely saying that it's worse that I do a bad job of witnessing to the faith than that Joe is actively trying to destroy the Church while urging mass murder.

Curious priorities.

"Joe is actively trying to destroy the Church while urging mass murder." Gee, didn't realize that. Maybe we should rethink our bedfellowship with Joe. I mean that has got to be worse than actively trying to destroy the Church while advocating a local, organic diet.

I'm not going to take a lot of time defending Kathleen because she can do so pretty adequately. I imagine her reading this blog on her smartphone in the checkout line and commenting with her right thumb while the left hand packs the groceries. I do think that she is a fairly normal woman in that if you once called her a "witch queen" she might not have an entirely warm attitude toward you.

I know I mentioned the 1st amendment earlier, so I should add that 2nd amendment rights are also respected on my blog. I'll let people shoot themselves in the foot whenever they are moved to do so. And as many times.

Best Article on Palin-hatred so far

H/T to Susan B in a combox for linking to this incredibly insightful and brutally honest article by a former liberal. Excerpt from the setup material:

One clue: the miscreants who were brutalizing me didn't exactly look Reagan-esque. In middle and high schools, they were minority kids enraged about forced busing. On the streets of New York City and Berkeley, they were derelicts and hoodlums.

Another red flag: while liberal men did indeed hold up those picket signs, they didn't do anything else to protect me. In fact, their social programs enabled bad behavior and bred chaos in urban America. And when I was accosted by thugs, those leftist men were missing in action.

What else should have tipped me off? Perhaps the fact that so many men in ultra-left Berkeley are sleazebags. Rarely a week goes by that I don't hear stories from my young female clients about middle-aged men preying on them. With the rationale of moral relativism, these creeps feel they can do anything they please.

This part wonderfully sums up my own thoughts about the real abortion criminals:

My other epiphanies: those ponytailed guys were marching for abortion rights not because they cherished women's reproductive freedom, but to keep women available for free and easy sex.

Except the Kennedy's didn't wear ponytails, but that's okay. Then she connects it all to the insane hatred for Sarah Palin.

Then along came Sarah, and the attacks became particularly heinous. And I realized something even more chilling about the Left. Leftists not only sacrifice and disrespect women, but it's far worse: many are perpetuators.

The Left's behavior towards Palin is not politics as usual. By their laser-focus on her body and her sexuality, leftists are defiling her.

They are wilding her. And they do this with the full knowledge and complicity of the White House.

The Left has declared war on Palin because she threatens their existence. Liberals need women dependent and scared so that women, like blacks, will vote Democrat.

A strong, self-sufficient woman, Palin eschews liberal protection. Drop her off in the Alaskan bush and she'll survive just fine, thank you very much. Palin doesn't need or want anything from liberals -- not hate crimes legislation that coddles her, and not abortion, which she abhors.

You have got to read the entire thing. Robin owns the left in this piece, in which I believe every single word. She was sick and tired of getting fucked by these freaks.

Short Honeymoon?

Doyle McManus (who has a very cool name) wrote this thoughtful piece on Pres. Obama as old-fashioned politician, not the Hope We've Been Waiting For, or whatever. My favorite paragraph is the second to last:

But the partisan divide runs deeper than mere political gamesmanship. The debate about how big the federal government should be has been at the core of American politics since the Articles of Confederation. In his inaugural address, Obama dismissed it as one of "the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long," but it's too fundamental a question to wave away, even in the face of a crisis as big as this one.

Then he concludes:

Obama talks as if he'd like to avoid choosing sides, but he can't. At this point, the enactment of the stimulus package, the centerpiece of his domestic agenda, looks more like old-fashioned politics―a popular president steamrolling a fragmented opposition―than any New Age post-partisan convergence.

I can't see why an argument is "stale" merely because it's old. Does an enlargement of the government's role in our lives have a negative effect on its citizens? There are those in our country who passionately answer "yes" and others who passionately disagree with them. So the evidence shows the argument is pertinent, not "stale" or merely a construct of party politics. From hourly workers in Cleveland complaining in a bar about how they are required to stand out in sub-zero weather to have a smoke to corporate boards contemplating moving their operations off-shore, those on the "smaller government" side represent practically every education and income level.

Obama's staleness claim is classic liberal-left intimidation-by-ridicule, albeit in the soft-pedaled rhetorical tones which Obama utilizes so skillfully. It presumes that he takes no side in this argument, but that he is somehow magically above and beyond the partisan discursists. This has been the problem with our new President all along. To conservatives, this mantra reveals that liberals have no good arguments for their belief in big government―its acceptance is purely dogmatic. At best, they are waiting for us to "see the light", but more typically, they are accusing us of starving poor children, suppressing minorities and suchlike in order to get us to cave-in.

There ain't no "black church", y'all!

And here's the proof, dog. This takes a while to watch, but it is worth it. This man is a fabulous communicator.



Add to My Profile | More Videos

And since he seems to have a kicking sense of humor, I should point out that he is articulate and clean to boot. Hat tip 5 feet.

I Hear Bones Breaking

Just got an Amazon update about a forthcoming book, "Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God". The authors are Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker, both eminent Ph. D theologians with the St. Paul Institute in Steubenville.

Being very familiar with the apologetic work of Dr. Hahn, I expect the answers this book offers to be definitive and compelling yet compassionate, a "mercy killing" if you will, carried out upon the undead corpse of the "New Atheism", a monster assembled from dead ideas and re-animated by the mad Doc Frankensteins of our era.