Merry Christmas Everybody

Dominus dixit ad me, filius meus es tu; ego hodie genui te.



The LORD said to Me
Thou art my Son;
Today I have begotten Thee.

Benedict Option: Rod Dreher, Christianity's own Trump Drumpkin

The beatific purity of the Drumpkin

If, as Bret Stephens caustically suggests, retreating into a nirvana that rejects all but the purest of purities is the most direct route for Republicans to achieve their true, subliminal goal - electing Hillary - then I would submit that the parallel most direct route for Christians to achieve a similar goal - a Dark Age wasteland populated overwhelmingly by hedonistic seculars and homicidal Muslims - is to endorse and pursue our own trumpiest of trumpitudes, Rod Dreher's Benedict Option.

Indeed, the cynical demagogy driving Dreher's Drumpkin enterprise is nothing less than a schadenfreude I'll call the Great Omission (for obvious reasons) which requires that any opposition to the particular history he desires perish in internecine conflict or otherwise self-destruct without burdening him with external effort.

In a recent post following one revealing, among other things, a potential publisher's skepticism regarding his book scam, he ends with this priceless paragraph:

Me, I don’t trust the GOP, but I am resisting being pissed off, because anger is only going to blind us to what needs to be done, and may cause us to commit to futile causes. Trump is not my guy, and Trumpism not a credible answer. This is why I’m working on developing the Benedict Option idea as a creative, realistic way forward for small-o orthodox Christians. The GOP is going to do what it’s going to do, but it’s almost certainly not going to be doing much that defends my interests as an orthodox Christian — not only because its donor class and elites dislike bitter clingers like me, but also because the country is moving away from the things we believe in.

You can't rely on external politics to solve your external political problems, folks, and you sure can't rely on that false prophet Trump preying on your fears about America declining into a Dark Age while offering you hope about making America great again.

Instead, you should work with the true prophet Drumpkin - your idea cost, his publishing profit - to solve those external political problems involving others that nothing else can, endure the Dark Age and make Christianity great again. Face it, any alternative only spells your doom.

On the eve of our Savior's birth those of us still subscribing to the Great Commission rather than the Great Omission - the Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ - and thinking Christianity's great enough just as it is, well maybe we're just losers.

I keep hearing this Great Omission Benedict Option thing is going to be yuge. We'll see. Maybe it'll depend on whether that publisher decides we're in a Dark Age or not.

Until then, Merry Christmas

Mother Teresa to be Canonized

I guess the Nobel Prize was just a warm-up act.

Last Minute Christmas Present Ideas

Here are some last-minute Christmas gift ideas. But please don't mistake these for good ideas, OK? Except maybe the second one, and you can get me two of them if you must. His and hers, you know.

First up is Ye Olde Plastic Potato Pellet Gun. It's my son's birthday today, and I got him one of these suckers. They really work, and the pellets don't hurt too bad. Just don't shoot you eye out, OK?

Also here's an idea if you want to buy me something. The 2016 Nissan Maxima has a sport setting to aid me in my midlife crisis. In case I have one.



Last but not least, here's something you can get from Five Below for that special someone who wants to appear smarter than they are. Or for nerd costumes.

I mean, $2 to look like the smartest guy you know? Can't beat that.

Presidential politics in post-Rod Dreher America

'Twas the week before Christmas and all through the house
Every zephyr was stirring, more than one could espouse...

So of course I was going to use my definitive Dreher illustration:

Rod Dreher creating a synergistic blog post

I've been waiting for something to stimulate a focused and chewy analysis of our favorite foil, but, face it, as the tags (the inspiration for my little rhyme) to this post reveal, he's basically been reduced to juggling found objects on the street corner, hoping something will draw someone's attention:

Posted in Christianity, Dante, Politics, Presidential politics, Religion, Republicans. Tagged art, church, Commedia, Dante, Eugene Vodolazkin, Gregory Wolfe, Image Journal, Laurus, mystery, Orthodoxy, politics, religion, Republican, The Operation of Grace, Walker Percy.

True, both the Benedict Option and the kitchen sink are missing, but you get the point of Our Working Boy's lunge at synergy just another dog's breakfast freezing there on the sidewalk.

So let's talk politics instead.

First axiom: neither Republicans nor Democrats elect the President. The President is elected by the unaffiliated marginal votes in the middle which flip one way or another at the last minute.

And right now, things are scarier than you might think.

Both the Democrats' debate strategy and the recent DNC data gotcha hit on Bernie Sanders point convincingly to the DNC being all in the tank for Hillary Clinton, preventing even the slightest attack points from Democrat opponents from escaping into the wild. Her Benghazi and email lies have melted away into obscurity for all but Republicans, which, remembering our first axiom, is not enough.

This cycle, the deciding votes in the middle will decide on the basis of which candidate which they despise least makes them feel most secure domestically and internationally.

Right now, love him or hate him, on the Republicans' side, at least according to Republicans polled Donald Trump is exciting twice as many ostensible Republican voters as his nearest rivals; it would be foolish to assume that at least a proportional number of those in the marginal middle don't feel similarly.

Whether polls can translate into caucus and then later actual voters remains to be seen, but it is the inspiration gap itself that is disturbing: while the Democrats' nominee is being served to them like a rubber chicken at a bad luncheon, currently the most measurably inspiring, frontrunning Republican is essentially an alien from another planet.

Behind Trump, all the way around on the other side of the track, Cruz and Rubio are whacking at each other with their batons for second place. At the moment, I tend to view them as two halves of a separated brain, one (Cruz) stronger on immigration - meaning national integrity and national sovereignty itself - the other (Rubio) stronger on international national defense. And even Cruz's immigration stance seems to carry some unsightly weasel hair and dander.

To my mind, and simply dismissing Trump for the moment - which simply cannot be done any longer in real life - neither Rubio nor Cruz can run as the other's Vice President: to land those crucial independents and sufficiently Hillary-disgusted Democrats in the deciding middle, the Republicans have to put a woman on the ticket - Carly Fiorina.

So, to sum up my thoughts and let the rest of you throw your thoughts into the pot:

If your choice gets Hillary elected, your choice is moot.

Rubio, to my mind, is most electable by the largest spectrum of voters not voting for Hillary, but he will essentially be Paul Ryan running for President: you can expect sellout compromises of the sort Ryan just delivered in the recent Omnibus bill.

Cruz is the most fiery conservative and, next to Trump (as presently polled), will most galvanize the Trumpists and the base, but, by that same token, is less likely to land those in the marginal middle.

My bottom line: Rubio + Fiorina still make the best and broadest anti-Hillary package, but Rubio will need a strong, non-Ryan Republican Congress to take back their rightful, constitutionally separate power and force him to execute their will, not, like Obama, legislate from the White House.

And you noticed: I just blew off the Trump problem. Still unsolved.

"They'll know we are Christians by our love ...."

Our deacon's homily this past weekend included his observation that the Christmas manger scene is an inclusive image, in that God became man not only for the believers, but for all humanity. No one is excluded from the gift of the Incarnation of Christ.

As reflected by the old campfire song, we Christians are similarly called by our faith to show love to all humanity, not only to other Christians. For Catholics, we serve others "not because they're Catholic, but because we're Catholic".  This is reflected by countless Catholic and other Christian ministries such as AIDS care and prevention efforts in Africa, Catholic schools and hospitals around the world, the ministry of The Little Sisters of the Poor, the example of St. Mother Teresa in Calcutta, and indeed the work of Catholic Charities for Syrian and Iraqi refugees.

This call to charity for "the other" has historically been reflected in American culture at large, so much so that the USA is often called the most generous nation on Earth.

Yesterday, I heard a radio report regarding Syed Farook, one of the infamous San Bernardino terrorists.  In that report, an imam at Farook's mosque told how Farook had been a good person to him, helping the imam with his car.

A nice story, but a question came to mind: are Muslims called to serve non-Muslims? Does Islam instruct the believer to charity for non-believers as we Christians are?  I honestly don't know the answer, but a quick few seconds on Google left me with the impression that they are not. It doesn't appear to be sinful to give charity to non-believers, but there does not appear to be a call to do so. Statements I found include:

Muslims should seek first and foremost to give their charity to Muslim brothers who are in need, and there are plenty of them.

Giving charity to poor Muslims is preferable and more befitting, because spending on them helps them to obey Allaah, and it helps them in both their worldly and spiritual affairs.

and, pertinent to the events of San Bernadino:

If the party or gathering is connected to some religious event of the non-Muslims, such as Christmas parties, then also it will be impermissible for one to participate. The reason behind this is that, by taking part in their religious functions and gatherings, one will be indirectly approving of their disbelief (kufr) and their religion... 

I hope that this is inaccurate, and that indeed Islam calls its adherents to charity for all. But I am ignorant in this regard, and perhaps someone can correct my impression. And I do not mean for this to be a "we're better than them" piece; that's not the intent.

If this is an accurate sense, however, I fear that the best we can hope for from faithful Muslims in our communities is grudging acceptance of the fact of our existence. Tolerance of our beliefs, much less of a right to exercise our beliefs, almost sounds like a stretch.  And this means that assimilation of more Muslims from other countries into our culture will not happen -- rather, we and our culture will have to change.

Freedom's Safest Place

A safer world means a place where the bad guys are scared and the good guys aren't. Unfortunately, liberals in government do the opposite, enacting policies which empower the "demons" and making the good folks second guess themselves. They limit the freedom of the good guys in ways the bad guys don't care about.



On talk radio the other day, I heard a woman wisely recommend an alternative to the ridiculous "Gun Free Zone" signs you see in commercial buildings. Did she suggest that a sign be posted that reads "A lot of us carry guns here, so watch out?" No, she said the signs should read "This building is under surveillance." A good person doesn't care about surveillance because they are in the building to obtain products or services, to make a deposit, to do their job, etc. But a bad person fears getting caught for what they are about to do.

If I owned commercial property there is only one way I'd post those no guns allowed signs. That's if I had a full walk-through metal detector to go along with them. The idea that these signs are any kind of deterrent is a very dangerous one.

The science of the Benedict Option

Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled need to publish.

Scientists find a link between low intelligence and acceptance of 'pseudo-profound bulls***'

Defining bulls*** is a tricky task, but Pennycook and his team tried their best in the paper.

As an example, they gave the following 'pseudo-profound' statement: "Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty."

The paper says: "Although this statement may seem to convey some sort of potentially profound meaning, it is merely a collection of buzzwords put together randomly in a sentence that retains syntactic structure."

"Bulls***, in contrast to mere nonsense, is something that implies but does not contain adequate meaning or truth."

If someone can find an example of a typical Rod Dreher idea salad post about his Benedict Option that deviates from the description given in this article, by all means give us a link.

As for the individuals browsing and consuming Dreher's Benedict Option salad bar themselves, given the findings of the article that is just one more reason we give thanks for a merciful God.

H/T: AOSHQ