At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

Cliven Bundy: “Racist” or Just Another Republican?

posted by Jack Kerwick

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy (of whom I’ve neither written nor said a word until now) was treated as a hero, even a living emblem of the Spirit of the Patriots of ’76, by Sean Hannity and many other self-avowed “conservatives” until just a week or so ago.

But it only took a few seconds and a few syllables for this praise to give way to scorn as the inarticulate, media-ignorant Bundy openly contended that far too many blacks today are living under conditions that, in some respects, are far worse than those under which their ancestors were made to live during slavery.

Bundy relayed his thoughts upon driving past a Nevada housing project—“that government house”—and witnessing considerable numbers of blacks just hanging around.   “They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do,” Bundy says.  “They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.”  This, according to Bundy, is because of the “government subsidy” upon which they depend.

It is this “government subsidy” that explains why Bundy finds himself wondering at times whether blacks today may not actually “got less freedom” than blacks had under slavery.  This “government subsidy” accounts for why they “abort their young children” and “put their young men in jail [.]”  Contemporary blacks have some of the troubles that they do “because they never learned how to pick cotton.”

The reaction to Bundy on the part of his Republican supporters-turned-opponents speaks volumes about the state of the “conservative” movement.

And things are not looking good.

The only difference between Bundy and his Republican critics is that the former lacks both the articulation and media savvy of the latter.  Substantively speaking, his position on race is indistinguishable from that which the GOP has been advancing for decades: the social pathology that characterizes the contemporary black lower and underclasses, we are forever being assured, is the product of the oppressive policies of the Democratic Party, policies that substitute a new “plantation,” so to speak, for the slave plantations of old.

Clearly, when Republicans describe black Republicans as having left behind “the plantation,” the intellectual and moral plantation created by the Democratic Party, they mean to imply exactly Bundy’s point: Democrats have imposed upon blacks a form of slavery that, in many ways, is at least as bad, if not worse, than that under which blacks labored for centuries.

Anyone who can’t see that Bundy was most definitely not lamenting the old days when blacks picked cotton is either dense or dishonest.  It is clear that what he was saying, or trying to say, is that, unlike their ancestors, far too many contemporary blacks, particularly among the youth—the products of the modern Welfare State—lack a work ethic.

For the record, I don’t buy this nonsense, but the painful truth is that it is nonsense that Republicans—forever desperate to out-Democrat the Democrats by pushing the cult of black Victimhood—have been peddling for years and years before Bundy (inadvertently, for sure) made their reasoning explicit.

Republican “conservatives” reveal themselves as crass, opportunistic panderers when they at one and the same moment talk the talk of liberty and individual responsibility while promoting the fiction of political determinism when it comes to accounting for the scandalous degree of pathological conduct found within black communities throughout the country.  To hear these Republicans (and Cliven Bundy) tell it, the astronomical rates of abortion, illegitimacy, crime, academic failure, unemployment, poverty, incarceration, etc. among blacks are the fault of Democrats. 

Again, this notion is absurd.  And it flatly contradicts the “individualism” for which Republicans claim to stand, for it serves to strengthen the ideology of minority Victimhood to which they’re supposed to be opposed.  Just as individual blacks, and no one else, deserve credit for their good deeds and virtues, so individual blacks, and no one else, deserve condemnation for their evil deeds and vices.

But the point is that if Bundy is “racist” for his remarks, then Republicans are “racist” for pushing the same line.  If the latter aren’t “racist,” but just idiotic and/or dishonest, as I believe, then Bundy too is guilty of the same character weaknesses.

Republicans would be well served to heed Christ’s admonition to remove the boulder from their own eyes before proceeding to pluck out the pebble from the eyes of their neighbors.

 

 

 

Leading Atheist Philosopher Concludes: There IS A God

posted by Jack Kerwick

The Christian world just celebrated the Easter holiday, the Resurrection of Jesus, the God-Man, from the dead. Yet there are many people who either don’t believe in God or, if they do, certainly don’t believe that the Supreme Being assumed flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

At the same time, however, they hold the man Jesus in high regard, either reinterpreting many of His remarks or explaining them away as inventions of later generations.

Neither approach succeeds.

Antony Flew is a world leading philosopher who died at the ripe old age of 87 just a few years ago.  For over 50 years, Flew was recognized for being among the profession’s most powerful critics of theism (belief in God).  Such was the relentlessness and force of Flew’s arguments that he is credited by his colleagues—both theist and atheist alike—with having virtually revolutionized the field of the philosophy of religion.

Within the last decade or so, Flew—a paragon of intellectual honesty—concluded that all of this time, he had been wrong.

Though he never became a Christian—the belief that God exists is not equivalent to belief in God, much less belief in Christ—he came to think that among the world’s religious traditions, none is as intriguing, as alluring, as Christianity.

“Today,” Flew states, “I would say that the claim concerning the resurrection is more impressive than any by the religious competition,” and that made on behalf of the Incarnation “unique.”  He admits to believing that more so than any other religion, Christianity “deserves to be honored and respected”—regardless of whether it is the “divine revelation” that it claims to be. “There is nothing like” its “combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul.”  The latter, Flew asserts, “had a brilliant philosophical mind and could both speak and write in all the relevant languages.”

In his book, There is A God, Flew shares his correspondence with one the world’s most seasoned and respected of New Testament scholars, N.T. Wright.  Flew admits to being “very much impressed” with Wright’s argument(s) for the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ, calling his approach “enormously important,” “absolutely wonderful, absolutely radical, and very powerful.”

Wright grounds his “faith in Jesus as the incarnate Son of God,” not in the Gospels, but in the way and ways in which “first-century Jews understood God and God’s action in the world.” This Jewish understanding, in turn, was anchored in the Hebrew Scriptures, i.e. The Old Testament. Jews, Wright reminds us, “talk[ed] about the Word of God,” “the wisdom of God,” “the glory of God dwelling in the Temple,” “the law of God,” and “the spirit of God.”

Wright notes that when we turn to the Gospels, what we find is “Jesus behaving—not just talking, but behaving—as if somehow those five ways [of talking about God] are coming true in a new manner in what he is doing.” In other words, Jesus behaves and talks as if He believed that “he was called to embody the return of Yahweh to Zion” (italics original).

Since “embody” is the English equivalent of the Latin “incarnation,” the point is that, on Wright’s reading, Jesus indeed conceived Himself as the incarnation of Israel’s God.

Lest the skeptic think that Wright—a universally esteemed biblical scholar, mind you—is just another incorrigibly prejudiced Christian, he calls upon Jacob Neusner, a prominent Jewish scholar who concurs with Wright’s interpretation.   In addition to his numerous books on Judaism, Neusner also authored a book on Christianity.  “In it,” Wright says, Neusner remarked “that when he reads that Jesus said things like, ‘You have heard that it was said thus and so, but I say unto you this and this and this,’ ‘I want to say to this Jesus: Who do you think you are? God?’”

C. S. Lewis wasn’t the first to articulate what has since come to be known as “Lewis’ Trilemma.” As the 19th century Scottish preacher John Duncan said: “Christ either deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or He was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma.  It is inexorable.”

 

If I Am a Moral Relativist, So is God

posted by Jack Kerwick

Evidently, I am a moral relativist.

In a recent article, I applauded a colleague for adapting to our school stage a play—Songs for a New World.  This play, I contended, marked a quite radical departure from the standard Politically Correct line insofar as it resoundingly affirmed “the morality of individuality.”  This phrase, I noted, was coined by a conservative philosopher, Michael Oakeshott, and refers to “the belief that human beings are first and foremost individuals distinguished on account of their capacity to make and to delight in making their own choices” (italics original).

Quoting Oakeshott, I elaborated, observing that from this perspective, “‘morality consists in the recognition of individual personality whenever it appears.’” He adds that “‘personality is so far sacrosanct that no man has either a right or a duty to promote the moral perfection of another,” for in doing so we inevitably destroy “their ‘freedom’ which is the condition of moral goodness.”

Translation: slavery, of any form, is immoral—even if undertaken for the individual’s own good.

Incredulous, I remarked that the play invoked the imagery of the explorers of 1492 as “an emblem of individuality”—imagery featuring those in search of a “new world” calling upon God to guide them.  I wrote that while He is “‘not explicitly invoked throughout all of the play’s numbers, the invocation of God at the outset of Songs sets a tone for all that follows.  God, even when not acknowledged, is a source of hope and strength in every ‘moment of decision.’”

I explicitly contrasted this vision of morality with that of Political Correctness, a morality according to which “human conduct is all too often reduced to being the plaything of “‘social structures,’ ‘the system,’ ‘society,’ etc.’”

For writing all of this, I was accused by an editor of a publication that claims to be friendly to both libertyand the Christian faith of endorsing “moral relativism.”

First, to be clear: moral relativists are as nonexistent in the real world as they are in the world of academia.  That the left-wing relativist of the right-wing imagination is a fiction can be proven easily enough: For a brief moment, those on the right need only consider how dogmatic, how doctrinaire, how absolutely certain is the leftist about his positions on abortion, affirmative action, “equality,” and every other issue to which he speaks.  If only the leftist was a moral relativist!

Second, if anyone can be said to be a moral relativist (and even this is debatable) it is those philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche who expressly reject the existence of God. Nietzsche famously declared “the death of God”—meaning the end of the belief in objective morality. 

In other words, Nietzsche recognized something upon which legions of believers—and other (but certainly not all) atheistic philosophers—insist: If there is no God, there is no objective morality.

God, you see, is the basis of moral truth, that which prevents moral judgments from dissolving into preferences of taste.

How, then, given my excitement over the theological subtext of this play, the manner in which it underwrites the morality of individuality with belief in God, could I of all people be seen as advocating moral relativism?

Finally, if I am a moral relativist for celebrating the morality of individuality, then so is every anti-collectivist that has ever lived a moral relativist—including God.

This last point is particularly crucial.  I wrote that “the use of the imagery of the Spanish sailing ships of 1492 underscores the point that every lover of liberty aches to see impressed upon the world: the exercise of individuality, the making of choices, is, or at least should be seen as, an epic moral adventure in character building” (italics added).Here, I state what should be obvious to every lover of liberty: individuality and liberty are inseparable.

There is more.  For thousands of years, theists have sought to justify their faith in God in the face of evil by appealing to human free will.  God made human beings in His image, it’s been said.  And this means that He’s given them the ability to make choices, choices for good—and choices for evil.  Still, God knows that this uniquely human capacity is intrinsically valuable, that without it, human beings, being no different than puppets, would be as undeserving of praise as of blame—and, thus, incapable of friendship with Him.

It is the capacity for choice, not the substance of each and every individual choice, in which the morality of individuality centers.  This is what my critic either wouldn’t or couldn’t grasp.

 

 

 

 

Affirming Individuality: Reflections on “Songs for a New World”

posted by Jack Kerwick

Legions of Americans have, rightly, written off the entertainment and academic industries (yes, the latter is a colossal industry) as the culture’s two largest bastions of leftist ideology.

Sometimes, however, and when we least expect it, the prevailing “Politically Correct” (PC) orthodoxy is challenged from within its sacred precincts.

The other night I attended a performance of Songs for a New World, an “abstract musical”by Jason Robert Brown that was originally an off-Broadway production back in the 1990’s.  While Pat Cohill, a professor of theater and one of my colleagues, is to be commended for her masterful adaption of Songs to the stage of Burlington County College, it isn’t only for aesthetic reasons that she deserves a tip of the hat.

With one stroke, Pat (whether deliberately or not, I don’t know) dropped two birds with one stone in reminding this college community that neither the world of academia nor that of entertainment need follow the same PC script, a template according to which human conduct is all too often reduced to being the plaything of “social structures,” “the system,” “society,” etc.

Songs, you see, is a resounding affirmation of what the conservative philosopher Michael Oakeshott called “the morality ofindividuality,” the belief that human beings are first and foremost individuals distinguished on account of their capacity to make and to delight in making their own choices.  From this standpoint, Oakeshott informs us, “morality consists in the recognition of individual personality whenever it appears.”  He adds that “personality is so far sacrosanct that no man has either a right or a duty to promote the moral perfection of another,” for in promoting “their ‘good’” we inevitably destroy “their ‘freedom’ which is the condition of moral goodness.”

Even though Songs has no overarching plot, its various scenes and characters are united by a common theme—“the moment of decision, the point at which you transition from the old to the new.”  Hence, the play’s title: Songs for a New World.

The first scene, “On the Deck of a Spanish Sailing Ship, 1492,” supplies both a frame of reference and a metaphor for the rest of the production. Though the turning point experienced by the pioneers of 1492 was multifaceted, the matrix of the changes they would inevitably undergo was geographical: those on board those Spanish sailing ships left the old world of Europe for the new world of the Americas.  However, the old and new worlds of the rest of the play’s characters—not unlike the old and new worlds of most us—are emotional and intellectual in character.

Still, the significance of the use that Songs makes of those old Spanish sailing ships cannot be overstated.

First, for quite some time, leftist activists of various sorts—particularly those in Hollywood and academia—have been laboring long and hard to reduce Columbus and the explorers of 1492 to a one-dimensional, cartoonish caricature of evil. That Songs not only refuses to endorse this nonsense but actually holds up the voyagers as an emblem of individuality is remarkably refreshing.

It is true that some critics have speculated that those on board the Spanish sailing ships were Jewish refugees who had been expelled from Spain.  Yet there is no evidence for this. It was the Americas—not any of the lands of North Africa, the Middle East, and Europe to which the Jews were forced to flee—that were first regarded by Columbus and the explorers as “the New World.”  That Columbus is mentioned by name in another of the numbers of Songs further weakens the Jewish refugee interpretation.

Second, this opening number also shows the explorers praying to God! Though not explicitly invoked throughout all of the play’s numbers, the invocation of God at the outset of Songs sets a tone for all that follows.  God, even when not acknowledged, is a source of hope and strength in every “moment of decision.”

Finally, the use of the imagery of the Spanish sailing ships of 1492 underscores the point that every lover of liberty aches to see impressed upon the world: the exercise of individuality, the making of choices, is, or at least should be seen as, an epic moral adventure in character building.  Every individual is an explorer on board his or her own sailing ship.  The seas of life, its infinite possibilities, lay in wait of discovery.

When the arts—and academia—buck the PC tide and affirm the morality of individuality, as they did recently courtesy of my colleague, it should be recognized and celebrated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Previous Posts

A Critical Review of D' Souza's "America: Imagine a World Without Her"
Its friends in the media would have us think that Dinesh D’ Souza’s latest cinematic work, America: Imagine a World Without Her, is worth seeing because of the effectiveness with which D’ Souza demolishes the standard leftist charges leveled against the United States.  I come away from this f

posted 1:44:50pm Jul. 21, 2014 | read full post »

The Neoconservative Ideology and the Mess in Iraq
That the vast majority of Republicans remain as committed as ever to a strong American military presence in Iraq has everything to do with the neoconservative ideology that dominates their party. Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives subordinate the contingencies of history and cultu

posted 6:45:39pm Jun. 26, 2014 | read full post »

Neocons, "Isolationism," and Martin Luther King, Jr.
As the mess in Iraq—a mess predicted by the likes of such “isolationists” as Patrick J. Buchanan and Ilana Mercer a dozen years ago—deepens, it is with renewed gusto that the Iraq War’s most impassioned neoconservative supporters argue for a robust “interventionist” American foreign po

posted 8:14:38pm Jun. 22, 2014 | read full post »

The Neocon Left: The "Deputized" Right
What is commonly referred to as “the right” by the so-called “mainstream media” is actually what I prefer to call “the Deputized Right”—a faux right-wing that takes its marching orders from the left. More specifically, the Deputized Right is actually nothing other than the neoconser

posted 9:58:27pm Jun. 13, 2014 | read full post »

Walter Jones vs. the Neocons: Is the Tide of GOP Politics Shifting?
On Tuesday, the overwhelmingly outspent ten-term North Carolina Republican Congressman Walter Jones defeated his neoconservative, establishment-backed opponent and former Bush II official, Taylor Griffin. Griffin was endorsed by Sarah Palin and heavily subsidized by Sheldon Adelson—but to no av

posted 9:43:23pm May. 08, 2014 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.