At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

The American Spectator and Ron Paul: Setting the Record Straight

posted by Jack Kerwick

Not too long ago now, The American Spectator contributor Jeffrey Lord authored a couple of articles within which he takes to task third place Republican presidential contender Ron Paul.  Because some of Paul’s most earnest defenders have already dealt in good measure with the first, it is on the second of these critiques of theTexas congressman that I will set my sights. 

Lord’s objective, to put it bluntly, is to expose Ron Paul as a faux conservative, a less than fully honest libertarian who aspires to “remake” the conservative movement in the image of his own “metaphysically” and morally corrupt ideology.  In Lord’s reimagining of the history of American conservatism, Ronald Reagan is the hero while Ron Paul is his nemesis, the “anti-Reagan.”

With all due respect to Lord, I find his argument more than a bit peculiar.  In order to convict Paul of the charge of ideological fraudulence and “metaphysical madness”—Russell Kirk’s description of choice for libertarians—he leads his readers through a series of mazes of names and quotations.  In and of itself, this attempt of Lord’s to supply us with something on the order of an abridged intellectual history of conservatism is to be commended, and the actual account that he articulates is not without value.  Still, while it is valuable as far as it goes, it doesn’t go nearly as far as it must if his case against Paul is to succeed.  Unfortunately, for Mr. Lord, as it stands currently, his argument fails mightily, and what is most ironic, it owes its defeat to nothing other than itself.

Outside of that of William F. Buckley, the two main voices that Lord calls forth in his effort to condemn Paul as an enemy of conservatism belong to Russell Kirk and George Nash.  The former is among “the fathers” of the postwar conservative movement that arose in the mid 1940’s, and the latter is an esteemed student of this movement, the author of the widely respected, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America since 1945. 

Now, neither Kirk nor Nash ever refers to Paul himself.  But they do reference Murray Rothbard.  This, presumably, is germane to Lord’s analysis because Rothbard, apparently, is among those whose thought left an indelible impress upon Paul.

Being the historian that he is, Nash neither criticizes nor praises Rothbard but, rather, locates him—along with such luminaries of the classical liberal tradition as F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises—within the libertarian branch of the early conservative movement. With Kirk, however, matters are otherwise.

Because Kirk’s reputation as a progenitor of “modern” American conservatism is questioned by none, and because he had no small measure of scorn for libertarianism generally and Rothbard in particular, Lord evidently thinks that by citing Kirk, he will render self-evidently irrefutable his indictment against Paul, for the latter, you see, drew intellectual sustenance from Rothbard. 

This argument, like all arguments of this species, is a double edged sword.  Indeed, how can it not be?  Once we embark upon the enterprise of implicating so-and-so in the doings of such-and-such on the basis of a relationship of a sort between them that some third party judges to be bad, it is all too easy for the accused to employ the same exact kind of reasoning against his accuser.  Lord, we will see, is especially vulnerable to being snared by the trap that he lays for Paul.

The first point of which we must take note is that for one intellect to be inspired by another, they need not fuse into one.  To any remotely educated person, I would imagine, this is a proposition the truth of which is obvious.  The “guilt-by-association” tactics that he employs against Paul notwithstanding, even Lord, with just some gentle prodding, will have to concede their illegitimacy. 

Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are not only perhaps the two greatest Christian thinkers to whom Christendom can lay claim; they are among the greatest thinkers who have ever lived.  Yet Augustine was as ardent a disciple of Plato’s as Aquinas was a student of Aristotle.  In fact, it has been said that Augustine “baptized” Plato into the Christian faith while Aquinas did the same to Aristotle. Both Plato and Aristotle, living as they did centuries before Christ in the ancient Greek world, were pagans or heathens.  Would Lord or any one with a modicum of sophistication dare suggest that Augustine and Aquinas are “frauds” because they were inspired by Plato and Aristotle, respectively?

The examples of Augustine and Aquinas are but two among a virtual infinity of such examples that we could enlist to illustrate the folly of thinking that any two people must be intellectual or ideological clones just because the one is in some measure indebted to the other.  It may very well be an understatement to say that Lord is a champion of Ronald Reagan.  Would he, though, appreciate being identified with every policy and every action taken, every belief held and every word uttered by the Gipper?  We should hardly think so. 

Or perhaps we should approach the question of the character of Lord’s thought in a manner comparable to that in which he approaches the topic of Ron Paul’s conservative bona fides.  Lord all but claims that no genuine conservative would dare so much as insinuate that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity—two figures upon whom he heaps endless praise—are anything but rock-ribbed, full throated conservatives.  But from 2001 to the end of 2008, Limbaugh and Hannity provided practically unqualified support to both President George W. Bush as well as his Republican dominated congress.  Yet this was an administration and a congress that were responsible for an historically unprecedented growth of the federal government.  There is scarcely anything that Bush and his Republicans did while they wielded the lion’s share of power that any observer with so much as a superficial acquaintance with it could sincerely and credibly confuse with conservatism. 

Since Lord is a fan of Limbaugh and Hannity and they were fans of Bush, presumably, Lord is a fan of Bush.  If so, that is his prerogative.  Still, before the next election, it would only be right for him, through his article at a mainstream right-leaning publication like The American Spectator, to inform readers that, in his judgment, in spite of their gestures to the contrary, neither Bush nor the members of his Republican congress have anything whatsoever for which to apologize.  They are conservatives and they governed as such.  In any event, if Ron Paul must buy everything that Rothbard sold lock, stock, and barrel because the former admired the latter, then, on the terms of his own reasoning, because Lord admires Bush and Republicans like Limbaugh and Hannity, we are left with no option but to conclude that he endorses every idea that they have ever pronounced upon.          

The point, here, should now be clear: just because Murray Rothbard had an impact upon Ron Paul does not mean that the latter necessarily subscribes to all of the former’s beliefs.  Rothbard is a self-professed anarchist.  Paul, in sharp contrast, is a “constitutionalist”—i.e. he is a proponent of government, albeit, constitutional government.

Secondly, when Russell Kirk delivers his verdict of “metaphysical madness” upon libertarians of the Rothbardian variety, he has in mind, not primarily their policy prescriptions as much as, well, the metaphysical presuppositions underwriting those prescriptions.  With their doctrines of “atomized individualism” and “the Rights of Man,” libertarians were, in his estimation, the heirs of such reckless “rationalists” and “logic choppers” as the philosophes of the French Revolution—exactly those against whom his hero and the “founder” of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, set himself.  In fact, it was in response to the robust metaphysical delusions of the rationalism that was rapidly overtaking his generation that Burke gave rise to what has subsequently came to be known as conservatism.  

Neither Kirk nor Burke denies that there is a natural law, and neither denies that there is some sense in which human beings can be said to have “rights.”  However, these rights, far from being the “self-evident,” timeless and universal abstractions of the rationalist’s imagination, are in reality the products of a culturally and historically-specific tradition. 

Interestingly, Kirk’s The Conservative Mind, the very book from which Lord gathers his quotations of Kirk to convict Paul, via Rothbard, of “metaphysical madness,” is ridden with shots at Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence.  Kirk is quick to remind readers that Jefferson, having availed himself while drafting the Declaration of Independence of the very same idiom of “self-evident” and “unalienable” rights upon which the radicals in France would eventually rely, was unsurprisingly an apologist for their bloody revolution.  At this juncture, Lord needs to be reminded that it is this rationalistic conception of rights, as it is expressed in the Declaration, that he and his ideological ilk invoke in justifying their bloody revolution—a Middle Eastern revolution that our last president euphemistically characterized as a “Freedom Agenda.”

Simply put, the very same grounds upon which Kirk judges libertarians of “metaphysical madness” he can just as easily draw upon to convict Lord and his neoconservative Republican brethren of the same, for underlying the libertarianism of which Paul and Rothbard are representatives and the neoconservatism to which Lord, Limbaugh, Hannity, George W. Bush, Rick Santorum, etc. have pledged allegiance is one and the same metaphysically erroneous (“mad”) conception of rights. 

Another consideration that militates against Lord’s insinuation that it is the standard libertarian foreign policy that Kirk disdains is the stone cold fact that the latter’s views on this subject are much closer to those of Paul than those of Lord.  Kirk, were he alive today, would be resoundingly lambasted by the Lords of our world for his “isolationism.”  Kirk, the man who opposed the first Bush’s invasion of Iraqand who spared no occasion to awaken his fellow countrymen (and women) to the mutually antagonistic relationship between war and liberty, would be regarded as persona non grata by today’s “conservatives.”  Indeed, perhaps it is because of this that, in spite of the incalculable contributions he made to the very creation of the modern American conservative movement, he is scarcely mentioned today.  

Third, Lord draws upon George Nash’s analysis of the conservative movement to imply that Paul and his defenders are being intellectually dishonest when they claim that his “noninterventionist” foreign policy is in keeping with the conservative tradition.  Yet if Nash can be said to contradict Paul on this score, he can also be said to contradict Lord, for according to Nash’s interpretation, Rothbard and the libertarians as much belong to the postwar American “conservative movement” as did Kirk and his “traditional conservatives” and James Burnham and his “anti-communists.”  On Nash’s reading, there would be no American conservative movement without these three groups.

Of course, Lord is free to quarrel with Nash’s narrative.  But he is not entitled to accept and not accept it at one and the same time.  From Nash’s perspective, Paul and Lord are both correct and incorrect when it comes to the relationship between “the conservative movement” and “interventionism”: some of its adherents have embraced a more aggressive American foreign policy while others have resisted it.

Finally, in the 2006 edition of his magisterial work, Nash adds to “libertarianism,” “traditionalism,” and “anti-communism,” two other components of the American conservative movement: “neoconservatism” and “the New Right” or “the Religious Right.”  This is relevant to the present discussion because Lord misleadingly suggests that “the conservatism” with which he contrasts Paul’s libertarianism is the original or historical article that Paul has only recently arrived on the scene to “hijack.”  In truth, it is Lord and his ideological brethren who are the real newcomers to the movement, for the only conservatism that they are interested in advancing is neoconservatism.  As Nash observes, neoconservatives are typically former “New Deal Democrats” and “socialists” who only recently, as far as the life of the conservative movement is concerned, have begun to awaken from the darkness that has blinded them. 

In spite of the shoddiness of Lord’s analysis and the lack of charity with which he treats Ron Paul, it is to his eternal credit that he takes the time to remind our contemporaries that the tradition with which they identify does indeed have a storied and complex history.  In this, he supplies us with an invaluable service.  

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.

originally published at The New American              




Defeating the Case Against Ron Paul

posted by Jack Kerwick

Ron Paul is persona non grata among establishment Republicans and other party loyalists—including and especially those in the mainstream “conservative” media. 

On its face, the very idea that any self-professed lover of liberty should have anything but the utmost respect and admiration for Paul strikes us as a paradox of the first order.  After all, to hear Republicans tell it, liberty consists in just those things—“limited government,” personal and fiscal responsibility, the United States Constitution, etc.—of which Paul has proven himself as adamant and impassioned a proponent as any.  And yet, these very same Republicans deride him as a “nut,” a “fraud,” and, in some instances, a “racist,” an “anti-Semite,” and even an American hater.  Paul, they say, is no real conservative, for he befriends 9/11 “truthers” and “neo-Nazis.”

Occasionally, Paul’s GOP detractors suspend their efforts to assassinate his character by speaking to the substance of his positions on the issues.  However, no sooner than they suspend their campaign of besmirching his person than one fallacy gives way to another as the ad hominem attack is replaced by the straw man fallacy.  Whether through advertence or a genuine lack of understanding, it is never Paul’s actual views that they engage but their blatant misrepresentations of them.

Domestic Policy

Take Paul’s position on our drug policy.  His critics argue that he favors the legalization of recreational drugs.  They are mistaken.  What Paul favors is an end to the federal government’s ban on drug usage for recreational purposes.  That is, he believes that whether drugs should be legal or not is a question that properly, constitutionally, belongs to the states to address.  If the residents of a state decide that they would prefer to maintain the current policy of the federal government, then so be it; they have the right, as far as Congressman Paul is concerned, to make that decision. 

As far as his positions on marriage, prostitution, gambling, and virtually every other issue goes, his reasoning is identical to that which informs his perspective on drug policy: it is the individual states, not the federal government, that the Constitution entrusts with the authority to settle these matters.  Thus, Paul argues for the dismantling, not of all laws governing such activities, but of all federal laws designed to do so. 

Paul’s Republican critics would be well served to attend to the Paul Derangement Syndrome that has overtaken them.  You see, if Paul can be said to affirm the legalization of drugs and prostitution because of his stance that these are “states’ rights” issues, then, by parity of reasoning, every other self-proclaimed “pro-life” Republican who insists upon making abortion a “states’ rights” issue stands convicted of fraudulence, for they expose themselves as proponents of abortion. 

That Paul is as strong and consistent a foe of abortion no one who knows of his record as an obstetrician would think to deny.  This is telling, for it suggests that the distortions of his viewpoints spring not from ignorance, but bad faith.  Anyone doubting this should just bear the following consideration in mind: Because Paul thinks that drug usage, prostitution, and gambling, are matters with respect to which the federal government hasn’t the constitutional authority to speak, his objectors don’t hesitate to conclude that he champions their legalization.  Yet when he makes the same claim about the federal government’s role vis-à-vis abortion—that is, when he makes the same exact claim that they do about this issue—his fellow Republicans do not so much as remotely suggest that he advocates the legalization of abortion.  In convicting Paul of this, they would just as quickly condemn themselves.  So maybe, just maybe, they do understand his positions on these other issues but refuse to justly characterize them.

Foreign Policy        

It is really Paul’s position on foreign policy that incenses his critics to no end.  As everyone knows, Ron Paul staunchly opposes what he refers to as “militarism,” a doctrine—sometimes euphemistically described by its apologists as “American Exceptionalism”—that calls for America to essentially “police” the globe against “human rights” violators or, what amounts to the same thing, the enemies of “Democracy.”  Since this enterprise has, within the last decade, been prosecuted in the name of combating Islamic terror, it is principally Paul’s objections against the assumptions, implications, and tactics of “the War on Terror” that have earned him both the contempt and fear of his competitors.

To begin with, Paul emphatically rejects the proposition—treated as an axiom by the Republican Party—that Muslims hate us because of our liberties and freedoms.  Rather, it is a hyper-aggressive American foreign policy, he insists, with its occupation of and sanctions and wars against Islamic lands, that accounts for the rage that culminated in the attacks of 9/11. 

For this position, Rick Santorum and legions of other representatives of the GOP establishment have blasted Paul for “blamingAmerica” for the attacks.  There are, though, at a minimum, three fatal problems with their approach.

First, an understanding of an agent’s action need not involve praise or blame.  Descriptive statements are distinct from prescriptive statements: just because something is such and such a way doesn’t necessarily mean that it ought to be that way, and just because one thinks that such and such is this way doesn’t mean that he either approves or disapproves of it.  In our daily lives, most of us have no difficulty grasping this simple conceptual distinction between, on the one hand, explanation, and, on the other, justification.  For some reason, a little elementary logic of this kind manages to elude Paul’s Republican rivals when it comes to his stance on the motivations informing those Muslims who want us dead.

Second, from Osama bin Laden to the 9/11 commission, from former CIA agents who spent decades in the Middle East to political science professor Robert Pape who, to date, has conducted the most extensive research into the reasons underlying Islamic terror, there is no short supply of authoritative sources from which Paul can readily draw in substantiating his position on the 9/11 attacks. 

Finally, let us say for argument’s sake that Paul did intend to blame the United States government for inviting the 9/11 attacks.  That the government is not equivalent to the United States should be obvious to any and every lover of liberty.  If, by ascribing blame to the government, Paul can be said to be ascribing blame to America, then whenever any other Republican holds the government accountable for objectionable policies or outcomes—something that occurs incessantly—they too must be held to be “blaming”America. 

As it stands, Republicans do themselves no service in conflating the federal government with the country itself.  In hurling this bogus charge against Paul, they only contribute further to the growing perception among both the base of their party as well as independents that all of their talk of “limited government” and the like is just that: talk.


Paul has also taken considerable heat for failing to react with the same hysteria that the public has come to expect from Republicans when the subject of a nuclear armed Iranarises.  Now, few of us, including Paul, no doubt, wants for Iran to be armed, and few of us, including Paul, supports the Iranian regime.  Yet none of this is in the least bit relevant to the question regarding how America should proceed in preventing a determinedIran from acquiring nuclear weaponry.

Paul recognizes that such preventive efforts must consist of actions that can only result in death and destruction: whetherAmericaimposes sanctions or engages in military action of one kind or another, innocent Iranian (and possibly American) lives will be extinguished by our attempt to keepIranfrom obtaining nuclear energy.  He also recognizes that our military, already stretched to the snapping point, simply cannot afford (by any conceivable measure) to involve itself in but another “foreign entanglement,” especially in the Islamic world.

But if, as his Republican nemeses hold, Paul’s perspective on this matter is so unacceptable, then how is their view any better?  On the one hand, the prospect of a nuclear armed Iranis one that they resolutely refuse to entertain: it is imperative that we prevent this state of affairs from materializing, they swear.  However, on the other hand, not only have we long known that Iranwas pursuing nuclear power, it began to expedite its pursuit during the Bush administration. 

And yet, to date, no action has been taken to deter it.  Moreover, no concrete action to impede its efforts has even been seriously proposed.

“Racism” and “Anti-Semitism”

I usually refuse to dignify accusations of “racism,” “anti-Semitism,” and the like with a response, but they warrant some mention in connection with this defense of Ron Paul.

Paul favors the elimination of all “foreign aid.”  BecauseIsrael is among the nations of the world to which theUnited States supplies financial assistance, some, like David Horowitz, have charged Paul with being “anti-Semitic.”

It is strange indeed that those who never tire of lamenting the ills afflicted by the Welfare State against black Americans and others at home should find fault with a man who seeks only to liberateIsrael(and every other country) from the oppressive burdens of the American Welfare State abroad.  Paul is actually a friend toIsraelinasmuch as he wants for it to be able to give unabashed expression to its sovereignty—something that will be forever impossible as long as it remains dependent uponAmerica. 

Yet it is Paul’s detractors who want to maintainIsrael’s dependence uponAmericawho claim the moral high ground.  It is they who are supposed to be the best friends of Israeli Jews.

As for the charge of “racism,” the widely respected black thinker Thomas Sowell is among many who have long noted that, whether measured in terms of street violence or rates of incarceration, the federal government’s “War on Drugs” has had incalculable deleterious effects on blackAmerica.  Paul has labored indefatigably to end this war.  His accusers want to continue waging it.  And it is his critics, not Paul, who insist upon displacing, injuring, and killing untold numbers of non-white peoples (Middle Eastern Muslims) through “the War on Terror” or George W. Bush’s “Freedom Agenda.”  Paul not only wants to end the wars, at considerable cost to his presidential campaign and his popularity among the fellow members of his party, he has spared no occasion to articulate to audiences an understanding of the terrorists’ motives that counters the conventional Republican account that reduces the Islamic terrorist to an embodiment of raw, undifferentiated irrationality.  For this, this “racist” has been accused of “blamingAmerica.”

It is one thing to disagree with Congressman Paul.  It is another thing to throw one baseless allegation after the other against him. 

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.

originally published at The New American as “The Case Against Ron Paul is Defeated” 



9/11 Ceremonies and Liberty

posted by Jack Kerwick

As the tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001 dawns upon us, Americans will come together to recall the happenings of that infamous day.  Ceremonies and even parades will occur in cities and towns around the country as television and radio stations allocate time for special programming and school children partake of numerous activities.

At the risk of sounding sacrilegious, to say nothing of heartless, I confess to having little patience for the pomp and circumstance to which we are treated year after year around the eleventh of September. 

For sure, the attacks of that day were as awful as any that this country has experienced during our lifetime. Those who personally suffered loss on that day are as deserving of our compassion as those who attacked us are deserving of our justice.  Yet from these facts it most certainly does not follow that there is an obligation on our part to annually engage in ritualistic expressions of our collective angst over the losses that we endured a decade ago. 

There is more than one reason for this verdict.

Ostensibly, we must annually commemorate 9/11 so that “we will never forget” what transpired on that day in our history.  But we are no more at risk of forgetting that event than we are at risk of forgetting the attack of Pearl Harbor; the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert, and Martin Luther King; the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger; and any number of other national tragedies that we refuse to commemorate by way of countrywide ceremonies.  Even if we tried, there isn’t a single one of us who lived through 9/11 that will ever be able to forget it.  In fact, not only are the images of the planes flying into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and innocent human beings jumping to their deaths forever ensconced in our minds; chances are we will remember what we were doing that day much more vividly than we will be able to recall the details of most days from our pasts. 

As for those who do not personally recollect 9/11, it is as impossible for them to “forget” it as it is impossible for us to do so.  The world in which we live is a world that is defined by the events of Tuesday, September 11, 2001.  The terrorist attacks that robbed 3,000 or so of our fellow Americans from us, though they occurred in the past, are still very much a part of our present.  At any rate, if countless ceremonies must be orchestrated each year in order to impress upon future generations the significance of 9/11, then comparable ceremonies commemorating every significant historical event should be no less mandatory as far as instructing our posterity is concerned.  But if the latter claim is ridiculous, then it is not obvious that the former isn’t equally so.  

Second, 9/11 was a tragedy of epic proportions for America.  Due to bureaucratic incompetence, a ragtag group of Islamic terrorists from the Middle East were wildly successful (from their perspective) in striking a devastating blow against the United States.  Admittedly, and thankfully, it didn’t take our country long after 9/11 to regain its bearings and strike back, but on 9/11, America wasn’t just sucker punched; she took a baseball bat to the skull. 

Why, we must ask ourselves, do we continually want to remind, not just ourselves of this ugly fact, but the entire world?

Third, it is more than just a bit ironic that it is precisely those Republican politicians and “conservative” media personalities who never tire of railing against the “victim mentality” that has overcome our generation who are usually the most vocal supporters of ceremonies commemorating 9/11.  Yet there could be no better illustration of this mentality, and the extent to which it has supplanted all others, than our conduct as a nation in the second week of September each year.  Again, September 11, 2001 is the date on which Americans were victimized en masse.  What is worse is that we were victimized as much by the negligence and incompetence of our own government as we were the 19 savages who, armed only with box cutters, changed forever the most powerful nation in all of human history. 

To a people devoted to liberty and the individuality that this liberty entails, public exhibitions of mourning one’s victimhood should be nothing less than anathema. It is achievements and victories, the products of strength, courage, genius, and all of the virtues the exercise of which liberty renders possible that such a people should celebrate.   On the other hand, though they will remember weaknesses, failures, and set-backs, they will steadfastly refuse to adorn them in grand displays for all time.

Our liberty is potentially diminished in another way through these annual national reminders of 9/11.  The ceremonies make it all too easy for our government to exploit this tragedy for the sake of amassing an ever greater scope over our lives.  Whether the office holders are Republican or Democrat, as long as Americans are constantly reminded by way of these public exhibitions of remembrance and mourning of the destruction that our enemies would love to visit upon us, the easier it is for the government to prey on that fear in order to grow and grow.

Fifth and finally, because of their ubiquity and grandiosity, the 9/11 ceremonies have the effect of inducing in Americans the belief that nothing short of patriotism itself demands that they support any and all actions that are done in the name of either avenging the victims of 9/11 or of preventing “another” 9/11 on our shores.  This, however, can only lead to all manner of abuse.

I will attend church this Sunday, as I usually do.  There, I will pray for both those who lost their lives on 9/11 as well as their loved ones.  I will not, though, be partaking of any 9/11 ceremonies.  

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D. 


Michael Bloomberg and the Cleric-Free Zone

posted by Jack Kerwick

As the tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001 approaches, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg finds himself at the center of controversy.  As it turns out, it is the mayor’s decision to exclude clerics from participating in the commemorative ceremony scheduled for Sunday that has so incensed his critics.

Among the issues with which Americans are currently concerned, this one hardly even registers.  Still, while I personally do not believe that Bloomberg is deserving of the avalanche of criticism that some clerics and their supporters have poured down upon him, I confess to being at something of a loss regarding his reasons for omitting clergymen and women from the roster of speakers at the 9/11 commemoration.

There is but one rationale that Bloomberg has stated for his position: it is for the sake of the families of those who lost their lives on 9/11 around which this commemorative event will center.  There are a couple of problems with this line of reasoning.

First, while our hearts can’t but bleed for the thousands of our brethren who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks, inasmuch as these attacks constituted a national tragedy, the event in question should most certainly not be designed solely or even primarily for the sake of family members: 9/11 ceremonies, whether they are held in New York or anywhere else, should aim at preventing the events of that infamous day from slipping from the collective consciousness of our nation. “We must never forget.”  These ceremonies should no more be held for the survivors of those who the attacks claimed than should our post 9/11 counter-terrorist measures—from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security to everything else—be so enacted.

Second, even if the mayor’s premise regarding the objective of the 9/11 anniversary was correct, his conclusion does not follow.  How, any remotely reasonable person must ask himself, could the appearance of clerics on the dais impede to any extent the grieving process of the family members of those who lost their lives?  After all, the family members and the clergy are hardly mutually antagonistic groups that must at all costs be kept apart.

It isn’t just the forgoing considerations that raise questions regarding Bloomberg’s decision here.  That the mayor unabashedly supported the intensely controversial “Ground Zero Mosque,” and that he obstinately refused to consider the probability, or even the distinct possibility, that it was a Muslim who was responsible for the Times Square car bomb (that, thankfully, failed to detonate) combine to strengthen suspicions that Bloomberg just may be motivated by another agenda.

Right-leaning commentators have long remarked upon what they perceive as the militant secularism of the political left—a group to which Mayor Bloomberg belongs.  But I think this way of putting the matter isn’t quite correct.  It is, of course, true that there is no small number of leftists who find religion in all of its guises to be as false as it is destructive.  It is also true that there are leftists who despise religion because they recognize that, perhaps second only to the institution of the family, religion serves as a powerful buffer between the naked individual and an otherwise omnipotent government. 

But in many instances, at least in contemporary American political life, it isn’t religion per se that leftists loathe.  Rather, it is those forms of religion that threaten to impede the advancement of their political agenda that they are determined to silence.  More specifically, it is most expressions of Christianity upon which leftists set their sights.

The reason for this should be obvious: those Christians who are politically active overwhelmingly endorse that party and those politicians who they (rightly or wrongly) associate with conservative causes.  That is, when religion becomes a formidable political force, it tends not to work to the advantage of leftists.

However, in those instances when it appears that the left has an opportunity to exploit religion for its own purposes, it wastes no time in doing so.  The very same left-wing Democratic politicians who inexhaustibly caution us against violating “the separation between Church and State,” religion and government, are all too eager to visit black churches while on the campaign trail.  And the very same left-wing Democrats who, for the sake of “tolerance,” proudly proclaim their resolve to further abortion rights in spite of their “personal” opposition to it, are unsparing in their allusions to the Bible when such invocations promise to facilitate their redistributive schemes for “the poor.”

Unfortunately, we are left speculating as to what Bloomberg’s real reasons are for excluding clerics, for his stated reason, as we’ve noted, makes no sense.   

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D. 






Previous Posts

ISIS: How You Know It's All Hype II
Recently, I cautioned my fellow Americans against falling for the notion that the so-called “Islamic State” is among the gravest threats, or any threat, that the United States had ever encountered. I noted that if the hyperbolic cries of politicians and their media propagandists in both parti

posted 8:37:02pm Sep. 27, 2014 | read full post »

ISIS: How You Know It's All Hype
There is much talk about “the Islamic State,” or “ISIS,” or “ISIL,” or whatever we are calling it. To listen to the talking heads, both Democrats and Republicans, one could be forgiven for thinking that these 15,000 or so Muslim butchers are the biggest threat that the Western world has

posted 8:05:29pm Sep. 24, 2014 | read full post »

The Politically Incorrect (?!) Language of the Politically Correct
It would seem that the Enlightened, i.e. those whose moral sensibilities are offended by the name of “Redskins” for a professional sports team, want to purge our language of every “racist,” “sexist,” “classist,” “imperialist,” “colonialist,” and “homophobic” word. The

posted 5:10:35pm Sep. 22, 2014 | read full post »

History, Not Ideology, is Our Guide for Iraq
While listening to Bill Bennett’s radio program the other morning, a caller, respectfully, yet passionately, expressed his incredulity over the fact that anyone continues to take the Bill Kristols and Max Boots (and, by implication, the Bill Bennetts) of the world seriously when it comes to issues

posted 8:13:07am Sep. 18, 2014 | read full post »

When "Race" Riots were White--And What We Can Learn From Them
In light of the “Fergusons” that have erupted in America over the last 50 years or so, it may come as quite a surprise to many of us to learn that from the 19th century clear through to roughly the middle of the 20th, most of those responsible for initiating “race” riots were white. In 18

posted 2:07:15pm Sep. 17, 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.