Here Lies the Nation

     The other day my colleague in our team-taught course in Western Civilization made an interesting point about the passing away of medieval Christendom.  He did not say that it was a good or bad thing that it passed away, and did not say when exactly the demise occurred, but rather showed the students how to identify signs that it had occurred.  So, for instance, when Pope Urban at Clermont preached the First Crusade, regardless of how one views what Bohemond and Godfrey and the other crusaders did, one must still be struck by the bare and remarkable fact that they obeyed the preaching.  This they did, as my colleague justly observed, despite the fact that it was not in the best interest of their own power at home, and despite the fact that they had no discernible desire for colonies or for empire.  Or consider the popular movement, endorsed by bishops and popes, that led to the declaration of the Truce of God and the Peace of God.  Warrior nobles chafed against any encroachment upon their liberty to pillage and lay waste to the lands of their enemies, but they at least sometimes and halfheartedly obeyed, refraining from attacking women and children and the aged, laying their weapons down during the penitential seasons and on certain days of every week, and in general allowing themselves unwittingly to be transformed into something remotely resembling the ideal of a chivalric knights.  People derived their prime sense of identity not from where they lived or what language they spoke, but from the faith they shared even with their enemies; they were Christians before they were Tuscans or Flemish.  By the seventeenth century, the source of a man's identity had shifted: Cardinal Richelieu, that eminence grise, was French first, French second, and French third, and that is why he assisted the Protestants in the Thirty Years' War, and why he arranged a peace between France and the Turk, allowing the Turk to push deep into Hapsburg territories in the east.  Had the Pope then decreed that there would be no fighting between Christian princes, the princes would have laughed.  Christendom as a cultural and cross-linguistic reality was dead, and the nation-state had taken its place.

     But now, he suggested, the nation may be going the same way that medieval Christendom went.  I agree, and I'm not talking about the power of multinational corporations-- and neither was he.  I mean that the virtue of patriotism, which is linked to a sense of belonging to this land, here, and loving it, a virtue that did not begin with the nation-state but could at least survive in it, is fading away.  A man calls himself a doctor or a lawyer, a golfer, a husband and father, a collector of postcards, even a Methodist, before he calls himself an American.  I have an old Army-Navy hymnal at home, and to look through it is to be astonished by the number and variety and quaint eloquence of its patriotic anthems, most of them now long forgotten.  Even our most common patriotic hymns have been reduced, in the lived experience and memories of citizens, to a single verse, usually only dimly understood.  Lines such as these from the hymn that used to be called simply America are almost incomprehensible now, not semantically but affectively, and would certainly never be written:
          I love thy rocks and rills,
          Thy woods and templed hills;
          My heart with rapture fills
               Like that above.

     When did it die, this love, this sense that at the deepest springs of my being I am an American?  Again, I'm not saying that we should feel this way; I'm only observing that we don't.  I don't know when the worm turned, but it has.  How many of the people running for the presidency do not really like America?  How many of them never have anything good to say about it?  How many bear hearts that do not beat warmly when they hear of Teddy and the Rough Riders, or Washington crossing the Delaware to surprise the Hessians at Trenton?  How many do not truly love the ways of Americans, even in such harmless things as food and sport, but rather agree when other peoples think them crazy or foolish?  For how many has the Constitution sunk below a thing of contempt, to become nothing but a dead letter, along with all other venerable American traditions?  I can name at least four or five candidates from both parties, including one of the most prominent candidates, who have never shown the slightest trace of actually liking America, let alone hoping that America is victorious in her struggles with other nations.  We've had such candidates before, but nobody would vote for them; they remained on the fringe.  They are not on the fringe now. 

     And that raises the question: if faith is not the source of a people's prime identity and loyalty, and if the nation is not, then what is?  What do we revere and obey?  We are made for reverence and obedience; something must occupy the altar or the flag.

Comments

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>As an unapologetic beer snob, I'll drink "Ahrn" only by necessity!<<<

One drinks Ahrn to make a statement, not because of its taste. Yuengling is a much better Picksburg brew. Some guys at church still swear by Rolling Rock, though. When I was a lad, the only thing it had going for it was the short can, which fit conveniently into a 40mm grenade bandolier. In Desert Storm, the guys had their wives buy those little cans of Crystal Light powder, dump the powder, insert a can of Rolling Rock, and reseal the cans. This allowed them to have a cold one in otherwise dry Saudi Arabia.

[Rob Grano]

While Yuengling (Yuckling, as some friends call it) is big in the 'Burgh, it's not actually a Picksburgh product -- it's brewed in Pottsville, I think, which is on the other side of the state. Rolling Rock has left Latrobe and is now being brewed in New Jersey, while Samuel Adams has recently bought their old brewery and will start brewing Sam there soon, if they haven't already.

[Judy Warner]

I think Rolling Rock was the first light beer, though it didn't advertise itself that way. Yuengling is great. Before good beer was widely available, people I know used to pick up a case to take home whenever they were visiting Philadelphia.

[Rob Grano]

Yuengling goes great with spicy food -- Mexican, buffalo wings, etc.

[GL]

Except that the war in Iraq was not about Islamofascism. In fact, nobody seems to be quite sure what is is about anymore.

Francesca,

One other thing, Francesca, who do you think we are fighting there now?

[GL]

I just realized that I was off a year. The invasion of Kuwait was in 1990 and the cease fire was in 1991. So the war between the U.S. and Iraq has been going on for a year longer than I indicated.

[JRM]

"One other thing, Francesca, who do you think we are fighting there now?"

Iraqis who only have one thing in common--they want Americans out of their country.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Iraqis who only have one thing in common--they want Americans out of their country.<<<

Doesn't seem to be much indigenous opposition at the moment. The Shiite and Sunni death squads have largely been suppressed, which leaves the suicide bombers. They're splashy, but they can't change the situation on the ground unless we allow them to do so. Moreover, their numbers are pretty small--the hard core is probably no more than a couple of thousand, which is why they are hard to stop.

[Ethan Cordray]

Stuart, given your positive view of the situation, how long do you think it will be before the results there are so obvious that the administration can start convincing the American public that things are going well?

As a non-expert, I declare my agnosticism about how the war is going and what the likely outcome may be. But what would it take to break through the media's skepticism and turn American public opinion around?

[David Gray]

>Iraqis who only have one thing in common--they want Americans out of their country.

Well some are Iraqis. Not all by a long shot.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, given your positive view of the situation, how long do you think it will be before the results there are so obvious that the administration can start convincing the American public that things are going well?<<<

Never, unless they find a way to talk over the heads of the press, which pretty much has decided on its favorite narrative and won't let facts get in the way. But those who know how to read the battlefield see definite signs of progress. In fact, the rise in the intensity of suicide bombers is actually a good sign. It masks the decline in other insurgent activities, and particularly the decline in sectarian attacks. The only people left in the field are al Qaeda, and all they can do is blow up civilians and hope that they get lurid coverage on TV.

But of course, this is a high-stakes game of chicken, because a successful insurgent survives by winning over the people. Indiscriminate violence tends to alienate the very ones the insurgents need as allies. Hence we see the Sunni sheikhs in al Anbar forming a coalition to defeat al Qaeda. Guerillas are fish and the people are the sea, but al Qaeda's tactics are draining the fish pond.

Why do they do it, then?

Because they believe they can break the will of America to see the fight through to the end, before they so alienate the Iraqi population that there is a backlash against them. We, for our part, need to keep our nerve and hang on past that point, so that al Qaeda is stripped of its cover and left naked to U.S. and Iraqi security forces.

That point should come some time around September, when all of our forces are in place, the Iraqis are approaching their planned force levels, and the oil spot strategy of taking back insurgent strongholds and HOLDING them forces the insurgents into a handful of towns.

Everybody knows how to win a counter-insurgency. Few politicians have the stomach for it, though.

But as I said, insurgency will be the dominant form of war for the next half century, so unless you want to end up fighting guerrillas inside American cities, we'd better learn how to fight and beat the enemy outside our borders.

[GL]

Iraqis who only have one thing in common--they want Americans out of their country.

And what do you think will happen to those Iraqis who helped us during the war? We abandoned such people to their fate in 1991 and what Saddam did to them was not pretty. I doubt that this group will fare much better if they come into the hands of those Iraqis who "want America out of their country."

If we again abandon those who helped us, it will send an unmistakable message to everyone that aiding the U.S. is bad for one's longevity and we can expect no such similar help in the future when it may be needed. And, of course, abandoning one's allies to their fate is immoral in any event.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And what do you think will happen to those Iraqis who helped us during the war? We abandoned such people to their fate in 1991 and what Saddam did to them was not pretty.<<<

Back in 1975, I remember saying to a circle of friends around a pitcher of beer at The Tombs in Georgetown (after having just missed winning the Fall of Saigon Sweepstakes), "It can be very unpleasant to be an enemy of the United States, but being an ally of the United States can be fatal".

[James A. Altena]

As previously stated, I will not reply any more to Francesca (her last post being exactly as I predicted it would be, anyway.) But I do have something to say in response to Dominic at some length (much more than originally hoped or intended).

You wrote:

"So, you, as an Anglican (someone who refuses to submit to any part of the full gamut of the RC Magisterium), can condemn, ridicule, mock, and insult someone because they DO submit in all but a handful of areas?

"It seems to me like Francesca is the more honest of the lot; at least she labours towards a firmer and more comprehensive embrace of the Magisterium. You can lay no claim to even a tidbit. You have rejected it wholesale and "created your own" in the sense that you have chosen to adopt those "immutable" values that appeal to your intellect and your understanding of the divine order/natural law and so on. So unless you're a closet RC duly baptized/confirmed just masquerading on here as an Anglican, you are still "afar off" in the eyes of Rome...She awaits your homecoming with all 845 pages of Her Catechism memorized.

"We all pick and choose in different ways; get over it... The superiority complex I sense on here is reeking of self and pride. What pleasure do you derive from writing so harshly against a sister in Christ? We must all render an account for our deeds."

One scarcely knows where to begin with such a farrago of nonsense and logical non-sequiturs, but I'll try anyway.

First, I did not "condemn, mock, ridicule, and insult" Francesca the person; I did criticize and finally use a little sarcasm to rebut her sophistry. (And my reference to "invincible ignorance" actually lets her off the moral hook to some degree, if you understand that venerable principle.) And if my language was harsh, well sometime that too is necessary. The idea that one “creates one’s own value system” is rooted in a very deep sin of pride.

Second, the issue is not *my* adherence or *non-adherence* as an Anglican to the Magisterium, because I am not the one claiming to be a Roman Catholic in good standing who is faithfully following the principles of the Catechism of the RC Church. Francesca is so claiming to be, and that is a claim subject to objective evaluation by any other person, be he an RC or no. Your objection here -- is logically no different than e.g. a claim that an American cannot criticize the actions of the KGB as being in violation of Russia's constitution because he disclaims the sovereignty of the Russian government. And, in strict logical terms, your fallacy that "A cannot criticize B who is X because A himself is not X" would also rule out you being able to criticize me here as well, since: a) some relevant differentiating term "X" can always be found, and b) in this case you also are not the "X" in question.

Third, the issue is not the number of areas in which someone such as Francesca does or does not submit; it is the *principle* she claims of absolute moral autonomy, being able to "create one's own value system" in which the Church is only a reference source. Such a person is not submitting to the Magisterium at all; he (or she) is only coinciding with it to a greater or lesser degree. A person who subscribes to such moral solipsism is scarcely one who "labors towards a firmer and more comprehensive embrace of the Magisterium." On teh contrary, such persons fall into the category of what an RC friend of mine wittily terms "Catholic butts" -- the people who always start off saying, "I'm a Catholic, but . . ." and then proceed to inform you at exhausting length and mind-numbing detail about all the points on which they dissent from the Church's teaching.

The central assertion -- that I "have rejected it [ie.e the Magisterium] wholesale and you have rejected it wholesale and "created your own" in the sense that you have chosen to adopt those "immutable" values that appeal to your intellect and your understanding of the divine order/natural law and so on" -- is so preposterous as to not warrant the extended answer I shall nonetheless give it.

First, my present formal status outside the RC Church (I cannot speak to the reasons as for yours) is not due to any wholesale rejection of the Magisterium, as you gratuitously assume. Indeed, it is evident here that I take it and its claims far more seriously than does Francesca. And, as Rome itself holds (most recently in the encyclical Domine Iesus), all Nicene creedal Christian bodies "subsist" to varying greater and lesser degrees within it.

The particular reasons I am formally outside of the RC Church (and likewise of the Orthodox Church) are manifold and complex; this is not the venue, and there is not the time and space here, to recount and explain them in detail. Suffice it to say that, as a part of my calling as a Christian to seek to restore as much as possible the visible unity of the Church in this world, I take seriously the claims of both Rome and Orthodoxy, as much as of my own Anglican Communion, and continually re-visit them, and my own current beliefs in light of them. [Unlike some "Continuing Church" Anglicans, I do not hide behind formalistic definitions, but seriously question in actuality whether and how small ecclesiastical splinters such as ours, not in communion with either Rome, Orthodoxy, or the general worldwide Anglican federation of churches, can truly claim to be a part of the church catholic.] I expect to do so as long as I am not in one or the other, as neither can be dismissed lightly (nor, I think can those of traditional Anglicanism). But the fact that I am not formally under the omophorion of the RC Magisterium (if I may facetiously mix metaphors for Stuart's amusement, at least) does not either mean or imply any wholesale rejection of its extensive, deep, and legitimate authority. On the contrary, I have often profitably looked to its pronouncements for guidance in formation of my doctrinal and moral conscience.

Second, the central fallacy here is your charge that I have "'created your own' [values] in the sense that you have chosen to adopt those "immutable" values that appeal to your intellect and your understanding of the divine order/natural law and so on."

First, as I previously pointed out, to equate acceptance of X with creation of X is simply false, in any sense. When I wed my wife, she accepted a ring from me; that does not mean that she created the ring in any sense. She received it as a gift.

Second, there is the equally fallacious assertion here that I accepted my "values" (a term I also already rejected -- but you ignored that point as well) because they "appeal to your intellect". This, as your concluding remarks about "pick and choose" show (more on that later), is of course a transparent ploy to try to portray me as acting no differently from Francesca here -- which is completely false for the following reasons:

a) I did not accept them on the basis of their appeal; I accepted them because I believe they are true, regardless of their appeal. E.g., recall C. S. Lewis' remarks about his own conversion to Christianity, on being the most reluctant and miserable convert one could imagine. He did not convert because Christianity appealed to him; sin appealed to him much more (as it does to all of us). He converted because he could no longer deny its truth, not matter how unhappy and uncomfortable that made him.

The same is true for me, Dominic (and I trust also for you). There is much in the doctrine and moral teachig of the Church that does not appeal to me and makes me uncomfortable; but that is because I am a sinner. I could only be perfectly comfortable with it all if I was a perfected saint (which, god willing, I will be made after my death) or an utter blackguard. (C. S. Lewis: "An ordinary man knows that he is not very good. A prefectly bad man thinks he is quite all right.")

b) Likewise, it is again precisely *not* MY "understanding of the divine order/natural law and so on" -- or, more precisely, not in the sense of equivalence to Francesca's "create one's own value system" that you mean to imply. It is admittedly "my understanding" in the logically trivial sense here that B's understanding of why is necessarily B's understanding and not A's understanding. That, however, does not mean or imply either that B has "created" that understanding, rather than accepted it as a gift, or that A's and B's understanding of X cannot be essentially the same. Obviously they can, else there could not be any such thing as a common Christian faith, and each one of us would be doomed to epistemological solipsism.

More importantly, in the case of divine/human relation and interaction, it is not only possibly but actually the case (or so we believe by faith) that God has imparted His "understanding" to man -- though it would probably be more accurate to say that God has endowed God with *an* understanding, since God neither has or needs the kind of cognitive process denoted by "understand." The point is that we do not in any sense "create" this understanding -- we are given it and receive and accept it as a gift. In a separate thread a couple of weeks ago, Dr. Hutchens pointed out that, in the strict sense [ex nihilo], only God creates, and man cannot create at all, but can only re-create after the patterns given by God. When we presume to "create", we are falling right back into Gen. 3, and can only mar and distort that which we have been given.

Now, since we are all fallen sinners, it will immediately be objected that no-one's understanding is perfect and complete, so why should a person trust to the understanding of another -- especialy if God gives to everyone? Why should the Church have authority greater than any person?

The answer is: a) the Scriptures themselves tell us that special gifts and authority have been vested in the Church as the Body of Christ [e.g. the Church but not individual members is promised indefectibility by Christ, and St. Paul on the authority of the Church to exercise judgment over its members]; and b) the judgment and the authority of the Church are not those of any single person, nor of any single faction. They are the *consensus* of the faithful -- in short, the Tradition. And, of course, a faithful Roman Catholic believes in a special charism granted to the Magisterium, vested in the See of Peter, on this point, with respect to points of faith and morals.

The relation of the particular member to the Church is analogous to that of the Church to Christ, and thus of wife to husband. (Of course, the relation of each particular member to Christ is a microcosm of the relation of the Church to Christ.) The second is the head of the first, the first submits to the second. And the relation must be one of mutual love and faith (pistis, trust). If the Church (or particular member) does not trust Christ, or if the wife does not trust her husband, and receive the direction given by headship as a gift, then there is no true relation. The same is true of the relation of the particular member to the Church. The member who asserts a right to dispute the authority of the Church and "create one's own value system" instead is not in a relation of trust.

It will perhaps be objected that the analogy does not hold because God is perfect and the Church is not. Two answers to this may be offered. First, this is then necessarily an objection to St. Paul and thus to Scripture, since it is he who makes the imperfect husband analogous to Christ. Second, while true, it is irrelevant to the point here, which is not conceerned with infallibility but with trust. One either trusts God (or the Church) to receive from Him (or it) what it offers as a gift, or one does not.

Now, what one accepts does indeed become one's own in a personal sense -- but as I pointed out before, for a Christian this does not occur by conforming the gift to one's self, but rather by one's self being conformed to the gift and the giver. Thus, once again, one does not "create one's own value system"; rather, one is re-formed by the truths and principles that one receives. One does not seek to change or adapt them to appeal to self; rather one surrenders self to being changed and adapted to what one has received. Once again, we are back to the challenge that the serpent posed to Eve in Gen. 3: do we seek to be the master in control, because the proffered fruit is appealing, and "accept" it on our own terms? Or do we accept and receive it only on God's (or the Church's) terms?

Throughout this thread, I (and anyone else who takes seriously the idea of obedience and submission to the Church as the divinely instituted guardian of doctrine and morals) has been calumnied with canards, suggesting that we are guilty of "an unquestioning docile obedience to Church hierarchy" and "moral robotism", among other things. Hogwash. It is rather the living application of the principle of "faith seeks understanding" and the Christian virtues of humility and faith, in its core sense of pistis/trust. The application of intelligence consists not in efforts to dissect the doctrinal and moral principles of the faith in order to prove those of the Church wrong and our opown preferences to be right, but in cultivating and ever deeper apprehension and wider application of them to our own lives, and hsaring that with others.

Finally, there is the conclusion: ""We all pick and choose in different ways; get over it..." Once again, true in a trivial sense, and false in a more substantive one. For not all picking and choosing is equal; the more one is guided by the Spirit, the more one picks and chooses rightly. Or, more precisely, the more one ceases to pick and choose for one's self, and lets God do it instead and accepts the results, the better the results. The whole point of accepting the authority of the Church is the presumption in faith, in trust, that it is God's designated agent to guide us here. The Christian life is about self-surrender, self-abnegation, about dying to self; as my patron saint, Ireneaus of Lyons put it, ""The business of the Christian is to learn daily how to die." It is a simple fact and dynamic of the Christian life that the more one reserves to one's self a supposed right of critical judgment to hold one's self to be right and the Church wrong, the less one is pursuing the core of the Christian life. I do not endeavor to yield to the judgment of the Church unthinkingly and uncritically out of "moral robotism" or "unquestioning docile obedience to Church hierarchy". (Yet another distortion -- no-one here has ever said that the Church should be simply identified with its hierarchy tout court). I strive to do so reflectively, with all critical faculties fully engaged. It is not a matter os asking or not asking questions, but rather of the kinds of questions to be asked -- question that seek to assert self, or those that seek to die to self.

The point of the Catechism's section on conscience is neither to assert solipsistic individual autonomy (as Francesca keeps asserting), nor to demand unthinking "robotic" obedience to the commands of a hierarchy. Its main objective is to assert moral responsibility, not individual freedom. The basic structure of its argument is:

Man is endowed by God with an interior faculty and capacity for making moral determinations according to divine laws. Man does not create either the faculty, or capacity, or the laws; rather he discerns ('discovers") their presence as pre-existent. Since man has some degree of free will (marred but not utterly lost in the Fall), he cannot claim to be absolved from either the ability or the duty of making moral determinations. But he does not do so by "creating one’s own value system"; rather, he does so by discernment and application of principles and particular applications revealed in Scripture and expounded by the Church. Personal responsibility is not a responsibility to "create one's own value system", but rather a responsibility to rightly and reflectively learn and apply, with all the powers of intellect and intuition one is likewise given by God, these principles in particular situations. Given both our finitude and fallenness, neither our knowledge or application will always be perfect; in which case we have the personal moral responsibility to think and act to the best of our ability. That is to obey conscience, even if it is in error. But it is not licit to knowingly, willfully, and deliberately set conscience as individual judgment rather than personal incorporation of the Church's teachings.

The fact that something which is offered is received and accepted unaltered, rather than self-generated or changed, does not make it any less personal. To repeat a point I previously made, the Christian understanding of "personal" is not "individual" in the modern secular sense, but rather one of particular participation in and union with the objective and universal. To offer an extended analogy here:

A great pianist (e.g. Horowitz or Rubenstein) receives and accepts Beethoven's "Hammerklavier" Sonata, and the lover of classical music receives and accepts a great performance of that work from his fingers. Neither the pianist nor the auditor "creates" his own composition in so doing, or (if either has any sense) tries to alter it, but rather seeks to give and receive it in an interpretation faithful to the score. And yet in so doing -- indeed, precisely so doing -- Beethoven's "Hammerklavier" Sonata becomes truly personal, truly something that is part of, and interiorly shapes, both the pianist and the auditor.

Furthermore, one can readily distinguish between the performances of Horowitz and Rubenstein (and, by verbal descriptions, also the differences in the manner different auditors heard a given performance). Yet no-one (meaning no reasonably informed auditor) identifies the piece played and heard as being any other than Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata, and both performances as being distinct but faithful realizations of the same to boot. Likewise, if some performer took it upon himself to alter some of the notes and/or to play the work in an idiosyncratic fashion that contradicted indications of tempi, dynamics, pedaling, etc., no-one would hesitate to say that the work is not truly the Hammerklavier, or to denounce the eccentric performance as a distortion. And likewise no-one accuses Horowitz or Rubenstein of being "robotic" or giving an "unquestioningly docile obedience" to the score. The score was faithfully realized in performance only because of an intense application of supreme intelligence to it, combined with the humility of self-surrender to the music rather than willful imposition of self upon it. The faithful interpreter of Beethoven does not "pick and choose" at will from the score, keeping what he likes and discarding what he does not. He accepts the work as a whole, even if not every part appeals to him, trusting that as he learns and apprehends it more deeply, the less comely parts will become more comely and assume more honor.

Moreover, one of the elements that goes into our knowledge of what constitutes a faithful performance or the true score or not is the performance tradition (since no piece of music, no matter how detailed, has all of its interpretive markings explicitly noted in the score), beginning with Beethoven himself and descending through his pupils, and their pupils, etc. Those not privileged to hear Beethoven play his own work nonetheless have a sound sense of what constitues a faithful realization of the Sonata.

Such is the Tradition, and the authority of the Church, and of the particular Church Fathers. It does not seek to create its own value system, but to accept and receive and hand on unaltered that which is entrusted to it. Its authority comes not from hierarchy, but faithfulness to this solemn obligation. And yet, without seeking self-assertion, the particular personal genius of each Father also shines through in so doing, each with his own unique emphasis, sometimes differing in details with one another but united in fidelity to what each ahs received. if we are wise adn have any sense, we who are much less than they will likewise receive it humbly but reflectively, not seek to set our own puny minds against theirs, but to deepen and enrich our minds by uniting them to theirs.

This is far, far longer than I ever intended, but, like Pontius Pilate, "What I have written, I have written." Had I time to revise it, it would doubtless be shorter, more cogent, and better organized, but I must now let it go.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> "A cannot criticize B who is X because A himself is not X" would also rule out you being able to criticize me here as well, since: a) some relevant differentiating term "X" can always be found, and b) in this case you also are not the "X" in question.<<<

This, in a nutshell, is a fair representation of the foundation of post-modernism and its bastard child, multiculturalism. "All narratives are equally valid", therefore one has no foundation for criticizing anyone else's narrative.

[Judy Warner]

Turned around, this is the argument made by anti-war people who criticize supporters of the war as chickenhawks if they have not themselves served in the military.

James, thank you especially for the analogy with performing music. It is perfect and helpful.

[JRM]

"We, for our part, need to keep our nerve and hang on past that point, so that al Qaeda is stripped of its cover and left naked to U.S. and Iraqi security forces.

That point should come some time around September, when all of our forces are in place, the Iraqis are approaching their planned force levels, and the oil spot strategy of taking back insurgent strongholds and HOLDING them forces the insurgents into a handful of towns."

A verifiable prediction. I'll check back in November and compare the prediction to actual events.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>A verifiable prediction. I'll check back in November and compare the prediction to actual events.<<<

It is predicated on our actually following through on the policy we have begun to implement. If, for some reason (e.g., the Democrats refusing to fund the war at the required level), then all bets are off.

Our policy of Vietnamization actually worked between 1972 and 1974. The ARVN was proven capable of containing the NVA's guerrilla activities (the Viet Cong had been destroyed in the Tet Offensive and were off the board by this time), while the threat of U.S. air support prevented the NAV from launching a conventional attack like the Easter Offensive of 1972. Only because Congress cut off funding for the ARVN (thereby cutting it off from ammunition and spare parts) and refused to allow U.S. air forces to support the ARVN were the North Vietnamese successful in 1975.

Had U.S. air power been set loose on the NVA tank columns charging into South Vietnam, the result would have been a repeat of the 1972 Easter Offensive, where the ARVN, backed by U.S. air power, broke the back of the North Vietnamese Army and forced North Vietnam to negotiate a cease fire. Had Congress acted responsibly, history would be very different. South Vietnam might have followed the path of South Korea, which successfully transitioned to representative democracy and a thriving free market economy. Two million people would not have died in the killing fields of Cambodia, and thousands more would not have died in Vietnamese reeducation camps or on the high seas in flimsy sampans trying to free to safety in Thailand and the Philippines.

Something to think about.

[GL]

I notice that JRM has failed to answer my question about what, if anything, he believes we should do for the Iraqis who aided us should we follow his advice and abandon Iraq to its fate.

JRM,

Are we to abandon those who helped us along with their nation? Do we have any obligation to those Iraqis who, at great risk to their own lives and the lives of their families, helped us? If so, what?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I notice that JRM has failed to answer my question about what, if anything, he believes we should do for the Iraqis who aided us should we follow his advice and abandon Iraq to its fate.<<<

Well, let's see. When Vietnam fell, we got a lot of Vietnamese restaurants in DC. When Iran fell, we got a lot of Persian restaurants. When Afghanistan fell, we got Afghan restaurants (Hamad Karzai was manager of one near my house). So, when Iraq falls, I predict that we will see a plethora of new Middle Eastern restaurants featuring Baghdadi cuisine. Democrats have done a lot for the food scene in the Nation's Capital.

[GL]

So, when Iraq falls, I predict that we will see a plethora of new Middle Eastern restaurants featuring Baghdadi cuisine.

If JRM and Francesca's position prevails, you can take me to one the next time I am in D.C.

[Stuart Koehl]

For some reason, though, we never got any Hmong restaurants. Pity, because the Hmong more than almost any other group, deserved our assistance. Braver, truer and more loyal allies one could not imagine. And we left them holding the brown, smelly end of the stick. Because liberals love mankind, it's people they can't stand.

[Judy Warner]

When Vietnam fell, we got a lot of Vietnamese restaurants in DC. When Iran fell, we got a lot of Persian restaurants. When Afghanistan fell, we got Afghan restaurants

I have always been terrified of Canada falling.

[David Gray]

>I have always been terrified of Canada falling.

They already have. Hence Tim Horton's...

[JRM]

"Do we have any obligation to those Iraqis who, at great risk to their own lives and the lives of their families, helped us? If so, what?"

Yes, we should listen to them when they are telling us to leave Iraq.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=brme

[David Gray]

>Yes, we should listen to them when they are telling us to leave Iraq.

I suspect those Iraqi's who've helped us are not telling us to dishonour ourselves by fleeing. But then you didn't want to answer the question because even in someone like you, deep within your bowels, you know such betrayal to be dishonourable. So you flee the question in the same fashion you wish us to flee our enemies.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I have always been terrified of Canada falling.<<<

Got something about back bacon, eh, you hoser? Take off!

[Judy Warner]

No, it's the french fries with gravy that frightens me.

[GL]

I know that the following are just silly, sentimental words spoken by an unpopular war time, Republican president who was dealing with a hostile press and a nation sick of war, who had more respected "statesmen" looking for a means of acheiving a way out of the mess which they blamed him for getting us into, but perhaps, just perhaps, they have some applicability. I'll let others decide.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Yes, we should listen to them when they are telling us to leave Iraq.<<<

We're supposed to do what is right, not what is popular.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.<<<

I suppose, if opinion polls had existed at the time, and CNN was there to report the results, that 9 out of 10 Southerners wanted the Federal Army out of the Confederacy. And, of course, we should have listened to them. Because polls are how we govern, right?

[CS]

You'll find some Hmong restaurants in Minneapolis. Visiting there a few years ago I found many public signs helpfully translated into multiple languages, including one language I was sure I had never seen before. I memorized the spelling of one of the strange words (Txheeb) and googled it later. Sure enough, Hmong. The oddness (as I perceived it) of the orthography comes from the use of the letters [bsjvmgd] at the ends of syllables to indicate the tone, rather than serving as a consonant, creating what looks like a regular jaw-cracker of a language.

[JRM]

Mr. Gray.

I suggest you read the link. Your comment is silly.

To all others:

Those who cannot distinguish between a civil war in which our forces are one (or both) of the factions and one in our forces are foreign interlopers will be doomed to repeat their history lessons.

"Because polls are how we govern, right?"

Polls, though imperfect, can be useful if you are genuinely interested in democracy and trying to determine the will of the Iraqi people. A referendum might work better. If you are a foreign conqueror, dictator, or otherwise don't care what the Iraqi citizens want, then, no, don't bother with polls.

Some poeple simply can't stomach the idea that those Iraqis who welcomed us before now want us to leave their country.

[CS]

LAT: By any possible interpretation of the "Pottery Barn rule," the U.S. has a deep responsibility to assist in the well-being of these Iraqis. Yet the number of Iraqis granted political asylum in the U.S. last year was appallingly low: 202. In September, the administration set its 2007 asylum target at a miserly 500.

Why? One former Bush administration official has said that granting too many Iraqis refugee status would be a tacit admission that Iraq "is a losing cause." This is politics at its most cynical. Iraq's refugee crisis competes with Darfur's as the worst in the world (and it is certainly the one the U.S. is most responsible for), yet the welcome mat has gone missing. More than $100 billion in U.S. taxpayer money will be spent on war and reconstruction in Iraq this year, but only $20 million has been allocated for migration and refugee assistance.

It seems to me that even in the most favorable scenario for the war's outcome we will have to repatriate a fair number of Iraqis.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Polls, though imperfect, can be useful if you are genuinely interested in democracy and trying to determine the will of the Iraqi people.<<<

"Polls: Because 42.7% of us are dumber than all of us"

Look, all such polls are of questionable value. And you don't wage war based on polls, sorry.

>>>Some poeple simply can't stomach the idea that those Iraqis who welcomed us before now want us to leave their country.<<<

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass. The same French who welcomed us as liberators on June 6th wanted us out of their country before Bastille Day. So what?

[CS]

There's been some progress:

NYT: Under pressure from lawmakers in Congress, advocates for immigrants and the United Nations, the administration announced in February that it would resettle 7,000 Iraqi refugees living in Syria, Jordan and Turkey, with up to 3,000 arriving by Sept. 30.

Preference will be given to the most vulnerable refugees along with those who worked with the Americans. (Translators who assisted the military, for example, currently face a six-year waiting list for a visa designated for them.)

[Stuart Koehl]

Hmmm. New York Times. LA Times. Next in the progression must be Pyongyang Times (one of my own personal favorites).

[CS]

WSJ: U.S. lawmakers and even some military leaders say more should be done to help Iraqi refugees, especially those who have assisted the U.S. war effort. Of particular concern are the Iraqi interpreters whom soldiers and Marines often depend on for information. About 5,000 have served; more than 250 have been killed and many others injured. They often wind up with refugees who have headed to Jordan, among other countries. Seeing themselves as combat veterans, most would like to emigrate to the U.S., but often must return to Iraq, where they and their families face heightened risk because of their American affiliation.

Well, there it is from the WSJ (the only paper I subscribe to), but it'll cost you $4.95 to read the whole article, and you have to subscribe to the Pyongyang Times to search their site. Sorry.

BTW I have reporter friends, one at the LAT, another at the SF Chron. They take their work seriously and are committed to truth and the public interest. I admire them, even if they don't agree with me about very much.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>No, it's the french fries with gravy that frightens me.<<<

Brown gravy or flour gravy? Flour gravy goes on anything.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Well, there it is from the WSJ (the only paper I subscribe to), but it'll cost you $4.95 to read the whole article, and you have to subscribe to the Pyongyang Times to search their site. Sorry.<<<

Dear Leader says that in North Korea there are no refugees, so stop bothering him while he sings another chorus of "I'm Ronery".

Helping refugees happens to be one of the things we do better than almost anyone else, which is why they come here. We integrate them, not warehouse them, which is what happens in places like Sweden and Denmark. But, in fact, there were thousands of Iraqi refugees before we went into Iraq. That there are thousands more is not our fault, but that of the people who enjoy blowing up innocent civilians because they aren't very good against people who shoot back. If you think they will stop doing that if we would only leave, I can offer you a good deal on waterfront property in the Dismal Swamp.

>>>BTW I have reporter friends, one at the LAT, another at the SF Chron. They take their work seriously and are committed to truth and the public interest. I admire them, even if they don't agree with me about very much.<<<

Having dealt with reporters for many years on a business basis, my relationship with them is based solidly on the principle "caveat emptor". A reporter dedicated to the truth is as rare as a lawyer dedicated to justice.

[CS]

Helping refugees happens to be one of the things we do better than almost anyone else, which is why they come here.

Quite so, and in fact what I learned reading about the Hmong in Minnesota is an interesting example.

I don't recall suggesting that the refugee problem would be solved if we left, so you may keep your swamp timeshares in good health; but we are not entirely innocent of the refugee problem either.

If you had been forced to flee your with only what you could carry in your car to live in a tent in Canada, while some members of a political faction you detested squatted in your home, I think you would not be kindly disposed to the occupiers, even if they had brought the promise of improved government with them.

[Clyde Meckel]

>>I suppose, if opinion polls had existed at the time, and CNN was there to report the results, that 9 out of 10 Southerners wanted the Federal Army out of the Confederacy. And, of course, we should have listened to them. Because polls are how we govern, right?<<

>>Look, all such polls are of questionable value. And you don't wage war based on polls, sorry.<<

Stuart, would you care to guess what a poll in the North would have looked like in 1862 or so when the Irish were rioting and lynching in New York over the draft? I'll bet CNN would have covered that 24/7.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, would you care to guess what a poll in the North would have looked like in 1862 or so when the Irish were rioting and lynching in New York over the draft? I'll bet CNN would have covered that 24/7.<<<

Deaft riots were in 1863. Some of the troops who had just finished fighting in Gettysburg had to be pulled back to New York--they weren't gentle.

Kevin Phillips examined attitudes towards the war in the North by state and by ethnic groups, looking at a combination of census and electoral data. He found the middle Atlantic states deeply conflicted, and not at all happy about the "mission creep" that changed the objective of the war from preserving the Union to freeing the Slaves. It helps to remember that, in 1800, there were more slaves per capita in New York State than in North Carolina. Or that the Irish immigrants liked blacks just about as much in 1863 as their descendants in South Boston did in 1973.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I don't recall suggesting that the refugee problem would be solved if we left, so you may keep your swamp timeshares in good health; but we are not entirely innocent of the refugee problem either.<<<

No, the responsibility for the refugees lies with two parties: Saddam and his Ba'athists, who systematically persecuted the Shi'ites and the Kurds for a generation; and the current crop of Jihadis, who are basically nihilists at heart. To blame the U.S. for the current Iraqi refugee problem is a lot like blaming the U.S. for the refugee problem in Europe in 1945.

>>>If you had been forced to flee your with only what you could carry in your car to live in a tent in Canada, while some members of a political faction you detested squatted in your home, I think you would not be kindly disposed to the occupiers, even if they had brought the promise of improved government with them.<<<

While we're on the subject of squatting, remember that it was Saddam's policy of ethnic cleansing in and around Mosul, as well as in the southern part of Iraq, that created the original problem by displacing Kurds and Shi'ites and replacing them with Sunni Arabs. Now, the people whose homes were taken by Saddam want them back, and the Sunnis who profited from Saddam's genocidal policies suddenly find themselves dispossessed. But since it wasn't theirs in the first place, they have no right to complain. It's a classic case of bottom rail on top, and the former top rail doesn't like it (at one early meeting with the Coalition Provisional Authority, an American diplomat explained the need to set up a power sharing arrangement between Sunnis and Shi'ites. The Sunni representative patiently explained that they didn't want power sharing, they wanted power. Confronted with such attitudes on the part of a spoiled minority group, it stands to reason that frequent application of the stick is needed to make them accept the carrot. Nonetheless, as the cooperation of the Sunni sheikhs in al Anbar indicates, that corner has been turned, and the Sunnis are beginning to accept the reality of their situation).

[Francesca]

James writes, "Third, the issue is not the number of areas in which someone such as Francesca does or does not submit; it is the *principle* she claims of absolute moral autonomy, being able to "create one's own value system" in which the Church is only a reference source."

James, while I think you are well-intentioned and sincere, you are reflexively imputing opinions to other people that reflect your own prejudices. Also, I'm not sure that you're familiar with the long, nuanced, sometimes ambiguous history and scholarship of teachings on conscience within the Catholic church. We have so often been offered conflicting paradigms. The rigorous tutiorism that you are advocating has been condemned by the Holy See, as has its opposite, laxism. You seem to conveniently throw out Vatican II, which reflects recent Chuch scholarship in framing a personalist theology of conscience. Simultaneously, you suggest that I can't be a very good Catholic because I'm not submitting to the teaching authority of the Church (which I am in that I've accepted Vatican II teachings.) If you want to accord yourself the status of supreme tribunal of who is or isn't following Catholic teachings to the letter (Jamesism?), fine, but bear in mind that there is a vast body of Catholic scholarship that contradicts your understandings, including some important papal encyclicals.

You also persist in confusing "creating a value system" with discernment of univeral laws. Firstly, divine law is not directly accessible either to human beings or to the magisterium. Even popes have discerned divine law in different ways, as we have clearly seen in the case of slavery. Dignitatis Humanae declares that we have the capacity "to participate in this law" through our consciences. So the first step is to discern, with all sincerity and due deference to Church teachings, what divine law actually is. Secondly, having discerned divine law, ***even if such discernment were to be in complete accordance with the Catechism***, we still have the responsibility to use that discernment (even if one's understanding of such discernment reduces to blind obedience) to, yes, CREATE A VALUE SYSTEM, which takes into account the complexity of moral situations and prioritizes these laws in a manner that is individually determined.

Assume for example that a hypothetical person, let's call him John, has discerned the teachings of the Church as correct in: a) describing homosexual behavior as "intrinsically disordered"; and b) in promulgating rather liberal teachings on social justice. From this framework of laws, that John has accepted as immutable, he can then build a framework -- a value system -- that implements these beliefs in real-life situations. He might prioritize the homosexual issue as all-important and vote for a political candidate who would like to see such behavior criminalized, while minimizing the relative importance of social justice. Or he might place the Church's teachings on social justice on a much higher plane and, while refraining from homosexual behavior himself, might see the issue as much less important than, say, universal health care in terms of making political evaluations.

You seem to equate what I have said about conscience to radical subjectivism or solipsism that would allow the individual to do anything s/he chooses. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is a very uncharitable assupmtion to make, given that many have been martyred because of their fidelity to conscience. We should never duck the authority and responsibility of our conscience because it seems too onerous to bear. The Church provides us with significant direction, but it would be lazy and weak not to make our consciences the center of personal moral decision-making.

[James A. Altena]

I am quite well acquainted with the matters and vicissitudes Francesca mentions. My specialty as a graduate student in history at the U. of Chicago was intellectual history -- history of ideas, particularly history of science and religion. To borrow an old phrase, I have forgotten more about these subjects than Francesca has ever known. Her problem is that she has no notion whatsoever of historical context and continuity, and how those things determine and condition the meanings of key terms.

My last post also anticipated and responded to all of Francesca's lame repetions, canards ("blind obvedience" "rigorous tutiorism"), etc. in her latest offering. Of course, she did not address anything I said.

Providentially, the traditional Anglican lectionary for last Sunday (Third Sunday After Easter) appoints for the epistle lection I Peter 2:11-17. My pastor, Fr. David Ousley, delivered one of his typically penetrating sermons on the text "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake" -- singularly "on topic" here. I will be happy to send the audio clip to any person who wishes to receive it -- just e-mail me.

[Ann]

James, your recent posts fall prey to a large number of logical fallacies, viz. appeal to (your own) authority, ad hominems, straw men, etc.

As I recall, this discussion began after you attacked the notion that we all have personal responsibility for creating and maintaining our own standards and value systems.

In particular, you stated: "Christians, particularly Catholic Christians, do not presume to 'create' anything of their own. They humbly accept something *given* to them."

I have anchored my response in the teachings of the Catholic Church, basing that response on the Catechism, papal encyclicals, and a study of the history of Church teachings. You are not obligated to agree with Catholic teachings regarding primacy of conscience, nor is the Church obligated to agree with you. However, given that you define the role of conscience much more narrowly than does the Church itself, you might want to refrain from judging who is or is not a good Catholic Christian and who is or is not demonstrating hubris.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>You are not obligated to agree with Catholic teachings regarding primacy of conscience, nor is the Church obligated to agree with you.<<<

It would be nice, though, if you at least understood the meaning of primacy of conscience, instead of accusing others of not getting it because they don't agree with your anything goes interpretation of it.

James is correct, you are not.

[James A. Altena]

Thanks to Stuart for coming to my defense here. The post by Ann (is this a new nom de guerre for Francesca?) is so silly that there is no point in even trying to reason with or reply to it.

[Francesca]

>>Thanks to Stuart for coming to my defense here. The post by Ann (is this a new nom de guerre for Francesca?) is so silly that there is no point in even trying to reason with or reply to it.<<

Actually someone used this partially shared PC earlier and I simply forgot to update the name when she was done.

More circular reasoning in the past couple of posts. There are far better texts to read regarding conscience than the collection of glaring logical fallacies and uncharitable insinuations James has produced here, so I will spend no more time on this thread.