My earlier post on sentimentality -- as destructive of genuine feeling -- in the liturgy has caused me to think again about the embattled status of both reason and what Plato called thymos, "spirit" or "drive" or "noble ambition."  Many of you will recall his famous metaphor in the Phaedrus, where he compares the human being to a charioteer whose rig is driven by a pair of horses, one of them noble and high spirited, the other tending to be fiery and wayward.  The charioteer represents the reason or intellect; the noble horse, thymos; the wayward horse, appetite.  It's a brilliant metaphor, capturing the truth that without the passions we literally get nowhere.  It also distinguishes passion from passion, inasmuch as there is something about the noble horse that is friendly to reason -- in a sense it aspires to reason.  It is wrong to call it simply irrational.

     But here is what modern man has done, in brief.  The thoughts are by no means original to me -- you can find them in Alasdair MacIntyre, or in John Paul II, or in Benedict XVI, or in Dostoyevsky:

     1. "Reason" is shouldered off the chariot.  A small subset of reason -- an amputated charioteer -- is put in reason's place.  What is now called "reason" can no longer discuss, rationally, the nature of the good or the beautiful.  It can do two things: it can spin out sentences of symbolic logic or mathematics, which, despite their complexity, it asserts are only tautological, without any real connection to the world of stars and mangrove trees and bicycles.  Or it can manipulate matter according to the physical laws it imputes to the world, inferring them (as things that happen to "work," rather than as things that really do exist in themselves) from empirical observations and mathematical analysis.  This "reason" can thus tell you how to build a Gothic cathedral, but cannot even begin to tell you why you would want to.

     2. All other discussion of the good, the beautiful, and the true (except for the sorts of truths mentioned above) is relegated to the status of "feeling".  This is the position of the emotivists; it is the position Lewis inveighed against in The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength.  It is also the default position in every school and university in our country -- it is what the professor and student must consciously resist.  So, to say "X is good," amounts to no more than "Hurrah for X."

     3. All feelings are regarded as irrational.  So then, not only is most of the function of Plato's charioteer assigned to the horses, but the good horse, the horse representing the rationality-aspiring passion for beauty, is eliminated entirely, leaving us with nothing but appetite.

     And there it is, appetite in the service of an amputated reason -- the second-rate faculty of the intellect that may soon discover how to cobble together monsters of animal and human genetics, without questioning why it should be done, or rather insisting that any moral discussion of it is simply a matter of feeling.  And all feelings are irrational.

     My sense is that sentimentality is a very poor horse, a false substitute for thymos, in that it dampens the desire for the truly great and beautiful.  It turns instead to the easy, to pretty trifles, to the frills and lace of an emotional etiquette, rather than to the deep feelings themselves.  And that would leave appetite and the quasi-rational usurper with all the freer rein.  Maybe there have been times when we could indulge a lot of sentimentality in liturgical art.  Maybe -- but now?

Comments

[Bill R]

Sentimentality, however, is safe. It safeguards us from the need to confront great feelings, great thoughts, great decisions. It reduces life to the cute and the pretty, the charming and the innocuous. It keeps us from discovering that we have no depths to probe. It allows us to think of our lives as situation comedy, or—if you really want to get serious—a Lifetime drama. It’s very distressing, don’t you think, that the Bible seems to have no sentiment whatsoever? Thank God that Hallmark has come to the rescue! And St. Thomas Kincade: Let there be a Painter of Light ™!

[James A. Altena]

A repeat from a post I left under the "What About U-2?" thread some months back:

C. S. Lewis, "Notes on the Way" (1946) --

"The patrons of sentimental poetry, bad novels, bad pictures, and merely catchy tunes are usually enjoying precisely what is there. And their enjoyment . . . is not in any way comparable to the enjoyment that other people derive from good art. It is tepid, trivial, marginal, habitual. It does not *trouble* them, nor haunt them. To call it, and a man's rapture in great tragedy or exquisite music, by the same name, enjoyment, is little more than a pun. I still maintain that what enraptures and transports is always good. . . .The experiences offered by bad art are not of the same sort."

[Nick]

And CS Lewis could be a hundred and eighty degrees wrong. For example, I find the first book in the Space Trilogy tepid at best and have never recommended it. It is so much bubble gum rock that depends on a lot of supposition and false awe. The second two were wonderful pieces.

He also says nothing about any form of art in particular. Nor does he create an "anti-art" heading. Just "bad" art. As such I can agree with him. He doesn't make the same mistake I believe you have fallen into with the U2 thread. There is definitively bad art. What that is, we, in our imperfect condition will probably disagree on. The difference of course being that I'm right and you're wrong :)

Things can also be misapplied. I'm not looking for deep meaning in a waltz any more than I'm looking for deep meaning in a Europop piece. I'm looking for something with a danceable beat. In church music I'm looking for reverence; not aging hippies with a guitar and flowers in their hair (I saw that for the first time a few months ago and am still dealing with the shock). I can also paint broad strokes by saying a majority of rap pieces are evil because they glamorize mindless revolt against society and at the vary least should be categorized separately from music since they purposefully avoid melodies.

In short, not all rock is anti-music if such a category even exists. Vast segments of Rock are probably sinful. The classical catalog isn't free from guilt either and I've often harbored serious reservations about Holst's "The Planets". Rock is not, ever, church music due, at the very least, to the societal connotations.

[Jonathan Allen]

I think there has always been a tension within Christianity, stemming from its roots in Greco-Roman thought and culture, between religion made manifest in the more 'noble,' 'rational' sectors of the Church, as primarily dominated by monastics. However, this tension only occasionally snapped and went off-kilter, as even in strict ascetic monastic thought, the rational life included what we foolishly think to be merely feelings: love, compassion, faith, etc. Granted, monasticism sometimes treated these virtues as rather abstract, disembodied things- witness the frequent admonitions by many saints to not neglect embodied, expressed love of the other- but even then it recognized them. And the finest monastic writers, such as St. Maximus, describe the passions- even the 'lowly' ones, such as anger- being transfigured in the person of Christ Incarnate.

Christianity also managed, early on, to channel emotion in its liturgical and devotional life, for lay person, clergy, and monastic alike. The veneration of icons is a perfect example: Christians employ their senses, their emotions (think about all that kissing!), and their rational facilities at once in the veneration of icons. Likewise, the veneration of saints became, from late antiquity on, a means of expressing emotion wedded to devotion. Certainly, some such practices veered off into sentimentality and even superstition, but overall they provided a means, again for lay person, clergy, and monastic, to bring very human emotions and needs into a specific channel. This could take place because Christianity did not only inherit the legacy of Platonic body-soul division, but more importantly was grounded in an Incarnational view of the world, which meant the sanctification of the whole person, mind and passions.

The modern world retains, as a legacy of Greece, the division of mind and body- but it has jettisoned, by and large, the Incarnational world-view that sustained ancient and medieval Christianity, East and West.

[PAUL KURITZ]

As I have said in another discussion, I am a great admirer of Professor Esolen. When Touchstone arrives, his contributions are among the first I read. His writing succeeds because it reveals the balance between reason and thymos he advocates in “As Listening to Music.”

I don’t know how anyone could disagree with the theory Plato and Mr. Esolen articulate. But as with all theory, the trouble arises in the specific application of that theory.

In the theory a human being is seen as a charioteer. Perhaps I have seen too many Greco-Roman epic movies, but most charioteers who spring to mind seem almost flawless. In fact, the metaphor suggests the charioteer’s problem lies not in himself (reason and intellect) but in his horses (emotion and appetite). As I read the Bible, I do not see human beings portrayed in this manner. The people Jesus gravitated toward were on the margins, not on a chariot. Most could not even be allowed to watch a chariot race, let alone participate in one.

The Bible seems to me to show humans as broken, wounded, and damaged, troubled not primarily by our external situation (horses) but by our very nature itself, sinful. The Biblical charioteer’s reason and intellect themselves have been corrupted, making his ability to control his horses himelf even more problematic, if not impossible.

I do not believe Jesus would agree that the trouble lies in our horses alone. To do so would place unmerited faith in our human reason and intellect. To paraphrase a famous line, “The fault, dear Professor Esolen, is not in our horses, But in ourselves.” It is with flawed human reason and intellect that Plato’s charioteer must diagnose and correct the problems with his horses. How does that work?

But we can save neither our horses not ourselves through human reason and intellect. These, like emotion and appetite, are false gods. ( I, like many music lovers, am apt to follow the example of the Israelites who began to burn incense to Moses’ bronze serpent and worship the art and not the one to whom the art is offered. My corrupted intellect will convince me that God is beauty, and this is beautiful, so this is God.)

How then are we to help others, whom we believe have their horses out of whack? It is a daunting task for broken humans to do. Jesus suggests that we bring them to Him, and let Him do it. He and He alone, can detect genuine sincerity or correct excessive emotionality. I am not God. I’m not even a charioteer, though I’d like to be, and I believe I could be if I place my faith in Him and posture my heart like His. In the meantime, I seek to align (tune?) myself, my songs, my intellect, my appetite, and my emotions, to Him, and not to brothers in Christ, no matter how well-meaning and loving they are. (Even C.S. Lewis’ writing against sentimentality has been labeled sentimental).

I choose to believe that my fellow worshippers, whether singing Bach or Crabb Family tunes, are on a similar quest, even when they annoy me to no end, even when I just know their caterwauling could not ever please the God of All Beauty. But I know my pay grade requires me to love them, and leave the correction to Him. And as Miroslav Volf writes, repentance is possible only after an embrace. I believe that, as a follower of Jesus, I am to embrace the singing hip-hopper, showing as best I can that God’s love is unconditional, so that the Master can take it from there, and lead my bro into the path of righteousness, as He sees it, not as I’d prefer it to be. In God’s Kingdom one size doesn’t fit all; He customizes our redemption, even musically I believe, and that annoys me as much as it annoyed the worker who worked all day and only got paid the same as the guy who worker only an hour.

If I am to sin, I want to sin by opening my arms too wide rather than not wide enough, even if it causes trouble with the horses I am trying to navigate.

[Steve Nicoloso]

[Averting my eyes from the tempting post from Horratniu...]

Mr. Kuritz, at risk of continuing to strain the charioteer analogy well beyond its usefulness, it seems a wheel has fallen off the chariot here. The charioteer is not the man, but reason herself. The whole man is the charioteer AND the two horses (appetite and thymos, which is not "emotion" per se') AND the reins AND the axlegrease.

[PAUL KURITZ]

"he compares the human being to a charioteer"

or not?

[Steve Nicoloso]

Well yes, but then there's this:

The charioteer represents the reason or intellect; the noble horse, thymos; the wayward horse, appetite. It's a brilliant metaphor, capturing the truth that without the passions we literally get nowhere.

Perhaps Esolen mistyped, but the gist seemed to be to view the whole man as the whole thing. Surely no one is making a case that a man is merely his reason or intellect. Gahh!! The **real** question is: Can man's reason, as you appear to suggest, be totally depraved? If so, then of course the metaphor doesn't make sense.

[PAUL KURITZ]

As I read Phaedo, the charioteer metaphor comes after a thorough division of a human being into a body and a soul, something the Hebrew world does not do. The three parts of the charioteer metaphor -reason the driver, noble emotion the good horse, and appetite the bad horse - comprise the parts of the soul, the part of a man Plato wishes were free from the corrupting influences of the human body.
N.T. Wright, rightly I think, points out that the Hebrew non-division of the human into body and soul is more helpful in understanding Christ than the Greek duality.

[PAUL KURITZ]

"Can man's reason, as you appear to suggest, be totally depraved?"
History and the nightly news make a strong case.
Why else do we need a Savior?

[Mairnéalach]

I make a horrible intellectual because I simply can't make it more than five sentences into Plato. In fact, I can't even read Gregory of Nyssa.

[James A. Altena]

Nick --

"And CS Lewis could be a hundred and eighty degrees wrong."

Possible, but you offer nothing to prove it here. And between you and Lewis on any point of disagreement, my money goes on Lewis.

"For example, I find the first book in the Space Trilogy tepid at best and have never recommended it."

A judgment that explains why you also defend rock music. :-)

"He also says nothing about any form of art in particular."

Lewis' essay is titled, afte all, "Notes on the Way", not "Treatise on Aesthetics." You also have not offered here any general theory of aesthetics for music or any other art, either, so you haven't any grounds here on which to criticize Lewis. At least I did that much on the U2 thread, and no respondent has yet addressed the central principles of that arguemnt, as opposed to making peripheral objections or unsupported denials.

"Things can also be misapplied."

True, but again you've haven't proven that to be the case here.

"I'm not looking for deep meaning in a waltz any more than I'm looking for deep meaning in a Europop piece. I'm looking for something with a danceable beat."

I take it that by this analogy you here concede the essential superficiality of rock music -- that it has no "deep meaning."

"In church music I'm looking for reverence...."

But then you can't have "Christian" rock music, for this effectively contradicts your immediately preceding statement. Christianity is, by essence and definition, profound, for it is truth in the deepest possible levels of meaning. That which is inherently superficial cannot convey that which is profound. Thus, it follows that rock music cannot convey anything truly Christian. Like the sentimental, it can only offer a superficial imitation. We should not be looking for a "danceable beat" in music that identifies itself as Christian, for that is merely an appeal to the senses and passions. We should be seeking that which will further our salvation by ennobling our souls, purifying and disciplining our passions rather than gratifying them.

"Rock is not, ever, church music due, at the very least, to the societal connotations."

Due credit to you for recognizing this much. Others here have not. As I have argued, however, it goes beyond "societal connotations" to the very constitution of rock music pe se. And there is a problem with dichotomizing what we seek out for pleasure from what we seek out for spiriutal formation, since our pleasures surely inform us spiritually as well.

"I can also paint broad strokes by saying a majority of rap pieces are evil because they glamorize mindless revolt against society and at the vary least should be categorized separately from music since they purposefully avoid melodies."

I have no reservations here. All rap "music" is not music, and virtually all of it is overtly evil, with the rest being pernicious for the same reasons as rock music.

"The classical catalog isn't free from guilt either and I've often harbored serious reservations about Holst's 'The Planets'."

Right idea, wrong target. No-one would or should say that the "classical catalog" is pure, though objections should rather be lodged against works such as e.g. Berg's "Lulu" or virtually anything by John Cage. I do think one can argue that, apart from the libretto, the music of e.g. "Lulu" itself is inherently decadent.

By contrast, "The Planets" is not problematic here because, despite the composer's extra-musical astrological "program" for it, it can (and ought to be) appreciated as "pure" or "absolute" music (sonata form, rondo, etc.). Listening to "The Planets" does not entail acceptance of astrology any more than listening to Parsifal entails acceptance of anti-Semitism or Gnosticism, or listening to Bloch's "Saced Service" makes me into an observant Jew. In other words, the music is itself not inherently astrological, anti-Semitic or Judaic. But music itself and and does powerfully affect the soul by shaping, affecting, and arousing the passions adnd intellect in ways for good or ill.

Once again, the problem here is a confusion of extra-musical elements with the music itself. I keep pointing this out, and respondents keep failing to address the point.

As a side point, Christian writers such as Lewis and Tolkien have utilized astrological symbolism in their works, and we do not reject them on that account.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Mr. Kuritz,

I think we are agreed that Plato separates man too much. That, of course, doesn't mean Plato is not useful, nor that he failed to make profound contributions to authentic Christian thought, which is usually seen as a synthesis between Athens and Jerusalem. We are decidedly not agreed on the nature of human reason. Notwithstanding the 6 o'clock news, I find little evidence that human reason is totally depraved. It can certainly become so, given original sin and a lifetime of willful exertion in the wrong direction.

[PAUL KURITZ]

Mr. Nicoloso:

I would like to believe your analysis of our human nature. But Jesus did not come merely to tweak a basically good thing.
He asked that we be totally reborn with the Holy Spirit inside and in charge, rather than under the rule of our old corrupt reason and intellect.
St Paul is eloquent on our deranged state.

[Tony Esolen]

Paul,

I did mistype -- I had to rush that post in. Sorry about that. I meant that he compares the human being to a "charioteer-whose-rig-et cetera," in other words, to the whole setup.

The old medieval motto was, "Gratia supponit naturam," or "Grace perfects nature." That includes reason, "ratio," which in us is the ability -- among other things -- to gaze in wonder at the "ratio" of the universe, its harmony and beauty, created by God. Plato's metaphor there was part of Socrates' discussion of the relationship of love and beauty, and why we long for beauty, and what the intellect has to do with that longing. I agree with you wholeheartedly that Greek thought tended to divorce the soul from the body, and that that was why Saint Paul received a rather cool reception in Athens. I've written about this, too; but in that metaphor we have, if anything, the saner side of Greek thought, the side that does not abandon the passions (though it does recognize that there is something not always reliable about them, and that the reason does not always see the truth, much less follow it).

So I'm not complaining about bad singing. I can forgive a lot of bad singing. I'm not complaining about the kinds of music that would not be fitting in a church, so long as they are not in a church -- there is a lot of religious art and music that is splendid for what it is, and yet that still does not belong in a church. A blow-up of Jim Caviezel under the cross, for instance. I'm complaining about an irresponsible and sometimes concerted effort to turn away from the beautiful -- sometimes this turn is cloaked by a desire to appear more "democratic", as if common people did not appreciate beauty, too. I guess I am pleading for some responsible training of the emotions -- these too need good Christian discipline.

It's possible that you are not aware how awful the music and art are in contemporary Catholic churches -- how often the pronoun "we" is used, in celebratory fashion.... How I long for the boisterous jubilance of "There is Power in the Blood" -- because I am not just talking about Mozart and Bach here!

By the way, thank you again for your kind comments!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The old medieval motto was, "Gratia supponit naturam," or "Grace perfects nature." <<<

Older than that. The ancient Byzantine rite of Cheirotonei contains the key formula, "The divine grace, which heals that which is broken and supplies all that is missing. . ." Similarly, both the Mystery of Chrismation and the Mystery of Annointing affect the healing of soul and body by the descent, grace and action of the Holy Spirit, which is of course another name for the divine grace.

[PAUL KURITZ]

"It's possible that you are not aware how awful the music and art are in contemporary Catholic churches --"

I have seen too much bad art everywhere. In fact our culture is characterized by a surplus of art. I once suggested that the NEA adopt the policies of the agriculture department - pay artists not to produce any art! In my academic world art is whatever you say it is and the Emperor's New Clothes is the handbook for art appreciation.
I think more people should criticize the art of today. But I also find that there is very little new art that anyone genuinely loves. So when I find a tune that some people really love, I tend to let it pass, and focus my indignation on "art" no one seems to care about, including custodians who accidentally mistake it for trash.

My youngest son attended parochial school and served as an altar boy. He also attended the local Vineyard Church. He was assigned to teach a religion class dealing with what the Catholic Church could do to connect with the people. He planned on taking the class on a field trip to the Vineyard until the idea was tabled.
Christ said whenever He is lifted up people will be drawn to Him; maybe contemporary worship is lifting Him up in ways more traditional worship isn't. Jesus drew thousands, not with great homilies or great ditties, but with signs and wonders. When whatever music causes the power of God to descend on a congregation, signs and wonders are possible, among with multitudes seeking His power to redeem their brokeness.

[Rob Grano]

"When whatever music causes the power of God to descend on a congregation, signs and wonders are possible, among with multitudes seeking His power to redeem their brokeness."

I don't think any type of music causes the power of God to descend; that sounds shamanistic to me. On the other hand, I have no doubt that some types of music will chase the Holy Spirit away, and will instead draw other less benevolent unseen powers.

[Steve Nicoloso]

I would like to believe your analysis of our human nature. But Jesus did not come merely to tweak a basically good thing.

Well, I haven't given an analysis of human nature, save to say that natural human reason is not totally depraved. Please note that I am not saying that human reason is untouched by the fall, nor am I saying that man can acheive perfection by any means other than the grace of God. The six o'clock news is certainly full of depravity, but such stories rarely name young children as the perpetrators of great evil. To acheive great evil requires great skill and practice, i.e., conscious and on-going willful choice. On the other hand, cooperation with the grace of God rarely seems pleasant at the time of reception, but I have little doubt that in beatific bliss it will all then appear to have been rather like a "tweak". I think there is a vast gulf between mere concupiscence and total depravity. That human societies, even pagan ones, manage to exist at all, let alone peacefully upon occasion, seems proof enough of that.

At risk of prolonging this rabbit trail, I wonder: Is anything God made basically a bad thing?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>At risk of prolonging this rabbit trail, I wonder: Is anything God made basically a bad thing?<<<

To say that He did would be rank heresy. At the end of each day of creation, Scripture tells us, God reviewed the work of his hands and pronounced it "good". To say that God can ever make anything inherently bad is both to deny a revealed truth about the nature of God himself.

[Francesca]

Tony Esolen writes: >>Maybe there have been times when we could indulge a lot of sentimentality in liturgical art. Maybe -- but now?<<

Two things that sell are sentimentality and hatred and both can be harnessed for political and economic gain. In this media-driven age, they are both manipulated, often unscrupulously and in very sophisticated ways, to package and sell religion, ideas, products, soap operas, and politicians. Schmaltzy movies, tele-evangelists with their palms out and their s***-eating grins, and shock jocks spouting hatespeak are all huge attention getters and money spinners. Hatemongering and shameless displays of sentimentality are business as usual in political campaigns. Superficiality of information and analysis are what make this manipulation so effective. One hopes that as people become better educated and more media savvy they will be less easily swayed by such base appeals.

[Judy Warner]

Yes, I agree Francesca. It is amazing how sentimental some politicians and media people can get about things like the prisoners in Guantanamo, who engaged in war against the United States and vow to continue if they get out, isn't it? This sentimentality has swayed numerous people to believe that those who have less than prisoner-of-war status should be treated legally like domestic criminals although nowhere in international law is this required. I hope people will become more educated so they will not be swayed by these base appeals.

[Bill R]

Touché, Judy!

[James A. Altena]

I second Bill's motion

[Francesca]

>> It is amazing how sentimental some politicians and media people can get about things like the prisoners in Guantanamo, who engaged in war against the United States and vow to continue if they get out, isn't it? <<

Clearly, not only sentimentality and hatred but fear are effective tools of manipulation -- fear of dark-skinned people and, at present, fear of Islam. Perhaps this is why some people are still in favor of Guantanamo, even though the International Committee of the Red Cross has broken with tradition and blasted the treatment of the hundreds of prisoners held there, allegations of torture and abuse have not been adequately investigated, and only a few of the detainees have actually been charged with a crime! Several have been released after years in detention after having been poorly treated and falsely accused. This is hardly a liberal perspective -- even Bush has said he would like to see GITMO closed and many detainees sent back to their home countries. History will look back on GITMO in the way it looks back on Japanese internment camps in WW2 -- as racist overreaction. I hope all the falsely accused and maltreated detainees will one day be compensated.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Clearly, not only sentimentality and hatred but fear are effective tools of manipulation -- fear of dark-skinned people and, at present, fear of Islam. <<<

Some day, Francesca, you will be an adult, and look back on your present words and think, "I was such a jerk".

[Francesca]

>>Some day, Francesca, you will be an adult, and look back on your present words and think, "I was such a jerk".<<

If you're still around in 30 years time, I feel sure history will have proven me correct and it'll be you who will be saying that. That assumes of course that you will have gained enough wisdom and maturity by then to admit that you were wrong.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If you're still around in 30 years time, I feel sure history will have proven me correct and it'll be you who will be saying that. <<<

I really doubt that, Francesca. There are many things I have said and done that I regret, and regret deeply. And in various ways, I am sure I can get my wife and kids to tell you just how big a jerk I can be.

But when it comes to my chosen profession, and my professional judgment, I have seldom been wrong, and more often than not, been correct when going against the conventional wisdom. The reason is simple, Francesca: human nature doesn't change, and history gives us guideposts by which we can plot our course into the future. It is a tendency of the young to be solipsistic, to believe that the world rotates around their own navels, and that they are the first to do anything and everything. One would like to think that as they age, people grow out of this. The Baby Boomers, I hope, are the exception that proves the rule. And in your case, I sincerely hope that you outgrow the facile, bumper-sticker philosophy by which you have lived your life so far.

[Judy Warner]

The International Red Cross is no paragon of virtue but has its own agenda. Many people who have visited Guantanamo portray an entirely different idea of it than the media have portrayed, such as the author of this New York Times article.

[Joe Long]

"Sentimentality" in the case of partisan fighters (that is, guerillas captured participating in combat with no uniform...) in the past MIGHT mean occasionally sparing their lives, if perhaps they are particularly young or otherwise sympathetic, though by all traditional rules of war, their lives were forfeit. Spies understand this, expecting to be shot if captured. Guantanamo Bay thus represents incredible benevolence, so far as I can tell. (Perhaps I am biased - all of my ancestors who fell into the hands of the Federal Army as prisoners in the 1860's perished in their prison camps, though they were uniformed, recognized combatants.)

No, from our dealings with the Gitmo detainees, history will learn the shocking new lesson that a mixture of confinement, appeasement, indulgence and condescension can eventually smother a hostile ideology with sheer saccharine shock and "awwwwww" - or else, just possibly, we'll learn something else completely different.

Let us hope that for the commander in the field, the lesson taught by all of the Gitmo protestors and lawyerly-types is not simply, "Prisoners are a lot more trouble in the long run than dead enemies."

[Nick]

Francesca I have to seriously wonder where you read this stuff. Fear of dark skinned people? This is a blog. Do you even know what we look at? I have "dark-skinned" people in my own household. My children are part Asian. Judy and Stuart both belong to minority groups. Try real hard to believe that there might be actual logical reasons for some conservative positions. Just maybe. We even have a copt on here, who I would hazard to guess, is married to someone rather dark-skinned.

And when is fear not a good motivating factor? I am rightly motivated by fear all the time. I have yet to stick my hand in a tigers cage. You have to explain why the fear is irrational, not mock it in general. Unless of course you are taking Senator Kennedy's latest talking points verbatim (which I have to believe is exactly what happened).

[Nick]

*at*<->*like*

[Judy Warner]

I am so fearful of dark-skinned people that I have lived in terror for the last two weeks while my brown-skinned niece was visiting. It's even worse when I am also in the presence of her sister and brother. It makes me want to send them all to Gitmo.

[James A. Altena]

It is interesting how often liberals accuse conservatives of "dehmanizing" their opponents while constantly resorting to cliched one-dimensional stereotypes and cheap pseudo-psychologizing to make ad hominen slurs against conservatives. Obviously conservatives, like pre-born children or the comatose ill, don't qualify for liberals as being human. I wonder how long it will be before liberals extend legalized euthanasia to, and make it mandatory for, conservatives.

[Rob Grano]

'It is interesting how often liberals accuse conservatives of "dehmanizing" their opponents while constantly resorting to cliched one-dimensional stereotypes and cheap pseudo-psychologizing to make ad hominen slurs against conservatives.'

I read a piece by Donald Davidson last evening in which he said something to the effect that modernists/progressives, when they realize that they can't get into the heads of conservatives, will just hit them there instead.

[Joe Long]

James and Rob, they may hate us very much - may even wish deep in their little hearts to do away with us - but I just can't muster any alarm in a physical sense. The modernist/progressive Left is going to have to hire out its thugs from some other, probably completely incompatible movement (like Islam, for instance).

"They came for the smokers, and I said nothing, because I don't smoke.
They came for the meat-eaters, and I said nothing, because I'm a vegetarian.
They came for the drivers, and I said nothing, because I prefer public transportation and it's better for the environment.
They never did come for me.
No one was left in the Secret Police but sissies with rickets."

[Steve Nicoloso]

Somewhat germaine, CWN's Diogenes remarked:

If a man tells you he's a Unitarian (where anything goes doctrinally), you can accurately guess his race, income, social class, and how he voted for the past fifteen years. If you know nothing more about a man than that he's Catholic, you have no confidence about any of the above. The greater the insistence on doctrinal unity, the greater possibility for authentic diversity.

[Rob Grano]

I agree with you for the most part, Joe. I think the Davidson quote is partly facetious, but he has a point: when the lefties can't debate with us, they prefer to bully or name-call rather than engage.

[GL]

Francesca,

The "dark-skinned" people remark is beneath you. I and my children look as Northern European as you can get, but I in fact have Native American ancestry in addition to my European ancestry and some of my first cousin have features that are common among Native Americans. I also have cousins who have Mexican ancestry and others who have East Asian ancestry. My wife has a cousin who has African ancestry. And, it is possible that my Native American ancestors had some African ancestry as there are indications (which are unprovable) that run away slaves may have been welcomed by their group and intermarried with them. Just about anyone whose ancestors have lived in the South for the past couple of hundred years has some Native ancestry and many have some African ancestry.

You really need to educate yourself and get rid of your prejudices against those with whom you disagree. Perhaps if you did, you could then open your mind to judge ideas on their merits and not on your preconceived and uninformed opinions of those who hold those ideas. Conservative does not equal racists. Liberal does not equal non-racists.

[Francesca]

>>The "dark-skinned" people remark is beneath you. <<

There is no need to be so defensive, GL (and others.) You, not I, introduced the liberal/conservative dichotomy (I don't consider myself to be either.) With regard to Guantanamo and the invasion of Iraq, there is no doubt that 9/11 resulted in a backlash against Muslims, just as Pearl Harbor did against Japanese Americans, even those who had no involvement in the attacks. There is also no doubt that many people, and whether they are liberal or conservative is irrelevant, feel that Arabs are somehow subhuman. Witness the charges of "Islamofascism" to cover all expressions of Islam and the hysteria about the growth of the European Muslim population. After 9/11, a Muslim coworker gave my mom some literature about "jihad," which within her cicles means the struggle between good and evil within oneself. However, there are still people who view her with fear and paranoia as a potential terrorist. If white, Christians were being detained indefinitely in Guantanamo without being charged, amidst a growing realization that many of them were low-level recruits or innocent men swept up in the chaos of war, I feel sure there would be far more of a public outcry than there is now. I feel sure that mutilating and orphaning white, Christian children in war, instead of those "other" Iraqi children, would be met with more concern and less callousness. Justifying human suffering in Iraq is much easier for those who consider Iraqis to be just "not quite like us."

[GL]

If you say so, Francesca.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>Witness the charges of "Islamofascism" to cover all expressions of Islam and the hysteria about the growth of the European Muslim population.<<

Odd, then, the the term "Islamofascism" is usually used to distinguish between radical politicized Islam and other forms. Or would President Bush, who takes pains to describe Islam as a "religion of peace," but who used "Islamofascism" in his State of the Union, be some sort of aberration?

Much less odd is the fear of European Islamification. You'll never guess what they found in downtown London today!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>With regard to Guantanamo and the invasion of Iraq, there is no doubt that 9/11 resulted in a backlash against Muslims<<<

Bulls**t, Francesca. Post some numbers. Not from CAIR. Oh, wait--if you don't use CAIR's numbers, there's nothing to report.

But while we're on the subject, the number of anti-Jewish incidents has risen several-fold over the last five years, mostly in bastions of civilization (from your perspective) like the UK, France, and Italy. And guess what "religion of peace" is behind most of them?

First two guesses don't count.

Who do the European elites blame for this rash of anti-semitism?

Again first two guesses don't count.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Much less odd is the fear of European Islamification. You'll never guess what they found in downtown London today!<<<

Twice, even. But if it's al Qaeda, it means there's a third bomb still out there somewhere. On the other hand, given the ineptitude of the bombers, it's pretty certain that attrition among the terrorists must be pretty awful.

[Francesca]

>>Not from CAIR. Oh, wait--if you don't use CAIR's numbers, there's nothing to report. <<

And why, pray, should I not quote from CAIR?

[Nick]

Sigh...I'll note you skipped straight to that and past Stuarts argument. Of course, Western elitism only allows for caring for those that you can keep in your pocket electorally. I'll let Stuart flatten you on that question though.

[Judy Warner]

In case Stuart is away, I'll step in. CAIR is a fraudulent organization, pretending to represent Muslims' civil rights and other interests in America in much the same way the NAACP represents blacks or the Anti-Defamation League represents Jews. In reality it has a minuscule membership, though it lies about it, and most American Muslims do not want to be represented by CAIR.

CAIR has ties to terrorist organizations. To quote expert Daniel Pipes,

The Department of Homeland Security refuses to deal with it. Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat, New York) describes it as an organization “which we know has ties to terrorism.” Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) observes that CAIR is “unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect.” Steven Pomerantz, the FBI’s former chief of counterterrorism, notes that “CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.” The family of John P. O’Neill, Sr., the former FBI counterterrorism chief who perished at the World Trade Center, named CAIR in a lawsuit as having “been part of the criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism” responsible for the September 11 atrocities. Counterterrorism expert Steven Emerson calls it “a radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas.”

And here's what some moderate American Muslims say about CAIR:

The late Seifeldin Ashmawy, publisher of the New Jersey-based Voice of Peace, called CAIR the champion of “extremists whose views do not represent Islam.”[4] Jamal Hasan of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance explains that CAIR’s goal is to spread “Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook.”[5] Kamal Nawash, head of Free Muslims Against Terrorism, finds that CAIR and similar groups condemn terrorism on the surface while endorsing an ideology that helps foster extremism, adding that “almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states.” Tashbih Sayyed of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance calls CAIR “the most accomplished fifth column” in the United States. And Stephen Schwartz of the Center on Islamic Pluralism writes that “CAIR should be considered a foreign-based subversive organization, comparable in the Islamist field to the Soviet-controlled Communist Party, USA.”[Stephen Schwartz is a Muslim convert.]

At least five of its employees and board members have been arrested, convicted, deported, or otherwise linked to terrorism-related charges and activities.

It has a number of links to Hamas.

It has consistently defended both accused and convicted radical Islamic terrorists.

It is a fact that radical Muslims consider it their duty to lie to non-Muslims in order to promote Islam. Thus not one word CAIR says should be accepted without proof. They have made a big deal out of supposed anti-Muslim acts by Americans but have not shown actual incidents, which have always been very low compared to acts against Jews. Instead, they pretend that Muslims who are arrested or even noticed because of acts that could be connected with terrorism are actually being targeted because of their religion. They did this most recently with the case of the six Imams whose behavior got them kicked off a flight in Minneapolis.

CAIR engages in intimidation to shut up its critics. The six Imams threatened to sue not only the airline but also the passengers who reported them -- a clear attempt at shutting up citizens who report possible terrorist activity. The lawyer who represented them is Omar Mohammedi, the President of CAIR-New York. They have also sued a website which published articles criticizing them.

In short, CAIR has no redeeming qualities whatsoever and anyone who uses them as an authority on anything is either terminally naive or a sympathizer with radical Islam.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But if it's al Qaeda, it means there's a third bomb still out there somewhere.<<<

In Scotland, it would seem.

[Firinnteine]

Wow. From the metaphysics of sentimentalism to racist accusations and a general condemnation of CAIR in 50 comments or less.

Would someone like to return to the point of the original post? As a tie-in, I suggest an explanation of CAIR in terms of Platonic anthropology, with a Thomistic refutation, leading to a liturgical/poetic climax that so stuns its readers with sheer beauty, and ennobles their souls, that future insults from all parties remain on-topic.

In much brotherly love... :-)

[Ethan Cordray]

As much as I agree with Firinnteine that we should return to topic, I do first wish to note that there have been at least a few instances of anti-Muslim action after September 11th.

I express no opinion about the statistical significance of such things, much less about their ratio to anti-Semitic acts. I expect the overall facts generally bear out Stuart's position. I speak only from personal experience: a very few months after September 11th, a coffee shop in Columbia, Missouri, an hour north of my home, was destroyed by arson. It had the unfortunate name of "Osama's."

And yet this is still the exception, even in "Red State" mid-Missouri. The other two coffee shops owned by the same Jordanian family (with the less magnetic name of "Coffee Zone") continue to prosper. Their owners appear to be thoroughly secularized; one is married to a Christian who attends my church, and I have personally seen him eat hot dogs and barbecue pork ribs without asking questions. He also makes the best hummus and only Turkish coffee in town.

In the same way, a world foods store owned by another Muslim family continues to thrive, even after the owner's home computers were seized in an investigation of an Islamic charity. He is, folks around here seem to agree, innocent until proven guilty.'

So "backlash?" Are a few isolated incidents over a very brief period a "backlash," or would it have to be a larger pattern? I think Americans are not quite so intolerant as Francesca seems to think, be that for good or ill.

[Juli]

I think Americans are not quite so intolerant as Francesca seems to think, be that for good or ill.

If that's true, how could it be "for ill"?

[Ethan Cordray]

>>If that's true, how could it be "for ill"?<<

Ask the denizens of that London nightclub, or the travelers in the Glasgow airport. Tolerance for the tolerable; suspicion for the suspicious. Sometimes tolerance is just a sign of enervation. Certainly, my personal examples were of unfair hostility and deserved felicity (though the world foods store situation is decidedly still a "jury out" matter). But it doesn't take much imagination to consider the opposite states of affairs.

[Judy Warner]

It is difficult to suspect people whom you know. Here in western Maryland we have quite a few Muslim doctors. One of them is my Pakistani family doctor; his wife is also a doctor and they seem like nice, ordinary people. One of their sons is in the army. But after the revelations about the recent U.K. terrorist incidents, I am sure everyone will look at the doctors differently. I already knew about the long list of Muslim doctors in America connected with terrorist activity (including one in Minneapolis who apparently ignored a Jewish man in critical condition in the ER), but it has been difficult to connect that with doctors I know. Now my attitude is different. I have no urge to hurt our local doctors, but I am wary of them.

Your distinction is good, Ethan, that it is not necessarily better to tolerate suspicious things than to judge based on group characteristics. It depends on the danger each presents. To bring this back to the subject of sentimentality, we are so accustomed to basing our judgments on feelings nowadays, or refusing to judge at all, that there is too much inclination to give suspicions a pass because of our fear of being thought either judgmental or xenophobic.

[Francesca]

>>Sigh...I'll note you skipped straight to that and past Stuarts argument. <<

He didn't offer any arguments. He asked for some numbers, but attacked the credibiility of CAIR's statistics. I'm curious as to why he has a problem with CAIR.

[Francesca]

>>In short, CAIR has no redeeming qualities whatsoever and anyone who uses them as an authority on anything is either terminally naive or a sympathizer with radical Islam.<<

Judy, I note you quote extensively from Daniel Pipes. I would note that Pipes is extremely controversial and should not be considered an objective source of information. When he was invited to speak at the University of Toronto in March 2005, more than 80 professors and former graduate students wrote an open letter in which they said that Pipes had a "long record of xenophobic, racist and sexist [speeches] that goes back to 1990". They stated:

"Genuine academic debate requires an open and free exchange of ideas in an atmosphere of mutual respect and tolerance. We, the undersigned—professors, librarians and students—are committed to academic freedom and we affirm Pipes' right to speak at our university. However, we strongly believe that hate, prejudice and fear-mongering have no place on this campus."

Christopher Hitchens wrote that Pipes "employs the fears and insecurities created by Islamic extremism to slander or misrepresent those who disagree with him," that Pipes "confuses scholarship with propaganda," and that he pursues "petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity."

To say that CAIR "has no redeeming qualities" when it was one of the first organizations to condemn the 9/11 attacks shows a clear bias.

>>They did this most recently with the case of the six Imams whose behavior got them kicked off a flight in Minneapolis.<<

The "behavior" of the Imams consisted of being dark-skinned, wearing turbans, and saying their prayers together. Imagine the outcry that would ensue if six Catholic priests were led off in handcuffs for saying the rosary! The mass hysteria over Keith Ellison being sworn into Congress with his hand on the Koran is yet another example of paranoia regarding Muslims in this country.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The "behavior" of the Imams consisted of being dark-skinned, wearing turbans, and saying their prayers together. <<<

Not exactly. It also consisted of them constantly getting up and down, changing their seats, and ending up in seats that controlled access to the aisles at the cockpit, galley, and emergency exits. Their conversations also included remarkes related to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and, overall, their behavior was bizarre enough even by Muslim standards, to evoke considerable concern. As a professional in the area of counterterrorism and security, I would be concerned, if not alarmed.

Apparently, the imams intended their behavior to be inflamatory and wanted to evoke a response so as to provide them with the grounds (however spurious) for a lawsuit. And behold! A lawsuit there was, not merely against the airline and the pilots, but against the very passengers (named as "John Doe Nos. 1-6) who alerted the flight crew to the Islamic antics in the cabin.

And I reiterate my previous assessment--you're just a jackass, Francesca. Some day you'll get your butt blown to kingdom come, and you'll still be complaining about anti-Islamic paranois.

Now, where are my figures about rampant violence against Muslims since 9/11? Still waiting.

[Judy Warner]

The behavior of the imams included moving around the plane in a pattern used by terrorist hijackers in the past, and asking for seat-belt extenders for which there was no visible use, and which they put under their seats. What you are doing is using CAIR's very tactics, which is to blame everything on the racism of the observer.

If you don't like Daniel Pipes I can find plenty of work by Robert Spencer, but you probably have some accusations against him too. Or Steve Emerson. Or Nonie Darwish. I could go on, but you probably have a ready smear for every expert I bring up.

[Judy Warner]

Francesca, you might learn a great deal from this article by Shelby Steele, a black scholar, in which he explains the distortions that white guilt introduces into our thinking about the world.

[Joe Long]

"With regard to Guantanamo and the invasion of Iraq, there is no doubt that 9/11 resulted in a backlash against Muslims, just as Pearl Harbor did against Japanese Americans, even those who had no involvement in the attacks."

AH HA! I finally see. This post came through the Looking Glass, from the (infinitely more sensible and predictable) world where September 11, 2001 sparked a counter-jihad; where Mohammdans, fearing for their lives, fled the Western nations (those who could) while the rest were rounded up into internment camps by Presidential order, both to prevent sabotage and to protect them from the angry mobs on the order of American rage against the Japanese in '41. Mosques were burned; Hollywood celebrities left their mansions to join the armed forces and get revenge; and, of course, a couple of regiments of patriotic American Muslims, following the Nisei WWII example, formed infantry regiments in order to redeem their honor as citizens on the battlefield, under the United States flag.

Francesca, please don't judge conservatives in our world from what some in your world must have done. Maybe there's a way we can send a newspaper over from "our side" and read one from "yours". You wouldn't BELIEVE what happened over here, instead of a counter-jihad backlash. Some days even I don't, and this IS my native part of the space-time continuum.

[Nick]

> The "behavior" of the Imams consisted of being dark-skinned, wearing turbans, and saying their prayers together.
> Imagine the outcry that would ensue if six Catholic priests were led off in handcuffs for saying the rosary! The
> mass hysteria over Keith Ellison being sworn into Congress with his hand on the Koran is yet another example of
> paranoia regarding Muslims in this country.

I'm nicer than Stuart. I refuse to believe you made that comment in all seriousness. Catholic priests aren't known for being hostile on airplanes, and if they are then they get thrown off and it doesn't make the news. You may not know this but there are entire airports dedicated to ejecting people from planes. One exists in Maine and I've watched the fun. It happens fairly regularly. People get drunk, unruly, sick, or otherwise freak out and need to be removed. What the six did far exceeded what most drunks are allowed to get away with.

Thats why the above has to be a joke. Lets just say it was all in bad taste. You keep it up and we'll have to assume you're serious. In which case you side with people that willingly skirt security and through their lawsuits put us all in danger. In which case your an accomplice to murder.

[Nick]

BTW, Francesca, I'll let you find the racism in your own remark. When you spot it you'll begin to understand why people are having a hard time taking you seriously.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"And I reiterate my previous assessment--you're just a jackass, Francesca."

Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 3, 2007 1:30:40 PM

"*Thou shalt refrain from personal attacks, name-calling, and gratuitous profanity."

Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Jun 12, 2007 3:14:11 PM

[Bill R]

"AH HA! I finally see."

Joe, you made my holiday! I'm still laughing....

[Ethan Cordray]

>>"*Thou shalt refrain from personal attacks, name-calling, and gratuitous profanity."<<

Yes, I definitely reiterate that. It's also rather unnecessary, really, considering the extent to which she has already been discredited by her own comments.

Odd to criticize Stuart for attacking CAIR's credibility and immediately do the same with Daniel Pipes. But, then, as we all know, Canadian academics are surely the most objective commentators one could imagine on conservative pundits.

Notice I have just done precisely the same thing! but, then, I believe that sometimes certain people deserve to have their credibility attacked.

[Tony Esolen]

Folks,

Shall I post another article encouraging us to take seriously the distinction between deep feeling and sentimentality, and to discern just how far the latter can safely be allowed under the church door?

To be absolutely clear: the sentimentality I am talking about stems entirely from white-bread lyricists who seem never to have read religious poetry in all their lives, or at least never to have learned anything from it.

I mean the soul-squashing banality and heresy of "We are the Bread, We are the Body," versus true folk hymns (that spring from a people's lived experience of the faith, with an old and venerable tradition of music behind it), such as "There is a Balm in Gilead," or the odd Basque carol "The Angel Gabriel from Heaven Came," -- or the ancient hymns of the church, popular or learned as they may be: Alma Redemptoris Mater, O Salutaris Hostia; or poetic and theological meditations of surpassing eloquence: "Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones," "This is My Father's World," "Come, My Way, My Truth, My Life" ...

[Bill R]

"Shall I post another article encouraging us to take seriously the distinction between deep feeling and sentimentality, and to discern just how far the latter can safely be allowed under the church door?"

Please do, Tony. Your posts are always welcome.

On a related, but distinct point: did anyone have to endure singing patriotic songs in honor of that noble Christian holiday, the Fourth of July, this Sunday past? I'll give a pass to "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," but for the most part this music has no place in church, even if the composers do slip in God's name here or there. When secular holidays slip into Sunday worship, do we not come perilously close to idolatry?

[Judy Warner]

We sang two hymns from our 1940 hymnal's "National Days" section. One:

God of our fathers, whose almighty hand
Leads forth in beauty all the starry band
Of shining worlds in splendor through the skies,
Our grateful songs before thy throne arise.

Thy love divine hath led us in the past,
In this free land by thee our lot is cast;
Be thou our ruler, guardian, guide and stay,
Thy word our law, thy paths our chosen way.

From war's alarms, from deadly pestilence,
Be thy strong arm our ever sure defence;
Thy true religion in our hearts increase,
Thy bounteous goodness nourish us in peace.

Refresh thy people on their toilsome way,
Lead us from night to never-ending day;
Fill all our lives with love and grace divine,
And glory, laud, and praise be ever thine."
Daniel Crane Roberts, 1876

And two:

Oh God, beneath thy guiding hand
Our exiled fathers crossed the sea;
And when they trod the wintry stand,
With prayer and psalm they worshipped thee.

Thou heard'st, well pleased, the song, the prayer:
Thy blessing came; and still its power
Shall onward, through all ages, bear
The mem'ry of that holy hour.

Laws, freedom, truth, and faith in God
Came with those exiles o'er the waves;
And where their pilgrim feet have trod,
The God they trusted guards their graves.

And here thy Name, O God of love,
Their children's children shall adore,
Till these eternal hills remove,
And spring adorns the earth no more.
Leonard Bacon, 1833

We did honor our country in these two of our five hymns, but both of these hymns honor God more, it seems to me, than slipping God's name in here or there. Are the hymns you are referring to like these, Bill?

[Bill R]

"Are the hymns you are referring to like these, Bill?"

I could only wish, Judy. Unfortunately, they were all (except for "Battle Hymn") contemporary productions, with maudlin parts, such as that in which a young girl waves goodbye to her father AND HER MOTHER as they go off to fight in foreign lands. For God and Country, of course. All masculine references to soldiers deleted in favor of making all pronouns plural. (E.g., something like: "A soldier fights wherever they must.")

[Judy Warner]

Then your point is directly relevant to Tony's post, isn't it? Maudlin sentimentality in place of the more robust and real patriotic feeling which is indivisible from the worship of God.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>I'll give a pass to "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," but for the most part this music has no place in church, even if the composers do slip in God's name here or there.<<<

We sang that in Opolis on Sunday. Then at the big church we sang "This is my song." Sort of balances out, I suppose.

[GL]

Actually, we had no patriotic references whatsoever this past Sunday. Our pastor continued a series of sermons on the hymns about Jesus found in the New Testament. Quite a contrast between those New Testament hymns and hymn fragments and the stuff Tony has been writing about.

I will repeat for anyone who missed it, that Tony was on the second hour of Catholic Answers on Friday, June 29. As is always the case with Professor Esolen, it edifying. See http://www2.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php?type=month&calendar=1&category=&month=06&year=2007 and scroll to June 29 to find the link to the segment he was on.

[Judy Warner]

Thanks for the link, GL. There are a number of interesting-looking interviews there.

[Rob Grano]

That's one of the nice things about being Orthodox-- we don't have to worry about being subjected to bad new hymns, just to bad new settings of great old hymns.

I hate "Battle Hymn of the Republic" -- it oozes Yankee hubris. I have similar problems with the "unsung" verses of the National Anthem. They seem to me to glorify war and demonize the enemy. I have my doubts about the appropriateness of these songs for church usage, because of their political connotations and subject matter.

[Ethan Cordray]

I'm inclined to agree with Rob over the "Battle Hymn." It's hard for me to say whether it is an anthem that ennobles an otherwise brutal and miserable war, or just a triumphalist mask over the misery and brutality.

I'm sure in all this debate we can agree on one thing: this site is beginning to need better spam filters.

[Joe Long]

I will give a pass to anything BUT the "Battle Hymn of the Republic", a blood-drenched Unitarian propaganda ploy to immantentize the eschaeton.

Actually I don't care for the "alabaster cities" verse of "American the Beautiful", either, because it does sound terriby utopian and because our real "patriot dreams" (of the Jeffersonian sort) would have moved our citizens out of the cities (alabaster or otherwise) and into the agricultural countryside. However, the stern, impassioned tread of the second verse's pilgrim feet- well, they march to a drummer I can hear.

Dr. Esolen, please do keep this going.

[Rob Grano]

"It's hard for me to say whether it is an anthem that ennobles an otherwise brutal and miserable war, or just a triumphalist mask over the misery and brutality."

I imagine that at the time it was considered ennobling, or at very least a morale-booster, but in hindsight it tends to come across as triumphalistic and self-righteous in the 'God-is-on-our-side' vein. Mind you, I don't doubt that the Confederacy had its equivalents.

[Francesca]

>>Not exactly. It also consisted of them constantly getting up and down, changing their seats, and ending up in seats that controlled access to the aisles at the cockpit, galley, and emergency exits. Their conversations also included remarkes related to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and, overall, their behavior was bizarre enough even by Muslim standards, to evoke considerable concern. As a professional in the area of counterterrorism and security, I would be concerned, if not alarmed.<<

This is a highly tendentious and inaccurate assessment. One of the imams, who was upgraded to first class, went back to one of the others, who was old and blind, and offered to trade places with him. I suspect you simply made up the Ad Qaeda comments. As for the gratuitious insults, they reflect very badly on you, not on me. If you're so unhappy and angry that you have to treat people this way, you simply come across as a very sad, old man who has passed up his chances to acquire any sense.

[Francesca]

>>Francesca, please don't judge conservatives in our world from what some in your world must have done. <<

Joe, let's not confuse conservatism with hatred and bigotry.

[Francesca]

>>Odd to criticize Stuart for attacking CAIR's credibility and immediately do the same with Daniel Pipes. But, then, as we all know, Canadian academics are surely the most objective commentators one could imagine on conservative pundits.<<

Ethan, please show me where I "attacked" Stuart prior to your post. In reality, I asked him why he had attacked CAIR. Instead of providing any reasons, he went off on a tirade that suggests he has serious problems with hostility and that reinforced my belief that Altemeyer was onto something when he demonstrated a statistical link between bigotry, xenophobia, and hostility.

When I discussed Pipes, please note that I substantiated my claims about him --something you failed to do when you chose to be snide about Canadian academics.

As an aside, here's another quote from Pipes: "“Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene. … All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most” (National Review, Nov. 19, 1990). Additionally, a group of Danish politicians, offended by the way Pipes portrayed integration problems in Denmark, issued a statement slamming Pipes for getting his facts about Muslim crime rates wrong and stating: "Daniel Pipes smears the Muslim community in Denmark with several accusations eerily similar to those leveled against the Jewish community in Europe by anti-Semitic propagandists prior to World War II." Of course this man -- and his ilk -- are going to smear CAIR. Should we take them seriously?

[Joe Long]

Um, Francesca, Stuart actually happens to be...oh, never mind.

Rob, it's certainly true the Confederacy had its triumphalist war-songs; the martial version of "Dixie", for instance, which never caught on with the front-line soldiers but which was sung at many a Ladies' Aid Society meeting or political rally with pride. But I've developed a special animus for the "Battle Hymn", after learning a bit more about Julia Ward Howe - who seems to me to have been interested in harnessing social energy through Christian metaphors, but in replacing Christianity itself with something more palatable. And the "Hymns" specific admonitions to visit divine wrath upon the South just have such a "Gott Strafe England" feel...downright "schreklicheit" (Stuart may correct my spelling, but probably not my comparison here).

[GL]

Francesca,

Let's not confuse support for the War against Radical Muslim Terrorists (if you prefer that term to Islamofascism) and with keeping incarcerated in Gitmo those currently incarcerated in Gitmo (i.e., disagreement with your positions) with hatred and bigotry.

I believe that this is where it all started: "Clearly, not only sentimentality and hatred but fear are effective tools of manipulation -- fear of dark-skinned people and, at present, fear of Islam. Perhaps this is why some people are still in favor of Guantanamo."

[Rob Grano]

'And the "Hymn's" specific admonitions to visit divine wrath upon the South just have such a "Gott Strafe England" feel...'

Yeah, that, and the concomitant feel of "And we're just the people to do it!"

As to Howe & Co., many folks don't realize that a fairly high proportion of the radical abolitionists (as opposed to the more moderate or measured ones) were heterodox "Christians" of various stripes: Quakers, Unitarians, free-thinkers, etc. As Mark Noll points out in a recent book on the subject, quite a few of these people were quite ready to chuck the Bible if it could be used to defend slavery.

[Bill R]

Ok, I won't even give "Battle Hymn" a pass! I suspect that most, perhaps all, of the patriotic hymns are theologically problematic in one way or another and should be left to secular picnics and the like.

[Rob Grano]

I've always liked 'God Of Our Fathers', as well as some of the Thanksgiving-related hymns that evoke a certain patriotism. It's the ones that are war-related or triumphalistic that I find problematic.

[Joe Long]

Rob, I commend the Navy hymn to you as an actual hymn. ("Eternal Father, strong to save...")

Personally I like the national anthem very much -especially the later verses no one seems to know - but it is, of course, an anthem, not a hymn, and doesn't belong in a worship service.

[Rob Grano]

I know that one, Joe, but don't remember much of it and didn't know it was the Navy hymn.

[Ethan Cordray]

Francesca,

>>Ethan, please show me where I "attacked" Stuart prior to your post.<<

And you please show me where I claimed that you "attacked" Stuart in the sentence you quoted:

>>>Odd to criticize Stuart for attacking CAIR's credibility and immediately do the same with Daniel Pipes.<<<

I do believe some grammatical diagramming may help sort things out.

[Joe Long]

The Navy Hymn

Eternal Father, strong to save
Whose arm hath bound the restless wave
Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep
Its own appointed limits keep:
O hear us when we cry to thee
For those in peril on the sea.

O Christ, whose voice the waters heard,
And hushed their raging at thy word
Who walkedst on the foaming deep
And calm amid the storm didst sleep:
O hear us when we cry to thee
For those in peril on the sea.

O Holy Spirit, who didst brood
Upon the chaos dark and rude
And bid the angry tumult cease
And give for wild confusion peace:
O hear us when we cry to thee
For those in peril on the sea.

O trinity of love and power
Our brethren shield in danger's hour.
From rock and tempest, fire and foe
Protect them wheresoe'er they go:
O hear us when we cry to thee
For those in peril on the sea.

[Ethan Cordray]

Still, grammatical diagramming issues aside, I do believe you are right that I was mistaken in your target. It seems that it was primarily Judy that you were criticizing for condemning CAIR. Sorry about the minor mix-up. I do think this:

>>To say that CAIR "has no redeeming qualities" when it was one of the first organizations to condemn the 9/11 attacks shows a clear bias.<<

fairly counts as criticism, wouldn't you say?

Now, concerning GL's return to the genesis of this tangent, I also don't want to lose track of the contention that there was a significant anti-Muslim (or anti-Arab/South Asian, because apparently light-skinned Muslims would have been exempted) backlash following 9/11. We still, it seems, await substantiation of this claim, be it from CAIR or elsewhere.

[Rob Grano]

That's a good one, Joe. No problems there that I can see!

[Francesca]

>> I do believe you are right that I was mistaken in your target. It seems that it was primarily Judy that you were criticizing for condemning CAIR. Sorry about the minor mix-up. <<

That's OK, Ethan:-) I thought perhaps you'd just had a little too much sun:-) I was actually criticizing Judy's anti-CAIR arguments rather than Judy herself, especially since her claims seem primarily to be based on Daniel Pipes' (he of the "brown-skinned peoples ... maintaining different standards of hygiene" comment) assessments. I'm rather surprised nobody commented on Pipes' repugnant remark, which I feel discredits him entirely. Nor am I sure why Judy felt compelled to get snarky about Gitmo in response to my entirely neutral post (perhaps I should have described my train of thought in that post better -- I was wondering why sentimentality would be regarded as a recent problem, so I went off at a tangent about sentimentality being manipulated for profit by the media in an effort to understand that.)

>>Now, concerning GL's return to the genesis of this tangent, I also don't want to lose track of the contention that there was a significant anti-Muslim (or anti-Arab/South Asian, because apparently light-skinned Muslims would have been exempted) backlash following 9/11. We still, it seems, await substantiation of this claim, be it from CAIR or elsewhere.<<

Sorry to be slow responding. I haven't been checking back on old threads ('too wrapped up in Wimbledon for a start.) Anyhow, I suggest you take a look around the CAIR website. For example, http://www.cair.com/asp/execsum2003.asp describes an uptick in reports of anti-Muslim discrimination. In addition, I have personally heard and read some very ugly comments and "jokes" about "ragheads," "sand niggers," and "dirty, little Arabs." Then one has to consider that people like Pipes and Ann Coulter clearly harbor some highly unattractive prejudices, but are nevertheless (and quite astonishingly) still taken seriously by many people. I've quoted from Pipes. Here are a few quotes from Coulter: "We should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity," and "This is my idea…I think airlines ought to start advertising: 'We have the most civil rights lawsuits brought against us by Arabs'." When asked how Muslims would travel, she responded, "They could use flying carpets." She has also referred to Middle Easterners as "camel riding nomads" and claimed that Egyptians have an "aversion to bathing." You've probably read about Johann Hari's "spying" expedition on the recent National Review cruise? If not, I suggest you do a little googling. And finally, there's the limited public outrage regarding what is happening to Muslims in the world today. In the minds of many, a Muslim life seems to count for much less than a Christian life. If this were not true, there would be far greater outrage about arbitrary incarceration of Muslims, about the human suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan, and about inflammatory anti-Muslim propaganda.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> Then one has to consider that people like Pipes and Ann Coulter clearly harbor some highly unattractive prejudices, but are nevertheless (and quite astonishingly) still taken seriously by many people. <<<

So, then, you would not really like Robert Spencer, or Bat Ye'or, or for that matter, "insiders" like Ibn Warraq, Irshad Manji, or Ayan Hirsi Ali? Because Islam is, as we all know, "the religion of peace".

[Bobby Winters]

***
>>> Then one has to consider that people like Pipes and Ann Coulter clearly harbor some highly unattractive prejudices, but are nevertheless (and quite astonishingly) still taken seriously by many people. <<<

So, then, you would not really like Robert Spencer, or Bat Ye'or, or for that matter, "insiders" like Ibn Warraq, Irshad Manji, or Ayan Hirsi Ali? Because Islam is, as we all know, "the religion of peace".
***

You betcha.

[Stuart Koehl]

And just today, there was an article in the New York Post by Irshad Manji of the European Foundation for Democracy (see www.nypost.com/seven/07082007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/islams_problem_opedcolumnists_irshad_manji.htm?page=1): "Islam's Problem", in which he makes the following observations:

July 8, 2007 -- LAST week, two very different Brits had their say about the latest terrorist plots in their country. Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the nation that "we have got to separate those great moderate members of our community from a few extremists who wish to practice violence and inflict maximum loss of life in the interests of a perversion of their religion." By contrast, a former jihadist from Manchester wrote that the "real engine of our violence" is "Islamic theology.

Months ago, this young man informed me that as a militant he raised most of his war chest not from obscenely rich Saudis, but from middle-class Muslim dentists living in the United Kingdom. There's sobering lesson here for the new prime minister. . .

In 2003, I interviewed Mohammad Al Hindi, the political leader of Islamic Jihad in Gaza. A physician himself, Dr. Al Hindi explained the difference between suicide and martyrdom. "Suicide is done out of despair," the good doctor diagnosed. "But most of our martyrs today were very successful in their earthly lives."

In short, it's not what the material world fails to deliver that drives suicide bombers. It's something else. And, time and again, the very people committing these acts have articulated what that something else is: their religion.

CONSIDER Mohammad Sidique Khan, the teaching assistant who master minded the July 7, 2005 transit bombings in London.

In a taped testimony, Khan railed against British foreign policy. But before bringing up Western imperialism, he emphasized that "Islam is our religion" and "the Prophet is our role model." Khan gave priority to God, not to Iraq.

Now take Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutch-born Moroccan Muslim who murdered Amsterdam film director Theo van Gogh. Bouyeri pumped several bullets into van Gogh's body. Knowing that multiple shots would finish off his victim, why didn't Bouyeri stop there? Why did he pull out a blade to decapitate van Gogh?

Again, we must confront religious symbolism. The blade is an implement associated with 7th-century tribal conflict. Wielding it as a sword becomes a tribute to the founding moment of Islam. Even the note stabbed into van Gogh's corpse, although written in Dutch, had the unmistakable rhythms of Arabic poetry. . .

DESPITE integrating Muslims far more adroitly than most of Europe, North America isn't immune. Last year in Toronto, police nabbed 17 young Muslim men allegedly plotting to blow up Canada's parliament buildings and behead the prime minister. They called their campaign "Operation Badr," a reference to the Battle of Badr, the first decisive military triumph achieved by the Prophet Mohammed. Clearly, the Toronto 17 drew inspiration from religious history.

For people with big hearts and good will, this has to be uncomfortable to hear. But they can take solace that the law-and-order types have a hard time with it, too. After rounding up the Toronto suspects, police held a press conference and didn't once mention Islam or Muslims. At their second press conference, police boasted about avoiding those words. . .

While the vast majority of Muslims aren't extremists, a more important distinction must start being made - the distinction between moderate Muslims and reform-minded ones. Moderate Muslims denounce violence in the name of Islam - but deny that Islam has anything to do with it.

By their denial, moderates abandon the ground of theological interpretation to those with malignant intentions - effectively telling would-be terrorists that they can get away with abuses of power because mainstream Muslims won't challenge the fanatics with bold, competing interpretations.

To do so would be admit that religion is a factor. Moderate Muslims can't go there. . .

[Francesca]

>>So, then, you would not really like Robert Spencer, or Bat Ye'or, or for that matter, "insiders" like Ibn Warraq, Irshad Manji, or Ayan Hirsi Ali? Because Islam is, as we all know, "the religion of peace".<<

Sam Harris, Michelle Goldberg, Chris Hedges, Rabbi James Rubin, Kevin Phillips, and Daniel Dennet all make similar points about certain expressions of Christianity. The problem doesn't intrinsically lie within either Christianity or Islam, but in the way religion can be interpreted and manipulated by the deranged and/or criminal mind. The US, steeped as it is in the Judea-Christian tradition, has killed far more innocents in Iraq alone this century than Al Qaeda has killed world-wide. To suggest that such "collateral damage" is acceptable within the context of the so-called "war on terror" is equivalent to arguing that abortion is acceptable because it leads to a decrease in crime.

Many Americans hold the apocalyptic view that there's a vast, America-hating, Islamic fundamentalist faction out there bent on America's destruction. Details of Khalid Sheik Mohammed's confession were recently made public. While their is reason to doubt the validity of his claims, it appears, even if they're only partially true, that a very small group of perpetrators was behind the most damaging terrorist acts of the past decade.

Of course, by invading Iraq and creating a generation of traumatized children who have seen family members lose lives, limbs, and minds, who have had their lives disrupted, and in some cases who have seen their sisters and mothers raped and killed by US troops, we've guaranteed a significant increase in the number of would-be perpetrators for many years to come.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The problem doesn't intrinsically lie within either Christianity or Islam, but in the way religion can be interpreted and manipulated by the deranged and/or criminal mind. <<<

Except, of course, that Islam is intrinsically inclined to both violence and intolerance due to the very nature of the revelation it received through Mohammed. Unlike Judaism, whose adherents were promised temporal ascendancy in one small corner of the world, or Christianity, which promises its adherents a kingdom "not of this world", Islam promises its adherents universal temporal supremacy. Islam means submission--submission by believers to the will of Allah as revealed throgh Mohammed; and submission of all non-believers to the faithful.

Islam has thus always sanctioned the use of violence to bring the Dar al-Harb into the Dar al-Islam; the notion of Islamic pluralism does not exist, and given the nature of the Quran, can never exist. Moreover, the dichotomy between the promises made in the Quran, and the reality of the present age, makes a mockery of Islam that stands as a permanent affront to those who take those promises literally. Therefore, nothing we do or say can assuage Islamic rage: our very existence, our success, our refusal to submit, makes us hateful in their eyes, and you are foolish indeed to think that anything you do or say can change that. In fact, they reject the very values you espouse in attempting a rapprochement with them. You mirror image, believing that they want what you want. Actually, they just want you dead.

Regarding violent death in the Islamic world, I will simply point out to you that Muslims have killed more Muslims in the last century than have been killed by all the Christians and Jews of the world combined. Americans are not responsible for most of the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan; Israelis are not responsible for most of the deaths in Gaza and the West Bank. During the 1936 Arab Revolt, Arabs killed far more Arabs than they did Englishmen or Jews. They killed more of each other than were killed by the English or the Jews. In Algeria in the last decade, tens of thousands died--hardly a Christian or Jew to be seen. If anyone is to blame for the plight of the Islamic world, it is Muslims themselves. And that is not because people twist Islam into something it isn't but because Islam keeps reverting to its true nature.

>>>Of course, by invading Iraq and creating a generation of traumatized children who have seen family members lose lives, limbs, and minds, who have had their lives disrupted, and in some cases who have seen their sisters and mothers raped and killed by US troops, we've guaranteed a significant increase in the number of would-be perpetrators for many years to come.<<<

Of course, by not invading Iraq, there just would have been a generation of children traumatized by seeing their family members shot, tortured, raped, dismembered, shredded, blown up, beaten, blinded and gassed by Saddam Hussein and his thugs. It's a pretty rough neighborhood.

[Joe Long]

"The problem doesn't intrinsically lie within either Christianity or Islam, but in the way religion can be interpreted and manipulated by the deranged and/or criminal mind."

Hogwash. It is the cruelest Western contempt for Moslems to insist that WE understand what they believe better than THEY do, and that their religion is "really" peaceful and only "perversions" of it result in violence.

The most basic respect for another faith requires an understanding of its doctrines and their implications - not simply as some manifestion of an "ideal" religion which just coincidentally happens to reflect a Western ethic of tolerance. Jihad, the political and military struggle to bring all the world into submission, is a fundamental doctrine of Islam clearly spelled out in the Koran; Moslems may differ on methodology but not really on the essential duty. So the problem is not a "vast faction", but the actual beliefs of one of the world's major religions; and while a Christian might pervert Christianity to justify horrible things, a Moslem must somehow pervert Islam in order to REFRAIN from approving many of those horrible things! You see, the Koran actually SAYS things, which believers actually BELIEVE. It is the height of Western arrogance for you to strip away the dignity of their beliefs and attribute their sincere, sacrificial actions to mere reaction to easily correctible Western policies - leaving the Moslems devoid of any agency whatsoever. What contempt it shows for them, to deny that their faith might be fundamentally different from ours and that they might actually believe it and act on it!

I agree with you about the "so-called War on Terror"; terror is a method, and one which we may hope the civilized world learns to counter, but this is no more a "War on Terror" than WWII was a "War on U-boats". We are involved in a counter-jihad, and will be, for the forseeable future. And our implacable foes would as happily kill you as they would me - and sacrifice innocents (including those of their own faith) with outright zeal. We will not survive their onslaughts by placation and platitude; that will only escalate their fury and frustration.

[Joe Long]

"And our implacable foes would as happily kill you as they would me - and sacrifice innocents (including those of their own faith) with outright zeal."

I should add, though, that they would more happily kill STUART than kill both of us put together.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The most basic respect for another faith requires an understanding of its doctrines and their implications - not simply as some manifestion of an "ideal" religion which just coincidentally happens to reflect a Western ethic of tolerance. <<<

Especially when that "ideal" was invented by the likes of Voltaire and Denis Diderot for the purpose of beating Christianity about the head for its alleged "intolerance". Neither Voltaire nor Diderot ever had to live as a Dhimmi under Muslim rule. Neither one of them had to be a woman under Muslim rule (though judging by the way Diderot treated his women, he probably would approve of Muslim attitudes towards them).

[Rob Grano]

To put it simply, Islam is theocratic by nature, Christianity is not. This can be easily deduced by examining the tenets and holy books of both religions. While Christians have occasionally lapsed into theocratic thinking, these instances can be shown to be aberrations, since the founding documents of the faith nowhere teach it. Such is not the case with Islam.