Bishop Tikhon of the OCA quotes Noam Chomsky

A readers sends a quote by Bishop Tikhon of the OCA:

One might very well agree with Noam Chomsky that terrorism is nothing new, and that what made 9/11 particularly painful was the realization that for the first time we were the victims, rather than the perpetrators of it. Having terrorized Kossovo and Serbia, before that Grenada, Panama, El Salvador, the Phillipines, etc., etc., one would think that “with-it” Americans would have admitted, “What goes around comes around,” no?
I wonder what the citizens of Falloujah think when it is explained to them that they are now being subjected to an attack against terrorism?
Love,
+B.T.

Let me direct the good Bishop to some articles examining Chomsky’s ideas in a brighter light: What Noam Chomski Really Wants, or the antichomsky website.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

We the People

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/marvinolasky/mo20041104.shtml#
“We the people” voted Tuesday in a way that may redefine for decades who “we the people” are and what authority we have.

President Bush won because “moral issues” were more important than any others for one-fifth of the voters, and the president won that fifth by at least a 4-to-1 majority. To put it another way, Sen. Kerry probably received about 56 percent of the vote from people most concerned with foreign policy or economic issues, the traditional subjects for presidential campaigns.

Chief among the moral issues is the matter of life and death called abortion. Although that horror did not by name play a large part in the campaign, when it did come up it seems to have worked once again to the advantage of pro-life candidates and the detriment of those who are ready to exclude the weakest among us, unborn children, from being part of “we the people.”
[Read more…]

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

The problem with Democrats is that they’ve become the party of moral absolutism

This ties into a theme I’ve been working on: secular leftists are moral absolutists. I’ve been trying to sharpen this into an essay but haven’t found the nub yet. I mentioned this idea in several comments upstream.

The Weekly Standard

Winning the “I Don’t Know” Crowd

Maybe the Americans who voted for Bush have questions about when life really begins and don’t want to support a party that refuses to acknowledge those concerns.

Maybe the Americans who voted for Bush wonder just how much involvement between church and state constitutes an infringement on First Amendment proscriptions against state-sponsored religion. Maybe they are troubled by absolutists who want to wipe faith out of every aspect of public life.
[Read more…]

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Election analysis reveals pronounced ‘God gap’ between parties

November 5, 2004, Kim Lawton, Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, Distributed by Religion News Service

WASHINGTON – Despite efforts by Democrats to reach out to faith-based voters, a detailed exit poll analysis of Tuesday’s election shows a “God gap” between the parties, with Republicans building support in almost every major religious group, including black Protestants.

According to exit polls conducted for the PBS television program “Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly,” the more often voters attended religious services, the more likely they were to vote for President Bush. At the same time, those who described themselves as “secular” or having no religious affiliation voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry.

This continues trends identified in the 2000 election.
[Read more…]

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

A Party on Its Knees: Who knew Democrats had such pious longings?

George Neumayr American Spectator

Normally Democrats urge their candidates to expunge God and morality from politics. Even the word morality grates on them. It is a far too judgment-laden term for their taste. How about the insipid term “ethics”? Okay, if you must — goes the attitude — but don’t use the loaded term “morality.” Yet what are we now hearing from the Mike Barnicles and Nancy Pelosis? That Kerry didn’t talk about God enough. That he failed to satisfy the public’s hunger for spirituality and morality. Like children who recently learned a new phrase, liberals are giving Kerry a post-mortem drubbing for not speaking to the “moral values” of America.
[Read more…]

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Democratic disaster

Robert Novak (archive) November 4, 2004

WASHINGTON — No wonder that John Kerry, after conferring at his Boston mansion with Ted Kennedy in the wee hours Wednesday morning, did not immediately concede the election to George W. Bush before giving up nine hours later. Remote though his chance was of turning around the crucial outcome in Ohio, it seemed to provide a frail final chance of averting total disaster for the Democratic Party.
[Read more…]

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

The War on the Cross

By William J. Becker Jr. FrontPageMagazine.com | November 5, 2004

If the American Civil Liberties Union committed itself to advancing the rights of Christians and Jews as tirelessly as it does to rooting out Christian and Jewish images in the public square, perhaps its civil liberties credo would not seem so duplicitous.

Sadly, the evolution of “civil liberties” has yielded a corresponding erosion of respect for those pesky “traditional values”–and the religions with which they are associated–that threaten the new pioneers of social engineering.

If religious tradition is to be recognized, say the pioneers, it is only the religious tradition of a distant culture that deserves our respect. Thus fealty toward heathenism, the religion of a conquered people, and to the conquered people themselves, is fitting, as is abjuring the Judeo-Christian heritage that formed, dominates and buttresses American society. Evidence of this truism is no more apparent than in Los Angeles, where three recent lawsuits highlight a preference for ancient religions and hostility toward the largest faith practiced in America.

Read the entire article on the Front Page Magazine website.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Generation Gap: Blue Democrats lost red America back in 1965

DANIEL HENNINGER Friday, November 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

And you tell me over, and over, and over again my friend
Ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction.
–Vietnam War Protest Song, 1965

How did the 2004 election map of the United States come to look like a color-field painting by Barnett Newman? In fact, if you adjust the map’s colors for votes by county (as at the Web sites for CNN and USA Today), even the blue states turn mostly red. Pennsylvania is blue, but between blue Philadelphia and Pittsburgh every county in the state is red. California, except for the coastline, is almost entirely red.

This didn’t happen last Tuesday. The color-coding of the 2004 election began around 1965 in the politics of the Vietnam era. The Democratic Party today is the product of a generational shift that began in those years.

Read the entire article on the Wall Street Journal Online.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Peggy Noonan. So Much to Savor: A big win for America, and a loss for the mainstream media

Thursday, November 4, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST Wall Street Journal

God bless our country.

Hello, old friends. Let us savor.

Let us get our heads around the size and scope of what happened Tuesday. George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States, became the first incumbent president to increase his majority in both the Senate and the House and to increase his own vote (by over 3.5 million) since Franklin D. Roosevelt, political genius of the 20th century, in 1936. This is huge.

George W. Bush is the first president to win more than 50% of the popular vote since 1988. (Bill Clinton failed to twice; Mr. Bush failed to last time and fell short of a plurality by half a million.) The president received more than 59 million votes, breaking Ronald Reagan’s old record of 54.5 million. Mr. Bush increased his personal percentages in almost every state in the union. He carried the Catholic vote and won 42% of the Hispanic vote and 24% of the Jewish vote (up from 19% in 2000.)

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Media Bias

November 1, 2004 — If President Bush is re-elected tomor row, the victory will have come de spite the best efforts of two erstwhile American journalistic icons — the Grey Lady of Times Square and Edward R. Murrow’s Tiffany Network: The New York Times and CBS News.

If nothing else, the notion that “objectivity” animates America’s media elite has been exposed this year for what it truly is — at best, a quaint myth; at worst, a pernicious lie.

Meanwhile, a new element has been injected into American politics: the Web-based truth-squadders who exposed Dan Rather for the sad partisan hack that he has become while deconstructing one elite-media hit after another throughout an agonizingly long election season.

Read the entire editorial on the New York Post website.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Is the Church “Too Political?”

Fr. Frank Pavone (Roman Catholic)
National Director, Priests for Life

Like many Catholics, I’ve been troubled for years at the fear that is so prevalent within the Church about addressing matters of politics. I am very familiar with the legal limitations that the Church chooses to accept under IRS and FEC regulations. But the fear I refer to takes matters further than the government ever dares to take them. This fear literally paralyzes perfectly legitimate activity.

What activity, you ask? Take, for example, the internal legal directive that was sent out a few months ago to dioceses around the country, telling them not to quote the President of the United States speaking about the “Culture of Life,” because after all, this might be interpreted as support for his re-election.
[Read more…]

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Country at a Crossroads: November 2 will say a lot about the American people, and our future

National Review Online http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200410270820.asp

Had Lincoln lost the 1864 vote, a victorious General McClellan would have settled for an American continent divided, with slavery intact. Without Woodrow Wilson’s reelection in 1916 — opposed by the isolationists — Western Europe would have lost millions only to be trampled by Prussian militarism. Franklin Roosevelt’s interventionism saved liberal democracy. And without the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan and his unpopular agenda for remaking the military, the Soviet Union might still be subsidizing global murder.
[Read more…]

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Goodbye “Regular Joe” Democrat

By Karl Zinsmeister http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18218/article_detail.asp

Democrats: the party of the little guy. Republicans: the party of the wealthy. Those images of America’s two major political wings have been frozen for generations. The stereotypes were always a little off, incomplete, exaggerated. (Can you say Adlai Stevenson?) But like most stereotypes, they reflected rough truths.

No more. Starting in the 1960s and ’70s, whole blocs of “little guys”–ethnics, rural residents, evangelicals, cops, construction workers, homemakers, military veterans–began moving into the Republican column. And big chunks of America’s rich elite–financiers, academics, heiresses, media barons, software millionaires, entertainers–drifted into the Democratic Party.
[Read more…]

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Faith and Patriotism

By CHARLES J. CHAPUT
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/opinion/22chaput.html?ex=1099442009&ei=1&en=0626a7e7415fe210

Denver — The theologian Karl Barth once said, “To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world.”

That saying comes to mind as the election approaches and I hear more lectures about how Roman Catholics must not “impose their beliefs on society” or warnings about the need for “the separation of church and state.” These are two of the emptiest slogans in current American politics, intended to discourage serious debate. No one in mainstream American politics wants a theocracy. Nor does anyone doubt the importance of morality in public life. Therefore, we should recognize these slogans for what they are: frequently dishonest and ultimately dangerous sound bites.

Lawmaking inevitably involves some group imposing its beliefs on the rest of us. That’s the nature of the democratic process. If we say that we “ought” to do something, we are making a moral judgment. When our legislators turn that judgment into law, somebody’s ought becomes a “must” for the whole of society. This is not inherently dangerous; it’s how pluralism works.
[Read more…]

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

The War Democrats Believe In

By Don Feder
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 20, 2004

The Democrats have been characterized as a party of peace marchers and flag-burners — a Neville Chamberlain cadre chattering away on cable TV, knee-jerk internationalists who’ve mistaken the United Nations for the United States Marines.

I must protest this calumny.

Under the right circumstances, the Democrats can be Sgt. York and Audie Murphy times Rambo. There was a little war of which Democrats are exceedingly fond — so much so that they’re still bragging about it five years later.

It’s a conflict that didn’t involve allegations of weapons of mass destruction. The nation we subjugated wasn’t a sponsor of international terrorism. (This time, we fought for the terrorists.)

It wasn’t remotely related to national security. And the justification for our intervention turned out to be a complete fabrication.

For 78 days in 1999, we bombed Christian Yugoslavia (our ally in two World Wars) to aid Moslem separatists who were tight with Osama bin Laden. Ever since, NATO has occupied its sovereign territory — with disastrous results.

Read the entire article on FrontPageMagazine.com.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail