<p>Great wide-ranging interview with Mark Steyn.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=4049[/url]”>http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=4049</a></p>
<p>Funny…I was sure you were describing me. ;)</p>
<p>But…all the CCers have heard of you!</p>
<p>Omigod, they actually call it Right Wing News? That is funny. I read the first paragraph. Carrying on the honorable tradition of the crotchety highly verbal right wing guy. Don’t know if I will read the rest. I really can’t bear politics and the associated discussions.</p>
<p>Read a little more.
</p>
<p>Hehe. A master of the controversial and provocative soundbite.</p>
<p>But Alumother, you forgot that paragraph’s punchline:
The article (interview) actually touches on a lot of recent Parent’s Forum discussions/arguments, which is why I posted it. I never miss his columns, although I must say, I usually access him through the British press, or his website Steynonline.com , not rightwingnews.com…not that there would be anything wrong with that :)</p>
<p>Is he Canadian? Not that there is anything wrong with that, just wondering.</p>
<p>Huffingtonpost.com</p>
<p>just to really make things interesting</p>
<p>He is Canadian by birth, although now a US citizen living in NH. Very attuned to things European, in a way that very few US columnists are. I first became aware of him by reading his column in the National Post, which at one time was Canada’s version of the National Review.</p>
<p>Gosh Driver, I sort of like Fred Reed…</p>
<p>WARNING: Do not follow this link if you are easily offended </p>
<p><a href=“Fred On Everything: Fred Recommends Best Hotels in Mexico”>Fred On Everything: Fred Recommends Best Hotels in Mexico;
<p>wyogal,</p>
<p>I should have known you would know about Fred! I love his stories about growing up in Virginia. You and I have way too much in common. :)</p>
<p>gnu</p>
<p>This is a fascinating take on the separation of church and state, and the decline of the church in Old Europe and its survival in the land of the free :):</p>
<p>John Hawkins: In your opinion, why is it that Europe has become so much more secular than the United States, where Christianity is still strong?</p>
<p>Mark Steyn: The short answer is separation of church and state - and I use that phrase as it was intended to be used: The founders distaste for “establishment of religion” simply means that they didn’t want President Washington also serving as head of the Church Of America and the Archbishop of Virginia sitting in the Unites States Senate - as to this day the Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church Of England and the Archbishop of York sits in the House Of Lords. Most European countries either had de jure state churches, like England, or de facto ones, like Catholic Italy. One consequence of that is the lack of portability of faith: in America, when the Episcopalians and Congregationalists go all post-Christian and relativist, people find another church; in Britain, when Christians give up on the Church of England, they tend to give up on religion altogether. </p>
<p>So the dynamism of American faith exemplifies the virtues of the broader society: the US has a free market in religion, Europe had cosseted overregulated monopolies and cartels. The other salient point is that obviously Europe does have a religion: radical secularism. The era of the state church has been replaced by an age in which the state itself is the church. European progressives still don’t get this: they think the idea of a religion telling you how to live your life is primitive, but the government regulating every aspect of it is somehow advanced and enlightened.</p>
<p>Hey driver -</p>
<p>You and I are probably about as far apart as any two CCers can get politically, but I enjoyed the interview you posted. Note that “enjoy” does not necessarily mean agreement with everything said, but a lot of what he said seems like common sense to me. I wish all of us in the world could agree that people will differ in their beliefs and that individuals are more complicated than the stereotypes are so often portrayed. Unlike many I enjoy reading interesting political and religious views even when I don’t agree with them. </p>
<p>Even though I would not consider myself “religious” in any sense of the term, some of the most fascinating books I’ve read recently were on intelligent design (incredibly interesting reading), the early history of Christianity, and the development of the Bible. Believe it or not, a non-religious study of the Bible is very interesting, especially when done in conjunction with books like “Desire of the Everlasting Hills” (teachings of Jesus) and “The Gift of the Jews” (a study of the Old Testament).</p>
<p>So, now I have one for you to read - Jews, Christians, and God’s Word, by Thomas Cahill. If the link doesn’t take you directly to the essay, it’s the third one down on the page (the others are interesting also):</p>
<p><a href=“Thomas Cahill”>Thomas Cahill;
<p>This is written to demonstrate Cahill’s belief that the terms “Christian” and “Republican” are contradictory. It gets a little too partisan political at the end; I think he could have made his point without that.</p>
<p>And no, this is not to inflame passions here. I am truly interested in your (and others) thoughts on this essay, especially the first part on Amos, Micah, Mary and Jesus.</p>
<p>Believe it or not, a non-religious study of the Bible is very interesting, especially when done in conjunction with books like “Desire of the Everlasting Hills” (teachings of Jesus) and “The Gift of the Jews” (a study of the Old Testament).</p>
<p>A big portion of the yr long Reed hum110 class that all freshmen take is not only study of St. Augustine and his writings but study of the Christian Bible. Reed of course is not generally known as a religious or conservative college ;).
THis was especially useful when a wandering evangelical, who periodically visits Reed, was haranguing students who were studying on the lawn about their general dress, liberalism and the like , but when he got to the part where they were ignorant of the “word of God” , they all took out their Bibles and waved them at him.
He hasn’t been back</p>
<p>Dig,
Adult long-distance learning! I love it! A very interesting article, I’ll return to it when I have time, but my initial reaction on first read was that this particular assertion, while likely appropriate in the 8th century B.C., and right on through the Enlightenment, falls flat in our own society, where the economy is not a zero-sum prospect. Anyway, good post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>driver -</p>
<p>If you do get a chance to read the rest, your first comment may be the same as mine - that the final conclusions and applications to our current society are (as you hint above) too simplistic. I will give you that, but there are some very good points before he gets into current politics. One of my favorites is:</p>
<p>
And this same point is expanded upon in:
It seems so clear, but let me contrast that with a typical prayer of evangelicals today. Just for fun, I looked at today’s suggested daily prayer on commonworship.com:
You have to admit that this is a “typical” prayer you would hear from Christians today, but look at how the whole thing is so self-centered - me, me, me, me… Evangelicals are praying so hard for God to listen to what they’re saying that I don’t see how they can possibly hear what God is saying to them.</p>
<p>Dig,
I like the walking with God quote as well. I have to say that Mary strikes me as nearly self-deluded in her Magnificat–almost like someone who believes “the Rapture” is coming later this month. Jesus, on the other hand, strikes a more reasoned note in the Beatitudes, which remain one of our great examples of religious hope and optimism while maintaining a realistic view of the actual circumstances. Your last point reminded me of this, from the article:
Not that everyone shouldn’t pray in any way that is meaningful for them, of course…recitation is an old tradition in many faiths.</p>
<p>Cahill’s obviously a very skilled speaker/writer. The allusion to the Jewish prophets is very clever device, although as you say, the attempt to extrapolate their B.C. attempts to “speak truth to power” don’t translate to our time as smoothly as his mellifluous prose would suggest. Sorry I don’t have time to write a whole essay, but I did learn some things from your post, which I always appreciate. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have a few problems with this statement. First, how is it that you know what people are praying? Is the line tapped? If so, then perhaps we DO need to take another look at the Patriot Act. ;)</p>
<p>Secondly, your assertion that you “don’t see how they can possibly hear what God is saying to them.” is inconsistent with much of the prayer:
</p>
<p>Finally, the model for prayer was Jesus’ instruction to his disciples in the Lord’s Prayer in which there is plenty of room for “me” issues
</p>
<p>What I don’t get is this… If God is so great and powerful, why do we have to pray to him? And how do we know what Jesus said? What Mary was doing? Who was the stenographer? How do we know the intimate details of these people? With all the information technology at our disposal, we don’t know who has weapons of mass destrution or not, but we know the thoughts of all these people that were around 2,000 years ago. And we kill because we know the intimate thoughts of these people and other people don’t? One more thing. Jesus was probably 5’ 2" and looked like the Palestinians of today. Why is he depicted like a 6’2" WASP?</p>
<p>"Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive those who trespass against us. </p>
<p>And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil."</p>
<p>Mistranslation: it actually says “deliver us from DOING evil”.</p>
<p>“If God is so great and powerful, why do we have to pray to him?”</p>
<p>Hmmm </p>
<p>If god is so great and powerful, why do we have to study?</p>
<p>-----I guess, so that we, upon reflection, may become better human beings contemplation and education are known to have better than average results in these areas.</p>
<p>“And we kill because we know the intimate thoughts of these people and other people don’t?”</p>
<p>------It seems to me that we humans were pretty adept at killing even prior to any knowledge of Jesus and also without reference to Jesus, or any god for that matter. By far the greatest killers of our time seemed to do well enough without praying or referring to Jesus or any deity other then themselves and their progressively brave and secular world views and ideologies: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol pot the list goes on </p>
<p> .people of faith turned out to be real deadbeats when it came to the fine art of genocide and mass murder, who would have guessed.</p>
<p>Uhhhhhhhhh…studying and praying similar?</p>
<p>Don’t throw studying in there. Why do we have to pray? </p>
<p>Better check your history on Hitler.</p>