Congratulations to John Fea for being selected as a finalist for the George Washington Book prize. You can read about it here, here, and here.
The down: The Glenn Beck crowd went nuts reacting to this article that (accurately) notes Barack Obama, judged by his words as Presidents, may be one of the most explicitly "Christian" American Presidents. BHO is certainly far more rhetorically Christian than the early Founding American Presidents (certainly more than either Presidents Washington and Madison).
And this crowd especially should be wary of casting the "who is a 'real Christian'?" stone given Beck's Mormonism.
22 comments:
.
As the most famous of all Christians said, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." The American electorate is being fed too many lies by speakers in the anti-Obama movement, men like the Grinch, Romney, and Santorum.
.
Comments at The Blaze illustrate how the merging of Christianity and populist conservatism acts out.
What I find interesting about this religious-political movement is how blithely they abandon the principles of their religion in order to promote a political agenda predominately contra their holy dogma, especially those principles shared by other religions which all moral people can laud, e.g., grace, altruism, community, equality, and justice. From this perspective we can see why denialism is a required attribute for this movement to exist.
Denialism isn't necessarily required of conservatism, but it is for their type of religious belief if it's to survive. So they've combined one of the worst features of their religion to promote not the best conservatism has to offer, but instead its worst - a negative amplifying feedback loop that causes their movement to increasingly descend into lunacy.
.
I have not seen it put better, Michael.
.
Beck aims to tap the rage while Fea taps the intellect. And, if there's anything that enrages the rage machine it's intellectual activity - don't even mention intellectual integrity. There's a reason that the political grifter Barton is the "historian" on planet Beck. It's all about feeding the properly massaged information that keeps the kettle boiling.
I can't think of a better illustration of two end members of the merger of conservative and Christian than this kerfuffle.
And, should he peek in, congratulations John on all your successes.
I think John stepped in it with his commercial for Obama, and crossed the line from scholar to supporter.
"we will find that Obama’s piety, use of the Bible, and references to Christian faith and theology put most other American presidents to shame on this front."
reads like praise of BHO, especially to the reader who is not supportive of Obama. Dr. Fea clearly comes off as a partisan, then, an Obama supporter. [I'm not certain that he is, but having his read his blog for over a year, it's no secret he's friendlier to the left than the right.]
The funny thing is, had he made the same point about Dubya's religiosity, it would have been taken as a criticism of Dubya by his critics, that Dubya was mixing too much religion into his politics.
Well, now that I know from a reputable source (as opposed to the Blaze) that John's writing for Team Obama 2012, and as a proud member of O's Kitchen Cabinet (I have a postcard saying so), let me double up on my congratulations and best wishes.
.
Nothing like having a postcard to prove something.
.
And, speaking of Obama's kitchen cabinet, his kitchen clock told me.
.
"Nothing like having a postcard to prove something."
:)
http://www.philipvickersfithian.com/2012/02/george-w-bush-was-flaming-liberal.html
I rest my case, JRB. Gimme a break, brother. John's partisan sympathies are not hidden.
As I wrote @ RIAH:
It does illustrate that like the medic who picks up a gun, the scholar who reveals his take on current events loses any non-combatant status, and must endure the return fire the same as normal people.
They're not even very good pundit arguments. Obama's religosity would be savaged if he were a Republican, and even Obama ran against Dubya from the right, over his big spending [which Obama surpassed bigtime].
Not very cogent criticism from a liberal.
"It does illustrate that like the medic who picks up a gun, the scholar who reveals his take on current events loses any non-combatant status, and must endure the return fire the same as normal people."
Proving ONCE AND FOR ALL that YOU cannot be trusted either, TVD, for your political leanings are the most obvious. I can smell their stench from a mile away.
Actually, I like Dr. Fea's professional work very much. When he [or I] apply our study of history to contemporary partisan politics---esp in approving or disapproving of one side or the other---the pain is gonna come, the medic is gonna get shot at.
Neither have I found that scholars have a better batting average than normal people when it comes to incisiveness on contemporary issues. They are two different skills.
.
ONCE AND FOR ALL...
.
Well, in a world that defines you as leftist if you disagree with Limbaugh or Hannity or Beck I can see your point. I remember when William F. Buckley Jr. was a liberal - from the John Birch point of view.
Of course W wouldn't stand a chance with today's Tea Party dominated GOP. Neither would Reagan. It's all about purge baby purge until Purity Level 1 is achieved.
.
The ways the early Puritans handled their desire to purify and to purge every variance were many. One was to put a person in stocks for not attending Sunday services. Not only did they put them in stocks; but, beat them first. Once in the stock, the ears of the wayward one were nailed to the stock with three nails each. When the guilty one was finally let loose, the nails were not removed. Instead, the ear was slit from the nail out so the head could be removed. And, how do I know that? Why the kitchen clock told me so.
.
.
Imagine what it was like in early and very Christian America to see people walking around with gash scars on their forehead, slit nostrils, and scalloped ears. The local ministers employed men to seek out those sinners who broke the religious traditions so they could be brought to Christian justice.
.
And, people wonder why we have separation of church and state here in our secular society.
.
Strange....
.
The kitchen clock gave me a link you can check out: http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/spring03/branks.cfm
.
No separation of church and state back then.
.
That's MSNBCism, JRB. Romney's a moderate, pretty much in the Dubya zone.
Calling Wm F Buckley a liberal in any sense anytime is nonsense. That he purged the far-right Birchers from conservatism [in the end, wiping them off the map] speaks well of mainstream conservatism's claim to the center.
[Buckley liked Limbaugh a lot, BTW.]
I didn't mention Romney.
"Calling Wm F Buckley a liberal in any sense anytime is nonsense."
Yes. But I wasn't calling him liberal. The point was that compared to the far right JB Society he appeared "liberal".
"That he purged the far-right Birchers from conservatism [in the end, wiping them off the map]..."
For that I salute him. But, they never disappeared. Their recent resurgence and cosponsorship of CPAC in 2010 should have WFB Jr. spinning in the grave.
"Co-sponsor" along with 100 other groups. A few years ago. This one is so obscure I had to look it up, JRB. Not one of the real concerns of the republic, but fodder for internet grenade tossing I guess. Feh.
The point being that they're back and have gained traction in the public discourse. As opposed to having been "wiped off the map." Hardly grenade tossing from this foxhole*.
As to threat level? Your feh is my, where's the next WFB Jr.?
*No affiliation with the Fox News Network.
I dunno, JRB. I'm quite the righty and a newshound and John Birch is completely off my radar. This is bogeyman stuff.
"This is bogeyman stuff.
No, I believe it is stuff that you are unaware of. They are extreme by both liberal- and WFB Jr.-conservative standards. I'm not trying to make some kind of outside-the-box culture wars point. Their extremist language is in the near mainstream mix.
Post a Comment