Episcopal Church Foments Strife and Civil War

This unwelcome (but not unexpected) news was received early this morning, as we were on our way to a well-earned vacation. As a result, I shall have only limited opportunity to comment about it until my return next week. (A lot of what could be said is already in this earlier post. Also, there is a full description of the new disciplinary process as to bishops, which ECUSA claims to be currently following, in this post -- particularly as applied to the Presiding Bishop herself.)

However, regular readers of this blog should be well prepared to assess the significance of the news, in light of all the background posts about the events leading to the current situation in South Carolina, about the Constitutional crisis provoked by the arrogation of unprecedented and unconstitutional disciplinary powers by the Presiding Bishop, and about the progressive trend to abuse the Abandonment Canons for political and personal ends.

To anyone who still cares about what was once a fine old and traditional church, I will say only this: what the present leadership of the Episcopal Church (USA) is sowing, so shall they also reap. To invade one of its existing Dioceses in a bid to overthrow its diocesan officers, its infrastructure and its stalwart Christian supporters is utter madness. It will produce only an orgy of self-destruction, from which the Church herself cannot emerge intact.

South Carolina was one of the seven original dioceses that created the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America in 1789 (later that year, they were joined by two others). For South Carolina's own creation now to rise up against her is to stand history on its head, to exalt power and money over mission and substance, and to let personal grudges and petty prejudices gain the upper hand.

So I repeat: as they sow, so shall they reap.

Is "Messy" Messianic? And other useless considerations....

I was directed here by starting here, so first, my thanks to both Ann and Mimi. But what I'm most interested in is here, something Harvey Cox said 12 years ago. But to simply put the matter in context:

Still, the liturgy of The Market is not proceeding without some opposition from the pews. A considerable battle is shaping up in the United States, for example, over the attempt to merchandise human genes. A few years ago, banding together for the first time in memory, virtually all the religious institutions in the country, from the liberal National Council of Churches to the Catholic bishops to the Christian Coalition, opposed the gene mart, the newest theophany of The Market. But these critics are followers of what are now "old religions," which, like the goddess cults that were thriving when the worship of the vigorous young Apollo began sweeping ancient Greece, may not have the strength to slow the spread of the new devotion.

Opposition to the "liturgy of The Market" is currently being pronounced by the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, which is spreading out to occupy other places as well. But the narrative of the movement is not yet 'crystal clear' enough to fit on a bumper sticker, so the media seems most concerned about how incoherent the movement is. At first I wondered: so what was the single, coherent message of the Hoovervilles? But after reading Cox's argument, I'm thinking: the message is coherent, but like the message of the Church, it isn't being spoken in the language of the world.

Let me explain.

I'm a supporter of the traditional liturgy of the church, the ancient practice, much modified but much the same, handed down from the Roman Catholic observances. Most pastors I know, especially in my denomination, disagree with me. They insist such practices are too arcane and archaic, and must be discarded in favor of newer, more appealing styles of worship. It would seem to be an argument just about styles, then: whether I wear a robe or alb, a tie or a collar, a business suit or an open necked polo shirt, surely what matters is what is said, not how it is said. Right?

Well, maybe.

But if what I say is in the language of the world, is entirely in the "liturgy" of the world, am I not speaking in terms of the world? Reports coming from the Occupy Wall Street movement are that it is radically democratic. At least, "radical" as we have come to understand democracy. But we forget America is not a democracy; it is a democractic republic. We are far more Roman than Greek, and while they Greeks gave us the concept of the "demos," the Romans taught us to organize a republic. We are as much a republic as Rome once was; the main difference is, we are more democratic than Rome ever was. But we still assume we must speak with one voice in all matters; and so pundits bewail "partisanship" and the "lack of civility" that prevents everyone from agreeing that we should be at war in Vietnam, or in favor of waiting for civil rights to be granted to African Americans, or go slower on granting just voting rights to all Americans, or....

You get my point.

The Occupy Wall Street "movement" seems to be less about recreating the democratic republic in miniature, and more about reclaiming the ancient Greek ideal of "democracy." It is not unknown in this country, the idea that democracy means listening to all the voices of all the people. The man standing at the town hall meeting is a citizen entitled to be heard like very other citizen, where the vote is a consensus of those gathered, not the decision of representatives. If Occupy Wall Street doesn't have one message to convey, that is because it is conveying a message by what it is rather than just by what it says. Ironically, in this web-linked and internet besotted age, actions still speak louder than words. And trying to reduce actions to words is as much a distortion as trying to reduce the parables of Jesus to simply moral homilies.

The parables, in fact, are a good example of what I mean. Simple tales told about ordinary events, but tales charged with extraordinary and seemingly contradictory meaning. Jesus' parables take the everyday life of his original audience and fill it with wonder and paradox and even confusion. How can a father honor a son's outrageous request for his half of the estate when his father still lives, and how can that father welcome that same prodigal son home? But how can the brother stand outside and not share in the celebration, and at the same time, how can he go in and accept what the father and his brother have done? Isn't there a simple meaning to this tale, something we can fit in a bumper sticker? There is, by now; but it distorts the tale to render that "simple" meaning. It fits the tale, in fact, into the language of the world, rather than leaving it in the language of the parable.

So to speak in the liturgy of The Market is not to challenge the basic presumption of The Market as God; it is only to seek to reform the presumption so it better serves our preferences and comforts. But there's nothing preferential or comfortable about camping out in a public park for three weeks, demanding attention and advocating for change. The Market expects activities to pay dividends, to reap rewards, to at least incur profits. In The Market, even time is for sale, and the coin of purchase has to have meaning in The Market, or there is no purchase possible, no transaction can occur, no purpose can be identified. If the activity does not have a Market purpose, what purpose is there to it?

Does everything, then, have to have a Market purpose? Does all liturgy, all human action, have to speak in terms of the World to be understandable? And if it does, can it radically challenge the World? Or can it, at best, only seek to reform it, to tweak it, to modify it, however slightly?

"What life have we if we have no life together?" In the NPR story, some of the occupiers of Wall Street noted the irony of protesting corporations while using Verizon to live stream the protest marches and so bypass any coverage or lack of coverage the media might (or might not) provide. But if the message is not about damning the corporation outright, perhaps the message is, in part, about the right use of the corporation. "Liturgy", after all, is the "work of the people." To work is to be in the world (the example of Christ led even the scholarly monks of Medieval Europe to labor as well as study); it is not necessarily to be of the world, however. But to speak in the liturgy of the church is to speak a rich language; one, however, comprehensible to the Church, if not to the world. But what does it mean to speak in the liturgy of The Market?

To speak in the liturgy of the Church is to make the Church and its traditions paramount, if not necessarily supreme. To speak in the liturgy of The Market is to make The Market paramount, if not necessarily supreme. Which, however, should be necessarily supreme: God? Or The Market? Perhaps not even God (there is no reason to make Occupy Wall Street a wholly Christian movement), but what substitute for The Market can be offered? The demos? That would seem to be what Occupy Wall Street wants to offer, and it's a very reasonable substitute to The Market. But The Market speaks in terms of "bottom lines," of DJIA closes and stock prices and valuations that are definable if not final. The Market wants a single, simple, marketable narrative. Democracy, on the other hand, especially direct, unfiltered democracy, is messy.

Long live the messy.

No, not originally from "Godspell"

When wilt thou save the people?
O God of mercy, when?
The people, Lord, the people,
Not thrones and crowns, but men!
Flowers of thy heart, O God, are they;
let them not pass like weeds away
Their heritage a sunless day
God save the people

Shall crime bring crime forever,
Strength aiding still the strong?
Is it thy will, O Father,
that men shall toil for wrong?
No, say thy mountains; No, say thy skies;
man's clouded sun shall brightly rise,
and songs be heard, instead of sighs,
God save the people!

When wilt thou save the people?
O God of mercy, when?
The people, Lord, the people!
Not thrones and crowns, but men!
God save the people; thine they are,
thy children as thy angels fair;
from vice, oppression and despair,
God save the people!

Words: Ebenezer Elliott, 1850

Richard Dawkins Does Not Think: Therefore, I Exist

--The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." (Psalm 14:1)

Too many books and blogs by atheists in my reading diet lately produced the need for an antidote. The result is the following exercise, which I offer for whatever worth others may find in it. It is in two parts: first an explanatory preface, and then the exercise proper. (A print version with endnotes may be accessed here.)

I. A Preface to the Exercise that Follows

Your Curmudgeon suggests a new variation on René Descartes' famous cogito, ergo sum:

Davidulus¹ non cogitat, ergo sum.

-- or, in English: "[Richard] Dawkins¹ does not think: therefore, I exist."

___________

¹ "Dawkins" is an old English variant on a pet form of "David" ("Davykins"), hence "little David", or in Latin: "Davidulus".

To explain: "It takes a living, thinking human being to be aware of what is left out of Richard Dawkins' atheist-inspired reasoning. Thus if you can grasp in what manner Dawkins does not -- and will not -- think to the fullest, then you may know that you are a living, thinking human being."

There is, however, little worth in attacking the man's unthinking adumbrations about a world he cannot see. Many others have already done so, and as some of those have pointed out, it is rather like shooting fish in a barrel. No, what I propose to do here is to respond to Prof. Dawkins in a way which it is calculated will most effectively disarm what he has labored to construct. It will, I hope, prove an antidote for Christians to the emptiness one encounters in all the current atheist literature.

Let us first pose twelve fundamental questions about existence and belief. Next let us juxtapose two kinds of answer to each question: the one that Prof. Dawkins and his ilk would give, based on views expressed in print and on the Web², and the other a traditional answer, as the subject has always and nearly everywhere been understood by people who call themselves Christians.

__________

² I have been as careful as I can below to portray the gist of what the currently so voluble crop of atheists offers in response to these age-old questions. If I have in any way erred, I trust that the Internet will supply the needed corrections.

My purpose here, I stress, is not to attack Prof. Dawkins or his positions. If you have come here to read a refutation of his views, you have come to the wrong place -- as I say, you can search for books about "Dawkins" at http://www.amazon.com and find a plethora of books that do just that (after going to at least the second page of results).

What I propose instead through the question-and-answer format is an exercise: I ask you, the reader, (a) above all, to be completely honest with yourself; and then (b) to decide in your heart and your mind which of the answers given below -- the traditional ones, or those of the atheist -- resonate with you when you read and reflect upon them. (Hopefully, both your heart and your mind will be in agreement -- if not, you might want to study the topic and think about it further.)

If you are like Richard Dawkins, then I will not take it amiss if you identify and resonate with each one of the atheistic answers I credit below -- indeed, just the opposite is the case. By doing so, you will demonstrate one of the main points of this exercise: namely, that those who will not, under any circumstances, allow themselves to entertain for even a moment the idea that there could be a God/Creator of the universe, are impervious to all convictions based on any kind of metadata.³

_________

³ Metadata are data of the kind which, while not directly discernible or measurable by any instrument in any laboratory, nonetheless comprise a considerable part of our being humans who are made in God's image. (Deny that fact, of course, and you deny yourself access to all such metadata -- and you will not find anything of interest here.) By providing part of the definition of what it means to be a human being, such metadata are therefore accessible to all who will sincerely look within, next look without, and then will make the connection -- between what they see without and all around them, and what they feel and experience within, at the same time. In one magnificent ancient metaphor, metadata are the things we find "written on our hearts." They become fully meaningful in relation to what we perceive and understand of the world around us, and how we act upon what they reveal to us.

Because this point is so crucial, let me restate it one more time. This exercise is not intended to convince or convert atheists or agnostics to become deists, theists, Christians, or whatever. What convinces you (or has failed to do so) has already convinced you (or, again, has already failed), "far above my poor power to add or detract."⁴

_________

⁴ It bears restating also that there can be no rewards here for atheists, since the exercise has been designed to confirm them in what they already claim to know -- and please understand me when I say that in my view, and in all humility, such a confirmation is no reward, but rather a demonstration. If you are indeed confirmed even more in your beliefs by what you read here, or even if you conclude you want no part of what is being offered below, then you will know that all your defensive systems are up and working as you, in your own free will, intend them to work. Nevertheless, as the saying goes, chacun à son goût -- the very free will with which the Creator has blessed you is the gift by which He also freely allows you to deny Him. In His infinite mercy and love, He will not have any come to Him but those who of their own free will choose to do so.

As an analogy to what I am talking about, think of a small pond -- into the middle of which a pebble is cast. From the point of view of the pebble, there is a splash, and immediately a ripple, before it sinks to the bottom. Now there are those who may choose to take the pebble's point of view, focus on that splash and first ripple, and claim that the resulting picture is "all there is" -- it is all that needs to be considered in order to get a full explanation of what happened. Such people are the materialists, the ones who deny that any kind of metadata exist, or that we humans could be aware of them if they did exist. (Note that there is no quarrel with their picture of reality -- it is fully accurate as far as it goes. The argument instead is whether they are justified in their claim that their picture "is all that there is.")

There are those, however, who will be just as comfortable with taking a wider point of view -- the one from above. Those persons will see not just the first ripple, but the next, and the next -- until the entire surface of the pond is filled with them. It is those people for whom the exercise below is intended. The first answer -- the one given by atheists like Dawkins -- is the one that is akin to the picture perceived by the pebble just before it sinks. The second answer is the equivalent of taking in the metadata of the entire pond from above, with all its ripples. And the exercise asks, simply: with which of the two pictures (answers) are you more comfortable? Which one resonates with you the more, and gives you what you believe is a better grasp of the whole picture?

With that necessary preface, let us begin. As you read the opposing answers given to the following fundamental questions, look deep within yourself to learn which ones your heart truly leaps up to embrace, and gauge your future course accordingly.

II. An Exercise in Metaphysics and Faith

Below is a series of questions, posed to two individuals, Materius and Salviatus, along with their respective answers. Materius is intended to represent the views of the currently vocal atheists, as shown by some hyperlinks (not exhaustive). Salviatus represents the traditional Christian view.

1. Why is there something, rather than nothing?

Materius: We don't know for certain. The something which there is may have come from nothing, since it does not appear to have existed before the Big Bang, but it is all there is -- we cannot go behind the Big Bang with our current theories.

Salviatus: The reason that there is something, rather than nothing, is that there is a loving Creator, who created the world in which we now find ourselves.

2. Since there is something, rather than nothing, what is the purpose of bringing it into being?

Materius: There is no purpose -- it is all just there. There is no scientific evidence of anything that lies behind it.

Salviatus: The reason there is something rather than nothing is that we, the beings so created, could discover from creation our Creator's love, and so learn ourselves to love Him and others, as He loves us.

3. Is there any such thing as truth?

Materius: Truth is different depending on who perceives it, at what time and under what circumstances. Even we scientists can know only as "true" that which can be repeated by anyone else under comparable conditions, and hence has not yet been proven false. In consequence, it must be true that there can never be any such thing as absolute truth, but only what we think we know at the time.

Salviatus: Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as truth: you know it because it is eternal, always the same, and unwavering, like the answers I gave to the first two questions.

4. How can we know what is right from what is wrong?

Materius: Like "truth", all morality is relative, and depends on the individual and the situation. (That, by the way, is another absolute truth.)

Salviatus: We can know what is right, and hence also what is wrong, because we can know that absolute truth exists (see the previous answer). Such absolute truth, or logos, has to be always and everywhere right -- otherwise it could not be absolute.

5. Does God exist?

Materius: What you are calling "God" is a dangerous delusion. Of course God does not exist -- how could he, since all truth reflects only what is known for certain at the time, and thus must be relative to the one who perceives it at that given time? And if you propose to hypothesize a God, then I have to ask you: who (or what) created your "God"? If not you yourself, then there must be another God behind that God, and so on ad infinitum, which would be ridiculous.

Salviatus: Yes: since we can know that absolute truth exists, we likewise can know that God exists, because God is the eternal, unchanging truth; they are one and inseparable.

6. If God exists, what are the consequences for us as humans?

Materius: The consequences are far greater if God does not exist than if He exists. For if God does not exist, then everything is permitted. And since science shows that God cannot exist, then science shows that everything is indeed permitted. {N.B.: in this one instance, I may have gone farther than Dawkins himself cares to go in print -- but other atheists, such as Jean-Paul Sartre, do not flinch from the logic of that conclusion.}

Salviatus: The consequences are enormous. Since He has made us in His image, we deny Him whenever we exercise our free will to put our own wills above His.

7. Where did life come from?

Materius: Life as we know it now is just the latest end-product, over billions and billions of years, of the random collisions of atoms to form molecules, and of molecules to form proteins, RNA and DNA, and then of their interactions so as to create ever larger and larger cellular structures. We may not have worked out all the details, but give us sufficient time, and we will.

Salviatus: God created life, because life does not arise spontaneously from inanimate matter. Life comes from life, and ultimately can come only from the Creator.

8. If there is a God, why does evil happen?

Materius: Scientifically speaking, there is no evil, just as scientifically speaking, there is no "good" -- those are value judgments. All things, including what you choose to call "evil", happen by chance and the laws of physics.

Salviatus: Wait, Materius -- to give a complete answer to that question, one has first to distinguish between what philosophers call "natural evil" and "human-caused evil". There can be no God-caused evil, because God is eternally good, and is thus incapable of generating evil -- but He can, and most certainly does, punish.⁵

_____________

⁵ It is not good for one in authority never to punish, just as it would not be good for such a one always to punish, without mercy. People who accuse God of commanding "evil" in His name -- particularly with reference to the Hebrew scriptures -- fail to take sufficient account of His using human agents to achieve earthly punishment, or of His direct interventions to that end, as in the case of Noah's flood, or of Sodom and Gomorrah. Frequently they also fail, in presuming to ascribe a motive to God from what is narrated, to take sufficient account of the sheer distance in time and cultures which separates us from the authors of those scriptures.

9. Why would God allow what you call "natural evil" to happen?

Materius: Balderdash -- there is no God, and "natural evil" is a tautology. What happens is what happens -- get over it.

Salviatus: This question requires a more extended answer.

So-called "natural evil", with all due respect to the philosophers who first made such a distinction, is a misnomer. It is no more than a logical consequence of our limited human perspective in a vast universe, and a natural consequence of the physical laws that govern it. We humans presume, from our minuscule but self-important perspective, that God "allows" earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, landslides and all the other natural evils to take thousands and thousands of lives -- when at the same time we ignore the pedestrian fact that, in just the same sense, God "allows" thousands and thousands of people to die, from all kinds of causes, every day. So which is it? You cannot accuse Him of the one without accusing Him of the other, and then the accusation becomes a trivial complaint about human mortality.

A moment's thought would show that if there were no such destructive physical phenomena in our world, then the world as we know it would be entirely different. Miraculously, gravity would reverse itself before we could plunge to our deaths; the earth would never shake, or its waters never rise to cause a flood, or drown anyone. Life would be entirely without danger, without risk, and we would all be permanent couch potatoes, somewhat like the passengers on the space ship Axiom in Wall-e.

10. Why should God create humans who are capable of causing evil?

Materius: Again, I say, since there is no God, the question is meaningless. What some humans choose to call "evil" may be only right in other humans' eyes -- witness the Israelis versus the Palestinians. One man's evil is another man's righteousness, and there is no absolute way of judging the difference -- see my answer to Question #4 above.

Salviatus: God created humans in his image, which means that humans have freedom of will, because God has free will. But since God is eternally good, He is incapable of choosing -- using free will -- to do evil to anyone, as explained in my answer to Question #8 above. Instead, humans -- who have free will, but who are also fallen⁶ -- can as freely choose to do evil as to do good. And when humans freely choose to do their will over God's will, they more often than not bring about evil. The human-caused evil that results is thus appropriately named.

_____________

⁶ The best demonstration I have seen of this unarguable fact is this simple observation of the French philosopher Blaise Pascal (I have added the emphasis):

Man’s greatness is so obvious that it can even be deduced from his wretchedness, for what is nature in animals we call wretchedness in man, thus recognizing that, if his nature is today like that of the animals, he must have fallen from some better state which was once his own.

See also my series of posts on Adam and Eve, linked from this page, which builds on Pascal's insight.

11. Is there life after death?

Materius: Life being life, there can be no life after death, which is the end of life. The notion of life as somehow continuing after death is what I call "the God delusion." Grow up, become a man, and die to eternal blackness -- which you will never perceive or have to experience, anyway, so why be concerned about it?

Salviatus: Based on my answers to the previous ten questions, I would have to be a blind fool to think that our Creator brought us into this existence only so that we could die and exist nevermore. To love someone fully (and our Creator can do no less) is to want to be with them forever. Because our Creator loves us (see answers to Questions #1 and #2 above), of course there is life after "death" -- it is, if we freely choose it, with the Creator.

12. What, then, is hell?

Materius: A particularly nasty myth spread by so-called Christians to scare people.

Salviatus: Hell is the free choice of those who choose to live without God. For Christians who truly repent and confess their faith in Christ Jesus, it is the worst of fates conceivable -- which is why we pray for God's grace, repent with all our heart, and confess our faith.

Thank you -- and now, your last words, please. What advice would you like to offer to others, as your colophon?

Materius: That's easy. Hopefully, you have lived a good and prosperous life, so be thankful for what you briefly enjoyed, and accept your fate. And if you were not so fortunate, what difference will it make in the end, anyway? When you are gone, you're gone, and that's the end of it.

Salviatus: My answer may not be considered as exactly traditional, because there is no advice I need to give to those who accepted my earlier answers: they have their faith, and as our Lord assures us, will not be left comfortless.

To the atheists and agnostics, I say simply this: You are free to believe what you believe while you are still alive: no one proposes to force you to do otherwise. However, if you take no other advice from a Christian, then please listen: if, after you die to life on earth, you are nonetheless still somehow aware that there is a "you" which has continued to exist, in some way which you cannot yet fathom, then the best thing you can do in that event is to start immediately to pray, in these or similar words:

Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

If you can't remember that, then pray in words of sincere repentance, and ask forgiveness from your Maker -- "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner."

From the Gospel according to John, ch. 3:

3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 3:18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. 3:19 Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. 3:20 For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. 3:21 But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.

[Please take note: I am highly aware of the potential for comments on this post to get sidetracked. Be advised that comments which are not respectful to others, or which do not further the dialog, will not survive moderation.]

"People are Messy"

There is a common thread in the analyses of our current fiscal problems, and it is connected by the fact that people cost too much damned money!

It is connected, in other words, by an idea. An abstraction. The worship of concepts over the concern for human beings.

This is as good a starting place as any:

Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT), who’s expected to face Sen. John Tester (D) in the Montana Senate race next year, is worried that some families who receive federally-subsidized lunches may be gaming the system and therefore bilking you out of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

It’s about waste, fraud and abuse, he suggests. But Democrats say it’s about something else: A Republican looking to scrimp on a program that benefits the least fortunate of all Americans, poor children, while he fights to protect subsidies for multi-billion dollar oil companies.

Mitch Daniels has been all over the news lately, from The Daily Show to Morning Edition on NPR, promoting his idea that people cost too damned much and we really just cannot afford them:

Daniels, whose book portrays America — and President Obama — in deep trouble, says that he largely agrees with columnist Charles Krauthammer, who says the Social Security system needs to be adjusted, not abolished, and that the changes can come over time.

Changing the system, Daniels says, "would send a clear and positive message that we do not intend to go over a fiscal Niagara."

"The wisest course would be to say to today's retirees, nothing changes for you, but also to ask them to join in seeing that younger generations who are paying for their retirement today have some protection, too."

I pause only to note the "expert" Mr. Daniels agrees with is a newspaper columnist. I might also point out I've been hearing Social Security was going to "go broke" since at least the 1970's. It's a popular canard because, well: people are too damned expensive.

We're never about to go "over a fiscal Niagara" because of defense spending, or because we build too many highways, or because we bail out too many banks, or because we let too many corporations get away with not paying any income tax. It's always because we spend too much on people. Wait for the day a Mitch Daniels goes on the talk shows promoting a book about how we buy too many weapons systems and waste too much money propping up Wall Street.

You'll be waiting a very long time.

Everybody plays the game, even if they don't quite seem to. Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles are all for making the tax system "equitable," and want to keep social programs, but only for the "most vulnerable":

The work done by our commission and others has shown that it is possible to reform entitlement programs in a way that preserves and even strengthens the safety net for the most vulnerable while achieving significant savings.

But Dennis Rehberg and Mitch Daniels would define the "most vulnerable" as the taxpayers (who are being cheated by "the poor") and major corporations (who need lower taxes and less regulation so they can "create jobs"). And nowhere in the Simpson/Bowles editorial is there any mention of the outrageous spending in Iraq and Afghanistan which created the budget deficit we have in the first place (Clinton left Bush with a budget surplus; Cheney said "Deficits don't matter".), nor any idea that "entitlements" should perhaps include defense spending in its definition. Defense spending is still for the most vulnerable of all. Apparently.

Two arguments could be made here: one purely emotional, the other painfully rational and based on a pile of evidence. The conclusion is the same, and this is the golden thread running through the discussion of the current situation. Matt Yglesias, for example, noted what I immediately noted about Michael Kinsley's (the poor man's Newt Gingrich) column on Chris Christie's weight:

A further nuance here, though, is that not only did Michael Kinsley’s piece on this draw a spurious connection between Christie’s appearance his personal virtue, it does so in order to make a second bad moral panic. After acknowledging that Christie “makes all the right noises about fiscal discipline,” he says that “perhaps Christie is the one to help us get our national appetites under control. But it would help if he got his own under control first.” This not only misunderstands obesity, it misunderstands fiscal policy. The sentiment here is that small budget deficits are a sign of self-control and personal virtue, and that large deficits are to be deplored as the reverse. There’s just no reason to think that any of that is true. The question to ask about fiscal policy is whether it’s appropriate to try to advance full employment in the short-term and capacity growth in the long-term. You have to ask what’s really going on, what the situation is, and what the impact of the policy choices will be. On Yom Kippur, you fast as an act of self-abnegation as part of a process for atoning for one’s sins. A person with out-of-control appetites will have a difficult time doing it. Fiscal policy is nothing like that.

No, it isn't; but fiscal policy is a terribly abstract notion. Much easier to replace it with an equally abstract notion, but one that seems concrete: people are no damned good! And fat people are victims of their appetites! And so the rest of us, greedy bastards that we are, are victims of our appetites. Or rather, victims of someone else's appetites (always easier to blame someone else for your problems).

Remember when the narrative said that it was the poor who caused the financial markets to collapse because they took out mortgages they couldn't afford? Funny, if they couldn't afford them, how did they get them? I've never been able to take out a large loan I couldn't afford; I always had to have a credit check. If I couldn't afford the debt, it was because of a loss of income, not because I never had the income to repay the loan. How was it the poor were suddenly responsible for the lenders being irresponsible?

They weren't, of course; but the story of the rapacious poor continued. Rick Perry is right: children of illegal immigrants in Texas deserve to pay in-state tuition rates for Texas colleges, colleges supported by state taxes paid by people who live in Texas. Being "illegal" doesn't exempt you from paying taxes, especially in a state with no income tax. A Texas resident pays sales tax on every purchase (except food and medicine) and pays property tax, either as a landowner, or through rent. That money is all you are asked to contribute as a resident in order to get in-state tuition rates at Texas colleges. So how does being "illegal" affect residency status?

It doesn't. But the GOP primary voters who are disgusted with Rick Perry (NPR found some in New Hampshire) think "illegal immigrants" don't deserve anything from Texas because...well...they're "illegal." They aren't people, they're: "Illegal." Perry was right to call people with such opinions heartless, even though that's no way to win votes.

But ideas matter more than people.

In fact, people don't even matter. It's the idea of people that matters.

When Jesus says, in Matthew's gospel, that you saw me naked, or hungry, or sick, or in prison, and you cared for me, even if just to visit me or give me some food, he's contrasting the idea of people with the reality of people. And those who treat people as human beings rather than ideas, are the ones who, literally, served God (and stop and think what it means to "serve God," without serving as God's agent of power. To serve the powerless God, the God who is sick, in prison, or naked, or hungry. We praise "servants of God" who tell us what they think God wants. We pay almost no attention to servants of God who actually serve God by being servants to people.)

I don't want to banter still with still more ideas of how this idea became so important. I just want to point out that if there is truth in the old teaching from the catechism that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," this is a concrete application of that teaching, rather than merely a metaphysical or abstract one.

Most of us prefer ideas over people. It's just so much easier to deal with the world that way.