Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2012 21:29:32 GMT
Interestingly I had a look at Ann Coulter and found this article, I swear I'm not making it up; On women: If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and 'We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?' observer.com/2007/10/coulter-culture/Despite the madness of her opinion on the vote (be she right or not about why women vote Democrat), women like her make me smile, maybe it's the evangelical outlook that gives them the spunk. I'd share a pot of tea with her too. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 6, 2012 8:58:01 GMT
Solange Hertzt, who if not already dead is certainly over 100 now, is a fruit loop of the highest order. She believes in Atlantis, that the pyramids of Egypt were lit by electric light originally and that Hitler was not anyway near the monster he's generally believed to be. As far as I know, she also believes Bacon wrote Shakespeare and I've heard rumours she's a flat earther.
A friend of mine knew her. She lives in Washington DC and her husband was a senior official in the State Dept who went missing during the Vietnam War in the course of negotiating the release of an American general held by the VietCong and was never heard of again. Mrs Hertz herself was an atheist who became a Catholic around the time her children were babies. However, she became very contrarian (as you can guess from the above) and very impatient with people who didn't agree with all her views. What amazes me was how critical she was of the establishment and how uncritical she was of 'off the wall' stuff. Someone ought to set up a blog in her memory - or else Damian Thompson is my nominee to assess her writings.
Re: fragile vocations. I have to say that Diarmuid from Ballyfermot has a point. I see several respectable young Dublin clergy who seem to make careers out of staying out of the Dublin working class parishes. What is that if not fragility?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 7, 2012 18:44:45 GMT
Ann Coulter is not an evangelical, she's an entertainer, and she should not be taken seriously (whereas I think the midwesterner is perfectly serious).
Solange Hertz seems to exemplify two points: (a) how the fruitloop mindset often grows out of real trauma or betrayal, a realisation that the world is not as it seems to be and that the authorities in whom you trusted are quite willing to betray and discard you and ignore your representations. This is an experience that many trads have had with Church authorities in the post-conciliar period. (b) Once you fall through the rabbit hole into a realisation that the world is not as straightforward as it seems to be, you become vulnerable to the claims of many people who have other ideas about how and why it is not as it seems to be. E. Michael Jones is a really tragic example of this; he picks up "rejected knowledge" (e.g. racial segregationist commenters from the 50s and early 60s claiming there is something inherently demonic about African-influenced popular music) sees it contains certain unacknowledged elements of truth (much of the popular music in question does promote debauchery and anti-social behaviour; there's a reason why old-time black gospellers regarded blues as the devil's music) and on the basis of that recognition he sticks to the whole racist bilge like a fly to flypaper, and just because the man is genuinely clever and good at making connections, he thinks the Elders of Zion stuff must be true because he worked it out for himself. Conspiracy theorists aren't necessarily stupid - they just don't know how to sort out what connections are significant and what are not, and often this is because they have been hurt and betrayed and don't know who to trust. It's a matter of discernment.)
I think Archbishop Martin may be talking about a type of emotional fragility. As for the young clergy you mention, they may grow out of it as they mature. I suspect there is a parental element as well - I know someone who said to his mother - and the mother is a genuinely, even remarkably, good and pious woman - that he wanted to be a priest, was subjected to a rage-filled outburst in which he was told among other things that if he didn't lose his faith in seminary (or get kicked out for not losing his faith) he would be sent to an inner-city parish, and that would be simply unacceptable. People are strange, and the upheavals have confused so many.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Sept 8, 2012 13:11:54 GMT
This piece is so cosily assuming, reflective of Irish self-conception as promoted by the Irish Times. Note how it quotes only people coming from liberal-progressive perspectives (Ivana Bacik is included, of course) and assumes that narrative as self-evidently correct. So smug in its assumptions, no attempt to balance it by an alternative perspective, and entirely oblivious to the fact that anyone could hold a different viewpoint. Paul Anthony Ward on Twitter said: "This is exactly why @irishtimes is dying... All their writers come from a bubble & speak only to people in that bubble." www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0908/1224323726336.html?via=mr
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 8, 2012 17:39:22 GMT
Read the comments after any Breda O'Brien or John Waters column on the Irish Times opinion page and you realise the commenters are enraged that there is any space given to a Catholic perspective at all.
What really irritated me was this contribution from Ivana Bacik: "But then Mary Robinson was able to win the presidential election in 1990 despite taking very principled stances on issues like contraception that would have been at odds with Irish conservative values.". And what is an anti-contraceptive stance? Self-interested? Machiavellean? Cynical? I always try to avoid the implication that liberals are bad people, or to get into a slanging match, but it really does bother me when it is assumed that they have a monopoly on idealism, or that conservatism is somehow the opposite of idealism. I'm a conservative because I am an idealist; even because I am a romantic. (Insofar as the word "conservative" even means anything, of course.)
The last point, about Irish people being caught in a pendulum between self-congratulation and self-hatred, is one John Waters makes in his new book. Personally I've always thought there is a certain wisdom in Irish begrudgery. Success IS something to be suspicious of, a lot of the time.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 8, 2012 18:21:28 GMT
Indeed - the extent to which "liberal" is equated with "the mere existence of non-liberals is offensive and must be suppressed" is very revealing. Who was the commentator - I think it was John Waters - who said that had they been born 30 years earlier some of these people would have spent their lives reporting everyone they disapproved of to John Charles McQuaid?
Ivana Bacik's central assumption, which we see in a lot of the reminiscing about the 80s campaigns, is that the "conservative" position on the liberal agenda was taken only by cynical opportunists a la Charlie Haughey or moral imbeciles who let the Pope do their thinking for them (with the two overlapping) and hence neither could be described as "principled". The possibility that anyone might really believe the "conservative" position to be correct as a matter of personal conviction is dismissed out of hand. (Look at the reaction to Obamacare's contraceptive mandate and the dismissive attitude to the view that denial of conscientious exemptions is a refusal of religious liberty for a similar mindset, as represented by President Zero whom the IRISH TIMES worships so devoutly.)
The contrast between self-idealisation and self-hatred, each feeding off the other, has been there at least since the early nineteenth century and probably a lot longer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2012 16:07:25 GMT
Ann Coulter is not an evangelical, she's an entertainer, and she should not be taken seriously (whereas I think the midwesterner is perfectly serious). What do you mean by the above? I disagree with Miss Coulter being merely an entertainer, she is entertaining but she seems just as serious about her worldview as Miss Bernhardt and certainly more prudent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2012 16:15:03 GMT
Read the comments after any Breda O'Brien or John Waters column on the Irish Times opinion page and you realise the commenters are enraged that there is any space given to a Catholic perspective at all. What really irritated me was this contribution from Ivana Bacik: "But then Mary Robinson was able to win the presidential election in 1990 despite taking very principled stances on issues like contraception that would have been at odds with Irish conservative values.". And what is an anti-contraceptive stance? Self-interested? Machiavellean? Cynical? I always try to avoid the implication that liberals are bad people, or to get into a slanging match, but it really does bother me when it is assumed that they have a monopoly on idealism, or that conservatism is somehow the opposite of idealism. I'm a conservative because I am an idealist; even because I am a romantic. (Insofar as the word "conservative" even means anything, of course.) The last point, about Irish people being caught in a pendulum between self-congratulation and self-hatred, is one John Waters makes in his new book. Personally I've always thought there is a certain wisdom in Irish begrudgery. Success IS something to be suspicious of, a lot of the time. Don't be surprised if Miss Bacik continues to spout on about Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese too. I imagine if she continues to be rejected by constituent voters she'll place herself as the female Trinity law lecturer following in their footsteps and presenting herself for President eventually.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 12, 2012 22:50:54 GMT
Ann Coulter has been known to boast in interviews that her SEX IN THE CITY lifestyle reflects her commitment to Christianity because it shows she's not Muslim. (I have read such interviews myself.) She has also been criticised by conservative intellectuals who try to rehabilitate the late Senator McCarthy for her habit of recklessly declaring McCarthy was right about everything without bothering to provide any evidence in support of her assertions. She's the right-wing equivalent of Michael Moore, and every moment and cent spent on her is a diversion.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 12, 2012 22:51:53 GMT
Dead on the mark about Senator Bacik, Louise - she clearly sees herself as Mary Robinson the Second, complete with the superiority complex.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 13, 2012 8:52:44 GMT
Regarding Ann Coulter-- it increasingly seems to me that it is always perilous for Christianity to get mixed up in some other cause, like the culture wars in America or nationalism here. I am increasingly reluctant to call myself a conservative, as naturally as that comes to me, since it seems like yet another "coalition partner" which can compromise and mangle Christianity, and reduce it to mere identity politics and tribalism. What has Jerusalem to do with talk radio?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2012 12:29:41 GMT
Regarding Ann Coulter-- it increasingly seems to me that it is always perilous for Christianity to get mixed up in some other cause, like the culture wars in America or nationalism here. I am increasingly reluctant to call myself a conservative, as naturally as that comes to me, since it seems like yet another "coalition partner" which can compromise and mangle Christianity, and reduce it to mere identity politics and tribalism. What has Jerusalem to do with talk radio? I understand what you're saying and in a way I agree that Christianity and/or Catholicism should not take a specific side but remain true to the Gospel alone and direct us to that and Tradition first when we are forming an opinion. However Miss Coulter or anyone else who proclaims to be a Christian is allowed to take a side. We're allowed a lay mission, right? Let our faith inform our work and all that. One hears so many accusations from all sides lambasting us (women) for being dumb for sleeping around, dumb for listening to the Vatican mafia telling us not to sleep around, dumb for getting plastic surgery so we can please a man, dumb for keeping house well as part of pleasing a man. I mean dumb in the sense of silently following like a Stepford housewife, an unreflecting coward and stupid by the way. I'm so sick of it, I'm sick of the pathetic, apologetic, cookie cutter image that the media and hence the world has of us and the only Catholic women who speak up are sweet souls like Dana (who I admire by the way as a woman true to her vocation) or bitter women demanding the Church turn cartwheels to please them (talk about entitlement). So when someone comes along like Miss Coulter or Miss Bernhardt and starts yelling it cracks me up laughing because if one or the other of them went on Vincent Browne or that TV3 women's borefest at lunchtime they may shock, they may offend or jolt people out of their daytime tv stupor but no matter how much anyone hates their point of view they cannot be called unreflective, cowardly or in any way a Stepford wife. People are who they are and although Miss Coulter in particular is fond of soundbites they have an opinion and are not afraid to state it, even if it's unpopular. Miss Bernhardt is Catholic and single and doesn't have children and yet she still chooses to follow such an antiquarian and misogynistic bunch of men telling her what to do and that they speak for God. Why? It's not because she wants her kids to grow up with values or because her husband and she have always gone to Mass like all the neighbours do. She has no such responsibilities, she has thought it through and sees Truth where He stands and has chosen to embrace it. The fact that she and Miss Coulter are fiesty and opinionated and obnoxious about how they view the world is part of who they are. People are who they are and I think that they do a power of good in knocking the silent, daft and put-upon view of Christian women sideways, and we could certainly do with a few of them in this country. Remember what St. Catherine of Siena said? "I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF EXHORTATIONS TO SILENT! CRY OUR WITH A HUNDRED THOUSAND TONGUES. I SEE THE WORLD IS ROTTEN BECAUSE OF SILENCE." Even when they get it wrong or come across as mad I still admire their courage and ability to show those watching or reading that they have a brain and shock horror! still choose Christ. The SATC point by Hibernicus surprised me, I was not aware of that. I've read some articles where they mention it because she's single, attractive, likes fashion and is wealthy. I found one quote stating that promiscuity is ok for the single person but it didn't provide a source. Can you expand on your earlier point Hibernicus? I'm happy to be corrected on that.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 13, 2012 14:20:22 GMT
But unreflective is exactly what Ann Coulter (and Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, and people closer to home like Kevin Myers) seem like to me. It just seems they have adopted a deliberately provocative, "liberal"-bashing attitude that determines all their beliefs. It's a temptation to which I have succumbed myself in the past. But I find nothing emancipatory or refreshing about it; it's really just obligingly supplying an ogre for the people you think you're antagonising.
Derogatory sexual stereotypes are annoying, I agree. Why is it OK for a woman to go to the cinema on her own but a man who does so is suspect? Awful!
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 15, 2012 20:07:09 GMT
I agree, Maolsheachlainn - the temptation to play to the gallery, or to assume anything conservative is good and anything liberal is bad, plays right into the hands of the Enemy. Kevin Myers may say some truthful things, but essentially he's an adolescent out to shock. They occasionally provide some space to say valuable things which are being rendered unsayable, but to trust to that attitude alone is to build a house on sand.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Sept 18, 2012 11:35:38 GMT
Just at the moment, a lot is being made of the closing prayer of Cardinal Dolan at the Democratic National Conference which included the rights of the unborn, which many Democrats have a problem with. What's unremarked upon is the fact he made substantially the same prayer at the end of the Republican National Conference a week before. The Republicans would not have liked what he said about the poor and the immigrants.
We need to look at all aspects at what is going on here. I would probably vote Romney if I was in the US in November. That is because of the critical importance of protecting unborn life. The vote would be rather preventative than positive. But I would have misgivings about many aspects of Republican policy.
In the context of this discussion, we find ourselves voting conservative or similar by default, because the liberal/left combinations are so bad. But conservative does not necessarily equal good and wholesome. I am more likely to vote FF here than any of the others (after giving no. 1 to the CSP no hoper or whoever else occupies that space), but it is not a positive vote for the party - it's a vote against SF and Labour and a lack of confidence in FG in spite of their pre-election commitment last time.
Likewise, I like Kevin Myers. But he often strikes me as a smart alec stuck in his teens. As Fintan O'Toole does too from time to time. I just happen to agree with Myers more.
|
|