|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| By Jeremiah Bannister
Thursday, April 29, 2010
A recent Pew Research Center study entitled "Distrust, Discontent, Anger and Partisan Rancor" detailed a serious mistrust amongst the people of the United States toward their government. "By almost every conceivable measure Americans are less positive and more critical of the government these days," the report said. The survey found what they believe to be "a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government." According to the survey, this results from "a dismal economy, an unhappy public, bitter partisan-based backlash, and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials."
While much may be said about each and every one of these, we will here limit ourselves to the economy.
Official unemployment rates provided by the Labor Department hover around 10 percent. Real unemployment rates come closer to 17 percent. Job creation is found primarily in temporary services, health care, and government. Among the sectors most hurt are information and finance. A Federal Reserve study went so far as to insist that 79 percent of jobs lost are in industries where jobs have been lost forever. This is being chalked up as resulting from "structural change." Forester Research has projected that 3.3 million service-sector jobs will be outsourced or offshored by 2015, with analyst John McCarthy predicting that jobs most at risk are those requiring fewer skills, are automated, or are highly portable.
The employment situation has further resulted in a an unprecedented concentration of wealth and resources. A study coming from the University of California-Berkeley concluded that nearly 50 percent of the national wealth is tied up by the country's wealthiest 10 percent. For many this is a very conservative number. The New York Times has gone further by concluding that the top 0.01 percent of earners in this country take home nearly six percent of all the nation's wealth. This in contrast to their taking only five percent during the 1920s and one percent of the wealth during the early 1980s. In the end, conservative estimates indicate that the top 300,000 Americans collectively earn and own almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. And the NYT reported, "Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980."
Add to these tragic conditions the specters of declining real wages, the ever-diminishing strength of the dollar, and a terrifying level of personal and national debt and you really do have a perfect storm, not only in the making but at the ready.
None of this has gone unnoticed by economists and politicians. Every day the public is bombarded with "new and improved" answers that turn out being little more than the same-old same-old, merely reworded and repackaged for consumerist consumption. Capitalists clamor for more deregulation. Socialists cry out for more government intervention. But both are the flip-side of the same coin, really. The answer is always found in Mammon and his priesthood of money-masters.
What has begun to arise is a general mistrust of the status quo. Citizens are generally skeptical of those with unprecedented wealth and power, and they are quickly coming to recognize the fact that an unfortunate majority of economists, politicians and pundits are little more than apologists for the very schools of thought that got America into this mess. Rugged individualism and statist collectivism just don't cut it like they used to. More than that, people are starting to realize that these two schools of thought may have never worked at all.
America is enduring difficult times. Such is an understatement. But extraordinary times require ordinary people considering ordinary things in an extraordinary way. For this reason, it would do people well to reconsider, or possibly consider for the first time, things deemed otherwise basic to human existence. The nation, the political economy, statesmen, citizenship, and culture are of great significance here. As elementary as much of this may sound, many, if not most, have failed to give these matters any serious degree of attention and consideration.
It should here be of consolation that such thoughts and actions are in fact not new to humans or history. One must remember that it was not long ago that the American experiment began. History is packed with times where people were left at the crossroads, being forced to reconsider who they were, where they were going, and how they planned to get there. Such has been done many times, and such should be done again within the here and now. For if the Pew study is correct, and it appears that it is, then it is the American system and the American people that are at stake. As such, dedicating time and effort to all things otherwise elementary may prove to be well worth it. Then again, America may not be able to afford not to.
| | |
| National Review is always good for a laugh, maybe even two. A highly overrated flagship for neocon whack-jobs bent on world domination. It has served as an editorial wonderland of nightmares fraught with Jews and Anglo-American imperialists who see a bed of roses in every battlefield and an old word order desperately crying out for their not-so-altruistic domination and direction. Were Betty Crocker looking for a recipe in kookery and crockery, she'd need look no further than the pages of their rag publication. Were she lazy, or merely wishing to save a few bucks better spent on oceanfront property in Wyoming, their Web site would suffice.
For those of us getting sick kicks out of lunacy wrapped in patriotic language and religious imagery, National Review ranks right up there with Trinity Broadcast Network, Sojourner Magazine, and the hardly Catholic weekly America. As with their Hard Left flip-side, National Review's journalistic blather is only rivaled by their contributors political blunders, which is saying quite a bit! An almost never-ending stream of nonsense fueled by partisan tomfoolery cloaked in objectivity. "Just the facts, ma'am. Unless we don't like them."
Jonah Goldberg's recent tirade is an excellent case-in-point. A highly-decorated Gooney Toon of the neocon cabal, known for, amongst other things, his pot-calling-the-kettle-black book Liberal Fascism and his constant assurances that what looks, sounds, and feels like New World Order Caesarism is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the culmination of all things good and godly. And let us not forget Goldberg's wild-eyed endorsement of the "Ledeen Doctrine." How did it go? Ah, yeah! "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."
Not to be outdone by his past, Goldberg attempted again to marginalize sanity. On Monday, April 26, 2010, Goldberg posted a little ditty on his Corner blog at National Review Online. Entitled "Here Come the Conspiracy Theories," this unfortunate musing aims at discrediting most any so-called "conspiracy theory," lumping into one miserable cesspool the likes of Elvis Presley, UFOs, the Loch Ness monster with Zionists, Freemasons, and Osama bin Laden. Marginalization by association. As cute as it is classic.
Lest anyone take him serious, remember who you are dealing with. How would marginalization by association work were it to be turned towards him? Should anyone with half-a-head on their shoulders buy this banter?
Honesty is a pretty decent policy, or so most people with a conscience would have you believe. Demoniacs may disagree, but such ought to be expected. Sadly, the same may be said of the neoconservative Vulcans, that mish-mash of politicos, wonks, and foaming-at-the-mouth fearmongers ravaging the American soul with tales of ready-made enemies. The trouble with ready-made enemies, though, is their being made for the ready, with the fear factories failing (or refusing) to factor in already-present dangers posed by very real entities from within and without. Monsters creating monsters with monstrous capabilities, all the while encouraging and enabling the real monsters to commits monstrous monstrosities. Nothing like a good dose of ready-made false flaggism.
Remember not long ago the conspiracies peddled by the propagandists? Remember not long ago the conspiracies defended by the very same? Have memories of Waco and Ruby Ridge really faded into the oblivion of the oblivious? Are fair-minded people supposed to easily forget (or suppress) the ugly truth about Jekyll Island and the creation of the dreaded Fed? Must we purge from our memories the eerie words of President Eisenhower on his way out the door, warning of something called the Military-Industrial Complex? Should Americans check their brains out at the door when seeing frightening similarities between the Phoenix Program and the Department of Homeland Security? Is it wise to toss Posse Comitatus to the wind, trusting despots that America has evolved well beyond the need for such archaic concepts and legal restraints? And let's not forget the awfully peculiar fact that Washington runs like an old-boys club made up of insiders from the Council on Foreign Reflations, Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group! Fall in line, check your soul at the door, and don't worry about forgetting your ticket with the partisan gatekeeper at the entryway of the political machine.
As with most anything else, economic henchmen and political thugs prefer darkness. Goldberg isn't an exception. This phony is in neck-deep! One would be hard-pressed to find a portion of Hell he wouldn't consider Heaven. But "truth and justice" isn't his brew of choice. Not even a sip here and there. To do as much would require he stop guzzling the partisan Kool Aid. The poor guy has grown obese from gorging himself on establishment politics and conventional "magic bullet" history.
Truth is a tough sell. It boxes the ears. Peddlers like Goldberg prefer to tickle them. While I would give an arm and a leg to see the day and age where folks like Goldberg are marginalized, I'd hate to see them fall into the category of Loch Ness or Elvis. I mean, heck, Loch Ness didn't do anything wrong! And doing as much would deprive the world of what it truly needs: a good reminder of where we ought to leave off, and where we ought never wish to return.
| | |
| I have created Paleo Radio Xanga for the sole purpose of archiving clips from my radio program. Feel free to visit the site as I will be updating it on a regular basis.
I also encourage you to visit my official blog, The Paleocrat Tribune.
Tune in to Paleo Radio every Monday from 5:00-7:00 p.m., EST, and every Friday from 5:00-8:00 p.m., EST. It can be heard by visiting the official WOCR Web site. You must use Internet Explorer, but will have the option to then open it with Real Player or Windows Media Player.
Feel free to call the program. The number is 269-749-7398.
If you have Yahoo IM or AIM and wish to take part in the program, just add Paleocrat as a friend.
| | |
| Not unlike many of my other
promises, I have been quite slack in making good on my vow to finish this
series on Van Til and his belief that presuppositionalism was philosophically
and theologically at enmity with Catholicism. Thus far we have seen that he was
wrong on a number of counts. In some areas he appears to be ignorant, in others
disingenuous. In any case, my final contribution to this matter concerns
authority, and I will be particularly dealing with his contention that Sola
Scriptura is an essential component of presuppositionalism.
In Defense of the Faith,
Van Til states:
“Rome
knows of no absolute authority such as Protestantism has in its doctrine of
Scripture.”
This doctrine he is speaking of
would, of course, be none other than Sola Scriptura.
In Christian Apologetics
he says much the same:
“Rome
simply has not the materials with which to build a really Christian concept of
authority. A truly Christian concept of authority presupposes that in all he
does man is face to face with the requirements of God.”
While I have other entries
dealing with the general concept of authority, God’s determinative will, and
His control over the affairs of man, I will confine myself to the passages
pertaining to his steadfast contention that Sola Scriptura is a necessary
precondition for the presuppositional method, as it alone can provide for a
truly Christian concept of authority.
The novel doctrine of Sola
Scriptura, born at the time of the Protestant Revolution, has shown itself to
be riddled with problems, all of which have serious ramifications on the
Protestant (if I may speak of them as a single body) notion of authority. Listing
them off would do us well.
1. The canon. On the one
hand, Protestant scholars cannot declare with any force that the canon is
infallible. In fact, in the book entitled Sola Scriptura! The Protestant
Position on the Bible, a collection of essays from notables such as R.C.
Sproul, James White, John Armstrong, Sinclair Ferguson, and Joel Beeke, the
concession was made that the canon was fallible! Yet on the other hand they
wish to say that this admittedly fallible collection of no more and no less
than the 66 books is the ultimate authority for all faith and practice, and
that it is absolutely unacceptable for anyone to question it, much less add or
subtract from it. That is, in essence, paramount to saying that one cannot cross
a boundary marker that may or may not be wrongfully drawn up.
Consequently, the Protestant is
unable to explain how his or her view of the canon is in any way binding on the
conscience of another. A good friend recently reminded me of a remark I used to
make in regards to this dilemma. I would say that Protestants are fallible men
fallibly interpreting a fallible collection of what they hope and pray are
infallible books. This is true to a fault.
At issue here is whether or not a
Protestant can impose the canon of 66 upon the conscience of another. They
admit that it is a fallible collection, their having already ripped out a
number of books from its binding seems indicative of the idea that men have
within themselves the ability and right to disregard those books they believe
to be short of inspired or contradictory to their understanding of various
doctrines. But as with many other things, Luther and Co.
were able to invoke privileges no other Protestant has been permitted to invoke
ever since. Any attempt at such insubordination is reason for expulsion.
2. The MSS. When dealing with
manuscripts, searching for the most ancient and reliable, one cannot but laugh
at the irony. While Protestants may love to lambast Catholics for hatred of the
Scripture, and most of them believe it abandoned the faith a few hundred years
after the death of St. John (and I am being generous here), the MSS they rely
upon were written, by and large, during the period where apostasy ran rampant.
On what grounds does the Protestant believe that the priests, monks, and
hermits handling the transmission of the texts didn’t tamper with them? Protestants
are forced to rely on the honest scholarship of “Bible hating, Pope honoring,
Mary adoring” apostates.
3. Interpretation. Aside from the
canon and the manuscripts, interpretation causes a serious problem for both the
Protestant and the presuppositionalist. While their may generally recognize the
authority of Scripture Alone, they lack any internal mechanism by which to
interpret its contents in any universally binding fashion. They may, and do,
come to what they believe are accurate conclusions. They believe they are
staying true to the intent of the author. They would, by necessity, believe
what they believe to be not only true, but the main or only way any given issue
can or should be believed. The problem is that every Protestant with a
differing view on any given matter believes the same thing. While these would be
too numerous to count, their being as numerous as the sands of the sea, a
simple look in a Church directory would give us a sound indicator as to how far
the ecclesiological pluralism and hermeneutical relativism has spread. Suffice
it to say that such a query is disheartening even for the most starry-eyed
ecumenist.
4. Will the real Sola Scriptura
please stand up? There has been much debate over the years as to what exactly
Sola Scriptura is, what role (if any) the ecclesial body plays, the role of
catechisms and creeds, etc. We have also seen the advent of the term Solo
Scriptura to distinguish one school of thought from another. Either way,
confusion runs wild. Some go as far as to deny that they have ever properly understood Sola Scriptura, and only recently are they beginning to really grasp the true meaning of this doctrine. Worse yet, one is at a loss as to how, once Sola Scriptura is given a satisfactory definition, any Protestant will then declare his understanding to be the one and only (or even best) understanding over against rival positions. For to treat Protestantism as a single entity would be absurd.
Let us return again to the issue
of whether or not Sola Scriptura is an essential component of
presuppositionalism. Let us also ignore but for a moment the difficulties posed
by the above reflections. For the sake of the argument, let us concede that
this is what they believe and that they shall not budge. Now let’s play the
part of the devil’s advocate.
The Protestant
presuppositionalist presses the atheist against the intellectual ropes. He asks
time and again whether or not the atheist can account for X, Y, or Z from their
espoused worldview. They prove effectually that the atheist cannot. Then what?
They insist that the Christian worldview and it alone can account for X, Y, and
Z. The atheist could, and should, ask on what authority that Protestant’s take
on “the Christian worldview” in binding. The reason being that “the Christian
worldview” as defined by the Protestant presuppositionalist is derived, by and
large, from his interpretation of the Scripture. As such, it faces the
difficulties mentioned above. In the end, the Protestant presuppositionalist is
forced to say that it is his understanding of the Christian worldview is based
upon a fallible man’s fallible interpretation of an admittedly fallible
collection of what he hopes and prays are infallible books.
The burning question is whether or not the Catholic is in the same leaky boat. I dare to answer in the negative. Catholicism has within itself the means by which to resolve these difficulties. Thanks to our position on the infallibility of the Church, we can rest assured that the canon is as infallible as the text is inerrant. Our knowledge of how meticulous the priests, monks, and hermits were in translation and transmitting the manuscripts, coupled with our belief in the divine providence of God, leads us to trust in the integrity of the documents. And our dogmatic appeals court along with the doctrine of the Church's infallibility provides us with a knowledge of what can authoritatively and universally be said to be the Christian worldview. In short, Catholicism, not Protestantism, has the preconditions necessary for answering the every powerful "By what standard?"
In conclusion, Van Til was wrong. He was wrong on many counts. His understanding of the Catholic faith was shoddy, and the scholarship in his printed material is evidence of this. But worst of all is that he had a mistaken understanding of the very school of apologetic thought he is espoused to have championed. His not being able to see the achilles heel of Sola Scriptura and the way that doctrine would (and does) paralyze his entire method is remarkable.
Do I believe that presuppositionalists will buy my arguments hook, line, and sinker? No, not at all. In fact, I readily accept that many of them have chosen, for one reason or another, to ignore this matter altogether. But it is my prayer that some of them will see that, as Sarah Hodges righfully pointed out, presuppositionalism finds its home in the Holy Catholic Church, and that outside of her walls the method is unable to account for the necessary preconditions of its own utility.
| | |
|
