21/05: More Waco Horror
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Today (Sunday, May 21) the Waco Tribune-Herald published a portion of my piece on the Waco Horror (read it here) extracted from the fuller blog piece that appeared earlier in the month. The piece underwent a fairly heavy edit from the Trib , which probably improved it stylistically, and certainly freshened it up (a lot had happened since I wrote it two weeks ago).
You will note that the introductory narrative of the event and the portion asking that the pain of the Fryer family not be forgotten were forgotten. But the essence of the piece remained in tact.
The Waco Horror continues to interest a national audience. Here is a very limited sampling of some of the national news organizations that have covered the story recently:
NPR (last weekend): Waco Recalls a 90-Year-Old 'Horror'
The Washington Post (in late April): In Waco, a Push To Atone for The Region's Lynch-Mob Past
Fox News (May 16): Group Denounces Lynchings 90 Years After 'Waco Horror'
You will note that the introductory narrative of the event and the portion asking that the pain of the Fryer family not be forgotten were forgotten. But the essence of the piece remained in tact.
The Waco Horror continues to interest a national audience. Here is a very limited sampling of some of the national news organizations that have covered the story recently:
NPR (last weekend): Waco Recalls a 90-Year-Old 'Horror'
The Washington Post (in late April): In Waco, a Push To Atone for The Region's Lynch-Mob Past
Fox News (May 16): Group Denounces Lynchings 90 Years After 'Waco Horror'
Category: Films & Ideas
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I finally screened Good Night, and Good Luck and Capote on DVD (in fact, I purchased them sight-unseen). The following represents my thoughts on Good Night, and Good Luck (with thoughts on Capote to follow at some undetermined date).
In re Good Night, and Good Luck: I should warn you that I liked it.
Good Night, and Good Luck is a morality play. Evil is clearly defined. The forces of good wage the noble and difficult fight and win in the end. Along the way, there are sacrifices to be made and lessons to be learned and advice to be dispensed. I love a good morality play.
The main villain in Good Night, and Good Luck is not Joseph McCarthy, although he is a bad man (and he does a fine job of indicting himself in archival footage). Good Night, and Good Luck is, more than anything else, a jeremiad against American complacency and the coma-inducing "wires and lights in a box," television.
The story depicts the tension between objective reporting, crusading journalism, entertainment, selling advertising and corporate control in the TV News business.
In the end, after saving due process and the American way from a wily and powerful malefactor, Edward R. Murrow and his "See It Now" crew (our heroes) are assigned to the Sunday afternoon graveyard. Fred Friendly, noting the success of Uncle Miltie's "Texaco Star Theater," wryly rues: "You should have worn a dress."
In re Good Night, and Good Luck: I should warn you that I liked it.
Good Night, and Good Luck is a morality play. Evil is clearly defined. The forces of good wage the noble and difficult fight and win in the end. Along the way, there are sacrifices to be made and lessons to be learned and advice to be dispensed. I love a good morality play.
The main villain in Good Night, and Good Luck is not Joseph McCarthy, although he is a bad man (and he does a fine job of indicting himself in archival footage). Good Night, and Good Luck is, more than anything else, a jeremiad against American complacency and the coma-inducing "wires and lights in a box," television.
The story depicts the tension between objective reporting, crusading journalism, entertainment, selling advertising and corporate control in the TV News business.
In the end, after saving due process and the American way from a wily and powerful malefactor, Edward R. Murrow and his "See It Now" crew (our heroes) are assigned to the Sunday afternoon graveyard. Fred Friendly, noting the success of Uncle Miltie's "Texaco Star Theater," wryly rues: "You should have worn a dress."
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
It seems to me that there are big obstacles to our winning the “War on Terror”; and they seem almost insurmountable.
1) Political correctness: note the name "War on Terror;" we cannot even name the enemy correctly—we need to be talking about the War Against Imperial Islam, or perhaps the War on Radical Islam; sloppy terminology reflects sloppy thinking. And we must be clear-headed because the danger we face is as great as any external threat in our history. Because of political correctness we cannot engage in reasonable and needed security profiling. (If the IRA ever starts a war against the US, I will understand if I get searched and questioned more than Native Americans or Asians. I will not blame my government; I will blame the enemy who started the war.) We need to monitor mosques and shut down those that spread the disease of militant Islam here in the US.
2) Moral equivalency: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." “Who are we to say that the Western way is superior to medieval Islamic fundamentalism?” “Our killing them is just as bad as them killing us.” As has been observed, those who say things like this don’t really believe what they say. They are not moving to countries without a free press, freedom of assembly, free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable searches, the right to be judged by a jury of one’s peers, habeas corpus, the right to vote, etc.
(cont.)
1) Political correctness: note the name "War on Terror;" we cannot even name the enemy correctly—we need to be talking about the War Against Imperial Islam, or perhaps the War on Radical Islam; sloppy terminology reflects sloppy thinking. And we must be clear-headed because the danger we face is as great as any external threat in our history. Because of political correctness we cannot engage in reasonable and needed security profiling. (If the IRA ever starts a war against the US, I will understand if I get searched and questioned more than Native Americans or Asians. I will not blame my government; I will blame the enemy who started the war.) We need to monitor mosques and shut down those that spread the disease of militant Islam here in the US.
2) Moral equivalency: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." “Who are we to say that the Western way is superior to medieval Islamic fundamentalism?” “Our killing them is just as bad as them killing us.” As has been observed, those who say things like this don’t really believe what they say. They are not moving to countries without a free press, freedom of assembly, free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable searches, the right to be judged by a jury of one’s peers, habeas corpus, the right to vote, etc.
(cont.)
20/05: English and America
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Drudge today links to a story from the Washington Times that recounts the recent Senate vote to make English the official language of the US. The headline is "Reid Calls Language Proposal Racist." Where to begin? Dear Senator Reid:
20/05: An American Creed?
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Submitted for your approval:
As Americans, we believe that religion is necessary to the establishment of social order. Man must construct a moral government and an efficient religion to guide him and bring out the brighter side of his nature. Human institutions are finite while God is infinite. Personal piety has much more consequence than social order. Political liberty and religious liberty are inseparable. Slavish obedience to nobles and bishops are equally reprehensible. Persecution is wrong and tolerance is right. National identity and national unity are dependent on a national orientation toward religion. Religion equals morality; rational religion that rises above dogma, superstition and mystery lays the foundation for a citizenry that is good and moral and free. A religion that does not promote morality is bankrupt. A childlike faith in God as Creator and Father and master of the universe is the beginning of wisdom and upright behavior. God is omnipotent and awesome. Be wary of a human-centered religion. Hubris and arrogance and pride of place and self is the original sin. Man must acknowledge God over man. Religious diversity is good. Religion unshackled by government is good. A vital religious community of Christ doing the work of God on earth is an essential part of God's plan. There is great power for good in a unified community of Christ.
Are you willing to sign on?
Some of you may recognize the long paragraph above as a conflation of Edwin Gaustad's seven basic religious imperatives in American history, government and culture. Obviously some of these seven are easily compatible, while others, you will notice, are mutually exclusive. On the other hand, all of these impulses have made great impact on who we are as a people.
Accept this as notice of my intention to consider the inherent and historic tension between church and state in American politics and religion and culture. I intend to develop this narrative over a series of essays this summer.
One more note: The backbone of these posts come from a series of three lectures that I composed for a Chautauqua at Seventh & James Baptist Church (Waco, Texas), which I delivered last summer.
One last caveat: almost of all of this material will be synthetic and derivative. I am not a church historian or theologian. I leaned heavily on scholars with expertise in these areas to make the story of American religion make sense in the context of a larger narrative of American political history.
As Americans, we believe that religion is necessary to the establishment of social order. Man must construct a moral government and an efficient religion to guide him and bring out the brighter side of his nature. Human institutions are finite while God is infinite. Personal piety has much more consequence than social order. Political liberty and religious liberty are inseparable. Slavish obedience to nobles and bishops are equally reprehensible. Persecution is wrong and tolerance is right. National identity and national unity are dependent on a national orientation toward religion. Religion equals morality; rational religion that rises above dogma, superstition and mystery lays the foundation for a citizenry that is good and moral and free. A religion that does not promote morality is bankrupt. A childlike faith in God as Creator and Father and master of the universe is the beginning of wisdom and upright behavior. God is omnipotent and awesome. Be wary of a human-centered religion. Hubris and arrogance and pride of place and self is the original sin. Man must acknowledge God over man. Religious diversity is good. Religion unshackled by government is good. A vital religious community of Christ doing the work of God on earth is an essential part of God's plan. There is great power for good in a unified community of Christ.
Are you willing to sign on?
Some of you may recognize the long paragraph above as a conflation of Edwin Gaustad's seven basic religious imperatives in American history, government and culture. Obviously some of these seven are easily compatible, while others, you will notice, are mutually exclusive. On the other hand, all of these impulses have made great impact on who we are as a people.
Accept this as notice of my intention to consider the inherent and historic tension between church and state in American politics and religion and culture. I intend to develop this narrative over a series of essays this summer.
One more note: The backbone of these posts come from a series of three lectures that I composed for a Chautauqua at Seventh & James Baptist Church (Waco, Texas), which I delivered last summer.
One last caveat: almost of all of this material will be synthetic and derivative. I am not a church historian or theologian. I leaned heavily on scholars with expertise in these areas to make the story of American religion make sense in the context of a larger narrative of American political history.
19/05: E Pluribus Unum
I appeared on local TV Tuesday morning to discuss the President’s speech on immigration. I was not especially enlightening, but I did correctly predict that the President’s message would not help him with his conservative base.
Although numerous commentators have taken the President to task for his “comprehensive” approach, asserting that comprehensive is a code word for doing nothing, I offer my kudos to the President for his five-pronged plan. And I agree with his assertion that a wall and mass deportations will not solve the problem.
Although numerous commentators have taken the President to task for his “comprehensive” approach, asserting that comprehensive is a code word for doing nothing, I offer my kudos to the President for his five-pronged plan. And I agree with his assertion that a wall and mass deportations will not solve the problem.
Replying to Gossenius. In line with the comments from A Waco Farmer, it appears to me that it is a reach to interpret the story of Jesus and the Woman Taken in Adultery to signify Jesus’ absolute condemnation of capital punishment. First, note that Jesus' affect is not at all what one would expect if he were indeed making a categorical command. He is neither active (cf. driving the money changers from the Temple) nor angry (cf. “Woe unto you . . . hypocrites”). Second, note that there is no explicit teaching statement attached condemning the death penalty per se. (cf. “You have heard it said, but I say unto you . . .; “But in the kingdom . . .”). Third, the case itself is said to be a trap laid for Jesus (“to test him . . .”) with only one of the two guilty parties brought to him. Any new interpretation of a biblical story must bear a heavy burden of proof. I am not yet convinced.
In addition, Paul will not go away. Specifically Romans 13:1-7 gives the state the sword, the right from God to take human life. It seems to me that with his explanation of John 8:1-11, Gossenius has only two options with regard to Romans 13: either throw out Paul’s teaching here; or, take the Anabaptist option and forbid Christians to participate in government and public justice.
In addition, Paul will not go away. Specifically Romans 13:1-7 gives the state the sword, the right from God to take human life. It seems to me that with his explanation of John 8:1-11, Gossenius has only two options with regard to Romans 13: either throw out Paul’s teaching here; or, take the Anabaptist option and forbid Christians to participate in government and public justice.
17/05: One China, What Nonsense
The attack on the US by radical Islamists has turned our attention away from the threat posed by Communist China to US interests. A flashpoint in the not-too-distant future will be Taiwan, an island claimed by the Communist Chinese. The claim is dubious. Since when did an empire (modern Chinese borders are the result of Chinese imperial expansion, with some adjustments such as those done by Russian imperialism) have a sacred right to every bit of territory that it ever claimed? In the case of Taiwan, the claim does not stand up to close scrutiny. And, believe it or not, an American mainline denomination this summer will consider a resolution in support of an independent Taiwan. (cont.)
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
According to a poll done by the Religion Newswriters Association of its members, the top religion news stories of 2005 were:
1.The death of Pope John Paul II after a long and eventful papacy.
2.Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger elevated to the papacy as Benedict XVI.
3.Terry Schiavo’s death and the controversy surrounding the end of her life.
4.Churches and faith-based groups responding to disasters world-wide such as the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina.
5.Debate over homosexuality continues in mainline US denominations.
6.Debate over evolution, especially in Kansas.
7.Court cases involving Ten Commandments, Pledge of Allegiance, abortion, euthanasia.
8.Faith-based groups involved in the debate over Bush’s three Supreme Court nominees.
9.Vatican releases statement on homosexuality; first major statement by Benedict XVI.
10.Billy Graham does final Crusade in New York City.
The events in this list, especially numbers 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, & 10, demonstrate once again a major thesis of the Bosque Boys, namely that America cannot be understood without attempting to understand religion’s (especially Christianity’s) interaction with American politics and culture. (cont. below)
1.The death of Pope John Paul II after a long and eventful papacy.
2.Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger elevated to the papacy as Benedict XVI.
3.Terry Schiavo’s death and the controversy surrounding the end of her life.
4.Churches and faith-based groups responding to disasters world-wide such as the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina.
5.Debate over homosexuality continues in mainline US denominations.
6.Debate over evolution, especially in Kansas.
7.Court cases involving Ten Commandments, Pledge of Allegiance, abortion, euthanasia.
8.Faith-based groups involved in the debate over Bush’s three Supreme Court nominees.
9.Vatican releases statement on homosexuality; first major statement by Benedict XVI.
10.Billy Graham does final Crusade in New York City.
The events in this list, especially numbers 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, & 10, demonstrate once again a major thesis of the Bosque Boys, namely that America cannot be understood without attempting to understand religion’s (especially Christianity’s) interaction with American politics and culture. (cont. below)
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
In an earlier post, I pointed to Benedict XVI's clear thinking on Islam and its relation to modernity, especially pluralism. There are signs that Benedict XVI intends to give consistent attention to the relationship between Islam and Christianity, including gently putting pressure on Islam to respect Christianity. Recently he has called for Muslim nations to show tolerance toward Christians. While the Pope's words would seem very gentle to American readers, they would not be heard as gentle words in nations that practice Islamic law.
In addition, (cont.)
In addition, (cont.)
