AMERICAN STORY
Re: Larry Thornberry’s The
Bitter End?
What does Obama mean when he says he believes this country should
have a national civilian security force at least as strong as the
U.S. military? For what purpose? And what jurisdiction —
federal, state, local? Under whose control? What does Obama
mean when he says the country needs such a force in order to
achieve the security purposes we have set? What are those
security goals and who set them?
Yikes.
— Carl Davis
Point taken, Democrats. You have proven that, with enough money
and the press on your side, any inexperienced anti-American can
be elected President.
— David Govett
Davis, California
PALIN SIGNIFICANCE
Re: Robert Stacy McCain’s
Stickin’ With the Hockey Mom:
Thank you for your defense of our vice-presidential candidate,
Governor Sarah Palin. She represents all that is good about our
country. Her candidacy summons forth a narrative comparable to
that of the first Republican, Abraham Lincoln; she has risen
self-made from one of the most remote outposts of our nation and
is a staunch defender of faith, family, patriotism, and fiscal
responsibility. Despite her extraordinary accomplishments in
reforming state government and negotiating a massive
infrastructure project which will benefit both Alaska and the
“lower 48,” Governor Palin has been relentlessly pilloried by the
media, Obama surrogates, and most despicably, Republican
opportunists and turncoats (Brooks, Powell, Noonan, Will). Many
Americans have found their voice in “Sarah,” are offended by this
abuse and are embracing her in large numbers.
— William N. White, M.D.
Perry, New York
I have a theory that this entire election cycle is about the
rejection of the institutions of America: both the parties’
establishment choices were rejected, the media’s “it’s
over” storyline for Hillary didn’t dissuade voters from
coming out an registering dissatisfaction with Obama… now
I just need one more event tomorrow to put the cap on the story.
But maybe I’ll be wrong… Still, I think that this article
captures something of what I’ve seen on the ground as
someone who’s been campaigning for McCain for the last year
and a half.
— Michael Maletic
THE COUNCIL OF TAS
Re: Stuart Koehl’s letter (under “Up from Opacity”) in Reader
Mail’s Stark
Contrasts:
I must say that sensitivity over religious issues actually seems
to be greater among the readers and writers of the
Spectator’s pages than politics itself. I have meant no
offense to Mr. Koehl or the Eastern and Orthodox Churches. Far be
it from me to impede ecumenical discussions between Rome and the
“Greeks.” As Mr. Koehl rightly suggests, I am not privy to those
discussions; but I do contrast what is said with similar
discussions between Rome and the Protestant Churches — mine most
reflective of the Lutheran/Roman Catholic ones. My intent was to
throw a few “caution” flags.
1.) Until the Roman Magestrum and the Pope definitively speak,
sign the dotted line and get the last word, it ain’t done.
2.) Experience teaches us that one thing is clear. There
just some things Rome will never say. No matter how much
common ground Rome may establish with those who are not within
her formal structures, she will never declare she has been in
theological error — much less having ever been a harbor of
heresy. Individuals and whole communities may be wrong but
the Church as the “Body of Christ” cannot by definition be in
error.
3.) Modern Catholic theologians such as Pope John Paul II (The
Great) and Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) approach
doctrinal differences first by exploring underlying philosophical
assumptions and linguistic difficulties between Rome and her old
foes. Thus we often find Rome speaking of old theological
disputes as being nothing of the kind. Instead, two
different expressions are in fact in ‘substantial equivalence:’
two superficially conflicting statements which in reality are
confessing the same mystery.
In a thumbnail, most recent scholarship in the West — however
accurate it may be — indicates that beneath the filioque
argument is two different historical responses to the Arian
heresy. Both the Eastern and Western Churches fought that
anti-Gospel sacrilege; but the battles for each were not
precisely the same. Absent the precise historical and
theological contexts (as well as the fact that at times Latin and
Greek do not translate well between each other) the West and East
were talking past each other. Or so it is said.
4.) In any case, I should remind Mr. Koehl that in ecumenical
matters Rome also has an eye on the Protestant Churches as well
as the Orthodox. Among those Protestants who confess the
Nicene Creed, the “filoque” is firmly established within their
own basic doctrinal symbols and as such is a non-issue between
Rome and themselves. Dropping the “filoque” will cause a calamity
in relationships Rome does not need. Thus Rome as a matter
of function walks a fine line. No doubt Rome wishes to repair the
breach between the Orthodox and herself. But Rome also wants to
draw into herself the Churches of the Reformation.
5.) As a matter of practice, since the 16th century, my
own Lutheran Church has confessed the Creed with the
“filoque” in the West and in its original in the East — content
to observe the precedents of each and confident that ultimately
there is no real conflict. Rome for centuries has also
followed this same practice in a similar way if not for the same
reasons. Thus it is natural that Papal addresses to the
East observe an absence of the filioque; but it does
not necessarily reflect what Rome finds binding for the
West.
6.) Nearly all sides within worldwide Christianity agree that the
pneumatological theology of The Holy Ghost is woefully
underdeveloped. All must guard themselves against any
premature foreclosure as we go forward. Both the West and
the East have big chips on their shoulders and that will have to
stop if progress is to be made.
However the Church Universal resolves this issue, both the
Orthodox Church and the Churches of the Reformation will still
have a rugged mountain before them to deal with — namely this
Roman Bishop who insists on his Peterine primacy among all the
faithful.
— Mike Dooley
CAN THEY TAKE THAT
AWAY?
Re: John A. Barnes’s Empire
State Holdouts:
“If tomorrow all the things were gone
I worked for all my life
And I had to start over again
With just my children and my wife
“I’d thank my lucky stars
To be living here today
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom
And they can’t take that away”
What’s the worst that can happen has been asked TAS on
more than one occasion.
So, Mr. Greenwood, respectfully, I will get back to you
after January 20, 2009 and see if a Democratic Congress and
a President Obama can take away not only what you’ve worked for
all your life but your freedom as well.
— Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York
