The American Spectator : God and Man at Columbia

Text Size

God and Man at Columbia

By Robert Stacy McCain on 12.13.10 @ 6:08AM

A disturbing case shows how far the rot has gone.

Abraham Lincoln once remarked that “the philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” Nearly six decades have passed since William F. Buckley Jr., warned that the philosophy of America’s most eminent schoolhouses had taken a turn down a particular road, away from a tradition of faith and liberty, toward godless collectivism.

When God and Man at Yale was published in 1951, liberals denounced Buckley as a fanatic and worse. One hostile reviewer accused him of “un-Christian arrogance,” while another said that Buckley’s book had “the glow and appeal of a fiery cross on a hillside at night.” His critics, however, could not assail the facts assembled in God and Man at Yale, demonstrating that Yale was promoting economic theories hostile to the free market, that the university was neglecting its original mission of promoting the Christian faith, and that when confronted with this evidence, the administration defended itself by appeals to what Buckley called the “superstition of academic freedom.”

Published at a time when American troops were fighting the Red menace in Korea — the year after Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury, the same year that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were tried as Soviet spies — Buckley’s book was an intellectual fulcrum of the Cold War era. God and Man at Yale became a rallying point for anti-communist conservatives and, in the process of attacking Buckley, his critics accidentally illuminated (indeed, as if by “a fiery cross”) their own fanatical commitment to the ambiguous principles of liberalism. Buckley focused narrowly on academic trends at Yale, with just a few references to the similar trend evident at other leading universities, but his book evoked concerns far beyond the New Haven campus. If philosophical liberalism as taught at Yale tended to undermine faith and freedom, many readers naturally wondered, what would be the impact when this philosophy made its way out of the classroom and into the larger society? Where was liberalism leading us?

One answer to that question may have been revealed last week when a professor of political science at Columbia University was arrested and charged with having carried on a three-year-long sexual affair with his own daughter, who was age 20 when this incestuous involvement allegedly began in 2006. It is of course necessary to caution that Professor David Epstein must be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Yet if the accusations are true — well, perhaps it could all be dismissed as anomalous. The alleged perversion of Professor Epstein need not be interpreted as symbolic of any larger trend in academia, nor should such a crime be considered representative of the moral values of 21st-century liberals.

However, no one can dispute the fact that Professor Epstein is an outspoken liberal. He was an enthusiastic supporter of Columbia alumnus Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and, in a debate last year with free-market advocate Peter Schiff, Epstein gave a presentation entitled, “How Obama’s Policies Are Saving the Economy.” Furthermore, as a blogger at the Huffington Post, Epstein had derided Sarah Palin as “weak” and “self-centered,” and accused Republicans of “taking hypocrisy in their personal lives to new levels of self-indulgent weirdness.”

The criminal accusations against Epstein were evidently made in the context of a recent split with his wife, who is also a Columbia University professor. Epstein’s lawyer told the student newspaper, “We’re asking his friends in the Columbia community to support him and give him the benefit of the doubt.”

Whatever the facts, however, many seem unable to understand why sex between a man and his adult daughter — which, according to police, was “consensual” in the Epstein case — should be illegal and punishable by up to four years in prison under New York law. “Wait, why is consensual incest a crime? It might not be appealing to everyone, but if they’re adults and they consent, who cares what they do?” wrote one commenter on the Columbia student newspaper site. Similar comments were made at the Huffington Post: “It is kinda sick, but I think a four year prison sentence is extreme — considering they are both consenting adults.” Tracy Clark-Flory of Salon wrote that the accusation against Epstein “isn’t a clear-cut case of child abuse.”

That kind of thinking has apparently penetrated to the very highest levels of the American judiciary, as University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse noted. In the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, which struck down a state law against sodomy, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion described “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.” The court overturned its own precedent in the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick case. In Bowers, which had upheld Georgia’s anti-sodomy law, then-Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that there had been laws against homosexual behavior “throughout the history of Western civilization” and that such laws were “firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards.” In Lawrence, Kennedy cited that statement by Burger and rejected it as dubious, contending that the Bowers precedent “demeans the lives of homosexual persons.” Dissenting in Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia warned that the majority ruling would “have far-reaching implications beyond this case” — specifically identifying consensual incest between adults as one area where Kennedy’s “emerging awareness” doctrine might undermine existing law.

Has the “emerging awareness” emerged that far? If we have finally repudiated “Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards” as a guiding principle of American law, what would happen if Epstein were convicted and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court? Could Justice Kennedy find any reason to uphold such a conviction? Perhaps so, but some at Columbia University apparently don’t think what Epstein is accused of doing was wrong enough to be illegal, which suggests that the liberal philosophy of the American elite has led us a very long way down a particular road — paved, we are told, with good intentions. What concerned Buckley in God and Man at Yale evidently does not worry the godless men at Columbia.

About the Author

Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (178) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Appleby| 12.13.10 @ 6:43AM

Liberals...sex...The Sixties...why is anything these people do a matter of surprise to anybody who has been alive for the past 40 years?

And why do you columnists insist on referring to the most heinous criminals as *Gentlemen*?

Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 8:41AM

I disagree; faith belongs in a house of worship- not on a campus. All things in their proper place.
I am not opposed to religion, but I want no part of your junk religion.

Eric Cartman| 12.13.10 @ 9:09AM

Yale was founded to train ministers, putz (since you don't seem to know, ministers are the people who study and profess religion - specifically the Christian religion). So much for your junk knowledge.

Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 11:15AM

Eric,
I'm only interested in religion in a house of worship, nothing more. As for the commerce-aspect (what I mostly object to): Santa being sold is naturally okay (that is what Xmas is all about),
but NOT Jesus. If Jesus is commodity then no reason to be a Christian would exist, the spiritual content would be lost.
Now, in a free country you can even go so far as tp be a televangelist and turn Christ into a business if you want.

However I want no part of it; let the guilt be laid at your door.

Eric Cartman| 12.13.10 @ 12:38PM

Well, that's all well and good. But it still doesn't answer the question of kicking Christian teachings in institutions founded to teach those teachings. Yale, Columbia, Harvard - all founded by Christian churches to teach ministers about - there is no other way to say this - Christ.

Ken in People's Republic of MD| 12.13.10 @ 4:08PM

Gotta agree with you on this one, Alan, and it might be the only time ever!

I believe in Jesus Christ, I beleive He is the savior, I read the Bible everyday, I beleive in God, the whole Catholic way.

What I do not beleive is man's interpretation of God. I do not belong to a church, a fact that drove my grandmother, a rector at her local congregation, nuts. An individual's religion is a deeply personal choice, to be celebrated in his own way. Following the herd, so to speak, every Sunday does not make one a religious person. Living a faithful, good, and moral life makes a person more religious than following the crowd for an hour on the weekend. The nuns at my Catholic grade school always tried to guilt our young skulls full of mush into going to church every Sunday, most of us tuned them out. I didn't need some supposed religious person to tell me how to pray.

As far as I'm concerned, televangelists are among the lowest forms of life. Here in Baltimore, church leaders dressed in their thousand dollar suits say they worship the Lord, Our Savior, Jesus Christ, when indeed, all they worship is the almighty dollar. It is especially heinous for these men and women of the cloth to be flaunting their wealth in neighborhoods of abject poverty. Many church leaders are good and decnt people with nothing but the well being of their followers at heart. But some of these preachers border on the sublime.

Let's face it, religion is one of the world's oldest and most sucessful businesses. But I can't say it is very moral. Conning little old ladies out of their hard earned life savings, guilting people into tithing their ten percent, it's a racket, pure and simple.

Christmas is not about Santa, it is about Christ. But ask the average American consumer, they'll tell you it's about getting their kid the latest electronic device. The reason for the season is often overlooked and ignored. And that's sad, and wrong.

David T.| 12.13.10 @ 5:29PM

Ken--We do not have the authority to establish our own church. Christ established the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" on the foundation of St.Peter. It is a real, visible, hierarchical, sacramental, sacerdotal church. Outside the church that Christ established, there is no salvation.

gazinya| 12.13.10 @ 9:16PM

David. To be more exact, Emperor Constantine established the Catholic Church and made it the official state religion of the Roman Empire. Before that year( 334 AD) there were Christians but no 'official state church' with all the political and state power given to the Catholic Church. Christ did not empower this organization, man gave it authority. Sorry but that is the truth.

Nick| 12.14.10 @ 12:00AM

Gazinya,

The Catholic Church has been around from the beginning.

In A.D. 107, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, after being arrested, wrote this in a letter: "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2)."

Try reading the Didiche, written in the first century, and see which Church it reminds you of.

rickthebuilder| 12.13.10 @ 11:47PM

The church was not built on the foundation of Peter but on the revelation that he recieved. That Jesus was the Christ the son of the living God and on this would the church be built. The catholic church is the mother of all harlots she is the first state sponsored so called christian church that whored the word of God. Taking that which was pure and defiling it. Thats the truth.

Cal Martin| 12.14.10 @ 6:27PM

@Rick the Builder:

Now, that's some pretty strong language there. I'm not sure whether or not I draw the same conclusion about Constantine bringing an official end to the persecution of the Catholic Church equates to the same Church being a harlot and whoring the word of God.

Now then, about Peter. The verse comes from Matthew 16:18:

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (This script comes from the Douay Rheims bible, other translations have used "powers of death" in place of "gates of hell").

Now, there are some who read the verse and have a knowledge of the underlying Greek - the English "Peter" is translated from "Petros" whilst the "rock" upon which Christ will build His Church is written as "petra."

Many of those who point out this distinction will describe it as thus: "Petra" refers to the great rock of Peter's faith, whereas "Petros" refers to the small rock which is Peter himself. The following logic is that this distinction was used by Christ to distinguish Peter's smallness from Christ's greatness.

Now, this distinction holds some water - the difference between Petros and Petra appears in some (way) ancient Greek poetry, but it had disappeared by and large by the time the Gospel of Matthew had been rendered into Greek. Also, this distinction only occurs in Attic Greek, whereas the Gospel was written in _Koine_ Greek, an entirely different dialect. In Koine, both Petros and Petra mean the same thing - just plain old "rock." To add the additional qualification of "little" to Peter's rock, Jesus would have needed to use the Greek "lithos." (There are Protestants who accept this claim - see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368)

Further, the Greek used in the Gospel of Matthew whenever Jesus was speaking was translated from the original Aramaic (the Assyrian language is neo-Aramaic, by the way) - indeed, records kept by one Eusebius of Caesarea indicate that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Aramaic, and then translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case, the original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is Greek. I bring this up to point out that Jesus indeed spoke Aramaic - look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' That's not Greek, but Aramaic, and it means "My God, My God, Why have You forsaken me?"

The Aramaic is important, as we have preservations of Simon's new name in its Aramaic form - 4 times each in both Paul's Galatians and 1st Corinthians. In English Bibles, it comes out as "Cephas." Again, this isn't Greek, it's a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form), which means the same as Petra: rock. What Jesus was saying to Simon 2,000 years ago was "You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church." There's no distinction in the original Aramaic, which thus leads to the conclusion that Jesus was equating the Rock of Peter and the Rock of the Church.

So, then, what about the original distinction of Petros and petra? Well, the Greek language has an inherent gender structure in it; nouns take different gender endings (a modern example would be the ending of Spanish nouns in either -o or -a). This structure prevented Simon from being called Petra in Greek because that would have been very much like walking up to a man and calling him Brittany - they had to use the masculine "Petros."

It's not a perfect rendering of the Aramaic - a portion of Jesus' play on words is lost in the transition from "Kephas" to "Petros" and "petra". It's entirely lost when you get to the English "Peter" and "rock", sadly. But that's the best that you can do with Greek.

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does NOT say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church... I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

rickthebuilder| 12.14.10 @ 9:40PM

Read Rev. Chapters 18-19. If you can not see that is the perfect picture of the catholic church than you are blinded. Shake it off lost soul. The Vatican- the seven hills. Name another religious city with its "worldly beauty" that is surrounded by seven hills.(mountains) There are many more clues in those chapters if you pay close attention. A fervent prayer before reading asking God to open your mind so that you may see will definitely help.

Nick| 12.14.10 @ 11:58PM

Rick,

The great city, Babylon, which is likened to a harlot is obviously Jerusalem, not Rome.

Have you ever read the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekeil? All of them compared Jerusalem to Babylon, and a harlot, many, many times.

The Revelation given to Saint John was a final unveiling (apocalypse) before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Cal Martin| 12.15.10 @ 3:17PM

@Rick: I understand the point your making, and I thank you for your concern. That said, when involved in the work of saving souls, calling them "lost souls" and insulting them and where they are at doesn't particularly work.

Okay, regarding the Whore of Babylon.

"The Vatican- the seven hills."

Okay, so the line from Rev. 17:9 reads, "And here is the understanding that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, upon which the woman sitteth, and they are seven kings..."

The Greek word in this passage is "horos". Of the sixty-five uses of this word in the New Testament, only three are rendered "hill" by the King James Version. The remaining sixty-two are translated as "mountain" or "mount." Modern Bibles have similar ratios. If the passage states that the Whore sits on "seven mountains," it could refer to anything. Mountains are common biblical symbols, often symbolizing whole kingdoms (cf. Ps. 68:15; Dan. 2:35; Amos 4:1, 6:1; Obad. 8–21). The Whore’s seven mountains might be seven kingdoms she reigns over, or seven kingdoms with which she has something in common.

The number seven may be symbolic also, for it often represents completeness in the Bible. If so, the seven mountains might signify that the Whore reigns over all earth’s kingdoms.

Even if we accept that the word horos should be translated literally as "hill" in this passage, it still does not narrow us down to Rome. Other cities are known for having been built on seven hills as well.

Even if we grant that the reference is to Rome, which Rome are we talking about—pagan Rome or Christian Rome? As we will see, ancient, pagan Rome fits all of the criteria as well, or better, than Rome during the Christian centuries.

The thing about the Catholic Church is that it's headquarters lies in Vatican City - which makes accusing the Catholic Church of being pertinent to the seven hills a bit less plausible. Vatican City is not built on seven hills, but only one: Vatican Hill, which is not one of the seven upon which ancient Rome was built. Those hills are on the east side of the Tiber river; Vatican Hill is on the west.

"Name another religious city with its "worldly beauty" that is surrounded by seven hills. (mountains)"

Well, ignoring the fact that the Vatican City isn't surrounded by seven hills, there's Mecca, Jerusalem, Lhhasa (though that's more historical religious, really), Salt Lake City, and Pushkar.

Cal Martin| 12.15.10 @ 3:19PM

For a list of cities built on seven hills - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....even_hills

Cal Martin| 12.15.10 @ 3:29PM

And, because I'd just like to cover my bases here on the Whore of Babylon, here are another two articles about the subject.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Hunting_the_Whore_of_Babylon.asp (This one includes the argument about the seven hills).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Whore_of_Babylon.asp

IzeHavitt| 12.14.10 @ 10:58PM

Cal, I, too, am a Bible fan, and I must say, that was good work.

Cal Martin| 12.15.10 @ 3:19PM

Thankee kindly. :)

Mark| 12.13.10 @ 10:38PM

Ken,
If the prophets and the apostles believed that religion is a "personal choice", there would be no Bible for you to read in the morning.

southernsue| 5.27.11 @ 8:04AM

ken, very well said.
my question is why lock up all the churches, answer, the churches are loaded with all kinds of video gadgets, musical instruments, that are worth thousands of dollars. what happened to a simple church where the preacher opens the BIBLE and preaches GOD's word? what happened to the preacher that sits in his church every day waiting for the ones to come in and pray?

go ahead and lock up these churches, the ones that need the LORD need him everyday, not just on sunday.

Peter| 12.15.10 @ 2:30PM

The Yale Charter 1745;

"All scholars shall live religious, godly,
and blameless lives according to the rules
...of God's Word, diligently reading the Holy
Scriptures, the fountain of light and truth;
and constantly attend upon all the duties
of religion, both in public and secret."

W| 12.13.10 @ 6:12PM

Eric, you are wasting your time responding to "alan brooks." He is here to divert attention from the issue, which is the liberals' culture. So he starts attacking religion with nonsensical, idiotic ramblings, but clever, to distract discussion away from the article. He does this every day, Ignore him

MikeD| 12.14.10 @ 12:01AM

W" Right on. Alan Brooks has to be some sort of a 'construct'. No one individual could possibly be that stupid that consistently. There's a whole batch of libs, say, about 50, who read the shorter posts, get somebody to decode the multisyllable words, and then turn it over to 144 chimps who type away and then the results get posted under Brooks's name. That's the only thing that makes any sense that could possibly result in his posts..

Christian Christmas| 12.13.10 @ 10:07AM

Greetings in the words of Jesus Christ:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away."

Toto| 12.13.10 @ 10:13AM

Thank you, Christian Christmas, for reminding us of the words of our Lord.

"Give to him who asks you." That's the point of Christianity, and a pretty central one at that. God's mercy is unconditional; so should the mercy and generosity of Christians. Remember - Christians are required to love not just our neighbors or our friends or our families - but our enemies. We are asked to love Osama bin Laden. The Prodigal Son gets more than the loyal one, remember? The rich young man - who was also devout and worthy - was told that he had to give away everything he owned to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

It's Christmas, and I sincerely hope the readers of AmSpec will be extra generous in their giving, not just of money, but of themselves.

Edward White| 12.13.10 @ 10:18AM

"Give to him who asks you."

Jesus himself urged us not to worry about material possessions; and he lived as a vagrant, with no source of income. The early Christians were told to seek the mercy and generosity of others in their peregrinations; they were to take as much care of themselves as the lilies in the field. Give us this day our daily bread. Not enough even for tomorrow.

Mark Gillespie| 12.13.10 @ 12:59PM

"Give to him who asks you."

I take Christ's words seriously. That's why I give to homeless persons who approach me on the street. I give out of Christ's love for me and everyone, including the homeless alcoholic, drug addict, or whatever.

It is not my purpose to ask what they will do with the money I give. I give for the sake of giving. I give in Christ's holy name.

Al Adab| 12.13.10 @ 2:36PM

Mark,
Your actions and analysis are correct. Our mistake is that we confuse a personal "believers mandate" for a Government action. The first is, as you note, a voluntary act of Love. The second involves coercion and the violence of government power.

While government mandates might allow us to "pass the buck" and avoid the personal responsibility of believers, it is a sorry excuse for personal action. It is in fact tyranny as it uses the coercive power to achieve a charitable end. That by it's nature becomes theft.

Cal Martin| 12.13.10 @ 4:27PM

Mark, I understand and applaud the sentiment, but it is very much your purpose to ensure that your acts in the name of charity do ACTUAL good and NOT harm - while you may give money to "the homeless alcoholic, drug addict, or whatever" out of a spirit of charity, you still leave them to their original devices - your sponsorship may indeed _lead them back into temptation_ (after all, what's a homeless alcoholic with no support and ten dollars in his pocket likely to do?) - buy them a meal, buy them a blanket, go down to the local soup kitchen and work for a few hours, but give them something that they will (not "might") benefit from.

"Giving for the sake of giving" should be "giving for the sake of good".

It is VERY MUCH your purpose to ask what they will do with the money - as it is your responsibility to ensure that the money you spend on the poor is put to good use, because if you don't, who will?

Margie| 12.23.10 @ 6:33PM

Don't give money to them, but take them for a meal, or give them a snack or cup of coffee instead. It is not responsible to give them cash as you just may be contributing to their addictions. So I agree with you, Mr. Martin.

While it may make you feel better to give them money, it isn't helping them. Now if you give them food to eat you can also give them the gospel of Jesus Christ while they are eating!

Eric Cartman| 12.13.10 @ 10:22AM

Well, Toto, I will follow your advise this season. I have a present for Osama bin Laden, if you can find him. I would love to give it to him personally, but if that is not possible I can get some people to air deliver it to him if you know where he is. Please keep me informed.

Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 11:17AM

For once we agree; give Osama a dessert.
A just dessert.

Alan Brooks| 12.14.10 @ 12:10AM

...Obama's just dessert is a plaque in DC for preventing McCain from foisting a Warren G. Harding-type administration on us.

Alan Brooks| 12.14.10 @ 12:13AM

Do you know what McCains and Hardings are?:
they are amiable lapdogs whose redeeming quality is to lack the toothy smarm of a Carter.

Erma Taylor| 12.13.10 @ 1:13PM

The central conviction of the Gospels (also of the Hebrew scriptures) is that there is enough and more than enough in God's abundance, that it is meant for all without distinction, and that the original sin of the Garden of Eden is the sin of failing to trust -- of grabbing and hoarding -- and the sin of the Pharisees and lawyers in the New Testament is that of bean-counting and score-keeping.

Toto, I'm with you on Christian generosity.

There is not enough of it, especially in the right-wing fundamentalist camp, a large percentage of AmSpec's readership.

May we all in the spirit of Christ Himself be more generous in thought and deed.

Eric Cartman| 12.13.10 @ 2:19PM

Hmmm, that's funny, Erma. I seem to remember being in undergraduate school when Bush and Clinton/Gore were going at it. And I seem to remember that I - a poor, broke undergrad with two kids and fresh out of the military - had given more to charity (in both time and money) than either Bill "Hey baby - wanna hold my cigar" Clinton and Albert "Is it hot in here? Gore. And these guy were always telling me - a very lapse Catholic - how Christian they were. Why, Bubba toted a bible around every time he got caught using an intern as a humidor (which was a lot!). So how do you account for that?

Big Leo| 12.13.10 @ 3:00PM

Nonsense, Erma-- Conservatives, especially conservative Christians give a higher proportion of time and money to charity. It's been proven over and over. If your argument is based in an error, it is useless.

Erma Taylor| 12.13.10 @ 7:18PM

It is the mainstream, liberal denominations that give the most to the poor.

If fundamentalist and evangelical Christians took seriously the biblical vision of the kingdom of God, they could help transform our globe into a world of peace that is built, in turn, on justice for the world's poor. And in this way, they would contribute immeasurably to the common good for men, women, and children throughout the world.

This is what Christ wants us to do as followers of Him.

Cal Martin| 12.14.10 @ 4:15PM

To: Erma

Taken from http://www.startribune.com/opi.....32146.html

March 26, 2008

'Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

•Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

•Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

•Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George W. Bush.

•Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

•In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

•People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.'

Now, you may know greedy people who call themselves "conservative" and you may know people who spend half their time as soup-kitchen volunteers (good for them) who call themselves "liberal" - but the above data still stands.

On another note: "...the original sin of the Garden of Eden is the sin of failing to trust -- of grabbing and hoarding -- and the sin of the Pharisees and lawyers in the New Testament is that of bean-counting and score-keeping."

Now, I'm inclined to disagree here, because, from what I can tell, the original sin of the Garden of Eden was disobedience and self-importance. And the Pharisees were guilty of the exact same thing, replacing false human traditions with God's originals.

Only Republican at Woodstock| 12.14.10 @ 4:32PM

Sorry, but your ignorance is showing. Study after study demonstrates that liberals give less to charity than conservatives, both when measured by political affiliation or by religious affiliation. I can point you to several studies. Just try these two http://www.fullerton.edu/gcnr/Patterns.pdf
check out page 14 with a chart comparing liberal and conservative religious giving, or try this article from Northwestern: http://findarticles.com/p/arti.....n19369255/
Liberals idea of giving to the poor is taking money away from someone they accuse of being "rich" and giving it to someone they classify as being poor.

Margie| 12.23.10 @ 6:38PM

I'm not sure what plane you're living on, Erma, but you must be in a deep sleep.
Methinks thou dost protest way too much.
Fundamentalist and evangelical Christians the world over are missionaries.
Spare us, dear troll.

Tim the Enchanter| 12.13.10 @ 1:52PM

Toto: Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. God's mercy is NOT unconditional. If requires our cooperation, our humility, and our acknowlegment of our guilt. God does NOT extend His mercy to those who do not specifically ask for it. Otherwise, Our Lord lied about the Last Judgment and the existence of Hell.

79@feelin'fine| 12.13.10 @ 1:17PM

The Lord Helps Those Who Help Themselves.

The Christian fundies believe "The Lord helps those who help themselves" is from the Bible. It is not. They don't realize it's actually a highly sarcastic comment of Benjamin Franklin's.

get it right| 12.13.10 @ 2:34PM

True, even Franklin studied the Bible and used its wisdom in his own comments, many of which became atypical axioms. However, that comment was not "highly sarcastic," it came in response to the seeming helpless attitude many of his peers were taking to political and economic problems of the period. Similarly, the English proverb most associate with the Bible is highly applicable today: "Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime." Confucius had a similar saying. You don't have to be a Christian fundamentalist of any type to recognize that personal responsibility and effort get you a lot more in life than sitting around waiting for handouts and complaining about your lot. The problem is only the folks on the right seem to recognize the folks who work hard should not be insulted or considered "evil" by the folks who choose not to.

Big Leo| 12.13.10 @ 3:01PM

I don't know what you consider to be a fundie. Most fundamentalists I have met are very well informed on the Scriptures, however literalist and flawed I may believe their interpretation to be. They would not make this mistake-- secularists and the vaguely 'religious' would.

Appleby| 12.14.10 @ 7:30AM

*He who does not work, neither shall he eat* is, however, in the Bible. It was said by St. Paul.

At this time of year we subway riders are besieged day and night with shrieking people begging money for their particular *charity* devoted to providing anonymous, unwrapped, expensive loot for the Entitlement Generation, for which they will take all the credit. Children attending public school around here are required to provide mandatory charity (think about it) -- like the old fashioned demands of the feudal liege lords -- under threat of not graduating if they decline. That is all they know about *charity* -- that it is something compelled for the benefit of some anonymous group of which they are not a member. And the only mention of God in school is the incessant taking of His name in vain.

In the days when charity began at home, and was an expression of an individuals concern and care for another individual, and this was a common thread in the school materials children learned from, we did not grow weary of Christmas six weeks before it arrived, and I daresay a lot fewer people resented and outright hated the hands-in-your-pocket Poor, Less Fortunate, etc. than they do today.

Christmas has come to represent yet another thing that divides us. Is this what Jesus wants? I doubt it.

Cal Martin| 12.14.10 @ 6:44PM

To: 79@feelin'fine

It's generally not seen as good form in a debate to take a quote and accuse your opponents of misusing the quote on a matter of belief.

It is entirely possible that there are Christian fundies out there who in fact knew that it was Benjamin Franklin who said that. Like Benjamin Franklin.

Furthermore, "This saying is usually attributed to Ben Franklin, quoted in Poor Richard's Almanac in 1757. In actuality, it originated from Algernon Sydney in 1698 in an article titled Discourses Concerning Government." (http://www.gotquestions.org/God-help-themselves.html)

Pauli | 12.14.10 @ 2:17PM

I'm trying to buy a vowel wrt the context. What's the message here for the professor's daughter? If your dad wants to screw you for a year, screw him for 4 years?

OllieK| 12.13.10 @ 11:48AM

Alan Brooks: Faith permeates our history and our culture. Read the writings of our Founding Fathers to learn how interrelated faith and government are in this country. I have no idea what you mean by "junk" religion, but the author is clearly not discussing mail-order ministries. We are constitutional guaranteed freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. The Establishment clause of the Constitution, properly read, does not mandate separation of church and state.

Doctor Right| 12.13.10 @ 1:39PM

We'll be looking to you to lead the charge in removing ALL Muslim prayer centers from our universities, so get started you gutless, hypocritical dimwit.

Brianj1949| 12.13.10 @ 4:10PM

Alan:
"I am not opposed to religion, but I want no part of your junk religion."
How does one define a "junk religion?" The history --if only the history of the past century-- teaches us that such a definition the starting point for repression and, ultimately, genocide?
"Faith belongs in a house of worship- not on a campus. All things in their proper place."
What kind of university is it where every idea imaginable is up for discussion EXCEPT for religious ideas?

Kathy| 12.13.10 @ 5:03PM

You're not opposed to religion, as long as it makes no demands upon you or asks you to adhere to a higher moral standard than you, in your fallen state, deem appropriate.

Stay classy.

Negro X| 12.13.10 @ 5:37PM

AB, and we want no part of your enviro, islamo-centric leftist cultism.

Pelligrino| 12.13.10 @ 6:49AM

"Americans revere the Bible -- but, by and large, they don't read it. And because they don't read it, they have become a nation of biblical illiterates." (chapter: Pastors and Prophets Speak Out)

George Gallop Jr.

"Unprincipled men and women, disdainful of their moral heritage and skeptical of truth itself, are destroying our civilization by weakening the very pillars upon which it rests." (chapter: Low Morality Quotient)

Chuck Colson

Both quotations taken from Wood Kroll's 2000 book "Back to the Bible," pages 64 & 99.

What I am currently reading. I recommend it highly.

How we all can help: 1) Know the Bible and then live it. 2) Don't donate to or even think of sending your kid or grandkid to a secular school.

op983| 12.13.10 @ 10:22AM

Pelligrino,

Read the above comments of Christian Christmas, Toto, and Edward White.

Looks to me like they read the Bible and try to live by its words.

Actorprof| 12.13.10 @ 1:11PM

Christian Christmas, Toto, et al. speak from the pacifist tradition of Christianity, which is by no means the "mainstream" point of view. Context is important in this dscussion. To take the words of Christ out of context would seem to be a suicide pact for all believers. There s an entire body of scholarship on this issue.

Further, the renunciation of worldly wealth is directly contradicted by the events described in ACTS chapters 15-18.

Sheila| 12.13.10 @ 1:23PM

Thank you, Actorprof, for noting correctly that in far too many ways, Christianity in America today is as infected by liberalism and modern revisionism as all other disciplines. This pacifist tradition ties in with the left's Jim Wallis; as you note, there's an entire body of scholarship on Christianity not being a suicide pact (parallels our Constitution - what a surprise!). I prefer the historically practiced "muscular" Christianity; the problem is finding a church today that doesn't mix liberal politics with theology. Chuck Baldwin's "black regiment" of pastors and churches is a good place to start, but there aren't any in my neck of the woods.

MuscleMan| 12.13.10 @ 1:59PM

And I take it that by "muscular" Christianity you mean the hateful kind practiced by fundamentalists--the kind that would turn Christ's stomach.

Kathy| 12.13.10 @ 5:07PM

Describe "hateful kind."

oo65#2| 12.13.10 @ 6:36PM

Very quickly, hateful "Christians" make these kind of statements:

"You're going to Hell!"

"Satan has blinded you!"

"If you support abortion, you are supporting murder!"

"She chose to be gay, and she's living in sin."

"Women should not be ordained."

And so on, and so on, and so on . . .

Cal Martin| 12.14.10 @ 4:47PM

Okay, I'm going to ignore the first two because, really, they're too general to really be addressed. Besides, both could be considered urgent warnings on the part of the Christians.

But I digress.

You have a far better case with those last three, which refer to actual behavior and reaction.

"If you support abortion, you are supporting murder!"

Well, if you define murder as "to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously" and you admit that abortion directly causes the death of an innocent human child, then, well, uh, yeah. No hate here. Fact, maybe. Upset and distress, maybe. No hate.

"She chose to be gay, and she's living in sin."

Okay, speaking from personal experience, I've never heard anyone say this or anything even close to it... except from people who accuse Christians of Hate. Many of the Christians I know view homosexuals with mixtures of sorrow and empathy, but no hate. No fear either, for that matter.

Now, regarding living in sin - this is a phrase referring to unwed couples who live together, or the even more mundane friends with "benefits". The people accused may not particularly take a shine to the description, but its use does not describe Hatred regarding people so much as disapproval regarding action. (Shack-ups and FWB are some of the most likely pairs to suffer problems).

"Women should not be ordained."

Okay, now who are you talking about? There are several Protestant denominations who boast female ministers, but you wouldn't be complaining about them. Nah, it's those rotten Catholics and their male priesthood that're the problem.

Now, from what I know about their priesthood (not much, admittedly), the orthodox Catholic view of the priesthood is to guard and guide the Church - "The Bride of Christ" - as a kind of spiritual eunuch. When Catholics only accept male priests, they do it as a matter of serving God on what they believe to be God's terms. And when the, well, the "Sisterhood" demands equal rights to the priesthood, it doesn't _quite_ ring true as a demand to serve God on God's terms (besides, don't they have convents?). Not finding much hate here, either.

Big Leo| 12.13.10 @ 3:02PM

How about muscular Christianity as in driving the moneychangers out of the temple and denouncing the tyrants as vipers?

79@feelin'fine| 12.13.10 @ 1:56PM

A contradiction in the Bible!

A contradiction!

Did you say "contradiction"?

There cannot be a contradiction (horrors) in the Bible because every word of it is the WORD OF GOD!

Get it?

Cal Martin| 12.13.10 @ 4:53PM

Of course he gets it, 79. Everyone here gets it (well, almost).

The premiere definition of paradox is "a statement which seems initially contradictory but, after some consideration, points to a possible truth."

You'll notice that Christ does not condemn the rich among his followers (it was a rich follower of Christ who procured His dead body and arranged for the tomb, as I assume you know, since your ridicule would suggest you've read up well enough on the subject to discount it as bunk) - the case in question of the rich man asking what he must do and the following quote was largely because the rich man needed it - you'll notice how it describes how the rich man's went away after hearing the answer - he wasn't in the mood to give.

A person being rich does not prove that they're greedy any more than their being poor does (rather, think of it as a measure of how materialistically blessed they are - note, /material/ blessings are much less worthy than /spiritual/ blessings), and I find your insistence that people who do not THROW AWAY their money away and live in sackcloth are hypocrites to be riotously unfair.

"The point is this: he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must do as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. " (2 Cor. 9:6–7)

The point is not whether you meet a quota of throwing your possessions away - it is entirely about the desire to give, to "sow bountifully." How much a Christian gives is between them and God, their ultimate reason for giving.

Does that answer your question, 79?

79@feelin'fine| 12.13.10 @ 9:32PM

No.

The subject was contradictions in the Bible, of which there are lots and lots, not even to speak of the outright scientific errors.

Does this answer your question, Cal?

Cal Martin| 12.14.10 @ 2:20PM

How many contradictions, and where? Again, I refer to the subject of "paradox."

You'll have to show me where the contradictions exist.

And the writers of the Old and New Testament apologize for not owning calculators 2,000+ years ago.

KOJohnson| 12.13.10 @ 7:13AM

Where'd you get that Lincoln quote? None of us can find it. Seems to be spurious. Thanks!

beebop| 12.13.10 @ 7:29AM

Do none of you know how to google? Copy and paste? Anyone? Anyone?

Occam's Tool| 12.13.10 @ 11:13AM

The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.
Abraham Lincoln

That took me 10 painful seconds. My dear KO,

"your mind is to mine like that of an amoeba. But do not be afraid."

Why spurious? Lincoln was the most Brilliant President we had, with the possible exception of TR and Jefferson; he was also the most gifted with words, no exceptions, even Jefferson.

Jack| 12.13.10 @ 10:40PM

Spurious because Brainy Quote is not a reliable and sourced website, and because manufactured Lincoln quotes are far more plentiful than the legitimate kind.

Cal Martin| 12.14.10 @ 5:01PM

"The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next."

This quote is quite often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, though it was popularized by a man named David Barton, who has admitted the quote to be questionable in source.

In short, Lincoln might have said it, he might not have said it.

Regardless, the point remains valid.

bob sykes| 12.13.10 @ 7:26AM

The logic of Griswold v Conn is that every kind of sex between consenting adults is legal. This means that incest, prostitution and polygamy are legal. The only question is, What is a consenting adult? Traditionally, in the US and most cultures the age of consent was 13 or 14, and that will become the new standard.

By the way, if that were the standard 30 years ago, many of the cases of sex abuse by Catholic priests against teenage (80% post pubescent) would not have been crimes.

George S| 12.13.10 @ 9:32AM

Unless you're a lazy Democrat who lives in mommy's basement and needs health insurance and cannot tell the difference between a priest and a homosexual pervert who graduated divinity school. Then you become an adult after the age of 26

Darragh| 12.13.10 @ 8:11AM

Sometimes I truly think we are in the last days.

Cal Martin| 12.13.10 @ 4:56PM

We've been in the last days since Christ was nailed to that tree.

darcy| 12.14.10 @ 6:56PM

Yes, I agree with you Cal. When have we, for example, these past 2000 years not had wars and rumors of wars?

Dollface| 12.13.10 @ 8:23AM

I always knew lefties were inbreds.

Harry| 12.13.10 @ 8:37AM

In 30 yearsa experience as a criminal lawyer, I have learnt that people who are sexually disordered away from the Judeo-Christian norms of behaviour are generally disordered in other ways as well.

Sea_Hunter| 12.13.10 @ 9:06AM

I am reminded of a case last year in Elko Nevada where a woman was convicted of child abuse for allowing a teenage boy touch her covered breasts. Granted, the woman was drunk at the time. For this horrible crime she was given a life sentence. Her public defender, Alina Kilpatrick, noted that the woman would have received a lighter sentence had she killed the boy instead. (google Alina Kilpatrick for more information on this case) We are living in a world where to fornicate with your daughter gives you a nod and a wink, and to allow a teenage boy to feel you up gets you life in the slammer. That suggests to me a certain twisted morality and totally confused logic.

Harry, you are exactly right. The twist away from Judeo Christian norms of behavior are twisting this country into a disordered society defended with ethical babble uttered by those who believe themselves above both ethics and morality. I believe we call them liberals, or Congress, I'm not sure which.

Jack| 12.13.10 @ 10:45PM

"Judeo-Christian" norms, eh?

Yeah, we've been losing those ever since the 13th amendment was passed in direct contravention of Deuteronomy 20:10-18.

PJ| 12.13.10 @ 8:38AM

This is truly a sad commentary on society for both men & women on so many levels.

There's not enough space on this website for me to begin to write how despicable, how selfish, how there's no self-discipline, no true love, lack of respect, no ethics, no rational thinking.....

Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 8:46AM

If your religion wasn't such an insult to Jesus, you would garner more sympathy. Elmer Gantry is as to faith as worthless bonds are to an economy.
So fill your grandkids empty little heads with your bad religion, they are captive audiences.

Neanderthal| 12.13.10 @ 9:21AM

Alan- I don't remember reading anywhere where Jesus advocated having sex with your adult daughter. Why do you find condemnation of such an act so threatening?

Eric Cartman| 12.13.10 @ 10:23AM

Take a wild guess.

Occam's Tool| 12.13.10 @ 11:15AM

Eric,

That 4 word evisceration, of Mr. Brooks, with no profanity, was the most pithy skewering I've ever seen. I shall do my best to stay on your good side. I genuflect at the feet of The Master.

Eric Cartman| 12.13.10 @ 2:08PM

Sometimes it's too easy, OT :-)

Boomerbabe| 12.13.10 @ 10:49PM

It is true, Cartman - you rock! I have to make sure I'm not drinking my tea when I start reading your comments so I don't choke to death...

Jack| 12.13.10 @ 10:46PM

You need to get out more.

Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 11:22AM

Alan- I don't remember reading anywhere where "Jesus advocated having sex with your adult daughter. Why do you find condemnation of such an act so threatening?"

My daughter has a husband, she doesn't need any assistance in that dept. I meant Gantry in the full sense, bith good and bad; the 1960 film Gantry, if you remember, reformed at the end. But many were hurt, his mistress was killed-- burnt alive. i don't say you are wrong; but all the same I want to avoid ALL bad religion, be it headquartered in a mosque, a synagogue, a church, or in a shack.

Steve A| 12.13.10 @ 11:38AM

Hey Alan, It makes perfect sense wanting to "avoid bad religion." What is your response when "bad religion" does not want to avoid you. Let's just say, hypothetically of course, that a large segment of a "bad religion" wants to blow your arse up with a truck bomb or maybe fly a 747 into your office.. What does Alan Brooks do then??

Redstateboy| 12.13.10 @ 1:14PM

the twit is using a book written by Upton Sinclair to base his stance on the Christian Religion.. Liber-uls - if they weren't so dangerous - they'd be pathetically funny.

Sheila| 12.13.10 @ 1:26PM

For what it's worth, although Sinclair was a blazing liberal, the book is actually worth reading and paints a far more nuanced portrait of Elmer Gantry. The movie, made by liberal Hollywood Jews, has an innate anti-Christian slant - sort of like Mr. Brooks.

MOS was 71331| 12.13.10 @ 5:45PM

Sinclair Lewis, not Upton Sinclair, wrote "Elmer Gantry" in 1926.

Negro X| 12.13.10 @ 5:39PM

Alan brooks, a PHD in scatology.

Intelligent Design| 12.13.10 @ 8:47AM

If the founding fathers had been educated in today's colleges, they would have been too brain-washed, ignorant, unprincipled, and timid to conceive the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution would not have been written, the Revolutionary War would not have been fought, and this country would not exist. To Obama and his kind, that of course would be "good".

Intelligent Design| 12.13.10 @ 8:52AM

By the way, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, leader of the mosque near Ground Zero campaign and the subversive organization known as Islam, received his bachelor's degree in nuclear engineering from Columbia.

Louis Jenkins| 12.13.10 @ 9:05AM

"Republicans of "taking hypocrisy in their personal lives to new levels of self-indulgent weirdness."

Weird? He called Republicans weird? On what basis? If going to bed with your twenty something daughter is not weird then nothing is. The Bible speaks against it, society speaks against it, morality speaks against it. Liberal-well that's okay. Afterall, we don't need moral bound stiff shirts telling us how to live. What a crock!

MikeBee| 12.13.10 @ 10:07AM

Liberal creed: WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' MORALS!

Cal Martin| 12.13.10 @ 5:08PM

I think you just hit the nail on the head, Mike. In general (note, to everyone who reads this post, I discuss trends, not the totality), the Left runs on the idea of self-discernation of morality - whatever is good is what makes me feel happy.

Now then, the people (this tends - TENDS - to be those who socially gravitate further eastward down the spectrum) who can perceive the inherent danger of this idea tend to react to strongly - we get into trollfests and flame wars, especially when under the Online Disinhibition Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect), which is perhaps more colloquially known as the Greater Internet F***wad Theory (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GIFT).

It is clear to us where self-deterministic morality leads - we need to focus on teaching that danger to others, rather than calling them out on it, because in many (quite possibly most, what with the state of government education today) cases they don't even realize it.

MikeBee| 12.13.10 @ 10:24PM

Cal,
You're right! The liberal's universe is a very homo-centric universe, with everything revolving around humankind. This is the reason that whatever a liberal thinks and feels is good for him/her to do, must, then, be good. This universe in which liberals live is also very childish. Children also live in this type of homo-centered universe, selfishly realizing only their own needs and wants, and thinking that everything revolves around them.

However, most of us ultimately mature, and begin to realize that the universe is not centered on us. We begin to be able to value the Other, and to love others, going far beyond the limited constraints of a world centering solely on us. When a man or woman reaches the point that he/she transcends him/herself, true fulfillment is finally reached. Of course, Jesus Christ tried to get us to do this, to get outside of ourselves and to live for and love others. Ultimately, he was trying to motivate us to grow up, and to be all that we truly can become.

Anthony| 12.13.10 @ 9:21AM

I have some legal advice for Professor Epstein, first, get the case in federal court, somehow. (This is a state criminal statute, so no way, but still, try).
You then will be assured that even if convicted, ultimately, your conviction will be reversed by the SCOTUS, with Stephen Briar writing the 5/4 majority decision.
Anbody who saw Briar with Chris Wallace on FNS, witnessed the epitome of arrogant,pedantic, elite leftism on display. Briar, in his lecturing to Wallace, added a new linguistic turn to the failed leftist carnard of "the living, breathing Constitution". Instead, Briar talked about the philosophy of the founders, and who better to interpret their philosophy then leftists like Briar.
Briar had answers, even to the plain language of the 2nd Amendment, that assured us that the beliefs of the founders did not include well armed individual citizens. So, sex between consenting adults, even if father and daughter, a piece of cake for Briar.
So Professor Epstein, get thee to federal court...all will be well.

Louis Jenkins| 12.13.10 @ 9:32AM

Yes, Briar had answers, and the part about well armed citizens was closely listened to. I've never heard it put exactly the way he addressed it. The way to Hell is paved with good intentions isn't it?

Anthony| 12.13.10 @ 10:03AM

I agree Mr. Jenkins, Briar and Co. have the left on the express lane to Hell.
P.S. On reflection, Professor Espstein, just make this a "civil rights" issue, that will punch your ticket to federal court and make you a lefty hero to boot. Briar will see to it.

Correction| 12.13.10 @ 12:30PM

it's Breyer, not Briar

Petronius| 12.13.10 @ 9:34AM

With schooling at every level commanded by the Dept. of Educrats what do parents expect? Few are aware of what is being taught. And since social networking trumps learning, most could care less. Their sights are on tailgate parties at upcoming bowl games. This is why our country (?) is no longer civilized. Case in point: One Vick gets imprisoned for watching dogs fight. One Little commits vehicular homicide and walks. Only when those who wield real power take offense is any person brought to book and punished; not for commission of listed felonies, but because powerful interests don't like what that person has done. Mr. Libby is in Club Fed because the Washington establishment hates who he worked for. 1984 simply did not arrive on schedule. Right is wrong. And now evil is good.
Ask justice (?) Kennedy. He'll tell you.

Neanderthal| 12.13.10 @ 9:35AM

This whole issue demonstrates what happens when we let faith get chased out of the public square. We all know in our hearts what is right and wrong (that's the true basis of faith, and a believe in "God", however defined), and we know that a sexual relationship between a parent and a child is wrong.

When we start ignoring that inner voice, we can excuse anything. There are people running around loose who are willing to justify just about any behavior; sex with children, blowing people up for the glory of Allah, stealing other people's property (I sometimes think the only reason we still have laws against this is because the government doesn't like competition).

We've been so brainwashed into being "nonjudgemental" that we've lost our faith in our own sense of right and wrong.

George S| 12.13.10 @ 9:40AM

Justice would be served if Epstein could be tried in Oklahoma and the court references Sharia law to convict.

Booger| 12.13.10 @ 9:41AM

At least he's not from Arkansas.

justasimplepatriot| 12.13.10 @ 10:13AM

"The problem with normal is it always gets worse."

How ironic this thought should originate from a left-wing liberal - in this case Bruce Cockburn.

We are now live in a world of relativism. The anchor chain of Christian/Judeo values has been severed. Cockburn's phrase has become prophetic - and on steroids.

MikeBee| 12.13.10 @ 10:17AM

The biggest reason that Muslims (and some other peoples around the world) think that the U.S. is the Great Satan is precisely this lack of moral standards. Liberals are quick to point out that we need to improve our image among other nations in the world, but refuse to realize that it is precisely THEIR behavior, and their advocating for loosening of moral standards, that is driving this hatred of the U.S.

CARL CRAFT| 12.13.10 @ 2:27PM

However, Islam was founded by a pedophile, whom I'm sure would have had no qualms bedding his own offspring.

Ken Allison| 12.13.10 @ 11:01AM

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?" T.J.
We have not only removed the conviction, we have removed God himself from our personal lives and principles of government. It is no accident. Tyrants rejoice.

Occam's Tool| 12.13.10 @ 11:19AM

I think I've mentioned before that I support the Death Penalty in Principle but not in practice---the reason I don't support it in practice is because of the too stupid to pour piss out of a boot theory, which applies to 80% of judges and 90% of attorneys I have met. (I've testified in court in CA,AL, KY, NM,MN, and New Zealand over my 21 year career.)

ncatty| 12.13.10 @ 11:27AM

It is the juries you have to worry about.

OJ| 12.13.10 @ 11:56AM

Yeah, I hear ya. My first jury was great but the second screwed me bad. It really is hit or miss. Love, OJ

Richard Baker| 12.13.10 @ 12:06PM

So I guess that incest is another in the Sacraments of the Liberal Religion now?

MikeBee| 12.13.10 @ 12:14PM

It's actually in their Bill of Rights. Freedom of sex, anytime, anywhere, with any moving thing, without consequences.

YeloStalyn| 12.13.10 @ 4:00PM

You, my friend, are WAY to judgemental and close-minded. You seem to want to exclude protection for sex with things non-moving. No wonder the world hates the US. We're full on right-wing, neo-con, Bible-thumping, patriarchal, racist, sexist, nut jobs like you!!!

Jay D. Homnick| 12.13.10 @ 12:18PM

Back in 1974, a friend who was a student in Loyola University in Baltimore told me that his psychology professor openly told the class he was engaging in incest with his daughter. My anthropology professor in Brooklyn College in 1975, a woman, mocked the incest taboo as a construct surviving from a primitive time with no place in a liberated worldview. I assumed her views to be representative of the social sciences community.

OldSeabee| 12.13.10 @ 1:41PM

The main reason for the taboo against incest is the dangers of a (severely) restricted gene pool. When Moses included the prohibitions about incest in the lesser laws, he was remembering the problems of the royal Egyptian families. Read about King Tut in the recent National Geographic. And, Moses was also trying to wean his people from the idea of children being chattel to be used for any purpose. The allegation does not point to a depravity but a self-indulgence which is even worse. And, yes, Yale was established to primarily train men for the priesthood. We have fallen very far.

Walkthetalk| 12.13.10 @ 2:55PM

Consensual sex with an adult daughter in the mind of the mind-numbed left is okay. The real problem is that the relationship with his adult daughter probably started when he molested her as a small child and throughout her childhood. She was therefore conditioned (brainwashed) to accept this activity with her father as natural. And to the fallen world, this is natural and acceptable. In the Bible John the Baptist chided Herod for his adulterous behavior with his brother Philip's wife. This is what prompted Herodias to urge her daughter Salome to perform a lewd dance for her step-father. In the grip of his lusty heat he agreed to remove John's head. You see, John was shining God's light in the spiritual darkness of the fallen world. Those in that darkness fear and loath the light. What's more, everyone in that darkness will agree with the wrong behavior and justify the wrongdoer. In the case of this professor, it was simply consensual sex between adults. By their overwhelming support they hope to shut out the light of the truth. The left has inverted good and bad. So it is important that Christians fight the battle of maintaining pressure on those in spiritual darkness. If you need help fighting in this battle see www.christforamericans. The rest of the world has already capitulated to spiritual darkness. The battleground is America. Stand up to the darkness in all places and raise the light of God's truth.

Donald Sensing | 12.13.10 @ 3:08PM

We are only beginning to see the enormous changes that have been, and have to be, wrought by the invention and widespread use of the Pill. The idea that consensuality is the primary (or even sole) determinant of legality of a sexual relationship is a direct outgrowth of the Pill.

I explained in the Wall Street Journal back in 2004 how the Pill came to form a foundation for homosexual marriage in, "Save Marriage? It's Too Late. The Pill made same-sex nuptials inevitable." (The WSJ's online archives only go back two years, but the text is here.)

Short course:

When society decided--and we have decided, this fight is over--that society would no longer decide the legitimacy of sexual relations between particular men and women, weddings became basically symbolic rather than substantive, and have come for most couples the shortcut way to make the legal compact regarding property rights, inheritance and certain other regulatory benefits. But what weddings do not do any longer is give to a man and a woman society's permission to have sex and procreate. ...

There were two other lethal arrows into the heart of traditional marriage. One was socio-commercial feminism, which encouraged women on the one hand to postpone or pass up marriage and childbearing in order to have careers outside the home, and on the other hand to be as sexually active as they imagined men to be.

The other was the rise to pre-eminence in academia of post-liberal Christian theology and Bible scholarship, which has intentionally sought to free society from the Bible rather than help lead it to follow it. Massive numbers of papers and books have been written since the mid-twentieth century attempting to show that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures are patriarchal, oppressive documents that tell less the story of humanity's struggle with its relationship with the divine, than they are the record of proto-Marxist class and gender struggles of power, exploitation and domination. So today, anyone who expects an orthodox biblical argument to be taken seriously is living in dreamland. (Heh, see the rest of the comments!)

Couple these philosophies with the Pill, and traditional marriage in its holistic social context didn't have a chance of survival.

Cal Martin| 12.13.10 @ 5:33PM

That which is lost may be yet won again, so long as those who will Witness to the Truth remain willing to stand in the Light and call others yet out of darkness.

The problem with the "other side's" view (since there's a lot of Othering going around here on both sides) is that they have not been shown the glory of family - they think that Children are a chore, that Home is a prison, that Hearth is a curse.

One of the best ways to prove them wrong is to have a big family. (Note to everyone: If you do not have a big family, and have several good reasons for not having one, then you can at least encourage it - the family is dying because we're letting it).

ROBERT| 12.13.10 @ 3:39PM

Dear Mr. Brooks,

I have your first comment and have not the rest but respectfully make these points.

It is quite impossible as well as dangerous to attempt the dissociation of religious principle - simply by the characterizing of such principle religious-- as repugnant to the rule of law, custom, tradition and the Constitution upon which the rule of law is premised.

Why?

1. Christianity is a fusion of what we might call religious practice and the principles of Greek and Roman law, tradition and principles, particularly as they were expressed in the philosophy of the Stoics, Epictetus for example. One may not banish Christian principle from the Constitution, law and tradition anymore than one may banish Aristotle and Plato. (Re: Plato I rec... the reading of Phaedo).

2. Finally, those who hold in the collectivist, secular mindset which the author describes are always rapacious in their destruction of religious institutions and their adherents. In the 20the century they weree responsible for the muder, on way or the other, of at least one hundred million people if one includes the 46 million Mao Ze Dong starved to death in what was the largest collectivist famine known to man, Pol Pot, V.I.Lenin and Stalin and , of course, Hitler to name only a few--all secularists, also took great pains to destroy religious practice, its people andphilosophy.

2. Finally, the Supreme and federal courts have reversed a trend honored before the predators I have described here made their appearance. The source of law is tradition, much as the English common law that gave the world constitutional government and democracy. The judge used to look to tradition, as it was expressed in an established body of law and thereafter rule on the case before him. Here, tradition abhorred incest for reasons which should be obvious to anyone. Now of course, the judge ignores tradition and looks to his own personal authority for his ruling. The chaos is, of course, terrible. That some among us cannot see the consequences of "consensual incest, is emblematic of that chaos.

David| 12.13.10 @ 3:40PM

We are accountable to God for the places and persons to whom we give our/His money. I don't think giving money to homeless alchoholics and drug users pleases God. Clothing them or taking them to buy food at a grocery store or restaurant does please Him. Neither do I think it pleases God to invest Christian Disneylands and other worldly endeavors.

Yes, God loves everyone, but those who are not convicted of their sins and repent, and accept Jesus as their only Savior, will not receive God's mercy but His judgment.

I just read a book by Ray Comfort, a host of the "Way of the Master" television series. The book is titled "God Has a Wonderful Plan for Life". He exhorts those who preach that message in order to win converts to Christ not to do it. People must first be convicted that they have sinned and are sinners by showing them the Law/The Ten Commandments. Only then can they truly realize and understand their need for a Savior and what Jesus did for them. Only then can they understand that without the Savior they will be judged and spend eternity in Hell. To tell Non-Christians how much God loves them and what a wonderful plan He has for their lives, before they are broken by knowledge of their sins is doing them a great disservice and leads to many false conversions.

There is a reason the Bible says that on Judgment Day, many will come to Jesus and He will say "depart from me, I never knew you".

I recommend the book. It is fairly short and easy read.

As to the incest, as I have said many times on this site, once we accept homosexuals' behavior and allow them to" marry" and put our stamp of approval on what they do, any sexual deviancy between any number of consenting adults will have to be allowed - and that includes sexual relationships among consenting adult family members. With regard to the claim that we cannot allow that because of "the freakish offspring they will produce", well, how is that a problem when abortions are allowed through all nine months of pregnancy for any or no reason at all?

YeloStalyn| 12.13.10 @ 4:08PM

Your final thoughts re: the argument against incest based on offspring being triumphed by abortion is very insightful. Again, it points out how conservatism MUST be defended on priniples and NOT on pragmatic outcomes that it will necissarily produce (as there are usually other, less just/right ways to reach said outcomes... such as simply aborting such an offspring).

darcy| 12.13.10 @ 5:01PM

I haven't read the book you cite, but otherwise I endorse your comments wholeheartedly.

The Law exposes our sin, exposes our failure to keep it, and exposes our inability to keep it.

Only Christ kept the Law perfectly. The Righteous One took my sin upon Himself and received God's punishment for my sin; in return, Jesus gave me His righteousness and I have been declared not guilty -- the substutionary atonement. I am not myself righteous; my righteousness is an alien righteousness, it is the righteousness that is imputed to me because I believe God's promise of forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice on the cross for sinners (all mankind). The good I do is not me doing it but Christ who lives in me; I am but a beggar before God and have nothing to bring to Him -- no good deeds or merit -- that would cause Him to love me and forgive me. That He does so is because of His infinite mercy, love, and compassion upon His creation, mankind, who deserve judgment not mercy. And those who reject Christ, who reject his mercy, will receive His judgment: If you choose to live without God on earth you are choosing to live without Him in eternity.

This is what the liberals hate, liberals in the church and liberals in society.

gary siebel| 12.13.10 @ 4:26PM

There are as many sexual hypocrites amongst conservatives as there are amongst liberals. The conservatives have the disadvantage of early identification of their hypocrisy in the form of -- what was his name? -- Judah(?), who wanted to have the ho killed until she proved he had been a customer. I wont bother mentioning Gingrich and Livingston and.... the list is quite long.

But having said that, liberals use the same "logic" to validate homosexual marriage as they do to mitigate incest. Conservatives would be wise to use this Professor as an example to argue in favor of the absurd, namely, if men can marry each other, why can't the Professor marry his daughter?, which may give people pause in their support of homosexual marriage when they realize the same "reasoning" underpins both.

Cal Martin| 12.13.10 @ 5:55PM

According to the story of Genesis 38:6-10...

Judah arranged a wife, T(h)amar, for his son, (H)Er. When Er died (God killed him - the only relation of the event was Er sinning greatly), Judah told Onan to, well, here's the transcript:

'Unite with your brother's widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother's line.' (Gen. 38:8)

Of course, Onan wasn't extraordinarily happy about that, and figured that - since he wasn't going to get any credit for having these kids (the law in question - "Levirate" law, from the Latin "levir", which means "a husband's brother" - would relegate all children born from Er's widow as Er's children), he just wouldn't bother. So, whenever he went to bed with Tamar, he would pull out early and spill out his seed, which left Tamar as essentially not much more than a masturbation dummy. For his crimes of defiance, selfishness, and abuse (and those're only the ones we know about), God slew Onan, like his brother - and Judeo-Christians now have the term "Onanism."

Now, that doesn't quite sound to me like the Judah who wanted "to have the ho killed until she proved he had been a customer."

But, as in all things, I could be very much mistaken and you could be either referring to either a different event or a different Judah. (There's a tribe and a nation also sharing that name, and possibly several others named for the original, I'm not sure). If that doesn't answer your question, could you be a little more specific, please?

David| 12.14.10 @ 9:09AM

You should read the rest of the story in Gen. 38:

Onan is killed by God for his sin, and Tamar is left once more as a widow. Judah refuses to give his remaining son Shelah to her, under the pretext that he is too young, but in fact he is afraid his third son might die as well. Apparently as a (weird) kind of reminder, Tamar present herself as a prostitute to Judah when he is on his way to a feast, and sure enough he sleeps with her. She gets his seal as a pledge for the payment and returns home. When it turns out she is pregnant, Judah orders her to be burnt to death. But she shows him the seal, to show him whom he slept with. Then Judah declares that she is more righteous than he is, (but the story doesn't tell whether Tamar is allowed to marry Shelah).

Cal Martin| 12.14.10 @ 2:28PM

Okay, fair enough.

Thank you for the correction, David.

Rick Z| 12.13.10 @ 6:24PM

Does this mean that I can marry my goldfish ?

Regarding the Bible:

Genesis portrays Sarah as marrying Abraham, her half-brother.

Incest is defined in Leviticus 18, 20 and in Deuteronomy. While there are prohibitions against relations with daughter-in-law, step-daughter and grand-daughter, there is NO SPECIFIC prohibition regarding niece, step-sister or DAUGHTER.
Commentaries (Talmud, etc) regard the last three as so obvious that no specific mention is necessary.

David| 12.13.10 @ 6:35PM

Hey Gary, the difference between conservatives and liberals when it comes to sexual deviancy is that conservatives rightly condemn their own while liberals make excuses for their own. Where are Livingston and Gingrich and therepub Senator from Washington and the foot-tapper in the Minneapolis airport restroom? They were run-out of and/or voted out of office. Only Gingrich has a presence and he probably shouldn't.

But it is not only sexual picadillos, it is all forms of wrongdoing.

Contrarily, where are Barney Frank (prostitution run out of his house), Bill Clinton (rape, harrassment, groping of MULTIPLE women including in the oval office, oral whatever with Monica - because with the advent of Clinton we all, including our children, know that sucking dick and blow-jobs and not really sex; and we all now understand is depends on what the meaning of IS, IS), William Jefferson ($90,000 in his freezer and re-elected how many times?), Charlie Rangel (who can count the wrongs), the mayor of D.C. (caught on VIDEO with a hooker and crack cocaine in a hotel room; and how many times was he re-elected as mayor after serving a prison sentence?), and a slew of other libs who did horrendous things? What is their stature in the dem's party? All revered and repected - correct?

Not that the repubs have HIGH standards, but unless you are a moron, you cannot credibly claim the dems' and media's standards are anywhere close to the repubs.

Haven't you ever heard the complaint from many repubs that "Republicans eat their own?"

David| 12.13.10 @ 6:37PM

Hey Cal, very interesting. I am going to have to read those verses.

Cal Martin| 12.14.10 @ 2:32PM

Yeah, sorry about that. Didn't have my bible w/ me and had to do a quick search (time was pressing yesterday) - first thing that came up was Er and Onan.

jbriz| 12.13.10 @ 7:30PM

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have seen Robert Stacy McCain write since last Thursday. Why exactly?

Because you cannot judge Columbia University by what ANONYMOUS POSTERS ON THE COLUMBIA SPECTATOR WEBSITE write.

THE COLUMBIA DAILY SPECTATOR IS NOT PART OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. IT IS A SEPARATE AND PRIVATE FINANCIAL ENTITY, WITH ITS OWN PARENT COMPANY, Spectator Publishing.

The Spectator does not speak for the University, or even for the student body.

Furthermore, PEOPLE CAN POST WHATEVER NONSENSE THEY WANT on a website, just like I'm doing now! The posters may have no relationship with the school, and the Spectator itself is not owned or controlled by the school.

Let's extend Robert Stacy McCain's own logic a bit.

Suppose I write post on the American Spectator blog stating that:

"I THINK ROBERT STACY MCCAIN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY A HAMSTER"

Does this mean that the American Spectator condones bestiality? YES -- by Robert Stacy McCain's logic!

By extension, does it mean that the broader institution of American conservatism condones bestiality? ALSO YES -- by Robert Stacy McCain's logic!

I will say this, about the guilt by association argument. When somebody -- in this case, Mr. McCain -- writes something ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR, in its pages or on its website, the American Spectator is on the hook for whatever he writes.

And in this case, the American Spectator is on the hook for a whole lot of stupid.

Cal Martin| 12.14.10 @ 2:45PM

The problem with your argument is that Mr. McCain is NOT attacking the institution by way of a comment on the website of a student paper.

This article has very little to do with the University, but quite a lot to do with one of its professors and his mentality.

Now, then, that understanding is crucial to understanding your attack - it doesn't reflect very well on you if you're attacking someone's writing as dumb when your argument has little to nothing to do with the actual subject.

jbriz| 12.14.10 @ 8:21PM

You say that "This article has very little to do with the University" and that "McCain is NOT attacking the institution by way of a comment on the website of a student paper."

Are you not aware that the title of this article is "GOD AND MAN AT COLUMBIA"?

Also, did you not read the last sentence of this article:

"What concerned Buckley in God and Man at Yale evidently DOES NOT WORRY THE GODLESS MEN AT COLUMBIA."

And, yes, McCain seizes on a comment on the Columbia Spectator website to argue that SOME AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY APPARENTLY DON'T THINK WHAT EPSTEIN IS ACCUSED OF DOING WAS WRONG ENOUGH TO BE ILLEGAL."

Still need convincing? Try reading it again. Focus on the parts I bolded.

Cal Martin| 12.15.10 @ 1:51PM

'Are you not aware that the title of this article is "GOD AND MAN AT COLUMBIA"?'

I did catch that, yes.

'"What concerned Buckley in God and Man at Yale evidently DOES NOT WORRY THE GODLESS MEN AT COLUMBIA."'

Yes, he did say that. I'm not saying he didn't. But, if you read the article, you'd notice that he was describing people and their trends in thought. The article is about those Godless Men.

"Because you cannot judge Columbia University by what ANONYMOUS POSTERS ON THE COLUMBIA SPECTATOR WEBSITE write."

Perhaps not, but you CAN judge Columbia University on the fact that it produces and hires a good few people of the left political bent.

Now, I feel slightly curious as to the subject of your actual argument. You came here to accuse Mr. McCain of being an idiot, that we can see. But your method, well, might need some work - The primary discussion of the article is about how a liberal ideology tends (TENDS) to lead to a dangerous, evil - some might even agree with Mr. McCain's characterization of "Godless" - mindset. The fact that Columbia University happens to be the place where this is occurring is incidental to the actual subject matter.

Please, would clarify for me what you are arguing here? That Columbia University ISN'T liberal?

Harley2002| 12.13.10 @ 7:41PM

The point is that since they decided to kick any kind of religious doctrine out of our universities the society has denigrated to a point where people see nothing wrong with a Man having sex with his daughter. This a sick sick thing to do. The very idea should repulse any thinking human being. I don't car if the daughter is 30 years old.Where does it stop Marxists? Sex between a father and son, Sex with your dog, Marry your Horse, Hell the Marxists are already on the path to killing old people that cost to much to keep alive. What next the mentally ill. I am convonced now that the Liberals (Marxists) are not just an idea we need to debate, They are a disease that needs to be stamped out. before they destroy our society further.

jbriz| 12.13.10 @ 7:54PM

"I THINK ROBERT STACY MCCAIN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY HARLEY2002's HORSE"

Guess the American Spectator is now on the hook for this, too.

(Sorry, Harley. I guess you just got caught in the middle of the McCain/Spectator pro-bestiality web forum.)

matthew s harrison| 12.13.10 @ 9:40PM

Simply put, incest is a disgusting thought-and one that I am sure libtards are wanking to, across the nation as I type.
It is simple-man should not ever engage in incest-PERIOD.
Now, the thought of our Judeao-Christian moral system surviving the last 40 or so years of non-stop assault from the left, and their desire to defile and deflower our children to suit their perverted sexual fantasies is a good thought-a wonderful thought-but we on the conservative side of the aisle who don't cheat on our wives, don't beat our dogs or f*&^ our children have watched in fear for those 40 years, while hollywood makes it cool to rape women, beat women, bind and torture women, screw our neighbors' wives, beat our kids and pets, steal to keep up with the Jones', etc. I personally, have been preparing myself for this day. The day that I knew would fall during Soetoro's reign of filth has arrived; where it would come out that Nancy Pelosi's good friend and staunch supporter was none other than the founder of NAMBLA, and gays would openly serve in the military, flaunting their desire to bed the commanding officers, and forcing their subordinates to disrobe in front of them(which is coming soon), where children are reduced to murderous sociopaths-who murder for fun because of their non-stop exposure to hollywood produced "movies" and video "games" where the whole plot is to sleep with as many women as possible, beat hookers and cops, and murder people for fun.
Our society is now controlled by moral reprobates on the federal benches who lobby juries to free convicted child rapists/pardon murderers who raped and tortured their victims, a president who hates Jews(as do all of his supporters), a congress that is morally bankrupt, who will do anything for a few dollars, that is occupied by a majority of convicted felons, child molesters, rapists, thieves, and adulterers, where one of their longest serving members has not only had a drug sting take place at HIS HOME, but who also was running a brothel from the same home, and by federal agency heads who's social beliefs are out of the who's who of Hoover's watch list in the 60's and 70's, where great honors are bestowed on those guilty of treason(John Kerry, Jane Fonda, Van Jones), and where those who believe in marriage, a sovereign nation free of intruders, a small manageable government, and personal liberties are considered "radicals".
It truly is the twilight zone here in America-and we all sat buy, reelecting the slime who got us here, even though we knew what they were up to, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.
I would imagine that soon, BDU's will come in pink for the flamers, and public beheadings will take place weekly on the Mall, right across from the Air & Space museum-a museum erected to honor the civilized nature of our quest to better ourselves and our society-where rotting aircraft from days gone by hang from the grand 100 foot high ceilings, at least until the left decides those are sacrilegious and tear them down because they all ran on fossil fuel of one form or another! It won't be long-and it won't be fun getting there, as the race and class warfare starts in the streets-fomented by the very brilliant elites who attended the very ivies where once they furthered our moral society and our civilization, but where now the rule of the day is to tear down the very codes that made our society progress past all of other societies. That moral code that made us a great civilization far advanced of all others, to the extent all others either bought, begged for, or stole all of our ideas, but where now, they are laughing at us, as we implode on our selves like Sodom and Gamorrah.

Jack| 12.13.10 @ 10:49PM

You seem to be unaware that there's a difference between the religious code you choose to adhere to and what is and ought to be the law of the land.

Cal Martin| 12.14.10 @ 2:48PM

And what is and ought to be the law of the land?

sierraseven| 12.15.10 @ 5:57AM

Matthew, you certainly have a rich (though twisted) fantasy life.

Blueskyguybob| 12.13.10 @ 10:13PM

Liberal family values: The family that lays together, stays together.

Jack| 12.13.10 @ 10:48PM

It's amazing to me that anyone can, with a straight face, say that allowing consenting adults to do as they like is collectivism, and liberty is throwing people in jail for violating the precepts of your religion. It's astounding the contortions some people are able to make.

matthew s harrison| 12.14.10 @ 12:44AM

Jack-typical lefty response. I said nothing about "my religion". I spoke of the Judeo-Christian values that are the under-pinning of our society-and were the underpinning of the Magna Carta when it was written. Since you are a liberal, I will give you a little lesson-our constitution was based on the Magna Carta(though your liberal textbooks probably say it was written by the muslims who discovered America).
The values taught by our founding religious fathers were based on the ten commandments, and the Magna Carta-those tenets and that which they had learned while living under monarchies across Europe, taught them that a civil society governed by laws fair to all was the way to go.
The fact that you people aren't freaking out over this incestual stuff isn't surprising, but is disgusting. Without civility, we are spiraling into a place where anything goes-wanna pound your dog, chicken, horse, housecat, sister/brother/son/daughter, go ahead! Please make a sex tape of it and send it to the white house-because the "safe schools czar" is looking for some new whacking material!
Get real dude-it is disgusting and goes against everything our society was founded on. Problem for you and the rest of the left is you want to be able to screw little boys and girls, your farm animals-anything that you can either hold down without too much effort, you wanna screw. It is disgusting. You have been pushing us in that direction as a society for a long time. And you aint gonna stop until you have fisting seminars in every kindergarten class so you and all your NAMBLA buddies can have some fresh "meat".
You make me sick. The lack of reaction from the left on this story is grotesque. But then again, your movies, television shows, literature, and personal lives contain all of this stuff-so why not have it totally in the public eye, so you can do it anytime you get the urge to "put your sister to the test".

darcy| 12.14.10 @ 3:36AM

If God is dead, as per Nietzsche, then all things are permissable, as per Dostoyevsky.

The degeneracy we're witnessing is the logical conclusion of the false construct that God is dead.

Ted R.| 12.14.10 @ 9:46AM

I don't think you understand the human condition. Everything has always been "permissable" (for God as well as for us). The fundamental truth of the human condition, is that we have to figure out and discover what is the right thing to do in any given situation - not merely do what we're told.

Christopher| 12.14.10 @ 1:40PM

Darcy is right, Ted is wrong. It is not that everything has been permissible. We have free will and therefore we can do what we want, that does not make it permissible. To discover what is the right thing to do there must be fixed principles that cannot be changed by each person. If each person can discover his own right thing that would be moral relativism, a fancy way of saying do your own thing. Hitler thought it was the right thing to kill Jews, Gypsies, Russians, etc. Stalin believed it was right to starve ten million Ukranians, and kill millions of others. Mao believed it was the right thing to re-educate millions, and kill over fifty million Chinese who disagreed with him. Today the Chinese believe it is the right thing to imprison anyone who dissents. I read in a post today that the Chinese have the most imprisoned journalists, with Castro second.
How do you arrive at the right thing to do? And who decides what is the right thing? What is the right thing to do?

Ted R.| 12.14.10 @ 4:35PM

Look, after the Holocaust, you can't tell me that everything is not "permissable." If God is there, God just stood and watched. I don't know about your parenting skills, but if you stand and watch as your child does something awful to another child - and you don't act to protect the defenseless - you have permitted your child's action. And indeed, you are morally complicit in it.

Of course it's ridiculous to suggest that any real parent would do such a thing; likewise, no real God would simply stand by impassively at such suffering. The Holocaust happened, therefore it was "permitted." And if everything is "permissable," then Dostoyevsky is correct.

I arrive at the right thing to do, through context-sensitive application of the general moral rules I received from others - beginning with my parents. Everything I learned about right and wrong, I learned from other human beings. And that is as it ever was.

The human situation is much more complicated than the thumpin' moralists imagine. The few moral absolutes we can be confident in, require interpretation in order to be applied. To take an obvious example: Christianity forbids killing. But Christians come up with all sorts of caveats, many of them sensible ones, to that "absolute."

Secular humanists are no more moral relativists than God himself is. Sacred text has God on record as commanding people to kill innocents, rewarding them when they obey - and punishing them when they don't! This really isn't a surprise, because any King can make up, "absolutely" any rules he likes. That doesn't make those rules defensible or legitimate. It is only defensible rules, rules that we can assent to by REASON ALONE, that are worthy of our allegiance.

Christopher| 12.14.10 @ 4:59PM

And what are these "moral rules" you learned from your parents, and how did your parents learn these rules? Did your parents modify the rules? All you are saying is you will think about the facts of the situation, then apply your "reason" to the situation. You have not, and cannot, answer whether there are fixed rules of morality and the source. You one example, of not "killing" comes from the Commandments. While there are exceptions at least there is a fixed principle of not killing that we all agree upon, and we know the source of the principle. Aside from the principles of the Commandments, what other principles can you identify?
Is it possible for you to make an argument from reason only without resorting to sly, cheap attacks, such as " I don't know about your parenting skills...." You should know this assumes a superiority.

Ted R.| 12.14.10 @ 5:29PM

Sorry, I was not trying to knock your abilities as a parent. My comment was ironic; for I am presuming that you would not, in fact, stand by as a parent and watch one child be cruel to another.

Parents do modify rules. For example, what today is recognized as date rape, was often seen as consensual sex when my parents were young. The cultural conversation has changed between then and now; recently women have been more outspoken about this kind of violence against them, and peoples' attitudes - including mine - have changed. We as a culture have come to this new view of nonconsensual sex between acquaintances, precisely by the use of moral reasoning and reflection.

And actually, I think that rape is a good example of a kind of action that should be absolutely prohibited. Strange that it isn't mentioned in the Ten Commandments, hmm? So much for the
"fixed rules" of morality and their so-called "source."

Christopher| 12.14.10 @ 5:42PM

Rape is absolutely prohibited. The only defense is consent, (unless you are a Kennedy or Clinton).
I am not a Biblical scholar, but look at the New Testament, the sermon that we are to treat others as we want them to treat us. I am sure you know this was restated by Kant.
You cannot argue that because the Ten C's do not specifically mention rape, that Ten do not exist, or there are no fixed principles. The Commandment about not coveting thy neighbor's wife probably covered rape in those days.

Christopher| 12.14.10 @ 5:31PM

Addendum:
The exceptions to a fixed principle such do not kill are exceptions made by man using his reason, such as self-defense, justification, negligence, but the fixed principle remains.
Your argument is if there is a God, he should have stopped the Holocaust. You did not mention that God should have stopped the Communists from killing over one hundred million (100,000,000) people. This is the argument that why does God allow evil. If God should have reached down with a magic wand and stopped the Nazis and Communists, and today the Islamic terrorrists, then God should also stop every homicide, burglary, rape, theft, etc. This is no argument because evil occurs because we have free will. Free will to use our reason to do what we want in a given situation.

Ted R.| 12.14.10 @ 6:20PM

Rape is a particularly heinous - and very common - crime, especially when it comes to the ancient world. Strange that Jesus, who otherwise was singular in his attitudes towards women, had nothing to say about it. Of course he did see fit to specifically condemn feelings of lust - but not sexual assault! Curious, if he actually was the King of the Universe. But no surprise, if he was just a man.

As for the Golden Rule, it is not original with Jesus, and is found in religious traditions East and West even before his time.

The fact that we can sensibly interpret and apply general moral rules to particular circumstances, is proof enough that we are intelligent enough to come up with the general moral precepts in the first place. No Revelation required.

And actually, we probably did not come up with our most basic moral precepts - e.g., proscriptions against gratuitous violence - by moral reflection alone. There very likely is a genetic component to these attitudes. Recent research has shown that other animals, particularly non-human primates, have a kind of instinctual feel for habits and behaviors that we would call "fair." They will punish those who habitually take advantage of others, and they express a need for rapprochement after a fight. They also form what we could recognize as 'friendships.' All this suggests that our evolutionary forbears came equipped with an innate directional sense of "right" and "wrong," one which only grew stronger as successive species of hominids grew more intelligent.

Our free will is no defense against God's inaction to stop the Ukranian Terror-Famine. If you see a child treating another cruelly, do you not intervene out of respect for the "free will" of that child? This is, and always has been, an asinine argument.

Christopher| 12.14.10 @ 7:09PM

You are misstating the argument of free will. It is the free will of the "criminal" committing the act that is the cause of the evil. You again assume that a God to exist must do what you want, eliminate all evil, stop all evil, cure the common cold, etc. If that were the case we would not free will and we would be genetically coded to do only good. In your argument of evolutionary ethics, you still assume a starting point. But if you believe in evolutionary ethics then we are evolving downward given all the holocausts described above, and continuing in Darfur, abortion, and others.
The argument for a God who intervenes in every action to set things right is an argument for heaven on earth, you want someoney to remake man.
On a human level if one person sees another person treating someone cruelly then you should intervene, it is no argument to sit back and say you respect the free will of the assailant.
Labelling an argument asinine means you do not have a logical coherent argument to rebut it. It is another form of ad hominen argument.

Ted R.| 12.14.10 @ 8:11PM

The calculus of freedom and judgement is much more complicated to deal with if there is a God, than if there is not. If God has the power to intervene in cases where human beings are suffering, how is that any different from our own obligation to do so? No one supposes that we thwart the basic freedom of others, when we check this or that particular choice. So how does God escape this obligation? I agree that given the power that God is supposed to have, this would mean God constantly intervening in earthly affairs. But that makes more sense, morally, than God standing by and letting extreme suffering transpire. There is simply no moral justification for this. And yes, it is asinine to say it is a justification. No held-out promise of a happy hunting ground will suffice to compensate the extremes of undeserved suffering that countless people have been subjected to.

It makes much more sense simply to state the plain, hard truth: There is no check on our constraint to harm others, besides our own actions to prevent it. Evil often succeeds; we can do nothing but continue to struggle against it. Tragedy is real; there are many, many examples of real - permanent - loss in life. That description of the human situation fits the facts infinitely better than religion's wild stories.

Christopher| 12.14.10 @ 9:17PM

There is a check on our constraint to harm. First , the criminal code of each state. Take a look at Thomas Aquinas' books on the criminal law as based on the natural law. Much of the criminal code prohibitions on murder, theft, are based on the Ten A's. The judeo-christian religions are a check on our conduct, as are other religions. Of course you can find historical examples of religious wars, up to the current terrorism.
But I still do not understand the basis for any fixed principles of morality, and what you mean by morality. I am not aware of the animal research you mentioned, what is the cite/source.?

darcy| 12.14.10 @ 7:16PM

You have a very shallow -- but typical -- understanding of God's permissive will. Such thinking always places the onus on God for not, like a puppeteer, consistently intervening to stop individuals from sinning against His Holy Law.

You also have a faulty understanding of sin, the first of which is to fail to believe that God is One and Him alone shalt thou worship; all other sins flow from failure to keep this, the First Commandment.

Typical of such "reasoned" arguments to pin the blame of sin and such egregious actions as the various holocausts in our time on God, is an ill-formed knowledge of the depravity of man. That's right. Let's all just blame God for what human beings in their depraved state do to one another. How very natural of man to find a scapegoat for his own evil, just as Adam tried to blame Eve, and she, the serpent. It's always someone else's fault.

If God were to intervene to stop man's inhumanity to man in every instance He would have to obliterate the planet. Oh, yes, He almost did as much in Noah's time, but relented and had mercy on His creation.

darcy| 12.14.10 @ 7:17PM

That post was aimed at Ted, of course.

Ted R.| 12.14.10 @ 8:34PM

Well really, I think that the Christian concept of sin is depraved. To suggest that babes newly borne are worthy of the most extreme punishment imaginable, unless they undergo some hocus-pocus, is simply sick.

As for the First Commandment, to my mind that is proof that Christian moral is originally flawed. You should stop to think about it for a minute: the cardinal moral teaching of Christianity is, Obey. It doesn't matter if you're told to sacrifice your child. Obey. Because the command comes from one who has more Power than you, you are supremely obligated to obey. The power to command comes FIRST; you'll find out later, just WHAT you're being commanded to do. The Power to command is the proof of Righteousness. That is what you believe: Might makes Right. I'd call it asinine, but that term is not strong enough. Nihilistic is more like it.

darcy| 12.14.10 @ 10:00PM

The teaching of Christianity is: Believe.

Not Obey -- unless you are Catholic, in which case your obedience merits Christ's forgiveness.

All people are born in sin, guitly before God, and deserving of eternal banishment from His presence.
All people are born justified by the merits of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, taking the punishment for YOUR sin. If you choose NOT to believe you are forgiven in Christ, then yes, you will suffer eternal life apart from your creator.

This, as you rightly point out, is foolishness to the those who are perishing. Look it up.

Ted R.| 12.14.10 @ 11:44PM

What does it even mean, to be commanded to faith? It is as nonsensical as a command to love...
Faith and love are dispositions that only make sense if they are offered freely and fairly, not by someone else's command. The whole psychology behind Christian doctrine on these matters, is simply perverse. It is Orwellian. You obey the Leader because he wants what is good for you - and what is good for you, is to obey him. More than that - you must love him, just as he lovingly "protects" (see above, the victims of the Ukranian Terror-Famine) everything in his realm.

The whole idea of vicarious suffering makes absolutely no sense. It is logically impossible for another to strip me of my responsibility. It cannot be done, without also taking my freedom from me. And without my freedom, my very nature as an individual personality is extinguished.

There is no evidence that we are "born in sin." This is mere proganda, to pre-emptively place the naive at a moral disadvantage to those who would control them.

Christianity really is much, much worse than foolishness. It presents us with nothing less than the unadulterated ideology of absolute tyranny. Why do you choose to regard yourself as being of no account before tyrants? Are you really that scared of death?

Seek| 12.14.10 @ 6:44PM

Absolutists who order the killing of others have a way of believing they are absolutely certain they are right. A great many have been religious. To pin mass starvation or murder on "relativism" is absurd.

If you really want to read gleeful accounts of ethnic cleansing, go straight to the Bible. Accept no substitute. Not that I would imitate any of it.

Christopher| 12.14.10 @ 7:16PM

Really? I am sure you can find passages taken out of context in the Old Testament to support some argument you may have, but if you do, then why don't you cite these gleeful accounts of ethnic cleansing? And while you are at it, compare the instances of what you believe as ethnic cleansing to the undispited accounts of the Holocaust. Ukrainie Teror, Armenian Genocide, the 100,000,000 million killed by the Communists. Do you think the killing is worse if you label it ethnic cleansing?
You are not serious, Seek.

led display | 12.13.10 @ 11:10PM

I think everything would be ok!!

mames| 12.14.10 @ 5:15PM

"There is no wrong. There is no right. I can get you anything you want. What's it worth to ya? "
the devil from The Garden of Allah by Don Henley
If Christian Judeo morality does not work for you try the objective truth of experience over hundreds of years of human experience, not to mention the genetic messes this can create.

rickthebuilder| 12.14.10 @ 9:27PM

Read Rev. Chapters 17 & 18. If that doesn't paint you a picture of the catholic church than you are blinded. Shake it off lost soul, before it is too late. The vatican (its worldly beauty) the seven hills. Can you find another city of such(worldly religious beauty) with seven hills.(Mountains) Read it a couple times there are many more clues if you pay attention.

Sandy| 12.15.10 @ 11:29AM

I take issue with "consenting adults." When an authoritarian figure like a father, teacher, president, uses that authority to take advantage of a young, inexperienced victim, a crime has been committed.

general summerall| 12.15.10 @ 7:54PM

Re the Nat Geo article on all the physical ailments of King Tut due to being the offspring of Akhenaten and Akh's sister. The article ends with an essay somewhat approving of royal families thru history inbreeding. King Kamehameha of Hawaii married his sister because "they loved one another."

Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 5:49AM

dresses | 11.14.11 @ 10:31PM

but NOT Jesus. If Jesus is commodity then no reason to be a Christian would exist, the spiritual content would be lost

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|97 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|102 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|56 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|24 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|31 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|19 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|32 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Campus Scenes

God and Man at Columbia

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (178) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Appleby| 12.13.10 @ 6:43AM

Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 8:41AM

Eric Cartman| 12.13.10 @ 9:09AM

Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 11:15AM

Eric Cartman| 12.13.10 @ 12:38PM

Ken in People's Republic of MD| 12.13.10 @ 4:08PM

David T.| 12.13.10 @ 5:29PM

gazinya| 12.13.10 @ 9:16PM

Nick| 12.14.10 @ 12:00AM

rickthebuilder| 12.13.10 @ 11:47PM

Cal Martin| 12.14.10 @ 6:27PM

rickthebuilder| 12.14.10 @ 9:40PM

Nick| 12.14.10 @ 11:58PM

Cal Martin| 12.15.10 @ 3:17PM

Cal Martin| 12.15.10 @ 3:19PM

Cal Martin| 12.15.10 @ 3:29PM

IzeHavitt| 12.14.10 @ 10:58PM

Cal Martin| 12.15.10 @ 3:19PM

Mark| 12.13.10 @ 10:38PM

southernsue| 5.27.11 @ 8:04AM

Peter| 12.15.10 @ 2:30PM

W| 12.13.10 @ 6:12PM

MikeD| 12.14.10 @ 12:01AM

Christian Christmas| 12.13.10 @ 10:07AM

Toto| 12.13.10 @ 10:13AM

Edward White| 12.13.10 @ 10:18AM

Mark Gillespie| 12.13.10 @ 12:59PM

Al Adab| 12.13.10 @ 2:36PM

Cal Martin| 12.13.10 @ 4:27PM

Margie| 12.23.10 @ 6:33PM

Eric Cartman| 12.13.10 @ 10:22AM

Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 11:17AM

Alan Brooks| 12.14.10 @ 12:10AM

Alan Brooks| 12.14.10 @ 12:13AM

Erma Taylor| 12.13.10 @ 1:13PM

Eric Cartman| 12.13.10 @ 2:19PM

Big Leo| 12.13.10 @ 3:00PM

Erma Taylor| 12.13.10 @ 7:18PM

Cal Martin| 12.14.10 @ 4:15PM

Only Republican at Woodstock| 12.14.10 @ 4:32PM

Margie| 12.23.10 @ 6:38PM

Tim the Enchanter| 12.13.10 @ 1:52PM

79@feelin'fine| 12.13.10 @ 1:17PM

get it right| 12.13.10 @ 2:34PM

Big Leo| 12.13.10 @ 3:01PM

Appleby| 12.14.10 @ 7:30AM

Cal Martin| 12.14.10 @ 6:44PM

Pauli | 12.14.10 @ 2:17PM

OllieK| 12.13.10 @ 11:48AM

Doctor Right| 12.13.10 @ 1:39PM

Brianj1949| 12.13.10 @ 4:10PM

Kathy| 12.13.10 @ 5:03PM

Negro X| 12.13.10 @ 5:37PM

Pelligrino| 12.13.10 @ 6:49AM

op983| 12.13.10 @ 10:22AM

Actorprof| 12.13.10 @ 1:11PM

Sheila| 12.13.10 @ 1:23PM

MuscleMan| 12.13.10 @ 1:59PM

Kathy| 12.13.10 @ 5:07PM

oo65#2| 12.13.10 @ 6:36PM

Cal Martin| 12.14.10 @ 4:47PM

Big Leo| 12.13.10 @ 3:02PM

79@feelin'fine| 12.13.10 @ 1:56PM

Cal Martin| 12.13.10 @ 4:53PM

79@feelin'fine| 12.13.10 @ 9:32PM

Cal Martin| 12.14.10 @ 2:20PM

KOJohnson| 12.13.10 @ 7:13AM

beebop| 12.13.10 @ 7:29AM

Occam's Tool| 12.13.10 @ 11:13AM

Jack| 12.13.10 @ 10:40PM

Cal Martin| 12.14.10 @ 5:01PM

bob sykes| 12.13.10 @ 7:26AM

George S| 12.13.10 @ 9:32AM

Darragh| 12.13.10 @ 8:11AM

Cal Martin| 12.13.10 @ 4:56PM