-
Cloud of Witnesses
January 28, 2013 | 30 comments
-
Obama’s Gettysburg Address?
December 20, 2012 | 72 comments
-
Glamour of Evil or Glimmer of Hope?
May 2, 2012 | 47 comments
-
Cheapening the Peace Prize Eight Days a Week
March 16, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Catch-22 Revisited
February 24, 2012 | 70 comments
Buy the Book
My Ecumenical Summer
Two recent books of advice for Christian fathers of young teens with all the usual attitudes.
There are better ways to greet a teenager who wakes up and asks where the newspaper is than by reminding him that he can’t read the paper until he’s cleaned the cat box and watered the hydrangeas, but I hadn’t yet finished the French roast in my Chincoteague Island coffee cup, and I couldn’t think of any.
Thomas threw me a look that meant “Give it a rest, dad.” His sister has the same look in her repertoire. With children ages 13 and 12, my wife and I need all the help we can get, and two recent books of advice for Christian fathers will help to make ours a better summer. Both books are written by pastors, but one author has roots in the Campus Crusade for Christ movement, and the other is a Catholic priest from an inner-city parish in Pennsylvania.
Any book that recommends Jesus Christ as a model for authentic manhood deserves kudos just for saying that. Interestingly, Robert Lewis, author of Raising a Modern-Day Knight: A Father’s Role in Guiding His Son to Authentic Manhood (Tyndale House, 2007) also goes medieval in advising fathers how to best encourage their sons to follow Jesus. Lewis sees in the code of chivalry a time-tested framework for practicing Christian virtues on the journey from page to squire to knight. Our lives have changed, he concedes, but chivalry once imposed order on chaos, and it remains appropriately countercultural even today, especially when embodied by the likes of William Marshall (1146- 1219), an English earl and jousting legend who was mourned even by his enemies at his death.
Looking at Jesus the way men like Marshall did, Lewis defines a real man as one who rejects passivity, accepts responsibility, leads courageously, and aims his life at “the greater reward,” meaning union with God in heaven. That four-part definition of manhood is the antithesis of the aimless drift too often celebrated by American culture.
My one criticism of Raising a Modern-Day Knight concerns what Lewis does not do: In spite of having familiarized himself with knighthood, Lewis nowhere acknowledges the exclusively Catholic character of the patrimony that he is trying to build on.
The omission does not seem malicious, and it’s a common failing among evangelical Christian authors, but it weighs more heavily in a book that mines the historical record than it would in a devotional tract.
By the time the 95 theses that Martin Luther famously nailed to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg ignited the Protestant Reformation, the Middle Ages had been over for two generations, and the balance of power in warfare had tipped decisively away from knights, first to archers wielding longbows, and then to foot soldiers carrying firearms. Consequently, there were no Protestant knights.
This does not mean that the code of chivalry cannot be practiced by any Christian. Obviously many Christian men not in formal communion with Rome have led knightly lives. The Dutch Reformed watchmaker Casper ten Boom, for example, carries a whiff of Don Quixote in the memoir by his daughter Corrie, and that’s all to the good. Yet Lewis would have done well to be more forthright about how much the church shaped the vocation of knighthood in its heyday.
Lewis writes movingly about the power of ceremony without connecting that insight to liturgy as ceremony par excellence. Similarly, he leaves it to historian Will Durant to note in a single paragraph that squires invariably went to Confession and Mass before being dubbed knights. In his description of initiation into knighthood, Lewis mentions that candidates kept a “night-long vigil” but readers who don’t already know better are left to think that the vigil might have been in front of the village smithy’s shop where a new sword was being forged, or on a lonely hilltop in the equivalent of a Native American vision quest. In fact, the vigil was in front of the Blessed Sacrament.
Similarly, Lewis underscores the value of pursuing a transcendent cause, yet says nothing about that best-known of medieval legends, the quest for the Holy Grail. Small matter to him that the “Cup of the Last Supper” would have had little more than antiquarian interest, were it not for the pervasive influence of Catholic theology in the lives of those who looked for it.
Omissions of that kind don’t make Becoming a Modern-Day Knight any less useful, but they’re frustrating, especially for Catholics in the Bible Belt all too familiar with the defensive crouch that comes from starting prayers with the sign of the cross when Baptist and Presbyterian friends prefer downcast eyes and improvisations that open with “Father God, we just want…” or words to that effect.
Defensive crouching is a foreign concept to Fr. Larry Richards, author of Be a Man! Becoming the Man God Created You to Be, which makes a wonderful complement to the book by Robert Lewis. Self-deprecating asides in Be a Man! sometimes fall flat, but its tone of straight-shooting bonhomie seems genuine.
What most differentiates this book from others of its type is how Fr. Richards emphasizes from the outset that we’re all going to die. That insight — that the quest for authentic manhood begins with the end in mind — drives the rest of the book.
Unlike Lewis, who worked with a single metaphor and had to be more narrowly focused, Fr. Richards’ approach to manhood makes room for occasional asides.
Sin kills, he reminds us, and that killing is often insidious. Of the classic Frank Sinatra song, “My Way,” Fr. Richards writes, “I love that song. [But] you realize that that is the theme song of those in hell, don’t you?”
About the Author
Patrick O’Hannigan is a writer in North Carolina.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (34) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Patrick O'Hannigan
More Articles From Buy the Book
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/14/my-ecumenical-summer
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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
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
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Henry Drummond| 6.14.11 @ 6:48AM
"In his description of initiation into knighthood, Lewis mentions that candidates kept a "night-long vigil" but readers who don't already know better are left to think that the vigil might have been in front of the village smithy's shop where a new sword was being forged, or on a lonely hilltop in the equivalent of a Native American vision quest. In fact, the vigil was in front of the Blessed Sacrament."
Now, of course, we have numbered among our knights Sir Mick Jagger and Sir Elton John. I think of all the wickednesses of the recent British Governments this degradation of knighthood, while not the most obvious, was the most fundamantal and worst.
Ryan| 6.14.11 @ 8:59AM
Chivalry is a wonderful thing; however, I don't know that knighthood really ever was all that much. We have the romanticized version in our heads, but it was the knights who committed many of the worse atrocities in the Crusades against Christian people.
Henry Drummond| 6.14.11 @ 11:34AM
Some knights weren't perfect - we are all sinners. But we need the ideal of knighthood as a kind of lodestar of our civilization. Nor did knights committ particularly bad atrocities by the standards of the day,
Ryan| 6.14.11 @ 2:52PM
Those "standards" were atrocious. Sorry, but it's no excuse. Sin is sin.
Gary| 6.14.11 @ 9:36AM
I took the opportunity to work through the Knighthood book with my son when he was 12 and again with a friend's (fatherless) son also at 12. It was a very rewarding experience. I offer some advice to those who might follow; teach the lessons from your own heart, use examples of you at that age to better show the points in the book "lived out" as it were. Now the most important point; you may not see immediate results but if you've prepared the lessons well and put your heart in it, they do remember, eventually. To see the guys respond correctly and model the "reject passivity" part is too overwhelming to describe with words! I wish somebody had done this with me when I was 12.
Martin Luther Vandross| 6.14.11 @ 9:52AM
The Crusades were the last opportunity that Western Civilization had to kick the Muslim invaders out of the Holy Land. That effort failed, and it's been downhill in that region ever since.
I love how Muslims try and pretend that Christians are the interlopers in the Holy Land. Islam didn't even exist until almost 700 AD!
And finally, it's unfortunate that Christianity gets a bad rap for the Crusades. Any "atrocities" were committed by Catholics in service to a Catholic Pope and in furtherance of a Catholic Kingdom. But then again, Christians have been taking heat for the arrogance of Catholics since the beginning, so it's really nothing new.
Ryan| 6.14.11 @ 2:54PM
Sorry, as Protestant as I am, to be a Christian then was to be Catholic, particularly in the West. Yes, their salvation may be completely in question, but it's not like there was really a separation all that much.
Doctor Right| 6.14.11 @ 3:34PM
What you just said is contradictory.
To be a Christian then was to "be a Catholic"???
Why??
There were Christians before there were Catholics, and there have been Christians throughout the entire period that there have been Catholics.
They have never been synonymous.
David T| 6.14.11 @ 3:43PM
Interesting. So from the beginning there were Christians and there were Catholics, and the salvation of the Catholics has always been in question?
victor| 6.15.11 @ 1:59AM
Christians came first with the Apostles and their disciples.
Catholics came much later.
C Smith| 6.14.11 @ 10:14AM
"Sin kills, he [Richards] reminds us, and that killing is often insidious. Of the classic Frank Sinatra song, 'Way,' Fr. Richards writes, 'I love that song. [But] you realize that that is the theme song of those in hell, don't you?'"
Yes, "the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (cf., Romans 6:23). This gift is NEVER found by emulating "Jesus Christ as a model" or "practicing Christian virtues":
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Mathew 7:21-23).
How may one grasp the gift of God of eternal life through Jesus Christ? The first step is to ask forgiveness for doing things the "Sinatra Way" i.e., "My way" and asking how to do things His way.
The Apostle Paul tried emulating "Jesus Christ as a model" and "practicing Christian virtues." IT DIDN'T WORK:
"For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Romans 7:15-24).
Paul found his answer in the Holy Spirit that the Father sent in the Jesus' name. The Spirit he received when he first chose Jesus to be his Lord. The Spirit became his Counselor and constant companion of every moment of every day, ever guiding and comforting along the way:
"For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace" (Romans 8:5).
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (John 14:26).
Suzan Schaefer| 6.14.11 @ 11:07AM
One of the best books on this subject is "How to Live Nobly and Well" by Edward F. Garesche, S.J., originally published in 1931 and republished by Sophia Institute Press, 1999.
Petronius| 6.14.11 @ 11:12AM
Who is a real man and who isn't used to be determined by the unwritten laws of the streets: how much you made per hour, how much you could drink, and most important, how much ass you could kick. Now that all the schools are feminized, those days are gone. But PC education and federal judicial assault on traditional American manhood aside, the present situation is self inflicted. Lawsuits have taken the place of the after school fist fight. And with the draft gone, it's not surprising to meet males over 40 who have never thrown a punch. Above all, the tough guys never married and reproduced. This country has litigated, legislated, and vegetated itself to the verge of cultural and social suicide. We cannot defend ourselves because we aren't allowed to, even when we are so inclined. It's conflict resolution and counseling or else ostracism. The result speaks for itself. Take a look at the leading news story these passed 10 days of one pretentious congressman. Just don't call that bipedal sponge a "man".
What's to be done? Restructure primary schools.
Since so many parents are out to lunch, conduct must be taught as subject material. At grade 4, separate the boys from the girls and have them taught by men except for elective subjects. Instill a single standard of discipline administered fairly and kept inviolate. Liberalism was spawned by many a two-faced teacher who played favorites. And make team sports mandatory on a pass-fail basis. Suburban basements are populated with the dysfunctional twits who will never amount to anything because they were never had one experience contributing to a winning cause with their fellows. Personal conflicts should get settled one on one except for predators who target those who are defenseless. The latter should get boxing lessons. Failing to restore the old ways will only lead to more of the same: cohorts of isolated, atomistic, clueless drones who never mature. Last and maybe most important; track down the fathers who desert their families and garnish their income for failure to rear their sons to be competent adults.
KyMouse| 6.14.11 @ 1:32PM
Mr. O'Hannigan writes, "...Baptist and Presbyterian friends prefer downcast eyes and improvisations that open with 'Father God, we just want...' or words to that effect."
I'm a plain ol' Christian, and my "improvisations" are my way of speaking to Jesus from my heart.
And there are lots of us who say, "Father God, we just want -- to thank you..."
Naturalborn Texican| 6.14.11 @ 1:33PM
We don't raise our children any more....we allow the media and the school systems to do that for us.
It is no wonder so many kids get involved in drugs, alcohol, and illicit sex early on in their lives! They have no family values! No morals! No integrity, honesty, or ambition.
Kids have to have positive,MORAL, role models, as this article addresses...........And those role models should be first, and foremost....THEIR PARENTS!!!!!!
big bob| 6.14.11 @ 2:31PM
I have two boys in their 20's, both of whom are professing Christians and active in the local churches. That is a mouthful and it was only by God's grace it has ended up that way. Josh McDowell says via his extensive research that there are two consistent dynamics required to pass on values: continuity and relationship. So even though there is a lot of academic discussion in this thread, connection with your boys and living a transparent life before them is the key. BTW, I was ready to send them both to military school when they were 14. That's a tough year!!!
cicero| 6.14.11 @ 2:31PM
I love all of the revisionist history about the atrocities of the crusaders. This is how war was fought at the time. The Muslim leaders and armies were not sitting around singing poems and doing mathematical formulae. It was a major series of wars for the taking and retaking of the land in the middle east.
As far as chivalry and the art of courtly love, we can thank Eleanor of Aquitane for that. After all of the fighting men went off to war, the only ones left were the posers and the wimps. She had to do something to keep the maidens under control, so she had one of her monk friends come up with a form of play acting where everything went, but the final act. It turned out to be so much fun, and to give the girls so much power, that they decided to keep the game going when the real men returned.
History must be read in thecontext of its times. Otherwise, we have no waay of validly interpreting what is going on in the present.
Ryan| 6.14.11 @ 2:58PM
There's no "revisionist" history of the Crusaders. Many committed what would today be considered war crimes, and justly so. They sinned against man and God, and often against other Christians.
It doesn't downplay the awfulness of the Muslims to say that their opponents were just as bad.
A Just Cause does not necessarily breed just action.
Doctor Right| 6.14.11 @ 3:36PM
There's no "revisionist" history of the Crusaders???
There most certainly is.
Whenever it's portrayed as an unjust cause, that's historical revisionism.
PJ| 6.14.11 @ 4:37PM
There certainly is a revisionist history of the Crusades & you're playing right into it. I suggest you read "God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades" by Professor Rodney Stark.
Patrick O'Hannigan| 6.14.11 @ 2:44PM
My thanks to all who've commented. I have one clarifying point and one argumentative one:
To KyMouse, I do understand the purpose and value of improvisation in prayer; I merely drew a contrast between that and the more formalized sign of the cross, while suggesting that even informal prayer can often be ritualized. Nothing wrong with either style of addressing our Maker.
To Martin Luther Vandross -- Not everybody thinks the Crusades gave Christianity a bad rap. Read Thomas F. Madden, Rodney Strong, or H.W. Crocker III. And while there were Catholics who committed atrocities, it's ahistorical to suggest that the motivation for their behavior was the establishment of a "Catholic kingdom", or that popes have a history of cheering bloodshed.
Martin Lurther Vandross| 6.14.11 @ 3:41PM
Dear Mr. O'Hannigan:
The Crusaders most certainly WERE fighting for a Catholic Kingdom; the entire area now known as Israel/Palestine was the Kingdom of Jerusalem, a Catholic kingdom. It was established in 1099 after the 1st Crusade, and lasted for almost 200 years.
As to your claim that Popes don't have a history of encouraging bloodshed...
...Seriously, Mr. O'Hannigan...Who's kidding who, here?
Patrick O'Hannigan| 6.14.11 @ 4:51PM
The "crusader kingdom" of Jerusalem was not an end in itself, but a means of guaranteeing access to the Holy Land for pilgrims who had had it revoked or taxed by expansion-minded sultans.
PJ| 6.14.11 @ 5:43PM
The 1st Crusade's objective was not for the fighting of a Catholic Kingdom. It was for the protection of those Europeans who were making pilgrimages to the Holy Land. The Muslims were terrorist-attacking the pilgrims along what is now the Turkey to Israel coastline & interior & destroying Christian & Jewish sites in the Holy Land. The pope knew about the atrocities being committed against the pilgrims but did not have the power to do anything about it. European leaders were constantly bickering with Rome.The Byzantine Emperor did not have enough manpower & supplies to protect the pilgrims & these religious sites. (They were busy defending their borders elsewhere.) As a result Emperor Alexios I requested assistance from Pope Urban II. Yea, right! The only thing the pope could do besides offering prayers was to give a speech that encouraged the royalty, who were also the knights, to take up the just cause. It was very much a just cause! Because the Europeans were leaving a period of constant warring for survival, the pope did not have to say much to persuade these knights.
For the succeeding crusades, it's a bit more complicated. Yes Palestine became a "Catholic" Kingdom (A phrase coined by revisionist historians.) only to protect the artifacts & pilgrims. Byzantium was not willing to once again take up this responsibility.
I am stating the historical events very simply; it is much more complicated. You would have to understand what was going on in Byzantium, Islam, and Western Europe at the time. To start read "A Short History of Byzantium" by Prof Julius Norwich, "God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades" by Prof Rodney Stark and the beginning chapters in "The Turks in World History" by Prof Carter Findley. Also, read "Life in the Middle Ages" by Genevieve d’Haucourt. So get out of your anti-Catholic history mode (I have read your prior posts.) & educate yourself.
David T| 6.14.11 @ 5:36PM
MLV--The purpose of the Crusades was certainly not to establish a "Catholic kingdom," as you suggest. The Catholic kingdom already existed, and still exists to this day, in the Church, with Christ as the Heavenly King and the Pope as the Vicar of Christ here on earth.
As Mr. O'Hannigan says, your claim is ahistorical and, I would add, complete nonsense. The Crusades were a reaction to the Muslim conquests dating back to the 7th century, and their purpose was to reclaim the Holy Land and the rest of the formerly Christian Levant from Antioch to Alexandria.
Also, though I don't speak for Mr. O'Hannigan, I'm sure he is not kidding when he says there is no historical evidence of the popes' encouraging bloodshed. Please provide your evidence if you believe the contrary is actually the case.
victor| 6.15.11 @ 2:16AM
Davit T:
"there is no historical evidence of the popes' encouraging bloodshed. Please provide your evidence if you believe the contrary is actually the case."
The Medieval Inquisition is a series of Inquisitions (Catholic Church bodies charged with suppressing heresy) from around 1184, including the Episcopal Inquisition (1184-1230s) and later the Papal Inquisition (1230s). The Medieval Inquisition was in response to large popular movements throughout Europe considered apostate or heretical to Christianity, in particular Catharism and Waldensians in southern France and northern Italy. These were the first inquisition movements of many that would follow.
The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (Spanish: Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición), commonly known as the Spanish Inquisition (Inquisición española), was a tribunal established in 1480 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms, and to replace the Medieval Inquisition which was under Papal control. The Inquisition was originally intended in large part to ensure the orthodoxy of those who converted from Judaism and Islam. This regulation of the faith of the newly converted was intensified after the royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1501 ordering Jews and Muslims to convert or leave.
The Portuguese Inquisition was formally established in Portugal in 1536 at the request of the King of Portugal, João III. Manuel I had asked for the installation of the Inquisition in 1515 to fulfill the commitment of marriage with Maria of Aragon, but it was only after his death that the Pope acquiesced. This inquisition was a Portuguese analogue of the more famous Spanish Inquisition.
The Roman Inquisition was a system of tribunals developed by the Holy See during the second half of the 16th century, responsible for prosecuting individuals accused of a wide array of crimes related to heresy, including sorcery, immorality, blasphemy, Judaizing and witchcraft, as well for censorship of printed literature. The tribunals covered most of the Italian peninsula as well as Malta and also existed in isolated pockets of papal jurisdiction in other parts of Europe, including Avignon, in France. The Congregation of the Holy Office, one of the original 15 congregations of the Roman Curia created by Pope Sixtus V in 1588, presided over the activity of the local tribunals. While the Roman Inquisition was originally designed to combat the spread of Protestantism in Italy, the institution outlived its original purpose, and the system of tribunals lasted until the mid 18th century, when the Italian states began to suppress the local inquisitions, effectively eliminating the power of the church to prosecute heretical crimes.
David T| 6.15.11 @ 9:50AM
Your post was completely irrelevant to the issue of the popes' "encouraging bloodshed."
Also, please provide sources when quoting others' work.
Renaissance Nerd | 6.14.11 @ 11:39PM
Who is the Christian? The one who professes Christ, or the one who follows his teachings? There are plenty of people, Protestant, Catholic or other, who are Christian in the true sense of the word, and plenty of same who are anti-Christs. While we can't be saved by our works (sorry, I don't buy Supererogation) our works do tell the world what we really believe. All actions are predicated on beliefs, therefore wicked actions follow wicked thoughts and beliefs.
In the same vein, the fact that many knights failed to live up to the ideals of Chivalry does not mean that all knights were rotters. William Marshal is an excellent example of a man and a Christian, not just a knight. He died Earl of Pembroke and Regent of England, but he started out as a landless second son with nothing but a harness and a horse. He earned his honors, and died beloved by many. Others such as the Black Prince, were more of a mixed bag. Froissart's depiction of his behavior when he captured the King of France at Poitiers may be overdone (certainly was overdone) but his manners toward and respect for a defeated enemy were certainly cause for much admiration by friend and foe alike. What then do we think of his allowing his soldiers to run amok in Spain later in life? Those were simply the laws of war; once an invested town or city was certain to be defeated, they were supposed to surrender. Every man in the attacking force who died was seen as murdered by the unreasonable stubbornness of the defenders. When they didn't surrender at the appropriate time, the defenders sealed their own doom. If the Black Prince had ordered his men to behave contrary to the laws of war as they then existed, they would've disobeyed and he might've died a little sooner. To understand the actions of anyone from a different time their laws and customs have to be taken into account.
This also applies to the Crusades. The problem was that the laws of war were different from east to west. Roman and quasi-Christian rules were used by the Crusader armies, while the Turks, Kurds and Arabs leaned more towards Persian rules of war. They didn't match up, and many of the atrocities of the Crusades happened because of a misunderstanding of the rules between cultures. Jerusalem was taken--it was obvious many weeks before the final assault. The people of Jerusalem were murderers according to the Crusader laws of war, and hence worthy of death. Every Crusader who died in the final storming of the walls was a murder victim, and those within the murderers.
We don't see it so today, but then again, civilians with no connection to war-related industries died in the fire-bombing attacks on Dresden and Tokyo in WWII. Though America is the only nation that officially believes that government derives its powers from the governed, it's an undercurrent in all governments and all times. A nation that tolerates Nazis in power deserves whatever it gets--it's not a hard leap to make, even for those who believe 'the masses' are innocent sheep without willpower or brains. While everyone pretends not to understand why the Islamofascists are so intent on killing civilians, it's perfectly easy to comprehend--but those of us who believe in knightly ideals such as courage and integrity and protecting the weak, despise them for cowards. Seeing the enemy as the whole nation or people or creed is easy enough to understand, but always choosing soft defenseless targets, especially children, is grotesquely craven. Yet a new culture has grown up around just that, a creed of cowardice and death, and it's not the first. Looking back only to despise those who came before is a foolish vanity, and one likely to cause the same mistakes all over again. For these cowards forget that a nation that can obliterate Nagasaki and Hiroshima can obliterate Qum and Damascus and even Mecca if provoked far enough. They ought to be reading our laws of war instead of assuming their own are the only ones that exist. Whenever cultures clash, it behoves both sides to learn the rules the other side follows--it saves atrocities. But when one side deals only in atrocities, it's only a matter of time before their foes respond in kind.
weddingdresses | 6.15.11 @ 4:27AM
Article is very interesting,thanks for your sharing.I will visit this site.
POST American| 6.18.11 @ 10:21PM
---'Eck-YOU-MEN---ick---all---ism' is and always
has been a set up front for 'cultural relativism',
itself a mere stage of cultural subversion, standardization and destruction at the service
of the elite's dream ------EUGENICS.
The deadly sinister legacy of the TAX FREE
Rockefeller/Carnegie/Ford foundations
churns ahead ---utterly unreckoned with.
THIS IS THE STORY---------------------------------
Anna | 6.20.11 @ 10:08PM
Yeah ,, Hahaha , you are right . welcome to visit www.sexdollusa.com .cheapest price and best serviser will be your best choise.our Adult toys
cheap vibrator | 6.23.11 @ 3:39AM
Yeah ,, Hahaha , you are right .www.cheapcigarettesshop.com，welcome to visit www.sexdollusa.com .online cigarettes
Adult toys | 6.23.11 @ 3:44AM
Yeah ,, Hahaha , you are right . www.cheapcigarettesshop.com welcome to visit www.sexdollusa.com
Don Marco| 12.28.11 @ 7:37PM
It just never fails...it never fails. Try to start a movment or cause based on something of value from the Middle Ages and the anti-Catholic bigots come out in force. Some of you folks make me sick. We should be concerned with building unity against encroaching progressive tyranny and cultural rot, not bashing each other. Try, some of you evangelical Protestants, just try, to work with your fellow citizens who happen to be Catholic.