Skip to main content
On the eve of the two-year anniversary of the attacks on our country, I should say something. First, we're going to hear a lot of blather about how President Bush uses overtly religious language to cast his foreign policy in favorable terms. Supposedly how he really believes in the American Civil Religion, that we have a special place in the world, how Americans think we are a "chosen people" like we are God's very own...yadda yadda yadda, blah blah. Look, people: We happen to live in the modern day equivalent of the Roman Empire. Nations rise and fall in this time based on what the United States does, and does not do. If that makes you squirmy, it should. It doesn't change the fact. Now, with all that power comes obligation. You want some religious language, here's some. To whom much is given, much is expected. You had better believe we're going to make sure people understand the gravity of the choices we make. And if you were in posession of this power, you'd try to use it, hopefully for some long-term collective good. And if that articulation comes out a little utopian, and--Heaven forbid!--religious, well, too bad. At least you understand we're serious.
Some might say this nation-building is really arrogant, that we shouldn't say our culture is better. Well, I will. The West is better, and if that really bothers you, get over it. We're not debating whether chopping off the heads of people we don't like is a healthy thing. I refer you to the Ranting Screeds of James Lileks, who makes this point better than I.
I know my country is not God's kingdom. I know the Lord's wrath will come on many things American. But I also know that other things American are worth fighting for. End of Story.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...