Skip to main content
(Danger: The following post is political in nature. The author does not intend any of its contents to be representative of: American evangelicals, or Christians of any other stripe or nationality. These opinions are my own.)

And now, some worthwhile additions to JK's Political Encyclopedia:

Republican: 1. A person who identifies with the American Republican party. Subgroup 1: A self-absorbed group of uninspired, selfish, intellectually insipid dolts who, while opposing every good idea and sitting in elected office for eons, at least knows they're not Democrats. Instructive examples include: John McCain, Trent Lott, and Chuck Hagel. Subgroup 2: The intellectual and moral heirs to classical liberalism, who espouse capitalism, freedom, and at least a tolerance for (if not affection) the persistent prevailing religious sentiments of America's citizenry.

Libertarians: Angry or cynical individuals who've concluded that their sympathies lie with Republican Subgroup 2, but that these people must all be dead or jailed. Thus, many do not vote. Subgroup consists of doobie-rolling college kids (or adults who think they still are) who don't give a rat's butoot about capitalism, but would like to be left alone to enjoy their narcissistic drug-induced bliss.

Democrat: 1. A person who indentifies with the American Democratic party. Subgroup 1: Hopelessly deluded (or intentionally malicious) devotees of Marxism, completely unable to imagine anyone living joyfully while not a member of a union, nor receiving some kind of aid from the government. Also steadfastly opposed to achievement or individuality of any kind. Many members happen to hold high positions in American universities. Notable members of this subgroup include President Jimmy Carter, Jonathan Kozol, and an overwhelming majority of the press. This Subgroup often can be found colluding with Republican Subgroup 1 when a good idea needs to die. Subgroup 2: An earnest, honest group of patriots who often doubts the wisdom of ideas presented by Republican Subgroup 2, who often sadly mixes up the Republican subgroups, believing the first group to be the best representation of "Republican." Many in this subgroup are overpowered by a desire for compassion and inclusiveness, and by virtue of very effective propaganda by Democratic Subgroup 1, believe they cannot be Republicans. They would, and perhaps will, find common cause with Republican Subgroup 2, if the ambitions of D (1) come to an unhappy totalitarian conclusion. Most in this group are not socialists in any sense, but have been tricked by the other Democrats. Best exemplified by the phrase "capitalism with caveats." The more dangerous Democrats use these caveats as a bridge to their proletarian "paradise."

Progressive: An exotic variant of Democratic Subgroup 1. Under 30 and very wealthy, members of this group have potential to become members of Subgroup 2, or even members of the second Republican group with massive re-training. This group has a penchant for confusing, simplistic slogans, and chanting in unison. Enterprising young males of every stripe often pretend to be members in order to engage in sexual relations with Progressive females. See "1960s" for reference.

Tim Russert: Television personality and current steward of "Meet The Press", a noted political program. Russert hides his obvious bias with a false pugnacity. Nevertheless, he provides a valuable service. Democrats who cannot survive his tame questions are poor candidates for office in this nominally Republican country. Republicans who fail are likely members of Subgroup 1.

Jon Stewart: A humorous comedian whose fake news program, The Daily Show, provides talking points for Progressives. However, he quite expertly is able to unmask members of Republican Subgroup 1. Actual membership grouping unknown.

George W. Bush: 43rd President of the United States. Lack of articulation makes him ineffective as an advocate for R(2). In addition, an apparent desire to be well-liked leads him toward an aimless, confusing domestic policy program. Bush's foreign policy has been credited with saving the United States from Islamic fascism. That outcome also prevented the collapse of Europe. (As of publishing on June 1, 2009)

Fidel Castro: See "Evil Commies."

William Jennings Bryan: (1860-1925) Noted American Democrat who opposed capitalist Democrats from 1896-1908. Three time presidential nominee. Widely credited with creating the League of Nations, and principal author of Wilson's 14 Points. Served as Wilson's Secretary of State until 1917, when he resigned in protest over American entry into the First World War. By ideology, Bryan would rank as "hopelessly deluded," placing him in D(1). However, given his obvious patriotism and steadfast defense of the Bible during the Scopes Trial of 1925 (with his attendant opposition to eugenics and Social Darwinism) Bryan attains a classification of D(2). Bryan has a special entry in the "Great Americans" section, in the Appendix.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
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

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un