Eric replied to our last post and wants to see what we will say. However, we have been reluctant to get into discussing the details of his comments for fear of distorting the thrust of our Sarah Palin posts. However, President-Elect Obama has gone home; in the weak light before dawn the janitors are sweeping up the confetti; we can’t sleep and don’t know what to do. So we are going to discuss in detail why we said what we said, what Eric said and says, and why he’s wrong and so on. It’s going to be a very tedious post except for the diehard readers of this blog. Others would do just as well to skip it.
The first thing we want to say is that this is the 201st post on our blog. We have been posting for over three years; that makes us something of a grandfather on the Internet, given its ferocious sociological velocity.
We have taken the text of Eric’s comments verbatim from the notification emails that we receive from Blogger. We are going to give the full text of Eric’s comments in footnotes, although somewhat repetitively we are going to give the text we want to comment on in-line indented, interspersed with our discussion without indent.
Let us begin our discussion starting with the first comment[1].
I've run into this blog and have been waiting for some more posts to get a read on what it is or who is writing it. It is not clear to me whether this is written by an Orthodox monk or not.
This is not a good beginning, Eric. If you had taken the trouble to read the back posts, you would have seen what we say we are—an Orthodox monk.
You have set yourself up as a judge—the man of means checking out the
"she would like Creationism taught in schools; she really believes the earth is 5000 years old; she wanted a book presenting homosexuality in a positive light removed from the town library; she seems to think that the war in
I think all of the above claims need to be fact checked. While some are saying these things are true, I think her words have been twisted in at least the case of the
If you are sincere, Eric, this is a very odd way to proceed. We are confident of what we wrote, although the matter is complicated by Ms. Palin’s tendency to hide her beliefs. In the case of the
As regards her Pentecostal church past - She changed churches 6 years ago after about 28 years in the Pentecostal church, and apparently no longer identifies herself as Pentecostal (it appears her current church is far different). I read elsewhere that she was never altogether into the charismatic elements, however true that may or may not be.
This seems quite evidently not to be true. The video of her being anointed by Pastor Muthee, her own recent recorded comments, even to Dr. James Dobson, where she uses language connected to the Muthee strain of Pentecostalism, the fact that the church she attends in
"Sarah Palin is on record as saying that she believes that Christ’s Second Coming will happen in her life-time"
I'm wondering how, exactly, apart from the "Rapturist school," this is, in itself, a negative thing. Aren't all Christians to be prepared both for death and the end of the world at all moments in time?
Here is the first source of our remark that we couldn’t tell whether we were dealing with someone who couldn’t think straight—or a shyster lawyer twisting logic to defend a guilty client. Your logic is faulty.
Scripture is very clear, Eric, that we should wait in eager expectation of the Second Coming. It is equally clear that no one knows when the Second Coming will be. Only the Father. So while we are to await the Second Coming—and Elder Paisios of
To put the matter in a little more Orthodox fashion. Elder Porphyrios of Mount Athos relived in a spiritual ecstasy the whole of the Revelation to John (the Apocalypse) when he was on
That Sarah Palin believes that the Second Coming will happen in her lifetime is not based on Scripture because it time-limits God.
Moreover, such a belief is disquieting from the point of view of her being in a position to launch nuclear weapons as President of the
"Never put someone unprepared in a position of authority and responsibility." It seems that ex-presidents routinely say that nothing prepares you for the job, though they do go on to endorse candidates.
Do you really believe what you’re saying here, Eric? What do you teach? Surely not philosophy or law or mathematics. This is faulty logic, the second egregious example.
I have a brain tumour. I talk to a few Professors about how to select a brain surgeon. They say: ‘Well you know, nothing really prepares you to be a brain surgeon; there’s nothing that can prepare you for starting to drill into someone’s skull then peeling back the various layers of tissue to get at the grey matter to cut the tumour out.’ So what I am to infer? That it doesn’t matter if the fellow who’s going to cut open my skull has only finished Grade 3? I am sure that the Professors would then go on to say: “But for all that, get the most qualified brain surgeon you can find even if he hasn’t done your particular kind of tumour before. Don’t go with someone from a quack school. Go with someone who’s properly educated.” Yes, Eric, nothing prepares you for the office of President of the
I share the concern about putting someone so inexperienced in such a position, but I have not been convinced that the leader of the opposing ticket has significantly more, and he was not mentioned here - she was.
Barack Obama’s beliefs and attitudes can be fairly easily tracked. There is his first book; there are the examinations he set as Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School, there is his discussion of Reinhold Niebuhr with David Brooks. We personally are not so worried about Obama’s lack of experience, or even about his beliefs. For us it is quite clear where he is coming from, seeing some videos of his speeches—including his speech on race—reading transcripts of other speeches, and, above all, looking a little at his examination questions in con law and knowing a little about Reinhold Niebuhr. We are an Orthodox monk and believe what the Orthodox Church believes but while on a number of serious issues Obama’s, or even Niebuhr’s, positions are not those of the Orthodox Church, it is quite clear that Obama has thought his positions through very carefully. He knows where he’s coming from. Moreover, he is clearly someone with whom a person of reasoned but opposing views can have a serious discussion of the proper public policy to implement. At one point the Dean of the
Now as to why we did not discuss Obama but discussed Palin. Obama, as far as we know, does not have eschatological beliefs that raise the question whether he might want to start a nuclear war. Palin seems to have such beliefs. The issue of Palin’s eschatological beliefs and whether they might be deluded and dangerous is a theological issue. It is fair game for this blog. The issue of whether Obama has the proper understanding of con law is an issue only insofar as we want to discuss Roman Catholic moral theology. We don’t.
(Here we would like to interject a remark that relates to comments on the Palin posts made by others. We remarked that public policy is not the same as ‘personal morality’. We should have said ‘private morality’. What we meant is that public policy—especially in a secular culture, or in a culture in which the Orthodox Church is in a minority—is not simply a projection into law of the confessor’s handbook. There is more to it. Some of this can be seen at this post and this post, written by Roman Catholics from a Roman Catholic perspective. Read especially the comments. What we do not mean is that legally in an Orthodox society ‘anything goes’, or even in a secular society in which the Orthodox live. We just mean that you can’t automatically translate the confessor’s handbook into law. You have to weigh other issues.)
Also, the beliefs of his church have been widely discussed, but it stands to repeat that they are, as well, quite extreme in ways, and he did not leave that church 6 years ago.
For the reasons we have just given in discussing Obama’s intellectual formation, we think that Pastor Jeremiah Wright’s views are a non-issue—and we went to the trouble of watching the complete National Press Club talk he gave, and Obama’s press conference after. We personally think that Obama made an actual personal conversion to active Christianity but not to an Evangelical form of it. Well, of course, he would have been better off becoming Orthodox, but he didn’t and we’re not going to hold our
Moreover, Eric, you do not seem to have comprehended that what is important to us is not church membership—we do not believe in either salvation by association or guilt by association—but what Palin’s and Obama’s personal beliefs are as grounds for their actions. In other words, it is clear that Palin believes what she grew up with at Wasilla Assembly of God. In Obama’s case it is quite clear from the other sources that we mentioned that there is no possibility of his holding such wacko views as his Pastor was pleased to espouse when making a spectacle of himself at the National Press Club. We ourselves had the feeling that there Pastor Wright wanted to put the upstart Obama in his place—a kind of reverse Oedipal resentment. Well, we suppose he would now like to have done things differently.
Frankly, I appreciate your concern but am disappointed that this post was made on a site that I believed was about monastic life and Orthodox spirituality. With all love, please fully investigate the context of a person's actions and hear their own words before educating others publicly (even pupils of Christian spirituality) about his or her character and leadership style. And as I believe our lives are to be models of love, this would not include increasing political division or creating scary hypotheticals that are truly improbable in American society.
We don’t buy this, Eric.
Eric’s second comment[2]:
My comments were not sarcastic.
Thank you for making a response. Again, I appreciate your opinion on political matters as a citizen (I presume) but its presence on this site shows me it’s not the kind of blog I was looking for.
So who asked you?
Eric’s third comment[3]:
I did come back to see whether or not you had responded to my protest, and I think I should apologize and answer for myself. I am indeed a Protestant seeking Orthodoxy and a teacher in
It’s true that I am not your customer, I do not pay you, but I assumed you wanted ears for your voice. I assumed since you put your words onto a blog that you wanted readers to come and learn from you. Otherwise, you wouldn’t post them. When I was offended (or at least, unhappily surprised) by this post I thought I would let you know how I reacted to it so that you could consider that in your decisions about future posts.
To us it came across as political pressure.
Basically, it turned me off and did make me question the wisdom of the writer if he was one to take part in what I considered misinformation and fear mongering.
We stand by what we wrote.
The presidential campaigns and many of their followers at this point appear to be patently unloving toward one another, slandering or demonizing their opponents at every turn. I see it around at work with co-workers and all around an obviously pro-Obama town – Sarah Palin is called “retarded” and her down syndrome baby is alternatively her daughter’s or John McCain’s baby.
You’ll notice that we didn’t discuss her child.
I don’t know why you continue to ask if I am sincere, but I’m not being facetious or “sarcastic.”
See above.
I do believe that the claim she thinks
See above. One of the good things about her losing is that to pursue a national career with any chance of going anywhere outside her base she is going to have to submit to press conferences and interviews, to explain her beliefs, to put up with books by investigative journalists vetting her life, to put up with muckraking tabloids and so on. The claims will soon be tested, although we expect that there will be a healthy dose of prevarication about her actual beliefs.
I do not believe that her Pentecostal background will necessarily lead her to treat people any worse than Barack Obama, especially since she will be a relatively powerless vice president (unlike our Dick Cheney).
Do you really believe this? After her rallies which could only be called demagoguery, and dangerous demagoguery at that? Moreover, the central issue that we raised was how her eschatological beliefs might impinge on her conduct of
Some of the examples you raised above involved very murderous or incestuous people, and if you are comparing this situation with some of those, I believe you are assuming too much about what decisions she will make with what little power she may have.
Our assumption, well-founded we think—we are quite sure that McCain will soon be shown to be in very poor health
I do believe that you are right that a holy man should tell the truth and confront people with their misdeeds from time to time – especially when they are great and have not yet been stopped. Palin has not yet been stopped but from what I don’t yet know. She had the “troopergate” investigation, which had mixed results.
Have you looked at the
Most of the other legitimate (in my opinion) criticisms have to do with the debt left to her town or state after major projects went over budget (after she’s left).
These are purely political issues that we avoid on this blog.
I suppose I could understand a holy man bringing up concern about abortion policies or economic policies that would negatively affect the poor, but I still find it strange to confront Palin or people who might vote for Palin with her Christian faith background, which in my eyes has not yet proved to be a major impediment, in itself, to actions of love in her previous jobs.
You just don’t get it, Eric. It is precisely because Palin’s eschatological beliefs are faulty and dangerous that we felt obliged to raise them. ‘Actions of love’? Read Branchflower. It is not because Palin has faith that we took issue with her but because her particular faith is
I apologize for coming off as haughty. I believe I was mimicking behavior I have seen or read before. Please forgive me. I received the post as a contribution to the spiteful rhetoric influencing both sides of this debate, and I was disappointed. If you find it as a legitimate place for warning, perhaps I should not assume the position as critic.
Though, comments like these: “We believe that somewhere St Basil states that a person who winks the eye is not to be trusted.”
You would, we think, have to read the passage of St Basil. You say that you are interested in Orthodoxy. We believe that it is in the Long or Short Rules, in his ascetical writings. You might find it useful to read all of St Basil’s ascetical writings. He is remarkable for his discernment, given by the Holy Spirit.
It is scandalous for a woman to wink: there are only two known uses of the wink as body language: as a sign of sexual availability—clearly what was involved in the debate—or as a sign of deceit. Do you seriously think that a serious Christian woman should wink repeatedly in explicit sexual invitation to millions of men, let it be through the medium of television, in order to win their votes? The latter meaning—i.e. the wink as a sign of deceit—is probably what prompted
and “We couldn’t tell whether we were dealing with sincere persons who couldn’t think straight or with operatives who were engaging in the sophistic tricks that unscrupulous lawyers use to defend their clients.” made me wonder how serious you were in your statements, as well.
What sort of apology do you make that follows up with another attack?
Thank you for responding to both of my earlier messages.
Let’s hope that this is it, Eric.
–Orthodox Monk
[1] Just a few thoughts...
I've run into this blog and have been waiting for some more posts to get a read on what it is or who is writing it. It is not clear to me whether this is written by an Orthodox monk or not.
"she would like Creationism taught in schools; she really believes the earth is 5000 years old; she wanted a book presenting homosexuality in a positive light removed from the town library; she seems to think that the war in
I think all of the above claims need to be fact checked. While some are saying these things are true, I think her words have been twisted in at least the case of the
As regards her Pentecostal church past - She changed churches 6 years ago after about 28 years in the Pentecostal church, and apparently no longer identifies herself as Pentecostal (it appears her current church is far different). I read elsewhere that she was never altogether into the charismatic elements, however true that may or may not be.
"Sarah Palin is on record as saying that she believes that Christ’s Second Coming will happen in her life-time"
I'm wondering how, exactly, apart from the "Rapturist school," this is, in itself, a negative thing. Aren't all Christians to be prepared both for death and the end of the world at all moments in time?
"Never put someone unprepared in a position of authority and responsibility." It seems that ex-presidents routinely say that nothing prepares you for the job, though they do go on to endorse candidates.
I share the concern about putting someone so inexperienced in such a position, but I have not been convinced that the leader of the opposing ticket has significantly more, and he was not mentioned here - she was.
Also, the beliefs of his church have been widely discussed, but it stands to repeat that they are, as well, quite extreme in ways, and he did not leave that church 6 years ago.
Frankly, I appreciate your concern but am disappointed that this post was made on a site that I believed was about monastic life and Orthodox spirituality. With all love, please fully investigate the context of a person's actions and hear their own words before educating others publicly (even pupils of Christian spirituality) about his or her character and leadership style. And as I believe our lives are to be models of love, this would not include increasing political division or creating scary hypotheticals that are truly improbable in American society.
Posted by Eric
[2] My comments were not sarcastic.
Thank you for making a response. Again, I appreciate your opinion on political matters as a citizen (I presume) but its presence on this site shows me its not the kind of blog I was looking for.
Posted by Eric to
[3] I did come back to see whether or not you had responded to my protest, and I think I should apologize and answer for myself. I am indeed a Protestant seeking Orthodoxy and a teacher in
It’s true that I am not your customer, I do not pay you, but I assumed you wanted ears for your voice. I assumed since you put your words onto a blog that you wanted readers to come and learn from you. Otherwise, you wouldn’t post them. When I was offended (or at least, unhappily surprised) by this post I thought I would let you know how I reacted to it so that you could consider that in your decisions about future posts. Basically, it turned me off and did make me question the wisdom of the writer if he was one to take part in what I considered misinformation and fear mongering. The presidential campaigns and many of their followers at this point appear to be patently unloving toward one another, slandering or demonizing their opponents at every turn. I see it around at work with coworkers and all around an obviously pro-Obama town – Sarah Palin is called “retarded” and her down syndrome baby is alternatively her daughter’s or John McCain’s baby.
I don’t know why you continue to ask if I am sincere, but I’m not being facetious or “sarcastic.” I do believe that the claim she thinks
Some of the examples you raised above involved very murderous or incestuous people, and if you are comparing this situation with some of those, I believe you are assuming too much about what decisions she will make with what little power she may have.
I do believe that you are right that a holy man should tell the truth and confront people with their misdeeds from time to time – especially when they are great and have not yet been stopped. Palin has not yet been stopped but from what I don’t yet know. She had the “troopergate” investigation, which had mixed results. Most of the other legitimate (in my opinion) criticisms have to do with the debt left to her town or state after major projects went over budget (after she’s left).
I suppose I could understand a holy man bringing up concern about abortion policies or economic policies that would negatively affect the poor, but I still find it strange to confront Palin or people who might vote for Palin with her Christian faith background, which in my eyes has not yet proved to be a major impediment, in itself, to actions of love in her previous jobs.
I apologize for coming off as haughty. I believe I was mimicking behavior I have seen or read before. Please forgive me. I received the post as a contribution to the spiteful rhetoric influencing both sides of this debate, and I was disappointed. If you find it as a legitimate place for warning, perhaps I should not assume the position as critic.
Though, comments like these: “We believe that somewhere St Basil states that a person who winks the eye is not to be trusted.” and “We couldn’t tell whether we were dealing with sincere persons who couldn’t think straight or with operatives who were engaging in the sophistic tricks that unscrupulous lawyers use to defend their clients.” made me wonder how serious you were in your statements, as well.
Thank you for responding to both of my earlier messages.
Posted by Eric
It seems you wanted to settle things with the last post. I'm sorry if this response annoys you, but I wanted to respond with two things.
ReplyDeleteThe first is that I have not yet read St. Basil, but I would like to in order to read firsthand what you are referring to and also to discover what other treasures lie therein. Having not yet read it, my first response is to suggest that the gesture of winking may have cultural connotations in parts of the world that go beyond the sexual or deviant. I have a friend in Chicago who winks for neither of these reasons, and while I find it odd, I accept it. I am skeptical of making conclusions about her winks, but I can also see the possibility you (and St. Basil, as you have said) are suggesting.
Secondly, and more importantly, I do want to thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. I did not and do not occupy a position to demand anything of you or of your time. At this point I regret some of the things I have written. I am not convinced that she was as dangerous as you suggested, but it appears that perhaps you are better read than I am on some of these subjects, which shows some of my comments as foolish and hypocritical. I sense that your questioning of my sincerity was a response to my questions of your national and vocational status. I assure you I was and am sincere, though you may remain skeptical yourself. Forgive me for taking an arrogant tone in my writing. I thank you for the exchange.