Georgetown Professor Is Clueless as to Why God is Important, and Why Palin Gets 'It'

Not surprised. I am not. We hear jokes about Jesuit institutions all the time and their lack of "Catholicity." Is it the Jesuits fault? Well, that is hard to say, but where there is smoke, there is usually fire.

Take for example the Washington Posts: "Georgetown/On Faith" Blog section where they write about politics. You can read their about section if you want. They have Professor Jacques Berlinerblau writing about Palin's choice not to run. His take? That her priorities are screwed up because she adheres to a God, Family, Country philosophy. Yes, he disagrees with this order because... well... that is what liberals do. You can't even say, "Oh I get what he is saying, good argument I just disagree." No. For a professor at an allegedly Catholic institution, he is completely clueless. Let's look at his article [my comments in red]:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has decided not to run for the presidency in 2012. In her statement she writes:

After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.

The order she refers to, “God, Family, Country” comprises a bewildering conflation of priorities, recklessly emphasizing the personal over the civic. Wait, what? Bewildering? You mean, all the slams by the left that the was "reckless" with her children by running in the first place? And a public servant should walk away from the anchor of family once they run, because... the public is more important than the personal. Honestly, this statement is so far from anything sensible that I should have stopped reading here. 

Palin works from the assumption that one enters public service not to uphold the constitution, not to defend the nation, not to enrich the lives of citizens, but to honor God. Ok, this is an allegedly educated person. Why does he mess up the whole concept of mutual exclusion. Even if you were to argue that Palin places God at the top of this list he creates, it doesn't necessarily mean that she then excludes the rest. 

Whose God, you ask? That’s a great question in a society as religiously diverse as our own. From Palin’s vantage point the answer to that can only be: my God and my interpretation of God. Which, chances are, won’t be your God and your interpretation of God. Wait, now, if you believe in God as a public servant, you can't have a personal view of Him? Again, this is a GEORGETOWN professor.

This type of reasoning has roots that extend back deep into the Puritan heritage of this country. Yet it is important to recall that since the times of let’s say, Roger Williams, this reasoning was challenged by dissenters who were every bit as God-fearing as the Puritans. That is to say, in American history there have existed significant faith-based motivations for fearing public servants who claim to serve God. Ahh... so his colors are showing, he admits essentially that we don't want people who believe in God to serve the public.

Taking the Silver Medal in Palin’s hierarchy is “family.” Her emphasis is perhaps psychologically understandable, given the ferocious battering that the Palin clan, most notably the children, has endured in the press over the past few years. Wow... this is just crude. I get more upset the more I read this. The Academia "elite" really are vile people, this is just more of the same though. If you aren't with them, they hate you - literally. 

Yet once again, a politician does not seek elected office to better his or her family. The inverse proposition seems more likely: those who chose to serve do so to the regrettable emotional detriment of their loved ones.

As for the last of Palin’s priorities, it should have been her first and arguably her second and third as well. Americans are certainly allowed to believe that their God is much more important than their country. But those Americans perhaps ought not run for high office. His conclusion: only atheists or fairweather religious should run for office. Thanks professor, one more Catholic college off the list. He makes it much easier for us Catholics to cross Georgetown off the list of where to send our kids for college. 

I can't believe I wasted my time. As I said, I am not surprised. More of the same. Intellectual "elites" at Catholic entities getting it completely wrong. You should stop giving to Georgetown, and you should stop sending your children to allegedly Catholic institutions. I am sure many of you made it out alive... but what if your kids aren't as lucky? Do you want them thinking like this?

††† 

The Presidential Picture

Christie - Out.

Palin - Out.

Romney is in "first" followed by Cain, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann, and Gingrich, probably in that order. The polls may say something different but this is the way I see it. 

I called the Palin thing back in the spring, I have blog posts if you want proof :) I don't know if she knew then, but it seemed pretty evident that she wasn't going to run. But I didn't write this post to tell you, "I told you so." I am writing this post to say... now what?

I think our best options: Mike Pence and Sarah Palin, are sitting on the sidelines. Bachmann is a great leader, but a big part of being President is assembling a great team, and I don't know if people would buy into the idea that she could do that. With Christie on the the outside, he becomes the #1 VP contender, and that means Rubio is out. 

The elephant in the room is Perry. WHAT in the world happened? Was it the media? Was it him? Was it someone else? I think you can argue that he wasn't that strong of a candidate to begin with, but that argument has some holes. You can say he is too much like Bush, not enough like Reagan, or whatever... and I might buy those. What is even more interesting than the Perry downslide is Romney.

I don't know one person, honestly, who is supporting him right now. I know a few that said they will vote for him, because he is better than Obama, but no out and out support. (Caveat: There are some that are super pragmatic and say, that they support him only because they think he will win... I think you get my point.)

So what do we do? Can we vote for Cain? Can Santorum or Bachmann come back? Is Perry really done?

†††

Media Cry-Babies and Sarah Palin (UPDATED)

Sarah Palin would make a good President. Whether you agree with that statement or not, I would have to say that the way she is treating her East Coast sight-seeing trip is evidence that things would at least be interesting and the media would have daily conniption fits.

Case-in-point: this article from CBSnews.com. They seriously are acting like childish entitled brats. Here is one quippy little part from the article:

Palin's team isn't just ignoring the press; it's actively trying to misdirect reporters. Tuesday morning, for example, Palin's bus was running out in front of the hotel where she had stayed, prompting a gaggle of media to dutifully gather outside. Palin had already slipped out a side door early in the morning for a visit to the Gettysburg visitor center and battlefield.

So what? Just because they want a story is she required to cater to them? Of course not, and the funny thing is they hate this woman. They are actually blaming her for the chaos and confusion of this "situation" which is the result of Paparazzi-esque coverage they, the media, are providing. Again, from the article:

Since Palin and her team won't share where the potential candidate is headed, reporters and producers have little choice but to simply stay close to Palin's bus. This has resulted in scenes of the Palin bus tooling down the highway followed by a caravan of 10 or 15 vehicles all trying to make sure they don't lose sight of the Palin bus.

It adds up to a dangerous situation, says CBS News Producer Ryan Corsaro.

"I just hope to God that one of these young producers with a camera whose bosses are making them follow Sarah Palin as a potential Republican candidate don't get in a car crash, because this is dangerous," he said.

Seriously. You can't read this article and with any intellectual honesty say that Palin is doing anything wrong. She's bigger than the President ... and the media is playing right into her hand. You would think that they would just ignore her if they were so annoyed with her, but they can't.

I told someone today I didn't think she was running, and I still don't. But I want her to... I want to read more articles like this and just laugh. The media has no right to any info or access pertaining to this trip. Any endangerment is on their behalf. They are blame-shifting before anything has happened. In fact, I would go so far as to blame them. By saying this is dangerous is their way of saying that they will endanger folks to get this story. That is a scary thing, the media essentially say they are above the law and above safety.

I pray no one gets hurt, but I also pray the media keep losing their minds over this.

UPDATE:
The Anchoress has posted about this as well, and she gets it completely wrong! 

Palin has gone through the trouble of getting her big bus going; she’s touring and meeting people (including “the Donald” gag me) — all of that is meant to attract attention, get people talking, generate a buzz, and a bit of mystery; “is she or isn’t she”? If you are doing all of that work to direct the cameras your way, only to slap at the press for trying to focus, then you’re behaving like a tease. There’s a line, and for me Sarah Palin is coming close to crossing it.

Nobody likes a tease. Including, I think, voters.

So, no, I don’t find this latest Palin escapade all that endearing. In fact, were I an editor in the mainstream press, I’d pull my reporters off the story of her latest bus tour, and say “adios.” The woman doesn’t want press coverage, don’t give her press coverage. Period.

This battle between Palin and the press is not going to end well. The media are not going to stop being who and what they are — expedient, exploitative, energetic and constantly hungry, and often biased, sometimes savagely so. So Palin — whether she likes it or not, whether her fans like it or not — is going to have to take the high road, before someone gets hurt.

She’s a natural with many strengths, but she is either getting some very bad advice, right now, or Sarah Palin simply hasn’t yet learned how to rise above, with grace.

We need grace in our leadership. It sucks not having it now. I want it back.

Sorry, but do you want a sensation and a celebrity or do you want a president? This is not presidential behavior.

Couple of points. First, Palin isn't an official candidate for President. So the whole, "this isn't Presidential" argument seems a tad odd. Sure, she might run, and sure we want folks to act Presidential prior to running, but still. Second, she calls Palin a tease. Really? This is the stuff Presidential campaigns are made of. Was Truman wrong to hold up the "Dewey Wins" paper? Was that the low road? No. That was politicking and so is this. She is earning media from this. There are double the stories written about Palin with this, and she isn't teasing the voters. She is telling the voters exactly what she would do. First and foremost she would ignore the media and talk directly to the voters, and wouldn't wait for the media to do all those things Scalia listed in her bitter blog post.

Finally, her insinuation, and is she were to deny it I would say she is doing the same thing she is accusing Palin of doing, that Palin is being un-Christian is completely too much. She accuses of Palin going too far, but I accuse her of going too far. I respect The Anchoress quite a bit, but her calling Palin un-Christian through insinuation and in the name of Christianity does not make the move Charitable. In fact it might just be hypocritical.

###

The Photo - a quick take.

Rarely will I be on the same "side" of an issue as Barrack Obama and opposing what Sarah Palin says. But when it comes to "releasing the photo" of Osama Bin Laden, I guess that is what is happening. Let me bring some of you up to speed that may not know what is going on with that.

After reports that Bin Laden was dead, there were all sorts of "stories" coming out about how and when he died, how they confirmed it, and what was going to happen with the body. Well, the short version is they "buried him at sea." Now I can't talk about motive, but we do know that there was a desire to "respect" the body and to prevent as much danger as possible to our troops. We know our soldiers have been treated in the past, and we wanted no part in doing the same. Nor should we have disrespected his body in any way. We need to do these things with as much moral integrity as possible, and eliminate as many opportunities for the enemy to feed on things to use against our troops.

Now I know they dont need reasons, to hate and attack us, but the decision to release the photo does nothing but attempt to satisfy doubters. The doubters wont be satisfied even with the photos, so then they only become a catalyst for action against us. Again, I don't know the "real intentions" behind the decision not to release them, and I do see the arguments on the other side - I just don't think we need to do it. We are America, he are supposed to be an example of justice to the world. Bin Laden is dead, that fact can't change - if it is a fact. Therefore a picture does nothing except brag. He is dead. God have mercy on his soul.

I hate disagreeing with Palin, and I agree somewhat to where she is coming from. Yet, I just think the world knows where we stand and knows that we are seeking justice, peace, and freedom. No photo of a dead man will prove that. What will prove that is quiet resolve, and dedication to that mission. He is dead, let us walk down a path of justice and pursue the mission - peace and freedom.

###

This isn't a Political Post

She went to India and Israel.
They both have nuclear bombs.
So do we.
So?

···•°···

Her foreign "clout" might jump a few index points from her trip. Especially since the President is having such a smashing good time with his brackets, he knew Libya didn't have a team going against Kansas right? (If you don't get that joke, dont worry - either do I!)

···°•···

I'd put her in my top 3... What?!
Palin, Pawlenty, and Christie.
Did you expect a Huckabee from me?

I should go to bed.
.
..
...
....
.....
(If you think I am channeling Terry, think again - what word comes to mind? Tofurkey?)

###

Private Faith: Palin, Kennedy, and Catholicism

In 1960 John F. Kennedy made a speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association where he said that his faith was a very personal and important thing to him, but as a politician it was "private." He went on to explain further that:

"Contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic."

This was Kennedy's way of deflecting and inoculating the onslaught of what some perceived to be anti-Catholic bias in the print media. What it did was change forever the way that Americans viewed the intersection of politics and religion on a personal level.

···•°···

Archbishop Chaput [UPI]

Fast-forward to 2010 - Archbishop Charles Chaput made a speech and mentioned this Kennedy Speech. He described the above statement and the rest of the Kennedy speech, in a talk about Catholicism and its relation to society, culture, and politics, in the following way, saying that it was:

"sincere, compelling, articulate -- and wrong."

This was a rather strong statement, and created quite a stir. But he didn't stop there, he went on to explain the damage that Kennedy's speech did to Catholicism in America:

"Real Christian faith is always personal, but it's never private... [Kennedy's speech] profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America's public life and political conversation... Today, half a century later, we're paying for the damage."

···°•···

Many Catholics, wishing for a politics of "days gone by" make the statement, "Kennedy would be a Republican nowadays, he was Catholic, and was essentially conservative by today's standards." I dare say that these folks are sincere, compelling, articulate – and wrong.

What party Kennedy would be in isn't the point of my post, or the point Patrick O'Hannigan made in his December 15th American Spectator article entitled: Kennedy Catholicism and Palin. The point he did make is that Kennedy did a disservice to the faith and to fellow Catholic Americans when he made his 1960 pronouncement. But Kennedy isn't around to defend himself, especially against folks like Sarah Palin that demand that politicians lay their [religious] "cards on the table." The person rushing to Kennedy's "Let's keep our faith private" defense? His niece, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. She did so in a December 3, 2010 Washington Post piece, where she defended her late uncle against charges by Sarah Palin that Kennedy's faith and philosophy were improper and harmful. O'Hannigan outlines the debate between O'Hannigan and Palin, and breaks it down in rather blunt fashion. It is a telling piece and a good piece. You don't have to love or hate Palin to respect what O'Hannigan says and to agree with the point Palin is making – Kennedy was wrong.

Palin takes Kennedy's philosophy to task in her book, America by Heart. O'Hannigan explains, that she is right about her criticism of Kennedy - regardless of what you think of her, or her politics. For this isn't about politics per se, it is about how one goes about their politics and their faith. It is about philosophy and theology as a very base level. Townsend on the other hand says that Palin is wrong, and that her religious litmus test of sorts strikes against the ideas of American freedom. She of course misconstrues what Palin says, and does so not out of a desire to defend Kennedy, but out of disdain for a person and their philosophy. Townsend also makes her argument on a flawed understanding of Catholicism and exactly the role it plays in American political life; it would serve her well to read Chaput's book on the subject: Render Unto Caesar. As O'Hannigan explains, this is not a battle that Townsend can win.

···•°···

O'Hannigan over the course of his piece describes the battle that is 50 years in the making. The players: Kennedy, his niece Townsend, Palin, Chaput and every American Catholic. The battle is over how politicians should represent themselves, represent their faith, and whether a personal faith has a place in the public life of an elected official. The winner is for you to decide, but I leave you with a quote that O'Hannigan puts in his article. You can use it however you would like; I suggest it be used as the test to determine who has the better philosophy, Kennedy and his "private faith" of Belloc, Palin, Chaput, et al.

The quote is from Hilaire Belloc and his 1906 stump speech for his candidacy in the British Parliment:

"Gentlemen, I am a Roman Catholic. As far as possible, I go to Mass every day. This [taking a rosary out of his pocket] is a rosary. As far as possible, I kneel down and tell these beads every day. If you reject me on account of my religion, I shall thank God that he has spared me the indignity of being made your representative."

···°•···

Links:

• Kennedy Catholicism and Palin - by: Patrick O'Hannigan [The American Spectator - 12.15.10]
• Sarah Palin is wrong about John F. Kennedy, religion and politics - by: Kathleen Kennedy Townsend [The Washington Post - 12.3.10]
• The Vocation of Christians in American Public Life - by: Archbishop Charles Chaput [Speech: 3.1.10]
• Address to Greater Houston Ministerial Association - by: John F. Kennedy [Speech: 9.12.60]

†††

Sarah Palin: A post redux

So I received a comment in my last post about Sarah Palin and it brought to my attention something that I overlooked in my initial post. It was something that I would have missed had the commentator not brought it to my attention. You see, most readers don't know my history of support for Sarah Palin, and they don't understand the context in which that first post was written.

You see... I was so conflicted over the McCain pick of Palin. I remember exactly where I was when I found out, and I had in fact told my parents that she would be a good VP pick, before we even knew McCain was the person. [I made the pick/guess when I thought that there was a chance that Romney or even Thompson were going to get the Republican nod - so you see I am not some political genius.] So when McCain, someone whom I was not and am not a political fan of chose her, it was somewhat bitter-sweet for me.

I have always been a fan of Alaska, even prior to moving here. So the Sarah Palin ascent in this state was something that I followed at afar first. This state is very unique, and so her victory into the governorship was very interesting. It was a statement about what this state wanted, but more importantly what it needed.

Likewise in the lower 48 there seems to be that same sentiment. So my first post was more about that. The re-emergence of Sarah Palin post Decision 2008. Most VP candidates who lose are doomed to a life of irrelevance. Even those who become VP for the most part are left to exists in political mediocrity. Few go on after being tapped to make any sort of waves. Here is a recent list:

• Walter Mondale
• Geraldine A. Ferraro
• Lloyd Bentsen
• Al Gore
• Joe Lieberman
• John Edwards
• Bob Dole
• George HW Bush
• Dan Quayle
• Jack Kemp
• Dick Cheney

So my point isn't so much that I am just realizing what Sarah Palin is... but trying to explain to other that she appears to be transforming before our eyes. Not into something new, but something bigger. There are a lot of people here in Alaska that are still confused and perplexed at why she stepped down. There are a lot of good explanations, but it is understandable that people don't accept those explanations or continue to question the ultimate decision.

Regardless of that issue though, Sarah Palin is here to stay. A losing VP candidate from the last election is now within the margin of error in some polls when posed against our current, first term President who is less than a year into his role. That is unfathomable. Not only that, but her BOOK tour has been a major news story... including every stop along the way. [All while such huge stories such as Tiger Woods, the Health Care votes, and the Afghan surge exist.]

The reason this woman, aside from her political implications, matters to this blog is two-fold. First, I am a fan, a big one, and I think she could do great things in a multitude of roles. But secondly, and most importantly she has brought very important questions to the table and have placed them in the arena of dialogue. She is forcing the Republican party to chose conservatism or relativism. She is making this country talk about the role of families, government, and the role both play in our national life. She talks about the people that don't live in the cities, that don't believe that the government is the first solution, and don't believe that they elect people to make major decisions for them. 

Sarah Palin gets under the skin of the media, of the cultural elite,  and of hollywood. They don't like her because she is a danger to them. She is the inverse of those groups. She is small town and private living. She makes her mistakes, takes her bumps, and keeps on ticking. She puts herself out there and makes the media report on her... which in turn annoys them because it keeps her relevant. She makes statements which the press tries to assassinate her with, only to have her poll numbers rise. 

The commentator that inspired this post also said something, which I very much agree with. "You either love her or hate her." I think this is true... and I think that is the sign that this woman is something special and something important. As you know, I take the cultural and societal battle we are all in very seriously. I think there are two sides and the middle ground is fiction. Dante said: "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality during times of moral crisis." I believe he is right. I believe that Sarah Palin drew a line in the sand during the 2008 election. That wasn't enough. So she regrouped, went and got some heavy equipment and is digging a canyon. When the 2012 elections come around I think Sarah Palin will have molded the social and political landscape in such a way that we will for the first time in a long while have a true Conservative candidate. I don't know if she will be on the ticket, but I think her message is resonating loud enough, and gaining such support that we as a nation will demand a real conservative candidate. 

She isn't just a pretty face, but it helps. In fact, it helps so much that it infuriates the left. Sarah Palin has really good policies, but you don't hear about them. It isn't due to the lack of anything substantive, it is due to the lack of coverage. You see our current "news" media works on hate, fear, and failure. Sarah's policies more often than not - simply work. Sure there are some losses and mistakes along the way, all politicians have em. There are also lots of areas in which people can disagree, that's the nature of the game. Yet, you don't hear the media attacking her policies because the public wouldn't stand for it right now. Not with the abysmal job the current president is doing. 

So you see, right now Sarah Palin is doing something that almost no losing VP candidate, or any VP for that matter, has done in decades. She is remaining relevant, and in fact gaining in relevance. Although I have tried to keep this blog mostly Catholic, and mostly about American CATHOLIC politics, I think that Sarah Palin is an important enough person who embodies the principles of American Catholic politics enough to justify covering her in some posts. I think she is here to stay, and will only grow in her influence and her relevance.