Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has been thinking over the whole kerfluffle concerning the recent comments of Pope Benedict to the students and professors at Regensburg University last week. In case you’ve not perused them, here is the text of His Holiness’ remarks.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, and your Maximum Leader presumes that none of his readers live under rocks, you know that Benedict XVI cited the 14th Century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus in his remarks. Emperor Manuel II was not a big friend of Islam and said as much. The Pope, by quoting the Emperor, is now being charged by Muslims around the world as not being a friend of Islam.

Your Maximum Leader is not surprised by anything that has transpired so far. He is not surprised by the entirety of what the Pope said. Nor is he surprised that one portion of it has been picked out and picked upon. Nor is he surprised that Muslims around the world are outraged.

In fact, it all seems a big formulaic don’t you think? Western leader says some unflattering thing about Islam in the context of other comments which are rather praisworthy. Muslims riot. Muslims burn things. Mslims threaten to (and sometimes do) start killing people to protest.

Lenin once wrote that “left-wing communism” was an “infantile disorder.” At what point can we call the “Islamic Street’s” propensity to riot over verbal slights an equally infantile disorder. Your Maximum Leader’s two year old has fewer tantrums than the “Islamic Street.”

Your Maximum Leader is, in a way, sad that Pope Benedict has felt the need to issue apologies and start The Vatican spin machine to mitigate the negative press around the world. Your Maximum Leader says that he is sad “in a way” because he doesn’t find the statement (or quotation as the case may be) offensive in the least. In fact, your Maximum Leader would prefer to mount a vigorous defense of the comments in context. If your Maximum Leader were Pope (a laughable supposition) he would say that he is saddened that Muslims around the world are incapable of rational discourse about their religion - which had a long history of inquiry until the modern age. Your Maximum Leader might further ask if there is a point to attempting dialogue when conversation, by definition, is a two way street. If every comment is greeted with rioting one can hardly expect to talk often…

Many, including your Maximum Leader’s best friend - Kevin the Big Hominid, point out the Pope’s history of not doing a good job of fostering interreligious dicussion. (Here and here) But your Maximum Leader must ask what is the purpose of such dialogue? What is the practical end of discussions between Catholics and Muslims? (Or for that matter Baptists and Jews, or Shintos and Zororastrians?) Assuming that the point of interreligious dialogue is not to attempt to convert one side to the other, then the only practical end of discussions is how can we all get along better? And the question of how we all get along better isn’t so much a religious issue as one of good manners and civility. For example, Catholics should agree that they were wrong to call Jews “Christ-killers,” offer a contrite apology, and never do it again; in return Jews should agree to politely ignore the Catholic faith. (Since your Maximum Leader can’t actually think of anything that Jews have done against Catholics. Further, your Maximum Leader seems to remember that Pope John Paul II did apologize to Jews for the many evils done against them in the name of the Catholic Church and Christian faith.)

So… Your Maximum Leader isn’t sure where to go from here. Jacques Chirac, while neither defending nor attacking the Pope, says that we shouldn’t say things that get Muslims agitated. Unfortunately, it appears as though nothing (of a critical manner at least) can be said which doesn’t agitate muslims. Guess there will not be a lot of dialogue going on.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader must thank Loyal Minion Dr. (Infidel) Rusty Shackelford for the linky-love yesterday. It caused a little “Jawa-lanche” here at Naked Villainy. Don’t fret. Your Maximum Leader has piles of unused bandwidth - so keep visiting.

Dr. Rusty placed a siginifcant quotation from Augustine’s masterpiece “City of God” on his site. Your Maximum Leader will reproduce the salient point.

Whoever gives even moderate attention to human affairs and to our common nature, will recognize that if there is no man who does not wish to be joyful, neither is there any one who does not wish to have peace.

For even they who make war desire nothing but victory,–desire, that is to say, to attain to peace with glory. For what else is victory than the conquest of those who resist us? and when this is done there is peace. It is therefore with the desire for peace that wars are waged, even by those who take pleasure in exercising their warlike nature in command and battle.

And hence it is obvious that peace is the end sought for by war. For every man seeks peace by waging war, but no man seeks war by making peace. For even they who intentionally interrupt the peace in which they are living have no hatred of peace, but only wish it changed into a peace that suits them better.

They do not, therefore, wish to have no peace, but only one more to their mind.

Peace more suited to their desires… There is a reason that St. Augustine is, and will be long remembered, and why so many others will not be remembered.*

Anyhoo…

The discussion of war and peace is a rather cheap segue for your Maximum Leader to pose a moral question to his readers. A moral question he’s been thinking a lot about in the past few weeks. Here it is:

What does it mean to follow Jesus’ admonition to “love thy neighbor?”

Really. Think about that for a moment. What does it mean? What does it mean practically?

Your Maximum Leader recently listened (twice) to an interview with Karen Armstrong (the noted theologian). During the interview she noted that the great monotheistic traditions all call for action tied to belief. Religion calls on you to “do something” and not just to “believe something.”

When Jesus said that we should love our neighbors what did he mean? Your Maximum Leader, in a glib sense, actually does like his neighbors quite a bit. Those blessed to live in the environs of the Villainschloss are good people. But your Maximum Leader will concede that this is notthe meaning that Jesus intended.

So what does it mean? There are lots of “neighbors” in your Maximum Leader’s extended community. Is he to love them like he does his family? Is he to tolerate them and be on his best behavior with them? Is he to approve of what they do? Of how they act? Is he to attempt to better their lot in life through his own action? Is writing weekly checks to his favorite charities enough? Is keeping the less-fortunate in his prayers enough?

What is the extent or type of love he must show his neighbor in order to live up to Jesus’ command?

Your Maximum Leader isn’t sure of the answer right now. Although he thinks that he is on the right path when he is thinking to himself that he shouldn’t allow his neighbor to be victimized by injustice. Surely that is a broad and sort of wishy-washy or “feel good” definition for now. (Perhaps it is a little new-agey even.) But allow him to explain.

Your Maximum Leader doesn’t feel that he needs to go far out of his way (or out of his way at all in fact) to help the crack addict who has lost everything to feed their addiction. That person made (at some point) a choice to take the crack and start down that path. (Your Maximum Leader thinks it is safe to assume that it is fairly common knowledge that crack isn’t good for you.) They are not victims of any injustice there. They are victims of their own bad choices.

On the other hand, many people of the lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans, Louisiana are likely the victims of an injustice. They have not been well served by their elected representatives (at any level) and they continue to suffer because of this disservice. What can your Maximum Leader do? He can give money to local relief organizations. He can write Congress to conduct more oversight on how disaster recovery is going. He can volunteer to build a house, or clean up a homesite. There are lots of things that can be done.

These are (as they always are for arguments it seems) extreme examples. But perhaps they are a starting point. If you Maximum Leader can admonish you to do something, it would be to think for a little today about what it means to love your neighbor.**

Carry on.
(more…)

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader will point out to those of you of the Anglo-Cathoic (and by that he means Anglican/Episcopal/Roman Catholic) tradition that today is the feast day for St. Augustine of Hippo.

Your Maximum Leader, who was raised in the Roman tradition, chose St. Augustine as “his saint” when he was confirmed in the Catholic Church. For those of you so inclined, here is a reasonably good web site to St. Augustine.

Knowing that today was the feast day, your Maximum Leader thought it was somewhat serindipitous that he should see a new biography of St. Augustine in the local Borders over the weekend. Moments of serindipity like that should be taken advantage of (especially when they only cost you about $10). So he bought the book. He will begin it later today.

The book, Augustine: A New Biography, by James O’Donnell is very well reviewed. If any of you Hoyas out there in the reading audience know anything about Dr. O’Donnell you should let your Maximum Leader know. According to the reviews, O’Donnell is the Provost of Georgetown U.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has been reading up on some of his favorite blogs recently. He’s not kept up with things like he wants to. For instance, your Maximum Leader didn’t know that Pamela had vlogged in a wet bikini, nor did he know who the hell Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey was.

But he did know that if he went over to Tacitus he’d find something good. And sure enough he did. You should cruise over and read this post. The money quote:

In warring with a religion, decades of secularism have left us utterly disarmed. We are trained to think of faith as either irrelevant or benign: and when it is undeniably malign, we ascribe its malignancy to “fundamentalism,” which is (in direct negation of the meaning of the word) somehow separable or diversionary from the fundamentals of the faith in question.

Damn Tacitus for summing up on one line the concept that your Maximum Leader has been batting around in his brain for weeks.

As your Maximum Leader has written before, he is not sure that the great majority of Muslims throughout the world wouldn’t just as soon kill an American (or Israeli, or Brit, or Aussie) as say hello to one. Your Maximum Leader has (in good post-modern Western fashion) tried and tried to ascribe the malignant elements of Islam to a small and somehow backwards, sect or splinter group. But under some scrutiny, those ssignations dissolve under closer examination. It is quite discouraging really.

This discouragement your Maximum Leader feels when he contemplates the vastness of the problems with Islam is made worse when he then contemplates that a shrinking majority of Americans (and Westerners) seem willing to break with their self-destructive pacifism (or variants of pacifism) to defend themselves in a conflict that will end with one side broken and discarded.

There is probably a longer epistle needed on this subject. But this will do for now…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader had read about the hubub caused by the removal of kneelers - even the making of kneeling during the Mass a sin - in the (Roman Catholic) Diocese of Orange (California - not Ireland). Here is the LA Times article on the matter. (Thanks to the Irish Elk.)

Your Maximum Leader has attended Mass in a number of churches at which there were no kneelers. Indeed, he has knelt anyway. While a Catholic your Maximum Leader firmly sided with the Latin-Mass-speaking-kneeling crowd. Once he even knelt (without benefit of a kneeler) during a hellishly long service at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. He did this on a marble floor. With a sprained ankle. It wasn’t fun.

Frankly, your Maximum Leader would think that Diocean Bishops would have more to concern themselves with han the question of their flocks kneeling or not. Obviously your Maximum Leader is mistaken in this.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader thanks those of you who have commented about, or written him privately about, creeds. He supposes that until you start thinking about it you take for granted these (sometimes grand, and sometimes common) statements of faith.

Your Maximum Leader was particularly pleased that the very delightful Mrs P passed along a link to the Athanasian Creed. (NB to Mrs P.: Your Maximum Leader is sure he’d love your cold shellfish salad any time.) Gosh… It has been a long time since your Maximum Leader had seen those words. Indeed, he thinks that he last read the creed attributed to St. Athanasius in a religious education class at church when he was about 14. For those of you too lazy to click through on the link from Mrs P. here is the English text of that creed:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlasingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

You know something minionly readers… Just when he feared that Western Christendom was getting all soft and squishy (like the Smallholder) he reads something like the Athanasian Creed and he gets warm tingly feelings all over. Compared to the creeds offered up by your Maximum Leader yesterday, this is a creed with an edge. Indeed, if your Maximum Leader was inclinded to start a religion and write a creed for it, he would more likely want something edgy - like the Athanasian Creed - versus the gentle embrace of the Massai Creed from yesterday’s post.

Your Maximum Leader will have to do a little digging to learn ore about the Athanasian Creed. He knows that the Apostle’s Creed was orginially written to clarify the Church’s position against the heresy of Arianism. The Nicene Creed was a statement of the official Church position against the heresies of Arianism and of Gnosticism. Your Maximum Leader states this from a historical, not theological, perspective. This tidbit was mentioned in the podcast which provided the genesis of this post; as well as being mentioned in Lord Norwich’s great 3 volume history of Byzantium. He will have to figure out which heresy the Athanasian Creed was meant to combat. (Alas, your Maximum Leader doesn’t remember his heresies as much as he might like.)

A few people have asked your Maximum Leader to tell them more about his religious views and his creed. Unfortunately, many of you would be greatly disappointed if you were to know where he stands with his own personal concept of the creed. (And St. Athanasius would easliy judge that your Maximum Leader would be going to everlasting fire.) There isn’t much to tell. Your Maximum Leader will let this matter go in saying that his personal beliefs are likely more in line with Judaism, at this point, than with mainstream Christianity. And he says this knowing that one or two readers will immediately start praying for your Maximum Leader to be born again and thereby saved.

For any prayers you care to offer for his soul, your Maximum Leader is most grateful.

Of course, not all creeds are religious. If your Maximum Leader may fall back on that old canard of using a dictionary definition… Another definition of a creed is a system of belief, principles, or opinions. We don’t seem to have clear and concise political creeds anymore. We have political party platforms. And let your Maximum Leader go on the record saying they are turgid, miserable documents. Here is the last GOP platform. Here is the last DNC platform. Here is the Green Party platform. And finally, here is the Libertarian Party platform. The Libertarians, to their credit, have a preamble to their platform that is a political creed.

Since he asked yesterday, he’ll ask again today - but in a different form. Do you have a political creed? Have you ever thought about it? Should you?

These questions are much easier for your Maximum Leader to answer than are the religious creed questions. He suspects that they might be easier for you to answer as well.

For example, your Maximum Leader believes that: the role of government ought to be to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens; representative democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others; all citizens ought to have equal justice under the law in open courts; the nature and scope of government powers ought to be limited; citizens should be encouraged to participate in a free market economy; and citizens have a duty to be informed participants in their political life. That is pretty simple. Of course, those simple tenets can each be expounded upon greatly. But that is a clear starting point. In fact, that creed is somewhat off-the-cuff. Your Maximum Leader is sure that you could come up with a nice off-the-cuff political creed as well.

Perhaps we should think more about political creeds. We have lots of cognitive dissonance in our political life. We like cheap produce, but we don’t like illegal immigrants who help provide it for us. We like low taxes, but we expect government financial support. We like making the world a better place, butwe can’t stand the military-political costs of doing so.

Perhaps a political creed might be a guide that we could measure our actions against. It could help show us how we ought to behave - politically at least. Think about it.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader subscribes to a number of podcasts. One of them is of the PBS show “Speaking of Faith.” It is an hour-long weekly show where the hostess, Krista Tippet, has a themed discussion on a single subject under the broad heading of “spirituality.” Many weeks the discussion isn’t your Maximum Leader’s cup of tea so to speak. He wanted to describe the shows he doesn’t care for as banal. But that is an inaccurate description, as the shows are always pretty thoughtful. He supposes that he objects (intellectually) with the subject matter - or approach of the participants in the discussion. That doesn’t make the show banal - it just makes your Maximum Leader a bit dismissive. No matter how dismissive he might be, he always listens to the whole show.

Anyhow… The show that just aired was a repeat. A repeat of a show done three years ago. The subject of discussion was “creeds.” The interviewee was Jaroslav Pelikan. Dr Pelikan died last week (aged 82). Dr Pelikan was a professor of history at Yale for 40 odd years and was a world-renown scholar of religious creeds.

Unfortunately, your Maximum Leader’s reading in theology is not broad enough to have included anything by Dr. Pelikan. He suspects that the Big Hominid, or other blog “authorities” in theological matters have read some of Dr. Pelikan’s works and could discourse on them with more expertise and insight.

Your Maximum Leader was intrigued by the program, and has listened to it twice since is broadcast on Thursday. Indeed, his thoughtful reflection on the program - coupled with lots of other stuff to do - precluded him from blogging yesterday.

Dr. Pelikan’s interview is a good one. Your Maximum Leader will encourage you to listen if you are so inclined.

For those of you who are religious, and there are a fair number of you among the readership of Naked Villainy; have you stopped to consider your religion’s creed? Your Maximum Leader has. He was raised a Roman Catholic. He was brought up in the church, fell away from the church, returned with a certain amount of vigour, but has fallen away again. The second falling away was prompted by a serious reflection on the Nicene Creed, the nature of Jesus, and a reasoned attempt to understand his truly held religious beliefs.

Your Maximum Leader, while not a theologian, is probably better versed in matters of Judeo-Christian doctrine than your average person. He admits his knowledge of Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism are pretty solid. Most mainline Protestant denominations are variations on a theme and he is pretty comfortable there as well. He knows a fair amount about Judaism and Islam as well. He’s got the great desert monotheistic religions covered. One could say his understanding of the children of Abraham is good.

He is also a fair historian. He studied it in school. He has a passion for it. So he reads a lot. He is also critical and discerning in what he reads.

So, one day at Mass your Maximum Leader really starting thinking about what he was saying while he was reciting the Nicene Creed. He kept on thinking about it after Mass. Even through the week until the next Sunday. It was on his mind. After a while, your Maximum Leader pulled out the Catechism of the Catholic Church and started reading.

For those of you unfamiliar with the format of the Catechism, it goes line by line through the Nicene Creed and explains what each line means. In case you aren’t familiar with the Nicene Creed here it is:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son].
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

If you are an Orthodox Christian you don’t say the bracketed phrase in the final stanza reading [and the Son]. Pretty much every major Christian religion uses the Nicene Creed to describe their basic religious beliefs.

Of course, the other great monotheistic religions have creeds. If you are a Jew you have a creed too, the Shema. The Shema goes: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” If you are a Muslim you have a creed too. “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.”

There are, as you may know, and certainly as Dr. Pelikan wrote about in his book, many Christian creeds. One that seemed to figure prominently in the discussion on Speaking of Faith was the Massai Creed. Until this program he’d never heard of it. The Massai Creed does a superlative job of “Africanizing Chrstianity” as Dr. Pelikan put it. Indeed your Maximum Leader liked this creed so much he will reproduce it in full here.

We believe in the one High God, who out of love created the beautiful world and everything good in it. He created man and wanted man to be happy in the world. God loves the world and every nation and tribe on the earth. We have known this High God in the darkness, and now we know him in the light. God promised in the book of his word, the Bible, that he would save the world and all nations and tribes.

We believe that God made good his promise by sending his son, Jesus Christ, a man in the flesh, a Jew by tribe, born poor in a little village, who left his home and was always on safari doing good, curing people by the power of God, teaching about God and man, showing that the meaning of religion is love. He was rejected by his people, tortured and nailed hands and feet to a cross, and died. He was buried in the grave, but the hyenas did not touch him, and on the third day, he rose from that grave. He ascended to the skies. He is the Lord.

We believe that all our sins are forgiven through him. All who have faith in him must be sorry for their sins, be baptized in the Holy Spirit of God, live the rules of love, and share the bread together in love, to announce the good news to others until Jesus comes again. We are waiting for him. He is alive. He lives. This we believe. Amen.

Beautiful isn’t it? Your Maximum Leader thinks so. He does particularly care for the description of Jesus’ life, teaching, and death. It is wonderfully illustrative in a way that the Nicene Creed is not.

So your Maximum Leader thought about the Creed of his church. He thought about what he felt he knew from sources sacred and historical. He did a lot of soul searching. He also discovered that there was a significant portion of the creed in which he didn’t believe.

Perhaps a word or two on belief here might be a propos. There are a number of different types of “belief.” There is belief derived from observable or testable facts - empirical belief so to speak. There is also belief derived from faith. This is a irrational commitment to something one feels to be true.

As you can tell from where this appears to be going, there is a certain measure of skepticism that your Maximum Leader has towards many things religious. Perhaps one could say that he took to heart David Hume’s exhortation that if there is a easy to understand explanation for something that is attributed to a “miracle” then probably the other explanation should hold.

So your Maximum Leader contemplated the Nicene Creed. He went back and forth over what he believed. He’s tried to work out his own creed. Indeed he’s still working on it. One result of this contemplation has been that he doesn’t self-identify as a Catholic any more. Indeed, there can be some argument as to whether he is technically a Christian or not. (A discussion he believe’s we’ve once engaged in here.)

To have a creed means that you are making to make a conclusive statement about something in which you believe. There is a negative aspect to creeds too. If you conclusively believe in something you conclusively deny other somethings. It can be a tricky business.

Do you have a creed? Have you ever thought about it? Do you think you should?

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is feeling rather petulant. Why? Because he lives in a nation of idiots. Complete. Total. Freaking. Idiots.

The final straw probably came today at lunch time. Your Maximum Leader was partaking of an Asian buffet (something remarkably plebian), alone, and chanced to overhear two older ladies at the next table. The first woman was discussing her niece’s situation to the second woman. The first woman said something to the effect of her niece being a financial burden on her family. The first woman said, “Well you can hardly blame the girl. She is 22 years old. She’s living at home. She’s unemployed. And she’s caring for her 5 year old child.”

What? You can’t blame her? What can’t we blame her for? As best I can tell about the only thing you can’t blame the girl for is being 22. I can blame her for just about everything else.

But we can’t just go around blaming people can we? That isn’t nice. It damages people’s self-esteem. It doesn’t “celebrate diversity.” It is so judgmental.

I really wish that we could pinpoint the moment at which the hearty people of these United States became such pansy wimps. I do. Then at least I could focus my anger at some specific event and rant, “Goddamn it! If it wasn’t for everything that happened on August 18, 1989 we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in.”

If our Anglo-Western heritage was a book, we’d be tearing out the pages one at a time and mixing them in a huge manure heap of modernity and relativism. Social norms? Too restrictive. Personal responsibility? Too hard. Understanding right and wrong? Too judgemental. Calling a thing by its true name? Too pushy. Our hard-won liberty, our freedoms, our civilization. It is all being tossed into a dung-heap that will be spread on a weed-ridden field and left to grow untended. Neglected.

Here’s a quotation that got my dander up:

… But if people want to practice polygamy, who am I to say anything? I think that’s what’s great about America, is you can practice any religion. It’s unfortunate though when it’s forced upon young people, and that’s when I really have the biggest problem with it.

That was Chloe Sevigny.* One of the stars of HBO’s Big Love. Frankly, I’ve got no major issues with the show. I tried watching a few episodes and it didn’t do anything for me. But I’ve got a big problem with this sentiment.

Who am I to say anything if you want to practice polygamy? Humm… What if your religion happens to endorse shooting women for wearing nail polish in public? What if your religion happens to condone locking girls in a burning building because releasing them from the building without head scarves might titillate and/or offend some old geezers? How about stoning young girls who are raped because they are dishonored?

I suppose all those religious practices are okay too. You know… You don’t want to judge anyone. It might hurt their feelings. Make ‘em feel bad.

Of course, I shouldn’t go around bad-mouthing religions. Have you heard about one of the newer ones? The Church of Oprah? Okay. It isn’t a real church. But you’d think that Oprah was the focal point of some religion the way people go on about her. Did you see the bit on the USA Today website? “The Divine Miss Winfrey.” Here’s a sample:

She’s no longer just a successful talk-show host worth $1.4 billion, according to Forbes’ most recent estimate. Over the past year, Winfrey, 52, has emerged as a spiritual leader for the new millennium, a moral voice of authority for the nation.

…

“She’s a really hip and materialistic Mother Teresa,” says Kathryn Lofton, a professor at Reed College in Portland, Ore., who has written two papers analyzing the religious aspects of Winfrey. “Oprah has emerged as a symbolc figurehead of spirituality.”

I wish to God I was making this up. But no. It’s out there. Oprah Friggin’ Winfrey the new, hip, materialistic Mother Teresa? Excuse me while I go and vomit. On the one hand we condemn any sort of established religion - because they’re bad and have rules and all. But give us some new-agey-feel-good-I’m-not-responsible-for-my-pathetic-life guru and we’ll just sop it up and ask for seconds (and thirds).

Oprah Winfrey the voice of moral authority in America? Has it come to that people? Really. Because if it has let me know. I’ll just get some more guns, buy some livestock, and move away to Montana or something and just give my house to some Oprah worshiping fool. Because if I didn’t give it to the undeserving bastard they’d just pass a law taking it from me.

Then again… We are passing lots of stupid stupid laws. You know why? Because a nation of idiots elects idiotic people to office. The voters are too damn dumb to understand or care what their elected officials are doing.

Symptomatic of this phenomenon, today I happened to catch a snippet of the NPR show “Day to Day.” Noah Adams, the host, was interviewing John Wells the producer of “The West Wing.” At one point Adams confessed to Wells that he has trouble following the dialogue on the show. The dialogue is technical and sharp you know. Wells says that’s okay. Most people don’t understand the “wonky” language but are still able to get the “feeling” of what is being said.

I can hardly begin describing how many things are wrong with that. Noah Adams has been at NPR reporting on politics and what-all since 1978. 1978! That is twenty-eight years he’s been covering politics and current events. And he doesn’t fucking understand the dialogue on a TV drama about politics? Doesn’t understand the dialogue? I’m only 37 years old and I’ve never had trouble understanding the dialogue on “The West Wing.” Last time I checked, I’ve never been a political correspondent who’s traveled the world bringing the listeners of NPR the news. But I can understand, intellectually understand, “The West Wing.” What does that say about Noah Adams?

Then the Executive Producer of the show tells Adams that one shouldn’t feel badly about not understanding the dialogue on “The West Wing.” It is a pretty high-brow show and if one just understands the feelings of the characters on the show you’ll be okay. If I just understand the feelings? How the hell am I going to understand their feelings if I can’t fucking understand what the they’re saying? You know language is generally used to convey meaning. If you can’t convey meaning and information with language does it really have a purpose? I suppose if I pay extra close attention to Bradley Whitford and Martin Sheen I’ll miraculously get clued in.

Since our chattering classes can’t understand a damned TV show it should come as no surprise that they can’t pass laws to keep down frivolous lawsuits. You know, tort reform? Or is “tort reform” too technical a term. If you could see me now you’d know that I was looking as sincerely as possible at the monitor with big ole tears welling up in my brown eyes and trying to convey how important tort reform is. Do you feel it? Do you feel my concern? Do you feel my lack of compassion for the idiots? Trust me, if you were here you’d feel it. You’d feel how important the issue is.

Or isn’t as the case may be. You see, I am not an idiot. I am thus offended by nonsensical lawsuits brought by nonsensical persons to advance nonsensical causes. Like the asshole (Michael Cohn) who is suing the Los Angeles/Orange County/Anaheim/Southern California Angels because they didn’t give him a tote bag on Mother’s Day last year. Yup. Mr. Cohn was discriminated against because he wasn’t a woman over 18. Frankly if Mr. Con is so covetous of an Angels tote bag he probably could have just stayed after the game finished and picked up as many as he wanted from those discarded in the stands… But noooo… He’s got to sue the team because they wanted to give those people most likely to fit the profile of a mother a gift on Mother’s Day.

Of course, not all frivolous lawsuits are about tote bags and baseball games. Many of them have to do with life - or more likely death. Medical malpractice is a common type of lawsuit. Too bad 40% of the lawsuits are goundless. Groundless as in no harm done.

But we can’t stop those lawsuits. We can’t punish people who bring frivolous lawsuits. Why? Because that might prevent a truly aggrieved person from bringing a lawsuit in the future. We must accommodate the lowest common denominator so that everyone feels better.

Of course, if we can’t get all worked up about frivolous lawsuits I don’t see how we could get worked up about the government collecting records of who we call on the phone. I mean really. The language we’d have to use to describe that situation is really complicated. If we can’t handle The West Wing then I’m not sure how we’ll handle government intrusion into our personal lives.

But they aren’t really intruding are they? No. Just recording what numbers I dial and look for a pattern. (By the way… If you want know the most frequently called people from my phones they are: my mother in-law, my sister-in-law, the mothers of girls in the Girl Scout troop the Villainettes are members of, the Air Marshal, and the Smallholder. That is it. If there is a connection there to a terrorist threat please let me know…) Looking for patterns isn’t like listening in on the calls. Is it? Noooo…

Then again… The issues are complex and hard to comprehend. Very difficult ideas you know.

Perhaps they are difficult if you are a complete boob.

Oh yes… My countrymen. They are complete boobs. How could I have forgotten?

You know… Someone out there reading this and thinking that if we’d all just use our words to explain ourselves to one another we’d all feel better. We don’t have to get angry or strike out. You know violence never solved anything…

Damn. If I hear one more sanctimonious fool say to me that violence never solved anything I think I will use violence to solve the problem of me having to listen to idiots. I will not say that violence should be your first reaction to any situation. But it can come in awful handy you know. Violence has, in fact, solved many many things throughout history.

Of course, we don’t have the taste for violence being used to solve problems like we used to. I don’t know what would happen if we were facing an enemy bent on our destruction and hoping to impose their ideology on all mankind?

Oh yeah… We are facing such an enemy. But when they hide in mosques, well, we just have to wait them out. Normally I’m all for doing everything possible to spare non-military targets. But if you put a bunch of armed people in a mosque, school, hospital, or other structure of historic/cultural importance; well then it has become a military target. I think that military targets held by an enemy ought to be destroyed. But that is just me I suppose.

And you know… Back during WWII if you supported the Nazi’s (actively or passively) you were likely to get your house blown up - at the least. Nowadays we can’t even call the vast majority of Muslims who passively support the terrorists/jihadi cause collaborators. They are you know. Collaborators that is. I’m not advocating blowing up the homes of every Muslim. But perhaps by labeling a person what they are you might find out who is and isn’t on your side.

Ack…

I’ve gone on and on with no purpose… I don’t even know ho I’m writing this for or why I am bothering. If you are reading this you fall into one of two descriptions.

The first is that you are a regular reader of this site. In which case, you’re probably not an idiot but a person seeking out other non-idiots in an effort to keep your sanity.

The second type of person reading this is someone who googled something like “Jennifer Love Hewitt naked” or “Giada DeLaurentiis naked.” Of course, this makes you an idiot. It is likely that if you are an idiot, you are scandalized by all this (if you understood it - that whole I-can’t-understand-The-West-Wing-factor) and will just click away. Before you go allow me to ask you to give up. Your life is meaningless and you are too stoopid to realize it.

There might be a third description of a reader out there. The idiot who realizes they are an idiot and is trying to better themselves. I doubt you’ll be successful. But that shouldn’t keep you from trying.

I’m gonna have a scotch and turn in.

Carry on.
(more…)

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader saw yesterday that Warren Jeffs was added to the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List over the weekend. Jeffs is a former teacher and apparently the leader of a splinter sect of the Church of Latter DaySaints called, easily enough, the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints. Jeffs appears to be a polygamist and a pedophile.

But to your Maximum Leader’s surprise, Jeffs looks nothing like Roman Grant (aka Harry Dean Stanton).

Carry on.
(more…)

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader sees that there have been three small earthquakes in Iran. So far 66 people are reported dead.

This is obviously the work of God. The Almighty is smiting the heathen Iranians for their refusal to embrace Christianity. This is evidenced by the fact that there were three earthquakes. Three. The number of the Trinity. So far 66 dead. Your Maximum Leader wouldn’t be surprised if the final death toll was 666 dead. If your Maximum Leader were dispensing advice to the eople of Iran it would be this: abandon your Godless pursuit of nuclear weapons, embrace the one true religion and accept Jesus as your own personal saviour, and join the Christian Crusade against the heretic Musslemen in the Levant.
(more…)

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has a good old fashioned link dumping post to throw your way right now. First off… To those of you of Irish extraction - or those of you pretending for this one day to have Irish roots - Happy St. Patrick’s day. Your Maximum Leader’s heritage is an amalgamation of various strains of ethnicity from the British Isles. Lots of Scottish. Lots of English. Some Welsh. But, surprisingly little Irish. Regardless of that fact he has cooked up a corned beef, some cabbage and taters. He has a six pack of Guiness with his name on it in the fridge. He has even gone so far as to wear green today - mostly to make the Villainettes happy…

So… Happy St. Patrick’s Day. If you are cute, female, and Irish, let your Maximum Leader know and he will be glad to bestow upon you a kiss…

Moving along…

Who’da thunk that the Crack Young Staff will soon be celebrating a big anniversary? Your Maximum Leader hopes that he can come to the party. Doilies or no, he will do what he can to make the e-soiree classy. (Although he can’t imagine the CYS doing anything that isn’t classy…)

Your Maximum Leader sees that (Dead Sexy) Sadie (aka: Agent Bedhead) has a new friend blogging on her site. Mr Atoz, from his maiden post, appears to be cut from the same cloth as our friend Sadie. Go over and give a warm welcome to him.

(NB to all readers: This is possibly the most sucky segue your Maximum Leader has ever attempted.)

Speaking of being cut from the same cloth…

Did you all know that your Maximum Leader (like so many others his age) had something of a crush on Pat Benatar at some point between the years of 1981 and 1984? He knew that he could run with the shadows of the night and everything would be alright. Your Maximum Leader was aware that he was young, from heartache to heartache he would stand, making no promises or demands in is quiet hormonal lust for Pat Benatar. Well now Pat is 53. She is still rocking in the free world. But who knew that she had such a hottie daughter? Really. HOT-TIE! Seriously. Lookie here. (Or here if you like.) Like mother, like daughter…

Moving along…

You know your Maximum Leader sort of presumes that you all read the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal daily. Well, he feels compelled to mention to you today that they have a whole battery of great essays. Check out this fine essay on blacks in the Catholic Church. You might also check out the essay on anarchy.

The best essay on Opinion Journal today is the one by Daniel Henninger on the slipping away of the American moral compass. As political discussion becomes more charged due to differing positions on sex it becomes harder to keep cultural morality operant in other areas. Some food for thought there.

Do you know what your Maximum Leader is looking forward to reading? The post that Robbo will craft using the comments appended to this post. Heh. Perhaps even double “heh.”

In closing… Have you noticed the strange path of this post? From corned beef, to hotties, to sex in politics - and how that can be bad - to composite posting… Interesting. But not interesting in the same way that your Maximum Leader feels every day when he reads WWTD and then clicks on to Charmaine Yoest. Humm…

By the way… Cookery blogging on tap for later…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was pleased to hear that many Catholic Bishops have given special dispensations for Catholics to eat meat on Friday, St. Patrick’s Day. By giving the special dispensation, the Bishops are giving those who want to celebrate St Patty’s day with corned beef the opportunity to do so without committing a venal sin.

Of course, one wonders what other venal and mortal sins are going to be committed by the faithful (and not so faithful) on St Patrick’s day? Sins for which no dispensation s given. Humm….

And here is another question for you… If you Maximum Leader promises to put a new roof on the school over at Our Lady of Perpetual Guilt could he get a dispensation in advance for the commission of a mortal sin (or two)? Can you get advance dispensation? Or should one just commit the sin, buy the church school a new roof, THEN ask the Bishop to help you out? You gotta get the order right on these things…

Carry on.

If you have not yet seen this already, this is a must see video of a Syrian-born American psychiatrist Dr. Wafa Sultan on Al-Jazeera TV (in a debate with Islamist sheikh Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli). This is very powerful stuff.

For those of us that have been saying that the Muslim religon needs its own reformation, or are asking themselves where are the Muslim voices of reason, here they are.

Its about 5 minutes long, and if you have dial-up, its worth the wait.

Here is a link to the video
http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=783#

and more on this remarkable woman
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP110706

An Islamic reform site (in English)
http://www.annaqed.com/english.html

Back to the trenches….

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader’s religious “spidey” sense seems to be tingling today. His Catholic upbringing seems to remind him that today might be some sort of Holy Day of Obligation…

Is it the Feast of our Lady of Perpetual Finger Pricking again? No? Is it Saint Irinius of Leichenstein’s Day? No? Humm… No matter…

Your Maximum Leader will pay for his sins by sitting through a Pacers v. Wizards game tonight. He’ll be courtside. You might see him on the Tee Vee - if you are watching…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has been more or less pretty reticent about the whole “Muslims in uproar about Danish cartoons” story. He hopes that most of you would be able to guess what his comments might be on this subject. If you can’t guess… He’ll just leave you with a link to Ted’s site for a great analogy.

Carry on.