Der Krieg gegen die Weihnachten (War on Christmas)

When I was younger, I was constantly told that my faith was attacked by being greeted with "Happy Holidays". Likewise, the lack of Christmas cups at Starbucks, or signs without specific wishes for Christmas were all signs of my persecution. Psalms 2:2 would come to mind: "The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the LORD and against his anointed..." These were all signs of the nearby return. How could they not be? 
Later, as I learned a bit more about Christianity, and saw my perspectives in context, I realized how anemic, pathetic and whiny my interpretation of Christianity was. 
People died, were tortured, raped and psychologically tormented, because of Christianity, while I only purchased an expensive coffee without my preference of greeting. How pathetic, weak, sensitive and delusional  American Christianity has become. We must realize that this is NOT persecution, and should repent for ever thinking it to be as such. We live in the most free nation in history, and cannot get over our bratty preference for certain cups, plays or greetings. Do you not realize that no one cares? And no one should! Some have even criticized millennials for their (our) sensitivities. Those complaints might be right, but one must keep in mind that this was taught from American Christianity.    
If you complain about these trivial things, you ought to be ashamed. Christ died on a cross, with humiliation, pain and compassion, but you, you self-righteous, spineless, entitled, spawn of effeminate perversion of Christianity,  cannot handle the luxury of spiced, sweet drinks that only lack in catering to your perverse understanding of what it is to be a Christian! Do you not realize that you are drinking something you already do not deserve? Appreciate that you have enough to waste on superfluities, rather than complain about how others "aren't supportive enough". Does Christianity, a religion so ancient that it has outlasted the most violent of empires, need a "safe space" at Starbucks. Does Christianity, whose earliest leaders died from violence, need to have its hand held by baristas? The answer is a hearty NO! Christianity needs neither that, nor us. We are called to be servants of Christ, and not to be served. 
-Steven C 

A Re-post

Once again, I felt that this is worth posting. Our nation, for reasons I suspect are inevitable, has problems with race and identity. This is on both sides, right and left. Jacobin magazine, a far left magazine, made this brilliant analysis of "New Atheism" and its racist tendencies, disguised in religious opposition. (Here is the link.)
This small piece of the read is worth posting, but the whole thing is engaging and worth reading:

The politics of the leading New Atheist thinkers are not uniform. Dawkins opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, while Hitchens was one of its leading apologists. Harris defends torture as an ethical necessity in the “war on terror” while Hitchens, who was voluntarily subjected to waterboarding, did not. Both Hitchens and Harris have been prone to bellicose outbursts of violent, almost bloodthirsty rhetoric, which cannot be said of Dawkins.Nevertheless, all are united by several common intellectual threads. Each espouses a binary worldview that pits a civilized, cosmopolitan, and progressive West against a barbaric, monistic, and reactionary East. Though varied in their political positions, Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins have all had very public dalliances with the Right, expressing either overt sympathy for, or enthusiastic endorsement of, some of its most vile and disreputable elements.Each is outwardly a cultural liberal who primarily addresses liberal audiences — “respectable” to blue-state metropolitans and their equivalents elsewhere in ways Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh never could be — while embracing positions and causes that are manifestly illiberal in the commonly understood sense of the term.Beneath its many layers of intellectual adornment — the typical New Atheist text is laden with maudlin references to Darwin, Newton, and Galileo — we find a worldview intimately familiar to anyone who has studied the language of empires past: culturally supremacist, essentializing and othering towards the foreign, equal parts patronizing and paternalistic, and legitimating of the violence committed for its own ends.In The End of Faith Harris suggests that nuclear-first strikes may be necessary if the ostensible conflict between “Islam” and “civilization” escalates: “What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?…The only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own.”In an endorsement of one of the Iraq War’s key justifying logics, Harris described it as a noble and selfless crusade undertaken by the civilized West to defeat Islamic barbarism. In late 2004, he wrote in the Washington Post, “civilized human beings [Westerners] are now attempting, at considerable cost to themselves, to improve life for the Iraqi people.”

A Thought Provoking Post

This is from the Jesus Blog. Professor Anthony Le Donne makes a thought provoking post about Post-Trump political consciousness. I, too, have been cautious to make parallels to the rise of Hitler with Trump's rise, but this gives a clearer view in Christian participation. Please note that I don't think Trump is the new Hitler, but there is something extremely disturbing about Trump to me. I remember President Obama's first win, and I thought he was the anti-Christ (my biblical understanding was pathetic at best), but I don't think that way any more. I am, however, more concerned with Trump than I was with Obama. Though I don't consider myself in the "left", I agree with a lot of Professor Le Donne's sympathies. The post is here, but I posted the whole thing on this post.

Post-Trump Political Consciousness

I have been vocal about my opposition to Mr. (now President Elect) Trump. There are lists and lists of reasons why I believe he is unfit to be president. Some of these are directly related to the teachings of Jesus. I am committed to try to love my neighbor and even my enemies wherever it is possible. But my prime motivation for opposing Trump isn't directly related to Jesus. It is because I've spent the last two years studying the actions and inactions of Christians during the rise of Hitler.

Mr. Trump's rise to power is not similar to Hitler's rise to power in every respect. But the two have enough in common that I cannot deny the parallels. I realize that I break one of my own rules in saying so. I usually try to avoid bringing the Shoah or Hitler into any discussion that isn't primarily about the Shoah or Hitler. Still, if I am honest, comparisons to Hitler ran through my head as I canvassed and voted for Secretary Clinton last week.

I don't suppose that the following will be compelling to Trump supporters; I'm just explaining how and why I voted. My political consciousness connects historical moments, draws analogies, and see particular personality types. I think that one of my Jewish friends said it best when he told me, "It may not be appropriate to say that Trump is Hitler. But I am going to do my best to act like a righteous gentile living in 1933 Berlin."

Now let me point out a few key similarities and differences between 2015-16 America and 1930s Germany. Both settings manifest a perceived cultural crisis. Germany's crisis was exacerbated by the failure of the Weimar Republic and the great economic depression of the post-WWI period. People were hungry, felt trapped, and looked for a particular source of the problem and blamed a people who represented the "problem." Centuries of hatred toward Jewish people and (caricatures of) Jewish ideas were easily exploitable. Christians played a large part in this collective hatred. Nazi ideology was not Christian. But there was a concerted effort to manipulate the populace using theologically motivated hatred. In other words, the Nazis trafficked in the currency of hate minted by centuries of Christian anti-Judaism. Through various (sometime innovative) media strategies, National Socialism fanned a very old prejudice.

Apart from media manipulation, xenophobia, and Christian culpability, today's America and 1930's Germany are worlds apart. America might be experiencing economic stagnation, but our "crisis" looks altogether different than 1930s Germany. Another difference: Mr. Trump will not have the power to enact the domestic policies he has promised (at least not right away). But he will have all of the power afforded to the Commander-in-Chief when it comes to foreign policy. Hitler did not have nuclear capabilities, but President Trump will. So the parallels with Trump and Hitler are limited because of context.

What then is the American "crisis" that made a Trump candidacy viable? First, there is a key racial element that is unseen (I hope) by most Trump supporters. This article is very revealing and well worth a read if you are curious about the massive upturn in white voters from rural America. I would also recommend this book to understand how and why evangelicals contribute to racial fault lines in America. And this book if you want to understand why significant segments of the white populace fear a loss of culture.

Second, we have witnessed a steady but disturbing decline in political consciousness. I'm not certain about millennials and I don't want to put baby boomers on a pedestal, but us GenX folks have been egregiously uninvolved. I agree entirely with this assessment by Michael Rosenblum:

Donald Trump is going to be elected president. The American people voted for him a long time ago. They voted for him when The History Channel went from showing documentaries about the Second World War to “Pawn Stars” and “Swamp People.” They voted for him when The Discovery Channel went from showing “Lost Treasures of the Yangtze Valley” to “Naked and Afraid.” They voted for him when The Learning Channel moved from something you could learn from to “My 600-lb Life.” They voted for him when CBS went from airing “Harvest of Shame” to airing “Big Brother.” These networks didn’t make these programming changes by accident. They were responding to what the American people actually wanted. And what they wanted was “Naked and Afraid” and “Duck Dynasty.”

While the Tea Party and white nationalists were organizing, creating and disseminating false narratives, and rallying against any policy that Obama was for, most of America was sedating itself with heavy doses of American Idol and fantasy football. Don't underestimate the fact that Trump's road to the Whitehouse was paved through reality TV. I really cannot imagine a more different context between ours and 1930s Germany. Our national crisis wasn't widespread hunger, it was the widespread starvation of our collective political consciousness. Out of 231,556,622 eligible voters 46.9% didn't vote.

I have a colleague who escaped North Korea as a refugee as a child. He's seen a few things in his seven decades. He's seen dictators rise to power. He's seen seemingly good people rise to power and then become dictators. Yesterday he told me that "America is finally awake."

So now that we've stirred a bit from our Reality TV stupor, what sort of political consciousness will we embrace? I will suggest that we begin with a very old definition of politics.

In his Politics, Aristotle declares that the human, by nature, is a political animal (Pol. 1253a). By this he meant that the polis ("city," or "city-state") represents the most natural environment for the human being. People of a polis orbit it's cultural center by way of custom, law, commerce, etc. Moreover, he believed that nature (which does nothing in vain) targets this goal for the human. A network of villages—with a shared commerce and central governing body—is the natural outcome of language. Language leads to partnership, which leads to households, which leads to villages, which leads to larger networks. The opposite of this is what Homer called the “clanless, lawless, and hearthless man” who is essentially anti-social and a “lover of war” (Aristotle quotes Homer on this point). Aristotle is describing human nature by analyzing binary opposites: either one is social (and thus living according to nature) or anti-social (and thus living contrary to nature). I'm not generally keen on binary opposites. But let's start somewhere, shall we?

We need each other. Even more, according to Aristotle, we are meant to live in relationship with each other. But he also tells us that if we cease to be just, we will be not be oriented to our common good as nature intended. (I probably don't need to tell you that justice is also a biblical ideal.) This is important because politics has become a dirty word in America. Moreover, for us, "politicians" are thought to be unnatural creatures; we expect them to act unjustly, out of self-interest. This was not Aristotle's vision for governance the polis. In his view, there is nothing more natural than drawing together in a common community, culture, and commerce. Being "political" wasn't for elites or crooks. It was the natural inclination of every human.

This is why, although I am political, I try to avoid Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher. I enjoy a good jab at the competition. In fact, I love political humor. But most simply aren't funny enough to pull it off. I when I sense a steady stream of hatred for an ideological opponent, I think language ceases to be "political" in the way Aristotle defined the concept. We argue, we strategize against, we lose our cools, but in the end we govern together. After eight years of obstructionism in congress, I am convinced that Washington hasn't been nearly "political" enough. Though I am not a fan, I quite appreciated what Maher said a couple days ago:

I know liberals made a big mistake because we attacked your boy Bush like he was the end of the world. And he wasn't. And Mitt Romney we attacked that way. I gave Obama a million dollars because I was so afraid of Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney wouldn't have changed my life that much or yours. Or John McCain.  

They were honorable men who we disagreed with and we should have kept it that way. So we cried wolf and that was wrong. But this is real. This is going to be way different.

I have a different view of Bush and McCain because I tend to focus on foreign policy when I vote. But I do agree that Trump is a different sort of animal and far more dangerous. He is essentially apolitical. Trump is the “clanless, lawless, and hearthless man” that Homer warned us about, the "lover of war." Trump's vision for America is what Hobbes called the condition of war (the condition that often leads to literal warfare):

In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

This is what Trump's insecure, erratic, and self-interested behavior is already creating. But we liberals must shoulder the burden of blame too. We left scorched earth behind in our relentless alienation of our republican neighbors.

Today I was emailing a conservative friend (who opposed Trump because of is unconstitutional statements about the first amendment) about the conservative/liberal divide in America. My friend wrote, "They're [Democrats] convinced that everyone on my side is evil. So fuck them, I guess they get Trump." Most would hear this as a political statement. I hear it as not nearly political enough.

Yes, we get Trump. We get Trump because we've failed to be political in the only way that makes sense: politics is about learning to live together and creating policies that promote our common good. Take a look at Garrison Keillor's Homegrown Democrat and you'll have a sense of what I mean by political consciousness.

So now to a most central problem. I think that Trump (in his intentions to commit warcrimes and praise ofwar criminals) is far too similar to Hitler for me to stay silent about it. At the same time, how do I say so without implying that my conservative neighbors are akin to Nazis? How do I stand up for the hundreds of people who have been targeted for hate speech and beaten in the name of Trump (complete with swastikas in some cases) and then sit down to fellowship with my neighbors who are exultant about Trump's rise to power?

It may well be impossible to maintain political ideals when an authoritarian is in power. But in four years we will get to try again. My hope is that we are willing to try again. In the meantime, let us fight for politics in Aristotle's sense of that concept.

I will leave you with a passage from Jeremiah that has been on my mind. I read it as a call to political consciousness. . . . one that doesn't end well.

"Thus says the Lord: 'Stand at the crossroads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way lies; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.' Also I raised up sentinels for you: 'Give heed to the sound of the trumpet!' But they said, 'We will not give heed.'" (6:16-17)

-anthony

On Beauty

     Presently, in a philosophy class, we're going over Plato's concept of "sensible particular" in The Republic. We, as it seems, are only able to have an opinion of something and deem it as beautiful or not. Because there are differing opinions, it seems to reflect something that is truly beautiful, possibly its form. Either way, he seems to be giving the basis of the cliche "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
     I've often thought about that cliche. Is that which I hold to be beautiful only truly beautiful to me, and possibly no one else? Is something elevated to me only so to me. Maybe it would be better stated: is beauty thus subjective that it would be no different than a delusion in favor of something or someone? In a world of fragmented beauties, it seems as though every instance of declared beauty would be a singular psychotic episode. To say that something, or someone, is beautiful is to say that one's perception of reality is like a thumbprint, unique, and is so in that things, or person's, favor. If two men were to agree that a woman is beautiful, she could likely not be so, rather it would likelier be that those two men were just having the same psychotic episode simultaneously.
     Of course, that's silly. I have found myself agreeing with others that person X (always a woman) is beautiful. Likewise, I have heard others agreeing about someone else. If I knew that person they thought to be beautiful and if they knew the person I thought beautiful, we'd likely agree. But why? Do we all share the same eyes? Or could beauty be something outside of the beholder? ...maybe on the beautiful person herself? Thus, a grape-filled vineyard ready for the press, a woman's lovely, large brown eyes, a lush garden, or a piece of Bach well played are all beautiful, and are so without my opinion.

 

Lesser of Two Evils...

I cringe when I hear that someone is choosing "the lesser of the two evils." It is, by default and admission, choosing evil. When one chooses to support one thing, because it is less evil, one still legitimizes it. "Sure, I'm against murder and sexual violence, but sexual violence isn't murder, so...". It seems absurd, because it is. I truly don't wish to go into politics, but I can't help but be appalled and sickened by my fellow Christians who see two despicable choices and justifies one, because of party sympathies. "Trump is a Republican, so he's better." Or "Hillary is Democrat, and they are for the workers, so...". They are BOTH vile! I think a bit of Chesterton would be appropriate here:

''My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.' No doubt if a decent man's mother took to drink he would share her troubles to the last; but to talk as if he would be in a state of gay indifference as to whether his mother took to drink or not is certainly not the language of men who know the great mystery."

It is thus with our system. We simply cannot choose, because of our sympathies towards a party. We cannot choose, because of fear of another candidate. To choose from fear is to lose faith. Our commitment, brothers, is to Christ and his kingdom, not our parties, or their leaders. I ask those who read this to carefully consider your reasoning behind your choice, and then consider why you choose Christianity. If these don't align, then choose according to that to which your soul belongs. The likes of Falwell, Dobson, Paula White and others are biting to access this world's power. We must hunger and thirst, instead, after righteousness. I've been told this repeatedly: "I fear Clinton, therefore I must act..." I've never once heard in regards to our political mess, "I trust in God, therefore, I must pray."

-Steven C.

Der Kaffee

Earlier this summer, I tried to give up on daily coffee consumption. Sometimes, throughout the semester, my drinking habits would become excessive. To curb that, I decided to let it go. That, however, failed. Some may think that my habits are too strong, and verge on addiction. That may be so, but I just simply love coffee: I love its smell, preparing it and, especially, its taste. So to celebrate coffee, I dedicate this ode, Bach's Kaffeekantate (well, because, Bach is the musical equivalent to coffee):

Also, here's what the best founding father, Thomas Jefferson, had to say of it:  "the favorite drink of the civilised world."

Ein Neuer Blog

I've created a new blog to organize my language studies. When you have a chance, give it a read.
http://altegeschichtedersprachen.blogspot.com/