Rod Dreher on Bill Buckley: He was a Good Man

Alas, we now see the true greatness of a man who was a genuinely caring human being. Not trumpeting his righteuousnes like a Pharisee, others remember the good Christian that he was:

Joseph Sobran:

Over the years I came to know another side of Bill. When I had serious troubles, he was a generous friend who did everything he could to help me without being asked. And I wasn’t the only one. I gradually learned of many others he’d quietly rescued from adversity. He’d supported a once-noted libertarian in his destitute old age, when others had forgotten him. He’d helped two pals of mine out of financial difficulties. And on and on. Everyone seemed to have a story of Bill’s solicitude. When you told your own story to a friend, you’d hear one from him. It was as if we were all Bill Buckley’s children.

It went far beyond sharing his money. One of Bill’s best friends was Hugh Kenner, the great critic who died two years ago. Hugh was hard of hearing, and once, after a 1964 dinner with Hugh and Charlie Chaplin, Bill scolded Hugh for being too stubborn to use a hearing aid. Here were the greatest comedian of the age and the greatest student of comedy, and Hugh had missed much of the conversation! Later Hugh’s wife told me how grateful Hugh had been for that scolding. Nobody else would have dared speak to her husband that way. Only a true friend would. If Bill saw you needed a little hard truth, he’d tell you, even if it pained him to say it.
I once spent a long evening with one of Bill’s old friends from Yale, whose name I won’t mention. He told me movingly how Bill stayed with him to comfort him when his little girl died of brain cancer. If Bill was your friend, he’d share your suffering when others just couldn’t bear to. What a great heart — eager to spread joy, and ready to share grief!

Compared with all this, the political differences that finally drove us apart seem trivial now. I saw the same graciousness in his relations with everyone from presidents to menials. I learned a lot of things from Bill Buckley, but the best thing he taught me was how to be a Christian. May Jesus comfort him now.

Bob M's post:

"Even when I disagreed with Mr. Buckley, I respected him for his erudition, his thoughtfulness, wit, and his great civility (with the one exception of the time he threatened to flatten the overbearing and smug Gore Vidal who had called him a "crypto-fascist" during a debate on ABC.

Mr. Buckley's reasoned and respectful rhetoric is a quantum leap above and beyond the ranting and railing of right-wingnut radio which engages in low insult and self-righteous vitriol.
I shall miss him.

(And let's face it, his unique speaking style was amusing to listen to. I always got a kick out of listening to him.)"

Read Rod's post here

William F. Buckley Jr., Requiescat in Pace

1925-2008

I must say that my favorite T.V. show since High School was Firing Line. I never missed a single airing of this show. Mr. Buckley was the quintessence of the conservative Christian gentleman, with a manner that was congenial and unpolished. He was no polished media personality, like a lot of impeccably-groomed talking heads on CNN and Fox News. No, he was a man who seemed to feel comfortable and relaxed, and yet with that fine air of aristocratic nonchalance that made one feel both awed and at ease.

By far the most memorable interview he did was with Malcolm Muggeridge in 1981. I saw reruns of it years later, and it was like being a fly eavesdropping on a private conversation between two giants on faith, truth and the body politic!

Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace! (Rest eternal grant unto him, O Lord, and let light perpetual shine upon him. May he rest in peace)

Memory Eternal! Memory Eternal! May his memory be eternal!

Tolkien's War Between Nostalgia and Utopia

By John Zmirak

What is the use of raising “dead” historical issues such as the rights or wrongs of World War I, or the virtues of Habsburg Austria as opposed to Woodrow Wilson’s America? That question has come up more than once in responses on this site to previous blogs of mine, and I think it’s an interesting one. Is it mere self-indulgence to muse over historical “what-ifs,” or maintain theoretical allegiances to political arrangements abolished before one’s own father was born? Should we collapse our horizons narrowly to the bounds of the probable, and keep our gazes fixed straight ahead of us? If we don’t, we’re prone to charges such as “escapism”....

Perhaps the best answer to start with comes from the author of our only great modern epic in English, J.R.R. Tolkien, who famously quipped, “The only people who would object to escapism would be jailors.” I don’t think that Tolkien was referring solely to totalitarians whom he despised, such as the Communists or the Nazis. Deeply influenced by the likes of Chesterton and Belloc, raised (as a fatherless boy) by a priest who’d studied under Cardinal Newman, Tolkien was concerned as well with the soul-deadening qualities of “moderate” world views such as Fabian socialism and Manchester liberalism.

A veteran of the Somme who’d seen all his closest friends butchered by machine guns or gas, Tolkien spent the 1930s and 40s in a manner quite unlike his contemporary, the equally gifted W.H. Auden. Appalled at the gathering darkness of what he rightly called a “low dishonest decade,” Auden felt it his duty to be “committed” to the contemporary struggles that assailed him daily in the newspapers. He wrote about the Popular Front, various intra-Communist disputes, the gathering force of fascism--and even after his conversion to Christianity, a concern with current events continued to pervade his work.

Read the rest here.

From Taki's Top Drawer

Courtesy of The Young Fogey

Latest Obama/Clinton Row: "Turbangate"?

Barack Obama has a lot of 'splainin' to do, or so some in Mrs. clinton's camp seem to think. Last year there were false rumors circulating from her campaign team that Mr. Obama was a Muslim (the new "boogeyman" of the post-9/11 world), but Mrs. Clinton put the rumormongering to rest by firing the aid who circulated the story. Now there's another row-a picture of Mr. Obama visiting his father's village in Kenya, and being dressed in the traditional garb of a Luo tribesman by one of the Luo elders. Given his father's provenance, we might respond with a collective "so what" to such a "revelation."

But no! There seems to be something rotten in the state of the Clinton camp, though denials are flying all around. Apparently the sight of Mr. Obama wearing a Luo turban so afrights the sensibilities of the established Democratic and Reopublican elites that her team, while denying any involvement in circulating the picture, nonetheless will milk it for all its worth. She continues to tout her foreign policy "credentials" (whatever those might be) against his inexeperience. This from a woman who thought the second Iraqi war was a good idea, until the winds of public opinion shifted! Yes, wonderful foreign policy "credentials."

And Mr. Obama is quite upset over this. As one who will never vote for him because he is, in my estimation, so far to the left that there is no continent that would stretch so far as to reach him, I nonetheless would say he should simply let it slide off like so much rain water. So the chap goes to his father's ancestral village and dresses in the tribe's native garb, which includes a truban. I think he should just own it proudly, say a few words about the proud heritage of the Luo, and maybe mention the fact that if he were of the Clan MacGregor of Glenorchy, wearing the ancestral kilt given him by the clan chiefs, there would hardly be a media row. What is Mr. Obama so upset about? Surely, taking a cool, calm approach to it all would help his case immensely, even adding a touch of humor by mentioning the fact that there is a running joke among the Luo, that it will be more likely for the United States to vote for a Luo president than for Kenya to do so (no Kenyan president has ever come from this tribe).

Mr. Obama may very well invoke Cicero's charge against Catiline: "Quid facis? Quid cogitas? Sentimus magna vitia insidiasque tuas!" (What are you doing? What are you plotting? We sense your vice and treachery!) Of course, there might be a more subltle and creative way to keep Mrs. Clinton from capitalizing on such this story, and that is to play it in as cool, calm and collected manner as possible.

Here's the BBCNews story.

The U.S. Constitution is Not Democratic-and Why That's a Good Thing

Another one from The Western Confucian.

Kevin Gutzman, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, offers a brilliant critique of Sanford Levinson's Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It). Oxford University Press, 2006.

Excerpt: "The reason why the U.S. Constitution is not structured in the way that a national constitution would be is that it was not intended to create a national government. Majority rule is impeded throughout the system precisely because the states wanted the federal government to be inefficient; they feared that an efficient (national) government would strip them of their reserved powers. Silly fear, right?

As Levinson and his ilk have given the federal government the powers of a national one, it is they who have introduced distortions into the system. The method of selecting a truly federal chief executive, for example, or solely judicial judges, would not be a matter of much concern. It is because Levinson and Company agree that presidents must have untrammeled authority in foreign affairs and federal judges rightly may legislate that the methods of selecting them established by the Constitution seem inappropriate — to Levinson and Company."

You can read the whole article on Taki's Top Drawer.

The Killing Machine Continues to Bring in the $$$!!!

Even when there is a decrease of abortions, nationwide, Planned Barrenhood continues to rake in the dough killing children. Dr. Mengele, you have been outdone!

See the video here.

Biretta tip to The Young Fogey.

Pope Benedict XVI: "St. Augustine Defined 'True Secularism'"

The Pope comments on St. Augustine's Civitate Dei and its continued relevance to the current discourse concerning the relationship between church and state:

Pope: St. Augustine Defined "True Secularism"
Highlights Theologian's Political Contribution
VATICAN CITY, FEB. 20, 2008 (Zenit.org).- St. Augustine contributed to the development of modern politics with a definition of "true secularism" that clearly marks out the separation between Church and state, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope said this today during his weekly general audience in Paul VI Hall. This was the fourth address he dedicated to the bishop of Hippo, whose text "De Civitate Dei" (The City of God) he said has contributed to "the development of modern political thought in the West and in Christian historical theology.

"Written between 413 and 426, the Holy Father explained that the text came about after the sacking of Rome by the Goths in 410, after which many pagans expressed doubt regarding the greatness of the Christian God who seemed incapable of defending the city."

It is this charge that was deeply felt by the Christians that St. Augustine answered with this magnificent work, 'De Civitate Dei.' He clarified what we should and should not expect from God," said the Pontiff.

Read the rest here.

Bishop Hilarion to the WCC: Liberal Christianity Will Not Last

"I am convinced that liberal Christianity will not survive for a long time. A politically correct Christianity will die. We see already how liberal Christianity is falling apart and how the introduction of new moral norms leads to division, discord and confusion in some Christian communities. This process will continue, while traditional Christians, I believe, will consolidate their forces in order to protect the faith and moral teaching which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached and the Fathers preserved."

Read the whole article here

Sarkozy vs. Secularism

Ok, so the article's title is actually "Sarkozy and Secularism", but I thought my "editing" of the title made the point a little more clear. Finally, a French president who sees the loss of a Christian culture in Europe as a dire tragedy!

This, along with statements by Pope Benedict XVI and Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna, will hopefully bring about a Christian renaissance in European culture that would embrace both Eastern and Western Europe. Grant it, O Lord!

Vive le Sarkozy!!!!

Here's the article:

A few years ago, I was in the middle of giving a lecture in Paris about religious persecution and martyrdom during the twentieth century when a woman stood up and shouted, “The French state has been repressing and killing Christians ever since the Revolution—and it has to stop!” Her outburst had more to do with her own pent up frustration than anything in particular that I was saying, but it immediately struck me that she had given voice to a feeling of religious disenfranchisement in France that we almost never hear about. Nicolas Sarkozy did not exactly express the same frustration when he went to Rome on December 20, but when the president of the French Republic makes an extended plea for the public affirmation of the value of faith in a high-profile venue, some equally unexpected cri de coeur has just come over the European horizon.
A few French friends have tried to convince me that there was nothing new in Sarkozy’s speech at the Palace of St. John Lateran, where he was installed as an honorary canon, which he had not already said in his 2005 book, La République, les religions, et l’esperance. Others tell me that if he even succeeds in half of what he wants to do, it will be virtually a nouveau regime in France. My reaction falls somewhere in between. When I read Sarkozy’s book last year, I was struck by two things: his belief that the French have to learn to talk about religion in public again and his willingness even to raise questions about the socialist inspired antireligious laws of 1905 that abolished some religious orders and confiscated religious property. He backed off a bit from the second point in his speech at the Lateran Palace. (It’s very clear and winsomely delivered, so even if your French is modest, you may want to listen to it yourself. But his position is still strong beyond all expectation.
Earlier the same day, Sarkozy met for twenty-five minutes with Benedict XVI and the Holy See’s secretary of state. One of the first things he said to them was that the Church in France has “to be more courageous” in intervening publicly because the French Republic has need of people of faith. This was already quite daring, but he did not stop there. Remarkably, in both events, Sarkozy openly expressed his agreement with the pope’s view that a Europe without faith is a Europe without hope—and maybe without a future. And, perhaps even more notably, he made a powerful case that the present and future depend on a more inclusive embrace of the past.

Read the rest here

Christians and the State

"It seems clear that the public sphere in America is irretrievably secular. So the only logical response of Christians must be to try to shrink it. Instead of attempting to baptize a Leviathan which turned on us long ago, we’d do much better to cage and starve the beast. We should favor low taxes—period, regardless of the “good” use to which politicians promise to put it. We should oppose nearly every government program intended to achieve any aim whatsoever. We can make exceptions here and there: We can favor the protection of innocent lives, which would cover things like fixing traffic lights and throwing abortionists into prison. But that is pretty much that. Christian public policy should focus not on capturing the power of the State but shrinking it, to the bare minimum required to enforce individual rights, narrowly defined. Likewise, the share of our wealth seized by the state must be radically slashed, to allow for private initiatives and charities that will not be amoral, soulless, bureaucratic and counterproductive (like the secular welfare state). Instead of asking for handouts to our schools in the forms of vouchers, we should seek the privatization of public schools—which by their very nature, in today’s post-Christian America, are engines of secularism. And so on for nearly every institution of the centralized State, which has hijacked the rightful activities of civil society and the churches, and which every year steals so much of our wealth to squander on itself that we can barely afford to reproduce ourselves. (So the State helpfully offers to replace us with immigrants, but that’s another article.) "

From Taki Theadorakopulos' blog

Courtesy of The Young Fogey