June 20, 2013

"This result is a good one if you like free speech, and fear that government funding can be used as a powerful tool to shape private speech (potentially thought, too)."

"But make no mistake about the context: Roberts and Alito are gearing up for a world where exemptions and protections from generally applicable laws will be sought primarily by conservative groups. The main framework will probably be religious liberty, which opponents of same-sex marriage have increasingly identified as the value under attack when government recognizes same-sex marriage and requires various organizations to do the same. But free exercise of religion is in the First Amendment, too. If he could be made to understand the new emerging politics of the First Amendment, Rehnquist’s anguished ghost might be appeased."

Writes Harvard lawprof Noah Feldman, about the Supreme Court's decision today in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (which we've been talking about in some detail, here). Feldman's article, at Bloomberg.com, is titled "Roberts's Liberal Ruling Will Protect Conservatives."

Read the whole thing to understand the role of "Rehnquist’s anguished ghost."

89 comments:

Seeing Red said...

Barry's calling for the end of Catholic schools because they're divisive, so keep carving!

Seeing Red said...

Speaking in Ireland this week, President Obama stated that Catholic schools were divisive: “If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation.”

Renee said...

I live in a community that when I inform someone that the Sacrament of Marriage is based on the Commandment to honor your mother and father, they still the Church's motivation is homophobic...


So I worry. No fun at times being compared to the KKK or being labeled a bigot powered by financially strong lobby groups.

Renee said...

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a4.htm

The nature of the family

2201 The conjugal community is established upon the consent of the spouses. Marriage and the family are ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of children. The love of the spouses and the begetting of children create among members of the same family personal relationships and primordial responsibilities.

2202 A man and a woman united in marriage, together with their children, form a family. This institution is prior to any recognition by public authority, which has an obligation to recognize it. It should be considered the normal reference point by which the different forms of family relationship are to be evaluated.

2203 In creating man and woman, God instituted the human family and endowed it with its fundamental constitution. Its members are persons equal in dignity. For the common good of its members and of society, the family necessarily has manifold responsibilities, rights, and duties.


------------------

Why is this being considered hate?

James H said...

I have to think through if this is a "liberal " ruling and if the Justices are being so caculating.

I should note the Becket Fund and the Christian Legal Society were on the winning side of this today. Volokh wrote thier brief.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-10_resp_amcu_bfrl-etal.authcheckdam.pdf

SO where does conservative libertartian Volokh fit in in the whole conservative liberal whatever kind of ruling on speech this is. Perhaps Alito and Roberts are much more influnced by the lets say the Volokh train of thought than Scalia.

I realize it was just a Friend of the Court brief. However like Cato I am not sure we can exactly pin down what is the "conservative " position

Strelnikov said...

"Roberts and Alito are gearing up for a world where exemptions and protections from generally applicable laws will be sought primarily by conservative groups."

The author's main point seems to be that this is good law but for the wrong reasons based on something I fear might happen at some undermined point in the future which, even though that will also be in conformance with the law, may be bad from my political point of view. That law school is definitely getting its money's worth.

Strelnikov said...

Oh, and no decision upholding the First Amendment is either "conservative" or "liberal" as those terms are currently tossed around. The Constitution is what it is.

edutcher said...

Dubya picked Roberts because he was a "big government" Conservative.

Dad had Souter.

Nathan Alexander said...

@Strelnikov,
Oh, and no decision upholding the First Amendment is either "conservative" or "liberal" as those terms are currently tossed around. The Constitution is what it is.

Actually, that last sentence itself helps determine whether a decision upholding the 1st Amendment is "conservative" or "liberal".

Conservatives believe it is as written.

Liberals believe it is a living document that can be re-interpreted in light of modern norms, recent European legal trends, etc.
One prominent liberal journalist even infamously said something like, 'no one can understand it, anyway, cuz it was written like more than 100 years ago'.

So, for example, the "Citizens' United" upheld the 1st Amendment, and earned the ire of liberals everywhere.

David said...

Remedial writing for the professor please.

Brew Master said...

Those conservatives with their unreasonable fear of the government using funding to shape what you can and cannot say or do....

Crazy I tell ya.....

“In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent ‘Ms. Richards’ told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood. Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved,” the Thomas More Society wrote in their announcement.

The bureaucracy will never abuse it's power to stifle debate! After all, these good government workers have no agenda, they/re completely neutral arbiters working in good faith, how dare you question them... RACIST!

Mitchell the Bat said...

"Rehnquist’s Anguished Ghost" wouldn't be a bad name for a blog commenter.

Henry said...

If Roberts is Claudius, who is Hamlet?

gutless said...

Racist and shut up.

gutless said...

Racist and shut up.

damikesc said...

Speaking in Ireland this week, President Obama stated that Catholic schools were divisive: “If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation.”

Not to notice --- but he never said that about madrassas.

Mark O said...

"Not to notice --- but he never said that about madrassas."

Of course not. Someone would cut off his head.

Baron Zemo said...

This is very important because it is only a matter of time until speaking against same sex marriage will be labeled a hate crime and teaching traditional Christian or Jewish or Mormon or Islamic religious doctrine will be considered a hate crime as well.

It is good that we have this decision on our side but we would be fools to think that lawyers will protect our freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

Baron Zemo said...

President Obama has revealed once again his hatred and contempt for the Catholic church and all Catholics and traditionalist of any strip should be united in an effort to end his criminal and corrupt regime.

ricpic said...

So far the preponderance of exemptions to Obamacare have been to unions, corporations that are "friendly" to President Thug and muslims.

wyo sis said...

Obama must be particularly ignorant of recent history to make that kind of remark in Ireland. Where are his state department advisors?

Renee said...

@ Baron

Live in Massachusetts?

I do. As long as I don't say marriage..... I can talk about the effects of the breakdown of the family....

cubanbob said...

It's going to fun times at the Department Of Education when private schools, charter schools and home schools start demanding their funding. Garage is going to have a stroke when he realizes this decision taken to it's logical conclusion will have to fund vouchers.

Baron Zemo said...

I fail to understand how any Catholic could possibly support someone who has such a clear personal animus toward our faith. He has taken bold steps to destroy the system of Catholic hospitals and charities. Now he is advocating the destruction of Catholic education.

He is our enemy. Marked by his own words and deeds.

cubanbob said...

Baron Zemo said...
I fail to understand how any Catholic could possibly support someone who has such a clear personal animus toward our faith. He has taken bold steps to destroy the system of Catholic hospitals and charities. Now he is advocating the destruction of Catholic education.

He is our enemy. Marked by his own words and deeds.

6/20/13, 3:23 PM

I wonder how this decision is going to play out with funding of Catholic hospitals and schools. Logically it should prevent the government from mandating certain policies the Church opposes in it's institutions that receive federal funding but the courts are getting crazy.

Simon said...

Was I the only one who found Noah's line about the court not passing on the wisdom of the policy a little weird? Does he think that the AmEx decision passes on the wisdom of the FAA?

Seeing Red said...
"Barry's calling for the end of Catholic schools because they're divisive."

Not for nothing are we called the stupid party when Obama Derangement Syndrome kicks in. I'm so tired of this stupid meme about Obama and Catholics schools, and I'm damn tired of being forced to defend a President that I loathe from idiotic attacks by my own party.

What he said was this: “If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation.” And he said this in Northern Ireland. Now, one can certainly dispute his point, but what we can't do, as some have done, is to wrench the quote out of context, excise one half of the equation that Obama presented, then boost the level of generality of the remaining half to a sweeping condemnation of "Catholic schools," and criticize the Frankenstein's monster that we've sewn together.

We need to be careful about the peculiar context of his remarks. I don't read Obama to be making a dangerous and erroneous argument about sectarian schools generally, but rather, an erroneous argument about sectarian schools in the peculiar context of Northern Ireland, where sectarian divisions have so recently descended into violence. I grew up in Thatcher's Britain, at which time there was a low-grade civil war being fought between "protestant" (read "Unionist") and "catholic" (read "republican") Northern Irish paramilitary groups. Don't be fooled by the genteel British understatement of the name by which it was called: "The troubles." Thousands of people were killed; tens of thousands were injured. There were attempts made on the prime minister's life. I remember the Good Friday agreement very well, and I remember well how amazing it was. When a president addresses sectarian division in Northern Ireland, they are addressing a specific cultural context of which you apparently know nothing, whicih makes you only slightly less informed about it than Obama, but less informed nevertheless.

An analogy might be Bosnia: If President Obama had said that he thought that it was counterproductive and divisive to have separate schools for Serbs and Bosniaks, one could certainly argue over whether he was right or wrong, but what one could not rationally infer would be that Obama opposes Serbian-language education.

Understand the context in which Obama spoke. He may be wrong, but your stupid attempt to misrepresent his remarks succeeds only in making us all look stupid.

Methadras said...

Renee said...

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a4.htm

The nature of the family

2201 The conjugal community is established upon the consent of the spouses. Marriage and the family are ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of children. The love of the spouses and the begetting of children create among members of the same family personal relationships and primordial responsibilities.

2202 A man and a woman united in marriage, together with their children, form a family. This institution is prior to any recognition by public authority, which has an obligation to recognize it. It should be considered the normal reference point by which the different forms of family relationship are to be evaluated.

2203 In creating man and woman, God instituted the human family and endowed it with its fundamental constitution. Its members are persons equal in dignity. For the common good of its members and of society, the family necessarily has manifold responsibilities, rights, and duties.


------------------

Why is this being considered hate?


Because leftism deems anything anathema to it's destruction of morals, virtue, and tradition as being an enemy of it's principals. Think in terms of the principals of IngSoc: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

Simon said...

Baron Zemo said...
"I fail to understand how any Catholic could possibly support someone who has such a clear personal animus toward our faith. He has taken bold steps to destroy the system of Catholic hospitals and charities. Now he is advocating the destruction of Catholic education.

He is our enemy.
"

And yet our bishops refuse to excommunicate the "Catholic" hands by which he carries out these policies. If the bishops won't take it seriously, you can't expect the average Catholic to take it any more seriously. The bishops have declared that the Obama administration is at war with the Church, but until they start acting like it, their indolence will continue to drown out their words, supplying just enough cover for left-leaning Catholics to "wait and see."

Methadras said...

Baron Zemo said...

I fail to understand how any Catholic could possibly support someone who has such a clear personal animus toward our faith. He has taken bold steps to destroy the system of Catholic hospitals and charities. Now he is advocating the destruction of Catholic education.

He is our enemy. Marked by his own words and deeds.


As I've told you and the rest of the commentariat before. This is the endgame. The destruction or deconstruction of the church. The church stands as a bulwark against the abhorrency of someone like Obama and his ilk. If he is successful in neutering the church of making it impotent, then we would count that as a stroke for victory, because as long as the church stands, his ideas and thoughts and those of the rest of his leftist/Marxist 5th columnists world wide will run counter to that of the church. The primary cornerstones being the principals of Life, Marriage between men and women, and faith in Christ. If they can succeed in bringing down one or any of them, they win and they know it.

Baron Zemo said...

If you think the Obama's goal is anything other than the destruction of Catholic institutions such as Catholic Hospitals, Catholic Charities and Catholic schools then you are the one that is stupid.

The context that you should use is the deliberate and continuing attack on Catholic institutions.

His remarks in Ireland were stupid in the extreme no matter what fig leaf you want to cover it with.

Some of us are genteel dissenters and some of us are street fighters.

I repeat. He is our enemy. In word and deed he proves it again and again. We must do anything and everything possible in a legally permissible way to end his corrupt regime.

Hagar said...

Almost 60 years ago I visited a friend in the Netherlands, and his father, a school principal, took me on a tour of his school. His church - I think Calvinist, anyway of a srong Protestant denominatinon - had gone together with the local Catholic church to construct the building, which was divided with a solid wall lengthwise down the middle, and the Catolics had their school and playground on the east side, and the Calvinists had theirs on the west side.
It was a very nice attractive building, good learning environment, and cheaply but efficiently designed. I was very much impressed, especially since - at that time at least - there was little love lost between the Catholic and Protestant churches in the Netherlands.

Baron Zemo said...

Oh and don't ask me to defend the Bishops.

Bishops are always more politicians than true defenders of our faith.

Politicians are the Rhinos of the Catholic Church. A bunch of Lindsey Grahams and Olympia Snowes who want to get along with politicians instead of standing up for principle.

How Andrew Cuomo is not excommunicated is a mystery to me.

Matt said...

Obama's comments about Catholic schools was in the context of Northern Ireland only. There is still estrangement between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. It's not like in the US where non-Catholics can and do attend Catholic schools. So Obama was correct in his comments. Division should not be encouraged.

Methadras said...

Matt said...

Obama's comments about Catholic schools was in the context of Northern Ireland only. There is still estrangement between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. It's not like in the US where non-Catholics can and do attend Catholic schools. So Obama was correct in his comments. Division should not be encouraged.


Obama's comments are quite peculiar coming from a Black Liberation Theologist perspective or was sitting in Rev. Wrights pews for over two decades all a farce?

Baron Zemo said...

Tell that to Obama. His middle name should have been Division not Hussein.

Baron Zemo said...

Catholic hospitals and charities were tooling along just fine without provide abortion and birth control.

Obama picked that fight.

Now he says there should not be Catholic schools. Do you really think he supports the idea of Catholic Schools in the US where students will be out of the clutches of unionized teachers?

If you do you are stupid.

He is our enemy. He shows all the time in word and deed.

Keep making excuses for him.

Beach Brutus said...

"Division should not be encouraged."

I thought that was diversity and pluralism.

Simon said...

Matt said...
"Obama's comments about Catholic schools was in the context of Northern Ireland only. There is still estrangement between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. It's not like in the US where non-Catholics can and do attend Catholic schools. So Obama was correct in his comments. Division should not be encouraged."

We need not decide that last point. I doubt that his comments were correct, but the important point, the point that must be emphasized, is that he was speaking to the peculiar situation of Northern Ireland—not more broadly. Our suspicion that he would apply those words more broadly were he to be honest does not justify putting words in his mouth.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So Obama was correct in his comments. Division should not be encouraged.

What Northern Ireland does is none of Obama's business.

Yes. Divisions should not be encouraged. Obama along with Holder and all the other race hustlers are the worst offenders in deliberately creating division between the races, between people in general. There has never been a President so determined and effective in creating division.

Baron Zemo said...

We don't have to put words in his mouth. Because we know what is in his heart.

I would bet a million dollars he would be very happy if there were no Catholic schools. He wants the influence of the Catholic Church out of education. Medical Care. Charity.

Time and again in word and deed he has shown this. Now is not the time to cut him slack. He does not mean well.

Simon said...

Baron Zemo said...
"Now he says there should not be Catholic schools."

No, he didn't, and you are putting words in his mouth, which is the sin—quite possibly mortal—of calumny. The fact that you put those words back into his mouth having cut-and-pasted them together from other words that he said, changes nothing. That you believe that he would say those words changes nothing. What matters is that he doesn't.

Run don't walk to a confessional near you.

Simon said...

Baron Zemo said...
"We don't have to put words in his mouth. Because we know what is in his heart."

Apparently you do, because you keep doing it. If you want to accuse Obama of desiring to shut down Catholic institutions, I have no problem with that. I agree with that. But when you accuse Obama of saying something that he did not say, we're going to have a problem.

He doesn't deserve intellectual honesty in the criticism we make of him—but we do.

Baron Zemo said...

I would be happy to confess that I think Barack Obama has been trying to destroy the influence of the Catholic Church in education, medical care and charity. That he is a mortal enemy of our faith. Somehow I don't see that as a sin.

I just won't go to a Bishop that likes to play grab ass with him on the Annual Alfred E. Smith dinner.

Simon said...

Baron Zemo said...
"Time and again in word and deed he has shown this. Now is not the time to cut him slack. He does not mean well."

Then stop cutting him slack. That is precisely what you're doing when you make ridiculous, false, over-the-top, easily-disproven claims about him: You pour water into the magazine. For God's sake, did no one read you the fable of the child who cried wolf? You may not like that great mass of Americans who are in the moderate middle, but the fact is that we need their votes, and when you make comments that are repulsive to them, when you make comments that make them skeptical of accepting our criticisms, you hurt rather than help the cause. You let Obama off the hook, because the next time we criticize him, even if we're on-target, he just shrugs it off and says "sure, but they criticize me all the time, about nothing—remember that idiotic Northern Ireland story that they lied about? You know, they'll say anything about me." And you and I will know better, but the people whose votes we need won't.

If you don't want to cut Obama some slack, show some fucking discipline and criticize what he actually says and does rather than what you imagine that he might want to do, and when you get into speculation, draw clear, direct, and specific inferences from established facts.

Rusty said...

Brancos education union masters want to make damn sure no kid gets a decent edcation.

Renee said...

I more worried what my neighbor may mistakingly think of me, then the President.

'Oh, You're Catholic?"

I just pray they are open enough to hear what the Church teaches from a Catholic, then from the media.

Seeing Red said...

I wear Orange, Simon, not Green.


Ted Kennedy had more blood on his hands than just Mary Jo.


The groundwork against the Catholics was already laid here with Obamacare and it's aimed directly at the 1st Amendment.

This from a guy who sat in a "God Damn America" church for 20 years should not be lecturing anyone else.

Just another piece of the whole.

cubanbob said...

We need not decide that last point. I doubt that his comments were correct, but the important point, the point that must be emphasized, is that he was speaking to the peculiar situation of Northern Ireland—not more broadly. Our suspicion that he would apply those words more broadly were he to be honest does not justify putting words in his mouth.

6/20/13, 4:02 PM

If he was anyone else you would be right. If he was just in office for a few months you would be right. However after after first two years of campaigning and five years of governance he has demonstrated that he isn't worthy of being given the benefit of doubt. His Administration's actions and policies are sufficient reason to impute motive.

Seeing Red said...

Are there Protestant schools?

Simon said...

Seeing Red said...
"I wear Orange, Simon, not Green."

There are those who wore orange and those who wore green, but their hands were alike stained red.

Seeing Red said...

I'm just asking if there are, because if there are, why target only Catholic schools for shut down?

Thorley Winston said...

I’m in agreement with Simon. Every time that someone who’s ostensibly on “the right” of the (American) political spectrum throws out an inflammatory accusation about Obama or someone like that isn’t based on what they actually said or done but by what their accusers IMAGINE that they really believe or whatever, it does us far more harm than good.

Baron Zemo said...

Yes.

Oh and it is most likely racist too!

Baron Zemo said...

Thank you for correcting me Simon.

I am sure that all arguments should be couched in a elegant nuanced way that will influence the low information voter instead of the visceral emotional tones that they use against us. Because if we don't Alinsky them then they are going to do it to us. Oh and they will not worry about the niceties that has upset you so much.

But be assured that your mantle of intellectual pettifoggery remains unsullied.

I look forward to the day you are as vigorous in the criticism of this arch enemy of our church as you are in pointing out what you consider an unfair extrapolation of his thought which does in fact illustrate what is at the heart of his continuing attacks on our faith.

Peace be with you.

Baron Zemo said...

Oh and by the way Thorley it is not just imagination that lead to Obama forcing birth control and abortion services down the throat of Catholic institutions. He is pushing the envelope as far as he can in ending the Catholic involvement in health care. It is not such a stretch to think that he feels the same way about education.

If you have enough "imagination" to maybe understand what he is all about.

As cubanbob has said he does not get the benefit of the doubt.

Baron Zemo said...

Sorry to Ritmo this thread.

I bet it will be deleted anyway.

Seeing Red said...

...Because issues like segregated schools and housing, lack of jobs and opportunity -- symbols of history that are a source of pride for some and pain for others -- these are not tangential to peace; they’re essential to it. If towns remain divided -- if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs -- if we can’t see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division. It discourages cooperation....

Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/06/20130617276442.html#ixzz2WnPSni9L

Seeing Red said...

Ohhh, more bitter clingers.

garage mahal said...

I heard Obama bought 300 guillotines with our tax dollars to behead a bunch of Catholics.

Or maybe it was an email or Facebook or something. But it was there in black and white!

garage mahal said...

Make that 30,000 guillotines!

Bruce Hayden said...

I wear Orange, Simon, not Green.

My kid would wear both in school on St. Patrick's day. The green because everyone was doing it, and the orange for great grandparents who came from N. Ireland. Rarely was there a comment by the other kids, indicating that the religious divide is much less here in the U.S., at least in Colorado (I think that Boston may be different, since at one point prominent "Catholics" like Teddy Kennedy were accused of raising money for the IRA).

Richard Dolan said...

There is a real forest-and-trees problem afflicting Feldman's post which he doesn't see to notice. Feldman is imaging a world in which lefty views prevail across the board, requiring a rear-guard action by the Court to prevent the lefties from using conditions on the spending of federal grants to silence righty voices. If that view turns out to be accurate, the Court will quickly become a lefty bastion, too.

Indeed, with Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas all in their 70s, Feldman's view of the future is oddly disconnected from the political framework of his imagined future -- how would righties retain enough power to appoint their successors, but not have enough power to block whatever nasty righty-bashing conditions on federal grant programs Feldman is imaging?

Jay said...

Renee said...


Why is this being considered hate?


Because nowhere does it say that being gay is totally normal and healthy.

And, you sound like a tea party kook for even posting it!!

See you in line for the concentration camp...

Simon said...

Baron Zemo said...
"I am sure that all arguments should be couched in a elegant nuanced way"

They should, yes, but that is aspirational; more concretely, they should at least be honest.

"if we don't Alinsky them then they are going to do it to us. Oh and they will not worry about the niceties that has upset you so much."

If you think that "they started it" is going to get you very far at your particular judgment, you're in for a rough re-entry. Cf. Lk 6:31; Ecclesiasticus 11:28. Let us prepare for that terrible day by daily making "a good examination of conscience, in which we will discover our sins and learn to fear the punishment [we] deserve."

Methadras said...

Simon said...

We need not decide that last point. I doubt that his comments were correct, but the important point, the point that must be emphasized, is that he was speaking to the peculiar situation of Northern Ireland—not more broadly. Our suspicion that he would apply those words more broadly were he to be honest does not justify putting words in his mouth.


This is blatant near-sightedness. Do you think for one second Obama is speaking in a northern Ireland vacuum? He isn't. He knows the media manipulation to take his words beyond what you think they are. Oh he may have specifically asked the Northern Irish to set aside their differences, but you can clearly see the attack on the church as being the central bad actor in all of this. No, his machinations are contained simply to this region, he knows his words will extend beyond those boundaries. I know what he is and so do many many many millions of other people. He is traitorous Marxist 5th columnist set on his fundamental transformation of this country into a permanent surveillance welfare state, where the church is non-existent and radical leftist ideology reign supreme ad infinitum.

The problem is, is even if a republican/conservative president is put into the White House, he will not undo what Obama has done. Presidents are loathe to set that standard even though they should. If I were president, I would expunge Obama's entire existence as president. I would roll everything he did right back and more. That's what you should be fighting for. At his feet is where you should lay the blame. Do you want to live in a world of conservative principals or on of rampant radical leftism. You cannot live in the middle anymore. Choose.

Revenant said...

He is traitorous Marxist 5th columnist

Even if Obama were explicitly anti-Catholic, that would not make him traitorous, Marxist, or a 5th columnist. He's President of the United States, not President of the Vatican.

cubanbob said...

Methadras @ 6.30: Spot on and well said and regrettably true.

Simon I understand your point on civility and on context and not letting hysteria taking us off time and target. However as Methadras said no matter where a US President speaks there is always more than the local context. He just said it far better than I.

Revenant said...

no matter where a US President speaks there is always more than the local context

I have to wonder if people who think this have actually heard Obama speak.

If you dig deep you don't find a sinister hidden agenda beneath his words. What you find, when you dig (not all that) deep is that there isn't *anything* beneath his words. He gave a 3300 word speech in Berlin yesterday covering everything from racism to economics to nuclear weaponry and didn't actually commit to a single meaningful action he planned to take. 3300 words of empty platitudes, "war is bad for children and other living things" rhetoric, and the usual self-congratulatory back-patting. Obama doesn't give speeches to tell you what he's thinking -- he gives speeches because he thinks people like hearing him give speeches.

You want to know what Obama's sinister hidden agenda behind the Ireland speech was? I guarantee you it was "good, now I can scratch 'pretend to give a shit about Ireland' off the to-do list for this week".

Methadras said...

Revenant said...

He is traitorous Marxist 5th columnist

Even if Obama were explicitly anti-Catholic, that would not make him traitorous, Marxist, or a 5th columnist. He's President of the United States, not President of the Vatican.


Considering that statement is out of context. He's POTUS, but he clearly doesn't have this country's interests at heart. His ideology doesn't allow him too. If your inaction as president is selling your own countrymen out in a place like Benghazi to die, so you can get your beauty sleep for a Nevada fund raiser the next day without even trying or sending it down the chain to 'do something' doesn't make you a traitor to your citizenry, then I guess I don't know what does. Oh sure, he didn't open the gates to an invading force, but by doing nothing there he explicitly gave the signal to our enemies that Americans are open for hunting season and he won't be bothered to do anything about it.

Methadras said...

Revenant said...

no matter where a US President speaks there is always more than the local context

I have to wonder if people who think this have actually heard Obama speak.

If you dig deep you don't find a sinister hidden agenda beneath his words. What you find, when you dig (not all that) deep is that there isn't *anything* beneath his words. He gave a 3300 word speech in Berlin yesterday covering everything from racism to economics to nuclear weaponry and didn't actually commit to a single meaningful action he planned to take. 3300 words of empty platitudes, "war is bad for children and other living things" rhetoric, and the usual self-congratulatory back-patting. Obama doesn't give speeches to tell you what he's thinking -- he gives speeches because he thinks people like hearing him give speeches.

You want to know what Obama's sinister hidden agenda behind the Ireland speech was? I guarantee you it was "good, now I can scratch 'pretend to give a shit about Ireland' off the to-do list for this week".


I know he doesn't have a hidden nefarious agenda. He's out in the open about it all. Look at what he told Joe the Plumber about spreading the wealth around, transformative fundamental change. It's pretty plain to see.

Henry said...

How did this blog turn into this?

Revenant said...

If your inaction as president is selling your own countrymen out in a place like Benghazi to die [rant rant] doesn't make you a traitor to your citizenry, then I guess I don't know what does.

Getting 4500 Americans killed invading a country to find WMDs that weren't there? :)

Revenant said...

I know he doesn't have a hidden nefarious agenda.

So when you accused him of having an anti-church subtext to his Ireland speech you knew that was bullshit?

Look, Obama's a shitty President. Easily the worse one since Nixon, and probably since Johnson. But he can't be both openly evil AND subtly evil. You need to pick one. Is he openly evil and America is full of retards, or is he subtly evil and people just aren't studying him closely enough?

Simon said...

Methadras, that is all well and good, but when you put words into his mouth, you undercut your criticisms. You become a liar. I can sympathize with the analysis that "[h]e is traitorous Marxist 5th columnist set on his fundamental transformation of this country into a permanent surveillance welfare state, where the church is non-existent and radical leftist ideology reign supreme ad infinitum." So say that. But when you make demonstrably false factual claims such as "Obama said [something he didn't say]," that's no good. And it's not just a question of civility, as Cubanbob mentioned. Just from a practical perspective, it actively undercuts your credibility.

Revenant said...
"If you dig deep you don't find a sinister hidden agenda beneath his words. What you find, when you dig (not all that) deep is that there isn't *anything* beneath his words.… Obama doesn't give speeches to tell you what he's thinking -- he gives speeches because he thinks people like hearing him give speeches."

^ What he said.

Baron Zemo said...

I reject terming as "hysteria" the thought that Barack Obama has a well defined animus towards the Catholic church not seen in a President since Woodrow Wilson's attitude toward black people.

Some people over intellectualize conflict. They want to be all prim and proper and think that conservatives have to play by different rules then the current regime. They hold their nose and have nothing but contempt for those who will get in there and call a spade a spade so to speak.

They can't abide Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck or Michelle Bachman. They will be the ones who will turn their nose up at Ted Cruz or Rand Paul or anyone who doesn't play the Rhino game. It is more important to hold some illusory high standard of rhetoric as though emotion and invective will serve to stop the low information voter from listening.

The only way to reach those people who get their news from TV is to work in that vineyard. You are not going to reach them with learned discourse in the Economist.

It is my view that only way to win is to change the way we play the game. To walk away from the style of the gentleman loser. Be Billy Martin or Earl Weaver not Mel Ott.

It is my hope that our next candidate will be a conservative populist who will do what he has to do to reach the low information voter that was persuaded by the Potemkin village that was the Obama campaign.

Revenant said...

I reject terming as "hysteria" the thought that Barack Obama has a well defined animus towards the Catholic church not seen in a President since Woodrow Wilson's attitude toward black people.

The irony being that the above description of Obama is, itself, a good example of hysterics.

Baron Zemo said...

So says the atheist who has no skin in the game.

Simon said...

Baron Zemo said...
"I reject terming as "hysteria" the thought that Barack Obama has a well defined animus towards the Catholic church"

"Hysteria" wasn't a term that I used, but I wouldn't resist it. It isn't that you're hysterical because you think that Obama doesn't like the Church, or on any particular act, it's that your attitude toward Obama in toto is hysterical, i.e. "behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess" (MWO) or a behavioral pattern "variously characterized by [inter alia] emotional excitability, excessive anxiety, … etc." (Webster's NWD1958). Thus, in the present context, hysteria takes a statement by the President, wrenches it from context, mutilates it, and multiplies the remainder against one's existing anxieties and suspicions about the President. We are all very familiar with this behavior because we have seen large portions of the population exhibit it ever since late 2000, first on the left and lately on the right. (Personally, I suspect that the new movie "World War Z" is a parody of this kind of political zombie-ism.)

"Some people … think that conservatives have to play by different rules then the current regime."

I don't know whether conservatives have to, but we should certainly want to (what kind of conservatism blithely accepts the passing of a world with manners?), and Christians certainly must, because unlike our opponents, we are very well-aware that we will be judged not just by our goals but by our means. Apropos: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2340/The_Most_Popular_Moral_Heresy_in_the_World.aspx.

"They hold their nose and have nothing but contempt for those who will get in there and call a spade a spade so to speak."

Call a spade a spade all you like, but call it a fascist instrument for the oppression of the soil and we're going to have a problem.

"They can't abide Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck or Michelle Bachman."

I like Sarah and Rush. I can't stand Beck or Bachmann because they are credulous idiots who mouth bullshit with such utter conviction. Someone quoted this to me recently, and it seems apropos: "I divide officers into four classes: the clever, the lazy, the stupid and the industrious. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the high staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy is fit for the very highest commands. He has the temperament and the requisite nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be removed immediately." (General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord.) Beck and Bachmann are stupid and industrious.

Simon said...

Baron zemo said...
"They will be the ones who will turn their nose up at Ted Cruz or Rand Paul or anyone who doesn't play the Rhino game."

What's hilarious is that a few weeks ago, that list would have included Marco Rubio (cf. http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-didnt-romney-why-didnt-republicans.html?showComment=1368732413308#c7483260313581237333; http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-are-you-fat.html?showComment=1355420862122#c4621276651473270062); in due course, perhaps it won't include Cruz or Paul either, because they will inevitably let you down in some way. That's the problem with being a purist: No one's ever pure enough for you. At any rate, I like Cruz well enough; he plays a crass conservative to appeal to crass conservatives, but it's not who he is. I'm no fan of Paul for the obvious and sufficient reason that he's a crass libertarian, and I am neither crass nor a libertarian.


"It is more important to hold some illusory high standard of rhetoric as though emotion and invective will serve to stop the low information voter from listening."

It will. Do you think Althouse takes your criticisms of Obama seriously? It is people like her that you need to convince, not people like me, and hysteria isn't going to do it.


"It is my hope that our next candidate will be a conservative populist…."

Oh good grief. The only wing of the GOP that I truly cannot stand. The populists. At least the libertarians have a coherent philosophy that rises to the respectability of being wrong. Populism? Ugh. Rick Santorum is positioning himself to be that candidate, and that candidate loses us not only the election but credibility.

Rusty said...

Henry said...
How did this blog turn into this?


'Cause some chick runs it.
She's blonde.

Strelnikov said...

"Not to notice --- but he never said that about madrassas."

That's because, unlike Protestant and Catholic schools, madrassas teach The Truth.

Strelnikov said...

"He is our enemy. Marked by his own words and deeds."

And that mark is "666".

Strelnikov said...

"Are there Protestant schools?"

Thousands.

Nathan Alexander said...

Thinking about it more, if Scalia were right, then the IRS would have an argument they did nothing wrong in targeting Tea Partiers: it is perfectly fine to add in socio-political principles to the decision to provide a tax exemption.

Applying Scalia's logic, the answer would be: don't want to be forced to swear a legally-binding oath to not protest Planned Parenthood? Well, then don't apply for a tax exempt status!

That is clearly wrong, and clearly in violation of the Constitution.

Scalia is wrong.

Simon said...

damikesc said...
"Not to notice --- but he never said that about madrassas."

Are there a lot of Madrassas in Northern Ireland?

See your mistake now? You're interpreting his remarks out of context. You're interpreting them as though he's talking about sectarian schools generally rather than in the specific context of Northern Ireland.

PianoLessons said...

Chief Justice Robert's decision to call Obamacare a "tax" and not a fine may end up being brilliant jurisprudence once the law is enacted.....

All of the sudden, many of us just may become "Amish". Why not? They're exempt from the tax.

None of know how the law will be challenged until it goes into force.....

and I am shopping for a horse and buggy as we speak :-)

Methadras said...

Simon said...

Methadras, that is all well and good, but when you put words into his mouth, you undercut your criticisms. You become a liar. I can sympathize with the analysis that "[h]e is traitorous Marxist 5th columnist set on his fundamental transformation of this country into a permanent surveillance welfare state, where the church is non-existent and radical leftist ideology reign supreme ad infinitum." So say that. But when you make demonstrably false factual claims such as "Obama said [something he didn't say]," that's no good. And it's not just a question of civility, as Cubanbob mentioned. Just from a practical perspective, it actively undercuts your credibility.

Revenant said...
"If you dig deep you don't find a sinister hidden agenda beneath his words. What you find, when you dig (not all that) deep is that there isn't *anything* beneath his words.… Obama doesn't give speeches to tell you what he's thinking -- he gives speeches because he thinks people like hearing him give speeches."

^ What he said.


I've do not on this blog or anywhere else put words in Obama's mouth. He indicts himself. Choose your words better before you claim or call me a liar, asshole.

Methadras said...

Strelnikov said...

"Not to notice --- but he never said that about madrassas."

That's because, unlike Protestant and Catholic schools, madrassas teach The Truth.


In arabic, all madrassa means is 'school'. Considering that a vast majority of arab madrassas as opposed to the american ones teaching the truth, that is a matter of opinion. Unless of course you are a muslim and frankly the entire lot of them are sub-human liars.

Simon said...

Methadras said...
"I've do not on this blog or anywhere else put words in Obama's mouth. He indicts himself. Choose your words better before you claim or call me a liar, asshole."

My apologies, that's right. I confused with those who were doing so.