On this All Hallows' Eve, I shall make a prediction: Dinesh D’Souza’s latest book, What’s So Great About Christianity, will become a classic of Christian literature. And this glowing augury comes from someone who has so far only read half the book.
D’Souza’s book is the book I wish I had written. He strikes a perfect balance† between the lay and the semi-professional intellectual. The book’s only weakness is that it is too short: D’Souza could have spent more time fattening some of his arguments, though I am not suggesting that these arguments are anorexic. They might be just right and I am simply unable to see it. But I wish that some of the chapters were a little more substantial. (The bibliography and notes are certainly complete enough to satisfy the interests of more inquisitive readers.)
I promise you will be challenged and edified by this book. I think the book will set record sales numbers; I can see book groups springing up all around it. I urge you to get a copy and read it, and then tell your friends, and then blog about it. It surely deserves the broad and intense attention it will get. In fact, it deserves even more than that.
Oh. Another prediction: most of D’Souza’s detractors will not read any or all of the book. Many, in fact, will not expend the requisite intellectual strength necessary to read the entire thing.
Blessings and peace,
BG
†D'Souza also strikes a glorious balance between Protestant and Catholic expressions of Christian faith. Both sides in the Christian complex will find much to cheer about.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
That Droll Man
This is not about Andy Rooney. It is about talent, or the lack thereof. It is about mediocrity. It is about rewarding poor performance with fame, fortune, and power.
Let me correct myself: this is about Andy Rooney.
On Sunday night Mr. Rooney, the omni-incompetent commenter, brought his game to 60 Minutes and embarrassed himself, which is, perhaps, his wont. You see, Mr. Rooney does not get baseball. Here's a screwball comment pitched by Mr. Rooney:
'And, by the way, isn't it sort of silly that they call it "The World Series" when most of the world doesn’t know baseball from ping pong?'
Odd that Mr. Rooney should presume here that knowledge is important. Apparently Mr. Rooney thinks "The World Championships" in any sport can only be properly played when most of the world's inhabitants "know" that sport from an other. I am sure the World Championships in luge or badminton or curling equally irk Mr. Rooney; I am sure he has opined at length about how few countries are represented in the glorious list of winners of the International Tennis Federation's Grand Slam.
And I am sure Mr. Rooney has duly noted how 'silly' it is to call his program 60 Minutes when it is not really 60 minutes long. But let us forget our ironies for a minute, our petty iRooneys. Instead, let us note this irrelevancy from a Major League Baseball press release:
'Broadcast in 229 countries and territories, Major League Baseball game telecasts are re-transmitted in 13 different languages.'
That only 229 countries and territories receive baseball broadcasts -- with one of them being the sparsely-populated China -- can't mean all that much to Mr. Rooney, nor can the racially and ethnically diverse rosters of major league teams.
But if this essay is not really about Andy Rooney, it is also not about baseball. Instead, it is about people who are wrong who are praised as if they are right. It is about those who are rewarded for doing something well when they actually do something poorly. In short, it is about the death of excellence.
Mr. Rooney may have achieved great success in playing the misfit -- that tweedy, klutzy thinker who neither 'does' nor comprehends pop culture; he may have gained fame playfully denigrating himself or twisting ironic phrases to the delight of those viewers who perceive the hidden self-aggrandizement of it all, but it is all rather simplistic and tired.
But if Mr. Rooney's comments serve as a veil, one must note that the veil conceals his contempt for dull, doltish and conceited America: America's pastime is not one whit interesting to the world. Truly worldly people, like Mr. Rooney, are not given to such mindless excess; only the provincially-minded would dare call their game's zenith, "The World Series." Baseball's premiere event is, if anything, another example of American over-reaching and arrogance: We are the best; we have the best game. Mr. Rooney knows better, hinting that his ignorance is really deliberate: he's too smart for such small ball. That is why he thinks we all should know the IQ scores of baseball players, posted along with their stats; he wonders if we would better appreciate the game if we knew whether players scored well on their SATs. And despite Mr. Rooney's oafish self-deprecation in his droll conclusion Sunday night, viewers could not be fooled: this was a dig aimed at America, the America Mr. Rooney can't understand because he is really just too smart to understand it.
It's all part of a game.
No doubt Andy Rooney's few seconds of 60 Minutes is a pretty good game, too. To enjoy it even more, I would love to see his salary and IQ stats scrolling along beneath his mug, along with his dollars per word count. And I am sure many folks enjoyed his comments about America's pastime. But I for one cannot fathom how America does not see that Mr. Rooney has past his time.
It's time to call the bullpen -- or still that bullish pen -- and bring in some relief.
Sorry, Mr. Rooney. That's just how I see it.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
[PS. For a follow to this post, go to my "Confessions of a Plain Man."]
Let me correct myself: this is about Andy Rooney.
On Sunday night Mr. Rooney, the omni-incompetent commenter, brought his game to 60 Minutes and embarrassed himself, which is, perhaps, his wont. You see, Mr. Rooney does not get baseball. Here's a screwball comment pitched by Mr. Rooney:
'And, by the way, isn't it sort of silly that they call it "The World Series" when most of the world doesn’t know baseball from ping pong?'
Odd that Mr. Rooney should presume here that knowledge is important. Apparently Mr. Rooney thinks "The World Championships" in any sport can only be properly played when most of the world's inhabitants "know" that sport from an other. I am sure the World Championships in luge or badminton or curling equally irk Mr. Rooney; I am sure he has opined at length about how few countries are represented in the glorious list of winners of the International Tennis Federation's Grand Slam.
And I am sure Mr. Rooney has duly noted how 'silly' it is to call his program 60 Minutes when it is not really 60 minutes long. But let us forget our ironies for a minute, our petty iRooneys. Instead, let us note this irrelevancy from a Major League Baseball press release:
'Broadcast in 229 countries and territories, Major League Baseball game telecasts are re-transmitted in 13 different languages.'
That only 229 countries and territories receive baseball broadcasts -- with one of them being the sparsely-populated China -- can't mean all that much to Mr. Rooney, nor can the racially and ethnically diverse rosters of major league teams.
But if this essay is not really about Andy Rooney, it is also not about baseball. Instead, it is about people who are wrong who are praised as if they are right. It is about those who are rewarded for doing something well when they actually do something poorly. In short, it is about the death of excellence.
Mr. Rooney may have achieved great success in playing the misfit -- that tweedy, klutzy thinker who neither 'does' nor comprehends pop culture; he may have gained fame playfully denigrating himself or twisting ironic phrases to the delight of those viewers who perceive the hidden self-aggrandizement of it all, but it is all rather simplistic and tired.
But if Mr. Rooney's comments serve as a veil, one must note that the veil conceals his contempt for dull, doltish and conceited America: America's pastime is not one whit interesting to the world. Truly worldly people, like Mr. Rooney, are not given to such mindless excess; only the provincially-minded would dare call their game's zenith, "The World Series." Baseball's premiere event is, if anything, another example of American over-reaching and arrogance: We are the best; we have the best game. Mr. Rooney knows better, hinting that his ignorance is really deliberate: he's too smart for such small ball. That is why he thinks we all should know the IQ scores of baseball players, posted along with their stats; he wonders if we would better appreciate the game if we knew whether players scored well on their SATs. And despite Mr. Rooney's oafish self-deprecation in his droll conclusion Sunday night, viewers could not be fooled: this was a dig aimed at America, the America Mr. Rooney can't understand because he is really just too smart to understand it.
It's all part of a game.
No doubt Andy Rooney's few seconds of 60 Minutes is a pretty good game, too. To enjoy it even more, I would love to see his salary and IQ stats scrolling along beneath his mug, along with his dollars per word count. And I am sure many folks enjoyed his comments about America's pastime. But I for one cannot fathom how America does not see that Mr. Rooney has past his time.
It's time to call the bullpen -- or still that bullish pen -- and bring in some relief.
Sorry, Mr. Rooney. That's just how I see it.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
[PS. For a follow to this post, go to my "Confessions of a Plain Man."]
Friday, October 19, 2007
IN ORDER
THE HOME OF THE BRAVE
In the United States of America, it is dangerous to protest the Bush regime. Heinous repercussions abound. One hears every day of dissenters being called 'unpatriotic,' or even 'enablers' of the enemy. Such brutality! The repression shocks even the most politically obdurate heart. I can hear God now: The wounded pride of these martyrs cries out to me from the ground!
Last week, James Taranto discussed the heroic acts of a few dissenters of the Ahmadinejad regime in Tehran. Though these protesters have much to fear, their fears pale in comparison to those experienced by American dissidents who speak truth to the 'real' power, George Bush. So perhaps Taranto's trenchant remarks will fall on deafened ears, ears bludgeoned and tortured by American expansionism and tyranny:
[The Iranian protest is] a reminder, too, of just what phonies and blowhards our American 'dissenters' are. They know it takes no courage to oppose a democratic government that holds freedom of speech sacrosanct. So they spin lurid fantasies of authoritarianism in order to convince themselves of their own bravery. [emphasis added]
One cannot find a more incisive statement ever penned about American anti-Bush protestations.
LIKE A BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATERS
I don't know about you, but I thought compassionate people care about children, especially children who do not have health insurance. David Limbaugh quotes the singular Paul Simon who recently spoke in favor the SCHIP legislation vetoed by President Bush:
The president's veto of the reauthorization of SCHIP appears to be a heartless act. I'm here today to ask those of you who supported the veto to reexamine your conscience, to find compassion in your heart for our most vulnerable and sweetest citizens, our children.
Heartless indeed. At least apparently. But I'm certain that Simon's statement proves that George W. Bush is not, nor was he ever, a compassionate conservative. After all, the ever-cerebral Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi put the whole thing in perspective yesterday:
And so my colleagues, we have a decision today to override the President's veto, which would be in my view the right thing to do for our children and for our country. It's not about compassion, it's about fairness…
And so I urge my colleagues to think about the children, to think about Bethany and the other children.…
The President is isolated in this. Don't join him in his isolation. Come forward on behalf of the children…
Let's give a vote for the children and against the President's veto. [emphasis added]
Since Ms. Pelosi is the supposed leader of the Democratic House, we can conclude from her remarks that her house is not about compassion, but fairness. That sounds fair to me. Compassion be damned, and so too compassionate liberalism.
Isn't it good to know that the household of the United States is in the hands of a person so capable of simplifying things?
GOOD NEWS FOR THAT 2006 MANDATE: It is SO last year!
Remember that mandate given to the Democrats after last year's mid-term elections? You remember -- when the Democrats gained control of both the Senate and the House? It's amazing how time flies when you lead so effectively. I mean, Congress currently has the lowest approval rating in the history of polling. Put another way, this is the worst Congress in history. Talk about squandering goodwill. But the best part of it all is knowing that Americans prefer ANY previous Congress -- even the "rubber stamping" Congress of 2005-06 -- to the Congress we now have in session. Stunning, isn't it?
And we thought Newt Gingrich was disliked.
But there is a bright side: My guess is that Europe loves this Congress. At least that is something in which we can take pride.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Prophet Of Bale
Supporters of atheist -- and ersatz philosopher -- Richard Dawkins have visited us at Contratimes. One supporter has even gone to rather great lengths to convince me that Mr. Dawkins is an original and compelling thinker. Today, I concede that he is:
A renowned atheist cited the "Jewish lobby" as a model for his campaign to promote atheism in the United States.
A renowned atheist cited the "Jewish lobby" as a model for his campaign to promote atheism in the United States.
Richard Dawkins said he wanted to gain the same kind of influence as the Jewish lobby, saying it "monopolizes" U.S. foreign policy.
"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told -- religious Jews anyway -- than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolize American foreign policy as far as many people can see," Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist who advocates atheism, told the Guardian newspaper. "So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."
Dawkins, an Oxford professor who wrote the best-seller "The God Delusion," told the Guardian that he wants to organize American atheists to counter the influence of religious groups.
"I think some sort of political organization is what they need," he said.
I wonder if Mr. Dawkins is the least bit suspicious that he might suffer from a Jew Delusion.
James Taranto, always wry and ironic, had this to say in response to Mr. Dawkins original thought:
Embracing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories does not seem the most effective way for atheists to expand their influence, at least not in America. Besides, to what end exactly does Dawkins seek to expand atheists' influence? Does he want to create a homeland for atheists, à la Israel? But there already was one--it was called the Soviet Union--and we all remember how well that worked out.
I concede that none of this destroys Mr. Dawkins' able arguments against the existence of God. Surely I can excuse his ignorance about America; I cannot expect him to know that a fairly large contingent of Christians in this country has vigorously defended Israel without any assistance from a "Jewish lobby." Consider Mr. Dawkins' ignorance of America excused. But I cannot absolve him of his blatant and public anti-Semitism; nor can I help him understand the capacious and able Christian mind he loathes. He may consider me deluded. But if his perspicacity leads to the type of thought quoted above, then I delight in the God Delusion.
(Perhaps Mr. Dawkins' remarks have been ripped from some justifying context. I would love to know.)
Peace.
BG
If you are interested in reading my starting points when discussing atheism, see my Letter to Christopher Hitchens.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
HT: James Taranto/Wall Street Journal
Monday, October 01, 2007
Esse Quam Videri
Contratimes readers familiar with Credenda Agenda, New St. Andrews College, or Douglas Wilson, should read the New York Times Magazine article, "Onward Christian Soldiers." (You may need to register at the NYT, but the process is quick, easy and worth it.)
I am eager to learn what readers think, not so much of the article per se, but of the vision of Christian higher education proposed by Mr. Wilson and New St. Andrews. Ask yourself (if you wish) what it might mean to be a "medieval Protestant"; whether such a goal is desirable. Some of us are currently in the market looking for colleges for our children: Is New St. Andrews good enough for our children, or too good? Do Wilson and company espouse true Christian intellectual virtues, or does their philosophy amount to so much pastiche? Is this all just some romanticized picture of a don in pedantic pose, or is this a picture of the true Christian mind in the raptures of rigorous discipline and inquiry? Are there idols afoot, or would this all be representative of the matriculating Christ, or Christ as senior fellow? Is this really about transforming culture or salvaging civilization, or is it Inklings Make-Believe, an almost idolatrous fixation on C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien and Owen Barfield and Charles Williams maintained as a sort of academic theme park, complete with gay draughts of bitter, bawdy conversation and the apt Latin phrase?
What do you think?
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
I am eager to learn what readers think, not so much of the article per se, but of the vision of Christian higher education proposed by Mr. Wilson and New St. Andrews. Ask yourself (if you wish) what it might mean to be a "medieval Protestant"; whether such a goal is desirable. Some of us are currently in the market looking for colleges for our children: Is New St. Andrews good enough for our children, or too good? Do Wilson and company espouse true Christian intellectual virtues, or does their philosophy amount to so much pastiche? Is this all just some romanticized picture of a don in pedantic pose, or is this a picture of the true Christian mind in the raptures of rigorous discipline and inquiry? Are there idols afoot, or would this all be representative of the matriculating Christ, or Christ as senior fellow? Is this really about transforming culture or salvaging civilization, or is it Inklings Make-Believe, an almost idolatrous fixation on C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien and Owen Barfield and Charles Williams maintained as a sort of academic theme park, complete with gay draughts of bitter, bawdy conversation and the apt Latin phrase?
What do you think?
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)