Chaitanya Jyothi Museum Opening, 2000
RAMANAM
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
Countrymen,
ORBIS NON SUFFICIT
SOLUS DEUS SUFFICIT
The great Christian Theologian Paul Tillich observed on numerous occasions that churchmen of his day threw Christian dogma at non-Christians and their own parishioners in the manner one would throw bricks at someone’s head.
Half a century on, non-Christians and parishioners got the message: stay away from churchmen and their impediments. In response, churchmen first charged non-Christians and their own parishioners with secularism and promiscuity, respectively. But then they approved and invited into their facilities what they thought were trending morals of secularism and promiscuity.
Reality: churchmen loved neither non-Christians nor their own parishioners. Thus they communicated first by means of, in effect, bricks thrown at heads and later by the reverse: servility. Money in offering plates — stewardship they always call it — was and remains churchmens’ ultimate concern, which is to say: themselves.
Contemporary political leadership, Progressive, Conservative, and Libertarian, follows the path blazed by churchmen. As of this writing, all three types are in the brick-throwing phrase of the dirty business of politics and have been for four or five decades at least, which means, I believe, that they see no new trending morals other than exhausted, fetid secularism and promiscuity onto which to transfer their affections and thus keep in the game.
They are stuck with throwing bricks at heads. Very sad for them but auspicious for citizens as a people comprising a nation. Contemporary political leadership, Progressive, Conservative, and Libertarian, are bereft of morals, ideals, and ideas for keeping themselves in the good graces of citizens of the nation. They have played out their options in frivolous yet sententious folderol. Nothing substantial is left to them.
The missing ingredient, then and now, in affairs of church and state? Love. Leaders who love those who have handed them stewardship of their destiny.
Besides President Trump, who loves his fellow Americans, and is loved by them, there is a prominent personality today who grasps this phenomenon: Tucker Carlson. Two essays by him illustrate the point:
Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it’s infuriating.
Why Are These Professional War Peddlers Still Around?
What does every child want? A mother and father who love him or her. What does every mother want? A husband and children who love her. What does every father want? A wife and children who love him. Where there is love there is life and where there is life there is success in life, aka happiness. That is what everyone wants.
What do members of groups want? Leaders who love them. What do a people, the citizens of a nation, want? Leaders who love them. It is that simple.
Power Line Blog is widely read, to include by me. It comprises five writers/principles, four men, three of whom are Dartmouth alums, one woman, and a sizable congregation of mostly thoughtful commenters. All blog principles register as conservative. Two of the men and the woman love Americans. Two of the men love conservative principles, aka bricks, which they hurl at Americans’ heads with relish unrestrained by self-scrutiny.
Under title Taking On Tucker, one of the principles, a brick thrower, elicited this comment from me (edited here):
I am surprised Tucker agreed to submit to this kangaroo court of and for #NeverTrumpers. With respect Steven, your career embodies the posture Tucker identifies as causing our unhappiness: principles here, theories of … there, and who cares for the mothers’ sons and daughters suffering under them? It is idolatry, loving the tool rather than its maker. It is Phariseeism, boiling the kid in its mothers’ milk.
And relishing the prospect of having a fellow human being under klieg lights for a public interrogation ad humiliation, euphemistically deemed open intellectual discussion?
What is that called? Certainly not trying to solve a problem that concerns Tucker or anyone else. It is called entrapment. And to await relishing the demise of a victim in jaws one has planned to snap over him — and publicly announcing the slaughter as a show, a blood sport — is called what? Certainly not love, nor scholarship, nor manhood. We all know what it is called, so I will not write it.
I am surprised Tucker agreed to this. I would have answered the invitation with something like this:
Maybe, when are you coming? I will let you know if my wife and I and our kids can receive you at our home at that time, say, three of you. You can report back to your claque and will not record audio or video. We will serve you supper, homemade, and we will talk over food. You bring the drinks.
Βασιλεία του Θεού
Kingdom of God
Update 1: Michael Anton, dated 05SEP16: The Flight 93 Election
AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA
