Betrayal of the base

Peggy Noonan has written exactly what I couldn’t put into words about how betrayed I have felt by the Bush administration. Go read it all.

Advertisements

5 Responses to “Betrayal of the base”


  1. 1 sarah June 1, 2007 at 6:48 pm

    RE: your latest comment on Chad’s site, oddly enough I agree with you on the possibility of the Jews worshipping the same God. It could be argued that they simply “have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge.” Or, even that they worship Him but it is unacceptable worship since it is not in keeping with His self-revelation.

    However, this does get problematic, since as Catholics we hold that doctrine is binding as it unfolds and is codified; many things are in Sacred Tradition that have not been specifically dogmatized until much later; before that point it is acceptable to hold differing views; afterward, it is not. (I’m sure you’re familiar with the general lines of doctrinal development.) Similarly then, the truth of the Trinity was nascent before Christ, and specific after him. After Nicea I, nobody can deny the Trinity if they want to be included in God’s covenant.

    So, one could argue that becuase God HAS revealed himself in the Trinity, and the Jews specifically reject that formulation, therefore they reject the true God. So – there are good arguments on both sides… A liberal reading of Vatican II would seem to say they are worshipers of the same God, but technically the latin only read that they worship “One God” not necessarily even THE One God… so it’s back to Tradition for that one too…

  2. 2 sarah June 1, 2007 at 6:57 pm

    from chad’s…
    I’m no scholar of Judaism by any means, but I think it’s abundantly that post-Christian Judaism is continuous with pre-Christian Judaism; it is composed of the descendents of those who rejected Jesus as Messiah and whose beliefs developed over time just as did ours.

    If you do hold this, then I don’t see why you have a problem with making the same statements that St Paul and following did regarding the contingent of unbelieving Jews. Their group status is pretty much defined by their hatred of and rejection of Christianity. (Don’t forget who the persecuted were in early church days! And look at the only kind of Jew that is NOT allowed to make alliyah (sp?) in Israel.) The point that my husband and the others have been trying to make is dependent on this very view of Judaism — that those who are considered “Jews” are direct descendants of the Jews at the crucifixion by virtue of their rejection of Christ, not by their bloodline or anything, although that is generally continuous as well. Which admission ends up making them a false religion, an anti-Christian religion, and a religion whose adherents actively seek to bring down Christianity (just as they did in the 1st century). It’s odd that you would hold the same view regarding what constitutes the continuity of the pre-and post-Christian Jews and yet disclaim the continuity that my husband is trying to assert. (If in fact, you do… I’m not sure anymore…)

    Sarah

  3. 3 E. Campion June 1, 2007 at 7:02 pm

    Sarah, I’ll try to get to your comments in more depth after while (in the middle of stuff at work), but on the last point:

    Which admission ends up making them a false religion, an anti-Christian religion, and a religion whose adherents actively seek to bring down Christianity (just as they did in the 1st century).

    I agree with the first two, but not with the third. I see little evidence, if any, that orthodox, believing Jews are seeking actively to bring down Christianity today. Like I think I said to one of Chad’s other commenters, I can imagine that in St. John Chrysostom’s day and other periods in history, that might have been the case. I’m also open to being corrected on the matter of believing, practicing/orthodox Jews (as opposed to secular ones) actively undermining Christianity as opposed to trying to live alongside us.

  4. 4 sarah June 1, 2007 at 7:48 pm

    Thanks for being open to be corrected. That is what makes talking to you so pleasant even though we disagree. 🙂 I don’t have anything handy but I believe my husband might. But, as I believe it was you who said, and I agree, I’m perfectly happy to see the media slant as “secular” and the media just happens to be run by persons of Jewish descent. 🙂 The point, to me, is to be aware that there is an agenda and be discerning.

  5. 5 E. Campion June 1, 2007 at 8:30 pm

    The point, to me, is to be aware that there is an agenda and be discerning.

    Absolutely. That’s one of the major reasons I seldom watch TV and am very picky about which films to rent on DVD….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s





%d bloggers like this: