The culture war against Christianity is picking up speed.
Last week came word that Saint Louis University will remove a heroic-sized statue of Fr. Pierre-Jean De Smet S.J. from the front of Fusz Hall, where it has stood for 60 years.
The statue depicts Fr. De Smet holding aloft a crucifix as he ministers to two American Indians, one of whom is kneeling.
Historically, the statue is accurate. Fr. De Smet, "Blackrobe," as he was known, was a 19th-century missionary to Indian tribes who converted thousands. A friend of Sitting Bull, he spent his last years in St. Louis.
And as the mission of this Jesuit university is, presumably, to instruct the Catholic young in their faith and send them out into the world to bring the good news of Jesus Christ as Lord and savior to nonbelievers, what exactly is the problem here?
According to SLU Assistant Vice President for Communications Clayton Berry, "some faculty and staff ... raised questions about whether the sculpture is culturally sensitive." Senior Ryan McKinley is more specific: "The statue of De Smet depicts a history of colonialism, imperialism, racism and of Christian and white supremacy."
But if the founder of Christianity is the Son of God, then Christianity is a superior religion. What Ryan and those faculty and staff seem to be ashamed of, uncomfortable with, or unable to defend, is the truth for which Saint Louis University was supposed to stand.
But simply because they are cowardly, or politically correct, why should that statue be going into the SLU art museum? Why should not they themselves depart for another institution where their sensitivities will not be assaulted by artistic expressions of religious truths?
The message the SLU president should have given the dissenters is simple: We are a Catholic university that welcomes students and faculty not of the faith. But if you find our identity objectionable, then go somewhere else. We are not changing who we are.
Yet another missionary to the Indians is now becoming a figure of controversy. On his September visit to Washington, D.C., Pope Francis plans to canonize Fr. Junipero Serra, the Spanish Franciscan whom John Paul II beatified in 1988, who converted thousands of Indians in California in the 18th century, when it still belonged to Mexico. Fr. Serra established nine missions up the coast, among them missions that would grow into San Diego, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Barbara and San Francisco. Not only is Fr. Serra's name famous in California, his statue has stood since 1931 in the U.S. Capitol in one of two places set aside for the Golden State. The other statue representing California is that of President Ronald Reagan, unveiled in 2009, which replaced a statue of the preacher Thomas Starr King.
With the pope coming here to canonize Fr. Serra, the war drums have begun. It is said the priest accompanied Spanish soldiers who brutalized the Indians, and Fr. Serra helped to eradicate their religion and culture, replacing it with his own.
Now a move is afoot to remove Fr. Serra's statue. According to the Religion New Service, "State Sen. Ricardo Lara, an openly gay Los Angeles Democrat, wants to replace a bronze statue of Serra with a monument honoring Sally Ride, the nation's first female astronaut. Lara said Ride would become 'the first member of the LGBT community' to be honored in Statuary Hall."
Another drive is underway by feminists to remove the visage of Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill and replace it with that of a woman, preferably a minority woman. Jackson, it is said, was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the Cherokees in the Trail of Tears.
Yet, Jackson, slashed across the head by a British soldier in the last days of the Revolution for refusing to polish his boots, was also arguably the greatest soldier-statesman in American history.
Gen. Jackson led the 1815 defense of New Orleans against the British invasion force, and crushed the Indian marauders in Florida, drove out the Spanish governor, and cleared the path for annexation. Twice elected president, Jackson is, with Jefferson, a father of the Democratic Party, and he and his proteges Sam Houston and James K. Polk virtually doubled the size of the United States.
One Internet poll advanced four leading candidates to replace Jackson: Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, Wilma Mankiller and Harriet Tubman.
But when we look at who is currently on America's currency — George Washington on the $1 bill, Abe Lincoln on the $5, Hamilton on the $10, Jackson on the $20, Ulysses S. Grant on the $50, Ben Franklin on the $100 — do any of these women really compete in terms of historic achievement with what those great men accomplished?
Aren't we carrying this affirmative action business a bit too far?
What all these arguments are at bottom all about, however, is a deep divide among us over the question: Was the European Christian conquest of America, given its flaws and failings, on balance, a great and good thing. Or not?
(Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three presidents, twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000. He won the New Hampshire Republican Primary in 1996.)
Last Updated on Thursday, 04 June 2015 09:33
History is like a blueprint to the future. In many ways it repeats itself and, in doing so, provides us with countless indicators that tell us how to fail or how to succeed. The adage, "those who don't know history are bound to repeat it" is lesson number one in how to learn from one's successes or failures. Today, we are witnessing what happens when history's lessons are ignored.
World War II took a devastating toll on the countries of Europe and Asia, but the Allied forces, the west, won the battles. Europe was left with a beaten people and an infrastructure that was in shambles. The United States could have come home and left Europe to fend for itself, and we really don't know what would have happened. We do know, that even with our continued presence, Russia was throwing its weight around and did its best to isolate West Berlin.
When Russia prevented normal road and rail traffic to travel through its controlled portion of Germany into West Berlin, President Truman initiated the Berlin Airlift. For eleven months, United States and British flight crews flew round the clock into Berlin, bringing in tons of essential food and medical supplies and a host of other essentials every single day. The entire operation was a logistical masterpiece. And, our "occupation" forces prevented Russia or others from interfering with the rebuilding of the country.
After Japan's surrender, the United States forged an alliance with that country, even to the point of strongly influencing the development of their Constitution. That bond continues to this day as does our military presence there. That presence is essential to maintaining the peace in Southeast Asia as our country has a long standing treaty with Taiwan (Formosa), where General Chang Kai Shek separated himself and his followers from the mainland Communist Chinese. As of late, China has been making huge investments in its military and has been staking claims in the South China Sea. If they decide to reclaim Taiwan or other islands in that sea, our military presence becomes essential.
Through those rebuilding efforts, and our on-going military presence throughout Germany, Europe, and Japan, those nations have had relative peace for 70 years. To this day, the United States has maintained a military presence, with several hundred military installations around the world.
The examples of Europe and Japan are in contrast to what has happened in the Middle East. Success was achieved in Iraq, with the ouster of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a democratically-elected government. That success however, did not mean that the country was one big happy family. Hussein was a Sunni Muslim, a minority in the country where 63 percent of the population is Shia Muslim. That divide is incredibly significant. On one side of Iraq is Iran, a Shia Muslim nation. On the other side of Iraq is Saudi Arabia, a Sunni Muslim nation. There is a spiritual divided between the two sects as each seeks to rule all of Islam. When our military presence was removed from Iran, it removed any chance of stability in that critical region of the world. As we have seen, the rest of the Middle East is in flames as there is no stable military presence ready, willing, and able to keep each of the factions from trying to dominate the other.
A critical piece of this puzzle is that our true ally, the State of Israel, has the most religiously diverse population in the Middle East; with its Jewish population numbering about six million and its non-Jewish population around two million. Israel is surrounded by Muslim countries that overwhelmingly outnumber its small Jewish population. The issue becomes one of, if they were in a war and "won", would they have enough military to occupy the losing country in order to maintain stability? Obviously, Israel could not provide a sufficient number of troops to control Iran's population of almost 78 million people, or Iraq's over 33 million, or Saudi Arabia's 29 million.
While we maintained a presence in Iraq, a democratically-elected government was installed, consisting of both Sunni and Shia. That didn't mean that the two factions decided to hug each other but, as long as we maintained a presence, things were working. However, when President Obama declared victory and removed our occupying force from Iraq, Shia dominated Iran moved in to gain influence and control over Iraq, a largely Shia country that had been ruled by a Sunni — Saddam Hussein. Now, both Sunni and Shia are plagued by the expansion of the ruthless and savage ISIL terrorist organization.
Those who believe the Middle East will stabilize, and/or that ISIL and other terrorist armies will not continue to expand but will become complacent and non-threatening, are ignoring history's lessons. The United States is the only powerful, stabilizing force in the world and, without its "occupation", no lasting victory can be achieved. Think of Germany and Europe, Japan, Korea, and our military presence in locations from as remote as Iceland to Guam.
Before it comes to your doorstep . . . Think!
(Bob Meade is a Laconia resident.)
Last Updated on Monday, 01 June 2015 04:58
Does George Pataki really think he can win the nomination? Rand Paul? Rick Santorum? Whoever announced this morning? Yes. How can they possibly think this, you ask (unless you are one of their ardent supporters)? I mean, a first-term senator, a former printing executive, whatever, who, frankly, no one has ever heard of is going to get elected president? How are they going to raise the $300 million or however much it will take to win the nomination?
Back in 1974, there was a termed-out one-term Georgia governor with these two very smart 20-something aides (who also were sort of termed out if he was), and one of them, the late Hamilton Jordan, wrote one of those famous memos that become symbols in politics. The gist of it was: Iowa is a caucus state. You could meet every person who goes to a caucus. Do. If you win Iowa, it becomes a huge national story, and they put you on the covers of the magazines (a big deal in those days), and the money rolls in on your way to New Hampshire. And if you win New Hampshire — my goodness, the famous first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary — or even do better than expected, you're all of a sudden the national frontrunner, and all you need is one Southern state tucked right up there, and you've got what you need to prove that you are the overwhelming choice of the nation.
Three states. Pretty good. Actually, it's pretty much still the only strategy that works if you're one of the people whose decision to run for president is something we hear about in the car radio but can't quite remember by the time we get in the house.
The joke in Iowa — and it's actually happened to me and everyone else — is that you bring your candidate to a small event at someone's farm at some incredibly early hour of the morning, and at the end of his promising every form of agricultural subsidy you could reasonably request, you ask one of the guests whether he's ready to support your candidate, and he looks at you like you're absolutely crazy and says, "But I've only met him once."
Now, you could argue that the ability to survive years of living-room grilling is a good test of presidential skills, although I'm not sure why, since it has absolutely nothing to do with winning general elections, much less governing. But it has a great deal to do with how the presidential races get played out.
While it's true that Jimmy Carter went on to win the presidency, Iowa caucus voters are rarely so accurate in their predictions. President Huckabee? Or was that President Santorum? They were the last two Iowa "winners."
No, predicting presidents is hardly the purpose of Iowa, so much as propelling insurgents. I will never forget one Iowa caucus night, driving around and literally seeing what seemed to be every church bus in the state on the highways. And thus was the birth of the Christian Coalition. Who, after all, has buses other than schools (teachers are always much sought after by Democrats) and churches?
In the years since, Iowa's Republican caucus has become the weeding-out ground for all the candidates whose names you can't remember, especially on the right. Jeb Bush will survive Iowa; a lot of the other folks getting up early to hit the farms won't. But the one or two who do the best, especially if they can follow up with a strong showing in New Hampshire, win the right to challenge Bush or whoever the mainstream establishment such as it is has resigned itself to. As for everybody else, enjoy the chicken fries.
(Susan Estrich is a professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California Law Center. A best-selling author, lawyer and politician, as well as a teacher, she first gained national prominence as national campaign manager for Dukakis for President in 1988.)
Last Updated on Friday, 29 May 2015 06:56
Socialist genius Bernie Sanders has figured out what's really ailing America.
Our store shelves have too many different brands of deodorant and sneakers. Just look at all those horrible, fully stocked aisles at Target and Walgreens and Wal-Mart and Payless and DSW and Dick's Sporting Goods. It's a national nightmare! If only consumers had fewer choices in the free market, fewer entrepreneurs offering a wide variety of products and fewer workers manufacturing goods people wanted, Sanders believes, we could end childhood hunger.
Nobody parodies the far left better than far-leftists themselves.
In an interview with financial journalist John Harwood on Tuesday, Sanders detailed his grievances with an overabundance of antiperspirants and footwear. "You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on."
Try to suppress a snicker: Sanders, Decider of Your Sanitary and Footwear Needs, is casting himself as the Everyman in touch with "ordinary Americans" to contrast his campaign with Hillary "my Beltway lobbyist and foreign agent operator Sid Blumenthal is just a friend I talk to for advice" Clinton.
Blech. By the looks of the 2016 Democratic presidential field, liberals really do practice the anti-choice principles they preach.
At Caracas-on-the-Green Mountains, every business owner's success robs starving babies of vital nutrition. Because some tummies may be grumbling somewhere across the fruited plains, all must suffer. In Sanders' world, it's the "greedy"— America's real makers, builders and wealth creators — who must be punished and shamed, specifically with a personal income tax rate hiked to a whopping 90 percent for top earners.
Of course, the wealth redistributors in Washington never bear any of the blame for misspending the billions they confiscate.
Nearly 100 million Americans participated in dozens of federal food assistance programs in 2014. The General Accounting Office reported last year that $74.6 billion went to food stamps, $11.3 billion went to the national school lunch program, and $7.1 billion went to the WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program, along with $1.9 billion for nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico and $10.7 million for a federal milk program.
But no, it's not the fault of command-and-control bureaucrats and their overseers on Capitol Hill that the War on Poverty and the War on Hunger have failed.
In Sanders' bubble, childhood hunger is the fault of selfish consumers, self-serving entrepreneurs and rapacious retailers who engage in voluntary transactions in a free-market economy. Just as Sanders believes there are "too many" products on the shelves, President Obama recently opined that families of America's top earners in the financial industry "pretty much have more than you'll ever be able to use and your family will ever be able to use."
We need not speculate about whether the wealth-shamers' recipe of less capitalist consumption, fewer private businesses, stifling of entrepreneurship and more government control over goods and services would result in happier citizens and fuller stomachs. In Venezuela, the shelves are unburdened by "too many" deodorants and shoes and too much soap, milk or coffee. Food distribution is under military control. The currency of the socialist paradise just collapsed on the black market by 30 percent.
Here in America, dozens of private household goods companies make billions of dollars selling scented, unscented, quilted, two-ply, white and colored toilet paper that people want and need. In Sanders' utopia in South America, the government imposed price controls in the name of redistributing basic goods to the poor and seized a toilet paper factory to cure the inevitable shortages. The lines are long. The shelves are empty. The daily battle for subsistence is brutal.
Take it from those who suffer most under the unbridled fulfillment of "you didn't build that" and "you don't need that" radicalism: It stinks.
(Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin is the daughter of Filipino Immigrants. She was born in Philadelphia, raised in southern New Jersey and now lives with her husband and daughter in Colorado. Her weekly column is carried by more than 100 newspapers.)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00
Neither rain nor sleet nor snow — nor even the likelihood that he'd be killed en route — could stop this letter carrier from making his appointed rounds.
Doug Hughes is one gutsy and creative mailman. In April, this rural letter carrier from Florida stunned the Secret Service, eluded federal aviation authorities, embarrassed Washington's haughty all-seeing security hierarchy and threw members of Congress into a chaotic panic. Hughes did all this by boldly flying his tiny, homemade, gyrocopter right through the heart of our nation's most restricted airspace, then landing it on the front lawn of the U.S. Capitol.
Far from a terrorist or a kook, Hughes was just a mailman on a mission, a patriotic citizen who — like most of us — is disgusted that Big Money interests are able to openly buy lawmakers and laws. But he did more than write a letter to his congress critter — he wrote letters to all 535 of them, loaded the missives in his mailbag and — as postal workers do — literally went the extra mile to make a "very special delivery" in his gyrocopter.
This was no flight of fancy. Doug planned his mail delivery for months, and he was fully aware that he might crash, be killed by a scramble of military jets or be gunned down by guards when he landed. Nor was it a sneak attack — he repeatedly posted his intentions in blogs; a reporter was covering his preparations; and the Secret Service had investigated and interviewed him about his plans more than a year earlier.
His landing jolted the Capitol into lockdown. Guards rushed out to arrest Doug and haul him off to some deep cellblock; a bomb squad arrived; and spooked lawmakers were scared silly. They ran around screeching that they were threatened by terrorists. Of course, the real threat to America is not some guy flying a gyrocopter in protest but the utter corruption of Congress, the courts and democracy itself by the plutocratic elites whom this mailman targeted with nothing more (nor less) dangerous than a bagful of truth-telling letters.
Actually, Hughes was not alone on this heroic mission of civil disobedience — the great majority of Americans are totally on board with him, his message and his bold effort to shake up and shape up Congress.
It's not surprising that when the activist mailman delivered his powerful message to Congress he drew saturation coverage from the mass media.
Not coverage of his message, mind you, but a ridiculous spasm of media scaremongering over the non-existent terrorist threat that our self-absorbed members of Congress say his visit posed to them.
While Hughes carried no weapons of terrorism on his flight, the message he brought to Washington is politically explosive. So, congressional leaders, who're always terrified about anything that might ignite public outrage over their pay-to-play corruption, quickly rushed to divert attention from the message — to the messenger.
Shazam! In an instant, the politicos fabricated a sob story about themselves, recasting their role from for-sale villains to pitiable victims. We're threatened by a security network so porous, they squealed, that this dangerous terrorist can easily fly right up to the Capitol building. They convened emergency hearings, went on talk shows and imperiously demanded that they be made safe from such a horrific threat. And the media meekly bought into the whole hubbub, entirely losing sight of the damning message that the mailman was carrying.
Hughes did not commit and act of terror; it was an act of civil disobedience. His flight was a thoughtful, well-planned, non-violent stand against the tyranny of money, undertaken in the spirit of Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, Jr. Hughes is standing up for We the People, and like freedom fighters before him, he's full-aware of and prepared to pay the price of civic defiance. On May 20, a federal grand jury indicted this messenger of democracy on a mess of charges that could add up to more than nine years in prison. Far from backing away, however, he's now calling out you and me: "We spend billions protecting the United States from terrorists," Hughes recently wrote. "It's time for Americans to spend time protecting democracy from plutocrats."
One time when Thoreau was in jail for his defiance of authority, his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson happened by and asked: "Henry, why are you here?" Thoreau retorted: "Why are you not here?" To help save our democracy from plutocracy, go to www.DemocracyIsForPeople.org.
(Jim Hightower has been called American's most popular populist. The radio commentator and former Texas Commissioner of Agriculture is author of seven books, including "There's Nothing In the Middle of Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos" and his new work, "Swim Against the Current: Even Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow".)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00