Michael Novak: a proper target for harsh polemic

In his recent post “Why Novak is completely worthless in every way imaginable,” Halden criticizes Michael Novak’s outlandish post at the First Things blog in which he calls for not only economic sanctions on Iran but also a ‘preventive’ attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Halden attacks Novak for the absurdity of seeking to violently secure the hill on which Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount. Evan has responded critically to Halden in a post entitled “Is Halden Doerge completely worthless in every way imaginable?” Evan doesn’t seem to understand why Halden would be so incredibly harsh in his post. It turns out that Evan actually has a personal connection to Novak and so this is obviously shaping his response.

Evan’s not interested in arguing with Halden about the merits of Novak’s post or Novak’s work in general. Rather, he is ultimately concerned about the harshness of Halden’s style of critique. And so he concludes his post with the following: “My advice to folks who are interested in blogging about theology would be, frankly, to not blog like Halden often does. I think it’s a mistake to do so, and that it can foster a stunted ability to interact with other people.” Now, I am all for reasoned and balanced critique over polemical hyperbole, but the truth of the matter is that Michael Novak is, to borrow Eugene McCarraher’s phrase, one of “Satan’s favorite sock puppets.” And so critique, even polemical critique is necessary. Considering his huge influence on lay Catholics (which is, by the way, comparable to the late Richard Neuhaus), his recent remarks should be called out for what they are: sub-Christian. Evan admits to having never read much of Novak’s work, and perhaps this is the most telling aspect of his post against Halden. Frankly, Michael Novak is doing awful work. This is the bitter truth. Critiques need to be leveled against him, in every forum, whether it be academic or a more informal blogging forum. Now I am sure Novak is a nice guy and a perfectly sincere Christian, which is precisely what makes his work so insidious. I don’t know about you, but as someone who has painfully labored through much of Novak’s work in the past, I’m with Halden on this one. And for the record, my advice to those interested in theology blogging is to learn the art of provocative blogging from the best of them–Halden Doerge–but be sure to take some time to learn from Evan’s “level-headed” blogging too.

Distorting the views of the dead

I think both John Howard Yoder and St. Augustine are crying in their graves at the sight of this man’s distortion of their politics.

What are the neocons up to?

From the folks who brought you the Project for the New American Century, check out The Foreign Policy Initiative.

What they promote across party lines:

The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is a newly formed, non-profit, non-partisan organization intending to qualify as a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code that promotes:

• continued U.S. engagement–diplomatic, economic, and military—in the world and rejection of policies that would lead us down the path to isolationism;
• robust support for America’s democratic allies and opposition to rogue regimes that threaten American interests;
• the human rights of those oppressed by their governments, and U.S. leadership in working to spread political and economic freedom;
• a strong military with the defense budget needed to ensure that America is ready to confront the threats of the 21st century;
• international economic engagement as a key element of U.S. foreign policy in this time of great economic dislocation.

Michael Novak at St. Thomas

Michael Novak, the Catholic neoconservative theologian comes to town on Wednesday, October 29 to deliver a lecture at 7:30 p.m. entitled, “Career or Calling? Business as a Vocation” at the Thornton Auditorium of Terrence Murphy Hall on St. Thomas’ downtown Minneapolis campus. It is free and open to the public.

Novak is one of the most painful theologians to read, and I’m sure it will be worse listening to him spout off on how capitalism and America are God’s gifts to the world. In his perspecitve, America is not quite the kingdom of God, but it is damn close. Novak has been a staunch supporter of U.S. involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and indeed all over the world, militarily and economically.

If you want to join me let me know! It will be great fun!

Novak on the (Christian?) hope for the universal spread of capitalism

Even though the best hope of the poor on earth lies in the universal spread and deeper development of democratic capitalist systems, much fresh thinking is needed to deepen the present intellectual and moral foundations of democratic capitalist societies. . . .Within a Jewish and Christian horizon, the road toward an earthly approximation of the kingdom of God streches very far into the future. There is no danger of confusing sin, imperfection, and suffering that characterize democratic capitalist societies with the kingdom of God. For humans, given their liberty, do often what they should not do, and do not do what they should. What can at least be said, though, is that no existing alternative seems more adequately suited both to eliciting human creativity and to deflecting human weakness into watchfulness. It does the former by adding to the tinder of talent “the fire of interest,” and the latter by assigning private interest to be a sentinel to public good.

Michael Novak, The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: The Free Press, 1993) 60-61.

Michael Novak on globalization

If a Catholic cannot feel confident in a time of globalization, what is the point in bearing the name ‘Catholic,’ which is another name for global? (The imperative for globalization began with the commission ‘Go preach the gospels to all nations,’ which turned Christianity away from being the religion of one tribe or one people only, and commanded it to see the whole human race as one people of God.) Globalization is the natural ecology of the Catholic faith.

Michael Novak, “Catholic Social Teaching, Markets, and the Poor,” in Doug Bandow and David Schindler, Wealth, Poverty, and Human Destiny (Wilmington: ISI Books, 2003) 56.

Pat Robertson Supports Terrorism?

After hearing word that Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Guiliani this morning, I can’t help but think of Robertson’s infamous interview of Jerry Falwell two days after September 11, 2001. In case you don’t remember, in reference to the 9/11 attacks Jerry Falwell claimed that abortionists, gays and lesbians, and feminists “helped this happen.”

In his words,

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I’ll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way–all of them who have tried to secularize America–I point the finger in their face and say “you helped this happen.”

In response Pat Robertson said,

“Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we’re responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.”

Of course, Falwell and Robertson are best known by terms like the Moral Majority and the Christian Right. With Falwell dead, Robertson has become the symbol of anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, militant rhetoric of the Christian Right.

The Christian Left has always thought of the Right as approaching moral issues too narrowly. You will often hear the Left say, “Yes, abortion is wrong, but be consistent with your focus on the right to life. What about war, the death penalty?” We all know the debate. Although the Christian Right has also been known to support US military operations around the world, I think the Left thought that it was really the social conservatism that held the Christian Right together (i.e. pro-life, anti-gay marriage).

Okay, do you see the irony…the man who once agreed with Jerry Falwell that the gays and abortionists helped 9/11 to happen, has just endorsed a candidate for president that is both pro-gay and pro-choice. Why? I assume it is what Guiliani said, “He supports me because we agree on what we think are the primary issues facing Americans: dealing with Islamic terrorism, dealing with the war on terror, dealing with the out-of-control spending in Washington.” But, wait, wouldn’t endorsing Guiliani actually have the reverse effect. I mean if the gays and the abortionists are given more room to spread their agenda, doesn’t this help the terrorists – like on 9/11?

I just don’t get Robertson’s shift in foreign policy. It seems like he supports terrorism.

WWJD? …What Would Jerry (Falwell) Do?

The Neoconservative Agenda for Permanent War

A few weeks ago U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld signed and released the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Report. Rumsfeld opens the report by replacing the old worn out phrase, “the war on terror,” with what he now calls “ the long war.” Like “the war on terror,” “the long war,” suggests that the U.S. faces an elusive and persistent enemy. It reminds me of President Bush’s comment on his responsibility to “rid the world of evil.” There is evil in the world that is lurking around every corner seeking to destroy “our free way of life.” This is the foundational premise behind the foreign policy of the Bush adminstration. It is a premise that frightens the public, especially after the events of 9/11. The next premise of the Bush adminstration’s foreign policy is that in order to defeat those seeking to destroy “our free way of life” is through the use of military force. Therefore, we must use military force against the evil that exists. Indeed, the conclusion follows. However, should we not question the premises of the Bush administration? Is there evil lurking around every corner attempting to destroy our way of life? If so, is the use of violence the most effective way to defeat evil? Or, in President Bush’s terms “rid the world of evil?”
If the people of the United States want their country to be safer, then the conflict that exists between us and the so-called terrorists must be put into perspective. Furthmore, if we really want to resolve this conflict then the process toward humility must begin. In other words, we must begin to look at our role in the conflict, we must be introspective in order to effectively work toward any sort of long lasting resolution. To many this may seem strange, for President Bush has repeatedly framed the conflict as one-sided – “they hate our freedom.” However, Osama bin Laden, one of the only faces on the elusive enemy we face, has given many more reasons for his attack on the U.S. and none of them include hating our freedom. Can a conflict be resolved by not addressing the concerns of the other party? It seems highly unlikely. The lack of concern for trying to understand why 9/11 happened suggests to me that the Bush administration is not concerned with resolving this conflict. The Bush adminstration’s use of military force on the civilians of Afghanistan is no way to resolve a conflict with an enemy that has no face, and with a perceived ideology against the free world. The “war on terror” is, indeed, beginning to look like a “long war,” precisely because we have never addressed the root of the issue – the causes of 9/11. It is the elephant in the room.

The Neo-Conservative Master Plan in Action

Sometimes dreams come true for U.S. neo-conservatives. When a couple of planes crashed into buildings on September 11, 2001, the hopes and dreams of neo-conservatives everywhere were in plain sight: employ unilateral military operations on Iraq. Today, the American people feel frustrated with the state of the Iraq war. People sense deception and corruption as top officials of the Adminstration are indicted for secrets and crimes. As a result, people grow more and more wary of the Bush adminstrations reasons for going to war in Iraq and the reasons given for staying there. Why has the media been so slow to tell the truth about the neo-conservative agenda? Why has the media been reluctant to talk about the explicit references and plans drawn to invade Iraq in documents written pre-911? The good news is that the media does not have to tell you about the neo-conservative agenda and the hijacking of the devastating attacks on September 11, for they in fact, are willing to tell you themselves.

Go to “The Project for the New American Century” – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Bolton, Wolfiwitz – the whole crew.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf