On Blogging in General, What is Blogged on Subject-Wise, My Moods, Etc.
(Aka "Tales From the Crypt Mailbag" Dept.)

[Prefatory Note: This is part of a correspondence with a friend from November of 2005 which has been slightly tweaked in spots (and updated as of April of 2006 in some of my responses as far as past/present tenses go). Their words will be in darkgreen font and I believe what I noted then will explain to some extent (and in retrospect at the time) why this weblog has taken some of the approaches it has in recent years and why things are not likely to return to what they were in the first year of this weblog's existence anytime soon. -ISM]

I do believe, Shawn, that your approach on politics is very interesting and unique, but you should get back to theology :-) A good topic to work on is ecclesiology.

I actually have more experience discussing political and social issues believe it or not. What has been the focus for the past couple of years is actually not that incongruent with what I was doing long before I ever got into theological discussions. However, it is funny that you mention ecclesiology as I have long had on the backburner an idea for ecclesiology which would be unique. It has been in my mind since probably 1999 back when the first urls of what would be my treatise writing (and some stuff I eventually did not use in that work) were still in draft format. In retrospect, it is good that I never wrote on that subject prior to now because it will be quite technical and I had certain lacunas in my understanding of certain important but derivative aspects of what I wanted to write on at that time -though back then I did not realize this. (Most of those lacunas have since been serendipitously filled in by the way.) That is not to mention the subject of ecclesiology in general which I did not acquire what I consider a somewhat decent understanding of the intricacies of until probably late 2002.{1} However, there is also the issue of motivation to write on theological stuff which I will touch on in a moment.

Make an ecclesiology treatise like the one you did on Prescription. It doesn't mean you have to write a Congar type piece, but just a simple treatise. You haven't really done anything on theology in a while. You didn't lose your touch did you? :-P

This is a rather odd assertion in some respects XXXXXXXX but it is an interesting point so I will address it. You ask if I "lost [my] touch". While I have generally written on socio-political issues in recent years, there was still an undercurrent of theological subject matter posted to [Rerum Novarum]. There has not been much lately in part because I have had serious time constraints for writing and theological stuff simply has not been interesting me as much.

Part of the reason for the latter perhaps is a somewhat conscious decision on my part (the past two years in particular) to absolutely destroy the stereotype of myself as someone who "writes on 'traditionalist' issues" when I have always been far broader in my capabilites as well as in my interests viz. what I have written on or wanted to write on. Since that profoundly irritating typecasting would not fade by its own volition, I have essentially segregated Rerum Novarum from other projects completely{2} and treat them as separate projects now. As a result, my focus is rarely on those subjects anymore.

As far as other theological stuff goes, I have written on many subjects far beyond what I was "best known" for and did this deliberately; albeit not as much this year as in years past. A lot of it boils down to motivation to write and wanting to write on certain subjects. I have always been quite comfortable with geopolitical and more general philosophical/ethical issues even if for a couple of years my focus was significantly theological. With regards to the latter issues, I do know that I lost a lot of whatever motivation I still had to write on theological issues after the back to back bullshit episodes from Stephen Hand and Dave Armstrong...particularly the latter one and I will not mince words because that is precisely what those situations were. Of the two, the second one was far more significant to me for not a few reasons{3} but still, if that is what happens when two Catholics discuss theological issues publicly (particularly two friends as Dave and I were) then who needs it really XXXXXXXX??? I know I do not.

Another example that jaded me to no small degree is the refusal of certain parties who pose as willing to dialogue and then hastily throw around terms they do not have the decency to bother defining. Here are some threads on one of those subjects:

Miscellaneous Morning Musings on Blogging, the So-Called "Neo-Cons", and the Miers Nomination--An Audio Post (circa October 27, 2005)

Briefly Revisiting the Term "Neo-Con" and its Usage With Christopher Blosser (circa November 9, 2005)

I have not gotten responses from those whom I had in mind with that challenge generally speaking. The mail ones were from a fellow who is obviously opposed to catholicism and Dale Vree -albeit the latter was more indirect and serendipitous. Basically, the Catholics I made the challenge to (read: any Catholic who has recourse to those terms in a derisive or dismissive context to avoid interacting with substantive issues) have thus far proved to be such evasive cowards precisely as I knew they would. Dialogue is a two way street after all and I have no patience anymore for those who claim to be interested in dialogue and then either run from it or to not conform themselves to what the discipline itself inexorably entails. See my audiopost from October 6, 2005 where I discuss this in a brief summary format. More could be noted but that will suffice for now.

That is not to say I will not write on theological issues in the future...heck, I wrote a three part series on the subject of America's founding which had a theological subthread to it (the thread of masonry) late last year.{4} When the pope published his first encyclical, I wrote a bit on that event though that was a news item as well as a theological event. I have noted a few times before that a good part of what I write on is cued by a deliberately varied stream of influence. Or as I noted in mid 2005:

[T]here are many approaches to interacting with the views of others that do not require someone to have comments boxes at their own weblog. Your host revealed a number of them which he utilizes at various times about twenty odd months ago when the issue of personality profiles of contributers to St. [Blogs] was a subject making the rounds...

[T]o summarize the various sources in brief, they are (in roughly the order utilized):

---Weblog writings of your host on subjects of interest to him at the time from other weblogs, other websites, from books he has read, or from current events.

---Emails from readers which your host decides to respond to and posts either in commentary form or dialogual form.

---Weblog writings of others which your host decides to comment on in commentary form or dialogual form.

---Interactions with others from discussion lists that your host is part of -which are then posted to the weblog (possibly with some refining of the material) into either commentary form or dialogual form.

---Interactions with others from comments boxes at other people's weblogs -which are then posted to the weblog (possibly with some refining of the material) into either commentary form or dialogual form.

---Material from others (friends, emailers, other bloggers) which is posted in guest editorial form.[...]

---Interactions with others from message boards which are then posted to the weblog (possibly with some refining of the material) into either commentary form or dialogual form. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 6, 2005)]

I forgot to mention audioblogging also as another source for discussing issues...but then again, the audblog feature was not one I knew of when the sources were first posted on (about two years ago) and the software was having problems in June of 2005 so that is why I forgot to mention it in the above thread.{5} But anyway, those are the sources I use for coming up with material on which to blog.

However, ultimately it boils down to my moods and what I want to write about...and there has been less and less of an inclination to write on theological subjects in recent years by my own admission. However, the inclination despite waxing and waning was nonetheless always there until very recently. At the moment, there is none as I noted above for the reasons so noted. You ask if I have lost my touch for theological stuff and in all honesty: I do not know. I do know though that in the words of that great western philosopher Albert King "the feeling is gone" and only time will tell I suppose if it will return in any functional capacity.

Notes:

{1} Since that time, I have learned a lot more as well as discerned certain areas for that work where I still need to acquire knowledge as well as first hand lab experimentation to perfect. When I will get around to that I am not sure but a return to training before the end of the year going into 2006 2006 will certainly facilitate that in some respects. I will have a six month agenda to achieve very specific goals and when they are attained (there is no "if" here), I will be in a good frame of mind for starting the initial draftings of that project (eight years after it was first conceived as a viable project).

{2} This was more of an unconscious decision than a conscious one but I cannot say I am displeased with how it turned out.

{3} I experienced a combination of profound lividness and disappointment unlike anything I have had in years after that situation. Little did I know that six days after that email was sent in its original form to the person I was conversing with that my childhood best friend Chris DiSomma would die in a Mesa, Arizona hospital of heart failure. I found out two days after the event and the Armstrong situation by comparison was miniscule to say the least.

Suffice to say, Chris' passing was not quite as severe on my constitution as when my father passed on and the aftermath of that event or a couple of the two dozen odd others in recent years who have likewise exited but it was nonetheless (to a surprising degree) very close to that degree of effect. (Probably because it also dealt with a person whose roots went very deep into the fabric of my life -much deeper than I realized in fact until after he was gone.)

{4} This was something I wrote directly challenging the historical presumptions of David Jones:

On the Subject of America's Founding With Christopher Blosser and David Jones--Parts I-III (circa December 13-15, 2005)

The obvious evasions on the part of David Jones to answer my challenging of his historical account (not to mention his anachronistic reading of ecclesial policies) was of no small degree of annoyance. I thought Jones was capable or honourable enough to engage the issue here and thus far that has proved to be wanting -preferring to imitate Dave Armstrong by making assertions he does not bother to substantiate by rational argument. As David never pompously claimed that he "responds to all challenges", I was willing to cut him some slack though in light of the statements he made about the Founding Fathers, I believe he should view it as a matter of common decency to respond to what I wrote. People have the right to their good reputations (presuming that they have not by their own actions and/or statements sullied them by unethical behaviour of course) and those who are not alive to defend themselves deserve no less a consideration in this area if we are to show a proper respect for the historical record and to our ancestors.

{5} Right now it is having problems again in posting what I record...instead I am finding audiposts in the drafts folder after they are recorded and it is not making me pleased. (Hopefully it will be fixed soon...I have tampered with the blog settings and will try recording again later today or later in the week to see if the adjustments I made fixed it or not.)

Standing on Principles Vs. Public Demagoguery and Historical Airbrushing:
(An Open Note on Dave Armstrong and the Subjects of Apologetics and General Ethics)

Any citations from Dave will be in dark yellow coloured bold font. Without further ado...

I would suggest that those who want to marvel at Dave's unsuccessful refutations of me that they consider objectively what a refutation properly so-called constitutes. That subject was touched on briefly HERE.

In a nutshell: something is not refuted on the subjective whims of anyone (be they Dave, myself, or anyone else) but by the objective criteria of the arguments advanced. This should be self-evident but I have learned over the years that logic and reason and knowing how to use them are in short supply in today's world. These are tools not taught in schools generally speaking{1} so I am not surprised anymore when I see people struggle with issues as they generally do.

The difference between Dave and I is that I will gladly explain how this stuff is ascertained and tell readers not to accept anything I say simply because I say it. To those who for some reason have an interest in this subject still, I repeat what I said before: examine the arguments themselves and from the sources -not from Dave's selective proof texts of my work.

Those who have questions can email me and I will answer them on my blog if they are good questions, are not irrelevant attempts at cheap polemic, and if I am in the mood at the time to answer them publicly. Otherwise they will be saved for a time when I am in the mood to discuss them or will be answered in private and publicly posted later on. And if an email is sent where the writer takes time to interact with my arguments, I will respect their time and seek to represent their views with the utmost of accuracy when I respond: something Dave often does not do and a significant confutation in and of itself of Dave's claims to be interested in dialogue with others.

A few points briefly and then I will leave you all{2} to your devices...

Since apologetics and sharing of faith is what I do and love, and especially since Shawn and Greg take it upon themselves to trash (on a largely or entirely groundless basis) so many of the leading Catholic apologists, who are my friends and colleagues, they deserve every criticism they get (and more).

I challenge anyone to point out the "so many of the leading apologists" I have referred to. Other than Dave, Mark, and Karl, I have not mentioned anyone else except Stephen Hand but he is not technically an apologist and I am sure he would agree with me on that if nothing else. Here is my thread from August 5, 2006 and the lack of a biblical scroll of names in it should be obvious. If four people constitutes "so many of the leading apologists" then Dave has a weird notion of "so many." But I do not expect Dave to handle these things equitably as he has shown in the past year that he is not willing to do this. That is why I decided to blog this thread for an easy future reference point for referring to Dave's rationally deficient offerings.

All of this is a pretty far cry from what he used to say about me but apparently one can go from being on the side of the angels to being the devil's hand puppet merely by disagreeing with Dave. Just ask Chris Blosser about it if you have any doubts. I have not changed much over the years except to have my views deepened with further study and thoughtful reflection on various issues. Certainly I have not changed in any significant way the past three years and virtually any position I take now is consistent with positions I took a year, two years, three years, etc. going back a decade or more (sometimes as far back as two decades). That is why this whole recasting of me from angel to devil by Dave is so puzzling. But enough on that for now as the above link which was still on the web at Dave's site until November of 2005 speaks for itself.{3}

But I am in a position to make such a criticism because I've been doing apologetics for 25 years and it is my life's work.

Considering that Dave has not been a Catholic for 25 years, it would do him better to admit that he has done Catholic apologetics for 15 years or as long as he has been Catholic. But considering how Dave has been critical of certain parties who were critical of the work of another apologist recently because of some of those persons' past affiliations (asserting essentially they had not been out of their previous affiliation long enough to be credibly critical) Dave would have a lot of temerity to even claim 15 years as a Catholic apologist. To avoid another inconsistency from plaguing him, he would be wise to cut that number down further than that. Oh and for those who wondered, I had in mind a number of people when writing this thread. I would advise that Dave consider something I wrote about recently when dealing with the subject of so-called refutations -see footnote one of the text for details.

I know what it is; I know what it involves, and I know when someone doesn't understand those things, and when they don't have any credibility to make the claims they are making, either about themselves or those whose work of apologetics and evangelism they so detest.

Again, who are the reams of people I "so detest" as Dave asserts??? I have not even said I "detest" those I have criticized. Where is it written that one cannot criticize others (even seriously at times) without detesting them as people??? But I know these kinds of caricatures is easier to use and their appearance here only vindicates something I noted last month viz. his methodology.{4} The next time anyone sees Dave whining about James White or anyone else of that ilk for caricaturing him, remember what he has been doing to me for months on end now -mostly behind my back as I find out about this stuff from others and generally do not intervene about it.{5}

So he has to distort my actual views and then quixotically blast the straw man,

Dave knows that nothing he has said has been distorted by me. I have dealt with his arguments one by one and they wilt like grass in the summer heat. He though by contrast has continually ignored my arguments and decided instead to play the proof texting card that he finds so repugnant when his favourite targets of ridicule amongst antiCatholic online apologists (i.e. James White, Eric Svendsen, etc.) try it on him. To say that I see nothing in substance different from what Dave has done with my work and what Steve Hays did with it is demonstrably true. The difference I suppose is that I did not expect Steve Hays to adhere to basic scholastic ethics the way I do from Dave: both by virtue of his being a Catholic{6} as well as his being an old friend. At the time of this unfortunate circumstance, we were friends despite various factors bubbling under the surface going back not a few years.{7} That I expected despite those things that he would act ethically should speak for itself: I treated him no differently than I have anyone else who objectively manifests a disregard for basic ethics as he did in that example.{8} Again, consistency is on my side here and unlike Dave this is a statement I can more than adequately substantiate.

whereas I am citing his own words,

Proof texting a source is not a credible citation and Dave should know that. Certainly if he mentioned to people to read my stuff in context, they would see that among the areas I criticize him for is proof texting sources. As that is fatal to the picture Dave has attempted to paint of this whole situation, he cannot have them see that so he quotes out of context bits to try and paint the most lurid picture he could of me: not exactly You cannot have them see that so you merely quote out of context bits to try and paint the most lurid picture you can of me: not exactly a noble example of Christian charity on his part there.

which is all that is necessary to fully establish the charge of intellectual arrogance, snobbery, and conceit

If that is true then Dave should be willing to send readers to the whole links without his editorial comments. Of course Dave cannot do that because in context my arguments are sustained and my consistency is glaringly evident. I realize I can be verbose at times and repeated calls to him to show basic ethics in his public writings can sound like I am arrogantly lecturing him. But I do not ask of Dave anything I do not do myself.

As far as verbosity goes, Dave can hardly claim to be completely immune to that himself. It takes time and effort to think and in today's sound byte culture, both are held up to ridicule. If Dave was interested in helping reverse the dark ages we are either entering or already in viz. the widespread inability of people to think for themselves and not be intellectually dependent,{9} he would proactively play a part in seeking to reverse that trend, not actively continue to contribute to it as he has been doing in the way he has grossly distorted the context of my writings.

I wasn't the one who set myself up as the Moral Watchdog of Apologists (all the while trashing the enterprise of apologetics).

Dave knows full well I did not do this. But apparently apologetics is something above criticism as far as he is concerned. I almost forgot: Dave is above any and all criticism. I am sure he will continue to do whatever he thinks he can get away with to maintain his Potemkin Village accounts of our past disputations.{10}

If Shawn wants to set himself up over apologists and even over all moral theologians (as his position and Greg's on nuclear war practically entails) then he is subject to the same analysis himself.

I was unaware that attempting to call apologists to refrain from certain unethical habits and abuses constitutes me "set[ting myself] over apologists and even over all moral theologians". But notice the sweeping assertions that Dave makes on these things...never feeling the need to substantiate what he says along the way. Notice also the bait and switch folks: Dave started off last year claiming the subject was a "slam dunk" (his actual words) and then when he was roundly refuted on every point of argument, he switched the subject to what the consensus of moral theologians is. And yes, for those who actually have an interest in these subjects, I will simply say this: read what Dave wrote in response to my original posting and also the other threads on both sides. Otherwise, let the issue drop as a text without context is a pretext.{11}

Getting back to the moral theologians Dave refers to, when he shows me the actual arguments these moral theologians used, that appeal may have some merit because then we can see if their arguments approach the same patterns mine do and if they take all the factors into account that I do. In other words, it is again an illegitimate form of argument to authority which is what I noted before is contained in any attempt to appeal to the opinions or conclusions of a presumed authority. This is something Dave denies doing despite fulfilling every piece of criteria whereby that fallacy is generally outlined. There is also an obvious strain of intellectual dependence in this whole line of "reasoning" on his part but that is another subject altogether.

I do not want to go into this stuff again as it was adequately done before without actual confutation by Mr. Armstrong objectively speaking. For that reason, I will simply note here my final posting from last month. I see nothing more that can be said than that so I will bow out again, this time with a shorter thread for easier reference. Indeed, there is nothing more that can be said but a bit more is needed first before this thread can be put to bed and hopefully in a definitive fashion this time.

Dave noted on one of his threads of my supposed "flip flops"{12} that "[a]s recently as 6-14-05, Shawn reported that he was reading my book, The Catholic Verses." I was unaware that merely because I was reading a book of his that such an activity constitutes either an endorsement of him or of the contents of the book itself. I have read a lot of books in my life and by no means does that mean I endorse the book or the writer. Yes I was reading the book and I noted it in a book meme from last year. What Dave did not tell his readers is this:

---I was sent the book by Dave personally with a very nice note inside of it: the contents of which blatantly contradict everything he has been saying about me for the past year. Talk about the "Mother of All Flip Flops" (cf. Saddam Hussein) if ever there was one!!!

With regards to the above bold fonted assertion, I can substantiate what I say very easily to anyone with a fax machine who wants to see the page -as he wrote it on the title page inside the cover. He sent me the book and I have intended to review it for some time...indeed I started writing a review about July of last year which remains incomplete as of this posting. It will be finished probably before the end of the year and I am not going to change my original review notes in light of what subsequently happened. Book or CD reviews are approached by your host in as objective a sense as possible: personal qualms or their lack thereof having no discernible bearing on the process. But enough on that for now except for one brief bit.

I do not find it surprising that Dave found two audiopostings from September 6th (on the importance of vetting sources) and September 16th (on reason, logic, consistency, and the importance of scholastic and ethical integrity in public discourse) to be either boring or otherwise meeting with his displeasure (an approximation of what he said). It is no coincidence that these are areas where he either did not acquit himself well last year (read: failing to vet his sources) and/or continues to come up well short of the mark as of late (read: all the subjects covered in the second audio posting).

It is never easy for someone whose public performance was so wanting in substance ala what happened with Dave last year to deal with what transpired. Furthermore, the longer he continues trying to explain away what happened, it will only be tougher still for them to look at these matters with any sense of objectivity. But at some point it is repeating oneself so while I will not say these subjects will never be touched on again, lets say that after I post a long-planned dip into the email mailbag tomorrow (which will be updated to reflect the current situation a bit), I do not foresee saying anything in the immediate future about this unfortunate saga again.

[Update: It was recently pointed out to me by a few people that the tonality of this posting detracted from the substance of the points I was making. I do not deny that I was in an irritable mood when I drafted it and my mood was hardly unjustified. However, that does not mean that the manner whereby I responded is automatically appropriate or without deficiency in prudence. So with that in mind, I decided to revisit this posting from 2006 where invective so suffused the arguments I made as to render them far less persuasive to casual readers than they otherwise could have been.

To potentially render this enterprise more fruitful, I asked someone to act as a third party editor of sorts to review the postings and make suggestions of areas to be revised and others to be removed. (This person had no part whatsoever in the original controversy and to my knowledge is on good terms with all parties involved.) They agreed to review this post and made a number of suggested corrections. In every suggestion they made, I promptly made revisions where recommended and removed material that was recommended to be removed and resubmitted the proposed adjustments to them for follow-up critique, etc. This process continued until areas originally found problematical were adjusted to their satisfaction at which time I made the adjustments to the posting itself and republished it.

The revised posting before you is far more focused on my original arguments and hopefully provides much more light than heat unlike what was written previously. And though I stand by the substance of my original critiques, I do nonetheless profoundly regret letting my anger get the better of me in how I originally responded to Dave Armstrong in this post and extend to him through this effort as well as in words a most sincere apology. -SM 10/2/13]

Notes:

{1} Particularly public schools and, as Greg has told me, Detroit is among the worst of that lot. (At least north of Mason-Dixon.)

{2} And anyone following these threads who emails me with Dave's latest stuff or whatever, kindly stop it. (I was sent this combox thread and do not know which post from Dave's blog it is attached to as I do not waste my time reading Dave's blog anymore.) I will however gladly answer questions about my views and point out why my stances are and have been remarkably consistent unlike Mr. Armstrong's.

{3} When the internet archive updates past April 2005 or so, it will be viewable by all. I of course am not worried by this in the slightest...the same cannot be said about Dave. He is in the bizarre situation of claiming that I went from being angelic to demonic in the flip of a switch when indeed I have not changed an iota in my principles. All of his claims about posting stuff from my blog as "preserving history" is a joke because I do not delete my archives!!! If I do not delete them, then they are preserved at my site; ergo Dave's assertion implying that he has to somehow preserve them is absurd.

But it is a lot easier to accuse one's opponent of deleting archives -the difference between Dave and myself is that the charge does not stick with me. This obviously does not sit well with him; ergo that attempt at historical airbrushing which will only fool those who uncritically accept Dave's accounting of events without bothering to look into these things for themselves.

{4} I have once again done next to nothing to use that medium to expand my readership base. Dave by contrast has done the opposite of what I have in that area.[...]

There is also the fact that Dave has basically done everything he can to get readership including continually trying to manufacture conflicts as people are naturally drawn to them much as they are to a trainwreck. Dave is also quite good at casting himself as the martyr. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 16, 2006)]

{5} Those who want to claim that I allowed Dave to get my goat again have a valid point and I will not dispute it. However, at the very least this is a more economical and less expository thread and therefore can serve as a better last word to some extent than the previously published last word thread from August 28th of last month.

{6} Yes, I believe Catholics should be held to a higher standard. Or as my good friend Greg Mockeridge noted in a guest editorial to this weblog in early August of 2006:

If Catholic apologetics is going to be taken seriously by those outside the Church, Catholic apologists (especially those most prominent) have to demonstrate that they are willing to hold themselves and their fellows to at least the same standard as they hold their non-Catholic opposition. In fact, I think they need to hold fellow Catholics...to an even higher standard. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 5, 2006)]

The same principle has an even wider application than what Greg originally noted; ergo my use of ellipses above.

{7} Now is not the time to detail these factors but they are important in assessing the sitz im leben of this situation adequately.

{8} "An Altered Eye Alters All Things" Dept.--Miscellaneous Musings on Integrity (circa August 23, 2006)

{9} See footnote one.

{10} Indeed I only raise this point to give Dave the opportunity to disprove it.

{11} The reason he can find stuff to misrepresent is cause I have not deleted my archives and will not. There is no need to as I can explain anything I have written pretty easily without the kinds of gymnastics that those who feel the need to revise the historical record have to engage in. Or as I noted recently:

The way my body handled various life traumas from 2000-2002 was a gradual cognitive breakdown of sorts: a process that started probably in late 2000 but I did not notice it until the aftermath of my father's death and funeral in June of 2001. By November of that year, it was so bad I took a four month web sabbatical and when I returned in March 2002, it had not improved much. By October of 2002, things were pretty close to back to normal but I can see some quite noticeable inconsistencies in my archives from August and September of 2002 viz. post quality. (Some in early October and a bit perhaps in November too.) Nonetheless, they remain as they were posted because it was what it was and I will not pretend that things were differently out of a respect for both honesty as well as historical accuracy. Would that more people were concerned about those things but I digress. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 14, 2006)]

{12} To look at some of the areas where moral theologians were substantially in agreement in the past only to be completely reversed later on by actual church teaching would be an interesting endeavour to discuss: maybe sometime I will do this. Other than to note that such an exercise would not do this argument of Dave's any favours that is all I will say on it at this time.

Points to Ponder:

[Christ] thought hypocrisy was bad but not so much for the deception as for the bad behavior that it masked. And he cautioned people that they should still listen carefully to what the teachers of the law had to say, and follow those teachings. Today, we've created more of a "saint or shut up" approach to hypocrisy. We tend to approach the issue with the opposite set of assumptions as the rabbi from Nazareth. [Jeremy Lott]

Miscellaneous Musings on Various Tidbits--Part IV (On Mentoring, Briefly on Distributivism and Capitalism, and on a Not Often-Realized Logical Inconsistency in the Economic Weltanschauung of Socialists)

Miscellaneous Musings on Various Tidbits--Part III (On Knowing One's Limits and on Being a Mentor)

Miscellaneous Musings on Various Tidbits--Part II (On Being Attacked and on the Football Season and the Seahawks Thus Far)

Miscellaneous Musings on Various Tidbits--Part I (On the Problem With Trying to Lose Weight When One Gets Older and on the Election and the Absurd Washington Primary Process)

Points to Ponder:
(On Faith and Reason)

[E]ven in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (???????? - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (???? ????) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry. [Pope Benedict XVI: Speech On Faith, Reason, and the University at the University of Regensburg (circa September 12, 2006)]

It is pleasing to see such serendipitous congruence between the words of Pope Benedict XVI and what we recorded in the morning hours of the sixteenth of September on faith and reason -along with how well we interpreted His Holiness' intention with the speech later that same day before we had read it. (Serendipitous with the first recording because we did not know of the speech until twelve hours after it was recorded.) Here are those recordings again for those who are interested:

Miscellaneous Midnight Musings on Reason, Logic, Consistency, and the Importance of Scholastic and Ethical Integrity in Public Disputation--An Audio Post (circa September 16, 2006)

Miscellaneous Musings on Reason and Logic Revisited, Pope Benedict XVI, and Islam--An Audio Post (circa September 16, 2006)

Points to Ponder:
(On Public Opinion)

Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. [Mark Twain]

Miscellaneous Sports Predictions

On the Subject of "Refutation of a Theory or Thesis" Revisited:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

The present writer is aware that certain parties-who-think-everything-is-about-them{1} will view this posting as all about them but in reality, this is a subject that we have intended to write on again{2} for some time. As is often the case, contemporary events or circumstances often provide the pretext for writing on issues which have both a transient as well as a permanent value to them and this subject is no different{3}; ergo, we have chosen to write on it again at this time.

An on line dictionary defines the word refutation as the act of refuting and the word refute as follows:

Refute \Re*fute"\ (r?*F3t"), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Refuted; p. pr. & vb. n. Refuting.] [F. r['e]futer, L. refuteare to repel, refute. Cf. Confute, Refuse to deny.] To disprove and overthrow by argument, evidence, or countervailing proof; to prove to be false or erroneous; to confute; as, to refute arguments; to refute testimony; to refute opinions or theories; to refute a disputant.

The most germane words in that definition are these:

To disprove and overthrow by argument, evidence, or countervailing proof; to prove to be false or erroneous; to confute.

In other words, a refutation or confutation of an argument must involve objective proof by rational argumentation that said theories or viewpoints or assertions are false or otherwise erroneous. Many who write self-styled "refutations" make references to what they believe to be a refutation or some equivalent which is actually an out of context injunction on their part and properly classified as normative argumentation and thus subjective. This will never do because a refutation properly speaking is non-normative and requires therefore objective criteria for being able to be accurately assessed as to its veracity or lack thereof.

In other words, something is not refuted/confuted or not merely because this writer or anyone else says it is. No, this is assessed the only way it legitimately can be: via the objective assessment of the arguments advanced in the attempt to disprove a position, principle, hypothesis, thesis, theory, or whatever.

Or as your host noted last month in a points to ponder installment at Rerum Novarum:

Any response to a viable theory constitutes a "refutation" in the minds of mindless sycophants or others incapable of (or unwilling to use) sound rigorous logical thought and rational analysis in striving to ascertain the merits or demerits of said theories thereof. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 9, 2006)]

So remember this readers whenever anyone presumes to assert audaciously that they have "refuted" anything your host or anyone else has written: the proof is in the pudding.{4} Unfortunately we have seen way too much normative (read: subjective) opinion coupled with selective prooftexting of an unethical nature passed off as a presumed "refutation" of our work or the work of others.{5} And nothing written recently that we have seen even remotely approaches the threshold of a refutation/confutation of any assertions we have made or arguments we have advanced in recent months.{6}

In summary, we always encourage people to read all sides of an issue out of confidence that our assertions are adequately sustained and our critics tilt at windmills like Don Quixote de la Mancha in one of Miguel de Cervantes' classic stories.{7} But then again, that is common for those who are trapped in the mental prisons of solipsistic narcissism so we are not surprised by it (sad as it admittedly is notwithstanding).

Notes:

{1} To mention names would be to give unnecessary attention to them; suffice to say, there are about three or four people who erroneously think we have them on our mind constantly. The correct view is that the problems we often outline here or the subjects we write on are generally broader in scope and to which said individuals may or may not coincidentally have a connection to in at least a remote or proximate fashion. (Or to paraphrase a common movie disclaimer: any resemblance to the views of any persons living or dead is generally coincidental.) But we are used to presumed "adversaries" taking on Quixotic characteristics so little more needs to be said about it than that at this time.

{2} The subject of "refutations" is one we have written on in the past many times including HERE.

{3} See footnote two.

{4} Points to Ponder on The Proper Way to Make and Present Arguments (circa July 24, 2006)

{5} Or as someone quoted in the "points to ponder" series last year (in retrospect, somewhat ironically on their part):

“It is an old lawyer’s tactic: when one has no case, attempt to caricature the opponent, obfuscate, and appeal to emotions rather than to reason.” [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 11, 2005)]

{6} Unless it is our sports predictions on which we resolutely plead the fifth amendment on.

{7} A story that we were reading from the Great Books of the Western World series in third grade for those who are interested. (The rennaissance man schtick in the side margin is not without some truth to it but we digress.)

Miscellaneous Musings on Reason and Logic Revisited, Pope Benedict XVI, and Islam

Miscellaneous Midnight Musings on Reason, Logic, Consistency, and the Importance of Scholastic and Ethical Integrity in Public Disputation

Miscellaneous Musings:
(On the 9/11 Fifth Anniversary, The Importance of Consistency, and the November Elections)

Just a few quick musings on some subjects in brief...

On the Fifth Anniversary of 9/11

It seems appropriate on anniversary days of major events in history to look back and reflect upon what one was doing on that day or on how that day changed one's life, etc. I remember receiving a phone call where the person on the other line said "how are you doing on this awful, awful morning???" My response was "why is it such an awful morning???" and they said "turn on your TV." I did and thought I was in the midst of a movie or something: it all seemed surreal at the time.

September 11, 2001 was almost three months (eighty-six days to be exact) after my father's passing and a mere seventeen days after his older brother passed on (may they rest in peace). I do not want to go into the whole litany of things I have experienced in this area the past six years but suffice to say, this issue did not resonate with me as firmly as it did with probably most people for some time. It also took time for me to consider all the factors involved in the matrix of sorts and come without contradiction to the views I embodied in early 2003 which are substantially the same as they are now. The invasion of Afghanistan was a slam dunk obviously, the Iraq military involvement took more effort to work through the wrinkles of{1} the problems with memory loss and a degree of cognitive impairment{2} at the time did not help either.{3} But work through them I did fortunately.

On the anniversary, I thought of it a bit on and off while working an extralong day. But I can definitely see some differences in my outlook of sorts from five years ago -one of which I will note here. In looking back now, I recognize to some extent a greater cynicism on my part with a lot of these matters. For a long time it was anger but now it is cynicism -mostly at those who do not bother to take even a moment to rationally consider the factors involved but instead have a knee-jerk reaction one way or the other. This includes not only those who react in the direction of undermining national security and other forms of sedition but also those who blindly accept anything that the Bush Administration says on these matters or otherwise take an overly jingoistic or Manifest Destiny-type outlook on these matters. I cannot say this will change in the immediate future as I value reason and logic too much to not focus on the importance of consistency of principles and the like. Which brings up another subject I want to briefly touch on so here goes...

On the Importance of Consistency

One of the reasons I emphasize the importance of consistency is because my trackrecord properly scrutinized is remarkably consistent.{4} I believe this is a necessary component of truth; ergo it gets frequent mention here and in some form or another always will.

On the November Elections

Some have opined that there will be a tidalwave of anti-Republican sentiment this November aimed as some kind of "referendum" on President Bush. Others have claimed the converse: that the Republicans will consolidate and maybe expand their holdings as the Democrats come apart at the seams. I have noted in the past on various occasions that a year is an eternity in politics. Keeping that factor in mind, it suffices to note that even two months is a long time -maybe an ice age or whatever. My gut intuition on these matters at the moment is the following:

---The Republicans will not lose the Senate. Period. They are vulnerable in the House this is true both by virtue of current circumstances as well as the traditional pattern of parties out of power gaining in the mid term elections of a two term presidency. But the Senate will hold -only 33 are up for re-election and the Democrats would have to hold serve on all their guys and pick up about ten seats or so in the Senate just to tie. (Remember, Cheney is the tiebreaker.) But ultimately I see the Republicans at the moment losing some seats in the House but holding serve. They may lose some in the Senate too but whatever happens, they will retain the Senate no matter what.

Anyway, I will probably say more in the coming days and weeks on this time-willing but what is noted above will have to suffice for now.


Notes:

{1} As your host does not delete his archives unlike certain-parties-whom-shall-remain-nameless do, readers can peruse them from August 2002 through February 2003 and see the degree to which I was uncertain how I viewed what to do on the Iraq war idea. It took a while because I do not take positions on emotional whims or on transient and speculative data but instead do so on principles and information which is not controverted as much as possible. This is why I have not had to do an aboutface on the war as not a few of its initial supporters did. More could be noted but I think this suffices for the time being.

{2} The way my body handled various life traumas from 2000-2002 was a gradual cognitive breakdown of sorts: a process that started probably in late 2000 but I did not notice it until the aftermath of my father's death and funeral in June of 2001. By November of that year, it was so bad I took a four month web sabbatical and when I returned in March 2002, it had not improved much. By October of 2002, things were pretty close to back to normal but I can see not a few quite-noticeable inconsistencies in my archives from August and September of 2002 viz. post quality. (Some in early October and a bit in November too.) Nonetheless, they remain as they were posted because it was what it was and I will not pretend that things were differently out of a respect for both honesty as well as historical accuracy. Would that more people were concerned about those things but I digress.

{3} This would involve somewhat of a long story to go into and I do not want to do that at the present time.

{4} Emphasis on "properly scrutinized" as ripping bits and pieces from context is not how you properly scrutinize or examine matters. (Something I note here briefly because we live in a soundbyte society where this is unfortunately quite prevalent.)

Points to Ponder:
(On Some Problems With Apologetics Methodology in a Nutshell)

[W]hen Catholic apologists criticize books and articles that they have not read, cite highly questionable secondary sources that they have not verified, and pontificate at great length about topics on which they have done poor and spotty research, it shows that something other than the truth has been put into the driver's seat. It is not enough to point to past work as evidence that one is capable of good research and a balanced presentation. Past goods don’t excuse present serious errors in judgment, inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric, and discreditable research. [David J. Palm]

"None Dare Call It A Conspiracy" Dept.

[Update: It seemed appropriate as this post was written on the fly to go back and excerpt parenthetical sentences within the body of the piece and move them to footnotes for less post congestion; ergo, that is what I have done. -ISM 9/17/06 12:10pm]

Those who have reasonable familiarity with your humble blog host --including those who knew of him even before he was blogging-- know that the subject of conspiracy theories is one that has been touched on by him at sundry times and diverse manners both at this weblog and also in other mediums in years gone by. The present writer has written as of late on several problems with apologetics methodology and the mentality that those who cloak themselves in this mantle can often fall prey to. And while it is customary to link to various threads substantiating assertions made, in the case of this posting it would only serve to detract from what is being posted here on an individual your host has written on before and a serious problem that he has. Among the contributors to this project are some whom this writer feels are credits to Catholic apologetics in general or over time will be once again. But without further ado, let us get to the project:

On Robert Sungenis and the Jews

The willingness of those to contribute to this project -which your host has known was in creation for quite some time now- is to be commended. Thanks therefore are in order to Mr. David Palm, Dr. Art Sippo, Mr. Michael Lopez, Mr. Matthew Anger, Mr. Ben Douglass,{1} Mr. John Novotny, Mr. Jacob Michael and Mr. Patrick Morris. And thanks are particularly in order to Mr. Michael Forrest who was the long holdout on this matter and to whom the lions share of the credit for the above compilation belongs. Indeed, the present writer in light of past problems with now estranged friends of his own can see a parallel to Mr. Forrest's own reassessment in retrospect of the habitual pattern of failing to give due scrutiny to friends. Or in Mr. Forrest's own words:

While others decided they had to leave, I continued to defend and excuse things that I should not have in retrospect because I had neither the time nor inclination to see them more clearly. And candidly, the absolute confidence and assertiveness with which Bob responds to seemingly all issues and objections also made me doubt my own eyes at times. But I think perhaps there was a part of me that actually wanted some of his explanations, defenses and excuses to be true and so I accepted them. It was only over time and through circumstance that I was forced to recognize that my friendship with and respect for Bob had caused me to be unduly tolerant and deferential.

Mr. Forrest also asks readers who peruse the thread to carefully consider the information presented below in its entirety. In light of how Mr. Forrest has shown the same care and concern as your host to carefully and thoroughly document his assertions, it seems appropriate to concur with him on that point at the very least. Those who take the time and are willing to go through the effort to carefully document evidences to establish or defend a theory deserve their work to be properly respected by those who would presume to interact with it.

It is not easy to publicly take to task friends when they have strayed and it is certain that Mr. Forrest will receive a lot of slings and arrows from the camp of Mr. Robert Sungenis.{2} But principles are what is important as is the issue of ethics and truthfulness. It does no good for someone to give a free pass to friends in this area when they would upbraid non-friends for the same antics. For that reason, We at Rerum Novarum unreservedly commend the above personages who are taking an active stand on principles in the public confronting of Robert Sungenis on these matters and hope that the project to which they have contributed bears its desired fruit in the future.{3} While I would not have a problem noting them on this blog again if someone contacts me on the matter, to link them to this post would be to distract from the work of Mr. Forrest and others which needs to be noted publicly.

[Update: Bob Sungenis' Open Letter Via Envoy -ISM 9/28/06 3:58pm]

[Update: Jacob Michael has written a thorough response to Robert Sungenis' response to the piece below. If nothing else, this writer must commend Jacob for the solidity of his logic and use of reason in the above article. -ISM 9/28/06 4:00pm]

Notes:

{1} I recognize that Ben Douglass was more of a "hostile witness" in the above project and not an active or consenting participant. However, that he has shown a concern on these matters -even indirectly- is worth some recognition as I see it.

{2} As will I am sure the others who actively contributed: all of them at one time good friends of Mr. Sungenis'.

{3} Even if in certain matters there are areas of disagreement on either issues pertaining to those noted, terminology used, etc.

Miscellaneous Musings on the Importance of Vetting Sources

Today is the sixty-third birthday of one of rock and roll's most distinctive songwriters and one of my all time favourites: Roger Waters. To commemorate the occasion, I want to remind readers of an album review I did last year for his 1992 solo album Amused to Death - another masterpiece from a man who has made more than a few of them in his career.{1} Oh and for those who find it funny that I would give such high marks to an album where the artist and I have significant disagreements on geopolitical matters{2}, I remind you that I am not and never have been one who bases my friendships with others on whether or not they agree with me. As not a few others do this -be they so-called "progressivists", so-called "conservatives"{3} or others, it seems apropo to note the latter briefly at this time. Happy birthday Roger and may your father's soul{4} rest in peace with the faithfully departed.

Notes:

{1} Two of them are among the greatest selling albums of alltime: 1973's Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall from 1979. The Amused album -while not selling anywhere near what the latter two sold- is nonetheless in terms of quality deserving of being mentioned with them.

{2} On the subject of war in general Roger and I have some disagreements: that is all I will say on it at the present time.

{3} This is not a problem that is the sole franchise of the so-called "progressivists", "so-called "peacemakers", or whatever of course.

{4} Roger lost his father in Anzio, Italy in 1944: an event that had profound explicit and implicit branding on him viz. how he approached songwriting and the subjects he has sought to write on over the years -both with Pink Floyd and since 1985 as a solo artist.

Points to Ponder:
(On Love and Beauty)

[P]rofundity and beauty lie precisely in decisiveness. Only in it can love mature in all its beauty. A beauty made up of nothing but harmony is not a real beauty. Real beauty also needs contrast. Light and darkness complement each other. Even the grape needs rain to grow, and not just sun; not only day, but also night. [Pope Benedict XVI]

Miscellaneous Notes on September 2nd, 3rd, and 4th -Anniversaries, Remembrances, The Calm Before the Storm, Etc.