Alinsky: "Bishop or priest? Choose."

I'm not quite sure I'd equate "unsentimental" with "amoral" in all cases. Jesus did say we should be as "wise as serpents and innocent as doves". I interpret this to mean that in the world we actually live in we sometimes need to be--well, not "devious", quite, but subtle. Baltasar Gracian, author of The Art of Worldly Wisdom, is sometimes described as the "Christian Machiavelli". It is certainly worthwhile reading, especially for anyone in politics or in a hierarchical church, and while it is certainly unsentimental, it lacks the sharp cynicism and end-justifies-the-means attitude of Machiavelli.

Unfortunately, in American politics, since we have only two parties, pretty much everyone has to represent themselves as more to the left or middle than they really are (e.g. Bush--remember "compassionate conservatism" and "fiscal responsibility"?) or more to the right or middle than they really are (e.g. Obama). I think that's more the problem with the electorate and the system than with the candidates.

Anyway, I think the post makes an interesting point, and we'll see how things play out.

That is very true, and applies to many institutions. I came to a similar crossroads: do I want to be a teacher or a dean. Now my life is with students, without ambivalence -- which is a happier life.

So my question to you is, is a columnist a priest or a bishop -- or something else?

The irony here is that Reverend Lightworker has decided he wishes to be neither a priest nor a bishop, but Pope ... and he's going to get his wish, he's going to be Pope.

I'm not sure what that says about what we should expect from the Reverend in the next four years.

I'm not sure the Reverend does either.

Craig - dedicating one's book to Lucifer is enough for me to dismiss him out of hand. If believers I respect say I shouldn't, then maybe I'd give him a second look.

J Dave G,

The secular left is every bit as fixated on sexual matters as the Christian right.

Otherwise, the Reverend wouldn't have promised that the very first thing he'll do on his very first day in office is to strike down any and all restrictions on abortion, both federal and state.

This in a country that already places fewer restrictions on abortion than any other country in the world.

But, by jingo, it's absolutely essential -- come what may -- that every set of parents in America have the means to leave their newborn children to die in the event that they fail to kill them in utero by other means.

And, by jingo, it's also absolutely essential -- come what may -- that every taxpayer in the country should be forced to subsidize such killings, no matter what objection, nor how conscientious it may be.

Why, to do anything less would be to allow others to impose their values on "us."

Get 'em boy. That's what I'm talking about, and why I keep coming back here.

J Dave G,

I'm not part of "the Christian right," but -- please -- don't even try to imply that there wasn't anything the least bit snarky about your own claim that the only conservative values "the Christian right" adheres to are those pertaining to sex.

My response to you was right *on* point, and not at all "beside the point."

I've never really gotten why people dislike Alinsky so much.

Others have tried to answer that question: :-)

A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. - Leo Rosten

The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them. - Mark Twain

What Chicago-area seminary rector was it who thought it wise to send ordination candidates to see Saul Alinksy for advice "back in the day." ?

Perhaps this is how we ended up with the likes of Fr. Pfleger.

I read "Rules for Radicals" when I was a teenager. I'm glad Rod is planning to examine the role of Alinsky in B.O.'s thinking. It helps to explain the thuggish behavior of some of B.O.'s campaign operatives.

@ J Dave G

Do you consider the "Christian Right's", or at least its Evangelical Protestant subset's, "Red Heifer" breeding, fanatically millinerian support for every last Likudnik policy to be "Conservative values" ?

My understanding is that many of these evangelicals, who again (forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth) I presume you would place on the Christian right, have higher divorce rates/"2nd marriage rates" than secular humanists. Not to mention abjuring Holy Mother Church's teachings on birth control.

Shorter version: Hagee and followers on the iron fist for Arabs=Fundamental, Non-negotiable Conservative Values.

Thomas More and John Paul II like fidelity to Christ's teachings on adultery, marital fidelity, and the procreative AND unitive values of marriage= Not so much.

@ The Blog Proprietor: Calling out Reverend Lightworker on his Satanic Bible is "what I'm talking about" and the sort of stuff that keeps me coming back here. Thank you and God Bless.

And on that note, it may behoove the Chosen One (and all us denizens of "The Indispensable Nation", still sited within the confines of the "City of Man" last I checked) to consider another epigraph, that of James Dickey's opus "Deliverance" taken from the Book of Obadiah:

The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee,
thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock
whose habitation is high; that saith in his heart
Who shall bring me down to the ground?

J Dave G,

How about capital gains tax rates and the inheritance tax?

There are millions of small business owners and family farmers who would prefer to live a conservative lifestyle in which they are allowed to enjoy some degree of economic subsidiarity, in the sense they are allowed to have the opportunity to work for themselves instead of for someone else.

Much of Obama's economic agenda seems designed to make it as difficult as possible to do that -- and precisely because subsidiarity and the conservative moral ethos it requires and therefore fosters are entirely at odds with the mixture of public authoritarianism and private laissez-faire cum libertinism that is favored by leftists like Obama.

The Reverend favors an American version of what that great political philosopher Axl Rose labels "Chinese Democracy" -- a leftist form of state-Capitalism in which "citizens" or rather subjects are "compensated" for their lack of responsibilities and therefore rights by an ever-increasing range of pornotropic "life-styles" and therapeutic "choices" that "liberate" them in the best Luciferian style from such "reactionary" "hogwash" as Christianity, the family, monogamy, etc -- all of this made palatable by the Reverend's smiling face brought to one's media-consumption device of choice every day by *Pravda* ... excuse me ... I mean our entirely "impartial" and "non-partisan" press.

Ordination candidates seeking advice from the guy who writes a book dedicated to Lucifer about how to attain power... oh ick! What a creepy validation of the statement by somebody around the close of Vatican II that the smoke of Satan has entered the Church.

J Dave G,

For the record not only am I not now nor have I ever been a member of the Republican party but I also have *never* ... *ever* ... listened to Rush Limbaugh or any other right-wing talk radio -- not for one single minute.

The idea that the only grounds one could have for opposing Obama are partisan ones is an idea that it would do Obama and his supporters would do well to disabuse themselves of.

By this time next year there will be large numbers of Democrats and Independents who oppose the Reverend and the big plans he has for all of us, and it would behoove the Reverend and his minions to prepare themselves for that contingency.

Not that I want to give the Reverend free advice and not that he would take it from a "bitter" kulak like me.

J Dave G: You misunderstand me. Obviously, the Church being made up of people has never been free of Satan. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the statement I cited.

Pope Paul VI famously said that the smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary, referring to liturgical abuse that had started taking place around the end of Vatican II. In other words, the Devil had found his way into the institution, itself, not just individuals.

Looks like the smoke of Satan had made its way into that Chicago seminary. Who knows what effect that one book had on how many Catholics of Chicago?

Rod,

Since you're reading Alinsky with the goal of understanding Obama's thinking and strategies, I would assume that you have already read what would be the most obvious primary source. That would be The Audacity of Hope. But -- unless I missed it -- you've never commented on that book. Why is that?

(I really hope you're not going to say you haven't read it. Because that obvious preference for indirection would lead me to suspect that the prospect of reading Obama own words -- without first laying down a conceptual layer of interpretation in your own mind [as a defense?] -- is something that you strongly resist.)

Primary sources first!

And for interpreting an author, I'd recommend Adler's How to Read a Book, which emphasizes that one should strive to understand the author's own meaning in his own terms before sifting everything through your own worldview. It's sort of how to use empathy when reading. Well worth a read!

I have to admit, ChuckDFW, I haven't read either of Obama's books, "Dreams from my Father" or "The Audacity of Hope" for the same reason that I don't think I could get through Bill Clinton's autobiography, because I assume it will be so full of self-serving political spin that I just can't put myself through that. And I am a huge Clinton fan, and am developing greater appreciation for Obama's strengths the longer this campaign goes on.

I have never read Alinsky's book. Back in the 70's when I was very left-leaning, I remember a bunch of friends laughing at someone who was reading Alinsky's book, "Rules for Radicals." Rules? Whataya mean? There aren't any rules.

Today I believe in rules, whether for radicals or no, but the Republicans from John McCain down appear to have forgotten their importance. Therefore, I'm going with the candidate who believes in rules, even if they are for radicals.

J Dave G: Yes, I'm aware that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. I don't think you are aware of the historical context for the quote I cited, and if you are not aware of it then it will not have much meaning for you. The point is that the Catholic Church in Chicago no doubt suffered for having its seminarians learn at the feet of the author of a book about power dedicated to Lucifer.

Zac:
I think the most logical and obvious (as well as most charitable) take on Alinsky's Lucifer bit--which many here seem somehow incapable or unwilling to allow--is that, to an unbeliever, Lucifer may come off as another mythical figure somewhat like Prometheus.
I believe very much in the reality of Satan, but that doesn't force me into claiming Alinsky was a Satanist or some such! I'm not sure which I find more alarming: that anyone could honestly believe this, or, that anyone would invest time and effort into posing as someone who believed this.
Or is the main point of the Alinsky fascination to discover the magic bullet with which to take down this year's Democratic nominee? (Crypto-muslim didn't stick, so we'll try crypto-satanist?!)
Come on, people!

elmo - I agreed with your point all along. I even appreciate the history lesson. I sought only to clarify that Vatican II did not somehow unleash evil for the first time into the Church, nor the last.

Steve K: If you are going only by that quote, then yours is a wild extrapolation. Alinsky's quote only urged the young priest to oppose the old priest. There was nothing in the quote about opposing the Bishop, let alone the Magisterium, or the deposit of faith, or the apostles. No doubt many of those young priest did those things, but they aren't in the quote.

For the record, in describing some aspects of the Reverend's worldview -- aspects in line with his admiration for Alinsky -- as "Luciferian," I did not mean to imply that the Reverend is a Satanist, only that his behavior and the behavior his worldview encourages in others are rather more reminiscent of the Luciferian vice or *pride* than of the Christian virtues of *faith* (in someone besides oneself and/or the Reverend), *hope* (for something other than a Lightworker presidency), and *charity* (in the form of something other than paying and paying and paying taxes to the Reverend and his friends in DC).

But Rod, note how Alinsky trained his own acolytes to become bishops. And they did.

Since Rufus seems to have this absolute obsession with calling Obama "The Reverend" for some reason, I'd like to suggest the following pet names for other political figures in the interest of balance.

McCain = Oldster McCrankypants
Palin = Caribou Barbie
Biden = Senator Shoeswallower
Bush = Lamester McDuck
Cheney = Dr. Horrible (He has a PhD in Horribleness)
Paulson = Daddy WarNoBucks

Bu using these, we can insure that any potentially valuable or interesting commentary is transmuted by sheer childishness into petty partisan bickering, and thus save ourselves much reading.

"I do know that for many on the Christian Right, sexual matters are the only conservative values..." J Dave G

You don't know any such thing, my friend. The so-called Christian Right abhors more than the perversion of just "sexual matters". The object of our abhorrence (i.e., Homosocialism) is the Socialist perversion of government by Alinskyites, as well as the perversion of sex.

Why should anyone doubt that Obama, Alinskyite citizen of the world that he is, would be true to his promise to facilitate further perversion of sexuality and government?