@Jaybird, Ha, but no. I knew I typed it wrong again, and said "aw to heck with it." Am still getting used to this new iMac keyboard. I figured anyone who cared knew what I was trying to type.

"...between a man and a women".

I dunno, Dierkes. "Love your enemies" is pretty hard to misinterpret. A bad interpretation of that would be "love your enemies except for gay people". To me you are grasping at ghosts (and using too many words to do so, as usual).

Doesn't the real issue in this have to do with the Sacrament of Marriage? After all, the Church has no jurisdiction over the State (at any level), hence if citizens at whatever level so desire to install civil unions or "marriage" in any way they want, the Church has no say on that, whether they object or not.

But the Church does have say about how it sanctions its Sacraments. And to me, it is a hard argument to make that the Sacrament of Marriage, apostolically given, allows for anything but that between a man and women.

In other words, I think homosexuality and the Church is, to the dismay of activists on both sides of the issue, in fact a very narrow one, when push really comes to shove. Narrow in that it is really a Sacrament matter.

Hatred of anyone, remember, is a Sin.

"do not strike me as being as serious as they need to be."

Right, because you have looked at them. At all.

Would you be able to present your sophistry to Rep Paul Ryan's face? Didn't think so.

The GOP passed a law in 2003 creating HSAs. Check your facts.

The GOP proposed more reform legislation in 2006. It went no where, which is too bad.

To say nothing at all was done by the GOP is ignorant. Could/should they have done more? Yes.

What a poseur, Sullivan. Everything he wrote in that is 100% projection of his own personality on Palin. It is Sullivan who is deeply disturbed; it is Sullivan who is the delusional fantasist. The sentence that explains it all:

"And it is so complicated we simply cannot focus on anything else."

Riiiiiiiiight. MUST be the complicated-ness . . . His inability to focus on anything else has nothing whatsoever to do with him.

And, please: his one "commitment" is and has always been not getting anything right, but merely the webstats so he can justify his paycheck.

Dierkes,

You don't really explain why "the practical effect of Benedict’s announcement is very likely only going to have substance in basically England and Wales, with groups of disaffected very conservative Anglo-Catholics." Care to? Your sentences on gayness seem besides any point.

As far as the first versus the fourth, it is not clear to me why both can't be at play. In fact, it seems to me that the fourth would act as a bolster the first.

"If we sip the wine, we find dreams coming upon us out of the imminent night."

—D.H. Lawrence

Can't help but notice the many examples of dismissive views people have taken towards the interpretation Dierkes offers, as well as those (gasp!) having Christian beliefs at all.

But then again, Dierkes took dismissive views of both Hewitt and Dawkins, in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways. So I guess he had it coming to him, unfortunately.

Would that in discussions of religion and textual interpretation, people would have enough restraint to cease the dismissals of that which with they disagree. But I know asking for that is "a bridge too far" for some people who either suffer boredom at work, in-between classes, etc., and need to vent, or simply have so little time for views seemingly against their own they must forceably eject them via fist-pounded assertions based upon their relativistic skepticism. And do so again, and again, and again.

Again, cheers to Dierkes for providing an excellent means of rumination and meditation, that of the symbolic meaning of the water-turned-wine. Could have gone without the subsequent "update" listing all the smarty people he wants us to know he's read, but I'm sure mileage varies on that one. Easy enough to ignore.

One can no easier dispute literary facts than arithmetic facts. Dierkes pointing out the literary facts (call it "plain meaning" if you like) within the parable is important because it moves one closer to understanding the truth of the parable. Your premise is weak: because some percentage of people disagree about what a parable is about, it is pointless for someone like Dierkes to pen an essay based on research to disclose what in fact a parable is about, on the plain meaning level of literary facts.

And, by the way, continue on with your insulting "all Christians believe whatever they need to in order to support my argument" all you like. That sort of gross generalization is ignored by thinking people.

Actually, it is not different much at all. There are certain literary facts at play in the Water Into Wine parable, and Dierkes is higlighting them (demonstrating them "semi-scientifically" to use your parlance). Try reading closer next time; he actually spells this out.

"Useless and beside the point"? Right, because changing people's mind, or suggesting an alternate interpretation that people may over time accept as truth, never happens in this world. Ever.

So if the vast majority of Americans did not know that 2 + 2 = 4, an essay showing that to be the case would, as well, be a defense of "absolutely nothing"?

One of the main purposes of writing, still in this "post-modern age" blah blah . . . is to EDUCATE. Cheers to Dierkes for this essay. Let's have more of 'em.

"You can read the story this way and learn a great deal, you can learn to walk its own world, in a humanistic way, without having to confess that this is the religious truth of your soul."

Wow, what an idea.

"The thought of her anywhere near actual federal power keeps me awake at night."

That would be a lie, Dierkes, and you know it. Along with the nonsense that "I've always thought Huckabee was the front runner". Really . . . always? Truth, or typical cute convenient rhetorical trick. You choose.

Because of one word -- Obama -- and his far less experience in anything when he made it to pres.

The Guess Who greater than Rush??? Wow: Dierkes you never fail to disappoint.

Dierkes has not read Goldberg's book, which he admitted to on his own blog some time ago. Violence, Diekes's big thing about fascism, is however always a means to an end. Goldberg addresses that end, from a political theory point of view. Dierkes is blind to it.

Weak post, if you ask me. "Rationing" means nothing if it is supposed to mean all these things. Trying to change, twist, or radically alter commonly held meanings of words is the first task of the person with a weak underlying argument.

It wasn't torture. Which is why we continue to see the by-now-quite-tired "lefty getting waterboarded" youtube every couple months. If waterboarding was torture, people wouldn't sign up for it -- that is kinda the definition.

Oh E.D Kain, snicker:

I guess I believe in a conservatism that denies greed and individualism,

Well "greed" is begging the question, so I'll rightly ignore that. But a conservatism that doesn't believe individualism? Your little belief not only puts you at odds with fundamental principles of America, but the Western tradition itself.

Keep up the Sullivan-inspired groupthink. Very entertaining, at least.

Will wrote:

I think the central criticism of Rush’s remark, Matthew, is that decentralization can’t be wished into existence. It requires a coherent political blueprint, and Rush is apparently unable (or unwilling) to grapple with this.

How can that be the central criticism when Limbaugh is not by any means a political strategist? That is not his position, and never has been. His position, rather, is that of communicator of conservative principles in an entertaining three hours of radio. That is what he does, day in and day out. And that enterprise includes criticism of those people who call themselves "conservatives" but who don't put conservative principles into action. Which he is doing, to the ire to the people he criticizes and the joy of the Left. If you actually listened to his radio show, you would hear conservative principles articulated every which way and I think that is a real service to the country.

If you think his radio show should be about articulating strategy, you must have been a producer for Air America in your former life. Three hours -- or even one! -- about political strategy. Talk about a winning radio concept.

Why don't you spare us your bloviation by admitting you are in no position to criticize what you obviously don't listen to. I mean, really, isn't extensive experience with a subject kind of a standard prerequisite for the kind of accusations you lob here? (And, note, your words continue to play precisely to groupthink-according-to-Andrew-Sullivan, yet again.)

The medium of centralized government IS the message. The reason conservatives should not play the "policy game" as Rush meant it was that the very act of doing so cedes the argument against whether power is best centralized or decentralized to the Democrats/progressives/left. A Republican big government person, such as Bush II in many respects, is fundamentally a progressive on the important and crucial undercurrent of the centralize/decentralize question, no matter what "policies" Bush II might present. If one thinks the primary channel of power in America should be the federal government, then it doesn't matter whether you are a Democrat or a Republican: you are playing the game according to Democrat/progressive/left rules. The medium IS the message.

Limbaugh said all this. Would you and the rest of the groupthinkers here open your ears, we might be able to get somewhere.

Kain, you are a lot like Freddie: boil things down, you write wishful thinking, and nothing more. I see you read Andrew Sullivan, too, for your talking points.

Rortybomb, I'm sorry but there is nothing "to explain" that Limbaugh doesn't explain himself. Read the speech he just gave, for example. The speech doesn't reflect everything Limbaugh is -- no one speech could do that for anybody -- but it is all there: the politics of the self-made man, described by a self-made man, who lives in a country that was founded to allow "self-made people" to finally mean something.

Balderdash, Freddie. As usual with your posts, you forward nothing but your fondest wishes. Limbaugh's point is that conservatives must stand on conservative principles. You might disagree that that is what conservatives should do (but since you aren't one, what impact would your opinion have?) or what liberals should do (if liberals had any concrete principles, that is, except being in power). But Limbaugh saying so is hardly "how a movement ends". It is him basically saying "keep strong, don't give up".

That you don't understand Limbaugh (and I'm assuming that you don't listen to his radio show) is basically why you are a liberal, after all, right?

"No other policy in American politics could have such a horrendous record and yet enjoy more chances than an aggressive foreign policy."

I think the Left's aggressive domestic policy in support of welfare (Great Society, etc.) enjoys a similarly horrendous record. And it hasn't worked, either! Just saying!