22 comments

  1. As an almost daily Mass goer, I voted for Trump in the Texas primary with a clear conscience. Je ne regrette rien.

    1. I agree with Diane here. Personally I found the article nothing more than a collection of what ifs, perhaps, and maybes, hardly worth reading.

      On the political front, Dreher should stick with what his Russian wannabe coreligionists might do.

      1. LOL! Get over your delusion that you’re my spiritual director, personal shrink, whatever.

        Meanwhile, it’s still a free Internet and a free country (sort of), so I will comment on anything and anyone I wish, without first asking your leave or paying the slightest attention to your laughable, er, admonishments.

        By the way, you may want to tell your pal Dreher to get over his penchant for relentless, obsessive Catholic-bashing. Just a thought.

      2. I do not really hate, or even dislike Mr Dreher, but I agree with Diane when it comes to his obsessive, and dishonest, Catholic bashing. He has no problem with dredging up the Catholic abuse scandals, but remains strangely quiet about the same problems within his new-found Russian religion; and it is quite widespread, including a whole monastery in Texas, all of the very hairy monks are now in prison, and the Russian Archbishop of Canada, now also in prison. I do not hate him, but I cannot respect him, he definitely cherry picks.

        1. The notion that Dreher is “soft” on Orthodox is laughable. Try typing “OCA” into the search on his AC blog. And he most certainly did address the issue of the Canadian convicted hierarch, (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/defrocking-the-frockless/)among other chosen targets.

          The man is as free as anyone (like Diane) to opine on the internet. His field is the intersection of Religion, Culture and politics, and it would be rather hard to do so without ever mentioning Roman Catholicism. I re-read his post about “Catholic Neo-Cons” trying to find the bashing. He writes regularly about all manner of Catholic things, current and historical, and is by no means unrelentingly critical of all things Catholic.

          Do a search on “Catholic” on Dreher’s AC blog. Even his post on the most recent problems in Altoona-Johnstown single out a Catholic as a hero fo the Faith, and other recent posts include praise for Justice Scalia, Cardinal Newman, and Catholic education. Nothing comparable in the OCA searches. (Even when he praises Abp. Dmitri, there is no mention or tag to indicate in which Church Abp Dmitri chose to live for over a half century.) As some one who is OCA, I would be relieved if our Church were to be favored with the “unrelenting bashing” he gives the Roman Church.

          Dreher had a brief and inglorious chapter in OCA history, and none of his posts ever indicate that his own role in that debacle has caused him to self-reflect on how self indulgent and misleading his “conservative” sense that “I am one of the good guys fighting on the right side” can be. He later on came to admit, (in the cases where the documentation is overwhelming), that his “cause”, Met Jonah, had made some pretty big errors. (I will note that his post on the Canadian former Archbishop only went up when the status quo in that situation, which had been the policy set by Met Jonah, changed – he posted, not immediately upon the conviction, but after the Synod following the conviction). His own errors in judment there and mistakes remain unexamined. Met Jonah may not have been perfect, but Rod was still “one of the good guys fighting the good fight” even though he lied quite brazenly and publically. It is the self indulgence (of which his OCA stuff is only a symptomatic example) that is the most frustrating thing about his writing.

          1. He only bothered to go after the Russian Archbishop when it would have become embarrassing not to have done so. He has been woefully quiet on the hairy Russian monks of Texas or the wannabe Russian bishop of NIce, also in prison. It would be interesting if he did an article about the time Alderson was in charge of an Orthodox orphanage in France; but do not expect it.

    1. You know, I get the frustration and the anger. I can sympathize with “burn it all down.” But do we have the slightest reason to believe that Trump’s populist “outsider” rhetoric reflects what he really stands for and what he would do if he became president? Don’t we, in fact, have countless indications to the contrary? Doesn’t it seem as if the guy has no fixed principles whatsoever and that his rhetoric is hollow — a mere pose, a marketing ploy?

      In 2008 Americans voted for a guy largely based on a slogan and a logo. Some of them later regretted that vote when the reality did not match the slogan. Do we want to make that mistake again? Do we want to vote for a marketing slogan?

      (Disclaimer: I did not vote for Obama, ever. But yes, I do know folks who voted for him in 2008 and then felt betrayed when “hope and change” turned out to mean lost jobs and frozen wages.)

  2. I will vote for the rightful Republican nominee, whether it is Trump or Cruz. If the GOP tries to steal the election from the candidate with the most delegates at the convention, then I will vote third party.

  3. Not that you are demonstrating this, but I think too often Christians subconsciously add to Psalm 146:3: “Put not your trust in [non-Christian or bad] princes, nor in [a non-Christian or bad] son of man, in whom there is no help.” Various brands of Christian will fill that in with their own right sort of believer, of course. But, from the perspective of the psalmist they are all lesser evils, even the ‘good’ ones who share our faith, our values, etc. Therefore:

    http://bit.ly/1Wd6k2E

  4. I wanted to vote for Marco Rubio in the Michigan primary mostly because he is Catholic. I ended up voting for Cruz whom strangely I do not trust, because it appears that Cruz is the only alternative to Trump or to a Democrat for POTUS. I have known since before I attended a Trump political rally here in Grand Rapids that Donald Trump would likely be the Republican nominee, but having seen he crowd here first-hand (good and decent working class people for the most part) I knew that I would be making some tough choices.

    So I voted for Cruz in the primary – a man with no support in established government over Donald Trump who apparently does not need their support, and Marco Rubio the Catholic without a prayer. For me the vote is indeed about the lesser of 2 evils coupled with the effectiveness of my vote. Why would I abstain from voting? Whey would I vote for someone I believed had no chance of winning? I wouldn’t, it doesn’t make sense to me. My family, my friends, and myself have to live with the decisions of this nation. If Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination I will vote for him over Killary or Burnme without hesitation – just like I voted for Romney, McCain, & Bush.

    In the end we all may be living under the rule of a tyrannical government. America is not a Catholic nation, and I my vote is a practical attempt to choose what is closer to the good that God desires. A pledge to not vote for Donald Trump is a pledge to vote for Clinton or Sanders so I will vote for Trump if he’s the nominee. I have to consider the ramifications of a SCOTUS appointment by liberal activist Democrats.

    1. Nate, I feel exactly the same way. I would prefer Rubio, but he seems to be a lost cause at this point, so that leaves Cruz. I have some reservations about Cruz (his dad thinks he’s “God’s anointed”? Yikes!!), but I would much, much prefer him to Trump. However, if Trump is the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for him. Because anyone, including my dog Coco, would be preferable to Clinton or Sanders.

          1. I didn’t know that was his platform. I knew he supported abortion, but I didn’t know his position was different than current practice.

            At any rate, whether one loves it or hates it, I can’t see such a position being passed through into legislation.

            1. I was simply mistaken, then. I didn’t think it was easy to have an abortion in the third trimester — I thought that there were an increasing number of hurdles per trimester, and that the third was not so easy, and discouraged. Legal, I assumed — but I didn’t think that having an abortion on the grounds of mere whim one week prior to birth was a serious option for many, or even most.

Comments are closed.