Gosh, I make it a point not to visit Vox Nova often as it is a very silly place. It is just so darn convenient when your religious beliefs coincide with your political beliefs. When its not so convenient, you need to make them coincide. One of the easiest ways to do such a thing is not to clearly define your terms and expect that nobody will bother to ask.
Matt Talbot at Vox Nova entitles his post “Nationalism is Idolatry.” Hmmm. Ok. I think this is a point on which we might agree, provided that some distinctions are drawn and terms defined. Here is how Mr. Talbot defines his terms.
His foreigner friend says “Boy, you have lots of flags in this country.” Matt Talbot responds, “We do? I shall drive around and assess for myself.” Matt Talbot drives around and says “Omigosh, we do have lots of flags in this country. Flags are evidence of nationalism. We are evil nationalists!”
Matt Talbot then calls upon every right (sorry, left) thinking Catholic to fight against the ghastly sin of flag exposition.
Think I exaggerate?
…Callie, my coworker, was right: there was never a place where an American flag was not visible. We made 20 stops, and most of the time we did not even have to get out of the car to find one. This was not the 4th of July or Memorial Day (and well before 9/11/2001).
Nationalism saturates American life – it is just the ever-present, ambient sound coming from every form of corporate media, 24/7/365, so ever-present that it has become, in an odd way, invisible. I have come to understand that it is idolatry – subtler, arguably, than building a golden calf, but no less idolatrous. And it disturbs me a great deal.
I wish Catholic priests and laity would stand up more often against this sort of thing. We Catholics, at every level of our society and in every vocation, me included, have failed to do our jobs of providing clear witness against this spiritually destructive idol.
Without fail, the lefty echo chamber (aka Michael Iafrate) responds with this insightful comment.
Exactly right. Great post.
The propaganda becomes even more obvious when you live outside of the u.s. for a few years and then come back.
We definitely should not have them in our churches, or flying outside of our churches.
Mr. Iafrate, having been outside of the country, is in the unique position to know such incredible things.
How these folks make the leap that exposition of the flag is sinful nationalism is beyond me. I fly a flag at my home because I wish to signify the respect for my country and the God-given freedoms that she has endeavored to secure for me. I fly a flag to show respect for the men and women how have sacrificed and died to to protect those freedoms. I fly my flag to show my proper and fitting esteem for my country and to show the honor properly owed to her.
In a similar way, while not blind to their faults, I show honor and esteem for my parents as God has commanded.
To suggest that flags flying at car dealerships, libraries, malls, and even churches constitutes a sinful nationalism and idolatry is simply as disingenuous as it is senseless. In other words, perfectly Vox Nova.
December 16, 2009 at 2:22 am
Michael,
With all due respect (and I mean that)
Your comment began with (hence my echo chamber remark)
No caveats.
No but for…
Or any such thing. From your comments following about the flag inferred meant that you agree with Mr. Talbot. If I am incorrect in my assumption, please forgive me. If was hasty and in actuality you do not agree with Mr. Talbot, please feel free to distance yourself from his remarks here.
December 16, 2009 at 2:25 am
For some reason blogger messed with my html.
What I wrote was "Great Post" (hence my echo chamber remark)
Sorry for confusion.
December 16, 2009 at 2:46 am
Oh, BTW
Something that Vox Nova folks might get a kick out of, i think particularly of MM.
True fact.
CMR, this blog which so infuriates, would not exist but for Policratus, one of your founders I believe. He made it happen.
There is a story there.
December 16, 2009 at 3:46 am
Holy crapamole! I saw 43 comments beneath the post and thought "MM must've invaded CMR!!". As I clicked the comments section a picture of Ronald Reagan in my basement fell off the wall. My Thomas Sowell books burst into flames where they stood on my bookshelf. And a large black squirrel clawed at my window with one paw, authoritatively holding a copy of "The Challenge of Peace" in the other.
Then he appeared. Right there with comment #4!
NEOCON MAN OF THE WORLD – DO YOU BELIEVE IN ME OR NOT!!?!
But not to fear! I seized my copy of "Going Rogue: An American Life", lifted it high and *bamph* he was gone! Or maybe I'm just dreaming that last part…
December 16, 2009 at 3:49 am
Zoinks! I see a lot of opinions here, but no real quantifiable or qualifiable data to "prove" a point either way. How many flags is too many? How many is not enough? Where is the line between patriotism, nationalism, pride and xenophobia?
There are so many issues at play here. We cannot assume that displaying a flag means someone is a "nationalist" anymore than we can assume anyone who doesn't is an anarchist. Bottom line: ALWAYS put God first; above country, tribe/ethnic identity, even family and you will never be a nationalist, no matter how many flags you keep around the house.
December 16, 2009 at 3:59 am
Early Riser – The big question is what does it mean to "put God first"? Everyone says that they put God "first." They say it, and act otherwise. But saying it allows them to claim they are not nationalistic.
December 16, 2009 at 4:03 am
I think the Poles always had too many flags when John Paul II stopped by. He really blew it by not preaching to them on the sin of nationalism. Major fail on his part. If only he would've consulted Micheal Iafrate or Mornings Minion that Solidarity thing coulda been nipped in the bud and "The Challenge of Peace" might still have relevance as an guide for unilateral disarmament while fully engaging diplomatically with the Soviet Union.
Thankfully, Barack Emmanuel Obama is restoring dialogue with the Communists. Granted, it's more accurate to call it a monologue, but the point is we will soon have no nuclear weapons. Zero. Zilch. Nada. And when there's a nuke-free America and the end of patriotic nonsense there will finally, finally be peace on earth. It says so in the bible.
December 16, 2009 at 4:19 am
>>The big question is what does it mean to "put God first"? Everyone says that they put God "first." They say it, and act otherwise. But saying it allows them to claim they are not nationalistic.<<
Michael – Who is this "everyone" of whom you speak? "They" and "them"? I'm assuming by those comments that you've gone through the pearly gates and speak to us from the presence of Our Lord and Savior. If so, please pray for us.
If not, I'd like to point out that your dizzyingly protentious blog spends oodles of words attempting to carve out a cutesy, niche spot of the righteous marginalized center – the thinking faithful who eschew partisanship by putting God first. In reality, it's clear to anyone with firing synapses that you view the world through partisan glasses. But saying you're the creamy nougat in the Catholic 3 Musketeers allows you to claim you're not partisan.
BTW, partisanship is distinctly labeled a sin by Paul, so saddle up and move out of that camp, partner! I criticize because I care.
December 16, 2009 at 4:56 am
It is quite interesting seeing the folks over at Vox Nova coming to infiltrate this blog with ad hominem attacks. Fascinating stuff, really.
December 16, 2009 at 5:12 am
And Patrick, no, I don't think simply flying a flag automatically makes one nationalistic. But I don't think this is what Matt said in his original post. I hope this clears things up for you regarding my view.
December 16, 2009 at 5:56 am
Michael – are you Catholic? If so, you would know what it means to put God first, since Jesus outlined that very clearly for us in the gospels. You say "everyone says they put God first". Does this include atheists? No? Then who is everyone? When you speak in "everyone" and "no one" and "always" and "never" without any basis in fact, you begin to look ridiculous and people will stop wanting to hear your opinion.
I personally have never said that I put God first. I try to do this, but fail miserably. And I honestly have never heard any Catholic in my life say out loud that they put God first. It is an ideal that we as Christians aspire to, and some live up to it far better than others. Which is why I say, if you put God first, issues such as nationalism are irrelevant.
December 16, 2009 at 6:04 am
You are arguing from the liberal perspective.
Slap labels however you want. It is the Vox Nova way, after all. But at least I'm not arguing from a position of incoherence as you are.
Do you not see the cognitive dissonance at work in your own heads? How it's spectacularly inconsistent to be appalled — appalled, I say! — that people fly American flags and have Fourth of July parades while you and your ilk never cast a suspicious or critical eye at any attempt to consolidate political power in the (need it be repeated, secular) nation-state?
Who are the idolaters here? The ones who express an iota of love of homeland by flying a flag, or the ones who slavishly devote themselves at every turn to praise the wisdom, charity, and benevolence of the technocratic, Leviathan state? You mentioned the Pope; read what he says about this view of politics in Jesus of Nazareth. It's not flattering.
Moral posturing is part and parcel of temptation… It pretends to show us a better way, where we finally abandon our illusions and throw ourselves into the work of actually making the world a better place.
Lest you think he's referring to just one political delusion, there's also this:
It is not just the negative outcome of the Marxist experience that proves this.
For good measure:
[T]he struggle to avoid identifying Jesus' Kingdom with any political structure is one that has to be fought century after century.
Take heed: People of good will see through your moral posturing, your idolatry. You put a political agenda ahead of God, and we can smell the stench of it from miles away. You can talk about "legitimate authority" working for the common good all you want, but you know DAMN WELL what kind of authority it is at heart. If you need a reminder, look up a few posts at the story about the kid who was sent for psychological counseling for drawing a picture of the crucified Christ. *That* is the legitimate authority we're supposed to trust at every turn? Excuse us if we sometimes disagree.
No, you can't go around lamenting that the nation-state is subordinating mediating institutions, and then in the very next breath work heart and soul to empower the state with greater jurisdiction and control over people's lives.
December 16, 2009 at 6:26 am
Early Riser:
Yes, I am Catholic. I was assuming that since this is a Catholic blog we are speaking to one another as Catholics. So no, when I said "everyone says they put God first," I was not including atheists. If you need to spelled out, what I intended to mean is that all Christians like to think that they "put God first" but the idea remains abstract. What does "putting God first" mean in the concrete? What does "putting God first" require of us? What does allegiance to Christ mean in a world of competing allegiances?
For example, as I am from West Virginia, I have known some seriously nationalistic people, including some who are Catholic. I trust you will take my word on this, and not assume I am merely throwing the term "nationalistic" around carelessly. I'm not speaking of bloggers that I do not know personally. I'm speaking of people I know personally that even some of the most conservative people here among us would probably call nationalistic. Borderline KKK types. We all know people with these views I think. These same people, these Catholic nationalists that I know personally, would of course like to think that they "put God first." Of course they would admit what you said — that they constantly fail. Any one of us with any humility would admit that. They claim to at least want to "put God first" but at the same time exhibit serious nationalistic tendencies that they fail to see as coming into conflict with their desire to "put God first." In fact, it is precisely because they have weird, idolatrous ideas about linking God and nation (perhaps that america is God's "chosen nation" taking the place of Israel — which is what a friend of mine told me in all seriousness) that they cannot see that the conflict exists. Remember that a well-loved mantra in the united states is "For God and country" as opposed to "Put God first, above the nation-state."
Of course if we truly "put God first," the charge of nationalism becomes irrelevant. But as you said, we ALL fail. So obviously nationalism is NOT irrelevant. It is a real, serious problem even among Catholics. In fact, the point you seemed to want to make above — that if we "just put God first" we won't be nationalists no matter how many flags we display — is undermined by your later claim that none of us, in fact, put God first in our lives.
December 16, 2009 at 6:49 am
Michael – what you "intended to mean" and what you said are completely different, regardless of the makeup of this blog. Regardless, there is an ample chasm between failing to put God first and being a flaming nationalist KKK flag-waver. It's not an either/or proposition. And once again, I will kindly refer you to the gospels on what it means to put God first "in the concrete".
As far as your "real life examples", suffice it to say there are many Catholics in name only, and far too many others who are in dire need of catechesis *cough*. And let's be clear, I NEVER said that "none of us, in fact, put God first in our lives." Never never never not once did I say that. I was speaking in the first present tense specifically about myself when I said that. If I am speaking about humanity, I would say there are MANY people who OFTEN put God first in their lives. I can think of too many examples to mention.
December 16, 2009 at 7:45 am
what you "intended to mean" and what you said are completely different
Completely? If you say so. Doesn't really matter. I've explained myself. {shrug}
As far as your "real life examples", suffice it to say there are many Catholics in name only, and far too many others who are in dire need of catechesis *cough*.
Of course. And the nationalism that you admit exists is the kind of thing that Matt and I and the rest of us at VN are attempting to critique. So if you admit that such problems exist, why participate in the ridicule of said critique?
And let's be clear, I NEVER said that "none of us, in fact, put God first in our lives."
It sounds to me like what you say shifts depending on what you are trying to argue or defend yourself from. Which is fine. We all probably do that.
Here's hoping you and everyone else here in this thread discerns how best to truly "put God first," concretely, pledging allegiance to Christ alone.
December 16, 2009 at 1:25 pm
"I am not surprised that you think my views are offensive."
Actually I said I found your statement offensive, I said nothing about your views, as I am not completely familiar with those, but you've clarified that indeed this is your view. Nice.
"You and your husband clearly have a lot invested in the military discipleship community."
Wow, that's pretty presumptive of you. You know nothing of my husband and I.
Are you saying one cannot serve one's country in the military and still serve God first? What of the many soldier saints?
Anonymous Soldier's Wife
December 16, 2009 at 2:18 pm
"It's also boring as shit. Grow up."
Pot meet kettle.
-Chris M.
December 16, 2009 at 4:00 pm
J. Christian: "No, you can't go around lamenting that the nation-state is subordinating mediating institutions, and then in the very next breath work heart and soul to empower the state with greater jurisdiction and control over people's lives."
You don't get it, because you cannot see past the liberal paradigm. Look at what Catholic Social Teaching says about the role of the state. Look at Leo XIII, Pius XI. These deeply conservative men (in the true sense of the word) saw that the state had a properly defined role in contributing to social stability and the common good. But you do not look through this prism. You look through the prism of American liberalism, which is primarily concered about a misguided approach to "freedom" and "liberty" – one based first and foremost on individual automony. You think like a Hobbesian.
And it's an entirely inconsistent position. I can only assume that you have no problem with the state seeking "greater jurisdiction and control over people's lives" when it comes to protecting the unborn or the institution of marriage?
December 16, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Kudos to Early Riser for the best points made so far. To equate patriotism with nationalism is to be ignorant of the meaning of both words. Patriotism is an appropriate loyalty to one's country, while honoring and obeying God above all. Nationalism is a blind devotion to one's country and its actions, regardless of their morality. And as for Catholic Social Teaching, the Chatechism clearly states that as long as the intention is still helping the disadvantaged, a conservative economic position is entirely compatible with Church teaching. And Morning Minion, while Hobbes was fundementaly in error, the fact is that given the opportunity most people will act in their own self interest. This is the result of the Fall of Man and there is not much use in complaining about it. The goal of Smithian or Libertarian ecomonics, is to harness that inherent greed and self interest to create prosperity that improves everyone's lives. A Christian who pursues economic policies guided by these principiles is no Hobbesian.
December 16, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Michael when you say "It sounds to me like what you say shifts depending on what you are trying to argue or defend yourself from. Which is fine. We all probably do that" then you should probably work on your reading comprehension skills. It would appear you have trouble stating your thoughts rationally, and even interpreting the very plain and straight-forward writings of others based on your own emotional state. Also, my statements were never ridicule. Once again, bad reading comprehension.