mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Then and Now
A Sad Contrast With Editorials Today
Features Icon
show comments
  • darksmiles22

    Surely if the Soviet hordes proved anything it is that determination is not the exclusive domain of the religious.

  • Anthony

    “Let us hope and pray that the example of their predecessors will inspire today’s journalists to reflect more deeply on the mysteries of existence and discover or rediscover the transforming power of God in the life of individuals and nations alike.” You think WRM.

  • Frank Natoli

    In a world where the welfare state provides all necessities, and if a necessity is considered not adequately provided the solution is an appeal to the welfare state, there is no need for God. People needed God to have someone to turn to when all else had failed. For devotees of the welfare state, God has been RIF-ed.

  • FriendlyGoat

    A majority of American church people actually do believe that faith does tell them “which party to vote for”, AND to support those who advocate a lower “marginal tax rate”, AND that they have clear answers to “many of the other questions that divide us”.

    • Boritz

      “…ordinary people of faith can and should take comfort in owning a personal arsenal to shoot bad guys or godless over-reaching G-men”

      Uncanny. Did someone supply you with a recording of my preacher’s Easter sermon? That’s what he said word for word!

      • FriendlyGoat

        I take you at your word on that.

  • Blackbeard

    Western civilization is today conducting a bold and brave experiment: We are going to see how we do if we abolish religion, nationalism and the family.

    The early indications are not encouraging.

    • Frank Natoli

      Depends on how you define “encouraging”. I know how you define it, and I agree with your definition and verdict. But they define “encouraging” as everyone living under their rules, regardless of the consequences of those rules. With that definition, indications are VERY encouraging!

      It isn’t just religion they’ve abolished. Religion implies a clergy and liturgy and tradition. More important, to them, is abolishing God Himself. Having done so, they become their own gods, answering solely to themselves. My experience suggests that homo sapiens make very disappointing gods.

  • Pete

    You’re 100% correct, Mr. Mead.

    The trouble is that our elites today tend to be human secularists and not Christians like earlier our elites were.

    • Dan Greene

      How did that transformation happen?

      • Pete

        Can’t say for sure but too much success, too much affluence, too much power all played a role.

        • FriendlyGoat

          The human secularists have too much success, affluence and power——soooo, The Republicans want to give them more tax cuts while bemoaning that they are already too “elite”. Meanwhile, the far left human secularists would settle for some tax increases and none of this ever seems to make any sense.

          • Pete

            1. “The human secularists have too much success, affluence and power——soooo, …”

            So? Come on Ghost. where have you been? This means the elite have disconnect themselves from the Eternal and have instead immersed themselves in worldly things. That is the point Mead was making in his post. Didn’t you get it?

            2. Hollywood, Silicon Valley, trial lawyers, union bosses, mainstream media and the other leftists up to George Soros are not the true elites. These are the puppets who strings the elites pull.

            3. As to why there is ‘no call from the opposition to tax them [the elite] back to size,’ that’s because the elite run the show and the media, and they CAN game almost every the situation to their favor.

            All societies are lead by their elite. A good elite means good things for the country. A decadent and corrupt elite mean bad things. The further our elite grows from god, the worse things well get.

          • FriendlyGoat

            1) The point I “got” from Professor Mead is that he is trying to take a 150-year-old article and spin in the next to last paragraph the unsupported idea that the “faith” community is not telling citizens which party to vote for in this present age AND is not telling voters to definitely lower the marginal tax rate. I explained this more completely in a separate post below.

            I also “got” that ending slavery was a big deal, but this whole piece from the Times of 1865 also carries an implication that God (and Americans) were somehow okay with slavery for several hundred years prior to that UNTIL “a faith that first broke upon us with the first flash of Sumter’s guns”. And then there is a problem that the whole second half of the Times’ piece, starting at “Never since the hosanas of that Palm Sunday in Jerusalem” is self-serving blather for the financial world of 1865 New York. Dr. Mead thinks Christians need more of that now, I guess.

            2) There are no imaginary unidentifiable elites “pulling the strings” of Hollywood, Silicon Valley, trial lawyers, unions bosses, mainstream media and George Soros, with the possible exception of mostly-Republican stockholders of those entities which are publicly traded. There is no secret liberal super-class you can’t name.

            3) I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the notion that conservatives would be seeking tax increases on the decadent—-but can’t because the liberal elite is just too powerful for them to overcome in media.

          • Pete

            What you ‘buy’ or don’t ‘buy’ is irrelevant to reality.

          • FriendlyGoat

            You and I see different realities.

  • fastrackn1

    The only way for western societies to ‘get religion’ is for there to be an extreme catastrophe.
    People always call out for God or their mama when bad things happen to them….

  • Kevin

    I was taken by how generous the first few sentences were to the defeated Confederates. Their virtues were acknowledged, and though their cause was described as wicked and God-forsaken, they themselves were not excoriated. Coming on the heels of an incredibly brutal four years of war this strikes me as a remarkedly generous description of opponents, especially compared to today when far worse hings are said about opponents when the stakes are so much less.

    • f1b0nacc1

      The generosity started at the top, with Lincoln as its foremost proponent. Read his second inaugural address and be moved by the greatness of the man, his magnanimity and the sheer force of character that jumps off the page.
      In the same way, the pettiness and small-mindedness of Obama sets the tone for what we have to deal with…

  • Kevin Foster-Keddie

    Samuel Dill, a British historian writing in 1898 about the late Roman Empire under the rule of Theodosius (379-395):

    “… by an inexorable fate, the claims of fancied omnipotence ended in a humiliating paralysis of administration; in which determined efforts to remedy social evils only aggravated them until they became unendurable; in which the best intentions of central power… were mocked and defeated alike by the irresistible laws of human nature and by hopeless perfidy and corruption in the servants of government.”

    I share Dr. Mead’s sentiments and concerns. What I would offer is an observation that our era strikes me as eerily similar to that of the late Roman empire. Of course, great thinkers like Augustine of Hippo were writing during that time – perhaps we will see new ideas arise from the tumult and turbulence we are experiencing today.

  • Nick Ottens

    Is this some sort of satire? The North won the Civil War because it had God on its side and faith is what can save America now? You’re usually much more insightful than this, Mr Mead.

  • Anthony

    A staggering amount of bible thumping has taken place in this one post. A bit out of character for the professor.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service