Hm. And we’ll just ignore the election in Palestine which went against us. And the election in Spain which went against us. And the fact that more of the world dislikes us than did when Bush took office...

As for churches, I can only leave you with the words of Jesus, recorded in Mathew 6:5-6...

Are you saying that Matthew is against me discussing religion, or praising Christianity? Or that churches should go into the closet? Or what? The verse is about not flaunting personal prayer. But Matthew and the Apostles went about preaching, writing and testifying in public all the time. So how is this verse applicable?

And the election in Palestine could not go "for" us, as the others mentioned did, because there is no Palestinian party that is for us. But at least we will get some clarity, I hope, and move away from the abominable hypocrisy that had Arafat getting the Peace Prize.

And leadership is not a popularity contest, so if "the world" dislikes us, I care not. But I don't think it's true. Leftist press and leaders loathe us and the liberty we represent, but ordinary people? I don't believe it. Schroeder and Martin both campaigned on anti-Americanism and lost...

Cory's mistake is thinking that the people who dislike us now didn't before, but simply weren't as obvious about it. The USA isn't creating more enemies, it is simply unmasking that ones that have always been around.

Including on the home front...But it's good that they are surfacing--sunlight is the best disinfectant.

In my first blogpost I wrote: "A war begins. It's like rolling over a rotting log, the sun suddenly shines on a miriad of things both beautiful and creepy. We suddenly have a lot to say"

(That was 11-12-2001, and I haven't shut up yet.)

Annoying Old Guy,
I’ve seen the international opinion polls. They’re going down. Either it’s more fashionable to say you’re anti-American, or people really do like us less than they did...

As far as Mathew goes, I think Jesus’ point is that making a big show of one’s piety gains one no points with heaven. This being the case, churches ought to be personally relevant, but not politically active...

BTW: how do you square: “But just the opposite seems to be true. It's the churches who have resisted the pendulum's leftward swing that are filled with people, especially young people.” With “And leadership is not a popularity contest[...]”? If liberal churches (like the newly built and over-flowing one right behind my apartment!) are showing leadership and are being damned for it, who does that speak against?

I think the “lesson” of recent elections has been that foreign policy matters less to most countries than domestic policy. The Canadian liberal party was corrupt and took a hit. The Spanish governing party was corrupt and so took a hit. The German red-green alliance presided over a 17% unemployment rating—and you think their support or non-support of a war they’re not involved in had an impact?

What I do find telling is that both the German and Canadian governing parties thought that anti-Americanism might be a winning platform...

"BTW: how do you square:" They square PERFECTLY. How can you possibly not see it! Following fads is not "leadership," it's the exact opposite.

(And if your liberal church is overflowing, I'm glad for them. But I would want to hear more details before drawing conclusions, since the general pattern in the US is growth for RC and evangelical churches, and shinkage for liberal mainline denominations.)

"As far as Mathew goes". You got the first part right, I think, but the second does not have any logical connection, and is a modern "liberal" view that most religious people would probably reject.

Squaring:
You seem to be saying on the one wrist that right-wing churches must be doing the right—after all they are popular; and on the other wrist that unpopularity of an action doesn’t matter. Which isn’t exactly a contradiction, but does seem like you’re trying to have it both ways...

I don't think so. The churches I'm talking about have stuck to a number of unpopular "non-liberal"positions. Against abortion, against extra-marital sex, against a variety of self-indulgent practices that many people enjoy...and RC's also against contraception, against priests marrying, against women becoming priests.

And most of these are things that the CW says will make those churches less popular, will drive people away, etc. Especially young people. And to some extent they do.

But it seems like there are also a LOT of people who are attracted to churches that demand a very high standard of behavior. That have standards that are damned hard for most people to meet. And so those churches become "popular," (in the sense of drawing crowds) precisely because they are not doing the popular (in the sense of easy-going fun stuff) things that we are told people want.

I think it's psychologically similar to Groucho's comment, that any club that let him in he wouldn't want to join...Even if I don't want to give up my own sins, I might not want to join a church that considers them OK, because what's the point of joining up with a bunch of other slackers and sinners?

On the other hand, er wrist (?), if the demands and challenges are great, well, who knows, maybe I will rise to them by and by...

Or to put it another way, why doesn't Andrew Sullivan become an Episcopalian?