Still here?
I am. And so is Harold Camping, who is apparently “flabbergasted” that his prophecy didn’t come true and the Rapture didn’t happen on Saturday at 6pm (which would have spared us from hoping for another Triple Crown shot in the Preakness). Some of his followers, who dispensed with their cash and assets, may be described by other adjectives.
But Mitch Daniels is gone, alas. Did the man who wanted to declare a truce on GOP’s culture wars to focus on the economy wind up being the only true believer? Well, he’s also a family man, having heeded the counsel of his wife and daughters to spare them the campaign gantlet.
Gary Laderman at Religion Dispatches has five lessons to be learned (“2. The Christian Fundamentalists are not alone in this religious obsession”) from the world’s apparently false sell-by date, and at First Things, Anthony Sacramone writes that this episode is evidence of the “cult of personality” that can plague evangelical Protestantism, but not so much the churches of the Great Tradition. (We have other issues, I guess.)
And for those of you who were banking on being taken up into the clouds (a staple of preaching in my Scofield-bible youth), Slate replays the cognitive dissonance theory of Leon Festinger, which is a must-read since Oprah won’t be around to help you cope.
In any case, we seem to be stuck with each other, and with the joys and hopes, griefs and anxieties, wars and rumors of wars, and natural disasters, and blogs. So be nice.
What you say about Mitch Daniels reminded me of a piece in Slate by Anne Applebaum from June 2008 (i.e., during the last presidential campaign): “In its wisdom, America has devised a presidential election system that actively selects for egotistical megalomaniacs: You simply cannot enter the White House if you aren’t one.” What I remembered specifically was this observation: “I don’t care what a helpful father Michelle says he is, there is absolutely no sense in which Obama’s presidential campaign—or, should it come to it, Obama’s presidency—is good for Obama’s children.” Can’t argue with that, even though, for a president, the man seems like a pretty good dad to me. Anyway, by all accounts Mitch Daniels is a devoted family man, so maybe his excuse is an honest one. (Or, maybe he just didn’t want to run and lose.)
Isn’t there a 4th Fatima letter (or, in this day and age, is it to be a tweet?) that will really tell us when the End Times will happen? But for Catholics only, of course.
Armageddon-aint-a-coming-so-im-a-getting-outta-here…
Watchtower Jehovahs Witnesses have lost credibility with their own *Millerite Math* doctrine of Jesus *invisible* second coming October 1914.
Watchtower society false prophets declare Armageddon end of world in 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975, and 1984….
—Danny Haszard been there!
Does Mitch think Reagan or GWB were megalomaniacs?
Crazy thinking abounds today.
“I don’t care what a helpful father Michelle says he is, there is absolutely no sense in which Obama’s presidential campaign—or, should it come to it, Obama’s presidency—is good for Obama’s children.” Can’t argue with that, even though, for a president, the man seems like a pretty good dad to me.
———
Surprised that you can’t argue with that grotesque comment. Can you name a child of a president who regrets that her father held the highest office in the land? It raises them and their own children to heights unimagined before.
I’m about to order Dear Harry, Love Bess, by the Trumans’ grandson.
http://www.amazon.com/Dear-Harry-Love-Bess-1919-1943/dp/193550326X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1306166775&sr=1-1
Apparently there was a gent who (being sure he was not going be snatched up in the Rapture) offered to take care of the pets of those who were taken up. His charge was a non-refundable $135 per animal, and I’m told he did very well.
Why didn’t I think of it first?
That was a very different time, place and political culture. It is now a very personal, very destructive, and very painful process for anyone to go through. I don’t think we have enough data yet to know for certain how being as scrutinized as US presidents and vice-presidents has on children.
I doubt anyone can be adequately prepared for the onslaught. I have seen an interview with both Michelle Obama and Laura Bush and they candidly discuss how hard it is to hear the person they love trashed daily. And with Michelle Obama you can actually see it in her face and posture. She gets very combative and fierce. He is lucky to have her but still the point it, it must have some kind of effect on the family. It is less difficult for the actual person but the loved one, naturally, feels a range of feelings hearing the one they love trashed. I am sure this was true for the Todd Palin and her family. I suppose that such an experience can be very bonding but I can think of better ways to bond.
As for Mitch Daniels, I don’t even follow it that close, and without him even running I know what “I love my country, but I love my family even more” really means.
“Grotesque,” Gerelyn? How so? The category of things a person says he doesn’t regret is not the same as the category of things that were good for him.
Such glaring errors like predicting the end of the world are easy to see. Such myths like the “Fathers of the Church” are not as easy to put aside. Perhaps the reason a certain amount of people believe in the end of the world dates, is the need to escape from life’s vicissitudes. The same fantasy may explain the prodigious interest in the royal marriage. At any rate, is it not the sign of the end of the world when the president of the IMF rapes a lowly maid? And how does Hillary look now next to Ann Sinclair? The comparisons will be odious and revealing.
“We seem to be stuck with each other.”
I think we might want to contemplate the fact that in heaven (assuming we get there) we will STILL be stuck with each other.
And we’ll be expected to be HAPPY about it.
Hi, “Commonweal”!
Grotesque means “characterized by ludicrous or incongruous distortion”, and saying “there is absolutely no sense in which Obama’s presidential campaign—or, should it come to it, Obama’s presidency—is good for Obama’s children” is certainly ludicrous and incongruous and distorted.
The category of things a person says he doesn’t regret is not the same as the category of things that were good for him.
Who decides what is “good for him” ? Is that a little presumptuous? And which president’s son has said “he doesn’t regret” his father’s election?
(Does the masculine pronoun you use include presidents’ daughters?) Which ones have said they regret or don’t regret their fathers’ elections? Which ones should have regretted their fathers’ elections?
Surely you don’t think Sasha and Malia regret (or should regret) Barack Obama’s presidency, or that it isn’t good for them. Do you?
(Wasn’t his speech in Dublin wonderful?)
Gerelyn,
I apologize for the confusion. “Commonweal” was me (I had forgotten to sign on my personal account).
“Who decides what is ‘good for him’?” That’s a good question. My only point was that the person himself who knows if something was good for him or not. It’s tempting for all of us to say everything that happened in our lives was for the best; and, there being no real life-one-might-have-had to measure the against the life one did have, we needn’t fear contradiction.
The other, more basic point I might have made is that isn’t at all obvious to me that all the grown-up children of Presidents are glad their fathers were president. Some of them were certainly traumatized by things that happened while their fathers were president — things that wouldn’t have happened if their fathers had not been president.
Hi, Matthew.
Agree that it’s tempting to think everything that has happened was for the best. Actually, I believe that. (I think an important lesson to be imparted to young people, is that they should follow their instincts. I guess it’s impossible not to. That’s what evolution is all about.)
As to children of presidents? I’ve followed them closely, ever since I discovered The White House Gang in my parochial school library. I haven’t seen one say s/he regretted being the child of a president. Some had problems in their lives, of course. Maybe the Roosevelts wouldn’t have attracted so many odd marriage partners if Pa hadn’t been President.
Even Robert Lincoln got over the trauma. (The only president’s child to be at the scene of three assassinations.)
I’ve noticed that children and grandchildren of city bosses, much less presidents, are proud of their connections. (Having a city boss’s grandson turn up at a wake is still important. And even if the boss went to prison, his descendants have no regrets.)
I thought the Rapture had happened as scheduled; I just figured none of the people I know made the cut..
The non-event was the subject of the homily at Mass yesterday; our pastor was actually very distressed by Mr. Camping’s predictions, he thought this kind of fundamentalism exposes Christianity to ridicule.
“… our pastor was actually very distressed by Mr. Camping’s predictions, he thought this kind of fundamentalism exposes Christianity to ridicule.”
Hmmm. Some Christians feel that teaching about Purgatory holds Christianity up to ridicule. Or try explaining to your Unitarian parents why you joined the Catholic Church and now believe in transubstantiation and virgin birth.
I feel Mr. Camping’s pain, even if I can’t buy his avidity for the Rapture.
GetReligion.org has a interesting take:
http://www.getreligion.org/2011/05/the-rapture-of-harold-campings-claims/
Meantime, Raber is watching the “Dancing with the Stars” finals even as I try to write this, and I’m not sure I’m not going through the Tribulation.
Jean, my sympathies. How can anyone deny Purgatory after such an evening?
At least none of the contestants has tried to Limbo.
Jim, too funny!
Kirstie did a cartwheel, though. Neither it nor the lifts looked quite smooth, but I haven’t ruled her out of the competition. She’s been able to manipulate a formidable fan base to keep herself out of jeopardy, even though she’s at the bottom of the leader board at this point.
What’s that old addage: Age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill.
Well, it turns out the Rapture really happened. Spiritually, that is. Apparently, the good Rev has learned a lesson about how Scripture has a “spiritual” as well as “factual” side. It’s this profundity with which he’s bought himself time–and presumably billboards, if the sucker-born-every-minute thing is true–since now he says the actual, really, for sure, definite End of the World is now scheduled for October 21. Really. Beyond a doubt. He means it. No kidding.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/harold-camping-predicts-new-rapture-date-october-21-50438/
So a mother tried to kill her 2 kids in view of the imminent rapture? Is America the capital of mass psychosis?
Obama gave a fine speech in Dublin — though the Queen’s brief remarks a few days before were more touching — too much razzmatazz in the Obama event — too many one-liners crafted to sound like JFK.
Did any movie stars, sports figures, pundits or politicos go missing on Sat? Didn’t think so. But maybe a few made a good confession, just in case.
“So a mother tried to kill her 2 kids in view of the imminent rapture? Is America the capital of mass psychosis?”
One nutcase does not make mass psychosis, but I have often wondered if Americans are less skeptical/more gullible than other people. As I understand it, the Seventh Day Adventists were founded when an apocalypse in 1844 was repurposed into a heavenly instead of earthly event. They might be a little odd by our standards, but they’ve helped thousands quit smoking.
My own crackpot theory for which I have no real evidence but hunches is that America is a nation where the market for reinventing oneself several times physically and spiritually over the course of a lifetime is nearly endless. How else to explain Oprah, the Mormons, botox for children, and the renewed interest in colonic irrigation?
I recommend the movie “The Rapture,” which has been mentioned on this blog before. Extremely interesting and disturbing. Raber, as a recovering evangelical, got the shakes and could hardly watch it.
Jean, is that the one with Mimi Rogers and David Dukovny? Best. Ending. Ever.
Jean, excellent recommendation. I’ll have to see it again, as I don’t recall the details, just the frissons. Moody Bible Institute could take a page.
Camping said he mispoke: it’s now October 21. GET READY!
Mary, yes, Mimi Rogers (didn’t know that was David Dukovny, but yes, it was, and YIKES, this movie is now 20 years old).
I’m not sure I like the movie a whole lot–like Roger Ebert, I found it both maddening but thought-provoking. I seem to recall that the auteur of the movie was a Jew who wanted to explore the what-ifs of fundamentalist Rapture teachings seriously.
I also think Darren Aronofsky’s debut film, “Pi,” is one of the more harrowing exploration’s of the apocalyptic/numerologist mentality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_%28film%29
It gets at the same phenomenon from a different angle.
Cool film. And you’ll never look at your Black&Decker the same…
(FWIW, David’s wiki link has spoilers, if someone hasn’t yet seen the film)