1. More polemic against the Milton Friedman Institute, from Marshall Sahlins.
2. Play MR Jeopardy again: the answer is Andrew Jackson, what is the question? This is from Andrew Sullivan, who is the first blogger I ever read and remains one of my favorites.
The first Christian President of the US, I believe. Do I win something?
Sorry, I meant: Who was the first Christian President of the US?
Washington was not so much a “Christian” as the “husband of a Christian.”
If one can affirm the Apostle’s Creed, one is a Christian. If one cannot affirm the Creed, one does not accept the Christian faith. Certain denominations do not abide by the Creed while representing themselves as part of the Christian tradition.
Who is the first president to have been born in the Unitted States?
Re: Martin van Buren, to use the constitutional term:
“Who is the first president who was a natural-born citizen of the United States?”
In South America many catholic refer to evangelic as ” Christian” because the latter refer themselves as such
From the first link:
“In fact, neither markets nor individualism of this sort [i.e., the sort advocated by Milton Friedman] are present in the majority of societies known to history and anthropology . . . .”
Friedman was well-aware of this. He was also aware that lack of markets and individualism accounted for why the majority of societies known to history and anthropology have been tyrannical, miserable, and grindingly poor.
Who was president the last time that the U.S. government had no national debt?
I want to same Who is a president that did a worst job than George W Bush? However the problem is the answer is erroneous, since Lincoln, FDR and a few other tyrants fit the bill.
I think that there might be some legitimate concerns about so much private funding into one institute, but it seems like most of the people complaining would be happy if they just take off Friedman’s name.
What’s sad is that most of the people that are upset about the name don’t have the courage to come out and say what is really bothering them:
“I am a [communist/socialist], and Friedman offends me.”
I don’t know about the Karl Marx Institute, but who would argue with the John Maynard Keynes Center for Government Intervention at Berkely? Well, I guess some people might argue against it, “the Berkeley reputation will be sullied by left wing politics…” But that argument is of course, equally ridiculous.
Again I get to say that for people at the U of C to complain about their reputation being sullied by The Chicago Boys and Milton Friedman and The Chicago School and monetarism, it already has! They are the only reason the school is famous. Do they know that centers and institutes very reason for being is to bring in money? Do they know the money follows the fame? Do they know that the money comes not from gov’t grants? That’s just how it works. Do they know what they are complaining about?
Of course they want to change the name, but without the name, there’s no money. Will one day the GMU education department complain about the millions brought to the school by the Walter Williams Center for Economic Education or the Tyler Cowen Institute of Cultural Comparitive Public Choice, or whatever? Of course! Who knows exactly what will be popular and bring in the money, but some things are easy to predict. They hate the power of private funds and they always will.
To quote Duran Duran, “when it comes to making money, it’s yes, please, and thank you”
“Why not … a Friedrich Engels Institute for Political Science?”
Why indeed not? Is that meant to be an argument? Given that Engels had even more influence on the course of world affairs so far than Friedman, and that neither man actually killed anyone, it seems a bit silly.
Hello All,
I wrote the blog post (though not the CT article) to which Sullivan linked. This is important to note: Yes, according to some, you can be an Episcopalian or a Roman Catholic or even a Presbyterian or belong to whatever church and not be a “Christian” if you don’t accept certain doctrines.
The Anglican/Episcopal Church DID assent to those doctrines but many of US Founders only nominally belonged and didn’t believe in those Trinitarian doctrines.
Accordingly, if you don’t believe Jesus the second person in a Triune Godhead and that He is the exclusive way to God, you aren’t a “Christian.” And, according to THIS understanding, the first half dozen Presidents likely weren’t Christians.
“Is the contention that Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe attended Episcopal churches, but were not really Episcopalians?”
My research shows, in a way yes. I’d say they were nominal Episcopalians/Christians, but not “orthodox.” They rejected the orthodox creeds in which their churches professed. Jefferson in his private letters used to rail against them. Washington’s words never affirmed nor denounced them (he systematically spoke of a generic Providence). Yet he systematically refused to take communion in his church leading his own minister to term him not a “real Christian” for his behavior. Though GW never told WHY he didn’t take communion, the most logical explanation is that he didn’t believe in what the act represented: Christ’s Atonement.
it is a hard life
Is it realistic?
Comments on this entry are closed.