It Is Gordon Brown's "Joe the Plumber Moment," Only Worse

Janet Daley at the Telegraph is right about this:

What Gordon Brown did was to insult a quintessential Labour supporter for expressing opinions that are probably held by three quarters of the white working class core vote. That is a whole different ballgame – and its consequences are likely to be irreversible.

It’s one thing to insult people who won’t vote for you anyway, as Barack Obama did Joe the Plumber and all of those gun- and Bible-toting people he looked down on during the 2008 campaign (and still does, no doubt.)  But to refer to a member of your “base” as a “bigot” is a quick way to alienate your base.  Working class Brits have been Labour’s core since the party began a century ago; to turn them off to Labour could have the same result as the ’60’s radicals did to the “Reagan Democrats” thirty years ago.

And look how long it’s taken for the Democrat party to recover from that.  But the success of “New Labour” and Barack Obama have cultivated short memories amongst elites on both sides of the Atlantic.

Homosexuals and Paedophiles Not in League? Back in the Old Days…

…things were different, as Le Salon Beige reminds us, in this quote which appeared in a French gay magazine in 2001:

In France, homosexuality comes from a pedophile culture with André Gide. In 1968, there was even a pederast revolutionary action committee. In the speech of GLH at the start of 1975, there is a legacy of FHAR focusing on the pedophile issue. At the time, the emphasis was to liberate the body, to release its fantasies. Do not forget that at that time the age of adulthood was 21 years, which is very late. In the 1970s, everything was to be liberated including the child who was like the corseted woman, as was the homosexual. Today, we no longer talk at all about the same child. The child of the 1970’s was the slave of an old civilization, the child of today is extremely sacred.

Linking homosexual behaviour with paedophilia is a real “no-no” these days.  Obviously the LGBT community–which this article reminds us used to include “P” for paedophile–doesn’t want the association.

Beyond that, however, bringing this back up throws into question the entire sexual revolution of the 1960’s and 1970’s on both sides of the Atlantic.  The legitimacy of that legacy–and that, for Americans, includes Roe v. Wade–is core to many of those in authority in our society.

Since that time we’ve lived in a society where child molestation is brutally prosecuted but yet child sexualisation proceeds apace.  Sooner or later this contradiction is going to crack, and the results will be very, very ugly.  The link of the 1970’s will be made again and many lives of both children and their parents will be ruined.

In the meanwhile, speaking of prosecutions, if you’ve got the right prosecutor and judge, you can at least insinuate the link between homosexuality and paedophilia and get away with it, as we’re seeing in the Tonya Craft case in Georgia:

The judge in the Tonya Craft trial in Ringgold on Friday ruled that the prosecution could admit evidence of “prior bad acts” of a sexual nature by the former kindergarten teacher.

Prior to any testimony beginning in Friday morning’s session, the prosecution made it known that they would seek to call the evidence before the jury. Ms. Craft’s defense team had filed a motion the first day of the trial to omit this particular line of questioning.

Scott King, an Atlanta-based attorney for Ms. Craft, argued that the state was only attempting to bring this information in an effort to prejudice the jury against his client. Both sides argued from several points in Georgia case law. In the end, Judge Brian House announced he would admit the testimony based on a 1988 Supreme Court ruling.

The judge said his research of the matter showed that this case and others found a link between adult sexual behavior and child sexual abuse.

Ms. Craft is facing 22 counts of child molestation.

Going to the idea of Ms. Craft’s “prior bad acts” the prosecution asked the father of child witness #3 if he had knowledge of an instance where the defendant had done anything that might construed as other than heterosexual. His answer was that he knew of an instance where she had gone out one evening with a female companion and had not returned home until the following day.

He said she told him that she remembered having a few drinks at a nightclub and the next thing she realized was that she woke up at the friend’s home in the same bed with the girlfriend.

The judge in the Tonya Craft trial in Ringgold on Friday ruled that the prosecution could admit evidence of “prior bad acts” of a sexual nature by the former kindergarten teacher.

Prior to any testimony beginning in Friday morning’s session, the prosecution made it known that they would seek to call the evidence before the jury. Ms. Craft’s defense team had filed a motion the first day of the trial to omit this particular line of questioning.

Scott King, an Atlanta-based attorney for Ms. Craft, argued that the state was only attempting to bring this information in an effort to prejudice the jury against his client. Both sides argued from several points in Georgia case law. In the end, Judge Brian House announced he would admit the testimony based on a 1988 Supreme Court ruling.

The judge said his research of the matter showed that this case and others found a link between adult sexual behavior and child sexual abuse.

Ms. Craft is facing 22 counts of child molestation.

Going to the idea of Ms. Craft’s “prior bad acts” the prosecution asked the father of child witness #3 if he had knowledge of an instance where the defendant had done anything that might construed as other than heterosexual. His answer was that he knew of an instance where she had gone out one evening with a female companion and had not returned home until the following day.

He said she told him that she remembered having a few drinks at a nightclub and the next thing she realized was that she

Valedictory or Salutatory Speech Politically Incorrect? You Have Options

It’s that time of year when schools of all levels put their paperwork in order, produce large numbers of high quality pieces of paper (PETA hates it when we say this, but they’re called sheepskins) and hands them to those who have endured to the end.  This is otherwise referred to as graduation.

It used to be that graduation speeches were a pretty stock business.  The school knew it.  The valedictorians and salutatorians knew it.  And everyone went along with the program.  Most still do.

But now we have school districts which take no chances.  They insist in reviewing these speeches and, if the speaker dares to vary from it, can get the microphone cut off.  Christians normally (and justifiably) associate this practice with referrering to God in their speech (which makes the New Atheists pass out, truly disruptive during graduation.)  But there are other ways of getting in trouble, as this Florida valedictorian found out the hard way.

So what to do if you have an original thought and want to say it at the important moment?  It’s not hard these days:

  1. Put it together, either write it up or do it in video.
  2. Post it to your favourite online perch (blog, Facebook, YouTube, etc.)  Longer videos will require something like Vimeo, but most people won’t want to watch it.  Unless you’re very pithy, Twitter is probably too short.  With a blog like this, you can even time the post so no one sees it until you’re ready for them to.
  3. When the time comes, get up and simply announce that, due to content restrictions, the speech you wanted to give isn’t possible and that they can find it on _________ (fill in the blank.)  Then sit down.  In addition to getting around the content restrictions, everyone in the house will be punching on their iPhones, Droids or Blackberries to see what’s up, which will be more disruptive than the New Atheists passing out at your reference to God.

I know, it will “spoil the moment.”  But here’s a message from someone who put his school’s tush in a wad by not going to the Ivy League and waited until his last semester in college to take emigration off of the agenda: it doesn’t matter.  On our journey in life to an eternal destination, whether you meet everyone’s expectations in one speech isn’t a big deal.

Like the Hebrew National commercials used to say, you have a higher authority to answer to…

And you can have fun doing it.

Rubio and Crist: The Reality of the Retirement Age in Social Security

Now we have the spectacle of Repbulicans battling it out over Social Security, in Florida of all places:

Marco Rubio appeared on a Sunday talk show this month to say something remarkable. The Republican running for Florida’s Senate seat suggested we reform Social Security by raising the retirement age for younger workers. Florida is home to 2.4 million senior citizens who like to vote. The blogs declared Mr. Rubio politically suicidal.

The response from Mr. Rubio’s primary competitor, Gov. Charlie Crist, was not remarkable. His campaign slammed Mr. Rubio’s idea as “cruel, unusual and unfair to seniors living on a fixed income.” Mr. Crist’s plan for $17.5 trillion in unfunded Social Security liabilities? Easy! He’ll root out “fraud” and “waste.”

Let’s talk Republican “civil war.” Not the one the media is hawking, that pits supposed tea party fanatics like Mr. Rubio against supposed “moderates” like Mr. Crist. The Republican Party is split. But the real divide is between reformers like Mr. Rubio and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, who are running on principles and tough issues, and a GOP old guard that still finds it politically expedient to duck or demagogue issues. As Republicans look for a way out of the wilderness, this is the rift that matters.

The issue of the solvency of Social Security is a serious one.  The issue of the retirement age isn’t.

If you’re getting Social Security statements (and most Americans do) look at it carefully.  You have a monthly pension for retiring at 62, a higher one at your “retirement age” and a yet higher one if you retire beyond 70.  The answer to the retirement age issue is staring you in the face.

The whole concept of a retirement plan is to save money during the working years and draw it out after that.  If you start earlier, you draw out longer, and the payments are less.  If you retire later and draw out shorter, the payments are more.  From a time value of money standpoint, however, the result is the same.  The options are sensible (on paper at least.)  There’s a case to be made that, even with the lower payments, you’re better off retiring at 62, although I’ve heard politicians slamming people’s choice to do so.

A better implementation of the concept would be to have a sliding scale, i.e., for each year you defer retirement, you get a higher monthly stipend.  But the options, as they presently stand, are reasonable from an actuarial standpoint.

What isn’t reasonable is the way our government has pillaged the system by diverting Social Security taxes into the general revenue and driven down the effective rate of return.  That not only makes the options difficult to analyse from a quantitiative standpoint, it puts the ability of the state to meet its obligations in the long run into question.

Crist’s comeback to attacking “waste and fraud” is a joke.  He’s taking a leaf out of the old Democrat playbook by trying to morph a financial debacle into a moral crusade when in fact the old ways are both immoral and fiscally irresponsible.  Hopefully the voters of Florida–retirees included–will see through this charade and put the Hispanic in the Senate.

Environmentalism: You Think the New Atheists Will Take On This New Religion?

Environmentalism is certainly a new religion:

America’s leading environmental historian, William Cronon of the University of Wisconsin, calls environmentalism a new religion because it offers “a complex series of moral imperatives for ethical action, and judges human conduct accordingly.”

In other words, issues such as climate change are now much more than about “science.”

And this places a greater burden on environmental theology than it is often able to handle. Success in stirring powerful religious feelings about the environment does not automatically lead to wise and effective policies.

There’s been no doubt to many of us that environmentalism is a new religion, and a political one at that.  Too much of what they do and desire has nothing to do with science.

Now the fun question: will the “New Atheists” take on this religion like they have the others (well, some of them?)

I doubt it.  The problem with “New Atheists” is that they are too religious.  They see too much of a kindred spirit in environmentalism; in fact, some can claim both.  Particularly on this side of the Atlantic, many New Atheists started out with a religious background and went away from it.  The beliefs may change, but the style of mind doesn’t.

Publix in Palm Beach: It Was Tricky the Last Time, and It's Tricky Again

Palm Beach mulls the expansion of the popular Publix supermarket:

At a symposium Tuesday, residents seemed generally open toward Publix Super Markets’ plan for a new and larger Palm Beach store.

Many told Publix officials they want more organic foods and need to know more about the interior plans and product mix.

But Publix officials focused on the architectural and real estate plans for the new store, which will have 43,360 feet of interior space — about 10,000 square feet more than the existing store. Total square footage would be 50,870 square feet, including enclosed areas for loading docks and two generators.

The officials said plans aren’t final for the interior space or product offerings, and they encouraged residents to tell store manager Nick Abiusi what they want. Abiusi said he’s aware residents want a greater selection of fine wines, fish and organics.

“We want to have the best Publix we can for you,” Abiusi told more than 100 people at the gathering, which was hosted by the Palm Beach Civic Association at the Paramount Theater building.

I had an enormous amount of fun writing The Event of the Season about Publix’s opening of the existing store in 1971.  And some of the issues from that time are sufacing again forty years later, such as:

  • 1971: the riff-raff will come over across the lake and shop here.  2010: “Some residents asked why the new Palm Beach store needs to be bigger, and worried that it might draw more out-of-town residents.”
  • 1971: the store will look like all of the other Publix markets (the first store did not and in fact set the pace for Publix stores for the next twenty years.)  2010: “The new store would have a design unique to Palm Beach, the officials said. Publix proposes more landscaping than the town requires, and is considering preserving a mural on the existing building’s south facade, donated by the late artist Lee Olsen, by moving it inside the new store, officials said.”

We also have some new concerns, such as environmental ones (I wouldn’t be surprised if Publix made this a LEED structure.)  There’s also a parking issue for a neighbouring condominium, a sign that, as always, real estate and parking are at a very high premium in Palm Beach.

But Palm Beachers ended up being enthusiastic about the original store and there are positive signs about this one:

Also Tuesday, Civic Association President Ned Barnes said an informal survey of 110 residents showed 68 percent wanted a new and larger store, 31 percent did not, and 1 percent were undecided.

“Publix has been such a good friend to the Town of Palm Beach,” one woman said. “I know they’ll give us the best they have.”

Just don’t forget to bring the maid and the butler when the new one opens, as was the case forty years ago.

The Second Most Subversive Book I Ever Read

I’m not sure how to react to all of these liberals (like Joe Klein at Time) who call their conservative bêtes noires traitors or seditionists.  But since they’re going to call us names like that, it’s time for this conservative (?) to come clean and talk about some of the subversive material that he’s come across over the years.  In this case, I’m going to discuss a particular book that, read in the context of both sides of the debate in the US, has had a subversive impact on me.

The title speaks of the “second most subersive book.”  Subversive Book #1 is sans doute The Bible.  The Bible’s whole concept–that there is a higher power than the state who deserves a higher claim on loyalty and life than the state–is very subsersive to modern statist liberalism, which is why they hate it so much.  But I discuss that in other places on this blog.

Subversive Book #2 came my way in an odd fashion.  It was a happy coincidence that I began learning French around the same time my parents started going to Europe on business trips to visit our Belgian business associates.  On one trip my father brought back a series of three history books, published in Switzerland and intended for secondary schools in Francophone countries.  All of them proved fascinating, but the last one–Histoire generale de 1789 a nos jours, by Georges-André Chevallaz–was especially interesting.

Textbooks are a very specific genre of book (I am the co-author of one) but few are authored by people who are really participants in their subject.  This one is an exception: Chevallaz was a long-term fixture in Swiss politics.  As Mayor of Lausanne (where the book was published,) member of the Swiss Federal Council, holder of two different departments, and finally President of the Confederation in 1980, he had a chance to make some history in addition to writing it.

This book is obviously more centred in Europe than what we see over here.  It’s also focused (unsurprisingly) on Swiss history, which is interesting in and of itself.  Switzerland has a lot in common with the US, namely a federal system and a relatively light hand of the state on the economy, so there are lessons to be learned.  But the whole concept of a world where all of the light doesn’t come from these shores will come as a shock to many Americans.

But the biggest eye opener came with all of the forms of government described in the book.  Chevallaz took great pains to lay out to the student the various forms of government that nations went through.  He backed this up with all of these interesting diagrams of who went where.  With the French–the poster children of changing forms of government–this means several of these through the French Revolution and more afterwards.  He featured his own country too, complicated as it is by its federal system (pesky things, federal systems, aren’t they?)  At the end of the book he features what amounts to an “international civics” lesson, where he reviews several forms of government (including ours) and the various functions of the state in a general way.

The overarching lesson from this is simple: forms of government come, and forms of government go, and they can go either through an electoral process or the hard way.

In an American context, and especially considering how Americans are conditioned to think of themselves and their country, this is not only subsersive, it’s explosive.

For the conservative, the Constitution of 1787 is a sacred document, to be adhered to the letter.  This is why it’s passed out by Tea Party people and mentioned so often in their rhetoric.  To suggest a change in constitution is unthinkable.

For the liberal, the same constitution is good also, especially if people of their idea dominate the judiciary.  In that case the constitution is whatever they say it is, which empowers them and insures their jobs.  To suggest a change in constitution is dangerous because it also suggests rearranging the paychecks and grant money.

But it was not always so in these United States.  Our Founding Fathers understood this and made this statement part of the Declaration of Independence:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Although we are not as prodigious as the French in changing our governmental form (Chevallaz points out that our revolution was inspiration for theirs,) our current constitution is, in reality, our second.  The Articles of Confederation did not work out as planned; they simply weren’t robust enough for a “more perfect Union.”  Our current form of government is revered because it works, and has worked for more than two centuries.

That working, however, isn’t only because of the document itself.  Our Founding Fathers recognised that it could only be maintained by a people who were disciplined, self-reliant and independent enough to maintain a system that allowed so much freedom to its people.  It was on this account that John Jay, the desendant of French Huguenots, pulled a volte-face on the Continental Congress and negotiated the final settlement of independence with Britain:

Nevertheless, between the two great European powers, Jay had already made his choice and committed his country, though it was the opposite of Congress’s choice. America had fought a war with a French ally against a British enemy, but in the peace negotiations and for the rest of his public career, Jay, often on his own initiative and against much resistance from his colleagues and countrymen, led the way in building the foundation of future U.S. foreign policy, the special relationship between the two English-speaking peoples. And why? “Not being of British Descent,” Jay explained years later, “I cannot be influenced by . . . that Partiality . . . , which might otherwise be supposed not to be unnatural.” But in Europe, he came to loathe arbitrary governments, which “debase and corrupt their Subjects,” even subjects as talented and accomplished as the French (as his Huguenot ancestors had found, he well knew). Very different is Britain’s political culture and therefore its national character. “It certainly is chiefly owing to Institutions Laws and Principles of Policy & Government originally derived to us as British colonists, that with the favor of Heaven the People of this Country are what they are.” Hence his “sentiments of esteem” for the British nation.

Jay expressed what he felt, in practical terms, that debasement and corruption did to people in his description of Spain, where he had resided earlier:

No doubt, he wrote, Aranjuez “is a charming Place,” with the king’s parks, meadows, and woods. But “it is not America. A genius of a different Character . . . reigns over these. Soldiers with fixed bayonets present themselves at various Stations in these peaceful Retreats; and tho’ none but inoffensive Citizens are near, yet Horsmen with drawn swords guarding one or other of the royal family . . . , renew and impress Ideas of Subjection. Power unlimited and Distrust misplaced, thus exacting Homage & imposing awe, occasion uneasy Reflections. . . . Were I a Spaniard, these decorated Seats would appear to me like the temporary Enchantments of some despotic magician, who by re-extending his wand, could at pleasure command them to vanish, and be succeeded by Presidios, Galleys and Prisons.” All human relations in Spain catch a tinge of the same spirit. “This is a kind of Prudence which naturally grows out of a jealous and absolute Government, under which the People have, for many Generations been habituated to that kind of Dependence, which constrains every Class to watch and respect the opinions and Inclinations of their superiors in Power.” No European splendor can equal “the free air, the free conversation, the equal Liberty, . . . which God & Nature and Laws of our making, have given and secured to our happier Country.”

At this stage, I think we need to consider a new arrangement in this part of North America for two reasons.

The first is that our capability to sustain a government of free and independent people is waning.  I’ve discussed this problem elsewhere but it’s one that Obama and the Democrats are hoping will give them a “permanent majority.”  That’s the conservatives’ problem.

The second is that our form of government, with its elaborate system of checks and balances (to say nothing of its federalism) is too cumbersome to become an all-encompassing social service organisation to its people without degenerating into an expensive, unworkable kludge (think of the health care bill we just passed.)  That’s the liberals’ problem.

The nice way to do this is to sit down and cut a deal amongst ourselves, even if that deal is to have a parting of the ways.  But, as the history of other places reminds us, if we don’t do something the easy way, the hard way is what is left to us.  And with our growing fiscal woes (which proved the undoing of our French allies in 1789) the hard way looks like it’s inevitable.

There is no “constitutional” way out of this mess.   The best solution is to go back to the principles that animated this place to start with and make some reconstruction.  But the preferred alternative of our elitist snobs is for the magician in Washington to wave his magic wand and turn this nation effectively into a statist summer camp.  The reaction to that, no matter how it comes out, will put an end to freedom and constitution alike.

But such observations are what happens when you read subsersive books, both the second most subersive one and the first.

Histoire generale de 1789 a nos joursHistoire generale de 1789 a nos jours

Nancy Pelosi, Palm Beach and the Strange State of the Rich in an Obama Regime

Nancy Pelosi’s “requirement” of numerous police and security personnel on a recent visit of Palm Beach is something that I found curious.  But it also got me thinking about the strange–surreal, in many ways–state of our political process.

Palm Beach shouldn’t be a threatening kind of place for Nancy Pelosi.  It’s in a house district that’s currently represented by a Democrat and is secured all of the time by a large (and recently unionised) police force.  So where does the threat come from?  Does she really think that Rush Limbaugh is going to send someone from his southern compound to do her harm?  Or Ann Coulter, who is also a resident of the island?  It’s true that someone from across the lake could try, but it would take a fairly sophisticated (well-funded too) effort.

The security, however, does make me think about the strange state of the rich relative to current American politics.

On the one hand, the upper reaches of our society are, on the whole, antipathetic to the social conservatism that has fuelled much the American right since the days of wine and Jerry Falwell.  That’s been true since Prohibition.  That’s one reason why so many well-heeled people supported Barack Obama in 2008.

On the other hand, except for a few who are positioned to buy the system, many find the creeping socialism and capital controls we have these days highly disturbing and potentially ruinous.  So what’s a moneyed snob to do?

To some extent, that’s the dilemma on the other side of the debate, as one knowledgeable individual in the conservative media mentioned to me recently.  Getting the social conservatives–who are still in shell shock over 2008–and the fiscal conservatives really working together, as we did in the Reagan years, is one of the key problems in moving the conservative agenda in general and the Republican Party in particular forward.

While all of this division is going on, the statists on the other side march on, success only impeded by national bankruptcy and foreign intervention of one kind or another.

Lord have mercy…

If Christians are in the Global South, Why Aren't the Leaders?

Gary L’Hommedieu asks this question–and answers it–in an Anglican context:

“If over 80% of Anglicans live in the global south, why is this not reflected in communion structures?” writes Indian Ocean Primate Ian Earnest in an April 12 letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury in which he protests, among other things, the illicit transfer of power from the Primates’ Meeting to the Anglican Consultative Council and its Joint Standing Committee.

Why indeed?

The short answer is that the present “structures” of power and influence continue to reflect the colonial history of the Anglican Communion. More to the point, these persistent “structures” demonstrate how that history continues unabated. While cosmetic changes have been made to church governance, and while token appointments give the appearance of social transformation, the fact remains: the present structures of power and influence in the Anglican Communion continue to serve the same socio-economic interests as during the pre-conscious Age of Colonialism. The same dominant group that colonized the Global South is still in charge and serving primarily the same social interests-its own.

Although most Evangelical denominations and groups don’t have the colonial heritage that Anglicanism–birthed by the state church of a major colonial power–has, and don’t have the divides that the Anglican Communion does, they all too often share the idea that “headquarters” needs to be in the U.S. or (less often) Europe.  And they too often reflect (unconsciously in most cases) that Christian leadership is still a “white man’s burden,” as L’Hommedieu recalls Kipling’s famous line.

This needs to go.  Evangelicals need to make this change before they get into the level of conundrum that Anglicanism is in.  They need to do this because it’s the right thing to do.

Why I'm Not an Episcopalian, Either

Perry Robinson puts it at its simplest:

Sooner or later reasonable people figure out that they can believe everything in such a view without being a member of said “church” and can sleep in on Sunday morning, giving their cash to other organizations. They can then use their own time in ways that they find aesthetically “fulfilling.” Why after all should I maintain the pretence of Christianity every Sunday by watching people use terms, objects and rites from long past and I am going to give money to this? What’s the point? This is supposed to give my life “meaning?” They can use the time in other ways and give money to established charities or causes that lack the wasteful bureaucratic structures of “815.” (Let the reader of That Hideous Strength understand.)

And this is one reason why more liberal bodies decline. They eventually become so inclusive like contemporary Unitarian bodies that they become socialization groups for the extremely idiosyncratic (freaks) and lose practically all cohesion. Such bodies do not make converts and they don’t have significant reproductive output. (It is not like Gay “weddings” will improve this.)  This is why theologically liberal movements are parasitic on traditional bodies. They cannot go out and create a liturgy and produce a socially cohesive body of people with a view of the world that binds people together in a deep commitment from scratch. They are expressions of a lack. Frankly, I wish such persons would just be more honest about rejecting Christianity and go on down to their local Unitarian church and save us all a lot of trouble and heartache.  What they do strikes me as seriously disingenuous.

There’s no reason why one should adhere to any institution that basically doesn’t believe its core tenets and simply blends into the “culture.”  This is especially true with Christianity; it’s unpopular enough now, has been in some circles for a lot longer.

The leadership of TEC has overestimated the past value of the institution being a cultural leader and carrying over into the present while at the same time denying the beliefs of those in the past.  Evangelicals should take note of this.

He says something else that deserves comment:

It used to be the case that, say about twenty years ago, you could meet an Episcopalian and chances might have it that the person was a professing Christian in the historic sense of that term. They believed the Scriptures were divinely inspired, Christ rose from the dead and all the other theological goodies expressed in the Creed. Now given the exodus from TEC this is far less likely.

To be honest I could have said this in the early 1970’s and been on target.  How deep the root of orthodoxy in Episcopalians went depended upon what diocese and what part of the country you were in.  In the land “where the animals are tame and the people run wild,” the bailout on orthodox belief began a long time ago, the senior Henry Louttit notwithstanding.

HT to David Virtue.