3 responses so far ↓

• 1 asg // Jan 18, 2007 at 8:45 am

  And somehow I knew his subject would be the subject of the link. But he expressed these same ideas far more stupidly in his article about the tsunami. It was unbelievable. I kept asking myself “Does he actually expect this to persuade anyone? Does he think this is anything short of laughable to anyone who hasn’t already swallowed it hook, line and sinker?”

• 2 marc w // Jan 19, 2007 at 1:44 pm

  No, Julian, you’re just applying the wrong lens to this piece.
  You think that the will of Michael Novak is as plain as day, written in clear english, using logic, reason and blessedly free of baseless condescension? Hey, wouldn’t that make eveyone’s lives a bit easier? Sorry, but Michael Novak doesn’t work that way, and I think you’d find that if you ceased cutting yourself off from Novak believers and Novakian reason, you’d lead a richer, fuller life, and would be able to empathize with humanity, er, up to 20% more.
  I sense a great deal of beauty in the piece you’ve carelessly slandered, and I weep that you can’t access the blessings contained in Novak’s emotive, wandering prose. I’d love to explain how or why the piece is so good, but I fear we lack a common language; a set of terms that would enable us to communicate rationally about the irrational/transcendent.
  As Novak himself teaches us here, I think the real reason you don’t see the innate goodness of the piece is because you’re not smart enough, and because you’re an emotional cripple.
  But bless you, Julian…

• 3 God // Jan 20, 2007 at 11:12 am

  I’m surprised that Novak suggests there’s been no anthropomorphism in Judaism and Christianity. I never said that, either when I spoke personally to the Old Testament prophets, or when I sent my Son into the world.