I’ve been watching carefully the descent of Dinesh D’Souza from the lofty pantheon of conservative punditry and Fundamentalist Christianism based political power based on his power to agitate the conservative base especially in regard to President Barack Obama. In a recent article written by Warren Cole Smith in The World Magazine, a news sheet with a considerably right wing and Christian bent, D’Souza is said to have been seen in the company of one Denise Odie Joseph II at the ironically named Truth for a New Generation Conference at the First Baptist Church North in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Smith reports that named sources informed him that D’Souza told them that Ms Joseph, who is known now to also be married, was his fiancee. Another source told the World magazine reporter that it appeared that D’Souza and Joseph checked in to the same hotel room. This is a serious crisis for a noted evangelical speaker at a conference for evangelicals dealing with issues such as, “The impact of the gay agenda on America,” “Homeschooling: It’s not about schooling,” and “Is the Bible intolerant?”

Dinesh D’souza upon learning of the article being posted at World magazine’s website became at first, I imagine, became quite fearful for his position in the inner sanctum of conservative politics and Christianist opinion. Of course, as the presenter for Obama 2016 D’Souza was a favorite of religious conservatives who hate President Obama. D’Souza was also the President of King’s College in New York a position that only served to embellish his conservative bona fides. Today, D’Souza is out at King’s College and scrambling to explain what exactly happened in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

Why is Obama on the social issues — and I’m thinking here of abortion, I’m thinking here of gay marriage — why is Obama so aggressive in attacking the traditional values agenda? I think the reason for it is because when Obama thinks about colonialism, about the British and the French who went abroad to conquer other countries, or earlier the Spanish and the Portuguese, I come from a part of India that was a Portuguese colony at one time, I think for Obama colonialism is identified not just with the soldiers but also with the missionaries. Remember it’s the missionaries that went alongside the conquerors, the conquistadors, came to the Americas and worked on converting the Indians and later missionaries went to China, India and Japan. So I think this is the problem, Obama doesn’t like traditional Christianity because he identifies it with colonialism. Obama’s own Christianity is more of a Third World liberation theology, a very different kind of Jeremiah Wright type philosophy, summarized in the idea that America is the rogue nation in the world.–Dinesh D’Souza in a conference call with Rick Scarborough’s 40 Days to Save America.

The assumed fear, now fully realized as the sunlight of public knowledge exposed D’Souza’s hypocrisy, soon gave way to anger. This man decided that to come out swinging against his enemies, this time all on the Right, was the only course of action to save him from being thrown onto the ash heap of conservative punditry. He told the story that he and Joseph stayed in separate rooms initially, but then when it became clear that the hotel was fully booked he changed his story and said they shared a room but no sex took place. This is neither here nor there to me because the sex isn’t what’s important here in the final analysis.

D’Souza was a noted apologist; he was on the front lines for Christianists in their perceived war against atheism, all religions other than Christianity as they see it, and the notion of a homosexual agenda. This left the man with only one remaining course of action and that was confession. As a man who referred to himself as a Roman Catholic after his years as an undergraduate at Dartmouth College, D’Souza was especially keen on the rules regarding adultery and marriage. Divorcing his wife of twenty years would have been a scandal in itself for a Catholic apoligist, but D’Souza burned that bridge when he crossed the road into fundamentalist, yet nondenominational, Christianity in the late 1990s. To this writer it appears this coincides with the time that D’Souza began to have problems within his marriage–or read more clearly that he decided he wanted to have relationships with women that were not his wife.

Now I’m not the sort of guy that would restrict Mr D’Souza’s clear constitutional right to pursue happiness as long as that pursuit breaks no laws. Oh, wait, that’s not actually in the Constitution it’s in the Declaration of Independence. Mea culpa. D’Souza’s own words point to an arrogance that relies on the people who actually believe in conservative values than those values themselves. It seems that once a person becomes famous in the conservative realm all the same foibles of reality tend to strike them just as much as they do those who espouse liberal political ideals. I want to make a point about late in life conversions as well before I finish this up. What appears to many to be a revelation from some divine power is coming to be understood as nothing more that swapping one set of restrictive rules for another. Newt Gingrich, twice divorced, converted to Roman Catholicism to give his third marriage an air of greater respectability as well as open a new door to national politics within the GOP. Gingrich may or may not be the smartest guy who calls himself a Conservative but he’s no different from Eliot Spitzer, or any other politician that wanted to have sex with someone other than their spouse. The only difference is that most liberal pols aren’t constantly hammering their opposition with calls that they are immoral because of what they do in bed.

In Hindsight

A number of things could, and in my opinion should, have brought down Dinesh D’Souza. His support of torture of detainees, his anti-gay bigotry or his clear hatred for the President of the United States just to name a few. What really brings him down isn’t simply that he wanted a new partner, or even that he pushed back against the Conservative press and blogosphere to try to maintain his lofty status. What brings Dinesh D’Souza down are his own words:

“If you read John Milton’s Paradise Lost, you discover that the book is populated with heroes and villains. The heroes, of course, are God, Jesus, and the good angels, man is sort of in the middle, and then you have the bad guys: Satan and his legion of deputy devils. Critics have noted that the action in the book always intensifies when the devils come into the picture, and Satan himself is an irresistibly attractive character. God is changeless; he always takes the same position and says the same things. But Satan is incredibly creative. Every time he is thwarted, he comes up with a new scheme or a new project. He is, from a literary perspective, a very rich and adaptive character.

Years ago, the suspicion began to arise that Satan was actually Milton’s hero. As one critic put it, “Milton is of the devil’s party without even knowing it.” Look at Satan’s reason for rebelling against God. It’s not that he doesn’t recognize that God is greater than he is. He does. It’s just that he doesn’t want to play by anybody else’s rules. This idea that it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven is Satan’s motto, and it turns out that this is also the motto of contemporary atheists such as Christopher Hitchens.”–Dinesh D’Souza in an interview by Marcia Segelstein, Salvo magazine, Salvo 7, Winter 2008

And if that doesn’t frost you enough:

“If you really look at the motivations of contemporary atheists, you’ll find that they don’t even really reject Christian theology. It’s not as if the atheist objects to the resurrection or the parting of the sea; rather, it is Christian morality to which atheists object, particularly Christian moral prohibitions in the area of sex. The atheist looks at all of Christianity’s “thou shalt nots”—homosexuality is bad; divorce is bad; adultery is bad; premarital sex is bad—and then looks at his own life and says, “If these things are really bad, then I’m a bad guy. But I’m not a bad guy; I’m a great guy. I must thus reinterpret or (preferably) abolish all of these accusatory teachings that are putting me in a bad light.”

How does one do that? One way is liberal Christianity—you simply reinterpret Christian teachings as if they don’t really mean what they say. The better way, of course, is to ask where morality comes from. Well, it comes from one of two places. It either comes from ourselves—these are the rules that we make up as we go along—or it comes from some transcendent source. To get rid of God, then, is to remove the shadow of moral judgment. This doesn’t mean that you completely eliminate morality, but it does mean that you reduce morality to a tool that human societies construct for their own advantages. It means that morality can change, and that old rules can be set aside. You can see why this would be a very attractive proposition for the guy who wants to live his life unmolested by the injunctions and prohibitions of Christian morality.”–Ibid.

Pax Terra!

Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.]
Managing Editor—Research
The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork
58 Low Lux Negro 2 AS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: