You can always tell when the left loses a big one in this country because the more loosely wired of their cadre unleash the most amusing rants. In the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision, Franky Schaeffer knows who to blame for the 5-4 win for religion: Catholics!
Go here to read the demented rest.
Franky of course is the son of the late Francis Schaeffer, an American Evangelical theologian who died in 1984 and who did so much to enlist evangelicals in the fight against abortion. His book How Should We Then Live and the film series based upon it was a wake up call to many Christians, Catholic as well as Protestant.
Franky Schaeffer has made a career out of his father. First by trying to follow in his footsteps and second by spitting on his grave.
Franky Schaeffer, as he used to call himself, reinvents himself every few years. He has been on a left-ward trajectory for some time now.
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2005/05/there_was_a_tim.html
That he considered Pope Benedict a “fundamentalist” says all you need to know about his judgment.
Francis Schaeffer was a truly great man. His son is an embarrassment, and this anti-Catholic rant is part and parcel of his attempt to attack the legacy of his father. Anti-Catholic bigotry and Daddy issues is no way to go through life Franky.
I do find the description of Kennedy J as a “far-right Roman Catholic activist” rather amusing.
What does he call the planet on which he steals oxygen?
I have a question. Was Frank(y) abused as a child? I have to wonder about this, because I’ve know a few people who were abused as children, and most of them sounded just like this man. If he was abused, he ought to seek therapy, instead of venting his anger and hate in the public square.
Actually I believe the opposite was the problem and he is the classic example of the spoiled, attention seeking brat who never grows up. The best man at his wedding, Os Guiness has some interesting observations regarding him:
http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2008/marapr/1.32.html
“But neglect and guilt are not the deepest explanation. The real truth is that Franky, as he then called himself, was spoiled. He was more like a poster child for Benjamin Spock than the son of “fundamentalist missionaries.” Having been born well after his sisters, and having survived polio as a child, he was rarely challenged, disciplined, or denied. As a result, he grew up a “little Napoleon,” as some of the L’Abri students called him. He would boast that he could twist his parents around his little finger, and time and again he proved it.”
I have a question. Was Frank(y) abused as a child?
—
Stop that. Most distasteful and gratuitous insult to his father. There are rotten characters in this world. I could have introduced you to a ruin of a woman who spent most of her adult life fornicating with anything that did not have four legs and consuming large quantities of alcohol and street drugs. She was a child of the local patriciate with a pair of congenial (if less than assiduous) parents. There was no abuse, and she was so willful throughout the course of her abbreviated life that it’s doubtful that the deficit of parental discipline and supervision was all that decisive. That life was devoted to spitting on everything her mother valued, and a good deal of what her father did as well.
I did not infer from Mr. Dalton’s post that such speculative abuse was in any way associated with his father.
The conspiracy goes deeper than even Franky believes. How else do you explain tricking a Democrat controlled Congress and a Democrat President to enact the law the Hobby Lobby case would be decided on twenty years before government mandated “free” contraception was even an issue?
Donald, you wrote one word that sums this diatribe well: “demented”
Art, I’m sorry you took offense to my question about Frank(y). I wasn’t trying to denigrate his father. I only asked the question because, in my experience, nearly all the people that I’ve known who acted this way were abused as children. Until Don quoted from Os Guiness, I had no idea Franky was overindulged by his parents. Interestingly enough, Paul Johnson, in his book, “Intellectuals”, bring out the fact that several of the subjects of his book were either only child’s or only son’s in a family of sisters. Their parent’s, like Franky’s, made the mistake of letting them have their own way, because of their status of being the only one. BTW, I wonder how his sisters feel about his treatment of his parents?
Paul Johnson, in his book, “Intellectuals”, bring out the fact that several of the subjects of his book were either only child’s or only son’s in a family of sisters. Their parent’s, like Franky’s, made the mistake of letting them have their own way, because of their status of being the only one. BTW, I wonder how his sisters feel about his treatment of his parents?
—
Willfull only child. Reminds me of Ann Dunham.
—
These things are vectors, of course. There are always supplementary and counter-vailing vectors. (My uncle was the only boy in a family of girls and my grand-mother had a great deal invested in him, to her daughters’ occasional consternation. He’s an accomplished and disciplined man who creates well-being around him, rather like his mother).
—
A great many of us carry with us baggage that we’d be better off without and the children of accomplished people have some challenges the rest of us do not (see Elliot Spitzer’s explanation of why he chose law and politics as a way of earning a living). There are so many options open to most of us in our time. Very few people make a career of trashing their parents; it’s a reasonable inference that F. Schaffer is one nasty piece of work.
Here’s an article with some interesting insights on Franky Schaeffer. http://pearceyreport.com/archives/2007/12/franky_plays_sc_1.php
Art Deco wrote, “the children of accomplished people have some challenges the rest of us do not”
One recalls John Clark’s famous retort to the younger Lord Meadowbank, the son of a very distinguished judge.
Clark (who once described a witness as “not worth his value in hemp”) was attempting to argue a point of construction and Lord Meadowbank rather peremptorily insisted that “also” and “likewise” were synonymous.
“Your father was Lord Meadowbank,” reposted Clark, “and your Lordship is Lord Meadowbank;also, but not likewise.”
Over-indulgence and failure to discipline is detrimental and could be a form of abuse.
thanks for the Colson video. I didn’t know anything at all about Frank Schaeffer and the history of the engagement of evangelicals and Catholics.
We do know the good work of Colson came about as a direct result of his repentence for sinful and illegal behavior…still a hopeful sign that some of today’s social and political leaders could also someday apply their gifts in a positive and wholesome way.
Colson’s life was a testament to the power of grace and redemption:
https://the-american-catholic.com/2012/04/21/chuck-colson-requiescat-in-pace/
“Franky Schaeffer has made a career out of his father. First by trying to follow in his footsteps and second by spitting on his grave.”
Donald, you may remove this comment because of its crassness, however it is true. IMHO Franky has not only spit in his father’s grave–Franky has defecated on his father’s grave. :-/