|
|
|
October 18, 2005
A uniter not a divider?
On his talk radio show earlier today, G. Gordon Liddy read a Wall Street Journal editorial about Harriet Miers. Except it wasn't just any editorial about Harriet Miers. The author was described as "Glenn Harlan Reynolds, the famed InstaPundit, the number one blogger." Via InstaPundit, the link to the WSJ piece can be found here. But if you don't feel like reading it, you can hear G. Gordon Liddy read it on his show (if it's on in your area and hasn't already been broadcast). Or, if you happen to be a reader of Classical Values, you're in luck, as I recorded the Glenn Reynolds segment -- and placed it here for streaming anytime. (RealAudio compatible player required.) I should point out that I am a daily listener to the G. Gordon Liddy Show, just as I'm a daily InstaPundit reader. Much as I love them both, there are huge differences in their thinking. Glenn is an outspoken libertarian, while Gordon is a very outspoken moral conservative. To see both of them speaking -- literally -- in one voice is unusual. Hearing Gordon read Glenn's editorial filled me with a strange sort of unexpected optimism, and not just because I agreed with the editorial. Rather, I saw the bright side in an otherwise dreary and depressing national debate. That's because nearly everywhere, the Miers nomination has been seen as a bitter conservative catfight. But after hearing this, I have to ask, just where is the much proclaimed "conservative crackup"? Where's the "conservative disunity"? And what about the much touted "conservative civil war" that I was planning to appease? War? What war? I can't remember the last time I saw this kind of unity among libertarians and social conservatives. (Despite my previous speculations, I'm just not ready to believe that Bush had this type of unity in mind.) posted by Eric on 10.18.05 at 12:43 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
George Gordon Battle Liddy and Glenn Harlan Reynolds -- excellent. I agree with Glenn Reynolds's analysis. Interesting that this is uniting the social conservatives and the libertarian conservatives. Miers's nomination has been criticized by Robert Bork and by Randy Barnett. Neither side wants a question mark? We want an exclamation mark! or at least a period. We want somebody whose stand is known. "We must strike bold colors, not pale pastels." as Ronald Reagan once said.
Theologically I'm becoming more and more conservative. Lately, I've been reading a number of Christian books on the Trinity, the Bible, Creation, etc.. Right now, I'm reading a book on Zoroastrianism, but then I will read another fundamental Christian book. Why should I not study the Christian mythology, which has been the mythology of the West for the last 1000 years? As fascinating even as the Norse or the Egyptian mythologies. Many parallels.
In Dean's World here I wrote:
Extremely interesting. No, the Catholic church has never believed in sola scriptura as the basis of authority. But for those Protestants who do believe in the Bible as the God-breathed truth of Heaven, here is something to ponder -- John 6:43-58. The holy dogma of Transubstantiation.
In 1854, Pope Pius IX defined as holy dogma the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and then in 1950, Pope Pius XII defined as holy dogma the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.
"Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."
Absolutely. For 'twould be blasphemy. These are the only times, by the way, that the Popes have so spoken ex cathedra. The Catholic church refers to Her also as the Queen of Heaven and, at this pace, we can expect that sometime around 2050, Her Coronation will be explicitly defined as holy dogma. Catholic theologians have written of Her as the Co-Redemptrix with the Christ. At some point, this, too, will be dogma also, most holy dogma. The higher She is exalted, the higher and holier is the Catholic church, the nearer to my Most High Goddess.
The Goddess against the Godless. The Catholic church has thus always stood as a bulwark against Godless Communism.
I absolutely agree that we are free to choose Whom we will worship, the freedom of the soul, the root of all other freedoms. As for me, I know where I stand theologically. I can do no other.