|
|
|
July 01, 2008
Culture War is Religious War, claims Buchanan
Noting the hopeless religious divide between Barack Obama and James Dobson, Pat Buchanan (on Dobson's side, naturally) argues that peaceful coexistence is impossible: Can Americans ever come together if we are divided in our deepest beliefs about morality and truth, where one side believes gay marriage is moral progress, the other holds it a moral outrage; where one side views abortion to be a mighty advance for women's freedom, the other sees it as legalization of mass slaughter of unborn babies?Well, I've touched on this divide before, and while the disagreements are indeed hopeless, I'm not sure why that necessarily renders peaceful coexistence impossible. Is Buchanan using these terms rhetorically, or is he expecting a shooting war to start? Judging from the things Buchanan has been saying (whether "inartfully" or not) lately, he might simply mean that peaceful coexistence with Pat Buchanan is becoming impossible. MORE: I know it's old news, but since I touched on the subject earlier today, I guess it's fair to point out that Pat Buchanan has been fond of rhetorical "sodomite" bashing for years. (It hardly compares to the stuff he's saying about the Jews, though.) posted by Eric on 07.01.08 at 04:31 PM
Comments
Given that Buchanan apparently believes that the eight-year disagreement between Iran and Iraq in the '80's that left about a million people dead does NOT rise to the level of "War"... (here) I shudder to think what he expects to happen here if he is willing to deploy the "w" word. Clint · July 1, 2008 10:39 PM Ack. Sorry. Got my Buchanans confused. Pat =/= James. Very different wings of the GOP. Clint · July 1, 2008 10:41 PM Pat Buchanan, formerly one of my personal heroes, has either lately gone off the deep end, or gone off his crazy pills. Either way, I'm going to stop listening to him until such time as he comes to his senses. Best Regards, ATNorth · July 1, 2008 11:52 PM Actually, Eric, I was surprised to see his name here. I know that the Left loves to trot him out as a "Republican", in part because of his predictably embarrasing comments. You gotta admit, the guy has credentials. But, in the main, I ignore him. And the sooner the Right ignores or distances itself from him, the better. IMHO. . OregonGuy · July 2, 2008 01:30 AM OregonGuy: he HAD Republican credentials, but blew 'em all by 2000 when he ran against the Republicans on the national-socialist ticket. Conservative organisations like NR had excommunicated him years before that. I keep trying to explain this to people. Buchanan is a reactionary nationalist, not a conservative, and has no influence in the Bush-McCain party leadership. David Ross · July 2, 2008 05:33 PM Here's a hint: all these folks are already peacefully coexisting. None of these folks are engaging in violence. None are urging the state to use its power to shut up the other. All these folks are doing is disagreeing with the other and trying to convince the rest of us to agree with them and not to use the power of the state to enhance the position of the other. That sounds pretty peaceful to me. Really, it's silly to miss all this amidst the emotion and fervor of these folks making their points. If we were living in Iran, one of these folks would be having their head chopped off. See what not peacefully coexisting really looks like? Paul A'Barge · July 2, 2008 10:44 PM Paul, an excellent reality check. My guess on Buchanan is that he is remarkably good at understanding how individuals tick, and has used this to provide insights into them that others miss. His ability for sustained abstract thought, however has never impressed me. Assistant Village Idiot · July 3, 2008 04:26 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
July 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2008
June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 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 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Who are they? Part III
• I'm sure this won't be my first disappointment.... • The gun nuts next door.... • Doggies for demolition truth • Worthless Dotcomradery • sacred grounds and sacrilegious objections • Local News • Culture War is Religious War, claims Buchanan • Gone are the days when my heart was young and... • Think it can't happen here?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
There is nothing moral about the government being involved in marriage at all. If a religion wishes to allow two men or two women to marry then they should be allowed, and the federal government can go pound salt.