Theocracy?
I just read an article on NRO by David S Oderberg, Teaching Tradition, When it comes to traditional morality, President Bush — not John Paul II — has it right.
In it he says:
"Here it looks like George W. Bush’s morality is far more traditional — and I would argue more defensible — than John Paul’s."
This is exactly what I mean when I suggest that the Neo-Cons are attempting to set up Theocratic standards. This is also exactly why the Founding Fathers wrote the first amendment.
I mean, can you really imagine historians comparing Washington, you remember him, our first pres, to the Pope? And then coming out and saying that "religiously" Washington comes out better?
So, they are finally out in the open. Now it's the first amendment they are after. And apparently they want a Neo-Con version of Christianity as the State religion.
Because by my standards, Bush rejects most of the basics of Christianity, and the Pope and the Romans just make shit up (you know, like those pesky indulgences that so upset Martin Luther, or the Saints). So our new national religion will be the one that is judged by the Neo-Con interpretations of? What? The Bible? What? If you read the article, notice he quoted Catholic writings, but not the bible. "God" only knows what foul demons Mr. Orderberg takes his marching orders from.
I think this is a good time to point out that Bush is hand holding friends with someone who endorses arresting Christians in his country for believing (40 Pakistanis, Men, Women and Children), and also leads a country where the Supreme Court Justice is encouraging young Saudi men to fight us in the name of Allah in Iraq. Yep, maybe that Bush is more traditional than the Pope.
Bush holding hands with a Prince of Darkness.
I'm guessing that Orderberg is one of those folks that is mad the pope forgave Galileo.
In it he says:
"Here it looks like George W. Bush’s morality is far more traditional — and I would argue more defensible — than John Paul’s."
This is exactly what I mean when I suggest that the Neo-Cons are attempting to set up Theocratic standards. This is also exactly why the Founding Fathers wrote the first amendment.
I mean, can you really imagine historians comparing Washington, you remember him, our first pres, to the Pope? And then coming out and saying that "religiously" Washington comes out better?
So, they are finally out in the open. Now it's the first amendment they are after. And apparently they want a Neo-Con version of Christianity as the State religion.
Because by my standards, Bush rejects most of the basics of Christianity, and the Pope and the Romans just make shit up (you know, like those pesky indulgences that so upset Martin Luther, or the Saints). So our new national religion will be the one that is judged by the Neo-Con interpretations of? What? The Bible? What? If you read the article, notice he quoted Catholic writings, but not the bible. "God" only knows what foul demons Mr. Orderberg takes his marching orders from.
I think this is a good time to point out that Bush is hand holding friends with someone who endorses arresting Christians in his country for believing (40 Pakistanis, Men, Women and Children), and also leads a country where the Supreme Court Justice is encouraging young Saudi men to fight us in the name of Allah in Iraq. Yep, maybe that Bush is more traditional than the Pope.
Bush holding hands with a Prince of Darkness.
I'm guessing that Orderberg is one of those folks that is mad the pope forgave Galileo.
posted by Johnny Lightheart at 3:05 PM
1 Comments:
Actually knemon, years of reading the WSJ and National Review, as well as my correspondence with the writers there (for instance Bushs former speech writer David Frum), I actually think I know both what is commonly referred to as Neo-con and what I consider a neo-conservative. I for instance am a Goldwater Libertarian.
Post a Comment
<< Home