Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Augstine Baker on August 25, 2011, 01:43:39 PM
-
Michael Barone has an piece at National Review Online supporting ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ "marriage." Back in the day, would NR have published an article supporting, say, socialism? Of course not. But it now publishes articles in favor of the most radical social innovation in history. This is not an entirely new development. Back in 2003, I wrote an entry, "NR waves the white flag at ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriage," concerning a cover article at NR by editor Ramesh Ponnuru. He protested my characterization, but it was correct.
In that same entry I wrote:
In the face of the seemingly unstoppable advance of the cultural left and the abasement of mainstream conservatives before it, there is one thing that traditionalists must remember above all else: never to let go of the truth, even if falsehood seems to be taking over the whole world. That is the opposite of the emerging philosophy at National Review. NR famously began its existence by standing athwart history yelling stop. Now its philosophy is to consult popular opinion on the most fundamental questions of human existence, and adjust to it as quickly and painlessly as possible.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/020298.html
-
Typical Judaic double-talk in claiming that by redefining marriage one is thereby 'protecting' it. The neo-cons took over NR a while ago.
-
I think it was Belloc who said (and I loosely paraphrase) that the job of the liberals is to change everything from good to bad and from bad to worse; the job of conservatives is to prevent any changes made by liberals from being corrected.
-
Typical Judaic double-talk in claiming that by redefining marriage one is thereby 'protecting' it. The neo-cons took over NR a while ago.
I am gong to be sorry I asked, I expect, but how is it Judaic? It is not in Hebrew, and Traditional Jews would not support this at all. The Episcopal Church supports gαy marriage, but I doubt that anyone would describe this as Anglican talk. Something can be wrong without being Jєωιѕн. And not everything Jєωιѕн is wrong. I an pretty sure on can find condemnations of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in docuмents Jews regard as scripture.
-
It's the double talk that's Jєωιѕн.
-
Okay. I needn't have asked. Exactly the sort of response I expected.