An Even bigger Asshole than Sullivan
http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Soul-How-Lost-Back/dp/0060188774/sr=8-1/qid=1167849030/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4858594-8715357?ie=UTF8&s=books I am not worthy of you, Mr Burroughs. I am a card carrying member of the Moose Club, so I must be some Blatz drinking lunatic who would find Hegel confusing and would spurn a Chicago style pizza because it doesn't taste white enough for me. The mere act of reading Ann Coulter prevents me from either rational thought or proper erectile function. If only I were smart enough to understand Sullivan, surely I would agree with him. Again I say, what an unbelievable asshole. "If you are a member of the Elks Lodge, this isn't for you?" Has this horse's ass ever been to an Elks' Lodge? Apparently the only fraternity this fellow cares for has it's meetings in bath houses.
posted by Notobamasfool at 4:39 PM
6 Comments:
The reviewer (WaPo's Bryan Burrough) certainly does seem to pigeon-hole the mainstream conservative reader to the point of absurdity - "puts ketchup on his eggs", indeed. I agree, this is disingenuous, and it is also unfair, because Sullivan is trying to paint conservatism with a broad brush, not with little stereotypes like "Elks Lodge member" or "Ann Coulter reader."
Incidentally, Burrough also does this with the mainstream liberal reader, who he implores to "put down their NYT crossword puzzles and glasses of Fume Blanc and wake up to the idea that blah blah blah." I don't know how many Elks Club meetings sexyretard has attended, but if he has ever drunk Fume Blanc or done the NYT crossword, he should be equally incensed.
Don't judge a book by its poorly written review. Or a movie, for that matter.
I am taking credit for being a Moose, and I have had Fume Blanc perhaps once or twice, about as often as I have done the NYT crossword.
Do you really think the charge of drinking good wine or doing the crossword is as pejorative as saying that Coulter-reading Elks cannot understand Sullivan? I got the idea that Burrough was suggesting that liberals are aloof (perhaps) but that conservatives were just too downright stupid (most of us, but surely not all). At any rate, my membership in the Moose lodge or my having read Ann Coulter does not preclude my ability to understand Sullivan.
Then there is this gem, from the Washington Post review:
"That there are people in 21st-century America who believe the Bible is literally true, who believe the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, and who believe that our lives today should be dictated by codes of conduct written by people who lived 2,000 years before modern medicine, electricity or equal rights -- and that these same Americans have influence in national affairs -- should infuriate anyone with a functioning mind. Fundamentalism, Sullivan reminds us, is the antithesis of reason."
I bet this same fellow thinks we've become too polarized and that people on the extreme sides don't respect each other. Of course, he can say that anyone with a "functioning mind" would be infuriated by Christian fundamentalism and somehow not be part of the polarizing of the country. When he says that other people are irrational and ridiculous, that is fine, but whenever the irrational and ridiculous suggest he's going to hell, well, that's just intolerant.
I have a week and two days and will either be at Pub Quiz or at Barnes and Noble perusing this Sullivan fellow. If his idea of true Republicanism is anything like Burrough's, however......
This fellow is every bit
http://tinyurl.com/
try it, you'll like it.
Sullivan seems to have his own special definition of "fundamentalist" as someone who is not rational, such as when he thought God told him not to step on cracks as a youngster, or when he would genuflect at an altar to differentiate himself from the rock worshipping anti-Papists.
He also seems to think that fundamentalists never vote for the Democrats, although 42% of self-described born-again Christians voted for Al Gore in 2000, according to Barna. Does that make them "good" fundamentalists?
I am less interested that Andrew Sullivan is gay and more interested that his religion lacks any potency or importance. For Sullivan, it seems, asking God for soemthing thinking He will answer, or believing that God make the universe (rather than coming out of nothing at all, under the "guidance" or "supervision" of some velvety deity who asks nothing from the world accept a good fume blanc).
In fact, speaking as a fundamentalist who does not believe the world is billions of years old, that we are descended from monkeys, and that there is any other way to God but through Jesus Christ, I have no interest whatsoever in telling the unbelieving world what to do. I would legalize prostitution and drugs, although I find the former immoral. More to the point, fundamentalists believe, to a person, that someone cannot be legislated into salvation. Salvation being a personal matter between a man or woman and God, fundamentalists by our very nature reject the kind of "communal salvation" of a system of sharia. No fundamentalist believes the way to heaven consists of illegalizing prostitution and outlawing abortion. A great many fundamentalists (I am not among them) consider the Catholic church to be a cult--their own pro-life stance does nothing to placate Bob Jones.
Sullivan castigates (is that a word?) Santorum (gay Catholic rage?) for believing that liberty was freedom plus responsibility. For a Catholic to militate against this is telling. I think Sullivan wears Catholicism like I might wear a toupee, it looks good, but hides the fact that there is nothing there that is actually a part of him.
Sullivan also seems to believe that Christian fundamentalists are given to sharia, and very few of us are. I would say there are a great many more Christian libertarians than Sullivan imagines, primarily because the only Christians Sullivan knows have an emasculated goddess where God should be. If he spent less time in bath houses and more time at Baptist churches, I really believe he would find more of a diversity of political attitude than he imagines, even among those fire-breathing, cousin-marrying, 6,000 year old flat eartherse he seems to believe have taken over the Republican Party.
This is my response to my first skimming of Sullivan, I'll be back at the bookstore this evening to give him a second hearing. So far, however, I'm a bit disappointed that this fellow who seems to believe we suffer from not knowing what conservatism means, feels he can define fundamentalism. In a particularly odd page, he mentions the effectiveness of Billy Graham and even seems to think well of him, while earlier indicating that Mr Graham's beliefs are antithetical to reason.
Sullivan also seems to believe that one's own conscience is the best source for knowing right from wrong, and the departure from your own conscience to a sacred book apprently becomes how one becomes a fundamentalist.
It's obvious by this (if I am being fair in my summary of his "to thine own self be true" philosophy") that Sullivan considers himself the final arbiter of right and wrong, and that he would consider the sexyretard the final arbiter as well. This is ridiculous, as clearly what the tard views as right and wrong is quite different than what Sullivan does, thus created either a contradiction (something is both right and wrong at the same time) or completely invalidates the very idea of absolute right and absolute wrong.
While Sullivan may well be speaking for the majority in rejecting absolute truth, I don't think it's fair to imply that only fundamentalists believe in it.
I'd like to have page numbers handy but Evanston's Library (not surprisingly) has quite a waiting list for this Scott's toilet paper worthy tome.
Did I mention I don't like this fellow?
Post a Comment
<< Home