Thursday, May 5, 2005


Robert Tracinski is commenting on the GOP debate in the Wall Street Journal.

The editorial page of today's Wall Street Journal is turned over to a debate over the merits of the religious right. Interestingly, both participants claim not to be Christians, nor even to be "religious believers." James Taranto's claim is not very convincing, since he spends the entire piece glossing over the actual ideas and statements of the religious right in order to make it appear oh-so-reasonable.

On the other side, former leftist Christopher Hitchens makes a terrific argument, presented in a more disciplined and hence more eloquent style than normal. His reference to Ayn Rand in this article is amusing, since I first became aware of Hitchens in the late 1980s--before his September 11 conversion to the right--when he defended socialism in a debate against Objectivists Harry Binswanger and John Ridpath. (, 05/05/05.)

Read the comments on Roger L. Simon's post, Christopher Hitchens has a warning for the Republican Party... Here is an excerpt from Christopher Hitchens's article, Why I'm Rooting Against the Religious Right. Save the Republic from shallow, demagogic sectarians.

I have never understood why conservative entrepreneurs are so all-fired pious and Bible-thumping, let alone why so many of them claim Jesus as their best friend and personal savior. The Old Testament is bad enough: The commandments forbid us even to envy or covet our neighbor's goods, and thus condemn the very spirit of emulation and ambition that makes enterprise possible. But the New Testament is worse: It tells us to forget thrift and saving, to take no thought for the morrow, and to throw away our hard-earned wealth on the shiftless and the losers. (, 05/05/05.)

And here is a quote from James Taranto's article, Why I'm Rooting for the Religious Right. Secular liberals show open contempt for traditionalists.

In the past three elections, the religious right has helped to elect a conservative Republican president and a bigger, and increasingly conservative, Republican Senate majority. This should make it possible to move the courts in a conservative direction. But Senate Democrats, taking their cue from liberal interest groups, have responded by subverting the democratic process, using the filibuster to impose an unprecedented supermajority requirement on the confirmation of judges. (, 05/05/05.)

No comments:

Post a Comment