Yes and no. Cato although he was not the most original or creative thinker, he is still remembered for his defence of the Roman Republic (as she was being transmogrified into the Empire).
(Read about at http://heraklia.fws1.com/contemporaries/cato)
Posted on 05/19/2004 2:54:18 AM PDT by Theodore R.
What do we offer the world?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: May 19, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
"So, how do we advance the cause of female emancipation in the Muslim world?" asks Richard Perle in "An End to Evil." He replies, "We need to remind the women of Islam ceaselessly: Our enemies are the same as theirs; our victory will be theirs as well."
Well, the neoconservative cause "of female emancipation in the Muslim world" was probably set back a bit by the photo shoot of Pfc. Lynndie England and the "Girls Gone Wild" of Abu Ghraib prison.
Indeed, the filmed orgies among U.S. military police outside the cells of Iraqi prisoners, the S&M humiliation of Muslim men, the sexual torment of their women raise a question. Exactly what are the "values" the West has to teach the Islamic world?
"This war ... is about – deeply about – sex," declaims neocon Charles Krauthammer. Militant Islam is "threatened by the West because of our twin doctrines of equality and sexual liberation."
But whose "twin doctrines" is Krauthammer talking about? The sexual liberation he calls our doctrine belongs to a '60s revolution that devout Christians, Jews and Muslims have been resisting for years.
What does Krauthammer mean by sexual liberation? The right of "tweeners" and teenage girls to dress and behave like Britney Spears? Their right to condoms in junior high? Their right to abortion without parental consent?
If conservatives reject the "equality" preached by Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, NARAL and the National Organization for Women, why seek to impose it on the Islamic world? Why not stand beside Islam, and against Hollywood and Hillary?
In June 2002 at West Point, President Bush said, "Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time and in every place."
But even John Kerry does not agree with George Bush on the morality of homosexual unions and stem-cell research. On such issues, conservative Americans have more in common with devout Muslims than with liberal Democrats.
The president notwithstanding, Americans no longer agree on what is moral truth. For as someone said a few years back, there is a cultural war going on in this country – a religious war. It is about who we are, what we believe and what we stand for as a people.
What some of us view as the moral descent of a great and Godly republic into imperial decadence, neocons see as their big chance to rule the world.
In Georgia, recently, the president declared to great applause: "I can't tell you how proud I am of our commitment to values. ... That commitment to values is going to be an integral part of our foreign policy as we move forward. These aren't American values, these are universal values. Values that speak universal truths."
But what universal values is he talking about? If he intends to impose the values of MTV America on the Muslim world in the name of a "world democratic revolution," he will provoke and incite a war of civilizations America cannot win because Americans do not want to fight it. This may be the neocons' war. It is not our war.
When Bush speaks of freedom as God's gift to humanity, does he mean the First Amendment freedom of Larry Flynt to produce pornography and of Salman Rushdie to publish "The Satanic Verses" – a book considered blasphemous to the Islamic faith? If the Islamic world rejects this notion of freedom, why is it our duty to change their thinking? Why are they wrong?
When the president speaks of freedom, does he mean the First Amendment prohibition against our children reading the Bible and being taught the Ten Commandments in school?
If the president wishes to fight a moral crusade, he should know the enemy is inside the gates. The great moral and cultural threats to our civilization come not from outside America, but from within. We have met the enemy, and he is us. The war for the soul of America is not going to be lost or won in Fallujah.
Unfortunately, Pagan America of 2004 has far less to offer the world in cultural fare than did Christian America of 1954. Many of the movies, books, magazines, TV shows, videos and much of the music we export to the world are as poisonous as the narcotics the Royal Navy forced on the Chinese people in the Opium Wars.
A society that accepts the killing of a third of its babies as women's "emancipation," that considers homosexual marriage to be social progress, that hands out contraceptives to 13-year-old girls at junior high ought to be seeking out a confessional – better yet, an exorcist – rather than striding into a pulpit like Elmer Gantry to lecture mankind on the superiority of "American values."
Buchanan's point is a legitimate one to be considered. If American culture seems decadent to the extreme to some of us that live here, how must it seem to the bass-ackwards folks we're trying to sell it to? Insinuating that Buchanan is now a pro-terrorist anti-American indicates more of a personal resentment of Buchanan for ditching the republicans more than it is a reasoned response to the article.
Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, Kyrie Eleison...
The Gulag Archipelago (p. 168 or else depending on edition)
You have to remember that you're talking to Marxist-Leninist-Buchananists, who are nationalist socialists.
To them, all property ultimately belongs to the State, and the State graciously allows private individuals to hold it in trust--as long as they only hire "real Americans."
Hey, ping me next time Buchanan actually proposes a solution to a problem, instead of simply griping about his likes and dislikes.
No wonder he got so few votes.
You need to work on your reading comprehension, then. The original post quite clearly separated out a set of "ethics" that is universal to all viable cultures (e.g. prohibitions on theft and assault) from a larger set of "morals", some of which are not universal (e.g. prohibitions on drinking alcohol).
Buchananistas?
Just because some free people choose decadence wouldn't mean I would have to and just because someone was a Muslim wouldn't mean I would have to be one.
Yes and no. Cato although he was not the most original or creative thinker, he is still remembered for his defence of the Roman Republic (as she was being transmogrified into the Empire).
(Read about at http://heraklia.fws1.com/contemporaries/cato)
Yeah, against Hollywood, Hillary [and let's not forget Israel]
No, it isn't. Pat Buchanan, Noam Chomsky, and the rest of that crowd can wring their hands and urge us to ponder "why they hate us so". Rational people will ignore them and (in the short term) deter them from acting on that hatred or kill those who will not be deterred and then (in the long term) undermine the terrorist-spawning cultures that Pat loves so very much.
Unlike Pat, Cato had the virtue of not being completely wrong about one of his core arguments. Which he demonstrably is in this piece, when he wonders why the Imam is wrong to deny liberty to those he ostensibly protects and represents.
He despises Israel and the G-d of Israel. It is only natural that he would make common cause with the Moslems.
You mean "profit." As in running for President as a Reform Party candidate to get their federal matching funds.
He got "so few votes", because most of his sympatizers switched votes to Bush. Nader's supporters switched to Gore to a lesser degree. So Bush owes his victory to the Buchannites willing to give him a chance and to the Naderites being inflexible.
If you were a Christian in Syria or Iran, you would be in the minority. And your life would constantly be in danger. And yes I imagine I would hope and pray for the same freedoms if I were in that situation. However the almost 1 billion Islamics surrounding you would not have the same feeling. They see what is prevalent here in this nation of states. And unfortunately, it's not Christianity. To force the Islamics into a mold, that hasn't worked yet, under the catchphrase of 'spreading democracy' is not 'freedom'
I, for one, am profoundly grateful Buchanan left the Republican Party. He is only proTerrorist and antiAmerican if it gives him leverage to attack Israel. That is his agenda.
I think what unites Buchanan and the Islamofacists might be a mutual distrust of a certain persecuted people from the middle east [and New York city].
Funny that you mention Syria. Syria is the main country in the Middle East (Iraq used to be second) where Christians are not second class citizens and where they can worship freely. Contrast it with our friends Saudi Arabia - the homeland of WTC bombers.
So it makes sense that the next country to be liberated and given to the Islamic rule is Syria.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.