Posted on 11/04/2004 3:49:47 PM PST by EveningStar
>>>Wow--Isn't Wills a Catholic?
No.
He does claim to be one though. See also John Kerry, Ted Kennedy.
patent
Wills is a failed seminarian obsessed with sex. Teddy Kennedy has his defenders as well.
This is not unlike Andrew Sullivan's "it's all about gays" meltdown. Perhaps in a few months many things will be forgotten.
I don't know about the Sullivan thing -- but I really loved Wills' Lincoln and Augustine books. The John Wayne book wasn't bad for a pop culture bio -- though my interest in Wayne is somewhat limited, so that might have colored my perceptions of it.
And truthfully, I don't care about his personal life.
We need to remind the people on the other side of the aisle when they spew rhetoric about how the religious right carried Bush to the White House that it is religious fundamentalism that fuels terrorism.
Their efforts to undermine the religious right in this country is being put in terms that can quite easily be turned around to support the war on Islamic fundamentalism. They just might start to get it.
... except, of course, whenever it's a conservative President who's attempting to fight 'em.
THEN: they're just "understandable reactions to U.S. policies in Israel," or some similar off-brand of leftist codswallop. :)
He gay? That explains this rant. Give him Andrew's phone number.
Thank God. I've had about enough lib'ral sunshine blown up my @ss.Modern leftism is post-Enlightenment; it's a repudiation of objective reality and the logic and reason that's necessary to comprehend it. Christian fundamentalism is pre-Enlightenment; it's based on faith in the existence of a spirit world, and is also fundamentally opposed to rationality.
We needed conservatives to decisively defeat the left at this critical time in history. But if religious conservatism really became ascendent in this country it would eventually do a lot of damage on its own.
The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even to nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things. It is not too early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment.
I really know nothing about Wills' personal life but I guess I assumed he was hetero. Sullivan has always been highly respected by many conservatives. However, he recently disappointed many of them by apparently becoming a one issue voter. BTW, I don't oppose gay marriage but I think gays should try for civil unions first.
On an evolutionary scale, Garry Wills and companions, including the N.Y. Times, rate pretty low...so professor Garry has unintentionally hit the mark.
If Professor Garry denigrates the Immaculate Conception (Virgin Birth), let him explain the miracle/mystery of his own (seemingly wasted) birth and life on the Lord's beautiful Earth - and let him attempt to create in his laboratory, say, a "simple" blade of grass.
wills should return his phd. greece and rome were democracies -- and after 200 years their leadership turned corrupt and began empire building. as far as enlightenment, it was a movement that freed people from the tyranny of prelates and other power authorities.
today, well past the 200 year mark of american democracy, what do we see in the democratic party? alliances among the elite to rule over the peasants. they rule with an iron fist, demanding way too many taxes and squelching uttered words that do not fall into the "politically correct" way of speaking. and let's not talk about taking away a person's right to protect himself.
enlightenment also brought free trade, wealth and the flow of information. the democrats have been the ones to tax imports and put policies in place that squelch the creation of jobs.
no mr. wills, the republicans are not taking away the age of the enlightenment. clearly, it is the dems doing this. george bush and the republicans are simply trying to ensure that the age of enlightment continues, in spite of the fog of democratic socialism.
let's take a minute and define terms. darwin's hypothesis of evolution is specifically about on species being able to evolve into another species. the definition of a species is determined by its dna structure, and with that, sexual activity among different species is not possible.
it is true that human thought evolves. it is also true that small frogs in a large pond will eventually evolve to a large than normal population of frogs. and it is true that the stronger in the species survive the dangers of wild, making the overall species stronger.
but to think that one species can evolve to another species has never been proven. if fact, many scientists doubt the hypothesis of darwin's evolution based on the paleonotlogical record and the mathematical probabilities of it happening. there are other scientific evidences discrediting darwin's hypothesis, but i have bloviated too long here.
bottom line, darwin's evolution is at best a hypothesis by his own definition of evolution.
I read somewhere that all the Springsteen/Diddy/Affleck/et al youth vote, COMBINED, was outvoted 4-to-1 by Christian youth.
MM
He's gay or loves pushing and writing about their agenda!
I don't know anything about Wills' personal life, either. I always assumed he was a tweedy academic. Every prep school kid's favorite history professor.
I don't know anything about Wills' personal life, either. I always assumed he was a tweedy academic. Every prep school kid's favorite history professor.
Puts a smile on my face it does. 8^)
5.56mm
Great PIC!!!!
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.