senseless ppr bickering

[Martin Penwald]

[Alceste]

An interesting piece from the NY Times on Poland's modernization of Catholicism, and the reduction of authority the Church is seeing in its paradigm European nation. It also brings back up the topic of how people define themselves by a particular faith and yet do not support several facets of its doctrine.

[JM_Zen]

Okay, what is PPR, and how did this get nine pages? Is this about sex? I can do sex. Are we for it or against it? I'm for it.

Sex is a lot of fun, but you gotta be careful.

It's exactly like driving, except your parents teach you how to drive instead of never, ever, ever talking about it aside from that one time, where your dad got out three words and you shot him down because it was already too late and you both breathed a heavy sigh of relief that this would never have to happen again.

[Red Omen]

PPR is the Politics-Philosophy-Religion debate forum on OCR. But don't actually try to debate anyone, or you'll be threatened with a ban.

[JM_Zen]

Ah yes, I remember PPR. That was a lot of fun. Unfortunately, I was fairly religious at the time, so I didn't get as much out of it as I probably could've.

Anyway, I didn't want to disrupt the debate, so, as you were.

[gorv]

i think we kind of puttered out because ppr is stupid

[Horseboy]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... -nihilism/

[Martin Penwald]

[Horseboy]

[Martin Penwald]

I'd like the opinion of some US-americans, in particular leokef, on this piece:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat ... ens-201101

The reason I'm asking is because we seem to have a rather similar trend in Europe, where conservative parties pander to the (extreme) right, but everyone within in the party tries to downplay it, mostly because they're secretly happy about the additional votes it might get them.

[Red Omen]

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Politicians will often latch on to anyone who'll support them, especially if that faction is easily manipulated.

[leokef]

In a time with many disillusioned Republicans, doesn't seem too surprising that conservative commentators drum up fear of the NWO or whatever in an attempt to snag those wayward conservatives who feel like their party doesn't listen to them. Those are legit feelings of betrayal being exploited. The Republican base has had to put up with eight years of big government and fruitless warmongering under Bush--along with a DOA '08 presidential campaign. Many are willing to believe in a massive conspiracy at this point. It is despicable to see the Republican elite then co-opt these internal rebellions, but you have to understand that the Republican elite is ideologically corrupt. So it's to be expected.

The part Hitchens seems to ignore is that which he himself plays by characterizing and exaggerating a fringe right, replete with racism, fascism and even religious fundamentalism (at which he unsubtly hints). It's all part of the narrative, way I see it. Now that there are plenty of wary Democrats legitimately concerned with Obama's own warmongering and compromises, liberal commentators find themselves drumming up fear of the evil Republican theocrats that are just waiting for an opportunity to return the country to the dark ages.

In related news, the courts have recently affirmed our Democrat President's authority to .

[Red Omen]

[leokef]

I don't find it to be so, at least so far as you're saying there are real, potent elements in the outskirts of the Republican party willing and capable of carrying out any policies guided by such evils (if religious fundamentalism can be so categorized). But if you're worried about destructive policies, how about those ongoing imperialistic occupations in the Middle East that neither of our major parties seems seriously interested in discontinuing. Or the general undeclared war on terrorism. How ironic of us to fear the extremists when our moderate mainstream colluded in misguided war efforts that have murdered tens of thousands of civilians abroad.

[Red Omen]