Pat Buchanan Calls For ‘A New Era Of Civil Disobedience’ Against LGBT Equality

[alp227]

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:45 PM - Edit history (1)

By Zack Ford on Apr 16, 2013 at 2:02 pm

As the LGBT community continues to challenge discrimination and win their cases —be it discrimination by florists, bed & breakfasts, or T-shirt printers —conservatives have portrayed themselves as victims, claiming that recognizing LGBT people equally violates their religious beliefs. Their rhetoric has increasingly suggested the need for a backlash, which is exemplified in a new op-ed from Fox News contributor Pat Buchanan. Writing for the extremist site WorldNetDaily, Buchanan argues that the advent of LGBT equality could mean the so-called “culture wars” might have to become literal with conservatives brazenly violating the law.

Buchanan juxtaposes LGBT rights with the racial civil rights movement, openly admitting that religious leaders will have to preach “principled rejection” and encourage their congregations to disobey laws. He believes “treating black folks decently” is the Christian thing to do, but the same can not be said for the LGBT community:

When Martin Luther King Jr. called on the nation to “live up to the meaning of its creed,” he heard an echo from a thousand pulpits. Treating black folks decently was consistent with what Christians had been taught. Dr. King was pushing against an open door.

Priests and pastors marched for civil rights. Others preached for civil rights. But if the gay rights agenda is imposed, we could have priests and pastors preaching not acceptance but principled rejection.

Prelates could be declaring from pulpits everywhere that the triumph of gay rights is a defeat for God’s Country, and the new laws are immoral and need neither be respected nor obeyed.

Full: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/04/16/1875111/pat-buchanan-calls-for-a-new-era-of-civil-disobedience-against-lgbt-equality/

Good thing this old fundamentalist creep is no longer employed by MSNBC.

[DonViejo]

1. Sorry, Buchanan's not a fundamentalist...

he's an Orthodox Roman Catholic. BIG difference.

[haikugal]

2. I would beg to differ...

fundamentalism is fundamentalism.

[DonViejo]

5. Beg all you want....

fundamentalism is the belief in the literal word of the Bible; the RC Church doesn't even encourage reading the Bible. An Orthodox RC believes in the teachings of the Church as taught by Augustine, Jerome, Ignatius and Benedict (not the Pope), as well as the Popes throughout history, to mention only a few.

[FreeState]

10. fundamentalism - nothing to do with the Bible

there is fundamentalism in every religion - Buddhist, Muslim, Christian etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, primarily to promote continuity and accuracy.[1] The term "fundamentalism" was originally coined by its supporters to describe a specific package of theological beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy of that time.[2] The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.[3] "Fundamentalism" is sometimes used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase "right-wing fundamentalists&quot .

[Taverner]

13. Yes but he's hardly Fundamentalist Catholic

If you want that, see Mel Gibson and his dad. Fundamentalist Catholicism was pre-Vatican II

[haikugal]

15. Opus Dei

Fundamentalists cross all boarders...even into Catholicism. They are radical and yes there are Catholic fundamentalists.

Here are the 10 characteristics of fundamentalism...

[link:http://vridar.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/10-characteristics-of-fundamentalism/|]
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/10-characteristics-of-fundamentalism/

Here is an article of the 'Christian Unity' movement with the Catholic church...

A Neo-Orthodox View of Christian Unity (The Catholic Right, Thirty-three in a Series).
Frank Cocozzelli
Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 03:21:53 PM EST

Last week I discussed the Vatican's recent decisions that will take the Catholic Church in entirely different direction from the tolerant spirit of Vatican II. The objective observer must ask what is the ultimate goal?
I'll hazard a guess: the neo-orthodox Catholic version of Christian unity.

But this is not the ecumenism of Yves Congar, the twentieth century Catholic theologian who proposed healing through (as Pope John XXIII described it) "a gentle invitation to seek and find that unity..." It is instead one where Protestant denominations make gradual de facto submissions to Catholic dogma.
In its July 10, 2007 pronouncement, "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," the Vatican stated:

The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all - because of the apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds, they merit the title of "particular or local Churches" and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches.
"It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature". However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches

The independent National Catholic Reporter offered this interpretation of the above:

"In a brief document, the Vatican's doctrinal congregation reaffirmed that the Catholic church is the one, true church, even if elements of truth can be found in separated churches and communities.
Touching an ecumenical sore point, the document said some of the separated Christian communities, such as Protestant communities, should not properly be called "churches" according to Catholic doctrine because of major differences over the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist."

Over the last generation, certain neo-orthodox Catholics have been building bridges to evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants. But this "bridge-building" is increasingly accomplished with roadways to the most rigid forms of Catholicism. And while some Catholics have yielded to fundamentalists opposition on the theory of evolution, socially conservative Protestants seem to be increasingly amenable to Vatican notions of natural law principles that appear in their united opposition to abortion, end of life issues and stem cell research.

cont... http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/7/21/152153/103

There are many examples...many examples. I won't continue this because it's off topic.

[HockeyMom]

8. I agree

former catholic with 12 years of catholic school. Getting to be, no difference between religous extremists.

[Taverner]

14. Ah yes - Extremist, yes - Patsy is that

Fundamentalist, no -

To be a fundamentalist Catholic would mean a regressive stance returning to the fundamentals, e.g. pre-Vatican II...

[sharp_stick]

6. Who cares

he's still a rotten piece of crap. It doesn't matter which mythology you wrap it up in.

[DonViejo]

11. Did I say or suggest he isn't...

a piece of crap? Just because you don't care doesn't mean others aren't interested or care where people's beliefs originate. Just think what might have happened if Bush and his gang knew of the differences and animosities between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

[alp227]

18. Once you start calling the US "God's Country" (where is God in the Constitution?)

then you're a damn fundie in my book.

[socialindependocrat]

3. Prejudice in any form is a hate crime - isn't it?

Let's get on with the times here people.

What would this world be like without these people holding back social evolution?

If they want to live in that reality they should be allowed to.

Live and let live.

[Eleanors38]

4. I just can't imagine Pat Buchanan going hippy. nt

[irisblue]

7. he's still alive?

Anti-Semite, holocaust denier, homophobe, worked for Nixon and Regan; why does anyone still read his demented ravings?

[matt819]

9. I think they're missing the point of civil disobedience

The whole raison d'etre of civil disobedience was to right a wrong, to correct an injustice. These people are calling for civil disobedience to prevent justice, to apply rights morally and ethically. What's next? Demanding that Jews wear yellow stars and that African Americans sit at the back of the bus?

[tblue]

12. Is Uncle Pat off his meds again?

He still thinks he's important. Somebody, get him back to his comfy chair and blankie. Maybe that'll calm him down.

[Initech]

16. "God's Country" has been running and fucking things up far too long.

Time to get the assholes out of office and let someone else give it a shot. The time of religious old white men is over.

[Zorra]

17. Theocratic Fascism in America again rises from the slime, and rears it's ugly, hateful

head, looking around for more new innocent victims to prey upon.