They were always like this.

The Republican Party has fully bought into Globalism, foreign intervention, and corporate-capitalism and thoroughly rejects what traditionalists advocate. Ron Paul, more of a player, is a libertarian but doesn’t command anything more than a small part of the Republican base.

You guys worried that all these Republicans will have some kind of philosophical epiphany and run en masse to join up? His influence is minimal, this is much ado about nothing.

If you’ll excuse me I’m busy writing Pat Buchanan’s Time Adventures. In our first episode, Pat goes back to the 19th century, and walks into an English pub.

Pat: Oh this is wonderful! No Muslims, blacks, feminists! Just traditional European values and appreciation for Western society!

Pub patrons: GET OUT OF HERE YOU BOG-EYED FENIAN BASTARD!!! (They throw glasses)

Pat: But I’m WHITE!! I’M WHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITE!!!!

No, you don’t have to date fat women, although I’d proffer that natural selection would leave you to choose only among fat stupid woman because no one else wants to date a moronic little toadie-man like you.

Incidentally, as a woman who was once fat, I can tell you with certainty that I could have been a 500 lb. whale and I wouldn’t want anyone forcing me to spend one minute with a racist idiot.

As for Pattie, he’s been a racist jackass since long back, my old dad can tell stories about his start writing for the St. Louis Globe Democrat in the early sixties, which thank god has been out of business for over ten years.

That the news channels give that turd one minute of time is just another reason why intelligent people (like one mentioned above) should refuse to pay one penny for cable television.

People wonder why we have a country run by idiots and a petty despots and one only spend one evening looking at the news media to see how deluded and misinformed people have come.

Racism and other forms of oppression support the ideal of a minority ruling the majority, it has been going on for hundreds of years in this country. Pattie could care less about a little catholic discrimination — because liberals have worked hard to get rid of that barrier for him.

But like every Republican/wingnut toad, what’s good for him is not good for anyone else. He got his, to hell with you.

You’re racist.”

Care to expand on that?

You’re racist.

I know several physical anthropologists as well, and I agree that there are definable differences in the human genome across various populations. (I should mention that those I know refrain from using the word race to describe these differences) What both social and physical anthropologists have long noticed and can likely agree upon though is that skin colour is a poor reflection of a person’s genetics, and that genetic deviations between populations are generally much less pronounced than the overall diversity of genetic material within populations. In addition, the forms of genetic difference between groups rarely allows for anything approaching a clear division into distinct races, which along with the cultural baggage associated with the term is a good reason to avoid using it even in a strictly scientific and non-judgemental sense.

Walkaway,

I agree with you that overweight people are often seen as an acceptable target for discrimination. Ironically since she likely meant the example to be pure hyperbole, Francis came close to providing an actual example of a form of discrimination that plagues our society. While it’s not terrible to find certain people attractive or unattractive, or to choose sexual partners based on these facts, it becomes unacceptable if one’s opinions on beauty are used as an excuse to mock, attack, or treat others as inferior, as is far too frequently the case.

Also, I may be one of those who in the past on this site has made statements which could be interpreted as anti-Christian or anti-religion more generally, if so, my concerns about religion are entirely focused on those who use their faith as a shield to hide from criticism of their actions, or from those who use it to attack others.

I have to agree with Jonas Rand that Christianity’s historical record, even in its early days, is far from a clean one. Being gay, I’m especially aware of the religion’s role in persecution and the spread of intolerance. On the other hand, peaceful interpretations of Christianity have always existed, and the Unitarian Universalists you mentioned are about as far from Buchanan’s dominionist camp as it’s possible to imagine. Though I’m not religious, it is good to see members of the progressive churches countering the attempts of the far right to fully define Christianity.

I don’t have strong opinions one way or another about the Buchanon school of paleoconservative thought. It has been largely shunted aside in the Republican Party in favor of a more neo-conservative, global-capitalist philosophy and few in the party identify with or consider themselves paleo’s.

However, as a human geographer and academic who draws heavily on anthropology, my professional colleagues who are physical anthropologists would disagree with the statement ( Anthropologist have long understood that there really is no such thing as “race”). Social/cultural anthropologists would agree with the above statement, but physical anthropologists would raise an eyebrow. This rift in the discipline has led to many universities having two departments, one cultural and one physical. The rapidly expanding discoveries in genetic research has actually widened the divide between the two schools. The scientific debate between these schools can be pretty acrimonious at times, and I don’t see it being resolved any time soon.

I am also a Unitarian Universalist and because I have donated to my church, go to services, weddings, funerals there, I have (to my horror) been confused by those who are non-church goers as a right wing bigot. It is frustrating that Christianity has been hijacked by a particular political party. This is the reason I believe we must preserve separation of church and state.

This should not be a surprise to anyone.

First of all, you mistake the meaning of “equal”. Equality under law doesn’t mean that we are all endowed with the same abilities or innate skills in all areas of life. Equality means that the hunter-gathers of Southern African — many of whom have the same reaction to being called “Bushmen” as I suspect you would have to being called “a Mick” — that these peoples have the same basic human rights as the next person. No one is arguing that men should have a fat-chick quota imposed upon them.

Secondly, the very concept of “race” is debatable. Anthropologist have long understood that there really is no such thing as “race”. Human diversity exists along a continuum of physical variation and that variation, in and of itself, has little to do with intelligence or ability.

Thirdly, did you parents *really* name you Francis Marion? Because, I mean, as much as I admired the Swamp Fox as a tactician, he really was a bit of a racist, you know.

Thankfully, the church’s influence is dying out.

The problem is fundamentalist forms of Christianity and especially those who follow Christian Dominionism (in one of the many forms). We also live in an area dominated by the same and the sad thing is that they drive people from Christ (and sometimes religion in general) and think they’re doing good. When you read what you consider “anti-Christian” comments, consider that fact – that maybe the person is talking about those who proclaim Christ with one breath and spew hatred with the next. That is so common that it’s easy to assume that the two go together (wrong as that may be).

Another point that is germane to this discussion is the foundation of Christian Dominionism (and the precursor the Moral Majority), which has roots in racism. Read Frank Shaeffer’s writings about this.

Buchanan, by all accounts, follows Dominionist thinking. Thus, he’s only spewing what I should expect him to.

Also, I detect some anti-Christian sentiment on these boards. Yes, so-called Christians have done some pretty terrible things. But there are Christians, such as myself, who do try to follow Christ’s teachings of being kind and respectful of others. I don’t hate gays, bomb abortion clinics, or tell people that don’t follow my beliefs that they are going to hell. Remember that the civil rights movement grew out of the church.

As for Mr. Buchanan — does anyone take him seriously? He has a screw loose.

It is astounding that someone who is rationalizing prejudice can claim the moral high ground. All of the evils listed (genocide, slavery, colonialism…) are the result of some “moral community” imposing it’s prejudices on some other community by force: military force, force of law, manifest destiny, religious condemnation, or whatever version of might makes right is the “ideology of the moment”. Unless you want to ground morals on the writings of bronze age nomads who justify slaughter by promoting their minor deity to be the one and only true god, the imposition of one’s own rationalized prejudice on another is the ultimate immoral act.

As a Native American, I’ve faced it many times. When it became public knowledge I was American Indian, I lost over half (just over 60%) of my customers in about a month’s time. Same person as they’d been dealing with for years, but since I turned out to be one of “those horrible heathen savages”, they wouldn’t do business with me. I even got reamed out at least once for misleading them about my identity (that was a miserable month). Their decision shipwrecked a growing business and impoverished a hard-working and honest person. I’ve been threatened, lost jobs, and had other difficulties because of who I am every since I found out about my heritage (in my mid 30s). It’s not right, just, or Christian to discriminate or be prejudiced (unless you follow the ersatz “Christianity” they claim).

The fact is, stereotypes and prejudices are rarely based in reality. When the conservatives/”Good Christians”/etc. hear that I am American Indian by birth, they usually automatically assume (1) that I have problems with alcoholism, (2) I’m lazy, and (3) I get “government money” – that is, if they don’t tell me I’m a fake because I don’t fit their visual stereotype. It’s hard to break these stereotypes and get the people to see that what they believe about us as a group is wrong. The irritating thing is that the slightest hint of anything that supports their mindset, and their prejudice just gets reinforced – in the face of overwhelming evidence that their beliefs are just plain wrong. In other words, one Indian who drinks too much, and they assume we all are alcoholics… even in the face of thousands right in front of them who do not.

I also take issue with Race, as it’s a spectrum rather than cut-and-dried divisions. They talk about Africans as being “Black”, well, Egypt is part of Africa, isn’t it? What about the other north Africa peoples? The stereotype about my people is also very frustrating. No, we all don’t have black hair, brown eyes, brown skin, and so on. Many of us in the east look far more European than some of the “whites”. And when you have intermarrying, the slightest bit of non-”Indian” ancestry and you don’t know what is going to pop out. I know people with only a tiny fraction of European “blood” who are blond and blue eyed, and have a moderately fair complexion. Thus their stereotypical thinking is wrong about race. (Important point to remember: In America, in many instances you have to PROVE you’re American Indian before you can claim it. I’m lucky in that I can document at least one bloodline, and that several others are known. Being Indian is about who your kin are, not what you look like.)

Another important point is that in today’s world, there are cultures where homosexuality is the norm, and sexual relations and family structure are far more diverse than he thinks. Polygamy is actually the norm for cultures around the world. This too reflects in history – and gender is a cultural construct. The society you live in defines your gender and you’re acculturated into the standards of your culture at an early age. Some cultures have multiple “sexes”, and only a few try to limit them to two. So his prejudice isn’t universal and actually is limited to people who think like him.

Finally, people also didn’t have many of the prejudices that that jackass talks about. Intermarrying between “races” used to be common if not the norm previous to modern times. He needs to read some research articles about the makeup of, for instance, Roman society. The difficulties with travel is the main (and I would argue only) reason why such diversity in color exists then and today.