Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
The neocons and Christian fundamentalists are two completely different groups, although there alliance, together with bug business, is what defines the Bush wing of the Republican Party.

Buchanan is a right-wing Catholic, whereas Christian fundamentalism is an offshoot of American evangelicalism (and now largely dominates the latter). Right-wing Catholics and Christian fundamentalists may form alliances (the fundies picked up opposition to abortion from the Catholics to have something to agitate about, for example, and fundies may be fans of Mel Gibson's movies), but the two are two distinct groups, with completely different theologies.

This is not to disagree with your point that the right-wing Christians (of either or both varieties) would be worse at the helm than the neocons.

My post was confusing in that "Christian conservative" can have two meanings. One can be a Christian who is politically conservative, like Buchanan, or one can be a "Christian" who adopts a conservative (i.e., fundamentalist) approach to understanding Christianity. While Buchanan may hold certain "fascist" ideas, he does not reject reason, which is what the fundies do.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 03:32:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Carrie 4


Occasional Series