Wednesday, May 17, 2006
This is rich ...
Via Dave Neiwert at the invaluable Oricinus, we learn of a semantics war raging between Andrew Sullivan and Hugh Spew-itt over the old-but-recently-exhumed term "Christianist".
Go. Now. Read it all, etc. etc. et. al. ibid. op. cit. pud. enda.
Now, I'm not one to go to bat for Andrew Sullivan normally, but this remark from Hewitt bears scrutiny:
Sullivan objects to the political positions of many evangelicals, but given the widespread support for these positions -- opposition to the judicial imposition of same sex marriage for example -- Sullivan refuses to engage their positions on a case by case basis, and instead invents a new description in an attempt to deligitimize them.
Andrew Sullivan refuses to engage the evangelical (or Christianist, or Dominionist) position on same sex marriage? Is Hewitt talking about the same Andrew Sullivan who has written a fucking 400-page book called "Same-Sex Marriage: Pro & Con"?
Sullivan obviously doesn't need me fighting his battles, nor am I particularly keen to do so ... but, well, sheesh.