Friday, November 07, 2008

Bill O'Reilly says gay rights are fascist

Last night on the O'Reily Factor - which unfortunately I can't find a transcript of - O'Reilly said that gay marriage in Massachusetts is fascism. Right, right ... as we all know, the courts finding rights for gays was the core of fascism, most especially in Nazi Germany.

Does O'Reilly speak some other language where he hears something different than we hear when he says stuff like this? If so, he's not the only one that speaks the language.

Focus on the Family has not so far posted this hateful fundraising letter on the web. Here is the opening section of the letter:

Dear Friend,

The spirit of Winston Churchill was alive and well on Tuesday night at Focus on the Family Action headquarters.

You may recall that in the most desperate days of World War II – when Great Britain was being pounded daily by Hitler’s Luftwaffe – that Winston Churchill called on his countrymen not to despair from danger but to rise to the challenge.
It goes on in exactly the same vein, saying that:

Our nation has never faced the kind of anti-family, pro-abortion assault that we’re likely to see in the coming weeks and months. We don’t have to guess what the Left will do now that they control Congress and the White House; they’ve told us.
What are FoF so upset about? Freedom of choice, freedom of marriage and legislation to combat discrimination against gays in the workplace. The last, according to FoF, will be an assault on FoF members' religious freedom. Nice of them to state so clearly that theirs is a path of bigotry.
Maybe they should read some Fritz Stern so that they can get an understanding of what fascism actually was.

In November 2005, Fritz Stern received an award for his life’s work on Germans, Jews and the roots of National Socialism, presented to him by Joschka Fischer, then the German foreign minister. With a frankness that startled some in the audience, Stern, an emeritus professor of European history at Columbia University, peppered his acceptance speech with the similarities he saw between the path taken by Germany in the years leading up to Hitler and the path being taken by the United States today. He talked about a group of 1920’s intellectuals known as the “conservative revolutionaries,” who “denounced liberalism as the greatest, most invidious threat, and attacked it for its tolerance, rationality and cosmopolitan culture,” and about how Hitler had used religion to appeal to the German public. In Hitler’s first radio address after becoming chancellor, Stern noted, he declared that the Nazis regarded “Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life.”

Stern was of course not suggesting an equivalence between President Bush and Hitler but rather making a more subtle critique, extending his idea that contemporary American politics exhibited “something like the strident militancy and political ineptitude of the Kaiser’s pre-1914 imperial Germany.” At 80, Stern has just published a sprawling memoir, “Five Germanys I Have Known,” and as with that speech, he does not file away his experiences of Nazism in a geographical or temporal box.
Also see here for an essay Stern adapted from the alluded to speech.


Jennifer said...

One of the magical moments of last week was watching the beginning of the GOP implosion. Heh.

I am so sick of people who are only Republicans because of social issues (and who are against individual liberty and responsibility) saying they're conservatives. They're not. They're theocrats. Real conservatives would not have any problem letting gay citizens marry and have equal rights under the law because individual freedom Used to be one of the core foundations of political conservatism. Not anymore. Which is why I hope that the GOP will find itself in the permanent minority unless they retool their core principles.

Nick said...

Strange that you're so for "individual liberty" on social matters but when it comes to something as important as what to do with your money, you just allow the government to spend it as they please. I work for the government so I see firsthand just how inefficient it really is. Any party should admit how horrible the government is at running enterprises (Amtrak, USPS, etc). Economics at its most basic element should tell you that free market competition trumps the government's ways. Why? Because the government has nothing to lose whereas a company does. Off topic I know, but whatever. I'm all for gay marriage because I am for individual liberty, but it seems hypocritical that someone would be for one and against the other.