Sullivanism: fundamentally unserious

Gregory Borse noticed Andrew Sullivan’s logical inconsistency, too:

In the end, he writes that he cannot stand it that his faith (read Church) has been co-opted by “people whose politics” he does not share. But that means this: Sullivan cannot stand it that “his” Church is lead by those who reflect the teachings of that Church and not the political opinions of Andrew Sullivan.

There’s a cure for this, Mr. Sullivan: start your own Church.

Ouch.
Apollo at Snarky Bastards chimes in:

And let me just point out here that Sullivan himself does not want laws that are “neutral with respect to its citizens choices.” He argues against legalized polygamy, polyamory, and incest. As singular issues, I agree with him on those matters; there is a broad national consensus against them. But they are not neutral; they definitely make choices of morality for our citizens. Shouldn�t he just be content “persuading and proselytizing” conservative Muslim men to that they should only have one wife? Why is he fine legislating?
In short, I think he needs to explain the mechanics of his “consensus.” Why is there a consensus against polygamy, polyamory, and incest, but not against same-sex marriage? Why is he part of the former consensus, but he calls the defenders of the latter consensus “Christianists?”

That’s gonna leave a mark.

Comments are closed.