I am saying no such thing. There are plenty of neocons who are not Jewish, including the gentlemen I listed above with the exception of Ben Stein.

Teu, you are a witless idiot. Unlike neoconservatives, I don’t believe in liberalism.  If I ran the world, you’d be exiled or imprisoned as a mental defective.

I see an article by Wm. Kristol listed on there. Sad.

I think “witless idiot” is a redundancy. Additionally, whether one “believes” in liberalism, liberalism probably “believes” in them. :).

If the connection to Jewish Neo-Conservatism was not to be noticed, why did the article, above, state: “… the Faith and Reason Institute is only dressing up neoconservatism in Catholic garments.”

Because whether or not neoconservatism is Jewish, it isn’t Catholic. Not everything non-Catholic is Jewish.

Insults and mockery are my preferred mode of showing contempt when contempt is warranted by ineducable, half-educated ideologues. You’ll notice, perhaps, that to sane opponenets I don’t use such language, even when I disagree strongly.

Given Mr. Royal’s long connection to “First Things” why should anyone be surprised
regarding the “thrust” of this site!

Did you notice that the Faith and Reason Institute just moved to <b>666</6> Eleventh St. NW, Suite 450.

Bad choice of real estate. Surely someone noticed this.

McBrown, is that you? 

There are a lot of half-educated and extremely tiresome commetners here.  Those that act like adults get treated like ones.  Those that act like rejects from State U. who washed up at a Legalize Marijuana rally, get treated accordingly as well.

@CRoach

“There are a lot of half-educated and extremely tiresome commetners here.”

I would expect to read such elitist sentiments on a number of other sites,
but not this one.

Are conservatives not supposed to be elitist now?  Give me a break.  Read your de Maistre if you want to see where I’m coming from.

Teu is a tar-baby to be ignored, not poked.

Passionate, almost unquestioning support for Israel is certainly a hallmark of neoconservatism - but to call it a “Jewish” movement is far too simplistic.

Ignore the Roach, he loves to paint people into groups of his choosing and then truly believes he is correct in his assessment. I see this type of behavior on the internet all the time where people rationalise their hate thru illogical means.

As for ‘liberalism’ it is Freudian in nature and used both by the free-market and government to create a nation of consumers. To play on peoples inner desires for profit.

See the documentary ‘Century of Self’ here: http://freedocumentaries.org/theatre.php?filmid=140&id=984&wh=1000x720

Michael Novak, the neocon theologian tapped by the Bush administration to sell the Vatican on the invasion of Iraq, was the second contributor to the new webzine.

Well, Novak apparently failed because the Vatican has been against the Iraq war from the beginning.

A contest based on categories of discourse! Is there any way writers and commenters here can find a way to rely on facts on the ground instead?

Of course a corner has been turned in Iraq, even the NY Times admits it. The problem is, at what cost.

Don:
We just don’t know yet what is around that corner. In all probability another IED.

There are plenty of neocons who are not Jewish, including the gentlemen I listed above with the exception of Ben Stein.

I don’t think it’s quite correct to call Ben Stein a neocon.  He’s pretty much sui generis.  Like many on the right, he’s pro-life, but unlike almost everyone else on the right, but he sounds leftist when he talks about animal rights or Michael Milken (which are not the subjects about which neocons are likely to sound leftist).  He sings paeans to middle America, including his neighbors at his vacation home in Idaho.  He scoffs at the likes of Abe Foxman, who are always talking as if America were getting ready for the next big pogrom.  He writes touching books such as “How to Ruin Your Life,” in which he stands up for old-fashioned virtues of loyalty, diligence, and temperance.  He is almost Kirkian in the way he avoids any kind of overarching ideology to tie his positions together.  This means that he is sometimes inconsistent, and that it may be little more than gut sentiment that keeps him sound, but his sentiments *are* generally sound (well, except for that animal rights thing).  Doesn’t sound very neo-con to me.

This article partially explains why I have renounced the Catholic faith of my childhood.  Yes, the Catholic Church is the repository of the world’s greatest culture.  But it gave up on defending that culture when Rerum Novarum was discarded in the 1960’s in favor of Vatican II.

So, it should come as no surprise that the Church embraces neoconservatives.  Neoconservatism did begin as a Jewish movement, but it has outgrown that.  Now it’s a haven for anybody the liberals won’t take, but should. 

Conservatives are those who wish to conserve and embrace their culture.  I have yet to find much about our culture that the neocons are willing to embrace.  Ditto with the Catholic Church.  When both demand unfettered immigration into hitherto Western nations, they are in effect calling for the abolition of our culture and people.

I want the real Catholic Church back, and the neocons to rejoin the liberals.

Wasn’t the late Crisis magazine widely viewed as a Republican front organization established as an opening to conservative Catholics circles?  And I believe its former editor Mr. Hudson (forgotten his first name) was a Republican White House operative in charge of the Republican outreach to Catholics? 

This website seems to me like a similar operation to hoodwink Catholics again to vote for Republicans as a vote for the Church.