He has what I consider to be an outrageous piece in American Conservative of which I am aware only because it was featured among the five best columns of the day in an email I receive from Atlantic Magazine.   If you must, you can read Can One Nation Have Two Moralities?.

I past below the comment I offered in response, which I do not know if it will be suppressed - as of my posting this, it is "awaiting moderation"

America has NEVER had one morality, and on this - as on so many other issues - Mr. Buchanan simply does not know American history.

Surely as a Catholic of Irish background he should know the history of discrimination against Irish -  the signs in Boston that used to say no Irish or dogs need apply - and the forced Protestantization in American public schools that led the Catholic Bishops to establish a separate school system.

Part of our nation saw nothing immoral with enslaving other human beings at the same time we ha those who considered that an abomination - and even a Civil War did not fully resolve that issue

A large part of "traditional" American "morality" saw nothing wrong with parents beating their children and women having no independence from males - either their fathers or their husbands.

What has bound this country together is not the kind of morality Mr. Buchanan puts forth, but rather the acceptance by most people most of the time in a Constitution and a Bill of Rights.  That Constitution, in its original unamended version prohibits the application of a religious test for any office or benefit under the Constitution, makes no mention of God other than the pro forma use of the form of date, and even the swearing in of our national chief executive is in the form of an oath or an affirmation, and does not include the words "under God."  

Even prior to the ratification of the Constitution the Northwest Ordinance guaranteed free exercise of religion in the territories subject to its jurisdiction, a guarantee extended to the rest of the nation against Federal action only with the ratification of the 1st Amendment in 1791, and against state and local governments over time as the Bill of Rights was selectively incorporated by the Supreme Court.

We have always had a diversity of views as to what was moral and what was not.  

Mr. Buchanan can feel free to oppose rights including marriage equality for those whose homosexuality he still seems to want to condemn, despite the fact that science has been moving for decades in the direction of understanding that for most who are gay it is not a choice it is biologically based.  

So long as he insists on the point of view he expresses in this piece, he will find himself in an ever-shrinking minority.  The rest of the country has come to understand that what is immoral is to treat any human as less than fully equal, be it on religious, ethnic, racial, or sexual orientation grounds.

Your Email has been sent.