|
April
16, 2005
There Is No
Religious Neutrality
by Steve
Farrell
Let's
stop pretending. There is no such thing as
religious neutrality in the minds of those who
support the secular, socialist state. They are at
war with religion in general and Christianity in
particular. They always have been.
A fresh 'respectable' example: the openly
hostile March 29th, New York Times Op-Ed, "What's
Going On?" by Paul Krugman.
In it, Mr. Krugman shamefully compares white,
right-wing Christians to Islamic Extremists for
their contempt for democracy, their contempt for
the rule of law, their budding thirst for blood,
and a host of other problems.
Nice work.
And he has an inspired, compassionate, freedom
loving, left-wing solution: Silence them or
else.
And as insane as it sounds, Krugman's 'or else'
refers to his belief that the U.S. will soon
resemble the Middle East, complete with no women's
rights, zero science, and
political-assassination-a-plenty if we continue to
tolerate right wing, read that 'conservative,'
'traditional,' 'mainstream' Christianity.
Look at what happened in the Netherlands, he
says, where "[their] culture of tolerance
led the nation to ignore the growing influence of
Islamic extremists until they turned
murderous."
America is next; for the United States is a
place "where dangerous extremists belong to the
majority religion and the majority ethnic group,
and wield great political influence."
These Christians, these extremists -- and he
uses the word extremist ten times, including his
reference to Christian legislative efforts as
"cutting edge extremism" -- are putting our nation
at risk.
And it must be so. In close proximity to every
reference to Christian extremism are such
additional 'nice' words and phrases as: kill,
murder, assassination, climate of fear, and armed
body guards; and sweeping charges of Christians
being guilty of: meddling, circumventing the
courts, intimidating in the name of God,
undermining the rule of law, zero self restraint,
and finally, get this: "pressure."
Krugman is so disturbed about Christians
applying political "pressure" that he mentioned
this grievous sin three times.
Then come his examples:
- He started off with 'abuses of power' by a
trio of Christian extremists -- the Bush
Brothers and Congressman Tom Delay -- three men
who dared to stand up for the right to life of
Terri Schiavo against the Almighty courts and
their culture of death.
-
- How fighting the court system -- the least
democratic element in our government, and the
most liable to commit abuse against the
democratic pulse of the people and the rule of
law -- is an act against democracy (1) and the
rule of law, and in this case, in defense of the
Unalienable Right to Life, is a puzzle that
Krugman fails to explain.
If he was looking to be fair and balanced he
might have looked back to the case of the 'founder'
of the Democrat Party, Thomas Jefferson, who, as
President, declared the Sedition Act
unconstitutional without consulting the Supreme
Court or Congress, and set free those previously
imprisoned, because he believed every branch has
the right to interpret the Constitution as it sees
fit, and that any law that overthrows an
Unalienable Right is NOT a law. (2)
Mr. Krugman might also have noted that Jefferson
wasn't afraid to claim such a right on religious
grounds either. Said Jefferson:
- I discharged every person under punishment
or prosecution under the Sedition law, because I
considered and now consider that law to be a
nullity as absolute and as palpable as if
Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship
a golden image; and that it was as my duty to
arrest it's execution in every stage, as it
would have been to have rescued from the fiery
furnace those who should have been cast into it
for refusing to worship their image. ... On this
I am not afraid to appeal to the nation at
large, to posterity, and still less to that
Being who sees Himself our motives, who will
judge from His own knowledge of them, and not on
the testimony of a Porcupine or Fenno.
(3)
Not bad. A true 'extremist,' the 'founder' of
the Democrat Party.
Krugman's next examples of 'extremism' get even
more bizarre.
Where Christian extremists "are found in large
numbers," he complains, they have "pressured" state
legislators into passing "conscience" and "refusal"
laws, which permit doctors and pharmacists to
refuse to perform abortions or to sell "morning
after" pills when such actions are contrary to
their deepest held convictions.
Just as threatening, Christian extremists have
made it so that "31 percent of teachers . . . feel
pressured [there's that word again] to
present creationism-related material in the
classroom."
This is pretty serious stuff.
'Pressure.'
Isn't such pressure a manly, vigilant, free
exercise of religion and speech in America? Krugman
thinks not. Obsessed with compelling everyone to
think and act alike -- in a manner antagonistic to
the Christian faith -- he sees any resistance to
the liberal status quo as a clear and present
danger.
"What we need -- and we aren't seeing", says
Krugman, "is a firm stand by moderates against
religious extremism."
You know, Mr. Krugman, there's a more honest way
of wording this last sentence of yours. Try this
one on for size: "What we need is a firm stand by
left-wing extremists against political and
religious moderation."
After all, liberals generally favor an 'anything
goes', nearly anarchist approach to morals, and a
utopian, extremely centrist, if not Marxist
approach to government -- which sounds pretty
extreme to me; while conservatism generally favors
traditional moral and political values over moral
and political excesses -- a stand that encourages a
healthy combination of limited government, free
enterprise, and social democracy, standing upon the
foundation of a "frequent recurrence to" fixed,
fundamental, Higher principles (4). If the latter
mix isn't the more moderate approach, what is?
Footnotes:
1. The Founders gave us a republic, not a
democracy, which incorporated such things as checks
and balances, Higher Law, mixed modes of
representation, etc., as checks against pure
popular whim.
2. Cappon, Lester J., editor. The
Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete
Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson &
Abigail & John Adams, University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London, 1959,
renewed 1987, pgs. 278-279, Jefferson to Abigail
Adams, Sept. 11, 1804.
3. Ibid. pgs. 274-276, Jefferson to Abigail
Adams, July 22, 1804.
4. Mason, George. The Virginia Declaration of
Rights, June 12, 1776.
Farrell
Archive
Because
The Radical Academy publishes essays and articles
on its website does not imply acceptance or
approval of the comments or opinions expressed by
the author of the material. Nor is the Academy
responsible for any misrepresentation of the facts
included. It is your job to be a critical
reader.
Enrich
your life with a book about politics and current
events...
Enrich
your political & social life with a politics or
news magazine...
|