Some of the leading lights of the blogosphere are libertarians. I find that - in general - libertarians have, at best, an ambivalent attitude toward Christians. For Christians (let me be clear) I mean conservative Christians; that is, people who believe Christ is the Son of God, died on the cross and rose on the third day. There are many people who call themselves Christians who are what I think of as “metaphorical Christians.” They are uncertain about the identity of Christ, believe that he was a great teacher and set us a good example but the whole “son of god” thing is not literally true. In fact, for many, the question of the existence of God is problematic.
For that reason, I have found that Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit fame (a libertarian) has a tendency to try to stay equidistant from both Christians and Christian-bashers. His sole reference to Ken Salazar’s calling James Dobson the “Anti-Christ” is a “plague on both your houses” approach. And, if you follow the link in his comment, you will find that while he chastises Andrew Sullivan for claiming we are in the grip of a theocracy, he characterizes Christians who participate in political debates as “busybodies [who] would finally start telling them [Americans] what to do.”
This is the flip side of the Black position in the Democratic party. Christians are supposed to vote reliably for the Republican/Libertarian political position, but when the election is over, please move to the back of the bus. Or, as Glenn puts it: “Listening to them would be a big mistake for Bush.”
Reynolds is quick to point to polls that find that Americans are not very concerned about moral issues. He cites a Gallup poll. I have not read the poll itself because it requires a paid subscription to Gallup. Incidentally, according to the Gallup headline, getting out of Iraq is issue number one. If this is true, it’s interesting that Iraq and the war on terror are not linked in the public’s mind. Which is an interesting revelation regarding governing by polls.
I cite Glenn Reynolds because he is such a big gun. He is right up there with Kos - a virulently left wing web site – in terms of readership.
For another take on Senator Salazar’s slam, we turn to John Hindraker of Powerline. Unlike Reynolds, who distances himself from Dobson, Hindraker takes the time to actually read the speeches given at the “Justice Sunday” event. He links to the transcript.
He writes: What is really striking about this controversy is the mildness of the "attack" to which Salazar refers. James Dobson was one of several leaders who participated in the "Justice Sunday" telecast, intended to rally support for the idea that the Senate should fulfill its Constitutional responsibility by voting on the President's judicial nominees. This, in itself, is hardly a controversial, let alone "un-Christian," political position. And it was expressed with extraordinary civility.
Radioblogger has transcripts of the principal speeches given on "Justice Sunday" by Bill Frist, Charles Colson, James Dobson and others. They are a model of rational discourse, replete with references to the Federalist Papers and other similarly unimpeachable authorities. No one ever suggests that the Democratic obstructionists are "the Anti-Christ," or "un-Christian," or any other epithet. Neither Ken Salazar nor any other Democratic Senator is mentioned by name. The general tenor of the discussion is far above the norm for contemporary American politics; in particular, it is more intelligent and more civil by light-years than would ever be observed at any gathering of Democrats, MoveOn fanatics, Kosites, etc.
Yet the mere fact that a group of people banded together to advance a political position in opposition to his own was enough to send Ken Salazar into a paroxysm of hate, calling them first "the Anti-Christ," and then, upon sober reflection, "un-Christian."
I find it disturbing that influential members of the Conservative/Libertarian fusion would take neutral positions between Christians and those who attack them with the vilest epithets. Like Sweden or during World War II, the neutral position is not the morally superior position.
No comments:
Post a Comment