Freedom is a funny thing. It means not always getting what you want.
When the liberal radio network Air America airs a “comedy skit” that threatens the president with assassination, it’s all in good fun.
But when Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson, a man with millions of peaceful followers, flexes his political muscle, he’s the “anti-Christ,” hijacking Christianity, a religious nut, a crusader for the new theocratic state.
How dare he speak?
When three “progressive” political activists are, quite properly, thrown out of President Bush’s Social Security rally (too many “progressives” confuse the nasty act of throwing things at speakers and shouting malicious slogans as genuine debate) they’re heralded as martyrs of The Good Cause.
Yet, when religious conservatives congregate to complain about unconstitutional and unheralded filibusters, they are portrayed as a bunch of retrogrades who want to turn the Capitol into a cathedral.
One recent Post letter writer opined that with Dobson, “The very values and principles on which our democracy andliberty are founded are threatened.”
This is a hyperbolic talking point, wholly unsubstantiated and unreasonable. It only seeks to obscure debate.
My initial reflex has been to pile on Dobson, with whom I disagree on social issues. After reading his words, however, I discovered not a single sentence that promotes a theocracy.
Instead, what I found out was that progressives believe separation of church and state means that anyone involved in religion should avoid involvement in politics.
(Thankfully these forces weren’t around when “religious nuts” like the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the abolitionists of the North were.)
Or is it only conservative Christians that need to shut up?
As Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput pointed out recently:
“It s OK to be Catholic in today s public
square as long as we don t try to live
our beliefs too seriously; as long as
we re suitably embarrassed by all those
primitive Catholic teachings; as long as
we shut up about abortion and other sensitive
moral issues and allow ourselves
to be tutored in the ways of polite secular
culture by experts who have little or
no respect for the Christian faith that
guides our lives.”
In this “polite” secular culture, if you
dare inquire of Ken Salazar, a man who
incessantly points to his Catholic roots,
how he can personally oppose abortion
(in essence, consider it murder) but remain
pro-choice (in essence, stand idly
by while, in his mind, murder occurs)
you are “questioning his faith.”
For someone like myself, abortion is a
tough and complex issue. I believe this
question is perfectly reasonable.
Then again, when Salazar breaks a
campaign promise, the poor guy simply
“changed his mind.” But when social
conservative Senator Wayne Allard
keeps his promises, he s “out of step.”
Unlike Allard, or Salazar, I am in favor
of gay marriage rights, but guess what,
I m in the distinct minority. Every statewide
initiative against gay marriage passes
overwhelmingly.
Too bad. I ll have to try to convince
more of you.
But convincing is passé in politics. I often
ask unhinged callers who accuse me
of being a Bible-thumping fanatic where
this burgeoning theocracy is. As an agnostic,
I m on the lookout for such infringements.
Ninety percent of the time
abortion is the only issue produced.
Imagine: You can oppose abortion and
have your mental faculties in order; almost
half of America does. It is not radical.
Neither is supporting judges who adhere
to the Constitution.
You may disagree with them, but
when James Dobson and Archbishop
Chaput voice their positions on these important
issues, they are articulating
mainstream viewpoints.
If they weren t, this hateful and irrational
rhetoric wouldn t be necessary.
David Harsanyi’s column appears
Monday and Thursday. He can be
reached at 303-820-1255 or
dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
