Posted on 05/08/2005 3:23:05 PM PDT by This Just In
LOONIES," "THE American Taliban," "Frist Jihadists," "the Ayatollah bin Dobson"-all these terms and more were thrown at evangelical Christians last week as the controversy surrounding the abuse of the filibuster by Senate Democrats grew in scope and volume.
Any regular visitor to leftist blogs such as DailyKos and Legal Fiction is accustomed to the brass-knuckled bigotry directed at Christians who also happen to be conservative. In fact, the posts at Democratic Underground are even more vituperative. Many media and political circles are showing a rise in Christian-bashing.
Some on the left might say that evangelicals deserve this abuse given their own harsh rhetoric, but careful reading of the leaders of the evangelical movement reveals nothing paralleling this level of hate and anger. It is certainly true that evangelical leaders typically oppose same-sex marriage and demand an end to filibusters of people of faith like Judge William Pryor-a devout Catholic whom Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) found unsupportable because of Mr. Pryor's "deeply held beliefs." Evangelical leaders also support care for the very young and very old, and urge robust participation in public affairs by people of faith. But they do not engage in personal attacks that equate their opponents with terrorists or jihadists.
Appearing on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos on April 18, Sen. Schumer took aim at Christian political activists and asserted that "[s]omething is in the air. That something is wrong, different than the tradition of America."
If Mr. Schumer meant the hate-filled rhetoric of the hard left of the Democratic Party, he is absolutely correct, and he should direct those in his party's faithful to cease the abuse and the threats. But if he meant that it is wrong and outside the traditions of American political activity for people who take their faith seriously to have that faith guide them in their political activity, then he is wrong, and not just wrong, but ignorant of the legacies of leaders like Martin Luther King, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, William Lloyd Garrison, John Adams, George Washington, and John Woolman, to mention but a few of the millions for whom a faith-based politics was an undeniable reality.
The right of people of faith to participate in politics must be defended, and the new McCarthyism that seeks their expulsion from the public square wholly and emphatically rejected.
It may be time for some liberal christians to reexamine their position. Some civil discourse would probably help that.
last post had incorrect to: was in response to c-five posting.
I assure you that had you expressed a portion of your comments in quotations, it would have cast a different light on your post: "....gun toting swivel head....."
I, too, can personally relate to the stereotype. Although you and I agree that civil discourse is extremely lacking, as I had mentioned in a previous post, I must ask you to cite examples qualifying your statement:
"label for effect, fear monger through semantics, or beat a war drum?".
You seem to suggest that Christians are playing the hypocrites in failing to exercise the actions which they proclaim to live by; that being, "forgive them and continue to pray..." Once again, we agree that debate can and should be discussed intellectually without the ad hominem attacks. But since when does calling a duck, a duck become judgemental? Recognizing and exposing the hate filled persecution does not amount to being judgemental. Forgiveness and prayer doesn't necessarily require that Christians are not to engage in political activism.
Furthermore, the reason in which I chose to mention your new membership is not because I found you to be offensive. As a matter of fact, you can't give one example that I ever eluded to such an idea. Your second post addressed some of the impressions that I had gathered in the previous post which I viewed as an "inconsistency", and, "contradiction."
On FR, it is generally understood that when a conservative says "liberal", depending upon the context, they are addressing a specific type of "liberal." FReepers don't necessarily lump them into one, all inclusive catagory. This is the reason I pointed out the date. If you had been here longer you may have realized this fact, and responded accordingly.
As a matter of fact, I haven't read any post from fellow FReepers who felt that you shouldnt' be allowed to express you opinions, which you have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.