Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
But people blast others' political opinions all the time. To me, the problem isn't that the fundamental believer in this example has deeply held religious beliefs and votes according to those beliefs. It's that he doesn't separate that from the political criticism. He wants to vote his beliefs, but not be criticized for what he's voting for. How's *that* supposed to work? It's a crazy way to twist things up.
So while I'm a big believer in cynicism, I think your statement "it [blasting Christians in our society] has been a successful attack strategy for awhile now, so I don't expect it'll be abandoned" is cynical in the wrong direction. I think it works this way:
1) This is America, and people are free to blast anybody else's opinion;
2) Cheap but savvy political point-scorers (and both sides have them, from Michelle Bachmann and Hugh Hewitt to Marion Barry and Michael Moore) use that, and say, "You watch! They're going to start attacking our position, and it's because we're Christians/blacks/women etc."
And it's *that* strategy that's successful and won't be abandoned for a while.
Reagan realized evangelical/conservative Protestants could be organized into an enthusiastic voting bloc. That gave rise to Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority (among others). Falwell, in fact, started acting like the rooster who crows when the sun comes up and begins to think the sun comes up
because he crows.
It's the same with any voting bloc: politicians wind up pandering to them, just as the Democrats pander to blacks. Remember that panderfest at the Apollo Theatre? Hosted by Al Sharpton? Where Gore and Bradley took turns trolling for the black vote. Bill Clinton's Sister Souljah moment was a brilliant political stroke. He criticized a blatantly racist, unimportant black entertainer and it helped him win the WH because it went a long way toward convincing cultural white Democrats that there were limits beyond which even a Democratic nominee would not go.
In my own case, despite repeated assertions that I'm a fiscal as opposed to social conservative, the ladies' chorale insists I just
have to believe a certain way on all the social issues, watch and listen to all of the "approved" programs and vote accordingly. When they're feeling their oats, they suggest I'm racist because I oppose Obama and probably stupid, too.
In the days before Roe v. Wade, the center of the universe for the anti-abortion movement (not yet called pro-life) was Boston. And you'd occasionally see national spokesman "Mrs. O'Malley" on TV. And for some odd reason Democrats weren't quite as insulting to those folks. It's my cynicism showing, but I think there's a chance Mrs. O'Malley and her supporters were life long Democrats. And the party wasn't interested in insulting them. Certainly Roe v. Wade amped up the debate. Now pro-life people are generally Republican and the attitude of the Democratic party has become far more hostile. Recall their convention where the pro-life governor of Pennsylvania was denied an opportunity to speak--precisely because he was pro-life.
Professionally, I've had to deal with all sorts of fringe groups over the years. And a good percentage of them call themselves "Christian," (personally, I object to the way they use the term, because they seem to be saying it includes them and excludes me) and I tried to apply the same standard to them as I did to any other group seeking coverage. That's why, for instance, I never sent a reporter to cover Fred Phelps. Not news. And I wouldn't send a reporter to cover the Klan either, for the same reason.
Phelps and "Rev." Jones are really good at manipulating the media. The notion that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would actually call that "microscopically insignificant" twerp to beg him to back down on his anti-Muslim high school video project is laughable and concerning at the same time. Can you see General Marshall in pre-war America calling Fritz Kuhn asking him not to go forward with that rally at Madison Square Garden? Absurd. I read where the WH is saying Obama's going to bring up the video in his speech before the UN, as if the whole world doesn't realize that the WH narrative of what happened at Benghazi was a lie. Including the notion that the video had anything at all to do with it. There is also speculation that once again an anti-blasphemy resolution will be offered in the General Assembly. It'll be instructive to see how Obama responds to
that .
I'm taking the long way 'round to get to my central point: there is a huge amount of hypocricy on the issue of religion from our national political figures. Just compare Hillary Clinton's excretions about how horrible and "unacceptable" that pathetic video is, with her full throated approval of the "Book of Mormon." Part of the reason is that LDS people have a poor record when it comes to head chopping, bombing and rioting. Part of it is also political and cultural. The administration is in full pander mode when it comes to Islam (domestic and foreign). And those LDS people are conservative and "won't vote for us." Silly me, hoping for a little consistency here.
