"For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the ACLU, have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms. "
I like the imagery. "Like a thief in the night," evokes what? The Rapture? Death? Sin? The image recalls subterfuge, covert action. The Bible reference is rather weird in that it is used to refer to the return of the Lord. Here, the FRC certainly means it a different way.
Yesterday, I heard Gary Bauer talking about how conservative Christians respected the constitution, but it was the left who did not. Tom Delay referred to a "left-wing syndicate" that was out to get him.
Hmm. That last one almost made me chuckle. I remember how much conservatives mocked Hilary Clinton when she referred to the "vast right-wing conspiracy." She was wrong AND right all at the same time, much as I suspect Tom Delay is. Clinton was wrong in that her husband had, in fact, been fraternizing with an intern. She was correct (as many have documented) that there is a right wing machine in place that finances opposition to the left. Richard Mellon Scaife financed the Arkansas project intending to find any dirt on Clinton they could. And Delay is right in that there are left wing organizations that don't like him. I would suggest that those organizations are right out in the open--unlike Delay, and everyone knows who MoveOn.org and George Soros are.
But I digress. The fascinating thing is that both sides use the very same language. Both assume they are the true democratic impulse; both assume they are the ones who support the constitution; both assume that the other side cheats. The "thief in the night" statement bothers me, simply because I know that Jerry Falwell has coached pastors to act less fundamentalist to get hired at churches and then change them from the inside. I know that the right has also coached people running for school board, city councel and other elected posts to downplay or hide their religious leanings to get elected. That doesn't strike me as honest and above-board. And it doesn't strike me as Christian.
But I digress yet again. The real dilemma is how do we get both sides to see the common goals and values. We both believe in the constitution, we both believe in democracy and family. We both believe in values, moral and social. We both believe in doing good.
Yet we see each other as the enemy. There is something in what Bootleg Blogger raised about the "label" idea. If we can get beyond the label (calling certain things Christian and other things un-Christian) maybe we can get to that shared value.
Unfortunately, there are people on both sides who have a vested interest in that not happening. This isn't conspiracy talking--this is just realism. Michael Moore would hate that kind of rapprochement as would Jerry Falwell and James Dobson. Where would their jobs go? How would they get camera time if those two groups were talking?
1 comment:
Your post gave me food for thought. It brought to my mind President Lincoln's second inaugural address. I think it was the part of your reflections where you noted that the caustic rhetoric of the right was similar to the equally caustic rhetoric of the left that made me think of this.
This is the part of Mr. Lincoln's second inaugural address where he referred to the perspectives held by the North and the South on the reasons for and the justification for the Civil War. Although he can't be completely neutral, he does a pretty good job of laying out the basic positions of both sides. Both sides felt justified in their actions. Both felt that theirs was the "Christian" point of view. Both believed that God was on their side, that theirs was the biblically based perspective.
To quote, "Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."
Do you see the parallels that I am seeing? I am thinking that we might learn something from these words and, hopefully, find ways to build understanding before we become too much more polarized. GG
Post a Comment