OpinionBug.com

By Nathan Lim:

AM-New York is one of the many daily papers published specifically for the millions of Subway and Train Riders commuting everyday in New York City. It is given out for free and like websites, makes its money on advertisement. Needless to say, millions of commuters read this paper while going to work every morning.

I found an interesting editorial cartoon today ( November 9, 2004 ) which reveals how the editors of this paper view the results of the recent election; Which of course, not only gave President Bush a second term, but significantly increased the number of Republicans in both houses in Congress.

The cartoon shows a group of people dressed like the Pilgrims who escaped the old world to come to America because they were persecuted for their religious beliefs. On top of the cartoon, you see a question being asked — “Who are the victims of religious intolerance today?” Below the pictures of the Pilgrims, you have the answer – Liberal Democrats.

The inference the perceptive reader will draw from this cartoon is quite clear. In 2004, one in five Americans considered Moral Values as their top issue when voting for candidates. This surprisingly trumps the economy, terrorism and even the war on Iraq. Eleven out of eleven states ( that’s 100% ) had referendums affirming that marriage should only be recognized between one man and one woman, passed overwhelmingly by voters ( this includes the key swing state of Ohio and even the liberal state of Oregon, which went for Kerry ). Christian Evangelicals, Catholics and even the Amish community turned out en masse in all key battleground states and post election polls show that regular church goers voted against Kerry by a lop-sided 80% to 20% margin, which definitely cost him the election.

The editorial reasoning is thus inescapable. Bush’s minions energized the intolerant religious right to come out and vote against gays, the right of women to choose, and social progressives. The religious ‘right’ are a growing force in American politics. Therefore, there is no room for tolerance for people who disagree with them. Christian Fundamentalists are therefore, the western version of the Taliban who seek to impose their bigoted, fanatical beliefs on others. The Corollary to this is that this election caused their collective narrow minded wills to be imposed on Liberal Democrats, much like the Church of England imposed its doctrine on the Puritans.

Listen to Maureen Dowd’s tirade in her regular column at the New York Times, the so called, paper of record entitled – The Red Zone:

“President Bush got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule.”

Dowd accused the president of running “a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq — drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or ‘values voters,’ as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.”

In his New York Times editorial titled “The Day the Enlightenment Went Out”, Gary Wills tells everyone that he is troubled because according to him—Dark days are ahead in a nation where people believe “more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution.”

Not surprisingly, Wills brings up the usual example of the Scopes trial of 1925. In essence, this is what he is saying: “Remember those fundamentalists, who hid behind their churches and seminaries after we mocked them for enforcing a law against teaching evolution in public schools? Well, be afraid, be very afraid… because — They’re baaaaaack. And like the Empire, they are striking back with a vengeance.”

Where Dowd uses the term “jihad” facetiously, Wills is dead serious. He intones that the “secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate.” In fact, according to Wills, the USA has come to resemble the old Afghanistan more than today’s Europe.

“Where else,” Wills asks thunderously, “do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity?” Answer: “We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein’s Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.”

Wills gloomily warns that Bush’s “helpers are also his keepers” and predicted that the “moral zealots” will “give some cause for dismay even to non-fundamentalist Republicans.”

And then we have the program consultant of the hit TV series – The West Wing, Lawrence O’Donnell, a regular at the McLaughlin Group, and a highly educated and respected political analyst asserting in front of 6 million viewers that because Bush won in 2004, and because he won with the help of conservative Christians, this will give rise to a serious consideration of secession from the United States by the blue states.

In all these alarmist pronouncements, you observe one major over-riding theme — Evangelicals, Catholics and Christians who take their church’s teaching and Bible seriously are the equivalent of Islamic jihadists and that the benighted rural/suburban folks who elected Bush are simply dogmatic bigots who should not exist in a tolerant society but unfortunately, do.

What to make of these accusations of religious intolerance?

Well dear readers, I can think of no other way to invalidate these silly, alarmist, over the top, exaggerations than to define the word “intolerance” clearly.

WHAT DOES TOLERANCE IMPLY?

Implicit in the word — tolerance is the acknowledgement that disagreements exist. You only tolerate what you disagree with, not what you agree with. If I am tolerant, I ought to believe that I am right and you are wrong if we disagree on an issue, with the proviso that I grant and respect your right to hold your dissenting view. However, it shows that I hold my beliefs to be true and any disagreeing party’s beliefs to be in error, even while I grant the opposite party’s right to hold them. Hence, tolerance always implies disagreement, not agreement. Disagreement always implies that parties who hold to their beliefs do so because they believe their stance is right unless proven otherwise.

Let’s take the divisive issue of gay marriage for example. If you believe that gay marriage is right and I agree with you, then I am not being tolerant, I simply hold the same beliefs. There is nothing unusual about that. However if I disagree with you and believe wholeheartedly that gay marriage is wrong and immoral, a problem then arises.

I see three choices that disagreeing parties have. As a Devout Christian, I can:

A) Use force to compel and intimidate you to abandon the belief you hold, or;
B) Say: “Fine, I believe you are wrong, but we part ways here. Let us agree to disagree”, or
C) Argue with you and all who are willing to listen, forcefully and persuasively ( without resort to force, violence or threats ) in the hope of convincing you, all dissenting parties and the undecided, to abandon your beliefs but still grant you the freedom to disagree with me if this hope is not realized. I would even defend your right to disagree with me.

The only way the word – INTOLERANCE can apply is if choice ‘A’ above becomes the norm and the course of action. Choices B and C are legitimate and TOLERANT choices in a society that values free speech and political discourse. The word INTOLERANCE only applies if I coerce someone who disagrees with me to accept my point of view. Simply telling someone that he is wrong does NOT qualify as intolerance. I do not do anyone any favors by pretending, in the name of political correctness, that he is right when I believe wholeheartedly that he is wrong.

And here is where the problem comes in…. many people misuse or misunderstand the word – tolerance and then re-define it to mean – if you disagree with me or my lifestyle, call it immoral and distasteful, you are de-facto, an intolerant human being.

In other words, like the word, “marriage” – the word TOLERANCE has been re-defined to mean – if you disagree with me and do not celebrate my lifestyle, or call it immoral, you are by my definition, being INTOLERANT. Heads I win, tails you lose. If you disagree with me, you are INTOLERANT. End of discussion.

Most sensible Americans of course see through this irrational mirage and refuse to accept this kind of reasoning. However, such crooked thinking is all too prevalent in our post-modern society and is instructive because it shows what bad logical shape those who despise people of faith are in.

DON’T IMPOSE YOUR MORALITY ON ME

Although most Christians do not articulate their political values eloquently, I believe that most subscribe to the belief that not all immoral things in society should be made illegal. In other words, I believe that most Evangelicals and Catholics are reluctant to use the force of law to criminalize or prohibit actions or lifestyles they consider depraved or wrong. For example, worshipping other gods is Immoral, possibly the most immoral thing you can do according to scripture. It is the first commandment and the basis, the foundation by which all the other commandments stand. Yet, Christians believe that the right to do so and even NOT to believe in God is protected by the first amendment.

Hence, most Christian believe that in America, we should not pass laws where the primary concern is to force people to act morally. We pass laws where the primary concern is civil values. Civil values in this case are values which either ensure the safety/order of society (think traffic laws and zoning laws) or the more important values of freedom, democracy, life, liberty, etc. which are laid out in our Founding Documents. Most believe and rightly so, that morality without Christ is ultimately empty. Therefore, to legislate true morality would be to legislate Christianity, which becomes meaningless. Christians believe in changing people’s heart through conversion and repentance, not through the force of legislation. Legislating morality is an attempt to control behavior without dealing with the spiritual roots of the problem. Christians, in other words, always aim to convince through conversion, not through intimidation.
This is TOLERANCE of the highest order and should give a sense of security to those who hyperbolically suggest that a Christian society will be equivalent to Afghanistan under the rule of Mullah Omar.

Personally, in regards to the gay marriage issue, I ideally do not want people with gay inclinations to repudiate gay marriage because it is illegal; I want them to reject it because they believe the act is wrong, because they are following Christ. The word “ideally” is the key word and I have to come back to it again in order to explain WHY Christians are now forced to use legislation to deal with this kind of immorality.

But what about laws against murder, breaking contracts, stealing, tax fraud, abuse of authority, maintaining a plant or vehicle that badly pollutes, polygamy, having sex with children, and racial discrimination? If we have to stop legislating morality, don’t we have to get rid of all laws related to any of them?”

The answer is that these are all moral issues which have as their primary purpose a civil value. If murder was legal, then there would be chaos. There would be little safety or security and it certainly violates the value of ‘life’, which the Declaration of Independence protects. Yes they are all moral issues, but even when you disregard the moral merits of those laws, they are still beneficial to American society. Thus they are moral laws that need to be legislated if we are to have a functioning and orderly civil society.

Let’s go back to talking about the issue of the day — Gay Marriage. If Christians say that worshipping other gods should not be made illegal, why shouldn’t gay marriage also fall into the same “immoral but legal” category as worshipping other gods?

Here is the problem – if all gays are saying is we want our own gay-celebrating churches, our own civil contracts and our own personal commitments to be recognized by people of like mind, I don’t think most Christians will object to it. Christians do not even want legislation to prevent companies like Disney or IBM from giving benefits to gay partners. Most of their reaction will be – “it’s none of my business what you do in private or in the way you manage your enterprise.”

The problem lies in what is demanded of Christians the moment government legally changes the definition of marriage to include homosexuals or any union other than between man and woman for that matter.

Many questions will then have to be answered. If gay marriage is legalized and recognized by law, Will a Christian business, institution, hospital or organization which holds to Christian ethical standards be forced to accept ands recognize this type of “marriage” under penalty of the law? Will it be mandatory under pain of criminal punishment for them to pay for gay benefits even when they find this behavior to be immoral? Will it be legal for gays to sue a church if the pastor refuses to marry them because he obeys scripture? Will tax-paying Christians who teach their children to obey Biblical commands and principles be forced to celebrate gay marriage in public schools? These are just some of the questions that come to mind.

Notice that all these questions have at their focal point, this one issue — if we tolerate your lifestyle by not demanding that it be criminalized ( which no conservative Christian does ), will you in turn return the courtesy and not demand under penalty of law that we be coerced into accepting, supporting, subsidizing or celebrating this lifestyle?

Unfortunately that is not what many proponents of gay marriage want. They want full recognition of gay marriage, even by people who believe that it is wrong to recognize any other form of marriage outside the traditional one. In other words, what they want is not tolerance, it is full blown acceptance, recognition and perhaps, even celebration of their lifestyle. Your Bible or church teaching be damned.

So, in this one issue, who is really the intolerant party? I submit to you dear reader, that the intolerant party is the one who wants to use the force of law to demand that the devout disagreeing party abandon their deeply held religious beliefs in order to submit to their view of what is moral.

WHY THE NEED FOR STATE REFERENDUMS?

What then do we do in a civil society when two parties disagree on an issue that has a vital effect on culture and society? The answer is we hold a referendum or an election. As citizens, we bind ourselves in the name of order to uphold the principle that the will of the majority prevails. This is exactly what happened in eleven of the swing states of the United States of America last November 2, 2004.

This again is an expression of tolerance. In states like Ohio, Oregon, Missouri, Louisiana, etc, We are in fact saying — let us give a chance for the people to make their voices heard on the issue of gay marriage ( in particular ), and let them choose candidates who are either sympathetic to it or against it ( in general ), and may the person who holds the view of the majority win.

Here is the fact Liberal Democrats refuse to face, in spite of the shrill, hysterical bloviating of the New York Times crowd and Lawrence ‘O Donnell, the reality is there was no holy war. There was an election and your side did badly. Sorry about that. That’s how democracy works and if you prefer to live in a democracy, you have to accept its results no matter how distasteful it is. Devout Christians lived through eight years of Bill Clinton’s Travelgate, White Water gate, Chinagate, Monica-gate and two time veto of the partial birth ban without talking about secession, preferring instead to fight the values war in the arena of ideas and in their pulpits. Liberal Democrats ought to do the same if they want to reclaim the values issue. On November 2, candidates on both sides appealed to voters on a number of issues, including the war, the economy, and “values” issues, and the values issues seem to have made the difference.

That does not make this election illegitimate, or a jihad, or a referendum on the Enlightenment. Nor does it make America an intolerant country. American Christians are not fundamentalist Muslims and they aren’t going to turn the nation into a theocratic state. Publishing pieces that seriously argue this only make your op-ed pages look silly.

BE YOURSELF OR CHANGE YOUR OUTLOOK

Here is a truth many Liberal Democrats who whine about their present defeat would rather not face. I said it before and I have to re-emphasize it for their sake. The left-liberal axis has lost its way. They have failed to notice that since the time of Ronald Reagan, “liberalism” as people today see it has turned many people off and most Americans do not identify with it. Don’t believe me? Bill Clinton had to run as a tax-cutter in 1992 to win the presidency. His party lost big in congress in 1994 when he showed his Liberal Democratic tendencies and has not regained it ever since after 40 years of total control (remember his 1993 tax increase, Hillary’s attempt to socialize health-care, and the attempt to turn the military into an exercise in social engineering? ). He had to embrace a large portion of the Contract With America ( i.e., Capital Gains Tax reduction, Welfare Reform and even the Defense of Marriage Act ) to win in 1996. John Kerry all but ran away from the “Most Liberal Senator” label in 2004.

The result is, a lot of Liberal Democrats, in order to curry favor with people of faith have to pretend to be people of like mind. The problem is, they end up looking like William Hung trying to sound like Ricky Martin in his American Idol audition. You cannot fake piety and then secretly offer applause lines to the Michael Moore wing of your party. People can see through it. I could not but shake my head when I hear John Kerry saying he would not “impose” his faith on others by legislating it. Why Mr. Senator, is it OK to toot your own horn about imposing say, affirmative action or taxes on people earning $200,000 and above — matters your Catholic doctrine is silent on — based on faith in God, but wrong to do the same on partial birth abortion and gay marriage, views on which your church’s teachings are clear and unambiguous? Kerry is the proto-typical example of the Liberal Democratic Politician —someone who wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Why is liberalism losing its appeal? The answer is obvious to all but its clue-less proponents. Its advocates have overplayed their hand. They have tried to attach the moral fiber of the 1960s civil rights movement to causes that most Americans today see as totally out of place. For example, Gays, however wealthy, flourishing and socially influential they are, must always be portrayed as victims whose lives are made hell because their lifestyles and preferences are denied absolute equivalence with traditionally recognized norms. The result is what we see today – a backlash from the heartland of America where voters took a stand to declare – the pendulum has swung too far and we are not going to let it go any further.

This is why the Liberal Democrats are enraged. Millions of Dollars from billionaires like George Soros, endorsements from the Hollywood Crowd, a hit propaganda documentary from rabble rouser Michael Moore, strong support from the alphabet channels ( ABC, NBC, CBS ), officious advise from the foreign press ( The London based Guardian actually advertised heavily against Bush in Clark County, Ohio ), suspiciously timed hit pieces from the major networks and newspapers, a hardworking get out the vote organization, Bruce Springsteen, Eminem, P. Diddy, etc. They gave everything they got and what did they have to show for it? A convincing Bush victory, a senate and congress with an increased Republican presence, the defeat of their minority leader, Tom Daschle and the ultimate insult — their progressive cause totally repudiated as manifested by the unanimous decision of the American people to recognize traditional marriage.

The left’s going apoplectic against Christian conservatives and their attempts at downplaying the significance of their loss by suggesting that it is due to Christian intolerance, ignorance and bigotry just shows the sad, pitiable and feeble state of denial existing among supporters of the Democratic party.

After all is said and done, the bottom line still is this —- the Liberal Democrats have failed to make a convincing case as to why most Americans should accept their terrorist-appeasing, anti-military, anti-capitalism, anti-religious views. That is a huge obstacle in a country that is still, at this point in time ( and I shall return to this matter in a later blog ), overwhelmingly religious, traditional in its outlook, capitalist, patriotic, and tremendously supportive of the men and women who fight for their freedom and security. No amount of blaming their defeat on “intolerance” is going to change that.