Should People of Faith be Allowed to Make Laws
I've often been amazed at the arguments to keep people of faith out of politics, and the liberal outrage that Christians and others with religious moral values have such a sway in this country (less and less, however, I fear). Christians are wrong in the beliefs they hold by definition of the fact that they are religious beliefs (and therefore, by definition, irrational). Liberals, gay rights supporters, abortion supporters, stem-cell reasearch supporters, etc., etc., are right by virtue of the fact that they are not religious (and therefore, by definition, rational). Of course, the definitions of religious and rational in those statements would have to be those defined by the liberals, but that's OK, because being liberal, by virtue of the fact it's not being conservative, is to be unbiased and fair-minded!!
Anyway, Hugh Hewitt's most recent Daily Standard column is worth reading on this. Noting the liberal outrage and criticism of the religious right, he comments:
All of these charges--from the most incoherent to the most measured--arrive without definition as to what "the religious right" is, and without argument as to why the agenda of this ill-defined group is less legitimate than the pro-gay marriage, pro-cloning, pro-partial-birth abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda of other political actors.
It's not enough to define the terms in ways you like (or not define them and intead just throw them around), or to make charges without defending them. In eseence, what the liberals say in response to questions on why their position is the right one is to say, 'because', or 'it just is', much like my sister used to reply to my mother in sticky situations when she was a teenager. And if other can't understand it, well, they're just really not worth explaining it to.
Hewitt continues his essay by arguing the uprise in religious activism is simply a response, however, and brought by the liberals, secular elites and courts on themselves. In bringing all these issues, such as gay marriage, Terri Shciavo, and others, into the spotlight, and making law by 'judicial fiat', the response by religious people who wee their whole world-view being attacked is entirely unsurpising.
Hewitt finishes by commenting on the attempts to silence religious political activists:
Attempts to silence them, marginalize them, or to encourage others to do so are not arguments against their positions, but admissions that those positions represent majorities that cannot be refused a place at the law-making table.
The argument really is that the liberals and secularists are fear the power of a majority who think unlike them. My fear, looking at the way things have gone over the last year or two, is that their fear is becoming less and less justified...
Anyway, Hugh Hewitt's most recent Daily Standard column is worth reading on this. Noting the liberal outrage and criticism of the religious right, he comments:
All of these charges--from the most incoherent to the most measured--arrive without definition as to what "the religious right" is, and without argument as to why the agenda of this ill-defined group is less legitimate than the pro-gay marriage, pro-cloning, pro-partial-birth abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda of other political actors.
It's not enough to define the terms in ways you like (or not define them and intead just throw them around), or to make charges without defending them. In eseence, what the liberals say in response to questions on why their position is the right one is to say, 'because', or 'it just is', much like my sister used to reply to my mother in sticky situations when she was a teenager. And if other can't understand it, well, they're just really not worth explaining it to.
Hewitt continues his essay by arguing the uprise in religious activism is simply a response, however, and brought by the liberals, secular elites and courts on themselves. In bringing all these issues, such as gay marriage, Terri Shciavo, and others, into the spotlight, and making law by 'judicial fiat', the response by religious people who wee their whole world-view being attacked is entirely unsurpising.
Hewitt finishes by commenting on the attempts to silence religious political activists:
Attempts to silence them, marginalize them, or to encourage others to do so are not arguments against their positions, but admissions that those positions represent majorities that cannot be refused a place at the law-making table.
The argument really is that the liberals and secularists are fear the power of a majority who think unlike them. My fear, looking at the way things have gone over the last year or two, is that their fear is becoming less and less justified...
posted by Angus at 7:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home