He Has Joined the Fringe He Describes
Marvin: “It isn't that we are likely to take to the streets and its even less likely that we'll harm anyone, yet it is that picture that [Jonathan] Rauch chooses to paint. He ensures that we recognize his agenda, his malice and his complete disregard for the implications, to us, of his words. Rauch has no idea who or what the center-right or conservative American looks like. He doesn't know what we believe, or how and why Christian culture is so vastly different from the religious extremes of the Islamist. By comparing pro-life conservative to the murderous thugs, if only in the choice of language, Mr. Rauch has shown his true disdain for the Christian, the Conservative (religious or otherwise) and for the civility of Christian culture in America. This perhaps more than anything shows him to be a part of the left rather than a moderate as he describes himself. He has joined the fringe he describes, such as the leftist protesters who clamor about calling the President a fascist or Nazi, and thusly removing themselves from any serious discussion. Rauch is not in the mainstream, and neither is the Atlantic [Monthly].”
Alex: “What strikes me as interesting is that Rauch still seems to think that evangelical Christians are a bunch or radical idiots. We continue to be caricatured as resemblances of Eric Rudolph (the Olympic and abortion bomber) and the "God Hates Fags" morons than by anyone else. It is easy to write off people whom you don't agree with as backwoods cavemen, rather than give them an honest hearing and evaluating their arguments. Having associated them with images and ideas related to a radical fringe, you can then dismiss "religious conservatives" by definitional fiat. I suppose it is far better to label than to engage, to caricature than to understand, to scorn than to listen. Now let's be fair - conservatives often are guilty of the same kinds of arguments.”
John: “I cannot believe that he lumps religious conservatives together with abortion clinic bombers. It's as if we did not have a voice in the party we would instantly resort to bombing. What this says is that in the mind of the left, the ends justifies the means. They ignore the fact that the very essence of our ends (our religious convictions) of necessity limits our means.”
Mark: “religious conservatives are or have ever operated as "insurgents" or "provocateurs". In today's political climate, "insurgent" as we know is Reuters code word for "terrorist", which makes the comparison to American religious conservatives more than a little insulting. It has been popular of late, for the left elite media types to spend a little expense account money and venture timidly out into the frozen tundra of the "red states" in flyoverland. Mr Rauch apparently didn't want to put too much pain on the expense account and decided to mail it in. Mr Rauch, allow me to explain, all but a vanishingly small number of religious conservatives exhibit anything resembling "terrorist" activities. The average religious conservative does not only never bomb abortion clinics, he doesn't even know anyone who knows anyone who has. Painting religious conservatives with that brush is either rhetorical smoke or dumb ignorance. Acting from the "political inside" is how we normally operate.”
David: “the notions of civility and centrism are being used to crowd out the idea of truth. The abortion issue was mentioned by Rauch and that is an example of how this plays out. Sure, let's be civil in our discourse about this, but let's not assume that there is no right and wrong on this matter. If the fetus is a human being, as we pro-lifers claim, then no amount of civility in discourse can sway us from our commitment to protecting human life.”
Carol: “As a Republican and someone who is pro-life (except in cases of rape, incest & life of the mother), I do not believe there is any room in my party for someone who is willing to bomb abortion clinics. It would, in fact, be wrong and injurious -- not only to the party but to American society in general -- for Republicans to lend credence to such extremism by accepting its proponents into their ranks. A similar case can be made for the Democrats -- would it really be morally right to lend mainstream respectability to, for example, environmental terrorists (a more suitable anology for Rauch to have employed)?”
Kathy: “The message I get is that he is uncomfortable thinking beyond the extreme stereotypes of religious conservatives. Entertaining the possibility that religious people may have it right is inconceivable to him. Mired in his personal liberal agenda, Rauch finds menacing the fact that people of faith are an influential demographic in America. Thus threatened, he attacks. By using the examples of Vietnam and civil rights issues of the '60s to make his case, Rauch denies the differences inherent in the increasing impact of today's religious conservatives. Despite the controversies it ignited, the Vietnam War did not threaten the moral fiber of our country. The civil rights movement succeeded in large part due to people of faith, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., not in spite of them. Today's call by religious conservatives to be heard and respected, openly and equally as the secular left has been for decades, is their birthright. Freedom isn't restricted to the left.”
Charles: “If you're a "religious conservative," you are someone Rauch fears. You are someone Rauch believes to hold the capacity for violence against those with whom you disagree. In Rauch's world, you are dangerous, full of anger, and perhaps even homicidal. The only way to keep people like you under control, says Rauch, is to pull you into the "political system," where your psychotic tendencies can be channeled and tamed.”
Greg: “religious conservatives, who make up a sizable portion of the Republican party, oppose bombing abortion clinics and agree that those who do so should be convicted in a court of law and punished appropriately. No matter how strong their feelings on abortion, they are more likely to try to get you to understand and share their opinions with reasoned debate, and propose small restrictions (such as on the dilation and extraction procedure, and abortions for minors without parental or judicial consent). They hope one day everyone will agree that abortion is wrong. But they're not going to attempt to convince you with a glass jar of gasoline and a lit cloth.”
