THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, November 16, 1994 TAG: 9411160002
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Short : 50 lines
Why are some conservative Christian beliefs regarding political and social issues often labeled ``intolerant,'' ``dogmatic'' or ``radical'' or simply dismissed as having roots in the ``religious right''? I have heard those words tossed around many times in editorials, letters, talk shows, etc., but I hardly hear actual debate on those issues.
If some of the views are as nutty or as bad as the labels imply, why not demolish them by debating them?
One premise of this rhetoric is that some people believe that religion is somehow inappropriate in the public/ political domain. If this were true, wouldn't President Clinton, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, among others, be subject to the same ire?
I hear President Clinton quoting Bible verses. I've heard him talk of his personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and he looks to the Bible for proof of his views on homosexuality and abortion. Likewise, Jesse Jackson often appeals to the Bible in justifying welfare, and Al Gore does the same regarding environmentalism. And I'm sure we all remember Jimmy Carter and ``born-again'' politics in the 1970s.
But when a conservative Christian offers a viewpoint on a subject, there are shouts of ``theocracy,'' ``intolerance'' and, of course, the inevitable ``separation of church and state'' (or should we say ``separation of conservative churchgoer and state'')?
There is manifest hypocrisy here. If religious influence is undesirable in politics, then why this distinction? I think a candidate should be accepted or rejected because of his or her actual views concerning legal, social and political issues, not on the basis of ``exposing'' their religious or non-religious influences. Acceptance or rejection should come after those influences result in actual decisions concerning actual issues and the voter has weighed those results with his own beliefs.
Some of the ``left'' are engaged in desperate rhetoric in hopes of diverting public attention from issues regarded as so ``radical'' in the first place. Could it be that critical examination of what is now ``politically correct'' sends chills down their spines?
I suppose it is more expedient to play up religious bigotry rather than suffer the humiliation of having their liberalism exposed as intellectually and morally bankrupt.
MIKE A. BURNAT
Virginia Beach, Oct. 31, 1994 by CNB