Theophobia Part III
By Michael P. Tremoglie (05/07/05)
Theophobia is in hysterical mode and has influenced the mainstream media. The cataclysmic event that triggered this is the controversy about judicial nominations.
Emblematic of this is the Sunday May 1, 2005 front page article in the Philadelphia Inquirer by Dick Polman titled, “ Right risks a backlash from fears of theocracy.”
Fears of theocracy? A theocracy is a “government ruled by or subject to religious authority,” according to the American Heritage dictionary. Who wants to establish a theocracy?
According to the Inquirer’s Polman, “ Religious conservatives, emboldened by President Bush's reelection and confident of their political clout, are not interested in merely overhauling the judiciary. Ideally, they are seeking a judiciary that would remove the wall of separation between church and state.” It seems Polman is ascribing nefarious - and this time anti-American beliefs to religious conservatives.
Until now MSM liberals such as Polman only blamed religious conservatives aka “evangelicals” as doing such reprehensible things as:
* Voter education
* Voter registration
* Petitioning their representatives
All of which are considered subversive activities by liberals when “evangelicals” are doing them.
Now these religious conservatives are considered out and out anti-American because they want to remove the separation between church and state. Polman writes, “In fact, their leaders ( religious conservatives) argue in interviews that the church-state barrier is a "myth" invented by the high court in 1947, thanks to a twisted interpretation of our founding documents.”
Never mind that it is true that this was a phrase coined by a Supreme Court justice not the Founders. Never mind that this phrase is not a phrase in the Constitution. For theophobes this is irrelevant.
The “separation of church and state,” is no more a constitutional concept than “separate but equal” which was also coined by a Supreme Court justice. One wonders if Polman would have written in the 19950’s that those who were opposed to segregated schools and the “separate but equal “ Supreme Court doctrine were trying to establish an African country? It would be the same kind of logic.
Polman’s article is replete with liberal shibboleths. For example he quotes, “Glenn Simpson, a Tennessee law professor who runs the conservative Instapundit blog,” or “the words of conservative Christian strategist Gary Bauer:” Yet when he quotes Barry Lynn, he is described as the director of “ the Washington-based Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.” Lynn is not described as a liberal. There is no mention of Lynn’s links to the ACLU.
What are the threats to the republic that are posed by the religious-right? Among them are:
* pharmacists who refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions on moral grounds are
* A Justice Department guidebook on treating rape victims excised draft language that touted emergency contraception
* One Christian program in northeastern Pennsylvania, financed by Bush's faith-based initiative, requires each worker to be "a believer in Christ and Christian life today"
Reconvene the House Un-American Activities Committee!
Actually this would not be necessary because apparently the religious-right is being investigated by academia and non-profit organizations. Polman quoted, “ Mark Rozell, a political analyst at George Mason University who tracks the religious right.” It is not said for whom Rozell “tracks the religious right,” or why he is tracking them. One could presume however that government funds are being used for this purpose since George Mason University accepts government funds for tuition.
If it is unconstitutional to fund faith-based organizations with government funds is it unconstitutional to fund colleges for “tracking” these institutions. While we are considering the subject the question must be asked - is it unconstitutional to fund Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, and other faith-based academic institutions?
Somehow this question is never asked by theophobes and nontheophobes alike who want to enforce the separation of church and state. Probably because they know to do so would alienate many of their allies in academia. Theophobes know they can fool some of the people all of the time unless they try to prevent their access to federal funds.
Polman’s article is not unique. There will be many such theophobic articles in the mainstream media as the judicial nomination process goes into turbo. The Democrats have their lunatic fringe to represent. They will use their MSM accomplices to help accomplish their objective to placate them.
This means fostering theophobic hysteria. Undoubtedly, the Philadelphia Inquirer’s fax number is listed at Democratic National Committee. It is likely so are the cell phone numbers of some of their staff.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Michael P. Tremoglie
