The American Taliban?!?

I'm having a hard time dealing with this article from the NYTimes: An excerpt:

As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's nominees.

First, take a very careful look at the wording of the above paragraph. It doesn't say Frist will portray Democrats as "against people of faith for blocking President Bush's nominees," it says he will join Christian conservatives in a telecast that will portray Democrats that way. As far as we know First will denounce that portrayal, or try to soften it. But wait... What evidence does the author have that Democrats will be portrayed that way?

Fliers for the telecast... depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the other. The flier does not name participants, but under the heading "the filibuster against people of faith," it reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."

Okay, so does that translate into a "Democrats are against people of faith bash-fest" or not. Well, maybe so, maybe not. Could it be, rather, that the telecast will specifically target people who believe Christians must not be allowed on the Supreme Court because they cannot be trusted due to their religion? There is good reason to believe that many Democrat senators hold this view.

The most anti - Roe v. Wade voting bloc is Christian, and the first Democrat litmust test for Supreme Court nominees is Roe v. Wade. The voters most supportive of people (of any religion) being allowed a moment to pray in schools are Christians. The second Democrat litmust test for Supreme Court nominees is prayer in schools. The voting bloc which thinks that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the cross in L.A.'s seal, and the decision of a Christian group not to allow gay men to lead Boy Scout troops, are all okay, is primarily Christian, and Democrats are against judges that okay any of those things. Now, given all of the above, is it really that crazy to say the Democrats are blocking judges who are not anti-Christian?

1. Often times, in liberal majority areas, Menorahs are allowed in public spaces, while nativity scenes are not. It is okay to say "Happy Hannukah" but "Merry Christmas" is out. (As explained here, by a Rabbi) (here as well)

2. "The Thomas More Law Center is involved in numerous cases across the country dealing with the public display of Christian religious symbols, including a similar lawsuit against the New York City public school system whose written policy permits students to display the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent, but prohibits students from displaying Christian Nativity scenes. That case is on appeal in the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals." (Read that article here)

3. Teachers are changing the words of songs to get the "Christmas" out of traditional Christmas songs sung at schools. They'll keep the song, but not the Christian part of it, lest they offend non Christians at school. However, it is fine to teach a whitewashed version of Islam to middle school kids.

So when Christians read the Democrats claim that they are pro civil rights, and not anti-Christian, we basically laugh. In Canada, where liberals rule, Muslim Sharia courts are in place, but a Christian citing the Bible can go to jail for hate speech. In Philadelphia, Christians who dared to read the Bible at a gay event face 47 years in prison. So yes, Christians have become very politically active, AS CHRISTIANS. They feel infringed upon, and rightly so. Or maybe NOT rightly so, it is complicated. But they played by the rules... They voted, and they won.

Now, having exercised their right to vote, (which btw, being a Christian does not take away) and having won a vast majority in the Legislative branch as well as having their man in the Executive branch, Christians find that judges who agree with them about abortion, prayer in school, or access to public spaces, are automatically unqualified. The Democrat minority won't have them, because their beliefs coincide with many Christian beliefs. Is it any wonder that many Christians feel Democrats are anti-Christian?
Liberals will say "Boo hoo for this huge majority in America." Okay. And they have a point. I mean liberals believe civil rights exist to protect minority groups from the majority. And if that were true, they would be right in believing it is okay to bash Christians while protecting members of other religions. However, civil rights are NOT about protecting minority groups from the majority. No. They are about protecting INDIVIDUALS from the majority.

Now, having said all that... I think the article and the brouhaha it has caused are just another example of the current wave of anti-Christian hysteria sweeping through the MSM and the blogosphere. Consider that fact that THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED YET. Consider the fact that THE REPORTER IS GUESSING IT WILL HAPPEN THE WAY HE SAYS IT WILL. Consider that FRIST HAS NOT SAID WHAT HE WILL SAY AT THE EVENT. Now, consider the huge attention and panci and I-told-you-so-smugness this article has garnered. It is an article about something that may or may not happen, which may or may not happen the way the article says it will (or will not), and it is all people are talking about.

Talk about "The American Taliban" all you want, but don't think this kind hysterical raving helps anyone, or will build momentum. This hysteria will pass.