1

I think it's a mistake to give extremists (on either side) a sense of legitimacy. When extremists (such as abortion doctor murderers or eco-terrorists) act extreme, we should be saying "Hey, we categorically reject your method of doing things. You have to play by the rules of civility and decency. You are not one of us!". So far, I'd say we're pretty good at not including the extremists (at least on the right, which I'm more familiar with).

Contrast this with the Muslim Cleric response to 9/11, where the "moderate Muslim" outrage was hard to find. Moderates in the evangelical community don't have a problem openly and frankly condemning the murder of doctors. I have not seen that same attitude amongst the Muslim clergy. And think about how that has hurt the image of Muslims, even the truly moderate and respectable ones.

Rauch seems to advocate appeasing lunatics just to keep them from blowing things up. I advocate distancing yourself from them and making sure they go to jail. I'm much more comfortable with an eco-terrorist behind bars than with a posh office at the DNC headquarters.

2

Joe, it seems your trackback is broken, or at least to SimpleTracks and Haloscan. Here's what I attempted to trackback:

"It seems the early Vox Blogoli entries, like mine, take Rausch to task for his moral equivalency. Evangelical Outpost and Harmonic Miner are two examples. Joe at Evo has a point I think particularly brilliant: 'During that same period, however, there were over 2,400 attacks on churches, synagogues, and temples. Compared to abortion clinics, religious facilities were forty times more likely to be attacked.'"

Steve Bragg
DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS

3

Phil Aldridge:
Contrast this with the Muslim Cleric response to 9/11, where the "moderate Muslim" outrage was hard to find. Moderates in the evangelical community don't have a problem openly and frankly condemning the murder of doctors. I have not seen that same attitude amongst the Muslim clergy. And think about how that has hurt the image of Muslims, even the truly moderate and respectable ones.

This absence of moderate Muslim outrage is often asserted, but rarely supported. Googling turns up plenty of condemnation of terrorism by moderate muslim scholars:
e.g. http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

So, I guess I would ask, how do you know that moderate muslim outrage was hard to find? What muslim clergy did you talk to? Where did you search? Is it possible that you are more aware of evengelical opposition to killing doctors simply because you are more familiar with the evangelical community?

4

"Joe at Evo has a point I think particularly brilliant: 'During that same period, however, there were over 2,400 attacks on churches, synagogues, and temples. Compared to abortion clinics, religious facilities were forty times more likely to be attacked.'"

It's not quite that brilliant. The arson attacks on Temple B'nai Israel in Sacramento CA a few years ago were carried out by religious conservative fanatics. They also murdered two gay men in their own home and justified it on the basis of those lines from Leviticus that people like to quote at me so often.

Do you have proof that the majority of the attacks on Church's etc. were carried out by secular humanists & athiests? I suspect not. How likely do you think it is that many of the attacks were on churches that have a primarily black congregation? And that the attacks were conducted by Caucasians who would identify themselves as Christians?

You are over-analyzing Rauch's comments out of context. His point is simply that in practical terms, political parties provide moderation of the more activist or strident factions within the larger Party.

Different groups within a political party must make alliances in order to have their voices heard. This involves compromise, which moderates their position and that of the Party as a whole. It's true whether you are talking about Democrats or Republicans.

This isn't a new concept. Alexander Hamilton wrote about it quite a bit.

Frankly have I wonder if Hewitt and Joe are trying to disprove Rauch's logic simply because they don't like his characterization of religious conservatives. Fine. Then take issue with that. But his comments on factionalism and the role of political parties are sound and are based on long held traditional democratic principles.
So go back to the drawing board on this one.
--Or at least a 6th grade civics class.

5

Joe, can you post a link to the resources you used for those crime stats? I'd like to take a look at the numbers in more depth.

Thanks.

6

Patrick, Joe made no comment either way as to whether or not the attacks on churches were carried out by "secular humanists & athiests". And I don't think it would be relevant to his argument, anyway. The claims made in Rauch's statement are not solely about "religious" extremists--just about extremists (he simply used religious extremists as an example). Nut cases come in all flavors.

7

Hey Jeff,

Joe, can you post a link to the resources you used for those crime stats? I'd like to take a look at the numbers in more depth.

The figures for the abortion clinic bombings and arsons came from the National Abortion Federation.

The figures for the arsons came from the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics.

The figures for the church bombings can be found under that same page under the Hate Crime Statistics.

8

From the desk of Nick: Is it possible that you are more aware of evengelical opposition to killing doctors simply because you are more familiar with the evangelical community?

Certainly, it is. I would say, though, that I think the moderate muslim outrage should have been more obvious. Maybe that's a silly position, but I think that moderates could have done a much better job if they were so prevalent. This is not to say I heard nothing from moderates. On the contrary, there was a handful that made the rounds on talk radio/TV/etc and publicly denounced the attacks.

However, we also heard respected mainstream clerics refuse to denounce the attacks. This also doesn't make up for the fact that I rarely hear any condemnation of the suicide bombers in Israel. Whatever your position is on Israel, no civil person can support the intentional targetting of women and children. And yet I just saw a 20/20 where muslim high school kids in a private muslim school in NEW YORK were sympathetic and even supportive of the Islamikazis. One called them heroes. This is the young, new generation coming up. I wonder where they are learning this...

And look at who represents the Muslims in America... CAIR? They are a despicable group with mainstream support.

I just think it's much more obvious to outsiders that, say, Christians reject clinic bombers than it is that Muslims reject suicide bombers. But, I could certainly be in the dark.

9

"However, we also heard respected mainstream clerics refuse to denounce the attacks."

ANd we heard a prominent conservative with more name recognition and greater access to media airwaves than any Muslim in this country say that 9/11 was the Christian deity's way of saying "Don't give gay people any more rights."

Of course, he's a "fundamentalist" and all of you are "evangelicals" right?

I've heard Joe and others here rip on Robertson from time to time but where is the concerted effort to destroy that mofo's empire and influence in the Christian community?

And frankly his ideology is indistinguishable from that of your prophet, Phil Johnson.

Just trying to keep it real (an impossible task when reality is defined by a "holy book" written more than 15 centuries ago).

10

Rauch uses religious conservative as an example, implying that by including them in the process we reduce the incidents of abortion clinic bombings. He may have a valid point. From 1995 to 2003, there were over 700,000 reported cases of arson and bombings with abortion clinics being the target of only 49 cases of arson and 11 bombings. Since that accounts for .00008 of all arsons during that eight-year period, the “religious conservatives” must felt included enough not to react with violence.

During that same period, however, there were over 2,400 attacks on churches, synagogues, and temples. Compared to abortion clinics, religious facilities were forty times more likely to be attacked. Perhaps then its time to start marginalizing “religious conservatives” and engaging those who are intolerant of religion.

Numbers without context. How many of those 2,400 attacks were by those 'intolerant of religion' as opposed to other motives? Likewise how many of the 49 cases were from those opposed to abortion rather than more mundant causes (kids 'pranking', insurance fraud etc.). Also how many Churches are there compared to abortion clinics? I imagine there are probably on the order of 100 Churches to 1 clinic, therefore a comparable rate of violence would be 4,900 cases to 2,400. 11 bombings would be comparable to 1,100.

Of course we are still missing intensity. How many of those 49 cases involved real violence? How many of those 2,400 cases involved non-violent attacks like grafetti?

11

Are anthrax and mysterious powder mailings included in the abortion attacks?

12

What makes Rauch's comments so offensive is his spurious conclusion that if religious conservatives (like myself) were somehow excluded from the "moderating influence" of the Republican party power structure, we would inevitably become a rampaging mob bent on bombing abortion clinics, gay nightclubs, the offices of PETA and instituting a "Spongebob Jihad".

I will give Rauch the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has just never heard about the positive ministries in which most sincere pro-life Christians are engaged. Consider just adoption. There are thousands of Christian parents who have put hands and feet to their pro-life beliefs by adopting children who need loving homes. (I have four adopted children, and there are probably 20-30 families like mine in our church alone.) Are we the "extremists" to whom Rauch is referring?

Even more disconcerting, is Rauch's backhanded attempt at "evenhandedness." "[A]ctivists...had to fight, literally, to be heard." This statement makes it sound like the violence of the anti-war, anti-establishment left was somehow something noble; yet his message to the Republicans seems to be that 'they had better keep placating those extremist pro-lifers or who knows what might happen.' Did Rauch pause to consider how many thousands of "activists" have taken part in violent protests (anyone else remember the violence at the WTO meeting in Seattle a few years back?) and how few "anti-abortion extremists" have committed violent acts?

If using my Constitutionally-protected rights of free speech, free assembly and freedom of religion peaceably and humbly to show my fellow Americans that human life is a precious and valuable gift that is worth preserving makes me a "provocateur" then so be it. But don't paint me with the same brush as the murderers who try in vain to excuse their crime by claiming Higher Law. I tremble to think of what it will be like for them to stand before a holy God and say "I murdered in your name." My faith teaches me that "I never knew you" will be the likely response.

13

I don't take Rauch seriously. Neither should you.

14

I totally agree with the majority of Rauch's article. The majority of Americans are moderate or independent. The true culture war lies between the two major parties. Both parties have become extremist and their arguments are totally justified by picking out small segments of the larger picture.

In the 1964 election Barry Goldwater said "Extremism in the name of patriotism is no vice". I disagreed with him at the time, and I still disagree with the statement. Extremism in any form is inherantly evil, in my opinion.

Example: "However, we also heard respected mainstream clerics refuse to denounce the attacks." In the same vain, I have never heard any evangelical or conservative christian leader denounce the bombing of black churches. Since it is my business to do research, I know that the vast majority of those 2400 attacks against churches and synogogues were perpetrated by such wonderful people as the "White Power" sects.

At some point, the moderates or liberals, which according to the Rauch article is the majority, will finally get sick and tired of extremism being the rule of the land and finally wake up and start a third party that will actually include all Americans.

You don't like abortion, fine. You don't like gays, fine. You want to keep gays from being married in your church, fine. But, it is not the right of the state to discriminate against any group of people to have a "legal marriage' which will give them the same health benefits employers offer other groups of "legally married" people.

I find it totally "unchristian" to pass judgement and try to make your beliefs the law of the land. Whether you like it or not, that is precisely what the constitution is supposed to keep from happening. Each individual in this country has the right to choose their own life style. If you disagree with that life style, that is YOUR right. Teach your children differently. BUT, don't teach your total interollence. That leads to hate. Hate is the most unchristian virtue of all.

I defy you to show me anywhere in your bible where Christ said that intollerance of others is an acceptable christian practice. As I remember, he taught love your neighbor. Don't forget, his parable of the Good Samaritan was deliberatly chosen because the Samaritans were detested by the regular Jew of the time.

No, Rauch was right. I do wish he did not include his comments being discussed here. But, the fact remains that both political parties have become extremist in their policies. He is saying that it is much easier for each party to welcome the extremists rather than the moderates. That's because we moderates don't believe in everything either party believes in. And, as such, they just might have to toss out their extremism in order to placate us. That, would be intollerable to them.

15

"Just trying to keep it real (an impossible task when reality is defined by a "holy book" written more than 15 centuries ago)."

I knew it! You guys do like to piss into the wind...

16

"Extremism in any form is inherantly evil, in my opinion"

Well, I guess that depends on how you define "extreme." How do you define it?

17

"Hate is the most unchristian virtue of all"

No. I think its indifference. Letting someone walk into oncoming traffic with your mouth shut would be unChristian. Screaming "Look out your on the road to destruction!" is very Christian.
Don't get the bad behavior exhibited by some Christians mixed up with "being" a Christian.

A Christian shouldn't and can't "force" anyone to live a certain way. We should be a witness not an enforcer.

18

Larry -

Say what you will about Falwel/Robertson, they aren't telling Christians to blow up buildings to teach gays a lesson. They may believe that AIDS/WTC were God's punishment, but they don't take it upon themselves to deliver that punishment themselves.

BIG difference from the Islamikazis.

19

"They may believe that AIDS/WTC were God's punishment, but they don't take it upon themselves to deliver that punishment themselves. BIG difference from the Islamikazis."

I guess it depends on the definition of "big."

Crediting mass murder to the deity who is allegedly going to send you to hell if you don't obey his wishes versus urging people to do what the deity commands or else is not that big of a difference to me.

Too bad you don't appreciate that. That's why a lot of people think your religion sucks hard, bro', including a lot of Christians whom I respect.

20

cdm

"Letting someone walk into oncoming traffic with your mouth shut would be unChristian."

How about spreading lies that HIV doesn't cause AIDS? Is that unChristian?

How about interfering with the distribution of condoms causing more people to get STDs? Is that unChristian?

21

Crediting mass murder to the deity who is allegedly going to send you to hell if you don't obey his wishes versus urging people to do what the deity commands or else is not that big of a difference to me.

Kind of shows your limited grasp the the theology you like so much to bash. Better study up on your Christology before you blurt out anything else on the subject.