The Black Republican

On occasion, we express some strong opinions here, and I'm not about to regret any of them. But it should be noted that some people we normally agree with are on the other side of the Terri Schindler-Schiavo debate, and not without good cause. Among these are Charles Johnson, Cox & Forkum, and Glenn Reynolds. In general, these people worry about the "intrusion" (my word) of government into issues and decisions where it does not belong. In one sentence, this is a summation of much modern philosophy termed "conservatism", "federalism", and "libertarianism". It would be equally correct to point out that a few people we vehemently disagree with on a variety of issues are willing to side with us on this one.

Welcome to the other debate.

I like Charles Johnson's word. The vast majority of the debate in this country revolves around some common-sense questions that turn a few left-leaning people with a great amount of power and influence into die-hard Idiotarians. The prime example: If someone flies an airliner into a skyscraper, should you: A) find his accomplices, leaders, and financial backers and forcibly remove the threat they pose, or B) blame America for war, agression, and poverty? You know the rest of that tale since we discuss it here on a daily basis.

But an equally simple set of questions run in a completely different direction, and reveal completely different fault lines. Is there a God? What part should morality and religion play in public debate? Who decides when life should begin, and when it should end? Most of the Left long ago embraced the side of these questions we know of as "secularism". They posit that the meaning of the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause places "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" so far above "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" that the latter are banned from discussion in public.

At least a sizable plurality of Americans have bought into this claptrap, especially a powerfully eloquent minority of conservatives who admit to being secular, irreligious, or atheistic. Most of the time, the difference is not so different and does not cause issues within the Republican Party. Even many of these aforementioned anti-idiotarian atheists support and defend the conservative view of the Establishment Clause in their rhetoric. But when the time comes to put that rhetoric into practice - like in the Schiavo case - they oppose majority conservatives for their "theocratic" tendencies.

(A few "true-believer" liberals actually side against their secular brethren on these issues, most notably "liberation Catholics" who believe socialism is a legitimate vehicle for imposing Christian egalitarianism on society.)

While I am optimistic that anti-idiotarians will eventually win our fight, the real Culture War involves the battle with secularism. And that fight, I'm afraid, my corner is losing.