Jonah advises the hysterics to breathe

May 13, 2005 By

A really good column from Jonah Goldberg. I missed the Law and Order episode he is writing about – I only watch the old syndicated things, and then, only when I am bleary/sick.

But it is an eminently sensible “cool yer jets” to the wild hoardes screaming “Theocracy!” these past few weeks. Here are a few excerpts, but you’ll want to read the whole thing.

I should point out that Christian conservatives have never done anything like this. Indeed, the only remotely similar episode in recent memory concerned Karla Faye Tucker, the white female ax murderer who also happened to be a born-again Christian. Some conservative Christians – and many other anti-death penalty advocates – argued she should be spared the death penalty but not absolved of her crime. George W. Bush – the supposedly theocratic Christian – was the governor of Texas at the time, and was empowered to halt the execution. His response to such requests: No dice. “I have concluded that judgments about the heart and soul of an individual on death row are best left to a higher authority,” he declared. “May God bless Karla Faye Tucker, and God bless her victims and their families.”

Why take pains to point out that TV fiction doesn’t match reality? Because the original conceit of “Law & Order” was that it tackled the thorny legal and moral issues associated with actual murders “ripped from the headlines.” In its early years, the show handled Tawana Brawley, the Central Park jogger, Bernie Goetz and other real crimes…

…But the complete, outrageous implausibility of the episode’s plot wasn’t the most infuriating part. Several times, various characters opine that the Christians’ legal tactics might work given “what’s happening in this country right now.” I half expected Pat Robertson to burst through McCoy’s office spraying holy water screaming, “Exorcist” style, “The power of Christ compels you!”

The complexity of what conservative Christians really believe is lost on the writers of “Law & Order” – not surprising for a Hollywood show about New York that blends both coastal sensibilities perfectly. The fact that more and more headlines are being ripped from “red” America creates challenges for writers – like having to plausibly depict midtown Manhattan as a hotbed of evangelical, anti-abortion fervor (as they have more than once). But such challenges are minor compared to the dilemma of making their paranoia seem real.

I grew up in New York City, I know New York City, and I have this to tell my fellow New Yorkers: You are perfectly safe from the Christians hordes. None of the stuff supposedly “happening in America right now” is actually affecting Dowd or Krugman or the “L&O” writing teams. Pharmacies in New York and L.A. are still filling prescriptions for the “morning after” pill, schools are still teaching evolution, abortion clinics are humming along. And don’t e-mail me in a tizzy about gay marriage bans. Gay marriage didn’t exist under Bill Clinton either.

Amen, Mr. Goldberg, and thank you.

Filed Under: Faith
About Elizabeth Scalia
  • http://loftednest.blogspot.com Dan

    Oh, that was excellent! Thanks for finding it! Pat Robertson, “The power of Christ compels you!” (lol)..

  • MyssiAnn

    I usually watch Law & Order, but I think I’m glad I missed that one. Steam probably would have come out my ears…

  • ForNow

    I watched the episode till I saw where it was headed. The left is systematically and tiresomely pumping away, sometimes it seems 24/7, to work itself up into a lather over this whole “theocracy” meme. As you know, I’m not religious, but this whole deal from the left is obviously preposterous. Ask them about Islamic extremists and they sputter, “That’s just conditions!” I’ve gotten that as a response.

    They explain and excuse Islamic extremism by “conditions” and conclude, conveniently, that religious and conservative Americans have no “excuses” even for being religious at all and are therefore evil and a bigger threat, too, being uncrippled by “conditions.”

    I know quite a few leftists who keep babbling venomously about “fundamentalists”; one talked about them interchangeably with Nazis coming to snatch families away in the night. This is part of the long-time but growing leftist effort to alter presumptive perspectives so that they won’t be considered to be extremists, and the political center will be considered to be well to the left of where it is now. It goes back to Stalin, who flooded the leftist zone with the branding of any and all anti-Stalin non-leftists as fascists.

  • http://worthythinking.blogspot.com Truthseeker

    This whole argument from the left is “We do not want God to tell us what to do, but we want everybody to do as we say, because we know better than God, since we are smarter than Him.”
    Nothing has changed since the beginning. The created questions the Creator, “Why have you made me thus.”
    And along with that, “You want me to do what?!”
    Good post and Jonah said it well too.

  • Portia

    Steam WAS coming out of my ears throughout the episode.

    BUT I’ve been finding this on the TV, radio, movies, books — anywhere — this “we’re doomed because everyone else is a religious fanatic.” It seems to be a peculiar form of tourettes, often interjected with no relation to the surrounding themes.

    Personaly I think it’s easier for them to believe everyone is a religious fanatic and therfore “ignorant” in leftist parlance, than to believe their “peace at any cost, redistribute all wealth now and it’s aaaaaaaaaal big oil’s fault” memes are out of touch with America.

  • http://shotofpolitics.blogspot.com/ Joseph Marshall

    Let’s start this one with a party platform statement made in 2004:

    “The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation….Our Party pledges to exert its influence to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and dispel the myth of the separation of church and state….Congress should be urged to exercise its authority and should withhold appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such cases involving religious freedom, and all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights….The Party supports the limitation of the jurisdiction of Federal law enforcement agencies to the high seas, federal installations, and counterfeiting operations…”

    What we call “religious freedom” in America is based simply and solely upon the federal court case law derived and deduced from the “establishment clause” of the Constitution. This clause in no way explicitly guarantees religious freedom to anyone. For comparison purposes, you might look at the very explicit guarantees of freedom of speech, assembly, and press in the same document.

    It is the clear intent of the Republican Party of Texas to destroy the entire basis in federal case law for “religious freedom” in this country. For if the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is ended in these matters, there is simply no avenue of legal appeal for any individual who has been wronged by having his religious freedom denied.

    Moreover, even if such case law remained intact, the Texas Republican Party would explicitly prevent the Federal Government from exercising any law enforcement powers whatsoever to enforce any of the provisions of that case law, or, indeed of the Bill of Rights as a whole, inside most of the United States.

    The best that could be hoped from this is the sort of “religious toleration” which custom and practice has spread over the years, and which is perfectly revocable, without notice, by any government that recognizes no legal basis for “religious freedom”.

    But should the Texas Republican Party have its way, there would be absolutely nothing to prevent Texas from outlawing Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or even Catholicism. Except, of course, the goodwill and tolerance of the Texas Republican Party. This would not, literally, be a “theocracy”, after all, a theocracy implies government by explicit religious dogma, making necessary some clarity of religious thought.

    It would be something far worse–government by the arbitrary and unchecked whim of a majority of Texans–which frankly implies nothing one way or the other about clarity of religious thought.

    Then again we can always hope both for clarity of religious thought in Texas, as well as toleration of other religions by the Texas Republican Party. But we certainly can’t count on it.

    And since we can’t count on it, I, for one, think we should keep the strong legal and judicial basis for our “religious freedom”, which is unique in the world.

    Now if the United States is a Christian Nation with no real separation of Church and State, then undoubtedly the Texas Republican Party must be a Christian Party. And it is certainly a Party of mainstream sentiment, at least in Texas.

    So, if you wonder why your non-Christian fellow citizens are so disturbed by the interplay of Christianity and politics, perhaps you should look back over your shoulder at what some of your fellow Christians are advocating, at least in Texas.

  • Darrell

    Consistent. Consistently wrong.

    Well, let’s check the Constitution. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. What does it ban?, any establishment of a government church…Is religion in the public sector banned? I don’t see it. Does the Constitution ban States from establishing religion? Well, let’s see “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Sounds like, “hands off, US Congress. ” Hmmm. Did some States have established religions at the time the Constitution was ratified? Yes. Yes, they did. Curious. Does Liberalism fit the definition of a religion? Why, yes it does. We all know their dogma, and the penalties for say disagreeing with any of it, like say, anthroprogenic Global Warming. Should Liberalism be banned from public schools? Why I’m beginning to see the logic of doing so. Let’s stop our kids being inculcated in the Liberal religion against our will. Thanks for pointing this out for me. I stand corrected.

  • http://docisinblog.com Dr Bob

    Nice post, and thanks for pointing out Jonah’s article – I’d missed that one.

    Here’s something in a similar vein over at my blog, The Doctor Is In:

    The Doctor Is In » The Gathering Storm

  • http://shotofpolitics.blogspot.com/ Joseph Marshall

    I repeat, “religious toleration” depends solely upon the good will of your neighbors and the party who controls the government. “Religious freedom” depends upon the power of the rule of law to intervene to preserve it in the absence of such good will.

    Without a Constitution, a Congress, AND a federal court system to define the parameters of it–as well as federal law enforcement to compel obedience to Congressional law and court decision–”religious freedom” simply does not exist. The Texas Republican Party proposes to eliminate two of these.

    We have religious freedom now, we would not have it then. As a Christian, or at least as a Protestant Christian, anyone can generally be comfortable in America that their neighbors will tolerate them.

    Others of us aren’t so lucky. I KNOW what anti-Buddhist hostility among my neighbors is like. I have occasionally been the target of it–this after 20 years of my neighbors knowing me, but not knowing I was a Buddhist. And anyone can find anti-Islamic hostility anywhere they like in America at the moment.

    So I KNOW the difference between religious toleration and religious freedom. And I don’t intend to give up religious freedom, for everybody, without a fight.