What Paul Krugman Really Ought To Fear
By: Robert E. Meyer
Friday the 13th brought out that eerie mantra from the left again. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote another editorial rant numbered among the seemingly endless litany of warnings about the “encroachment of the religious right” upon the political landscape.
First he offers an ominous quotation proffered by Christian economist Gary North over a quarter century ago, who apparently commanded his minions to secretly infiltrate the mainstream political structure. Gary who? Yes, I know who Gary North is, but I would wager that most people who identify themselves with the “Christian Right” never heard of him. In that case, it seems unlikely they are deliberately heeding his dictate.
Krugman also mentions that the official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to “dispel the myth of the separation of church and state.” Horror of horrors! Most Americans are so historically illiterate that they don’t even know the phrase “separation of church and state,” is not in the Constitution or any government document. Sometimes trying to be historically acurate is a dangerous thing. Don’t you spin doctors of orthodoxy confuse me with the truth.
The piece goes on to bemoan that so many graduates of Regent University, a satellite of Pat Robertson’s “theocratic empire,” have been assimilated into the fabric of the Bush administration. Most presidents are going to hire personnel with ideological commonality, so they can best promote their mandates or agenda. This is, of course, clandestine when the people have some known religious affiliation. It makes me wonder comparatively, how many liberals who are products of Ivy League universities, which were founded in colonial times to promote a Christian worldview, have silently infiltrated the public square to promote secular agendas.
A person who has eaten nothing but junk food is going to think a health food diet is being imposed on him, if he’s offered carrots and broccoli for supper. Our country has been moving left on the ideological continuum for so long, any movement in the opposite direction is like a theft of liberal’s birth rights. Theocratic agents lurk behind every tall blade of grass. The trees have ecclesiastical eyes.
To avoid being labeled a Christophobe or being impugned for religion bashing, Krugman reminds us that there is a big difference between the ideologues he is weary of, and a true person of faith. I can guess the profile of this coveted “person of faith.” Perhaps he is the individual who regularly attends his house of worship, faithfully prays in his closet, and has cherished opinions, but would never dream of allowing them to influence public policy, or impose them on anybody. That’s Krugman’s kind of religious zealot. Scarey indeed!
Right about now, somebody will start trying to appease those of Krugman’s persuasion, saying “Oh no! We aren’t interested in establishing a theocracy.” Oops! The “T” word is out of the bottle again. Chase it down while the “seculacrats” do an end run and grab another slice of American culture, another foothold in the public square
I’ll tell you who the people that worry me are. They are the ones obsessed with removing God and religion from the culture. I’m going to tell you why they pose a threat. It isn’t because they dislike or ridicule religious faith, it is far more fundamental then that.
The editor of a local religious paper where I write a monthly column, placed the Preambles of all the state Constitutions on the back page of the publication. Every one of those Preambles listed, acknowledged God. Our national Declaration of Independence says that our Creator has endowed us with inalienable rights, and that the government’s job is to be the earthly protector of those rights. Take God out of the equation and one can only conclude that these rights are bestowed by the government. What the government gives, it has a right to take away.
Liberty can never be secure in that sort of society. The people accorded civil liberties, will be the ones whistling the tune of political correctness. The so-called “religious person,” particularly the Christian, will be persona non grata.
To me it’s asinine to suggest that someone whose life is influenced by their faith, should have no access to public policy, but the secularist equally ardent in his ideological foundation should have complete access to making the rules. But then again, I too, would duel with the cowboy, who either wouldn’t show up on Main street at high noon, or would reliably shoot himself in the foot when attempting to draw his six-gun
Within a representative republic, why should the religious person not have the opportunity to built consensus, lobby for change, or protest a perceived injustice, the same way every other group does? You tell me then we’ll both know.
What Paul Kruman really ought to fear is secular totalitarianism with all its tentacles.