Political fatwas

Two can play the game, but neither should

Issue: "Roe vs. Wade at 29," Jan. 19, 2002

Twenty-nine years ago, seven men in black robes issued a fatwa. They disregarded the will of the various tribes, as expressed in public opinion polls and in a referendum in one of the northern provinces just two months earlier.

Allies of the black robes controlled the airwaves and the state madrassas and not much else, but that proved to be enough. Television broadcasts said the peasants were jubilant about the fatwa, and even though anyone who spent time in the villages knew that wasn't true, it was said often enough that some viewers believed it.

At the madrassas, teachers said that opponents of the fatwa were reactionaries who had to be stopped. Some of the teachers acknowledged that the fatwa was not grounded in the sacred scripture as it pretended to be, but they said it would make life better. Without the fatwa, they insisted, the Southern Alliance would take power ...

We see you’ve been enjoying the content on our exclusive member website. Ready to get unlimited access to all of WORLD’s member content?
Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.
(Don’t worry. It only takes a sec—and you don’t have to give us payment information right now.)

Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.

Well, I won't go any further with this game, because I do realize its limitations. Yes, the Supreme Court in 1973 overrode polls and a Michigan referendum to create, on a 7-2 vote, a 24/7/9-month abortion liberty. The court received media and academic support, although even pro-abortion professors were embarrassed by the poor reasoning of (and the nonexistent constitutional basis for) Justice Harry Blackmun's decision.

But the parallel should end there, because the United States is not Afghanistan. We still have a democracy, not a regime. The Supremes in recent decades have often sung off-key and so loudly that they have drowned out elected legislatures, but if the populace became aroused we could seek constitutional amendments and new justices. We should reserve phrases like "American Taliban" for the traitorous John Walker Lindh, and not throw it at those who have merely expressed views we dislike.

That's not what we're getting in many newspapers and magazines, though. In phase one of an assault late last year, Web pundit Andrew Sullivan and New York Times columnists Anthony Lewis and Thomas Friedman equated Islamic and American fundamentalism, and some neoconservatives echoed such blather.

Phase two is now beginning, with politicians moving in for the land war. As Ed Veith notes on page 14, Newsweek's Howard Fineman has spilled the beans on the Democrats. Here are their talking points: "Our enemy in Afghanistan is religious extremism and intolerance. It's therefore more important than ever to honor the ideals of tolerance-religious, sexual, racial, reproductive-at home."

Watch the discussion of abortion (a.k.a. "reproductive tolerance") over the next two weeks as the 29th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision is celebrated and mourned. There won't be a lot of discussion, because many media folks have declared this a settled issue, but I suspect that what there is will include pro-aborts referring to pro-lifers as American Taliban.

If some Democratic senators run with that, broadcast media will pick up on it as evidence that Americans are getting fed up with the "religious right." Like Tinker to Evers to Chance, the doubleplay will be print journalists to politicians to broadcasters, and then the loop can start again as writers comment on how Christian conservative groups are trying to dodge the label.

But here's a prediction: This is a losing game for liberals. Regular folks who believe in God know they aren't like the Taliban. They distinguish between politics informed by religious and moral values, and politics in which clerics act like dictators. They know that evangelicals emphasize faith, which cannot be forced.

Some of the vituperation from the left has even shocked secular moderates like Mickey Kaus (kausfiles.com). He notes, "It's perfectly possible to believe that your religion is the one true faith ... without believing that your religion requires the destruction, suppression or forcible conversion of those who believe in what by your lights is a falseness."

And here's one more prediction: If the big networks equate religious faith and Taliban-type force, and say religious people should get out of political discussions, the result will be even greater distrust of big media. Regular folks understand the difference between Taliban overreaching and the ethical concerns (slavery, civil rights, abortion) that have always been the province of religion.

If Dems are dumb, they will push their attack on the "American Taliban" and give up whatever ground they still have with some conservative voters. If the GOP is wise, it will fight back hard against any Democratic attempt to demonize Christians who care about "inconvenient" children and ideas. (And don't miss Andree Seu's analysis of "convenience" on page 37.)

Marvin Olasky
Marvin Olasky

Marvin is editor in chief of WORLD News Group and the author of more than 20 books, including The Tragedy of American Compassion. Follow Marvin on Twitter @MarvinOlasky.


You must be a WORLD member to post comments.

    Keep Reading


    Troubling ties

    Under the Clinton State Department, influence from big money…