Follow up to Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act controversy —
First of all do not accept the liberal main stream media characterizations of the Arizona type legislation, including Fox Radio. Regrettably the later usually accepts the former’s decision as to what is news, generally to adopt, rarely to abandon or correct, the pack journalism liberal narrative. Fox Radio may be more likely to obtain a conservative response on many matters. However, by essentially accepting the liberal narrative as they so often do, they chronically put conservatives and Republicans on the defensive. It is not a particularly original or investigative news outlet for conservatives to rely on.
So the picture being painted large by most news outlets is that the Arizona legislature rushed to codify a right to discriminate against gays, fulfilling latent Republican homophobia. The drama included various Republican personages there coming to their senses and castigating the action. Never mind that the legislature’s bill never mentioned homosexual activity but only sought to clarify existing law and establish a basis for judicial resolve regarding a religious liberty claim. Such claims were still to be resolved on a case by case basis, arguably to the benefit of both sides to a religiously entwined controversy.
There was nothing wrong in the intentions of the Arizona bill or what it would actually do. Other states should continue the effort to protect religious liberties in their boundaries. The information and link we provided yesterday should establish the legal reasonableness of the now regrettably vetoed law. An ethical religious defense of similar laws, correctly pointing to their universality, can be found in this article by Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas.
That three Republican state Senators who voted for the bill later surrendered to economic threats and declaimed and even apologized for their previous votes, was disappointing enough. That Republican Governor Brewer went on to veto the bill was even more so. All four exemplify why a “Republican” majority is hardly enough to right the ship of state. Too often the hand wringers abandon the Republican position at the first sound of gunfire. They serve to verify TEA Party criticism of the dependability of Republicans and the view that Republicans have to be pushed to fight the good fight.
Selwyn Duke writing at American Thinker produced an article Razing Arizona: Conservatives Succeed at Failing Again that has many fine observations related to what might be called the Republican disease.
I’ve long lamented that conservatives are conservative; that is to say, they play defense and just try to protect the status quo, . . .
So they never actually try to rescind those efforts at thought control called hate-crime laws, but just hope to limit the scope of new proposals for them . . . They hardly ever try to reduce spending and shrink government, but just seek to limit the rate at which both balloon. And with the Arizona effort, they weren’t really willing to do what was necessary to reclaim freedom of association . . . As for the Three Mouseketeers who ran for cover . . . they wrote in a letter to Brewer that while they wanted “to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance.”
Wow, is that all it takes?
We might as well just bow down and lick the left’s jackboots right now. How did these three chronologically adult politicians think the left would characterize their effort? . . . Of course the left is going to call you names! That’s what they do. And now ( retreating Republicans) just confirmed for them, once again, that this is all they have to do to bring you to your knees. Welcome to How to Lose a Culture War 101. How should conservatives handle such name calling?
Hurl names right back.
Call the leftists what they are: tyrants, socialists and haters of liberty. Explain that they want to destroy freedom of association. Seek to control the language of the debate and to frame the narrative . . . As for strategy, realize that framing this as a matter of freedom of religion makes it seem a special-interest cause, as not everyone considers himself “religious.” What we really need is a Freedom of Association Restoration Act . . .
The hypocrisy here is thick, too. We wouldn’t force a Muslim butcher to deal in pork or a Jewish baker to place Nazi symbols on a cake . . .
Republican invertebrates provoked our illustrious senior editor to observe : They would have paid Santa Ana to take the Alamo off their hands instead of defending it, and apologized for their temporary rigidity.
Related reading is available at the following sites:
Amy Pain writing in the Foundry Pages at Heritage.org: Questions You’re Asking About Cakes, Gays, and Religious Freedom
Erick Erickson, writing at RedState — An Upside Down World
R Mall w/ DLH
Republican Invertebrates! LOL! I will steal that one!