« A random, often gruesome collision of atoms | Main | Finally, Murphy Brown is back in the news »

May 31, 2005

Ready, secularists? Charge!

Man, this militant secularism/anti-Christianity thing is so boring. Please, somebody, make it stop. Okay, yes, there is a tendency to underestimate the role of Judeo-Christian ethics in the formation of western society. Fundamentalist/evangelical Christians probably cause more alarm than they should when they enter politics. Newspapers are staffed by liberals (except for the ones who aren't), and sometimes a bias shines through. But what gets me is the whining — this incessant, blubbering tide. It's not really very Christian, is it?

This article, and the unpublished letter to the Globe and Mail contained therein (unpublished, if I might be so bold, not because of the Globe's fanatical anti-Christian bias but because it's poorly written, because the author misrepresents the article, and because it's so unbelievably whiny), has gotten a fair bit of play. The headline about which Candice Hoeppner from Winkler, MB got so upset was as follows: "Christian activists capturing Tory races".

But the thing is, well, they are. Not very many races are involved, to be sure, and it didn't need to be banner headline material — perhaps Canada has been under-represented by such politicians in the past? — but it is news. Whether you think it's positive, negative or just the glorious functioning of a free democracy (present! –ed), churches and religious-based organizations certainly seem to be trying to buy up more seats in the political arena. The Globe did nothing to deserve, and did well not to print, Ms Hoeppner's pre-adolescent snivelling:

I feel that you and your paper are saying Christians such as myself need to be purged from political involvement, if the party I am involved with is to be taken seriously by the general public. You need to apologize to all Christians [yeah, like these ones! –ed.], and stop spreading hatred against this one segment of society.

"Do you think," asked Charles Adler, "the Globe and Mail would use headlines such as 'Indo-Canadian activists capturing Liberal races', or 'Muslim Activists forcing Liberals to shift position on Israel'?" Well yes, Charles Adler, I do think they would use such headlines, if such things were happening. There's nothing outrageous about either of those statements. Arguing that there is — that the liberal media would bury such things for fear of offending the cult of political correctness or somehow accidentally edifying Christianity — is just part of this obnoxious campaign by some conservatives to blame the media for their woes.

I've often wondered just what it is the worst media-whingers think they're accomplishing. To politically casual moderates who regard Canadian newspapers as fairly balanced, it makes them look nutty if not crazed; to politically interested moderates like myself, it makes them look obsessed and fundamentally distracted from the task at hand. Oh, and whiny. They won't change the media, after all, so why don't they just take the high road and ignore these perceived slights? What good does it do to cast themselves in perpetual martyrdom?

My opinion is this: I think it started out as a legitimate underdog's grievance but is now, at least in part, a defensive reaction by conservatives, especially so-cons, who are a little frightened at the prospect of "their party" being in power. As proponents of often unfeasible positions (e.g., outlawing abortion), they are far better suited to hectoring The Rest of Canada from the back back back benches, from pro-life websites and from the smoking chambers at Tim Horton's locations in places like Winkler, MB than they are to participating in the governance of a progressive western nation like Canada. If the media's just part of the grand conspiracy of debauchery, then they'll still have something to fight against once Prime Minister Stephen Harper turns out to be somewhat cool to their more loony-tunes proposals. Then they can get right to work on Reform II, and we shall all bathe once again in the healing light of impractical idealism.

Posted by Chris Selley at May 31, 2005 09:38 PM