A reader writes:
I know you don't consider yourself a PC liberal. But you sound more and more like one.
The word "bigotry" is bandied about your blog so much and so inconsistently that I have no idea what it means anymore. I know it is at the heart of who you are as a homosexual activist (and you clearly are one, though you do, to your credit, disagree with the more shrill activists out there) and therefore the first arrow in your rhetorical quiver, but you are seriously overusing the term and seeing the sickness of bigotry in far too many places.
Mitt Romney is an "anti-atheist bigot"? So a person of faith can't state that he or she thinks that a person of faith is best suited for office? Really? It's just plain silly to even get upset over this and it is a sign of neurosis IMO to call it bigotry.
But that seems to be your plan these days. Steyn's an anti-Muslim genocidal bigot. Romney's a bigot. Practically every Christian that does not share your mushy Christian views is a anti-homosexual bigot. And on and on. It is getting to be too much. You can't seem to disagree with anyone without eventually calling them a bigot. Right out of the old liberal/leftie playbook. That's disappointing because you are way better than that.
Let me respond. Romney first. He said "We need to have a person of faith lead the country." That's a clear view that only someone of religious faith should become president. If he had said "we need a Protestant to lead the country," would it have been bigotry? Surely it would be. Ask a few Catholics and Jews if you need confirmation. So what's the difference? Using someone's personal religious convictions as a criterion for public office, and disqualifying those who do not share certain convictions, is indeed bigotry. Just because a certain form of bigotry is popular doesn't make it right. Atheism is no more and no less an existential decision than faith. America is dedicated to religious freedom, which means and must mean the right not to believe in anything. Romney has shown he does not share this view of America. His view is that atheists should not be president. He played that card as a way to ingratiate himself with Christians who do not share his Mormon faith. It was a card from the bottom of the deck.
Steyn? Well, I didn't call him a bigot. So the point is silly. But he did write somewhat breezily of the option of "culling" large numbers of people solely on the basis of their faith. I dunno. What do you think?