In his most recent column for The New York Times, Charles Blow argues that the Replublican Party is manipulating the benighted convictions of Christians for political purposes. Blow accuses the GOP of manufacturing a war on Christians in a cynical attempt to keep its base riled up for the next election.
In short, Blow says that there are no real threats to religious freedom in this country. It’s all just a figment of our imaginations. It’s a ruse designed by the GOP to ensconce Christians in their most “base convictions” (like belief in the biblical creation account and the Bible’s definition of marriage). If it weren’t for the GOP manipulating the base, perhaps Christians would eventually get over some of their superstitious and unfounded beliefs.
There is so much wrong with Blow’s article that it’s difficult to know where to start. But perhaps I should point out the fundamental self-defeating contradiction at the heart of it. Blow argues that the “war” on Christians is a lie. There really isn’t any threat at all for Christians to be concerned about. Then he spends the rest of his article in a sustained assault on Christianity. He castigates Christians ignorant enough to believe that God created the world apart from evolutionary processes. He looks down his nose at Christians who are so unenlightened as to believe what the Bible teaches about marriage. And then there is this condescending line:
I don’t personally have a problem with religious faith, even in the extreme, as long as it doesn’t supersede science and it’s not used to impose outdated mores on others.
In other words, Blow has no problem with Christianity as long as it never contradicts the spirit of the age and never makes claims of any public consequence—which is another way of saying, “I have no problem with Christianity so long as it ceases to be Christian.”
Blow can’t have it both ways. He cannot deny the existence of a “war” on Christianity while simultaneously waging that war himself. Not only is he waging that war. He’s doing so in the most strident terms possible–the kinds of arguments that form the basis for real assaults on religious freedom. To wit, he alleges a strong correlation between religious conviction and “poor societal conditions.” He even goes so far as to say that convictional Christians stand against “common sense and the common good.” Ideologically, this a mere step away from the way the Romans regarded the Christians they persecuted–as “enemies of the human race.”
It is astonishing that Blow can be so unaware of the contradiction at the heart of his argument. He denies the existence of secular antipathy towards Christians, and yet he himself is the embodiment of it in this column. If you want to see evidence that there really is a growing intolerance of biblical Christianity among secular elites, read Blow’s column. Unless Blow is an imaginary man, this is not just a figment of our imaginations.