Why do they get away with making reference to the religious right without making it natural to refer to them as the irreligious left?

In Rich's mind, all those who opposed the removal of Terri Schaivo's feed tube are Randall Terry, and all those politicians who fought to have it reinserted are Tom DeLay, despite the fact the Senate measure passed without a negative vote. And since Rich will never be associating (or would ever want to associate) with anyone who thinks differently on the issue, he's free to conjure up columns like this and simply tell his administrative assistant to hit the "delete" key on any contrary e-mails Monday morning.

George,

Actually, they don't.

Not to resurrect my favorite stalking horse here, George, but I don't think this is an example of religion vs. irreligion; rather it's a struggle between an old religion and a new one. Trying to defeat death via the ritualized application of death is probably a religious enterprise unless proved otherwise. For more in this cheerful vein, try this or this.

You'll have to do better than just to label this a "rant" without specifying what precisely you object to or where Rich misstated something. Seems to me he got most of it right. Did he misquote Will? Is evolution not being chased out of our schools because of fear and medievalism? Do the "left behind" books not suggest the end is near for non-believers? Is Imax showing the films Rich says they are afraid to show? When Pat Buchanan says on Hardball that the President should send the troops in to remove Terry so she can be fed, is there no threat here to our entire legal system. Make the argument. Can you?

Shel, if you'll look around this site a little bit, you'll see that the arugments of knee-jerk god haters have been responded to plenty. But quite frankly, Frank Rich saying wanything is, in and of itself, a pretty good reason to assume that he's wrong.

Shel:

Pleasure. I will ignore the hyperbole about the goverment's launching of "jihad", the analogy to Salem, the deft and strategic use of the word "extremist", the illogical and provocative linking of "faith-based science" with AIDS prevention, the taunts about God inspiring murderers and his repulsive crocodile tears over "poor Terri Schiavo's brain". Boys will be boys, after all. Ed Driscoll's incredibly timely link to Rod Dreher will have to suffice to answer his demoniziation of all religious people as uniformly mindless, uncultured demagogues who care nothing for democracy and constitutional government.

Tell me, when did you or Frank Rich ever last hear of anyone calling for forced conversion, compulsory worship or punishment for heretics? How about doctrinal prerequisites in schools? Forced prayers? Affirmative action for Christians or any faith? Restrictions on other faiths? Religious oaths for government jobs? Religious based quotas in education and housing? For theocrats, we sure are a bunch of weenies, no?

The issue is the culture of death and the role of morality in public life. The religious people he is talking about by and large want public policy informed by fundamental baseline values (and I suggest on that general point it is clear they represent the majority whatever differences may exist on individual issues). Such as not killing the weak and innocent. Rich is opposed and wants the issue so completely unregulated that we all have the right to kill an ex-spouse after scooping $1.6 mil in order to care for her because we suddenly remember what she said one day after a sad movie when she was 20. But he knows it would be unseemly to say so upfront, so he lets loose a demonizing tirade about how we're all headed for Calvin's Geneva.

Yes, there is a threat to the legal system, just like there was in the 1850's and 1960's when law and federalism stood firm and crusty and privileged in the face of popular moral outrage over rank injustice. Sort of like when the world stood by in 2003 and tried to use international law to protect a genocidal butcher. You can either work to make corrupt law reform or write brillant and robust defences of the status quo, precedent and checks and balances while popular dissent and rage grows around you. Your choice. But it's best never to make a deity out of the law or sages out of judges.

To answer your questions, evolution is not being chased out of the schools, I have no idea what "left behind" books say, I presume IMAX will show any films that will be profitable and Buchanan's suggested challenge to the legal system reminds me of those two dangerous subversives, MLK and Rosa Parks.

OK. I watched the talk shows, and what I heard is that the ONLY case that would have a different result would be the Schaivo case: IF there is 'a disagreement' on terminating life support for someone who DOESN'T qualify for Bush's TX 'futile care' law (= 1 case/year max, nationwide) will be decided extra-constitutionally. No disagreement = cut the cords, cut the tubes, what the hell. Right? In the end, the lottery has more significance than what Delay and you folks are prepared to stand up for after the t's are crossed and the i's dotted . . .

The New York Times and Frank Rich keep this up and I may have to start going to church.

Won't be the Congregationalist/Unitarianism of my upbringing either.

David - Why wait for Frank Rich to make an ass of himself again? Church is well worth a trip in its own right.

Real Jeff - No one proposed doing anything outside the law, much less extra-constitutionally. The point was using legal means to a good end. The 14th Amendment allows Congress to pass laws protecting citizens' right to life against infringement by the states; that's what Congress did.

I think Frank Rich's article is on point. I'm particularly concerned with the devaluation of science at the expense of religion.

I think Frank Rich's article is on point. I'm particularly concerned with the devaluation of science at the expense of religion.

PJ: Do you really suppose that your 14th amendment rights are dependent on Congress passing a personal law with your name on it? It's hard to figure what Delay was trying to do last weekend, from a non-political viewpoint at least . . .

Peter: "You can either work to make corrupt law reform or write brillant and robust defences of the status quo, precedent and checks and balances while popular dissent and rage grows around you. Your choice. But it's best never to make a deity out of the law or sages out of judges." That is sort of what I thought this was about, but now it has been explained that this is really a 'one-off' and there is no intent among your leaders to change any law or to affect any case except this one; the thousands of similar cases proceeding as we talk wherein no 'disagreement' exists will be resolved just as they would have been 2 weeks ago, without protest or even comment . . . That's cool.

PJ: Do you really suppose that your 14th amendment rights are dependent on Congress passing a personal law with your name on it? It's hard to figure what Delay was trying to do last weekend, from a non-political viewpoint at least . . .

Peter: "You can either work to make corrupt law reform or write brillant and robust defences of the status quo, precedent and checks and balances while popular dissent and rage grows around you. Your choice. But it's best never to make a deity out of the law or sages out of judges." That is sort of what I thought this was about, but now it has been explained that this is really a 'one-off' and there is no intent among your leaders to change any law or to affect any case except this one; the thousands of similar cases proceeding as we talk wherein no 'disagreement' exists will be resolved just as they would have been 2 weeks ago, without protest or even comment . . . That's cool.

I think Rich is dead on target.

Peter B. brings morality into the argument, which is fine, but that's not what the wingers have been arguing the past few days. They have been claiming that Terri is not a vegetable, based on some noises she made and the testimony of a quack MD. That's not morality; that's blatant lying and obfuscating.

Peter B. suggests some sort of baseline value, that includes never killing the weak and innocent. Are you suggesting Mr. B. that we spend our nation's treasure on extending each and every person's life to its utmost limit, since denying them the needed medical care would be "killing the weak and innocent"? (But it's okay, I suppose, to kill the strong and guilty?)

Let me add a side note. If you study one of Rich's pieces a little, you'll find terrible writing, along with all that the other things that Peter has complained about. (Justly in my opinion.)

Consider this sentence on the Cecil B. DeMille's "Ten Commandments" from the second paragraph:

"But this year the lovable old war horse has a relevance that transcends camp."

"Lovable old war horse" is a poor metaphor for a movie. It is almost always used to describe a person, for reasons I hope are obvious. Then, having brought the horse in, Rich gives it relevance, and that relevance somehow "transcends camp", however that might happen.

Now we can discern, as through a glass darkly, what Rich means. He probably intends something like this: The movie is camp, but this year it is relevant politically, too.

But that wasn't what he said. I mention Rich's writing mistakes, as I have once or twice on "Oh, That Liberal Media", because they show that the New York Times will not require its columnists to write clearly -- if they have the right political views. Or perhaps I should say the right attitudes toward those who hold traditional religious beliefs.

Or to put it even more directly, you don't have to write well at the New York Times if you are hostile to traditional Christians and Jews. (As far as I can tell, Rich has no hostility to other religions, even in their terrorist versions.)

Is there a more loathesome columnist at any major daily than Frank Rich? And no, frankly I don't have to detail for you johnny come latelys all his hatefulness.

BTW he was also a terrible drama critic. John Simon ate his lunch every week.

Are you suggesting Mr. B. that we spend our nation's treasure on extending each and every person's life to its utmost limit, since denying them the needed medical care would be "killing the weak and innocent"?

In other words, are you valuing money over human life? I thought only greedy Republicans did that!

More to the point, do you want to live in a world where we snuff Grandpa to reduce Medicaid expenditures? Does your answer change if you are over age 70?

epoh:

"Are you suggesting Mr. B. that we spend our nation's treasure on extending each and every person's life to its utmost limit"

Spoken like a true eugenicist who understands all about arguments ad infinitum. Heck, no, we can't have all the burdensome, inconvenient and unproductive sucking away the national treasure, so let's get rid of them. All of them.

Three cheers for Rich. 'Bout time people started seriously calling BS on religious extremism in this country.

Winston:

I suspect the word "extremism" was redundant in that sentence.

Usually we don't attract this many liberal media supporters in a month.

Frank Rich is Maureen Dowd without the family that makes sense and without red hair.

Shel: "When Pat Buchanan says on Hardball"

What that demented anti-semite says on that idiots television show proves nada. Your other signs of the appocalypse are also wanting.