The term “religious fanatic” has become the modern equivalent of a racial slur. It is the one label that can be utilized without discretion or public scrutiny. The people of faith that are identified by this term are maligned and identified with causes, religious and otherwise, to which they have no relation. All one need be guilty of is believing the things that have guided our national consciousness for more than two hundred years, and now you are considered a religious fanatic. If you believe things strongly and contend to see your ideas advanced and they are founded in a Christian world view, then you are to be considered dangerous and a threat to society. It appalling to realize that some consider themselves to be justified in linking the Christian people of this nation to the Muslim zealots in the Middle East. There are no parallels to be drawn. The strict Muslim mindset is to engage in Holy Jihad. Holy War. It demands the subjugation of people to Allah by force. There is no religious toleration, much less freedom, in Muslim countries. The strict Muslim embraces the eradication of the State of Israel and Christians. Where do we see this mindset in the Christian people of this country? It is not here. Yet we are more and more often being linked to that mindset as in Mr. Hood’s letter to the Editor (02/07/02). It is an attempt to identify the beliefs and attitudes of Christians with a mindset that is foreign to genuine Christianity in order to destroy their credibility. It is the ultimate in “straw men.” Our views are always extremist. Why is believing the life of the unborn should be protected extremist, and it is not extremist to believe it is appropriate to kill the unborn? Why is believing that it is appropriate to execute the violent criminal extremist, and it is not extremist to believe that they should be spared? Why is believing homosexuality is a perversion extremist, and it is not extremist to believe that it is normal? Why is believing in the legislating of morality extremist, and it is not extremist to believe in the protection of vice and immorality? The answer is clear. If you do not agree with their positions you are a religious extremist, a radical. The nomination and confirmation process of John Ashcroft provides the latest example of Christian bashing in this country. He was portrayed as an extremist by the likes of Ted Kennedy. Who can miss the irony in that? It did not matter that he is apparently a man of impeccable character and honor. It did not matter that he is a man of principle. What mattered is that he did not fit the ideology desired by the real extremist in our nation. They are afraid that he might look at the law according to his own well documented views. This would not have been a problem except that his views disagree with the real extremists. If the nominee had been for killing unborn children, legitimizing homosexuality, protecting and or promoting vice and immorality, restraining Christian influence in society, protecting the duly convicted murderer then they would not have been troubled by the nominee seeing the law according to his own views. Somehow there would have been nothing extreme in these views. We would have been told that he was a mainstream nominee. It is evident that Mr. Hood desires people of intense religious convictions to have no say in the direction of our nation, unless they agree with him. Is that not an extreme position? Surely he is not saying that there is no room in this country for people of strong religious convictions. That would seem to be very extreme. It appears that Mr. Hood would have us silenced not because of the color of our skin, or our ethnicity, or our cultural heritage but because of our religious views. Why would Mr. Hood lecture us about how dangerous it is to have religious fanatics in public service? It is easy enough to conclude that this is only true unless they are religiously fanatical in support of his extremist views. | 
