Monday, February 09, 2015

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 2/6/2015

"Shields and Brooks on the politics of vaccination, using religion to justify evil acts" PBS NewsHour 2/6/2015

Excerpts

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the latest acts of terror by Islamic State, a speech by President Obama on the way religion, including Christianity, has been used to justify violence, and why some Republican politicians spoke against mandating vaccination in the wake of a measles outbreak.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  I want to ask quickly both of you about what the president said at this prayer breakfast yesterday, got a lot of attention.  He was attempting to talk about — saying that terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity, in the name of all religions, including Christianity, David.

And he talked about the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, slavery.  Republicans jumped on this and said false equivalency, you should be focusing on what extreme Muslims are doing today, and not talking about Christianity.

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times columnist:  I think, if the President had come as an atheist to attack religion and to attack Christianity, the Republicans would have a point.  That’s not what a president should be doing.

But that’s not how he came.  He has used that prayer breakfast year after year to talk about his own faith, his own faith journey, his own struggles.  He’s used it — he has come as a Christian.  And the things he said were things — I have never met a Christian who disagreed with what he issued, that the religion has been perverted, that we have to walk humbly before the face of the lord, that God’s purposes are mysterious to us.

This is not like some tangential, weird belief.  This is at the core of every Christian’s faith and every Jew’s faith.  And so what he said was utterly normal and admirable and a recognition of historical fact and an urge towards some humility.  And so I thought the protests were manufactured and falsely manufactured.

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist:  The Bible says, slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling.  That was used by slaveholders and by the defenders of slavery in this country.  They quoted the Bible, and that terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity.

The Crusades are hardly one of the proudest chapters of Christianity.  But I think what the President said is accurate.  I do think that he’s been somewhat reluctant to acknowledge and admit and confront that this is an Islamic terrorist, that it is a perversion and to address that.

But I thought the response — I mean, these are the same people who are constantly criticizing the Islamic State people for not joining in the coalition, and saying you have got to condemn them.  I just thought that it was over the top and undeserved.

-----

MARK SHIELDS:  Judy, there’s a rhetoric in this country.  It’s been on the ascent for almost a generation or more.  And that is individual freedom, government interference, stay out of our lives, leave us alone, anything from Washington, you have to oppose, a federal mandate.

And, you know, that has become the rhetoric.  And that was their response.  The reality is quite simple.  Americans do feel that the government is a pain in the neck and too much red tape and keep them out of their lives.  But a trace of botulism found in one can of tuna fish outside of Pocatello, Idaho, and the universal American reaction is, where the hell is the federal government?   I want a report in my office in 24 hours, or heads will roll.

We want a small, effective, efficient federal government on our side 24 hours a day, cheap.  In 1988, there were 350,000 cases of polio in this world.  In 2012, there were 213.  That’s because of vaccination.  That’s because of Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin and the federal government and the public — public effort in health.

And that to me is — this is the reality. It’s beyond ideology.  They were slaves to ideology.  And Christie hasn’t — just doesn’t have his footing.  With Paul, it’s sort of an excess of where he comes from and where he treads and what he believes.  But I think Christie comes off even worse than Paul or anybody else.

No comments: