Reaktioner efter Bushs valseger

Den amerikanska (vad annars?) bloggen GetReligion beskrev igår några av kommentarerna efter valframgången för Bush. En kolumnist i New York Times skriver om att han och presidenten inte bara är oense om riktningen framåt utan också om vad USA egentligen är. Han skriver:

Is it a country that does not intrude into people’s sexual preferences and the marriage unions they want to make? Is it a country that allows a woman to have control over her body? Is it a country where the line between church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be inviolate? Is it a country where religion doesn’t trump science?

Douglas LeBlanc på GetReligion skriver att man istället för att gå i svaromål på alla dessa punkter lika gärna kan vända på resonemanget och komma med en motfråga:

Is it a country that preserves its historic definition of marriage, just as it did in rejecting polygamy? Is it a country that protects human life? Is it a country that cherishes religious freedom, including free-speech rights? Is it a country that recognizes the importance of both religion and science?

Bra jobbat! Det gäller att gå på offensiven och inte underordna sig motståndarens världsbild. Något att lära av.

En annan skribent på samma sajt skriver om en dialog han haft med en amerikansk journalist om ordet homofobi. Han skickar journalisten några frågor:

Q: How are you defining ”homophobia”? Normally, this means hatred of homosexuals. You seem to be defining it more broadly, as simply opposition to homosexuality itself (even among people whose personal behavior toward gays, lesbians and bisexuals might be quite tolerant). Are you saying that any public opposition to changing the basic definition of marriage and family taught — as you note — by the major world religions automatically equals vile, even sinful, hatred?

Q: If your new definition of ”homophobia” catches on as the norm in mainstream media (if it has not already), what is the implication of this for the American model of the press, in terms of accurate and fair press coverage of the traditional and progressive sides of this debate? Is getting an accurate, fair report on this sexual revolution issue going to become an event as rare as, let’s say, a fair and accurate Focus on the Family documentary about the life and times of Elton John?

Återigen, detta är något att lära sig av. Läs och lär av GetReligion.