By Dave Andrusko

When you read as much commentary as I do, after a while you realize there are certain certainties which are as unshakable as the law of gravity. For example, while there may be an exception someplace in a parallel universe, in this space-time continuum you know that anytime someone starts bemoaning [whatever it is], by the end of the piece they are likely to be up to their eyeballs in the very behavior they are haughtily condemning.

Prof. David Gushee

The title given to David Gushee's op-ed in yesterday's USA Today is, "What Roe started." Does Gushee mean by that the slaughter of over 50 million unborn babies or the spillover effect which opened the door to lethal assaults on babies born with imperfections and the medically dependent elderly?

Nothing so mundane. The subhead accurately summarizes his conclusion: "After the 1973 [Roe v. Wade] court ruling, the battle lines in this country's culture wars were drawn, setting the stage for the demonization we're witnessing today."

He offers a nod to the usual suspects–-cable news/ 24 hour day news coverage, more safe congressional districts, leading to his conclusion that "Incendiary rhetoric carries the day." But the REAL cause?

"[I] suspect it was the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision and the ensuing religious mobilization into political combat that have made the greatest difference," writes Gushee, who is distinguished professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University, president of Evangelicals for Human Rights, and an apologist of some considerable sophistication for pro-abortion President Barack Obama.

You really don't have to read any further. Despite his credentials in the Christian community, rare is the occasion when "religious mobilization" is not a code word for something bad-to-awful (unless it is, of course, the heightened activity of the so-called "Religious Left").

Verbal tit for tat ensued, according to Gushee, and "If abortion was the seed, the fruit has blossomed with many other issues -- everything from gay rights to immigration to energy policy has become fair game not just for debate, but also for the routine reliance on demonization."

Two things. Actually I can think of about 40 but I wouldn't want to demonize a man who has spent so much time telling Christians it was perfectly acceptable to vote for a man who would be the most pro-abortion President in our history.

First, a major reason pro-lifers react with passion–-as opposed to vitriol, by the way–-shows up in his next sentence: they meet with a reflexive dishonesty. "The pattern remains most obvious," Gushee tells us, "whenever anything related to abortion is under consideration -- as with health care reform, in which abortion has played a supporting role in the debate despite the efforts of most Democratic leaders to keep the legislation abortion-neutral."

This is not only wildly inaccurate, as in 180 degrees from the truth, it also treats pro-lifers as if they are blithering idiots. Worse yet, if political dialogue is to be elevated, a goal to which we all aspire, it is impossible if Obama and his pro-abortion Democratic allies blithely say black is white, up is down, and abortion-promotion is abortion-neutrality.

Second, just before he lowers the hammer, Gushee offers the usual pro-forma modesty. He tells us that he knows he is a sinner, too. I just wish Gushee would have re-read his essay in the light of that conclusion before he pushed the "send" key.

A couple paragraphs down he lights the rhetorical after-burners. You can't tell if he thinks Christians are just stupid or so caught up in believing they are "the good" (his phrase) that they are eagerly peering over the precipice. But in either case, he comes dangerously close to invoking the vicious language that haters of conservative Christians love most to employ.

"Reading history and looking around the world, it is abundantly clear that the democracy we have here in America is a huge achievement in human civilization," he intones, as if this is a special revelation to the distinguished professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University. "Christians need to celebrate this achievement rather than toying with language that comes right up to or over the threshold of endorsing violence. To play with fire in this way is unconscionable."

American Taliban, anyone?

I could not agree more that character assassination has no place in the public square. I also don't think that just because Obama is going through a rough patch of water, it is acceptable for Gushee, or any other Obama apologist, to impugn the motives and commitment to democracy of those who disagree with the President.

That would be demonization.

Any thoughts you have on Part One or Part Two, please send them to daveandrusko@gmail.com.