Ashcroft does not represent hate, bigotry
Chris Plumblee
Student Columnist

> February 16, 2001

I was encouraged to see last week an erudite and scholarly response to my position that John Ashcroft has been unfairly maligned while performing his new job as the Attorney General of the United States. Ethan McLaughlin, your position is impressive and, because your examples are well chosen and logical, it is also hard to attack. I will try to do so anyway because I believe that your interpretation is biased and wrong, but I do wish to commend you beforehand.

Now on to the substance: John Ashcroft is a politician and a religious man. While he believes in the necessity of behaving in a manner consistent with the dictates of society, he also knows, as I do, that a strict Biblical interpretation can come into conflict with societal customs and laws. For instance, Bob Jones University is a private college in South Carolina concerned with turning out students who are “scripturally disciplined,” according to their mission statement. Because this college teaches and believes in Biblical principles, they come into conflict with societal principles on occasion. Interracial relationships are forbidden to the Israelites in the Old Testament, and are argued strongly against in the writings of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. Homosexuality is regarded as a sin and an abomination in the eyes of God in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy. The position of Bob Jones University, then, is not based on ignorance or prejudice against people, but against a practice. As Jesus encouraged his disciples to hate the sin but love the sinner, the policy of this university is to disapprove of the sin, but not make judgments on the sinners. This is not a bigoted statement, it is a Biblical statement, and his belief in the Bible should not be the cause of him being deemed unfit for his job.

As for his praising of Southern Partisan magazine, we must remember that there are faults in every character and that the Civil War was in the past. We cannot know the true circumstances that caused Ashcroft to endorse the magazine, but we do know that he is now bound by law to enforce the laws, even those he disagrees with. A case can be made for their points, and it is narrow-minded of anyone to disparage them merely because they believe something that is contrary to what you believe. Slavery is anathema to people today, be they red, yellow, black or white and often people who speak of it in any way not consistent to what we believe as a society is labeled as racist. I do not personally believe that slavery was good for the slaves, and I feel that the assassination of President Lincoln was a great tragedy for the country of that time. Lincoln also said things, however, that people would disagree with. The case can be made by a scholar of the Civil War that the war was less about slavery and more about the willingness to have laws at the state level dictated by the national government. True, the greatest external difference between the North and the South was slavery, but the greatest economic differences lay in the differences between an agricultural lifestyle and an industrial lifestyle. The agricultural lifestyle of the south was largely one of small farms run by families with no slaves. The tiniest of minorities actually owned slaves, and that minority was slowly getting smaller as people like Robert E. Lee freed the slaves they owned. The end of the war brought about emancipation for the entire slave population, but neither side particularly wanted to bring this about. Abraham Lincoln once said:

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”

Obviously then, the Civil War was not so much about slavery, and John Ashcroft could have chosen personal admiration for the publisher of the magazine, misguided belief that Southern Partisan held different beliefs than had been demonstrated, or any one of a host of other possible reasons for his endorsement. There are many potential slips to unearth in any candidate’s past, and this is merely one such slip, no worse than some made by liberals in campaigns past.

I know that your appetite is whetted by the previous sentence, so I will share this as well. When Al Gore ran for president, he received funds from Larry Flynt, a person who also publishes a magazine, albeit one slightly more famous than Southern Partisan. His magazine is called Hustler, and it is fond of showing women in various stages of undress engaging in acts simulating sex with partners of various sexes. I find his endorsement of Al Gore to be at least as distasteful as John Ashcroft’s endorsement of Southern Partisan, perhaps more so because Flynt actually backed up his endorsement with cash. The moral positions of his magazine are distasteful and degrading to women in general, and yet his support of Al Gore and the Democratic Party is largely ignored. Now, I do not want it to be said that I am an advocate of censorship in any form. While I personally do not choose to partake of his wares, I do not seek to have his rights cut off because I do not agree with him.

What I do find disturbing is that he can contribute to Al Gore’s campaign for president and endorse Al Gore in his magazine, and this is not seen as harmful. However, when another magazine with a totally different focus receives an endorsement in the form of an interview from a candidate, it is seen as making him a bigot and unfit to hold office. It is not suggested that Al Gore thinks of women as sex objects, but it is implied that John Ashcroft believes black people are inferior. Why is there a difference? Why is one person maligned as intolerant while another is seen as virtuous?