Brad Pitt’s Mom Won’t Be Bullied Into Accepting Liberal Hollywood Politics
Â Some liberals are outraged that Brad Pitt‘s mother has her own political views and that she doesn’t march in lock-step with liberal Hollywood. Yes, people who probably think they support diversity and tolerance are hopping mad that Jane Pitt is more like an average American than the average Hollywood celebrity.
Not only did she never participate in an “I pledge allegiance to Barack Obama” video, she isn’t even going to vote for him this year! Can you imagine?
Gawker and The Hollywood Reporter chastised Pitt for writing — you may want to sit down for this — a letter to the editor. Can you imagine the gall? An American citizen expressing her views on an issue of importance to her? It’s amazing that’s still legal. Gawker characterized her letter as a “crazy person letter.” How crazy is it? Well, it’s not crazy at all. Let’s go paragraph by paragraph:
I have given much thought to Richard Stoeckerâ€™s letter (â€œVote for Mormon against beliefs,â€June 15). I am also a Christian and differ with the Mormon religion.
OK. So Richard Stoecker’s letter is a plea that Christians who won’t vote for a Mormon because of their religious differences not be derided as bigots. Pitt says she’s given his letter much thought (not crazy). She says she is also a Christian (not crazy) and she says she differs with Mormonism (not crazy). Mitt Romney himself gave a speech to evangelical Christians in May where he said â€œPeople of different faiths, like yours and mine, sometimes wonder where we can meet in common purpose, when there are so many differences in creed and theology.” Anyone who knows anything about religion knows that traditional Christian beliefs are different than Mormon beliefs.
But I think any Christian should spend much time in prayer before refusing to vote for a family man with high morals, business experience, who is against abortion, and shares Christian conviction concerning homosexuality just because he is a Mormon.
So she’s suggesting — if you can imagine — that Christians who care about family values, business experience, not killing unborn children and the sanctity of marriage should feel free to vote for someone who is Mormon. She’s right. They should absolutely feel free to do that. Not crazy. I mean, you may think it’s cool to have legalized abortion or want to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions or other family arrangements. But no matter how much you want to redefine marriage or support legalized abortion, you can’t pretend that being pro-life or supporting the idea that marriage is a procreative union, based on gender complementarity, is “crazy.” At least if you want the term “crazy” to have any meaning or if you want to be even mildly respectful of differing political views, mildly tolerant or mildly civil.
Any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romneyâ€™s opponent, Barack Hussein Obama â€” a man who sat in Jeremiah Wrightâ€™s church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.
OK, so is the problem that she called Obama by his given name? Don’t worry, he calls himself that all the time. I’m sure we can all survive her giving of the full name. And it’s true: he did sit in Wright’s church for many years. And in that church he also heard many things that aren’t traditional in terms of Christianity (do you see her point about how both candidates have religious views somewhat outside the mainstream?). I happen to think that Obama’s decision not to hold a ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer is awesome but, then again, I’m on record as being fully opposed to civil religion in most forms (I’m so old, I remember when liberals joined me in disliking civil religion — here is this month’s cover of The Advocate, headlined “In Obama We Trust.” Can you imagine how much the elite would mock a cover saying, e.g., “In Bush We Trust”?). Anyway, she also characterizes Obama as a liberal who supports killing unborn children and same-sex marriage. While people who support keeping abortion on demand legal might not want it pointed out that the practice ends the lives of unborn human beings, it’s certainly well within the bounds of acceptable discourse to advocate against the practice using such terms.
Maybe we are supposed to believe her last paragraph is where the crazy comes out:
I hope all Christians give their vote prayerful consideration because voting is a sacred privilege and a serious responsibility.
Nope. But apparently some people are in such bubbles that they can’t even live comfortably in a world with people who have different political beliefs.
But I say good for Mrs. Pitt for not being bullied into submission by elites in Hollywood and the media. And if you don’t know anyone whose views differ from your own, get out more. And learn how to be civil with them. It can start with family members but should extend far beyond that. It won’t kill you. You may even learn something when you are open to hearing what other people believe and why.