By Mike Appleton, Weekend Contributor
“All governments are theocracies. We now live in a secular humanist theocracy. I want to change that to a government with God at its head.”
-Gary DeMar (quoted in John Sugg, “A Nation Under God,” Mother Jones (December, 2005)
When I started first grade in 1951, each school day began with the Pledge of Allegiance. We recited “one nation, indivisible,” because people understood that fidelity to one’s country is not a religious virtue. The National Prayer Breakfast was not on anyone’s calendar because it didn’t exist. Politicians felt no compulsion to invoke God’s blessings on the United States at the conclusion of every speech. Protestants opposed every effort to secure public funding of Catholic parochial schools in order to preserve the “wall of separation” between church and state. The corner grocer didn’t care whether a customer was gay or had been born again. Textbooks were not reviewed by religious committees for conformity with the King James Version. No serious person had yet suggested that insentient, artificial commercial entities could magically channel the religious beliefs of their shareholders. And no one complained that a war was being waged against religion.
But following some of the events at this year’s Values Voter Summit, I have become nostalgic for 1951.
The Summit is the premiere annual political event for conservative Christian evangelicals, and making an appearance has become almost a required pilgrimage for Republican presidential candidates who desire the support of the religious right base of the party. Those in attendance this year heard many of the usual rants against same-sex marriage, abortion and the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act. However, those concerns did not top the priority list. Instead, a 39% plurality of those polled at the conference believe that the most important issue facing the country today is religious liberty.
So how is this possible? The past 30 years have seen an explosion in government support of religion. Millions of dollars in public funds are provided to a variety of so-called “faith-based” programs. Taxpayers support charter schools with decidedly sectarian curricula all across the country. A number of states provide tax credits to enable parents to send their children to religious schools. Religious institutions and, after Hobby Lobby, for-profit businesses as well, have been granted exemptions from compliance with portions of the ACA. This is in addition to the exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation which religious institutions already enjoy in their hiring and firing practices. Religious groups distribute bibles in public schools and operate after-school programs on school property to proselytize grammar school children. The Town of Greece decision now permits governments to schedule ceremonial prayer in accordance with local majoritarian religious preferences. Most rational people would agree that freedom of religion and religious expression are hardly at risk.
The comments of several of the event speakers may furnish us a clue. Kelly Shackelford of the Liberty Institute repeated the false story of the child disciplined for saying grace before eating her lunch. Michele Bachmann reminded the audience that the battle against Islamic terrorism is “spiritual warfare.” Gary Bauer accused President Obama of protecting Muslims while ignoring the persecution of Christians in the Middle East. Jason and David Benham, whose proposed television program on HGTV was cancelled after revelations of their virulently anti-gay activities, compared themselves to victims of ISIS, silenced for their Christian beliefs. And Sen. Ted Cruz, who for the second year in a row won the presidential straw poll, intoned “We need a president who will speak out for people of faith, for prisoners of conscience.” So for the attendees at the Values Voter Summit, there is indeed a war on Christianity. It is being waged by Muslims and by those who object to intolerance.
But the whole story is really darker. When members of the Christian right speak of freedom of religion, what they mean is freedom for a particular brand of conservative Christianity. Tony Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council, the principal sponsor of the annual Summit. He is neither a legal scholar nor a theologian, but that does not matter. In Mr. Perkins’ view, religious freedom does not apply to Islam. It also does not apply to Christians who support gay rights. In fact, religious liberty is reserved solely for those holding “orthodox religious viewpoints. It has to have a track record, it has to come forth from religious orthodoxy.” Mr. Perkins’ First Amendment does not compel government neutrality toward religion; it requires preferential treatment for those Christian sects whose doctrines adhere to Mr, Perkins’ notion of orthodoxy. He is a theocratic dominionist in religious liberty’s clothing.
And that, in a nutshell, is what the war on religion in America is all about. It is a war declared by Christian fundamentalists on all religious traditions deemed non-conforming. The goal is a society in which separation of church and state is eliminated and religious pluralism rejected as unbiblical. Ted Cruz is merely the latest last hope for the hapless.
Excellent article. I couldn’t agree more with what you wrote, Mike.
Comment appeared then disappeared?
Another point is that evangelicals don’t speak for all Christians, although they claim to. For example, Presbyterians don’t always agree with Baptists and don’t like Baptists claiming to represent their views of religion.
Some Christian denominations respect other Christians and don’t try impose their beliefs onto other Christian denominations – these “live and let live” denominations aren’t always the loudest voices claiming to represent Christians like evangelicals claim to do.
The old “love thy neighbor” with the follow up “who is my neighbor” routine.
These types of “citizen committees” (“values voters”) and the like have been around for decades (How the Government and Private Elites Have Teamed Up for Decades to Astroturf America).
Mike’s post is timely because the elites are scared and mad … as in “nuts.”
What if each day the school required students to learn a different prayer or hear from an atheist?
On Mondays kids would say a Muslim prayer, Tuesday kids would say a Jewish prayer, Wednesday a Christian prayer, Thursday a Native American prayer, Friday a Hawaiian prayer. The next week they would pray to Alaskan Eskimo gods and learn about atheists.
Many parents may object to their teachers imposing other religions (or non-religion) on their young children. A moment of silence to worship as you please respects every student’s religion and offends nobody.
Religious organizations should not be allowed to receive public funding, tax exemptions nor should they be permitted to claim exemptions from other generally applicable laws like labor laws, nondiscrimination laws, to name a few. Being allowed to do so is not religious liberty it is religious privilege.
Justice Holmes, I retrieved your comment at 6:10.
“In Mr. Perkins’ view, religious freedom does not apply to Islam.” Link please? Are you referring to this?
http://www.frc.org/issueanalysis/islam-shariah-law-and-the-american-constitution
in which his group opposes Shariah law but supports religious freedom?
“In fact, religious liberty is reserved solely for those holding “orthodox religious viewpoints. It has to have a track record, it has to come forth from religious orthodoxy.” Mr. Perkins’ First Amendment does not compel government neutrality toward religion; it requires preferential treatment for those Christian sects whose doctrines adhere to Mr, Perkins’ notion of orthodoxy”
I believe Perkins was responding to a question about the case in North Carolina where some were making the claim that their religious freedom was being infringed in not allowing gay marriage. Perkins is not demanding adherence to HIS notion of orthodoxy. He is asserting that for the past 2,000 years no mainstream element of Christianity has supported gay marriage. It is foreign to the historic Christian faith so to claim a sudden Christian religious demand is novel, spurious, and simply a political stunt. He is correct on that point. The Law does not instantly grant religious freedom to everyone who dons a tin foil hat and claims the gods have spoken to them often done for financial gain or for political gain as in that case.
Some political candidates at that summit are no doubt looking simply for personal gain. It is politics. I believe the left does that as well. To suggest however their is no substance, no legitimate concern felt by many that religious freedom is at risk is false. Many there see the left hook in the air–the punch called gay marriage.
Which is likely to begin impacting the face after the next Court term when many expect Kennedy to complete his Windsor decision and mandate a one size fits all policy.
This contest between religious freedom and gay marriage has been anticipated for some time by skilled observers. The conflict which will ensue will potentially negatively affect religious freedom in the following areas:
Commercial licensing
Professional licensing
Public funding
College admissions
housing laws
Public accommodations laws
religious clubs
employment
access to public property
Professional practices
tax exemption
Do I need to go on?
The assertion that religious freedom is at risk is absolutely NOT a myth.
Do not believe Eleazer Bryan? let me add a tad bit of weight.
Six years ago a book was written called “Same-sex Marriage and Religious Liberty” in which a number of legal scholars wrote in detail about this very risk. I would recommend picking the book up. You would recognize a number of those discussing the risks to religious liberty and where the proper balance should be.
One name in particular just might ring a bell.
Jonathan Turley.
Good post, Mike, but I don’t believe it’s going to go over well with the PC crowd around here.
Excellent points professors. I listened and debated as a caller on the radio with the religious nutjob, Bryan Fischer, who stated the belief that the free exercise of religion does not cover Muslims, Satanists (such as in Oklahoma) or anyone else, but Christians. Why the Founding Fathers didn’t write than in to the Constitution, he did not say. How can they talk about religious freedom, when it only means for people who believe like they do? They really do want, to a large extent, a form of Christian theocracy. It’s not hyperbole.
Mike did not attack Christianity! What he “attacked” or criticized are those who would use religion to order other humans lives while taking their tax dollars. I agree Right wing theocratic Christians use the language of liberty in order to run rough shod over the beleifs of others. They yearn for the day that the preachers run the city, the state and the world. (Of course they want it to be their preachers and their brand of Chritianity.) They want to run this country and amass as many privileges as possible relegating others in the position of second class citizens who can be forced to fork of over the dollars to support religious schools. Theocratic Christians would be unlikely to view Christ favorably. Their”Christianity” has little to do with Christ and everything to do with temporal power and money.
We need look only to the MIDDLE EAST to see the results of theocratic rule but if one needs to see what theocratic Christians do when they are
In power we need only to read about Europe’s Thirty Years war. Death and destruction.
Christians are being persecuted by Muslim theocrats in the ME who want to rule their lives or take them. Is this really what we want in the US? Thanks the Mike A. for a thought providing article.
Government neutrality protects religious liberty. If Congress and the American Public could understand only that, we’d all be better off.
I abhor all religions while defending the right of each individual to practice any nonsensical myth he or she wishes. So long as those beliefs are not imposed upon me or anyone else, so long as my right to criticize those beliefs similarly are defended, and so long as those beliefs, including mine, are not subsidized by taxpayer money.
Many thanks for this article.
I started first grade in 1952 in Texas! You can just imagine. Each school day for years to come began with a prayer that was blasted over the loud speaker. And it was always a sectarian prayer, i.e. it always ended with, “This we ask in the name of Jesus Christ, Our Lord.”
Well, Jesus Christ was never my “lord,” and, even at the tender age of six, I strongly rebelled against having to listen to that concluding line. A nonsectarian prayer would not have bothered me. But don’t kid yourself: If the Maniacal Right ever succeeds in putting prayer back into our schools, it will be sectarian; in other words, it will be a fundamentalist Christian prayer.
For the life of me, I fail to understand why people like Ted Cruz, Michele Bachmann, Bill O’Reilly, and the rest of what I call “The Idiot Brigade,” are so insistent in foisting their particular brand of religion on everyone else. They can pray every day if they want, either at home or in church. They can pray morning, noon, and night if they wish.
But that doesn’t satisfy them. They want to force everyone on the planet to believe as they do, and then they have the unmitigated gall to turn around and call that “religious freedom?” Their “crusade” to turn this country into a “Christian Nation,” notwithstanding the clarity with which the Founders spoke when they put real religious freedom in our very First Amendment, is one of a myriad of illustrations of the abject dishonesty that is the Christian Right’s life’s blood.
Their concept of “religious freedom” is roughly equivalent to their definition of climate change: The best way to protect the planet from man-made changes in the atmosphere is to remove all the government restrictions on oil companies.
People may have been facetious several years ago when they equated our Religious Right to Afghanistan’s Taliban. But that analogy is far too true to be funny. The religious zealots in this country present a much more serious threat to our way of life than ISIS does because ISIS is a foreign entity, and the United States always defeats our foreign enemies.
But threats from within are far more dangerous, and the Tony Perkins, James Dobsons, Sarah Palins, and Rick Santorums of the world, and all the multimillionaires and billionaires who fund them, are every bit as insistent on dragging the world back to the 16th century as ISIS is.
“every bit as insistent on dragging the world back to the 16th century as ISIS is.”
You are far too generous. Dragging the world back to the dark ages is more like it.
Paul –
Mike should be “ashamed” for attacking Christianity? Would you have written that if his post had been about Islam? What about Judaism? I’m sorry, but I, for one, am glad that your childhood of a public prayer at school didn’t happen when I started first grade in 1956, at least not in my school district. Perhaps it was because we had a large, although not majority, Jewish population. Should I now have to bow down to majority Christians when I didn’t in 1956? I’m sorry, but that was an awfully arrogant post. Despite what you, or David in other threads have wanted to suggest, this is a secular nation. No mention of God appears in the Constitution, nor should it. I’m sorry if your majority is in such jeopardy, but if so, feel free to join in. The rest of us have felt like that for a long, long time, and I always thought that we were protected from the tyranny of the majority in this country.
Stuck in spam…
All fundamentalists need to familiarize themselves with the history and nature of their schism’s founder. That can truly be the Revelation.
” When ‘we’ were in school Christianity surrounded us. Now is it having to defend itself. And you should be ashamed of attacking it, regardless of your motives.”
I think I have to disagree. In my state the law required the reading of 10 bible verses at the beginning of every school day. The common practice was to rotate the reading of the bible and leading the recitation of the lord’s prayer among the students. Our classes were over crowded with 30 or more students. Just about every 6 weeks it was my duty to read from the bible and lead the prayer.
I can’t tell you how uncomfortable that made me.
My guess is that your religion is a resource to you. That is fine. I have no quarrel with that. But you have no right to force you religion on anyone else.
Let school children and all users of government facilities do so without having to recognize the religion of others. Keeping religion out of government is one simple way to assure that we all have freedom to pursue the word view that guides our actions and gives us strength and comfort in our time of trial.
I am amazed and appalled when others think that they have a right to force their religious view on others.
Follow
It would be refreshing to see political candidates successfully break the chains of special interests wanting government and the people conforming to their own wishes.
Some individuals should learn to leave others alone.
Whether it be this religious breakfast club, democrats, prohibitionists, or whatever the professed platform is the methodology of petty tyrants. It is of the same framework and just as discriminatory.
It’s sad when everything that someone does not like becomes the poster board for the next level of attack….. Extremism at any level is bad… Unfortunately the Sct has forgotten what balance means. The tip the scale to the highest bidder forgetting that the minority opinion is just as valuable and insightful as the majority….
Great article Mike, I appreciate your learned experience.
Mike – I started school at the same time you did and my public school started with a public prayer every day. Those of us who were Catholic were allowed (actually freed) to go into the hall and wait until the prayer was over. When ‘we’ were in school Christianity surrounded us. Now is it having to defend itself. And you should be ashamed of attacking it, regardless of your motives.