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.
That’s Nuevo Laredo. Been there, but didn’t done that.
Chuckling.
@NickS
No, this Boys Town is just over the border from Laredo and full of senoritas.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
That gave my old man some comfort.
@Annie
Well, as far as my last boyfriend, I was not real good at reading him either, but I was darn good at reading his email! LOL! Here is a poem I wrote about him a few years ago:
How Deep Is Your Love
A Poem by Squeeky Fromm
I wondered how deep your love.
No way to measure I could think of.
And with your soft caress,
No way that I could guess.
Tender words so warm and sweet?
A Masquerade for your deceit.
Now I know, in emptiness,
About six inches, more or less.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky, So he hit from both sides of the plate? If it was gay porn I doubt ANY dude shares that w/ a girlfriend. Boys Town is what “the gays” call their section in Chicago on the northside. When my sister moved to Chicago from New Haven my old man was worried. But, my sister serendipitously ended up living in Boy’s Town. She was not a person of interest for any dude within a 15 block radius.
Squeeky but but but dontcha know some folks here got the inside scoop, they can “read” people, LMAO!
@NickS
He wasn’t honest. I caught the little SOB planning to sneak off down to Boys Town on a businesstrip. That is why his stuff ended up on the curb in garbage bags. Perhaps if had kept his mind out of the gutter, I would have had to find another excuse to get rid of him.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeekers,
That ones about you right? LOL! it’s great!
@Annie
I had already written it when I read your comment about using provincial in the title. Sooo, I did one of those, too! For the title I used a word play on provencal or provencale, which is a cooking term for when you use tomatoes, olive oil, and either onions or garlic.
Proven Callous???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once was a girl quite provincial.
In affairs of the heart, real prudential.
And in bed she eschewed
Anything weird or lewd,
And only did what was essential.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky, I can dish it and take it. Great poem. Now I’m going to divulge something that will maybe get me drummed out of the man union. You know your boyfriend who loved porn. Well, he was your honest boyfriend. All your other boyfriends, brothers, uncles, cousins, butchers, plumbers, etc. also love porn. They just weren’t as forthcoming about it. Virtually all dudes have a porn stash.
mark, Andrea Dworkin!! Say no more. Thanks.
It’s darling Squeeky, lol.
@Annie
OK! An Irish Poem! I hope you like it!
Off Key???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once were some guys who loved porn!
And playing solo with their horn.
But, they often went flat,
Though, they spit and they spat,
Sooo, they sat there, just looking forlorn.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@Squeeky
Great limerick!
I’m ambivalent about porn. I’ve read studies claiming porn actually reduces actual violence, then other studies claiming it increases it. I imagine each side of the argument funds their own studies.
I’ve watched porn that was supposedly marketed “for ladies” and found it hysterically funny, as I found however many shades of gray.
I however, was staunchly on Larry Flynt’s side in the lawsuit with Jerry Falwell, and loved the ruling from the Supreme Court. Of course, that was about a cartoon, albeit a nasty one. Still, it was about free speech, which I suppose is what Flynt’s magazines and porn movies are all about. I don’t think any of it rises to the level of “shouting fire in a crowded theater”. I also imagine that there are more viewers than we know, even if they do buy Playboy for the articles, which, by the way, ARE excellent. My brother-in-law used to get the magazine. Porn has been around a long, long time, and I doubt it will ever be legislated away. That would be as successful as Prohibition.
OMG, it just dawned on me this is a religion thread. Oops.
“Provincial Bukkake”?
Nick: Actually, pretty much nobody writes complaining about my articles on avn.com, although I do have one correspondent who thinks I’d make my points better if I didn’t call some people (who well deserve it) nasty names.
Title it something, something, ‘Provincial’. Pleeeeese?
Those wishing to learn the truth about Linda Lovelace can find it in a couple of places: The documentary Inside Deep Throat (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418753/?ref_=fn_al_tt_5) and Eric Danville’s blog and biography The Complete Linda Lovelace (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Linda-Lovelace-Eric-Danville/dp/0985973307/ref=sr_1_1) wherein he discusses the pressures put on Linda (Boreman) Lovelace by anti-porn feminists to write her two books—and which fail to note that, in the months before her death in a motor vehicle accident, she was making plans to return to the adult industry.
Squeekers, you MUST do an Irish Poem about this.