Free Speech, Politics, Religion

Religious Freedom and the Values Voter Summit

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.

389 thoughts on “Religious Freedom and the Values Voter Summit”

  1. A close friend of mine once said:

    “There is pornography and there is evidence.”

    It’s either one or the other in my view.

  2. Thanks for your candor, Squeeky. Any other amendments you care to shred?

  3. “Allow me to congratulate you for not being in a position where you have to choose between buying a month’s worth of birth control pills”

    Allow me to congratulate you on your fabulous ESP and Amazing Kreskin like abilities to know what my life has been like. Yes. You are absolutely right. It has always been a bed of roses. Everything I have ever wanted has been handed to me on a silver platter. /sarcasm

    You used Hobby Lobby as an example. If a person works for Hobby Lobby they are covered for many types of birth control. And if they buy it from WalMart it is about $9 a month. SO don’t try to use that sad excuse.

    You also act like there are no other choices between not eating and buying birth control. I can think of several other choices to avoid unwanted pregnancies, some that have been used for hundreds if not thousands of years 😉 It is called prioritizing your life. Try it sometime.

    If you are truly destitute Planned Parenthood and other sources are available.

  4. Squeeky, I wonder if pot smoking and porn watching go hand in hand…so to speak.

  5. NickS

    Heck yes, if I had the power, I would ban porn. That crap has nothing to do with free speech. All it does is provide fodder for perverts while degrading and dehumanizing women. None of which is necessary for a free society to work.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky: “Heck yes, if I had the power, I would ban porn. That crap has nothing to do with free speech.”

      Perhaps you could point out to me in either of the following quotes just where sexual speech (“porn”) is exempted from constitutional “free seech” protection?:

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      And

      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

  7. @Annie

    Yes, Annie, when we poke fun at porn addicts and dirty old men, we are hitting a raw nerve. Speaking of raw. . .

    Rubber Rooms???
    An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm

    Twas the worse case that you ever saw,
    This poor guy with his obsessive flaw!
    It appears that the stupe,
    Set his porn flick on loop
    Twelve hours later he’d rubbed himself raw.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  9. Oh gosh it looks like those some of those emoticons aren’t working today. 🙁

    That “XO” should be a smiley face laughing with tears coming out of it’s eyes, not a kiss and hug. I don’t know you well enough for that Mark!

  10. MarkK, I guess someone thinks you don’t have a mind of your own and must be told how to conduct your verbal ‘intercourse’ in the comments section. XO

  12. Squeeky “Carrie Nation” Fromme, let me ask you a question. Your derision for porn is duly noted. Do you see the First Amendment issues guys like Mark have to deal w/? People who want to ban pornography? Do you want to ban pornography?

  13. Ooooo, better yet, “Evil and Naughty Middle School Girls”. Can I get a job naming porn movies Mark? Maybe you could put in a good word for me?

  14. MarkK, you’re a real honey for putting up with us naughty “middle school” girls. Yikes, that sounds like it could be a title for a porn film! 😉

    (Cuz a porn discussion must be conducted with the utmost seriousness a all times! Don’tcha know?)

  15. @Annie

    I am worse than evil. I am a realist. All this OCD crap is just an excuse for moral deficiencies. Some people just have their minds in the gutter, and have convinced themselves that is just peachy.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  16. And Mark, you are a patient man. We are having an intellectual discussion, and have a Middle School mentality among us, acting a fool. Ignoring is the best way to deal w/ her. Just sayn’.

  18. Mark, I have read your articles and I am impressed by your First Amendment creds. And, I COMPLETELY understand the battle you fight w/ religious right and feminist lefts. So, I know why you want to make the distinction that it is not the porn, but the OCD. The liquor industry had to fight the same coalition of religious right and the feminists of the day, trying to control men’s drinking during the Prohibition era. With your industry, these control freaks want to control sex and will crap on the First Amendment to do it. I read about Andrea Dworkin back in her hay days. What a b!tch! Here’s a difference between you and I, Mark. You seem to focus on the right wingers who are anti First Amendment and tend to shield the equally pernicious left wingers who are just as bad. I see that here, and also in your articles. I’m not saying you don’t point out the left wing First Amendment haters, you just don’t seem to be as enthusiastic about it. I find both evil.

    1. Nick wrote: “You seem to focus on the right wingers who are anti First Amendment and tend to shield the equally pernicious left wingers who are just as bad. I see that here, and also in your articles. I’m not saying you don’t point out the left wing First Amendment haters, you just don’t seem to be as enthusiastic about it. I find both evil.”

      Both groups are certainly misguided. I don’t generally describe them as “evil” because I consider that a religious term, but while there are sexually-repressive leftists as well, they are far outnumbered by the ones on the right, and those are the ones I tend to focus on. But when news of sexual/porn repression from the left comes to my attention, I do write about it.

Comments are closed.