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”

  2. Annie, The war is coming here like it or not. The question is, how will we protect ourselves?

    1. Jim22 wrote: “The war is coming here like it or not. The question is, how will we protect ourselves?”

      No, the question is, IS “the war” actually coming here, or is it just another ploy by conservative religionists to foment just such a war? (Count me among such “believers.”) And the answer to your stated “question” so often is, sadly, “The 2nd amendment.”

  4. Yet you leave up the comment @11:00AM. Why? Amazing.

    Maybe the oft stated belief that “Those who deny history are doomed to repeat it,” fits here too. The 11:00AM comment presented a great opportunity to contrast and compare what went on in the Nov 3, 2013 thread with the tone present now with the civility rule in place.

    Boundaries first. When freedom and responsibility are held in balance, humor, honesty, safety and mutual relationship follow. The numbers don’t lie, neither does recorded blog history.

    As for everyone having opinions, YAY for that, along with the freedom to decide what matters and the responsibility to learn from history.

  6. That’s your opinion DBQ, just like noses we all have one. I think some others here disagree and their opinion actually matters to me.

  7. @ Annie

    David did not call anyone here “anti religious trolls”. Nor did he name any names. It seemed to me that he was remarking that this article would be bait for such trolls, and it may be so.

    If you want to self identify, then that is your prerogative.

  8. Jim 22, before you go down that road, the police stated that they believe the beheading was more a workplace issue and said they didn’t believe it was terrorism related. You can hype it all you like, or you can go out and round up Muslims, but I’d take the word of the people close to the scene.

  9. David, It is perfectly fine and legit to attack Christians. We don’t behead our co-workers like the peaceful religion does. Amazing not a peep about that on this site. Terrorism is here on our soil folks, we better get used to it. I’m not sure what the bigger story being ignored is, the beheading or the second amendment saving the second victims life?

  11. Let’s hear about that Constitutional Amendment officially recognizing God, David. I wonder how many here would be in favor of such an amendment? Remember once that door is opened it can never be closed again. Next up, Wiccans demanding a Constitutional Amendment recognizing Mother Nature?

  13. Justice Holmes, do you want to give tax exemptions only to scientific, literary, and educational institutions? What is your logic for discriminating against corporations that are religious?

  14. So, I wonder, does calling others here “anti-religious trolls” comport with the civility rules?

    1. My apologies, Annie. I did not realize that my phrase was offensive.

      It just seems strange to see a Christian stir up anti-religious sentiment. Never before in history has the U.S. government become so anti-religious, yet Mike Appleton makes it sound like the religious who object are inventing something new that did not exist before. He wrote, “It is a war declared by Christian fundamentalists on all religious traditions deemed non-conforming.”

      I am not a “Christian fundamentalist,” but I can readily see a problem, not only from the comments in this thread, but in a plethora of ACLU lawsuits aimed at establishing sectarian policies that favors only secularism and atheism in public education. Such is far removed from Thomas Jefferson’s vision for public education.

      When Jefferson established the University of Virginia, he provided a curriculum for establishing the proofs of the Creator that today would be grounds for an ACLU lawsuit. He invited all the religious sects to come to campus, and he gave away land to them. Such again would be considered grounds for an ACLU lawsuit against the university. This is from our President who coined the phrase, “wall of separation between church and State.” Yet Mike’s revisionism suggests that anyone wanting what Jefferson tried to create really want to eliminate the separation of church and State, and that they are against religious pluralism.

      1. By the way, David…put me down as one of those “anti-religious trolls”. I know what has been done in the name of religion, TO other religions. Count me out.

    2. “So, I wonder, does calling others here “anti-religious trolls” comport with the civility rules?”

      I may look like a troll, but I write from my own experience or what I have read.

      I am not against anyone’s religion. I am very much against anyone taking steps to impose their religion on me or anyone else.

      If religious enthusiast would keep their religion in their head, in their family, and in their church you would not hear a peep from me.

      The single best way to assure religious freedom for all of us is to keep it out of government.

      1. I so agree with you. I am not against religion, either. As a matter of fact, I come from a religious family, and while I am non-practicing, I have a lot of respect for their beliefs. My argument comes, primarily, from being a minority religion and seeing how the majority religion, although they are claiming persecution, seeks to invade all areas of public life. I feel I can make up my own mind when it comes to issues, I feel as if I’ve been instilled with a good moral code, and I don’t need to have others impose their beliefs on my life or on areas that affect my life. Although some believe this nation was conceived as a Christian nation, and the Liberty Institute would bolster that belief, I don’t have to buy into Christian beliefs. I should have that right as an American.

  15. Mike A, I do not understand your motivation to feed anti-religious trolls with cultural revisionism.

    Also, you may not want to trust the Huffington Post for your facts. Following is an article by Michael Berry, Esq., senior counsel at Liberty Institute, that disputes your assertion above about Kelly Shackelford repeating a false story:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/03/22/Liberty-Institutes-Kelly-Shackelford-attacked-by-huffpo-writer

  16. Maxcat, I think liberals may still be reading, but I see far less of them commenting in the last few months. It miss the weekend bloggers who posted such excellent articles fully researched and cited. When we get an outstanding article like this one, it’s a rare treat on the weekends. I’m wondering why so few weekend bloggers participate now? What happened? It surely wasn’t a change for the better.

    1. Annie, I think you know what the change was. It’s the same reason I stayed away for awhile. At first, as I wrote to you at the time, I thought I no longer had the stomach for it, as some of the responses did get to me, but then I realized that they weren’t upsetting to me as much as enraging. I’ve lived my life in full “acceptance” of the fact of my liberalism, I come from a New York Jewish liberal family who owned a business, worked hard, and cared for those less fortunate. My parents remembered their parents tales of life in tsarist Russia, and they themselves weren’t long removed from the depression. They raised me to not only be tolerant, but to love the idea of tolerance, diversity, acceptance and the truth that there were many less fortunate than I was, and that they needed more from not only us, but the nation at large, and, of course, their idol was FDR.
      What I found here was a constant belittling of liberalism, as if it were an “other”, and I not only took that personally for a time, I found it less than American. I still do, and don’t feel that I have to stand up and prove that I’m as much an American as someone else because I believe differently. Rather, I thought that was my right as an American. Not here. Here you read comments about the “childlike liberals”, the “PC crowd”, and on and on, much a lot worse. You know all of it. I don’t need to defend myself from those who value their own beliefs and/or bank accounts over the idea of the commonweal. And, yes, to all of the Christians, we are our neighbor’s keepers, both individually, and in that government you race to label Christian. We are also, horrors!, somewhat of a socialist nation. You can’t govern a nation this large and not be.
      I think, what I’m really getting at, is that this is all of the narrow-mindedness I saw in my college years. I don’t want to even think that I have to fight it again.

  17. Maxcat, IMO it seems that it annoys some folks that there are still liberal commenters left who comment on this blog. Buck up buttercup, perhaps one day there will be none left.

  18. Mike, the only thing I found wrong with your article was that it was too short. For example, in your researches on this year’s convention, you apparently missed the speech by Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) who railed against legalizing marijuana use, citing several “myths” about the weed that, unsurprisingly, were all false. And while I’ll have to go back and watch Gov. Bobby Jindal’s speech again,I seem to recall that at the end, he spoke of the inevitability of armed revolution against the federal government. A sitting U.S. governor said that! You’re right: It ain’t 1951 anymore!

Comments are closed.