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.
I pledge allegiance to and wrap myself in the flag of the United States
Against Anything Un-American and to the Republicans for which it stands,
two nations, under Jesus, rich against poor, with curtailed liberty and
justice for all except blacks, homosexuals, women who want abortions,
Communists, welfare queens, treehuggers, feminazis, illegal immigrants,
children of illegal immigrants, and you if you don’t watch your step.
by Matt Groening
TxDave quoted Matt Groening: “I pledge allegiance to and wrap myself in the flag of the United States Against Anything Un-American and to the Republicans for which it stands, two nations, under Jesus, rich against poor, with curtailed liberty and justice for all except blacks, homosexuals, women who want abortions, Communists, welfare queens, treehuggers, feminazis, illegal immigrants, children of illegal immigrants, and you if you don’t watch your step.”
Oh, that is a keeper!
I’m apologizing to getting your name incorrect Mamie….. It sure sounds like an echo chamber here of late…. You know that sound when you hit an empty pot with a spoon….
Anonymously yours, you have had another comment deleted in violation of the civility rule. You have been warned repeatedly that we would have to suspend further comments if the personal attacks against other commenters continued. In light of the continued violations, we are suspending further comments at this time.
From FBI’s site –
“Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:
– Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
– Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
– Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition
And yet people want to put their head in the sand still.
Jim22: Interesting definition of “domestic terrorism,” since it manages to leave out all of the school and other “public square” shootings that have been perpetrated by Americans on Americans, which in my book are classic cases of “domestic terrorism”—but the FBI’s definition doesn’t offend the NRA, and that’s what’s REALLY important, isn’t it?
markkernes –
You forgot the killing of abortion doctors when mentioning “domestic terrorism”.
Maxcat06: I did indeed forget the gynecologist killings—Good catch!
Mark – And, of course, Oklahoma City.
Annie, I did see “After Tiller”. It was horrifying.
I wonder what the sympathizers would call it if this beheading didn’t happen at the terrorists work?
Credit where credit is due. In my haste to post I failed to acknowledge my previous remarks were a reply to davidm2575.
David, Great comment.
Mike it looks like you and I are close in age but see things a little differently.
I was in 2nd grade in 1951 and I remember listening to my family members discuss politics and religion at the dinner table.
On the subject of:
PRAYER–Remember prayer was always said at the beginning when the Continental Congress met as suggested by Samuel Adams and Tom Cushing. Prayer was said before the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or the Bill of Rights was written. Even Ben Franklin suggested that everyday be started with prayer.
SEPARATION OF STATE IN SCHOOLS–True the Protestants rejected federal and state help to Catholic Schools, but that was a two edged sword. Catholic Schools requested help from the states, since of course, they were relieving some of the financial burden from the tax payer and their families were paying twice for an American education, once in taxes and once in tuition. Protestants supported separation of state in order to stroke their bias against Catholics, since Catholic schools were multiplying across the nation and far outnumbered Protestant schools.
Besides, most politicians were Protestant and their personal agenda helped stoke the fires of separation of state and religion.
However, as time passed, Protestants found that Sunday School wasn’t enough for their children and began promoting prayer and Bible reading in public schools. At first, the Supreme Court justified prayer and learning the Bible in school, but later years that was overturned.
VOUCHERS–Republican’s have been wanting this for years. Presently, only a handful of states allow vouchers and it comes with stipulations e.g. students must have be disabled, have an IEP, live in rural areas where a private school is closer to their home than a public school, and the household income is below poverty level.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY–This has been fought since the landing of the Pilgrims. It will probably always be something people of various faiths will have to fight to preserve. Although many people call wars a religious or “holy” war, I see the underlying cause of war as nothing more than power grabbing vs. preservation of rights. As long as a religion lives within a country’s law, they should have the right to practice their beliefs.
SENSITIVE SUBJECT MATTER–Homosexuality, abortion, contraception to mention a few. Most religions have limitations or down right don’t condone the aforementioned. Do they not have the same rights as everyone else? Homosexuality, abortion, and contraception wasn’t a public issue and was seldom mentioned in the 40’s and 50’s. The sanctity of marriage doesn’t have the same meaning it did 70 years ago. Abortions has become a contraception, mostly because of irresponsible people. Contraception has brought about freer sexual lifestyles and more STD’s than ever before.
RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVE–Of course, religious conservatives are going to defend their beliefs, just as you defend your atheistic beliefs. Islam is not a Christian religion, if fact, they consider Christian’s as much an infidel and they do atheists. Therefore, why would FRC include Muslims, unless they believed in the same principles as Christians and other similar religions.
When students are told they are not allowed to pray silently in the classroom, told they can’t wear a cross necklace, told to stop saying “under God,” in the pledge, told not to wear religious T-shirts or even American flag T-shirts, told not to mention God in their conversations, or when religion is taken out of text books, particularly history books, then the rights of individuals are being destroyed.
It has become more necessary for religious people to stand up for their beliefs in a society that has lost its moral compass and is out to banish and destroy the real reason the Pilgrims came to this land in the first place and people of many faiths followed. If we are to have liberty, then we must work to preserve our rights and religious conservatives are doing just that.
Gigi: Sorry, no; religious conservatives’ objectives include getting preferential treatment for Christians in everything ranging from business to education to taxes, and if there’s one thing they DON’T believe in, it’s that “All men [not to mention women, which they usually don’t] are created equal.” Religious conservatives want the power to discriminate against anyone they think is a “sinner” under their biblical interpretation, and they want the government to protect their private propaganda enclaves (otherwise known as parochial schools) by paying for kids’ tuitions to such places, and at the same time, they’re also working hard to bring all manner of religious practices and beliefs into the public schools, bearing in mind the famous old saying, “Give me the first 12 years and you can have the rest.” These are not good philosophers, and you do yourself no service by following their credo (if you do).
After checking the civility rules, I’m unclear as to how deliberate name mangling qualifies as civil discourse. I did, however, laugh when I got to the part where the host says: It is possible to be anonymous but not obnoxious. One can only hope!
Amazing how once a good site for discussion has become a platform for division. This is why folks get disgusted with politicians. Divide the others with no plan in mind but disruption.
I will say mammie you sound like the trinity…. Three in one…. And that’s not a good thing when I see you write what is intended as being disruptive.
That JT! Only a blunderbuss of the first order would misunderstand the use of commas in prose, miscount deletes, practice unfairness and promote displays of ignorance.
Why his blog numbers keep growing is mystery indeed.
By the way, in looking up zealotry, it was interesting to note that Jealousy tracks back to a root in zeal, from Greek zelos, sometimes “jealousy,” but more often in a good sense (“emulation, rivalry, zeal”).
@Dave Weber
You remarked, “a whipping post rally for the breed of limerick laden, backslapping ignorance exhibited here.”
It ain’t easy being a poetess in these days of fin de siècle. Might I remind you of something Allen Ginsberg once said, “America, how can I write a holy litany in your silly mood?”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Dusty,
You’re welcome to your view of death and the soul. However, your view is not the point.
The family and friends of Jews who have been ‘baptized’ are deeply, deeply offended – as are thousands of others who have their own faith which Mormons blindly, selfishly, deliberately, and cruelly ignore.
This is a valuable lesson about the arrogance and tyranny of religion. And because we can anticipate Nick’s rote response. I will preempt him; this is not zealotry. This mainstream, middle American Mormon teaching. Is Elizabeth Smart a zealot? Is Romney a zealot? Is Ann Romney a zealot? Is Jon Huntsman a zealot? Are Dusty’s kind neighbors zealots? Is the tender loving Mormon that Nick met in the airport a zealot?
I would answer ‘no’ to all the Mormons I’ve listed. They are not zealots. They are mainstream. But I guarantee you that at least one of the above fully supports and endorses the practice of baptizing dead Holocaust victims. He was a Bishop in the Mormon Church. Many here voted for him for president.
Dave Weber, that’s an interesting point you raised!!
maxcat, LOL. I read a book about the Secret Service and their accounts of the people they protect. They say Nixon was just a social misfit. He would have 2 drinks and be pie eyed. He would loosen up then, but otherwise a guy who would take a walk on the beach in San Clemente dressed in a suit! This book also made it clear that the security was becoming more and more lax and predicted a breach like we saw 10 days ago. The latest reports on that breach are the guy got much farther into the WH than they said originally. But, you know people, they dig in their heals even when they’re absolutely wrong. The Secret Service is so far “standing by what they said” even though it’s clear they were dissembling. “Pride is a double edged sword.”
Nick, that seems to match what others have said about Nixon. He was a strange person. It’s sad, because I thought that some of his actions in the WH were brilliant, but he was brought down by his own paranoia.
I heard about the WH breach. It’s absolutely awful. Jimmy Kimmel was joking the other night about the fact that the doors of the WH are unlocked. Well, yes they are…no one is supposed to get anywhere near them!
I stand by what I said.
Nick is what he is.
mark, LOL! I agree probably all pols have/had porn. Nixon seemed oddly asexual, maybe not him. I assumed the suits in the industry had many Republicans. I meant the journalists, like yourself, being Dems. But, I might be wrong on that too?
Mark, I was 100% sincere, and knew you realized that. What others think is irrelevant, in that regard. But, thanks much for having my back.
Nick, the very thought of Nixon and porn is a vision I’m going to have a hard time getting out of my head…
GO NATS!!!
Nick: Yep, believe it or not, there ARE some Republican porn stars, though they tend to be from the libertarian side of the party.
Doc: I did not consider Nick’s comment to be an attack. I AM a porn journalist, and damned proud of it.
ISIS has the “scary ideas” that concern me.
LOL! I hate mimes.
“docmadison, I, too, find their baptizing of the dead to be offensive.” Said Bettykath
I find it ridiculous. WTF??? You are dead. If you believe in a soul, then it has already gone to its destination and all you have left is a rotting corpse. What a stupid idea. It means nothing. Meaningless gestures. Like mimes.