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. @NickS

    Porn is mostly violence, from what little I have seen of it. The actresses are completely objectified and horribly misused. Let me do a little experiment, Here is a sample of what my cable is currently showing on the porn channels:

    Humiliating Black Rod Cockolds – Cheating wives get slammed by giant black poles, and their pathetic husbands are forced to watch.

    Innocent First Timers 7 – Break ’em right and they’ll come back for more.

    Drop Your Panties Now 7 – These sex-starved dirty dames just want to get pumped hard.

    Ultra Horny Novices 7 – We’ve got the freshest faces in the dirtiest situations, for their first time ever on film.

    Gag On My 12 Black Pole – . . .

    Oh well, you get the picture. Yeah, what an uplifting bunch of sweet films.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky: You wrote, “Porn is mostly violence, from what little I have seen of it. The actresses are completely objectified and horribly misused.”

      Allow me to take this opportunity to invite you to be present during the making of an adult film. On set, you will see that, unless the movie is ABOUT bondage/discipline, there is NO violence involving any of the performers, despite what you may think you have gleaned from the movie titles you listed, which are created by PR people to attract customers—who, after they watch such a movie, almost inevitably find that they have been misled by such wording. And even in the bondage-type movies, ALL acts are discussed between the performers and ALL objections are taken into account and NO actress (or actor) is ever forced to perform any act with which he/she is uncomfortable.

      What many people who are unfamiliar with the adult industry don’t understand is that there is a fairly large segment of society, including many clergy and politicians, who enjoy engaging in CONSENSUAL bondage/discipline activities with their spouses, their girlfriends and/or women (or men) that they may hire to participate in such activities. But the VAST majority of legal pornography features only consensual sex between consenting adults, so they are hardly “horribly misused.” And since many people, both male and female, have sexual fantasies of one sort or another, what you call actresses being “completely objectified” are in fact human beings performing pleasurable sexual activities which they fully understand will bring pleasure to their viewers. (Also, in gay male porn, is it the “top” or the “bottom” player who’s the “objectified” one? Or aren’t men in porn ever “objectified,” according to your (non-)definition of the term?)

  3. Squeeky, Come on woman! You are comparing porn to violence? Certainly there are S&M people but that’s not what we’re talking about here. You’re Texas provinciality is showing.

  6. MarkK, I’ve read that some zoos actually play pornographic movies of animals engaging in sex to get their mating pairs in the mood, lol.

  7. @Mark Kernes

    I guess some people like to watch other people being hurt, too. I recall reading in Theweleit’s Männerphantasien (1977) (Male Fantasies) that some Nazi German’s played with themselves while watching prisoners being flogged. Hmmm. I guess it takes all kinds.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky: Interesting that you equate consenting adults with little body modesty having on-camera sex with willing partners, to Nazis getting off watching non-consensual BDSM—and while the BDSM porn genre is growing, thanks to many women’s embrace of the E.L. James “Fifty Shades” series, it remains a niche market in porn, which mostly deals with actual consensual sex.

  8. mark, It’s in large part a male/female thing, don’t you think? Men must purchase and view the vast majority of porn. But, I defer to you, our porn guru. And, thanks for teaching me something new. I didn’t know Dershowitz represented Harry Reems in the Deep Throat case.

    1. Nick: Not to get too far off topic here, but yes, about 80 percent of porn is bought/rented by men alone, or a man accompanied by a woman. Most of the rest is bought/rented by women in company with other women—and they do like the gay (male) stuff! Of course, how much those statistics are affected by society’s early training that women aren’t nearly as interested in sex as men are, remains for sociological study.

  11. @ mark

    That, watching or not watching, based on the personal proclivities of the actors or even directors and producers is a personal decision. I certainly don’t think that there should be organized movements to ban people or businesses because you don’t like some of their non-business attributes. For instance Chic Fil A or Hobby Lobby. If you don’t like their companies, then don’t eat or shop there, but it shouldn’t be a mass movement like a mob scene in Frankenstein. Pitchforks and torches.

    However, I do not support people or businesses who are dismissive of me, publicly attacking my beliefs. Not just disagreeing with my beliefs, everyone has the right to disagree, but actively calling me names and accusing me of thoughts like racism etc. Why would I give those people my hard earned money if they think so little of me.

    Linda Ronstadt for example http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1175164/posts Now I am not a hardcore Republican and pretty much a nominal Christian. But really? This is how you feel? Then I won’t bother you with any more of my money or buying your records.

    Samuel L Jackson and Morgan Freeman. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/samuel-jackson-agrees-morgan-freeman-tea-party-racist-targeting-president-obama-article-1.961688 Fork you then. I can’t avoid hearing your voice on the television, but I can avoid buying your products.

    I make this decision for myself. Other people can decide what they want to do. It isn’t my business to tell anyone what to think or how to think. And guess what. I don’t like it when people who think that their fame gives them the right to tell me what to think, begin to lecture me and call me names. You do NOT get my money anymore and I won’t buy your products and I won’t buy the products you endorse.

    Not only that, they have ruined the verisimilitude of watching a movie. I want to see the show and not be thinking about what their political opinions are and how they really really don’t like me or people like me.

  12. @Mark Kernes

    I went to the link. Thank you for your magnificent contributions to the human race. 🙂

    @ NickS

    IMO, porn is pretty much just trash, and a complete waste of time. My stupid ex-boyfriend used to watch the stuff, and the only good thing I ever got from it was this one song that was playing in the background of a Jenna Jameson thingy. I liked the music so much, I went to you tube and found the song. Here it is:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTw7o1o5TqU

    Other than that, porn is worthless, and mostly pretty stupid.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky: Nice song—and oddly enough, the video looks a little porn-y! Guess American culture may finally be ready to accept the fact that A) humans have sex, and B) some humans like to watch other humans have sex.

  13. 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! Definitely……

  15. Mark, High salaries and high income taxes make many people Republicans. Athletes are smart enough to keep their mouths shut. But, while black folk vote 90% Dem I would venture to guess that figure is significantly lower for black athletes.

  16. Squeeky, Mark Kernes is an interesting guy and a good writer, “FOR SAATAN!” Said in my bad, Church Lady voice. I hope you are not anti porn, like you are anti cannabis.

  18. So, while watching a porn movie, people are actually thinking…..”gee I wonder what political affiliation the performers are?”

    🙂

    1. Dust Bunny Queen: Interestingly, I’ve seen many emails from conservatives who believe that one should watch—or in some cases, refuse to watch—certain HOLLYWOOD movies based on the political beliefs of the actors. Fortunately, I haven’t heard from too many (well, ANY) porn fans complaining about the political beliefs of adult performers—which, in any case, the performers rarely express in public.

Comments are closed.