Not a Christian Nation

On the December 31 Longview News Journal's Forum page an editorial appeared under the rather portentous heading: "Is America a Christian Nation?" Such a question in my view displays either a fundamental failure to comprehend basic American civic law, or a fundamental rejection of it. In any case, each can be seen as another unfortunate failure in the education of a people on the core question of who we are.

At the outset, let me state that no American who is informed can deny the historical importance of religion to our society. Religion has always been, and doubtless will remain a vital and public resource for ethical conduct and spiritual sustenance for our people. Indeed, that seems to have been at least a part of the intent of the framers of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. But these men, who most, if not all were products of a culture pervaded by Christian ideas and religious practices, did not intend to build a theocracy in the New World. Thus, we can proudly say that there is no "Church Of America" to hold in comparison to Britain's publicly established and supported "Church of England."

Had they so intended, why did they not simply enshrine the intent in law? Instead, they wrote a constitution and Bill of Rights from which the word "God" is glaringly, conspicuously omitted. To those who believe that this was somehow just another stupendous oversight of history, I say on the contrary, the matter was roundly if not furiously debated by the Continental Congress prior to the ratification of our Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787. Those proposing what Kramnick and Moore in their book, "The Godless Constitution," have dubbed "Religious Correctness," lost the day.

As to the victors in that debate, the authors cited above write, "Yet, so successful were the drafters of the Constitution in defining government in secular terms that one of the most powerful criticisms of the Constitution when ratified and for succeeding decades was that it was indifferent to Christianity and God. It was denounced by many as a godless document, which is precisely what it is."

But, contrary to what detractors of our founding system of law characterized as being hostile to religion, I contend that the opposite is the case. In their wisdom, I believe the founders demonstrated supreme faith in their religion not only to survive, but to flourish on its own with no need of a "leg-up" from the government. In this way, the two institutions could be free to attend to their own affairs relying appropriately on their respective and unique doctrines and modes of operation. History would seem to have confirmed the wisdom of the insight.

What makes this country great is that no Christian can be compelled to pray to Brahma. But the obverse also makes us great. No Hindu can lawfully be compelled to pray to Jehovah. The writer was correct in his assertion that much of our law has been shaped indirectly by the Holy Bible. But it is also true that our system of Democracy at least in part was influenced by ancient Greek culture, hardly a hotbed of Christian theology.

And since our constitution can be seen a living document open to the indirect influence of all the spiritual traditions adhered to by our legislators, other "influences" also can have a place in shaping our polity. All to the good. Members of congress today are Jewish, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and indeed, I suspect, some who profess no religious tradition at all.

A better question to have begun that editorial might have been, "Is America a Nation in which everyone could (potentially) be Christian?" the answer of course is, yes. But given the nature of human beings to follow their own lights on matters of the soul, it should come as no surprise that we are not all Christians. I'm certain that our founders would not be surprised in the least, because they formed a government large enough in spirit to accommodate us all.

In short, American must of necessity be a nation of all religions, and of none.

Hypocrisy On Review

In his remarks for the forum page of February 19, Rev. Herb Spady found it necessary to make a detour from his comments on the importance of National Black History Month to advocate for continued discrimination against another oppressed group: Gay Americans. He was at pains to insure that no one compared the ongoing struggle for equality in which gays presently find themselves, with that of Black America, going so far as to label such a conceit as "absurd."

Because I am a Black American who sees the struggles of gays and African Americans as being precisely equivalent, and because just this week, the first administration led by an African American has signaled that it will no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense Of Marriage Act, I believe I am on firm ground to take issue with Mr. Spady's views.

Spady’s chief argument against confusing the two groups seemed to rest solely on pigmentation. He stated that "The homosexual movement is made up of different races of people who have chosen this idea as a lifestyle. The equality of rights for all citizens should be used and granted in the interest of a race of people and in the discussion of matters pertaining to the race of people."

This statement was stunning in its incoherence. It not only made the demonstrably untrue claim that oppression can only be imposed on racial groups, it was contradictory on its face, speaking of the "equality of all citizens," while it clearly singled out the hopes and aspirations of one community, namely homosexuals, as being beneath contempt. In light of recent incidents of bullying and gay teen suicide, it was astounding to witness the insensitivity displayed when a member of one oppressed group told another such group that it had no right to dream of basic equality.

It bears recalling that in the case of Loving vs the State of Virginia (1967), on the right of blacks and whites to inter-marry, the Supreme Court upheld a "Lifestyle Choice" which faced opposition very similar to that faced by gays and lesbians today.

As an African American, I believe that gays in this country have experienced many of the same indignities that blacks were forced to endure in the past, and could only stand in silent solidarity with the civil rights struggles of Martin Luther King Jr., James L. Farmer Jr., and other heroes of that fractious time in our history. King often framed the struggle in the same language used by the founders of our nation which shone a light on ideas supportive of our common humanity.

To my mind, that humanity is all that is required to see that institutionalized discrimination against the LGBT community in America must be brought to an end. I have stated in these pages recently that the impulse toward equality is quintessentially American. No counter argument that I’ve seen here has altered that view. President Obama has said that he has "grappled" with this issue for a long time. I for one, am pleased that he appears to be coming around to the American way of seeing things when it comes to gay rights.

But my faith that gay fellow Americans will one day enjoy the thousand or so rights and benefits that I as a married heterosexual can take for granted, has less to do with a president than with a country. The list of the achievements of similar movements stretches into the distant past, and shows no sign of ever stopping: women voters, African Americans, child laborers, disabled Americans, migrant workers, labor unions, and gay Americans. When we as a people tire of the iron fist of oppression, and utilize the street and the ballot box to express our unwillingness to endure inequality, the country changes for the better. This is exactly what is meant by "creating a more perfect union."

When commentators like Spady and others who have appeared here speak in the stentorian tones of the prophets of old, it is easy to reach the conclusion that theirs is the only possible interpretation of scripture, morality and ethics as regards the issue of homosexuality.

Not so. I encourage your readers to begin to listen to, and dialog with those within the emerging "Christian Left." These are people no less devout or ethical than those in the Christian Right, who seem intent on disenfranchising a whole class of law-abiding Americans based on narrowminded, often misguided views of morality. The Christian Left, or liberal Christians, are becoming increasingly vocal in their opposition to the conservatively religious, who, on a range of issues have proven that they are ready and willing to cast the first stone.

DADT - Round Two

When, in his January 15 Forum column, Jeff McAlister charged me with "championing the rights of homosexuals to serve openly in the military," he missed the point almost entirely. In essence, it was the right of every American to serve openly that I was championing. Perhaps McAlister has no qualms about oppressing a whole class of his fellow Americans. I, however, do.

McAlister also stands ready to make the muddled pronouncement that some of us are to be considered "less equal" than others because they fail to reach some supposed moral standard that on closer inspection is revealed to be not moral at all. On the contrary, it is a petty, small-minded view of life not worthy of a people who pride themselves on egalitarianism and fairness.

It has been the understanding and practice of our country not to withhold the blessings of freedom and equality from any citizen who is a law abiding, ethical, and productive participant in its public life. Furthermore, we have deemed matters of the private lives of our citizenry off limits to all but the parties involved. Although sexual expression is a healthy element of each individual life, it is not the defining characteristic of any life, straight or gay.

McAlister denigrated the liberal tendency to make a "fetish of equality." I would offer that this is no badge of shame for an American, but one of honor. I would further suggest that what comes closer to a more conventional definition of the word fetish, is an excessive concern or interest in the private sexual lives of others.

Serving in our military, like much of the life of the country, is a matter of performing a public service to a grateful nation. In this case, our need for defense. People from all walks of life now serve in our military, although that hasn’t always been true. Once, African Americans weren’t allowed to serve. Females also faced similar restrictions.

Now, over many of the same objections put forth by conservatives, including perceived problems of living in "close quarters" and concerns over "unit cohesion," blacks and women are serving admirably. In fact, so are gay Americans. But whereas straight soldiers may serve openly as heterosexuals, gay servicemen and women have been required to maintain a hidden life throughout their tours of duty. In what world can such inequity be seen as fair, particularly in the face of potential injury or death while exercising ones duty to country? Apparently, in McAlister’s world.

Fortunately, non other than the United States military and Congress have identified and sought to eliminate inequality from our military, recognizing that the military is (and should be), a reflection of American society at large. Gay Americans contribute in countless positive ways to the life of our country. There is not one objective reason to withhold from them any right enjoyed by the rest of us. Most of us, gay or straight, obey the laws, pay our taxes, and play by the agreed upon rules of public life. On what legitimate basis can anyone justify the oppression of a class of Americans who fit the description above? Only illegitimate ones come to mind, such as the rigid, outdated conceptions of morality advocated by the regressive right.

Today in the Congress of the United States there are legislators who are religious and non-religious. There are legislators who are straight and gay. We have lawmakers who are Jewish, Buddhist, Christian and Muslim; who are black, Hispanic, male, female, white, and of asian descent. McAlister would continue to balkanize the armed services so as to present a false picture of who we are as a people. It bears asking that if our army doesn't look like the rest of us, then who are they fighting for?

The overarching theme to McAlister’s objections is that of morality. But who’s morality? Many of us (myself included) are able to lead moral lives without the need to discriminate against others. Also, McAlister's interest in moral standards seems obsessively focused on gays alone. Where is his concern over those in the military who are promiscuous? Where are his scruples regarding cases of military marital infidelity?

Perhaps true equality resides in allowing each member of the armed services see to his own private sexual affairs to the best of his or her ability, and concern ourselves with the only true measure of a soldier, which is whether or not he/she can carry out the orders of their superiors in the prosecution of war. Our men and women in arms are said to be among the toughest, most efficient and professional fighting forces on the planet. They have said they are able and ready to handle serving alongside their openly gay fellow Americans.

I believe them...shouldn’t we all?

DO TELL!?!?

Vice President, Joe Biden recently predicted that the repeal of the law known as "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" has essentially made the passage of marriage rights for gay Americans "inevitable." I would add that the most newsworthy aspect of his statement may be the fact that he managed to utter it without an expletive or a gaff. Certainly, for anyone with a modicum of understanding of American history or civics, his was an exercise in stating the obvious. Biden merely made note of the quintessential characteristic of the American heart and mind: Equality. Perhaps those among us who are surprised or appalled at the repeal of DADT, have simply failed to grasp what it means to be an American.

Much ink was expended in the Longview News Journal a week ago by columnist Jeff McAlister, who hyperventilated about issues of "unit cohesion," and the perils of living in "close quarters" with homosexual servicemen and women. Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t U. S. military personnel been efficiently going about their duties with their gay comrades in arms for decades? No such deterioration of "unit cohesion" has been reported thus far, and I believe the sexual licentiousness alluded to by Mr. McAlister probably rests squarely with the heterosexual contingent of the armed services, which has never been known as a bulwark of moral rectitude.

Nor has any slippage in military effectiveness been noted in any of the other armed services around the globe which, once again, are way out ahead of the U. S. on the issue. Britain (which abolished slavery a century before we did), dealt with the issue of allowing gays to serve ten years ago. Last I heard, they have a military that, despite dire prophecies like those made by McAlister, is still functioning admirably. Indeed, according to a New York Times article, when British soldiers took the not insignificant risk of being open about their sexual orientation, it often had the effect of strengthening unit cohesion (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/world/europe/16iht-gays.4.5740115.html).

Ultimately, this coddling of the homophobic segment of the armed services is insulting to the vaunted toughness and determination that is perennially ascribed to soldiers in general. Gay Americans, as has been noted, are already risking life and limb for their country. Is it really too much to ask that they be allowed to serve without the added burden of anxiety over who might find out about their orientation? Why not pass a provision that homophobes should not be asked about their ignorance and bigotry, and if asked, shouldn’t tell, or else face expulsion from the military?

Conservative angst over the issues of gay military service or marriage equality might be more convincing if their track record on excluding other segments of society could stand up under scrutiny. The list is as impressive for its length as for the remarkable consistency conservatives have shown for being wrong. Black Americans were once thought to be too stupid or cowardly to be field medics, fly aircraft, or serve in combat. Women were thought incapable of doing many things for which their stellar performance is now taken for granted, including voting, leading corporations, and serving in the military with bravery and distinction. In each case, conservatives wailed and railed about our doomed society. For a doomed society, we look pretty good.

Candidly, McAlister revealed what I suspect was the driving concern behind his screed: Religion. He did this in the belief that bigotry which has its source in religion was somehow no longer bigotry, or at least was bigotry sanctioned by God. Mr. McAlister is of course free to hold retrograde ideas like that. It is his right as an American. But as there is no religious test for serving in our government, perhaps the time has come to drop such restrictions to serving on the field of battle. The reason for doing so has nothing to do with political correctness, or social experiments, or with the vagaries or passing fancies of culture. It simply has to do with plain American equality. If we are to be true to our creed, equal needs to mean equal. And a theology or god incapable of fairness, risks being outshone by a constitution fashioned by the hands and hearts of mere men.

A Tea Party America

Although there is some time until the November mid-terms tell us what is in store for the nation politically, and even more time before anything remotely resembling a tea party hegemony emerges, I believe we can extrapolate what a tea party America might look like based on the signs that its candidates have given us thus far. It bears stating what follows here are not merely predictions borne of the fevered imaginings of an over-active liberal mind, but conclusions based on a well documented succession of eye-opening, which is to say flat out bizarre words and actions of tea party candidates and supporters over the past year or so.

When the tea party burst onto the scene with its seething, angrily disruptive performance during the first days of the healthcare debate, it was a faceless mass of people howling from the fringes of our politics. Now that leaders have stepped forward to claim the mantles of various elected offices, a clear picture is beginning to take shape.

First up, Nevada tea party candidate, Sharron Angle. At the outset of Angle’s campaign, she remarked "What is a little bit disconcerting and concerning is the inability of sporting goods stores to keep ammunition in stock...That tells me the nation is arming. What are they arming for if it isn’t that they are so distrustful of their government? They are afraid they’ll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment ways. And that’s why I look at this as almost an imperative. If we don’t win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?"

Buried in this gibberish is the patently un-American idea that if the outcomes of elections which are carried out legally and fairly are not to our liking, then its okay to take up arms and begin threatening the body politic with deadly force. Presumably, if this is a fine and dandy way for tea party members and ultra-conservatives to behave, it should be equally condoned if liberals follow suit in the event that any given election cycle leaves their noses out of joint.

Next is Carl Paladino, seeking the governorship of the state of New York under the aegis of the tea party. Paladino recently upbraided his Democrat opponent as a poor example of parenthood for marching with his gay daughter in a gay pride parade to demonstrate his acceptance of her and indeed of all gay Americans. We can reasonably suspect that we are through the looking glass when we are forced to endure lectures on morality from a man who has been known to routinely send bestial, pornographic, and racist e-mails to his friends, which Paladino has admitted doing.

Christine O’Donnell certainly stunned the citizens of Maryland by trouncing a well established, long-time Republican politician in that state’s primaries. More stunning have been the revelations that have subsequently emerged regarding her one-time status as a witch, her bogus claims to academic achievement, and her strange involvement in campaigns to "cure" gay people and to abolish masturbation. As a liberal, I don’t think I could write a fictional narrative that could compete with the whacked out, lurid plot points of this woman’s actual life
.
Which may pale in comparison to the exploits of Ohio tea party candidate, Rich Iott. In a move that defies everything heretofore known about political optics, this man entered a high profile race even though he has been photographed gamboling through the Ohio countryside in full Nazi storm trooper regalia. He was once (but no longer) a WWII re-enactor who, sad to say, chose to align himself with the losing side of that conflict. One would assume this could only bode ill for his campaign, but in this year of the rise of the tea party, who can say?

I began this column with the intention of bringing to light all of the strange candidates that the surging tea party has deemed acceptable to lead our country, but neither time nor space will allow me to insert them all. I must leave for another day Rand Paul, who after winning the Kentucky primary opined that restaurant owners should be allowed to discriminate, on the basis of race, who may and may not patronize their places of business. And Ken Buck who, as a Colorado DA five years ago, refused to take an alleged rape victim’s case because her charges might be seen as a case of "buyer’s remorse."

But I think the point is made. Based on the examples above, the country that tea party candidates would bestow upon us would be a place awash in a fair amount of callousness, hypocrisy, racism, violence and a tenuous grasp on reality. I realize that if a majority of the voting public sees no problem with the above, then the joke could be on me.

Liberal-Land vs Flyover Country

Longview News Journal commentator Michael Schwartz's column in the Saturday June 12 edition was stunning for its hostility and bitterness in spite of his attempts at humor. Schwartz, after presumably much consideration and soul-searching, has come to the conclusion that America should be divided down the middle on purely ideological grounds. In his vision, the country no longer would be "one nation, under God," but should henceforth be balkanized into Liberal and Conservative ghettos which he thinks of respectively (and simplistically) as Liberal-Land and Flyover Country. He advocates a "Divorce" between these parties which he believes have irreconcilable differences.

One friend upon considering Schwartz's ideas told me she'd rather think of it as an annulment, since she couldn't  conceive of consummating a marriage with the vicious know-nothing tea party whack-jobs who are the self-proclaimed leaders of of the conservative movement nowadays. Another friend trenchantly added that Schwartz's historical antecedents had tried his idea before. They lost.

Schwartz's imprecations and maledictions seem to have their source in Barack Obama's assumption of the office of President in 2008. He acknowledges that liberals and conservatives have "tolerated" each other for 230 years, but in a raging pique of the classic sore loser, is willing to disband us into the "Divided States of America" on the basis of barely half of one presidential term. Whither perspective? Whither respect for the legal, measured transition of power in our country? Clearly they've gone missing from Schwartz's political reality.

Thus in lieu of political reality, we get political fantasy. Utopias spun by the impressionable minds of those who've grown weary of the work of Democracy. You know, old fashioned ideas such as the debate and compromise that leads to effective governance, bothersome notions like that. Don't care for people of differing opinions and viewpoints? Well then banish them forthwith to those areas of the country perceived as being beneath the standards of your group. That would include all those urban centers of crime, welfare, diversity and, one assumes other horrors like culture, higher learning, and cross-cultural friendship and dialog.

Don't care for media that strives for straightforward fairness in reporting? Then choose media that unremittingly spews extremist views under the guise of "balance," poisoning the well of civil discourse in the process. Only an extremist like Schwartz would identify the FOX News echo-chamber with integrity, even though well documented studies have shown FOX viewers to be among the most poorly served and misinformed in the nation when it comes to the plain facts of any given story.

Schwartz strives mightily to claim God in the divorce proceedings, but I am a religious liberal who says, "not so fast buddy." If he means the harsh, punitive, God who dominates the Old Testament, you know the one who was big on smiting folks, taking sides in internecine human conflicts, and was given to ethical lapses that wouldn't pass muster in a high school civics class, well he can have that God. But it seems to me that Jesus was a liberal who rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, not an elephant. And he espoused an ethical program of giving to the poor and needy that should make welfare opponents choke on their self righteous bromides regarding work, bootstraps, and self reliance.

Presumably, in Flyover country, all  the political and cultural advances brought to bear by Liberalism in America would have to be weeded out. You can't let that stuff linger because people might once again become inured to such things as a safe food supply, clean air and water, protected wilderness areas, Medicare and Social Security, a forty hour work week, safe working conditions for employees, voting rights for women and blacks, collective bargaining for workers, and access to public spaces for the disabled. You'll want to restore the Gilded Age mentality that led to the Great Depression in the 1930's, and nearly brought about another one in 2007. You'll be glad no doubt to say goodbye to all that wretched diversity that has blighted the American scene with art, jazz, dance, theater, intellect, Mexican, Thai, Chinese, Italian and alas, even French cuisine. In Flyover Country, prepare to consume a whole lot of corn.

Couldn't care less for diversity? Well get ready for a bland, homogenized world in which everyone looks acts and thinks just like you. Seems to me that for centuries people from across the globe have been leaving such places in order to make it to a diverse, friendly place called America. Clearly, Schwartz and those of his ilk no longer have use for such childish dreams.

Tea Party Stealth

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." The following (with apologies to Dickens) is the tale of two demonstrations. I had the opportunity to attend both within the span of a week, and the differences couldn't have been more apparent.

On Tuesday, April 17, I was present at the Tyler Civic Theatre to show support for their planned performance of "The Laramie Project" which explores the effects on the town of Laramie, Wyoming of the murder of Matthew Sheppard. The play, which the company had chosen and cast for presentation in the upcoming season, had hit a snag in the form of a few complaints by controversy-phobic citizens. In a momentary loss of nerve, the board of the theater considered pulling the play in an effort to head off an unpleasant showdown with area conservatives. They lost sight of the necessity of challenging those who would deny them the right to free speech.

Of course when they attempted to quietly step back from the brink, area liberals were stirred to action. That's where the demonstration sponsored by TAG (Tyler Area Gays) came in. This was a clear and clarion First Amendment action in which those who showed up to defend free speech did so in the face of potentially overwhelming opposition given the cultural makeup of the region. Pro free speech demonstrators numbered close to two hundred. The opposition only managed a paltry three or four individuals.

The spirit of the larger group was friendly and positive, but determined. When a counter demonstrator shouted, bible in hand, from his designated side of the street, we drowned him out with the children's hymn, "Jesus Loves Me This I Know," giving great emphasis to the phrase "For The Bible Tells Me So!" After a couple of hours of singing, chanting slogans, and speeches, board members emerged from their closed door conference with the news that the show would go on! It was an important victory for liberal values in East Texas. Tickets go on sale in May.

Four days later I attended a Tea Party gathering at the Gregg County courthouse in Longview, sponsored by the local chapter of We The People. As an unapologetic, incorrigible liberal, I would have liked nothing more than to report the same kinds of violence-drenched language and antics by Tea Partiers that we've been treated to in the national press of late, but let me say here and now that it just didn't happen. What I saw on Saturday seemed as wholesome a slice of Americana as you could hope to see. Precisely therein lies the story.

The scenes of the day had all the brooding menace of a Norman Rockwell painting. Unfortunately for the Tea Party (and the GOP), they had all the vitality and passion of one as well. It raises the fascinating question that if the Tea Party is forced to put restraints on its more violent, racist wing, must it also say goodbye to the energy that wing brings to the table? It's a dilemma that we will no doubt see played out over the next couple of political seasons, and the conclusion is not clear. To my mind, Richard Hofstadter's 1963 essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" has never been more relevant.

State Legislative candidate David Simpson and local Republican operative Keith Rothra did a passable "good preacher/bad preacher" routine peppering standard political rhetoric with the religious pandering and dog whistles that East Texas conservatives have come to expect from their politicians. Simpson's speech veered from politics to maudlin visions of a halcyon time when government and taxes weren't needed because "sin did not exist." Rothra roused the crowd with the stentorian intonations of an Old Testament prophet or a fire and brimstone preacher by repeating Sarah Palin's exhortation to "reload" rather than retreat.

But the man of the hour was Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert, who prefaced his remarks by thanking God for the "favor" of cloud cover to ward off the afternoon sun. What followed was a rambling, disjointed mixture of conservative pablum, red meat, and congressional anecdotes that were clearly not composed by or for deep thinkers. I personally heard Gohmert repeat one such yarn from another speech he gave in Tyler a year ago about how administration hacks had stolen and ruined his idea for a "Tax Holiday" which consequently never saw the light of day. The crowd, on cue, groaned sympathetically. Gohmert's best pronouncement of the day was his fervent wish that the Tea Party movement would one day absorb the Republican Party, and I couldn't have agreed more.

As he really warmed to his crowd and threatened to carry it late into the afternoon on the wings of his oratory, the clouds burst forth with a considerable downpour which sent the fair-weather Tea Partiers and the rest of us scurrying to our cars. Apparently, God had had his fill.