Snarling from the Religious Right

Via Rob Schumacher, I have learned of a column by Doug Giles in Townhall.com that is one of the most explicit endoresements of theocracy I have ever seen from the religious right. The whole thing has to be read to be believed.

Giles starts out slowly enough, merely reiterating his incorrect thesis -- that one cannot be a Christian and a liberal at the same time -- a few times, before he really gets going, more like a raving dipsomaniac than anything else.

His basic "argument" is pretty much the same that of as many other social conservatives, most notably Dennis Prager. Namely, he evades the many fundamental similarities between Christianity and socialism, while damning secularism through the proxy of the most outrageous excesses of the New Left. And his "conclusions" are 180 degrees from the truth. His biggest sin by far is that he basically equates separation of church and state with persecution of Christians!

As I summarized in a recent post (the last link):

The leftist's desire for a free lunch trumps the need to discover what about man requires him to have a moral code and what that moral code should be. And so the religionists, knowing that altruism also means that people may be commanded to give out these free lunches, egg on people like Richard Stallman. The desire to throttle capitalism makes any shred of pseudoscientific evidence in favor of "global warming" a cudgel by which the left can whip the public into a froth of panic -- during which legislation to ruin the economy can be passed. The religionists, seeing the opportunity to shackle independent minds everywhere, jump on the global warming bandwagon and even try to drive it themselves. The left preaches that objectivity is not really possible to man in any field, including science. The religionists take them at their word, call them heretics, and act as if they alone ever marshal facts and evidence for their beliefs.

The left, in abandoning reason, has made the choice between itself and religion into a choice between two religions, and has sold reason down the river in the process. It will be up to others to ensure that reason is offered again in the marketplace of ideas.

Thanks to the loony left, Giles feels quite comfortable making the standard fraudulent claim that America was somehow founded on "Christian principles" -- by men who took such great care to separate church and state that it was their official position that, "[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".

And, lest someone like Giles get away with dismissing the Treaty of Tripoli as an aberration, it might be worthwhile to recall the wording of the Statute for Religious Freedom -- written by Thomas Jefferson and made into law.

We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. [bold added]

Recall these words as we consider just a few points from this blasphemy against our forefathers that Doug Giles has penned.

1. Christianity to be scrubbed from government and whatever turf the government owns. Thanks to the liberals, the Ten Commandments have about as much acceptance in our government and their properties as Rush Limbaugh would at Al Franken's family reunion. The Judeo-Christian principles that formed the rock-solid foundation of this great American Experiment are now aggressively and consistently attacked by the lascivious left.

If . . . if . . . the secularists continue to stay behind the wheel of this American bus, you can kiss all semblance of Christianity good-bye in this heretofore God-graced government. Saint, you might as well say farewell to our government's recognizing Christmas and adios to Good Friday if you're going to vote the liberal ticket. If the secularists have it their way, Easter will be behind your keister, and you can kiss the Cross good-night as an acceptable public symbol that represents your faith and our nation's recognition of Christ's atoning work. [bold added]

In other words, it is not good enough to Doug Giles that he be free, as he is, to practice his faith. No. He must also have the government shoving it -- his faith -- down everyone else's throats. My principles are attacked from the left and the right on a daily basis, but you don't hear me screaming "persecution" and crying for Big Brother's protection. I counter the attacks with arguments. Perhaps it is because Giles has none of these that he needs the state to officially sponsor his views....

Has this man ever heard of Thomas Jefferson? Of Ethan Allen? Of any number of his forefathers who were familiar with religious persecution and saw that the only way to stop it effectively was to keep religion out of the state? Is he so foolish to believe that a Christian theocracy would not somehow find his faith heretical and un-Christian?

Does Doug Giles not know of these aspects of our nation's (and mankind's) history? Or does he not care?

2. Secularism to be continually mainlined into our public school system. Thanks to rabid, vapid secularism, our public schools and universities would rather you be a Rocky Horror super freak than a Christian. If your beliefs run to the bizarre or the banal; or if you want to smoke the same philosophical crack that Caligula, Nero, Castro or Lenin freebased, they'll accommodate you.

Our schools are totally open to anyone and to anything, unless, of course, you're a Christian. And if that's the case, then you're likely to get more sympathy from a badger with minimal sleep than you will from liberal educators who are hard at work making your life hard. Let me repeat: A vote for the secular left is a vote for Christianity to continue to be officially vilified on campus and for Christians to be ostracized in campus life. [bold added]

I, too, am unhappy with the use of government funds to indoctinate children with leftist propaganda at my expense. But unlike Giles, I do not work to make sure the government indoctrinates children with views I find more agreeable. Instead, I support the abolishment of public education, which would both make it easier for parents to afford to educate children as they see fit and impossible for a state bureaucracy to establish a state religion -- secular or otherwise.

But it is persecution of Christians, by Giles's dim lights for there not to be state-run religious schools. Just as the present freedom of college students everywhere to privately observe their faith using their own resources is "persecution" in his mind.

3. Public officials, employees and appointees to be pressured to hide their faith in the closet and suppress their public displays of belief in God lest they be grouped with Hitler, Osama, or Mussolini and then fired. Not only will the liberals aggressively work to prohibit the State from green lighting and recognizing Christianity as a legitimate and positive force in our land, they will also attempt to stifle Christians from influencing the path of government. [bold added]

Well, saint, that's the very height of gall!

Just what is Osama bin Laden trying to do? Establish an Islamic theocracy. As Doug Giles might put it, bin Laden would like to make Islam "prominent in the public square".

And given that there is no way for men to objectively communicate about religious matters, how, exactly, does Giles intend to demonstrate to me why his theocracy will somehow be better?

He can't. And this is why, as Ayn Rand once put it, "Anyone who resorts to the formula: 'It's so, because I say so,' will have to reach for a gun, sooner or later." This -- and not which sect is in charge -- is what is wrong with theocracy as such. This is why when anybody in government feels free to say, "It's so because I say it's so," the result is invariably bloody and repressive.

The reasons, Mr. Giles, that public officials whose personal beliefs are at odds with individual rights feel pressure to leave those beliefs out of their professional lives, are twofold. (1) Their pronouncements will appear to have the backing of the government, which is the only social institution for whom the use of force is permitted or appropriate. This would constitute an implied threat to anyone of a differing opinion. (2) If they act against individual rights, they are failing to uphold their oaths of office. In short, such officials are acting, more or less like Osama bin Laden. In that sense, what you decry as "persecution" is, in fact, justice.

4. Public attacks on churches and Christians and attempts to restrict them in the private sector. Consider this, Christian pastor and Christian lay person looking to vote for the ludicrous left: the secular Mafioso's intent is to make your ministerial life difficult, your evangelistic work taxing and your voice minimized. And good luck, pastor and church committee, in trying to buy property and get zoning with the anti-Christian libs at the helm. [bold added]

Attacks? Does Giles mean that churches should be exempt from the same laws that govern everyone else, or that they should be the ones making them? How is the law applied to churches an "attack" against religion? I can only conclude that Giles sees anything other than subordination of the state to the church as an "attack" on religion.

It is highly instructive that Giles has nothing to say on the matter of how zoning and restrictions on the purchase of property by private parties are violations of individual rights and should be opposed on grounds more general than religious freedom, which is only a subset of individual rights.

5. The continued media endorsement of the same putrid, hedonistic stuff that sunk ancient civilizations. With the liberals in place, expect more weird crap in movies and on television. Expect to see more paintings of Christian symbols and saints smeared with elephant dung. Expect Christianity to be bashed and vilified and Christians made out to be buckled-shoed morons with three teeth and an IQ of 50. Expect the culture to coarsen. Expect your kids to continue to be exposed to things that only rock stars see backstage with groupies. A vote for a liberal is a vote to see Christians continue to receive special ridicule and be flogged more than a pinata during a Cinco de Mayo festival. [bold added]

Other than the attempt to achieve outright censorship, what could voting possibly have to do with what appears in media such as movies and television?

I don't like a lot of what's going on in pop culture, either, but government censorship -- the irrational, oppressive stuff that sinks modern civilizations -- is not an acceptable answer to the problem. And goodness, with someone like Giles at the helm, I think we'd be better off if the censors were "buckled-shoed morons with three teeth and an IQ of 50". At least they'd be easy to sneak ideas into "the public square" around so they could be debated before Giles would stop them.

This essay is truly amazing and directly pertains to two quotes I can think of off the top of my head by that patron saint of the religious right, Ann Coulter.

First, compare Giles's deep respect for individual rights with that of Ann Coulter's when she publicly urged George (or Jeb) Bush to ignore the judical branch of the government when it became apparent that it would fail to chuck American legal precedents in favor of her religious beliefs.

President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived.

And then, just as Giles pretends that public officials who lord their faith over the public are somehow not like Osama bin Laden, Ann Coulter pretends that there is no religious right in her book, Slander!

Considering the invective constantly being heaped on the "religious right", it is probably not surprising that few people identify themselves as members. "Religious right" is always something somebody else is, like "son of a bitch". A LexisNexis search of the phrase "religious right" mostly turns up lots of people denying that they belong to it. This could be because there is no such thing as the "religious right". (177)

Indeed. No one will identify himself as a member of the "religious right" for the same reason that al Qaeda terrorists are trained to "blend in": They need to be seen as accepting the norms of civilized behavior for long enough to accomplish their goals.

This is why Moslem fanatics wear western clothes even as they board airliners on suicide missions, and this is why the likes of Doug Giles wrap themselves up in the flag while preaching in favor of the very evil, tyranny, our forefathers fought so valiantly against.

-- CAV