christian conservatives

What I Realized

As the numbers piled up in favor of a monster, I realized that I’d fallen in love with the idea of a country, not the country I’m now loathe to call home.

I realized that the racism I’ve always safely compartmentalized as pockets unrepresentative of the country as a whole were, in fact, quite accurately representative, that while most of that tide might not visit violence upon minorities with fists and lynches, they were all too willing to wield the sword of public institutions without care (or understanding?) of the blade’s lethal edge.

I realized that my parents had lied to me growing up, or at least omitted a few things. Because while it might be true that women can do anything men can do, they will also be held to a very different standard as they do it, be harassed and threatened as they try. And in the end, though women can, there is a terrifyingly large chunk of the American population that will say they may not. 

I realized, looking at the numbers for white women voters, that patriarchal values are so very widely socialized and deeply internalized by far too many women in this country, and that this condition, paired with internalized notions of white supremacy, cost us dearly not just last night, but every other day of the year.

I realized that, for all the gains made by the LGBTQ community over the past decade, this is what it looked like when a group of privileged people told a marginalized people to “know their place.” It was white patriarchy rebelling against what they call “political correctness” — what we call progress and, at times, justice for the disenfranchised.

I realized that American Christians — who I have tried, so hard, to give the benefit of the doubt — bear no resemblance to the “compassionate Christ” they aspire to emulate. When 81% of those voters cast their lot with a man who sexually assaults women, plans to tear immigrant families apart, wants to ban adherents of a specific religion from entering the country, encourages violence against dissidents, aims to legalize discrimination against people who look and love differently, and hopes to gut the first amendment, they made it quite clear that they are not worried about human suffering. They are worried about their own cultural dominance.

I realized that this is what happens when you defund education for decades, when you reshape history lessons through the lens of (white) American exceptionalism, when you prioritize test scores over critical thinking.

I realized that for all the potential good offered by social media and the internet, it has facilitated the most effective, widespread leverage of anti-intellectual propaganda in our history, definitely more so than it has exposed it — a trend facilitated by our educational deficiencies.

I realized, as I watched the markets spasm and dive, echoes of 2008 filling my mind, that things would likely get much worse, much faster for folks on both sides of the aisle than we imagined, and that the Fed is in no position to make a difference on that note.

I realized that many, many, many privileged progressives have no qualms with pointing the finger at minority voter splits with blame and ire when, in reality, it was white folks who brought this on.

I realized that there is no greater proof that our two party system is broken than the results we now face, and the way those results have turned Democrats rabid over the third party votes cast yesterday. It doesn’t matter that those Johnson votes probably wouldn’t have gone blue. It doesn’t matter that the Democrats still lost in meaningful ways in other important categories.

I realized that maybe none of these thoughts were real revelations, if I’m being honest, but inconvenient truths I’d tucked away, wanting so badly to believe that we were better than all this.

I realized, as I spent hours researching immigration policies in different countries around the world, that I am not as brave as I had hoped. I panicked thinking about the lease I’d planned on signing today. Did I really want to promise another year of my life to this country under these circumstances? Did I really want to raise my daughter here, knowing what’s about to happen to the Supreme Court?

I realized, as the morning light danced across my daughter’s face over breakfast, as she grimaced but nodded upon hearing the bad news, as I thought of different children in different homes in different circumstances, that this cowardice is not what I want to teach my kid, not the right way to love the people who matter to me, not the right thing to do for those most vulnerable now.

I realized that this isn’t about me, or my fears, or whether or not I can comfortably say I love this country or that I have hope. It’s not about politics. It’s about people. And right now, there are a lot of people who are going to need someone in their corner, because much of the incoming government is decidedly not. There is work to be done, and bailing in this moment would be the height of privilege.

I realized that I am not proud to be an American today, but I am damned and determined to shape a tomorrow where I am.

Advertisements

Constitutional Conservatism, The “Return” to Christian Values, and Mutual Exclusivity

I’m hoping someone can explain this to me, because I’m a little bit confused.

Not too long ago, I wrote a post on the confounding nature of the Tea Party. It emerged from a collective discontent, was usurped by socially conservative idealogues, and scares the living daylights out of me.

Here’s where my confusion stems from- they claim to want to return to basics and the ideas of the Founding Fathers when it comes to how the government functions. Let’s take a look at some of the quotables, shall we?

Michele Bachmann:  “We have to recapture the founders’ vision of a constitutionally conservative government, if we are to secure the promise for the future. […] As a constitutional conservative, I believe in the founding fathers’ vision of a limited government that trusts in and perceives the unlimited potential of you, the American people. I don’t believe that the solutions of our problems are Washington-centric. I believe they are with every-American-centric.”

Newt Gingrich: “Congress Has the Power to Protect the Constitution. It Should Use It.”

Rick Perry: “I am reminded of James Madison’s perspective from Federalist number 45. He said that the powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few, and they are defined. Those which are to remain in the state government are numerous and indefinite. I like that. I am a Madisonian.”

Herman Cain: “I define a Tea Party candidate as anyone who believes in fiscal responsibility, the free market system, and enforcing the constitution. That’s the mantra of the Tea Party movement. I have been a believer in that mantra from the beginning.”

Sarah Palin: “I want to tell ’em, ‘Nah, we’ll keep clinging to our Constitution and our guns and religion—and you can keep the change.'”

They seem to have a lot of respect for the U.S. Constitution, and, not trusting my own expertise, I decided to revisit the cornerstone of our government. The First Amendment reads, and I quote:

” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

But let’s be real- the language here is vague. So I went to case law for further clarification. The landmark case of Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971 contains this nugget in the court’s decision:

” Under our system the choice has been made that government is to be entirely excluded from the area of religious instruction and church excluded from the affairs of government.”

Ok, so I know this case has withstood the test of time- we’re still abiding by it 40 years later- but these candidates think the courts are participating in “judicial activism.” Instead, they say we should rely on the interpretations formed by the Founding Fathers. So I started researching their opinions on separation of Church and State. Let’s ignore the fact that the whole point of our “forefathers” coming across the Atlantic was to escape religious persecution and that their “Christian” affiliation was loose in most cases and completely absent in some, and instead look at what they said (because words speak louder than actions, clearly):

“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.” (Thomas Jefferson, Draft for a Bill to Establish Religious Freedom in Virginia, 1779)

“The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.” (James Madison, Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821)

“…the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction.” (George Washington, 1789, responding to clergy complaints that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ)

“As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith.” (Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1771)

” “The [president] has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction. . . .” (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper LXIX, 1788)

So, in summary, the Founding Fathers, Supreme Court and Constitution seem to mandate that religion and politics not intermix. So explain to me why these Tea Party leaders, so devout in their adherence to the Constitution, have the following words to their name:

Michele Bachmann: “We need more biblical world view to let people know what is it that the principles of God stand for. If people understand the principles of ours, it won’t be difficult to understand who would best represent those values in the White House and in Congress. And as I encourage people, go to my website. I am happy to have people know exactly where I stand.”

Newt Gingrich: “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.”

Rick Perry: “America is going to be guided by some set of values. The question is going go to be: Whose values? And David Lane and I, and I would suggest most of the people in this audience, believe it’s those Christian values that this country was based upon.”

Herman Cain: “Our Founding Fathers recognized a higher power in the formation of this nation when they said in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and that they are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.” It was no accident that in some of our earlier years as a free and independent nation that our leaders added “In God We Trust” to all of our currency. And to send a message to the rest of the world when Communism was on the rise in the 1950s, Congress added the words “under God” to our pledge of allegiance. They were not just words. It was a collective reaffirmation that we know the ultimate source of our greatness as a nation.” America’s moral foundation does not need to be rewritten. It needs to be respected and taught to our children and grandchildren.

Sarah Palin: “Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant– they’re quite clear– that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandents, it’s quite simple.”

Can you see why I’m confused? All these self-proclaimed Tea Partiers, who have made their absolute faith in the Constitution very public, are the same people who advocate its violation in spirit- if not in policy and day-to-day governance- above and in a vast array of other instances.

Look, I’m not knocking Christianity. I classify myself as a Christian, though my beliefs are very personal in nature and not affiliated with a specific denomination. Christians are awesome. But I do not believe in a national religion, or a country being run as though there is one. The only way to protect the nation from mob rule is to protect the rights of the minorities. To borrow heavily from someone far wiser than me, I may not hold the same beliefs as you, but I will defend to the death your right to hold them.

And before you start talking about your rights being infringed upon, I don’t want to hear it. Just because the government does not govern from a pulpit does not mean your ability to practice your faith is inhibited; it only means that your ability to institutionalize your faith is limited. The same applies for the “radical Islamists” referenced by Newt above, and Athiests, and Buddhists, and Wiccans…. the list goes on.

EVERYONE IS PROTECTED IN THE SAME WAY.

Even in a world where I didn’t believe in the separation of Church and State (or its mandate wasn’t spelled out in black and white), there’s another big problem here- staunchly conflicted agendas. If you can provide me a logical explanation as to why the concepts of “constitutional conservatism” and the statements of the candidates above are not mutually exclusive, I’m all ears.

Until then, I’m still scared. And you should be too.