Religious Liberty – Sheila Kennedy

The Crusades Of 2024

We Americans talk about theology, philosophy and ideology as if they are discrete mental categories, but of course, they aren’t. The other day, as I was mourning the political reality I inhabit, as I tried to comfort myself with reflections about the “fits and starts” of progress, I suddenly realized what I have missed about America’s current cold civil war: at its base, it’s our contemporary version of religious war.

I actually owe this insight to Micah Beckwith, who recently took to X/Twitter to declare that college students who criticised his medieval worldview are impermissibly “woke” and to threaten the existence of the Indiana Daily Student, which had published the critique.

I don’t know why it took me so long to realize that the hysteria against “wokism” is terminology for the war between religious fundamentalism and liberalism–especially religious liberalism.

Religious beliefs began as an effort to explain mysterious phenomena: why the tides go in and out, why people become diseased, why some folks prosper and others don’t. What we call secularism is really the steady expansion of human knowledge that erodes the role of supernatural beliefs. We no longer ask the priest to pray over a broken leg, we call the doctor. We no longer use prayer (or rain dances) to counteract droughts. Most of us (unfortunately, not all) reject the Calvinist belief that equates poverty with moral deficit and wealth with superior merit.

Many denominations have responded to the growth of science and empiricism by revisiting their approach to theology. Rather than seeing religious adherence as a simple issue of obedience to orders from “on high”–orders interpreted differently by the theologians of each specific denomination– many Christian, Jewish, and Islamic congregations have reinvisioned religion’s role. Rather than issuing fundamentalist decrees, these more mature theologies help parishioners wrestle with the nature of goodness and the ethical and moral obligations of humanity. Their churches, synagogues and mosques offer congregants the comfort of loving and supportive communities. My friends in the Christian clergy tend to focus on the Sermon on Mount (could anything be more woke?).

But that lack of an authoritative “bright line” drives fundamentalists crazy. Horrified religious literalists (abetted by those whose personal prospects are enhanced by biblical notions of patriarchy and America’s cultural Calvinism) fight back. Today, they are the bulk of the MAGA people supporting Trump.

One example is Pete Hegseth–the Fox News pundit who is Trump’s ridiculous and unqualified choice for Secretary of Defense. Hegseth is a self-proclaimed Christian Nationalist who has tattoos that he claims are “religious symbols.” Those symbols date back to the Crusades–the effort by the Christian west to “liberate” Jerusalem from Muslim control. One of the tattoos says, “Deus Vult.” Hegseth explained in 2020, “I’ve got Deus Vult – God Wills It – which was the cry of the Crusaders, on my bicep.”

Like Micah Beckwith and other fundamentalists, Hegseth is confident that he knows precisely what God wills. I need not spell out the dangers of putting such people in positions of power.

People like me, who tend to be critical of organized religion, have missed a central point: it isn’t “religion” that is the problem–just as it isn’t philosophy or ideology. It’s regressive religion, philosophy and ideology. It’s a primitive world-view used in the service of Othering–a religion, philosophy or ideology that is at base a rationale for the dominance of some people over others.

The danger arises from “righteous” folks who are certain they possess exclusive knowledge of “God’s will.” That isn’t just the Beckwith version of Christianity. Every religion has its contingent of fundamentalists who know exactly what their God demands and are prepared to impose that understanding on the rest of us.

In the U.S., because Christians have been in the majority, the religious fundamentalism that animates Christian Nationalism threatens not just our religious and civic liberties but allso–as my Christian friends insist — authentic Christianity.

Those of us who have rejected organized religion cannot lead the charge against this theocratic Crusade. That leadership must come from within the Christian community. There are signs that such leadership is emerging, that Christians who base their understanding on Jesus’ “wokeness” are waking up to the fact that the fundamentalists pushing for theocracy are endangering the very values and beliefs that animate their more loving and inclusive versions of their faith traditions.

I now understand the battle over “wokeness.” It’s a modern version of the Crusades–a battle of fundamentalist True Believers against contemporary religious and philosophical beliefs.

Comments

Will Texas Corruption Spread?

Recently, the New York Times ran an article focused on politics in Texas. It began by describing a legislative primary battle between Republicans, and a tactic that has become prevalent nationally–the accusation that the incumbent was a “RINO,” or a Republican in name only.

The article then reported on the two men behind what has become an effective and organized effort to drive non-theocratic members out of the GOP, and to ensure that Texas is controlled by the Christian Nationalist Right.

Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks are billionaires who have made their fortunes in the oil industry. They are also Christian pastors.

Over the past decade, the pair have built the most powerful political machine in Texas — a network of think-tanks, media organizations, political-action committees and nonprofits that work in lock step to purge the Legislature of Republicans whose votes they can’t rely on. Cycle after cycle, their relentless maneuvering has pushed the Statehouse so far to the right that consultants like to joke that Karl Rove couldn’t win a local race these days. Brandon Darby, the editor of Breitbart Texas, is one of several conservatives who has compared Dunn and Wilks to Russian oligarchs. “They go into other communities and unseat people unwilling to do their bidding,” he says. “You kiss the ring or you’re out.”

These men aren’t clones of the Koch brothers and the other conservative billionaires who want to slash regulations and taxes, although they certainly want to do those things. As the article documents, their endgame is far more radical: they intend to steer government toward their version of Christian rule.

Texas, which has few limits on campaign spending, is home to a formidable army of donors. Lately Dunn has outspent them all. Since 2000, he and his wife have given more than $29 million to candidates and PACs in Texas. Wilks and his wife, who have donated to many of the same PACs as Dunn, have given $16 million. Last year, Dunn and his associated entities provided two thirds of the donations to the state Republican Party.

The duo’s ambitions extend beyond Texas. They’ve poured millions into “dark money” groups, which do not have to disclose contributors; conservative-media juggernauts (Wilks provided $4.7 million in seed capital to The Daily Wire, which hosts “The Ben Shapiro Show”); and federal races. Dunn’s $5 million gift to the Make America Great Again super PAC in December made him one of Donald Trump’s top supporters this election season, and he has quietly begun to invest in efforts to influence a possible second Trump administration, including several linked to Project 2025.

Dunn and Wilks refuse to describe themselves as Christian Nationalists, a label that Dunn rejects as a “made-up label that conflicts with biblical teaching.” But their rhetoric places them firmly within that movement.

Like most Christian Nationalists, the two men speak about protecting Judeo-Christian values and promoting a biblical worldview. These vague expressions often serve as a shorthand for the movement’s central mythology: that America, founded as a Christian nation, has lost touch with its religious heritage, which must now be reclaimed.

A scholar at Rice University who has reviewed the speeches and donations of Dunn and Wilks, believes the two men to be thoroughgoing Dominionists. The article quotes a Republican activist who knows them personally, and agrees:

“They want to get Christians in office to change the ordinances, laws, rules and regulations to fit the Bible,” he told me. According to Texas Monthly, Dunn once told Joe Straus, the first Jewish speaker of the Texas House since statehood, that only Christians should hold leadership positions. (Dunn has denied the remark.)

The two pastors differ on certain points of doctrine — Wilks doesn’t celebrate Christmas, which he considers a “pagan holiday” — but they share a vision of a radically transformed America. And thanks to their money, that vision is spreading beyond Texas.

Lawmakers they’ve funded have introduced bills linked to Project Blitz, a coalition of Rightwing groups that want to advance the role of (their version of) Christianity in public life. One bill requires educators to hang posters of the Ten Commandments in the classroom.” Another requires schools to display “In God We Trust” placards.

After Texas passed a law allowing the work of licensed mental-health counselors in public schools to be done by unlicensed chaplains — representatives of “God in government,” one of the bill’s sponsors called them — a dozen other states introduced similar bills.

The lengthy article has much more, and it’s hair-raising. Worse, recent research tells us that more than half of Republicans support Christian Nationalist beliefs.

Unless we want to inhabit a theocracy, large numbers of Americans need to vote Blue.

Comments

Question And Answer

In a recent column for the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson asks THE question: how on earth is this election close?

The choice between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump should not be a tough call. Harris is a former prosecutor; Trump, a felon. Harris gives campaign speeches about her civic values; Trump rants endlessly about his personal grievances, interrupting himself with asides about sharks and Hannibal Lecter. Harris has outlined a detailed set of policy proposals for the economy; Trump nonsensically offers tariffs as a panacea, describing this fantasy in terms that make it clear he doesn’t understand how tariffs work.

Also, Harris never whipped thousands of supporters into a frenzy and sent them off to the Capitol, where they smashed their way into the citadel of our democracy, injuring scores of police officers and threatening to hang the vice president, in an attempt to overturn the result of a free and fair election. Trump did.

This is the conundrum that drives most rational people crazy. Even without January 6th, 32 felonies, multiple sexual assaults and the horrified testimonies of people who worked in Trump’s administration, who listens to the childish rants of a mentally-disturbed man with a third-grade vocabulary and thinks, “Yep, that’s the guy who should have charge of the nuclear codes.”? Who wants this ignorant name-calling bully to be a role model for America’s children?

How can this election possibly be close?

Robinson suggests some possibilities. First, Kamala Harris is a woman, and many Americans harbor a deep-seated misogyny. He notes that Trump desperately wants to have a fight over gender and race–and that Trump and Vance “are trying hard to win the votes of men who equate manhood with cartoonish machismo — men who somehow feel that their status and prospects are threatened because they are men.”

Another reason might be that the 71 million people who voted for Trump in 2020 are loathe to admit that they backed a loser, let alone an embarrassing buffoon utterly unfit for office. (Large numbers of these voters, after all, still believe the “Big Lie.”)

And Robinson notes that Trump does best among uneducated Whites–the demographic most responsive to his vicious demagoguery on immigration — “the lies he keeps telling about Haitian immigrants eating cats and dogs, for example.” He constantly tells working-class Whites that immigration is a threat to their jobs and communities. As Robinson says, those tribal appeals aren’t likely to win over many new voters, but will likely motivate turnout of his base.

Still, though, how does any of this overcome Trump’s manifest unfitness? How does any of it erase his pathetic performance in the debate? How does it nullify the fact that he awaits sentencing by a New York judge after 34 guilty verdicts in a criminal trial? If the answer is buried somewhere in some poll, I can’t find it.

I have wrestled with the question Robinson poses, and I consistently return to one answer: the “through” line in Robinson’s analysis is bigotry. Racism. A yearning for patriarchy. A simmering hatred of the Other.

Robinson identifies anti-woman, anti-immigrant strands of what we have come to identify as White Supremacy or White Christian Nationalism, but–at least in this essay– he fails to connect the dots, fails to call out the intense White grievance that lies at the heart of the MAGA movement.

When Trump won (barely–and only in the antiquated Electoral College), a number of pundits attributed economic motives to his voters. Research has soundly debunked that assumption; numerous studies confirm the association of “racial resentment” with support for Trump and MAGA. I have previously quoted my youngest son’s observation that there are two kinds of people who vote for Trump–and only two kinds–those who share his racism, and those for whom his racism isn’t disqualifying.

Beginning with that first campaign, Trump jettisoned “dog whistles” in favor of explicitly hateful, racist rhetoric. He asserted that there are “very fine people” who chant “Jews shall not replace us.” He tried to keep Muslims from coming into the country. He said Black immigrants came from “shithole” countries (unlike those nice White folks from Norway…) His supporters want to roll back gay rights, and they persistently wage war on trans children.

This election isn’t about the economy, or national security, or other policies. It’s about culture war.

His MAGA supporters agree with the only clear message Trump has delivered: making America great again requires taking America back to a time when White Christian heterosexual males were in charge, and the rest of us were second class citizens.

This election is close because too many voters share that worldview. The rest of us had better turn out.

Comments

A Rerun

I particularly enjoy visiting the “your memories” function on Facebook (mostly for the pictures of grandchildren when they were younger and me when my hair was still black…). The other day, however, those memories included several comments referencing a post from 2017. I reread it, and concluded that it continues to be relevant–especially as we approach a pivotal election. So today, I’m taking the day off and reposting “Tribalism Versus Americanism.”

Think of it as a very late summer re-run.

____________

We Americans are a cantankerous and argumentative lot. We hold vastly different political philosophies and policy preferences, and we increasingly inhabit alternate realities. Partisans routinely attack elected officials—especially Presidents—who don’t share their preferences or otherwise meet their expectations.

Politics as usual. Unpleasant and often unfair, but—hysteria and hyperbole notwithstanding– usually not a threat to the future of the republic. Usually.

We are beginning to understand that Donald Trump does pose such a threat.

In the wake of Trump’s moral equivocations following Charlottesville, critics on both the left and right characterized his refusal to distinguish between the “fine people” among the Nazis and KKK and the “fine people” among the protestors as an assault on core American values. His subsequent, stunning decision to pardon rogue sheriff Joe Arpaio has been described, accurately, as an assault on the rule of law.

It’s worth considering what, exactly, is at stake.

Whatever our beliefs about “American exceptionalism,” the founding of this country was genuinely exceptional—defined as dramatically different from what had gone before—in one incredibly important respect: for the first time, citizenship was made dependent upon behavior rather than identity. In the Old World, countries had been created by conquest, or as expressions of ethnic or religious solidarity. As a result, the rights of individuals were dependent upon their identities, the status of their particular “tribes” in the relevant order. (Jews, for example, rarely enjoyed the same rights as Christians, even in countries that refrained from oppressing them.)

Your rights vis a vis your government depended upon who you were—your religion, your social class, your status as conqueror or conquered.

The new United States took a different approach to citizenship. Whatever the social realities, whatever the disabilities imposed by the laws of the various states, anyone (okay, any white male) born or naturalized here was equally a citizen. We look back now at the exclusion of blacks and women and our treatment of Native Americans as shameful departures from that approach, and they were, but we sometimes fail to appreciate how novel the approach itself was at that time in history.

All of our core American values—individual rights, civic equality, due process of law—flow from the principle that government must not facilitate tribalism, must not treat people differently based upon their ethnicity or religion or other marker of identity. Eventually (and for many people, reluctantly) we extended that principle to gender, skin color and sexual orientation.

Racism is a rejection of that civic equality. Signaling that government officials will not be punished for flagrantly violating that foundational principle so long as the disobedience advances the interests of the President, fatally undermines it.

Admittedly, America’s history is filled with disgraceful episodes in which we have failed to live up to the principles we profess. In many parts of the country, communities still grapple with bitter divisions based upon tribal affiliations—race, religion and increasingly, partisanship.

When our leaders have understood the foundations of American citizenship, when they have reminded us that what makes us Americans is allegiance to core American values—not the color of our skin, not the prayers we say, not who we love—we emerge stronger from these periods of unrest. When they speak to the “better angels of our nature,” most of those “better angels” respond.

When our leaders are morally bankrupt, all bets are off. We’re not all Americans any more, we’re just a collection of warring tribes, some favored by those in power, some not.

As the old saying goes: elections have consequences.

Comments

The Theocracy At The Center of Project 2025

A writer for The Guardian recently read the entire 900+/- pages of Project 2025, rather than relying on what she called “snippets.” What she found was even more appalling than the various excerpts most of us have seen.

Basically, the Project lays out a road to theocracy.

The document repeatedly characterizes America as a country poisoned by “wokeness.” And it proposes, as an antidote to “wokeness,” remaking the government in accord with a fundamentalist version of Christianity.

Across multiple agencies, it would make access to abortion infinitely more difficult. It would change the name of the federal health and human services department to the “Department of Life”. It would criminalize pornography. There would be mass deportations and curtailments of legal immigration programs, including Daca. It would dismantle the Department of Education.

Throughout the manifesto, authors also recommend ways to increase funding for religious organizations by giving them more access to government programs – largely through increased use of school vouchers that could go to religious schools or by modifying programs like Small Business Administration loans to make religious groups eligible for funding.

In some parts, the project takes a more explicit Christian worldview. In the chapter about the Department of Labor, the manifesto suggests a communal day of rest for society because “God ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest”. One way to enforce this idea would be for Congress to require paid time-and-a-half for anyone who works on Sundays, which the project calls the default day of Sabbath “except for employers with a sincere religious observance of a Sabbath at a different time”.

In nearly all chapters, there is a mention of driving out any forces that seek to increase diversity in the federal government. And whenever LGBTQ+ rights are mentioned, it is to say there should be fewer of them.

Heritage might just as well have named Project 2025 “Project Christian Nationalism.” The document doesn’t stop with the enumeration of goals, either–it outlines the practical steps that would enable a Trump Administration to reach those goals.

Achieving the goal of “Christianizing” America would be the task of loyalists who would replace civil servants–as has been reported, Project 2025 advocates reclassifying thousands of federal jobs as “political” rather than non-partisan, in order to replace the civil servants who are currently doing those jobs with Trump loyalists.

The effort would also require taking control of the census.

The census helps decide how federal resources should be allocated to communities, but, for our purposes here, it’s most relevant that census data is used to decide how to divvy up seats in the US House and make electoral maps during decennial redistricting done by states. The census can alter the balance of power in statehouses and in Congress.

Given its influence, the project suggests an incoming conservative president needs to install more political appointees to the census bureau and ensure ideologically aligned career employees are “immediately put in place to execute a conservative agenda”. The next census isn’t until 2030, but plans for it are already under way.

That conservative agenda includes adding a citizenship question, something Trump tried to do for the 2020 census but was blocked by the US supreme court. The project says “any successful conservative Administration must include a citizenship question in the census.”

The project also suggests reviewing and possibly curtailing plans to broaden the race and ethnicity categories because “there are concerns among conservatives that the data under Biden Administration proposals could be skewed to bolster progressive political agendas.”

There is much more, of course, but the quoted material is enough to raise the hair on the back of my neck, and probably the necks of most rational Americans.

Those of us tempted to dismiss Project 2025 as a theocratic fever dream unlikely to be realized even in a Trump administration need to understand that the people committed to imposing their beliefs on the rest of us are nothing if not patient. They worked for fifty years to overturn Roe v. Wade. If Trump wins, their wait will be shorter–as the article notes, to the (very limited) extent that Trump has enumerated any policies (or would recognize one if he encountered it), they’ve aligned with those in Project 2025. Even if he loses narrowly, they will be encouraged to dig in.

Even a massive loss–a Blue Wave–will only slow them down. They will bide their time and continue trying to “return” the country to a place that existed only in their twisted imaginations. Americans who want to protect our constitutional system will need to stay perpetually alert.

As the saying goes, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Comments