OpEdNews » Corporate Media Enables Right Wing Distortion of "Religious Liberty"

Support OEN
With Your
Tax-Deductible Donation

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): Liberty; Media Distortion; Media-News; Religious Hypocrisy; Right Wing; Right Wing Hypocrisy; Right Wing Media; Right Wing Spin
Add to My Group

December 13, 2007 at 13:30:44

Corporate Media Enables Right Wing Distortion of "Religious Liberty"

by Amy Fried Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

The major Republican candidates seem to be using a new stealth strategy for sneaking their placating of their Religious Right base into mainstream discourse. Mitt Romney’s recent speech - sadly contrasted with JFK’s famous speech on his religion in its implications - was one case in point.

Unfortunately, the corporate media seem to be enabling this strategy, treating extreme statements as mainstream, and illustrating their appalling lack of knowledge about the religion clauses of the Constitution.

Yesterday on his show, Chris Matthews took issue with Rachel Maddow’s comment that a call for a “Christian Nation” has become a mainstream Republican position in this election - challenging her to come up with an example from a current candidate. Luckily, the research folks at Think Progress have found this 1998 speech, in which Huckabee calls for taking back the nation for Christ:

“’I didn’t get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives. […]

I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.’”

Perhaps Matthews will apologize to Maddow for his ignorance. His cluelessness on the issue of church-state separation was even more on display when he said that we’ve never had complete separation, because the Civil Rights movement was led by clergy. This is an astoundingly misguided statement. First, of course, the clergy who petitioned the government in the 1960’s - on an issue (as opposed to a candidate) - were not representatives of the government. As such, their actions had no bearing on government establishment of religion. But the significance of Matthews’ misconception goes much deeper, for it is for just that reason - the important role that religious leaders can play in speaking truth to power - that church-state separation is so crucial. If the Religious Right base of the Republican Party has its way, houses of worship will become arms of the government, handing out government-funded assistance, and thereby losing their independence.

The enabling of distortion continued yesterday with Lou Dobbs’ interview of Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. After giving lip service to having no religious tests for public office, Perkins smilingly launches into this rather extreme statement:

“We're not a country that has embraced a secular world view. We are a country that has embraced a Christian world view. That is what our legal system is founded upon.”

It would be an understatement to say that Perkins distorts the Constitution. For instance, if our government is based on Christianity, then how does Perkins explain the Treaty of Tripoli, in which the very opposite was declared? If the Founders were trying to base the Constitution on any religion, they had a funny way of showing it, leaving out any such references in the document. Beyond constitutional issues, such statements are sad displays of intolerance. The notion of a Christian Nation obviously creates millions of second-class citizens. In addition, as Maddow pointed out to Matthews, once you open the door to church-state union, such ugly exchanges as the recent disparaging characterization of Mormonism by Huckabee - for which he apologized - become more commonplace.

Disappointingly, Dobbs let Perkins statement go unchallenged, as if it goes without saying.

The corporate media stars need to go back to civics class.

http://neoconmind.blogspot.com

The author received her Ph.D. in the field of Organizational Behavior, which she now applies to her political writing. She's been an advocate for church-state separation and other civil liberties issues. She writes on the neoconservative mind, women's issues, media, veganism and the Religious Right.

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

1 comments

I volunteer as a community mediator and as a domestic violence intervention advocate for a local police department which is deeply into community policing. I'm an old lady, have two children and two grandchildren. I am a liberal and very proud of it.
Diane CadonauI volunteer as a community mediator and as a domestic violence intervention advocate for a local police department which is deeply into community policing. I'm an old lady, have two children and two grandchildren. I am a liberal and very proud of it.

Romney's Statement re: Secularism

This is the text of a letter to the editor that I sent to The Oregonian several days ago. To date it has not been printed it, so I will take this opportunity to say what I wanted to say, knowing I might be heard:

To the Editor:

After reading the news about Mitt Romney’s statement that “…establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism,” was a bad thing – I pulled out my trusty dictionary. “Secularism” is not a religion. It is a belief that religion should not play a role in government – a belief that was made part of the Constitution by our founding fathers who, in my opinion, were mightily influenced by Enlightenment philosophy which tended to reject religious tradition and dogma in favor of reason and experience.

In my mind secularism is a way of relating to people and working with them. I don’t care if someone is a Catholic, a Protestant, an Evangelical, a Muslim, a Jew, an atheist. What I do care about is what a person does to make life better in our communities and that, of necessity, must happen at the secular level if for no other reason than the need to bridge religious diversity.

As a volunteer, what I do is help victims of domestic violence and, as a mediator, assist people in settling their disputes. Why I engage in these two activities is no one’s business but my own - unless I choose to share that information. What is important is what I do, and it is at this point where people can, and should, make judgments about me and my ability to contribute to the welfare of my community.

Why cannot we let this religion-in-politics, religion-as-end-all, controversy go? Why are we so afraid to trust anyone who does not share the same source of our spirituality? Why cannot we just let people be who they are and judge them on the efficacy of their choices and actions?

Diane

by Diane Cadonau (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Friday, December 14, 2007 at 4:44:17 PM