1115.org

“Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one’s own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.” - John Fitzgerald Kennedy

At some point between the Stonewall riots in 1969 and Ellen’s coming out in 1997, gay rights achieved a grudging critical mass. With the country ruled by the code of politically correct speech, those who wished to keep gays and lesbians second-class citizens were forced to adopt a façade of tolerance with statements like “They can do what they want in private, just don’t rub our noses in it.”

Of course that façade has fallen into disrepair, and the hate and intolerance it barely concealed was then pushed to the surface, more powerful and widespread than before. The people most offended by homosexuality and its inherent public display are the same people fighting to have their religion codified, the symbols of their faith adorning public squares across the land. To justify their actions, they point to the bible and ignore the Constitution’s guarantee of separation of church and state, just as they skip over the Declaration of Independence’s promise of “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” when it’s convenient.

While reasonable people go about their day without caring much about other people’s sex lives, the certifiable lunatics who run the religious right have fixated on the sexual orientation of a puppet and a cartoon character. While the gay and lesbian community fights daily for rights they already have (on paper anyway), sitting U.S. Senators think nothing of equating them with box turtles and dogs engaged in bestiality, all the while denying them equal rights and protection under the law.

The right’s fight to ban gay marriages hinges on their religious beliefs, yet they want government to enforce scripture by denying gays and lesbians the same right to marry enjoyed by everyone else. Their talking point that calls gay marriage a threat to heterosexual marriage goes unchallenged despite being a non sequitur. Not satisfied with the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, they are now willing to throw away Senate rules to confirm judges who are openly hostile to homosexual rights.

Of course, the intolerance doesn’t stop with gay issues. Science has become a target as well.

“What is tolerance? — it is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other’s folly — that is the first law of nature.” - Voltaire

The revived debate over stem cell research spurred by new legislation in Congress perfectly illustrates the point. Despite the ludicrous premise that frozen embryos are people, the views of the religious right have been given more coverage than scientists and people suffering from disease potentially curable with stem cell therapy. The debate over public funding in this area is as red a herring as they come: private research isn’t and can’t be banned, so symbolism and ideology are the only reasons . But the President is portrayed as heroic for standing up to a bunch of truly sick people and, in effect, telling them that the government would rather fund his faith-based initiative than the research that could save or vastly improve their lives. The reason he does this and continually gets away with it is that when it comes to religion, no one in the media wants to point out the inconsistency and priorities at play.

Religion vs science debates also rage around topics like evolution, where hearings have been held in Kansas in an attempt to return creationism teaching to schools there, and the FDA, where one of it’s advisors said “it wasn’t until I began to see how Jesus treated women that I understood how I, as a doctor, should treat them.” The same advisor, by the way, is accused of forcibly sodomizing his then-wife. But that seems not to be a problem because he’s straight.

“As no roads are so rough as those that have just been mended, so no sinners are so intolerant as those that have just turned saints.” - Charles Caleb Colton

The longest running, most contentious battle is the one that will be settled the quickest should the bible thumpers succeed in remaking the judiciary in their image. Not content to restrict their use of the government to citizen’s bedrooms, they want to extend control into women’s bodies by returning abortion rights to the era of rusty coat-hangers. Just as they want to stop homosexual sex, non-procreative heterosexual sex is also a target. Much as they might wish, the human sex drive can’t be legislated away. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a bizarre punishment, compounded by their decrease in interest (inadequate funding for No Child Left Behind and attempts to cut food stamps among others) when fetus becomes child.

If you haven’t guessed, the running theme is “Ways the Religious Right Not Only Rubs Everyone’s Nose in Their Beliefs, but Decides Morality and Government Actions for the Whole Country.”

For most of the history of the United States, attempts to fuse religion and government were turned away with little more than a gesture in the general direction of the First Amendment. Changes in the balance of power at federal, state, and local levels combined with a well-funded, organized and single-minded infrastructure of those who wish to advance the spread of Christianity have resulted in a reinterpretation of the First Amendment and turning a blind eye when the new interpretation isn’t enough. The burden of proof has shifted to groups wishing to keep religion out of government, but they must do so on a playing field far from level.

A few weeks ago, I wrote the following:

The fact that religion has no monopoly on morality and no shortage of sin has not prevented the media from issuing a standing directive to treat politicians and other public figures who cloak themselves in the vernacular of faith as more credible than those who wish to maintain the separation of church and state.

News reports covering any issue where morality is involved invariably originate from a position that it’s benign when religion seeps into places it doesn’t belong and/or influences decisions it ought not to, because “a little faith never hurt anyone.” But is that really true when the vast majority of Americans support a woman’s right to choose, stem cell research, gay rights and other issues that run counter to the goals of the religious right?

“The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.” - Ralph W. Sockman

When voters went to the polls last November, they narrowly voted for George W. Bush for reasons of security or because they picture him as someone with whom they would like to have a beer. Just 12% indicated that religion drove their vote. Yet from district and appeals court nominees to cabinet officials, high-level advisors to political appointees, the vast majority of the President’s choices have an evangelical agenda.

It’s the dynamic of evangelism within and without the government that is subverting the will of the public. There aren’t any evangelical homosexuals, evangelical abortion supporters, evangelical Darwinists, or evangelical stem cell researchers. Through the intensity and volume of their arguments, evangelical Christians wield influence disproportionate to their numbers. They do not tolerate lifestyles or viewpoints other than their own (at best you’ll hear “hate the sin not the sinner”), yet demand not only tolerance but official approval for the way they choose to live their lives.

“We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.” - Karl Popper

**Reader submission:

Andrew M. writes in to recommend The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris. This looks like an interesting read.