Essay by Martha Quillen
Modern life – January 2004 – Colorado Central Magazine
LAST SPRING I was talking to Lynda La Rocca and mentioned how irritating I thought it was that the word “Christian” had been usurped by political conservatives.
And wrong, too, because Christians clearly come in all parties, and embrace all sorts of political platforms. There are anti-war Christians and environmental activist Christians and communist Christians and gay Christians. There are Christians who support prayer in the schools, and Christians who feel that school prayer is inappropriate. There are Christians who believe in evolution, and Christians who embrace creationism. There are French Christians, and Middle Eastern Christians, and South American Christians, and even anti-American Christians.
The word Christian is not synonymous with “Republican,” “patriot,” “conservative,” “pro-lifer,” or “supply-sider.” And some Christians even like rock and roll. But today the word implies far more than one who follows the faith.
Not long ago, a grandfather I know — a man who had diligently taken his children and grandchildren to church through the years (and on occasion took mine along,too) — told me he was ashamed to be a Christian and no longer attended church. He said Christians were just too blood thirsty for him. Apparently, he now sees Christians as wannabe warriors who champion a citizen’s right to shoot trespassers; murder abortion doctors; hate Arabs; and hang young homosexuals on fences. (Or at the very least, he figures they don’t disapprove of such things).
And unfortunately, this man isn’t the first person I’ve talked to who felt that way.
Personally, I think it’s sad that Christianity has been linked with such mean-spirited political posturing. But partisan politics have grown increasingly belligerent in recent years. And caustic media personalities who bill themselves as God-fearing and conservative, now rail against liberals, Democrats, immigrants, environmentalists, multiculturalists, revisionists, relativists, NPR, affirmative action, The New York Times, Newsweek, Time, CNN, The Washington Post, the NEA, NEH…. And in doing so, they’ve alienated a fair-sized chunk of middle America.
I tend to blame Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter and a host of other vociferously angry commentators for this — since they gleefully market rancor and profit handsomely off the resultant hostility.
BUT WHAT COULD BE WRONG with that? This is America, after all, and America’s passion for malice, ridicule, and scorn almost surpasses it’s preoccupation with cinematic sex and violence.
Or as Michael Savage would say:
“As for the clipped-haired, mean-faced Democrats who tell me I’m hateful and intolerant because I oppose the tidal wave of Turd World immigration, I say, Go find another country.”
Or as Rush would have it:
“The poor in this country are the biggest piglets at the mother pig and her nipples.”
“Feminism was established so that unattractive women could have easier access to the mainstream of society.”
“Modern-day liberalism is like a disease or an addiction that literally has the power to destroy the character of the person who falls under its spell.”
Rush blithely scorns “environmental wackos,” “class warriors,” “femi-Nazis,” “knee-jerks,” and “me-first liberals.”
But there is someone Rush thoroughly admires:
*”I realized early on just how right I had been about so much.”
* [Referring to a monologue he presented] “The reaction of the audience was exceptional; which didn’t surprise me. I’m used to that.”
*”So there it was, this unique blend of humor, irreverence, and the serious discussion of events with a conservative slant. Nowhere else in the media today will you find all these ingredients in one presentation. I would love to tell you that this was the result of a brilliantly conceived and flawlessly executed strategy, but it wasn’t. It was just me being myself.”
*”Think of it. We have helped resurrect AM talk radio, which, before I blitzkrieged the medium, was on its last leg.”
*”I answered the phone and was asked to pen tome No. 2 — which you, esteemed and discerning readers, are now highly privileged to possess.”
But Rush is merely arrogant and rude — and now that I know that he is drug-addled, too, I’m inclined to cut him some slack.
SAVAGE, ON THE OTHER HAND, wields a truly poison pen. If Rush is the father of this kind of venomous rant, Michael Savage is the godfather.
“Maybe you think this is a joke,” Savage writes. “In fact, they’re hoping you do. But, as you’ll see, the left-wing agenda espoused by PETA, like all radical liberal groups, is morally bankrupt at its core. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
“They will open this country up to further terrorism.
“They will pollute everything that you believe in.
“They will trample on your church.
“They will trample on your synagogue.
“They will trample on your flag.
“They will trample on your memory.
“They’ll trample on your collective memory.
“They’ll pervert your child’s mind.
“They are dangerous. They’re not laughable. It’s people like these who brought down governments in the past.”
And Savage delights in pure paranoid hate-mongering:
“I predict the day is coming when the Reverend Jesse Hijackson or some such subversive minority group will insist it’s time to change the White House to the Multi-Culty House.
“I can already imagine what their childish, whiny protest would sound like. They’d argue the White House symbolizes the power of white males. I can picture the Reverend Hijackson standing on Pennsylvania Avenue with the White House in the background. He’d say, ‘It’s time to end it. Not mend it.’ He’d suggest the White House should be painted black or brown and renamed the Black House or the Brown House. Don’t we sheeple know it’s racist to have to call it the White House?”
COMPARED TO THIS COMPANY, Ann Coulter offers a somewhat elevated brand of contemptuous stereo-typing. But it’s equally abrasive:
“Liberals dispute slight reductions in the marginal tax rates as if they are trying to prevent Charles Manson from slaughtering baby seals. Progress cannot be made on serious issues because one side is making arguments and the other side is throwing eggs — both figuratively and literally. Prevarication and denigration are the hallmarks of liberal argument. Logic is not their métier. Blind religious faith is.”
Historically, however, it’s downright time-honored and traditional to question the morality of your political opponents — and even to view them as destroying your society.
Still, it might be best to cool some of the rhetoric — presuming that we don’t fancy Yugoslavia as a role model.
David Limbaugh, Rush’s brother, isn’t much of a name-caller, though.
But unfortunately, he doesn’t offer any advice on how to surmount our differences, either. Instead, the title of his book — Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity — says it all.
And he’s serious. The way he sees it, Christians are being systematically oppressed by liberals — and by our schools, courts, and government. He sites scads of incidents and court cases to show how our country is discriminating against Christians.
Especially in our public schools.
Some of David’s accusations seem paranoid, reckless, and repulsively bigoted. But others strike a chord. By collecting information about court cases and school disputes, he illuminates some very real problems and clearly illustrates how emotional the struggle to keep religion in our schools has become.
MANY CONSERVATIVES object to the suppression of prayer, Bible readings, religious discussion, and Christian art in our public schools.
And many also revile the public school stance on sex education, “revisionist history,” “multiculturalism,” and accepting homosexuality.
But simple solutions aren’t readily available.
A substantial number of Christians also object to texts, lectures. and educational materials that are stripped of moral instruction and biblical lessons — because they think moral instruction is imperative.
And as if that didn’t make matters difficult enough, they also abhor moral education that reflects what they consider to be “secular humanist” or “morally relative” viewpoints.
So now there are Republicans clamoring to return prayer and the ten commandments to our schools and courtrooms.
But that, of course, would hardly be kosher.
At this point, it’s difficult to imagine how our schools can accommodate all of the various factions. In recent years, conservatives, fundamentalists, civil libertarians, and non-Christians have all grown frustrated with our schools.
Although some conservative Christians might be satisfied with a few paragraphs about creation in their science texts, others want equal space. And a few feel that there should be no information in public schools that refutes the biblical assertion that God created man, woman, animals, and the world in a single week. So what are teachers supposed to say about dinosaurs and geologic ages? Or Neanderthals? Taxonomy? Botany? And biology?
David Limbaugh’s book convinced me that there is little hope left for American schools — because everybody seems to feel persecuted these days.
And curiously enough, I think that maybe everyone really is a little persecuted.
After all, it would probably be easier to live in a nice, little village where everyone believes the same things you do.
But if you can’t find such a place in Central Colorado — and you can’t — then what are we supposed to do?
When I wrote about school prayer for our November issue, I supported eliminating it from all school activities. But once upon a time, I probably would have argued the other way. When my kids were in school, I thought that they could withstand a few prayers and icons that challenged their beliefs and traditions.
And in truth, I don’t really care if students in public schools sport religious messages on their t-shirts, or put pictures of Jesus on their book covers, or even tattoo WWJD on their foreheads (although Limbaugh’s book sure showed that such things can lead to a lot of court costs).
I also believe that everyone everywhere should be able to bow their head and pray silently whenever they want. (Although I would definitely understand if a coach benched a player who suddenly bowed when he was supposed to be intercepting a pass.)
WHEN OUR DAUGHTERS were in school, I didn’t object when someone set up a table and handed out free Bibles. But a friend did object, and I could understand her point — since her kids were Jewish and didn’t need a copy of the New Testament.
But no harm was done, right?
Except maybe I wasn’t being fair….
Back then, however, I would not have objected to a few minutes of silent prayer or meditation to start the school day. Or to a few paragraphs in the science book explaining creationist theories.
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has not been so amenable. It has ruled against religious observances that are initiated, approved, or influenced by school personnel.
But on the other hand, the Court supports a student’s right to wear religious attire, pray individually, and carry Bibles.
In essence, the Court has held that students’ rights are protected under the First Amendment, but the schools shouldn’t host, impose, or even schedule religious observances due to the Establishment Clause.
But that doesn’t mean that the U.S. Supreme Court is for or against religion. The Court simply objects to allowing government employees to determine what constitutes appropriate religious instruction or prayer.
And I’ve come to think that the Court is right.
David Limbaugh, however, characterizes our courts and schools as anti-Christian.
In doing so, however, he expands the definition of “Christian” to encompass far more than religion and prayer. In Limbaugh’s view, “Christian values” are part of being a Christian, and those values include antipathy toward homosexuality, and objections to: sex education, multiculturalism, political correctness, ethnic studies and a whole host of other things. Limbaugh even opposes anti-harassment policies in schools, because he thinks they discourage free speech.
But Limbaugh doesn’t feel that all religious values have a place in our schools. He writes about (and supports) objections to: lessons about Hindu and Aztecan peoples which included religious displays and writings; Native American prayer circles; Earth Day references to mother earth and father sky; and death and grief counseling.
And the courts have generally agreed that such religious inclusion is unconstitutional and unwarranted in the public schools (although one court did excuse a case against yoga).
Yet neither liberals nor conservatives necessarily agree with the courts. And thus some teachers wrongfully confiscate Bibles and Stars of David; and some schools encourage prayers at football games and graduation ceremonies; and lawyers make a lot of money.
But conservative Christians claim — rightly, I think — that religion has historically played a huge part in our schools and communities. And they want it back.
Times change, though. And whether they call themselves Christian or not, Americans seem angrier, more litigious, and less likely to forgive one another’s trespasses than they once were.
WHEN SALIDANS WERE wrangling over whether there should be prayers at graduation, I noticed that a lot of people saw it the way I used to. What’s the big deal? It’s only one prayer; or two minutes every morning; or a couple of Bible passages.
But the problem doesn’t really lie in a single incident, or even in daily observances. The problem resides in the climate.
And despite persistent denials by both liberals and conservatives, they actually recognize that.
Rush Limbaugh frequently grouses because everybody keeps whining about their rights these days. Woman, blacks, Hispanics: they all see themselves as victims. But now Rush’s brother thinks that Christians are the real victims.
And Rush, himself, frequently complains because white men aren’t treated well, and conservative values aren’t respected, and (as he sees it) liberals control our schools and media.
So when Rush feels as if people are ruining his world, he whines, and moans, and demands his rights, too.
But everybody’s a hypocrite. It’s an American tradition.
Remember those Republicans who insisted that Clinton wasn’t our legitimate President because he didn’t glean a majority of the vote?
Why aren’t they upset that Bush is President — since Gore carried the popular vote?
And if it didn’t matter whether Clinton got caught in a sex scandal, why does it matter when Republicans get caught?
And why do so many people preach what they don’t practice? Like Marilyn Quayle who objected to working mothers; and Newt Gingrich who championed intact families; and Rush Limbaugh who has a drug problem; and Clinton, the equal rights candidate who found Monica a cushy job — for doing what?
IN CENTRAL COLORADO we live in small towns where problems with discrimination and integration are not always obvious. Here, complainants tend to be a little different: new residents, parents, home owners, ranchers, loggers, and irrigators often feel that the powers that be are stacked against them.
But our essential problem is the same. People believe, very often correctly, that the system is set up to serve someone else. And in such cases anger is a good thing. It encourages us to do something; it inspires us to write a letter to the local newspaper, or to consult the school board, or city council, or county commissioners.
But what happens when our anger is so prodigious that we can’t negotiate?
Well, that’s what’s so troubling about holy wars. The world’s leading religions — Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism — all champion compassion, sympathy, and kindness (and they offer the world’s most exquisite how-to manuals). Likewise, philosophies which don’t feature a specific deity — such as Unitarianism and secular humanism — also promote harmony and understanding.
And even political correctness, as annoying and ludicrous as it evolved to be, simply advanced rules to help people get along. But then people started berating citizens who didn’t follow those rules: You’re a bigot, a chauvinist, and a racist, scum-sucking pig. Or a heretic, a heathen, an infidel…. This scenario is as old as civilization.
But now a heightened sense of furious indignation seems to dominate our world. Who isn’t outraged? Christians? Moslems? Tim McVeigh? Osama bin Laden? Yasser Arafat? The entire country of Israel? The U.S.? France?
This is nothing new, of course. The ferocity of the Spanish Inquisitors dwarfs the record of modern terrorists.
But ordinary Americans seem to be convenient targets for resentment at home and abroad — since our country is both a world power, and a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic nation (whether Rush and David Limbaugh like it or not).
So perhaps it’s time for Americans to recognize that many of us feel beleaguered and persecuted — with good reason.
American lifestyles have changed. Technology is displacing workers. Manufacturing jobs are moving overseas. There aren’t many job opportunities for undereducated Americans. People get divorced. Women work.
And despite all of the harangues about family values, this is not the fault of working mothers or ghetto kids. At this point, I think we should chalk it up to economic progress, and blame both Republicans and Democrats, because rants about morality are not going to change things. Unemployed parents, street kids, and working mothers cannot just enlist in the “Leave It To Beaver” Society, tomorrow morning.
Today, many children have single parents, step-parents and working parents, so families are less conventional. Now, there are mothers and fathers who date, and kids with more than one home, and openly gay couples in our communities. There are more choices on our televisions, and more styles of music — and all of it comes right into our homes while parents are at work.
THERE ARE MORE IMMIGRANTS, and more strangers, even in Central Colorado (since people keep moving into our little towns — which were once considered beyond the beyond). And all of us are far more aware of child abuse, pedophelia, serial killers, and sexual predators than we once were.
So parenting is getting trickier. And Americans definitely don’t trust each other very much.
Children haven’t changed much, however. They are still immature people who can’t always be trusted to do the right thing. And one of the things that they’re not very good at is treating each other with respect.
When you put Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Atheistic, and Agnostic youngsters together; and mix young people who think homosexuality is depraved with young people who are homosexual; and mingle the reverent with the skeptics; children sometimes get hurt.
When I was in fourth grade, there was a bully who threatened “heathens.” And even though we all knew that his parents would disapprove of his behavior, none of us had the courage to tell on him — so I suspect they never knew.
Of course, such abuse can go both ways, and it does. White, male, Anglo-Saxon, Christian kids get harassed, too, for being uptight, unfashionable, nerdy, preachy, arrogant, threadbare, spoiled — or whatever.
Like I said, Christians are not all the same.
But sometimes kids terrorize other kids because they perceive them to be part and parcel of a group they abhor.
And sometimes adults aren’t much better.
More to the point, however, behavior in our schools seems to have gotten worse in the last decade or so. According to Rush and his ilk, the children of hippies are invariably delinquents.
And if you read between the lines of David Limbaugh’s book, you realize that even good, decent Christian kids are being encouraged to defy school personnel. No matter what the law says, no one is going to tell them what to wear — or stop them from praying and singing aloud to their Lord.
Actually, I don’t think that things are really quite as bad as many claim. Except it’s got to be darned near impossible to be a teacher these days.
Very few of us truly recognize authority these days. The kids don’t seem to listen as well as they used to. The parents intervene all of the time. And the teachers don’t necessarily think that they should have to follow some wrong-headed, oppressive Supreme Court decision, either.
But in actuality, I don’t think many of us care about what the Supreme Court says, or even know for sure.
DON’T LOOK TO me for solutions, though. I believe in freedom. I believe in individualism. And I believe that nobody, who really, truly feels that their position is right, should ever have to listen to a prayer, or say a prayer, or refrain from saying a prayer just because some rule says so.
In fact, every time George Sibley implies that we should all have to sacrifice some of our freedom for the benefit of the community, I get queasy.
Who will get to decide what’s best for the community?
Benito Mussolini?
No way.
But George, of course, is a teacher, so it’s not surprising that he supports some sort of supervision.
Freedom, however, is a noble cause, and children’s liberation is a dynamic experiment….
Damned the torpedoes; full speed ahead. I support freedom: freedom to pray, freedom from prayer, freedom of religion and expression and speech. (Although maybe — just maybe — kids shouldn’t enjoy complete freedom until after they graduate from high school.)
On the whole, though, I think that we could make things better without sacrificing our freedom — if we quit letting the pundits and politicians divide us into two convenient camps; and started listening to one another’s complaints; and quit dismissing one another’s problems; and rejected stereo-types; and abandoned disparagements; and acknowledged that it’s a lot harder to operate our public schools fairly than the armchair critics imply.
Then, perhaps, we would want to get along.
–Martha Quillen
Post Script
Back when I talked to Lynda, I planned to write more about modern schisms in Christianity and less about schools. Mostly, I wanted to find out why the Christian left has been so unresponsive in an era when liberals are being broadly characterized as immoral, selfish, and hedonistic. But I never really figured it out.
Then we came across a story by Jim Stiles, editor of The Canyon Country Zephyr, which presents a decidedly leftist philosophical viewpoint, and decided to print it.
Jim’s piece doesn’t reveal where the Christian left has retreated to, but it shares a bit of liberal religious sentiment that often seems to be missing these days. Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter — and many far more respectable, but equally derisive conservatives like Bork and Dobbs — present their philosophical views as gospel, with relatively few counterclaims.
So this month we’re publishing an alternate view that’s sure to please some and infuriate others.
And it’s bolder, sharper, and funnier than anything we would have come up with.
Yet our purpose in running Stiles story is not to offend or convert anyone, or even to change minds; it’s merely to challenge the derogatory presumptions advanced by so many angry conservatives — and to add a bit of levity to the dialogue.
