Historical commentary on religion and politics with no actionable leads

4.2.12 WC: 191694 Justice O’Connor was not, of course, the first (or the last) public office to use Christianity in the of partisan politics. The issue got so bad during the 1984 presidential race that Walter Mondale found it necessary to remind Ronald Reagan that in the United States the president, unlike the queen of England, is “not the defender of the faith” but rather the “defender of the Constitution.” In 2012, A Republican candidate for President, Rick Santorum, said that the concept of an absolute separation of church and state, as articulated by John Kennedy when he was running for president, “makes me want to throw up.” Other candidates, though expressly themselves less graphically, have also railed against the separation of church and state. “Faith” has become synonymous with “values” in the minds of many although there is absolutely no correlation. Indeed, the “values” espoused by people who would impose their faith on others are highly questionable. They include denying gays the equal protection of the law, denying women (and young girls) the right to choose abortion, and sometimes contraception, even in compelling cases; and, often, other conservative political “values” that have nothing to do with religion, such as low taxes, the right to bear arms, the death penalty and widespread censorship. The debates over these issues, especially gay rights and the right to choose abortion, have become wedge controversies that are unduly influenced by the churches in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of our Constitution. The rights of gays to absolute equality When I was growing up, it was impermissible to use any words that were demeaning to African Americans (who we called Negroes or colored), to other religions or ethnic minorities (except for the Germans and Japanese during World War IJ) or to women. But insulting gay boys (we had no idea there even were lesbians) was perfectly acceptable. Indeed, we commonly used “the F word” to insult non-athletic classmates or effeminate-looking boys. We never actually met a real live homosexual (at least to our knowledge) but we knew there was “something wrong” with anybody who was sexually attracted to people of the same gender. Our bigotry was not religiously based, though we knew that the Bible prohibited sex between men (perhaps the Bible’s authors, like us, had no idea there were lesbians). We just didn’t like “homos.” It was as simple as that. You really do have to be taught to hate (as said the words of a song from a show popular back in the day.) And we were taught to treat all people, except gays, equally. It’s very different among today’s youth, at least in parts of the world that I frequent. Most young people I encounter can’t even understand why anyone would discriminate against someone based on his or her sexual orientation or preference. Today, the discrimination does seem religiously based, at least to a significant degree. The Bible is frequently cited as the authoritative source for condemning homosexuality, and the sanctity (a religious term) of marriage between a man and a woman serves as the primary basis for opposition to gay marriage. 310 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017397