Culture Wars: Why It's Gay Marriage Now and Prohibition Then

Reader Comments
Back to article

One of the deep "denials" of American life is that we are not a theocracy. While not a deeply oppressive one, as in Saudi Arabia, we are a theocracy. For many Americans, belief in a "god" is right or true. For example, a large majority of Americans have no qualms about maintaining the McCarthy era provisions of the "in god we trust" in the flag salute, and the more socially sensitive people of believers content themselves by believing that all the nonbeliever has to do is remain silent at that point in the salute. Even a liberal human such as Barack Obama closes many of his public addresses with "May god bless America", perhaps accepting the dishwater notion that one can place whatever interpretation of the term god they want, and thus none should be offended by his use of a public pulpit to endorse a deist perspective. To believe in a god of whatever stripe is one religions view, to disbelieve in such another religious view. Choosing sides, rather than religious neutrality in public affairs,is habitual and oppressive. The use of the term GOD, big G god, is chronic, quite often habitual, and deeply offensive to those of a different and nontheistic persuasion. Simply saying, in such matters, "the god I worship" or even "my god" rarely happens. Public bullying, such as the god word on our coins, or oaths for office or court, I suspect is rarely recognized for what it is. The presumption, I think, is that since atheism is uncommon it does no harm to treat their sensitivities with indifference. Translate that to race matters? Suppose we used the expression "In white folks we trust" and presumed that people of color have no right to be offended by majority insensitivity? As a lifelong atheist I could continue at great length exhibiting the bullying indifference of America to our perspective. A theocracy is a theocracy, no matter its disguise, and no less offensive when cloaked in majoritarian rationalization.

george perry of WA 12:41PM November 06, 2010

Good job Mallie, helping us to remember our past as we wrestle with the future. I would agree that many change agents were motivated by a religious, moral conviction. They couldn't help but speak out about what they saw as an affront to goodness, justice and liberty. Often these people speak on behalf of those who do not have a voice. So let's not try to silence each other's voices, but instead give place for dialogue and debate. It is for the citizens of the USA to ultimately chose the laws/freedoms they want soceity to be shaped by. In the end we will suffer the consequences of our collective folly or benefit from our collective wisdom.

John of CA 6:38PM August 23, 2010

Speaking of wars between rabid minorities with the majority sitting on the sidelines: I weary of both the so-called religious people crowing about conspiratorial "secularists" as well as movement atheists making embarrassing claims to superior intelligence. The majority - believers and nonbelievers, people with conservative morality and those with more libertine sensibilities (separate dimensions) - are not engaged in a battle for the American soul. We're just trying to figure out life and ethics as best we can.

Barbara Saunders of CA 1:26AM August 20, 2010

I was not born a Christian, I have never lived in a Christian household. I was raised a Jew, and as such had an opportunity to live outside the mainstream, and to watch what religious advocates do in the public sphere. As mentioned during the interview, there is a lot of good. Advocates for racial equality, and the environment do sometimes come from the religious community. However, when the church down the street wants to instill Christian values that have nothing to do with my religious values, nor the interest of the state, it is unethical. I have no business advocating for the encoding of Kashrut laws to be enforced by the FDA, and no Christian has the right to enforce thier veiws on prayer in schools, same sex marriage or any other policy that is not compliant with the US constitution- which is secular. Hindus have no right to declar eating of meat illegal, even though there is an arguement- and a valid one, that eating meat is unethical. The US, and state governments must be secular to meet the needs of ALL of its citizens.

Eric of MD 3:53PM August 19, 2010

Ultimately it's impossible to seperate religion and state because the existance, nature and attributes of God are always part of the foundation for any conclusion we draw in life. Activist judges forcing secularism to be the basis of laws is in contrast to the spirit of seperation of church and state where the government isn't supposed to promote/reject a religion. The judicial branch promotes atheism in their activist law making. For example, prop 8 in california is the will of the people. Upon what basis does the judge decide that prop 8 is right or is discrimination? Who is the judge to decide if perversion (homosexuality) is love or not? Who is the judge to decide if marriage is an institution created by God for society for procreation, morality, peace and normalcy? These overarching religious and philosophical questions are for the people, not the judges to decide. What if the judge decided that polygamy was a right or child molestation? The only reason we have not given legal sign off to these repulsive "alternative" lifestyles/acts are the remaining remnants of our religious heritage. Secularism has no God and therefore no basis for a moral foundation upon which to create and evaluate laws. It is not only repressing the will of the people to force a secularistic "religious" view, it is also inevitably devistating to the societal fabric that we all depend on. Therefore, religious conviction a valid basis for which to vote and for government officials to base their decisions. A legal decision based on religious conviction is no more or less valid than a legal decision based on secuarlism. It is the will of the people, not the (so-called) wisdom of secularism that is the basis for laws.

Chris Lee of IL 1:03PM August 19, 2010

I married my beloved twenty years ago in a Metropolitan Community Church, which has been performing same sex "weddings" for forty years. We will marry. We're an inexorable force, who will not go back into hiding, nor begin to apologize for who we are. The religious fanatics who find this fight to be a "cash cow" for them don't realize how the kind of polarization they push could result in a situation like Bosnia, where neighbors kill neighbors over religious differences. I am a devout Christian and my acceptance of who God created me to be-born again lesbian-is my religious freedom. I'll settle for equal rights and nothing else. Seperate is never equal.

Gail Bumala of OR 10:56AM August 19, 2010