This just in: we're winning the culture war

I didn't get much of a chance to read up on the blogosphere today, but I noticed that several of the writers I read commented in amazement at the Washington Post's decision to publish an editorial by Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, entitled "America's Secular Saboteurs." These bloggers quite accurately pointed out that the content of this piece is unhinged and naked bigotry, and argued that its publication reflects extremely poorly on the Post's editorial standards. The truth is quite the contrary. The Post has done a great public service in giving this column such a prominent platform, as it ably illustrates the desperation and intellectual bankruptcy of religious conservatism in 2009. It would take far too much time to point out every instance of ignorance and historical contradiction in Donohue's piece (read it yourself and they'll likely jump right out at you), so I'll only address what I see as the highlights. The editorial's first paragraph:

"There are many ways cultural nihilists are busy trying to sabotage America these days: multiculturalism is used as a club to beat down Western civilization in the classroom; sexual libertines seek to upend the cultural order by attacking religion; artists use their artistic freedoms to mock Christianity; Hollywood relentlessly insults people of faith; activist left-wing legal groups try to scrub society free of the public expression of religion; elements in the Democratic party demonstrate an animus against Catholicism; and secular-minded malcontents within Catholicism and Protestantism seek to sabotage their religion from the inside."

The standard practice in this type of writing is to identify your ideological opponents as a marginalized but devious band of schemers seeking to deceive the larger body of honest citizens into complicity in their agenda. By contrast, Donohue rattles off a laundry list of conspirators: educators, sex enthusiasts, artists, civil libertarians, the Democratic Party, and even unnamed fifth columnists within Christianity itself. Note that this 'paragraph' is actually only a single hysterical sentence. One can almost feel Donohue's paranoia rising with each successive semi-colon. Indeed, given the vagueness of his language, Donohue may well be including up to half of the U.S. population under his "cultural nihilist" rubric.

Shortly thereafter, Donohue pinpoints his villains' sinister logic:

"If societal destruction is the goal, then it makes no sense to waste time by attacking the political or economic structure: the key to any society is its culture, and the heart of any culture is religion. In this society, that means Christianity, the big prize being Catholicism. Which explains why secular saboteurs are waging war against it."

The magnitude of ignorance displayed in Donohue's equation of Catholicism with the essence of American culture is nothing short of breathtaking. The heyday of American anti-Catholicism to date took place in the nativist movement of the mid-to-late 19th century, when Catholic immigrants began arriving en masse to United States from Europe. The reaction from the largely Protestant populace was to mount a campaign of violence and economic and social marginalization against Catholic immigrants for - you guessed it - their perceived lack of allegiance to American culture. (Feel free to watch Gangs of New York for a fictionalized primer on the religious politics of the era, but be sure to fast-forward through the scenes where Cameron Diaz has speaking roles). In fact, as recently as 1960 John F. Kennedy, still the only Catholic to hold the U.S. Presidency, had to take pains during his campaign to assure the electorate that he would not be beholden to Papal authority in making decisions as President. Beyond the typical religious-right "religion is the primary arbiter of culture" fallacy (which I'll return to later), it's nearly impossible to argue that American history and culture are synonymous with Catholicism without ignoring a great deal of salient historical facts.

Donohue later follows with this bit of revisionism:

"There was a time when Hollywood made reverential movies about Christianity. But those days are long gone. Now they just insult. And when someone finally makes a film that makes Christians proud, he is run out of town. Were it not for Mel Gibson, there would have been no "Passion of the Christ." But for every Harvey Weinstein who likes to bash Catholics, there is always someone else waiting in the wings to do the same."

Mel Gibson was not "run out" of any town for making The Passion of the Christ. Donohue conveniently neglects to mention the very public incident in which Gibson was caught driving while intoxicated and proceeded to sexually harass a female arresting officer, all the while spewing the kind of rank anti-Semitic beliefs that he had so vigorously denied holding during the run-up to The Passion of the Christ's release. Isn't it interesting, in this context, that Donohue prefers to pin Gibson's downfall on the likes of Harvey Weinstein (what kind of last name is that, anyway?)

"The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State harbor an agenda to smash the last vestiges of Christianity in America. Lying about their real motives, they say their fidelity is to the Constitution. But there is nothing in the Constitution that sanctions the censorship of religious speech. From banning nativity scenes to punishing little kids for painting a picture of Jesus, the zealots give Fidel a good run for his money."

No. What Donohue and those who think like him fail to understand is that these groups and their supporters, with very few exceptions, have no designs on censoring private religious expression. Rather, they push back forcefully on the fiction that religious belief, in general or particular forms, is an intrinsic part of American society and should receive official sanction and support as such. Preventing public property and money from being employed to display a nativity scene or a statue of the Ten Commandments is not religious censorship and is no way equivalent to denying private citizens the right to do the same with their private property. Rather, it's a judicious assertion of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which remains deeply ingrained in American culture no matter how loudly the Donohues of the world disdain it.

"Catholics were once the mainstay of the Democratic Party; now the gay activists are in charge. Indeed, practicing Catholics are no longer welcome in leadership roles in the Party: the contempt that pro-life Catholics experience is palpable. The fact that Catholics for Choice, a notoriously anti-Catholic front group funded by the Ford Foundation, has a close relationship with the Democrats says it all."

I'm sure that the gay activist overlords of the Democratic Party are quite pleased with President Obama's speedy and bold moves to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces. More fascinating is the rapid sequence of assertions that (1) the Democratic Party does not welcome "practicing Catholics" (2) there exists a group called Catholics for Choice, which in fact has a close relationship with the party, and (3) Catholics for Choice is "notoriously anti-Catholic." The message here is fairly obvious: personal religious belief and identification mean nothing when it comes to determining whether or not a person "counts" as a Catholic, while toeing the Church's anti-abortion hardline means everything.

Donohue concludes with this gem:

"The culture war is up for grabs. The good news is that religious conservatives continue to breed like rabbits, while secular saboteurs have shut down: they're too busy walking their dogs, going to bathhouses and aborting their kids. Time, it seems, is on the side of the angels."

Let's leave aside the more explicitly disturbing connotations of asymmetrical breeding as a strategy to achieve cultural and political goals for the time being and focus on the real implications of what Donohue is saying here. In a single sentence, he's managed to neatly encapsulate his view that children are little more than empty vessels to be indoctrinated with an unaltered version of their parent's religious, cultural, and political beliefs, for the purposes of continued engagement of a vaguely defined and ever-changing enemy on a metaphorical field of battle. It is inconceivable to Donohue that, absent some nefarious outside influence, children raised in a conservative religious family could grow up to become atheists, homosexuals, members of Catholics for Choice, or any other of the myriad means of "deviancy" that populate his worldview. To him, these are not their choices to make. They are to be made for them by authority; specifically, by a glorious singularity of parental power and religious dictate.

Bill Donohue is a grubbing fascist with not one shred of respect for the United States of America's rich and dynamic culture of individualism, mutual tolerance, and democracy. He makes no secret of his profound contempt for American citizens who fail to reflect in full his personal prejudices. All of this is abundantly clear in every sentence of his idiotic and vile editorial. We are fortunate to live in a time where this can be made clear, and even more fortunate that Donohue himself has chosen to discredit himself so thoroughly and nakedly on the public stage. It's clear that Donohue imagines himself to be a holy warrior leading a vast army of the devout to a divinely ordained victory. His writing reveals him to be little more than a cheap dictator huddled in a bunker, cursing the names of imagined conspirators under his breath, while promising his dwindling camarilla a glorious triumph in a war that he has already lost.

Why the Obama school kids song isn't really a big deal

While I was in Chicago for Mike and Erika's wedding over the weekend (great fun!), I had the opportunity to watch the last 15 minutes of Hannity on Fox News. The topic of discussion was a story that I hadn't been exposed to yet, but has apparently blown up on the blogosphere and on Fox News (it was being discussed on Greta Van Susteren immediately after Hannity signed off). In a nutshell, a video was uncovered of some New Jersey public school students in the classroom led by their teacher in the singing of a song praising Barack Obama. The singing apparently took place in February as part of the class's Black History Month celebration. The discussion on Hannity revolved mainly around what a horrifying act of 'indoctrination' this is. Tucker Carlson, whose numerous embarrassing failures as a prime-time cable talk host have apparently led him to abandon his dream of being the next George Will in favor of being the next Michelle Malkin, compared it to something the Khmer Rouge would do, prompting this priceless takedown from Gawker's Foster Kamer (be extra-sure to click through to his piece if you don't know who the Khmer Rouge were). Never one to pass up the opportunity to leap on a passing bandwagon, RNC head Michael Steele has sent out a fundraising email comparing the occasion to both Stalin's Russia and Kim Jong-Il's North Korea.

Three things come to mind here. First, it's important to consider the context. If the initial reports are to be believed, this was an activity meant to celebrate Black History Month, not a daily ritual that had to be completed before the kids could get their afternoon box of chocolate milk. As the first black president, Obama is a not-inconsiderable figure in the annals of black history. Yes, Obama is 'controversial' in the sense that there is political opposition to his legislative agenda. However, during Black History Month, the children doubtlessly learned glowing facts about the greatness of Martin Luther King, Jr, who was widely considered in his day to be a Communist subversive bent on destroying American civil society, and engendered more controversy than Barack Obama ever will, the efforts of Hannity, Steele, and Carlson notwithstanding. It's no secret that American primary and secondary education tends to present a watered-down and colorless version of history that actively seeks to avoid any trace of contemporary relevance, lest someone be "offended." The fact that public school history is so boring is a big contributor, I believe, to the fact that even fairly well-educated Americans have a shamefully poor grasp of the subject.

Secondly, the actual content of the offending song bears examination. Here are the lyrics, copied directly from Fox News' addendum to their story on the matter.

Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

You'll doubtlessly notice that there's actually very little political content in the song. Nowhere does it mention nationalized healthcare, marginally increasing the income tax on top-bracket earners, cap and trade global warming legislation, or the withdrawal of overseas troops. Instead, it lists off a bunch of vaguely defined grade-school civics pieties that could probably be cut-and-pasted into a song about any politician that's run for any office in the past twenty-five years. Taken on its merits, I can't see what there is to get offended about. Unless, of course, one were to conclude that conservatives are opposed to civic-mindedness, fairness, racial tolerance, and equitable employment policies. Which would be clearly absurd.

Finally, I think that people who are pushing this 'indoctrination' line are confused about the function and purpose of indoctrination. For that argument to be taken even remotely seriously, one would have to demonstrate a widespread and coercive effort to expose a cross-section of American youth to only one particular political viewpoint. 18 kids singing a dopey song about Barack Obama one time doesn't meet the criteria. Even if the dreaded song had a more regular and extensive presence in American schools (which I think would clearly be inappropriate), kids have a remarkable tenacity against official indoctrination. Witness the abject failure of D.A.R.E., which, despite being a near-universal presence in public schools, has been categorized as meeting the criteria for 'Does Not Work' by the U.S. Surgeon General's Office.

Let's go further and ask why, exactly, Barack Obama would want to indoctrinate a bunch of third-graders into a cult of personality. If I may call your attention to the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you'll soon figure out that none of these kids can vote for Obama in the 2012 election. Nor will they be able to vote for whomever the Democratic nominee for President will be in 2016. Is this song really magical enough to not only instill liberal values in these children, but maintain them single-handedly for the next 11 years? Or give them the ability to hypnotize their parents into participating in a letter-writing campaign in support of Obama's legislative goals?

The kids that sang that song, like kids everywhere, are going to be exposed to a wide variety of political opinions as they grow up. George H.W. Bush was President when I was 8 years old. I remember getting a Presidential Fitness Certificate with his mimeographed signature in gym class, and then later hearing my parents bitch about him around the kitchen table. The kids in this makeshift choir will have similar experiences. In fact, depending on their parent's political inclinations, they might already have been given a T-shirt such as this:

Or this:
In the end, this 'controversy' actually does, in a sense, wind up being about indoctrination. However, it's not about schools brainwashing kids, it's about parents who believe that the principles of democracy are little more than a permission slip allowing them to drill their social and political views to their children unchanged and unchallenged. That's why the school administrators are now reportedly being deluged with death threats. Which do you think is the real threat to freedom?

RIP Jim Poullion, the perfect figurehead for the anti-abortion rights movement

Having lived in the rural Midwest as much as I have, I've had my fair share of run-ins with professional Christian protesters. I remember one time in college, this guy came on campus carrying two signs about repentance and started yelling at everyone passing by the student union about how they were all going to hell, presumably for fucking outside of marriage. Predictably enough, some girl with cropped hair showed up maybe 20 minutes later with a handmade sign bearing some quote from Charles Bukowski about how he doesn't like God, and the two of them screamed at each other for a while. I read later in the school paper that this guy apparently travels all over Missouri to do this, and he pretty much hits every college campus in the state over the course of a given year.

On Friday, James Poullion, an anti-abortion protester in Oswesso, MI was killed in a drive-by shooting while waving placards outside the local high school. Predictably enough, anti-abortion rights groups were quick to issue press releases declaring his martyrdom for the cause and some commentators are noting the lack of outrage in the media in comparison to the response to the murder of Dr. George Tiller in May. I'm sure that somebody soon will point out that before yesterday, approximately nobody had ever heard of the town of Oswesso, MI, much less the name James Poullion, whereas Tiller was a nationally known figure who was a frequent target of vitriol on Bill O'Reilly's highly rated nightly TV commentary show and had already survived a previous shooting.

Nobody's going to care about that, though. The narrative is going to be pro and anti-abortion rights groups dropping bodies in a national turf war. Expect the typical hyperventilation (op-eds from representatives of NARAL and Operation Rescue in the Times, Post, and Wall Street Journal, cable-TV shouting matches galore, an episode of Law and Order) that permeates every aspect of the Kabuki theater we know as "the abortion issue." Every aspect of this has become ridiculous, from the abortion rights crowd's insistence on labeling themselves "pro-choice" (as if the other side wants to revoke your right to take the Pepsi Challenge) and the anti-abortion rights crowd's adoption of "pro-life" (like abortion rights activists are advocating mass slaughter of the nation's grandmothers, the fulminations of Sarah Palin aside).

James Poullion didn't deserve to die for his beliefs or for exercising his First Amendment rights to express them, nor does anybody else in the anti-abortion rights movement. That disclaimer aside, let's not beat around the bush here: based on the facts of his life as they're being reported right now, James Poullion wasn't a holy warrior doing the Lord's work; he was a crusty old asshole who lived to piss people off. For the last 20 years, he's been camped out on various sidewalks in Oswesso on a daily basis, waving pictures of bloody fetuses and screaming at people. He spent so much time outside the high school doing this that the students nicknamed him "Sign Man," which I take as an indicator that Oswesso High School isn't likely to produce the next H.L. Mencken anytime soon. He also apparently hung out in front of the local Cadillac dealer waving his signs around for years, as if people were going to stop in to cop the car note on an Escalade before heading to the clinic. The owner tried to have a restraining order taken out on him and lost. He even picketed a local church, presumably because they spent more time singing hymns and enjoying fellowship over coffee and donuts than raining fire and brimstone on the community.

He did all of this day after day, year after year in a town of just over 15,000 people. Let's estimate that about half of that population is female, and maybe two-thirds of the women are of childbearing age. That's about 3, 750 people. Poullion probably could have fucked around and protested outside of T.J. Maxx on Saturday mornings and reached as many of them as he did by treating protesting like a full-time job. There's other stuff he could have done instead. He could have started a blog or a newsletter. He could have gotten an AM radio show. He could have even set up one of those phony crisis pregnancy centers that people of his ideological persuasion are so high on.

The fact that he chose a method of protest that is arguably the least effective and certainly the most irritating isn't a coincidence. In fact, if Poullion becomes a national figurehead for the anti-abortion rights movement, as he probably will for at least the next three months or so, it'll only be fitting. You see, the anti-abortion movement isn't really interested in formulating cultural or policy changes regarding human reproduction. What these junior Ceauşescus care about is getting all up in your shit about things that are your own personal business and using your reaction as the sum total of your moral worth. And if you pissed off at them for it, so much the better for them. Nothing is more appealing to a these people than the opportunity to feed their ravenous persecution complex. I'd hazard a guess that if there is an afterlife, Jim Poullion is looking down on us completely delighted that his violent death will nab free national airtime for the likes of Randall Terry in the coming days.