I work a compressed work week that alternates between three and four consecutive days of twelve hour shifts followed by three or four consecutive days off. I usually love that schedule as it gives me seven out of every fourteen days off to stay home and be dad and husband. On occasion however such a schedule is very tedious. Twelve hours in close quarters with an anti-choice, pro-torture, gay bashing, Terri Schiavo "life saving", anti-stem cell "christian" conservative can do that to a fellow. Such was the case yesterday. Consequently, I have got to rant today in order to let the pressure off or I could possibly explode from over exposure to teh stupid.
I suspect that it is safe to say that most of the people who frequent Dkos are in agreement with me and in disagreement with my coworker with regard to women making their own health decisions in consultation with their doctors, gay marriage, the progress of science even when it runs afoul of religious mythology, and an individual's right to sign and have enforced a DNR order. These are bones of contention that certainly aren't new to anyone who has been attentive to american politics for any length of time.
In my experience there is even a pattern to the debate each time. First, one of the above topics is mentioned. Then there is a feeling out process where one of the participants makes a comment that hints at his/her leanings. Next comes a reply that either demonstrates agreement or opposition. In the event of opposition, this leads to the trading of barbs and talking points in escalating directness and tension. Before you know it, you've got a full on debate on your hands. When one of the participants is a "christian" conservative evangelical voter or Talibangelicals as I call them, the next phase is typically the assertion that this is a "christian nation". This flies in the face of well documented history as well as in the face of several writings kindly left behind by the people who designed this system of government. This talking point is easy enough to confront by digging up some of those writings such as Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists or James Madison's treatise: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (a personal favorite of mine). I did just that yesterday. After showing these writings to my coworker and explaining that the very same people who fashioned and then put on paper the establishment clause (Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin) also elaborated on their intention that this should be a land where freedom of conscience is protected for the benefit of the believer, the non-believer, the state, and the church; the conversation tends to take a turn away from the maddening assertion that this was intended to be a christian nation.
Next comes the bullshit assertion that really angers me. After being confronted with the idea that separation of church and state provides for religious freedom and was absolutely the intention of the framers, my Talibangelical coworker then asserts that upholding Roe v. Wade, or recognizing gay marriage, or removing "under God" from the pledge, or allowing stem cell research represents "anti-christian" law and therefore tramples his religious freedom! This infuriates me every time.
This phase of the debate started with him parroting the bullshit assertion put forth by the recent anti-gay marriage commercial that talks about school children being taught that gay marriage is alright. (Oh the horror, right?) To this I responded that jews have to tell their children all of the time that some people think it is alright to eat the pepperoni pizza offered in the school cafeteria and that, as jews, they disagree. The jewish kid learns the phrase "to each his own" at that point. "So, let them eat swine if they want. They're not forcing you to eat it." as my father would say. Muslims in America are surrounded by a culture that, not only says it is ok, but glorifies the consumption of alcohol. I assume muslim children learn the same lesson as I did with the pepperoni pizza. He did not respond to me on this point and instead moved right on to debating "under God".
He was unaware that the phrase was not part of the original pledge of allegiance. I pointed out that it was added in 1954. Still he made the argument that to take it back out infringes on his religious freedom as to do so is "anti-christian". He continued in this vein with repeated assertions that anything other than the Talibangelical view on any of these issues is "anti-christian". Like I said, this makes me very angry every time. So, in order to get it off of my chest and avoid being found in a bell tower with a high powered rifle, I am going to put the following realities in print:
Gay Marriage:
No gay marriage = anti-equality
Mandating that everyone marry within their own gender = anti-christian
Allowing people to marry whomever they please = neutral and free
"Under God"
Leaving it in = anti-deist, pagan, atheist, agnostic, etc.
Replacing "One nation under God" with "One nation that doesn't believe in God" = anti-christian
Reverting to the original version which simply doesn't address belief or non belief = neutral and free
Stem Cell Science:
Prohibition of stem cell science = imposition of the religious views of a few on everyone
Forcing fundies to partake of stem cell science's benefits = anti-christian
Respecting the wishes of people who don't want to benefit from the research (just as we do concerning Jehovah's witnesses who do not want blood transfusions) = neutral and free
(you don't see Jehovahs trying to get blood transfusions outlawed for everyone, do you? Thank you for that Jehovah's witnesses)
Roe v. Wade:
Taking choice away from women = Oppression of women and imposition of religious views on them
Forcing christians to terminate pregnancies against their will = anti-christian
Upholding choice through Roe v. Wade = neutral and free
Once and for all:
Neutral DOES NOT equal anti-christian!!
Thank you for enduring my venting.
Edit:
From the comments... Septima has a good point.