Rick Perry, photographed by Greg Skidmore
Last week we joined in on the discussion of the NAR and the DC40 campaign, hence I’m writing this with the assumption that you know what NAR and DC40 mean and why they’re bad news. If you’re not familiar, you might want to look at my first article or check out The Wild Hunt for their excellent coverage.
As I stated last week, most of the time I don’t feel the need to acknowledge nutty goings on around me. But there a comes a point in time where a line gets crossed and I can’t sit around rolling my eyes anymore. For me, Rick Perry’s The Response, the evangelical there’s-only-one-way-of-looking-at-god-a-palooza he held last Saturday in Houston, was a pretty good litmus test to see just how the NAR’s strides into mainstream politics is affecting the nation. Did anyone show up? Was anyone bothered by a potential candidate for the White House using his governorship to promote an Evangelical Christian prayer rally funded by the AFA, a group designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group for the lies they promote about homosexuality? Would said governor decide showing up was not good for his campaign (i.e. more voters would be bothered by it than spurred on to vote for him) and back out?
And what did that litmus test say? How many people showed up? 30,000 – including Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, who prayed at the meeting and publicly thanked the hate group for their hard work. The AFA predicts that with the telecast, over 200,000 people were reached with their message.
30,000 people went to an event co-chaired by Tony Perkins, a man who says gay rights activists are, “intolerant, they’re hateful, they’re vile, they’re spiteful.” To an event whose coordinator Alice Patterson thinks Democrats are “an invisible network of evil†that was literally created by Satan. (But The Response isn’t political, just ask Rick Perry.) To an event whose major sponsor (the AFA) hires folks who’ve said such gems as Bryan Fischer’s, “Hitler recruited around him homosexuals to make up his Stormtroopers, they were his enforcers, they were his thugs,†and is endorsed by folks like David Barton who said, “Take your Sunday school class to vote, and you’ve got to start breaking fingers if they don’t,†as well as Dr. James Swallow, who hosts a camp to convert Native Americans called: “Strategic Warriors At Training (SWAT): A Christian Military Training Camp for the purpose of dealing with the occult and territorial enemy strong holds in America.†And let’s not forget James Dobson, also a co-chair who spoke at the event with his wife, who previously said this regarding the blame for 9/11: “…rather than trying to forge a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the terrorist attacks and America’s abandonment of biblical principles, which I think is wrong, we need to accept the truth that this nation will suffer in many ways for departing from the principles of righteousness.†Hello? Doublethink?
A crowd of 30,000 people is not an anomaly. It’s a movement that’s gaining momentum. At the beginning of the week, people were predicting a crowd of 8,000 and prematurely chortling about how Perry’s prayer rally was going to be a big failure. Then another 22,000 people showed up to hear a message of how Jesus is the only god, we need to quit accepting gay people and Roe vs. Wade, and we need to put the Ten Commandments back in public school classrooms.
I want to be clear that I’m not opposed to prayer meetings – I’m glad people are praying for our country. I’m not opposed to churches renting out stadiums and hosting a revival. Revivals are a colorful part of our nation’s history, and that’s their legal right. I don’t even take issue with government leaders being in attendance – as long as they stay in the audience. I do take issue with a state governor using his fame as a public official to advertise the event and then leading people in prayer to a very specific definition of god. While not directly in opposition to the Bill of Rights (which only states an opposition to making laws regarding religion or interfering with the practice of religion) it is not, in my opinion, in the spirit of America for government leaders to endorse a specific religion. And it’s downright skeevy to watch my governor hug a man who’s a leader in a hate group while thanking him for his good work.
After watching video footage of the event, it struck me that these people – with really crazy views – know how to tone it down for a big audience and appear way more, well, sane, than they really are. From what I heard (and granted, I got the highlights, not the seven-hour full monty), the speeches and prayers presented at The Response were right in line with what you’d expect from a conservative church group – Jesus is the only way, please Heavenly Father end abortion, save traditional families, and put prayer back in schools – but nothing near as extreme as these guys have hauled out with in less politically charged forums. And that makes those of us going, “wait a minute!!!†look radical because we’re reacting to something said in a book or a smaller forum – somewhere without the candidate they have “anointed†for the White House standing right there beside them. People coming home from The Response probably have a great impression of the American Family Association (which recently equated gay sex to the Taliban creating bombs with HIV infected needles [if you read no other link I’ve provided, I rec that WTFery; Colbert could have written it… except Brian Fischer is serious]) and San Antonio minister John Hagee, one of the presenters, (who – not on this stage of course) has said:
“How is it that in World War II we whipped the world in four years and now we’re bogged down in one lingering war after another that does nothing but rape our economy and kill our young men? Why? Maybe the God of Heaven is not with us. He says when you accept another God, I leave. I’m either the only Lord, or you’re on your own. That means stop voting for pagans and putting them in public office.†[in the speech he uses “satanist†and “pagan†interchangeably – basically anyone not Christian, or not Christian enough according to him, is a satanist/pagan].
The Response was simply not a quality environment with good role models for people.
The AFA and their nuttiness is not going away if we continue to ignore them. The NAR is gaining support. Rick Perry just earned a lot of votes. We can’t sit this one out anymore. Did anybody do anything for The Response? Join any of the Facebook campaigns or anything? Did anybody actually go? I’d be curious to hear a report back from an actual attendee.
+ Featured Image: Laying on of Hands by Russell Lee
16 comments
BDub says:
Aug 10, 2011
Let me add a little perspective. 30k people show up to a one-time “pray with the Gov’ event, and in that same stadium 71K show up at least 8 times a year to a “pray with John Madden” event. All hail the heavenly pigskin!
B says:
Aug 10, 2011
Here’s what Michael Barajas of the San Antonio Current had to say:
http://sacurrent.com/news/dispatches-from-the-front-lines-of-perry-8217-s-political-revival-1.1186459
GG says:
Aug 11, 2011
This is a great exposition piece, B! Thanks for sharing. I’m glad to see others are seriously concerned about Perry aligning himself with conservative extremists.
BDub says:
Aug 10, 2011
I should also like to add that in 2009, 72700 showed up to Reliant Stadium for Wrestle Mania – that’s 1200 more than the stadium’s capacity of 71500! I am sure the 30K that the Jesus show pulled looks huge from the pagan community’s perspective, but look again.
Jax says:
Aug 10, 2011
Hey BDUB! Again, I totally reiterate that I HOPE I’m making too big a deal out of this. Please, in five years when this movement has died out, point and laugh at me. I’ll be happy!! My main concern, however, is not that the number is big; yeah, 30,00 is a tiny percentage of the state. Even the 200,000 the AFA claims was watching in their churches around the nation is just not that many people in a nation of nearly 312 million. My main concern is that these people are politically active enough that their reach is exceeding their population. A small number of people working in concert gets more done than a large number of dissenters doing nothing. My secondary concern is that something that shouldn’t be considered normal – like a governor leading an evangelical prayer meeting in a football stadium – is meeting with more shrugging shoulders and even outright praise for his “courage” than with objection. That speaks volumes, to me, that people aren’t raising more holy hell about an egregious breach of the wall separating church and state. And my tertiary concern is that while 30,000 isn’t a lot, it’s a growing number. How many people would this event have pulled in five years ago? How many people would it pull in in five more years? My concern is less that the snowball is big and more that it’s rolling down a hill – gaining in size and picking up sticks and stones as it moves.
I’m not worried that they can assemble more people than a Pagan rally would. I couldn’t care less about who’s got more people. To me there is nothing “us versus them” about religion; it’s not a competition – or it shouldn’t be, anyway. I am worried that “a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.” And I really don’t like the ways they’re trying to change the world.
BDub says:
Aug 12, 2011
“A small number of people working in concert gets more done than a large number of dissenters doing nothing.” – Which one are you? Seriously, I am not trying to be mean, but that statement flies in the face of your actual argument.
All that aside, though, I think your fears are unfounded. Rally’s like this are actually a sign, not that they are growing in power, but rather that they are dying and grasping for any influence they can get. Let me explain – In spite of what most polls show, in the US ad elsewhere, church attendance and active worship is declining – the churches themselves recognize this (http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/139575-7-startling-facts-an-up-close-look-at-church-attendance-in-america.html). The Halo Effect is in full force, and politicians are not immune. Also, a less talked about phenomena is the hyper-salination of the church going community – That is to say that as the pool of worshipers dries up only the saltiest of them are left behind. These stranglers find themselves increasing surrounded by equally vehement religious nuts and they begin to feed off each other. Without the moderates, who are likely the first to leave the fold, to temper them they flare up, get more active, and more vocal, and more dangerous. This is what we are seeing in American churches. Their power and influence is an illusion magnified by the media’s tendency to cover the cooks and ignore the sane. This is one of the reasons Sam Harris points out that the religiously moderates are more dangerous as they provide the cover for the extremists by insisting on tolerance their religion. They subvert and even attack those that would hold religious points of view up to scrutiny and criticism.
As to the separation of church and state being violated by this event – I disagree. Unless public funds are being used for this purpose, Perry is free to associate with and practice his beliefs as he sees fit, regardless of any public office he holds at the time. If you as a constituent of Perry’s disapprove of his public behavior, simply show it at the polls. I do however agree with you about the politicians not fearing and even being rewarded for their association/pandering with religions and the religious. They do this because there is no apparent downside to doing so, but it is incumbent on us to be diligent and active in communicating our distrust and reserve with politicians that side with or cater to these groups – which brings us back to the beginning of this post – Which are you? Imagine for a minute if the US was a majority Pagan country and you, a minority Christian watched your elected official casting a circle in Reliant Stadium with 30K moderate and not so moderate pagans at an event sponsored by a group that were outspoken about their hatred of all filthy monotheists. What would you do, what would be your reaction?
Jax says:
Aug 12, 2011
* “Which one are you?” They are the small number, I am trying to not be a dissenter doing nothing (making me another small number getting something done – hopefully reversing a trend before it gets too far). I don’t follow how that flies in the face of my argument (which is that the size of the crowd is less frightening than the size of their influence). Would you explain?
* “In spite of what most polls show”? Where are you getting this data from. I’m not denying that church attendance is down; it is what I hear all the time. But organizations of all stripes (religious and non-religious) use “our numbers are shrinking!” as a call to arms, so the fact that a church leadership group is saying that doesn’t mean much to me.
* It does “feel” to me that we’ve got what you speak of as hyper-salination. And as you said, that makes people more wacky and dangerous as they reinforce their radical ideas. How does this make them less of a problem?
* I do agree that media tends to cover kooks and not sane people! And I can only hope that my over-estimation of their force in politics is from that! On the other hand, there have been some really kooky people in national politics of late who have been tied to this group (Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, now Rick Perry, etc). For now most of them aren’t getting elected, and if this is the height of the NAR’s power, then yay! Not a problem. I hope that’s the case!
* Sam Harris has an interesting point, and I agree with it in part. As you stated earlier, moderates help keep radicals in check, so I think in general they do more harm than good. However, it is true with any group even the mildly to moderately invested are likely to jump to the defense of “their people” when they feel threatened or attacked (this is irrespective of the nature of the organization – is Sam Harris seriously implying that unlike everyone else on planet Earth, atheists don’t lash out in reaction to perceived threats? If so, he’s got pretty rosy-tinted glasses for his own group). We are social creatures and it is human nature to go on the defensive when we feel our group is threatened. I also agree that this is part of the problem of what’s going on here – moderate Christians, unknowing of the radicalism going on, are not questioning further what’s happening because religious leaders for years now have been encouraging the idea that Christianity is under attack – by the media, by Pagans, by atheists, by gays, by Muslims, by… – so people are quick to be defensive. Again, though, I don’t see how this makes the NAR less of a threat.
* Separation of church and state. I agree that I’m making an opinion statement here. Technically he hasn’t broken any law. He crossed the line, though, (in my opinion) when he used his office to advertise for and then led prayer during the event. It’s not the money, it’s the state leading worship. As a school teacher, I would never have dreamed of leading my students in prayer before a theater event because I’m a state official, and it’s not my job to endorse a specific religion. Did I pray? Of course I did – just not in front of my students. Did I let them pray on their own however they chose? Of course I did. That’s their right as individuals. I also never had any “I’m pagan; ask me about it!” bumper stickers in my room. When we studied mythology as part of our literature classes, I’m sure my kids noticed my increase in enthusiasm when talking about Norse myth, but I kept it completely in academic terms. Likewise, the governor should not, in my opinion, be advertising for his church, or leading the state in prayer, or doing something that uses his official capacity to promote his brand of faith.
* I definitely agree that people should vote! That’s a large chunk of why I’m posting, so people have facts that I think they need to know before they go to the polls!
* If I was a Christian in a majority Pagan country watching an official cast a circle etc I would be thinking and doing the exact same thing. I believe anything that smacks of state religion is a bad thing; it doesn’t matter which religion it is.
BDub says:
Aug 12, 2011
I would love to address this point by point, but as i am on a mobile device that is not easily done. Perhaps i can send an email at a later date.
Jax says:
Aug 10, 2011
One other thing, and I guess I wasn’t clear enough about this. 30,000 people, in my opinion, isn’t a large number in general, but it is a large number for the amount of crazy peddled by the leaders of this rally. If 1000 students at The University of Texas at Austin went to a UT football game, okay, so what? If 1000 students (same number) went to a UT KKK rally… that would be pretty damn horrifying. Now the NAR is not promoting violence (at this point in time), but as I’m trying to show, certain groups who adhere to NAR doctrine (and are trying to win the votes of conservatives everywhere) show the same kind of hatred and social blaming that groups like the KKK and neo-Nazis did (and still do). And this begs the question, were they in charge, what would they do with those of us who refuse to conform? There are already ample quotes showing they would only allow Christians in political offices (and for a lot of them, “Christian” doesn’t include Catholics, Mormons, or any churches that don’t oppose homosexuality and abortion). There is ample evidence they would shut down access in prisons and in the military to chaplains of any faith but Christianity. Public schools would have group prayer (if there are any public schools left with Perry’s craptastic record on education). And where does it go from there?
This is the kind of thing the leaders of Perry’s prayer rally have said over and over that they want. To me, 30,000 people showing up for a seven hour prayer day to hear that sort of extreme rhetoric is a lot more meaningful than 70,000 people showing up for a football game.
BDub says:
Aug 12, 2011
1st paragraph – is moot. see my above argument about the illusion of influence and power that this paragraph assumes to be true.
2nd paragraph – Why is it more meaningful? Probably because you prefer football. If you could get 30K pagans in Reliant stadium and a significant politician to show up and pander to your group you would celebrate it as a victory for pagan acceptance and a sign of your faith’s growing significance and influence. And it would offend some and still mean absolutely nothing to me.
Jax says:
Aug 12, 2011
Starting at the bottom here. Slow down, cowboy. That’s a pretty serious accusation you’re leveling. 🙂 I would, in fact, not like it if a politician did what Perry did except for Paganism. I am opposed to people in political office advocating a religion; it would be hypocritical to make an exception for my own. Besides, I am not opposed to Christianity. I think there are a lot of really good people in the world who are Christians. I think Christianity has a lot of good things to say when it’s not being abused by power-hungry whack-jobs. My problem with The Response is not because it was Christian instead of Pagan.
Being a “popular” faith isn’t important to me. It doesn’t bother me that I’m a member of a minority faith, and I don’t care if we always are a minority of the population. I don’t need other people to justify what I do; I just need them to not interfere with what I do. Those are separate issues.
So, no. If a politician had a big day of feasting to Odin and invited the governors of every state to attend and asked the public to join in, and 30K people showed up to eat pork and drink mead, I would not celebrate it as a victory, because my own people would be doing something that I think is wrong.
If a kindred (the Heathen equivalent of a church) hosted an event without the endorsement or aid of a political figure and 30K people showed up to raise a glass, then, yes, I would think that was pretty cool (and I might even be there). The governmental endorsement is the key to where my opinion stands.
As for why the numbers at a KKK rally are more significant than a football game, that doesn’t have anything to do with which I prefer (although, yes, I decidedly prefer football to sheet-headed racists). It’s because numbers adhering to an idea works on a bell curve. The more radical something is, the less likely it is to draw support. On the same token, the more people adhere to something, the more it is considered centrist. Take drug legalization, for example. Many, many more people support the legalization of marijuana than, say, methamphetamine. Why? Because marijuana is commonly used and mild in effect. Methamphetamine is neither. A person who would vote for the legalization of marijuana is not considered radical, but maybe slightly off-center, whereas someone who would legalize meth is generally considered pretty radical. If suddenly the number of supporters for legalization of meth equaled the number supporting marijuana, the number of people supporting meth would be more significant than the number of people supporting marijuana. Not because the number is so big (it is still slightly left of center), but because a radical position has centralized, and that is meaningful.
BDub says:
Aug 12, 2011
Don’t take it as an accusation. I was trying to get you to see the mindset that would lead a group to solicit a politician that is sympathetic to their views to attend and even endorse an event like the one in question. By “you” I meant proponents of your faith – and I do think “you” would view it as a victory. How could you not since it would mean that your freedom to practice is that much more secure, which as you said is what is important to you.
Being an popular faith may not be important to you, but that means you are in a fatal position, as their are other groups that view you as a threat to their faith and they out number you. In fact most religions would – some are just more active about it than others. You are not in the convenient position of sharing ideologies with these people so you cannot appeal for tolerance from them using your values. Your minority status and their threat to your faith are hardly separate issues as evidenced by the fact that if you where in the majority they wouldn’t be a threat.
You also seem to think that a politician should (unlike any normal person) be able to separate his religious views from his politics. This is not realistic and again makes the appeal on values they/most clearly do not share with you. You think its not ok to attend the event, they disagree – its subjective and only ceases to be when a clear legal line is crossed – that of using State money to support a religious view, Christian Pagan or otherwise.
I am failing to understand your bell curve analogy. If numbers of adherents indicate acceptability on this curve then pagans are decidedly more radical than christian evangelists. So why are you surprised that that you are being marginalized while politicians think its ok to hang with idiots that out number you. Unless you are trying to say that pagans are a silent centrist majority who are being impugned upon by a radical christian minority, I don’t follow your logic. It also fails in that “people” do not fall on the bell curve, their ideas do. For instance I happen to believe marijuana should be legalized, I also think that meth should be as equally legalized – so where do I fall on the bell curve as I cannot occupy more than one location? Am I a radical, or slightly off-center?
What I’m getting at is that you should evaluate why they are in the position they are in and why you are in the position you are in, and why does a politician think its ok openly side with the one he believes to be more prevalent (or just vocal).
T.K. says:
Aug 13, 2011
This is causing my IBS to act up. I haven’t eaten anything different…it must be stress!
Jax says:
Aug 13, 2011
BDUB, moving back to the left as the text was getting pretty crowded. 🙂
I think I get what your’e saying a lot better, and I look forward to your email! A couple things, and then I’ll take this off the site:
1. Bell curve means Pagans are radicals. Ha! Good point. And you are correct, I should have said “ideas fall along a bell curve” not “people fall along a bell curve.”
2. Politicians separating religion from their vote. It is true that our religious faith influences our voting patterns, but I think it’s important that we focus on teaching people to separate these as much as possible. For example, if a person attends a church that teaches that homosexuality is a sin against their god and so it doesn’t perform homosexual marriage unions, well that’s that church’s right. But people need to realize that by continuing to support “Defense of Marriage” amendments, they’re denying other people the right to practice their own beliefs freely. We need to strive for an environment where people vote with their rational brain and use faith in a personal context. We expect people to behave this way at their workplace; it would be unacceptable for somebody to refuse to work on a project with a single mother because they don’t believe in sex before marriage. I can’t refuse to grade a student’s paper because he’s a neo-nazi writing about his Hitler love (and I say that from personal experience). We should expect people to behave the same way in matters of government.
Yes, I am an idealist. I know this, and I’m okay with it. It doesn’t mean I can’t see reality (I realize the nigh impossibility of that ideal), just that I believe that society can shift for the better – or for worse. The shift I want to help the country make is one where diversity is alive and well because tolerance is the norm. I do think that tolerance has a lot of happy clouds attached to it that I don’t ascribe to; to me tolerance does not mean that people necessarily LIKE the differences, but they, well, tolerate them. I don’t care if somebody thinks I’m wrong and going to hell. That’s their right, and it doesn’t bother me. I do care if they want to take away my right to engage in the political process because they think I’m going to hell. In my version of a peaceful and prosperous nation, small faiths don’t have to worry about becoming larger just to defend themselves. Might does not equal right.
The other option, and this is the one that (at least from what I’ve read of their work) Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and the other Horsemen and their followers ascribe to, is the idea that people with differing ideas can never get along, bigger groups will always pick on the little guy, and diversity of thought (in a religious sense) will always lead to violence and adherents who unquestioningly bend to the head of the pulpit. So the only way to have peace is to eradicate all religious diversity and have everyone be atheist. Well… that’s as intolerant as the extreme on the other side. And about as likely to happen as my happy-fuzzy world of diversity with tolerance – so if my choices of impossible to reach goals are militant conformity to atheism or diversity with tolerance, I’ll strive for the second.
What makes me sad is that I actually agree with large chunks of what I’ve read of Dawkins. I might even like him. But I’m also left with the distinct impression that he would not like me – because I’m Pagan and he can’t respect that. Whereas I can respect him for his lack of faith.
On the other hand, I know many Christians who are very tolerant individuals. A Methodist church just moved in to my neighborhood that sponsors a charity with the Unitarian Universalists and the Covenant of the Goddess (a Wiccan circle). In the 20th century, we’ve radically changed Americans’ acceptance of African-Americans and women. We’re changing people’s tolerance for homosexuality (and they will always be a minority, so if minority status guarantees oppression, they’re screwed). We have to focus on helping society become more tolerant.
Laurel Massé says:
Sep 2, 2011
Hi JAX. I am a late-comer to your wonderful blog, and to this post, but I want to add to this discussion. As a practicing Christian, I was as appalled and worried by this rally as you were. The right-iest part of the radical right seems to be missing Christ’s primary message: love. The kind of love that takes care of everyone, the kind of love that never runs out. Somehow the rest of us, who constitute a vast majority within Christianity, have been quiet while others take the microphone and turn the volume up (I wrote something about this in my own blog today, inspired by something you wrote about focusing on life rather than on an afterlife).
Church folks have to stop hitting people over the head with the Bible and start acting as if we have read the thing, especially what Jesus actually said. Love your neighbor, for instance.
Thank you for your fine blog.
Blessings, Laurel
Jax says:
Sep 2, 2011
Aw, Laurel, thank you! I read your article, and it was very touching. (And the picture of the kitty looking in the mirror at the lion made me grin; for 15 years now I have kept in the Bible my Grandmother gave me a card that my other grandmother gave me that has that image and the quote “What matters most is how you see yourself” beneath it.) I also loved the Einstein quote you have in the Dreaming True Like It Or Not post (http://laurelmasse.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/08/dreaming-true-like-it-or-not.html) Einstein amazes me more every time I read something about him or something said by him. What an incredible example of what humans can be.
I tried to make clear in the article, and I want to reiterate, that I know Perry and the people funding him are not representative of what what most Christians do or of what Jesus said or did. Most of my friends and family are Christians, and they are wonderful, loving people LIVING good lives day to day. I sure hope that, like you, more and more of these Christians start speaking up to drown out those negative voices with their message of love!
Thanks for coming by the blog, and I hope to hear from you again!