GOP talking points on the liberals-hate-religion meme

Too much holiday partying can make you gullible to believing crackpot nonsense

This is a classic "concern troll" version of the favorite Republican whopper that liberals hate God, from MSNBC''s John Ridley: Why are Liberals so Afraid of Baby Jesus? Huffington Post 12/24/07. Ridley promotes the phony Bircher "war on Christmas" nonsense, an anti-Semitic theme very thinly disguised, though in most versions it doesn't look very concealed to me:

And yet, despite the fact the majority of us acknowledge Christmas in some way, in typically liberal fashion the fringe uses the censorship of political correctness to turn "Merry Christmas" in a verboten phrase.

No, Johnny, there's no Grand Jewish Conspiracy to stamp out Christmas as a way of elminating Christianity. And you ought to be ashamed of yourself for promoting such crap. And the fact that you didn't specify "the Jews" as being behind it is no excuse. Ridley is an experienced journalist, as his HuffPo biography attests; he has to know that he's just trying to scam the rubes here. Scam the rubes and pander to rightwing Republicans and to people fond of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

For more on the anti-Semitic pedigree and general sleaziness of the rightwing war-on-Christmas theme, see my posts Whining by the "defenders" of Christmas 12/28/04; The (Christmas) war fraud 11/24/05; The fine old conflict over Christmas 12/08/05 Analyzing the phony "war on Christmas" 12/15/05; More on the bah-humbug war against the (nonexistent) "war on Christmas" 12/23/05. I would also call special attention to Michelle Goldberg's How the secular humanist grinch didn't steal Christmas Salon 11/21/05 and Joe Conason's Merry Christmas to All WorkingforChange.com 12/15/05, both of which I commented on in those earlier linked posts.

The oddness of the following comment of Ridley's sticks is pretty glaring:

Huckabee runs a Christmas-themed ad. The liberals see a floating cross, and believe that alone make the man unfit to be president. Instead, I think that makes some on the far left too paranoid to trust with a vote. (my emphasis)

Facts are like, so, 20th century to our "press corps". Just think about that paragraph. First, did "liberals" see a floating cross? The press certainly did. Because I saw an article referring to the "floating cross" and watched the ad. After seeing it, I thought, well, it's a pretty explicitly Christmas message. But if Republicans don't care about appealing to Jewish or nonbelieving voters, who am I to criticize them for it? Because the Dems are going to compete for them. But then I thought, "Wait, where's the floating cross? I didn't see any floating cross." When I saw a reference in an online article to the bookshelf looking like a floating cross, I looked again and see how someone might think that.

But look what Ridley says. Not only is it "liberals" who see that kinda-sorta floating cross. But those nasty liberals "believe that alone make the man unfit to be president". Has anyone at all said that the "floating cross" in that ad makes the Huck "unfit to be president"? Liberal, conservative, Paulian, anyone? I haven't heard of any and Ridley doesn't cite a single one. (Ron Paul almost did but backed away from it.) But to Ridley, just spewing pleasing media nonsense about those God-hating "liberals", says that these unnamed and unknown critics "believe that alone make the man unfit to be president". And from this he concludes, "that makes some on the far left too paranoid to trust with a vote." Does he think "liberals" and "far left" are synoymous terms? Well, Republicans prefer to think so, so that makes it an acceptable script for a journalist seeking to parrot GOP phrases.

But what a complete crock! From a groundless premise, he conjures out of the air "liberals" who see a floating cross in the Huck's ad (he doesn't bother to tell us if it is a plausible interpretation of the image) who claim this image in the ad makes the Huck unfit for the Presidency. And because of these wicked "liberals" who claim this - liberals who are apparently hidden to all of us but Ridley - he himself think he maybe won't vote for "some on the far left". I guess if he's not embarassed to repeat anti-Semitic nonsense about the non-existent War on Christmas, it's probably pointless to wonder why he's not embarassed about putting something like this out there under his name.

Ridley also provides these stock Republican arguments:

What's particularly galling is the left's selective prosecution of religiosity. There is, as first mentioned, Jimmy Carter and his faith which causes no liberal ripples. And few liberals batted an eye when Barack Obama launched his Embrace the Change tour with black ministers - despite the fact one was (and still is) a homophobe. When Harold Ford Jr. ran a political ad filmed in a church there wasn't a word of derision spoken from the left as they knew such an ad would pull votes for Mr. Ford in Tennessee. And during their presidential runs no one on the left accused the reverends Jackson or Sharpton of being too tied to the cloth.

Sadly, such fact-challenged assertions have become common fare for our "press corps". As long as it fits within the conventional (and usually GOP-friendly) press wisdom, facts are often considered optional.

Did Carter's Christian faith cause "ripples" among liberals? It certainly gained him some attention during his 1976 Presidential run. But since he was running on a theocratic program, most liberals didn't care. Why should they? If he wasn't seeking to bridge the separation between church and state, why would it be a problem? On the key issue of women's freedom of choice on abortion, Carter supported it. Some liberals did wonder about his commitment to labor and about his foreign policy positions. And during his Presidency, his support for restricting the use of federal funds for abortions for poor women drew some liberal criticism for his policy position. But liberals had little trouble distinguishing him from his opponents Jerry Ford (who, by the way, had Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney as his White House chiefs of staff) and later Ronald Reagan.

The mainstream press, though, which was nearly as pathetic then as now, did experience some "ripples" over Carter's evangelical Christianity, though. Because political reporters in those days weren't expected to know much about religious issues since theocracy hadn't become a national political issue in 1976.

As Ridley surely knows, the issue that liberals and moderates and even still a few conservatives have with religion and politics is the Christian dominionist notions that the Republicans have favored and the policy prescriptions that come with them. Jimmy Carter has been clear about his faith. But he has never identified himself with the Christian Right groups pursuing theocratic goals.

Liberals didn't complain about Jesse Jackson's ministerial role or Gary Hart's theology degree in the 1984 Presidential race. Why should they? They weren't pursuing theocratic agendas, either.

And I guess Ridley just wasn't paying attention when liberals and spokespeople from gay rights groups criticized Obama clearly and explicitly for relying on the support of that "ex-gay" minister. Facts are just one of those silly obsessions of "the liberals".

Let the rightwingers comma-dance over it to their cold hearts' content. But groups like James Dobson's Focus on the Family and the jillion other front groups and associated agencies that we know collectively as the Christian Right are a real force in American politics today in a way that they were not in 1976. Some of the issues in dispute have explicitly to do with religion, like Christianist attempts to use the armed forces for proselyzing or the role of a Christianist like Eric Prince plays as head of the Blackwater mercenary company. Others are policy issues like freedom of choice on abortion that are policy issues on which the Christianists tend to take a definite position of opposing choice.

The Christianists can't expect to have it both ways, though if people like Ridley want to pander to them they have to pretend to expect that they can. If a candidate's personal faith and/or their adherence to the Christianist political agenda are legitimate issues for the Christianists to consider, they are legitimate issues for the rest of us, as well.

It's long past time for Democrats to be ducking the word "liberal", not that ducking it was ever a good idea in the first place. But in this case, the "liberals" who opposed the Christianist agenda also include most American Christians.

But, even now, it's important to keep in mind that the Christianist groups are mostly focused on policies and on delivering votes in general elections for the Republican Party. The Christian Right favored the only vaguely religious Ronald Reagan over the professed born-again Christian Jimmy Carter in 1980. Nor did Reagan's lack of overt personal piety make the Christianists flock to Walter Mondale in 1984.

Christianist groups look at the candidates' positions on issues important to them. And so should liberals and everyone else. And that includes concerns about their personal position toward their churches or other religious groups. Voters would be insane not to worry about how a candidate's membership in the Unification Church might affect their performance in office. John Kennedy in his famous speech on politics and religion in 1960 didn't scold the Baptists for questioning his position. Instead, he took a forthright stand in favor of separation of church and state and addressed the issue head-on.

Ridley's piece is a sloppy piece of Establishment press cant. It mainly seems intended to pump up standard GOP accusations: liberals hate religion; liberals are big old hypocrites; liberals don't talk about religion enough but are big hypocrites when other liberals do talk about religion. No, it's not reality-based nor does it even make much sense.

But what important issues to clear-minded thinkers like Ridley, free from the sad limitations of those big liberal hypocrites, rely upon to evaluate Presidential candidates? Ridley writes, "Huckabee does agree that Jimi Hendrix was probably the greatest guitarist ever which is not a reason to vote for him, but certainly a reason to at least give a listen to what he has to say."

That's how our Establishment press picks through these issues. Huckabee likes Jimi Hendrix music, so he might have some good ideas on the Iraq War! Huckabee likes Jimi Hendrix music, so his crackpot tax proposals might have some merit!

As the Daily Howler likes to say, gaze on the empty soul of your press corps.

Ridley also has this gem of advice for those big old narrow-minded liberal hypocrites: "And during his tenure as Governor Huckabee didn't exactly turn Arkansas into a theocracy."

Uh, except that, for example, he based decisions on releasing convicted felons not on traditional rehabilitation criteria but on a good-ole-boy network of Baptist preachers, as Joe Conason described in Huckabee and criminals: It's worse than just Wayne DuMond Salon 12/14/07. But, no, Johnny, the Huck didn't establish a Baptist clerical board with power to overrule the courts and the legislature. So I guess we don't need to worry about his religious views, his religious good-ole-boy network or his Christianist affiliations and positions. Because unless we've spent our entire adult lives criticizing Jesse Jackson for being a minister, that would make us naughty liberal hyprocrites in the eyes of scribes like John Ridley.

And remember, Huckabee likes Jimi Hendrix music!

Tags: christian right, christianism, establishment press, john ridley, mainstream media, mainstream press, mike huckabee