Religious usurpation and pomposity are a driving force in America’s destruction from within. It must be stopped if America is to survive.
How many of you reading this article identify as a “person of faith?” Let me define the question a little bit further before answering. What I mean is, how many among you believe in some sort of ultimate being or deity, a god as it were, who is in charge of the universe and nature? Mind you, I am not asking which faith you identify with; I’m merely asking if you consider yourself someone who believes. I’d like you to ponder that question as you continue reading. Because it’s time to not only look at the position that faith occupies in America, but also the role it is actively playing in its destruction.
Religious Persecution 2.0
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” — Donald Trump at a campaign rally, 12–7–2015
This quote is one of many made by Donald Trump in reference to the Muslim population of the world, both before and after taking over the Oval Office. There is little question that, in between inflammatory statements such as these, the implementation of his travel ban against several Muslim-majority countries, and its recent replacement, the Trump Administration is decidedly anti-Muslim. While the guise of Trump’s orders is “national security,” we must be bold and call it what it is: A religious litmus test which is automatically failed if the person falling victim to it is a Muslim.
But here at home, a large number of American citizens are already facing their own religious litmus tests, and they are failing miserably. This is because the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment have been distorted and weaponized against those who do not subscribe to a certain set of beliefs and values. For reference, the clause in question reads: “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The meaning of these words is, on the surface, reasonably straightforward: Congress can pass no laws curtailing the rights of the people to believe in or to practice whatever religion they wish, if any, nor can it pass legislation establishing a specific religion as a an “official” religion, as it were. In effect, this bans the United States government from taking any stance as to what it feels the American people should believe, giving us religious autonomy. And yet, over the last decade or two, these words have been so twisted from that intended meaning that they are now being used for the exact purpose of establishing what they were intended to prevent.
Enter so-called “religious freedom” laws, which are being used across the country in an attempt to curtail abortion rights, restrict the rights of homosexual couples, and even to deny housing and employment. Let’s take a look at one such law, and then the broader implications of such policies as they are enacted in more states and cities around the country.
It might come as no surprise that Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed into law in 2015 by now-Vice President Mike Pence during his stint as governor, is one of the most stringent in the nation when it comes to abusing the rights of its residents. An analysis by The Atlantic shows that it contains two clauses which make it stronger against legal challenges than most similarly-focused laws:
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.
Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”
In short, Indiana’s law gives any private business the same freedom of religious exercise as any individual person, or even any church, meaning that the business can assert “religious freedom” if it decides to not provide jobs, housing, or services for anyone who deviates from their beliefs. It effectively establishes a legal avenue by which such business can discriminate against the general public, while effectively shielding them from any legal avenues the oppressed might otherwise have to fight back.
The theme is similar with religious freedom acts which have been enacted across the country: Businesses and other entities should not face punishment for discriminating against others, as long as that discrimination is justifiable by a “sincerely held” religious or moral belief. They are “Get out of Jail Free” cards for those who want to impose a specific view or ideology on those they might otherwise have to tolerate. It’s justification for pharmacists to deny birth control to a woman, for a hospital or a doctor to deny an abortion, and even for an employer to refuse to hire an individual because they might engage in behavior with which they disagree. Such laws and programs are specifically designed to harm a specific demographic of people. Women and LGBTs are the primary targets. But what happens when religion is also used to prevent taking action against a very real and specific threat to the general population?
Why Fight to Stop Gun Violence When We Have “Thoughts and Prayers”?
I would like for you now to consider another question, putting aside your views on faith for right now. If you had the opportunity to do something to prevent thousands of people from being massacred in the streets, what would you do?
Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan want to lead the nation in prayer as a way to combat the rash of mass shootings plaguing America. After last weekend’s mass shooting in Sutherland Springs, TX, he had this to say in an interview:
“And [praying] is the right thing to do, is to pray in moments like this because you know what? Prayer works.”
Okay, Speaker Ryan, I’ll take you at your word. Let’s assume that prayer actually does work Let’s spend some time trying to find some anecdotal evidence that praying actually helps with stopping or subduing mass shootings. We’re going to look at hard numbers — facts — regarding several historically-recent mass shooting events and our nation’s overall response to see where “thoughts and prayers” have been effective.
Let’s take a look at some of the “hard numbers” first. In 2017 by itself, there have been 307 mass shootings in the United States. Remember: There are only 365 days in an entire year, so this translates to roughly one mass shooting per day in the United States of America. Sadly, even the government does not provide an official definition of just what a “mass shooting” is, despite how commonplace they have become. The most widely-accepted definition seems to be a shooting incident in which four or more people are either injured or killed.
In 2016 — last year, mind you — according to Mass Shooting Tracker (MST), there were 477 mass shootings in the United States. Their data seems to only go back to 2013, but no other year in that five-year span featured more mass shooting incidents than 2016. And if you really want to analyze the violence manifested throughout 2016, VICE has a fairly in-depth tracker on each mass-shooting event which injured or killed at least four people. To give you another number: MST pins the total number of mass shootings just since January 1st, 2013, at just under 1900.
In less than five years, mass shootings have caused chaos, carnage, and death almost 1900 times. By the end of 2017, there will have passed a total of 1,826 days on the calendar. So even if 2017 does not have even one more mass shooting incident, by the standards we are using, there will have been slightly more than one mass shooting incident per day in the United States. One per day. For five full years. Take a look at just what almost 1900 mass shootings looks like.
With this level and frequency of gun-related carnage in America, one might ponder whether or not a tougher stance should be taken on gun violence and the ownership of guns in general. But we first need to analyze the current level of response before jumping to that conclusion.
We can go back to Sandy Hook, which is arguably one of the most devastating acts of violence ever committed on American soil. We lost 20 children on that fateful day, December 14th, 2012. Innocent children, in the hands of the school district to learn more about their world, never made it home to Mom and Dad. Logically, a lot of Americans both in and out of the government thought about what could be done to try and prevent something like this from happening again. Sadly, however, nothing really came to pass of it:
“As under current law, transfers between family, friends and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your co-worker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check,” a press release from the senators said at the time.
“The only thing that we’ve asked for is that people would just read the bill. It’s a criminal and mental background check strictly at gun shows and online sales,” Manchin told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace on April 28, 2013. “I’ve said this: If you’re a law-abiding gun owner, you’ll love this bill.”
Unfortunately for Manchin and Toomey, the National Rifle Association and myriad gun owners opposed the Manchin-Toomey Amendment. While it garnered 56 votes in the Senate, that was not enough, because opponents threatened a filibuster that would have required 60 votes to overcome. Among the 46 voters against the bill were four Democrats from red states that support gun rights, including Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, who faces a tough re-election battle next year; Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska, who lost their re-election bids in 2014; and Max Baucus of Montana, who retired to become the U.S. ambassador to China.
Hundreds after hundreds more mass shootings have occurred since then. Even after the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, FL — which laid waste to over 100 people, killing 49 of them — the government rejected attempts at tighter gun control regulations, in the aftermath of what was, at the time, the deadliest mass shooting in our history. But our legislators were more than willing to lend support through prayers to the victims and their families.
The Pulse shooting happened almost a year-and-a-half ago. While the thoughts and prayers of our elected officials might have offered some degree of comfort, it would seem at first glance that they haven’t had much impact at preventing further mass-casualty shooting incidents in America.
Just over a month ago, on October 1st, 2017, a gunman opened fire in Las Vegas on a crowd of concertgoers for the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival, managing to murder nearly 60 and injure nearly 550. That’s well over 600 people either killed or injured by one individual, making it now the absolute deadliest mass shooting event in US history. So now, we are bigger than Sandy Hook, and even bigger than Pulse. How are our elected representatives preparing to protect us from an event of this magnitude again?
[In fairness, McConnell’s thoughts and prayers at least were accompanied by useful information.]
Surely, this latest outpouring of love, support, and prayer from the top members of our government would be enough to turn the tide and put an end to mass gun violence in America. Right?
Enter last weekend’s massacre in Sutherland Springs, TX. As you might expect after having read this far, the response once again has been to issue “thoughts and prayers” — as evidenced by the Paul Ryan quote from before. But what is puzzling is why thoughts and prayers don’t seem to be curbing the epidemic of mass gun violence propagating throughout America. In the words of National Review, prayer is the “single-most important and effective thing you can do”:
When you see a mass murder unfold on the television screen or read about it online, let me tell you the single-most important and effective thing you can do in response. It also happens to be the single-most important and effective thing you can do on a sustained basis to turn the hearts of evil men, to strengthen the courage and resolve of good men and women, and to inspire the ideas and actions that bring change. You can pray.
It’s as simple as this: God is sovereign, and every good and perfect gift comes from Him. That includes changed hearts. It includes comfort that only He can provide. It includes the courage to be the “good guy with the gun” who can (and, reports suggest, yesterday did) stop a rampage in its tracks. It includes the clear mind to consider and enact policies that might make a difference.
So, yes, if you’re not praying and thinking in response to mass murders like the attack on the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, your response isn’t as effective as it could be. If there’s one thing that’s clear from the spate of mass killings in the United States, it’s that we need God to move.
But let’s look at this another way: By early 2018, we are projected to have 2,000 or more mass shooting incidents in the United States — all in just barely over five full years, or to state it another way, approximately 400 per year. But prayer, to paraphrase the above, is the best weapon we have to change the hearts and minds of those who seek to do us harm, or to put us in the frame of mind to bring about change. Funnily enough, the excerpt above ends with the mysterious, “we need God to move.”
Does that mean that God is not moving to help us? Is God forsaking us and allowing the butchers to have their slaughter? Does prayer actually work for anything other than to bring comfort to the most devoutly religious among us?
Looking at the statistics of nearly 2,000 mass shooting incidents over the past five years in the United States, the answer seems to be a resounding “no.” What gives?
Religion: A Sword and a Scapegoat
The very idea of religion — as a vehicle to comfort people who are in pain by coming together with a common purpose, to spread a message of hope and of salvation in a future life — is being utterly destroyed by all of the above, and then some. What you are reading now is a contortion of religion into something unrecognizable by those who truly believe in its power to inspire and to bring hope to people. In 2017 America, and for years leading up to now, religion is a weapon to be used to destroy the ability of the populace to truly practicetheir faith of choice, or to abstain from practicing it altogether if they so choose.
What we see now, by government officials such as Speaker Paul Ryan all the way up to Donald Trump, is the formal establishment of their sick version of Christianity under the guise of protecting religious freedom. Why else would the idea of God be used to destroy a woman’s access to reproductive health care? Why would a homosexual couple not be allowed to have a wedding cake to protect the “religious freedom” of the person who would have to make it if the law actually required him or her to do their job? Why would our “president” stop barely short of declaring Islam as a religion the enemy of America while enacting policies effectively treating it as such?
This is the 21st Century form of religious persecution: Make a public spectacle out of proclaiming “religious freedom” while enacting policies which destroy that freedom for all who do not subscribe to a specific set of views. Your religious freedom is only protected if you:
- Identify yourself as a modern-day, hard-core Christian extremist;
- Believe that access to abortion or even birth control is a sin;
- Believe that homosexuality is a sin;
- Are willing to oppress anyone who shares an opposing viewpoint;
- Believe that no one should have to do anything they don’t want to do for a religious or moral reason;
- Believe that taking any action against a fellow human being, no matter how cruel, for a religious or moral reason, is fully justifiable;
- Want to eviscerate all of Islam.
This is why we have so-called “religious freedom” laws! This is why we have companies like Hobby Lobby doing everything they can to prevent their employees from accessing common-sense reproductive health care! This is why that cake shop down the street is allowed to say, “No!” if a homosexual couple wants to buy something from them! And it’s why so many of our elected representatives tell us, “No!” when we attempt to demand gun control measures that may save our lives.
To that latter point: This is at least what we are told. But could something more sinister be afoot?
That bill had tremendous popular support — a Quinnipiac University poll found that 77 percent of American voters support banning people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns. Nevertheless, the gun lobby, representing a small but powerful minority of voters, persuaded politicians to vote against it with tactics including millions of dollars in campaign donations.
It’s worth noting, as Dana Houle did on Twitter, that gun-control–opposing politicians act out of fear that the NRA will push them out of office by backing a more right-leaning primary challenger.
So wait just a minute. Is it possible that our elected officials don’t really believe in the power of prayer to prevent mass shootings? Could they actually believe more in the power of money instead??
What this tells us, then, is that faith is nothing more than a scapegoat in the quest to eliminate gun control after mass shooting events in America. Go ahead and read through the article I just linked, in which you will find many more embedded tweets like these; the list goes on. No, the real reason that we will never pass effective gun control measures is because our faith-based, Christian-branded lawmakers are actually in the pocket of big money — specifically, the NRA.
An Official Terrorist Actor in Our Own Backyard
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that —
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended —
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. (Source)
So let’s take a close look at the actions of the National Rifle Association as they relate to the official definition of domestic terrorism under the law. The first point: Involving acts dangerous to human life which also violate the criminal laws of the country or an individual state. We’ve just been talking about how a number of legislators have accepted contributions from the NRA and gun-rights groups as a whole. In return, these officials — who are supposed to work for us — have pledged their loyalty by voting against a number of bills which would have enhanced the security of the American people by making it harder for certain individuals — including suspected terrorists — from acquiring firearms under the law. By greasing the palms of our legislators, then, the NRA and similar groups are effectively providing assistance to any person who might seek to obtain and use a firearm in an act of violence such as the Pulse or Las Vegas massacres. That certainly seems to fit the first criterion of “domestic terrorism.”
So let’s look at the next few points. Domestic terrorism is defined also as actions meant to intimidate or coerce the populace; influence the government by coercion or intimidation; affect the conduct of the government by mass destruction, kidnapping, or assassination; and occur within the jurisdiction of the United States. We can easily argue that the tactics of the NRA in paying off our representatives is an act of coercion of the United States government; in fact, the NRA will actively work to have unseated any representative who refuses to abide by the strictest interpretations of the Second Amendment with respect to gun control:
Today the Republican Party remains in hock to the NRA leadership and through them to their paymasters in the gun-making industry. The NRA runs an official list, like the old Communist Party, of preferred candidates and grades them according to their adherence to the strict constructionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. If a candidate fails to offer total support for absolutist gun rights, the NRA funds a campaign in the next party primary to unseat them. Polls suggest, however, that the NRA leadership no longer represents the wishes of its members towards moderate gun controls, and since the Sandy Hook massacre of schoolchildren, the extremism of NRA leaders like Wayne LaPierre, whose tin-eared response to the shootings so jarred voters in all parties, suggests the existence at the top of the organization of a self-serving, superannuated elite that no longer commands the confidence of its rank and file.
This is both coercion and intimidation of officials of the US government.And by extension, these tactics seek to determine the policy the government will adopt with respect to gun control; that is, the NRA uses these tactics to ensure that the government will take ZERO action on gun control. And, of course, these actions do take place in the confines of the United States mainland. In fact, the only one of these actions for which I cannot make a logical argument is Section B, paragraph iii, simply because the NRA is not directly engaging in the types of mass destruction or murder that those benefiting from their actions have committed. Although, given this announcement by NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch earlier this year, maybe the NRA is planning to bring the fight directly to the rest of us:
And with that, I think we can officially say it:
The National Rifle Association is a terrorist organization under the definitions of domestic terrorism in the United States legal code.
So let’s call them what they are: An official terrorist actor within the United States. They use their money and influence to buy off our elected officials for the sole purpose of preventing any form of gun control from making it into law, thus endangering the lives of every American citizen. And in so doing, the NRA helps to make it possible for the Dylann Roofs, Stephen Paddocks, and Devin Kelleys of the world to acquire the weapons which make these massacres possible. They intimidate our legislators with the threat of losing their jobs and their power if they don’t bow down and accept the NRA’s definitions of gun rights. This places every one of our lives in danger. If that isn’t domestic terrorism on a broad scale, I’m not sure what is.
Indoctrination and Deflection
What we have, then, is a distortion of religion on two fronts. On one, an indoctrination of the masses to conform to very specific beliefs with regard to conservative values; on the other, its use to deflect from what is really going on in America. Both are destroying our nation’s foundation. And both must be stopped if the nation is to survive.
With respect to conservatism, we are seeing an explosion of extremism which rivals the most extreme philosophies of Islam in some ways. In 2017, being a good Christian means blocking every available avenue to a woman attempting to exercise reproductive choice. It means preventing homosexuals from even living their lives in the manner they wish, holding them in a prison of judgement and shame. It means attempting to strip away the rights of those with whom they disagree to even put together a life for themselves without fear of someone trying to use some Trumped-up “sincerely held religious belief” to block them from health care, from housing, even potentially a job. That’s how far this is going. It is creating an expectation that every single United States citizen subscribe to and conform to a very specific definition of what it means to be a Christian in America, and it distorts the very purpose of the religious clause of the First Amendment to make that point. Extreme right-wing so-called Christians are undermining the very fabric of religious freedom by declaring it to be only for those who agree with their beliefs. There is no freedom in this.
And now, with respect to the gun control debate, the idea of “thoughts and prayers” as a means to comfort and to prevent future mass shootings is an obvious, abject failure. And now we know that the entire campaign is simply a ruse to provide cover for organizations like the National Rifle Association, who buy out our elected officials to keep them in line, threatening them with the end of their political careers if they even look like they are going to support a small measure of gun control which might actually save a life or two. The National Rifle Association and those like it have found a way to keep an unending control over the United States government, and the idea of “thoughts and prayers” after every single mass shooting has become so routine as to make a mockery of the victims and their loved ones. “Thoughts and prayers” may provide comfort to some, but in the grand scheme of things, they are going to do nothing to save us from any future mass shootings. To paraphrase Tom Lennox from 24: I love the Bible, but I won’t be ducking behind it when the bullets start flying at the hands of the next mass shooter.
All of this comes down to one thing: A weaponization of one of the most sacred personal choices that human beings can make. It is not up to me, to you, or to anyone, to determine what or whether someone believes in a god, a religion, or a faith. And to those who actually support moves like the religious freedom laws we have discussed, I ask: What personal harm are homosexuals, or women choosing birth control or abortion, or anyone wanting to be different, inflicting upon you? How does it hurt you personally to let them live their lives as they see fit? And what right do you personally have to be involved in their lives when they probably have no idea who you even are?
Religion and faith are personal choices that we all must make for ourselves. They are not up to anyone else. That our actual government is attempting to rewrite the First Amendment to the Constitution in an attempt to protect religious freedom only for those who subscribe to a 2017-era extremist abomination of what Christianity has stood for puts America in the ultimate moral quandary, one which only the people can resolve. The religious pomposity of those creating and supporting the types of regulations introduced by religious freedom laws around the nation are working to destroy one of the most important pillars of American freedom and democracy. Those who accept money from the NRA and gun-rights groups, who drown out the calls of their constituents to at least make an effort to protect them from the types of mass shooting events which have become a cancer on America, work to destroy national security.
The way to restore true religious freedom in America is to shut down anyone who tries to destroy that freedom by pretending they are saving it. We must drive them back into the shadows with an overwhelming, unified voice which says that the hijacking of our personal religious views is unacceptable and will be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The way to bring about legislation to reform gun rights and ownership is to work to destroy groups like the NRA, who have long outlived their usefulness and instead, with their very actions, condone the mass violence sweeping through American society. This includes voting out of office anyone who supports the NRAs agenda; we must leave no one left in office who supports an agenda of unabated gun access for all, regardless of the risk to public safety. And it means opposing our fellow citizens who worship the power of the gun over the powers of freedom, safety, and democracy — turning the gun itself into a twisted form of religious ideology all its own and throwing away the virtues of living in a society which is safe, peaceful, and doesn’t even need the power of a gun to ensure them.
At the beginning of this piece, I asked you to consider whether you identify as a person of faith, regardless of the religion or ideology you choose to follow. Now that you have read through to the end, consider your answer. Are you still a person of faith? What faith do you choose to follow? Does that faith lead you to follow the types of ideologies and beliefs which are causing so much ruin to America and its people? And if so, has this made you reconsider in any way? I don’t need to know your answers; these are personal choices which you have the right to make without any attempt on anyone’s part to undermine them. But do know that if you are either a leader or a follower of the type of twisted religion seeking to destroy American democracy and safety, there will come a point at which the people will bring their own hammer down upon you. And when it happens, may your chosen faith or deity show you the kind of mercy that those like you have refused to give to the rest of us.