Another Day at School

Imagine you're eight and in the second grade. All you had for breakfast was nothing because your mom leaves for her job in the meat processing plant at 6:00 am, and your older sister (twelve) gets you up at 8:00 am, but she doesn't cook breakfast, and there's no food in the kitchen except some candy corn left over from Halloween and a couple of beers your mom's boyfriend left in the fridge (you already know you don't like beer). Oh, yeh, there's a box of Hamburger Helper, but no hamburger meat. Sometimes the lady next door gives you a peanut butter sandwich, but not today. There's also a half-empty jug of milk next to the beer, but it smells bad.

You're in class. The teacher is saying something about fractions, but you feel embarrassed because the growling in your stomach seems louder than her voice. It's almost lunch time. Not that you care, because you didn't bring anything and you don't have any money for the cafeteria. At this point, which would be the best thing to help you focus on your schoolwork? A wall poster listing the Ten Commandments, or a free breakfast?

 

Freedom?

I grew up in a region known for being politically and socially conservative. The churches displayed American flags inside the sanctuary. We pledged allegiance in school every morning. People talked a lot about patriotism and freedom, especially freedom as in, "America, land of the free." Freedom meant that we could choose any religion (or no religion), that we could read (or write) any books we wanted, that we could listen to (or perform) the music we liked, and enjoy (or create) whatever artworks we chose. It meant we were free to choose where to live, whether or not to marry, how many children to have (including none), what kind of career to pursue, what clothes to wear, what food to eat, etc.

A saying that was popular in that time and place was, "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins," meaning that we were free to do what we wanted, as long as we didn't interfere with someone else's freedom to do what they wanted. We were taught to "tolerate" the existence of other religions and people whose way of thinking or way of living was different from ours. "Freedom" was a concept that applied to everyone.

Today, those ideas seem to have changed within the "conservative" community. Many people now define freedom as not tolerating those who are different They seem to believe that the existence of someone whose beliefs or choices are different is an affront to their own beliefs and choices. They want to swing their not-always-metaphorical fists squarely into the noses of those whose very being offends them. They will not feel free until everyone else complies.

 

Should Religion Run the Government?

History shows us what happens when the church is allowed to direct the government. A Protestant government persecuted Catholics, a Catholic government persecuted Protestants. They all persecuted Jews. Then you've got all the churchy people who burned or hanged people for being "witches", often using torture to force false confessions from them. And all the religion-controlled governments today who treat women as slaves who can't even show their faces in public.

People who want religion to control government always imagine it will be their version of religion. They are genuinely surprised when it is turned against them, for not being orthodox enough, for being denounced by a neighbor, for using the wrong word, for being a bit eccentric, for being an unmarried woman with property someone would like to seize, for having the wrong ancestors, for laughing at the wrong time, etc.

Think about the ongoing problems with sexual abuse in churches, and how the church authorities protected the offenders and concealed the truth. Now imagine how that would play out if the churches controlled the government. We already see judges who give shockingly light sentences to preachers and youth pastors who committed terrible abuses against children and teens. If the churches were in charge, would they ever bother to prosecute their monsters?
 

Their Feelings Will Become Law

Abortion is such an emotional, polarizing issue that it's not surprising Republicans decided to use it as a wedge to open the door for them to just take over the country. They have a segment of the population that is so blinded by outrage over the issue, they will support anything that is done. Any violation of human rights is seen as justified in pursuit of what they believe is a righteous crusade.

The same people who screeched that asking about vaccinations violated medical privacy rights have no problem with scrutinizing the medical records of pregnant women, just in case they might contemplate an abortion. People who describe themselves as "pro life" really don't care if a woman's life is endangered - or ended - by an ectopic pregnancy or by complications of a miscarriage, as long as the doctors and nurses who refuse to help her are thoroughly intimidated by the threat of being accused of performing an abortion.

People who want the freedom to go anywhere in public with a rifle on their shoulder or a pistol in their pocket, don't object to laws that restrict the freedom of women to drive across town, just to make sure those women can't get abortions. Overwhelmed by powerful feelings, they see any kind of violation, restriction, or harm to women as completely justified by the massive importance of this one, all-consuming issue.

It never occurs to them that this sets a precedent. They don't foresee a time (coming sooner than we think) when other important issues will be the justification for violations and restrictions against everyone, including them. If we become indifferent to the oppression of women, how hard will it be to become indifferent to all oppression? If they can seize her medical records, why can't they seize yours? If they can prevent her from leaving town, just in case she might do something forbidden, why can't they prevent you from leaving town, just in case you might do some forbidden thing?

If they can refuse to abide by an election because of their opposition to abortion, why can't they refuse to abide by an election because of their opposition to gambling, or guns, or books?

These things matter! They are upsetting! Our strong feelings exempt us from obeying the law!

 

The Prosperity Gospel

When I was a child, I heard a version of the prosperity gospel that was a bit different from the way it's promoted today. The basic idea was that a good-hearted person who generously helped others was rewarded materially so that he could share his fortune, using his resources to lift others out of poverty.

The protagonist in the story was a man who had given his last $10 to help someone who was even worse off than he was. That act of self-sacrifice led to his getting a good job, where he rose through the ranks by working hard. Whenever he got an increase in salary, he used most of his money to feed, clothe and shelter unemployed and homeless people, no strings attached. As he got richer and richer, he gave away more and more money.

This was not a story about a man with multiple mansions and a private jet, whose conspicuous wealth was supposedly a sign that God considered him morally superior. It was a story about a man whom God trusted to help those with the greatest need.

It's sad how twisted that story has become.

 

Whose Nose Is It, Anyway?

Imagine a state government that decides to outlaw rhinoplasty and septoplasty. In other words - no nose jobs. They are under the influence of a small but vocal religious sect that opposes cosmetic surgery as being against God's will. "Your face is sacred," they insist.

Of course, it's not just about imposing one group's religious beliefs on the larger population. The government also sees changed noses as a way to evade facial recognition software and other surveillance/identification systems.

People who need nose surgery because they have breathing problems are dismissed as a tiny, meaningless minority. People whose noses are damaged in accidents or by violence are told that it's "God's will," and they should learn to love the new look.

Plastic surgeons, protesting against political interference in medical decisions, are vilified as money-grubbing demons who mutilate people for profit. People with crooked noses who travel to a state where rhinoplasty is still legal are reported to authorities and their medical records are seized. People with naturally small, straight noses are viewed with suspicion by religious zealots who harass them in public and send death threats to their homes. Protestors outside plastic surgeons' offices carry signs with graphic photos of bloody, swollen noses, and chant at everyone entering the office: "Don't break your nose! Don't break your nose!"

A couple of politicians get publicity for themselves by blocking state highway funding as a protest against government agencies that allow employees to use paid sick leave for nose surgery. The unrepaired roads contribute to an increase in traffic accidents - and more damaged noses. People who get out-of-state nose jobs are afraid to be seen with bandages on their faces, so they stay indoors or wear disguises.

People unhappy with their big, crooked noses are labeled as having "facial dysmorphic disorder" and are told they need counseling to accept themselves as they are. Parents who allow teenagers to get nose jobs are investigated by Child Protective Services. Some people go to underground practitioners who may or may not be safe. Some people become so desperate they try to fix their noses themselves, using steak knives and crochet hooks. Sometimes it works, but some people get permanent brain damage, and some bleed to death. Anyone with a nosebleed is suspected of having had an illegal nose job.

Celebrities who had nose jobs back when it was legal write books about their experiences; a few are invited to testify before Congress.

 

Freedom

We used to have something called "freedom of religion". The Republican Party has replaced that with something they call "religious liberty".

Freedom of religion meant you could believe anything you wanted, and you could engage in activities related to those beliefs, as long as you didn't interfere with someone else's rights (eg., no human sacrifice). In this regard, all religions were equal under the law. The government could not require religious observance.

"Religious liberty", by contrast, means that certain privileged religious or quasi-religious beliefs have priority over others. Those privileged beliefs can be imposed on non-believers, and compliance can be required by law. ^@realrkwest