Even after all this time it’s still strange to see the mainstream media pretending that the Republicans are not engaging in a combustible and forbidden mix of politics and religion. It’s almost as though there is some unwritten rule that journalists (even outside of FOX News) cannot touch that particular topic so they dance around it using euphemisms and other artful deceits.
That the Republicans are engaged in a wanton violation of the wall of separation is news to no one. Republicans are legislating the Bible, intent on making Christianity a state-sponsored religion. There is no way around that fact. It’s obvious; it’s no secret; nobody is being fooled; so why do they obfuscate?
As an example, look at a headline of just the other day from the supposed Flag Ship of Liberal Media Elite, the New York Times, and from their “Politics” section no less:
For Bachmann, Gay Rights Stand Reflects Mix of Issues and Faith
Mix of “issues” and “faith”? Excuse me? What exactly does that mean?
Issues as used here is a completely meaningless term. There are all sorts of issues, personal, religious, political, economic, and countless others. Certainly the editor could have been more precise than this. Try “politics” and “faith.” Why is it so hard to say “politics” when politics is clearly what’s meant? The headline as it is basically saying nothing:
For Bachmann, Gay Rights Stand Reflects Mix of Issues and Issues
The article’s content even admits to this unholy marriage, saying that
[H]er political rise has its roots in her dogged pursuit of an amendment to the State Constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage — “her banner issue,” said Scott Dibble, a Democratic state senator who is gay — and her mixing of politics with her evangelical faith.
Since the State Constitution is a political, not a religious document, the nature of Bachmann’s issues is pretty clear, isn’t it? Sounds like politics and faith to me, not some vague issues and faith. And then look at the utter load of baloney the supposedly liberal paper offers us:
“That’s her recipe: find the issue, then use it politically to mobilize previously marginalized or disconnected groups,” said Lawrence Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. “For those of us who followed her from the beginning, it’s like reading a romance novel with a formula.”
Which previously marginalized groups is she mobilizing? Bigots? Bigots are marginalized? Really? Right-wing Christian zealots are marginalized? Really? They’ve been running the Republican Party for years, and they’re marginalized? Fundamentalist Christians like to sell this tripe; a media outlet should not, unless it’s the Christian Broadcasting Network or World Net Daily.
But this isn’t CBN or WND; this is the much-reviled New York Times and they don’t even take issue with Jacobs’ bizarre comments, or bother to analyze them for meaning. They’re just presented at face value. It is through such deceits that Bachmann is inaccurately presented as a champion of the downtrodden when the true downtrodden are her intended victims: the LGBT community and the rest of us who champion the liberty the Constitution promises. The Constitution itself becomes her victim.
There is no way to escape the fact that the word “homosexuality” is a potent weapon in the conservative arsenal. There is no escaping the fact that the “issue” as the Times refers to it, is a political issue. But they just won’t say it:
“For the Bachmanns, the issue is entwined with faith.”
No, for the Bachmanns, politics are entwined with faith since the specific issue being spoken of is a political issue. Republicans can’t pretend it’s a religious issue even though that’s how they’re presenting it. If it was, they’d keep to prayers and sermons in churches, not drag it into our state houses. The Times offers a telling quote:
“She stood up as a Christian,” said Bob Battle, pastor of the Berean Church of God in Christ here. “She made her point of view known, and she gave Christians a voice.”
Battle is speaking of Bachmann standing up in the Minnesota state house to denounce gay marriage. This step alone makes it a political issue. And legislating that voice is inescapably a violation of the very secular Constitution. So why can’t we say “politics and religion”? Why must we disguise the truth with euphemisms?
As the Times says, “A constitutional amendment barring gays from marrying will be on the Minnesota ballot in 2012.” A constitutional amendment is a political issue, not a religious issue. Just say it, Times, the Bachmanns want to violate the Constitution by legislating their brand of Christian religion. Is it so hard to actually tell the truth?