Molly Ivins would be very upset at how our party caters to the religious right.

madfloridian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Oct-31-09 12:53 AM
Original message

Molly Ivins would be very upset at how our party caters to the religious right.

Edited on Sat Oct-31-09 01:12 AM by madfloridian

I think of her often. In fact it will be 3 years in January that she left us. I see how we are fearful of including abortion rights in health care, how we are allowing public tax dollars to go to failing religious schools which become charters instead of our strengthening our public schools. She would have a lot to say.

I wrote this in January, but it is true today.

I wrote it at that time because the appointment of a party chairman who thinks we need to speak openly and publicly about our religion has my dander up. He is even against civil unions, against a woman's right to choose her medical care. Also the choice of a minister for the inauguration who feels women are inferior to men and who considers gays and lesbians to be living in a sinful life style...infuriates me.

Molly never spared words.

Here is one of her columns from 2004 about mixing religion and politics. I found it at a blog called No More Apples.

I long ago learned to shy away from the stink of sanctimony. We are all familiar with pietistic hypocrites and spiritual humbugs wearing dog collars. I doubt that the clergy is more afflicted with canting Pharisees than the legal profession is with sleazy chiselers, but neither type is exactly rare.

..."Two hundred years of not terribly rigid separation of church and state has given us one precious gift. As a quote attributed to James Madison (never been able to find the correct citation on it) put it, "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries." Religious strife is still soaking the soil with blood, isn't it, in Kosovo and elsewhere. To the extent that politics should be based on moral and ethical considerations, of course it has religious foundations. But dragging God into partisan politics is a sin.

Is it Christian to cut money for Head Start? Is it Christian to cut poor children off healthcare? Is it Christian to cut old people off Medicare? Is it Christian to write memos justifying torture? Is it Christian to cut after-school, nutrition and AIDS programs so multimillionaires can have bigger tax cuts? Historically, the Bible has been used to justify some stupefying crimes, including slavery and genocide. I see no indication that we are any better at divining the Lord's intent now than we ever were.

Ruining God's reputation

As regular readers know, I call upon the Lord rather frequently myself, often for patience in dealing with those who presume to speak in His name. To whatever extent each of us is affected by religion, I suppose we inevitably bring that into the public sphere. But I seriously question the wisdom of doing so in any organized or deliberate fashion. Drag God into politics, and you'll ruin His reputation in no time

Molly once talked to Bill Moyers about Texas Republicans and Christianity.

PBS transcript from 2003

MOYERS: I want to put this on the screen, so our viewers can see it. And then you tell me if it's true or not. These are the words of a state representative from Houston named Debbie Riddle. Quote: "Where did this idea come from, that everybody deserves free education? Free medical care. Free whatever? It comes from Moscow. From Russia. It comes straight out of the pit of hell." Now, do you know that that's true or not? Or is that just a work of fiction?

IVINS: No. That's absolutely true. That's one of our finer state representatives, not fully au courant on where the idea of free public education comes from.

MOYERS: You're talking about people who won the election. Republicans hold every statewide office in Texas now. They wouldn't be acting like this, would they, if they didn't have popular support?

IVINS: The Texas Republican party has been completely taken over by the Christian right. You're not looking at any kind of old-time Republicans. You're not looking at like, Poppy Bush Republicans, or people you would think of like that. These people really believe that public institutions should be destroyed. They're trying to destroy the schools. They're trying to destroy the welfare system. They don't think government should be used to help people.

And it's really not because they're mean. They really think that government is bad. And that we should be doing all this on our own, through the churches. Well, the fact that that's not doable, that it's impossible, that it's an absurd proposition, is not something you can talk to these people about.

She speaks out again on people who force their religion into public life. From a 2005 column.

Molly Ivins column at Free Press.org

I have said for years about people in public life, "I don't write about sex, drugs or rock 'n' roll." If I had my druthers, I wouldn't write about the religion of those in public life, either, as I consider it a most private matter. Separation of church and state is in the Constitution because this country was founded by people who had experienced both religious persecution and state-supported religions. I think John F. Kennedy's 1960 statement to the Baptist ministers should stand as a model of how public servants should handle the relation between religious belief and public service.

Nevertheless, we are now beset by people who insist on dragging religion into governance -- and who themselves believe they are beset by people determined to "drive God from the public square."

This division has been in part created by and certainly aggravated by those seeking political advantage. It is a recipe for an incredibly damaging and serious split in this country, and I believe we all need to think long and carefully before doing anything to make it worse.

As an 1803 quote attributed to James Madison goes: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."

I wonder what she would have to say about Rick Warren giving the invocation at the inauguration.

But on the signal issues of the religious right he is, as he himself has said, as orthodox as James Dobson. And as inflammatory. Warren doesn't just oppose gay marriage, he's compared it to incest and pedophilia. He doesn't just want to ban abortion, he's compared women who terminate pregnancies to Nazis and the pro-choice position to Holocaust denial.

I am sure she would not remain silent if she were here to see the socially liberal chairman of the party being replaced with an admitted social conservative.

She would write a whole column about how 40 Democrats are trying to stop health care reform because it is not anti-choice enough.

She would ask why taxpayer money in Florida is going to rescue failing Catholic schools when money is desperately needed for public schools.

She would flat out ask why DADT and DOMA are still in effect.

And I would be saying as I always did....Amen, Molly Ivins.