In the United States today there is a growing fear of Sharia Law encroaching on our liberties. The loudest voice in the media on this subject in the US is Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House during the mid 90s. While the media reports his claims they have yet to look into the ties has with radical religious groups in America. By rallying the fear of foreign takeover he is effectively running a smokescreen for his fundamentalist Christian allies. While advocating for family values and against Sharia encroachment Gingrich works to advance an agenda every bit as radical as jihadi terrorism.

The start of these claims came with the increasing publicity surrounding the Park51 Muslim community center controversy. On July 28th Gingrich posted his condemnation of the project on his website. Part of his denunciation included his assertion that the project was part of a global effort to impose Islamic fundamentalism on the United States and the world. In his remarks he specifically noted, “Radical Islamists see politics and religion as inseparable in a way it is difficult for Americans to understand”. He continued to speak out against the Park51 center throughout the month of August. On September 12th Gingrich released a direct to DVD documentary called America at Risk, a film about the threat Islamic fundamentalism poses to the United States. He then followed up with his call at the Values Voter Summit on September 18th for a federal law banning Sharia law in the United States. Newt Gingrich has continued to put himself out in front on the issue of anti-Sharia efforts in the US with the media reporting his efforts at face value.

The irony is that his crusade against religious fundamentalism in America starts and stops when the threat is any form of religious extremism that isn’t Christian. An excellent example of this selective approach can be found in the venue where he called for a ban on Sharia law. The sponsors for the Values Voters Summit include the Family Research Council’s political action group, the American Family Association’s action group, American Values, Liberty University, and the Heritage Foundation. The FRC and AFA are both groups that are fairly prominent in the Religious Right as major organizations that have long, established standing and reputations. Liberty University is an institution billed as the premier Christian university in America and was founded by the late Jerry Falwell to educate their students in a proper, Christian fashion. American Values was founded by Gary Bauer, President of the Family Research Council until 1999. With the exception of the Heritage Foundation, who attended only to provide issue education, each of these organizations stand for the flagship positions of the Religious Right. Each is highly active in organizing evangelical and fundamentalist Christian activists in and out of government. On the front page is a list of breakout sessions including highlights such as, “American Apocalypse–When Christians Do Nothing, Secularists Do Everything–The Case for Christian Activism”, “How to Reach the Online Generation (Without Losing Your Soul)”, and, “Establishing a Culture Impact Team In Your Church”. Among other things all of these groups are very vocal in their claim that separation of church and state is unconstitutional.

Gingrich is no stranger to Christian conservatives. He worked with social conservative groups extensively under the slogan of Family Values while he was Speaker of the House during the mid 90s. Since then he has remained an active professional speaker and author. One of the more prominent gigs was the 2007 commencement address at Liberty University. During his speech he praised the founder Jerry Falwell and called for the graduates to challenge, “radical secularism.” The themes he covered in his speech were the same that he argued for in his 2006 book Rediscovering God in America. In his book Gingrich argues that advancing secularism is working to drive God out of public life in America. At the Rediscovery of God in America Conference in June of 2009 Gingrich asserted that America is “surrounded by paganism”. His next big splash in September of 2009 was the documentary Rediscovering God in America II: Our Heritage. Here Gingrich again claims that Christianity and God are under attack in America.

These claims, along with his recent call for a Federal gay marriage amendment, are all consistent with the rhetoric and positions of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians. They have consistently campaigned for gay marriage bans in all fifty states and have proven successful in twenty-five. Evangelical efforts are not confined to just banning gay marriage. Candidates with their support in school boards across the country have fought for teaching a more Christian curriculum. Their most recent, and largest, success was in Texas. In May of this year the conservative faction on the school board succeeded in pushing for sweeping changes to the history curriculum. Some of these changes included the downplaying of the importance of Newtonian physics and Darwinian evolution, the whitewashing of the work of Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison for religious liberty, and push the “fact” that America was founded as a Christian nation. In August the school board released a decree banning all textbooks that had pro-Muslim or anti-Christian content. Supporters of this measure claim it was necessary to protect Christianity.

Gingrich’s claims of a Sharia takeover of the United States are rather ironic considering his own affiliations. If Gingrich and his allies in the Religious Right had their way Christianity, as it is according to them, would be the only religion allowed in the United States. They are not shy about their intentions; at their sites, conferences, and on the campaign trail they openly announce it to the world. Gingrich’s campaign against Sharia law serves their purposes ideally. By rallying the public against Sharia law Gingrich provides a perfect cover while Christian fundamentalists quietly make their vision for America reality.

Also published at http://ryansdesk.blogspot.com/2010/10/sharia-smokescreen.html

 

Watching the various Tea Party groups ramp up their rhetoric in preparation for their April 15th rallies (subtitled “Help Us Build a New Revolution”) reminds me of my own youthful protesting against the war in Southeast Asia. It got me wondering how this year’s protesters were so different from those I remember joining with.

Protesting has been part of the American political scene since the Boston Tea Party (or even before). We were founded by dissenters, and populated by men and women of courage who would rather leave their homelands than abandon their faith and beliefs, serve in the military, or face starvation.

So if political protest is something I agree with, something I have done personally with commitment and enthusiasm, why does the Tea Party movement feel “wrong” to me? This needed some research and considered thought, which I will share.

First, every attempt at dialog I have made with folks involved in the movement has failed. When I was outside the Expo Center in Portland, I tried talking to the protesters. I asked them what cuts in federal and state spending they felt should be made to lower taxes (no suggestions), whether they would like to cut spending by withdrawing our military from foreign wars as Ron Paul suggested (no takers), and what alternative to federal health care legislation they would have preferred (no suggestion, just repeal, but nobody happy with the status quo either).

The folks I talked to (and I’ll admit I didn’t talk to each and every one, just about a dozen at random) felt just as strongly about their position as I did about mine. What I felt was missing was a way to move forward.

If you’re protesting a war, explaining your solution is easy: negotiation leading to a peace agreement. When it comes to legislation, things get knottier, I guess. But the other thing, the thing that really set my teeth on edge, was the anger at government itself, the feeling that absolutely nothing emanating from a central authority would be acceptable, the threatening, confrontational manner (getting closer and closer to those waiting to see the president, until they were mere inches away).

When I protested war, even to the point of civil disobedience, it was non-confrontational. We took a stand against the taking of life, but there was no sense of impending doom, no hate-filled signs. What I saw in the protesters in Portland was quite the opposite. The tea party supporters, by their own words, believe that this nation is under attack and that they need to defend it. They believe that:

Many are in fear of the demise of our Great nation. The fear is legitimate. There is only one entity that will turn things around and save our constitution and our country as we once knew it. “We the People”.

They believe that:

The Tea Party dream includes all who possess a strong belief in the foundational Judaic/Christian values embedded in our great founding documents.

Please judge for yourself. I would never dream of telling you what to believe or how you should define your political beliefs or actions, and I completely respect your right to believe and act as you think you should After all, we are a faith that believes in personal responsibility. Thing is, I don’t understand how a movement that claims to defend the Constitution can violate its First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Maybe that’s nit-picking (I don’t believe it is), but it goes deeper than that.

I can’t understand the failure to believe that we, as a people, are resilient, have been through challenging times and been strengthened by them; have the will to join together as Americans, whatever our beliefs; have the common sense to elect leaders we believe in, and to elect someone else if we don’t like the result. We don’t need anger; we need dialog, and I just don’t see that in the Tea Party.





© 2012 Pagan+Politics Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha