Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Well I have been in the Church, including numerous denominations, all my life. I have worked for the Church and for Church-based organizations including ecumencal groups. And I have never once--I emphasize never once--have heard a minister, pastor, priest, or any other person from any religious order tell me or anybody else who to vote for or what political party to support, nor have I seen any literature to that effect, nor has there been any such policy even remotely suggested.

If we're using our own personal experience as a measure, let me say that I too have been in churches, including numerous denominations all my life. And I have many times especially lately, heard the minister/pastor speak at long length against liberal values. The Republicans have for a long time now used Churches as a political tool. It's such common knowledge that I know of no fundamentalist conservative (and I know hundreds of these folks) that even bothers to try to deny it. They are actually proud of the fact. Imagine that.

Published on Thursday, December 13, 2001 in the San Jose Mercury News
Lynne Cheney-Joe Lieberman Group Puts Out a Blacklist
by Roberto J. Gonzalez

AN aggressive attack on freedom has been launched upon America's college campuses. Its perpetrators seek the elimination of ideas and activities that place Sept. 11 in historical context, or critique the so-called war on terrorism.
The offensive, spearheaded by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a Washington-based group, threatens free speech, democratic debate and the integrity of higher education. In an incendiary report, ``Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America,'' the American Council claims that ``colleges and university faculty have been the weak link in America's response'' to Sept. 11. It also asserts that ``when a nation's intellectuals are unwilling to defend its civilization, they give comfort to its adversaries.''

The report documents 117 campus incidents as ``evidence'' of anti-Americanism. More than 40 professors are named, including the president of Wesleyan University, who suggested in an open letter that ``disparities and injustices'' in American society and the world can lead to hatred and violence.

Other examples abound. A Yale professor is criticized for saying, ``It is from the desperate, angry and bereaved that these suicide pilots came.'' A professor emeritus from the University of Oregon is listed for recommending that ``we need to understand the reasons behind the terrifying hatred directed against the U.S. and find ways to act that will not foment more hatred for generations to come.''

Dozens more comments, taken out of context and culled from secondary sources, are presented as examples of an unpatriotic academy.

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni was founded in 1995 by Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Its Website claims that it contributed $3.4 billion to colleges and universities last year, making it ``the largest private source of support for higher education.'' Cheney is cited several times in the report, and is reportedly a close associate of its authors, Jerry Martin and Anne Neal.

Although the council's stated objectives include the protection of academic freedom, the report resembles a blacklist. In a chilling use of doublespeak, it affirms the right of professors to speak out, yet condemns those who have attempted to give context to Sept. 11, encourage critical thinking, or share knowledge about other cultures. Faculty are accused of being ``short on patriotism'' for attempting to give students the analytical tools they need to become informed citizens.

Many of those blacklisted are top scholars in their fields, and it appears that the report represents a kind of academic terrorism designed to strike fear into other academics by making examples of respected professors.

The report might also function to extend control over sites of democratic debate -- our universities -- where freedom of expression is not only permitted but encouraged.

At my campus, symposiums, teach-ins and lectures about religion, terrorism, central Asia, the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy have been organized recently. A teach-in entitled ``Background for Understanding'' drew hundreds of students, faculty and citizens from many political and intellectual perspectives. The audience had the opportunity to ask questions and comment freely. The discussion was lively and at times contentious.

As a microcosm of society, the university is a place where people of different ethnicities, religions, generations, and class backgrounds exchange ideas and opinions. Anyone who has visited Bay Area colleges knows that they are especially rich places for intercultural exchange.

The vigorous and often heated debates typical of such encounters are a hallmark of democratic processes. On most campuses this can still be done freely, but official accusations of anti-Americanism might intimidate and silence some voices.

That is not patriotism, but fascism. The American Council's position is inaccurate and irresponsible. Critique, debate, and exchange -- not blind consensus or self-censorship -- have characterized America since its inception.

Our universities are not failing America. On the contrary, they are among the few institutions offering alternatives to canned mainstream media reports.

The targeting of scholars who participate in civic debates might signal the emergence of a new McCarthyism directed at the academy. Before it escalates into a full-blown witch hunt in the name of ``defending civilization,'' faculty, students and citizens should speak out against these acts of academic terrorism.


Roberto J. Gonzalez is an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology at San Jose State University.

© 2001 The Mercury News

Which came first, the Republican, or the (fundamentalist) Church Minister?

To Lola: In my particular denomination you hear only liberal values preached. So it really depends pretty much on the denomination. Mine is very liberal. Yours no doubt more conservative.

But there is a world of difference between preaching liberal and/or conservative values which is after all what religion is mostly all about versus
preaching who a person should vote for.

To Wandel, Bishop O'Malley was simply stating the canon law of the Catholic Church as he (and the Pope) interpreted it when he made his statements about pro-abortion views. He would likely make the same statement about a divorced Catholic, though Kerry somehow managed to get his multi-year marriage producing children annulled and that got him off the hook with the Church there.

If Bishop O'Malley had told his parishoners who to vote for for President, however, that would be a different matter.

(I once has a Pastor who got in hot water for preaching a sermon titled "Let George do it." George McGovern was running for president at the time and we all knew our pastor, private citizen, was staunchly liberal Democrat. We forgave him though.)

I just want to remind that the US has a so-called seperation of state and church, but refers to God and Christianity whenever possible (and even - in European eyes) when it seems to be impossible.

Neither the Sudan nor Rawanda lie in the heart of the world's largest petroleum producing region.

Oh believe me Lola, I have plenty of exposure to the fundamentalists too. I know what they think and for the most part why they think it. (I have lots of first hand experience and teach a class on religious history and comparative religions.)

You weren't curious why I, a conservative, am a member of a very liberal denomination? And why are you, a liberal, member of a denomination preaching what you despise?