One of the latest targets of the increasingly megalomaniacal Christian Right is yoga. Christian “news” service Agape Press recently ran a story entitled “School Yoga Fitness Programs May Be Unhealthy Alternative, Author Warns.” The author cited was Dr. Walter Larimore, who wrote Alternative Medicine: A Christian Handbook. Dr. Larimore argued that because yoga has spiritual roots outside Christianity, the practice can be dangerous. According to the article, Larimore argued that “involvement with Eastern spiritual practices is known to cause psychological and emotional problems in some people.”

Many who take yoga classes never really delve deeply into Eastern spirituality, but even if they do and learn about a different, more benign, more positive expression of Divinity, could that “cause” psychological and emotional problems in some individuals? Or is it more likely that those individuals had some serious pre-existing psychological and/or emotional problems? Could those pre-existing problems in turn have roots in a culture increasingly saturated with the anti-human rhetoric and teachings of fundamentalist Christians and their disciplinary spokesmen?

Case in point: Steve Crampton, chief counsel of the American Family Association’s Center for Law and Policy. In a September 7, 2005 article for Agape Press, Mr. Crampton dipped deeply into Christian fundamentalists’ bucket of anti-human hate to argued that

The soul of man is not basically good … It is, in fact, desperately wicked. … The heart of man is desperately wicked, Scripture informs us. And the same verse explains simply and without fanfare why we are so quick to excuse our own behavior and think so well of ourselves -- our hearts are deceitful above all things. Desperately wicked, and deceitful above all things.

Crampton’s words certainly do describe the religious rhetoric and political actions of the leaders of the Christian Right, and they are in line with the anti-human “thinking” of St. Augustine (354-430 AD) – who told the faithful that an unbaptized child was damned because of the alleged “sin” of two mythical creatures created for “the fall” scenario set up by a malicious, malevolent “God” – but that’s about it.

Most people do not look at a newborn baby, an innocent human being as being inherently and  “desperately wicked.” Or damned.

Not surprisingly, Crampton was arguing that “Religion” (his capitalization) “must support the State” (also his capitalization). Why not just be honest and blunt, Mr. Crampton. What you and the religious-political leaders of the Christian Right advocate is called “theocracy.”

Crampton actually came close to that in a September 9, 2005 piece for Agape Press in which he likened the California legislature’s vote for civil marriage equality to “the godless French Revolution.” Of course Mr. Crampton would have preferred pre-revolution France when a corrupt government was in league with a corrupt church. That may well be his idea of theocratic nirvana.

True to form, Crampton continued his nonsensical commentary with the usual hysterical hyperbole:

Supporters [of marriage and civil equality] shroud their cause in high-sounding rhetoric of equal rights, justice, and progress. But their cause is as devoid of substance as was the French Revolution, and will in the end result in at least as much senseless death and destruction, and perhaps far more.

Echoing his Chicken Little comments after the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court decision when he proclaimed “Unless the people of the State of Massachusetts rise up with one voice in opposition to this lawless and socially destructive behavior [same-sex marriage], it will destroy society as we know it,” Mr. Crampton went on to exploit new pits of absurdity:

In the name of beating back “bigotry” and “discrimination,” will a man soon be granted the legal right to marry his neighbor’s 12-year-old daughter? Why not his own daughter? Or his pet dog? …

 

And while they are at it, why not ask the California trendsetters to redefine gravity, too? I’m tired of being limited to walking, one step after another, everywhere I go.

Don’t worry, Mr. Crampton. With as much hot air as you have, you should have no problem floating at least several feet above the ground.

In another expression of theocratic absurdity, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family launched an attack on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). This not surprising. Like “equality,” the practice of being “ethical” is also anathema to the theocratic leaders of the Christian Right and their political sycophants, just ask Tom DeLay. And what did PETA do to draw the wrath of Dobson’s Christian ministry? According to the September 6, 2005 Focus on the Family article,

An ad campaign by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) quotes Scripture to argue for vegetarianism.

 

A female voice in the spot, which is airing on Christian radio, makes this case: “The Bible says that God knows when every sparrow falls. He knows the horrible conditions that cows, pigs and chickens are raised in.”

There’s absolutely no doubt that the cows, pigs, and chicken dismembered – sometimes while fully conscious – to provide humans with the food that, according to most medical experts, is a major contributor to heart disease, cancer, and a host of other lethal ailments live their “lives” in unthinkable conditions so horrific that 1978 Nobel Laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer – who barely escaped the camps, but lost his mother to them – had to use the most graphic analogy: “for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka.”

The Focus on the Family article was titled “Animal Rights Group Twists Scripture.” How self-descriptive: twisting Scripture for their own political purposes is the standard MO of the Christian Right. How ironic: PETA’s message was vegetarianism, a diet that does not involve torturing, killing and eating fellow sentient creatures. Apparently not killing is sinful according to the Christian Right, just ask Pat Robertson. How much you wanna bet the meat and dairy industries contribute – directly or through front organizations – to the Christian Right’s and their Republican brethrens’ social causes and political campaigns? A former billboard made the case.

How much more insane can the leaders of the Christian Right make themselves and their causes? We already have a Christian physician who fears that yoga – a practice recommended by many physicians and even more physical therapists – might find a new audience in American school kids, many of whom suffer from obesity caused, in part, by the meat and dairy products supplied by Teblinka Industries, Inc. We already have a Christian lawyer who believes people are inherently and “desperately wicked” and that civil equality is the ruination of civilization. We already have a Christian child psychologist who thinks arguing for the ethical treatment of animals and a healthier diet are perversions of biblical scriptures.

But last week’s absurdities reach climax in Governor Schwarzenegger’s rationale for vetoing AB 849 that would have replaced references to “male” and “female” in the state’s marriage code with “two persons” and thereby restored meaning to constitutionally guaranteed “civil equality.”

A day after the California legislature gave final approval to AB 849, and even before the bill was printed much less delivered, Schwarzenegger’s press secretary announced that the governor would veto it. Apparently The Discriminator didn’t have the guts to make the announcement himself. Margita Thompson made it for him:

Five years ago the matter of same-sex marriage was placed before the people of California. The people voted and the issue is now before the courts. The Governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action - which would be unconstitutional - but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state. We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote. Out of respect for the will of the people, the Governor will veto AB 849.

Pundits and analysts agree: Schwarzenegger’s swift decision was an effort to gain favor with GOP ultra-conservatives. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported, Schwarzenegger needed “something to fire up his supporters heading into the Nov. 8 special election. With both his ‘Live Within Our Means’ budget initiative and reapportionment revamp slipping in the polls, the governor can’t afford to have any Republicans stay away on election day.” That was precisely the threat Traditional Values Coalition lobbyist Benjamin Lopez had made: “They will surely pay for this. … If the Governor signs AB 849 into law, I predict he will lose his reforms at the November election as many conservatives will simply stay home in protest.” As Mark Leno, one of the bill’s sponsors, said, the Christian Right and particularly the Traditional Values Coalition “threw a public tantrum, and the governor jumped.”

The veto statement concluded with “Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto AB849.” The reference is to Proposition 22, an initiative passed in 2000 that banned same-sex marriage in California. But as John Wildermuth and Lynda Gledhill, political writers for the San Francisco Chronicle, and LA Times writer George Skelton pointed out, the views of rational, reasonable, socially conscious, fair-minded people evolve:

Two months before voters passed Prop. 22, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that likely voters favored a ban on same-sex marriage by 57 to 38 percent. In a poll taken last month by the same group, likely voters were split evenly on the question, 46 to 46 percent, although nearly 70 percent of [conservative] Republican voters continued to disapprove.

A September 9, 2005 New York Times editorial also took note of that poll and the changing views toward marriage equality, as well as other aspects of Schwarzenegger’s ridiculous explanation for the swift veto announcement:

For years, social conservatives have accused judges of deciding social issues that should be left to legislators. Now Mr. Schwarzenegger wants to ignore his Legislature and leave gay marriage to the courts or the voters at large to decide. …

 

Mr. Schwarzenegger also seems to have forgotten that this nation was founded as a republic, in which the citizens elect legislators to govern on their behalf. Such representative democracy is especially important when it comes to protecting the fundamental rights of minorities, who may face bigoted hostility from some segments of the electorate.

Aside from ignoring the essence of “republic,” letting the voters decide every issue sounds “democratic,” but Tocqueville was right: there is a worm in the American apple. Canada’s Prime Minister Paul Martin put it most succinctly when he said that civil rights are not a popularity contest. That point had been clearly made by a 1968 Gallup poll which showed a whopping 72 percent of Americans opposed interracial marriage a year after the Supreme Court legalized it (Loving v. Virginia). A “popularity vote” in 1968 would have delayed interracial marriage equality for years. A popularity vote on further codifying racial segregation in some Southern states – and probably a few others – in 1950 would almost certainly have delayed African Americans’ civil rights for years if not decades.

Several other major publications had deservedly harsh words for Schwarzenegger’s nonsensical rationale. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer had this to say in its editorial entitled “Same-sex Marriage: Veto the future”:

California [was] close to legalizing same-sex marriage, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would veto the bill, because ... he cares so much about the feelings of voters who, five years ago, approved an initiative preventing California from recognizing same-sex marriages.

 

So, Der Governator has respect for the process and the will of the people, eh? How the heck did he think this bill came to be in the first place? Lawmakers – elected ones – passed it. But we suppose some processes are less convenient to respect than others, making this is a distasteful, transparent case of political pandering.

The Los Angeles Times made this point in its editorial entitled “Marriage for all”:

The notion that gay marriage is being foisted on anyone is dubious; until early Wednesday morning [August 7, 2005], in fact, opponents were fond of pointing out that no legislature had ever approved same-sex marriage. California has now taken that argument away from them, and so they are reduced, like the governor himself, to demanding the intervention of those same courts that just a few days ago were supposedly stacked with liberal activists.

Civil Rights delayed are civil rights denied, Mr. Schwarzenegger. History is quite clear on that, as it will be on your pandering to religious and political fanatics who believe yoga, newborn infants and civil equality are inherently evil, that animals should be treated as inhumanely as possible before being slaughtered, and that arguments for healthy diets are perversions of scripture.

---