Sorry about Perry, but you asked for it

Unfortunately, I don't remember where I picked this image up, but it's a good one.  If you recognize it, tell me.
Unfortunately, I don't remember where I picked this image up, but it's a good one. If you recognize it, tell me.

We've seen this movie before

The last time a Texas politician hit the national spotlight to be, for a time, promoted as the savior of American values, a straight shooter, and all that rot, it was George Bush, 'Dubya', choosing Jesus as his favorite philosopher and a children's book that had not been published when he was a child as his favorite reading when he was a tot. The nation should have figured it out then: we send our governors into national politics to make sure they get the hell out of this state. It is a practice we learned from successful companies--promote into oblivion. I suppose the bright side of this year's maverick venture is the collapse of Perry came quick, indicating, I hope, that there is a demand for substance and reason in the public today that was lacking in the anti-Clinton reactionary hysteria of Bush's election.

I could be wrong. It seems that Perry thinks I am wrong, as he goes a-courtin' the fringe. At least in his latest video for the Midwest he isn't sporting his cowboy credentials, just his alliance with intolerant, paranoid Christians. Note that paranoid Christians live an unreasonable fear of persecution, for which they require no evidence, only the feeling that somehow the world is not as it should be, they are less powerful than they would like to be, and this all makes God unhappy. There is a comfort in paranoia. The wrong is identified, demonized, and prepped for execution. The problem is, of course, that the evil identified is often of no real power, has no real connection to the malaise afflicting our nation, and the misidentification of the cause ends all thinking about possible, pragmatic, workable solutions within a democratic system.

I am referring, if you have not already guessed, to Perry's now famous advertisement in which he strangely connects the service of homosexuals in the military to attacks on the ability of children to celebrate Christmas and pray in school. In an odd way, this opens up a compromise point: hey, let us pray in school and we'll let you serve in the military. I will not post a link to the video here, nor embed it: if you want to watch Perry make an ass of himself, agree with him or disagree with him, get on youtube and have a blast. I watched it once. I'm not enough of a masochist to do so again.

One thing about the sort of ad hominem attack perpetrated by Perry in this ad, made to appeal to a strong conservative community in the midwest, is the extent to which demagogues largely target minorities, in this particular case homosexuals, that do not form a threat to them. The Nazis targeted the Jews, an insignificant demographic in 1933 Germany, but one to which a lot of symbolic importance, capable of carrying an irrational, immoderate weight of fear and loathing, had been assigned. The Jews were not a threat, but they could be painted as one using elements of intolerance and insecurity already present in the society apart from Nazi ideology. The Jews could be threatened because no one would protect them, and so popularity as a fighter, a champion, could be gained without truly facing an opponent capable of delivering a return blow. Today, people discomfited by the increasing tolerance and even welcome given to homosexuals in some circles are making them bear a weight as symbols of decadence and downfall that is not theirs, that is unreasonable, and that is unjust.

Homosexuals can serve in the military. They have been serving in the military, without our permission, for a long time. I do not see the use in inquiring into the sleeping arrangements of those men and women who volunteer to be this country's defenders and tools in war and peace. What does this fact have to do with Christmas or prayer in school? I would rather, in fact, being sort of a prude and uncomfortable discussing sex in any detail, leave people alone in their bedrooms. The sex other people are having only concerns me if it is a question of consent: rape and child molestation are matters for the police and the courts, and they should be. Everything else is private, personal, sacred, in that it is set apart, off limits, and not a public concern.

I am married, and don't view homosexual marriage as a threat to my own marriage. Unless they make homosexual marriage mandatory. Then, I'm against it. My choice has been made and I don't intend to change it., but it was my choice. I was allowed by society to choose a person I loved and intended to share the rest of my life with, ask her to share her travails, pleasures, and journey with me, and create a home recognized by the state as a home, a family, a legal partnership, with all the risks and benefits that entails. I happen to have chosen well. I am a happily married man. I am so happily married that I do not want, nor do I think it is my place in a free society, to deny to other human beings that opportunity, that choice, that risk.

I have a Facebook friend who has been posting messages since Thanksgiving about his right to have a Merry Christmas, say Merry Christmas, have a Christmas tree, etc. For a while, I ignored his postings. It's a busy time of year for me with a five year old in the house, snow on the ground, and a tight budget. Finally, though, I had enough. It was late at night, my day had kicked me in the head, and his last post was one inanity too many. I had to ask him who he was fighting. Some stores prefer that their employees in the carrying out of their jobs greet customers with a Happy Holidays instead of a Merry Christmas. This is not an attack on any person's ability to have a Merry Christmas without the blessing of the Walmart greeter. It is a recognition that not all customers are Christian. Christmas celebrations are still safe. Even atheists will celebrate the season with a tree, presents, and family. Feeling brave for defending an institution that is not under attack is just silly, where it isn't down right creepy. And my friend, by the way, so fervent in his defense of Christmas, is not a Christian, although I guess he is playing one this season. He is an American Indian with a grudge against the church and the good Christians who took the land and dignity of his people. Go figure.

For years people have been telling me that I did not say the Pledge of Allegiance in school because it wasn't permitted. But I did say the pledge, standing with my hand over my heart while the kid next to me gave the standard mutilated version out of sheer boredom. We all mumbled our way through it, sat down, and went through the rest of our day. And no one can stop children from praying in school, but they can, and should, stop public schools from being churches. You do not have to pray loudly in order to pray. You do not have to force others to join you for your prayers to be heard.

Some people who support prayer in school defend themselves from questions of coercion and the intent of prayer by saying that no child would be forced to pray, just to be silent. This is facetious. Establishing prayer in school, as a component of its structure backed by the power of the institution, creates a coercive situation and allows children to be judged and ostracized on the basis of their religion with the institution as a detector of difference. It is problematic. The problems with it can be recognized through the use of this simple thought exercise: Say that prayer is required in school, but the prayers involved will be determined by the differing strengths of sects and denominations in each school. A Christian child in a school in which most students are Muslim would be required to pray properly and respectfully to Allah. In a Hindu dominated school, prayers to Vishnu would receive institutional support. In a school in which most children's parents were atheists, that time would be occupied by a discourse on evolution. Is it still okay? Is it still the proper role of a school to run a prayer meeting?

In closing, Christmas is safe, and children do pray, even though there are homosexuals in the military.

Happy Holidays everyone.

More by this Author


Comments 8 comments

American Romance profile image

American Romance 4 years ago from America

I believe you are missing the larger picture here. Taking prayer from schools has destroyed the moral fiber of this country. Teaching our children it is OK to allow your mind to wonder to such detrment that if you can only reach orgasm by inserting your penis into another mans sphincter muscle where he defacates to get your jollies then its OK also! Now let us NOT offend the muslims by saying happy holiday instead of Christmas, Do not take lightly the word Christ in this name! It has meaning and is not just heritage but praise towards God himself!............don't buy it? then your in the minority!


wensar profile image

wensar 4 years ago

to "American Romance" you are obviously a closeted homo to have so much information about the subject. stop hating yourself come out and find true love.p.s. Muslims are not offended by Christmas they actually recognize Jesus as a profit. Children do pray in school if they want and are happily celebrating Christmas in their classrooms.You are a fool


Ameoz profile image

Ameoz 4 years ago from Houston, TX

Very well put, Ed! Too often, people outsource their thinking and speak from emotion instead of analysis and reason. Very rarely can the social majority honestly claim to be victimized by the social minority. Issues like homosexuality, Christmas and prayer in school are not exceptions.


Ed Michaels profile image

Ed Michaels 4 years ago from Texas, USA Author

The only comment I will approve along the lines of American Romance's is his. We don't need any repetition of it.

And I don't mind being in the minority. I don't think that makes my position wrong. I don't think that saying there's more boys on my side than yours proves a position right. And as more than one religious person has pointed out to me, morality is not a popularity poll.

As to Wensar, I don't think American Romance is closeted at all. But let's not engage in personal attacks. Personal attacks don't help.

Personally, I think the moral fiber of this nation was in a lot more trouble when we were lynching black men and women, bombing black churches, keeping Jews out of our country clubs and in the hands of the Nazis, etc. It is far more dangerous to the moral fiber of the nation when we allow, even encourage, assault, rape, and murder of homosexuals than when we do not. It is not required that one approve of homosexuality, nor dwell on the sexual acts involved. It is required in a free nation that you have a damn good reason for interfering with a citizen's private life. Don't approve of homosexuality? Then don't engage in homosexual acts. That is really the full extent of your rights in the matter of another man or woman's sexual practices and proclivities.


Ed Michaels profile image

Ed Michaels 4 years ago from Texas, USA Author

Ameoz, thank you very much. I find your voice a welcome one as well.


Sonny Lento profile image

Sonny Lento 4 years ago from Earth

It seems that often through history, we as people tend to veil hatred behind either a religious heritage or some other morally righteous viewpoint, i.e. homosexuality, non-Christian religions, and people of any color but lily-white are all immoral, therefore must be culled from our superior presence.

Sometimes you hear modern liberals say they 'feel sorry for' people who think in hateful, small-minded ways. I do not have the slightest bit of sympathy. Those who would decide who is salvageable and who is the enemy based on their sexuality, religious preference or color are far to dangerous to 'feel sorry for'.

I agree with you sentiment that "the moral fiber of this nation ... ", however, I don't think those days are fully behind us. You can, in the current environment replace Jewish with Muslim, and replace black with gay. Further, I'm not so convinced the moral fiber of this country is at all meaningful, when those who speak the loudest about our morality, or lack thereof, are most commonly those who are caught in actions they themselves have deemed immoral.

Finally, as to the first comment, by American Romance, I also disagree that he is in any way "closeted", however, this is an example of the way the moral right has been talking lately. Surely, that statement would be just as vile if he were to use his lacking vocabulary to attempt to describe male-female sexual intercourse. Whenever these people want us to be moved by their speeches, they default to either overly descriptive terminology, or bullying, patronizing speech.

Thanks for writing as much as you do, Ed. I have been reading you for some time, but have not written anything myself. This was the first time I felt I should comment, so I did. Keep writing, you're quite good.


Kosmo profile image

Kosmo 4 years ago from California

Rick Perry and George W. Bush are the biggest simpletons of the last decade. Fortunately Perry is so light-headed he has no chance of getting elected president. I could keep going, but I'll stop here. Later!


Ed Michaels profile image

Ed Michaels 4 years ago from Texas, USA Author

Sonny, Thank you for commenting. And I agree with you that what has happened more or less in this country is more a shift in acceptable targets (where they were once Jewish, Muslim; blacks are still in the picture, but homosexuals have been added and many people are more comfortable attacking them as less respond without qualification to such attacks) than a rejection of hatred as a political and social stance. the point of American Romance's description of sex was to cause a particular response, one of disgust, in the average reader--I've read a few medieval clerics who did the same with heterosexual sex very effectively. It is a rhetoric he found useful at the moment, and a rhetoric that avoids thought.

I do hold that our country has made some progress, though, and I think we can blame some (not all) of the vitriol in fundamentalist speech to their fear of the progress that has been made. This does not mean the fight is over. This is America, after all, and the fight to make our country truly mean what it set forth in its original promise is a battle that will not end, that cannot end except in a surrender of what is best to what is worst.

I believe it is our job as Americans to stand up and say "No". We have to say no, you are not allowed to treat people as less than equals, as lesser Americans, and I will not let you say it here, to me, or in my presence. We have to let those who hate know that we have not set aside objects for their hate, or will adapt to an 'acceptable' level of hate. We have to say "No" often and with certainty, without pitying and excusing their hatred. It is our duty as citizens. It is the way in which we can create a moral fiber in this country that means something.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working