The kind of throwaway remark that always annoys me

Writing in Time‘s political blog, reporter Amy Sullivan discusses the prospects for a Rick Perry presidential run and his potential to win over the religious right. In so doing, she mentions Newt Gingrich’s collapsing campaign and that he initially attracted attention from religious conservatives because “the former Speaker has made religious freedom for Christians his signature issue over the past few years.”
What bugs me is that Sullivan throws that off as if “religious freedom for Christians” describes some sort of comprehensible issue——the same way you’d describe a candidate’s issue as being “banning abortion” or “securing nuclear stockpiles.” And well, it’s not.
I’m not suggesting religious freedom for Christians isn’t important——just that it’s not some kind of separate issue from religious freedom in general. Despite the repeated claims from some conservatives that the First Amendment only protects Christians, the amendment is a flat-out guarantee of religious liberty for everyone.
(Keep in mind that the people who claim the amendment is clearly Christians——despite the total lack of any reference to Christianity in the document——are often the ones who assert that “separation of church and state” is a myth because there’s no reference to that in the First Amendment. Double standard much?).
There are no religious tests for public office.
Nobody (at least in theory) gets to make laws based on their interpretation of their holy text. Everybody is entitled to propose laws based on their interpretation of their holy text.
Nobody (again, in theory) gets to use the school system to proselytize to students. Students are, however, free to pray, say grace, proselytize to each other or read the Bible (or the Koran, or the Vedas or Tom Paine’s anti-religion The Age of Reason at recess (no matter how many times the right-wing keeps saying it, God has not been taken out of the school).
The idea Christians somehow need special protection in this country (Saudi Arabia or China, now …) is a myth. I suspect it mostly resides in the awareness that 60 years ago, “Protestant” equated to “real American.” One of the standard rationales for specifically Protestant school prayers was that by making kids more Protestants the schools were teaching them Americans.
And for the nastier Christians, it’s the fact that they can’t impose their prayers, views on abortion or their views on gays as law on the rest of us. For some, not being able to oppress is a denial of freedom.
Gingrich isn’t fighting for Christian freedom. He’s catering to Christians’ delusions that they’re an oppressed, embattled minority crushed by an atheist, anti-God state (like the Catholic bishop who equated New York legalizing gay marriage to North Korea’s dictatorship). It’s like saying Gingrich’s signature issue is to stop UFO abductions or Muslim sleeper agents infiltrating Congress and the White House.
He’s fighting a threat that exists in right-wing voters’ minds and not really anywhere else.