Posts Tagged ‘First Amendment’

(First off, not all of those who voted for Trump in 2016 fall into the following category, only 75% to 80%. The remaining 20% to 25% were justifiably disgusted with the do-nothing policies of Obama/Biden/the Clintons that had left them totally screwed over economically, and just wanted to shake things up. If you’re among them, please realize that you are not who I’m talking about. I’m talking here about the real true believers, Trump’s personality cultists. There’s no reasoning with them, and it’s time to call them out for what they are.)

* * *

We’ve all seen ’em, assholes driving around in land-raper pickups wearing MAGA hats, flying huge American flags. Using the symbol that’s supposed to stand for individual freedom and equal opportunity as a stand-in for preening jingoism, butt kissing of their glorious leader, and intimidation of those they disagree with.

They’re utter, total phonies. They systematically betray everything America is supposed to stand for.

Let’s look at specifics:

  • Freedom of speech. They beat protesters at Trump rallies, and show up bearing assault weapons at anti-Trump demos to intimidate protesters (as at Charlottesville — and thank god for Redneck Revolt showing up equally well armed to oppose them). On a more mundane level, Trump routinely attacks the press — about the only real check on the misdeeds of the powers that be — as “enemies of the people,” and god help you if you refuse to participate in the mass domination/submission spectacle at the start of ballgames.
  • Equality of Opportunity/Self-reliance. We’re talking about a moron who managed to bankrupt casinos, who had a silver spoon protruding from every orifice at birth, and who started receiving an “allowance” or $200,000 a year at age three — and in all a total of over $400 million from his dad. Trump is the proverbial entitled brat who was born on third base and has been bragging ever since that he hit a triple. And his sycophantic followers admire him for it.
  • Independence. Republicans/Trump supporters (there’s almost no distinguishing between them at this point) are slavish members of a personality cult. Trump famously bragged that he could murder someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and his base would continue to support him. He was right, but it’s worse than that. He could strangle a puppy and sodomize its corpse on national TV, and his base would praise him for it, saying how “out of the box,” “what a different kind of president” he was. If sucking up to Dear Leader and excusing every one of his crimes is “independence,” Trump’s supporters would win a gold medal.
  • Mercy. Trump puts children in cages and separates them from their parents. The members of his personality cult applaud this vicious behavior precisely because it is so vicious. All too many of them like to hurt people. They do it vicariously through Trump, and feel self-righteous about it.
  • Your Tired, Your Poor. Somehow the powers that be and their tools have convinced idiot Trumpistas that people even poorer and more powerless than they are are the cause of their misfortunes. These fear-driven dumbasses actually believe that desperate people fleeing horrendous conditions in Central America are somehow threatening them. (Many of the refugees are fleeing Honduras — thank Hillary and Obama for that one with their support of the coup there in 2011, and the installation of the narco Hernández regime)  Trump’s followers concentrate their hate on these powerless scapegoats who just want work and safety for their families, while supporting a billionaire parasite who’s never done a single day’s work in his life.
  • Fairness. Republicans support a system in which the three richest men in the United States own more of the wealth than the bottom 50% of the population combined, and in which unearned income is only taxed at half the rate or earned (through work) income. They support a system that is rigged in favor of the rich. They’re also so deluded that they think that a billionaire con man is somehow on their side, and that he somehow personifies the American spirit. To quote a sign I saw yesterday (carried by a goofball at the corner of First Avenue and Ft. Lowell), “God delivered Trump to us.” If so, the Westboro Baptist Church must be right, and god really must hate America.
  • Loyalty. The orange cancer just capitulated to Turkish Islamist tyrant Erdogan and betrayed America’s only true ally in the Middle East, the Kurds. They lost over 11,000 soldiers fighting ISIS, and Trump just sold them out. As a result, there are already mass civilian casualties, over 100,000 have fled the Turkish invasion/bombardment, ISIS captives have been freed en masse, and America’s reputation is in shreds. Of course, the bootlickers in his personality cult will somehow find a way to praise him for this.
  • Courage. Then there’s Cadet Bonespur’s draft exemption during the Viet Nam War. There were reasons in abundance to avoid involuntary servitude during that imperialistic crime against humanity. Somehow, one suspects, Trump’s draft avoidance had nothing to do with principled reasons. On a more contemporary level, Trump routinely doesn’t even have the guts to take responsibility for his own actions. The latest example is his refusal to take responsibility for betraying the Kurds, insisting, even after his capitulating phone call to the Turkish thug whose tanks then rolled into northern Syria, that he’s somehow not responsible for that, and in fact opposes it. If he’d actually opposed it, he wouldn’t have pulled back US troops and wouldn’t have told Erdogan it was okay to invade Syria. (It’s a very good bet that most Republicans in both the House and Senate are well aware of this and are disgusted by it. But they’ve placed their own political fortunes, currying favor with the Trump cultists, above what’s good for the country. How patriotic.)

Trump’s cultists are the seamy underside of America: they’re the authoritarian 25% or so of the American people who give lip service to American ideals, wrap themselves in the flag, and then betray everything the flag is supposed to stand for. Their motto might as well be “Sieg Heil Y’all.” (with a tip of the hat to the late Molly Ivins, who ages ago came up with that most apt phrase)





A few years ago Sharp and Pointed posted “AA Is Religious Not Spiritual” in two parts. That was a bit inconvenient for readers, so here’s the text in full.

* * *

Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure? front cover

by Chaz Bufe, author of Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure?

AA’s Religious Origins

Members of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) routinely assert that AA is “spiritual, not religious,” though even a cursory glance at AA’s practices and official (“conference approved”) literature reveals the opposite to be true.

One of the most widespread myths about Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is that it has existed as an independent organization from day one, from the day in 1935 that Bill Wilson met AA’s other co-founder, Bob Smith, in Akron, Ohio. When they met, Smith and Wilson were both members of a Protestant evangelical group called the Oxford Group Movement (OGM), or more simply the Oxford Groups.

The Oxford Groups — which had nothing to do with Oxford University, nor the city of Oxford; they merely traded on the name — were founded in the 1920s by the Reverend Frank N. D. Buchman, notable for his lavish lifestyle, entirely financed by his followers; his right-wing views (in 1936 he described Heinrich Himmler as “a great lad”); his virulent prudery and homophobia; and his targeting of the rich, powerful, and prominent for recruitment. Smith and Wilson evidently found all this attractive, as they were both enthusiastic OGM members.

Convinced that Oxford Group principles were the key to overcoming alcohol abuse (and all other problems in life), they devoted themselves to carrying the Oxford Group message to other alcoholics. What they called the “alcoholic squadron of the Akron Oxford Group” remained as part of the Oxford Group Movement until 1939, and the group Bill Wilson founded in New York remained part of the Oxford Group Movement until late 1937.

The reasons that AA parted ways with the Oxford Group Movement had nothing to do with differences over ideology; rather, they had to do with personality conflicts, the fear that Catholics would be forbidden to join what was to become AA as long as it was part of a Protestant organization, and, quite possibly, embarrassment over OGM founder Frank Buchman’s statements in an August 26, 1936 New York World Telegram interview in which he said, “Thank heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler,” and in which he pined for “a God-controlled Fascist dictatorship.” This was a possible contributing factor to the split of what was to become AA from the Oxford Groups, though it was over a year before the New York group severed formal ties to the OGM, and approximately three years until the Akron group did so. (It’s worth mentioning as an aside that the manner in which AA treats this interview in its “conference approved” Wilson biography, Pass It On, is blatantly dishonest.)

One reason that this link between AA and the Oxford Group Movement is not more widely known is that during the years following the adoption of the name Alcoholics Anonymous, AA never credited the Oxford Group Movement for anything — even though AA took its central beliefs, program, and practices almost unaltered from the OGM. For instance, there is not a single acknowledgment of the Oxford Groups in Alcoholics Anonymous, AA’s “Big Book.” It wasn’t until the late 1950s, in Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, that Bill Wilson and AA (partially) acknowledged AA’s debt to the Oxford Groups. Even today, most AA members know little if anything about the AA/OGM connection.

The Origin of the 12 Steps

Here are the steps, the backbone of the AA “program,” taken directly from AA’s “Big Book,” Alcoholics Anonymous:

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

A common myth — even within AA — is that AA co-founder Bill Wilson wrote the 12 steps entirely independently, that they were completely his own invention. A closely related myth common in AA is that Bill Wilson wrote the 12 steps directly under divine guidance. Neither myth has any but the scantiest relation to reality.

The author of AA’s 12 steps and the text portion of AA’s bible, the “Big Book” (though not the personal stories in it), Bill Wilson, was a dedicated Oxford Group member who was convinced that the principles of the Oxford Group Movement were the only route to recovery for alcoholics, and the 12 steps he included in the “Big Book” are a direct codification of those principles. Indeed, in Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, Wilson directly credits the OGM as being the source of the teachings codified in the 12 steps (pp. 58-63, 160-167). Further, in a letter to former OGM American leader Rev. Sam Shoemaker, Wilson stated:

The Twelve Steps of A.A. simply represented an attempt to state in more detail, breath, and depth, what we had been taught–primarily by you [Rev. Shoemaker]. Without this, there could have been nothing–nothing at all. (quoted by Dick B. in Design for Living: The Oxford Groups contribution to Early A.A., p. 10)

Wilson also stated publicly:

Where did early A.A.’s … learn about moral inventory, amends for harm done, turning our wills and lives over to God? Where did we learn about meditation and prayer and all the rest of it? … [S]traight from Dr. Bob’s and my own early association with the Oxford Groups … (quoted in the AA publication, The Language of the Heart: Bill W.’s Grapevine Writings, p. 198)

To be more specific, the Oxford Group principles of personal powerlessness and the necessity of divine guidance are codified in steps 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 11. the principle of confession is embodied in steps 4, 5, and 10. The principle of restitution to those one has harmed is embodied in steps 8 and 9. And the principle of continuance is embodied in steps 10 and 12.

There is not a single original concept in the 12 steps. They all came directly from the Protestant evangelical Oxford Group Movement. (see Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, pp. 48 & 97)

It’s noteworthy that alcohol is mentioned only in the first step, which strongly implies that alcoholics cannot overcome their problems on their own. The remainder of the steps implore alcohol abusers to engage in religious activities (prayer, confession) and to “turn [their] lives and [their] wills over to the care of God.”

Alcoholics Anonymous and 12 Steps and 12 Traditions

Much of the rest of the “Big Book” is just as religious, if not more so, than the 12 steps. In his comments immediately preceding the steps, Bill Wilson exhorts the reader: “Remember that we deal with alcohol — cunning, baffling, powerful! Without help it is too much for us. But there is One who has all power–that one is God. May you find Him now!” (p. 58) Wilson also devotes an entire chapter (Chapter 4: “We Agnostics”) to attacking atheists and agnostics as “prejudice[d]” or crazy, and to presenting belief in God as the only way to restore “sanity.” Wilson also recommends that AA members “work” the seventh step through prayer, and even provides the wording for a prayer to “My Creator.” (p. 76) It’s also worth noting that the “Big Book” is saturated with religious terms. There are well over 200 references to God, capitalized masculine pronouns that refer to God (“He,” “Him”), or synonyms for God (“Creator,” “Father,” etc.) in its 164 pages of text — and this doesn’t even take into account such terms in the personal stories that make up the bulk of the book.

AA’s second — and second most important –book, Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, also written by Wilson, is just as religious as the “Big Book.” For instance, the nine pages devoted to “working” step 2 contain at least 30 references to God, synonyms for it, or capitalized masculine pronouns referring to it.

Wilson also repeatedly exhorts the reader to pray, noting in one place that “Those of us who have come to make regular use of prayer would no more do without it than we would refuse air, food, or sunshine.” (p. 97)

And in his discussion of step 4, making “a searching and fearless moral inventory,” Wilson makes a truly extraordinary recommendation: that the list of one’s “moral defects” be based on “a universally recognized list of major human failings–the Seven Deadly Sins [!] of pride, greed, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth.” (p. 48) Contrary to Wilson’s assertion, these are not “a universally recognized list of major human failings”; rather, they are a specifically Christian list of sins enumerated by Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century. (Even ignoring its origin, one wonders why this “universally recognized list” would omit such obvious “defects” as cruelty, hypocrisy, intrusiveness, exploitation of others, and sanctimoniousness.) That Wilson would make such an extraordinary recommendation underlines the Christian origins and orientation of AA and its “program.”

Common AA Practices

As for AA’s practices, most meetings open with a prayer to God, the Serenity Prayer: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” Most meetings also feature reading (and often discussion) of the 12 steps, with their exhortations to pray and to turn one’s life and will over to God. And most AA meetings close with the reading of a specifically Christian prayer, the Lord’s Prayer.

AA and the Establishment Clause

Indeed, the religious nature of AA and its “program” is so obvious that three federal courts of appeal (the 2nd, 7th, and 9th circuit courts–the next level down from the Supreme Court), two state supreme courts (Tennessee and New York), and nine federal district courts have ruled that government-coerced attendance at AA and NA (Narcotics Anonymous — a clone of AA) is unconstitutional in that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because AA is religious in nature. (There have been no contrary rulings on the appeal level, but unfortunately there is no national binding precedent because the Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals of any of these rulings. Without this binding precedent, government-coerced AA and NA attendance continues on a piecemeal basis across the country.)

Given all this, it seems amazing that AA members routinely and vehemently assert that AA is “spiritual, not religious.” There are two primary reasons that they do this. The first is that AA is a very anti-intellectual organization, in which honest questions and skeptical attitudes are viewed as “disease symptoms,” and in which great emphasis is placed upon unquestioning acceptance of revealed wisdom. Three of the most common AA slogans embody this anti-intellectual attitude: “Utilize, don’t analyze,” “Let go and let God,” and “Your best thinking got you here.” So, in a milieu which demands blind acceptance and denigrates critical thought, AA members hear that AA is “spiritual, not religious” and repeat it like parrots (which is unfair to parrots).

AA members who own treatment facilities or work in them have an additional incentive to repeat the “spiritual, not religious” mantra: money. In 1990, over 93 percent of treatment facilities in the United States were 12-step facilities, and treatment was a $10-billion-a-year industry. Very probably even more money is at stake today. If 12-steppers who own or work in treatment facilities would honestly admit that their approach is religious in nature, that river of government and insurance-industry cash would dry up in short order.

Ultimately, one must ask that if a program based on faith in God and on prayer to “Him” isn’t religious, what is?

AA and Spirituality

One might also ask what’s spiritual about encouraging blind acceptance? What’s spiritual about discouraging critical thinking? What’s spiritual about disparaging those who ask honest questions? What’s spiritual about encouraging people to identify with destructive past behaviors? What’s spiritual about telling people that they’re “diseased” for life? “What’s spiritual about telling people that they’re “powerless” to solve their own problems? What’s “spiritual” about inculcating dependency? What’s spiritual about issuing destructive, self-fulfilling prophecies? What’s spiritual about telling vulnerable people that their only alternatives to AA are “jails, institutions, or death”?

These are things religions do. As for AA:

  • Blind acceptance? Check.
  • Discouragement of critical thinking? Check.
  • Ostracism of doubters (“heretics”)? Check.
  • Identification of self with sins (past behaviors)? Check.
  • Diseased (“sinful”) members? Check.
  • Personal powerlessness? Check.
  • Dependence on an institution for salvation? Check.
  • Fear-mongering about an inevitable downward spiral if one abandons the institution and its teachings? Check.


It’s time for some honesty. It’s time for AA to admit it’s religious, not spiritual.

Related Posts

HATE SPEECH, n. Speech the listener hates—and wants to outlaw. Given that everyone hates the same types of speech, and historical precedent, one can rest assured that religious believers would never use anti-“hate speech” legislation to suppress criticism of their religions, nor would the government use such laws to crush dissent.

Fortunately, there should be no constitutional problem with anti-“hate speech” laws, as the obvious purpose of the First Amendment is to protect only speech that no one hates. If you doubt this, ask any proponent of such legislation.

* * *

–from the revised and expanded edition of The American Heretic’s Dictionary, the best modern successor to Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary


American Heretic's Dictionary revised and expanded by Chaz Bufe, front cover

cover of Culture Wars by Marie Castle(Excerpted from Chapter 7 of Culture Wars: The Threat to Your Family and Your Freedom, by Marie Alena Castle)


How equitable are religious tax exemptions? Many claim they are justified because of religion’s supposed beneficent moral influence—but families are not tax exempt, and they are the basic source of moral guidance. One of the original reasons for the religious tax exemption was that churches offered a support system for dealing with economic hardships. But it was overwhelmingly a system in which churches helped only their own members—and sparingly at that. For those who did not get their help, the dreaded alternative was “over the hill to the poor farm.” Now we have government programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, and welfare assistance that are far more effective than religious charities in alleviating—however inadequately—the suffering of the poor.

Today, churches do little more than administer some of the smaller government assistance programs, for which they get paid—and get the credit, as they’re beneficiaries of the perception that the churches fund the programs. Their non-government-funded charitable activities are paid for mainly by secular sources, such as foundation grants and the United Way. Very little comes from church funds.

Would paying property taxes—or any taxes—be a significant hardship for churches? Very likely not, since many nonprofits lease their facilities, and so they do pay property taxes indirectly as part of the rental price, with no apparent financial distress because of this. Why would paying taxes be any worse for churches than for homeowners? Homeowners pay property taxes, and ordinary people pay income taxes, sales taxes, and taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains, while churches pay no such taxes. Most corporations pay taxes on money or property bequeathed to them, while churches don’t. Businesses pay income and property taxes on nursing homes, publishing houses, and other enterprises, while churches that have similar income-generating assets are tax exempt, giving them an unfair competitive advantage. In bankruptcy proceedings in Minnesota, money tithed to churches is exempt from being allocated to satisfy creditors—one more way churches benefit unfairly at the ordinary citizen’s expense.

The tax exemptions that encourage all this have no secular justification. As well as being a burden on taxpayers, they have encouraged the proliferation of religious, charitable, and educational nonprofits, some worthy, many questionable. We have churches that seem focused almost entirely on providing private jets and mansions for their preachers—often in communities where the public schools are deteriorating for lack of sufficient funding. We have nonprofit charities that seem interested primarily in socializing. (Fraternal organizations with membership bars and dance halls come to mind.) We have educational nonprofits whose purpose appears to be to convince the public to think as they do, and to use their financial resources to affect election outcomes. Why exempt any of them, even those that provide worthwhile services? If they can buy and maintain property, pay their utility bills, and hire high-salaried CEOs, they can pay taxes like any other business.

What would be the result if all nonprofit organizations, both religious and secular, were treated like any other business for income tax purposes? Taxes would be based on ability to pay, so small organizations would not suffer major financial hardship, while large ones would easily afford the extra expense. As with any business, a nonprofit would succeed or fail based on its ability to attract supporters. And those supporters would be in a better position to contribute to the religious or secular nonprofit of their choice, because their property tax burden would be eased by virtue of it being shared equitably.

It could be argued that there should be exceptions for nonprofits whose primary purpose is to provide a full-time social service under contract with the government. However, many for-profit companies also provide goods or services to the government under contract, often as their primary activity. Such a contractual arrangement does not exempt them from taxes; neither should it exempt nonprofit contractors.

Would taxing religious institutions violate the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment by involving government in church affairs? No more than making newspapers pay income and property taxes violates freedom of the press, and no more than making a privately owned meeting hall pay property tax violates freedom of assembly.
One of the tradeoffs for being tax exempt is that religious and secular nonprofits are (in theory) not allowed to take political positions or endorse candidates, although they can discuss issues. Would that change if the tax exemptions were removed? Of course. But would that be significantly different from what is already going on? Does anyone who pays any attention to politics not know where the liberal and conservative churches, and the liberal and conservative secular nonprofits, stand on hot-button “moral values” issues such as abortion rights, gay rights, stem cell research, and teaching evolution in public schools? When nonprofits “discuss issues,” don’t they always make it quite clear how they want their supporters to vote?

At election time, don’t activities such as the Catholic Church in Minneapolis and St. Paul sending out thousands of pre-election DVDs opposing same-sex marriage tell voters something? Don’t the Protestant fundamentalists’ voters’ guides distributed to “moral values” voters tell the recipients something (and make it clear which candidates support the religious right social agenda)? Don’t pro-choice rallies organized by Planned Parenthood also tell voters something? It would be better to treat all nonprofits like businesses, tax them accordingly, and let them engage in politics openly rather than carrying on this “non-political” charade.

If religion-based laws were declared unconstitutional as Establishment Clause violations—which they clearly are—and churches were forced to pay their fair share of taxes, there would be no more point in pre-election voters’ guides, candidate “litmus tests,” and “single issue” voting than there would be in campaigns to reinstate slavery or deny women the right to vote. Until that happens, there will be no end to our culture war.


“Religions are like penises. It’s ok to have one, and it’s even ok to be proud of it. But don’t take it out and wave it around in public, and certainly do not try to shove it down anyone’s throat.”

–amicusNYCL,  Shashdot comment #45645389 on the article Satanists Propose Monument At Oklahoma State Capitol Next To Ten Commandments


by Marie Alena Castle, author of Culture Wars: The Threat to Your Family and Your Freedom

Gloria Steinem said, “You will know the truth and the truth will make you free. But first it will piss you off.”

Can’t argue with that, having just written Culture Wars: The Threat to Your Family and Your Freedom, about the adverse effects of religion in public life. It does tell the truth, and knowing and acting on that truth could help make us free. Meahwhile, the book seems to have pissed off just about everyone, religious and nonreligious alike.

I should have suspected something was up when I filled out a form for the catalog of the book’s distributor, telling them who I was, what the book was about, why I wrote it and for whom, and how it compared to similar books.

With that last item, something odd surfaced. I had to find at least three books written within the last five years that covered the same topic, then compare and contrast them with my book. With all the books out there on religion in public life, I expected to find plenty. I . . . found . . . none! None! They say all writing is rewriting, so there should have been something already written. Nope.

Yes, there were many books on various social problems related to religion, on the wars religion had caused, on their treatment of women, gays and racial minorities, their opposition to scientific research, and their overall detachment from reality. But Culture Wars was specifically about the many laws we live under that in large part produce all that mistreatment whose sole basis is religious doctrine. The book identifies the laws and describes the underlying theology behind them; it also backs its every argument with documentation and quotations from legal rulings, public policies, canon law, theological treatises, and biblical and papal pronouncements. At the end of every chapter (on reproductive rights, favoritism for religious institutions in the tax codes, etc.), the book evaluates intrusive, unfair, religiously inspired laws for possible secular justification. And there is none.

Despite a diligent search I found no other book that dealt with the fact that the social problems they deplored were embedded in laws that forced everyone to obey religious dogma. That is the heart of the problem, yet every book I found virtually ignored it. We have a First Amendment that says government shall not establish religion. And how much more can government “establish” religion than by putting religious doctrines into laws that have no secular justification, and which force everyone to live by—and sometimes die by—them?

I can only guess why books about these laws are so sparse, if they exist at all, but it’s a well-educated guess. I haven’t been working in the trenches on this topic for nearly four decades without noticing a few things. Actually, not a few things—one thing! You cannot talk about these laws without discussing the theology that underlies them. And that is taboo. Everyone, atheists included, is afraid to go there.

Actually, it’s only atheists who are afraid. Religious leaders are terrified. Just try dissecting their beliefs about ensoulment, sexuality, personhood, Original Sin and anything related to reproductive matters, and see how far you get without collapsing in fits of laughter (that is until you realize the pain and suffering enforcement of these doctrines inflicts on people). Culture Wars dissects all of that, and in well documented detail.

Almost all reviews of Culture Wars carefully avoided the book’s main topic—intrusive, unfair laws, their theological basis, their lack of a secular basis, and their violation of the Establishment Clause. Not even atheist reviewers touched on that to any extent. In general, they mentioned that the book supports state-church separation–but who needs another book on that topic? There are plenty out there, but they usually limit themselves to school vouchers and, especially, government god-talk–symbolic affronts, such as crosses and creches in public places. They largely gloss over or completely ignore the impact of religion-based laws on our daily lives, freedom, and personal autonomy..

But that’s from fearful atheists. What about terrified religionists? I did learn of some comments by a priest from Boys Town in a review of another book. Here’s what he says. (Keep in mind that Culture Wars is very well documented and provides names, dates, places and personal experiences with nothing made up or played up. I replaced the names of a few victims with pseudonyms in order to protect them, and I noted where I used pseudonyms, but other than that the book is totally factual. I only wish some of it could have been imaginary, so I wouldn’t have such sad memories or suffered such losses.)

“Marie Elena (sic) Castle’s Culture Wars deserves a book review of its own. At first glance and from hearing her speak [He did!? When?] she sets up straw arguments and then proceeds to support them with horror stories straight out of her vivid imagination. The impression she gives is that religious zealots are a threat to national, civic and family life. Again, it is someone crying ‘Wolf’ to attract attention to her own brand of civic and domestic morality.” —Father Clifford Stevens, Boys Town, Nebraska.

OK, Stevens is definitely pissed off by the truth to which Culture Wars exposed him. But more than that, he is terrified by it and desperate to deny it. His review is a panic attack in print. By his own admission he recognizes the “horror stories” as unacceptable, painful events. This is good because it shows a spark of humanity has survived his immersion in inhumane doctrines. Perhaps that spark may some day flare up enough to make him think about the theology that rationalizes that horror. And then he will see the truth that sets him free. Meanwhile, he takes refuge in defaming me—with no evidence whatsoever—as a liar whose citation-laden facts are just a product of my “vivid imagination.” That he could ignore those well documented facts highlights the truth of Anne Gaylor’s statement that religion “hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” Sadly, in too many cases, it does.