Why I am Supporting the American Solidarity Party this Year

To say that this has been a difficult political year for most people is an understatement. I honestly think that both Democrats and Republicans elected the worst person they possibly could to run for president. But here we have it: Clinton versus Trump. In some ways this odd election has forced me to consider my own political allegiances, or lack thereof. You see, I am a political independent – sometimes voting Democrat and sometimes voting Republican. And this election has crystallized for me why I cannot join either party.

It is probably easier to start with my dissatisfaction with the Republican Party. It is pretty obvious to me that I cannot ever vote for Trump. He represents nearly everything I personally oppose. I don’t think I even need to supply the links of his insulting of a disabled person, sexist remarks, placating of racism and authoritarianism, do I? It is common knowledge that he has engaged in all of these activities. He has no experience for the job and I truly am scared of the idea that he would gain the nuclear codes. Church going evangelicals were not supportive of Trump in the primaries but many support him against Clinton today. However, I certainly am not one of them.

It would be unfair to attribute all his negative characteristics to the Republican Party as his nomination is quite a phenomenon. However, the ease in which he panders to racist elements in our society is disturbing because this is a long term problem for Republicans. Forget his ridiculous wall that Mexico is going to pay for. Four years ago Romney had to promise to make Hispanics “self-deport” to get the nomination. Beyond immigration issues, Republicans simply do not show a willingness to work through the tough racial issues in our society. There are some exceptions, but generally Republicans seem to tell minorities to just fall in line and forget about their concerns. I am not asking Republicans to adopt the desires of BLM. I certainly have my issues with that group. But is it too much to ask that Republicans at least acknowledge the contemporary struggles of people of color?

Throughout the years, I have never felt comfortable with the idea of identifying with Republicans. It is not that I disagree with everything they do. In fact there are issues where I am in strong agreement with the Republican platform. But not taking racial issues seriously is a deal breaker for me. I cannot become a member of a political organization that does not at least acknowledge the racial problems in our society and seriously seek solutions to them. I have voted for Republicans in years past when I thought they had the best candidate for that race, but I remain a critic of the party. Trump’s flirting with KKK and alt-right is merely an exaggeration of a common problem among Republicans.

That brings me to the Democrats. One would think that a black sociologist would naturally be a member of the Democratic party. Indeed there are certain issues where I appreciate a more progressive approach. But it turns out the Democrats are not a good fit for me either. To be specific, Democrats’ unwillingness to defend free speech and religious freedom rights unless it is for people who vote for them is particularly disturbing to me. I have come to the conclusion that the Democratic party of today does not actually believe in free speech and religious freedom. So while I feel quite strongly connected to the progressive perspective of the Democrats on certain issues, their non-support of free speech and religious freedom is a deal breaker.

I know that many disagree with my assessment of the Democratic party. I have accused the Democrats, and progressives in general, of not supporting free speech. The institution I spend the most time in, other than my home is a great example of this – higher education. It is not conservatives who are pushing safe spaces and microaggressions in attempts to shut people up on those campuses. It is progressives. It is liberal students who are more likely to say that the first amendment is outdated. Conservative speakers are disinvited or even forbidden to speak at college campuses. Even liberal speakers who are not sufficiently liberal enough are shouted down on our college campuses. Alternate viewpoints to a progressive ideology are simply not welcomed on college campuses and I have talked about such education dogma in the past. If someone believes I am being unfair putting this on progressives, then I welcome evidence indicating that conservatives are as restrictive of free speech on college campuses as progressives.

Unfortunately the tendency to stifle speech is not limited to college campuses. Remember that Brendan Eich was fired for contributing his own money to a conservative organization. It is progressives who want to outlaw hate speech, which will indeed rob us of free speech. When Michael Moore does his sting jobs, I do not see conservative prosecutors charging him with crimes. That was not the case for David Daleiden and his sting on Planned Parenthood. Although the charges were dropped, as there really was no case that could be sustained, one has to ask how much more stifling can one be to free speech than to threaten those with politically incorrect speech with jail time.

I am certain there are occasions where those on the right violate free speech. Usually when that occurs, there are many conservative politicians who speak out against such actions. This is in comparison to the relative silence of Democratic politicians. A notable exception is when President Obama affirmed free speech rights of college students. But his remarks are not the rule for Democratic politicians. Perhaps because he does not have to run for office as a Democrat again, he was free to support free speech. If that is true, then it is a sad condemnation of the lack of willingness of Democrats to support free speech.

Of my political values, free speech is one that I hold very dear. But if there is a value that I hold in higher esteem than free speech, it is freedom of religion or conscience. I believe it to be the most primary of values. When the government takes that away from us, then we truly are only a few steps away from having a thought police that must make sure that we have the “right” ideas in our society. Unfortunately the evidence is even stronger that Democrats are unwilling to support freedom of religion than it is that they will not support free speech. I am not sure whether I could become a Democrat with their unwillingness to defend the free speech rights of those they disagree with. But I am certain that their lack of support for freedom of religion or conscience for those who do not have the “right” beliefs makes it ideologically impossible for me to be at home with the Democrats.

I have criticized the tendency of Democrats and progressives on issues of supporting religious discrimination on college campuses, attacking Christian colleges and removing freedom of conscience for businesses. When I point this out, many say that if Christians merely obey the laws then they would not be punished. This simplistic approach does not take into account the way rules have a disparate impact although I suspect such critics understand disparate impact effects on rules such as voter ID laws. But rather than butt my head against that wall, let me merely point out that advocates of the policies I mentioned above always seem to go silent when people they like exercise their freedom of conscience in the public square.

These advocates are very silent when a hotel ejected an anti-gay marriage group for their views. They are silent when a church is denied an extension of its lease because of the hateful rhetoric of the pastor. They are silent when a lay pastor is fired from a job because he preached against same-sex marriage. They are silent when a landlord refuses to rent his apartment to Donald Trump supporters. They are silent when pharmacists are encouraged to use their freedom of conscience to refuse drugs to be used for the death penalty.

Of course many will state that these individuals who are rejected do not deserve to be protected. They will desperately comb through these cases to find some insignificant contrast to justify this differential treatment. Needless to say that if a hotel ejected pro-gay marriage groups, a Muslim Mosque is denied an extension of its lease, supporters of the Green party are not allowed to rent an apartment, a progressive pastor was fired from a job due to a sermon or pharmacists were encouraged not to provide abortifacients, then the reaction from these individuals would be much different. That is the point. It is not about whether you like the religion or beliefs of others. If you believe in religious freedom, then you believe in it for everyone. You do not only enforce the notion of public accommodation on conservative Christians. If you do not believe in providing freedom of conscience for everyone, then you do not believe in religious freedom. I find that Democrats, with very few exceptions, do not believe in religious freedom.

So I am stuck with two different political parties that have major deal breakers for me. If I lived in a battleground state, then I may have to stuff two socks up my nose and vote for Clinton. While she and the Democrats have no respect for religious freedom, the danger of a Trump presidency is more urgent. (Clinton also has a host of other particular issues I find distasteful as well, but as I stated she is less dangerous than Trump.) However, I live in Texas. If Texas is in danger of flipping to the Democrats, then the election is already over. So I feel a freedom to take Senator Cruz’s advice and “vote my conscience” in ways I may not feel if I lived in Florida. And while I have never voted third party for president before now, this appears to be the year to do that.

With that said, I now am happy to announce that my vote this year will go to the American Solidarity Party. I do not agree with everything promoted in ASP, but it is a party willing to address our racial divide in a meaningful way and respects religious freedom. I also appreciate the fact that this party is truly anti-big business which is something that we cannot say about either Republicans or Democrats today. So unless Trump drops out of the race or Clinton reaffirms religious freedom in a meaningful way, my vote will go to ASP. I am under no illusion that ASP will win the presidency but the more votes they gain will help them to position themselves in the coming years as a potentially viable third party competitor. Perhaps as such a competitor they may be able to influence one or both of the major political parties to move in a useful direction.

I know that most people are still committed to the two party system, even in a year like this. But if you are a never-Trump, never-Clinton type, then check out ASP. If you are a pro-life Democrat who feels that the party went too far this year, then check out ASP. If you are a Republican who cannot support Trump but you are not endeared to the hard right wing alternatives like the Constitution Party, then check out ASP. Come on in and join me. The water is fine.

My commitment to ASP is only for this presidential election. After November I will take a look at both political parties and ask some hard questions. Do Republicans want to take racial issues seriously? Are Democrats going to believe in religious freedom again? I will also take a hard look at ASP. Are they making moves to become a viable third party option? In time I may migrate back to being an independent that goes between both major parties or I may throw my full support to ASP and work to help them build something special. But those decisions can be made after November. Until then I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I am a Solidarist!! Michael Maturen for President!!

The Eric Walsh Test

As I have stated in an earlier post, I will from time to time put on of my Stream op-eds here. I do not answer comments at the Stream but do sometimes answer my comments here. However all comments need to conform to my policy. Hope you enjoy the post.

I bow to nobody as a protector of religious freedom and a critic of Christianophobia in our society. But I have done so with two caveats. First, I do not like to hear American Christians talk about being “persecuted.” A quick look at what is happening in the Middle East shows what happens when persecution really occurs. Second, my research indicates that people who hate Christians are willing to allow religious activities in churches and homes, so I have told Christians to stop arguing that people with Christianophobia are going to interfere with their churches.

I still maintain the first caveat; however, the case of Eric Walsh is making me reconsider the second.
Read the rest here.

Christianophobia and Racism – The Similarities

In my last post, I discussed the differences between racism and Christianophobia. I am often asked if I think Christianophobia is the same as racism. I am always careful to note that there are critical differences between the two. I do not want to create the false impression that to be Christianophobic is the same as to be racist. I have seen this emotional, but overly simplistic, technique of conflating different types of bigotries used too much and so I have taken great care to make sure I do not employ it myself.
However, this is not to say that there are not similarities between those who are Christianophobic and those who are racist. Because those with Christianophobia (higher educated, politically progressive, wealthy) are quite different from those who tend to be racist (lower educated, more rural), it is reasonable to argue that similar qualities of Christianophobia and racism reflect similarities in all sorts of intolerances. There is no subculture free of bigotry and intolerance. As such the real question is not whether the group you hang out with is intolerant, but rather against whom are they intolerant. Once we know that, then the similarities in this blog suggest how that intolerance is likely to play itself out.
Unreasonable Hatred – The first similarity is that both racists and Christianophobes have an unreasonable level of hatred for those who they reject. This is pretty clear when discussing racists. Clearly, racists make unreasonable demands that people of color be denied their freedom to work where they want, to live where they want and even in extreme cases to live. While today we do not see a lot of racists making extreme statements, the undercurrent of racism is the treatment of people due to their skin color, or other superficial physical characteristics. It often plays out in unreasonable stereotypes and assertions about people of color. All reasonable people can see this as unjustified.
The dynamics of Christianophobia are a little different in that people are hated for what they believe instead of what they look like. But Christianophobia is also based on unreasonable hatred. My research indicates that people with Christianophobia do not believe that conservative Christians should be able to have a place in the public square. They do not deny this right to other groups, and it is not reasonable to deny it to conservative Christians. Of course there are other ways this unreasonable hatred can manifest itself such as joking about feeding Christians to lions, or refusing to hire them for academic positions, but that may be the most impactful way this hatred manifests itself.
Justification of Bigotry – Another similarity between racists and those with Christianophobia is their willingness to justify their bigotry. Indeed often they assert that what they are doing is for the good of the society and sometimes even for those they are discriminating against. Historically, racists justified enslaving blacks or placing Indians on reservations since these were people who needed the “guidance” of whites. Racists today do not tend to use such arguments but rather talk about the good of society. Thus, they may ban Middle Easterners from the United States because they believe that we need protection from those outsiders.
The tendency to justify bigotry is not limited to racists. Those with Christianophobia would argue that they must ban Christians from the public square for the good of the nation. My research indicated that one of the ways people with Christianophobia de-humanize Christians is by envisioning them as childlike and unable to think for themselves. Such stereotypes allow those with Christianophobia to justify treating Christians in ways they would not treat other groups. After all, I seriously doubt they would see a child’s onesie with a statement about too many Jews and not enough ovens as acceptable. Yet someone is buying this for their kid.
Let me be clear that I know that both the racist and the Christianophobe are sincere in their beliefs that their bigotry is justified. The racist truly believes that those of “inferior” races are dragging our society into the gutter and must be controlled. Likewise, the Christianophobe truly believes that those of “inferior” religious beliefs are taking our society backwards into a Dark Age whereby all who do not have the true faith will be harassed and punished. They contend that conservative Christians must be controlled or they will set up a theocracy that will end science and reason. The fact that both of these beliefs are nonsense does not mean that those who have these ideas are not sincere in their beliefs. I do not accept the rhetoric that people with bigotry only maintain that intolerance due to their own self-interest. Rather they really believe that they are doing the right thing. In the end, that may make it all the more difficult to deal with such bigotry.
Dehumanizing of the Other – I have already briefly talked about how those with Christianophobia sometimes dehumanize conservative Christians. In my research, I identified several patterns of their dehumanization. This type of dehumanization was based on seeing conservative Christians as more animalistic than human. But rather than go through all of those patterns, I can simply point out the way those with Christianophobia often use the imagery of animals when talking about Christians. They speak of Christians as sheep and lemmings as well as zombies (though that is technically not an animal, it is still pretty dehumanizing). These comments came up so often in my respondents’ answers to my question that it is hard for me not to believe that it is not commonplace to talk of Christians as if they were animals.
Unfortunately, animalistic descriptions are also quite common among racists as well. What differs is the type of animals used to describe those in the minority racial groups. Apes and beasts are terms that racists may use to describe people of color. Thus, the animals used to describe racial minorities denote a savagery, whereas the animals used to describe Christians denote a mindless passivity. Neither description is what we would call flattering. Both descriptions have the effect of making the targeted group seem less than human. We know that when minority racial groups have been seen as less than human, it then becomes easier to justify the removal of their human rights. Perhaps this animalistic tendency on the part of those with Christianophobia is also necessary for them to justify differential treatment due to religion such as attempting to remove Christians in the public square or being less willing to hire Christians in academia.
Deny that they have a problem – This is a similarity that is not quite accurate if we are talking about traditional racism from our past. Those racists had no problem admitting that they were racist. Indeed they sometimes were proud of being racist. But today there are few who will admit to being racist even if it is clear that they are. They will struggle to find a way to explain their actions and attitudes in ways that deny the potential racism motivating them. Race and ethnicity literature is full of efforts to denote this type of modern racism with concepts such as colorblind racism, aversive racism and symbolic racism. Ultimately, they describe a version of racism by someone who will deny that they are racist.
This same issue comes up when we look at Christianophobia. Those with Christianophobia are quick to deny that they have a problem. I have been amused at the sort of gymnastics some have employed when I have pointed out situations where it is clear that the behavior would not have taken place, or if it had it would have been seen as unacceptable, except that the person victimized was a conservative Christian. For example, when I point out my research that shows that academics are willing to discriminate against hiring someone because they are a fundamentalist or evangelical, the most common response is not to criticize how the research was done. Instead the person generally accepts the findings of the research but then justifies such occupational discrimination with anti-Christian stereotypes (i.e. Christians are not able to critically think). It is quite obvious that such discrimination would not be justified if used against Jews or Muslims based on Anti-Semitic or Islamophobic stereotypes. It is a classic case of denial when it is quite clear that there are Christianophobic tendencies on the part of a non-trivial number of academics.
These similarities suggest important lessons about the nature of intolerance. They indicate that intolerance and bigotry lead to unreasonable emotive and dehumanizing patterns, even among those who envision themselves as rational. It leads to a denial of the problem at a personal level and ironically attempts to justify mistreatment of the out-group. These are tendencies that I do not believe are relegated to only certain subcultures. Our ability to hate and mistreat out-groups seems to be part of the human condition. Only by recognizing this reality can we have the ability to engage in the level of introspection necessary to combat the intolerance residing in our hearts.

Christianophobia and Racism – The Differences

I find myself in a very unique position. I have done quite a bit of recent research on anti-Christian attitudes and biases. In the past, I have also done a lot of scholarly work dealing with racial issues. I do not know of anyone who has an expertise in both Christianophobia and racism. That places me in a position to understand both social dysfunctions.
When I have publically discussed my work I am often asked whether Christianophobia is like racism. I have always answered in the negative. In my writing, I make it clear that there are important differences between Christianophobia and racism. However, this is not to say that are no similarities between these two types of intolerances. There are certain commonalities within expressions of bigotry regardless of whether that bigotry is triggered by race or religious hatred. In that sense, understanding the differences and similarities between Christianophobia and racism can provide insight into human nature. In this current blog, I will look at the differences between the two, and my next blog will deal with the similarities. It will by no means be an exhaustive survey of such distinctions, and similarities, but hopefully I will touch on the main ones and generate an opening conversation about differences between racism and Christianophobia.
Violence – An important difference between racism and Christianophobia is the level of violence associated with each. As it concerns racial issues, we have a history of violence perpetrated against people of color. Even today when we look at what troubles activists of color, it is often tied to fear of violence or actual violence. For example, much of the recent conflict of late is tied to the criminal justice system and the shooting of black men. People of color fear for their lives and physical safety due to the racism they continue to address.
On the other hand, there is little fear of violence as it pertains to Christianophobia. This is not true if we are talking about some of the horrors that occurred to Christians historically or if we look at how Christians are mistreated in some countries. However in the United States, with the exception of some church burnings, there is little evidence that violence is a concern that Christians must face. I believe that this difference is tied to contrasts between who tends to possess racism and who tends to have Christianophobia. The powerful individuals who tend to have Christianophobia do not need to use violence to punish their outgroup while those who are racist tend to come from more violence-oriented cultures.
Innate versus Choice – Another clear difference is that race is innate whereby religion is a choice. Now I have to be careful about what I mean by innate. Any good race scholar will tell you that race is a social construction. Our notions of race identity are tied to how society decides to differentiate between the various races. I do an entire lecture on the social construction of race in one of my first classes in my race/ethnicity course, but I do not have the space to really go into it here. Just trust me that the social construction of race is well-established in race/ethnicity literature. It is also useful to point out that religion may not be as much of a choice as we like to think that it is. We are highly likely to wind up in the religion that we grew up in. It is true that many people convert in and out of different religions and some, like myself, have a crisis of faith that forces them to seriously consider whether the religion they are in is right. But honestly most people drift through life and accept it without much introspection. The religion one finds oneself in is clearly more of a choice than the race one is assigned. While society decides how to define race, I cannot easily change that decision. I can go around all I want saying that I am white, but I will still be treated as a black. There is pressure on us to maintain the religion we grow up in, but we still can pick an identity that differs from that religion. While there may be costs associated to making that decision, it still will be a decision that most will abide by. If a Christian deconverts to an atheist, there are not many people who will insist that he or she is still a Christian. So in the aggregate, this distinction is still very important.
It is an important distinction because we tend to treat those with innate qualities different than those with characteristics associated with choice. If it is a choice, then we tend to hold them more responsible for the situation they are in. That does not mean that we can mistreat people due to a status they choose. Note the condemnation of Islamophobia. But it does mean that we can ask them to stop doing what they did to create that status. People may ask me to stop being a Christian or at least to stop advocating for Christians. Nobody is going to ask me to stop being black. If they did, they would get a funny look from me and from anyone else who heard this request. It seems much more unfair to punish someone for a status (race) they had no say in possessing and there is more room to legitimate some discrimination for a status (religion) where people do have a choice.
Historical Status – Historically, people of color have had lower levels of social status than European-Americans. I, along with most other race scholars, would argue that this is still the case even though we have a black president. Nevertheless, it is clear that people of color have never enjoyed majority group status. This is not the case for Christians. Clearly throughout much of our history, Christians have had majority group status. In certain aspects of our society, they still have majority group status. However, in other areas, such as academia, the mounting evidence suggests this majority group status is a thing of the past.
When I teach race and ethnicity, I tell my students that we cannot understand contemporary race relationships without also understanding the history that contextualizes those relationships. Indeed if we want to understand much of the current conflict over police shootings, we have to understand the larger historical context of how the criminal justice system has been used to control African-Americans. It is a mistake to look at a single shooting and come to conclusions about racial conflict. Likewise, the history of Christians as the majority group has contextualized the current religious conflict we see in our society. Because Christians at one time had majority group status in most, if not all, of the sectors of society, there is a buildup dam of resentment they face today. Is that resentment justified? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. But its existence creates a different element in anti-Christian bigotry as opposed to racial bigotry.
Who Hates – This is a key difference which really positions Christianophobia to be distinct from racism. Research indicates that those who tend to have overt types of racism tend to be lower educated, lower SES, politically conservative and, of course, white. My work in Christianophobia indicates that those with it tend to be highly educated, wealthy, white and male. In many ways, these are the people with powerful societal positions. Those with Christianophobia have an ability to punish Christians in ways that most racist individuals are not able to do.
This difference affects many of the dimensions shaping Christianophobia and racism. Remember the discussion on the differing roles of violence? Individuals with powerful positions in society are not likely to directly engage in violence. If they are caught engaging in violence, they often have more to lose in terms of reputation and status than those with lower levels of education and wealth. Furthermore, those with Christianophobia are more likely to have progressive political values, which would increase the possible loss they would experience if caught engaging in violence. This does not mean that they are above mistreating Christians, but they will do it through their institutional power rather than a violent attack. This and many other differences, are tied to who has Christianophobia and who has racism.
Goals – A final difference is the goals of those with Christianophobia and those with racism. The goals of racists can vary over time and place, but it is fair to say that generally they want to either eliminate the inferior race or subjugate them to do the necessary dirty jobs in society. In old fashioned racism, there is not much hiding of these goals. As racism has fallen out of favor as something to be desired in society, we have less of the old fashioned racism although the tendency to see one’s racial group as superior has not completely disappeared.
The goals of those with Christianophobia are different. Their social identity as progressives prevents them from overtly planning the elimination of Christians. However, they have developed the stereotypes and fears about Christians. Because of those stereotypes/fears, they can justify trying to control and subjugate Christians. Many of the comments from the respondents in my research have focused upon trying to keep Christians out of the public square. I have discussed in a previous blog why such a goal is unfair and will not waste space here. But just as the racist believes that he or she is in a superior belief, those with Christianophobia believe that they are superior in religious belief to conservative Christians. But how they want to reinforce that feeling of superiority is quite distinct.
Many of these differences work together to create the unique challenges we have with Christianophobia and racism. That is to be expected as each is a phenomenon that has to be understood on its own. However, each also touches on dimensions that are all too common among humans. Looking at some of those commonalities is the focus of my next blog.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X