Co Opting Dissent Essay

Back in June I wrote the post ‘Preserving the Status Quo via the State’s Security & Surveillance Apparatus‘ and said:

You better believe that the financial elite who run this country do have OWS and any other social movement under 24/7 surveillance. Anything that strives to change the status quo of neoliberal capitalism will be undermined and crushed, whether through covert actions or co-optive schemes. Social justice, the environment, and the very habitability of planet earth are not on the agenda of the 1%’ers.

Now we have official confirmation that this indeed was and is the case. Surprise, surprise:

Newly obtained documents confirm that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was monitoring peaceful protesters with the Occupy Wall Street movement before the first OWS demonstrations even began…

…The list of documents, says Verheyden-Hilliard, “is a window into the nationwide scope of the FBI’s surveillance, monitoring, and reporting on peaceful protestors organizing with the Occupy movement.”

“These documents show that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are treating protests against the corporate and banking structure of America as potential criminal and terrorist activity,” she writes. “These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.

What more proof do you need that we live under a corporatocracy? Since solving dire problems like climate change would require a complete dismantling of the current capitalist system, i.e. an economic system driven by the profit motive is incompatible with ecological sustainability, we can see why the financial and corporate elite would be hostile to a grass-roots movement which seeks social and environmental justice. Such issues don’t compute with the bottom line of corporations or our war-based economy. Interestingly, the only real attention that was given to OWS by those in power was on how their discontent could be co-opted by the status quo:

As I [Glenn Greenwald] noted several weeks ago, White House-aligned groups such as the Center for American Progress have made explicitly clear that they are going to try to convert OWS into a vote-producing arm for the Obama 2012 campaign, and that’s what “Occupy Congress” is designed to achieve.

Of course the Tea Party was never really a threat to Corporate America because it’s what is termed an astroturf group, as was first reported a few years ago by Australian filmmaker Taki Oldham:

Do you think these free-market idealogues of capitalism are going to clean up the mess left in the wake of climate chaos? Hell no. The unwashed masses are on their own. As long as the elite have the money to insulate themselves from the ravages of our fossil fuel-dependent economy, they will have no real concern for the catastrophes that lie ahead. A case in point is the recent aftermath of the Hurricane Sandy Frankenstorm:

Billionaire David Koch’s prime political organization, Americans for Prosperity (AFP), having failed in its $125 million quest to oust President Barack Obama, is now aiming at a slightly less sophisticated political target: victims of Hurricane Sandy. […]

Earlier this week, AFP, which is chaired by Koch and believed to be financed by several other plutocrats from the New York City region, released a letter warning members of Congress not to vote for the proposed federal aid package for victims of the storm that swept New Jersey, New York City and much of the surrounding area in October. An announcement on the group’s website says that the vote next week for the Sandy aid package will be a “key vote” — meaning senators who support sending money for reconstruction could face an avalanche of attack ads in their next election. Already, opposition to the bill is growing, although it passed one procedural hurdle last [Friday] night. […]

Koch’s top deputy in New Jersey, a surly gentleman named Steve Lonegan, who heads the local AFP state chapter, called the aid package a “disgrace.” “This is not a federal government responsibility,” Lonegan told reporters. “We need to suck it up and be responsible for taking care of ourselves.

‘Change’ will always be an empty campaign slogan when you have a federal government which:

…wastes resources on a multi-trillion dollar Security and Surveillance apparatus to spy on its entire citizenry, in particular OWS protestors, minorities, and government critics/whistleblowers.

…pumps more than half of every tax dollar into the military industrial complex and its war-profiteering cronies who perpetuate our war economy.

…is not alarmed that 50 million Americans are dependent on food stamps while U.S. corporations hoard $22 trillion in secret offshore bank accounts.

…thinks that tax revenues can be maintained while its manufacturing base is off-shored to exploit cheap foreign labor pools.

…uses the growth in corporate profits as the only yardstick for societal well-being.

…marginalizes and prevents the participation of third party candidates within our two-party oligopoly.

…believes that the system described above should be bailed out for its criminal excesses from the billfold of a now beaten-down middle class.

New ‘smile guards’ will soon become mandatory in the work environment of the corporate state:

Will turn-key totalitarianism go all the way?…

Like this:



Today, just about everyone—including lobbyists, state legislators, and Supreme Court litigants—assumes that freedom of religion naturally means opposition to same-sex marriage and reproductive rights, and sits in tension with anti-discrimination and civil rights laws.

But such associations with the idea of “freedom of religion” are neither natural nor inevitable. Not so very long ago, Americans were more likely to invoke religious freedom to support the very causes, including legal access to abortion, that Christian conservatives now oppose in its name. Such a transition in the meaning of religious freedom is hardly new; the concept has always been malleable and contested. Tracking these changes can help us see how we understand the role of religion in modern life, as well as how to imagine more expansive possibilities for what religious freedom is.

When the first U.S. Congress debated and ratified the Bill of Rights, the clauses on religion represented a compromise between those who wanted to prevent federal interference in the established churches that many states maintained, and those who aimed to level the playing field by eliminating state support for all churches. But the right to freedom of religion was applied only unevenly to Catholics and Jews, and not at all to Native American religious traditions or to the African-derived traditions practiced by many slaves.

In the early 1830s, Massachusetts and Connecticut became the last states to eliminate their formally established churches. Still, most states continued to privilege Christianity—often Protestant Christianity in particular—through prayers and Bible-reading in the public schools, blasphemy laws, restrictions on who could serve on juries or hold public office, and much more. Faced with protests from religious minorities, the powers that be defended these policies in the name of religious freedom. The nation rested on Christian foundations, they argued, and this freedom meant above all that Christianity must be publicly honored and freely practiced.

At the same time, minority groups—Freethinkers, Jews, Catholics—claimed religious freedom as their own. Many Protestants agreed, especially those (like the Baptists) who had begun as dissenters against the established churches and remained committed to free church ideals. They believed the separation of church and state to be essential for their own churches and for every other religious group to thrive.

The Supreme Court rarely ruled on cases involving religious freedom until the middle of the 20th century, when it began to hold the states—along with the federal government—accountable to the Bill of Rights. The Cold War emphasis on “faith” and “freedom” brought renewed attention to this ideal. While many U.S. Christians called for a return to values that they believed all Americans should share, a diverse cast of dissenters and minorities stressed the rights of individuals and minority groups instead. Through the tenacity of the civil liberties and civil rights movements, this dissenting approach emerged victorious in the courts.

By the 1970s, the courts and the legislatures most often viewed the separation of church and state as a prerequisite rather than a barrier to religious freedom. Jehovah’s Witnesses won the right to proselytize in the streets; the Amish won the right to withhold their children from public schools on religious grounds; and the courts ruled that prayers and Bible readings could not be sponsored or mandated by officials in the public schools. Incarcerated people from many different religious traditions asserted their right to the free exercise of religion in the prisons.

A costumed protester outside the Supreme Court, as it heard the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case, Dec. 5, 2017. Photo courtesy of Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press.

In keeping with this emphasis on individual and minority rights, most Americans in this period assumed that the principle of religious freedom favored pro-choice politics. The court’s decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) highlighted a constitutional right to privacy more than the freedom of conscience, but it clearly emphasized the rights and freedoms of the individual.

Soon after that decision, an interdenominational group of Protestants and Jews founded the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, later renamed the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, to defend the legalization of abortion against its detractors. They contended that the American tradition of religious freedom did not allow any religious group to legally impose its strictures on all. People of faith and good conscience held many views on this issue, they explained, and each woman had the right to make her own decision. The group’s members carried banners at marches and rallies that read simply “Religious Freedom.”

They were not alone. The American Baptist Convention passed this resolution in 1981: “We recognize that the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion protects the right of a person, in consultation with her advisor, spiritual counselor, and physician, to make a decision of conscience for or against abortion.”

The Southern Baptist Convention was more divided, with some conservatives in the denomination immediately lining up against Roe v. Wade. But up until the early 1980s, the denomination’s Christian Life Commission held that although most Southern Baptists could not personally support abortion, this was a matter of conscience that—in keeping with Baptist tradition—could not be dictated by law.

Even Catholics were not unanimous on this question. The Catholic Church very clearly opposed any legalized abortion. But several lay organizations and even some bishops echoed former President John F. Kennedy’s views on church-state separation and applied them to this question. In a religiously diverse country, they argued, no church should impose its own standards on all.

Catholics for a Free Choice, a small organization, went so far as to join the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights. The larger National Association of the Laity took a more moderate stand: “the Court’s decision is not inconsistent with the Catholic Church’s teaching that responsible persons exercise their conscience in matters of morality.” The Catholic Church could teach that abortion was morally wrong, the association argued, without “imposing its position on our fellow citizens who may not agree with us.”

To be sure, Roe v. Wade had created the conditions for pro-life activists to position themselves as conscientious dissenters against the new legal standard. Health care legislation in the 1970s and 1980s increasingly incorporated “conscience clauses” allowing providers with religious objections to avoid any personal involvement in abortions. Nevertheless, up until the early 1990s religious freedom was far more likely to be invoked by pro-choice rather than pro-life voices.

Ironically, the successes of the pro-choice and the LGBTQ movements, which made first abortion and then same-sex marriage legal in the first place, created the conditions for new religious freedom claims.

Meanwhile, an increasingly vocal and overwhelmingly white Christian right was turning religious freedom into its own rallying cry. Historian Randall Balmer has described how an evangelical right mobilized in the late 1970s against the IRS’s withdrawal of tax-exempt status from racially segregated private Christian schools—which they argued ought to be free from state control—and against the court decisions that limited state-sponsored prayer in the public schools. In other words, the (white) Christian right had invoked this freedom first of all to defend embedded practices of racial discrimination and public Christianity against the legal victories of the Civil Rights Movement.

In the mid-1990s, conservative evangelicals and Catholics forged a new alliance in the name of religious freedom. They now called on this freedom not only to defend school prayer and “parental choice” in education, but also to reframe and re-energize the movement against abortion. As the gay rights movement gained momentum, they invoked religious freedom to argue against same-sex marriage as well.

This too was a reversal. In the 1970s, a few religious groups had begun to solemnize same-sex marriages, seeking legal recognition for them on religious freedom grounds, as Sarah Barringer Gordon recounts in her book The Spirit of the Law.

Ironically, the successes of the pro-choice and the LGBTQ movements, which made first abortion and then same-sex marriage legal in the first place, created the conditions for new religious freedom claims. Until abortion and same-sex marriage became legal, their opponents had no legal framework to push back against. Now, as they work to make abortion and same-sex marriage illegal once again—thus imposing a specific conservative Christian morality on all—they invoke the rhetoric of pluralism and individual freedom to voice their dissent. The gulf between liberal and conservative Christians on issues of gender and sexuality, as chronicled in Marie Griffith’s new book Moral Combat, has only widened in recent decades and shows little sign of abating.

At present, an overwhelmingly white and conservative Christian movement has effectively laid claim to the cultural value of religious freedom. This tactic enables a certain slippage, an easy identification between one brand of Christianity and religion writ large. One writer for the Catholic News Agency recently claimed: “A network of wealthy donors is funding a series of well-organized lobbying campaigns to restrict legal protections for religious freedom, in order to advance access to abortion and LGBT causes.” Here we see how a group that maintains significant cultural and electoral power frames itself as a beleaguered minority. President Trump’s May 2017 executive order on religious liberty catered directly to this constituency, promising to protect all religion but actually recognizing only the preoccupations of the conservative Christian right.

In recent years, a reconfigured Supreme Court has expanded the freedom of religion in new directions. In the Hobby Lobby case, the court granted a corporation the right to refuse to provide contraceptive coverage to its employees, as the Affordable Care Act required. If religion is understood as a private affair—a matter of conscience, protected from the state—then granting religious freedom to a corporation significantly expands the scope of the private, as historian of religion Finbarr Curtis has described. Rather than protecting religious minorities or the individual employees most affected by such policies, this new religious freedom further empowers the Christian majority and adds to the overwhelming power of corporate America.

Equating religious freedom with white Christianity also overwhelms a wide field of actual and potential religious freedom claims. In 2016, for example, the Standing Rock Sioux Nation briefly argued that the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline would desecrate their sacred land and infringe upon their religious freedom. But this argument gained little public attention and no traction in the courts, and the pipeline went through as planned.

The same tortured logic of religious freedom is obvious in the Trump administration’s recent restrictions on immigrants, refugees, and Muslims. Some federal judges have ruled the president’s successive orders on immigration unconstitutional on the grounds that they discriminate against a particular religious group. Yet the Christian conservatives who praise Trump for protecting religious freedom seem more than ready to support what some of them openly applaud as a “Muslim ban.” Nor do they speak out when local zoning ordinances are used to prevent the construction of mosques and Islamic community centers; or when town councils pass legislation that claims to prevent the imposition of Sharia law—an invented threat based on grossly distorted views of Islam.

This interpretation may not survive for long. This winding history shows that religious freedom is open and available for those who seek to claim it. Muslims and their allies invoke the freedom of religion to combat a variety of legal and zoning restrictions, as well as anti-Islamic bigotry and violence. Progressive church leaders active in the “new sanctuary movement” have responded to draconian enforcement of immigration law by providing shelter in their churches for immigrants being targeted for deportation. They too are invoking this freedom. Their claims have so far received little attention in the media or from the current administration.

But that, like the definition of religious freedom itself, will change.

0 thoughts on “Co Opting Dissent Essay

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *