My favorite pundit/political reporter these days is Amanda Marcotte, who writes often and wisely over at Salon. The other day, she had an article up about this development I mentioned a few days ago: Declining church membership…
The drop in religious affiliation starts right around the time George W. Bush was elected president, publicly and dramatically associating himself with the white evangelical movement. The early Aughts saw the rise of megachurches with flashily dressed ministers who appeared more interested in money and sermonizing about people's sex lives than modeling values of charity and humility.
Not only were these religious figures and the institutions they led hyper-political, the outward mission seemed to be almost exclusively in service of oppressing others. The religious right isn't nearly as interested in feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless as much as using religion as an all-purpose excuse to abuse women and LGBTQ people. In an age of growing wealth inequalities, with more and more Americans living hand-to-mouth, many visible religious authorities were using their power to support politicians and laws to take health care access from women and fight against marriage between same-sex couples. And then Donald Trump happened.
I think people look to religious leaders to rise above petty politics and matters of personal gain…and they aren't finding many. Almost everyone is looking like one of those TV evangelists who can find quotes in The Bible supporting the notion that God wants them to have a private jet and for you to pay for it.
Today, she has a piece up about "Cancel Culture," which is one of those terms like "Political Incorrectness" that I think a lot of people use with very different definitions from one another. Both terms strike me as sometimes employed in a literal sense and sometimes in a sarcastic sense…and always with the aim of stifling Free Speech under the guise of protecting Free Speech. Here is Ms. Marcotte…
Many a tear has been shed over wealthy actors losing plum gigs for embarrassing movie studios with their bigoted tweets, or obscure books by famous authors being delisted voluntarily by their own publishing companies, or people making fun of a paranoid right-wing couple in St. Louis who pulled guns on peaceful protesters, or the librarian whose boss prevented her from humiliating herself by doing a rap presentation to onboard college freshmen. Free speech, they argue, is dependent not just on the absence of censorship, but the absence of any consequences whatsoever, including criticism from others who are using their free speech rights. It turns out there was one caveat to this right to speech unfettered by opposition, criticism, or consequences, however: It is a "right" enjoyed only by those on the right.
I still think Free Speech involves your right to say something stupid and my right to say that what you said was stupid…or vice-versa. I also think you're not standing on any principle relating to Free Speech when you're fighting for people to be able to say things you agree with. When someone complains that singers or actors or athletes should STFU about politics and just sing, act or play, it never seems to be about the singers, actors or athletes who support the complainer's side.