Moms For (anything but) Liberty – The Continual Assault on Free Speech by The Far Right.

A bizarre scenario unfolded at last Tuesday’s monthly Seminole County Public School board meeting. Amidst a non-stop, two-hour parade of non-agenda speakers from the audience, an occasional woman would come up to the microphone and read a passage from “a book available to all Seminole County students above 11 years old.” No title was given for the book, and no context was given for the passage. One can deduce that the age reference means the book is available in middle school libraries, but that was not usually stated.

The passages that these women read tended to cover sexual themes, sometimes with graphic descriptions of various activities involved, but the excerpts themselves were not erotic or sensual. Almost the opposite. A lot of the passages were intriguing, and I found myself wanting to know the name of the book, what the book was about, and how the passages related to the central theme or message.

Alas, no such information was forthcoming. The ladies simply read their passages until a small tone was heard, the signal that their two minutes were up. The women, many feigning reluctance with a theatrical “I really don’t want to read this, but…”, proceeded to regale the five-member board with their two-minute slice of what they considered to be prurient, pornographic, and purposeless material. The board members sat and listened respectfully, with no hints as to what was going through their minds.

As a newcomer to this spectacle, I found myself pondering the motivations behind it. What drove these presumably Christian women to stand before a largely secular audience and recite such material? Did they also share these readings with their church congregations? And I couldn’t help but feel that, in my day’s past as a Christian, such readings would have really spiced up those dull and repetitive worship services.

The following day, an Orlando Sentinel article shed some light on the matter. It turns out that a few months prior, in May 2023, the Florida Legislature, currently dominated by a Republican supermajority, passed Florida House Bill 1069. Signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis, it gave the public the right to read passages from school material they objected to. If the school board stopped the speaker and denied this speech due to content requirements, the material would be removed from the school.

The speakers at the meeting were members of “Moms for Liberty,” a group hoping to trigger this clause by getting shut down mid-reading. It seems the legislation was designed to facilitate exactly this kind of scenario.

In preparation for the meeting, Moms for Liberty had sent a list of “problematic” books to its members. Jessica Tillman, the leader of the Moms for Liberty group in Seminole County, had then urged her followers to go through the selected books and find the juiciest passages, stating as the defined goal:

“You want to read the worst of the worst of the books we gave you.”

I couldn’t help but picture dozens of Christian women, poring over piles of what they considered to be pornographic material, trying to find the very worst bits. Kind of reminded me of my high school days.

But the humor fades when you consider the implications. This isn’t just about a few prudish parents clutching their pearls over some racy literature. This is about an organized effort to censor and control what students can and cannot read.

The silver lining in this otherwise grim scenario is that this campaign has galvanized the opposition. For every member of Moms for Liberty decrying the so-called pornographic material, there were at least five speakers defending the freedom to read.

One speaker even pointed out the irony of it all by reading out some rather explicit verses from the Bible. It seems that what’s considered objectionable can be quite subjective. It’s a stark reminder that context matters, and that one person’s smut is another person’s scripture.

Prior to the meeting, I was aware of the general idea that Moms for Liberty was on a book-banning crusade, so I wrote my two-minute speech on the theme of “liberty,” and about how Moms for Liberty were for anything but liberty. In the brief time I was allotted, I managed to work in a few references:

James Madison, our fourth president, and the man often hailed as the “Father of the Constitution,” wrote that “The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.”

And in 1905, the US Supreme Court ruled that “One person’s liberty cannot deprive his neighbors of their own liberty.” 

It is often said: “Your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.”

I refined and practiced my speech in the hours before the meeting, getting it down to the point where I could finish in one minute, and fifty-four seconds. That was close, maybe too close, but I really didn’t want to cut anything else out.

Waiting in the queue to give my speech at the meeting, I took a few deep breaths in an attempt to still the lingering anxiety that has always accompanied my public speaking efforts. But I was buoyed by the sheer numbers and intensity of the many others who had already spoken against the book-banners.

Finally, it was my turn. I stepped up to the microphone and launched into my speech. There was no time for dramatic pauses or off-the-cuff remarks. Every second counted. And as I uttered my final “Thank you,” I managed to beat the dreaded two-minute tone. A small victory in the ongoing battle for free speech.

I’d love to tell you that my speech was met with thunderous applause, but the reality was far more subdued. Audience reactions were required by the rules of decorum to be limited to thumbs-up or thumbs-down gestures, or in some cases, green or red pieces of paper. So focused was I on finishing my speech within the time limit that I barely noticed the audience’s reaction.

The current state of the law and the rise of right-wing groups who are emboldened by it suggest that this spectacle is far from over. Groups like Moms For Liberty, who seem to have a skewed understanding of freedom and liberty, are a thorn in the side of democracy. They must be countered by those who truly value freedom and liberty for all Floridians, like the CFFC.

The CFFC stands with those who oppose groups like Moms For Liberty and with those who oppose repugnant right-wing campaigns that brand non-Christians and members of the LGBTQ+ community as “groomers” and “deviants.” They fight against those who seek to strip away a woman’s right to choose. It’s a battle for the very soul of our democracy, and it’s one that shows no signs of ending anytime soon.

The Threat of Christian Nationalism to Our Democracy

Picture yourself, if you will, as pregnant. You’ve only just discovered your condition six weeks post-conception, meaning that you are legally barred from obtaining an abortion due to the detection of what is commonly referred to as a “fetal heartbeat.” Should you somehow manage to procure an abortion, you will be subject to prosecution. Furthermore, any individual who performs or assists in the procedure is likewise subject to legal action.

Your state has taken it upon itself to empower its citizens to act as watchdogs, reporting and initiating civil suits against you or any other parties involved. The incentive for such actions is, of course, financial gain, but also saving the lives of the unborn. Successful litigants are awarded no less than $10,000 in damages and court costs, all paid for by the defendant.

This may sound like something out of a dystopian novel - “The Handmaid’s Tale” comes to mind - but it is, in fact, the current reality in the state of Texas. And other states, including Florida, are eagerly seeking to follow suit. Some lawmakers there are even considering legislation that would make it illegal to travel out of state to obtain an abortion.

Let us not mince words here - anti-abortion legislation is driven and directed by Christian conservatives who, once in positions of power, see no issue with imposing their particular brand of “Biblical” beliefs on the rest of society. And we can be certain that they will not stop at abortion.

These Christian Nationalists seek to turn back the clock to a time when the Christian Church and state were so intertwined that it was nearly impossible to distinguish one from the other.

In the waning years of the 1970s, Republican politicians realized that evangelical Christians could be co-opted into their party by pandering to their desire for religious power. Ronald Reagan, for example, adopted nearly verbatim the notion of America as a shining example of God’s nation, invoking John Winthrop’s 1630 declaration: “For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill.”

The only problem with this narrative? America has never been a Christian nation. Many of the constitutional framers were deists or theistic rationalists, rejecting almost all the fundamental doctrines of Biblical Christianity, including the deity of Christ. They did not intend to create a Christian nation - none of them ever made such a claim.

Despite this historical reality and the fact that the First Amendment explicitly prohibits the government from establishing religion, favoring one religion over another, or even favoring religion over non-religion, Christian Nationalists persist in perpetuating the myth of America as a Christian nation. Confronted with the overwhelming evidence that few if any of the founders were Christians, they fall back on the claim that all of them adhered to “Judeo-Christian” values - a term so nebulous that it can be adapted to fit any person, situation, or secular value, and so divisive as to place Christians and Jews at the top of our religious class system.

By fusing the identities of the Christian church and the nation, Christian nationalists seek to advance the notion that America is a nation exclusively for Christians, subject to the ultimate authority of their God. To them, church and state are inextricably linked, rendering any criticism of the country tantamount to an attack on their faith. And we need only look to history to see how a church wielding political power deals with those perceived as attacking the faith - it was called the Inquisition.

As recounted by history.com:

“Inquisitors would arrive in a town and announce their presence, affording citizens the opportunity to confess to heresy. Those who did so were subjected to punishments ranging from a pilgrimage to a whipping. Those accused of heresy were compelled to testify. If they did not confess, torture and execution were all but inevitable. Heretics were not permitted to confront their accusers, received no counsel, and were often the victims of false accusations.”

Jews and Muslims were particularly targeted during the European Inquisition, but anyone who failed to conform to the official state religion was at risk. It may seem unthinkable that such atrocities could occur in modern society, but in a country where Christianity and government nationalism take hold, all political dissent is viewed as a direct attack on God himself. And when defending the faith, any retaliation - including imprisonment, torture, and death - could be considered fair game if civil law is second to God’s law.

We are already witnessing the beginnings of this phenomenon in Florida, where the current right-wing government is endeavoring to rewrite the history of slavery in this country, now claiming that slaves acquired valuable life skills during their time in bondage. Teachers who dare to speak out against this whitewashing of history risk losing their jobs.

With God on their side, any action, law, or punishment inflicted upon unbelievers that furthers their cause can be justified. Non-believers including atheists, Humanists, and others are particularly vulnerable to the excesses of a Christian state, and marginalized groups such as the LGBTQ+ community and women are easy targets for Christian Nationalist leaders seeking to flex their power.

We have already seen repugnant campaigns, sponsored by the state government, aimed at branding non-Christians, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and indeed anyone who does not conform to conservative norms, as “groomers” and “deviants.”

Christian Nationalists cherry-pick selected passages from the Old and New Testaments to justify their actions, conveniently ignoring the fundamental tenets of Christianity concerning love, tolerance, and forgiveness. At the CFFC, we have witnessed firsthand how Christian Nationalist groups and their allies, such as Liberty Counsel, engage in historical revisionism, outright lies, and slanderous campaigns in their single-minded pursuit of establishing a Christian nation in this country by any means necessary.

Christian Nationalists have repeatedly attempted to inject Christian teachings into the public school system, fully cognizant of the fact that such actions are unconstitutional. But the problem with Christian Nationalists - and indeed with all religious zealots - is that they believe their God supersedes all secular laws. In their minds, they are doing God’s work by breaking laws and even flouting the US Constitution if they deem them to be at odds with their God’s teachings and principles.

Christian Nationalists are often impervious to logical arguments that expose the fallacious basis for their belief that America is a fundamentally Christian nation. One effective deterrent is to challenge them by engaging the legal system as necessary and when possible. At the CFFC, we have already achieved victories in preventing the introduction of religious materials into the public school system in Orange County Public Schools and securing access to secular invocations at the Brevard County Commission. But we can be certain that further action will be required in the future to counter the relentless efforts of believers to establish their vision of “heaven on earth.” However, with the federal and state courts leaning further and further to the right, this will be even harder.

Our constitutional protections guaranteeing freedom of religion protect all citizens to practice or not practice their religion as they see fit. A government co-opted by a specific denomination of Christian faith will inevitably seek to control and undermine competing religious interests, as Amanda Tyler of the Baptist Joint Committee points out in her interview with the Center for American Progress.

While most rank-and-file Christians are not actively pushing for a Christian state, the authoritarian nature of religious belief means that many will blindly follow their leaders. And much of the church leadership is all too willing to cozy up to politicians who, in turn, are more than happy to pander to a large religious and patriotic base susceptible to populist, emotional appeals to God and country.

Christian Nationalists are hell-bent on advancing their agenda, untroubled by any considerations other than a naked power grab where the ends justify any means employed. Demographic trends indicate that Christian and religious influences in this country are rapidly waning with the growth of the non-religious and other segments of the population. But like a dying, cornered animal lashing out in its final throes, Christian Nationalists are making a last-ditch effort to seize power through lies, propaganda, and dog-whistle appeals to those who feel threatened by their loss of majority status.

Christian Nationalism poses a grave threat to the core principles of our democracy - religious freedom and equality. As members of the CFFC, we stand united in our commitment to opposing this ideology and advocating for a pluralistic society where everyone is free to express their beliefs or lack thereof. Let us continue to champion the values that have made our nation strong, inclusive, and respectful of the rich tapestry of humanity.

Human Connections in a Diverse World

“I hope you rot in hell!” That was the last of the comments I read in response to a Facebook post I made about Christmas displays at city hall being unconstitutional. It was at that moment that I finally realized arguing with true believers about church/state issues on Facebook was never, ever, going to be productive. The exchange left me with a lousy feeling, and I must confess, thinking some very unkind thoughts about the older woman who had wished eternal damnation upon me.

In a culture where tribalism and divisions seem to be growing, we might wonder how to connect in more positive ways with those around us—especially those who don’t share our humanistic worldview. Daily, we see reminders of how many people’s primary allegiances are to their “tribes,” whether they be political, religious, racial, geographic, or any number of other groups.

Tribalism, as an evolutionary adaptation, seems to have aided early homo sapiens in their survival within small groups. However, in our current culture, it appears to serve only to foster animosity and deep-seated mistrust toward those deemed as outsiders.

With this in mind, we need to be cautious, lest secular humanism becomes just another tribe, rife with hostility, suspicion, and rejection towards those who do not share our views. Perhaps some introspection is in order. Do I regard those outside my secular humanist group as being foolish, unenlightened, and malevolent? Am I making a positive contribution toward the eradication of tribalism, or am I merely perpetuating its existence?

But here’s the thing: it’s not just about secular humanism or any other specific tribe. It’s about all of us. It’s about recognizing that we’re all part of this big, messy human family and that we need to find ways to connect with each other despite our differences.

Almost all of us have family members, colleagues, neighbors, or others who belong to a variety of groups that have radically different views than we do on issues that are important to us. In some cases, their views could potentially have negative effects on our livelihoods, lifestyles, and perhaps even on our very existence. Are these people our enemies? Are they all “out to get us?” Should we gear up to be ready to “punch Nazis?”

In 2020, the political signs in my neighborhood began sprouting up in the months before the presidential election. In my morning walks, I’d take note of which houses supported Trump or Biden. It seemed very close to a 50-50 split. As I passed by the Trump homes, I couldn’t help but feel a creeping animosity toward their residents. I may or may not have given them the “virtual” finger as I walked by. And maybe it wasn’t always so virtual. The election signs, and the atmosphere they fostered, put real meaning into the “division” part of my subdivision.

After the election, the signs came down, and along with it, almost all my negativity toward “those” neighbors. Without any external factors continuously pointing out our differences, I started to regain my positive outlook on all those who live in my immediate environment.

My next-door neighbors are the kind of people who watch Fox News religiously and profess to be Christians, supporting Republican candidates with unreserved enthusiasm. Our political and worldviews are about as far apart as possible. And yet, in the time I’ve lived beside them, they have shown me many kindnesses and offered me a great deal of help. And I’ve attempted to do the same in return. We get along well, always with a smile, and talk about the things we have in common rather than our differences.

So, again, what does it mean to be a humanist if we hold a great majority of other humans with such contempt that we refuse to engage with them on a human level? Nearly every person has struggles, triumphs, tragedies, aspirations, and joys as part of their human existence. And almost every one of us desires that our loved ones and acquaintances will prosper and succeed, and will make great sacrifices for them to do so. Regarding these issues, we are all in the same boat.

It's true that some individuals appear to have empathy and care only for those people in their tribes and are seemingly unconcerned about what happens to those outside their circles of compassion.  But one way for a person to learn to extend concern to a broader circle is to make new connections outside of their current circles.  And what applies to others also applies to us. New connections can benefit both parties.

And at a practical level, fighting or ostracizing those with different outlooks is rarely productive. It’s highly unlikely that any amount of confrontation and name-calling will persuade someone to adopt our views. As in the case of the woman who wanted me to rot in hell, such an approach often leaves both parties feeling poorly, and even more deeply entrenched in their views. If we want to have a chance to influence people for positive change, we must first get to know them.

It’s not easy to reach out and connect with others with whom we differ radically from. It takes effort and intentionality. But it’s worth it. Because when we can connect with others in meaningful ways, we can start to break down the walls that divide us and build bridges. So, let’s try. Let’s extend our hands to those who are different from us and try to understand their perspectives. Let’s listen more than we talk. Let’s be kind and compassionate. Let’s be human.