American Principles Project

Ropert P. George: The Religious Right's Resident Intellectual

Submitted by Kyle on December 18, 2009 - 3:03pm

The New York Times profiles Princeton professor, National Organization for Marriage Chairman, and American Principles Project founder Robert P. George and his role as the intellect behind the Manhattan Declaration and much of the Religious Right's agenda:

FOR 20 YEARS, George has operated largely out of public view at the intersection of academia, religion and politics. In the past 12 months, however, he has stepped into a more prominent role. With the death of the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, a Lutheran minister turned Roman Catholic priest who helped bring evangelicals and Catholics together into a political movement, George has assumed his mantle as the reigning brain of the Christian right. And he is in many ways the public face of the conservative side in the most urgent culture-war battle of the day. The National Organization for Marriage, the advocacy group fighting same-sex marriage in Albany and Trenton, Maine and California, has made him its chairman. Before the 2004 election, he helped a coalition of Christian conservative groups write their proposed amendment to the federal Constitution defining marriage as heterosexual. More than any other scholar, George has staked his reputation on the claim that same-sex marriage violates not only tradition but also human reason.

...

Last spring, George was invited to address an audience that included many bishops at a conference in Washington. He told them with typical bluntness that they should stop talking so much about the many policy issues they have taken up in the name of social justice. They should concentrate their authority on “the moral social” issues like abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and same-sex marriage, where, he argued, the natural law and Gospel principles were clear. To be sure, he said, he had no objections to bishops' “making utter nuisances of themselves” about poverty and injustice, like the Old Testament prophets, as long as they did not advocate specific remedies. They should stop lobbying for detailed economic policies like progressive tax rates, higher minimum wage and, presumably, the expansion of health care — “matters of public policy upon which Gospel principles by themselves do not resolve differences of opinion among reasonable and well-informed people of good will,” as George put it.

...

George argues that reason alone shows that heterosexual sodomy and homosexual sex are morally wrong, just as the Catholic Church, classical philosophers and other religious traditions have historically taught. Unlike marital union in his special sense, he contends, such acts treat the body as an instrument of the mind’s pleasure. As both a practical and a philosophical matter, he argues, the law should not necessarily police such things. But the need for the state to establish a proper definition of marriage is a different matter, he says, because the law has always regulated it in the interest of parenthood and community. “Marriage in principle is a public institution,” he said. “I don’t think it can be like bar mitzvahs or baptisms or the Elks Club.”

For some reason, the profile doesn't bother to mention Thomas Peters, Communications Director of Robert P. George's "American Principles Project," recently traveled to Poland to participate in a conference hosted by an organization that was founded by a vicious anti-Semite.

Kyle's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

"Professor George Has Some Explaining To Do"

Submitted by Kyle on December 1, 2009 - 12:38pm

According to Michael Sean Winters of America Magazine, Thomas Peters, Communications Director of Robert P. George's "American Principles Project," recently traveled to Poland to participate in a conference hosted by an organization that was founded by a vicious anti-Semite:

One of the websites I visit each week is called the "American Papist." It is the online equivalent of "The Wanderer" which is to say that it does not recognize journalistic standards, it trades in nostalgic tirades against modernity, and presents a hate-filled view of anything that smacks of liberalism. If it were only another screeching blog it could easily be ignored, but its proprietor, Thomas Peters, is also now the Communications Director of the American Principles Project, a D.C. advocacy organization founded by Princeton Professor Robert P. George.

In our culture, rightly or wrongly, we accord university professors a status that requires them to be exemplary in their professional associations. We do not pry into their private lives, but most university contracts include a clause about not bringing professional disrepute to the school. Stealing is always bad, for example, but stealing someone else’s ideas if you are a university professor is rightly viewed as especially base because it violates the spirit for which the university exists, the promotion of truth and learning. Men and women like Professor George are entitled to engage the political process by establishing groups like the American Principles Project, but if they lend their name and title and credibility to the organization, then we should expect that organization not to indulge anything that is beyond the pale, such as, say, cavorting with Holocaust deniers.

Yet, according to his website, Professor George’s Communications Director attended, and spoke at, a conference in Poland last week sponsored by the "College of Social and Media Culture." The so-called college was founded by Father Tadeusz Rydsyk who is better known as the founder of the viciously anti-semitic "Radio Marija" which has not only featured Holocaust deniers on its shows, but has been the subject of a report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center for its anti-semitism. In 2004, the radio station led a campaign to defend a cleric charged with both anti-semitism and child molestation. One Polish bishop called the radio station "extremely compromising and shameful, sick and dangerous." Former President, Nobel laureate and Solidarity hero Lech Walesa said the station "is lying if it considers itself a Catholic station." The papal nuncio insisted that the Polish bishops’ conference establish an oversight committee.

Perhaps Mr. Peters, who is young, does not realize what a problem anti-semitism remains in Poland, especially in rural Poland where Radio Marija finds most of its listeners. But, even he knows that Ozwieczim is not a French word. And, anyone who fancies himself as the "American Papist" must know something about the life of Pope John Paul II and how he strove to eradicate anti-semitism from both Polish nationalism and Catholicism ... Mr. Peters may not be wise enough to know better, but Professor George has some explaining to do, at least to the contributors to his American Principles Project and to his colleagues at Princeton. This is not a case of guilt by association: Peters is on his payroll, their relationship is not just social but professional. It would be one thing to hire a firebrand who occasionally steps out of bounds, but participating in anything sponsored by ferocious anti-semites is not the typical transgression of truth or even decency that the blogosphere often exhibits. Anti-semitism is the filthiest and most dangerous lie ever produced in Western culture. Peters may not know that, but surely his boss does.

George is also Chairman of the Board of the National Organization for Marriage.

Kyle's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

Right Wing Campaign Against Feldblum Goes Into Overdrive

Submitted by Kyle on November 18, 2009 - 4:03pm

Tomorrow, there will be a hearing on Chai Feldblum's nomination to serve as Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and, as such, the Religious Right is gearing up for “Armageddon.”

The American Principles in Action, an arm of the American Principles Project, founded by National Organization for Marriage Chairman Robert P. George, has issued a call to action:

Feldblum intends to use her position of influence as EEOC commissioner to force private institutions to follow her radical vision of society, through the enforcement of aggressive and intrusive employment non-discrimination laws.

She is a master at using the language of moral imperatives to further her agenda.

Feldblum is a lesbian activist who supports government recognition of gay marriage as a way to convey approval of gay relationships and homosexuality in general. She has also argued for the equality of "polyamorous" relationships and almost any conceivable sexual relationship to traditional marriage--a position squarely out of line with American tradition, principles, and the mainstream of public opinion.

Far from believing that government should not be involved in private relationships, she is a champion of government interference in moral and religious traditions where they intersect with her personal crusade ... In other words, Feldblum believes that every organization must ascribe to her vision of society or else face penalties from the EEOC.

Worse than this, the potential damage from Feldblum's nomination is not limited to her use of the EEOC as a weapon against traditional marriage and private institutions. It is even possible to imagine Chai Feldblum as a future nominee for the United States Supreme Court, should she be successfully appointed as EEOC commissioner.

That means it is urgent to defeat her Senate confirmation now, while Americans still have a say. Send a message to your Senator (and the Committee hearing her nomination) today and let them know that Feldblum should not be confirmed.

The idea that Feldblum must be stopped now in order to keep her off the Supreme Court seems to be an emerging right-wing talking point, as it was also made by the Traditional Values Coalition:

Feldblum would impose the LGBT agenda on all of our nation’s public and private schools – and our children would be forced to affirm gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered individuals as both teachers and as students.

Feldblum also rejects the concept of traditional marriage in favor of polyamory – where three or more men and women engaged in sex acts is considered a “marriage.” Traditional marriage will become meaningless if Feldblum achieves her goals.

Feldblum’s position on the EEOC is a steppingstone to the U.S. Supreme Court, where she could end up with a lifetime appointment to push the LGBT agenda on all Americans.

The Family Research Council has also gotten involved, releasing a heavily edited video of Feldblum speaking at an FRC event, full of ominous quotes seeking to portray her as radical ... but apparently not so radical that FRC refused to invite her to participate in the event or for Tony Perkins to deliver a gracious introduction.

According to FRC, this is all part of a nefarious plan by gays to destroy religious liberty:

Their plan is clear and logical. Play the victim and pass hate crimes giving sanctioned and special protected status to those who engage in homosexual behavior ... [T]hey will continue the victim routine and take this special status into the private workforce and use the weight of the EEOC to force acceptance of not only homosexuality, but cross dressing and other forms of sexual deviancy through the passage of the so-called employment non-discrimination act. What is interesting is there is no evidence that suggests what is called the GLBTQ community is economically disadvantaged, in fact, they enjoy a higher standard of living than heterosexuals. Once private businesses are forced to hire cross dressers and homosexuals the next target is the military. If private employers can’t discriminate then neither should our nation’s military. And once our nation’s military falls – the defense of marriage Act will be utterly defenseless, leaving rouge judges and liberal legislators to impose their radical views on the entire nation.

Don’t doubt for a minute that they have a plan and they are working their plan.

Kyle's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

Anti-Gay Forces In Maine File Suit So They Can Run Outrageous Ads

Submitted by Kyle on October 23, 2009 - 8:05am

Yesterday, the National Organization for Marriage and American Principles in Action, the c4 arm of the American Principles Project, which was founded by NOM Chairman of the Board, Robert P. George, filed a lawsuit claiming that they should not have to follow Maine's election laws:

[NOM] has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Bangor alleging that Maine’s financial reporting requirements are unconstitutional. The lawsuit seeks a court injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing a law that NOM officials claim is being used to harass and intimidate opponents of gay marriage.

“The reporting requirements become onerous and burdensome, especially when you are working in several states, and are an infringement of free speech,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s executive director.

...

Brown and NOM’s attorneys contend the organization did not violate Maine’s rules because they were soliciting donations for the general fight to protect “traditional marriage,” not for the Maine campaign in particular.

Brown argued in an interview Thursday that the reporting requirements — which include registering as a ballot question committee, appointing a treasurer and keeping detailed records for four years — are an undue burden. He also described Maine’s law as legally unclear and “patently unconstitutional” because it prohibited or discouraged free speech in the form of advocacy on one side of an issue.

As Mike Tidmus reported, one of the complaints made by APIA in the filing [PDF] is that it wants to run two ads on Maine television, but says they are "chilled from doing so, however, by the prospect of having to register as a BQC and meet the reporting and other requirements of sections 1056-B and 1059.”

They even produced transcripts of the two unbelievable ads they want to run - the first is entitled "Bigot":

Girl: Mommy, are you a bigot?

Mother: What?

Girl: At school, we learned that people who are against gay marriage are bigots.

Mother: No, dear. I believe that homosexuals should be treated fairly–but I also believe that marriage should be just for one man and one woman. That doesn’t make me a bigot.

Girl: What about Reverend Jones and Father Diego? Are they bigots?

Mother: Did you learn that at school too?

Girl nods

VO: Think that gay marriage won’t affect your family? Think again.

Vote Yes Graphic

And the second ad, which is amazingly even worse, is entitled "The New Curriculum":

School Administrator (talking to an off-camera mic/reporter–as he talks, we see images of teachers in classrooms reading from blurred-out books, GLSEN-style posters, etc.): No, we’re very proud of the new curriculum. It’s all about teaching kids to embrace different lifestyles and explore their own sexuality.

Switching from images of sex ed classrooms to little boy on a bench in a darkened school hallway. We can see an adult male (not his face, we’re looking from the perspective of the child and the view never includes his head) come out of an office, take the boy’s hand, lead him into the office, and close the door. Freeze on the closed door, which has a sign that says, “Counseling Session: Do Not Disturb”

Reporter (VO) : Yes, but is it appropriate for kindergartners to be receiving counseling about whether they might be gay?

School Admin (VO): Sure, we’ve had a few complaints, but there’s not much parents can do. It’s the law, after all.

VO: Think gay marriage won’t affect your family? Think again.

Vote Yes Graphic

Kyle's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

If At First You Don't Succeed, Start Another Right Wing Group

Submitted by Kyle on May 29, 2009 - 8:54am

Everyone knows that conservatives and Republicans are struggling at the moment and trying to figure out how to regain their influence in politics, motivate their supporters, and start winning elections.

Nobody seems to be able agree on a course of action or any sort of messaging ... but what they can agree on apparently is that what they need are new groups.

A few weeks back a new group called The Faith and Freedom Institute emerged in order to combat "satanic wickedness" and return America to a foundation of Biblical principles. Since that is pretty much the mission of every other right-wing group, why this new one is needed is beyond me.

And just last week we found out that Tony Perkins, Richard Land, Wellington Boone, and Harry Jackson were launching something known as Call 2 Fall ... which seems to be some sort of Lou Engle-less version of "The Call." Again, why this new duplicate effort is necessary remains a mystery.

Now, via Dan Gilgoff, we find out that yet another new right-wing effort in underway:

As religious conservatives are receiving some cold shoulders from the Republican Party, they're beginning to launch new political organizations of their own. Tonight, coinciding with his debate with Doug Kmiec at the National Press Club—an exchange that began here on God & Country—conservative Catholic legal scholar and activist Robby George will be unveiling one of them: the American Principles Project.

The group's website says it will hold Republicans to account on conservative positions:

The message of the 2006 and 2008 elections is not that the American people want to be governed by the ultraliberal and statist ideology of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid; rather it is that Americans will not tolerate Republicans and "conservatives" who refuse to honor in practice the principles they purport to affirm—Republicans and "conservatives" who expand government, spend our tax dollars wantonly, do nothing about out-of-control judges who undermine democracy, and sit idly by as marriage is redefined and further weakened.

The key difference between this group and others cropping up to chart a course forward for the GOP is that the American Principles Projects counts opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage among its top priorities.

The American Principles Project seems to be a response to the National Council for a New America, which angered the Religious Right when it unveiled its agenda for the remaking the GOP which contained no mention of the social issues like gay marriage and abortion that make up the core of their mission.

The confusing thing about this is that there are already dozens of right-wing groups for whom opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage are their top priorities.

In fact, this mission statement from the American Principles Project could, literally, apply to just about every other right-wing group currently in existence:

The United States of America does not need new principles. It needs renewed fidelity to the principles set forth in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These are timeless principles: truths that we hold, in Jefferson's immortal words, to be, "self-evident." They are, moreover, universal principles, not the historically contingent beliefs or customs of a particular sect or clan or tribe. They are rooted in the nature of man as a being who, by virtue of his God-given dignity and rationality, owns the right to participate in the great project of self-government as a free and equal citizen. Whatever others may say, we at the American Principles Project and all who join with us reaffirm the truth that each and every member of the human family is, "created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

If these timeless principles are to be restored and our national commitment to them renewed, then a new voice is needed in American politics, a voice that is unafraid to stand up for what is right and speak out against what is wrong. Indeed, that "voice" must be nothing less than millions of American voices raised in unison in defense of political liberty and economic freedom, the sanctity of human life and the integrity of marriage and the family, and the sovereignty and security of our nation.

The Right already has dozens of national and state-based organizations committed to this very same mission.

Has anyone at the American Principles Project ever heard of the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, the American Family Association, or the Traditional Values Coalition?

What exactly is this new group going to bring to the table that these various other groups don't?

Whatever the conservative movement's problems might be at the moment, I can assure them that their dilemma is not rooted in the fact that there are just too few groups pressing the right-wing agenda.