Gay rights activists are pushing to get prohibitions against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity added to the Kansas Act Against Discrimination and so you just know that the Religious Right is out in force to oppose it because gays, I don't know, have money or something:

Judy Smith, state director of Concerned Women for America, spoke against the bill, saying that civil rights should be used to protect people with visible and unchangeable characteristics. She said homosexuality is a chosen behavior.

Smith also argued that homosexuals aren’t politically powerless and generally earn more than heterosexuals.

Elsewhere, Smith was quoted as saying the addition was unnecessary because homosexuality is a “changable behavior” ... but she has nothing on state Rep. Dennis Pyle when it comes to making wild claims about what would happen if this bill passed:

Sen. Dennis Pyle, R-Hiawatha, said he was concerned the additional layer of legal language might encourage homosexuals to engage in sex with animals.

“Would that protect bestiality?” he asked.

[Pedro] Irigonegaray [counsel to the Kansas Equality Coalition] said proposed amendments to the discrimination statute wouldn’t promote any type of criminal conduct. He said the suggestion that gays and lesbians were tied to bestiality was “unfounded” and “very hurtful.”

We've mentioned before that new RNC Chairman Michael Steele is walking a fine line as he tries to adhere to his pledge to honor the Republican Party's right-wing platform as well as his own slightly more moderate views and desire to build bridges with moderates within the party.

And while we have seen nothing to suggest that Steele has any current plans to actually engage in any outreach beyond the GOP's anti-gay, anti-choice core, Peter LaBarbera is taking no chances and demanding that, under no circumstances, should Steele even contemplate meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans:

Americans For Truth (AFTAH) President Peter LaBarbera today urged Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele not to promote the divisive agenda of the homosexual activist group 'Log Cabin Republicans' - which has just 20,000 members nationwide -- at the expense of the huge, grassroots pro-family conservative GOP base.

AFTAH is encouraging Republicans and pro-family citizens nationwide to contact Steele and the RNC to urge them not to sell out the conservative GOP platform by courting an organization that works to undermine traditional marriage and supports anti-religious, pro-homosexual special-rights legislation.

...

"Michael Steele and the GOP need to do the math: it is foolish and impractical to risk alienating millions of pro-family, pro-life, conservative grassroots Republicans to appease a tiny homosexual special interest group with fewer members than the population of Liberal, Kansas," LaBarbera said. "If the Republican Party is to turn itself around, it must reach out aggressively to real, pro-family minorities like Steele himself -- not homosexual activists whose agenda would restrict our precious religious and First Amendment freedoms by using the government to promote aberrant sexual lifestyles."

When Steele was elected to head the RNC last month, he declared that his goal was to bring "a brand new message to the American people," and it looks like he can expect the full support of the GOP's anti-gay base ... so long as his new message in no way differs from the traditional GOP message.  

It seems that leaders of the Religious Right are tired of being associated with the Religious Right because nobody likes the Religious Right.  Unfortunately for them, they are the Religious Right and that is what we are going to keep calling them, especially now that they are saying we should stop calling them that:

[S]everal politically conservative evangelicals said in interviews that they do not want to be identified with the "Religious Right," "Christian Right," "Moral Majority," or other phrases still thrown around in journalism and academia.

"There is an ongoing battle for the vocabulary of our debate," said Gary Bauer, president of American Values. "It amazes me how often in public discourse really pejorative phrases are used, like the 'American Taliban,' 'fundamentalists,' 'Christian fascists,' and 'extreme Religious Right.' "

...

Gary Schneeberger, vice president of media and public relations for Focus on the Family, said that when writers include terms like "Religious Right" and "fundamentalist," they can create negative impressions.

"Terms like 'Religious Right' have been traditionally used in a pejorative way to suggest extremism," Schneeberger said. "The phrase 'socially conservative evangelicals' is not very exciting, but that's certainly the way to do it."

...

[M]any groups would rather distance themselves from the Religious Right, even though they may agree on several political issues. Richard Land said he corrects numerous reporters who call him a leader of the Religious Right, explaining that he represents a group of Southern Baptists who would probably consider themselves conservative evangelicals.

"When the so-called 'Religious Right' agrees with us, we applaud their good taste and good judgment," said Land, who is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for the Southern Baptist Convention. Some phrases need to be eliminated from journalists' vocabulary entirely, he said. "Until Tony Perkins or Jim Dobson puts a pistol on the table and threatens to kill someone, they shouldn't be called ayatollah of the Right or the Jihadists of the Right."

...

Organizational leaders like Tony Perkins of Family Research Council want a term that includes other religious groups like Catholics, Jews, and Mormons so that they can see themselves as fighting for the same cause.

"It's not accurate to say that the Christian Right or the Religious Right is simply a narrow slice of evangelicals," Perkins said. "Will everyone identify themselves as part of the Religious Right? No, but they do share a portion of values."

If the phrase "Religious Right" has negative connotations, it probably stems primarily from the fact that the people who have traditionally represented the Religious Right have caused it to, you know, have negative connotations.  

When people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson go on television and blame the 9/11 attacks on "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, [and] all of them who have tried to secularize America," that is the sort of thing that tends to create negative impressions about the Religious Right. 

And even if they were called "socially conservative evangelicals," this type of rhetoric would still create negative impressions about the term "socially conservative evangelicals" ... and then "socially conservative evangelicals" would be telling everyone to stop calling them "socially conservative evangelicals."

You see, it is not the term that it is problem - it is the Religious Right's agenda and rhetoric.

Yesterday we reported that the "controversial" provision in the stimulus bill that we have been writing about for more than a week had been dropped because the section covering spending for higher education had been cut in order to shrink the cost of the legislation.

But, just because it is no longer part of the legislation, that apparently doesn't mean that the Religious Right is done complaining about it.

For instance, the Family Research Council continues to hammer away:

Today there is new evidence that liberals will use Obama's bill to usher in a new era of religious censorship, welfare, and universal health care. Despite Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-S.C.) best efforts, the religious discrimination component still exists in the bill, which punishes schools that allow spiritual activities in their facilities.

Rick Scarborough has also gotten in on the fun:

To put it simply, Christianity is being targeted for discrimination ... it is clear that the intended effect of this portion of the bill is two-fold. First, it discriminates against and minimizes the practice of religion. Second, it attempts to keep religious institutions from being the beneficiaries of federal dollars ... The radical secularists in America are using the power of the Federal government to confiscate the funds of both Christians and non-Christians and use them to force compliance with their anti-Christ agenda.

As has Lou Engle (via email):

There are countless Christian groups that sponsor events and activities on secular campuses all around the country. This small provision, buried so no one could find it, would pressure school administrators to ban these groups, effectively destroying their ability to conduct outreach and evangelization to students who hunger for it.

These very subtle moves by anti-family forces in Congress indicate their long-term strategy to drive religious groups off campus and out of the mainstream.

We should point out that, during the conference on the bill yesterday, there was some wrangling over the fact that spending for school modernization had been cut and that some sort of compromise was reached that puts at least some of that spending back in, so it might very well be that when the final version of the bill comes out, this provision will have been re-inserted.

Not that it matters really, because apparently the Right is going to continue to complain about this provision whether it is actually in the legislation or not.

Last week, we pointed to an article regarding Oklahoma Rep. Sally Kern's appearance at a John Birch Society conference during which he proclaimed that she had discovered the gay agenda in a book called “After the Ball" and calling for a spiritual awakening in America, saying that "only then does our nation have a chance of overcoming the scourge of AIDS, HIV and the devastating destruction that the homosexual lifestyle is bringing on your children and our grandchildren."

Now, via Pam's House Blend, we see that, in response to Kern's statements, Scott Jones, pastor of the Cathedral of Hope United Church of Christ in Oklahoma City, penned an op-ed explaining that what gays really want is equal treatment, nothing more:

There are more than 1,100 civil rights heterosexuals enjoy that are denied to those of us who are LGBT. Most of those rights heterosexuals don’t even realize they have and would not be aware of until they were denied access to them — rights like visiting your loved ones in the hospital or inheriting the home that you and your spouse share when one of you dies. LGBT couples have to spend about $10,000 in legal fees to create the various legal arrangements to get around some of these inequalities, but others can’t be gotten around.

Jones was invited by Rep. Al McAffrey, who is also gay, to deliver a prayer before Wednesday’s House session and that is when things got interesting as conservatives in the House tried to prevent Jones' prayer from being recorded in the House record:

The Rev. Scott Jones thanked his legislator, Rep. Al McAffrey, who asked him to pray to open Wednesday’s House session and acknowledged several in the gallery – "dear friends, my wonderful parents, and my loving partner and fiance, Michael.”

When McAffrey, D-Oklahoma City, asked in the session’s closing minutes that Jones’ prayer be made part of the House journal, the chamber’s official record, Rep. John Wright objected and called for a vote.

With 16 members having already left, the House voted 64-20 to include Jones’ prayer in the House journal.

Among those voting no was Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, who a year ago called homosexuality the biggest threat facing the United States.

"I’m sure that because most of Scott’s congregation are gay people and Scott is gay himself, I’m sure that’s the reason why there were negative votes on it,” McCaffrey said.

Other than Jones introducing his male partner, McCaffrey said he couldn’t’ see how anyone could have a problem with his prayer.

"I don’t know what was controversial over that.”

Contacted later, Wright, R-Broken Arrow, said the practice of including a minister’s prayer in the House journal usually is reserved for Thursdays, the last workday for legislators.

"It has not been the practice to put every day’s prayer in the House journal,” he said.

He conceded he didn’t concur with comments made by Jones, who except for his opening comments, gave a generic prayer to a "holy and everliving God” and paraphrased the prophet Isaiah.

"I don’t know if it’s important to create an inflammatory issue out of something because that is not my intent,” he said.

Wright said his motion was "not meant to be derogatory nor divisive nor in any way trying to cause diminishment of someone’s sense of self-worth.”

"My actions were motivated by the faith, so now if you want to take it and cause the public to be inflamed about it, well, that’s at your feet,” Wright said.

McAffrey, the Legislature’s only openly gay member, said he’s never heard a legislator object to a prayer being made part of the House journal during his three years there.

• Concerned Women for America, Operation Rescue, and the Christian Defense Coalition are already opposing the idea that Gov. Kathleen Sebelius might be Obama's nominee to be Secretary of Health and Human Services.
• Speaking of CWA, they are also opposing efforts to add sexual orientation to South Dakota's hate crime laws, saying "What about obese people or short people or bald-headed men?"
• The Pacific Justice Institute is suing a California school district for allegedly forcing a twelve year old girl to take a pregnancy test, an accusation the school vehemently denies.
• Gordon Klingenschmitt continues his crusade to defend police chaplains in Virginia Virginia who want to pray in Jesus’ name, delivering thousands of petitions to Gov. Tim Kaine.
• Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has been chosen to delivers the national Republican response to President Barack Obama's first speech to Congress.
• The National Republican Trust PAC is threatening to finance primary challenges to any of the Republicans who vote for the stimulus bill - so far, that is only three and, of those three, only Sen. Arlen Specter is up for re-election in 2010.
• Mike Huckabee says everyone needs a good Christian education because "greed caused the collapse not only of our economic system but of our ethical system."
• Finally, Alan Keyes apparently has a blog called Loyal To Liberty where he likens himself to Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill and proclaims:

I have an ominous feeling about the years ahead. With Obama, we have crossed the line that separates civil politics from civil war disguised as politics. Occupying the White House is a man known for his support and association with people for whom that line appears never to have existed. I predict that American politics as we have known it is gone. And unless we Americans wake up, more than civil politics will end up dead.

Today's best reporting on the Right from around the web:

• In yesterday's round-up, we pointed to Media Matters catching Fox News passing off a GOP press release as its own research - typos and all. Fox News has now apologized - but only for the typo.
• Sarah Posner reports that those attending the National Religious Broadcasters Convention are terrified because "the proclamation of the Gospel is now opposed at every quarter."
• Orcinus has a good post on the man who killed two people at a Unitarian church last years, and who admits that who he really "wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, [and] the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book."
• Slog has some opinions on the AFA's "Speechless: Silencing the Christians" program, while Edge Boston reports that the Grand Rapids, Michigan TV station that had planned on running it is apparently having second thoughts.
• Box Turtle Bulletin reports that the Mormon Republican Governor of Utah has come out in support of civil unions.
• The Colorado Independent reports that "Focus on the Family gave $727,250 in cash and services to the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 campaign in California, according to records released by the California secretary of state, including a $100,000 check in late October, just days before the evangelical media empire announced it planned to lay off nearly 20 percent of its employees."
• Finally, Politico reports on the Right's continuing hyperventilation over the Fairness Doctrine, explaining that "no member of Congress has scheduled hearings, there is no Fairness Doctrine legislation being introduced, and the long-dormant broadcast law is likely to stay that way ... [b]ut for even the casual listener of conservative talk radio this past week, it would be assumed that federal agents were already en route, pulling radios out of cars or snapping antennas."

The American Center for Law and Justice, which was entirely responsible for starting the “controversy” over a supposedly “anti-religious” provision in the stimulus bill, reports that the provision, along with many others, was cut from the legislation that passed the Senate earlier this week as part of the effort to shrink the bill’s size and price tag:

As you may know, the Senate voted and approved an economic stimulus package yesterday by a vote of 61-to-37. The version that was approved underwent dramatic budget-cutting representing billions of dollars cut from a wide variety of programs that were eliminated from the final version that was approved by the Senate. Among those programs cut, billions of dollars for colleges and universities, including the discriminatory provision that we opposed.

It’s unfortunate that the Senate lacked the courage to remove this provision because of its discriminatory nature. At the same time, though, we’re pleased it was eliminated - even if for budget-cutting reasons - from the final package that was approved.

Now, budget conferees are working to reconcile that Senate-approved version with the measure already passed by the House. What comes out of this process will be the final version that ultimately will be signed into law by President Obama. It’s our hope that this discriminatory provision will never see the light of day in this final version. We will keep you posted on developments.

Indeed, it looks like the ACLJ is correct. If you look at the version of the bill [PDF] passed by the Senate, this is what you see:

It’s disappointing to see the provision go, for a variety of reasons ... but mostly because it would have been fun to watch ACLJ’s lawsuit get laughed out of court.

Yesterday I received a fund-raising letter from the Family Research Council in which FRC President Tony Perkins warned that the Democratic leaders in the White House and Congress are "the most radically liberal in the history of our country" but that FRC will be at "maximum strength" to fight back an "seize the opportunities God has given us."

Perkins crows that FRC has already "scared away the Left from their plan for an all-out blitz to pass their entire wish list of nightmarish legislation in the first 100 days" but ominously warns that "[President] Obama and the Left are [still] insidiously planning to destroy your values and freedoms piece by piece under the radar."

"If our side shows any softness," he warns, Democrats will ram through bills that will destroy everything they hold dear and, as such, it is vitally important that people not only send donations but also fill out the enclosed "Values Voter National Survey on Faith, Family, Freedom, and Other Major National Issues in America."

The first part of the survey asks FRC members to rank their top policy priorities and their choices include stopping FOCA, stopping the Fairness Doctrine, stopping hate crimes legislation, stopping ENDA, and stopping Obama’s judicial nominees.

The second part asks FRC members to rank issues of concern to them and includes things ranging from fighting green energy policies that will "restrict your family's use of heating and air conditioning" to making sure President Obama does not "restrict current anti-terror activities inside our border."

This is just a reminder to anyone who thinks that the Religious Right is on the verge of disappearing, because the Right obviously has different ideas … and they have an entire laundry list of issues on which they are prepared to fight.

You can get a PDF of the survey here:

Anyone who have been reading this blog over the last week knows, I have spent a great deal of time trying to knock down the misinformation swirling around regarding a provision in the stimulus bill that would prohibit funds for being used to upgrade or repair university facilities when said facilities function is primarily religious.

But, despite my efforts, this fraud keeps cropping up on right-wing website, with the Christian Coalition now spreading it and the Family Research Council continuing to peddle it:

First, we know that the current stimulus legislation in Congress is a disaster for the free market economy. But, did you know that there are limitations in the legislation against religious liberty? David French of Phi Beta Cons on National Review Online finds some disturbing facts restricting religious liberty within the stimulus legislation.

The Higher Education, Modernization and Renovation component of the bill requires that the money allocated in the stimulus would not be spent on religious instruction, worship, or any department of divinity, or any building that would be devoted for religious purposes on college campuses.

So, this leaves the question: where will religious groups meet on campus? I guess this means it will be back to dorm rooms or nearby churches. However, this ban would not apply to groups, like Amnesty International, College Feminists, Greenpeace, etc., who can meet in any room on campus. Seems odd, doesn't it? I guess it is 24/7 liberal indoctrination...thanks to the Obama's stimulus plan.

FRC doesn't provide a link to French's post ... but if they did send their readers there, they'd find out that French, who happens to be Senior Legal Counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, links to our first post about this whole issue and says that we are right:

One clause indeed prohibits funding for buildings only when a "substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission." (emphasis added). The meaning here is obvious, and it clearly applies to buildings like chapels, or perhaps divinity schools, or many facilities at religious universities. It has no real application to secular, public universities that open up classroom buildings to student groups.

Another clause, however, prohibits funding for buildings that are "used" for "sectarian instruction" or "religious worship." It does not say "primarily used." It simply says "used." For People for the American Way's reading to be correct, one has to assume that the drafters intended "used" to be read as "primarily used."

I have to give French credit, as his post on this issue is the only one that I have seen that actually seeks to understand the provision instead of simply proclaiming it anti-Christian.  And he raises an interesting point regarding the meaning of the word "used" in the section that proclaims that "no funds awarded under this section may be used for ... modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity."

French is correct to note that the provision does not say "primarily used" ... but neither does it say "occasionally used" and yet, for some reason, that is how the Right is interpreting it.  Despite the fact that, as Sen. Dick Durbin pointed out last week, this sort of language "has been in the law for 40 years [and] is the result of three Supreme Court decisions," the Right's interpretation of this standard, boilerplate language is that it means that any building on campus that is ever occasionally "used" for religious worship (i.e., a student group meets in their dorm for a Bible study) would be prohibited from using stimulus funds, as opposed to the more straightforward and logical interpretation that "used" refers to a building's primary function (i. e., a church is occasionally "used" for potluck dinners and Bingo nights, but its primary function is religious worship).

The language of this provision is clearly concerned with facilities in which a "substantial portion of the functions ... are subsumed in a religious mission" and it is within that context that the word "used" must be understood.  

Only an intentionally obtuse reading of this provision could lead one to conclude that the word "used" in this context was intended to mean "occasionally used" rather than "primarily used." Yet that is exactly what the Right is claiming ... and I, in turn, have had to spend hours of my life rebutting false claims that hinge entirely on their nonsensical understanding of the meaning of the word "used."

I feel so used.